Planning Board Meeting - 12/16/2025

001and justice for all. >> So, uh, first off is a roll call of members present. >> Speak up a little bit, Jared. >> Roll call of members present. Uh, Jared Okonnell, vice chair. >> Russell Blanchett, member. >> Jesse, no. Alternate. >> Travis Tucker, member. >> Steve Ganon, selectman's rep. >> Okay. Um, so we are missing a few members today. Um, so next is appointment to have an alternate. Uh Jesse, would you like to uh uh vote today of our absent members? >> Yes, I do. >> Okay, perfect. Uh so, next up is uh public input on non-aggenda items. Does anyone in the uh public have any input on items not on our agenda? >> I want to talk about something with you guys. >> Okay. Please state your name and address for the >> Cory

002Flint, 123 Hillrest Road. Uh this weekend I um submitted a citizens warrant article on removing the uh uh sign prohibition on Albuquerque Avenue and I wanted to talk to you a little bit about that. Um, I understand that you guys were working on something similar to that, but it was to allow town entities to allow put signs uh within Albuquerque. And as not being a town entity and and uh representing a couple of the things that go on in town, I did not feel that I wanted to come and ask permission to put up a sign for our parade or for our car show or for if I wanted to put skeletons out on the in the uh right away with signs. Um, so that's why I put forth that citizens warrant. Um, I I

003came here to talk to you if maybe we can come to a uh uh negotiate a a better warrant article that maybe work for both of us. Um, and uh, if we can if if you can produce something that allows me the freedoms to put some put signs out on in the rightway in front of my house, then and I can withdraw my assistant warrant. I'm not I'm not trying to cause problems in the town. All I want to do is have the ability to put signs out in front of my house and along Albuquerque for the nontown events that that we uh we do. Okay. So, um they have a um petition, right? So, when would that officially be >> the petition? The petition article uh has to go to a hearing by the

004planning board and it has to go on the ballot. It also has to say approved or not approved by the planning board. >> So, when would that come before us? >> The next hearing. Well, we have the petition article. >> So, the next hearing would be in January. >> So, Let me look at the date. >> You have to be >> January 6. We do have on our agenda later um this evening the one that the board proposed. >> Yeah. So, um we should probably do most of this discussion during the agenda item um because it is basically directly relates to the agenda. >> Okay. I thought I would let you know where my position was so that we can move forward. Thanks for uh thank you commenting. >> Thank you. >> Any other uh

005public input on non-aggenda items? >> Okay, seeing none. So, first up on our agenda is a conditional use permit for a detached accessory dwelling unit at 64 Cutler Road, Tax Map 2, lot 100, owner Michael and Connie Jackson. Is the applicant present? >> Here. >> Okay. please uh come up and um so yeah we have the application in front of us. >> My name's Mike Jackson 64 Cutler Road Lfield >> and Connie Jackson 64 cutler roadfield. Would you like to uh talk about your uh permit application? >> I would. Um I'm looking to put an ADU uh on my property. Uh I sent in I think it was to Jones. She has my plan, my plot plan. I went to the town. I spoke with Matt. We went over the plans and uh he calculated

006the numbers that we needed. Um so we're moving forward with that. >> Okay. So, we have So, there's a This is a detached um accessory repelling unit, right? >> Correct. >> Yeah. The attached ones are allowed by right. >> You want these pictures because they're not sideways. We do have pictures as to what it will actually look like. This is our current house. Okay. The ADU will go on, if you're looking at the house on the right hand side of the deck and then there's a garage foundation and the ADU will be built on the garage foundation extended. Um the house will look identical to this one. >> Yeah, they're both both the same. >> Absolutely. Nice. Uh, is it reusing any the existing foundation for something? >> We're we're using the existing foundation for

007the garage that we didn't build. >> So, would you We're using that foundation. >> Uh, when did you uh build uh put in that foundation? >> Foundation was put in 1980. >> Wow. >> Yeah, [laughter] >> we're very patient. >> So, total livable. >> What is the size of the foundation? >> Foundation size is 2636. >> Yeah, I saw that. I wasn't sure if it was um I saw it was overall 2636, but I didn't know if that was a foundation or you're doing more to it or >> so that's the exist. >> No, the actual foundation is going to be >> that exists already. No, what exists there is 26 24. We're moving it uh I believe 12 ft. We're going to add to it. >> Is this the bottom floor? >> Correct. There's

008only one floor. Uh the second floor is just storage. >> Do any members of the board have any questions? I do. Um, it says livable space 736, but 26 by 36 is 936 square ft. >> Right. I submitted it when I submitted it to Matt, the building inspector. >> Yeah. >> He took it and he did the calculations for me because I was confused on how it all worked >> and those are the numbers he gave me in order to apply. >> Yeah. So my my confusion comes into the point where um why is an ADU measured differently than a home where with a home we measure the complete envelope of the building >> and with an ADU I don't know where it came from but people are thinking that stairwells you have a stairwell

009here you have a closet you have a washroom that is not part of the livable space but from my understanding everything within the envelope of the building is a livable space >> like your home. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Well, I'm not here to debate the legal up the alley of it. I went to the town and this is what they told me. >> That's what Matt had said. He takes out closets and stairwells. He said if we change it and up the square footage, then he would go by the foundation size. But now he's he's not going by the foundation. >> Where did he gather this information from? Because to me that does not sound correct. It's the last building inspector and this building inspector have done it that way. >> It's tradition at

010>> this might we are going to discuss it. >> We need to straighten that out. >> We do need to straighten that out as a planning board. That's that's an action we have in front of us. >> Yeah. >> But that's not that's not part of this conversation right now. >> Yeah. That will be now the next item on our agenda. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Which uh is discussing the changes to the ADU. um um zoning, but uh this >> that's what Matt calculated for them. >> Yeah, this is the historical way it's been done. So, we're not going to question this. >> That's why I was asking about the foundation footage already. What's in there in in place where you have a would you say 26 by 24 and you're going to add? >>

011Yeah. So, >> yeah, definitely something to um probably clarify in our zoning. Yep. We've got work to do there. >> Yes. Okay. Um any other questions for the applicant? If not, we can move on to the um the the permit. So, I'll have to bring that up. Okay. So conditional use permit. Um so in addition to the performance standards um which the um the inspector uh is the one respons the main one responsible for checking that the planning board can grant a conditional use permit for a detached ADU. Uh with these conditions the detached ADU shall be located only in the side or rear yard of the property. This one's beside the building. Um, a detached ADU shall not contain more than two bedrooms. Bedroom, nest bath. So, yeah, only one bedroom. Yeah. >> Um,

012parking and driveway access for the ADU shall be provided in a location manner that maintains the single fair family appearance of the property. That's we're using the same curb foundation. [clears throat] Even the no additional curb cut shall be provided. against using the same driveway. Uh the detached ADU shall be developed within an existing garage, barn or other similar outbuilding or shall be designed to be consistent with the character and appearance of the accessory buildings customary for a single family dwelling such as a garage, barn or other out building you said is going to look very similar to the main. >> It'll be the same company that we work for, Ward Seed Log Homes. It'll be the exact same. It'll look exactly the same. >> That's good. Um, the detached ADU shall be located on

013the same lot as the primary dwelling and said lot shall not be subdivided in a manner that results in the separation of the detached ADU from the primary dwelling unit. And G, the detached ADU, primary dwelling or lot shall not be converted to a condominium or other form of legal ownership. Um, and there's more to it and that's just some things you can talk to the inspector on the technicalities of that. Um, does anyone on the board have any questions or comments? Do you think it's uh ready to grant the permit? >> I believe it is. >> Okay. So, if someone would like to make a motion. >> Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that the planning board grant the applicant um Michael E. Jackson 64 Cutler Road, Lichfield, New Hampshire. Um, conditional use

014permit to erect ADU as described in the plan set submitted. >> Okay, we have a uh motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Okay, we have a second by Travis. Um, any uh further discussion? Okay, all those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying I. >> I am a no. just based on ambiguity of the measurement differences. >> Okay. And all those abstaining. So motion passes 410. >> Okay. Um well, congratulations. Uh good luck with your >> You need to call Paul Kelly at [laughter] the fire department to get a separate house number for detached. >> I was going to ask you who we go through for that. >> Paul Kelly. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you for having us. >> Thank you very much. I take those papers back.

015Okay. Um, so next on our agenda is a public hearing per New Hampshire RSA 675 col 7. Uh, one, accessory dwelling units section 507, all ADUs going to the building inspector and remove minimum square footage requirement. Two, home occupations section 504. All home occupations evident to the public must apply for a conditional use permit from the planning board. uh family home and group child care requirements are added regarding ages and hours per day. Three, definition of a duplex two family residence amended. Four, requirements for social uh for solar energy systems, new section 2,300. Okay. Um so for this I'll bring to Jamar. I'll I'll just run through them um briefly starting with the accessory dwelling units. Uh so the intent here was um to comply with recent changes in state law um essentially that um

016ADUs must now be allowed uh by right both attached and detached and uh so this attempts to address that issue uh along with a couple of others that I'll just quickly run through. So it did not address the issue of measurement. That's certainly something that we could add. Um so this is the first public hearing. We have the opportunity for holding actually two more because we have a lot of time this year. Um so just starting off the changes uh hopefully this is true for everybody's copies. The first change um is section 50704 uh performance standards. The way um the ordinance is currently constructed is that uh attached ADUs are allowed by right. Uh detached ADUs require a conditional use permit as was obvious um earlier this evening. So um the first change uh is

017actually not related to um the statutory change. It is in section 50704B and that is a suggestion of um first of all eliminating the minimum square footage requirement of 500 square feet under the thinking of if somebody wants a smaller unit, why not let them have a smaller ADU? Um and then we uh look at 800 square feet. It's kind of a placeholder uh but we looked at 800 square feet as the maximum. I think the board had a lot of conversation around what should that maximum be. Um, so I I think that's probably something that we're hoping to get some input on on what people's thinking is. Um, I will say the thinking was certainly that that meant within the footprint of the space, but nevertheless, so the next change is on the following

018page of at least my handout. That's on section 50706. Most significantly, it eliminates the reference to conditional use permits. uh and the criteria below was for additional uh was for conditional use permits. It replaces that term with additional requirements for detached accessory dwelling units. So essentially the requirements mostly remain the same. It's just no longer a conditional use permit. Uh and um you know again the references to that have been removed. Um, moving on down in that section, it's the building inspector who has to be satisfied that the criteria is issued, not the planning board because these will no longer come to the planning board. Um, the next significant change is um, you know, really just to wording around accessory buildings, customary. It simply just says um that it's designed to be consistent with the

019appearance of the primary single family dwelling period. We eliminated references to that it should look like a garage or a barn or another out building. [snorts] Uh and part of the reason for that is you're really no longer uh supposed to have design standards for ADUs that are different than design standards for any single family home. Uh so again, that's just really a minor word change. So those are the only changes um that were suggested and again could there be more maybe but these were really intended to address the statutory changes. Shall I go on to the next? >> Um we should >> or take input on this one >> probably take input on each one. Um, so this is a public hearing. So, um, would any members of the public like to, uh, come

020up and discuss this, uh, ADU, um, change? Hi, my name is Vincent Lagna. I live at 36 Wood Hawkway. Uh, last year I put an ADU on for my parents. They moved uh, up from New Jersey and 800 square ft going by a pad definition is absolutely absurd. Um, it's way too small for two people. you can't put a second bedroom in anywhere. Um, the living space is just very small. Some lots in Lichfield are, you know, uh, zoned differently. I had the space that I could go to the left of my house and not, uh, interfere with anything. Other places they, you know, you have to turn them sideways. You have to do all sorts of weird things with property lines. Um, I agree with removing the minimum because if somebody wants to put

021a 200 foot tiny house, go for it. Um but I uh think that the maximum should be raised um either to um ideally 1,200 square f feet from for a pad wall to wall don't remove anything. Um if you're going to cut out closets and stairways and other things like that, then it needs to go up to at least 1,000. Uh that allows for a second bedroom, that allows for a second closet. Um things like that. Um, my builder did a really good job at using every possible space to put whatever wherever to make everything work and all that, but just could not figure out how to put a second bedroom in. And that's something that my parents ideally would have enjoyed having. Um, but um, yeah, that's just my input on it. >> Thanks

