001Good evening everyone. Welcome to the July 1st, 2025 meeting of the Lichfield Planning Board. Would you all please stand for the pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, liberty, liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Start with the roll call of members. Michael Croto, chair. Gerald McDonald, vice chair. Jesse, no. Alternate. Russell Blanchett, member. Travis Tucker, member. Jerry Robert, secretary. Okay. Uh, missing this evening, I believe, is uh, Letha Riley and, um, Steve Ganon, our exeicio member. Um, so we are missing a full board member. So, Jesse, if you're interested uh to becoming an alternate tonight to vote in Letha's place. Yes, I do. Okay. So, we'll make you an alternate uh voting member.
002All right. Um, first item, public input on non-aggenda items. Items not on the agenda for this evening. Is there any public input on non-aggenda items this evening? Okay. Seeing none, I will close public input on non-aggenda items. Uh, we'll go to the first order of business this evening. um is number one update on New Hampshire legislative bills for the 2025 session. I believe um Jay gave us a handout this evening. I am giving you a handout. Oh, you're going to you are giving a handout. Okay. Thank you. Needless to say, these are not all the bills. These are the ones I thought that may be of interest. Okay. And um you know caveat um and you'll see as we go along um you know basically what you're looking at um it's kind of a spreadsheet.
003You've got the bill number uh in terms of the columns title etc. But if you go all the way over to the right you can see uh where we it says enrolled and governor's action. So most of these as of the time that this was printed it's a moving target. um is, you know, have not yet been signed by the governor. So, I I'll just kind of note that, you know, as we go along. There's always a chance that some of the bills that have not been signed could be vetoed. Um in some cases, I think that's pretty unlikely, but so we're going to kind of roll through them. Um most of these, well, I should say some of these are uh bills that I kind of thought might be of interest. summer ones where
004we may have to take some sort of action um either zoning uh or regulatory action. So again, I'll kind of note that as I go along. Um there were a lot of bills in this legislative session. I'm not going to promise that there isn't something that might be of interest that is not on this list, but with all of those multiple caveats, um I will dive into the first one, which is um this is uh HB92 and um this has been signed and to the extent that it's relevant, I don't think it affects anybody currently sitting, but uh you can no longer sit on both the planning board and the zoning board. Uh previously that had been true in some of the communities I work in. And it is true. Um, not to say that
005I should could or should editorialize, but it can be challenging. Uh, when a case has been before both boards, you always that person always winds up either having to accuse themselves or walk a very careful line. So, can't do that anymore. Um, the next bill, HB 457, um, is kind of interesting the way it reads. It is what it reads is is that you can't adopt or enforce any zoning ordinance or restriction that limits the number of occupants to um fewer than two occupants per per bedroom. What this essentially is is saying that you can't prohibit um halfway houses, group housing, uh you know, transitional housing, similar types of housing. Communities have used different ways to do this. So, in essence, um if um there is a group or an organization that wants to create
006a group home of some sort, they have a four-bedroom house. Um you they could certainly house at least eight people in that house. You can't restrict them from doing so further. Uh so, it's kind of interesting the way it was worded. Uh there were others related trans to transitional housing that did not make it. The next one I did put in here, but it really does not impact um Lichfield. Um this is uh HB 631. This has been passed by both houses. It has not yet been enrolled, but this does allow multif family or mixeduse development by right uh in any um commercial district um in certain urban municipalities, meaning you have water and sewer. We don't have water and sewer, you know, so it would not impact Lichfield. Um, next one, HB658. Um, this
007one I believe has passed and you know, although it has not yet been enrolled. Um, so this essentially requires that multif family housing or I should I'm sorry, manufactured housing must be allowed in all residential zones in every municipality in the state. Uh so essentially wherever we allow anywhere in the residential zone we have to allow manufactured housing. Um that will mean a change to the zoning ordinance as it now is. Right now in Lichfield you can have manufactured housing in a manufactured housing overlay that is designated by the planning board in either a manufactured housing subdivision or park. Um, we certainly could keep manufactured housing park as its as its own thing, but we would essentially have to allow them on any on any lot anywhere in town. Um, so yeah, that'll be a
008zoning change. Again, assuming um it actually gets signed into law. I'm hearing that it probably will. Uh, there's a push to get the governor to veto it. We'll see. Um, next one I I left in um it it relates to I don't believe we have any class 6 roads in Lichfield, but it does relate to uh requirements for allowing a building to be constructed. I don't believe we have a single one. I don't think so. Yeah, I don't think so either. I left it in there, but I don't think so. This next one is not planning or zoning. It is building. Um but what this does is it this has been a big issue in a lot of planning circles. Um it allows essentially single stair buildings. So uh just to read it, residential buildings
