2026-10-21 - Planning Board

Summary

Based on auto-generated captions; names, numbers and some motions may be misheard.

Time on topic (from transcript timestamps; approximate, includes side talk; the uncaptioned first 5 minutes are not counted):

Topic	Minutes	Share
Lock Road Micro Data Center	153	49%
South Street 24-Lot Subdivision	99	31%
Hobart Street Second Driveway Conditional Use Permit	28	9%
Other business	21	7%
Manchester Street Master Sign Plan	13	4%
Sign design review applications	1	<1%

Wednesday, October 21, 2026, City Council Chambers.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. (about 5:20 on the video clock) and adjourned at about 5:21 on the video clock, roughly 12:15 a.m. Thursday.
Nine board members answered the roll call.
Most of the evening went to a long public hearing on a proposed data center, and several speakers who wanted to testify did not get a turn.

Other business

5:13-9:14, 10:08-11:07, 53:03-57:23, 5:09:17-5:20:51

Minutes of the September meeting were approved by voice vote.
At the request of applicants, the board voted to move a long list of items to later meetings: Hall Street architectural design review, a Palm Street minor subdivision, the St. Paul School major site plan, a Peaceful Lane minor subdivision and the Steeplegate mall residential major site plan to November 18; the Warren Street conditional use permit to January 20, 2027; and two Manchester Street major site plans to December 16. The Steeplegate conceptual development plan was moved to a special November 2 workshop meeting, which staff said is a public meeting and may allow action sooner. The chair joked that the full agenda would have run until the middle of the next day.
A one-year extension of a conditionally approved minor site plan for two businesses was granted by consent, to October 15, 2027 (the agenda wording had a year typo that was caught).
Valley Street driveway relocation (53:03-57:23): an attorney for a family trust asked for a conditional use permit to move the existing driveway across the front of the house to the other side for a new detached garage; the new driveway would sit about 14.5 feet from the neighbor's driveway where 40 feet is required. This is a relocation, not a second driveway. Staff recommended approval, noting a separate Zoning Board matter about a retaining wall on the far side of the lot. No public comment; approved by voice vote with staff conditions.
Two lot line adjustments (5:09:17-5:20:51), both approved by voice vote after waivers: four North State, Franklin and Bradley Street parcels under common ownership were restored to their layout before a 2024 adjustment, eliminating easements for a parking expansion that was never built (neighbors reportedly supported it; several board members recused for conflicts); and a School Street adjustment moving about 1,411 square feet between two lots so an existing house meets the side setback. Staff said the School Street application benefited from the recent zoning amendments, apparently Zoning ordinance nonconforming lots and structures, which removed the need for variances for existing garages.
Adjourned by voice vote.

Lock Road Micro Data Center

2:36:24-5:09:12

A major site plan, architectural design review and conditional use permit for an 8,160-square-foot building on about 20 acres at the end of Lock Road in the industrial district, with roughly 7,220 square feet of data center space, an office, a garage and one caretaker unit. The site plan was accepted as complete on September 16. The conditional use permit covers restoring about 54,780 square feet of wetland buffer that was cleared by a previous owner.
Staff said the use is not listed in the zoning table, and a June 26 staff memo classified it as a data processing use that is permitted in the industrial district, so no use variance was needed. Planning staff (Tim Thompson) stressed it is far smaller than typical data centers, would draw 15 megawatts through its own transformers and uses closed-loop cooling with no municipal water other than a small line for the caretaker unit and fire suppression. Two sidewalk waivers were recommended for approval. The Conservation Commission recommended approval of the buffer work, and design review asked for dark, matte finishes on outdoor equipment and fencing.
Applicant team (Ari Pollock, attorney; Jeff Lewis, civil engineer; Ryan Howard, data center designer): described a closed loop with about 6,300 gallons filled once by hose, dry coolers behind the building with variable-speed fans, six enclosed backup generators used only in emergencies, roughly 45 to 50 decibels against about 65 for the adjacent highway, waste heat used for the building and possibly sidewalks and later greenhouses, and no tax breaks requested. Howard put the 15 megawatts at roughly 350 homes. Howard also described grid-balancing benefits and a possible later solar phase, which staff and the applicant said are not part of this proposal. Lewis noted he sits on the Conservation Commission but spoke as the applicant's engineer.
Board questions covered future expansion (there is no size limit for the use in the current code, but any expansion needs a site plan amendment), noise, power, who pays for electrical upgrades (the applicant, for its own step-down transformers), and the alternatives to grid power. A board member said she phoned the local utility, which told her line costs would fall on the applicant, not ratepayers, and that it had raised no concerns. Councilor Todd asked for noise and household-equivalent comparisons.
About 17 members of the public spoke, nearly all opposed. Common points: the project is not a "micro" data center at 15 megawatts and up to about 1,000 servers; the home-equivalent figure was far too low (speakers cited figures from roughly 1,250 to 14,000 homes); noise, heat released near two wetlands, conservation land and the Merrimack River floodplain; roughly 12,600 gallons of diesel in generators (speaker's reading of the application); an unnamed cooling fluid and no spill or decommissioning plan; few jobs; Concord being used as a "guinea pig"; a possible state moratorium; and distrust of the utility. Some asked for an independent consultant, a delay for the master plan, or conditions on noise, water, power and decommissioning. One speaker said an earlier state wildlife review was for a different warehouse project; another said a hammerhead turnaround should be extended on the neighboring city lot. A Ward 6 councilor (apparently Councilor Kalob) spoke as a private citizen and said she would welcome council discussion.
Board discussion: the chair said the board lacks legal grounds to deny a permitted use whose only waivers are for sidewalks, but can ask for more information. Staff said an application accepted as complete is protected from later zoning changes or moratoriums, and that the board can start its own zoning amendment, which would only apply to future projects. Members asked for the local utility or an independent expert to explain capacity, needed upgrades, cost allocation and rate effects; operating data from comparable facilities; a noise demonstration or comparison; the cooling fluid type, containment, generator testing and decommissioning plans. The board noted it could ask for a third-party environmental evaluation but the applicant would need to extend the 65-day clock, which otherwise runs to about November 20.
Outcome: the hearing was continued to a date certain of November 18, with the item placed first after consent items; the motion carried by voice vote. The chair said he would take the hammerhead request as an action item. No decision was made on the application.

South Street 24-Lot Subdivision

57:31-2:36:08

A major subdivision of a 10.7-acre vacant parcel into 24 single-family lots, with about 900 feet of new city road continuing Morland Avenue from South Street and an extension of Heather Lane of about 800 feet, plus a lot line adjustment with an abutting parcel. The application was accepted as complete in July.
Eric Jackson (home builder) said the company has built about 4,000 homes over 50 years, this is its first Concord development, homes would be for sale (about 1,600 to 2,500 square feet), and 24 lots are needed for the project to be financially feasible. The engineer described flat, sandy land with a shallow seasonal high water table, two filtration ponds (the larger one drains to Bow Brook, the smaller to the South Street storm drain), a fenced larger pond maintained by the city under easement, 34 street trees plus evergreen screening, underground utilities, one new street light, one sidewalk side matching Heather Lane, and phasing (road and 14 lots first, then Heather Lane extension and 10 lots).
Nine waivers were requested. Staff recommended all but two: a sanitary manhole drop standard, which the applicant said it would accept being denied while it keeps working on a compliant design, and a street tree standard, which staff then supported after the applicant added four trees (about one tree per 45 feet instead of one per 30, matching the neighboring development).
Board members asked about hydrants, snow storage (city road, none needed), neighbor outreach, density, capacity for sewer and schools (no concerns identified) and traffic. Staff said the transportation engineer found a full traffic study unwarranted, with about one trip every 10 to 15 minutes at peak on the existing streets. The chair noted it is rare for a project to need no conditional use permit, design review or Conservation Commission comment.
Public comment (about seven speakers, plus a petition and written comments): one resident called the waivers corner-cutting, said the project should lose a lot and objected to staff-made exceptions ahead of the new master plan; abutting Heather Lane residents asked to keep the temporary hammerhead turnaround, questioned stormwater, groundwater, the waiver count and density, asked for more street lights and screening, objected to a monument sign and asked for a street name reflecting the South End; another resident asked why the Conservation Commission did not review it; another said the 24-lot count follows road costs, claimed 61 percent more peak runoff to Bow Brook in a two-year storm and about 74 trees required, and raised the precedent of waivers on land owned by a family company of which Keach is a principal. Keach, speaking as a private citizen and an owner principal, defended the waivers and the developer, and one other resident supported the housing. (Captions are ambiguous on whether Keach currently serves on the council; the city site lists him as an at-large councilor.)
Staff and the applicant answered that the hammerhead is a temporary 2009 city easement that ends when the road is extended and the land returns to the owner; keeping it would amount to a second driveway cut; the city, not an association, maintains the drainage; no permanent monument sign is planned; lights in the public right of way are subject to city approval; and the lots meet zoning area and frontage but five or six cannot fit the rectangular buildable area the subdivision rules call for. The applicant said it cannot make the numbers work with fewer than 24 lots.
Votes: the manhole drop waiver was denied by voice vote; the remaining waivers (including shortened sewer cover, drainage standards, one sidewalk, usable lot area and trees) were granted, apparently with at least one no vote; a curve-radius waiver (126 feet instead of 200, resulting from the fire department's preferred road layout) was granted with a sight-line easement; the subdivision was approved with conditions, with one board member opposed.

Hobart Street Second Driveway Conditional Use Permit

24:28-52:50

A conditional use permit to keep a second driveway pad, built in early August, on a single-family lot in the Penacook area. The pad was built by a paving contractor without a permit, was reported by an anonymous complaint, and led to an August city enforcement action. Staff recommended denial because the work was not designed or inspected, the criteria could not be verified, and approval would condone unpermitted work.
The older homeowners said they hired a paving contractor they believed would handle permits, want the pad to move a truck safely off the street and during snow removal, and asked for conditions rather than removal. Staff said the rule allows one driveway per lot under 250 feet of frontage (40 feet of separation), the city almost always denies second cuts, and state law makes the property owner responsible for permits. Staff also said the city would not pursue fines, would work with the owners and the city solicitor on a path to compliance, and suggested civil recourse against the contractor; options might include widening the single permitted cut (staff said possibly up to 28 feet).
Two board members recused for unrelated business relationships. One resident asked why the city does not penalize contractors, another called denial "morally repugnant". Councilor Todd said the owners were trying to do the right thing.
The chair, noting the precedent for other second driveway requests, moved to deny because the criteria were not met rather than for lack of sympathy; it was seconded and carried with two recusals. He told the owners it is "not over".

Manchester Street Master Sign Plan

11:09-24:26

A conditional use permit and architectural design review for the complete sign package at a new roadside market and gas station on Manchester Street in the Gateway Performance District. A sign contractor said the company returned after a Zoning Board variance (October 7, per the applicant) for the signs that were not zoning-compliant; the package includes wall signs above first-floor window sills, a freestanding sign with static digital price changers, and canopy signs. Two small entrance signs were dropped.
The design review committee had recommended removing the "market and deli" wording from three wall signs and simplifying ad cabinets. The applicant asked to keep the wording to distinguish the brand's roadside format. Board members were fine with it and one suggested moving the wording to the removed sign locations, which the applicant said would not fit its branding. Staff suggested a condition allowing similar replacement ad-cabinet faces to be approved administratively; the applicant offered instead to bring a master set of future designs for one review.
The board found the application complete, closed the hearing, granted design review approval with a background-color condition on the three ad cabinets (captions garbled) and without the recommendation to drop the "market and deli" wording, and granted the conditional use permit; both passed by voice vote.

Sign design review applications

9:16-10:08

Consent design review items 5B through 5F (business signs) were approved as submitted with the design review comments; one member recused for the whole section and no one asked to pull an item.

Agenda

Consent design review applications for signs (31A South Main St, 89 North State St, others); Concord Center 124-130 Hall St signs continued to Nov 18.

Sources

Video

Watch the video

Transcript

These are auto-generated captions; names and numbers may be misheard.

Transcript

05:13Please,

05:16>> Mike. There we go. All right. Um, let's

05:20call the meeting to order. Could you u

05:22Mr. Clerk, could you call the uh call

05:24the role?

05:24>> Chair Woodin

05:25>> here. Mr. Hicks

05:26>> here.

05:27>> Mr. Fox

05:28>> here. [clears throat]

05:28>> Miss Wilbur

05:29>> here.

05:29>> Mr. Tarble

05:30>> here.

05:31>> Miss Savage

05:32>> here.

05:32>> Miss Condo Dematraki

05:33>> here. [clears throat]

05:34>> Rosenberger

05:34>> here.

05:35>> Councelor Todd

05:36>> here. We have a quorum.

05:37>> Okay. Uh, first item on the agenda is

05:39approval of the minutes from the August

05:41uh, planning board. What's that?

05:43>> September.

05:43>> September. It says August right on my

05:45list from the September meeting. Would

05:48someone like to make a motion to approve

05:50the minutes as submitted?

05:52>> So moved. Second.

05:53>> Motion's been made and second. Any

05:55discussion, recusals? All those in

05:57favor?

05:58>> Seen as a recusal? Opposed? That motion

06:01carries. Quick agenda overview for those

06:02of you here to hear any of the following

06:05items. They will not be heard tonight.

06:08Um, we'll go right down the list here.

06:11Uh, item 5A, 124 to 130 Hall Street ADR

06:17is going to be moved to no November

06:1918th, 2026 meeting at the request of the

06:22applicant. Could we had a motion and a

06:23second to move that to the November 18th

06:26meeting?

06:27>> Second.

06:27>> Motion's been made and second. All those

06:29in favor?

06:30>> Opposed? That motion carries. Uh item

06:327A, 3 Palm Street, minor subdivision to

06:35be moved to the o November 18th, 2026

06:39meeting at the request of the applicant.

06:40Can we get a motion on a second?

06:43[clears throat]

06:43>> Motion's been made and seconded. All

06:45those in favor?

06:46>> Opposed? That motion carries. Uh item 7B

06:50is St. Paul School major site plan to be

06:53moved to the November 18th, 2026 meeting

06:55at the request of the applicant.

06:57>> So move second.

06:58>> Motion's been made and second. All those

06:59in favor? opposed. That motion carries.

07:03Item 7E, Warren Street CUP to the

07:06January 20th, 2027 meeting at the

07:09request of the applicant.

07:11>> Second.

07:12>> Motion's been made and seconded. All

07:13those in favor?

07:15>> Opposed? That motion carries. Uh item

07:187G, the Onyx steeplegate CDP has been

07:21requested by the applicant to move to

07:22the November 2nd meeting.

07:26>> Just to note, that's a special between

07:29meeting. That is a workshop meeting for

07:30the master plan. Uh this is a uh an

07:33attempt to try to get something done

07:35before the next regular meeting. Uh

07:37staff and the applicant will be meeting

07:39to uh talk about logistics of the

07:41project with the hopes of being able to

07:42get some action on the November 2nd

07:44meeting.

07:45>> Is that a public meeting?

07:46>> It is.

07:46>> So it'll be noticed as a public meeting

07:48as well.

07:48>> This is the public notice is the

07:50continuence here tonight. So uh again

07:52item 7G on steeplegate CDP being moved

07:55to the November 2nd meeting at the

07:57request of the applicant. We have a

07:59motion second

08:01>> and a second. All those in favor

08:03>> opposed. That motion carries and I uh

08:06again in conjunction with that item 7H

08:08which is the steeplegate mall

08:10residential major site plan. Uh

08:14>> to the 18th

08:15>> to the 18th at the request of the

08:17applicant.

08:17>> So move second.

08:19>> Motion has been made and seconded. All

08:20those in favor?

08:21>> I

08:22>> opposed. That motion carries. Item 7 I,

08:2694 Manchester Street, a major site plan

08:28to the December 16th, 2026 meeting at

08:31the request of the applicant.

08:34>> Second.

08:35>> Motion has been made and seconded. All

08:36those in favor?

08:38>> Opposed? That motion carries. Item 7J

08:41110 Manchester Street major site plan uh

08:45has been move requested by the applicant

08:47to be moved to the December 16th 2026

08:50meeting.

08:50>> So move second.

08:51>> Motion has been made and seconded. All

08:53those in favor?

08:54>> Opposed. And last but not least, item

08:5770, peaceful lane, a minor subdivision

09:00to be moved to the November 18th meeting

09:02at the request of the applicant.

09:05>> Second.

09:05>> Motion has been made and seconded. All

09:06those in favor?

09:08>> Opposed? That motion carries. So if we

09:10had all those on the agenda, we'd be

09:12here till middle of the day tomorrow. So

09:14let's uh be happy that that those was

09:16changed. All right. Item five on our

09:18agenda is design review applications by

09:20consent. So in your packets or in the uh

09:23[clears throat] in the uh posted agenda

09:26online, you've got 5A has been removed

09:28from the agenda, but item 5B, 5 C, 5D,

09:325E, and 5F will all be addressed as uh

09:35as one item under consent. Any member of

09:37the audience have any questions or

09:38concerns about any of those from 5B to

09:425F? If you could make yourself known? If

09:45not, any member of the board want to

09:46pull any of those from the consent

09:48agenda?

09:48>> I just want to recuse myself for this

09:50section.

09:51>> Okay, we'll have you recuse for the

09:52entire section. Uh, any other discussion

09:55on the topics? If not, would someone

09:57like to make a motion to approve those

09:59applications as submitted with

10:00architectural design review comments?

10:03>> Second.

10:03>> Motion has been made and seconded. Any

10:05discussion? All those in favor?

10:08>> Opposed? That motion carries. Item six,

10:11design requests by consent. Item 6A.

10:15Extension request. Actually, extension

10:17request.

10:19It is. And you wrote it right. I read it

10:21wrong. So, extension request by consent.

10:24Item 6A, North Point Engineering LLC on

10:26behalf of Enterprise Mobility and

10:28Scuffy's LLC requests a one-year

10:30extension requested on the September

10:328th, 2026 to October 15, 2026

10:37conditionally approved minor site plan

10:39application. Uh would do we need to do

10:42anything with that?

10:42>> This I need a motion and a second to

10:44grant the one-year extension to October

10:4615, 2027.

10:48>> Second.

10:49>> That does say 2026

10:52>> in the agenda. Ah,

10:52>> it does. Not in my cheat sheet.

10:54>> All right, we got a motion and a second.

10:55Any further discussion?

10:57>> All those in favor?

10:59>> Opposed? That motion carries? Yeah. 236

11:02>> 220 27

11:04>> uh down at the bottom. [laughter] Okay.

11:05So, we're half right. All right. The end

11:07of the consent agenda uh for us tonight.

11:09We'll move on to item seven in our

11:12agenda. Which one's first up? A

11:14>> C C.

11:16This is SUSA signs on behalf of the

11:19common man road sign in BKV Invest One

11:21LLC requesting conditional use permit

11:23application approval pursuant to section

11:252867I of the zoning ordinance to allow

11:27for building wall signs to be located

11:30above the sills of the first level of

11:31windows above the first story or placed

11:33more than 25 ft above grade. Applicants

11:35are also requesting architectural design

11:37review approvals for one new 87.3 foot

11:41internally illuminated three

11:42freestanding sign. One new internally

11:45illuminated uh one new 85.4T

11:49internally illuminated building wall

11:50sign. One new 37.1 foot internally

11:53illuminated building wall sign. Two new

11:56100.7q ft internally illuminated

11:58building uh building wall signs. Two new

12:0242.9T internally illuminated building

12:04wall signs. Three new 40T internally

12:07illuminated building wall signs. One new

12:096.8T non-illuminated building wall sign.

12:13one new 10.8 square foot non-illuminated

12:15building wall spine and finally three

12:17new 29.25 square foot internally

12:19illuminated canopy signs all at 30

12:22Manchester Street in the Gateway

12:23Performance District. I will defer to

12:24Alec for an update on this.

12:26>> There any wall space left or are they

12:27all going to be signs? [laughter]

12:30>> Uh

12:30>> all right, Alec hit us.

12:31>> Uh sure.

12:32>> Before you [snorts and clears throat]

12:34before you do that, I got a

12:35determination completeness. Um so uh

12:38staff has determined the application

12:40complete not a development of regional

12:41impact. Would someone like to make a

12:43motion to find the application complete

12:45not a development of regional impact and

12:46open the public hearing?

12:48>> So move second.

12:49>> Motion has been made and second. All

12:50those in favor

12:52>> opposed? That motion carries. Okay.

12:53Alec.

12:54>> Sure. Uh this essentially what you're

12:56looking at is a master sign plan for a

12:58major site plan development or most of

13:00one. The applicant came before you last

13:03month and got approval for some select

13:06signs that were compliant with zoning.

13:08They had gone to they have gone to ADR.

13:10ADR has commented and provided

13:11recommended conditions of approval for

13:13architectural design review on the

13:14entire master signage plan. The

13:16applicant continued while they sought

13:18variance relief which they got. Now

13:20they're returning back to you for you

13:23everything that wasn't previously zoning

13:25compliant

13:26>> and the CUP.

13:27>> And the CUP.

13:28>> Okay, perfect. if you could state your

13:30name for the record.

13:31>> Well, good evening everyone. We have

13:34quite the crowd tonight. My name is

13:35Jason Gagna with Susa Signs. We're at

13:37225 East Industrial Park Drive. Um

13:40>> Right. Well, all these people are here

13:41to hear about your sign. So, tell us

13:43tell us tell us all about it.

13:46>> Tell us about the signage. Absolutely.

13:48So, as Alec had previously stated, we

13:50were here last month to do a select um

13:53review. Today, we're going to be doing

13:54the overview. Um, so this evening we're

13:58seeking approval for conditional use

14:00permits for the wall signs, which as

14:02they are located above the first floor

14:04window sill, yet still under the 25 foot

14:08threshold for the sign code. Um, as Alec

14:12had mentioned, the sign package did

14:15receive uh variance uh approval from the

14:19October 7th meeting, which included

14:21three gas canopy signs, nine wall signs,

14:25and a freestanding sign that had the

14:27approval for uh digital electronic price

14:30changers that are static, will change

14:32probably once a day. Um, in that

14:36meeting, however, there were two signs

14:37that were noted that were removed. They

14:39were known as B as in Bravo 4 and Bravo

14:445. Those are two non-eluminated wall

14:47signs which resided on the main entrance

14:50of the storefront that got ended up

14:52getting pulled entirely from the

14:54project. One item that I would like to

14:57mention is that during the ADR meeting

15:00um there had been discussion upon the

15:02branding quite a few times. This is

15:06referenced as their approval notes do

15:08mention spec specifically mention uh the

15:12removal or reduction of the market in

15:14Delhi signage. Um as Brandy goes

15:17distinguishing specialized divisions of

15:19that brand is very important. Describing

15:21what specific branch or division does is

15:25a large part of the reason why the

15:27variance was pursued. While at the ADR

15:31meeting, multiple design changes were

15:33made and changed to meet the and

15:35accommodate the board's vision.

15:37Background colors went from white to

15:39light and ivory beige and the ad cabinet

15:43designs were also adjusted so that that

15:45way they were more of a refined message,

15:47less crowded with less information.

15:50So, okay,

15:51>> I am uh more than happy to go through

15:53the entire package and kind of note out

15:56>> we've got it in our package. Uh any

15:58questions from the board? see a hand.

16:00No.

16:01>> Any member of the audience have any

16:02questions or concerns about this

16:03application?

16:06>> If I could just just to um clarify and

16:10so we know so architectural design

16:12review I think they had two or three

16:13recommended conditions approval. you're

16:15essentially summarizing that you intend

16:16to satisfy um some of the other designed

16:19ones and you'd mentioned that some of

16:21the B signs have been removed but um

16:24because ADR had recommended that for

16:26signs B1, B2 and B3 the overall

16:29messaging be reduced um and they

16:32suggested that the tagline market in

16:34Delhi be removed and that's what you're

16:35saying is that's part of their branding.

16:37So

16:38>> correct. Yeah. I mean the difference

16:40between the roadside

16:41>> [music]

16:41>> um the common man the restaurant and the

16:43roadside which heavily focuses on the

16:45market and deli more of high-end

16:48sandwiches and kind of specialized

16:50drinks and stuff like that. So I think

16:52that might be something before the board

16:54here is ADR essentially saying this sign

16:55there's too much reduce it you know

16:58resize it we recommend you get rid of

16:59the market in Delhi and I think you're

17:01saying we want to keep that and maybe

17:03you're re maybe you're asking the board

17:04not to

17:06>> uh take on that recommendation of

17:08>> correct yesing the board to reconsider

17:11how it's worded for the ADR approval

17:13>> so essentially if you wanted to agree

17:15with the applicant's request you would

17:17follow ADR's recommendations with the

17:19exception of the removal of the market

17:21in Delhi from signs B1, B2, B3.

17:27>> And remind me again where B1, B2 and B3

17:30are. Are those pylon signs or are those

17:33building signs?

17:34>> Sign wall signs of all signs in the

17:36building.

17:37>> Correct.

17:37>> One on the front, one on each side.

17:41>> Okay. Thoughts, Amanda?

17:43>> And you said, Jason, that you removing

17:45B4 and B5,

17:47>> correct? Correct. Those

17:48>> just like the small little coffee, you

17:51know, chips, that kind of thing.

17:52>> Yep. They're the two down here.

17:55>> So those those are eliminated. How And

17:59there signs a um that one. Yes.

18:03>> Yeah. The A1, A2, A3 is the ad cabinets

18:05that was I'm going to say very heavily

18:09information, but with the color changes

18:12of the background going from what

18:14obviously white is kind of now

18:16converted, the new white is the new

18:17beige. So beige and then um I think we

18:20had discussed at the ADR meeting. This

18:22was kind of a overview of a

18:26we're going to say a first run that they

18:27had done on a few locations, but since

18:29then they've gone into more of a darker

18:31thing where it's browns and like iced

18:33coffees and such like that. So it's more

18:36catered to what they're trying to push

18:38at that location for that month or

18:40whatnot.

18:41>> So can you clarify on A1, two, and

18:44three? Is that what is going to be put

18:46upon completion of construction? like is

18:49that what is that are we approving that

18:51one as is for or are you telling me we

18:55went through this a little bit with ADR

18:57and and as you may recall

18:59>> I know you said that one's changing out

19:01but it is a it is a sign um

19:04>> not that I expect that you're going to

19:06all of a sudden stop advertising food

19:08but um my point was is that that when we

19:13we require an applicant to come in and

19:15ask for approval of signs if this is a

19:17sign that is going going to continuously

19:19change out. How does that how do you

19:23feel is should be approached? I'm asking

19:26you staff to

19:28Are we okay with it being a a somewhat

19:31temporary sign? Maybe it changes every

19:32six months or something like that. Not

19:35approving that specifically. I think

19:38that might be something have to consider

19:40if you wanted to recommend a type of

19:42subsequent condition where you know you

19:45know signs that are considered similar

19:49in size and nature um you know can be

19:53administratively approved and don't

19:54require architectural design review. So

19:56you could get a little bit creative like

19:57that. Um but if it's not addressed then

20:00when they remove it and come in it would

20:01be treated as a brand new sign every

20:03time. So I think for for the applicant I

20:06would assume that having um the

20:11um staff approve them as the as needed

20:14for that assigned A2 and three would

20:18that be okay for the applicant so that

20:19then they don't have to come back in

20:21front of us every six months for they've

20:23decided to advertise iced coffee versus

20:25sandwiches

20:26>> right yeah and I mean the alternative

20:29would be is I for all the years that

20:31we've worked with the CMR team. We've

20:34probably rotated out the design of these

20:36maybe once over like six years.

