001Okay. Hello and welcome to the Tuesday, September 16th, 2025 meeting of the Lichfield Planning Board. Will everyone stand for the pledge of allegiance? I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay, we'll start with a roll call of members present. Jared Okonnell, vice chair. >> Russell Blanchett, member. >> Letha Riley, member. >> Jesse, no, alternate. Um, >> so we are missing uh several members. Uh Jeremy um >> Michael Croto who is our usual chair. Um >> Travis is out sick. Uh and we are also missing our uh selectman's rep. Uh so Jesse, would you like to um uh serve as voting member in absence of um the voting members? >> Yes, I
002do. >> Awesome. So yeah, I guess uh first will be public input on non-aggenda items. Does anyone have any input on items that are not on today's agenda? I just see an applicant uh only. So, uh no no no public input. So, uh the first item on our agenda is a conditional use permit for a detached ADU for at 141 Charles Breaker Highway. Applicant Vanessa Puilio. Um uh are you present? Uh come forward and uh address yourself to the board. >> Right. >> Hello. I'm Vanessa Pillo. Um 18 Mason Drive in Lfield and on behalf here we have on the homeowner of 141 Charles Bankro Highway. >> Okay. So um we have the u permit application form on the portal. So looking at that uh we'll start with um if it's ready for acceptance have
003all uh fees been paid and been notified if >> fees are paid but don't get notified. >> Yeah I guess just the ADU. Um, okay. So, >> and yes, application is ready for acceptance. >> Okay. Uh, would someone like to u make a motion to accept the application for completeness? >> Mr. Chair, I move that we accept the application for 141 Charles Braftoft Highway uh conditional use permit for a detached ADU. Um, >> okay. >> Did I say for acceptance? >> Yes, >> for plan acceptance. Okay. Yes. So that's my motion. >> Okay. Uh so we have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Um any uh further discussion? Okay. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying I. >> I. Those opposed? Those abstained? So motion passes.
004400. >> Um okay. So, we have to we'll have to go through it and uh make sure that it satisfies the requirements of the conditional use permit. Um would you like to uh discuss the um uh application? >> Sure. Um so, basically it's just adding a twobedroom, one bathroom um detached ADU. Um, that way we can keep family close and we don't have to go anywhere and we can help with family and property taxes. 780 square ft. >> Explain how what you're going to do with the garage and >> um Oh, yeah. So, the current garage is a 24x 24 structure. Um, we're bumping out 15x 24 ft behind it and that will be the detached entrance. And then above the garage, the current garage and the addition is where the livable space will be.
005>> Okay. Thank you. Does anyone on the board have any questions? >> I do. I'm curious what it's detached and attached at the same time. >> Because I see sharing a common party wall. So maybe you could just >> Yep. So, I did um confirm with the building inspector and he said because there's no way to access the current garage where it stands right now, it will be completely detached. It won't be sharing common space. >> I see. >> Happy. >> Okay. So, you did have a conversation with the building. Excellent. Great. >> Okay. Well, that's all I've got if it meets the other requirements. >> So, I'm going to pull up the um conditional use permit. Does anyone else have any questions or comments for the applicant? Um Jay, do you have any uh
006comments? >> Uh no. I I think it meets the requirements. >> Perfect. So, let's bring up the conditional use permit. So we'll have located on the sideyard with an entrance towards the side and rear. We'll have two bedrooms. No parking or driveway adjustments will be made. No additional curve cuts will be needed. constructed within an existing garage. The ADU is and will be on the same property as the primary home, will not be subdivided. Um, the ADU is solely for the family to be able to have a separate place that they can afford and not and will not be converted to a condo at any point. Okay. So, um you can find the requirements for accessory and dwelling units on the planning um planning board page on the Lichville New Hampshire uh website. Um and
007the main thing we need to just uh go through is the um the conditional use permit. So in addition to the performance standards um for the planning board to grant a conditional use permit for a detached ADU uh a the detached ADU shall be located only in the side or rear yard of the property. So >> it is it's like we have a picture included a picture of the current garage >> the side. So yeah it's going to basically built um >> behind that. Yeah. >> Um is the existing one being removed? >> Um it's not being removed completely. It's just the top half being removed. >> Okay. And then B attached a do shall not contain more than two bedrooms. Yep. It's a twobedroom. >> It's a twobedroom. So, it is at the limit.
008>> C. Parking and driveway access for the ADU shall be provided in a location and manner that maintains the single family appearance of the property. >> So, yeah, you won't even you won't even know. >> Yeah, it won't look that different. >> Uh D, no additional curb cut shall be provided. It's just going to use the same driveway. E the the detached ADU shall be developed within an existing garage, barn or other similar structure um or out building or shall be designed to be consistent with the character and appearance of the ex uh of the accessory drill buildings customary for a single family dwelling such as a garage barn or other building. So it's going to be modifications to the existing garage. Okay, >> so that should satisfy that. F. the detached ADU shall be
009located on the same lot and said lot shall not be sub subdivided in a manner that results in the separation of the detached ADU from the primary dwelling unit. Yeah, it's going to be right there. G the detached ADU primary dwelling or lot shall not be converted to a condominium or other legal form of ownership distinct from the ownership of the primary dwelling. And then there's some compliance stuff. So yeah, we're just going to have talk to a building inspector about that. >> Yep. Um, okay. So, does anyone have any comments or questions? >> So, I guess um if someone first public comment um I am not seeing anyone but if anyone would like to make public uh anyone from the public would like to comment on the um application uh please come forward. I'm
010seeing none. So, u back to the board. Um, if there are no more questions or comments, we would like to make a motion to u accept or to grant the conditional use permit. >> Mr. Chair, I move that we grant the conditional use permit for 141 Charles Bankraftoft Highway for detached ADU. >> Okay, we have a motion to >> second that. >> Okay. Uh any further comments or discussion? Okay. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> All those opposed and abstained. So m motion passes 4 0. >> So I think uh there you go. >> Congratulations. Have fun. >> Okay. >> I'll take the folder back when you get a chance. >> All right. Um, so next on the agenda is uh first consideration of possible
011zoning changes for March 2026. Um, so for that um over to >> So I I've got a couple um but we also have one that maybe we could start with that's in your portal and this was a suggestion from um the building inspector. It's really pretty simple. It is proposed as a modification to the definitions section um to modify the definition of um I got to go back to it of a a two family. Um basically just indicating that it means that it um they are have a you know shared they're separated by a party wall. So the basically I think the idea well Joan can probably speak better to the intent than I can. So, >> um I think I know why, but go ahead. >> Right. It would be a foundation to attic