009between uh four and six floors uh are allowed to have only one stairwell under certain conditions. Currently, they're typically required to have two. One stairwell reduces the cost uh of construction. Um so that's been a big push. That passed. Um the Senate concurred uh with the House amendment. It has not yet been enrolled. So again, that doesn't really directly affect the planning board. It does affect the cost of housing construction. It will affect building. Um and next um this is the one that is re so so there's two bills here which are kind of interesting. The first one was SB284 which uh related to parking for multif family housing. It had certain exceptions in it. uh it was amended and changed and essentially it is the house bill um version that with amendments it was
010passed. So essentially this is what we were waiting for. It um prohibits municipalities from requiring more than one parking space per residential unit. Period. Um and again not yet enrolled. Uh oh no park. Oh yes that's right. So, um, the next one is kind of odd. This actually came out of a project we were working on with the town of Brooklyn. We were working on an impact fee ordinance update for Brookline. And Brooklyn wanted to um charge impact fees for a new public works um building that they were building. Um, and the opinion of their town attorney was, "The statute does not specifically say public works facilities. Therefore, in their very strict interpretation, you can't charge impact fees for public works." I thought that was a very narrow reading of the statute, but they went
011and got the legislation changed. So, now you can. Um, next again. Uh so so this may have uh I I I have to look at this more closely because as I was reading it, I wasn't quite sure what they were trying to get at. Um but this allows an alternative um way or condition that you can allow um uh buildings along private roads. And so right now um building on an individual lot has to be on a class 5 road um or it's under a condominium form of ownership and there's a private road. So this may provide a different way of building on private roads. Again I need to I need to dive into that a little bit more deeply. So, flipping the page, um this is the um I I'd mentioned the Senate bill
012previously. It's HB 382's language that was ultimately adopted. They basically put those two bills together uh in in amendments. So, we've already spoken on that. Um the next one is reallyformational House Bill 399. this has been signed and what this was do is establish a commission to study New Hampshire's zoning enabling act. So in essence I think you're going to see a commission you know created and the idea is to really review comprehensively that piece of enabling legislation which hasn't been reviewed comprehensively in a very long time. So that's been signed. More to come on that. The bill of course lays out who gets to be on it and there'll be representatives, you know, Mr. Municipal Representatives kind of, etc., etc. So, that'll be a very interesting one to watch and I expect, uh, there'll
013be a lot of eyes on it. Uh, especially New Hampshire Municipal Association, I'm sure, uh, New Hampshire Planners Association, some of the groups, I have to imagine, I'll be looking at this very closely. Um, next does impact our subdivision and site plan regulations. Again, not yet enrolled, but passed both houses. Um, what this would do, we're so right now we have something that's known as the five-year exemption. So essentially, if you make active and substantial um you know, completion, active and substantial um progress on a subdivision or site plan within the first 24 months, you have a fiveyear exemption from changes to planning and zoning requirements. Um so you don't have to meet something that comes in after the fact. Essentially, there's some life and safety exceptions to that. Um, so what this does is
014it increases the time period for substantial completion from two years to three and it increases the five-year exemption to seven. So in essence, it gives people more time uh more protection. So again, assuming that's signed into law, we will have to address our reg that in our regulations. So next is relative to the definition of ADUs. And so this bill does a couple of things. It first of all um requires that all municipalities must allow um either an either attached or detached ADUs by right. Currently Lichfield does allow um attached by right. So we meet that requirement. Um, and it changes square footage requirements to a municipality cannot require uh the ADUs have less than 750 square feet. It defines an ADU as being up to 950 square ft, but a municipality can allow more
015if it wishes to. Um, really um at most a modest amendment to our existing requirements. Um, we allow up to 800. Uh, amending that up to 950 would not be problematic. It doesn't require you to do that though. It doesn't say you must allow at least 950. You have to allow at least 750. Um, strangely the way our ordinance is worded is you can't have less than 500. That is something that we might want to look at. Um, but I don't think there's an immediate impact to us. You know, Lichfield's been pretty generous. The next one, um, you know, I just throw in, um, that, uh, you know, this is a bill that would update the state building code to include some more recent versions. Uh and the next bill that runs alongside it is