022for any other um, members of the public. >> Hi everybody. Steve Perry, five Lidston Lane. So, I'm here to speak. I'm not against what he said. Actually, I kind of agree with what he said. He's talking about pad. I agree completely. It should go by external dimensions. Um, I do feel that your size should probably go up. I don't know if 950 is enough. Um, a lot of surrounding towns are a thousand. I don't know if the surrounding towns do or don't include closets, stairwells, and everything like that. I think from what I saw one of them did on one and the other one didn't. I can't speak for sure but a thousand square feet seems to be Hudson and Bedford. Okay. I think that would be I think but I'm not trying to build

023one reasonable but I just want it to be clean because I'm not speaking on behalf of the zoning board but I sit on the zoning board and it's very confusing to try to figure out these calculations the way it's done now. So I mean stairwells, closets aren't included, laundry is not included, but is the platform before the stairs, is that included? Like the landing, is it not? Like, so there's a lot of gray area. I think it would just square it all up, make it nice and easier if you go by external dimensions, but you're probably going to need to raise the square footage. >> Yeah, I know that. Um if it's if we do something like how typical res residential area is calculated like the only thing that's not calculated is or not added

024is stairwells only count once rather than twice as you can imagine. >> Um >> so the other thing that we have the issue with on the zoning board is the fact that the gross living area. Okay, I don't believe we have a definition for gross living area with that. I know that they fall under the state statues and that's where the taking out the closets and all that stuff comes in. So that's what's being gone by because that's a loophole for us. >> So, but it's >> maybe either at least correct one or the other. >> It's ADUs but not homes. >> Yeah. But yeah, we don't restrict the size of homes though. So >> that's true. That's true. >> So I I agree with you. 800 is too small, you know, and I I

025agree with you too. should be bigger. Um, I don't know about 1,200, but I also think that we need a consistent way of measuring the home, not only for building taxing purposes, too. You know, if we're going to do outside square footage, whatever you do inside, you do, but it should be the envelope of the building, I believe. And I do believe it has to be bigger. >> I I think we just need to simplify it because right now, from my standpoint, when I sit on the zoning board, it's almost impossible for me to calculate. So, I have to take the word for it of whatever Matt puts up there and go with it. So, if we just went nice and simple, it would be make it a lot easier, I think, for everybody. >>

026Just my two cents. >> Thank you, Steve. >> No problem. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Just want to give you I did a little research. I'm Pierre from 15 Chase Brook Circle in Lfield. >> Thank you. >> I'm a builder in town. I've done six ADUs in the past two and a half years, one in London and the rest in Lichfield. So 800 square ft just isn't a lot of space to get everything you want. taking the closets out and the stairwells out help because if someone's property line can only give them a certain size that helps them in that fact. You know what I mean? But I think 1,200 square ft would be ideal. If they wanted to do the envelope of 1,200 square ft that could get them the two bedrooms. I'm

027doing one now in Newstead. It was tight to get those two bedrooms in there. But what helped was the stairway or the closets, you know what I mean? >> To help the situation and we're doing more and more. I got another one I'm doing on Mike Lane. So, just want to put my two cents in on that. And I think and as you see, it's an average of a,025 for I had London Derry. Well, Londereerry does it by percentage. 40% of what your living space is now. >> The existing structure for an inbuilding ADU addition. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> And uh Bedford I think I said is 1,000 square ft. Um Windom is 950. Salem is 950. So I I think 1,25 or 1,200 would be ideal. And because of the shortage, right, or

028because the things are so expensive, you're seeing more people come back home and it's the actual kids with their families. You know what I mean? >> Oh, I know. >> Yeah. >> I have firsthand experience with that. >> Right. Right. So that's >> as a builder, do you think 1,200 would allow you to put in a comfortable two bedrooms? I mean, they'll be still kind of small. >> It'd be kind of still kind of small, but I mean, we're at 800, right? >> Right. Right. >> 1,200 would help us out. >> And it would help them out, you know. >> Do you have any experience on how the other town's inspectors count the livable space? >> I think um Londereerry might be taking out closets and things like that when they go about their there.

029And I think Salem and Bedford do the same. So there there everybody's trying to get as much space as they want, right? And in the past we I'd go back to the building inspector and they'd say, "No, it's too big." You know what I mean? And we're struggling to get more space, you know? So I end up putting bureaus in the wall, right? To gain that more more space, you know? >> So just be a little creative. Everybody has their own interpretation of what is included is right >> our stairs are the >> but that actually helps the people right. >> Oh yeah yeah yeah I completely agree. Yeah >> especially when they have you know like I said the their property if they can't put that extra 2 ft of foundation let's get it

030somewhere else. >> Yeah I'm I'm looking more along lines just simply for consistency right >> ease of understanding of what should be in place. So when we do taxes, when we do building inspections, whatever, when they come before the board, if they have to come before the board, we know we have a minimal set and why you're coming before the board is because you need a variance to because it's going to be a little bit bigger or it's going to overhang a little. >> Sure. But if if you keep it consistent, saying you're going to take the closets out, the stairway out, and you have that in writing, that only helps everything, right? And then everybody knows. >> Yeah. But say like one concern I have is tax purposes. What are they being taxed on?

031You know, there's the the house is one, the ADU is different. You know, I >> I think you should be still taxed on the whole thing, >> right? >> But then you can have people saying, "Well, why am I being taxed on this?" Because >> Yeah. But that's, you know, you're you're asking for one thing one time and you're asking for another another time. You know what I mean? >> Make it Yeah. >> consistent. >> Yeah. Make it consistent. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Good evening. Uh my name is Laura Gandandy. I live at 3 Chamberlain Drive. I am the chairperson of the zoning board of adjustment, but my comments here are based on a private citizen, although my experiences do include my time on the zoning board. Um I just wanted to pass

032out some of this stuff. Thank you. So, my first comment just I know there's been a lot of discussion about the square footage of it. Um, I don't have an opinion either way as to what that number should be. But I do want to point out that these are accessory dwelling units, not two family homes or duplexes or anything like that. So, they're not meant to be, nor do I think the town wants to enact any type of zoning that has every lot with the potential to be two family. Again, it's accessory and the there's a reason why it's called accessory because it is supposed to be smaller and incidental. And the average size of a home in New Hampshire that I just Googled is right around 1,900 to 2,000 square ft average. So, taking

033that into effect, I mean, consider it. But again, my whole point is it's an accessory drawing, not a two family. And if the this board moves forward with certain uh provisions of the accessory dwelling unit statute, it could very well result in every lot having the ability to be two family. Um so with that, um I did look through um the proposed uh uh changes and I did have some comments to that and also some additional changes and I'll just go through um pretty much uh similar to what Jay did. Um, I was looking at the 507.02 purpose. Um, I would like to see some additional language added to that and some proposed language that I was thinking to add at the end of that sentence would be while maintaining the single family characteristics of

034the neighborhood. Um, so that would be an additional language I'd like to see added as into 507.02. Um, the definition section 507.03. 03. I think it would be cleaner and neater if we used um on the packet that I gave you the definitions um 674 colon 71 it uh describes accessory dwelling unit, an attached unit and a detached unit. I find that that's always beneficial if we stick to the definitions provided for instate statute. So I would uh suggest some modifications to the um 507.03 the definition section. um 507.04 um B um again I've mentioned uh briefly about the 800 ft but my other concern is it says of the gross living area above ground when you look at um state statute and that's 674 col 72 it says the total living space not the

035gross living area. So again, to be consistent with state statute, um that's again 674 col 72, I would recommend that gross living area be deleted and replaced with total living space. Um just again to be consistent with state statute. And now you get into what is that and how that is defined. We don't have that definition. We should that definition to my understanding is not contained in the building code or in state statute. So it would be something for this board to consider um implementing. But I do echo the sentiments of uh Mr. Perry about his experience on uh the zoning board. Um number C, um 507.04C, I think, um that we just should be flipping a word. I know that wasn't mentioned, but I believe it should read one accessory dwelling unit per single

036family dwelling instead of one accessory dwelling per unit single family dwelling. I think that's just an existing thing that we could probably correct since we're correcting things. Um D uh the owner of the property shall occupy either the primary or sec secondary dwelling unit and state statute does allow us the ability to um make sure that that is happening. So I would recommend this additional language. So it will read, "The owner of the property shall occupy either the primary or secondary dwelling unit and shall demonstrate that one of the units is his or her principal place of residence. The town of Lichfield may establish reasonable regulations to enforce this requirement." And again, that's contained in 67472, our Roman numeral 6. So, state statute does allow us to do that and I highlighted that for the

037board as well. Um, so I would like I think that change for D would be beneficial. Um, for F it says attach ADU shall have an internal door connecting the primary and secondary dwelling units to facilitate family interaction and conversion back to a single family dwelling. I do not believe that is part of the newly revised state statute. So, I would recommend removing that just so we are consistent with the state statute. Um, and then we do have a limitation on bedrooms for detached. We do not have that um here. So, I don't know if the board would consider um adding in K um just like we have for detached um that the attached ADU shall not contain more than two bedrooms. Um that's just a thought just again to make it um consistent. And

038then when I get to 507.06 um E again I would add in language um in a manner consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The concerns that I have heard regarding ADUs is they don't want to see Lichfield turn into Manchester. So again, it's an accessory dwelling supposed to be smaller in size incidental to the primary dwelling. We do have the ability to enact some type of performance standards. And I think having additional language there that gives the town the ability to weigh in on whether or not we are changing the character of the neighborhood, I think is very important to the town and to the residents of the town. So I would recommend uh >> Sorry, Laura, are you you're on E? >> I was on Yes. So 507.06E. 06E. I just added in

039um >> 0 06. Okay. >> 06. Yep. So I skipped right to the detached. J. Sorry about that. >> Sorry. That's right. >> Yep. So in a manner consistent with the character of the neighborhood. And again, just going back to I think that's uh you know important for the town to consider from a regulatory standpoint how we want uh our town to look and feel. And I know as part of the economic development committee, the rural and agricultural feel of the town was listed as a high priority. >> Thank you. >> I think I did. >> Uh any other members of the public that wish to comment on the ADUs? Come on up. >> Connie Jackson, 64 Cutler Road. Um, having been here and talked about what we want to do for our IDU, um,

040I have an issue with the size, okay, because I have to agree with Laura being an accessory unit, um, we would have loved to have two bedrooms. I mean, there's no question, but because of being under 800 square feet in town, you can't put two bedrooms in. We had to take off a biffold door to the washer and dryer to get into the limited amount of space that we were allowed in our property. Um the company we worked for Cedar Lock Homes has started to get an ADU division and they're out of Maine. So it's been very interesting because most of the people up there who are buying them when they talk to the building inspector it's not based on square footage. It's based on a percentage of the existing house at there. In some

041of the towns in Maine they go from 33 all the way up to 78%. So it's been kind of an interesting thing. And your comment about the envelope, I have to agree with you because we sat with Matt for an hour and a half trying to figure out how we could get it down >> to meet the criteria that was necessary. And then the other option was to go for that exemption, which I I don't think you should be giving exemptions. If you set rules, I think you should stay the rules. It's just my opinion. So, back to Maine. Maine's found it's worked much better doing the percentage, but then you've got a house that's like 7,000 square feet. You're putting a very large ADU next door to it. But those people are accustomed to

042having that and that's what they want. But then you take a house that's maybe a thousand square feet and you take 75% of a thousand square feet, you're bringing it down to something very minuscule. So it's kind of a a catch 22, but I think the towns need to address it. I'm not a proponent of the minimum, but I am a proponent of maximum. And I don't I don't like the idea that it can match the house in size. I mean, our our foundation is going to look identical to a house to keep it inconsistent with our neighborhood. That was a big primary thing for us. But the limited space inside it, we're taking out the whole second floor, making storage. So, it's totally all open. It'll be closed off, that kind of thing. It'll