012separation for with a bioresistant wall or horizontally. Um you could put a garage on either side, but according to the building inspector, it wouldn't work to have a garage in the middle like the ones on Tal the new ones on Talent Road. Um because we're saying that the dwellings have to be separated by the firewall, >> right? So you couldn't separate them by a garage or, you know, by a breezeway or something along those lines, >> right? >> You can there's also some of them you can see going right, you know, if you're going down 3A, as soon as you cross into Hudson, there's some on the left hand side that are like that. >> Kettle bells >> that have those in the middle dumbbells. I'd like to build more of those. >> So, I'm
013I'm opposed to making this change because I don't see any value to not allowing that style of construction. >> What? The garage in the middle? >> Yeah. Yeah. I think the garage in the middle makes good sense. >> It's definitely nice for the occupants. It's not as good for the character. Um, so it's >> Well, look at these buildings. If you look at the new ones on Talent Road, the character is all right, but um there's one on Page Road that didn't have a separation like this that um went round and round. >> What year was that built approximately? >> Which one? >> The one that it was on Pedro. >> Uh I really don't want to get into that one because name any numbers, but that was recently built. >> Recently built. >> Um
014these are brand new. Uh two of the two sets on talent road seven five and seven talent road. >> Yeah. Those on the the lots we subdivided >> they are recently. >> Yeah. >> They those are they must have had the necessary frontage for um they did >> because Yeah. >> And I think they indicated at the time their intent was to put duplexes. >> They did. >> Yeah. And when I saw this configuration being built, I thought, I like that. >> Yeah. Because you get more separation from the next >> Yeah. >> dwelling unit. >> Yeah. Like if if we put this um if we make this change, the consequence of that is they would probably tie some of the livable space around the garage, either on top of the garage or behind the
015garage to create that party wall, right? They >> probably not. They'd probably go with a different design. >> They'd probably put the garages on either side, >> right? Or under or >> or under if the land you have a bunch of townhouse duplexes that we already have so many that I guess the character and farmer just >> Yeah. The um with this design, they can probably share a driveway probably, right? I think they often do share the curb cut at least. >> Yeah, I don't think it looks great to have a driveway on each side of a structure. >> It would be impractical for that configuration with the garage in the center. It's an ideal configuration for a single driveway going up to both garages. >> Yeah, that's typically what you'd see. >> Yeah. So,
016we're definitely good to get public input on this one. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> See if the public has any strong opinions on the um >> I I'd be interested to hear Jeremy's take since he's he's the builder amongst us because I I think you know for newer construction I think you have from my perspective and I could be wrong but I think you have more options to make it fit with the character of the neighborhood that I know you're referring to. Whereas I think with some of the older homes, I think you're really limited to how you can um not end up with that dumbbell effect. I mean, I don't know how else to say it politely, but um I Yeah, I just think with the angles of the roofs that say already exist on
017some of the newer construction, it allows for more play um in building, but but I hear you. in some of the older homes where there's not as much of the architectural detail, um, some neighbors would would be diametrically opposed to looking across the street at at something and and yet I don't know how we could protect their ownership rights as well. Do you know what I'm saying? Yeah. >> Well, I don't think ownership their rights would be that disenfranchised with where you put the garage >> and the abuters would have the ability to come before the board if there was a plan proposed. >> Well, they well they wouldn't >> would we have the ability to say no, I guess, is really what it comes down to. >> Yeah, because I mean typically I'm sorry.
018No, I was gonna say if you put something like this in, you know, then you're you're really you can't say no despite what what the neighbors say, right? >> Well, right. Because it's I mean it's well, what's allowed is allowed. So, if this passes, you would have to have the units physically attached. >> Yeah. >> Um that would be, >> you know, that would be the zoning requirement. Um, but typically when we create a subdivision, uh, like in the case of Talent Road, they don't show us the design. We're not approving the design. We're just approving that they have a duplex. And so any way a duplex is allowed, they can do. >> Yeah. Yeah. And with with one of the duplexes that we had someone come to change the ownership type to a condominium
019style for a condex, that one had very little overlap. It was like probably the size of a few doors maybe in terms of area >> because their units were offset a lot, >> right? >> Um I don't know if that's what people would prefer or not prefer. It's just stretching a big property or big structure on a property that can fit it. Um and yeah, I don't know if that's good or bad for character. Um, >> you see it more in a place like Lichfield or in Hudson because the lots are larger. >> In Nasha, you don't see this style typically because they don't have the width. >> Yeah. Like if we wanted to have a different type of requirement, we could require a certain percentage of the building's like side or depth or the
020narrowest dimension be used to calculate the overlap percentage of the units, but I don't think that's worth it. >> Getting really complicated. >> Yeah, exactly. That's the problem. >> Overly so, >> right? Yeah, I >> mean, we're going to have more workshops, so we could certainly put it to another workshop and maybe get >> some more input from the board when we've got more members and >> Yeah. maybe the public. >> Do you think that could we could put out a message about when we have our next meeting to specifically ask for feedback on >> Absolutely. >> because I think we need input from the public on this. I don't think >> right >> the board members is a big enough sample size >> you know because I mean ultimately way the way the process
021works is we'll we'll have our workshops now we will schedule public hearings December January we have to have at least one in January maybe two but we could have them earlier too so they'll definitely be public hearings if whatever amendments get that far whatever we decide to do. Yeah, this is one where I don't know if we want to bring it that far yet. >> We might. We Yeah, exactly. But at least we can have workshops and if we notice them well enough, um we may get people coming. >> Waiting. >> Um will we have a workshop in our next meeting or will that agenda be very full? >> It's it's very light. >> So we Yeah, we So we could definitely have a workshop at our next meeting. It might be a good idea.
022Sounds good. Um, do we wish to formally ask for feedback from the public or notify them on the social media or something? >> Well, if you use social media, you only reach a certain targeted population. You don't reach the population >> more than social media. So certainly what we could do is rather than you know just say workshop we can list the items so that the public can see >> which items we're going to be discussing at that workshop um and have them up in the portal which is what we commonly do. >> Yeah. Exactly. >> Yeah. Does the newsletter in town go out on that Facebook page that apparently everybody looks at? >> Probably goes on the Lichfield page. Kim does one every month. Okay. Yeah. I mean, I know I've seen Kim's thing.