016municipalities are prohibited from making any changes to the state building codes. So previously we couldn't be more or less stringent. Um now you just can't make any changes to the state building code. So that's that. Um that makes it easier. There's a couple of other changes here though that are also really interesting. um it uh impacts the appeals process. So it clarifies where you can appeal um the state building code and for the first time I believe it now allows for an appeal to superior court. So you might know better than I, but prior to this there was no appeal. Uh I always thought that was odd that there was simply no way to appeal a ruling of um the either the board uh or the federal marshall. So now there is. you can go
017to superior court. Um, so very interesting. Couple of other changes in there as well. So that that's really what I have gleaned. I think most of what's on this list is probably going to either pass into law without the governor's signature or be signed. Um, so it seems pretty likely. So that's where we are. Again, of these, there's only a couple that are really going to require zoning action and a couple more that will require subdivision and site plan regulation changes for us. Some of the real biggies that were um being contemplated didn't survive. Um, you know, which is probably not surprising. Things that are very some of these are already controversial, but some of the stuff that was really really controversial um didn't make it. That's what I've got there. Okay. Yeah, it's kind
018of interesting interesting session and and obviously that's a shorthand version in some of these bills. You know, if you read the actual deal, there's more going on. And for some of them that we decide that we're going to really want to work on, we'll pull those. Uh like for instance, manufacturing housing, there were some slight changes to those definitions. Um, for those who are interested, that actually brings in what are known as tiny homes on wheels. Um, so that those would now meet the definition um of a manufactured home, meaning they would be allowed everywhere. Uh, so kind of interesting. Okay. Anybody have any questions? There's a lot there. A lot. Yeah, there is a I didn't put in any things related to taxation etc. But of course when it comes to municipal government as
019a whole there's more to share. Yeah. Okay. Well thank you Jay. That's good update and um well done. Okay. Um any any other questions? I guess we'll move on um to the second item um our work session supplemental design guidelines for the northern commercial mixeduse village district area in the northern commercial district created at town meeting on March 11th 2025. Um also review section 1.20.2 to off streetet parking and loading. Um, set a hearing date for the above. So, I'll turn it over to Jay. All right. I'm just going to start with the supplemental design guidelines. Um, so I just passed out a copy of this. Nothing has changed since the last time we viewed this except there are some more images that were added. I'm always looking for and thinking about more images. Um,
020still am, but nevertheless, I'll I'll just kind of walk through the ones that were changed or inserted. Um, and I'll note again the only thing that changed from the last time. So, the last time we've changed nothing since our last meeting. Um, we made one change that we talked about at the last meeting from the meeting before that. Okay. Um, so not much else has changed. Um, I did have one um, board member make some suggestions for images. Uh, at least one of those I did I was able to incorporate. Um, so really the first new image that you see other than the one on page two got much bigger. I think I'll shrink that a little. Um, was a suggestion that we include Corning Farm example uh, under townouses. You'll note the image before
021um showed uh an example of um attached units with driveways and green space and we had a requirement in uh that in those circumstances you have to have at least 25% of the front yard had to be green space. Um and so the town houses at Corning Farm uh you know are an example of that. And so I included that the hidden pond departments um example for was in there below that was in there previously. Um going on to page four. Uh we talked about this last time but I kept in the changes shown as changes to subsection 4. Um that was um to the single row of parking now noting that it's preferred rather than required. Uh, so not much change there. And the rest of the images on four and five you've seen
022before. Um, threw in another image on the top of page six. Uh, this is an example. Of course, I happen to be on vacation at the cave, so I took this picture. Um, uh, so this is a two uh tenant retail building. So, a small retail building. It could be, it is two, it could be three. Uh it's just a small market and a kind of takeout lunch shop. Um but similar I think in scale to what we might see in one of our develops in this developments. In this case it this does have a double row of parking. So that was one of the things we talked about. Although it's not all shown just because if you try to shoot all the way across the double row you're just going to see a little
023narrow strip. So I put it just in parentheses partially shown. And then on the next page, a new image inserted. These are actually all detached units. And it's just an example of a traditional village style. Um fairly high density development, but detached units um with some landscaping, sidewalks, and newly planted street trees. And then oh, that went on to two eight and nine. And I I'll shrink those images so that they go on one page. They were they were on one page. How did that happen? Nevertheless, uh and those were images that you saw before. So those are really the only changes is we just stuck in a few more examples. That's it. Okay. And on this um then we could we can go ahead and talk about parking. Parking I'll just bring up here.