043never be used for a bedroom or anything like that. But to live in the first floor of my house to square it down, it's going to be very tight. But that's what we we opted for. Otherwise, we just stay where we is. But I do think you need to set some limits. And I I don't really like the idea of exemptions. I don't think people should be able to go in and say, "Well, you know, it's not car changing the character of my neighborhood, so why can't I be bigger?" I think if you said it, you said it. >> No, I was. So, my point with the exemption is say you're going to have a thousand square feet, but you have to go over the boundary line, not the boundary line, the the setback line,

044but a foot or two to make it fit. You know, as long as it works. That's what I mean about I don't want, you know, I definitely agree. We don't want ADU turning into a duplex. >> No. You know, >> the only reason ours was not a duplex is because of the amount of acreage that we have. >> There's a um a criteria of was it two acres? >> Yeah. >> To have to have for a duplex, which we could not do. So, that's that's the ADU. But, you know, outside of it, it's going to look like a duplex if people drive by. That's what they're going to think we have. But inside, it's totally different. It's like having an apartment in Manchester. Anyways, so good luck with it. >> Thank you. any other um

045members of the public that wish to comment on the ADU um changes? Okay. Well, it's a public hearing, so at any point if you would like to uh discuss uh just let us know. Um so now we have a lot of feedback. So what does the board wish to do bas uh following that feedback? [clears throat] And I've been taking notes. So certainly if it's a will of the board, I can incorporate the comments that Laura has provided. Um I think it's prudent to come up with a total living space definition that would live in the definition section. So it will apply across the board. So I can do that. Um I'm not sure what the board wants to do with square footage. >> Well, we're still in the public hearing. Let's complete the public

046hearing on the other matters in front of us and then we have a zoning workshop immediately following the public hearing where we can really work on this. >> That's a good point. >> Focus on getting this right. >> Yeah, that's one way we can do it is that >> Yeah, I'm fine with that. I don't want us to like forget any detail if we get to the end of all four things. Then we're kind of like what do we want to do with each one? But I'm fine with that if we >> So I guess for information purposes, uh, who is here for something other than the ADU? >> Okay. So, so yeah, if we just do it all now, then we're going to keep some people waiting. >> Mhm. >> Um, okay. So, we

047can either discuss this further or we can move on to home occupations. Um, what does the board wish to do? My preference is we continue on with the public hearing, complete the the public hearing portion of our meeting and then during our zoning workshop portion of the meeting, we work on this until we're done working on this. >> Okay. Um I guess no one else has a strong opinion. >> That's fine with me. >> We'll move on to >> the um home occupations. Uh so home occupation section five. Um it's changes some technicalities, >> right? [clears throat] >> So um this was triggered largely by uh um a change in state law essentially by a change in state law. It did bring forward just kind of one other relatively minor issue. So, uh there was

048a statutory change this past year that um essentially said that family home and group daycare must now be allowed by right uh in any residential district. I'm paraphrasing. Um the [snorts] way we had permitted uh family uh daycare was as a home occupation. So, our home occupation listed out um a series of uses you could have. And then there was a special provision for family child care facilities. Um so, we can no longer do that as a um home occupation that requires planning board approval. The other thing though that became apparent was um we have procedures for home occupations and they require planning board review. Um but we were actually really never clear on what type of review that was. One of the other statutory changes regarding um uh family childcare facilities is that you

049also cannot require site plan review. So we have to be clear that it's not a site plan review requirement. What is a home occupation? So what we've done is this suggest is suggests characterizing home occupations. they already require planning board review but that they would be considered a conditional use. So the first change is under section 50403 where it previously said home occupations requiring planning board approval. We now say home occupations requiring a condition use. I should just back up and say there's a whole range of home occupations that don't require planning board approval at all. This just applies to the ones that do. Uh so again the first change you see is just we're now referencing conditional use. Moving on down to family child care facilities. Uh that's section 504.4 and again these are

050really to address um statutory changes. Uh so we now address family home and group daycare facilities. Um those are two slightly different ones and really all of the additional language that we have included um is right out of the statute. So previously we had uh family home child care um facilities. The only change was we now have to add at the very end that um in addition to six children up to three children attending a full day care program. Um school program may also be cared for up to five hours per day on all school days and during all school holidays. That's as it is now. Uh, we've added the statutory language provided that the afterchool and holiday increase in capacity is permitted by the state fire code and in compliance with any local ordinance,

051whatever that means, we're adding it. It's straight out of the statute. And we're now adding a reference to family group daycare, which is slightly larger that allows between 7 and 12 children. The rest of the language is really largely the same. Uh and then uh finally under section 50405 which deals with adult care facilities. Once again we note that that's a conditional use. Uh so that is those are the changes that are provided. Oh I should back up. You allow them by right or conditional use. Those are the two uses we're going to be allowing it as a conditional use. >> Okay. So pretty straightforward. just updating to be in compliance with state regulation. Anyone public have any comments? >> Hi. Uh Laura Gandia, 3 Chamberlain Drive. So Jay, I'm hoping that you can clarify

052because in the statute it says that they're allowed by right or pursuant to a conditional use permit. So, we're going to allow it as a conditional use permit because I know we say as conditional uses. Is that the right terminology we want to use? >> I'm using the term conditional use, but if you go up to section 50.03, it says home occupations requiring a conditional use permit. >> Right. And then, so we have those there. Then 504.4, Four, we have family home and group child care facilities as home occupations are permitted as I don't know is it conditional uses because it's it's just a home occupation or it's a use that subject to a conditional use permit. It's a I mean it's a term that we've used but we could certainly say are permitted you

053know uh by conditional use permit >> right I'm just thinking just to again coincide >> with with with the statute >> we could keep the language consistent yes >> and that would be for 504.052 052 the same just to keep that consistent. >> And do we are we going to define family home and group childcare or is that by state statute already? >> Yes, it's by state statute. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other uh public comment on the home occupation changes? Um so would these changes be considered um substantive? Yes. >> Okay. So, um do we do we want do we wish to uh uh finalize this change for the next um public hearing or do you want to discuss that during the workshop? We should certainly touch on it during the workshop

054portion of our meeting. Whether it requires additional work beyond that, we'll determine at that time. >> Okay. So uh next on our agenda is um definition of duplex two family residence is amended. So this is um wholly new language and this came uh out of concerns expressed by the building inspector that we did not have a definition for what uh a duplex was that was adequate. All right. So our right now if you're looking at the proposed change the existing language remains in black and the additional language is um in red. So his concern was right now our definition was two attached dwelling units contained in a single building. What was a single building? So there was a lot of interpretation around that is a breezeway connecting you know two single family homes. Does that

055make it one building? Is that a duplex? Um so we had a fair amount of conversation around this and we looked at um the requirements of several other surrounding communities and put this together. Uh you know certainly taking some language from others and thinking through what made sense. So the proposed definition is I'll just read the whole thing. um duplex or two family residents. Two attached dwelling units contained in a single building located on one lot separated either vertically or horizontally by a fireresistant party wall with each unit having its own separate entrance. The area of the party wall separating the two units shall not actually we should have the word be in there. I apologize. I thought I put that in. shall not be less than 33% of the total area of the adjacent

056side of each dwelling unit. And the intent there is to make sure that they are actually touching, but they could be staggered. Essentially, duplexes do not include accessory dwelling units as defined as section 50703 of this ordinance. That's a proposal. So yeah, for some context, um the because of how vague the current definition is, we have had uh there's a building there's basically two buildings side by side with a very very tiny breezeway in between them. And it's like you could just get rid of that and it wouldn't affect anything. And it it very much looks like its sole purpose is to get around the or the spirit of like the technicalities of the ordinance, but obviously it doesn't it doesn't follow the spirit of it. Um so now we're trying to clarify what a

057duplex is. And we wanted to make sure that there was some language in there to make sure that they were they were together. Um and we allowed them to only have one/ird of the uh adjacent sides touching. So that means two though at furthest they can be 2/3 offset from each other. >> Well there must be that must be that party wall >> right >> that's the key feature in this definition that was missing from the existing definition. So, uh, does any do any members of the public wish to, uh, comment on the proposed, uh, change? Um, if you, uh, any technicalities about it or, um, the overlap part of it. Any comments? >> Sure. >> Chase Circle Pan. Um, shouldn't it have the same roof line as well? Is saying it's a duplex? um

058that was like maybe required a long time ago, but um a lot of people would prefer some like staggered buildings. Um like right now it's they don't even have to have any roof line between them right now. So we're trying to find a balance because I don't like when you have a single roof line, it creates a very boxy look, >> right? Not the single roof, but the same roof line. So if it has this pitch, a five pitch over here, you want to have the same pitch over here to make it look consistent. You know what I mean? So you don't have a gable end with a gamrell. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> That's >> um not required for the amended definition, but certainly uh a good tasteful move. No, >> that would definitely

059complicate the definition if we put that in. Um, and like the pre uh like the older definitions in the building code didn't I don't think it required that. The main part was the party wall. And even if we said we added like it should adhere to the character of the town, the units you're talking about do adhere to the character of the town. They're just very dissimilar. >> Uh any other uh public comment on the definition of a duplex or two family residence? Okay. So then we'll move on to uh the last thing in our public hearing requirements for solar energy systems uh new section 2300. >> Right. So this is wholly new. Going to move on down a little bit further here. Bear with me. Ah apologize. Getting back to the top of this

060section. Um, even though I'm not going to speak to it, I don't know why I'm really paying attention to that that much, but nevertheless, um, so, so this is an entirely new ordinance and it was inspired in part by a model ordinance that Clean Energy New Hampshire um, was distributing or has distributed. And really the the the reasons behind it is right now um, Lichfield is ordinance is completely silent on solar. We know we do allow solar. Um we have roof mounted solar in Lichfield. Um and we also have at least one groundmounted system on a residential property in Lichfield. They've been permitted. Um but there's been no regulation around it. And again, the ordinance is silent. Is it allowed? Is it not allowed? And there's a sense that we're likely to see more solar

061installations on commercial sites, ground mounted as well as um roof mounted and possibly looking at um what are dual use systems or commercial uses. It's likely that that pressure is going to continue. If people were watching MUR recently, there's a large one that's just going in. They're breaking ground on it in conquered. Um and that will be a primary use solar. Uh we've seen it on other agricultural sites around the area. And then uh we also have um some pretty significant um what we know again I would call dual use but some people may have seen Penach Waterworks put in a large one uh next to Penach Middle School. Uh Fidelity Investments has put in a very large one. You can kind of see that from the highway. So they're happening. And so the idea

062is let's think about how to regulate them. So just kind of I'm not going to read through the entire ordinance um but kind of some of the key points is first of all definitions. So that it provides definitions for the different types of solar. There are probably more of them out there but but the key different ones that um you know are you know we're tending to see. So dual use solar is the first one and that is a um solar energy system that is coll-located on you know the same property as another um use and we've given a number of examples in here. Uh those can be roof mounted, they can be ground mounted. They can also include as some people may have seen the solar carports where you have a parking area with

063like the canopies that have park um covering them. Uh so those would all be considered um dual use. >> Can I interrupt J? There's one clerical >> please. >> Uh it says due use. >> There's still a good bit of that throughout there is. >> So you are obviously this is not the most recent copy cuz I corrected all of those changes after the last meeting. So if you're looking at the old >> sorry. So, you were looking at the old version and I apologize for that. Um, but the new version picked up on that issue. It was put like three different ways. So, we we picked up on that. Um, so moving on down, I'm not going to go through all the definitions, but there are several of them. Obviously, we we define solar

064carport, roof mounted, etc. Um, kind of. So, moving on down, I'm uh in the proposed section 2304 uh where we start talking about general requirements for accessory uh use ones and uh you know, again, we kind of talk what they are. So, so just some of the key highlights are roof mounted solar. Um uh we look at the the pitch of the roof and essentially we want to limit the degree to which they can exceed the peak of the roof. Um so here it's no more than 10 in above the peak of the roof and um we do note they're exempt from height requirements. Uh groundmounted solar systems have to meet the um you know setbacks for an accessory structure and ground mounted solar um has to be adequately screened from view from surrounding residential