023I'm just wondering if that reaches the social media folks, too, because we get it on email. >> Yeah. >> And and you can find it on the town's website, right? And I find that to be really helpful to know what's going on. >> Um >> also be interesting to just know if there's um any sales data out there or value comparisons. You know, does this style sell for more than other styles? Is it more in demand? I I don't know. >> If I were a buyer in the market for for something of that configuration, I I would prefer that over the traditional mushed together units, >> tment building sort of style. >> Now, Corning Farm has four in a building. Where do they put the garage? Does everybody have a garage? Yeah, >> garages are
024under. >> Yeah, it's on the fronts of the units. So, the center two have um cor garages right up against each other and then you have one at each end. >> It looks pretty good. >> But there's living space above those garages. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. It's a very different design. Yeah. >> Take a look at that. >> Yeah. >> Not at all like the dumbbell um ones. >> Not at all. Yeah. >> Yeah. What did you have for? >> So, I've got two potentially three items. Two where I may have drafts. I don't think we need as many as I've brought. And and both of these are, you know, expressly to meet statutory changes. Do I need one more down there? Oh, we got to So, maybe coincidentally because of we had one on
025the agenda tonight, but um so state law changed um regarding ADUs and now ADUs both attached and detached have to be allowed by right. And there's a few other changes um also that come into play that are statutory. So, I'm just going to briefly walk through this. Um, there were a couple of one change I suggested that isn't statutory which we could certainly discuss. Uh, another that potential change I highlighted but didn't propose anything. Uh, so just starting on the first page um 50 uh section 50704B. Um, we our current requirement is that an ADU can't be less than 500 ft² or more than 800 square ft². Um, I suggested getting rid of the minimum only because I'm not quite sure why we have a minimum, but if we do that minimum precludes >> Tiny
026homes. Exactly. >> And that was what that minimum was put in there for was to preclude tiny homes. At the time, there was some concern about that. >> Right. I I think we're be beyond that concern level now. >> I think we would be and there are at least two manufacturers in our regions who want to produce tiny homes specifically because the statute has changed allowing detach use. So again, we can we can think about that, but I suggested eliminating it, but it's something to think about. >> What's the square footage of a typical tiny home? around 350 I think 300 350 they're obviously much smaller >> so then by eliminating the minimum so I understand it then and if somebody wanted to do a tiny home you were talking not as a primary resident
027you were talking as a >> as an ADA >> attached ADA >> yes >> okay >> and some of them so there's a one company in line bro >> that's looking to manufacture them and those are on wheels >> which is a whole different conversation but >> their concept is is you could actually bring it in and use it as long as it's needed and when you don't need it you could just take it away. Um and the other one I know of is Reed's Fairy Sheds that's interested in no surprise it really does make sense beautiful sheds. >> They're beautiful sheds. They have electricity there. So whether they go down that road or not, it really does make sense. So So that's just it's something to think about. Um the statute um says that
028an ADU it can be up to 900 square ft. However, a town could allow larger. So do we want to go to We do not have to go higher than our 800. Statute does not require it. Um it's just a question mark. I highlighted it for that reason. and do we want to go higher or not? >> Put some input into that. Um, we're getting a lot of applications and therefore sending a lot of applications to the zoning board, which I thought that's not the intent of the zoning board to keep sending everything to the zoning board. >> Right? If we're doing a lot of sending stuff to the zoning board, then we need to adjust our regulations. >> So, that's why I highlighted it. >> Do we want to raise the limit? And if
029so, to what? So, what are what's the majority of the things that go to the zoning board that >> they're around a thousand? Some of there's been a couple that are over a thousand. >> The biggest one was that garage that was on top of >> the one that was on top of the garage. >> Okay. >> I think a thousand wouldn't be wouldn't be unreasonable. I think if you get into,200, then you're talking about two dwelling units. >> Yeah. >> Can we see some data though? I mean can we see like in the last two three years what's come what 80 years have come uh into the town you know basically what has come in and what have we had to send to the zoning board. would like to see sort of a breakdown
030and to see the largest amount because at what point does it become like just >> a really big addition for grandma with multiple access points and her own separate kitchen? I mean, don't get me wrong. >> I want one of those, but >> but I'm I'm just I'm curious to know what the demand is in this. Well, what's happening now is smaller builders have figured out, oh, if they just put an addition on, >> don't connect it. Just have a hallway going to that. Don't make it a separate unit. They can do whatever they want. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. >> Figured that one. >> Yeah, we're having that >> discussion. I think we need I'd feel more comfortable with data that tells me what like before you strike a number to just say, okay, well,
031what's the what's been the demand out there? because I I know what it is in the surrounding area based on on what I do for a living, but that doesn't mean that's the case here in Lichfield. So, I'd be curious to know what people are thinking here and what they're attempting to do in Lichfield. >> We can get some of that data and uh maybe we can also do a little bit of a kind of what are surrounding communities doing. We can look at that also. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, I'll bring that for our next workshop. >> Be helpful. Thanks. Inspector >> I planned about 950 square feet. I saw there was an 800 ft limit so I shelf the project and >> Okay. So you would be one of those who would
032would be an informal data point but not necessarily a formal one. >> Okay. >> I'm someone who didn't bring forward a plan that would have had zoning various >> put it aside in the drawer and forgot about it. >> Sure. >> Would you have not so you didn't want to continue with it that any smaller than that size? It wouldn't have been practical for what we were trying to accomplish. >> Were you planning on having family? >> Yeah, I was I was going to um move into the new part of the the building and enjoy some new construction >> and stick my son, wife, and grandkids >> in the shabby old house. >> Yeah, there's like a limit to how small you accept like you accept living. >> I've got stuff I spread out. I
033need square feet. >> Yeah, >> I think the kids are used to more square feet these days, too. So, I can't say anecdotally and whether it's something you treat differently or not, but I know from Nashwa and Hudson a common variance application is where they're converting the basement and you kind of have this fixed square footage. What do you do with the rest of you? You know, it doesn't make sense to do threequarters of the basement. Yeah. >> You know, and so that's that's a common one that we see. Leaving it unfinished is one option. >> Leaving part of it unfinished is and usually there is a you know well the furnace room is common and so but still you wind up with these weird scenarios. So that but that's a that's a common variance.
034Um and those often come in around a thousandish depending on the size of the house >> based on the footprint. Yeah. >> Right. So we'll get that we'll get some more information on that and bring it in. We can think about it. And that's also a great place to get some input. >> Yeah. >> And maybe people will show up to our meetings. Yeah. We put out there say, "We're gonna talk about this." >> That would, >> you know, how many Russes out there do we have who didn't come forward because they thought, "Oh, it's not worth it for me to do less." >> That's a good point. And the moment has passed. My son bought a house, so >> yeah, >> you know, I don't need to build an addition now for housing the
035family, >> right? >> There was a point in time where it was seriously considered. plans are drawn up and >> Sure. >> Yeah. It takes money and time and >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, turning the page um since we So, so because you have to allow both attached and detached by right, we can no longer require a conditional use permit. >> So, under section five, right? I know. I know. It it I it just from a staff perspective, it still leaves us with a we have an ordinance and this is what it says. >> The rules >> it's a yeah >> like if we reject it, there probably could have been like >> if we rejected it would have been a problem. Yes. Um so in so instead of saying conditional permits, I just
036changed it to additional requirements for detached accessory dwelling units. Um and then moving on down, instead of planning board, it's the building inspector who will just grant a building permit. So, prior to um granting a building permit, these have to be met. Um going down to E. Um, we are no longer able to impose aesthetic requirements or constraints on a detached ADU unless we apply the same to the principal dwelling. So, I kind of figured let just the easiest thing to do is strike the language about customary accessory dwelling, you know, buildings, garage bar, whatever. They're just allowed to do a a detached ADU and >> make it look like the house. >> It can Right. I mean, >> an addition. Yeah. >> So, >> that's actually really it for the changes. Those are really