024It did not change. Um, let's go with red line. Um, so I gave every I did include both red line and non- redline just because there was so much red line. Um, but the main thing and again we did talk about this last time. Um, I'll just touch on again briefly the changes that we made between the prior meeting and the one before it. Those are the ones that are shown in light blue. was on page one that was adding uh gathering places. Um and and essentially that came out of the long conversation we had about places of worship etc. How to define them and we just zoomed in on gathering spaces. And then moving on down to page two, we had struck Marina um because we did not think it would be likely to
025see a Marina in Lichfield. And that was really it. the real what we were really waiting on was the language around um you know multif family requirements um parking requirements for multif family and to see what happened with the legislation I think we talked about that earlier we can't require more than one parking space this is what this now says multif family residential um development shall provide not less than one parking space per individual dwell building unit. I think again as we had discussed it's highly unlikely anyone in Lichfield is going to provide spaces um you only one space per unit but nevertheless that is almost certainly what we'll be passing into law um statewide. So we ought to reflect that obviously in our regulations. That is really it. Everything else I think we've talked
026about before and it was really just trying to bring our parking requirements more in line with what we're seeing in peer communities and trying to wherever possible um link the parking space requirement for various commercial uses to something objective either seating capacity or in most cases square footage and eliminate references to things like uh number of employees on the largest shift uh things that we could objectively measure. So that is it for both of these. Okay. Thank you very much Jay. Uh any questions from the board regarding the changes? And just to add, if it's the will of the board, the next step would be to vote to send them to public hearing if that's what we wish. Yes. So, since this one has one language for one spot per unit, it's in compliance with
027the stuff we're seeing in the legislator. Yes. Um so, so then it's ready basically. Yes. Nice. And regarding the uh supplemental guidelines, um we asked the members who were here last time that if they weren't here next time if it would be comfortable for us to put it up for a public hearing and they they said yes. So if they dislike any of the new images, then I guess they can bring that up at the public hearing if we do that. Can always change them. But I'm sure it would be good to get these in so that the developers have more c uh and what we are requiring. And as far as the public hearing goes, um I would request that you go to August 5th with that instead of the 15th of July because
028it would have to be in the newspaper on the 3rd and I'm not sure 3rd of July. I'm not sure what the news cut off is. Plus, I would need a clean copy for tomorrow actually put out in the viewing room. So, it's a little tight. I see you have here alternate alternative parking solution. Yes. Was that something that was discussed last time? I don't remember. Yes, that came out of legislation that passed last year. Okay. And as far as I can tell, that survived. It's It's really not relevant to us. Um I suppose Well, I I I you know, I I take that back. It could become relevant in a mixeduse development where someone proposes I want to share parking with a commercial use and a residential use and maybe they can demonstrate that
029one use offsets the other. So I don't want to say it would be irrelevant. It's highly unlikely but that would be the only scenario I could see it would be a mixeduse development. This is that's really that makes what that's really intended for well I shouldn't say really intended for but where that's most applicable is in an urban area where there's public parking and that's you know you can say I have you reserved spots in the parking garage on Elm Street therefore let me use those instead of providing on site Well, it is a workshop. Um, and I see Mr. Maro in the gallery this evening. Um, I will open it up to public comment. Um, Mr. Marorrow, if you have any anything to say this evening or you're welcome to come forward. Thank you.