20:38>> Um so one of the things that I could do

20:41is when I mean obviously with the sign

20:43face being changed out it's a new

20:45graphic would have to go to ADR for

20:46review anyways.

20:47>> Uh the next round or the first time that

20:50they do come across changing out that

20:52design maybe I can convince everyone to

20:55put together a master of all the

20:56different designs so that way it can all

20:58get reviewed as one item.

21:01>> That would be good.

21:02>> Okay. I just don't want to waste your

21:04time or hours on, you [clears throat]

21:06know, iced coffee one month and then

21:08sandwiches the next.

21:09>> Correct. Yeah.

21:12>> What's the board's thought on the deli

21:14the market and deli piece of it?

21:16>> I'm fine.

21:17>> I I'm fine with it.

21:19>> It was It was not an issue for me.

21:21>> Okay.

21:23>> Yeah. Council T.

21:24>> Yeah. Thanks. And I don't know if you

21:25consider I know you're moving B4 and B5

21:27but I suppose you know if it would work

21:29for you um with your branding you could

21:33consider moving the market in Delhi to

21:34B4 and B5. I don't know if you thought

21:36about that but you know that that's

21:38another possibility because then that

21:39would speak to not having the whole

21:42architectural piece of the building be

21:44as busy.

21:44>> Y

21:45>> but I again I don't know if that really

21:46works for your marketing approach.

21:49>> Yeah. And I wish I could make that call

21:53on that. I mean, I know that they did go

21:55for the variance. They pursued it for,

21:57you know, all the signage as well as for

21:59the location.

22:00>> Based on every common man roadside I've

22:02seen, I'm going to say no, they wouldn't

22:04want to do that.

22:04>> Yeah, I agree.

22:06>> Thank you. [laughter]

22:08>> It's a nice way to put it.

22:11>> Okay,

22:11>> perfect.

22:12>> Any other questions from the board?

22:14>> If not, we'll close the public hearing.

22:15Thank you very much for your testimony.

22:17Okay. So, uh in your packets, uh 9.1

22:20we'll use as our adopting our findings

22:22of fact the information provided in our

22:25in our uh in our packet of information

22:27the staff reports the applicant's um

22:30testimony here tonight and the questions

22:32that were answered. Uh we'll move into

22:349.2 is to grant architectural design

22:37review approval for the submitted sign.

22:40I'm not going to read all that into the

22:41into the record, but

22:42>> we we may there are three conditions of

22:45approval and you may just want to adopt

22:48the first based on this discussion.

22:49>> So for the submitted sign uh at tax map

22:53781Z29

22:56addressed as 30 Manchester Street as

22:58submitted with the following conditions.

23:00Signs A1 A sorry A1 A2 and A3 shall have

23:05a dark background which would be could

23:07be beige or ivory or an opaque

23:09background be installed pursuant to

23:11section 5.4C 4C of the design review

23:14guidelines the messaging signs

23:16>> I would based on discussion I think you

23:18would just conclude

23:19>> stop there stop there and leave the rest

23:21of it out

23:22>> yes

23:22>> which was to simplify A1 A2 and A3 and

23:25then to

23:25>> market and del approved okay so uh would

23:28someone like to make a motion to grant

23:29architectural design review as outlined

23:32>> so move second

23:33>> motion made second any discussion all

23:36those in favor

23:37>> opposed that motion carries 9.3 is to

23:40grant conditional use permit approval to

23:41pursuant to 2867 I and section 2869A

23:47of the zoning ordinance to allow for

23:49sign to be placed more than 25 ft above

23:51grade and/or placed above the sills of

23:53the first floor windows above the first

23:55story of the same wall. Uh again

23:58addressed as tax map 78 I29 at 30

24:03Manchester Street. Uh would someone like

24:05to make a motion to grant uh conditional

24:07use permit as outlined with precedent

24:10conditions? Excuse me. 93A1 and two and

24:13item 93B1.

24:16>> Motion's been made and seconded. Any

24:17discussion? All those in favor?

24:19>> Opposed? That motion carries. You're all

24:21set. Thank you.

24:22>> Thank you very much. Have a good

24:24evening.

24:24>> You as well.

24:26>> Great. Let's move on.

24:28Next we have Terry Odell on behalf of

24:30behalf of Odell Family Trust 2016

24:33requesting conditional use permit

24:34application approval pursuant to section

24:362878B

24:38separation of driveways and residential

24:40districts and section 28711F driveway

24:43separation alternatives to allow a

24:45second driveway in a lot with less than

24:4740 ft of separation between other

24:48existing driveways on an existing lot

24:50and less than 250 ft of lot frontage on

24:53tax map 2011 P. Law 46 addresses 27

24:56Hobart Street. single family residential

24:58district. I'll roll into the update uh

25:01before we act on the acceptance. Uh this

25:03application results from an enforcement

25:05action uh which are in the supplemental

25:07materials in the packet uh which was

25:09started by the city in August. Uh the

25:11property owners were notified by the

25:12planning and zoning inspector that a

25:14second driveway was constructed without

25:16permits and in violation of the

25:17requirements relative to both the number

25:19of permitted driveways and separation

25:21from other driveways. Uh we note that

25:23because this is a request for approval

25:25for construction that has already

25:26occurred in violation of the local

25:29regulations, it's very difficult to

25:30properly evaluate this application. Um

25:33no permits were applied for and the work

25:35was not inspected by the engineering

25:37division. Because of this, we one can't

25:39determine if it is paving was completed

25:41in accordance with the city's drive

25:43[clears throat] construction details and

25:44requirements. Two, that without the

25:46benefit of a permit and the typically

25:47required shity, any deficiencies will be

25:49difficult to correct and/or have removed

25:51if the relief is not granted. And three,

25:54approval of an after- conditional use

25:56permit would essentially condone the

25:58improper installation [clears throat] of

25:59driveways by contractors without

26:00following the applicable approval

26:02process and permitting process and can

26:04result in further unpermitted work

26:06occurring within the city's rights of

26:07way. Uh we recommend that after you

26:09determine the application complete and

26:10holding the public hearing that you

26:12determine that CUP criteria have not

26:14been met and denied the requested CUP

26:16based on the listed reasons in the memo.

26:18We further note that we understand the

26:20applicants requ relied on the paving

26:22company to secure the necessary and

26:24required permits which did not take

26:26place. Uh while we are not attorneys, we

26:29would suggest that perhaps there's

26:30recourse for the applicant as a matter

26:31of civil law with the contractor.

26:35>> I have a recusal. I have a current and

26:38unrelated business relationship.

26:40>> Mrs. Odell,

26:41>> I also have to recuse myself for similar

26:43reasons.

26:44>> Perfect.

26:45>> Get out.

26:49>> Okay. Um, yes.

26:52>> Oh, the applicant.

26:53>> Hang on, Dave. Hang on just a second.

26:55So, we've got a determination of

26:56completeness component to this. Uh,

26:58staff has determined the application

26:59complete. It's not a development of

27:01regional impact and recommends opening

27:03the public hearing. Would someone like

27:05to find the application complete and not

27:07a development of regional impact and

27:08open the public hearing?

27:10>> So moved.

27:10>> Motion's been made. Do we have a second?

27:12>> Second.

27:13>> All those in favor?

27:14>> I opposed. That motion carries. So we

27:17are in the public hearing. Yes. You have

27:19a question

27:19>> uh of the applicant. Um I went over and

27:22looked I think what I was seeing was the

27:25driveway that goes back to the garage is

27:28your that garage that's in the back is

27:30yours.

27:30>> Yes. And then that pad, there was a

27:32Toyota truck on that pad.

27:34>> Yeah.

27:35>> Is that what we're talking about?

27:37>> Yes.

27:37>> Okay.

27:38>> 27 by 10.

27:39>> Yeah. Okay. I saw it.

27:41>> Okay. Uh, welcome to the table. If you

27:43could state your names and address for

27:44the record.

27:45>> Uh, Gregory Odell, 27 Hobart Street,

27:48Penoke.

27:49>> Terry Odell, 27 Hobart Street Ped.

27:51>> Nice to see you again, Terry. How are

27:52you?

27:53>> I'm good, thank you.

27:53>> Wish it was under better circumstances.

27:55>> I know, but this is great.

27:57>> They're all here for this. I'm going to

27:58say that to everybody. So, I guess it

28:01>> Well, tell us a little bit about this

28:02project. And you heard the staff update.

28:04It's going to be a tough road to hoe,

28:06but if you can tell us a little bit

28:07about what happened.

28:08>> Yeah. I uh we have a narrative that we

28:09we constructed. So, um I I would say

28:12first, thank you for allowing us the

28:14opportunity to speak with all of you.

28:16We're here tonight, as you know, to

28:17respectfully request a conditional use

28:19permit for a driveway at 27 Hobart

28:21Street in Penokeook that would provide a

28:23separate parking area for one of our

28:26vehicles. We understand that the

28:28planning board has a responsibility to

28:30carefully consider how changes to a

28:33property may affect the neighborhood,

28:35public safety,

28:37drainage, roadways, and the city's

28:39ability to maintain its infrastructure.

28:42We respect that responsibility and want

28:44to work with the city to find a

28:45solution.

28:47As far as our circumstances, we are both

28:49in our eighth decade, and as we have

28:52gotten older, we have had to think more

28:53carefully about safety and the practical

28:55use of our property. Both Greg and I

28:58drive our vehicles frequently. I prefer

29:00not to drive the truck unless absolutely

29:02necessary. During the winter months,

29:04especially, the truck needs to be moved

29:06periodically. Currently, moving the

29:08vehicles around to accommodate winter

29:10weather and snow removal can be

29:12difficult and frankly creates

29:14unnecessary safety concerns. Having a

29:16separate properly constructed parking

29:18area for the truck allows us to keep our

29:21vehicle safely on our property or rather

29:23[snorts]

29:23excuse me than having to move them into

29:25a less desirable location or onto the

29:28roadway. For us, this is not about

29:30creating additional parking for simple

29:32convenience or increasing the intensity

29:35of use of our property. It is primarily

29:38about safety, accessibility, and being

29:40able to manage our vehicles as we age.

29:44Winter. Winter is an issue. It's an

29:47especially important consideration.

29:48Having a designated space for the truck

29:50would make it much easier to keep the

29:52vehicles off the road during snow and

29:54ice events. It would also make it easier

29:56for snow plows and city crews to do

29:58their work without vehicles creating any

30:01kind of obstruction. We believe that

30:03having the vehicles properly parked on

30:05our own property is actually beneficial

30:07not only to us but also to the city and

30:10the surrounding neighborhood.

30:12and reduces the need to move vehicles

30:14during storms and would help keep the

30:16roadway clear so that municip municipal

30:19crews can safely perform snow removal

30:22and other necessary work. I also want to

30:25address or we want to address the whole

30:28confusion around the permit

30:30the issue of how we arrived at this

30:32point. We hired a paving company in

30:35March of this past year because we

30:38believed they would handle the necessary

30:39permitting associated with the work. We

30:42were not told that we needed to file up

30:44for our own permit, only that we needed

30:47to call Dig Safe and have them come to

30:50check things out,

30:52which we did. When Brian Trembley from

30:55the city visited as us on August 12th,

30:57six days after the driveway

30:58installation, we learned that the permit

31:01had in fact never been filed. I

31:04immediately contacted the owner of the

31:05paving company who told me that he had

31:07filed the permits. I learned shortly

31:10afterward, however, that the filing he

31:12was referring to had occurred very close

31:13to the time of my first call to him on

31:17August 12th following Brian's visit. I

31:20then [clears throat] contacted the

31:21paving company again and was told that

31:23for some reason, quote, "Property owners

31:25on Hobart Street are responsible for

31:27filing their own permits." End of quote.

31:30If that is accurate, we should have been

31:33clearly informed of that responsibility.

31:35We are responsible rule-abiding

31:37citizens. Had we known we were required

31:39to obtain the permit ourselves, we would

31:42have done so. Unfortunately, the

31:45information we have received from the

31:46paving company has not been consistent

31:49and we have been unable to obtain a

31:51clear explanation of exactly what

31:53happened.

31:54We were given another explanation that

31:56the individual responsible for obtaining

31:59permits had previously filed for a

32:01reconstruction permit which was the

32:04wrong type of permit and that this

32:06individual no longer works for the

32:08company because of mistakes that had

32:09been made. As you can see, there has

32:13been considerable confusion and

32:15frustration surrounding this whole

32:17process. We sincerely regret that the

32:19permit was not filed. And because we

32:21relied on the paving company to handle

32:23this matter, we cannot provide the board

32:25with a complete explanation of why the

32:27permit was not filed when we believed it

32:30had been taken care of. What we can say

32:33is that

32:35what we can say is that we had we known

32:38the responsibility rested with us, we

32:40would have certainly addressed it and

32:42addressed it promptly. We want to be

32:44very clear, however, that we are not

32:46attempting to avoid the city's

32:48permitting process. Quite the opposite.

32:51We are here because we want to follow

32:53the city's process and obtain the

32:54appropriate approval. We understand

32:57there was an anonymous complaint filed

32:59regarding our new driveway pad which

33:02prompted this matter. We would certainly

33:04like to understand what that was. At

33:06this point, however, we are not aware of

33:09the specific nature of the complaint and

33:12without knowing what the concern was, we

33:14cannot adequately respond to it. We are

33:17more than willing to listen to any

33:19concerns the board or city staff may

33:21have and address them approp

33:23appropriately.

33:25What we are asking for respectfully is

33:28to have the planning board consider

33:30granting the conditional use permit for

33:32this driveway project subject to any

33:35necessary conditions the city believes

33:38are appropriate. Our objective is

33:40straightforward. To provide a safe and

33:42practical place to park our truck. To

33:45reduce the need to move vehicles during

33:46winter weather. To keep our vehicles off

33:48the roadway. To make snow removal and

33:51other municipal maintenance easier. to

33:53allow us to remain safely and

33:55independently in our home as we age to

33:58complete the project in accordance with

33:59the city's requirements. We are not

34:02asking for special treatment. We are

34:03asking the board to consider our

34:05circumstances and the practical safety

34:07benefits of having this additional

34:09parking space.

34:11I have lived in conquered for 80 years

34:14and we have lived in our home for over

34:1550. We want to continue living there

34:18safely and responsibly. At our age,

34:20something as simple as having to move a

34:22ve he heavy vehicle around during a New

34:24England winter can become a significant

34:26safety concern. A properly permitted

34:29driveway would give us a safe designated

34:31place for the truck, help keep vehicles

34:33off the street, and make it easier for

34:35city crews to do their work. We

34:37respectfully ask that the board consider

34:39the request on those practical and

34:41safety related grounds. We also want to

34:44assure the board that we are willing to

34:46comply with any conditions associated

34:48with the permit. Thank you for your time

34:50and your consideration. We appreciate

34:52the work that the planning board and

34:54city staff do for our community and we

34:56hope we can work together to find a

34:58solution that is safe and beneficial to

35:00all.

35:01>> Not surprisingly a compelling uh

35:03compelling uh testimony. Uh and again I

35:08we're in a tough spot. I mean, we are

35:10looking at this from the city's

35:12perspective and and I want to be clear,

35:15if you'd come to the city right out of

35:17the gate,

35:19>> we probably would not have approved it.

35:21We've had a long history of of a second

35:23of a second driveway cut, we just don't

35:26approved them. And and and the person

35:27who complained if they very well might

35:30have been one of those people that we've

35:31said, "No, you can't do a second

35:32driveway cut." We have it a lot. We see

35:35it a lot. We see a lot of requests come

35:37in and Almost all the time they're

35:40denied. There's three of them on the

35:42agenda tonight. Yours, a second one that

35:45follows, and then a third one. The third

35:46one's going to is is recommending

35:48approval from the staff because there's

35:50no other driveway on the other.

35:52>> They're removing the one driveway and

35:53putting the driveway back in. So that

35:55the distance isn't an issue from for us

35:58as per se. It's the second it's the

36:00second cut. It's the second piece. It's

36:02the second opening on the on the single

36:04property lot that that is the issue for

36:07the board. The one thing I will note

36:08from the staff perspective when we were

36:10looking at the conditional use permit

36:12criteria, it's impossible for us to

36:13determine compliance because we didn't

36:16have a design or inspect what was

36:19installed. So, we do not know and we

36:20cannot verify if it was installed

36:22properly in order to meet the criteria.

36:24Right.

36:25>> So, I don't know if the board has any

36:27questions, concerns. Yes, Councelor

36:29Todd. Yeah, I I think it might be

36:30helpful to the residents to if you could

36:33uh maybe staff uh explain the thinking

36:36behind the general prohibition that you

36:39described for having those second

36:41driveway cuts.

36:42>> Yeah. Essentially, the the regulations

36:46have long stated that uh if you have a

36:49lot that has less than 250 ft of

36:52frontage, you're allowed one driveway on

36:54that frontage. If you have greater than

36:57250 ft of frontage, you can safely

37:00separate the distance and eliminate

37:02significant conflict points from a

37:04traffic engineering standpoint. When you

37:06have less than that, it creates

37:08additional safety issues that become

37:10problematic, which is the reason and

37:12rationale behind the requirement to have

37:14one driveway per 250 ft of frontage.

37:17Yeah, if I could follow up on that, the

37:19installation of this driveway on Hbert

37:22Hobart Street, I notice also is directly

37:25across from a driveway of the resident

37:28across the street. So I would assume

37:30that that would be one of those uh uh

37:33points of conflict that would it is

37:36generally speaking if if we have

37:38driveways we prefer them to line up

37:40because it puts them at the same point

37:42point but not in a case of creating a

37:45secondary driveway with less than the

37:47250 ft of furniture.

37:49>> Y one more question. So um if we deny uh

37:53this request, what does that mean for

37:56the property owners? Do they have to pay

37:59the expense of removing the driveway?

38:01>> Yeah.

38:02>> And bring it back no driveway

38:03>> and put curbing back in if there's

38:05curbing there. I don't know if there's

38:06curbing. There's

38:06>> no curving.

38:08>> No. No curbing. No. So it and again

38:11there may be some creative ways to look

38:14at that and and there may be some I

38:17don't know I don't know if it's a if

38:19it's a master planning type you know

38:22it's two years away but you know is it a

38:23master planning piece where we want

38:25extra density we want higher density. So

38:28if we're promoting additional density in

38:31in smaller lots does that change our

38:34view on on the uh on the driveway cuts?

38:38It very well might.

38:39>> And just for for purp for complete open

38:43clarity here, there are uh zoning

38:45districts within the city that require

38:47less than 250 ft of frontage and each is

38:49allowed to have a driveway that be

38:51separated by less than 250 ft. The issue

38:53here is that there is one dwelling unit

38:55on that lot and it's the one driveway

38:58and in this situation that's that this

39:00is a lower density residential district

39:03that has a larger frontage requirement.

39:05Hence the requirement for one driveway

39:07per unit.

39:09>> What's the recourse? What's the city's

39:11um

39:12>> I [sighs]

39:13we certainly would not be going after

39:16the Odell's for violation or fines or

39:20anything of that nature. Ultimately, the

39:22goal of our enforcement action with the

39:24city is to achieve compliance. Uh we'd

39:27certainly do our best to work with them

39:29to figure out the best way to do so. As

39:31I mentioned in my introduction, I I I

39:33certainly think that the Odell's may

39:35have some recourse against the paving

39:37contractor who improperly did the

39:41driveway in the first place, but that's

39:43not something that the city could be

39:44part of.

39:45>> And the city wouldn't uh be opposed to

39:47leaving the driveway as it is until that

39:49that conflict is resolved.

39:51>> I couldn't answer that question. That's

39:52a question for legal counsel that I

39:54would not be able to answer at this

39:56time.

39:56>> Question I would recommend that the the

39:58applicant look into strongly. Just a

40:01real technical question

40:04>> probably for you. If they had put that

40:06pad that I saw um and abudded it to the

40:10existing driveway entrance so that it

40:13was just wider,

40:16>> is that out of compliance? Also,

40:19>> if you widen the one cut and the one cut

40:21met the width requirement at the at the

40:24right of way, then there would not have

40:25been an issue.

40:26>> So, just so you're clear, one cut and

40:28then you open it up to be two. So you

40:30>> they would butt each other. No, you

40:32couldn't do that.

40:32>> The pavement would butt right up against

40:35the existing drive.

40:36>> That would still be two cuts.

40:38>> That is two cuts.

40:39>> One if you if you left the the opening

40:41the same and you drove in two feet,

40:44three feet and then it opened up to a

40:46second. You could have you could do

40:48that.

40:48>> You could do that behind the hedge.

40:49There's hedges there. So if they went

40:52behind the hedges, but from the street

40:54itself. Yeah.

40:55>> Just rather than 12 feet wide driveway

40:58that goes back to their garage.

40:59>> As long as the driveway is the same as

41:01>> What if it was 20 ft wide and the pad is

41:05>> more to the left in front of your house?

41:06>> As long as it's not cutting into the

41:08existing street any wider than there.

41:10>> That's the key.

41:12>> We would need we would need to we would

41:14need

41:14>> and they need to come back and have it

41:15approved. Yeah, we we would need to

41:17confirm, but we believe a single

41:18driveway cut could be up to 28 ft wide.

41:21>> Unfortunately, you can't move all that

41:22asphalt.

41:24>> No, that's going to be

41:25>> Say that again.

41:26>> You could do up to 28 ft wide for the

41:28driveway cut itself.

41:30>> You could we have we have maximum widths

41:33of driveways and that's what potentially

41:34would be.

41:35>> So, it could be 28 ft wide

41:37>> provided there's enough space to the

41:39>> make it work for the separation for the

41:41property line. Yes. So there's options,

41:43but the options that are there now are

41:45probably not going to work.

41:46>> Yeah. And it's over here.

41:48>> Do you have a question?

41:50>> Yeah. Just this gets

41:52ahead.

41:53>> Is is there a a time period for us to uh

41:59I really don't want, you know, it's

42:01interesting, I think, because we used a

42:03major

42:05uh contractor in PA and I'm sure he's

42:08done hundreds of jobs around the city.

42:11Yeah.

42:12>> Uh, so I know there was a question as to

42:15whether or not it was done properly and

42:18you you can't really look at that now

42:20because it's already done, but it almost

42:24seems

42:25that would not be the case with this

42:27particular contractor. He's done so much

42:30work before. Right.

42:32>> If and I will tell you before

42:37I decided to have something permanent

42:40put in place, I've been parking there

42:42for years.

42:42>> Yeah. Just on the grass,

42:44>> right?

42:45>> Or what used to be grass.

42:47>> Okay.

42:48>> It's just this ugly looking uh

42:50>> strip on my property now. And that's

42:52when I said, "Oh, I really should get

42:54this out."

42:56>> Um

42:58do I face a fine if I'm parking there

43:00someday? I I don't believe the city

43:03would pursue fines. I what I would do is

43:06Brian's unfortunately out of the office.

43:07He had some something come up that he's

43:09been out of the office, but between

43:11Brian and the city solicitor's office,

43:13we would come up with a strategy to come

43:15up with compliance. But I don't believe

43:18in my opinion that the city would pursue

43:19any enforcement action in terms of

43:21fines.

43:23>> Okay.

43:24>> Okay. So, unfortunately, I'm going to

43:26recommend that we deny the application

43:28unless Yeah. Council

43:29>> Todd public hearing. Yes, it is.

43:31>> Y we haven't opened it yet.

43:33>> Yeah. Yes, we did.

43:34>> Well, we haven't you haven't asked for

43:35any public

43:36>> I haven't asked for any public

43:37testimony.

43:37>> You want to do that first? I mean, go

43:38ahead.

43:39>> Well, I can save my remarks for later.

43:42>> Do you have a question? Yeah.

43:44>> Could you guys step back just for a sec?

43:46I don't know if there's a seat for you.

43:47Sit right in the front row there.

43:48>> I can sit next to it.

43:49>> Okay.

43:56>> Welcome back to the table. If you could

43:57state your name for the record. Good

43:59evening, members of the planning board

44:00and the city staff. I'm Roy Schwiker and

44:04listening to this, my real question is

44:07why is it them you're going after? Why

44:09isn't the ordinance say that you go

44:10after the contractor for illegally

44:12building something within the city? You

44:14know, why should they be the ones there

44:16chasing down the contractor? If you go

44:17to the contractor and say, you know,

44:19we're going to charge you $500 a day

44:21until this is removed or you get a

44:22permit for it, then that puts the onus

44:24on them. They're the one that did it.

44:26It's not him. I would love to be able to

44:29do that. The state law is the property

44:31owner is the responsible person that is

44:33responsible for permitting.

44:36>> No,

44:37we're not talking about permit. We're

44:38talking about construction.

44:40>> They constructed something they didn't

44:41have a permit for. Isn't that illegal?

44:44And can't you go after them for

44:45constructing it, not for failing to get

44:47a permit?

44:48>> The city can't go after him. The

44:49homeowners can. Now,

44:52I guess I'm going to have to talk to uh

44:54someone who's an attorney, but that

44:56seems wrong. It seems like the person

44:59that goes out and builds it. They're the

45:00one that does this all the time. They're

45:02the one that is better informed about

45:04the regulations. So, the onus should be

45:07on them. And if they say, "These are

45:09people that do it all the time." We need

45:11to get their attention because they're

45:12going to be doing this every time if

45:14they find out they can do it without uh

45:16getting a permit.

45:17>> I don't disagree. That's the main reason

45:19for the

45:20>> 100%. I agree 100%.

45:21>> The same thoughts and

45:23>> and furthermore, I completely agree with

45:25Mr. Thompson that

45:28>> most of the city you do not need

45:31>> what 100 feet of frontage maybe

45:34>> 200.

45:34>> No, you're saying is less, but most of

45:38the city it's less. It's like a 100. I

45:40mean, you're talking to somebody tonight

45:42who's only got 91 feet and they need a

45:45permit to make it because it's not 100.

45:47And so, if you're only having 100 foot

45:49of frontage, it seems like, you know,

45:53that means you're putting driveways

45:54certainly within 100 feet of each other.

45:56So, I'm not quite sure why it's so

45:59stringent out here. And maybe he needs

46:01to have a engineering study that this,

46:04you know, distance between them is safe.

46:06But I think, you know, you're being

46:08arbitrary to say if it's 200 feet, you

46:11can't have a second one, period. It just

46:13has to be safe and it has to be built

46:14properly. And yes, you should have a

46:16permit and a, you know, design first,

46:19but I'm just very disappointed that to

46:22me

46:23they're they're one of the victims along

46:25with the city. They're not the

46:26instigator. Thank you.

46:28>> Thank you very much.

46:29>> Thank you very much.