037straightforward because pretty much that's just what statute requires. The real areas, I think, a debate or the minimum, the maximum, and we have flexibility there. So the um tiny home you mentioned is that first one you mentioned basically a mobile home. >> Well, I don't know that it meets the definition of a mobile home. It would have met the definition of a mobile home or manufactured housing under a bill that was proposed specific to manufactured housing and expanding the opportunities for it. also tinkered with the definition. I'm not sure that it does under the current one. Um, the one that I saw in Lion Bro was very small. It was about 180 square ft. Uh, not counting the loft. Um, so there was a bed in the loft. It was extremely small. They do make
038them up to double that size. um I guess probably >> with regard to the classification on wheels and whether it's mobile manufacturing um there's there's a lot of confusion out there right now and frankly absolutely nobody's put a stake in it. Um banks are confused uh you know it's we're we're seeing it everywhere in the appraisal world right now. Um, it's very similar. The the be best similarity I can give you is very similar to the issue with, you know, how the ebike has come along. >> You know, it's a bike, but it goes how many miles an hour and it's on the road. Does that make it a car? Should it be licensed? You know, all of that. Yeah. It's like, is it or isn't it? And wait a minute. So, it's the same
039type of debate and question and that's going on in the the housing world right now. Like the tiny home, is it on, you know, if it came in on wheels and it's still does it have a chassis and can it be removed? Is it personal property? Like I, you know, we get all of that. It's um >> it's really confusing. Um and I don't think there's a definitive >> um statement on on it yet, to be honest. I think that's true. >> Yeah, I would imagine that a structure that has its own foundation that is sized properly for it would um be more valuable than one that is on wheels or can be >> Oh, for sure. >> So, pop off the wheels. >> This is just uh if somebody wants to look on my
040phone, this is what one looks like inside. Very small. Um, and I can send people pictures of these and I can show you what it looks like on the outside. >> They have to have some of course you have an outhouse. >> It needs to have it needs to be uh habitable and it needs to have a kitchen. >> Yeah. >> Right. That's an exterior shot. >> Really, really tiny. >> That definitely does look like a permanent structure right here. >> Right. So yeah, I think I think it'd be worth having, you know, we'll put it on the next time we'll get some examples. We'll get some data on the zoning board. in is there any update on the um potential um law that was passed by Congress um to be given for to be
041signed by the governor regarding the changes with requirements for um the manufactured housing. >> I don't I my understanding was that didn't pass. >> Okay. So, it's not going to be signed into law this year. Will there be another attempt? Probably. >> Yeah, that would very much uh affect towns like ours and many of the surrounding ones because you're not allowed to put those on properties um unless it is temporary due to destruction or major repair. >> Right. There are almost no towns that allow them on individual lots. Yeah. >> You know, unless there's been a fire and you're rebuilding and you can have it for one year or something, that's that's usually the case. >> Exactly. So, yeah, that type of law would >> majorly affect >> that would have a major effect. >>
042Yeah. >> Um Yeah. So, yeah, that didn't pass. Could it come back? Yes. Um maximum lot sizes are probably coming back also. Um I hear there may be one prohibiting limits on culde-sac length. >> Um so there's >> we don't have that, >> right? We don't have that. Um but there so there's a yeah there's a few that are going to bubble up for sure. What survives I think is the question ultimately. Um I know NHMA is already gearing up to oppose any mandates. So, I don't get excited, you know, until we're way down way down in the process. >> It's on the governor's desk. >> Yeah. I mean, certainly it's got to pass at least, you know, um because usually these bills are there's going to be a negotiation. What passes the Senate's different
043than the House, so there's amendments and then you've got a committee of conference. And if it comes out of that, then I'll pay attention. Yes, >> there's only so much bandwidth. There's so many bills that can introduce, you just can't >> I I for people who are lobbying and that's their thing, of course, but yeah, I can't get too excited. So, the next one I have in here is for um home child care, family child care. So, we had a change in state law. This was actually last year and it's a little odd when I first got to it. Um, and so the way the statute was written is you have to allow home child care facilities um either by right or as a conditional use. Those were the only two options. So special exception,
044you can't do it. It's got to be by right or conditional use. So, I thought we were fine, but then I realized actually I'm not sure what a home occupation is. What form does it take? The statute says you can't require site plan review. So, what is it? Um, so I think the best way to deal with it is to just say, uh, it's a conditional use permit. Planning board's empowered to allow it. So now, um, what we would have is the way our ordinance is structured is we have home occupations that are by right and home occupations that require planning board review. So what I did and this is a deeper in your packet if I I didn't say that. Um so what I propose is changing in instead of home occupations requiring planning
045board approval it would be home occupations requiring conditional use permit. Nothing else substantatively is changing for most things except that there were some other requirements um other changes that happened in the statute. So these are just reflecting statute nothing else. So the first one is terminology and I am going to have to double check because we'll probably have to change we might have to change the definition in the definition section also was a part of an article. So in uh they're now instead of family child care it's now called family home and group child care facilities. So I figure let's just use the statutory language. Um and they are two different things. So we have to allow both. Um again as conditional uses. Um the next where you see the six struck it's only because
046there was only one place where we said six and then the letter six. Other places we just say the number. So I just say let's stop doing that. Um so the very end the all the language that we currently have um is the way it used to be in the statute but they now added um that last line provided that the afterchool and holiday increase in capacity is permitted by the state fire code and in compliance with any local ordinance. Well that seems reasonable. Um, and then now we have another category that we didn't used to have called family group daycare home facilities. Those are larger. They're 7 to 12 children. And um, again, these are the specific requirements. And once again, it's exactly the same as family um, home child care facilities. It's just
047larger. And I took it straight out of the statute. So that's what it says. That's what I put in. When it comes to adult daycare, there were no changes in the statute for adult daycare. So I didn't address that at all. The only change there is again I used conditional use language. Um so that's it. Now I will say I only put these two sections in. I did not put in the entire ordinance. So if you see there's section 504 home occupations. There were no changes to any of this. I jumped from 504 to 504.03. That's just because there's no changes in that area. >> What happens to the existing uh daycarees? I have two that are home occupations. What happens to those? >> There they were approved under the old statute. They just stay
048the way they are. >> Yeah, they'll just stay the way they are. >> Okay. >> Yeah. But anything coming forward now? So, I mean really it's it's mainly a change in nomenclature >> and following what the statute says? >> Yep. And do you think that the family group daycare will be able to be done under the requirements of up to two non-family employees on the premises? >> Well, that's a good question. probably I would think so >> because you still have the family member so the up to two additional would I think meet the ratios it's a good question we should double check that but I would >> I think it's reasonable my only question is is that going to be okay with state statute >> well it it is a good question because there
049are requirements for how many caregivers whatever the correct term is per uh children or >> it's more than one but how many children per caregiver and I think that's age based >> correct so it might limit really young facilities facilities that have really young children >> right it may it's a good question there's nothing in the statute that I saw about it but I'll double check that but that's also maybe not such a bad thing just because 12's kind of a lot. >> Yeah. And at that point, we have parts of town where you can just have a full-on daycare in a commercial facility, >> right? And and it, you know, if you have more than two employees, you know, you start to have more of an issue around parking and more of the likelihood
050that it looks like a commercial facility, which has really never been the intent. >> Yeah. >> so yeah, hopefully we don't have to change that. So these would only be homebased. >> These are homebased. >> The ones that are coming in as commercial would be under some other ordinance. >> Yes, that would just be commercial and those are in a commercial zone. So those would be >> So yeah, but it's a good point. I I think I'll I'll look up the regulations on that. So we have an understanding of what those ratios mean. >> Sounds good. >> Yeah, it's kind of a lot. So that's what I came up with here. Obviously, we'll put those on for the next one. Also, the only other one um that I kind of want to throw out, I