030Okay. All right. Any other questions from the board? And I guess the question is if the board is good with the changes that have been proposed, um, do we want to vote tonight to send both of these to public hearing? And I will entertain a motion on both of them if the board so well. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we take um supplemental design guidelines for the mixeduse village development alternative section 120.15 to public hearing on August 5th. Second's motion. I have a motion and a second. Um do I have any further discussion? So that's for just the supplemental guidelines or is it for both? No, it's just for supplemental guidelines. The rest of it's a mouthful. That's the next motion. One motion at a time. Yep. No, that's fine. Okay. So, I
031have a motion. I have a second. Any further discussion? Any other anything else? Nope. All right. Um, this is vote to vote to go to public hearing. Um, all those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying I. I. I. Those opposed abstain. Motion passes. One, two, three, six, 0. Okay, that's on supplemental design guidelines for mixed use. So, we've done that. Now, um what about the off- streetet parking and loading? Um do we want to entertain a motion can enter into a motion for that as well? I would make a motion, Mr. Chairman, to take off streetet parking and loading section 120.2 to public hearing on August 5th. I'll second that. Okay. I have a motion by Russ. I have a second by Travis. Uh any further discussion on that motion? All right.
032Take a vote. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying I. I. Those opposed, abstained. Motion passes 6 0. Okay. So those both will go to public hearing. Thank you. All right. Uh just curious, Jay, was this um this document did you want to discuss it or um is that something that we want to talk about or Yeah. And Jon pass that out, but that is the that is the language of the ADU. Oh, from the from this full bill. Perfect. All right. I just want to make sure Okay, so moving on. Have a good night. Thank you. Have a good evening. Um, let's see. Committee Well, okay. Well, I guess we set those for hearing. Committee reports. Any reports from any committees? Jeremy, what about economic development? What's going on? We
033met last week, economic development committee, and a great meeting. Uh, we're going to ramp up our speed here and develop something for the uh, Boris Lechman in the next few uh, months here. So, I was tasked with talking to you guys about what we feel could be possible roadblocks, um, ways to streamline our procedures in town to help move development forward. So, if you guys have any kind of feedback in that regard, that would be great. Um, most stuff we're talking about kind of lines up with our new development district here, so it's pretty well in line together. So, um, if you guys think of anything, which this flowchart might help us all too, if you guys look at that, we got passed out. Uh, if you guys want to review this and get back
034to me, uh, if you see any kind of ways to make things faster, more thorough, whatever you want to say here to help with us being able to promote development in town. So, okay. Yeah. Well, thank you very much. There was mentioned at the economic development committee by a member to talk to the state about AOT permits and drenched field permits. I personally do not see a problem with AOT permits. They are thorough. They get back to us timely and they ask the applicant for more information if needed and I don't see that. Yeah, they people brought it up. Um it's not totally part of our charge with that committee. So we going to mostly stay out of that as far as it goes. So governor did sign legislation I think it was executive order.
035I think it's the most appropriate term um mandating that uh state agencies uh would be permit applications within 60 days. Uh there was legislation that just extended DOT driveway permits for what are considered major traffic generators to 90. So that's I think where we've seen the biggest hold up is is driveway permits that have taken a year. That's that's a big right. Yeah. Um you know stuff like that it's good for us to know and if we can try and find some action to help speed things along but more just in town items that we can hope to speed up the process on. So has the report been drafted or not yet. We're still working on that. That's probably going to come out the end of next month. Okay. Uh with some kind of draft
036and stuff. Um and then what are the next steps? So it's moving along. Very good. Yep. Thank you. And our next meeting is the end of this month. So next meeting will be on July 30th at 6:30 right here in town hall. Okay. Thank you. Y um Jay NRPC. Anything from NRPC? Um, not too much yet. Uh, we had our annual meeting in June, so I think that, um, went fairly well. Of course, transportation stuff as always. Um, we did have a presentation from, uh, the state highway safety group. Um, trends are not good, I think, was the was the main takeaway. um and they're trying to figure out some strategies around what to do especially for some of the more egregious issues that we're seeing like people driving more than 100 miles an hour
037um crossing medians so yeah the the trends are unfortunate I think almost across the board the other one another biggie is we've seen an over 200% increase in fatalities of older drivers u 70 and older So that's um again why I don't know um but but that was quite interesting and um we will see what's happening with the 10-year plan but um the governor's advisory group on transportation gaset who is charged which is basically the governor and the executive counsel um who are charged initially with um putting forward recommendations under the state's 10-year plan um met last week. That was their first meeting. There will be public hearings in the fall. As we understand it, their next meeting will be um August 13th, at which point we expect that DOT staff will provide their recommendations.