065uses and public highways. Uh roof mounted solar are exempt from those requirements. pretty obviously you can see roof mounted solar wherever you go. Um and uh it also notes that solar carports are permitted as a section an an accessory use in all non-residential districts. The next section is 2305 and this deals with ground mounted solar systems um where it is a dual use or a primary use. So here is where pointing to the map um would be helpful. So this ordinance contemplates allowing solar energy systems as a primary use only as a conditional use and only in the northern commercial and industrial zones. If you can see this map this area here is the northern commercial industrial zone. So in this district ground mounted solar would be allowed as a primary use. As you could

066see here, it does not abut 3A. Um, and it doesn't a little bit here, but for the most part, it's a really contained area. The southern um, you know, commercial industrial service area is located right here. So, in those areas, it would be allowed as a primary use, uh, by conditional use permit. I should add permit. And, um, but there is a specific setback from 3A, which I will get to. So the requirements uh where these are allowed is laid out uh kind of A through E on this page. Again, it has to meet um setbacks has to be adequately screened. That's the essence of these requirements. Um but if you're in B setbacks, it notes all solar energy systems. So be set back not less than 100 ft from Charles Bankraftoft Highway. Uh again,

067fencing, storm water management. Um, moving on down, I'm on to page four, uh, site management. And then finally, there is a specific provision here for dual use solar energy systems for agriculture. So, in this case, um, the collocation of agricultural uses with ground mounted solar systems um would be allowed. Um, again, there's some certain conditions that would apply. Next is section 2306 and this is submission requirements and this basically goes through in addition to the normal site plan review requirements, there are several additional requirements that you would have to meet. In other words, information that you would have to provide along with your application that are specific to solar. Uh again, I'm not going to go through all of those. Probably the most significant ones is, you know, to just note is in addition to

068specifying your clearing and grading and the equipment specifics, there has to be an operation and maintenance plan to ensure that it is um that the site is adequately uh kept up. There has to be an emergency response plan and an abandonment and decommissioning plan to make sure that these are just not abandoned. And it does allow the planning board to require a bond for decommissioning once the useful life has expired. That's it. It's a lot. >> Do any members of the public have any questions or comments on the um proposed solar ordinance? Come on up. Uh, good evening, Laura Gandandy, 3 Chamberlain Drive. I'm just a couple of questions. Um, and I'm not well verssed in solar panels or anything like that. So, I'm going to preface it with that. But I did notice on

069section 2305B the setbacks that this is allowing um fencing and equipment um to be put into the setback. And that's how I'm reading it. If that's the case, I would have a little bit of a pause for concern um with having uh fencing and equipment being inside the setback. That's a building setback. That's what that's relating to. So the fencing, yes, generally we do allow fencing and setbacks. If we want it to be different here, we could, but the wiring and equipment is only that that's necessary for utility interconnection. >> So it's not the main components, but you have to connect to the grid that may cross into a setback. >> Right? So I'm just thinking hypothetically there are two uh poses of land. um you know we got a 15 foot setback and then

070while I'm reading this if I'm the non owner the owner that's not having the solar system put on that my neighbor can then take a big piece of equipment necessary for the utility connection and put it right on the property line. Um, not saying that's happening because I again I'm not well verssed in solar equipment and how that all works, but just reading this, that's what came to my mind. So, I'm just putting that out there for food for thought. Um, and the second uh thing I have is the 100 ft from Charles Braftoft Highway. Um, I would actually like to see that be a bigger number. Um, I know there's been talk about, you know, some potential reszoning or reconfiguration of the look and feel of Charles Bancraftoft Highway and I think uh 100

071ft um may not be in line in what I believe the residents want to see and maintain for the characteristic of uh Charles Braftoft Highway. My last question or comment would be I know for the ground mount it and again I not familiar with these terms enough but I know that we did say that a site plan approval will be necessary. Um so I'm assuming that this if it's a residential lot um on a home they're not subject to site plan approval because a planning board wouldn't have jurisdiction over a residential lot for a site plan approval. That's correct. I think that is addressed in here, but I will double check. And I know there's a limitation on the residential being 10 acres or more. Um, but I didn't know if that situation would come

072to fruition and if it would, how the town would handle that because it would I don't believe it could be by site plan approval. >> I'll double check. I I thought that was addressed, but I'm going to have to look for it. >> Okay. The intent is not to require site plan approval for residential accessory use. >> Right. >> Thought it was in here, but I'll double check. >> Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Do we have any other uh public comments on the proposed solar ordinance? Okay. Any uh further board discussion? >> No, I just had a quick question for Jay. In um 2305D, like that little fencing uh provision, were you able to find any like good photos or examples um per chance? I know we're looking at

073the old version >> of fencing. >> Yeah, I know. At the last meeting, we just kind of perhaps wanted some visuals to [clears throat] to give people of good examples. um particularly like where there's not a lot of trees and it's like at the intersection of Pinerest and Albuquerque situation. So I did but I'm not sure it's going to work because I could not connect once again to my office but I do have a solar presentation. So let's see if it's going to let me do sorry can't do PowerPoint. [snorts] Let me just see. Now, I'm going to try Let me try one more time to connect to my office one because I did do a presentation and I brought it on a flash drive thinking that would take care of it. Let me just

074quickly see this is going to let me do it. >> Probably not. >> The IT side of me says that you have a little circle with the red dot says you have updates that are waiting. Yeah, I know. I know. I know. Sign in. Create an account. I'm going to close PowerPoint. Um, let me just try that quickly. Well, I say quickly. It's not happening quickly, is it? [snorts] No. So, yes, I've got some really nice pictures that I can't show you. Try one more time. This means Oh, thank you. >> Yeah, I would imagine that for this type of use, we'd want probably a six foot p like white fence with vegetation. >> That's what I would imagine. >> Yeah. Yeah. I know we prohibit barbed wire fences, but beyond that, you're leaves pretty

075[laughter] >> somebody from putting a chain fence up with slats in it though. >> Precisely. >> I mean, to adhere to their lot or, >> you know, usage. Um, ground mounting solar, um, I know something about it. And ground mounting solar goes 10 12 feet in the air. you know, you don't get a lot of solar that's six feet, but you can't say you need a 10 foot fence. Um, but saying that you have to have a specific type and style of fencing, that shouldn't be allowed either. It should just be somewhat of a privacy fence. If you want to put six number, six foot's acceptable >> because otherwise somebody could put a twoft fence and say, "Hey, well, there's a fence." >> Yeah, I'm not going to be able to do it. I apologize.

076Next time I'll have him for the show. >> Thank you. >> But yeah, I mean the the main the main there is buffering um you know that you see but it's it's basically the setback combined with buffering that you know is being used. Fencing is more really for security. And just looking through it, I didn't see any clarification on what was brought up regarding um like making so we don't have to have a site plan for a residential installation. >> I will double check. The intent here was that site plan was required um for the primary or secondary, but I I'll I'll make sure to put that in there and make that clear. >> Yeah, it was good to clarify that. Yeah. Um, so how much time do we have to get these to public

077hearing? >> Uh, it doesn't look good. You'd have to be posted the day after Christmas. >> We can do that. >> If you go with January 6th. >> Yeah, we can do it. Yeah, >> I can turn around the changes pretty quickly, so we can we can get it done. >> Sounds good. So, that would give us uh two potential public hearings. >> Yes. >> Yeah, that would probably be beneficial. >> Yeah, >> I think that'd be prudent. >> Mhm. Okay. >> Well, you What about the 20th? Could the last day is the 26, >> right? But if we do it on the 6th, we still have one more opportunity. So in case there is of changes, we have that window. >> Exactly. I can get these done in time. >> Okay, >> sounds good.

078>> Um do we have any other changes we'd like to discuss during the um um the workshop or would we like to just make a motion for uh the those proposed changes? >> I think at this point we should close the public hearing. We've gone through the entire agenda for the public hearing and let's go straight into workshop and uh make this stuff better. >> Any other um comments from the public regarding any of the uh zoning changes that we've um discussed, especially the solar ones. We'll we'll have more public comment during our workshop, too. >> Just a quick question. I thought we were going to be discussing a change for Albuquerque. the signage. >> Yeah, we don't in the workshop. >> Yeah, that's not the public hearing. >> Will there be an opportunity to

079weigh in on that? >> Yeah, we'll have public comment on that. >> Great. Thank you. >> Um, so I think I [clears throat] guess that concludes the public hearing for the nozzoning amendments, which brings us into our zoning workshop. Um, where the agenda shows the temporary civic municipal sign. going to go over the change. Are you going to go over the issues with the public hearing document and then go into the stuff that wasn't on public hearing? >> Yeah. But um >> what are you going to do? How are you going to do this? >> Yeah, it might make sense to do that first since um we uh >> because the the zoning works is news new news that didn't go to public hearing yet. That'll go to the next public hearing. >> Yep. Um

080>> well it seems like all four of those items we definitely want to hear again on the sixth right >> but you have to >> yeah there's work >> say what what you want on [clears throat] >> so for the ADUs >> especially the adus >> if if it's the will of the board I can incorporate the changes you know that Laura suggested and um but it's it does leave open the question of right now it says 800 square feet so is there a sense of what we want did some research on definitions and the standard used in appraising is the antsy standard. Um, but we don't probably don't want to require that because that requires like uh very they would need to hire an appraiser to do that pro most likely because they're like

081computer requirements in the NC standard um and everything has to be within like a tenth of an inch or something like that. >> Yeah. and and I said I I guess I said incorporate the changes that Laura made, but but also um to include a definition for the total living area uh in the definition section. So that would be also for next time. So then the question is how do we want to define the area because the way that it was done before the building inspector had the leeway to remove closets and stuff. >> I mean to be honest I've been doing this a very long time. I have never heard of that anywhere. So what type of wording do you think we should >> I I I I think it's you know total living

082space within >> you know the perimeter walls >> uh in and I'll put in there including you know hallways >> stairwells etc. So I'll put that in the definition. And do you think we should explicitly say that stairwells count uh once for the um >> We could sure >> I think I think the wording similar to Anie is that they count once um >> right so you don't count it on each floor >> because it's an open stairwell. Yeah. >> As Mrs. Gandia pointed out the article says total living space and total living space is describes a living space on a property and thus does not include unfinished and unheated areas. And I think that's where the confusion comes in because you don't typically heat your closets and you don't heat your stairways. >> We

083we'll make it clear. It's it's within the heated area that's intended to exclude things like porches, >> porches and exterior staircases. >> We'll just be clear since there's confusion. We'll make it clear. >> Yep. Sounds good. And with that, you will not be able to fit as big an ADU. >> Right. So we might want to consider increasing the space. >> Yeah. I then the question is what do we want to do? Um the public comment today people want space but they don't want to mess with the character the neighborhood. Some of the proposals are,000 to 1,200. Um, looking at the, uh, ADUs that we've gotten using the way that the building inspector has been doing it, um, we've seen like, let me do some quick calculations. Some of them have been 50% bigger than

084the um, when you do this calculation. >> It's a lot of closets. >> Yeah, a lot of closet space. Um so if we apply that logic to the current cap which is what 800 square f feet right >> that would be 1,200 >> um so somewhere between 1,00 1,200 will probably have a similar effect on the buildings as 800 is now. So >> whereas a thousand might actually be more restrictive than what we have now. Um so but some people might have concerns about the character of the neighborhood, but that's what people are basically getting away with right now. So, >> so I mean just to clarify from what it sounds like every kind of town surrounding us that has like a 10,00 cap is kind of excluding closets or it seems like we haven't

085really arrived on what other towns are doing. >> Again, I'm not aware of any town that does that. I can't say there aren't. Just no community I've worked with does that. >> Yeah, I'm not familiar with ADUs outside of this town that that are doing that. Um, so I [clears throat] I obviously here space is of the utmost importance, but I just have a little caution opening up, you know, I don't know, the floodgates for lack of any any other term to, you know, put us in line with NSHA and maybe other regions. Um, other >> NSHA is 750 >> 750 now. So it's not 1,200. >> No, there's proposed changes, but right now it's 750. >> Yeah. So, I I mean I feel like 10,00 I mean obviously we're going to talk about it