051did not make a bunch of copies for everyone, although I could certainly circulate one and I will email it to everyone. Um is if anybody wants to see a print copies. So, um Clean Energy New Hampshire came out with a model um solar zoning ordinance and and they are promoting this. The reason why I didn't take this further yet is there was um a workshop um you know a um where's where's my brain a webinar um so I wanted to attend that and just see what they were talking about and get a little better understanding. Uh obviously they are a clean energy advocacy organization so that's why they're promoting it. They want to encourage solar. Um, my thinking though in looking at it was I really never gave it within the context of Lichfield a
052whole lot of thought cuz we really don't address it. Uh, and I know it's kind of come up in passing a couple of times because Lichfield has these wide open agricultural fields that, you know, could be desirable locations for solar >> and access to a lot of power lines. Yeah, Litfield is close to has some of the main lines for >> because you're close to the airport and their grid. >> Yeah. So, um it's why Lichfield was considered as a site for a nuclear power plant back in the 50s or 60s. >> Oh, really? Really? >> Yeah. PS bought land at one time and >> Oh, the river considering building. >> You could see that Seabrook here. >> Well, we might have to be thinking about that with the new smaller ones that they're talking
053about down the road. But I I guess as I as I >> they have solar. >> Oh yeah. Um as um as I was going through the draft, I I realized that there are a lot of different ways you can have solar and what we want or what we don't want is one question, but we don't address any of it. So rooftop solar is an obvious and that and that's as an accessory use. And that's that's pretty much allowed and you pretty much have to allow that. Um, groundmounted is a little different and I know we have ground mounted and I'm not quite sure how we're regulating that cuz I don't think we have anything in our ordinance. Um, so groundmounted is a thing and then when it comes to groundmounted there is I was
054looking through it polemounted, rack mounted, in ground on ground dual use. I'm like oh well that's kind of interesting. >> Yeah. And some of the the polemounted ones actually move with the sun and they they get the the right angle more it they're way more efficient and way more successful in >> my neighbor has one of those >> providing the power. Yeah, it's very um >> so it just raised the question in my mind of >> good raising the question because >> right is is I know in some other communities there's been controversy around them. I know there was controversy around Salman Hollis where people didn't like what they were looking at. So it just caused me to think, gee, should we be having a conversation around this? Should we be thinking about creating some
055sort of ordinance? And then the other key part is uh uh in all, you know, in the cases of residential homes or some commercial, it's it's an accessory use. >> Um but then there is also solar arrays as a primary use. >> And is that something we want to contemplate? And if so, where? Industrial zones, commercial zones, all of the above, none of the above, is it by right? Is it a conditional use? Um, so yeah, that kind of got me thinking, one of these days we are probably going to have someone come in, >> right, and want to do this. Is it something we want to think about proactively or do we feel like absolutely not? We don't want these and we're going to prohibit them. But I I figure the we should probably
056have I don't know that we want to go that far, but I think we should have the conversation. There's also the dual use um ones which I think are interesting. Um those are where you have active agriculture alongside solar arrays. So that can be sheep grazing, it can be beekeeping. Um, there are different ways to do it. Those are usually kind of going back to those distinctions, those are usually mounted on the ground, not in the ground. So, they're like on a pad. Um, so there's no permanent alteration of the land. They can go back to being plowed fields. >> Generally, there's useful space under >> and there Exactly. They're designed either because of their height or their spacing. They're designed to allow for grazing. sometimes actual cultivation between them. So those are so that
057just got me thinking maybe this is a conversation we should have and maybe we should start thinking about what do we want, where do we want it. >> Yeah. And this there are also instances where they will put solar arrays on top of parking lots. >> Absolutely. And those canopy style ones and I've parked under those. They're actually really great. >> They're expensive. Um, but to have the benefit of generating solar while keeping your car shaded is really nice. >> Yeah, it is. >> And partly sheltered. It's great. >> Yeah, we should definitely not prohibit that. >> That's probably I mean that's a that's an example of a dual use that probably should be absolutely allowed in a commercial zone. Um, >> yeah, >> at least in a commercial zone. Um, so yeah, maybe we
058only allow dual use or maybe one's allowed by right and one isn't. But >> yeah, I would definitely want feedback from the public for the fields of solar because >> I think so. I think commercial primary use solar arrays might not be something people want to see. >> Yeah. The only one in our area that I've seen is the one on Fidelity's land. >> Yeah. It's huge. >> Yeah. is tore down a bunch of woods and put solar panels in there. >> Yes. >> And landfills are popular. Um so I know there's one proposed in Hudson. Manchester has one um in Nshawa. Penachuk has put one in next to Penach Junior High School or middle school. You can't see it really, but they've done a groundmounted um solar array. I I don't know that that's
059just sold commercially. We could also, if it was of interest, um, we could bring someone in from Clean Energy or Revision Energy, one of those groups who does these and talk about them. Um, that might have some value. >> It'll be interesting after you've attended the webinar to to hear >> Oh, I did already. That's Yeah, that's why I waited to put anything together until I did. That's why I don't have anything together. Uh, I also wasn't sure if it if >> if we wanted to go down this road. I didn't want to start taking the time to craft language until we had a sense of a direction. So, at very least, what I'll do is I'll I'll email everybody this publication. >> Yeah, please. >> And um you know, if there is more uh
060interest, the expiration of the tax credits may well reduce the push. Um >> it's the end of this month, right? >> I thought it was the end of the year. Is it the end of the month? I think it's the EV tax credit goes away at the end of the month. Other tax credits expire at the end of the year. Yeah. >> I'm looking at a biomass heat system right now that its credit expires at the end of the year. >> Yeah. >> So that may change the push for some of these. Um, >> but regardless whether it does and it doesn't, to your point earlier, if one of these requests comes our way, at the very least, we should have >> something out there that says allowed here, not allowed here, you know, allowed
061this way, not allowed that way. >> That's that's kind of what I'm thinking. Yeah, >> I agree with you >> cuz realistically I think with the parking lot canopies >> um that is usually missiondriven because they're expensive. >> You're people are usually doing them >> because they want to it's part of their environmental consciousness. But that that doesn't mean we couldn't see it. We absolutely could see somebody coming in and wanting >> to do something like that. So >> the payback period for that is probably so long that it's not the most economically feasible without those other types of incentives. >> I think that's true. Um >> but the groundmounted ones, >> they can pay for themselves. >> They can uh and dual use or accessory use >> can can make sense. So all right,
062we'll we'll entertain it. I'll send it to everybody. We can think about it and see if we go from there. Yeah, I can definitely imagine the farmland being someone wanting to put them there. >> I can absolutely imagine that. >> Yeah. It makes good sense. Power lines are nearby to tie into. >> We need an all all the above energy strategy and this is one of those >> back to the >> the electric company. >> Yeah. >> Right. Uh and and if that's something we wanted to allow or allow in certain cases, then maybe that's where you say, well, okay, but it's on ground, not in ground, or you know, >> it's got to be this way, or we'll allow only dual use, or however, right? However, we want to >> I can imagine a
063dual use requirement where they just don't farm it anymore. I could too. >> Which >> but then you lose the benefit of the income from farming that property, >> right? >> Yeah. But if they're I can imagine them maybe unofficially intending to not farm it anymore and just say, "Oh, we're going to farm it." >> And then not, >> right? Well, if you don't put the sheep out there, then you're going to at least have to mow it. I >> want to say it's a source of income no matter how you look at it. you know, somebody's somebody's going to use it for, to your point, grazing something or planting something or farming something. And in this case, it might be electricity. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Yeah. So, >> right. Or planting wild flowers