46:31Um just kind of you know certainly as

46:33you mentioned regulations you know can

46:35be subjective but you know most

46:37neighborhoods you know separation of

46:39driveways is 40 ft from any adjacent

46:41driveway it's um for each lot to have an

46:44additional driveway they need an

46:46additional 150 ft of frontage. Um and

46:49you know the whole my understanding I'm

46:51not a professional engineer but the

46:53concept is it's to reduce access points

46:55to create safer navigation for vehicle

46:58pedestrian all safety throughout the

47:00roadways. It's similar why our arterials

47:02streets the separation for driveways is

47:05even more so. Um so like that that's the

47:08basis behind why we don't want every

47:10property to have two three driveways

47:12because it becomes a burden and on the

47:15on the rightway vehicle pedestrian

47:17backing out and no one knows where

47:18anyone should or shouldn't be coming

47:20from is my understanding that why this

47:22regulation exists.

47:25[clears throat]

47:26council talk.

47:27>> Well, I didn't I don't know if we're are

47:28we done with the testimony though here.

47:30>> Jen, you can stay right there though.

47:32You can stay.

47:32>> I mean, if if anybody has any questions,

47:34I'll answer them, but if you want to

47:36talk to each other, I'll leave.

47:38[laughter]

47:39>> We're good. Thank you.

47:40>> Thank you.

47:41>> I don't know if someone else wants to

47:42testify or not.

47:43>> Any other comments or questions from the

47:45audience?

47:48>> Yes.

47:59Welcome to the table. If you could state

48:00your name for the record.

48:01>> Thank you. My name is Lisa Bodin. I live

48:03in Ward 4.

48:07I find it morally repugnant that these

48:09senior citizens would be punished by the

48:11planning board through no fault of their

48:13own.

48:15And I implore you to permit their

48:18application.

48:21>> Thank you.

48:22>> Okay. Thank you for your testimony.

48:24Anybody

48:26else?

48:30>> Yes.

48:33>> My name is Matt Sus. I I don't really

48:34know what ward I'm in. Um I just have

48:37questions. Is their project going to

48:39make my electricity cost go up?

48:48>> Is it?

48:49>> I have no idea. I don't know what that

48:50means. What do you mean? Will their

48:52project make my use of the city or

48:55anything more difficult because it's

48:57very loud?

48:59>> No, it won't.

49:00>> Okay. Thank you.

49:01>> Okay. Sure.

49:03>> Any other questions or concerns?

49:05>> Okay. We're going to close the public

49:06hearing and again I

49:09>> we understand

49:10>> we're setting precedent. It's not that

49:12we are I mean I'm morally want to say

49:14yes and and we're at a point where where

49:18we need to look at this from the city's

49:20perspective and if we approve this then

49:23we're going to have more. We're going to

49:24have more. We're going to have more and

49:26we have them all the time. We it

49:27happened with the signs. It was the same

49:28with signs. We let signs get out of

49:30control for years. People were putting

49:32up signs without getting permits,

49:34without coming back because there was no

49:35repercussions. You have abilities to to

49:38I would not recommend ripping it up.

49:40believe me. Um I would recommend the

49:42legal aspect of going after the

49:44contractor that put this in for you and

49:46and and seek some relief.

49:49>> We do we do appreciate the position that

49:51you're all in and we anticipated this um

49:54and we will decide what we need to do. I

49:58think it's important to um bring to

50:00accountability um the contractor and so

50:03that will be something we have to look

50:05at and hopefully it won't cost a lot

50:08more money.

50:09>> I would encourage you to touch base with

50:11the planning office Brian and we'll

50:13we'll try to figure out a way forward to

50:15remediate as best we can.

50:17>> Hang on one sec. I would just like to

50:19say before we have a motion, I thank the

50:21city. I think it's really wonderful that

50:22you all are willing to work with them

50:24because I think we're all

50:26>> we're all feeling terrible for you and

50:28Mr. Schwiker's right, but can't do

50:30anything about that either. But I I

50:32appreciate it u that the city it sounds

50:34like, is going to try to help you come

50:36up with

50:37>> Yeah, it's very it's very reassuring and

50:39I'm I'm proud to be part of this city

50:41and I will say the way I look at

50:42everything, nobody died. It's a

50:44driveway.

50:45>> Hold on, Terry. Council Todd.

50:47>> Yeah. Thank you. I just wanted to say

50:49that I think it's very ironic that my

50:51impression here is that the Odell's were

50:53simply trying to do the right thing.

50:55>> Yeah.

50:57>> If you look at uh I not going to cast

50:59dispersions on anyone, but if you look

51:00at their next door neighbors, uh they

51:02park their car on the grass.

51:04>> Yep.

51:05>> So, you know, I you could have done that

51:07as well. You could have just parked your

51:09car, you know, on the grass, let you

51:11know, oil or whatever drip into the

51:14grass and contaminate the ground. I was

51:16doing that. [laughter]

51:18>> There you go. So, you're trying to do

51:19the right thing

51:20>> and uh and I just think it would be it

51:22would behoove us to try. I would also

51:24point out that um as we were talking

51:26about potential changes that we see

51:29coming forward in uh the master plan

51:32that the Odell's do have a garage

51:34building. It is very small at this

51:36point, but I could see that at some

51:37point they could in fact turn this into

51:39a

51:41>> property and turn that into an ADU and

51:43rent it out

51:44>> in a second driveway. Absolutely.

51:45>> And then you would need a second

51:46driveway. So, you know, you're it's it's

51:47really on the cutting edge here from my

51:49point of view, but

51:51>> Okay. So, let's uh I'm going to make a

51:54motion that the uh the application uh we

51:57deny the conditional use permit to allow

51:59for the second driveway on the lot um

52:03with less than 40 ft separation between

52:05other existing driveways on an adjacent

52:07lot and a second driveway on a lot

52:09containing less than 250 ft of frontage

52:12at 27 Hobart Street. at tax map 2011P-46

52:17because the second driveway fails to

52:19meet the criteria for granting the

52:20requested cups as outlined in item five

52:24of this memo. And that's an important

52:25piece. It's not that we don't want it.

52:28It doesn't uh doesn't meet the criteria

52:29for granting it. So, I'll make that

52:31motion.

52:32Anybody would like to be on the record

52:34as a second.

52:35>> Second.

52:36>> Motion's been made and second. Any

52:37further discussion? All those in favor?

52:41>> Opposed? Any recusals?

52:44Two recusals.

52:44>> Two recusals. Uh, okay. So, again, sorry

52:47for that. And, uh, it's not over.

52:50>> Okay. Thank you.

52:51>> Okay. Thank you. Uh, let's move on on

52:54the agenda. Could someone grab, uh, Matt

52:56and, uh,

52:58>> Paige? Thank you.

53:02[clears throat]

53:03>> Sure. They're all signed in for the

53:07>> All right. Which brings us to 7F.

53:127F is Gallagher Gatalan Gartell PC on

53:16behalf of Caroline C. Mclliff Trust

53:18requesting conditional use permit

53:19approval pursuant to section 2878

53:21driveway separations and residential

53:23districts. Driveway separation

53:25alternatives to allow a driveway on a

53:26lot with less than 40 ft of separation

53:28between other existing driveways on

53:30existing lots on adjacent lots, excuse

53:32me, at tax map 6531Z lot 14, 21 Valley

53:36Street uh in the single family

53:38residential district. Uh update on this.

53:41Uh this applicant is seeking to create a

53:43new driveway at 21 Valley Street. Uh the

53:46existing driveway that is there today is

53:48proposed to be removed and replaced by

53:49the proposed driveway. This is

53:51associated with a 950T building addition

53:54to the existing residential structure.

53:56Uh the proposed driveway would be

53:57located within 14 1/2 ft of the existing

54:00driveway at 17 Valley. The property is

54:02in the single family residential

54:03district. And again, this is the uh

54:05request. Uh we recommend that after

54:08determining the application complete and

54:09holding the public hearing that you

54:10grant the conditional use permit with

54:12the conditions in the staff memo.

54:14>> Okay. So staff has found the application

54:16complete, not a development of regional

54:17impact. Would someone like to make a

54:18motion to find the application complete,

54:20not a development of regional impact,

54:22and open the public hearing?

54:23>> So move second.

54:24>> Motion has been made and seconded. All

54:26those in favor?

54:27>> I opposed. That motion carries. Welcome

54:29to the table. If you could state your

54:31names for the record.

54:32>> Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chairman.

54:33My name's Ari Pollock. I'm with the

54:35Gallagher, Kellyanne, and Gartrell Law

54:37Firm, and I'm here for the Mclliff Trust

54:38this evening. To my left is Paul

54:40Gibbons, who is the trust's contractor

54:43for this uh residential project. Um Tim

54:46summary was spot on. Uh this is a

54:48relocation. This is a relocation. This

54:51is a relocation.

54:52>> It's not It's not already built. It's

54:54not already built.

54:54>> We have one driveway now

54:56>> and at the end of the project, we will

54:58have one driveway later. Um the

55:00[clears throat] uh the project is to add

55:02a detached garage to the rear uh of the

55:05house. It's a small residential lot. The

55:08orientation of the garage is really

55:11affected by uh grade and slope on the

55:14property, the ability to come and go

55:17safely around the existing house. Uh and

55:20um this is not uh a second uh driveway.

55:24Uh we're moving the driveway from the

55:26north side of the existing house to the

55:29south side of the existing house. It's a

55:31small driveway. Uh I'm sorry, it's a

55:34small lot rather and the proximity to

55:36the Abutters driveway causes us to need

55:39to apply for a conditional use permit.

55:41Um the uh the staff report is uh the

55:45shortest that I've seen. Uh and we

55:47agree. And uh since you have a room full

55:49of folks here who want your attention,

55:51we'll stop right there.

55:54questions from the applicant.

55:55>> Any member of the audience have any

55:57questions or concerns about this

55:58application?

55:59>> Straightforward.

56:00>> Pretty straightforward. Right.

56:02>> The only thing I'll note from the staff

56:03perspective, this was in front of the

56:05zoning board of adjustment for a setback

56:07issue with a retaining wall, but it is

56:09separate and distinct from the request

56:11for the driveway itself.

56:12>> If I could just clarify, the retaining

56:15wall is on the far side of the property

56:18from where the relocated driveway will

56:21be located.

56:22>> Okay. But but everything said Tim said

56:24is correct.

56:24>> Okay,

56:26questions. Okay, we'll close the public

56:28hearing. Thank you very much for your

56:29testimony. So again, using as our

56:31findings of fact here tonight the

56:33information that's in our packets the

56:36riveting testimony we heard from the

56:37applicant and uh no questions at all,

56:40but we will use that as our findings of

56:41fact. And uh 8.2 is to grant conditional

56:44use permit uh excuse me, grant

56:46conditional use permit approval to allow

56:48a proposed driveway to be relocated. not

56:51located be located are located

56:53approximately 14.5 ft from the

56:54neighboring driveway at 17 Valley Street

56:56where 40t of separation is required. Uh

56:59those are outlined in precedent

57:01conditions

57:01>> A2 A1 A through B 82 A 2 and 3 and 82 B1

57:09>> 2 B1 would someone like to make a motion

57:10to grant conditional use permit as

57:12outlined?

57:13>> So moved.

57:14>> Second.

57:14>> Motion has been made and seconded. All

57:16those in favor?

57:18>> Opposed?

57:19>> That motion carries. We are all set.

57:21Thank you very much.

57:21>> Thank you.

57:23>> And the the shortness of the report is

57:25self-inflicted, Mr. Paul. Just so

57:28[laughter]

57:31>> All right. What's next on the agenda? Uh

57:33this is item 7K. Nois Group on behalf of

57:36the Stabil Group, Boba Mills United

57:38Methodist Church, Inc. and D. Mloud,

57:39Inc. requesting approval for a major

57:41subdivision for 24 lot subdivision of an

57:44existing 10.7 acre parcel known as tax

57:47map 8814Z lot 4 including construction

57:50of an approximate 9 foot 900 foot

57:52municipal roadway proposed as a

57:54continuation of Morland Avenue which

57:56will connect to an approximate 800 foot

57:58municipal extension of Heather Lane

58:00associated municipal and non-municipal

58:01infrastructure project also includes a

58:04lot line adjustment with the abuing

58:05property known as tax map 8814Z lot 3

58:08addresses 271 1 Cell Street in the

58:10single family residential district. Uh

58:13update before we get into the

58:14application itself. Um I will just

58:17remind the board that [clears throat]

58:18this application was condition was

58:20accepted as complete determined not of

58:22regional impact at the July 15th

58:24meeting. Uh again, we're looking at this

58:26subdivision um and lot line adjustment.

58:29Uh important to note that the lot line

58:31adjustment is to allow for a proper

58:34geometric roadway alignment with Morland

58:36Avenue across Cell Street. Um the

58:39development is consistent with the

58:41existing neighborhood is designed to

58:42mimic the design conditions of the

58:43current Heather Lane. As is common with

58:45subdivisions and site plan applications,

58:47several waiverss are proposed for the

58:49project would have been re which have

58:50been reviewed by the planning and

58:52engineering staff report, the majority

58:53of which are supported for the reasons

58:54stated in the report. Uh planning and

58:56engineering have met with the design

58:58team in the last couple of days. Alec

58:59can summarize any changes to those

59:01recommendations on the waiverss. Uh

59:03while public comments have asked for a

59:05full and comprehensive traffic impact

59:06analysis, the city's transportation

59:08engineer determined that the size of the

59:10project and the amount of vehicle trips

59:11generated by the project, particularly

59:13the peak hour changes do not warrant a

59:15full analysis. Staff notes the

59:17information submitted, particularly paid

59:19attention to the aligning of the new

59:20road, has been reviewed by the

59:22engineering staff. Uh staff is

59:24recommending that the board vote on the

59:25waiverss and grant conditional approval

59:26to the subdivision following the public

59:28hearing tonight.

59:30>> Perfect. So again, we've had no uh no uh

59:32the determination of witness has been

59:34done, so we are good to go. We'll open

59:35the public hearing. Welcome to the

59:37table. If you could state your names for

59:38the record.

59:39>> Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the

59:40board. Uh good evening. My name is Eric

59:42Jackson. Uh I'm the director of

59:44acquisitions and development with the

59:46Stabil Companies out of Nasha, New

59:48Hampshire.

59:50>> I am Morgan Dunen um with Novvice Group

59:53Civil Engineer.

59:55>> I'm Ari Pollock, an attorney with the

59:56Gallagher Firm in Conquer.

59:58>> Great. Well, why don't we roll through

59:59it and give us uh an update on this pro

1:00:01give us an overview of the project and

1:00:03we'll go from there.

1:00:04>> Sure. Uh so Morgan's going to handle the

1:00:07technical presentation tonight, but I

1:00:08wanted to take a couple minutes and just

1:00:10uh provide a little bit of background on

1:00:12the Stabil Companies and our intentions

1:00:14uh with this property. We are the

1:00:16proposed u builder and developer here.

1:00:19Um in short, we are a New

1:00:21Hampshire-based home builder.

1:00:24>> Are you okay there?

1:00:25>> Is this the first time you've been in

1:00:26conquered? Is this your first

1:00:27development in conquered?

1:00:28>> This is our first official development

1:00:30in conquered. That's right.

1:00:31>> Well, welcome to the city.

1:00:32>> Thank you very much. Uh so, uh we've

1:00:35been in business for about 50 years.

1:00:37We've built uh somewhere in the

1:00:39neighborhood of 4,000 homes over that

1:00:41period of time. Uh most of the homes

1:00:43that we build are offered for sale. So,

1:00:45our customers have the opportunity to

1:00:47buy and own uh their home. And that's

1:00:49our intention uh with this neighborhood

1:00:51here on South Street. uh we decided to

1:00:54pursue this property because uh there

1:00:56remains a critical need for housing in

1:00:58conquered particularly single family

1:00:59housing uh and we felt this property was

1:01:03uh a great opportunity to uh address

1:01:05that need. Uh we have not identified any

1:01:08final home designs yet, but we wanted to

1:01:10share a few uh plans you see up here um

1:01:14on the screen of other projects that we

1:01:16built uh in New Hampshire. So you have a

1:01:18sense for what uh the homes in this

1:01:20neighborhood might look like uh if this

1:01:22project is approved. Uh you can see

1:01:24these are single family homes. Uh they

1:01:26mix traditional New England and

1:01:28Craftsman uh architectural design,

1:01:31mostly two-story uh construction,

1:01:33although like we would likely have some

1:01:35uh singlestory ranch style homes here as

1:01:37well. Uh typically they'll have two to

1:01:40four bedrooms, range from about 1,600

1:01:43ft² to 2500 square ft uh and have an

1:01:46included twocar garage. Uh and these

1:01:49homes are generally consistent uh with

1:01:51the other existing homes that you find

1:01:53in the South Street area. uh and it's

1:01:55our opinion uh they would complement

1:01:57very nicely uh the surrounding uh

1:02:00neighborhoods.

1:02:03As an organization uh we try to take a

1:02:07communityoriented approach to uh

1:02:10building and crafting these

1:02:11neighborhoods. We put this uh project

1:02:14under contract to acquire back in April

1:02:16of 2024, a little quite a while ago. Uh

1:02:18the first thing we did was uh reach out

1:02:22to the city of conquered and city staff

1:02:24to make sure that our goals were aligned

1:02:25with the city's vision uh of this area.

1:02:29We ultimately determined that they were

1:02:32um

1:02:34we uh let me just find my spot here. um

1:02:38reached out uh a thereafter to the um to

1:02:42the Abutters uh local property abutters

1:02:46um and held a meeting back in May of

1:02:492026 uh so that we could understand and

1:02:52incorporate some of their thoughts uh

1:02:54into the planning process. Uh some of

1:02:56the uh several of the discussion points

1:02:59that came up at that meeting uh have

1:03:01been incorporated into the plan that

1:03:03Morgan's going to talk about here

1:03:04tonight. Uh we uh are aware that there

1:03:08are um certainly some folks uh that are

1:03:11still concerned about this project. Uh

1:03:13we anticipate we're going to hear about

1:03:14that tonight.

1:03:16Uh we would just like the board to know

1:03:18that uh our team has worked really

1:03:21really hard uh for a number of months uh

1:03:23with feedback from city staff uh to try

1:03:26to put a plan together that's consistent

1:03:28with uh zoning in the neighborhood meets

1:03:31the spirit of the uh subdivision

1:03:33regulations which we think that it does

1:03:35addresses the concerns of city staff and

1:03:37I think we have a couple to work out uh

1:03:39and then minimize uh the waiver requests

1:03:42uh to the extent possible. Uh so uh we

1:03:45are asking for a handful of waivers

1:03:46tonight. Morgan's going to talk about

1:03:48those in those in more detail. Uh but I

1:03:51want to uh emphasize to the board that

1:03:54those waivers are not intended to cut

1:03:57any corners. Those are waivers uh that

1:03:59are driven by the fact that there are

1:04:01some unique characteristics on this

1:04:02site. Uh we've worked very hard to

1:04:05explain those waivers so that the board

1:04:07fully understands why they're necessary.

1:04:10Uh in closing, I'll add that um the

1:04:14other thing we have to do as the uh

1:04:17developer and builder of this site in

1:04:18addition to trying to craft a um an

1:04:21acceptable plan uh is to ensure that the

1:04:24project is financially feasible. Uh

1:04:26because if it's not financially

1:04:27feasible, ultimately this housing

1:04:29opportunity goes away. And financial

1:04:32feasibility for us in this case means

1:04:34two things. Uh number one, it means

1:04:36controlling our cost uh through uh

1:04:39careful uh site design and project

1:04:41design. And number two, achieving a

1:04:44certain uh unit count. And in this case,

1:04:46that's 24 units. So that uh the cost per

1:04:50unit, the cost per house is ultimately

1:04:54sustainable. And what we mean by that is

1:04:56uh once we build the roads and build

1:04:58finish the development, build the uh the

1:05:00units, we can sell those uh at a uh

1:05:04reasonable cost and a marketable price,

1:05:07not priced out of reach uh for those

1:05:09that want to buy it. Uh and as you can

1:05:11imagine, I'm sure in t today's

1:05:13environment uh with very high materials

1:05:16costs, labor costs, fuel costs, uh

1:05:18interest rates, all of those things that

1:05:20contribute to the cost of a road and the

1:05:22cost of housing. Uh now is a very very

1:05:25challenging time to maintain financial

1:05:27feasibility on projects like this. And

1:05:29so we're working very very hard to do

1:05:30that. We fully recognize uh that we are

1:05:34not going to make everybody happy with

1:05:36our plan. It's just not going to happen.

1:05:38Uh we know that uh in our opinion the

1:05:41plan that we're going to present tonight

1:05:42uh represents the best opportunity to

1:05:44make this a successful neighborhood. We

1:05:47think that it uh meets the intent of the

1:05:49regulations uh maintains financial

1:05:52feasibility and ultimately delivers uh

1:05:57single family housing that the city

1:05:58critically needs in a neighborhood that

1:06:00we think the the city ultimately can be

1:06:02very very proud of. So, we appreciate

1:06:04your consideration tonight. And Morgan,

1:06:06I'll hand it over to you to get into

1:06:07some of the details.

1:06:09>> Thank you, Eric. That was very, very

1:06:12thorough. Thank you. [laughter]

1:06:15[gasps]

1:06:16All right. So, I will take us on a trip

1:06:19in a more technical way. Let me pull up

1:06:22the actual site plans.

1:06:26Far down.

1:06:29Okay. Thank you.

1:06:31Yeah, get page eight to the agenda.

1:06:33[laughter]

1:06:33>> Yeah, very far. [clears throat]

1:06:37>> So, um the site is located um along

1:06:42South Street which has neighboring

1:06:44streets of Morland A, Golden Rod um and

1:06:48Heather Lane to the north. Let me pull

1:06:51here's the existing. So this is the

1:06:55existing site and um there is a sliver

1:06:59of land right in this corner

1:07:03which is where when we went to go and um

1:07:07get a variance for the lot line

1:07:08adjustment for uh lot three um that was

1:07:13to create a um intersection that was

1:07:18directly um in line with the Morland A

1:07:21road. If you don't mind me interrupting

1:07:23you, Morgan, on this. This uh for those

1:07:25of you who recall when we discussed

1:07:27zoning changes last month uh and the

1:07:29city council last week, this would not

1:07:32have required a variance if the adopted

1:07:35ordinance amendments that just passed

1:07:37would have gone through. This would have

1:07:38been allowed without variance.

1:07:44>> So, thank you. Uh to the north is um the

1:07:50existing Heather Lane um Hammerhead

1:07:53Turnaround.

1:07:54And the proposed site, let's go here,

1:08:00is to connect and create a neighborhood

1:08:04with the extension of Heather Lane and

1:08:08um the new intersection of um a new

1:08:12municipal road, which I believe we

1:08:14suggested the road is Coach Light Lane.

1:08:18Um

1:08:21so the existing site is uh 10.7 acres.

1:08:26Um it's an existing vacant residential

1:08:29lot uh which is surrounded by other

1:08:32residential development such as the

1:08:35Golden Rod um subdivision to the north.

1:08:39Um residential houses along South

1:08:42Street. Um and then Bo Brook uh is

1:08:46offsite to the east of the site.

1:08:50[snorts]

1:08:51The um characteristics of this site that

1:08:54make it so unique is um that it is an

1:08:59extremely flat sandy site which normally

1:09:04would be a good thing and people would

1:09:07love to know. Um but that comes with uh

1:09:12shallow seasonal high water table which

1:09:15um limits the the type of uh storm water

1:09:20controls which I'll get into later.

1:09:28So um just a some backstory about the

1:09:32configuration of the roadway. As Eric

1:09:35had mentioned, we have been working

1:09:37closely with the city for over a year

1:09:40now. Um, and the alignment and

1:09:45configuration of the road with the

1:09:47curvature was um recommended by the fire

1:09:50department um to limit the number of 90

1:09:55degree um intersections and dead ends.

1:09:58So with this uh roadway design there is

1:10:02only one dead end which is at the bottom

1:10:07left right.

1:10:12So the proposed subdivision is for 24

1:10:14new lots single family homes. Um and

1:10:19they're all conceptually shown.

1:10:23There we go.

1:10:25Oh too far. Okay.

1:10:29So, they're all conceptually shown on

1:10:31this plan as being around 1,500 square

1:10:34feet, uh, with a twocar garage, a 24

1:10:39foot wide driveway. Um, all the driveway

1:10:43separations

1:10:44are met, and I believe that's a 40 foot

1:10:47minimum, and all the houses are within

1:10:50the building setbacks.

1:10:53All 24 lots are designed um to the

1:10:58zoning dimensional requirements with a

1:11:01minimum of 12,500

1:11:03square ft and 100 ft frontages.

1:11:11The roadway is designed as city standard

1:11:15um with a 50- foot rideway,

1:11:17a 30- foot wide drive,

1:11:23a 5- foot wide sidewalk on one side of

1:11:25the road with a 5-ft landscape strip and

1:11:30the other 10 ft is a landscape strip as

1:11:34well.

1:11:36We are asking for a waiver to provide

1:11:39one um sidewalk along

1:11:43to provide a sidewalk along one side of

1:11:45the proposed roadway which is consistent

1:11:47with uh the neighboring um development

1:11:51and it will eventually connect to the uh

1:11:54North Heather Lane sidewalk.

1:12:00The proposed development is um to be

1:12:04constructed in phases. Uh phase one is

1:12:07this blue or green color, whichever

1:12:10screen you're looking at. Um

1:12:14and that one will be the the new roadway

1:12:17uh with all the storm water

1:12:19improvements, underground utilities, and

1:12:22it will include 14 lots. The phase two

1:12:26is the yellow section.

1:12:28which will happen after phase one. Um

1:12:31and that includes the Heather Lane

1:12:34extension, underground utility

1:12:36extensions and remaining 10 lots

1:12:46for the storm water design. As uh noted

1:12:50earlier, this site um has shallow

1:12:53seasonal high water table even though it

1:12:56is extremely sandy and it is like

1:12:58playing in a sand pit. Um

1:13:01so we design designed uh two filtration

1:13:05ponds

1:13:08since there is shallow seasonal high

1:13:10water table that limits your ability to

1:13:12infiltrate into the ground for

1:13:14groundwater recharge.

1:13:16So there are a few systems you can use

1:13:20uh with shallow seasonal high water

1:13:23table. I'm going to call it ESHT now to

1:13:28try to minimize that. Um which would be

1:13:31either a wet pond which mean there would

1:13:33be water in it completely or a

1:13:36filtration system which means it'll

1:13:38drain completely after each uh storm. So

1:13:42the favorable approach was the

1:13:44filtration system. Um the entire length

1:13:48of the roadway will be collected via

1:13:50closed uh drainage system of catch

1:13:53basins, drainage manholes

1:13:55and will discharge to pond one to the

1:14:01southwest corner of the lot [snorts]

1:14:06here. It will infiltrate through the

1:14:08filtration media into the under drain

1:14:11and then will be um

1:14:16discharged to bo to the east. Um and

1:14:21it'll be cleaned treated water. Um

1:14:24similarly

1:14:27there is a small I would call this more

1:14:30of a rain garden. It's shallow 2 feet

1:14:32wide um pond that will take care of just

1:14:37the first little section of uh roadway

1:14:41runoff. Um since this site is flat,

1:14:44there are a few issues which I won't get

1:14:47into about um cover pipes. So, um to

1:14:52mitigate that, we um propose a second

1:14:55filtration system that will go through

1:14:58the same type of system and then

1:15:00discharge to the uh municipal drainage

1:15:04in South Street.