086again and I think people will come out and and and kind of talk about the merits. Um I definitely think we need to increase it. I don't know if being the largest ADU in the region is necessarily in the best interest of the town >> just for the next hearing. >> Yeah. So a unit that's 36 by 28 puts you at 1, 108 square feet, >> which is it's a good size, >> right? >> And you know, if you exterior, >> like the smallest typical houses I see that are single family homes are around 1,600 square feet. Um, >> or how much you say? >> 1,600ish. >> When when up on Pine Crest's houses were about a th00and square feet. My house started at 1,000 square feet. Yeah. So, yeah, the standards like people's expectations

087for sizes have definitely gone up. Um, so, and obviously it's I I don't know anyone else in the region that does it. But the 40% thing is kind of interesting to think about and the relation between a single family home and the accessory dwelling we're permitting because I think many of like the pre-war [clears throat] houses on Charles Bankraftoft Highway are kind of little cottages. They're not bigger than 1500 square feet. So, it's like if we allow, you know, you can build a 1,200 ft² accessory dwelling unit, we're basically permitting a second home on that lot, which is we just want to be careful that that is is the kind of world that we want to create and that that we want to visually see. >> But you don't want a 10,000 foot house having

088a 4,000 foot AD attached to >> that. That's also Yeah. >> Well, you can it you could also do it both ways. You could say up to a,000, but it can't exceed 50% or 40% or whatever you want. You could do it both ways. Of course, it can never be less than 7. It's 750 or >> right. >> We can't require less than 750 under any circumstance. >> So, we're going to have to pro if we want to do that, we're going to have to have you are always allowed 750. Yes, we'd have to be clear on >> allowed up to 1,00 or 1,200 um uh based on the percentage of those of the main dwelling because yeah, I do agree that um a big house can make us a bigger ADU look small um

089whereas that same ADU next to a small house will look out of place. Um, fortunately, this is even if we go to 1,200, it's smaller than those gigantic ADUs that some people have tried to put on their detached garages. >> Um, which I don't think, um, are really the character that people want for the ADUs. There's one ADU that foundation is bigger than parents house total. So, why don't we just use state law as our guide here? State law says 950 square feet. >> Defined as what? >> Defined as the pad or defined as >> That's a good question. It does say the total living space of the accessory drilling unit shall not exceed 950. That's I'm glad you brought that up. >> You look at the size of this room, right? And my parents

090ADU is all of like 10 ft bigger than this. if that, you know, try fitting in a kitchen, a front room, a bedroom, a bathroom, and then tell me what space you have left. You know, try to put in furniture. As Pierre said, he's put in uh shelving units inside of things to make, you know, on one side a TV stand, the other side storage. um you get really restricted when you get down to, you know, are we talking the four walls or are we talking each individual space adding up to a number and you really have to take an account of that people have stairways, you know, different things like that. You know, that's all going to play into that number. Um just imagine that. I mean, I know 50 years ago a,200 foot

091house was huge to them. We are bigger people. We have bigger places [clears throat] now. we have more stuff. That is that is something that you know and I agree with. You know, you could have it both ways. You have a 1,200 foot house, you don't want a,200 foot ADU. Um I don't necessarily know that 40 50% is the right number. Um we're we're we're Lichfield. We're not Windham. There's something to be said for the houses Windom versus Lichfield. Just, you know, saying that. Um, but going back to the minimum then, um, there might need to be something in there that states that you can have smaller than 750 foot if that's what somebody wants or they can afford. >> Um, you can't force them to say, I want a single, you know, house with

092a small bathroom and a small front room and it has to be 750. >> Kind of going back to what the building inspector said about removing the minimum. Yeah, we are proposing we're removing the minimum. We just can never if we go with a percentage, we can never say you can't have that. We can't require less than 750 under any circumstance. So wording that [clears throat] might I might prefer would be something like a do you um may maybe no more than um 750 square ft or um 75% of the main dwellings area up to 1,200 square ft whichever is greater. It' probably word it slightly differently, but yeah, I I get I could create that for now. >> And then and the definition of total living space or gross living space says usually included

093living rooms, kitchens, bedrooms, bathrooms, dining rooms, hallways, and closets, finished areas, heated, cooled spaces, finished atticss with sufficient cooling, ceiling, blah blah blah, and then stairways counted on the floor they descend from. Right. >> Ray, where you getting that? >> I just did. >> Just Googled it. Yeah. So, I'll do that. I'll create that definition essentially that and um we'll have it for next time. >> We can see what we if we like it. You said up to 75%. >> That that would make sense to me for the small houses. We don't want to overrestrict the small houses. Like obviously it might look a little weird if we have something 75% of the size of it. But >> could we call the smaller house the ADU? >> [laughter] >> I'll >> also put wording in

094there to say no more than say two bedrooms. >> Yeah, that's in there. That's already in there. >> House. Okay, >> that's already in there. Sorry. So, I'll come up with it for the next time. We're allowing ourselves the opportunity for yet another hearing after that if we wish. So, >> we can play with it. >> Let's just get down the exact numbers that the board wants. Like I my preference would probably be 75% 1,200 um minimum 750. That sounds reasonable. Do you think you can live with that? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> As long as that includes all the closets. >> Yeah. >> 75%. >> Let's just be clear so that the folks on the zoning board, the builders, the building inspector, us all have a clear definition and there's no squishiness about, oh,

095this closet doesn't count. >> Oh, that stairway doesn't >> 1200 square feet. That doesn't include closet doesn't, you know, all of a sudden. >> Yeah. Please, let's not do that. >> We'll be we'll be clear. We'll define how we are defining total living. Perfect. >> Yeah. >> And just note to the board like every provision that we put in there is subject to relief from the zoning board. So I know we're trying to adjust a lot of circumstances. We may want to consider that how you you know put your words into place to try to adjust because sometimes when you do that it ends up being more problematic instead of just letting the effect of the zoning board um you know do its job. We want to craft this in such a way that your

096job is easier. >> No. Oh, I understand. But I'm saying when we're talking about 75% or this or that, that's where I find my experience and I'll put on my zone of wood hat that that can be problematic because I think when you're doing stuff like that, you're trying to address all different fact patterns that may come before the board, which is great, but sometimes it ends up having the a different effect. >> Okay. >> So, just it's just a balancing and again word choice is everything. >> Yeah. the or is adding gray area. >> We'll make it as clear as we can. >> Yeah, I think the intent has been made clear in this meeting and Jay, we'll >> narrow it down to a legally sound um interpretation. >> Y >> um and uh

097do we have any other uh comments from the public that we wish to explicitly talk about before we send that to the next public hearing? >> I have one thing to say. Yep. Go ahead. >> If you're going to allow up to 75% of the original unit, right, do you want to allow that on a detach ADU, can you restrict the detach? >> It's still going to be no bigger than 1,200 ft. >> So, you have >> so that the only situation >> what if you have a 1600 foot house? >> Well, I think technically that's permitted as is. >> And then you put a onef floor 1,200 square foot detached accessory dwelling. It's going to be bigger than the house. Say you have a cave. >> That's true. >> And then you build a

098ranch detached. It's going to be bigger than the cave. >> Yeah. With a single floor. Yeah. >> Do >> just put another wrinkle into your memory. >> Yeah. Thanks. And I would like to invite the the board if they want to come see the ADUs that I built to see the difference of taking out that space versus leaving. You know what I mean? There's several ones you can look at to see that, right? Taking off the stairwell, having that common hallway between the house with the with the main house and the ADU. So, If you would like to do that, I can set that up. >> Thank you. >> And you may want to add consider adding language saying under no circumstances or however you want to put it that the um accessory dwelling cannot

099be larger than the existing uh primary dwelling too. So that kind would kind of alleviate some of the discussions that we now. >> It already says 75% so it can't be >> larger in footprint or larger in >> square footage. And we could decide if we feel 70, well, I'll put it in a 75. If we think it's too big, we can always say it should be 50. It should be, you know, maybe 50 is the number. >> But that makes a big difference if it's a ranch versus a two-story house. >> It does >> big difference. >> It does change the character of the neighborhood. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. >> Personally, I I don't like the 75%. I think you do minimum 750, a maximum of you want to go 1,000 or 25. I

100mean, 1,200. I think that's where you set it. And then you you set those guidelines because you have a 4,000 square foot house. You go 75. Are you stopping them at 1200? >> Yes. >> That would be the max. >> So why have 75 in there? >> The concern is if you look at some of the smaller houses in town, you know, the pre-war like real small ones that maybe, 2,000 1,200 square feet, >> right? >> And then if we say you could have 1,200 square foot ADU, you basically have a duplex or you could have a dup ADU that's bigger than the main house. >> That's why he was adding the 75% so keep it under that threshold. >> Yeah, the majority of ADUs like would not fall on either end of the extreme.

101I think it's just to kind of put some guard rails on, keep people from thinking, oh, I can build ADU the size of my little house or beyond that. We want people to think about kind of balance and you know, single. >> I think what Laura said, it's an accessory unit. It's not a primary house >> to be a duplex. >> Yeah. So, yeah. Adding the 75% will make it so that for those small houses we can slight it'll be slightly smaller. They can still by right do like 750 square ft. >> Yeah. Minimum is always going to be 75 by state. >> A600T house could still do a 12,200 foot ADU under that requirement. >> Yeah. So, this seems like it covers the edge cases where it really affects the character. Um, but I

102don't want to be overrestricted with less than 75%. That's that's what why I suggested 75%. >> 75% of the total square footage, 75% of the building envelope, the foundation size, >> 75% of the total living area as we're going to define. Uh then there's the question on do we want to add more requirements to about uh owner occupancy. >> I mean I didn't take issue with any of Miss Gandia's comments. I thought all of them were were useful and and would be useful to the zoning board. So >> unless there's concern, I figured I would just incorporate all of them. And that's why I feel included that kind of provision for unoccupancy. >> Yep. >> Okay. So, um we should uh would someone like to make a motion to uh send the amended uh version

103of the ADU um amendments to public hearing. Would it be January 6? >> Yes. anything we should discuss before we before someone makes that motion like to make that motion. We need to like lay it all out or >> I don't have it up top. I think it's good enough. >> Motion to send the um accessory dwelling unit section 507 um to public hearing on January 6th as amended for further discussion. Okay. So, we have a motion to um send the proposed uh the accessory dwelling unit changes with the amendments made during this meeting to the public hearing on January 6. We have a second. >> I'll second one question. Is this going to come before us? Come before the board for >> no ballot. No, >> I just wanted to make sure that >>

104so any further discussion. Okay, so all those in favor of the motion to send this to public hearing on January 6, please signify by saying I >> I uh opposed or abstained. So motion passes five 0. >> Okay. So, the other things we have to send to public hearing before we can move on to the new um items include um home occupations. So, did we we did make some substantial change there as well, didn't we? >> Yeah, the suggested change is that where we say conditional uses to just say conditional use permit to be consistent. >> Okay. So, this one's pretty simple. Um would someone like to make a motion to send the amended uh occupation uh zoning to January 6? >> So move, Mr. Chairman. >> Second. >> Okay. So we have a motion

105and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I want opposed. Okay. Motion passes 500. Okay. So, next we had um the definition of a duplex substitute family residence. Um did we have any changes there? >> Just adding the word be. >> So, that is not sub. So, >> right. And that was actually already done. It just didn't make it onto the screen one. So, yeah. >> So, in that case, do we wish to send to a second public hearing or can we send it to um warrant >> you could if you wish. Yeah. >> What is what is the will of the board on that >> I feel comfortable with it. I don't think it wasn't particularly a point of interest with the audience nor has it been.