064between them and raising bees. >> Um, >> I'm not aware of many animal farms in Lichfield. Mainly just crop farms. >> Yeah, there was one. Um, but I don't know if they're still there. We're selling >> Normington has still has animals. >> Yeah. >> Is that the one near >> GMS. >> Great. >> And then he has some cows further down >> because at least you used to be able to go online and like buy a cow. >> Yeah. >> Oh, cool. >> Yeah. Or half a cow or >> That's awesome. >> Fresh beef. >> All right. Well, at very least, I'll send it out to everybody. We'll put on the agenda for the next workshop and we can give it some thought and maybe come up with some other examples. Great. Thanks for your
065work on that. >> Should we formally um like request a um social media post regarding the planning board wanting feedback on >> these potential items? >> Yeah. >> How does that work? >> Uh I don't know when can we do the next newsletter. >> So we can ask >> in September. I'll ask her >> whether it'll come in time for the next one. I'm not sure, but we could ask >> or at least put it out there as these are some of the things. Did you know these are some of the things the planning board is talking about this month? You know, >> there's a news item on the town website. Link that to the socials. >> Yeah, I think yeah, official news item on the town website is >> I think something that would
066be beneficial. >> So, who's going to write the copy for that? >> Jared, we choose you. No, really doesn't need to be like I don't think it requires anything more than a couple of bullets. Like did you know the planning board is talking about these things in the coming months? You know, right board is looking for uh feedback, opinions on the size of accessory dwelling units, um duplexes, um >> yeah, if you have strong opinions, you know, let us know. >> And maybe solar. >> Yeah. >> What are your thoughts on that? Yeah. >> Yeah. I think we need input from the public for this in order to create any valuable um ordinance proposals. >> I think so. Yeah. >> Okay. So, is there anything else to discuss in today's workshop? >> Stolen. >> I
067do want to float an idea. I've been um looking around at the possibility of putting electric vehicles in our ordinances and requiring any new construction for residential new construction to include a provision that uh EV chargers can be installed in a practical way. And I found that the city of Lebanon has some really good uh language in their their zoning ordinance. If there's any interest uh among the board members, I could uh put together a presentation for our next meeting. If if not, I'll just give it up. >> Yeah, it might make sense. I know that um regarding the developments that have happened recently, I know Corning Farm, I think he said that he was including EV chargers in the garages, but I asked Reggie and he is not including them in the uh at
068least in the default configuration of the Talico Street development. Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Uh and I highly doubt the development off of at the bottom end of town um where BAE Systems was. >> I highly doubt there are chargers on that one. >> And I'm not asking for chargers. I'm just asking for provisions for a a properly sized breaker panel that you can add a breaker to. Wire already in the walls so you don't have to tear up the walls to pull wire >> like realistically. >> So all you have to do is is put a breaker in the panel. put a uh you know an end on the wire to plug into the car, >> right? >> The cost difference between running the wire versus adding the breaker and the plug is not very
069big. So, >> okay. >> I think the I would find it reasonable to expect the outlet. >> Yeah. >> Right. Cuz that's easily added so long as you're wired for it. >> It's probably just >> an NEMA 650 or something along those lines. $500 of added labor and parts to the cost of new construction. >> I mean, it's definitely something there's two contexts, you know, one is the residential and the commercial. Should commercial be allow, you know, providing a certain number? If so, what type of commercial? Uh where does it make it makes sense where people are going to be for a period of time? >> Yeah. Um, >> don't you think the devel I mean, you tell me. I'm not I'm not um being argumentative at all actually. I think it's a great idea.
070I just I'm curious though from a developer standpoint. They're going to they're going to do things that they find they can market to the public, right? And if they felt that they needed to do that, they probably already would be doing that, right? if there were a critical mass of electric vehicles already on the road. >> But I think that's a future state that we're going to find ourselves in. And you're going to have a lot of homeowners whose developments are taking place now that don't have the provision in their buildings to easily add the the charging um that could exist if if we had some mechanism and zoning to require. Remember when Arano came in, who is going to buy this gas station, he was not going to put in uh charging now because
071the next generation would fit more vehicles. >> It was a problem that only Tesla was fitting into. >> Well, and it's hit or miss, too. I I remember the town of Derry had years ago, like maybe 15 years ago, had gotten some kind of grant or something from the the state. I don't know if it was federal government or state. And they put in all of these chargers. And the idea was that put them in these downtowns, right? So that people can plug in and it was good for the downtown because you could walk around and shop and while you're waiting and it brought people into the downtowns and that was the intent. And what actually happened was they were never used hardly ever. >> Well, at the time there probably weren't enough. No, but
072I mean even and even so much so in the last several years, they didn't know what to do with them, you know, and okay, people would come in every once in a while and plug in and whatever, but they didn't they didn't achieve the downtown shopping uh mecca that they were hoping that it would be. And I don't know what they've done with them since. Um, but I, you know, for all I know, they probably had some town vehicles that maybe plug in there now. But, you know, these a lot of these things come along, investments are made, and then stuff isn't utilized necessarily the way that you think it's going to be. So that's why I asked the question about the developers because I would imagine if it's in their best interest and um
073to to to build market share uh to to do it and it the cost isn't all that prohibitive. I'm sure they would be doing it. Um, you know, when we when we installed a generator, uh, in our house, we had to increase the the panel, right? You know, same type of thing, I would imagine, for an electric vehicle. >> Um, yeah. Uh, I don't know. >> Yeah, an EV just requires a standard double pole breaker typically, like somewhere between 30 and 50 amps. >> Okay. um which you just have to make sure you have enough um space in the panel and >> and capacity in the service >> that you don't have like 100 amp service cuz >> 40 50 amps is a big chunk of a 100 amp panel which does not work well
074>> and if you have uh development of multiple units um do they all get that >> realistically any new construction house will have minimum 200 amp service and you can easily add for that. >> Yeah. Um >> it's multif family I think where you have more of the challenge. >> That's what I worry about the consumption too. >> Do we require too many and not have enough vehicles to service and meanwhile every parking space has a charger? I think that's not the intent here. >> Like >> some minimum, you know, maybe one for every three units or something something we can arrive at that makes sense for the density. >> Yeah. >> Are you thinking like a requirement? Is that what you >> I am thinking about a requirement for this. Yeah. For any residential
075development to include some level of of service compatibility. >> Yeah. For a multif family one like the one that might come across um from the um golf um range there. Um, having service available in the garage structures would probably be a huge improvement over nothing, >> right? And that's all I'm thinking require is just the wire must exist in place when the building is developed. The the panel must have the capacity to service that wire >> and then it's up to the the future owner or occupant to put in the charger, put in the breaker. And if it's a multif family structure, they would probably also need to have a meter put in. >> Sure. >> It'll have to be set up so that meters can be put in inside the garage units. And like
076even if it's not every garage unit, that's okay. Someone can park a little further from their unit if they can't get a unit near the charger. But in order to own electric vehicle, you need to charge it. Realistically, it's like home charging is the most practical way of doing it unless you have a work that subsidizes the charging because fast charging is not really at all for use with typical use. It's typically for just traveling. So, >> I'm not so sure how I feel about dictating to it, but I am I am open to listening to any of you. Like, if you wanted to tell us more, I'm I'm open to hearing about >> another presentation for the board. >> Yeah. >> Our future workshop, I'll bring this forward. >> Sure. >> It's great. That's
077also a great one to get input on. >> Yeah. Right. >> Yeah. Let's add that to the news. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Let's Let's add that to that. >> Yeah. And then there's >> and it would be interesting to know from the town how many of of the cars that are registered in Lynchfield. I'm a data person. Can you tell? Um of the cars that are registered in Lynchfield, how many of them are electric vehicles? Either full electric or or hybrid it would get great. You know, it would be great data to get and and it doesn't mean that you couldn't have more people. What's the Yeah, exactly. And what was it 5 years ago, 10 years ago? Like, you know, >> and how many people in town are on the slate uh waiting list?