038Um what we're hearing is that the 10-year plan, just backing up a little for those who aren't familiar with the 10-year plan, uh the 10-year plan uh for transportation um is updated every two years. Basically, we're always in the process of updating it. Um you can't spend any state or federal money on a transportation project in New Hampshire unless it's in the 10-year plan. Um and that includes the you know the scope of the project has to be defined the cost the funding sources the year etc. And um so basically that's always being added to it's always in flux and it's also required to be what is called physically fiscally constrained. There has to be available dollars from the various sources to fund the project. So, as we understand it, um the projects that are
039currently submitted exceed available funding by about $400 million. So, we're looking at very significant cuts to projects. We may not see any of the projects we put forward added at all. There may be other projects that are eliminated or move forward. Um the the priority seems to be not surprisingly but the priority seems to be on projects that maintain the system. Um you know as it currently is in a state of good repair. Um I'm sure there'll be other priorities but yeah it was rather stunning to see a significant reason for that is not because so many more projects have been added but um inflation in the cost of the projects that are already in the 10-year plan. Um you know, we're seeing by the time project the time, you know, if you look over
040the time period for when projects were initially proposed, when projects are proposed, there's always an inflation factor that's built in, but the inflation factor that was built in in a project that was put in six or seven years ago has changed dramatically. And that's really where those increases have come from. So yeah. Okay. More to come. Absolutely. Okay. Well, thank you very much for the update from RBC. Uh the lower Marramac River Advisory Committee meets tomorrow night in NSHA City Hall at 7 p.m. Um they had to cancel the last meeting for lack of attendance or quorum. Uh but they are going moving forward tomorrow night with a meeting. I think that meeting is going to um they're going to decide who's going to be the next chair. Uh Fran Murphy stepped down um and
041they're looking for new leadership. So that should be an interesting meeting. Um conservation commission meeting has been moved to July 10th is my understanding at 6:30 here in town hall. And um the capital improvement committee is meeting in August. I think at the beginning of August if I'm not mistaken. Is it might be August 6th, but I not sure if that's correct. Sounding sounds well. CIP is showing up on the calendar. August 4th. I was close. I was off by two days, but I was right on August, beginning of August. So yeah, August 4th. Thank you, Russ, um for clarifying that. So we have a meeting on August 4th. Um and I suspect that we will have um submissions from the department heads and um uh boards uh at that meeting so to review. All
042right. Um I think that's it for committee reports. Uh let's see next agenda. Approval of the June 17, 2025 minutes. Body have an opportunity to take a look at those, have any questions, concerns? I was not at that meeting. Um, I want to thank our illustrious vice chair for filling in for me that night. Um, so but is if anybody has any questions for the minutes, a lot of red lines. You got a lot of red lines. Is that what you said? Okay. So I guess if you just agree with this, I will maybe just um scan this to Matt. Um page three, uh the one, two, three, fourth paragraph, it starts as discussed in I crossed off as discussed in in Mr. Sharper's application and it should I think say the primary proposed commercial
043use on the north parcel lot 22 map 22 lot 99 is a daycare center inserted on the that description of which lot it was um so what what paragraph are we looking at I'm sorry to the fourth paragraph on page three So I think in this case it's the reference to um Charbano's um application is that it both of them will have a daycare are proposed to have a daycare right but I just I always think when you're reading this five years from now are you going to know what the context is? We could say um the proposed development across across from 3A from this development also has a daycare or we can be more specific as as Joan just uh had had we just have to make sure it's clear that there's a separate
044proposed development, right? You put that description in parentheses so that it wasn't said but that's what was meant. What? So say it again. You called out the parcel number. Yeah. So maybe just put that in parenthesis. Maybe the proposed development across the street at lot in parcel number also has a um you could say that that's more readily understandable too. Yeah. Yeah. And then in this case, this one also has a date here. And then the um not the next paragraph, but the paragraph that starts the site's left-handed parcel. I just added lot 22-4 should be map 22 lot. Sound good? Anything else? Yes. Then down to um start same page starts Mr. Murro presented the plan informally to the conservation commission. It reads which did not raise significant concerns. I want that added which