106But if we would like to wait for other members in put this is really good for participation. >> Yeah. Um, so would someone like to make a motion to send this to the uh what would that be the 2026 warrant? >> Yes. >> So would someone like to make a motion to send this uh send the uh updated definition of the duplex or two family residence to warrant for 2026. >> So moved. >> Second. Okay. So a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Okay. All those in favor of the motion to send the duplex two family residence definition to warrant, please signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Anyone opposed or abstained? Motion passes 500. And lastly, we have the solar energy system. So the only change that we wanted like the main

107change was to clarify when you do and don't need the site plan. >> Right. That residential accessory use doesn't require site plan. So I I'll add that. >> Okay. Any other changes that we wish to make to that? >> Okay. So, I would like to make a motion to send the amended uh proposed solar energy system requirement section 2300 uh to uh public hearing on January 6th. >> So, move, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. And do we have a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. All those in favor of sending the uh proposed uh requirements of solar or energy systems uh section 2300 total hearing on January 6, please signify by saying I. >> I opposed or abstained. Motion passes 500. [clears throat] >> Okay. So now the new items. So, um, then

108section 1,5004, temporary civic municipal signs on Albuquerque. And then later on, we'll also discuss uh foundation certifications um and CIP impact fees, Department of Public Works, facilities, and zoning changes. So, first up is the municipal signs. So, this one I know that um members of the public have some thoughts on. Earlier on, we had someone talk about their petition to uh with the petition being to just remove the section that Vance assigns and that we we would have to be careful [snorts] with that because it would change the character of Albuquerque because that would also permit commercial which is only really applicable in the top section. Um, so that's at that point it would just be the standard sign regulations of the town. >> So, um, any discussion we'd like to do before we open

109that up to the before we ask the public for any? >> I I could just read the proposed change and maybe explain it. >> Sounds good. Uh so right now the language is um you know essentially that no signs except town and state highway direction and regulatory signs may be used on Albuquerque. The suggestion is to add additional language that would say no signs except town and state highway direction and regulatory signs and temporary signs um promoting or related to municipal or civic programs, events and activities may be used on um Albuquerque. So the intent here um is to allow temporary signs promoting not just municipal but what we called municipal and civic programs, events and activities. So maybe that's not sufficiently clear but the intent was to allow the school to you know allow

110a you know civic organization nonprofit group to promote an event. >> So that's that's what's proposed. >> Yeah. And yeah, including the civic um of programs, events and activities probably would satisfy the majority of the concerns. So >> yeah, >> I think my other question that probably relates to the question of people that are here would be like how does it relate to groups of residents that are not like affiliated with an organization like if it was just you know like a neighborhood block group wanted to have have something you know how does that work? Is it defined and they're just kind of going on their their honor or do they have to go before the select board for approval? planning board how to you know what would that's kind of my question I like

111>> yeah I mean that that's certainly a good question I think the intent was you know these are kind of civic programs and events like a parade not necessarily a yard sale or I think that was the intent >> it could be broader if we wished it to be >> and it's just kind of like a honor system not like a approvals type thing right from what I see here they're not going for any approval. >> Yeah. >> Like realistically, this is enforced by the road agent, right? Who goes around and removes the non-compliance signs >> or doesn't see all the time. >> Like garage sale signs, those are up for a day. >> I see those on Albuquerque all the time. Yeah. And I would want them on Albuquerque as long as they're only

112there for a day or two. >> Um, [clears throat] what about political signs? What about as you're approaching Campbell High School on voting day? Both sides of the street are lined with signs. >> You can't regulate those. >> They have their own rules. >> Yeah, they do. >> Yeah. >> So, I can put up a vote for Russ sign on my frontage of Albuquerque and >> but you have to have it down in a certain amount of time. >> Okay. >> Um >> and your fiscal agent >> assume there's any fiscal responsibility here at [laughter] all. >> Okay. So, I'm curious to hear about the public comment on this item. So, uh, any members of the public wish to comment on the proposed language change? >> I'm just gonna I'm gonna comment. I'm just going

113to haven't seen this. I'm just going to sneak over here to read it. >> Oh, let me try to uh >> Sorry, a little bigger for you. >> No, >> sorry about that. No signs except how can state highway direction and regulatory signs and temporary signs promoting or related to municipal or civic programs, events, and activities may be used on Albuquerque Avenue. >> How are you defining temporary? >> That would be the question. Are you defining as the two weeks prior, the one week after? >> More talk consideration. Do you want to do you want to go? Um, uh, Laura Gandandy at 3 Chamberlain Drive. Um, I did, uh, I was made aware of the proposed warrant article that's coming in front of the planning board to repeal this in its entirety. I am opposed

114to that cuz I think when there's a knee-jerk reaction to, you know, somebody feeling like the zoning may not be word it the way they wanted to, they want to get rid of it. And I think sometimes that can be shortsighted and result in some unintended consequences for that. As this board, as I'm sure, is aware, um, Albuquerque was set up to have a certain look and feel to it. There's no driveways that are allowed on Albuquerque. It has a unique history in town. And it's my understanding that that is done again to maintain a certain rural character in the town and not to allow signs. Um so I am opposed to that particular um suggestion that was made earlier and with this one I'm going to express the same type of concerns because again

115temporary signs promoting that's very broad that could be anything at any time. Um, this board may or may not be aware the town of Lichfield, this particular piece of property and Campbell High School is exempt from zoning regulations under the governmental land use statute which is 674 col 54. So they can put up meaning here and Campbell can put up signs promoting um different as exactly what you have here municipal or civic programs. And I think a more prudent uh course of action would be if somebody wanted a sign to do that that they could check with the board of selectman and put that sign up here. And again, we don't want the town hall turning into a sign festival either. So there needs to be some, you know, prudence and discernment with that. But

116I think, you know, concerns about the senior pictures like, oh, we can't have those. Those are not those are in violation of the town zoning. It's not, you know, town hall can do that. they're exempt from uh the state statutes 674 col54. Um I wouldn't want to open up the door to allow temporary signs, especially the way that's worded because I think that is broad and there's a lot that could happen with that change and that a lot could be detrimental to the town's history of keeping Albuquerque a certain way. >> Can we ask this please you want to comment? Sorry. Sorry, Vince Magna 36 Wood Hawk. Um, just the definition of temporary. Um, you say the word temporary and I could say it's going to be up there for a week and unless you're

117keeping track of it, it's there for a month. >> So, in the ordinance, um, temporary signs are, uh, 30 days or less, maximum of 30 days. >> Okay. >> Yep. I'm agreeable with that. >> Um, John Bernell, 6 Bear Run Drive. Uh I'm actually here representing the road agent. I am a member of the board of selectman. Initially the board did request that this be looked at because of the graduation signs. Um I don't think we expected it to be globally up and down Albuquerque and this kind of wide ranged but um ultimately it came up because we were concerned about no one knew the history of the original ordinance and what it actually meant and where the restrictions would be. Laura brings up a great point. the signs were on town property as far

118as the the complex here was. So, it kind of gets away from that. Um the road agent um has expressed real concerns with the ordinance in general and allowing signs up and down Albuquerque. Um they're tasked with maintaining that um bike path and the the mowing and during the mowing time if these signs are out there, it's going to cause delay, adding additional hours and effort to kind of maintain the property. Um the issue around temporary signs, 30 days, who's really watching them? We all know signs will stick around for a while and I know that the road agent has been, you know, taking signs down too soon because he's not tracking immediately. We have no history when these signs went up. They just been there a long time and they just they feel the

119time is clocked, right? So I just advise you in a sense that this is going to be an impact to the town from a cost and maintenance perspective. So think of it that way is one concern. um we have a very small department in the wintertime and summertime they're under a lot of stress to maintain what they have to maintain. So think of that as what you consider the ramifications of your decision. I can think of one other petition war article which we're not really talking about. Um you know a citizen petition brought forward the fire hydrant removal from the use of rate payers and now the town is saddled with a half a million dollar bill every year. It was only 200,000 or less when if we first took it on but over the

120last five or six years it's grown symmetely. So again, this will have impact to the the um highway department. Again, limited resource and like I said, the board recently brought it forward with really trying to just deal with the the students graduation that started during COVID and kind of allowing that to maintain without getting anybody higher up about doing it and not allowing it any place else. So that's all I can say there. So appreciate it. >> Thank you. Corey Flint, 123 Hillrest, >> and Amber. Same address. [laughter] >> Um, I'm the one who uh put forth the petition for the citizens warrant for the uh changing of the signed ordinance on Albuquerque. Um, one more time, would you tell me what your proposed changes in the ordinance? >> It would be um to allow

121essentially uh temporary signs promoting or related to municipal or civic programs, events, and activities. >> Okay. and civic events and activities is town uh sponsored events >> or a civic organization like like a Rotary Club or an Elks Club or you know >> veterans and >> what about a private citizen >> would not include a private citizen. >> Okay. So that's where I have issue with that because >> I have a question. >> Sure. As far as um what you put on your lot wouldn't be on Albuquerque >> according to the road agent it's with >> within your setbacks 20 ft out >> according to the road it's not 20 ft it's 75 ft >> which is into our trees so that you know can put a sign out there and they're hidden in the

122trees you know people can't see it. Besides that, we we put on the Fourth of July parade and the car show here in town. Uh we would like to put directional signs for Dera Pond for the car show so that we can get people to Derapond and Beck who are unfamiliar with the town. Um we like would like to put up advertising for the parade to get more public interest uh along Albuquerque as well as the rest of the roads in town, you know. Um I you know the the uh that would fix the problem for the fishing derby and for the um Christmas in Lichfield, but it doesn't fix the problem for me. So um that's why I put forth the uh the petition the when I [sighs] had been discussing it uh previously

123some of the discussion was about um freedom of speech issues. How can you let one group put out signs and not another group put out signs? So that's why I just decided to ask to resend the whole policy. Um, essentially all I really want to do is allow temporary signs to be put out on Albuquerque. Uh, prior to the enforcement of this, there were not a lot of signs on Albuquerque. Um, when we moved here, this wasn't being enforced. and and then a few years later it was it was um for whatever reason it was it was pushed and and enforced. And if you go down Charles Barkley Highway, if you go down Middlebrook Lane, if you go down any of the other roads in town, there are not a lot of temporary signs up

124for anywhere for long periods of time. And most of them um for instance, you know, when we put out parade signs or car show signs, signs are expensive. We go get them so we can use them next year. Um, I I think yes, there's going to be a small impact of signs on the on Albuquerque. I don't think there's going to be a large impact that's going to cause um, you know, extra hours of road agent time um, mowing when he's just going to go around him. Um, I think that the unintended consequences of the current ordinance is that we're not allowing the people uh uh the ability or or I guess the the non-ivic um people of Lichfield to have their opportunity to uh express what they need to to the town along the

125road. Um, you know, if I want to put up a garage sale sign or yard sale sign, that's not something that's going to be up for weeks or months. It's just a weekend. If I wanted to put a for sale sign out or a free table out on Albuquerque, um, again, it's just, you know, and I don't want to wait four weeks to do that, well, you I wait for the next selectman meeting to get approval to put my sign out. I want to do it that weekend. So, you know, it may be spur of the moment. it may not be that planned out. So, what I'm I guess what I'm saying is if we can come to a um [snorts] a uh uh >> it just needs to be better worded so we can

126be included in it. Like the skeletons, I would love to have signs out there um for the car show and the the parade. I would love to have signs in Albuquerque. Um, we have been putting directional signs the day of and we pick them up the day of. Um, just because people don't know where to park. They the handicap parking like there's there's lots of workings on to go with the car show and the parade to direct everyone for all the events. So, we're just looking for a way that we can have those signs out there. That's all. And yeah, and like I said, if we can come up with a compromise, I'd be happy to rescend uh that petition. >> Yeah. >> Or pull a petition or to withdraw my support or support from

127it, whatever, whatever I need to do. >> Like I'm sure you can see the potential side effects that go beyond the uses that you talk about like commercial uses. >> Yep. with the way it's >> I mean there's already about eight uh permanent signs along Albuquerque and I there's one commercial business along Albuquerque you know the rest of there's no there's very little frontage of houses on Albuquerque you know like mine I mean probably what 8 8 to 10% of the houses are or are the the residents that but Albuquerque or are are have actual frontage without forest. So, I I think that the the commercial sign um the opportunities for commercial signs are probably pretty pretty low. >> Yeah, the there's only one section of Albuquerque that would be of concern there and that's