1:15:08Um let's see. Oh, so stormwater pond one

1:15:14will be an easement with the city and

1:15:17that there is a proposed 10- foot wide

1:15:20gravel access way to both ends of the

1:15:23pond for the city to um enter the pond

1:15:27and maintain it. Uh there's also a 4ft

1:15:31wide chain fence uh proposed around the

1:15:36uh deeper pond uh at the bottom.

1:15:41We are also proposing within the

1:15:45stormwater pond area

1:15:48to plant evergreen uh buffer trees

1:15:53um within the stormwater pond that

1:15:56directly abuts the uh south street of

1:15:59Butters to provide some um some

1:16:02screening of the pond.

1:16:05as well as the bigger pond will have a

1:16:0815 ft no cut uh buffer on top of the 10

1:16:15new trees as well

1:16:19for

1:16:24um let's go to utilities. Uh al all all

1:16:28lots will be serviced by municipal sewer

1:16:32and water system

1:16:35as well as private utility utilities

1:16:39such as gas and electric which will be

1:16:41underground. There won't be any utility

1:16:44poles or overhead wires. Um and we've

1:16:47mapped out all the surfaces to each lot

1:16:51as well.

1:16:54>> Pop back to erosion control. Yeah, this

1:16:57one.

1:16:58>> So, any comments regarding that? I know

1:17:01we've seen some public testimony, public

1:17:03comments regarding erosion and water

1:17:06runoff from the from the driveways and

1:17:09from the the streets.

1:17:11>> So,

1:17:12>> go ahead.

1:17:13>> Nope. Thank you. That's a good point.

1:17:14So, um the the erosion control plan is

1:17:18for um this is showing the uh

1:17:21construction of just the roadway itself.

1:17:24So they'll be during construction they

1:17:26will set up silk fence around the

1:17:29perimeter. Um there will be um matting

1:17:33on slopes and this will have to have a

1:17:39uh EPA NOI SWIP SWIP inspections. Um so

1:17:45it will be um it'll be looked at during

1:17:48the construction. For clarity, for those

1:17:51that don't know, SWIP is storm water

1:17:53protection.

1:17:54>> Yeah. Sorry.

1:17:55>> plans.

1:17:56>> Yes.

1:17:56>> So, just from a The only reason I

1:17:58brought you back to this for this page

1:18:00was water hitting the driveways, water

1:18:03hitting the the roadways is going to be

1:18:06pushed to the detention pond. Correct.

1:18:08Not pushed into the erosion buffers.

1:18:11>> So, in this in this plan right here,

1:18:13this is a conceptual grading plan of all

1:18:17the lots.

1:18:17>> Yep. So in the conceptual plan I have

1:18:22shown that you can build each house with

1:18:25the driveway draining towards the

1:18:28roadway. So all oops sorry all um storm

1:18:33water runoff from impervious areas from

1:18:35the house the driveway will go and be

1:18:37collected at the um

1:18:40>> system. Yeah the closed drainage system

1:18:43in the roadway.

1:18:44>> Correct. So nothing will be going

1:18:45offsite.

1:18:47>> Okay. Thank you.

1:18:48>> And also another important thing to note

1:18:50is this site um sits lower than all the

1:18:54abuing properties. Uh that was another

1:18:57challenge was that it's

1:19:00already a lower site. Um every all the

1:19:03properties to the north to on the west

1:19:07side all drain to our site. So um the

1:19:10pond has been designed to carry

1:19:12everyone's uh drainage.

1:19:18Um, back to utilities.

1:19:21I think I touched everything there. Oh,

1:19:23>> so underground

1:19:26utilities.

1:19:27>> Yep. Underground utilities. Um, electric

1:19:29gas. Um, no utility poles or overhead

1:19:32wires.

1:19:34>> Um, in this figure, this is also

1:19:36conceptual utility plan.

1:19:39This shows, if you can see the green

1:19:42dots are the proposed tree locations.

1:19:45Um and this just so show shows that

1:19:48there are limited areas to um plant uh

1:19:53street trees with the constraints of uh

1:19:56proposed utility connections. The

1:20:00um and the 24 foot wide drives aisles as

1:20:04well.

1:20:06So that's kind of what this figure

1:20:07shows.

1:20:10[sighs]

1:20:12Yep. So, my last thing was about

1:20:13landscape.

1:20:18Go through all of the

1:20:20>> page 39.

1:20:21>> Thank you.

1:20:23Okay.

1:20:25>> Nope.

1:20:27>> 41. There we go. Okay. So, here is the

1:20:30landscape plan that um we submitted with

1:20:34uh our application. This shows 34 street

1:20:38trees um which are large decidious

1:20:41trees, elm tree, red oak, red maple um

1:20:46trees. And then uh we have the 10

1:20:50evergreen buffer trees along both ponds

1:20:54shown as well.

1:20:57Um

1:21:01I I'm gonna just continue my speech and

1:21:03then I'm going to talk about the

1:21:04waiverss because I do have an update to

1:21:05the waiver with the landscape plan.

1:21:09But uh one other thing to note is um for

1:21:13the traffic. We did meet with the city

1:21:15back in March um for a scoping meeting

1:21:19and it was determined that the uh

1:21:22proposed residential development is not

1:21:24expected to create any substantial

1:21:27adverse traffic or safety impacts. Uh

1:21:30the roadway is designed to take

1:21:33low-speed um traffic. It has a

1:21:35continuous sidewalk for pedestrian

1:21:37safety. Um and we are also proposing uh

1:21:41crosswalks and stop signs

1:21:44>> just and again a sheet or two back was

1:21:47the lighting plan is one light proposed

1:21:50in the end of

1:21:51>> the new road on and on Heather, right?

1:21:54>> Correct. Yes, there's one light proposed

1:21:56at the intersection which is per the

1:21:59regulations and I believe that there is

1:22:01an existing light pole on

1:22:03>> South Street.

1:22:04>> South Street. Yeah, there's an existing

1:22:06light on a pole. Yep. And no other

1:22:07lights down Heather Lane.

1:22:08>> Correct.

1:22:09>> Okay.

1:22:12>> Um we also did a wildlife study um for

1:22:17our AOT or alteration of terrain permit

1:22:20for the storm water design. Um

1:22:25on this in the study uh it was

1:22:28determined that

1:22:30um there were no special concerned

1:22:32species observed in the field or

1:22:35evidence of um them utilizing the site

1:22:38was noted. Um we have had uh

1:22:42conversations uh back and forth with uh

1:22:46dees AOT uh and the ecological review um

1:22:52section of dees and have implemented uh

1:22:55wildlife [snorts] uh conservation

1:22:57measures

1:22:58um such as uh certain certain catch

1:23:01basin structures within landscape areas

1:23:04do not have uh sumps.

1:23:07um outlet control structures are not

1:23:10within uh side slopes. Uh biodegradable

1:23:15erosion control measures

1:23:17um and flyers are also provided in the

1:23:20plan set as well.

1:23:25[sighs]

1:23:27So I think that's my spiel on the plans

1:23:29and I'll just do um a really brief talk

1:23:33about the waiverss.

1:23:36Unless you guys have any questions for

1:23:38me now.

1:23:40>> Okay,

1:23:41>> go ahead.

1:23:41>> I'll go. Yep. So, we ask for um nine

1:23:47waiverss

1:23:49and um the city's recommending or

1:23:53staff's recommending approval of um all

1:23:56of them except for two which I'll go

1:23:58into in more depth, but um just for a

1:24:01basic outline,

1:24:03um we're asking for a waiver from

1:24:05section 19.054 054. Uh in regards to the

1:24:10usable lot area, um as stated before,

1:24:15our all lots are designed with the

1:24:17minimum zoning dimensional standards

1:24:20with uh 12,500 square ft of area and the

1:24:25100 ft um frontage. The thing that makes

1:24:30this unique about the site is the uh

1:24:33configuration of the roadway which has

1:24:35many curves causing uh multiple corner

1:24:39lots which are subject to two uh

1:24:41frontages which usable usable areas

1:24:45within building setbacks.

1:24:47>> Essentially there's the right amount of

1:24:49buildable area but you can't make it a

1:24:51rectangle in each of those

1:24:52>> and yes and that too and not rectangular

1:24:55in shape. [laughter]

1:24:59Um

1:25:01the second

1:25:03waiver is

1:25:06uh about um talks about sidewalks um and

1:25:10how we're proposing to have one sidewalk

1:25:12uh one sidewalk on one side of the road.

1:25:16A sidewalk on one side of the road.

1:25:17Sorry.

1:25:18>> Does the um budding Heather Lane project

1:25:20have one sidewalk on the same side?

1:25:22>> Yes. and that and we will be connecting

1:25:25to that sidewalk.

1:25:27>> Thank you.

1:25:29>> The third uh waiver is about the

1:25:33uh curve radius of the road um which has

1:25:37a minimum 200 ft where we are proposing

1:25:41uh 126 near the connection of South

1:25:44Street. Again, this was dictated by the

1:25:47fire department when we were first going

1:25:49through uh layout of the road

1:25:51configuration to uh align Morland A and

1:25:57the new roadway uh and to minimize

1:25:5990°ree

1:26:01uh intersections and only have one dead

1:26:04end.

1:26:05Also, it's noted that Heather Lane,

1:26:08there's a Heather Lane to the north and

1:26:10then there's also a Heather Lane to the

1:26:12south. So, the intent, and you can

1:26:15correct me if I'm wrong, is to

1:26:17eventually connect the two Heather lanes

1:26:19maybe in the future,

1:26:21not proposed on this project.

1:26:25Um,

1:26:28where was I?

1:26:30Uh our fourth waiver

1:26:34[sighs and gasps]

1:26:35is uh pertains to drainage uh

1:26:38construction standards

1:26:42to allow uh certain pipes with less than

1:26:464 feet of cover uh provided they have

1:26:49insulation.

1:26:51Um to allow certain drainage structures

1:26:54located within landscape areas to have

1:26:56no sumps whereas city requires three

1:26:58feet sump. Uh the state ecological

1:27:02review requested no sumps in landscaped

1:27:05catch basins. Um to allow for a beehive

1:27:09style dome grate on a catch basin within

1:27:12a landscape area as requested by the

1:27:15ecological review. Um and to allow a

1:27:1912in storm drain pipe in a in one pipe

1:27:24run where 15 is

1:27:27required. and that is at the very end of

1:27:30a run that structure doesn't have lots

1:27:32of flow going to it. Um,

1:27:38fifth uh request was uh construction

1:27:41standards that pertains to sewer.

1:27:45Um, which

1:27:48was the one that created the most uh

1:27:51most fun in designing this site. Uh,

1:27:53this site is unique because there are

1:27:57three Let's see if I can pull

1:28:00Oh, there's

1:28:02three sewer manholes that end right at

1:28:07the intersection of South Street with

1:28:10Morland A. There's one here, one here,

1:28:12one here. Um, and two of which are very

1:28:16shallow. So, we chose to connect to the

1:28:19deepest manhole available nearby.

1:28:23Um with that it required us to um design

1:28:28the site with um some infill. So as you

1:28:31can also see the the development to the

1:28:35north also was built up about 5 feet. um

1:28:40they have a retaining wall along this

1:28:42existing uh turnaround and all the

1:28:44houses are built up with um walkout

1:28:48basements or it slopes down towards the

1:28:51brook or into the backyard area. So

1:28:54similarly uh this development will be

1:28:56raised um to match that grade on the

1:29:00back side of Heather Lane.

1:29:04[sighs]

1:29:05So, we're requesting a waiver for a

1:29:07minimum of five feet uh of cover where

1:29:10six feet is required over sewer sewer

1:29:14pipes and um to allow us to utilize the

1:29:19New Hampshire dees standards of minimum

1:29:22slope of 0.004 on certain runs as well

1:29:26where the city is 0.006.

1:29:33Um, sorry. Almost there.

1:29:36[laughter]

1:29:37I could I could talk all night. That's

1:29:38good.

1:29:40>> I'm sorry.

1:29:43>> I just want to hit all my bases.

1:29:44>> Let's go.

1:29:45>> Okay. Uh, six is about uh landscape

1:29:48trees

1:29:50uh being separated. Eight is about uh

1:29:54storm water. Again, like I mentioned,

1:29:57the you're not able to recharge the

1:29:59ground because infiltration is not

1:30:00feasible.

1:30:03Nine is about uh landscaping

1:30:06uh improvements where the city did um

1:30:11have a comment on that waiver request

1:30:13which was uh to take a look at the um

1:30:17abuing uh development which let me pull

1:30:20up this

1:30:21>> we'll have a followup on that

1:30:22recommendation when we get to the staff.

1:30:25So, um I I did an additional

1:30:29additional uh density calc to the uh uh

1:30:34development to the north uh with the

1:30:37trees per um linear feet of roadway.

1:30:42And I found uh opportunities to add four

1:30:44more trees to our plans. Uh one here,

1:30:48one here, here, and here. uh which do

1:30:52not conflict with underground utilities

1:30:55or site distance site distances along

1:30:58the curves. Um and the ratios are

1:31:03similar to the existing development to

1:31:06the north. Um so we're requesting to

1:31:11approve that with the additional four

1:31:13trees

1:31:17and I think that's it. I'm sorry.

1:31:21No, no to be sorry. Just don't it

1:31:24[laughter]

1:31:25move on. And Alec, I don't know if

1:31:27you've got the change on the street tree

1:31:30recommendation. I know it's part of our

1:31:31package

1:31:32>> staff. Uh originally, one of the two we

1:31:34were recommending an aisle was that they

1:31:36not um that we don't require one tree

1:31:39for every 30 ft of roadway. Um where the

1:31:42applicant has demonstrated that the

1:31:44existing neighborhood seems to be have

1:31:46planted at about one for 42 feet of

1:31:48roadway. And with the what Morgan just

1:31:50showed us, they achieve about one per 45

1:31:53ft of roadway. I would recommend

1:31:55conditioning that you allow one tree per

1:31:5745 ft of roadway where normally one tree

1:31:59per 30 is required

1:32:01>> for consistency with the other

1:32:03neighborhood. Yeah. [clears throat]

1:32:04>> One per 45, you said?

1:32:06>> Yes.

1:32:09>> Okay. I I will tell you that um it's not

1:32:11very of I've been doing this a long

1:32:13time. It's not very often that there's

1:32:15no conditional use permits, there's no

1:32:16architectural design review, and there's

1:32:18no conservation commission uh comments.

1:32:20That's almost unheard of in today's

1:32:24development piece that that there

1:32:27doesn't need to be anything addressed in

1:32:29those is is is very unique. So, I don't

1:32:32know if it's a testament that the

1:32:34property is perfect or the property is

1:32:36is is ready for for for its next life,

1:32:40but

1:32:40>> lack of wet ones is always a good thing.

1:32:42Well, lack of wetlands is always a good

1:32:43thing. Buffers, you've stayed within the

1:32:45buffers, so there's no requirements

1:32:46there for conditional use permits. So,

1:32:48uh, from a design perspective that it

1:32:51looks like a nice tidy little packet of

1:32:53of houses. So, uh, questions from the

1:32:56board. Dina,

1:32:57>> um, in terms of underground utilities,

1:33:01um, and maybe it's implied, but are

1:33:02there any where do you have your

1:33:03hydrants?

1:33:05>> Yes. So, I believe there are

1:33:09is there three or four? I can't remember

1:33:11off the top of my head. There's a fire

1:33:12hydrant uh right here where my mouse is

1:33:16at this corner at the dead end. And then

1:33:21I believe there's an existing fire

1:33:23hydrant right here.

1:33:26>> So there's four within the vicinity of

1:33:28all the lots.

1:33:30And if I may,

1:33:32>> um and then so it would be a municipal

1:33:35road. it would be maintained by the by

1:33:37the city in terms of um snow removal and

1:33:40things like that. We don't have to put

1:33:41in any type of places for snow to be

1:33:44kept.

1:33:45>> No.

1:33:46>> Or anything like that? No. Okay. Thank

1:33:48you,

1:33:49>> Council Todd.

1:33:50>> Thank you. Um you had referenced that

1:33:54you had meetings with the Butters, which

1:33:56is excellent. Can you tell me just

1:33:59generally tell us what the uh the scope

1:34:01of the concerns were were and then what

1:34:04you have done in your plans to address

1:34:07those concerns?

1:34:09>> Sure. Maybe we can both speak to that a

1:34:11little bit. I'll speak to what I recall.

1:34:13The uh one of the key issues was

1:34:16screening and and buffering. Um and um

1:34:21originally we did not have any screening

1:34:24around the uh storm water detention

1:34:26basins and as you see in the final plan

1:34:28there's now screening that covers uh two

1:34:31lots um so that the the view into that

1:34:34storm water pond is protected for th

1:34:36from those two lots and also from the

1:34:38lot that's adjacent to the entryway off

1:34:41South Street. Uh, another concern that

1:34:43came up was uh safety of the storm water

1:34:46ponds and and water that might be in

1:34:48those ponds and fencing around those

1:34:49ponds. And so we've added a fence around

1:34:52the large uh detention basin on the

1:34:55south end. Um, there was a question that

1:34:58came up relative to the hammerhead on

1:35:01Heather Road to the north. There were

1:35:03folks up there that wanted to keep that

1:35:05hammerhead. Uh, candidly, we didn't have

1:35:07a real issue with it. Uh but it sounds

1:35:09like that's not something that was

1:35:10consistent with the way the the city and

1:35:12staff wanted to see that design. So uh

1:35:15that has gone away, but that was a

1:35:17question that came up. Um

1:35:21Morgan, what do you remember of the

1:35:22other questions? I actually have a list

1:35:24here. If you can think of any, hit me,

1:35:26but I've got a list here that I'll

1:35:28>> I will I will add one. And again, for

1:35:30the people that have submitted public

1:35:32testimony that the one good thing about

1:35:34electronics and the and the in today's

1:35:36age is we can get those right up until

1:35:396:40, I think, was the last one that we

1:35:42tonight. Uh, which was pretty pretty

1:35:44spectacular. So, uh, we read them as

1:35:47part of our packet and preparation

1:35:49piece. don't know that the 6401 got read

1:35:51by everybody as we were get coming in,

1:35:53but uh the information that I saw a

1:35:56couple of references to density and I

1:35:58and I want to address that because I

1:36:00think the density is is is exactly what

1:36:03the city's been asking for. The city

1:36:04wants more density. They want properties

1:36:06that aren't big buffered properties that

1:36:09have got huge amounts of space. They

1:36:11want to be able to put more product and

1:36:13more and more housing into into the

1:36:16density, you know, driven piece. Sure.

1:36:18And you'll see that as regulations

1:36:20change with our with ADUs, accessory

1:36:23dwelling units becoming more and more

1:36:24popular, putting a second property onto

1:36:27existing lots, um, and a second driveway

1:36:31onto those existing lots. Um, so it it

1:36:34it was one that I wanted to address

1:36:36because I did see a couple of public

1:36:37testimony comments that specifically

1:36:39address the density. And I think that

1:36:41you you mentioned it, you need to make

1:36:43it work financially at 24. You put in

1:36:46the amount of space and and it and it it

1:36:48looks like it works on on paper.

1:36:50>> It works financially, but I'll tell you,

1:36:51it's pretty darn tight.

1:36:52>> It is tight.

1:36:53>> It is pretty darn tight. Uh, you know,

1:36:55we can't really afford to lose a lot

1:36:57because it changes the numbers,

1:36:58>> but it's not as tight as it used to be.

1:37:00I mean, I live in the south end. I live

1:37:02in the college streets. I live in spaces

1:37:03where my neighbors are less than across

1:37:06the side of the building over here. So

1:37:08it's not I mean it's it's consistent

1:37:10again with with going back in time when

1:37:13we used to develop things a little

1:37:14tighter than they are today.

1:37:15>> Right. And when I say tight I mean tight

1:37:17financially tight

1:37:17>> financially from a space.

1:37:19>> I took the tight the wrong way.

1:37:21>> The density here is compliant with all

1:37:23the zoning and dimensional requirements

1:37:24that the city has.

1:37:26>> And that was one that was my point is

1:37:28>> that was one of the pieces that I did

1:37:29see.

1:37:30>> That's right. Yeah.

1:37:31>> And the runoff and and the others Matt.

1:37:33So yeah, along the lines of the density,

1:37:35I'm curious to know as you looked at a

1:37:37neighborhood comparable density because

1:37:40as I'm looking on, you know, different

1:37:42maps, it doesn't look that dissimilar

1:37:44from other neighborhoods in the, you

1:37:46know, on Heather Lane or Morland across

1:37:48the street or even across Borook on

1:37:50something like Joffrey Street or some of

1:37:52those. To me, it looks visually similar

1:37:54when I look at a map. Um, what did you

1:37:57find when you were because you examined

1:37:59this, I'm sure. Did you calculate the

1:38:01average uh lot size on on the adjacent?

1:38:04>> Yeah, we agree with you. So, we don't

1:38:07have a technical answer because we

1:38:08didn't actually do the calculation, but

1:38:10we agree with you. Those are smaller

1:38:11lots. You know, they're not one or two

1:38:13acre lots. These are smaller lots.

1:38:15>> I was really hoping you did that math

1:38:16because I was trying to do it, but I

1:38:18didn't.

1:38:20>> Uh if I were quicker, I could do it on

1:38:21the fly, but I don't think it's going to

1:38:23happen right here. But, but you're

1:38:24right. They are smaller lots. I could

1:38:26pull I can quickly just pull up the uh

1:38:29GIS maps which can

1:38:37go.

1:38:40So this kind of just gives you an

1:38:42overview. This is our lot. Um,

1:38:47so yeah, similar similar to um all of

1:38:50the abuing uh neighborhoods on both

1:38:54Joffrey, Morland, Angela.

1:38:58Um,

1:38:59>> if you click on one of those, it will

1:39:00give you the lot size.

1:39:02>> Sure.

1:39:04If I do info, sorry,

1:39:07>> it should

1:39:09acre.

1:39:09>> Quarter acre. Yes.

1:39:10>> Quarter acre. They're mostly quarter

1:39:12acre.

1:39:12>> About the same.

1:39:13>> Yeah. So, my former house on Dunley

1:39:15Street was a quarter acre and it was

1:39:18tight, but it was nice place to live.

1:39:22>> Sure.

1:39:25>> Okay. Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt.

1:39:28Yeah. E,

1:39:29>> I'm just wondering if there's any um

1:39:31impact on the big things that the

1:39:32planning board typically looks at like

1:39:34uh the sewer capacities in the area,

1:39:36schooling, utilities. Is it uh all

1:39:40absorbable? Is there anything that's

1:39:41short that we going to be concerned

1:39:43about?

1:39:43>> There were no identified concerns in any

1:39:44of those areas.

1:39:49>> And again, the other one I saw was

1:39:50traffic. So, traffic and then the public

1:39:52safety piece of it on coming out. Uh I'm

1:39:55not inclined to to push for a light or a

1:39:58blinking light even at the Morland

1:40:00intersection. Uh we saw a couple people

1:40:02comment regarding uh cut through and

1:40:05again it's hard to tell what you're

1:40:07going to do but you know I know that

1:40:08road and travel it almost every day and

1:40:10I wonder if it's a benefit to cut

1:40:13through or if it's not. I don't think it

1:40:15would be but I can't see that I can't

1:40:17say

1:40:18>> can't say for sure that

1:40:19>> I don't think you'd save any time.

1:40:21>> So traffic um again and again waiverwise

1:40:25I we could go through here and deny

1:40:26every single one of these waivers. the

1:40:27product the the property could still be

1:40:29developed exactly like you want to

1:40:30develop it the way you want it. It just

1:40:32again it adds to your issues that you

1:40:35may need to deal with. We see these

1:40:38types of waiverss on every project that

1:40:40comes before us. It's not an excessive

1:40:42not an excessive amount of waivers. Uh

1:40:44and we see them for the same types of

1:40:46issues. Uh yours are a little different

1:40:49in the in the in the drainage and the

1:40:50and the sewer and the insulation and

1:40:52pieces that sometimes we don't see. Um

1:40:55but again the the the the quant the qual

1:40:58the quantity of them isn't a isn't a

1:41:00concern on my side.

1:41:01>> The state law requires that planning

1:41:03boards have to have a waiver ability

1:41:05because of either unique circumstances

1:41:07of the site itself or circumstances

1:41:09relative to the neighborhood around it.

1:41:12>> Right.

1:41:13Okay. Other questions from the board?

1:41:16Anything else you guys want to add

1:41:17before we open it up for public

1:41:18testimony? Uh I'll just real quickly a

1:41:21couple other things that came up at that

1:41:22butter meeting just so that they're not

1:41:24missed. The Butters had asked uh that we

1:41:26not put a project sign at the entrance

1:41:28off of South Street. Uh that's not shown

1:41:31on the plan and we're happy to consider

1:41:32that. Um they did ask if we would

1:41:35consider moving the storm water basin at

1:41:37the entryway. Uh we ultimately looked at

1:41:40that and weren't able to make that

1:41:41happen, but we did add the screening

1:41:43there. Uh there was some questions about

1:41:45who would maintain uh the storm water

1:41:48system and candidly I was under the

1:41:49impression there would likely be an HOA.

1:41:51I don't know if the city would be

1:41:52involved in that. Is that

1:41:54>> maybe you know the answer to that? Is it

1:41:55a

1:41:55>> it's a city maintenance on the storm

1:41:57infrastructure?

1:41:58>> Yep. They have an easement for it.

1:42:00>> Okay. Um and and then we talked about

1:42:04the turnaround. So those were the those

1:42:05are the key things uh that came up at

1:42:07that meeting.

1:42:08>> Okay. I noticed in in the narrative I

1:42:10think it was that uh you got some

1:42:12feedback regarding I maybe it was

1:42:14erosion maybe it was something and

1:42:16there's actually going to be some some

1:42:17some elevation changes that are going to

1:42:19be brought so you're going to be

1:42:20bringing in fill to to bring up the

1:42:23>> unfortunately unfortunately yes we

1:42:25looked at it and said boy what a great

1:42:26flat site this is going to be really fun

1:42:28and now we're you know having to bring

1:42:29it up to you know satisfy the sewer the

1:42:32dragage all that kind of stuff but it's

1:42:33got to be done it's expensive but it's

1:42:35going to have to be done

1:42:36>> in the in the original design the sewer

1:42:38went across a few of the lots which

1:42:42created all these awkward easements. Um

1:42:45so we ended up uh just having all the

1:42:48sewer and water within the roadway which

1:42:50dictated the amount of fill needed due

1:42:53to the shallowess.

1:42:54>> Great. All right, we'll have you guys

1:42:56step back.

1:42:56>> Thank you.

1:42:57>> And see who wants to be first up. Mr.

1:43:00Schwer asked if

1:43:01>> they've signed in before. I saw him sign

1:43:02in. So I know he did.

1:43:03>> I know he did. [laughter]

1:43:14Welcome back to the table. If you could

1:43:16again state your name for the record.

1:43:17>> Good evening everybody. I'm still Roy

1:43:19Schwiker

1:43:21and I object to the statement by the

1:43:24developer that he's not cutting corners.

1:43:26He's cutting several corners which I

1:43:29object to. And I also object to some of

1:43:33the corners that the staff is cutting. I

1:43:36mean, we have zoning laws. We spend a

1:43:38lot of time, you know, writing master

1:43:40plans and stuff and then random people

1:43:41just come in and say, "Oh, we don't need

1:43:43to do that. We can cut a corner here."