078How many people have paid a deposit for a slate vehicle? >> True. >> Fine. >> Like on the board, we have two EVs already on the board of board members. Um me and Jeremy >> have electric vehicles. Um but yeah, also lit um New Hampshire is one of probably a lower adoption compared to a lot of our neighboring states because we have zero incentives whereas >> well just has some incentives. >> It also takes 20 minutes to get to the supermarket. So you know I mean it's a little different you know I mean we >> where they don't have chargers. >> Yeah. I mean I it's Yeah. We have a lot of Yeah. We drive a lot here. Yeah, >> of all the places I've ever lived, I've never driven more than I've driven here.
079It's absurd. >> Oh, yeah. The horror stories regarding EV ownership are typically those who are in multif family scenarios. So, you definitely have to address that. I guess >> my out ofstate relatives visiting with EVs. >> Yeah. >> Where do they charge? >> Whole Foods. You go over to Whole Foods. >> Elm Street Garage in Nashville. >> Oh, okay. >> So, it's it's been kind of a hassle. either I have to follow and drive there so they could charge it and they're driving back or Yeah, >> you're good. >> It is interesting how few places there are that are public >> around here. >> It's not great here. >> It's not great. Fezantine Mall, you can go down there. >> Yep. I've charged there before. >> Yeah. >> Um I've charged in uh Mall New
080Hampshire has too. And then in New H in New Hampshire, there's some chargers in conquered for I think Conquer has some definitely Tesla ones. And then north of that, the only ones are Tesla ones. >> And there's places where you don't really feel comfortable leaving your car overnight, >> you know, or for, you know, several hours. So there's that, too. >> Yeah. >> But that's a whole different. So yeah, requiring EV chargers in home construction would be a little bit tougher cell because >> there's nothing stopping the homeowner from paying to add it later or paying to >> the inconvenience of tearing up that wall from the breaker panel to the driveway to run the wire in the house and then hoping that you have sufficient capacity in that breaker panel when at construction time
081this could have all been calculated out that the loads would have been properly set in the panel. The wire would be in place. Even if it's just a dark wire, >> some point you light it up. >> Just put a breaker in at that point. Running the wires like most of the labor, >> right? So, let's avoid that future labor by requiring it right at the start. >> Yeah. Like with in this running wire is no fun. In this year, it definitely doesn't really make sense in in my opinion to build houses without an outlet in the garage for it. >> But what about a house without a garage? >> You can every house is built with a garage. >> You can have an out out exterior outlet for >> Right. >> Yeah. So, let's
082include that as part of the requirements for the construction of those units. >> Just an outlet. >> Yeah. or even just the wire if it's too much of a burden to the developer to put a breaker in there. Make sure the panel can accept that breaker at some future point. Make sure that there's a spot near the driveway to put that outlet and then have the wire in place. If everything else is too much to ask, put the wire there and then drywall over it and it's there and it can be lit up at some point in the future when it's needed. >> Yeah. I still have to pay to put in a level two charger. Yeah, I'm >> I'm going to have to do that when Slate does release their trucks and I do
083buy my cute little Slate truck, tear up the walls and pull the wire and all that. >> I'll wait until your presentation because I am I am very open to hearing it. But you're talking to a person too who doesn't feel that this the the infrastructure in this country or this state or this area can handle the roads can't handle all those electric vehicles, the the weight of them, the bridges can't handle it. I mean I you know we can go the grid can't handle it but not that heavy compared to a normal car. It's just like a heavy normal car. >> It's just the battery weight's definitely a thing. But >> yeah, >> and the future state is the cars are really smaller and more affordable so that folks who don't have millions of
084dollars to spend on a Tesla >> can buy a practical vehicle for under $30,000 and just have a runabout to get back and forth to the grocery store. But yeah, in terms of yeah, infrastructure, yeah, home charging is definitely what is necessary to to help promote the adoption, not public chargers. Um, yeah. Okay. So, I'll I'll put together a presentation for our workshop. >> Sounds share that with everyone and >> we can discuss and move forward with whatever we choose. >> Thank you, Russ. >> Yeah. Thanks for thinking outside the the norms. That's good. >> Are there uh any other items uh to be considered for uh zoning changes like anything that has been brought up in prior um subdivisions or anything like that? >> I tried to look back and I didn't really see
085um much that was out there. there was um I don't my personal view is I don't think this is a sufficient issue in Lichfield but um I did look back a couple of years ago the question of um Airbnbs came up um you know short-term stay short-term rentals do we want to develop something around that my sense is is there's just not a lot of that in Lfield the area >> right >> in a few units is not going to cause problems hopefully That was kind of my sense is there I I don't see an issue. I don't see a problem that that needs to be solved. So, but what in looking back I kind of just went back prior years. What did we talk about and not move forward or that was one there
086was really not a lot else. The one that we really kicked down the road for years was the mixed use which we finally adopted. And regarding like the Tal Rico Street subdivision, some there were some proposals for zoning changes by residents. Um, >> like I personally don't feel like it's necessary to add like the culde-sac length limit. That doesn't seem worth it to me. >> But that was that was definitely one that came up. >> It came up. Um, >> would that fly under the new state laws? Uh that's it's that's definitely being targeted for next year. >> Yeah. >> Part of the reason they're targeting it is because in a lot of areas it is these kind of back lots that are available for development and culde-sac length restrictions can make it prohibitive >>
087to develop them. So that's also why it's been zoomed in on. There's also the question of requiring secondary egresses for certain developments. >> Um, we don't require it unless the fire department says this looks like a safety hazard and then we >> right >> ask them to do it. I don't know if it how enforceable that is. Um, >> and very often it's emergency only. >> Yeah. >> Like Rose Meadows has that emergency. >> Yeah. They got an easement through the um >> through the neighboring >> lobster boat property. >> So, do we want to codify any requirements for developments larger than certain amount having a minimum second press for emergency? >> If we did, my sense is that would be subdivision site plan regulation, not really zoning because that's where we get into those
088details. Mhm. >> Um >> now would that require um a town vote on that? >> Yeah. >> So that that would be easier, >> right? There are more things we need to address in subdivision and site plan regulations, but I figure maybe we we did so much with storm water and um then we did parking. So maybe we focus on zoning and then come back to subdivision site plan. We don't have to do it that way, but feels like we've got a few meaty items here. >> Yeah. And I think the focus should be on, you know, anticipating the next, you know, the next problem, the next challenge, right? Versus just trying to solve every little oneoff, you know. um if we can stick with the big stuff and it seems like you did that
089with mixed use and um over time you guys have been very thoughtful about what you address and and when um I think is if that's the that's the mindset keep going forward I think it'll be fine but I think if we I' I've seen other talents do this before where they they start nitpicking and get into all of this. You can't do this, you can't do this, you can't do this, you can't do this and it it becomes a nightmare and then nobody wants to nobody wants to come to your town, you know, and we don't want that. Um, so you got to find that delicate balance and it seems to me Lichfield has kind of always had that, maintained that. Um, very thoughtful about their growth. So I think you know as long as
090you continue in that vein >> I think that's true >> it'll be good. >> Yeah the town spent a lot of time mix is a good example I that we spent a lot of time on that both the ordinance and then working through the design guidelines you know that was a significant investment. >> Yeah. Have there been any um um applications that are in the pipeline for any mixeduse developments? >> No. No, not yet. >> I suspect there will be though. Yeah, probably >> way tough to start coming down, I think, before you you see some of that, >> which they might >> There's going to be a lag, but Yeah. >> Yeah. But yeah, clearly they did the test pits um in the lot >> you see all the the posts where they did.