128the very northernmost where it uh intersects with Charles Bankraftoft Highway. There will there is some in progress de like development being proposed >> but you do you do get commercial signs tacked on to everything and that they should be coming down because section C says no off premises signs so that should be enforced and those like leaf breaking and all that stuff should come down. >> I I definitely see your point. I support it. I understand what you guys going. My concern is if it's completely rescended, you're going to do the right thing. You're going to put your sign out. You're going to pick it back up because like you said, it's expensive and you're going to reuse it. It's the people that are going to put a sign out and then who is policing

129it? Who's responsible for picking it up? Who's responsible for cleaning it? It's going to become the road agent's problem. And then if a sign's standing erect, not on the ground, can he touch it? He has to literally move it. Now, like I said, you're you're the exception. you will you'll do the right thing. But it's the people that are going to be, you know, putting signs out and then a road agent can't touch it or he has to get off the lawnmower, move it, cut, get back on and go again. And if he removes it, what happens? Can you get in trouble? What is the violation? Who's going to enforce it? What's the policing? And that's the I think that's the concern. You say you don't see much of them because he does pick him

130up if they're on [clears throat] >> now prior to the enforcement. I mean, I had >> he was picking them up, [laughter] >> you know, and and I mean, you drive down Charles Barkley Highway, how many signs do you see sitting there? >> It's it's Yeah, very few. I I understand, but the concern is as the town grows, so does the potential of more what can literally become trash on the side of the road. If it's lying on the side, then Kevin can or his crew can pick it up and throw it away. But if it's standing up, somebody come say, "What did you do with my sign?" You can't touch that. You know, that's that's the concern, right, John? That's the big concern. And it's going to add It may be minor, but if

131you're cutting the grass, how many times do you want to stop, >> get off the mower, shut it off, move the sign, get back on? >> They're not going to do that. They're just going to go around. >> They will go around just like they do on all the other roads. >> When you put these signs up, do you do it on your side of the or would you want to do it? We do it on our side on on the resident side of the of the bike path. >> We don't we don't put anything house. >> Do you know where he lives? Right here. >> But like he was saying, they were down um when he does the cash the parade or the car show, he'll put a sign down at in front of

132CHS or >> Darra. >> That would be on the opposite side of the bike path putting people in. And it's it's you know, can we allow it on one side, not the other? But then it doesn't work in that situation because >> at that point it's within the road right of way. >> Um >> yes, in that situation >> what in front of his house he can keep it far far enough back where it is technically on his >> No, it's still it's still >> it's still within the 75 foot rideway of the town >> would be allowed. But in terms of like what ends up being proposed um yeah what is >> I think the wording just needs to be right on it that's all. So and I don't know what that wording could

133be but it's just we would like to be included. [laughter] Could that wording be adjusted to allow residents who own property that abuts Albuquerque to place signs but disallow anyone who doesn't have that that property that abuts Albuquerque? >> That doesn't help his directional signs though. >> It doesn't help the direction signs granted. Yeah. >> Yeah. Direction signs then like the most the direction that probably makes sense to me is require a temporary permit for that. But >> but then if it goes to the bar selectman, then you wait whatever amount of time to try to get that done. I mean the only problem with I I love seeing other stuff and like the only kind of logical problem I can think through with like allowing directionals and you know kind of lawless land people

134can do that is you could have someone you know I you don't want to imagine that people would but you could just kind of create chaos direction signs and I know that's not anything you folks would do but it's like if everyone can do it and I would say I want to I want to send all these people that are headed to Campbell High School and tell them that it's at Mckel Wayne Drive at where the middle school is. I mean theoretically like we don't have any recourse to say well these folks are good upstanding citizens that are pointing people in the right direction and these are just some you know teenagers that are trying to create havoc. >> Yeah. But what do we do then? >> You can do that on every other road

135except Albuquerque, >> right? [laughter] >> Exactly. >> So I mean what's the difference that kind of history with Albuquerque that >> if you're going to engage in that sort of mischief, you're not going to be regulated by the the zone anyway. You're going to put that sign in whether it's allowed or not. >> You won't. But I think it's important to kind of think about the kind of all or nothing which seems like where we're getting with directionals cuz I mean there's a certain aspect of liability center on the town but I mean you know that's why we don't allow everyone in in the world to put up directional signs. >> Well you you do as long as it's not on Albuquerque. >> So I have a question for you. So when you are doing

136the car show what um what regulatory process do you have to follow for that? Do you need do do you have to do anything? We file we we we have a um >> parade permit. >> Parade. >> Yeah, the parade permit for the parade and the car show. >> So, there's a permit for the parade. There's a separate one for the car show. Um and and then they it all goes and gets reviewed by all the town like the road agent and the fire and police >> and then approved by the selectman. add >> seems pretty straightforward to say that it those we might have to add some language here, but those type of events are already going through an approval process. And I think it's very easy to default to you're allowed to put

137signs >> or put a you know on the applications I guess it would be called have a box which simply will you be placing road signs on Albuquerque. These sound like they are promoting or related to a municipal or civic program event or activity. >> Those in those examples they would absolutely fall into this exception. >> No, they would not because I think the parade is private >> and the car show >> car show is private. >> Oh then civic program they're not tied to an organization. So >> I was going to suggest and the same thing I think we were going Steve is that >> they're already going through a process to get police support >> and support the all the agencies that would enforce this are aware of it. So maybe on those

138applications we add like you said checkbox we'll be putting directional signs on Albuquerque and it'll take care of the problem and as long as they pick them up which they do there'll be no issue. And just one other clarification maybe point too because I've talked to Cory a couple times and when I spoke earlier with the road agent, we talked about Cory's property and he recognizes the fact that Cory and his and his wife do decorations and have stuff there. They don't they're not concerned about the overhang there because they know they maintain the property. Going around a sign and not mowing it, we're going to get a phone call going the grass is long on Elbert Creek Y, right? Even in small patches, there's expectations from the community that the the thing will be

139constantly mowed. it looks appropriate as you're walking down the street, but Corey does maintain his property and that's not an issue and I and I don't think the road agent has any concerns with it any from that perspective. He has a greater concern about the broad reduction of it and all that. Um, again, I think it's reality people do put signs out and they do take them back and if they're not if they're out there too long, the road agent will pick them up and they'll continue happening. Orders are not, I guess, at this point. But I think I think the problem is solved by just making sure it's captured in the in the in the application that we already have. We already gone through all this change to add these applications. It's an easy

140checkbox to put there. >> So I could add language here that says um or an event or program um >> approved >> subject to a permit approved by the board of selection. >> Couldn't add that. >> So I think that's the that's how we should go for the those types of directional signs. There's no more paperwork that you will need to file if we do this change. >> Now, what about if I want to put a garage sale sign or for for sale sign or a free table out? >> How does that cover? Huh? [laughter] >> How dare we? I kind of would be opposed like I kind of would like to explicitly allow like garage sale signs like to say that they're allowed for like two days or something like that. Um >> how

141do you enforce it though? >> People should talk right now. Yeah, I agree the >> because people do and I wouldn't want it to be any different than it is now, which is it's out there for such a short period of time and those types of signs are not expensive ones. So I think we have another member >> drive by Albuquerque where it connects with Page Road, you'll see every single garage sale sign that's going on in the town. I mean, that's kind of like the high point. And I know that's it's not [clears throat] alert, so it's a safe zone to place stuff. And those signs sometimes are there for weeks afterwards, you know, because they are they're not cheap. They're not expensive signs. The water gets on them and they just kind of

142disintegrate down Cutler Roads the same way. They'll put a ton of them going down Cutler and at the corner of Cutler and 102. So, those seem to be the high points where I see a lot of signs. Like here's an idea for garage sale signs is they are allowed up to a certain many days in advance and the day that they say because most garage sale signs are dated and if the road agent sees one that's past the date just trash it >> have the date on there on >> right >> requirement to put a date on there on the back side of it somewhere. So if somebody questions how long's this been here been here for two weeks. Okay, go. >> I think most garage sale signs are for the weekend. >> Exactly. They

143usually put it's going to be Saturday and Sunday or, you know, from 9:00 to 5. Okay. >> No different than an open house, right? >> But what's Saturday and Sunday? And I don't think we want to regulate garage sale signs either by requiring what content is going to be on garage sale sign. And that's with this particular section. I do have concerns from a first amendment that we're regulating content for signs for municipal and civic programs. I don't know if I'm overthinking it, but I think that's a contentbased regulation that may subject us to some particular challenges. Um, why can't I put another sign that's not municipal or civic related? Why are we regulating the content of what sign is allowed on child's band car highway and what sign is not? And again um you

144know I we're you know putting two enforcement issues with repealing a zoning together and I I think that's problematic. And I think another thing that's problematic is the fact that we now have a validly submitted petition warrant article that cannot that's my understanding cannot be withdrawn. So it's there that's going on the ballot. Um and again I I think that's I you know that that's very concerning. So now if we meaning you folks put another ballot petition warrant article then this is going to get messy. like can we say well if this one fails this one passes this I mean it's it's it's going to be incredibly complicated it's it's going to be messy and the thing that I think we're trying to do and I was always told that you shouldn't do it is

145legislate or make rules to accommodate the minority and I know what they do and they do a great job you know getting community involved with all their activities and I love seeing what they do but does this town want to legislate or make changes to accommodate one property owner. My experience is that when that is done, it becomes problematic. Um, so I would be very uh cautious about, you know, just changing a whole entire zoning to accommodate one person. If it's a directional sign, those directional signs could go on the town property. Why can't the town put directional signs on there if they wanted to? I mean, not saying for a particular event, but if people in town don't know where Darra Pond is or where the school is, >> I mean, that's another issue

146in and of itself, but if we needed to put something out there, >> people from out of town. >> We're not talking about people in town. We're talking about people from out of town. People come to car shows from other places, other towns. >> I mean, then the town may want to consider investing in putting a directional sign at the four corners. I mean, that would if it's a directional sign issue, that would eliminate um those concerns, but repealing it in its entirety does open up uh the town to a change in the look and feel of Albuquerque. And I and I do have concerns with that, especially, you know, again, the economic development committee. You know, a lot of the concerns raised there was the look and feel of the town, keeping the rural

147character at the agricultural feel. Um, repealing it in its entirety again can open us up to things that maybe weren't considered initially. >> Okay? And also, we're not just doing this just for us to be the priority in town. And that is absolutely not why we're doing this. It is for everybody on Albuquerque who wants to put a sign up can put a sign up. >> Yeah. And >> that is why we're doing it. >> And you know, we'll we'll let the PE we we did this to let the people decide. If they if they say yes, great. If they say no, fine. will abide by whatever the people say. >> So, here's my thought. So, we allow like if if we have to add any any language to the zoning for permitted events um

148we allow that within the right way um of Albuquerque. And then also for that within the ride of way of Albuquerque I it might make sense to explicitly allow dated garage sale signs um as long as they're removed the within the day within 24 hours of the um time on like the the day of the uh garage sale with some other requirements maybe and allow temporary non-commercial signs maybe. Um, I would have to input on whether or not there's a first a like a free freedom of speech concern there, but maybe temporary non-commercial signs on private property. So, not hopefully not within the right >> that's already allowed. So, so right now anybody on any lot in Lynchfield is [snorts] allowed one temporary sign for up to 30 days. So that is across the board

149except on >> Albuquerque >> in in the right away >> on your lot. I should say on your lot. So if if your lot is on it, right? You can't put in the Albuquerque right away, but if your lot about it, you can put it in your property. >> So that's already that's the way it is today. And then that's content neutral. It doesn't matter if it's a garage sale, open house, like I have >> my kids graduating. It doesn't matter. >> I can use three sides of my property to place a sign, but I can't place a sign on my Albuquerque side where it's like people who I would want to have >> if it's on your lot. You can put it >> on your property right away. >> Yeah. >> So, >> quite

150deep into my yard and not visible from the road. >> Yep. Exactly. another >> maybe with maybe with the volume of warrant articles that we already have. >> They have one proposed that's going in front of the town. See what happens. >> Yeah. >> Decide on this next year. I can tell you right now as the moderator of this town, people are going to regret seeing how many warrant articles are. People [laughter] are going to be voting for over an hour. >> It is torture to see how long and how many warrants are going to be out there this year. 27. >> I'm just telling you from that aspect to have the uh >> I I mean I will say it may be confusing for the voters to have two. >> So I think >>

151right >> probably the board to the proposed petition >> but it's still going on. >> You have to you have to it goes on the ballot. >> No. So right his is grand recommend or not recommend. >> You can remove your >> right. Yeah, we can pull ours. >> His is going wrong. >> And but then the planning board has to say yay or nay on his >> and then if what if the people citizens decide that they want they they want it. Then if we decide that oh no there's some loopholes >> that we don't want like commercial then we'd have >> we correct it the following cycle. >> Yeah. We'd have one year where they're permitted and >> see what happens. >> There's we're probably going to get some commercial signs on Albuquerque.