1:43:45And I really don't like it. We're doing

1:43:47a new master plan and zoning law. And if

1:43:50you really think things need to change,

1:43:52let's change them, but let's quit making

1:43:54changes that haven't been approved yet.

1:43:56>> Where where do you think we're cutting

1:43:58the staff is cutting the corners on?

1:43:59>> Okay. At least two different people have

1:44:01said that this meets all the dimensional

1:44:03requirements and there's five lots that

1:44:06don't have the sufficient whatever 5,000

1:44:09square foot area it's called.

1:44:12>> If I can they do it's just not in the

1:44:14rectangular shape as required by the

1:44:16regulations.

1:44:16>> Okay. The point is that it does not meet

1:44:18the regulation. So the statement that

1:44:20these meet all the regulations is not

1:44:22true in at least five cases and I don't

1:44:25think that's appropriate. Another thing

1:44:28is uh the staff has said, "Well, it's

1:44:31okay to use a tighter radius on the

1:44:33curves because that's traffic common."

1:44:35Well, you know, once again, maybe it's a

1:44:37good idea, maybe it isn't, but the staff

1:44:39should not be, you know, personally

1:44:42changing our zoning laws to, you know,

1:44:45go their personal whims. And we had a

1:44:48city planner, in fact, who got fired for

1:44:50using her own whims instead of what the

1:44:53zoning law said. And I think we need to,

1:44:56you know, get back to let's do things

1:44:57the way we say. And if you don't like

1:44:59the way we say, you change it. You don't

1:45:01just change it on a one by one vote

1:45:03basis. And the last thing I think is

1:45:08the, you know, number of trees. Well,

1:45:10you know, once again, why do you have a

1:45:12tree regulation if you're willing to say

1:45:15half of them is enough? So, I think,

1:45:19you know, let's [applause] uh, you know,

1:45:20get with the program. Let's do things

1:45:22the way we say. And if you don't like

1:45:24the regulations, change them. Don't do

1:45:26it on a spot basis.

1:45:29And the only design comment I have is

1:45:32that short hammerhead at the end. I've,

1:45:35you know, been involved in plowing in

1:45:36the past and something like that is kind

1:45:38of a disaster for plowing. You know, you

1:45:40come in with a truck, you have to go

1:45:42down there, you got to back in one way,

1:45:45pull out another way, and so forth. That

1:45:47thing is really a danger. I can see why

1:45:49they wanted to eliminate the hammerhead

1:45:51that they're getting rid of. And it's

1:45:53just a shame they have to add a

1:45:54hammerhead. I would almost say, can we

1:45:56make this one of those where this is a

1:45:58map city street and not build that until

1:46:01the next development actually cuts up

1:46:03because that's going to be very

1:46:05expensive. So my overhaul thought on

1:46:08this is you should not give them all the

1:46:10waiverss. You should tell them, okay,

1:46:12you need to change some things and

1:46:14probably you need to have one less lot.

1:46:16And I think if we tell them they need

1:46:18one less lot, they'll somehow come back

1:46:19and find that 23 lots will work just

1:46:22fine. It's easy to get up and say, "Oh,

1:46:24no. We can't cut a thing." But let's

1:46:27find out. I think we need to stick by

1:46:28the rules. And if they really can't do

1:46:32it, that's fine. But in particular, I

1:46:35know this developer. You saw the homes.

1:46:37These are not inexpensive homes. If you

1:46:39were going to say, "Okay, we're going to

1:46:41build some, you know, low-income

1:46:43housing, so let's, you know, let them do

1:46:45a couple of things that'll save them

1:46:46money." That's one thing. But if you're

1:46:48talking about homes that are maybe going

1:46:50to be $500,000, you know, that's no

1:46:53excuse for them cutting corners. Thank

1:46:55you.

1:46:55>> Thank you. Questions for Mr. Schwer?

1:46:58Thank you very much for your testimony.

1:47:12Good evening, members of the planning

1:47:14board. My name is Fred Keech. I'm a

1:47:16resident of Ward 6 and one of three

1:47:19principles uh from Dean Mloud

1:47:20Incorporated which owns the property.

1:47:23>> It's interesting to see you on that side

1:47:24of the table as opposed to one of these

1:47:26seats over here.

1:47:27>> It's more fun to be on this side.

1:47:29[laughter]

1:47:30Um, and for those in the audience that

1:47:32aren't familiar with D. Mloud

1:47:33Incorporated, it's Mloud's flower shop.

1:47:35It's been inconquered uh since 1902. The

1:47:38property's been owned by the same family

1:47:40uh for over a hundred years. Uh um back

1:47:43in the 1930s, some of those lots uh

1:47:46along South Street were sold off. Uh

1:47:48that was a long time ago. Uh we've hung

1:47:51on to those 10 acres there on the east

1:47:53side. There's another 25 acres on the

1:47:55west side that we currently are not

1:47:57proposed to develop at this time. Uh but

1:48:00these 10 acres were important to us. Um

1:48:02we were very deliberate about selecting

1:48:04the Stabil company because of their

1:48:06reputation and the work they do. Um we

1:48:08looked at several different uh

1:48:10possibilities that included cluster

1:48:12housing and very very high density

1:48:15housing. Um I've owned three houses in

1:48:17the South End. It was important to me

1:48:19and it's important to our family that

1:48:21whatever we do down there is consistent

1:48:23with the rest of the neighborhood. We

1:48:24don't want to negatively impact it.

1:48:26We're sensitive to our neighbors. So

1:48:28that's that's the history of that. So uh

1:48:31in light of that uh the waiverss that

1:48:33have been uh requested I think are very

1:48:35reasonable. Uh as the chair indicated uh

1:48:38rarely does he see a package come in

1:48:40front of the board that's as tight as

1:48:41this. I'll give the Stabil company and

1:48:44their team credit for that. Uh they're

1:48:46prepared. Um,

1:48:48and lastly, with regard to the the cost

1:48:50of the housing, uh, I'm not sure that's

1:48:52an issue. I will say over and over and

1:48:55over, all we hear about is the critical

1:48:58lack of housing. Uh, these are going to

1:49:00be expensive houses, no doubt. Um, but

1:49:02for every one of these houses that's

1:49:04sold, it frees up a starter house for

1:49:06some younger family to come along. So,

1:49:08um, while it might appear that these are

1:49:12upper end houses or in out of reach for

1:49:14a lot of folks, I think you should

1:49:15consider the the fact that it will, um,

1:49:18open up inventory for other lower priced

1:49:22homes in the neighborhood. So, be happy

1:49:24to answer any questions if you have

1:49:26them.

1:49:26>> Council council, any questions for

1:49:28council ke

1:49:30>> here as a public

1:49:31>> and here as a

1:49:32>> as a private citizen. I didn't council.

1:49:34Sorry.

1:49:35>> No connection to the council at this

1:49:37point. Absolutely. Sorry about that.

1:49:38>> That's all right. Chair.

1:49:39>> Okay. Thank you very much for your

1:49:41testimony.

1:49:42>> Who's next?

1:49:45>> Anybody?

1:49:46>> Yes, sir.

1:49:54>> Welcome to the table. If you could state

1:49:55your name for the record.

1:49:56>> Sure. Uh Nate Gford um from Conquered W

1:49:596. Uh I've lived in conquered all my

1:50:01life and I think you should approve

1:50:03this. I think that we need more housing

1:50:05of all shapes and sizes and this is

1:50:06housing of all shapes and sizes. The

1:50:08variances are minor and I would like to

1:50:12see more development in the south end.

1:50:14>> Any questions? Thank you for your

1:50:16testimony. You could sign in. Make sure

1:50:17you sign in before employee leave. Thank

1:50:18you. Anybody else?

1:50:23Y

1:50:24>> Yep.

1:50:25>> Sorry.

1:50:26>> Good evening.

1:50:27>> Good evening. Welcome to the table. If

1:50:28you could state your name for the

1:50:29record.

1:50:30>> Sure. Thanks. Uh my name is Jay

1:50:31Schumacher. resident on the uh north

1:50:33side of Heather Lane. And um I did send

1:50:37in written comments, so I know you've

1:50:38all have had a chance to look at those.

1:50:40I think I'd still like to stress um

1:50:44probably three points. Number one is the

1:50:46street light issue. So, I understand the

1:50:49regulation to be one street light at an

1:50:51intersection, but nowhere on the

1:50:54extension of Heather Lane that's going

1:50:56to occur or on the north side of Heather

1:50:58Lane or on Golden Rod Lane that

1:51:02intersects with the north side of

1:51:03Heather Lane. Is there a street lamp? I

1:51:06don't know how it happened. And I

1:51:08realize these folks are not developing

1:51:10the north side of Heather Lane, but how

1:51:12that happened without a street light,

1:51:14it's very dark back there. And so to

1:51:17think about this 800 feet that's going

1:51:20to have one street light

1:51:22and then the existing give or take 400

1:51:25feet that has no street light. I just

1:51:27wish there were more street lights. All

1:51:30of us, many of us have young children

1:51:32back in these areas. This will be a hot

1:51:34Halloween neighborhood for sure.

1:51:38There will be people coming from many,

1:51:40many locations in conquered to walk

1:51:42through all of these houses back here.

1:51:45it would really be beneficial to have

1:51:47two or three straight lights more added

1:51:49to the plan and I would appreciate that

1:51:51as well as I think all the residents who

1:51:53have young children there.

1:51:55>> Okay.

1:51:55>> Um I think another issue that was

1:51:59brought up um at the Abutters meeting

1:52:01was the discussion of the construction

1:52:03sign. A construction sign doesn't bother

1:52:05me at all. I understand the need for the

1:52:07development to advertise, you know,

1:52:09their partners and to advertise homes

1:52:12for sale. What I really don't want to

1:52:14see is something that would be very much

1:52:16out of the character of the

1:52:17neighborhoods is a monument sign. I

1:52:20don't think near that first drainage

1:52:22basin or on any of the connecting roads

1:52:25that there should be any sort of a golf

1:52:28course yacht club signage that's

1:52:32advertising

1:52:33the whatever estates that would be very

1:52:36much out of character with our

1:52:39neighborhood currently. There's none of

1:52:41that on Golden Rod, on either Heather

1:52:44Lane, on Angela Way, on any of these

1:52:47other streets. There's no permanent kind

1:52:49of monument sign welcoming you to the

1:52:51estates of whatever. So,

1:52:53>> I think they said they weren't going to

1:52:54do that, right?

1:52:55>> Well, we talked about a construction

1:52:56sign.

1:52:56>> Okay.

1:52:57>> So, I just want to be clear. I don't

1:52:58care about a construction sign.

1:53:00>> I care about the long-term monument

1:53:02sign.

1:53:03>> There's nothing identified on the plans

1:53:04to show any permanent statage.

1:53:05>> Yeah. I don't think there's anything

1:53:06permanent.

1:53:06>> Okay. All right. Um, I think another

1:53:10thing is that it's a little bit

1:53:12disingenuous to say that a traffic study

1:53:13is not necessary. And I understand that

1:53:15might be a city or a different

1:53:17ordinance, but to think that 24 houses

1:53:20with probably 2.5 to three people on

1:53:22average in them is not going to have a

1:53:25traffic impact on our neighboring

1:53:26streets is ridiculous.

1:53:29>> I don't think it takes into

1:53:31consideration commercial traffic. I

1:53:32could be wrong, but I can tell you the

1:53:34existing houses back there have a

1:53:37regular flow of Door Dash, Amazon,

1:53:40FedEx, Comcast, Breezeline,

1:53:44everybody is coming back into these

1:53:45houses multiple times a day. My wife is

1:53:48part of the concern with Amazon. So, we

1:53:52have multiple deliveries.

1:53:54She's not here tonight. But my point is,

1:53:57if we get 75 more residents here in the

1:54:00next five or six years, to think that

1:54:02there's only going to be 40 or 50 more

1:54:04traffic,

1:54:06you know, interactions a day is

1:54:09disingenuous.

1:54:10It's going to be more than that. Again,

1:54:13that takes me back to street lamps. Love

1:54:16the sidewalk. Think that's great. The

1:54:18north end of Heather Lane also has

1:54:19curbing on both sides of the street. I

1:54:21would like to see it continued on both

1:54:23sides of the street, but it is a mix of

1:54:25the other neighborhoods. Some do, some

1:54:27don't. So, I understand putting it only

1:54:28on one side.

1:54:31Bear with me just one moment. I just

1:54:32want to check my notes.

1:54:34>> I can only speculate, but I'm going to

1:54:36guess that the original Heather

1:54:38subdivision received a waiver for the

1:54:39street lights.

1:54:42>> Bad bad decision. Like, like

1:54:44>> it's dark as hell back there. Excuse me.

1:54:46I mean it seriously other people come

1:54:48from other parts of the city that are

1:54:49like, "Oh my god, it's so dark back

1:54:50here."

1:54:54>> I guess that's it for me.

1:54:55>> Okay. question. I know Alec has some

1:54:57information from the transportation

1:54:59engineer that if you wanted to

1:55:01>> um you know nothing that you know hasn't

1:55:03really been stated you know like you

1:55:05summarized earlier you know we don't see

1:55:08this development as adding any type of

1:55:10substantial or adverse impact to the

1:55:13butter when you break down you know the

1:55:16tra the applicant did prepare a trip

1:55:19generation report it's in supplemental

1:55:21materials um our traffic engineer had

1:55:23gone through that looked at it and you

1:55:25you know, you know, their estimates are,

1:55:28you know, approximately one vehicle for

1:55:30every 10 to 15 minutes during the peak

1:55:31hours that would utilize the Heather

1:55:34Golden Rod Lane portion. Um, and then,

1:55:37you know, the trips that are, you know,

1:55:38going to be going to South Street are

1:55:41negligible to the amount of traffic

1:55:42that's, you know, already utilizing that

1:55:44street. So, staff, you know, looked at

1:55:46this, you know, we just like the board,

1:55:49you know, we received all the public

1:55:50testimony. We looked at it again. still

1:55:51don't think that requiring any a traffic

1:55:54study would produce or yield anything.

1:55:56>> Had the volumes from that trip

1:55:58generation report generated concerns, we

1:56:00would have required the full traffic

1:56:01analysis. Do

1:56:02>> you have anything to add, Pete?

1:56:04>> No, I I talked to the transportation

1:56:06engineer as well and whether the report

1:56:09is 10 pages or 100 pages or a thousand

1:56:12pages, the numbers are what the numbers

1:56:13are. It's it's not going to change the

1:56:16recommendation of of the study.

1:56:20the the traffic is going to primarily

1:56:23come in and out of the new entrance off

1:56:26of uh opposite Morland. So there's going

1:56:29to be there should be very very very

1:56:31limited traffic on the existing Heather

1:56:33Lane uh avenues.

1:56:36So, I disagree. I knowing that we have

1:56:39residents on Golden Rod and Northern

1:56:42Northern Heather Lane, a lot of the

1:56:45route planning for UPS, Amazon, and a

1:56:47lot of these other delivery services, if

1:56:49they also have stops on Golden Rod and

1:56:51on Heather Lane, it's going to continue

1:56:54through there one way or the other.

1:56:55Maybe not during phase one because

1:56:57there's going to be no secondary part of

1:56:59the road, but once the development is

1:57:02complete, I just disagree with your

1:57:05assessment.

1:57:06Okay, there. That's fair.

1:57:09>> Questions?

1:57:10>> No questions. Thank you very much for

1:57:11your testimony.

1:57:13>> Okay.

1:57:15>> Any other comments, questions, or

1:57:16concerns about this application?

1:57:19Come on up.

1:57:29>> Welcome to the table. If you could state

1:57:31your name for the record.

1:57:32>> Thank you. Good evening. My name is

1:57:33Charity Ross. Um, I did submit written

1:57:37testimony, but I apologize because it

1:57:39was later in the day today, but it was

1:57:40not 6:41 p.m. Um, I have copies prepared

1:57:43if you haven't had an opportunity.

1:57:45>> Sorry, we got it.

1:57:46>> You got it. Okay, perfect. Thank you.

1:57:48Um, I um

1:57:50I think some of the things that I'm um

1:57:52I'm going to address in my comments this

1:57:54evening may have already been addressed.

1:57:55So, feel free to stop me if you have any

1:57:57questions or it's been pointed out.

1:57:58There was some new information that came

1:58:00through tonight that I didn't have

1:58:02knowledge of before I put this together.

1:58:03So, I'm just gonna kind of jump into

1:58:05that and if you have questions, please

1:58:06feel free to to stop me.

1:58:09Um, okay. So, as I stated before, uh, my

1:58:12name is Charity Ross. I reside at Nine

1:58:14Heather Lane and my partner Kevin

1:58:16Shields, um, uh, is who I'm also

1:58:18speaking on behalf here because he was

1:58:20not able to join this evening. I'm a

1:58:22born and raised conquered native and

1:58:24with the exception of a few years, I

1:58:26lived and conquered my entire life. I

1:58:28first moved into the South End in 1984

1:58:31where my parents bought the home that

1:58:33they still happily reside in. And no

1:58:35matter where I was living, the Southoun

1:58:36has always been home to me. And when

1:58:38Kevin and I purchased our home on

1:58:40Heather Lane, I was thrilled to return

1:58:41to the neighborhood I grew up in. Um,

1:58:44our home is one of the last two

1:58:45residences on Heather Lane, making us an

1:58:47immediate abuter to this proposed

1:58:49roadway extension. Consequently, the

1:58:52decisions made regarding this

1:58:53development will have a direct and

1:58:54permanent impact on our property. Kevin

1:58:57and I have submitted detailed letters

1:58:58out out excuse [clears throat] me

1:59:00outlining our concerns regarding the

1:59:02proposed development and like I'd like

1:59:04to take a few minutes to discuss those

1:59:06this evening. First and of particular

1:59:08importance to us personally is the

1:59:10proposed elimination of the existing

1:59:12Heather Lane Hammerhead turnarounds. Now

1:59:14I understand a lot of that was discussed

1:59:16tonight but I'll explain my position of

1:59:18those. um

1:59:21they are within our deed property

1:59:22boundary lines and is subject to an adun

1:59:25municipal easement. The city currently

1:59:26pays and maintains this area which has

1:59:29historically served certain important

1:59:31purposes including the vehicle

1:59:33turnarounds to the point of Jay with the

1:59:35Amazon trucks and everything that come

1:59:36through on a daily basis. And we can

1:59:38attest to that because we both work at

1:59:40home so we see these vehicles all day

1:59:41long and I'm also a habitual offender.

1:59:44um snow removal, storage, and overflow

1:59:46parking for our entire neighborhood. Um

1:59:49this development would eliminate these

1:59:50turnarounds and extend Heather Lane, as

1:59:52you know, at 800 ft. Um it raises

1:59:55significant concerns regarding our

1:59:57property rights, the easements, the

1:59:59grading, grading, drainage and

2:00:00accessibility, and the potential impacts

2:00:03on our property. We respectfully request

2:00:06that the board require clarification on

2:00:07all existing and proposed easements, our

2:00:10property rights, the maintenance

2:00:11obligations before approving any of the

2:00:13changes to the hammerhead. We further

2:00:16request serious consideration to be

2:00:17given to preserving these turnarounds to

2:00:20as and keep them for their established

2:00:21uses and that detailed grading drainage

2:00:24plans be provided to demonstrate how the

2:00:26roadway elevation will affect our

2:00:27property and the abutters.

2:00:31Second, we're deeply concerned about the

2:00:32number and nature of waivers requested

2:00:34for this development. As you've heard

2:00:35throughout the evening, of particular

2:00:38concern, the waivers involving storm

2:00:40drainage and sanitary sewer cover have

2:00:42drawn objections from the city's own

2:00:44staff. The applicant has proposed

2:00:47drainage pipes for as little as 2 feet

2:00:49of cover where 4 feet would otherwise be

2:00:51required. The city staff concerns

2:00:55identified item items such as frost

2:00:58heaving, freezing, and potential damage

2:01:00to infrastructure. Those are not infra

2:01:03insignificant technical exceptions. They

2:01:05involve established engineering

2:01:07standards intended to protect

2:01:08infrastructure safety and long-term

2:01:10interests of the city and its residents.

2:01:13We respectfully request that the board

2:01:14give substantial weight to the staff

2:01:16objections and withhold these waivers

2:01:18withhold approval of these waiverss

2:01:20until these deficiencies have been

2:01:22resolved.

2:01:25Additional waiver requests involving

2:01:27minimum table minimum usable lot area

2:01:29and configurations raise further

2:01:31questions about whether the proposed

2:01:33density is appropriate for this

2:01:34particular property. We believe the

2:01:37board must consider not only whether

2:01:38each individual waiver can be justified,

2:01:40but whether the cumulative number of

2:01:42nature of the exceptions indicate the

2:01:44development is being designed beyond the

2:01:46reasonable limitations of the land. If

2:01:49the property cannot properly accommodate

2:01:5124 lots while meeting city established

2:01:54standards, we ask that the developer be

2:01:56required to reconsider the design and

2:01:58res reduce the number of lots to make

2:02:01that density to meet the proposed

2:02:03density. Our third concern is storm

2:02:06water management, groundwater

2:02:08conditions. Um as is one of our more

2:02:11serious concerns. Um even tonight uh in

2:02:15their testimony, the applicant has

2:02:16acknowledged that this has presented

2:02:18extremely low topography and that

2:02:21there's a higher groundwater table. The

2:02:24groundwater the stormwater design

2:02:26reportedly includes increases in certain

2:02:28peak discharge and rate turnoff volumes

2:02:30in compared to existing conditions.

2:02:34These conditions are not hypothetical. I

2:02:37have personally observed drainage

2:02:38structures on Heather Lane overwhelmed

2:02:40during Heather heavy rains of heavy

2:02:43periods of rainfall. We believe that

2:02:45adding substantial development or

2:02:47altering the grades, increasing

2:02:49impervious service warrants a

2:02:51comprehensive evaluation of how storm

2:02:53water will be managed.

2:02:57Um, I'm trying to shorten what I have

2:03:00because I know I have a lot of comments.

2:03:01Um,

2:03:03I also requested the developer in this

2:03:05bait. I believe it sounded like it may

2:03:07have been addressed that they um include

2:03:10other alternatives such as engineered

2:03:12fill which is what our neighborhood is

2:03:14built on. We are built up on fill which

2:03:16explains why they're were higher than

2:03:17they are and other re uh revised grading

2:03:20drainage infrastructure and to reduce

2:03:22the development of the density.

2:03:25Fourth, we have concerns with the

2:03:26homeowners assoc association. When we

2:03:29met with them in August, they explained

2:03:31to us that the um storm water drainage

2:03:34system that is going to be on the new

2:03:35lot in the corner lot, which I think is

2:03:37like the south corner of um South

2:03:40Street, is going to be maintained by

2:03:42homeowners association.

2:03:44Storm water infrastructure is not a

2:03:46common area amenity. It's an essential

2:03:48infrastructure and requires ongoing

2:03:49inspection, maintenance, repair, and

2:03:51eventual replacement. As a property

2:03:53owner with another within another

2:03:55homeowners association, I understand

2:03:57firsthand the challenges that these

2:03:58associations can face, including

2:04:01recruiting board members, securing

2:04:03adequate funding, maintaining reserves,

2:04:05and managing complex maintenance

2:04:06responsibilities. I'm particularly

2:04:08concerned about placing essential

2:04:10drainage infrastructure on the control

2:04:12of a small association where the

2:04:14consequences of inadequate maintenance

2:04:16could extend well beyond the association

2:04:17boundaries. Homeowners who are not

2:04:20members of the pose proposed association

2:04:22will have no control over existing

2:04:24homeowners will have no control over

2:04:25that and could ultimately experience the

2:04:28severe consequences of its failure if

2:04:30the m if it was not maintained properly.

2:04:32>> So just just for the record that's not

2:04:34the case. It's not going to be managed

2:04:35by homeless

2:04:36>> municipal it will do it because at the

2:04:38meeting we had they explained that the

2:04:39city would not

2:04:40>> city will be doing it. It's all within

2:04:42it's all within city rightway and city

2:04:43ements.

2:04:44>> Okay.

2:04:45>> Excellent. Thank you.

2:04:48Um, I'm not going to address the traffic

2:04:50study. I I think it's been covered. I I

2:04:53agree with the comments that Jay had.

2:04:55Um, I will add that the street light

2:04:58would be very beneficial. I don't even

2:05:00walk my dog after dark because it's dark

2:05:02on our street. So, having an additional

2:05:05uh street light would be very

2:05:06beneficial.

2:05:06>> I'd be interested in how many?

2:05:11>> One, two.

2:05:12>> To his point, we don't have one on

2:05:13Golden Rod or Heather.

2:05:14>> Yep. So, um

2:05:18I I can't recall where it's going to be

2:05:20on their plans. I think Heather alone

2:05:22maybe two. One at the intersection of

2:05:24Golden Rod and Heather and maybe at the

2:05:26entrance of the new development. I

2:05:28>> or option or options to do, you know,

2:05:31lower street lighting like sidewalky

2:05:33type, you know, not big municipal Yeah.

2:05:36>> street lights.

2:05:37>> It's dark. It's very dark in our

2:05:39neighborhood.

2:05:40>> Okay.

2:05:42>> Thank you. Um,

2:05:46another concern is the preservation of

2:05:48mature trees, natural buffers, and

2:05:49wildlife habit habitat. Um, this will

2:05:52substantially alter a wooden parcel that

2:05:55currently serves for natural privacy,

2:05:58um, wildlife habitat, and environmental

2:05:59benefits that have been in our

2:06:00neighborhood for decades. We um I'd like

2:06:04to request that the uh sorry wherever

2:06:09reasonably possible that you establish

2:06:11meaningful lasting buffers between the

2:06:14new development and the existing homes

2:06:15on Heather Lane and South Street rather

2:06:17than doing a clear cutting maintaining

2:06:20some area of the existing mature trees

2:06:22that are already there between the

2:06:24development on South and Heather.

2:06:28And then um while this may be less

2:06:31consequential, the engineering and

2:06:33infrastructure area than the engineering

2:06:34infrastructure concerns that we

2:06:36expressed to Jay's point um I also have

2:06:39opposition to a monument sign. It sounds

2:06:41like they heard us and and expressed our

2:06:44concerns at the August meeting. The only

2:06:46other thing that I'd like to add is that

2:06:48I'd request that um they submit several

2:06:51proposed names as they were requested to

2:06:53do in the city's response and give

2:06:56preference and consideration to the

2:06:58names that reflect the south end's rich

2:07:00history and our established naming

2:07:02conventions. I don't know the origin of

2:07:04coach light lane, but as a hunker girl

2:07:07who grew up in the south end, it didn't

2:07:09quite fit with what we already have in

2:07:11the south end.

2:07:12>> How does Mloud Road read? Is that

2:07:15something more?

2:07:16>> No. Okay, just one.

2:07:18>> No comment. [laughter]

2:07:20And then finally, we ask the board to

2:07:22carefully consider the long-term

2:07:23consequences of the decisions being made

2:07:25for this development today. Eventually,

2:07:28Stabil is going to complete the

2:07:29construction and move on to other

2:07:31projects. They may or may not be in the

2:07:33conquered community. Existing residents

2:07:35and future homeowners and the city of

2:07:37conquered will be left to live with

2:07:38those results. Any deficiencies in the

2:07:41stormardo management, the roadway

2:07:42infrastructure, maintenance obligations,

2:07:44environmental protections could create

2:07:47lasting consequences and financial

2:07:48burdens that will extend long beyond the

2:07:51construction period.