045Mr. Maro stated did not significant that sounded like the conservation division had no problem. It was just a basic plan. Yeah. Mr. which on that same note um plans are not to come to the conservation commission. I told this until they go to the planning board. Okay. Anything else? Well, that same paragraph, this undeveloped section, last sentence, this undeveloped section could serve as a natural buffer. I think it was at the planning board that we heard. Yes, it was. That there would be a wetland crossing on the roadway, which we did not hear that at the conservation commission. So, he did say there wasn't one wet crossing. Okay. Then page four, one, two, fourth paragraph. Last words. Yes. 45 miles an hour. It's 40 miles an hour. Yeah, he um yeah, there was a time
046when Maro said it was 40 45 and then he was correct. Was correct. So it looks like the wrong one is in here. Next the one two three six paragraph Mr. Maro stated that said that the design concept includes garage level housing unit style similar to existing 55 plus housing. I just added it's it's similar to Corning Farm. That's not 55 plus. Yeah, it doesn't make sense. So, just saying that the these are going to be single level units maybe. So, just leave rather than the garage under it's level. Did he reference his own 55 plus or just No, he doesn't have 55 plus. So, I don't know. Yeah, I think he meant like what you kind of typically see in a single level, right? Single level is what he really meant. Wider footprint with
047the loft. That was kind of his I I don't think it should be garage level. It should be single level. Single level. Yeah. Okay. Then the next to the last paragraph is just a typo. Conservation has lane. It should be land. Okay. in the second line of the uh page five, one, two, three, fourth paragraph I think. Just insert at Corning Farm. After the first sentence at Corning Farm, you reported that the first phase of eight units sold out in a week. Yeah. Okay. Anybody have anything else? Okay. Um I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes as amended if the board so wishes. So moved. Have a motion by Russ. Um do I have a second? I will second Russ's motion. Second by Jeremy. Any further discussion? All right, we'll take a vote. All
048those in favor of approval of the June 17, 2025 uh meeting minutes, please signify by saying I. I. Anybody opposed? Anybody abstained? I. Motion passes 402. Okay. Thank you. [Music] Okay. Moving on. Um to any other business. Um Joan, did you want to talk about this uh subdivision and site plan overflow operational floor? The technical review committee would like you to go over it and if you have any comments, changes, questions. Um email would be the best way to get those. So this came from technical review. Was this approved by board of selectmen or just a basic flowchart that they created for subdivision in cycl. Okay, we can publish it to the public. Interesting. I think it looks we're pretty good. Does help demystify the process. Mhm. A couple any um in terms of any
049how the process I know you mentioned um the thing about conservation um can't can't comment before the planning board. Um was that part of this change? That was just that was an aside that okay developers shouldn't come to the conservation probably till I don't know if it's till the plans accepted or at least till it's come to the planning board and then I guess they can go conceptually to the conservation. Okay. It says here detached ADU requires planning board may require ZBA must go to Paul. Paul I assume is the building inspector. No, Paul is that's um fire department. Oh, fire department for 911 review. What is that? Is that for fire department's review? Who issues the um street numbers? Okay. So detached ADU gets a separate number where attached ADU would have the same
050number as this as a house where a detached has to have its own number. I see. Anybody have any questions about the opportunity to take a look at it? and curious on the second page site division uh subdivision and site plan operational flowchart starts with submit for building permit following down the left foundation only there's a bubble off to the left of that says evaluate for LUCT if yes what is LUCT I'm not familiar with that acronym this is more than building evaluate We It's one that's unfamiliar to me. Those request some clarification on that acronym. All right. Very good. Well, thank you very much. That's very helpful. And then after it's finalized, we'll come to the plan back to the planning board. Okay. All right. So if anybody has any comments or anything interested,