091It's, you know, it's a challenging business when from the time you get approval to the time you're actually constructing to the time you're selling, so much can happen in that time space. So, it's >> Yep. And time is money. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. with the uh Terico subdivision. The amount of time from when he started the process to getting in front of the planning board and it was ages in front of us >> and then dealing with state permits and then he started listing them. He still has some listed but he some of them look nearly complete. >> So long process for those. >> It's a long process. >> Yeah. And you can get, you know, significant changes in economic conditions >> during that time, good or bad. >> Looking at the um listing
092prices, I'm sure some of them are good, >> but that will not always be the case. >> Okay. Any other things to discuss during our uh workshop? >> More to come next time. >> Yes. So next on the agenda is return of Dave Lwell >> escrow amount at $288 Charles Bankcraft highway remainder of $427 plus interest. >> Why is this on ours not like the town selectment? >> Cuz we held the escrow account. >> Ah >> for for developers. Okay. >> Is this for the >> It's for developer. >> Okay. >> For her winery location, >> right? >> Um and what was the escrow held for? >> And and um Jay's review and there was no um Lou didn't have to look at it because he had looked at it when it was the vineyard.
093So, >> okay. >> Much spent. >> Do we need to approve or release it or? >> Yep. A motion. a motion to um release or return the escrow amount to um would it be just return the escrow held in for Dave LOL. So >> LOL. >> Yeah. So would someone like to make a motion for that? >> My first motion. I'll make a motion to return of Dave Hawwell's escrow amount at 288 Charles Bankrop Highway, remainder $427 plus interest. We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> And those opposed? Abstain. Motion passes 400. So, next we have uh committee reports. Um so, um who here is on a committee? >> Yeah,
094just um >> no committee. >> Okay. >> Oh, we do have a um NRPC commission meeting tomorrow night, 700 p.m. for anyone interested. you can attend remotely or in person. But uh we have Julie Lenser who is um I'm forgetting her exact title. I think it's um head of innovation at uh Bofab USA also army also the regen valley initiative. So she's going to be presenting on the regen valley initiative which is the regenerative medicine uh economic hub which we are actually a part of. Uh so uh that'll be I think an interesting presentation overview of what it is and what the progress has been to date and then we will follow that with a discussion um from Bill Watson who's the director of planning at NHD um DOT uh to talk about basically all
095the projects that are being removed from the 10-year plan. >> Uh so that should be interesting. >> So budget constraints and inflation. >> Yes. Yes. >> Never a good combination. >> Okay. Any other committee reports? >> Yeah, we missing some people who are usually on the >> on committees. Y >> um okay. Next we have approved the September 2nd 2025 minutes. Uh who was here for that meeting? >> I was not. >> Okay. So we can has any everyone who has had a chance to review it because um we need I think three we need a majority to uh approve it. Um >> we have a majority. >> Yes. So um did anyone have any um uh changes that they wanted to make to the me minutes? >> I did not. >> No, >> I
096did not either. Um so would like to make a motion to um adopt or approve the September 2nd 25 minutes. >> So moved. >> Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Uh any discussion? Okay. All those in favor of approving the September 2nd, 2025 minutes, please signify by saying I. >> I. Opposed. Abstain. >> Abstain. >> So motion passes. 301. [Music] >> Okay. So, next is any other business. Is there any other business uh business for today? >> I do not have any. >> I would like to report that um this week, I think maybe yesterday, Renee Thorough got his DOT permit. >> Oh, that took a while. Wow. But it does say in reading part of this, I haven't got all the way through it, that no
097work in the state right of way shall be performed between November 15th and April 15th. So >> start this year. >> It's going to have to wait until spring to >> start working on the site. I don't know what they're going to do, but >> And can you can they start like clearing the land and >> on their own on the site? Yeah. Yeah, they just won't have anything between their sight and the road >> unless they heard >> in the right way. >> But that was interesting to see it finally come through. >> Or maybe he knows somebody with a paving company if they do it fast in October. >> Now we have to do it really fast. Um they are working with the paving company already for the sidewalk. So >> yeah, >>
098that could the color road um improvement I believe is finished that they widened the intersection out when it met 102. The elevation didn't change as much as I thought. But I haven't come up that way. Have you come up? >> Oh yeah, I travel that route every day. >> You could come out onto 102. >> Yep. And to come off of 102 back onto Cutler. It's a lot better coming out. >> No. >> Yeah. It's It's um You took a few trees down. >> Not enough trees. >> And if you're looking towards the uh >> It's not painted yet. The lines aren't painted yet, >> right? It's not painted yet. So, coming up to 102 on Cutler Road and you're looking to your your left, >> the sight line isn't as good as I'd hoped
099it would be. There's still some overgrowth there that should be cut back. Um, and personally I miss the the angled approach on the 102 because the traffic's coming at you pretty quick and you got to launch into it. >> Yeah. So now you Yeah. You're not at an angle going this way. Yeah. >> But coming off of 102 on onto Cutler, it's an improvement because now folks can go around you. I I don't know how many times I've been sitting there waiting to turn just waiting for somebody to come and rear end me. >> Now they can get around and once the lines are painted, that'll be a much nicer intersection. >> Yeah, I I agree with you. Once the lines are in, I think it'll be easier even to turn into Cutler from there.
100But I did like the gentle the the gent I was worried about that. Um and uh but no, it's um >> you feel like it's elevation coming in. >> Yeah, it's it's better than what I thought it might be. >> Okay, good. >> Um but coming out I I'm not sure I have the same opinion on 102. I didn't like I felt like a lot of stuff on coming in on an angle was actually harder but >> because you had to look back over your shoulder to >> Yeah. >> It felt like it was more blind but you know >> it's part of the daily commute. I'm just kind of used to that. >> Launch safety is typically safer at the 90° in that scenario. >> Yeah. I'm sure there's a lot of studies to
101verify that claim because yeah, why else would we not but >> worst case >> for my comfort it was much much more uh comfortable to just launch into traffic. >> Yeah, true. >> So people just have to be a little more patient. >> What doesn't happen on the morning commute >> unfortunately. >> Okay. Any other uh items for any other business? >> Nope. Happy to make a motion to adjurnn. Mr. Chair. >> Okay. You may make a motion if you would like to do that. >> I just did. I make a motion we adjourn for the evening. >> Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> I'll second. >> Okay. We have a motion and second. Uh any other discussion? Okay. All those in favor of uh the motion to adjurnn, please
102signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Opposed? Okay. Matt. Motion passes 400. Okay. Um thank you for watching the September 16th meeting. Same meeting October 7th. October 7th. Perfect. See you then.