2:07:53We recognize that development brings

2:07:55change and we're not opposed to

2:07:56reasonable growth. We also recognize

2:07:58that property owners have the right to

2:08:00pursue reasonable development of the

2:08:01land. However, that right must be

2:08:03balanced against city's responsibility

2:08:05and hold uphold the regulations to

2:08:07protect the existing property rights and

2:08:09safeguard the long-term interests of our

2:08:10community.

2:08:12We respectfully request that the board

2:08:14refrain from approving this application

2:08:15for development in its current form or

2:08:17granting outside w outstanding waiverss

2:08:19until the engineering deficiency

2:08:21property right questions, storm water

2:08:22concerns, and maintenance obligations

2:08:24have been fully addressed.

2:08:28not um I'm not following on the property

2:08:31right um what's the what's the

2:08:34>> the a hammerhead is on my my property

2:08:37and I'd like to understand what will

2:08:39happen and what my rights are with that

2:08:41hammerhead if you look at the city lot

2:08:43that is on my boundary line within my

2:08:45boundary line

2:08:46>> it's temporary turnaround easement

2:08:48designed for being replaced and removed

2:08:51upon the extension of the roadway

2:08:54>> and it's the city's easement the city is

2:08:56the rights holder for the property and

2:08:58the turnaround itself. So when the

2:09:00street is extended, the turnaround will

2:09:02come out and the new temporary

2:09:03turnaround will be placed at the end of

2:09:04this particular project

2:09:06>> and still maintained on my property. The

2:09:09boundary lines are not because the new

2:09:10maps if I'm not an expert at reading

2:09:12those, but it looked like the

2:09:14development

2:09:15>> part of the roadway acceptance process

2:09:17with the city council. The easement will

2:09:19likely be extinguished

2:09:21and it will go away.

2:09:23>> Understood. I would like them to remain

2:09:26and I also would like clarification if

2:09:29this development is taking part of my

2:09:33land.

2:09:35>> Not under the terms of the easement as

2:09:37as the easement was written and reviewed

2:09:39by the city's attorney.

2:09:40>> No.

2:09:45>> And just for clarity, you want to keep

2:09:47the easement?

2:09:48>> Yeah. Um, yes, sir. I'd like to keep the

2:09:51They are utilized. They're utilized.

2:09:54Yep.

2:09:55>> Do I understand it correctly that she

2:09:57owns a square of property and right now

2:09:58the city has the ability on it?

2:10:01>> The city has a deed easement on the

2:10:03property at the end of Heather.

2:10:04Currently that easement was conveyed to

2:10:06the city in n in 2009 recorded in 2009

2:10:10book 3152 page 876. Uh the states that

2:10:15the grantor and successors assigns agree

2:10:17that it will not without consent of the

2:10:19grantee which is the city alter, erect

2:10:21or maintain any buildings or

2:10:22improvements including landscaping upon

2:10:24the described easement area that may

2:10:26reason unreasonably interfere with or

2:10:28endanger the above granted rights which

2:10:30is the turnaround rights for the city.

2:10:32The easement and operation maintenance

2:10:34itself. the city that and that the city

2:10:36may cause to have removed any such

2:10:38building or improvement, including

2:10:40landscaping that may be wholly or partly

2:10:42within the above described easement area

2:10:43at the expense of the then owner of the

2:10:45land upon which the described easement

2:10:47lies.

2:10:48>> And that means that she'll have an

2:10:50expanded ownership right in her

2:10:52>> that easement will go away. There will

2:10:53be no longer an incumbrance for that

2:10:55turnaround on her property,

2:10:57>> but not expanded.

2:10:59>> Well, she has a property with an

2:11:00easement on it and that easement goes

2:11:02away. that would expand.

2:11:04>> That gives her additional rights that

2:11:05currently she does not have on that

2:11:06area. Correct.

2:11:07>> Okay.

2:11:08>> So, are you saying she gets that land

2:11:10back?

2:11:10>> The easement will be extinguished and

2:11:12there will no longer be

2:11:13>> she already owns the underlying land.

2:11:15It's just a right for the city to use it

2:11:16which will terminate. So, she'll get

2:11:18possession full she get full ownership

2:11:20of the underlying land.

2:11:22>> But to my to did I understand you

2:11:23correctly that that's at the expense of

2:11:25the current land owner.

2:11:27>> Anything that you put in the easement

2:11:28that is not per the current easement. So

2:11:31if you had installed in ir irrigation or

2:11:34other things, landscaping, it would be

2:11:36the property owner's responsibility to

2:11:38remove those.

2:11:39>> But how it will be returned to me after

2:11:42demolition when

2:11:43>> it will be part of the construction and

2:11:45the acceptance process with the city

2:11:47council that that area will need to be

2:11:48the pavement will be removed. It will be

2:11:51lome receded in accordance with our

2:11:52construction standards and then returned

2:11:54to the property owners.

2:11:56>> But it does say that it is not that the

2:11:58easement does not unreasonably

2:12:00interfere. or how does this unreasonably

2:12:01interfere with the development?

2:12:03>> The city's rights are for the

2:12:05turnaround. It's not for parking. It's

2:12:07it's purely a turnaround easement that

2:12:09becomes unnecessary upon the extension

2:12:11of the road and hence the city no longer

2:12:13has an interest in maintaining that

2:12:15easement and will not.

2:12:20>> Yes, sir.

2:12:23>> Yeah.

2:12:23>> One of the questions that was asked was

2:12:25if you wanted to maintain I don't think

2:12:27you want to maintain the easement. I

2:12:29think she just wants to hammer it.

2:12:31>> Is there a possibility of hammering it

2:12:34>> based on our construction standards

2:12:35though?

2:12:36>> Wouldn't it be less expensive?

2:12:38>> Yeah. So staff staff would not recommend

2:12:41it and essentially what that would turn

2:12:42it into is a driveway curb cut on your

2:12:45property at that point.

2:12:46>> I'm sorry. It would turn into a

2:12:47>> would turn into a secondary driveway

2:12:49which we had the discussion about

2:12:50earlier tonight which is not permitted.

2:12:56And will it be graded down?

2:12:58>> No. What the applicant is proposing and

2:13:00staff supports and um staff would not

2:13:04recommend maintaining it is that as part

2:13:07of this construction, the temporary like

2:13:09the pavement will be removed. Everything

2:13:11graded back out within the easement area

2:13:14and the roadway is continued like it was

2:13:16never there

2:13:17>> because there's a retaining wall. Does

2:13:19that go away?

2:13:20>> Yes. And so there there's a significant

2:13:23difference in heights.

2:13:24>> Yes.

2:13:25>> Yep. And the applicants bringing in fill

2:13:27and

2:13:27>> to fill that and name that

2:13:29>> roadway design. Correct.

2:13:30>> As as proposed.

2:13:33>> And just for the record, what he was

2:13:34asking you before when I asked you if

2:13:36you wanted to maintain the easement. I

2:13:38think what he was saying is you want to

2:13:39maintain the the hammerhead, not the

2:13:42>> within it. Yeah.

2:13:43>> Just I wanted

2:13:45>> put it on the record. Right. Right.

2:13:47Okay.

2:13:48>> Okay. Any questions from the office?

2:13:52>> I'll just close by saying we care deeply

2:13:53about our neighborhood, which I think is

2:13:54evident by so many people that have been

2:13:56here.

2:13:57>> Um, and it's not just myself. My sister

2:13:59also lives in the South End. We walk to

2:14:01each other's houses. It's a very

2:14:02community neighborhood. Um, and we're

2:14:04all very close and um, we'd like to stay

2:14:07in and I've watched this whole

2:14:09neighborhood evolve over the years. Um,

2:14:11including our own neighborhood, which

2:14:13was a field at one point in time. Um, we

2:14:17just ask that the the same standards be

2:14:19upheld that were done with other

2:14:21neighborhoods and um careful

2:14:23consideration to how this is being done.

2:14:26>> And thank you for your time and

2:14:27consideration.

2:14:28>> Thank you for your testimony. Questions?

2:14:31Thank you.

2:14:34Okay. Any last questions?

2:14:38Oops. Yep. Make sure they signed in.

2:14:42>> Did you sign in? Okay. Thank you.

2:14:46Welcome to the table. If you could state

2:14:47your name for the record.

2:14:51>> My name is Leela Paul. I live um near

2:14:56South Street and the Bow Brook goes

2:14:58underground behind my house.

2:15:03Um and from what I understand, I didn't

2:15:06I didn't realize that the city is going

2:15:08to be maintaining storm water drainage.

2:15:11Um, and that's a new piece of

2:15:13information.

2:15:16It sounds to me like that would then be

2:15:18at the expense of the taxpayers

2:15:21>> as it is for all municipal

2:15:22infrastructure within our rights of way.

2:15:24Yes.

2:15:24>> Yes. Okay. Um, and uh,

2:15:29from what I've seen of the Bow Brook the

2:15:32way that it exists now, I mean, I I used

2:15:34to play there as a kid with my brother

2:15:37and um, you know, like check out the

2:15:39skunk cabbage when it's blooming and all

2:15:41that. Um,

2:15:43I do think that it's a particular

2:15:46challenge

2:15:48and uh I really do hope that

2:15:51I could have a better understanding of

2:15:53why it is that the conservation

2:15:54commission didn't look at this.

2:15:57>> Well, there's no in buffer in

2:15:58incursions. There's no there was nothing

2:16:00that triggered a conservation commission

2:16:02review and that's why I made a comment

2:16:04about it. I mean, it's right near the

2:16:06brook, um,

2:16:07>> but not on the property.

2:16:08>> But not on the property, and it doesn't

2:16:10infringe on the buffers, and there's no

2:16:11water infiltration that's going to be

2:16:13moving towards the brook. So, it doesn't

2:16:17it's not going to affect it.

2:16:21>> Okay.

2:16:22Um, other than that, I I have to say

2:16:24that I things have kind of been framed

2:16:27differently since the big first time I

2:16:29heard about this project in terms of lot

2:16:32size and waiverss and uh so like I'm

2:16:35still confused.

2:16:36>> Well, that's why we have a public

2:16:37hearing. I mean, there there's an awful

2:16:39lot of information that goes floating

2:16:40around on social media and comments and

2:16:43oh, they shouldn't do this, they

2:16:44shouldn't do that. And that's why we

2:16:46have these public hearings and and

2:16:48specifically address that all the

2:16:50driveways slope towards the street, all

2:16:51the street slopes towards the towards

2:16:53the retention ponds. Um there's a lot of

2:16:56thought that goes into the development

2:16:58piece and you know, you wouldn't know it

2:17:00by what you see on on other areas. So,

2:17:03we we invite and welcome the the

2:17:06feedback and and and it again the room's

2:17:09never full usually for these types of

2:17:11things, but it's exceedingly rare that

2:17:13we don't have architectural design

2:17:15review, conservation commission, and

2:17:17conditional use permits that are being

2:17:18requested.

2:17:19>> Yes, it sounds like they've been very

2:17:21careful. Um the the lot size, however,

2:17:25does seem like kind of a sticking point.

2:17:28Am I correct?

2:17:29>> Not at No, the lot sizes are all

2:17:31compliant with our zoning ordinance.

2:17:3212,500 ft is the minimum lot size within

2:17:36this district. There is a requirement in

2:17:38our subdivision regulations that a

2:17:40minimum buildable rectangle be contained

2:17:42on a lot of a certain square footage

2:17:44size. Because of the shape of some of

2:17:46these lots, they have the minimum size.

2:17:48It's just not shaped like a rectangle.

2:17:50>> Okay. Right. Okay.

2:17:53>> Questions?

2:17:54>> Thank you very much for your testimony.

2:17:57>> Anybody else?

2:18:01Last chance. Oops.

2:18:09>> If you could state your name for the

2:18:11record.

2:18:11>> Yes. My name is Mona Zepic. Say that

2:18:14three times fast.

2:18:15>> Um, I live on the southern end of

2:18:18Heather Lane on the segment that sits

2:18:19two lots from this parcel. My written

2:18:22testimony and a petition signed by

2:18:24Conquered Residents were submitted to

2:18:25the board in September for this hearing.

2:18:28and I ask that they be confirmed as part

2:18:30of the record tonight. I'll use my time

2:18:32here this evening to address just a few

2:18:33additional points. Last month, Eric

2:18:36Jackson, the applicant's own director of

2:18:38acquisitions and development, explained

2:18:40at a public housing webinar, as well as

2:18:42at tonight's hearing, why projects like

2:18:44this one are laid out the way they are.

2:18:46In his words, they can't get enough

2:18:48density to make projects financially

2:18:50feasible. A road costs about $1,200 a

2:18:52foot, and the more houses you put on it,

2:18:54the less each house pays for that road.

2:18:57The 24 lots on this plan are not what

2:18:59the land can hold. They're what the road

2:19:01costs. Every waiver in front of you

2:19:03follows from that number. Six lots don't

2:19:06meet the city's usable area regulation.

2:19:08I know we've talked about how they're

2:19:09not rectangular, but they still don't

2:19:11meet that regulation. 13 need

2:19:13dimensional relief. 34 street trees

2:19:16where their own calculation requires

2:19:17about 74. And I know that requirement

2:19:20has been claimed to be less this evening

2:19:21as well. and also a storm water system

2:19:24that by the applicant's own report sends

2:19:2661% more peak runoff to Bow Brook in an

2:19:29ordinary two-year storm. More volume in

2:19:32every storm modeled from a pond dug 6 ft

2:19:34below the seasonal water table. That is

2:19:36not a hardship of the land. It's a

2:19:38hardship of the spreadsheet. And these

2:19:40are not starter homes. We've heard

2:19:42tonight that new homes at this price

2:19:44free up older ones. That only works if

2:19:46buyers can afford to move up.

2:19:50>> [applause]

2:19:53>> At that same webinar, New Hampshire

2:19:55Housing said, "A home at the state

2:19:57median takes a $182,000

2:20:00income, which only 15% of households

2:20:03statewide earn, a chain that starts

2:20:05above what 85% of Conquered can pay does

2:20:07not reach the first rung. One more thing

2:20:10deserves to be mentioned. Since this

2:20:12land is owned by Councelor Fred Keech,

2:20:15it is important that we are

2:20:16conscientious of the precedent being set

2:20:18here tonight. Because if this board

2:20:20grants nine waivers from its own

2:20:21standards for a project that puts money

2:20:23in a sitting counselor's business, every

2:20:25applicant who comes after this will ask

2:20:27why they are held to rules that this one

2:20:29was not. Conquer's regulations are not

2:20:32the obstacle here. They're doing exactly

2:20:33what they are written to do, showing

2:20:35that this plan asked too much of this

2:20:37land. I ask that you hold this project

2:20:39to the rules that other homes in the

2:20:40city were and continue to be built

2:20:42under. Thank you.

2:20:51Okay. Anybody else?

2:20:54>> If not, we're going to close the public

2:20:56hearing. Uh, welcome the applicant back.

2:20:58Actually, we will leave the public

2:20:59hearing open. Welcome the applicant back

2:21:01up.

2:21:11[clears throat]

2:21:16Okay.

2:21:16>> Thanks for having us back up.

2:21:19>> Were you going to say something?

2:21:20>> Nope. Go ahead.

2:21:20>> Okay. Um,

2:21:22I just wanted to confirm, uh, the

2:21:25statements that were made earlier that,

2:21:27uh, it is our intention to have the road

2:21:29accepted as public infrastructure and to

2:21:31grant the easements necessary to

2:21:33maintain the road and the drainage uh,

2:21:35and the various pieces of that drainage

2:21:38system that have been described uh, on

2:21:40the plans. And tonight in our testimony,

2:21:42um there is uh one item I just wanted to

2:21:45clarify which is uh a waiver we haven't

2:21:49uh really discussed in detail. Uh it is

2:21:52uh recommended for denial by the city

2:21:54staff uh relating to uh a 110th foot

2:21:59drop within uh sanitary manhole

2:22:02structures. We had asked that that

2:22:04standard be waved uh and the engineering

2:22:07department has recommended against that

2:22:08waiver. Um, we've thrown a couple of

2:22:10compromises at them over the last few

2:22:12days trying to reach middle ground.

2:22:14We're not there yet. Uh, we understand

2:22:16it's the staff's recommendation to deny

2:22:18that waiver and at least for today's

2:22:20purposes, we accept that position. Uh,

2:22:23and what likely will be a denial of that

2:22:25waiver and we'll continue working. Um,

2:22:28if it's something that we can achieve

2:22:29compliance with, the waiver goes away.

2:22:32Uh, and we'll have plans that fully

2:22:34comply. Uh and if not, we may come back

2:22:36either with a compromised position uh or

2:22:39a request to re reenact that request for

2:22:42a full waiver. Um as it stands right

2:22:44now, we're going to hope to do our best

2:22:46and accept the denial and uh and and

2:22:49send Morgan back to work, which uh she's

2:22:51done a bangup job of thus far. So I'm

2:22:54confident we'll get around it.

2:22:55>> Okay. So just for the record, that's

2:22:579.2, 2, which is section 211047

2:23:00to not require a 0.1 drop foot uh within

2:23:03a sanitary manhole structure.

2:23:05>> Correct. And it's 9.2A.

2:23:079.2B relates uh to street tree uh

2:23:12volume. And I believe with the exhibit

2:23:15that Morgan had put up on the screen and

2:23:17the additional four trees, we've moved

2:23:19to a place where staff can now recommend

2:23:21that waiver.

2:23:21>> That was the one per 45.

2:23:23>> Yep.

2:23:26>> Okay. Um, I'm intrigued on the street

2:23:28lighting and I specifically asked about

2:23:31the street lighting when we went through

2:23:32the lighting plan because it did seem

2:23:34sparse from my perspective. Um, I don't

2:23:37know what the options are. I don't know

2:23:38what, you know, if it's a municipal

2:23:40street light, it's going to be the ugly

2:23:42big tall thing. Um, I don't know if

2:23:44there's options to do street light

2:23:46street lighting along the sidewalk edge.

2:23:49uh if there's options to do uh uh you

2:23:52know uh gate or you know a posted at

2:23:56every at every driveway that'll add

2:23:58light to the to the um to the street. Um

2:24:02I don't think that's a huge expense, but

2:24:03I just I'm looking for options to to

2:24:06throw out there. I don't think it's a

2:24:08dealbreaker, but I I think it's again a

2:24:11valid concern that especially given how

2:24:13dark it is right now um and getting

2:24:16darker every day in the in the 4:00

2:24:18hour. Um it's certainly not a

2:24:20unreasonable request.

2:24:22>> Yeah, we uh we can take it under

2:24:24advisement. Um, one of the

2:24:25complications, as you know, is that when

2:24:28this infrastructure becomes public,

2:24:30those placements will likely be within

2:24:32the city's right of way. And so, it's

2:24:34not so easy for us to agree to what they

2:24:36may or may not accept uh and maintain.

2:24:39>> Um, so I think what we can say at this

2:24:41point is um our plan is compliant. We

2:24:43don't know why it's so dark on the

2:24:45street that streets that surround us and

2:24:47we'll take it under advisement and add

2:24:48it to our discussion of manhole covers.

2:24:50>> Okay. And you heard some testimony

2:24:52regarding, you know, leaving some of the

2:24:54buffers, leaving some of the mature

2:24:55trees. I know there's a lot of pine in

2:24:57that area. Um, having lived there in in

2:25:00the budding area. Um, I don't know if

2:25:02there's, you know, options to leave some

2:25:04of that or there's options to find some

2:25:07worthy trees that can stay, but anything

2:25:09that can be done, I think should be uh

2:25:12should be explored.

2:25:13>> We don't want to cut more than we need

2:25:14to, and we've proposed some buffers for

2:25:16that particular reason.

2:25:18>> How does the curbing work? Is it curbed?

2:25:20Yes, it's curved on both sides. Vertical

2:25:22granite curbing.

2:25:23>> Okay. So, when we take the hammerhead

2:25:25out, you pull it back, you regrade, you

2:25:27curb right through. So, it looks like

2:25:29the streets been there forever.

2:25:30>> And the curbing is the city standard.

2:25:32>> And the sign piece of it that we heard

2:25:33some testimony regarding the sign. I

2:25:35think I heard you say no sign out there,

2:25:36but maybe a construction sign to get

2:25:38people into the area or maybe not.

2:25:41>> No monument sign for Morgan Estates.

2:25:43>> Morgan Estates. [laughter]

2:25:45>> For

2:25:47dry. Oh, dry is the road.

2:25:49>> Yeah, I'd like to submit the name for

2:25:51the road as Morgan.

2:25:52>> Yeah. Yeah.

2:25:56>> Morgan Lane.

2:25:57>> I think we got one of those already up

2:25:58on the

2:26:00>> uh questions from the board. Yep. Dina,

2:26:02>> um

2:26:03>> get us with a solar question. I want to

2:26:04hear it. Come on.

2:26:06>> I'm not going to do that.

2:26:07>> Okay.

2:26:08>> Um No, but I wanted to just um you

2:26:11mentioned things that you'd like them to

2:26:12kind of revisit. So some of the things

2:26:14that were brought up by the public um is

2:26:16the idea of of looking at what would be

2:26:19the minimum lot number that you can have

2:26:21that would still be feasible. So if you

2:26:23can kind of look at that number so we're

2:26:24not looking at 24 maybe we're looking at

2:26:2723 or 13 or something. If you can just

2:26:30look at that maybe

2:26:31>> I can I can actually answer that right

2:26:33now. We've looked at it like many many

2:26:35times and it barely works at 24. I know

2:26:38people think that developers make all

2:26:40this money. It's not how it works. Uh

2:26:42we're trying very hard to make the

2:26:43numbers work at 24. We've we've

2:26:45absolutely checked that.

2:26:47>> Okay.

2:26:48>> Yeah. And sorry. Go ahead, Dan.

2:26:51>> And then um thinking again about

2:26:54sidewalks on both side of the street.

2:26:55Can that be something that can be

2:26:57considered as well or does it need to be

2:26:59one side?

2:27:00>> You want to speak to that?

2:27:01>> Sure. Um the sidewalks are consistently

2:27:06on one side of the road and we're

2:27:07connecting to an existing development

2:27:10with one sidewalk. Um, so then we would

2:27:12have a second sidewalk that connects to

2:27:14no sidewalk.

2:27:17>> I just thinking about those Halloween

2:27:19children walking through and you know

2:27:22having one side that has sidewalks and

2:27:24one that doesn't makes the things a

2:27:26little more problematic.

2:27:27But

2:27:28>> we're doing what we're doing is matching

2:27:30the existing condition that we're

2:27:31connecting to. And there are a few

2:27:33examples around the city where sidewalks

2:27:36have been placed where there isn't

2:27:37something to connect to and it creates

2:27:39significant confusion and then a real

2:27:42question as to who's to maintain that

2:27:44and whether it's worth maintaining. Uh

2:27:46so our position has been in the waiver

2:27:48has been requested to match the existing

2:27:51condition with the sidewalk on one side

2:27:53of the street and I think because it's a

2:27:54match staff has been able to recommend

2:27:56that request.

2:27:59>> Okay.

2:28:00>> Thank you.

2:28:01Um, yeah, just quickly, can you remind

2:28:04me what you said about 90 degree turns

2:28:08and the curvature of the road? Is that a

2:28:10fire department recommendation?

2:28:13>> So, you're not in compliance with So,

2:28:16you want you need a waiver because the

2:28:17fire department asked you to curve the

2:28:18road.

2:28:19>> The original design for the roadway

2:28:21coming in from Cell Street had a

2:28:23essentially a 90° turn. instead of the

2:28:26sweeping curve that you see it was a 90

2:28:28degree turn

2:28:29>> because that because of that and when

2:28:32you have the other sweeping corner too

2:28:34many 90 degree turns with our longest

2:28:36ladder truck is extraordinarily

2:28:38difficult. So this curve was designed at

2:28:40the request of the fire department to

2:28:42ensure public safety and access for

2:28:44emergency vehic.

2:28:49>> It's really the fire department that's

2:28:50creating the waiver need.

2:28:52>> It's in response to fire department

2:28:54concerns for public safety.

2:28:55>> Yes. In addition to that, there is a

2:28:58condition that staff has recommended on

2:29:00one of the waiverss that we actually

2:29:02grant a sighteline easement to make sure

2:29:04that that curvature remains visible and

2:29:07that there aren't trees or retaining

2:29:09walls or other things that are planted

2:29:10in there that would defeat the benefit

2:29:12of that sighteline.

2:29:14>> Okay. Thank you.

2:29:16>> Okay, Council Todd.

2:29:19>> Yeah, thanks. Just a quick comment on

2:29:20the sidewalks picking up off what you

2:29:22had said. Um uh there's another way of

2:29:26looking at sidewalks which is that um

2:29:28you in building sidewalk on one side of

2:29:31the street are actually creating a

2:29:32sidewalk deficit. So the city looks

2:29:34through um all of the sidewalks existing

2:29:37in the in in neighborhoods and

2:29:39throughout the city right now and they

2:29:41have a priority list of sidewalk gaps.

2:29:44So, uh, you know, those are addressed

2:29:46because in fact, uh, those conditions

2:29:48exist where you have a sidewalk that

2:29:50ends on Heather Lane and then there's no

2:29:53continuation or there's no no sidewalk

2:29:55on the other side of the street. So uh

2:29:58that's why I think you know it is a good

2:30:00way to look at it that you know to try

2:30:02to create as much pedestrian

2:30:04um uh access as possible and just from a

2:30:08safety point of view and also just to

2:30:09kind of treat pedestrians with the same

2:30:11rights as those who drive motor vehicles

2:30:13or other use other modes. So

2:30:16>> yes,

2:30:18any other questions?

2:30:20>> Okay. Anything else you want to add?

2:30:22>> No.

2:30:23>> No. Okay. Now we'll close the public

2:30:25hearing.

2:30:28and

2:30:29take a look at our packet here.

2:30:33>> 9.1 9.1 again using our findings of fact

2:30:37is the information that was

2:30:40uh in our packets, the information that

2:30:42was presented here tonight and the

2:30:43testimony and uh submission of public

2:30:46comments that we had in our packet.

2:30:48Based on that, we will uh look to that

2:30:51as our finding of fact and move through

2:30:53the process. Um 9.2 Two is to deny the

2:30:56waiver request below. Are those

2:30:58>> That's item A only

2:31:001047 to not require the.1 foot drop in

2:31:04the sanitary manual.

2:31:05>> Okay. So, uh deny the request for

2:31:08>> failure to meet their criteria.

2:31:09>> 9.28 to failure to meet the criteria.

2:31:11Would someone like to make a motion to

2:31:12deny that request?

2:31:14>> So, move.

2:31:15>> Motion has been made. I'll second. Uh

2:31:17any further discussion

2:31:19about

2:31:20>> um did I read in the packet that the

2:31:22city's standard is more strict than the

2:31:25state standard?

2:31:27>> I think it's the same actually

2:31:29>> this in this one I think it's the same.

2:31:30It's the slope that is the difference.

2:31:32>> Okay. All right. Thank you.

2:31:33>> Get to the slope.

2:31:36Any further discussion? All those in

2:31:39favor?