051let us know. Um did you want to move on to the budget? Um um well just they want to know if you want have any changes or input for that because it goes to the board of selectment meeting August August 11th. Okay. So probably if um this is an opportunity to take a look at our planning board budget for u this school year um if anybody has any questions or anything we can you know maybe um give you the opportunity to take a look at it and um can address it at the next meeting. That'll be so then then obviously um we'll have the meeting before the board of selectmen regarding the budget process. So So the next meeting is um an amendment to the gas station. Yes. We did receive that I'll put on
052the portal. Um AOT from AOT wants more information on the road. Okay. Extensive. Okay. Right. I have a couple other things. Yeah. Jay, did you have an opportunity? Have you had an opportunity to take a look at any of those plans yet or? Yes. And of course obviously you'll be commenting on them. Yeah. The tanks are moved, the underground tanks are moved to a different location. A question that came up today. Does that go back to the state? They're moving to the AOT. Well, no, just for the Well, the state approval on I would think so. Okay. But we'll let you guys discuss that and obviously they'll come in and uh that'll be our next um anything else. J I'm sorry I didn't mean to rush you. Thanks. Um, we had a request from Mel's
053attorney, Mel's Funway Park attorney, asking if they if they they wanted to know if it would be an admin administrative approval, not come to the planning board for a minor change to have the Holly Jolly Journey Park in the cornfield like the um, Spooky World does. So, I did talk to Jay about this today. Um, my recommendation was that it come in as a minor site plan uh amendment. Um, that was my suggestion. So, um, I don't know if it did come up today in the technical review committee that parking is allowed at a Christmas tree farm in a field. So, okay. How would this be? I don't know. There are event with this with the well with both sides there would be impacted. Mhm. Right. And I think that's probably the reason I wanted
054to do it as a minor amendment given that circumstance and given that we don't have anything right now that addresses the issue of parking for the Holly Jolly Jingle is that the call it um we have it for spooky world but we don't have it from my understanding we don't have it for um for this this event. So that was my thought process that would come in as a minor side of my mind. Okay. All right. Um, anything else from anybody? Oh, um, okay. I don't know who's going to do this, but they would like a written process on how impact fees are assessed. We got through that that gets on the plan. Who are they? Technical review. Oh, okay. They want All right. What happens after they're assessed? Then it goes to Matt and
055Don. Actually, that's needs because I don't know what happens after after it's assessed actually. Then we collect them and you have to have them paid by CO time. You don't get your CO. Okay. Interesting. I did just remind me though that I didn't I forgot to mention Senate Bill 188. I don't know how relevant it will be in Lichfield, but it does allow a property owner to hire independent third parties to review um plans for compliance with the state building code and um as an alternative to local uh city act. So you there is a process for um approving these local providers, but you can hire essentially a private contractor familiar with building codes to review uh to actually do the inspections uh and to review your plans. Does does the applicant approve? Yeah. And
056who's liable after that? I couldn't find that makes no sense at all, but okay. All communities don't have voting inspectors. Yeah. So that's we certainly address those circumstances. Uh more maybe it does more broadly. Uh you may have a circumstance where um the town has a building inspector but the scope of what's proposed is beyond their area of expertise. We've certainly had communities where something's come in and just because of its size and its complexity, it's like So I think that would probably be another example of where they could hire a third party. the building inspector would certify yes indeed they're they're qualified and accepts their review I don't think I have any you know probably won't come up in this field but you never know certificate of insurance or something I would imagine I'm
057sure I'm sure liability insurance absolutely okay all right uh anything else. If not, that's all I have for agenda this evening. Um, I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. So moved. All right. Travis made a motion to adjurnn. Does have a second. I'll second Travis's motion. Okay. Seconded by Jeremy. All those in favor? I. Those opposed? Abstain. Motion passes 600. Thank you for joining us this evening. Have a great Fourth of July and we will see you on the 16th 15th 15th of July. Have a good night. So this one Yeah.