152>> Yeah. >> During that year, >> good year for advertising. >> Use the off premises. >> Yes. >> So when it comes to that, it'll be on the ballot regardless and all it would say supported or not supported by >> recommended or not recommended, right? Mhm. >> I think that's the most straightforward because what we're doing here, I think, is really confusing and I think ultimately the citizens warrant article will allow the voters to speak as to what what they want to say in Albuquerque. >> Okay. Well, we appreciate your time. Thank you very much. [snorts] >> Thank you. >> Come to a vote on that. I do support the citizens warrant article. So, we would have a split vote where part of the board supports doesn't support it. I support it. We would have

153that on the ballot as well. >> Yeah, I think you can do that. Have >> Yeah, you can. You you put you do put the vote. >> Yeah. Not supported by the planning board by vote of 51 zero or something to that effect. Whatever the >> whatever the vote turns out as. >> My biggest concern is the the potential and unintended consequence of the slippery slope, >> right, >> which there are many. So, are you going to wait to vote on that when you have this full board? >> Yeah, I think we should I think we should agenda it. >> Yeah. So, we can put it on for the sixth. Yeah. >> Um and yeah, if regardless of whether or not that passes, I think we do have some potential ideas for the future. >>

154Yeah. >> So then what are you going to do with the planning board version? >> Um table it. It sounds like the concern is that it would be too confusing to have vote. >> so right. So, >> there just won't be a motion to move it forward. So, that's tableabling it essentially. There's no further action. >> Yeah. And I'll probably if I can be there at the um >> deliberative so I can talk about it and >> say here's why we voted that way. Here are the concerns. Um if you like if you still if you're okay with those concerns, vote for it or vote in favor. If not, um, vote against it. >> Yeah, put the information out there and let the voters choose what they want to do with it. >> And of

155course, we I'll I'll probably also mention that, uh, if you like the idea but don't like the implementation, please come to the planning board meetings for us to create new zoning. >> Yeah. >> For the next. >> Okay. >> Which gives me a segue to say thank you to everyone who's here this evening. You've all helped the process along. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Your input is is Yeah. Your input is welcomed and appreciated. So yeah, it's not we're not done yet though. [laughter] >> I want to get that out before the folks all scatter. Exiting. >> So next we have uh foundation certifications section for me. And so this this was a um another one uh concern that came um from the building inspector and also related to uh some cases that had gone before

156the zoning board more recently. And um what we discovered was although most towns do have a requirement that when a foundation is put in you provide a um certified plan uh stamp by a licensed surveyor or engineer. um Lichfield does not have that practice and uh so obviously that allows an issue uh to continue through full construction. So uh the suggestion here is to really just add that requirement which would make which fills requirements very similar to other communities and not surprisingly this is heavily based on what other communities are required. So yeah, for context, within the last year, we've had two cases of equitable waiverss come to the zoning board because um they messed up the location of their foundation and they didn't double check it before they continue building. >> So this would

157require it >> uh prior to framing. So they'll still put in the foundation, >> right? And if they mess up, >> they >> pull out the foundation. >> They could they could possibly cut parts of the foundation and then pour a new section at the foundation >> at the setback probably. >> Um and then adjust their building for that >> cuz that that would probably be like what $20,000 mistake rather than a $200,000 mistake. >> Exactly. which would then which is why they ask for equitable waiverss because that's very cost prohibitive to have a $200,000 to maybe even $500,000 mistake there. Um so yeah, the proposed wording is for all new construction, including additions, a foundation certification plan stamped by a New Hampshire licensed land surveyor certifying that the foundation meets zoning setback requirements must

158be submitted prior to framing. The plan must include foundation dimensions, distance to distances to all property lines, setback lines, and any wetland locations or shore lands and associated buffers if applicable. The building inspector may wave this requirement if he or she finds that due to the location of the foundation on the property or for other good reason that certification is unnecessary. So that would leave it that waving up to the building inspector. So they don't have any guidance. Do any towns provide guidance on that or have they just let that >> Yeah, I mean it's it's based on judgment. You can't write every possibility into an ordinance, but the intent there is where you have a large piece of property and it's very clear that somebody's building an addition and there's already been a foundation

159plan, there's already been a plan approved. You know, it's not going to impede and setbacks. you don't make them go through the cost of having another certified foundation. That's that's really the intent. >> Yeah. Yeah. And of course, like in that scenario, like if it's if the addition is going to be close to a setback, then they wouldn't, >> right? The general rule is you do, but where there's good cause and and that that's the case. I mean, it's really intended to address additions where you already have a plan that shows it. It's very clear. >> Really mess up to somehow get anywhere. >> Yeah. I mean, they wouldn't, right? I mean, so that's the intent. Or a very large piece of property. >> Yeah. We're just in the middle of it. >> It's in

160the middle of it, right? >> Yeah. Any uh questions or comments on the board? Um so, yeah, I'm definitely happy with uh this proposal. I think this will be good to prevent those. Do we have any uh members of the public that wish to comment on this um proposal? >> Sure. Um Laura Gandandy, actually this time I am speaking as the chair of the zoning board. I just wanted to echo um your point that we did receive two requests for equitable waiverss of demential requirements based on this and we were bound by what was contained in the state statute for the criteria for equitable waiver. But there were concerns expressed by the board about how to address these two that just came to us fast and furious. So we are well I am on behalf

161of the board very pleased to see this matter move forward. any other so I guess if if comments uh would someone like to make a motion to send the uh section 409 foundation certification plan to public hearing on June 6. So move >> second. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Okay. All those in favor of the motion to uh for the section 409 foundation certification plan, please signify by saying >> I posted or motion passes 500. Okay. And maybe last but not least, this is a really really simple change. Um, but it was discovered in one of our communities actually that that who were interested in using impact fees to support a new public works uh facility. Um, the interpretation of their attorney was it's not specifically listed in

162the statute. therefore you can't do it. So there was a change in it was legislation proposed last year which passed adding public works to the specific list of things that you can charge impact fees for. So this is a very minor amendment to the town zoning ordinance which would allow which adds the words public works facilities to the list so that the town could use um you know impact fees to support a public works facade. What type of um buildings are public works? >> Typically, you know, DPW garage. >> Um, you know, sometime it could be a DPW headquarters if you've got one, but you usually it's a it's a garage. >> Oh, yeah. That Yeah, that's sounds like it would make sense to include >> Yeah. >> um impact fees for those. I've personally

163always read the statute to be inclusive of that, but nevertheless, let's be clear. >> Yeah. And Kevin did bring forward on the CIP or road agent, I should say, not Kevin. The road agent brought forward on the CIP request long term to have a large shed for his equipment garage. >> Okay. I think yeah, this is a pretty straightforward change. Um any discussion any public comment on adding public works facilities to uh impact eligible for >> impact every okay um I guess uh we have a lot of >> I know >> so many zoning um adjustment So many zoning amendments for this year's warranty. >> John says 26. 26 on the battle this year. >> Wow. >> Okay. >> So, I'm not going to be inside to help you. I can be outside. You [laughter]

164I'm outside. I'm running again this year. So, I'm not inside. >> Uh, okay. So, um, would someone like to make a motion to, um, uh, send the, uh, proposed amended section 1,31.03 impact fees, uh, for the inclusion of public works facilities to public hearing on January 6th. >> Moved. >> Second. We have a motion uh, and a second. Any further discussion? >> Okay. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying I. I >> any opposed? Motion passes 500 Z. Okay. So, any other zoning changes? >> No, thank you. >> That's it. [laughter] >> I think we have enough this year. >> It's going to cost a fortune to print them. Yeah. Did we get the additional um scanner for the balance? >> I think we did. >> We're going to need it.

165>> Mr. We ask you a question, Steve. >> Sorry. >> Were you able to order the additional scan >> for ballots? >> Yep. >> So, we'll have additional machine. Yeah. >> Three. We're gonna need three more. [laughter] >> Yes, we are. >> It's a good thing we're going to have an additional one because with the amount of uh amount of so many warrant articles, it's going to be need be more pieces of paper. Every single piece of paper takes so many seconds on those machines. Okay. Um so, uh next up on the agenda is committee reports. Um, so any uh committee reports? >> So the conservation swans are frozen, but they'll be chipping them out of the derapond. >> The the the decoy ones. >> Yeah, the decoys, not the real swans. >> Okay. Plant

166select when we meet on the 29th. No, 22nd. We pushed it for a week and um But we have we've just been doing a lot as you see a lot of ballots and adjustments. Good. Is there a um war there's a warrant article this year for um the road um like funds for the road, right? >> Yes. Yes. Is that is that the funds that are normally default being moved into a mortgage or is there is there >> so during co that was removed it's $200,000 we're trying to put it back in um but it was modified at the last one as $150,000 to go back into the paving funds and then the state funds. Yeah. Makes sense to do that because um Yeah. If they're not maintained, long-term costs can go up. >> Exactly.

167Because Yeah. Once the base layer starts to get impacted. >> Yeah. And Kevin has does a great job, the road agent does a great job with his planning so he knows what roads he's trying to pave each year. >> Um any uh other committee reports? Okay. Uh, next we have the November 18th minutes. Uh, did anyone have any proposed um changes to that? >> This looked good to me as written. >> Took so long ago. >> I think there was something um I think there was one small change. through uh for the motion for the specifying the date is December 16th for the public hearing for the U zoning amendments. It says zoning minutes. I think I unless I misspoke it was supposed to be zoning amendments. >> What page? >> Uh page five near

168the bottom. Oh, good shooting. Any other um proposed amendments to the uh minutes? >> I have nothing. >> Okay. Would someone like to make a motion to approve the November 18th, 2025 minutes as amended? >> So moved, Mr. Chairman. >> Second. Okay, >> we have a motion and second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion to approve the November 18th, 2025 minutes, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Uh opposed, abstained. Motion passes 500. Um so next is any other business. And I do see a uh bond reduction in the um um in the portal. >> Oh, I didn't get that agenda. Yeah. I don't see it on the agenda. >> It's not on the agenda. Who was that for? I forget. >> Talico Street. >> Oh, right. Um, that came

169in. >> Can we add it to the sixth? >> Yeah. Can we add it to the sixth? >> Yeah. So, that's just >> I put it on there, but I didn't put it on the agenda. >> Bond reduction. >> So, yeah, the bond reduction is just construction has happened. We're going to subtract the Right. >> So, going to be a little longer before they get their money back, unfortunately. But, um, got to follow process. >> I put I must have put it out there on the board on here. It's not on the portal changed. Wait, >> it's not on the portal agenda. No. >> Okay. All right. We'll put January 6th. Okay. So that will be January 6th then. >> Yep. >> Uh any other business? >> Got your land use books latest edition. >>

170Oh yeah. >> They're a nice powder blue. >> Is there um any update on the um chapter of the um what is it called? master plan. >> I think we were planning on that for the sixth also. >> And we have a um a voluntary merger. >> The one that was going to be on the second, >> right? So, it could be a long agenda. >> Yeah, we figured it was going to be too much to put that on the agenda, right? >> We're already at two two and a half hours. >> So, yeah, >> that was a very >> It was One second. You won't get out of here before 11. >> Okay. Um, anything else? >> Which if not, um, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. >> You sure you want that? We

171could go on longer. [laughter] >> Just a personal record here. >> Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion second. Uh, any further discussion? >> Okay. All those I [laughter] I >> Okay, motion passes 500. Okay, thanks for um watching and attending the uh December 16th meeting. Our next meeting will be on January 6. Okay.