2:31:39>> I opposed.

2:31:41>> That motion car that motion to deny

2:31:44carries. Uh do we address 9.2b? you can

2:31:47add that to the

2:31:49>> conditional waivers. Correct, Alec?

2:31:51>> Uh

2:31:51>> I I'll defer to Alec on the rest of the

2:31:53waivers because he has his um as it

2:31:55comes to

2:31:56um where staff's recommending granting

2:31:58waivers. Um first there was a

2:32:01>> typo or format copy paste error um that

2:32:04the chair caught for us where

2:32:06>> you're welcome. A should be for section

2:32:091905 general design standards for lots

2:32:12four usable lot area rectangle to allow

2:32:14the usable area to not be rectangular in

2:32:17shape and have less than 60 ft of

2:32:18horizontal dimensions as well as to

2:32:20allow less than 5,000 ft of usable area

2:32:23for certain lots um instead of what it

2:32:26reads was for 21104 construction

2:32:28standards um and 2302 which is repeated

2:32:31down below. And then I would also

2:32:34recommend that we add or staff would now

2:32:36recommend granting a waiver from section

2:32:392804 required landscape improvements six

2:32:42street trees to allow trees to be

2:32:44planted within 10 ft of the edge

2:32:45rightway and allow one tree per 45 ft of

2:32:49roadway or normally one tree per 30 ft

2:32:51of roadway is required.

2:32:52>> And just for clarity that matches what's

2:32:55the the neighbor to the neighbor it's

2:32:57similar their tabulations within a

2:32:59couple or 42. Okay.

2:33:03Which again explains why sometimes you

2:33:05do things

2:33:06>> right

2:33:06>> not by the letter.

2:33:08>> And section 211047, Mr. Hicks, is the

2:33:11item where the state standard is less

2:33:14stringent than the city's requirement.

2:33:16>> Okay. So, can those waiverss be brought

2:33:17all up under 9.3?

2:33:20>> Alec, how do you want us to run?

2:33:22>> I think they're all 93.

2:33:24>> Yep. Yep. If you wanted to accept it as

2:33:26I read it as recommended.

2:33:28>> Okay. With Alex's change to that 9.2 is

2:33:31to grant the waiver request below and

2:33:32those are outlined. Alec, do you want to

2:33:34just confirm the numbers? If you can go

2:33:37through A, B, C, D, and will be E, F, G,

2:33:41and H now.

2:33:42>> Yes.

2:33:42>> Yep.

2:33:43>> Okay. Uh would someone like to make a

2:33:45motion to grant the waiver request as

2:33:46outlined? I'll make that motion.

2:33:48>> Second.

2:33:49>> Motion's made and second. Any further

2:33:51discussion?

2:33:52>> All those in favor?

2:33:54>> I opposed. Motion

2:33:57>> deny.

2:33:58>> Okay. In denial. Um 9.3 that was 9.3 9.4

2:34:04Four, conditionally grant the waiver

2:34:06request below from the listed sections

2:34:09of the subdivision regulations based on

2:34:11the evidence provided showing that the

2:34:13criteria of RSA 674362N

2:34:16and section 3508 of the subdivision

2:34:19regulations are met and those

2:34:21[clears throat] are outlined in section

2:34:2321104 construction standards in detail

2:34:26to allow the minim minimum radius of a

2:34:28roads proposed uh minimum radius of the

2:34:31proposed road to be less than 200 ft

2:34:33with the condition that the applicant

2:34:35sighteline easements are provided

2:34:37following section 1302

2:34:40and also uh added to sheet S2. Would

2:34:44someone like to make a motion to

2:34:46conditionally grant the waiver request

2:34:48as outlined?

2:34:50>> So moved.

2:34:51>> Second.

2:34:51>> Motion's been made and second. Any

2:34:53discussion? All those in favor?

2:34:56>> Opposed?

2:34:58No opposition? 9.5 is to grant major

2:35:01subdivision approval for a 24 lot

2:35:03subdivision of an existing 10.7 acre

2:35:06parcel known as tax map 8814Z lot 4. The

2:35:10lot line adjustment with the abuing

2:35:12property known as tax lot map 8814Z

2:35:16lot 3 addressed as 271 South Street. The

2:35:19construction of approximately 900 ft of

2:35:21new municipal roadway approximately an

2:35:24800t extension of Heather Lane and

2:35:26associated municipal and non-municipal

2:35:28infrastructure improvements subject to

2:35:30the following precedent and subsequent

2:35:32conditions. 9.5 A1 A through I 9.5 A2

2:35:38through9 and then item 9.5B 1 through

2:35:4218.

2:35:43>> Okay. Would someone like to make a

2:35:44motion to grant subdivision approval as

2:35:46outlined? I will make that motion.

2:35:49>> I'll second it.

2:35:50>> Motion has been made and second. Any

2:35:52further discussion? All those in favor?

2:35:55>> I

2:35:56>> opposed.

2:35:56>> Opposed.

2:35:58>> One opposition dean is opposed for the

2:36:00record. Okay. Looks like you're set.

2:36:02Ready to roll. Good luck.

2:36:04>> Thank you.

2:36:05>> Thank you very much,

2:36:06>> you guys.

2:36:06>> Thank you very much.

2:36:08>> It's so hot here.

2:36:09>> I know. I was just thinking the same

2:36:10thing.

2:36:13>> All right, let's uh see if we can open

2:36:14up a window. They're all open. Are they

2:36:16really?

2:36:16>> I open them all.

2:36:19>> All right, we'll just keep plowing on

2:36:20here. 9:30. Let's uh read the next item

2:36:23into the record.

2:36:24>> This is item 7L. North Point Engineering

2:36:27LLC on behalf of Granite Municipal

2:36:29Manufacturing and Sales LLC requesting

2:36:31major site plan, architectural design

2:36:33review and conditional use permit

2:36:35approval for the construction of a new

2:36:378,160t

2:36:39building for the uses of micro data

2:36:40center, office, garage, and single

2:36:43residential caretaker unit associated

2:36:45site improvements at tax map 40 lot 6

2:36:48address at 52 Lock Road in the

2:36:49industrial and open space residential

2:36:51district. As part of the major site

2:36:53plan, the applicant also requests

2:36:54conditional use permit approval. Consu

2:36:56pursuant to section 2843D

2:36:59required for certain disturbance of

2:37:01wetland buffers to allow the restoration

2:37:02of approximately 54,780

2:37:05ft of previous temporary wetland buffer

2:37:07impact for tree clearing and certain

2:37:08temporary and permanent buffer impacts

2:37:10associated with the proposed storm water

2:37:12management system. I will quickly go

2:37:14through a brief update for the staff on

2:37:16this before we uh vote on um opening the

2:37:20public hearings. Uh the applicants

2:37:21proposing this uh 8,100 foot building uh

2:37:25at 52 Lock Road. Uh the

2:37:28application was accepted as complete at

2:37:31the September 16th meeting. Uh the

2:37:33proposed use, which is not specifically

2:37:36listed in the zoning ordinance, has been

2:37:38determined to be permitted in the

2:37:40industrial district through an analysis

2:37:41completed by city planner Kelly Karen in

2:37:43June prior to her maternity leave. Uh

2:37:45this proposal is significantly different

2:37:47than your typical data center project

2:37:49that are making news without the

2:37:50country. According to publicly available

2:37:52information, on average data centers are

2:37:54around 100,000 square feet in size and

2:37:57hypers scale data centers can be as

2:37:58large as 10 million square feet in size.

2:38:01The actual space in this project

2:38:02dedicated to the micro data center is

2:38:047,220 ft or approximately 7.2% of the

2:38:08average size of a data center and the

2:38:10remaining square footage is for the

2:38:11small office and residential caretaker

2:38:13unit. Uh the facility is proposed to be

2:38:15served by a 15 megawatt transformer uh a

2:38:18fraction of the power used by

2:38:19large-scale data center. The Appin is

2:38:21proposing closed loop cooling system

2:38:23which will not draw from the municipal

2:38:25water supply and the only water service

2:38:27to the site is a standard 4-in line for

2:38:29the caretaker unit and fire suppression

2:38:30system. Uh we're recommending that the

2:38:32board vote on the waiverss grant

2:38:34conditional use permit approval uh the

2:38:36cup uh architectural design review and

2:38:38the site plan per the recommendations in

2:38:40the staff report. Okay. Okay. So,

2:38:43determination of completeness

2:38:44>> already done.

2:38:45>> Already done.

2:38:45>> September.

2:38:46>> Okay. So, determination of completeness

2:38:48has been complete and done and we will

2:38:50open the public hearing. Uh, I don't

2:38:52need a staff update. We'll welcome to

2:38:54the table. If you guys could state your

2:38:55names for the record.

2:38:56>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman [clears throat]

2:38:58and members of the board. My name is Ari

2:39:00Pollock. I'm with the Gallagher Callahan

2:39:01and Gartrell Law Firm. I'm here for the

2:39:03landowner and the applicant Granite

2:39:05Municipal Manufacturing and Sales LLC.

2:39:09Uh with me this evening to my far left

2:39:11is Jeff Lewis of North Point Engineering

2:39:13and to my immediate left is Ryan Howard

2:39:15of Levitate. Um Tim uh as usual provided

2:39:20a very compact summary. Uh let me go

2:39:23through some of that in more detail for

2:39:24you and I'll turn it over uh to uh my

2:39:27colleagues. The project proposes a micro

2:39:31data center consisting of that uh 8,160

2:39:36square feet located upon 20 acres of

2:39:39unimproved land in East Conquered and

2:39:42and there it is on the screen. Uh the

2:39:45site is located off exit 13 uh I'm

2:39:47sorry, exit 16 and it's at the very end

2:39:50of Lock Road. Lock Road is a public

2:39:53street that terminates in a culde-sac

2:39:55and it's the home to an industrial park

2:39:57within the city's industrial district.

2:40:00Um, as was mentioned, a data center is

2:40:02not uh specifically addressed as a use

2:40:05within the table of uses in the

2:40:07conquered zoning ordinance. And so, the

2:40:09applicant does did what the applicant

2:40:11needed to do, which is ask for a zoning

2:40:14classification from city staff. And in

2:40:17response to that request, staff issued a

2:40:19memo dated June 26th of 2026

2:40:23um analyzing the nature of the proposed

2:40:26use, the uh in comparison to other uses

2:40:29that are presently allowed in conquered

2:40:32industrial district. And the memo

2:40:34concluded that the proposed micro data

2:40:37center was quote permitted principal use

2:40:39within the industrial district.

2:40:41Accordingly, a use variance is not

2:40:43required. Um thereafter the team

2:40:46prepared and filed the application that

2:40:49is before you this evening. Um the team

2:40:52we also filed a conditional use permit

2:40:54application to allow uh work within a

2:40:58wetlands buffer which is not relating to

2:41:00the facility itself but does restore

2:41:03some prior terrain alteration that was

2:41:05conducted during the tenure of the prior

2:41:07owner's uh period of ownership. Um so to

2:41:11be clear and to try and um anticipate

2:41:14some of what is behind me, not all uh

2:41:18data centers are created equal even

2:41:21though they all uh seem to receive a

2:41:24negative reaction. I want to state some

2:41:27facts for you. The proposal is for a

2:41:30micro center having building dimensions

2:41:33of approximately 60 ft by 136 ft. That's

2:41:37your 8,160

2:41:40square feet. And within that footprint

2:41:42is room for an office space and for a

2:41:46caretaker apartment. The caretaker

2:41:48apartment is allowed by special

2:41:50exception. And off we went to the zoning

2:41:53board and were able uh to obtain that

2:41:55approval a couple of months ago. Uh the

2:41:58data centers uh criticisms or public

2:42:01criticism for consuming massive

2:42:03quantities of water resources for

2:42:05cooling equipment. It's just not the

2:42:07case here. Uh in this case, the center

2:42:10would have no direct plumbing connection

2:42:12to the public water supply and

2:42:15approximately 6,300 gallons. And uh Ryan

2:42:19can speak more directly to this, but um

2:42:21it's anticipated to be filled by hose

2:42:25connection um for an initial system

2:42:28filling and that frankly is a fraction

2:42:30of the water you would need for a

2:42:32typical residential swimming pool. Um

2:42:35the closed loop system then needs no

2:42:38scheduled draining. Um if a future

2:42:41repair necessitates draining of the

2:42:43system, it's handled by off-site

2:42:46transportation of system water by an

2:42:48industrial waste hauler. Um the primary

2:42:51reason the building's connection to the

2:42:54water system exists at all is fire

2:42:56suppression and obviously domestic use

2:42:59in that apartment. Um, similarly, uh,

2:43:02the cooling fans that are scheduled for

2:43:04the property, number one, they're behind

2:43:06the building, so they're farthest from

2:43:08any of our other industrial neighbors,

2:43:10but those fans are fitted with variable

2:43:13speed motors, and it allows the computer

2:43:16basically to run them at the the lowest

2:43:18and quietest speed possible to manage

2:43:21equipment temperature and function for

2:43:24cooling purposes. This customization not

2:43:26only uses less energy, but it reduces

2:43:29overall noise to well within uh and

2:43:32maybe below the levels of noise that you

2:43:35would typically associate with an

2:43:37industrial district and where there are

2:43:39no residential neighbors. Um I wanted to

2:43:42just quickly summarize the steps that

2:43:44we've taken to get here um because there

2:43:48they are significant. Uh, as we

2:43:51mentioned, the use was classified as

2:43:53permitted by staff in this district. Uh,

2:43:56the site plan application uh was deemed

2:43:58complete last month and not of regional

2:44:01impact. Uh, the fire department's

2:44:03comments were quickly resolved because

2:44:05they were minimal. Uh, engineering

2:44:07comments are uh uh attached to the

2:44:10planning staff recommendation. Uh, they

2:44:12are also minimal uh and uh part of the

2:44:15recommendation for conditional approval.

2:44:18The conservation commission did weigh in

2:44:20on this application because of the work

2:44:23proposed in the wetlands buffer and they

2:44:25recommended approval. Um ADR also was

2:44:29consulted because of the architectural

2:44:32uh design of the proposed building and

2:44:34they had some minor comments relating to

2:44:37the color of the exterior cladding of

2:44:40the building. Uh staff's memo recommends

2:44:44approval of two waiverss relative to

2:44:46sidewalks. This use is non-pedestrian in

2:44:50nature. It's located in an industrial

2:44:53district and Lock Road does not have any

2:44:56effective sidewalking. So again,

2:44:58matching the surrounding condition. Um

2:45:01staff has recommended approval uh with

2:45:04conditions that in our project team's

2:45:07view are minimal and sensible and we

2:45:09would um certainly uh subscribe to those

2:45:12recommendations. Uh simply put, this is

2:45:14a small compact design with an

2:45:18intentionally low impact on public

2:45:20resources and neighbors within an

2:45:23existing industrial zone. Uh there is at

2:45:26least one email of support that I saw

2:45:28come in uh to the uh city record. Uh

2:45:33okay.

2:45:33>> 6401.

2:45:34>> This just in two. But the point I'm

2:45:37making is that members of the public are

2:45:39absolutely entitled to generate an

2:45:42informed and civil opinion. And in the

2:45:45same spirit, uh, land owners are

2:45:48likewise entitled to apply for

2:45:51development permits that follow the

2:45:52community's ordinances, regulations, and

2:45:55rules. We think that's what we've done

2:45:57here. Um, we think staff recognizes that

2:46:00in their recommendations. Um, our team

2:46:03is available. I think Jeff wants to

2:46:04summarize a couple of technical items.

2:46:07Ryan is really the expert when it comes

2:46:09to design of data centers. Um he

2:46:13recently provided information to an

2:46:15article in the monitor that some of you

2:46:17may have seen. Um and we are here for

2:46:20your questions. Thank you.

2:46:22>> Thanks. Ari uh you said just I crossed

2:46:25out almost all the stuff I wanted to

2:46:26say. So do that every time. I'm going to

2:46:28be you're hired by the way. Uh Jeff

2:46:30Lewis for Engineering. I'm also a member

2:46:31of the Conservation Commission here in

2:46:33Conquered for the record, but I'm not

2:46:34here in that capacity tonight. I'm here

2:46:35in my professional capacity as a

2:46:37engineer representing the applicant. I'm

2:46:39gonna keep mine very very brief from a

2:46:41engineering civil perspective. This is a

2:46:42pretty straightforward site. I think um

2:46:46I can't offer a lot on the uh specifics

2:46:48of the data center, but I just did want

2:46:49to point out a couple things. I had this

2:46:51slide up here just to orient everyone.

2:46:53I'm sure you're all familiar with it,

2:46:54but I just wanted to identify the the

2:46:56parcel which is over a little over 20

2:46:58acres right at the end of Lock Road, the

2:47:00dead end of Lock Road here. It's worth

2:47:02noting uh as already mentioned this is

2:47:04an industrial subdivision largely

2:47:06developed uh uses on all these lots

2:47:08commercial industrial uses. We are

2:47:10pretty much surrounded by conservation

2:47:12land uh city of conquered land all along

2:47:15the uh east sorry west and north of us.

2:47:18We do have the rail uh track right here

2:47:21and then the highway of course uh right

2:47:24here and then we have the uh RORO

2:47:26district in East Conquer over here off

2:47:28of Mountain Road. Uh but that's just

2:47:31just to orient us a little bit when we

2:47:33zoom in a little bit. This is a aerial

2:47:35from I think last year. Uh zooming in on

2:47:38that you can see the site at the end of

2:47:41Lock Road. This is the outline. Uh this

2:47:44area here is that has been cleared. It

2:47:46was cleared in early 2005. Uh the survey

2:47:49we had uh was from March 2005. It shows

2:47:52the limits of this clearing uh that that

2:47:54was done before we started any uh design

2:47:56development work on the project. It's

2:47:58basically cleared right to the limits of

2:47:59the wetlands that are out there. So, for

2:48:01the most part, everything you see over

2:48:03here that's wooded is wetland. Um

2:48:06there's about 8 acres uh sorry, there's

2:48:08about 9 acres of upland in the site

2:48:11right here, which is the developable

2:48:12area of the lot. Uh the rest of that is

2:48:15pretty much undevelopable area because

2:48:17of the wetlands. Um so,

2:48:21it's just zooming back real quick. This

2:48:22is the overview of the plan with the lot

2:48:25in red. You can see wetlands here,

2:48:28wetlands down here, and here's the area.

2:48:31Um, one not notable aspect of this site

2:48:34is there is a a cell tower on the city

2:48:36of conquered land right over here with a

2:48:38gravel access uh road and easement that

2:48:40goes right through the property from the

2:48:42end of lock road. So, we will need to

2:48:44maintain that access as part of this

2:48:47project. Uh, this is the layout of the

2:48:49proposed building. Uh, it's a pretty

2:48:52straightforward site. uh simple driveway

2:48:54access up the end of block road. Very

2:48:57limited parking here. This is going to

2:48:58be a secure facility, so it will be uh

2:49:01completely fenced and and gated. Uh so

2:49:03there's no no public access. Uh only

2:49:06need for really no parking on there.

2:49:08There will be a caretaker unit as Ari

2:49:10mentioned, so one person on site most of

2:49:11the time. Uh occasionally uh if there's

2:49:15maintenance needed out there, there'll

2:49:16be uh other other people coming to the

2:49:18site for the but for the most part it's

2:49:19a it's a dormant site. Uh not a lot of

2:49:21activity out there. Uh we do have a

2:49:25series of concrete pads over here for

2:49:27the backup generators. Series of

2:49:30concrete pads in back of the building

2:49:31for the dry coolers that Ryan could talk

2:49:33about. Some concrete pads for

2:49:34transformers. All that is to support the

2:49:36micro dino component which is the

2:49:38majority of the of the building. Um we

2:49:42do have a storm water management grading

2:49:44plan. Uh again pretty straightforward.

2:49:46We're infiltrating all the runoff.

2:49:48There's no increase in runoff to any of

2:49:50the wetlands. uh we have well- drained

2:49:52soils out there. So, we're capturing all

2:49:53that and treating it uh fully compliant

2:49:55with the regulations. No waiverss

2:49:57requested from from any of the design

2:49:59criteria uh of the of the site plan

2:50:01regulations.

2:50:03Um this is our utility plan. All

2:50:05underground utilities. We do have

2:50:07municipal water and sewer out there.

2:50:09Very low uh use for this building as Ari

2:50:11mentioned. Uh all the other utilities

2:50:13will be underground.

2:50:15Uh we have a small planting plan. We

2:50:18have a little bit of uh trees in here

2:50:19that meet the city's requirements for

2:50:21landscaping. There's not a lot of

2:50:22opportunity in there. Uh but keep in

2:50:25mind the the rest of the property right

2:50:27now is remaining uh undeveloped. We're

2:50:30not planning anything out there as part

2:50:31of this project. This is the

2:50:35wetland buffer restoration plan. As I

2:50:37already mentioned, the wetland buffers

2:50:38were cleared. Uh they were not stumped.

2:50:41So no no stumps were removed from there,

2:50:43but uh it is an issue on the site and we

2:50:45are trying to be proactive about it. So

2:50:47we did file a conditional use permit

2:50:49even though there are no real impacts

2:50:51being proposed in the buffer. We're

2:50:52trying to this is for 100% restoration

2:50:54of the buffer. So we have a pretty

2:50:55comprehensive planting plan put together

2:50:57by our well and scientist and landscape

2:50:58architect uh for full restoration of

2:51:00that buffer. Um other than other than

2:51:03digging holes to plant some trees and

2:51:05shrubs in there. We're not proposing any

2:51:06impacts to it. So uh that's really all

2:51:10that that is associated with uh the

2:51:13buffer restoration. We have a lighting

2:51:15plan. Very straightforward building

2:51:16mounted lights uh just for secure

2:51:19security around the building. Uh no

2:51:21other lighting out there. So this would

2:51:23be fully compliant with the site plan

2:51:24regulations. Erosion control plan that

2:51:26you can uh typically see for a site like

2:51:28this. This is the elevation uh

2:51:31renderings of the building. It's pretty

2:51:34straightforward what you might expect to

2:51:36see at the end of an industrial

2:51:37subdivision.

2:51:39>> Where are all the windows?

2:51:40>> Yeah. Yes. So, architectural design

2:51:42review weighed in on the cladding. They

2:51:45didn't like the color or is this the

2:51:46>> They like this color. Um, they we also

2:51:50submitted this is a floor plan. We also

2:51:51submitted pictures to them. This is what

2:51:53a typical dry cooler might look like

2:51:55behind the building. Um, and then this

2:51:58is the what the

2:52:02uh backup drainer would look like. It's

2:52:03a fully enclosed system with diesel fuel

2:52:06and a generator. So, this will be the

2:52:08something like this will be the unit

2:52:09that sits on the pad.

2:52:11architecture design was concerned with

2:52:13the color of this. They would prefer

2:52:14that to be more similar to the building,

2:52:16a darker color. So that was

2:52:17>> So that was what they were concerned

2:52:18about.

2:52:18>> Correct.

2:52:18>> I thought the cladding was on the

2:52:20building. Okay. I read that wrong.

2:52:21>> That's what the recommendation says, but

2:52:22it does make more sense. And I think in

2:52:24particular what they were looking for is

2:52:26like a matte finish that wasn't shiny.

2:52:28Okay.

2:52:28>> A dark dark matte.

2:52:29>> And those are behind the building.

2:52:31>> They're around the building.

2:52:32>> They're so th those those units are

2:52:34>> see from anywhere, can you?

2:52:35>> Those units are here. Yeah.

2:52:38>> Sorry. And you can't see those from

2:52:40anywhere, right?

2:52:40>> Yeah, you can see them from the end of

2:52:41the road. They're right here.

2:52:42>> Be able to see.

2:52:42>> Okay.

2:52:43>> So, that was their concern. The dry

2:52:45coolers are the smaller things behind.

2:52:46>> Okay. Yeah. Sorry.

2:52:47>> So, that was kind of their concern was

2:52:48you can see from the end of the road.

2:52:49So, they prefer that to be a dark color

2:52:51which would blend in better with the

2:52:52back with the trees in the background.

2:52:54Um, I believe that was the only comment

2:52:55from

2:52:56>> their other recommended condition was

2:52:58that fencing will also have a dark

2:53:01non-re.

2:53:01>> Oh, yes. Right. Right. So, we do have uh

2:53:04uh some solid fencing for that to be

2:53:05dark as well.

2:53:07So those are two

2:53:08>> barbed fencing or

2:53:10>> no no no

2:53:11>> chain chain link

2:53:13>> um

2:53:14>> and that's it. The two I already

2:53:15mentioned the two waiverss. Both of

2:53:16those are associated with sidewalks

2:53:17along lock road. There there are there

2:53:19is no pedestrian access on lock road. So

2:53:22we really don't see the need to add a

2:53:23section of sidewalk along our frontage

2:53:25that's going to nowhere. Uh nor do we

2:53:27have any reason to connect our site to a

2:53:30sidewalk that doesn't exist in L road.

2:53:32So there's two waiverss that we're

2:53:33asking for. Other than that, we're fully

2:53:35compliant with the regulations and I've

2:53:37spoken too long already, so I'm gonna

2:53:39>> pass it over to Ryan if he has anything

2:53:41>> sure

2:53:42>> interesting to add. Certainly

2:53:43>> the expert.

2:53:44>> So, might bore everybody, but uh my name

2:53:47is Ryan Howard. I engineer data centers.

2:53:50I work quite closely with our US

2:53:52national labs in the Department of

2:53:53Energy. Uh we realize in the country

2:53:55we're running out of water. We're

2:53:57looking at a drought. We have data

2:53:59centers that can use up to 9 billion

2:54:01gallons of water and an incredible

2:54:04amount of power. Uh this is the opposite

2:54:06of that design. So we've designed this

2:54:09in many cases out of need at some of the

2:54:11US national labs like Los Alamos. We've

2:54:14saved over 3 million gallons of water

2:54:16that had to be treated and recycled and

2:54:18put back into the rivers. Uh in this

2:54:21case, we use zero water. Uh we also I

2:54:25was out there today. uh the data center

2:54:27will be quieter than the freeway uh

2:54:29that's adjacent to it. Uh so our

2:54:32concerns of noise uh are certainly

2:54:34understood by the public. This is a very

2:54:36quiet system. If you think of a a

2:54:39plumbing system that's underground, you

2:54:41don't hear the water run underground and

2:54:43that's the whole point of this design.

2:54:45Uh the the third point is that we're

2:54:48using heat reuse. So, a lot of these

2:54:50data centers, not only do they use water

2:54:52and a ton of power, they do nothing with

2:54:55the power except evaporate water and

2:54:58they don't reuse the heat. Uh, so we're

2:55:01proposing heat reuse here where we can

2:55:03melt off snow from the sidewalks and

2:55:06heat the building. Uh many people don't

2:55:08realize the extensive problems that uh

2:55:11taking care of snow uh affects crops, it

2:55:14affects trees, affects wildlife when you

2:55:17have salt uh and other chemicals that go

2:55:20into sensitive areas. That's not going

2:55:22to happen here. And that eliminates

2:55:24quite a few trip and fall uh issues. Uh

2:55:27and other sites we are conserving uh

2:55:30farming for example. We're bringing back

2:55:32in our Montana sister site uh 52.5

2:55:36million in farming revenue that went

2:55:38away when the sugar plant shut down.

2:55:40We're pelletizing wheat that normally

2:55:43has a 70% loss recovering with a 95%

2:55:48recovery and that becomes a US export uh

2:55:52the Middle East, Japan, Korea. So we're

2:55:55bringing farming back. uh my own

2:55:57property. Uh I have a farm in Mil Creek,

2:56:00both Washington. I I deeply care about

2:56:03farmers and uh we're able to now use the

2:56:07waste heat underneath the soil and we

2:56:10can heat up the land and green houses

2:56:13and use the spare heat to create crops

2:56:16and food 365 days a year. So this

2:56:19becomes a huge amenity uh to local

2:56:21communities. Uh, plus we have it often

2:56:25in the Mil Creek site, we have a pool

2:56:28that doubles as fire reserves. So, you

2:56:31see what happened in LA. Uh, they didn't

2:56:33have any fire reserves. Most people

2:56:35don't realize that a fire truck only

2:56:37carries 500 gallons of water and it can

2:56:40spray water out at 500 gallons per

2:56:42minute. So, basically, you have a minute

2:56:44worth of water to put out a fire. A pool

2:56:46is 5.7 million gallons. So, with the Mil

2:56:49Creek site, that is available to fight

2:56:51the ever growing expansion of

2:56:54developments. Uh, and and that's what

2:56:56we're doing in Mil Creek. Every scent we

2:56:58make is to buy preserve the farmland

2:57:01around the property so we can grow uh

2:57:04near extinct plums in some of the 1957

2:57:07heirloom crops at that location. Uh,

2:57:10lastly, we tie in to the national grid.

2:57:14Right now you've seen, you know, a year

2:57:16ago brownouts in Spain that took out the

2:57:20whole country. Uh so this data center

2:57:22responds from the power company. The

2:57:25power company can issue a command and

2:57:27tell the data center to turn down its

2:57:29power usage. Uh vice versa, if you have

2:57:32solar and wind uh coming up in the grid,

2:57:34which will make your lights blink and

2:57:36run hot and blow out your appliances, we

2:57:38can turn up the data center and it will

2:57:42absorb the power. So, as we distribute

2:57:44these throughout the United States, this

2:57:45stabilizes our national grid and it

2:57:49fits, I think, perfectly with uh the the

2:57:51city of Concord because it is very

2:57:54environmentally friendly. Uh it is green

2:57:57and it is, you know, one of the the best

2:58:02full end to end uses of energy when it

2:58:05comes to data centers, farming, and heat

2:58:08reuse.

2:58:10So that's all well and good, but how

2:58:12does how does it affect this site as far

2:58:14as the the heat dissipation? You don't

2:58:17have pools and and farms sitting next to

2:58:20it.

2:58:20>> So at this site, we're demonstrating

2:58:22heat reuse. So the entire building,

2:58:24which it's cold here, is heated by the

2:58:26data center itself and then portions of

2:58:28the sidewalk uh and road.

2:58:31>> Could please please

2:58:34go ahead. I'm sorry for the interrupt.

2:58:36>> No worries. um portions of of the

2:58:38sidewalk and road uh can be heated in

2:58:40this design. We also have an auxiliary

2:58:43output so that we can output later. We'd

2:58:45have to obviously permit it, but green

2:58:47houses here so we can actually grow

2:58:49food.

2:58:49>> Okay. So, you could do this in the

2:58:51future if you wanted to expand the site

2:58:52to do different things or move into the

2:58:55other area to do whatever you needed to

2:58:57do.

2:58:57>> Not part of the current proposal, but

2:58:59there is 20 acres out there and these

2:59:01are ideas that might fit with what um

2:59:03we're doing. Gotcha. Okay.

2:59:06Great. And just can you clarify what the

2:59:09the little units in the back of the

2:59:11building are? Not the big ones, but

2:59:13those there. What are those again? Air.

2:59:16>> Certainly. So, those are called dry

2:59:17coolers, and they're very similar to

2:59:19your car radiator. Uh so, basically,

2:59:22water is circulated uh through the dry

2:59:25coolers and cools the data center. Uh

2:59:28they have small variable fans that would

2:59:31kick on if it was maybe 120 degrees out.

2:59:34Uh but normally just the rad we've

2:59:36overbuilt the number of dry coolers that

2:59:39we need. So it's having it's like having

2:59:42multiple radiators in your car and your

2:59:44fan hardly kicks on. Sometimes you don't

2:59:46hear it until you hear electric fan kick

2:59:47on.

2:59:49>> So those are those are cooling the the

2:59:51water that's then brought back into the

2:59:53facility.

2:59:53>> Correct. This is the the when when we

2:59:55refer to water in these units, it's part

2:59:58of the looped water system. It's not new

3:00:00water. It's not consumed water. It's

3:00:02part of the loop

3:00:03>> and they're not running fans 24/7 and

3:00:07jet engine sounds and then shoot back

3:00:09over um Jeff if you can to the other

3:00:11side of the of the those things down

3:00:13below. So those are the enc casements

3:00:15for emergency backup generators. Is that

3:00:18right?

3:00:19>> Correct. Those would only be used in

3:00:20emergency purposes and they as you can

3:00:23see they're insulated and uh sound

3:00:25isolated and they have uh very strict

3:00:28emission packages on them.

3:00:30>> Okay. So they don't run 247 as well?

3:00:33>> Not at all.

3:00:33>> Okay.

3:00:35>> Okay. I asked a couple of general

3:00:37questions here. So the apartment that's

3:00:38in there is intrigues me. So it's a it's

3:00:41a uh a caretaker. We call it a caretaker

3:00:45apartment. I guess it's in the

3:00:45application. It's it's a maintenance

3:00:47person that's going to be there for

3:00:48dealing with issues that come up at the

3:00:50site or addressing the idiosyncrasies of

3:00:53this. Can you give me a little bit of a

3:00:55of a clarity on how, you know, is

3:00:58everything under underwater, if you

3:01:00will, or under coolant? Uh, is it

3:01:02underground? Is it above ground? Is it

3:01:04in the the facility itself? Uh, how do

3:01:07you swap out things and and change

3:01:09pieces and parts?

3:01:11>> Certainly. So, it's a conventional uh

3:01:13rack system that is on slab. So, a

3:01:17conventional, let's say a engineer would

3:01:19go swap a server like they normally

3:01:21would. Uh there's coolant loops. There's

3:01:23what's called a heat exchanger, which is

3:01:25basically two backto-back radiators and

3:01:28there's two loops. There's the loop for

3:01:31the servers and there's a secondary loop

3:01:34that goes out to the dry coolers that

3:01:36rejects the heat. We also have a

3:01:37diverter valve that can go out to the

3:01:39sidewalks and any auxiliary, you know,

3:01:42with green houses that we may add may

3:01:44add later.

3:01:45>> Okay. So, what we'd see in a movie if

3:01:47you were walking through a data center,

3:01:48it looks exactly like that with access.

3:01:50It's not underwater. It's not

3:01:52underground. Okay. Again, a couple of

3:01:54questions that popped up that I wanted

3:01:55to make sure were were addressed. Um,

3:01:58and again, I think it's an important

3:02:00piece that it is a permitted use in the

3:02:03site. And that's one of the pieces that

3:02:05that it puts us at a point where we we

3:02:09look at this and say, okay, well, what

3:02:11can we do? What's the what's the what's

3:02:13the site going to be used for? And this

3:02:16is a permitted use. So, as it sits right

3:02:18now, this is this is something that uh

3:02:20that has uh that is permitted by the

3:02:23city.

3:02:23>> If the board wants I do have Kelly's

3:02:25letter from June if you want an

3:02:27explanation as to how the determination

3:02:29was made, but I'll I'll reserve that to

3:02:31please.

3:02:32>> I was going to say if it's not too long,

3:02:33I think it's important for the for the

3:02:35public as well.

3:02:36>> Sure. Essentially under our zoning

3:02:38ordinance where proposed use is not

3:02:40identified specifically in our table of

3:02:42uses uh we're directed to use the

3:02:45establishment of the US department of

3:02:47labor standard industrial classification

3:02:49system which is the SIC system. Uh we

3:02:52reviewed the operational characteristics

3:02:54of the facility and found that the

3:02:56principal function is processing,

3:02:58storage, management and transmission of

3:03:00digital information through computer

3:03:02servers and related equipment. Uh we

3:03:05found that the proposed use is most

3:03:06comparable to SIC code 7374

3:03:10computer processing, data preparation

3:03:12and processing services which includes

3:03:15establishments primarily engaged in

3:03:16providing computing capacity, data

3:03:19processing, electronic information

3:03:21management, data storage and related

3:03:23digital infrastructure uh services. Uh

3:03:26we further found that the operation is

3:03:28characterized by limited employee

3:03:30presence, no public access, minimal

3:03:32vehicle activity, no process wastewater

3:03:34generation, secure access controlled

3:03:37operations, and relatively low levels of

3:03:40routine site activity. Based on these

3:03:42characteristics, the proposed use is

3:03:44more appropriately classified based on

3:03:45its data processing function than as a

3:03:48manufacturing or warehouse use.

3:03:49Accordingly, the determination was made

3:03:52under 22 28-24I of the zoning ordinance

3:03:55that the proposed micro data center is

3:03:57hereby administratively classified as a

3:03:59micro data processing facility micro

3:04:01data center use and is permitted in the

3:04:04industrial district.

3:04:06>> Okay.

3:04:07>> Question on that. Yeah.

3:04:08>> On what he just said otherwise lose

3:04:10track. What is now I understand that

3:04:13this as you use the term a minor mini

3:04:20>> the the term micro data center is that

3:04:22it's that's the parlance that the

3:04:23applicant has chosen to use

3:04:24>> I guess my question is when we

3:04:27established that uh verbiage um did what

3:04:32is to or what obstacles or are there any

3:04:36that if this most business models will

3:04:38say if this is successful you're going

3:04:41going to grow.

3:04:42>> Yes,

3:04:42>> it's going to get bigger.

3:04:45>> What?

3:04:49>> So, uh is there any impediment

3:04:53right now that any you or they can

3:04:56foresee that disallows

3:05:00um that building going from 8,000 ft to

3:05:0425,000 ft because the need is there

3:05:08>> under our current regulations? No, there

3:05:10is no size limit on that particular use

3:05:13as it's classified currently. If the

3:05:15city council were to choose to make an

3:05:17amendment to the zoning ordinance, it

3:05:19could be prospectively put out for

3:05:20future, but it would not be able to be

3:05:22applied to a project like this because

3:05:24it's already been accepted as complete

3:05:25by the planning board and as such is

3:05:27protected from future zoning changes.

3:05:30Where's the threshold for micro

3:05:34>> micro facility versus is is there a

3:05:37somewhere

3:05:38>> the city has not considering micro at

3:05:40all. We're just saying that this is a

3:05:42computer processing data preparation and

3:05:45processing service.

3:05:46>> So you've got to look at this as a as

3:05:47just like we would a a write aid going

3:05:49in in in the same property, right? And

3:05:52you look at it and say here's the

3:05:53building envelope. It's 8,000 square

3:05:55feet. here's the here's the here's the

3:05:57piece of property.

3:05:59If they come back in two years and say

3:06:01it's fabulously successful, we want to

3:06:02add 20,000 square feet. The same thing

3:06:05goes through the same process of adding

3:06:07to that property comes back to us for

3:06:10any expansion review

3:06:11>> for additional review for a right now

3:06:15that addresses

3:06:15>> right but there's no way to expand the

3:06:17building property the building envelope

3:06:20without going through the process again.

3:06:22>> Correct.

3:06:24>> Right. So, so that was the the if I can,

3:06:26Mr. Chairman, that that was the piece

3:06:27that I wanted to add to what was said.

3:06:30>> Um, the conquered code does not

3:06:32distinguish micro from macro or one size

3:06:36versus another. And maybe someday it

3:06:38will, and maybe someday it should, but

3:06:41what is effectively going to limit this

3:06:44facility is the site and the necessary

3:06:47steps to amend a site plan that require

3:06:50compliance with the site plan

3:06:51regulations. And so the question will at

3:06:54some point become is there enough

3:06:56building area to expand the building? Is

3:06:59there enough mitigation that can be done

3:07:02to manage the impacts that come from

3:07:05that size of building? Right now what

3:07:07we've proposed is the size that we think

3:07:09the market wants that we think we can

3:07:11manage, construct and operate. Um there

3:07:14is no present plan to go beyond this. If

3:07:17it needs to happen or we wish to have it

3:07:19happen, uh we would need to come back to

3:07:21this board for what you've seen all the

3:07:23time, which is a site plan amendment,

3:07:25and we would need to make the case for

3:07:26why the impacts of something larger or

3:07:28different can be mitigated.

3:07:31>> So, thanks.

3:07:32>> So, we've heard um the public testimony

3:07:36we got mostly went over um water usage,

3:07:40um sound, and e ecological impact. The

3:07:44one thing we haven't addressed is the

3:07:45power usage. So, I'd like to kind of

3:07:47tackle that piece of it and hear where

3:07:50we stand on what's going to happen to

3:07:53people's electric bills and what's, you

3:07:54know, what's the what's the impact as

3:07:57the expert on on this, you know, what

3:07:59what type of footprint does this create

3:08:02uh right now today as as it's built?

3:08:05Yeah.

3:08:05>> Can I add to that?

3:08:06>> Yeah.

3:08:07>> Um I I'm curious to know what other sort

3:08:10of businesses in town like use a lot of

3:08:12electricity uh and how it compares.

3:08:15Certainly. So, to both address Council

3:08:18Member Fox and Council Member Hicks

3:08:20question, uh, this actually helps our

3:08:23energy grid. So, in effect, everyone

3:08:26that's here that's angry about large

3:08:28data centers, this makes large data

3:08:30centers dinosaurs. So, we have no intent

3:08:33to make this larger at this site. We

3:08:36want to distribute these throughout the

3:08:38United States, as I mentioned prior,

3:08:40because they balance our grid. Right

3:08:42now, our grid is running about 130%

3:08:44hotter than it should. We're trying to

3:08:46lower our grid down to roughly 110%.

3:08:50That saves 30 gawatts of energy on our

3:08:52national grid. This is why the

3:08:54Department of Energy is involved. We can

3:08:56put these data centers in locations

3:08:58where let's say you're using it for

3:09:01heating buildings for example which

3:09:02takes quite a bit of energy which

3:09:04answers the chairman's question of you

3:09:07know there's there's industrial sites

3:09:09that that take 30 40 50 megawws for

3:09:13industrial processes and a lot of that

3:09:15has to do with heat. They have to

3:09:16generate heat uh for their industrial

3:09:18process. So you couple a data center

3:09:21such as this next to a industrial

3:09:24process and now you've reduced the

3:09:25amount of power. So we call it a net

3:09:27zero insertion to where we're not taking

3:09:30any more power from the grid because

3:09:32we're replacing it as a heat source and

3:09:34utilizing that heat where normally you'd

3:09:36spend energy or natural gas to create

3:09:38that heat. Uh but on top of that we are

3:09:40being able to balance the grid when it

3:09:43turns low or high which allows our

3:09:46hydroelectric dams or nuclear power coal

3:09:48gas whatever it may be to take 20% less

3:09:52fuel which frees up energy for other

3:09:54processes. So these small micro data

3:09:56centers will actually reduce uh the

3:09:58power bills on the grid uh because the

3:10:02large data centers are out there taking

3:10:05you know gigawatts of power. These take

3:10:07existing uh power. We look for, you

3:10:10know, abandoned industrial sites that we

3:10:12can clean up and that already have power

3:10:14allocated to them. So, we're not adding

3:10:16any net power to the grid. Does that

3:10:18fully explain it?

3:10:19>> So, how much will this use?

3:10:21>> This this will use 15 megawatts maximum.

3:10:23>> So, what is a a large hospital?

3:10:26>> And what about your neighbors?

3:10:27>> Please stop. Please, you'll get a chance

3:10:30to speak. Please.

3:10:32So what about what about other um

3:10:34hospitals, schools, you know, places

3:10:36with a lot of refrigeration? What do

3:10:38they generate? What do they use?

3:10:40>> So they're typically around the same

3:10:42amount of power if not more uh as as far

3:10:45as power consumption.

3:10:48>> So just for clarity sake, you could use

3:10:50I mean I don't know what conquered

3:10:51hospital uses for power, but I'm trying

3:10:53to think of big facilities here in town,

3:10:56you know, how much power is used? How

3:10:58much do you are you going to be pulling

3:11:00out of the grid to to do this? I

3:11:03understand the the heat piece of it, but

3:11:05that's not going to happen right out of

3:11:06the gate. Right out of the gate, when

3:11:07you turn it on, it's 15 megawatts of

3:11:10power that's going to be pulled out of

3:11:11the grid. So, what does that do to the I

3:11:14mean, the infrastructure that's there

3:11:16can handle that.

3:11:17>> Yes, the infrastructure is already

3:11:18there. We're just using the existing

3:11:20power that was already allocated to the

3:11:23site. uh so and there's a possibility of

3:11:26working with the local uh neighbors to

3:11:28reduce their power by providing heat to

3:11:30them as well.

3:11:30>> So this works in a peak demand type

3:11:32methodology if the if anybody's familiar

3:11:35with peak demand.

3:11:36>> Um so they've built the infrastructure

3:11:38and they've got the the peak demand

3:11:40piece that pushes to lock drive now.

3:11:43>> Correct. And we can adjust our data

3:11:45center downwards. So if if the power

3:11:47company Unel uh tells the data center to

3:11:52turn its power usage down because the

3:11:54grid is lagging, we can do that

3:11:56dynamically and it's one of the you know

3:11:58few data centers that'll do that. It'd

3:12:00be very difficult to tell Amazon or some

3:12:02of these big data centers to turn their

3:12:04power down. And from an effective

3:12:07horsepower standpoint, this 15 megawatt

3:12:10site is the equivalent of a 300 megawatt

3:12:13site because our clock rate is much

3:12:14higher because of the type of cooling

3:12:16we're using. So typically most data

3:12:18centers run at 5 to 60% variable clock

3:12:21rate. We're at 100% clock rate which

3:12:24makes it very very stable for your teams

3:12:26calls, your Zoom calls for example. Uh,

3:12:29but it also doesn't add spikes to the

3:12:33national grid such as large data

3:12:35centers. You could have an Amazon data

3:12:37center drop off the grid and cause a

3:12:39cascading failure. We're trying to

3:12:41prevent that.

3:12:42>> Okay.

3:12:43>> Council Todd.

3:12:44>> Yeah, thank you. Uh, I'm wondering maybe

3:12:46if you can just tell me kind of or maybe

3:12:48even the public uh when you talk about

3:12:4915 megawatts and I don't know what that

3:12:51is. So, uh, could could you translate

3:12:54that into, you know, let's say average

3:12:56home usage, how many homes would that

3:12:58represent? In other words, the data the

3:12:59power that you anticipate using at this

3:13:01facility,

3:13:02>> it's it's roughly the power of about 350

3:13:05homes.

3:13:06>> Okay.

3:13:11>> Yeah, that that helped me. Yeah. Thank

3:13:12you. Thank you.

3:13:14>> Other questions from the board.

3:13:17>> Anything else you want to add before we

3:13:18open up?

3:13:18>> Well, it it seems like a large number,

3:13:20but when you look at some of the larger

3:13:22data centers that are in process, uh

3:13:25they use 400 times that amount of power.

3:13:28So this is a very small data center and

3:13:30again it is the power was already

3:13:33allocated for that location. Uh and it

3:13:36has a a minimal impact when you look at

3:13:38the the power on the grid that is 30

3:13:41decimal places out as far as the overall

3:13:44power needs and what we need in the

3:13:46future.

3:13:46>> Okay. Yeah.

3:13:48>> Just a clarification when you say power

3:13:50allocated to the location. It's not

3:13:52being used currently at the location

3:13:54though.

3:13:55No, it was allocated by the power

3:13:56company for that industrial park for

3:13:58that particular end zoning at that

3:14:01location. [snorts]

3:14:02>> I guess I'm not understanding.

3:14:04>> So the peak demand it's a complicated

3:14:06process of figuring out the peak demand.

3:14:08So the the the

3:14:10utility company needs to build out the

3:14:13infrastructure and provide peak demand.

3:14:15Uh so they are going to create that

3:14:17electricity one way or the other whether

3:14:19you use it or not it's going to be

3:14:20created and available at the pole. Okay

3:14:22is my understanding. Right. Exactly. And

3:14:24and from what I understand, there may be

3:14:27a large solar park coming in. Uh what

3:14:30happens is when you can't use that

3:14:31power, you sink it into a zinc anoid the

3:14:34size of a bus underground and it goes to

3:14:36waste. So we're acting as kind of a

3:14:39capacitor on the grid. So it is a very

3:14:40small fraction of power that is frankly

3:14:43wasted because we talked earlier the

3:14:46130% we're running on the grid. We're

3:14:48trying to drop that down and that is

3:14:50that is in the you know in the gigawatts

3:14:54like 30 gigawatts are running too hot.

3:14:57>> Okay, that makes more sense.

3:14:59>> Documented uh results on what impact

3:15:04the utility rates will be for other

3:15:06unitil customers would they stay the

3:15:08same go up or down? It [snorts] should

3:15:10stay exactly the same, but we do have

3:15:12three papers from Sandia National Labs

3:15:14that have studied this extensively. And

3:15:17the government is switching to it out of

3:15:19need, such as locations in Los Alamos

3:15:21where they're running out of water and

3:15:23the the servers are getting denser and

3:15:25denser as far as power goes. Uh they've

3:15:27had to implement this to to save water

3:15:30and to save power.

3:15:34Teresa,

3:15:35>> I took the liberty because I found this

3:15:38totally complicated and confusing. Even

3:15:40though, well, I won't say even though.

3:15:43So, I called Unatil

3:15:45and I asked them the impact this was

3:15:48going to have on their system. I asked

3:15:50them the impact on the residential

3:15:52rateayers, the impact on the commercial,

3:15:56who was going to pay for any of the

3:15:57infrastructure. They said number one

3:16:00anything that needed they needed to run

3:16:02to your facility that would be your

3:16:04responsibility not not the rateayers.

3:16:08They said that it would from their

3:16:12perspective would benefit

3:16:16from the point of view and I'll see if I

3:16:18can explain this that the load they

3:16:21carry now is predominantly on the

3:16:23residential and that because you're

3:16:25industrial commercial it means that they

3:16:29that load will be shared more with you

3:16:33and so it will take some um of the

3:16:37pressure from the cost of the

3:16:40infrastructure for the residential base.

3:16:43And they said they did not think that

3:16:46the rateayers it would go their their

3:16:49you know our monthly charge kilowatt

3:16:51hour would go up or down but that the

3:16:54way the load is shared it would be a

3:16:57benefit to the it would be a benefit to

3:17:00that sharing of the load. Um, I mean, I

3:17:02was fascinated by the conversation and I

3:17:06guess they've been in the meetings with

3:17:08the city and have not raised any

3:17:10concerns. This I got from

3:17:12>> UNIL was a partner in every development

3:17:14project.

3:17:15>> Yes. Yes. I got this from them, not you

3:17:17guys. And they've been in the

3:17:19conversation with the city and they had

3:17:21not raised any concerns. So, I did that

3:17:24because I figured I, you know, I I have

3:17:27a journalism degree. I gotta go to the

3:17:29primary source and that's not you, it's

3:17:33so. So, I went to the primary source.

3:17:35So, that's all I know. And if there are

3:17:37lots of questions, I did say to them, if

3:17:40there are tons of questions, will you

3:17:41come talk to the planning board? They

3:17:43said, "Sure, we're happy to come." Um,

3:17:45but I thought, and I do understand

3:17:48because I have done some utility stuff.

3:17:50>> I was just going to say, just for

3:17:51clarity, you didn't call up and just

3:17:53talk to somebody on the phone at at

3:17:54Unil. You got the inside track. No, I

3:17:58did not. Um, for the Let me just say to

3:18:00those in the audience, I ran the

3:18:02telephone company and we did have a data

3:18:04center and we built a data center in

3:18:07downtown Manchester and I said to the

3:18:09city of Manchester, we have to have a

3:18:11new data center because we were trying

3:18:13to get the internet built and we try and

3:18:15get fiber out there and we can do it in

3:18:17the building right in the middle of

3:18:19downtown or we can go out to Brentwood

3:18:21or wherever and we ended up doing it

3:18:24downtown. And I will say there was no

3:18:26opposition, no no issues. And I know

3:18:28what you mean with the cooling and all

3:18:30of that stuff, but and yes, I did not

3:18:33call just customer service.

3:18:35>> 800 customer service.

3:18:37>> I called to say I need to understand

3:18:39this. And I do understand that there's a

3:18:42big difference in something this small

3:18:44and something that's really big. And you

3:18:47know that and I understand what you're

3:18:50trying to do. Also, it's really, I guess

3:18:53I'd almost say reintegrate what you're

3:18:55doing back in. And so, their comment, it

3:18:59was no impact financially or systemwide.

3:19:03>> Thank you for looking into that.

3:19:05>> Well, no, I just wanted I have the

3:19:06horses now. I mean, I trust you, but you

3:19:09know, I don't know you, so I don't

3:19:10really know if I trust you.

3:19:11>> Yeah. Yeah, that makes sense.

3:19:13>> They have to live with me of the people

3:19:15I called.

3:19:16>> And that's true. And and one thing I

3:19:18should point out too is we're not asking

3:19:20for any sort of tax breaks or

3:19:21incentives. So, you know, all the BNO

3:19:23tax is going to go directly to the city

3:19:25to offset some of these new expenses

3:19:27that you're incurring for these other

3:19:29developments. So, you know, you go to

3:19:31these large data centers and they're

3:19:32getting a free ride and not paying

3:19:34taxes. We're not asking for a scent of

3:19:36of taxpayer money. We're actually

3:19:38contributing to your tax base.

3:19:41>> Right.

3:19:43>> Okay. Anything else before we send you

3:19:44back?

3:19:45>> All right. One question I just wanted I

3:19:48think you said this but um asking if you

3:19:51expect to have any upgrades to the

3:19:53existing um infrastructure that's in

3:19:56place on Lock Road meaning is there

3:19:59additional um transmission lines going

3:20:02toward you and if so is that that is on

3:20:05your side of the ledger correct

3:20:07>> correct uh there is an existing uh lines

3:20:09already to the property and so there's a

3:20:12set of uh step down transformers that

3:20:14we're putting in place Uh but there's

3:20:16the no cost to the citizens of Concord.

3:20:19>> Those transformers are at our cost.

3:20:21>> Yes. Those are at our cost. Yes.

3:20:23>> They're on your side of the ledger.

3:20:24>> Correct.

3:20:27>> Good.

3:20:29>> Yep. Council Todd.

3:20:30>> Yeah. Just we we touched on this, but

3:20:32just again a clarification on the noise.

3:20:35Uh you'd said that the highway would be

3:20:37louder than this facility, but can you

3:20:39give us again some kind of a anecdotal

3:20:42comparison so I can understand what you

3:20:44mean by that? Sure. Certainly. So the

3:20:47the fans will run at roughly 45 to 50

3:20:50dB, which is equivalent of a

3:20:53conversation in a room. So the, you

3:20:56know, the freeway would is roughly at uh

3:20:59when I was there today, I would gauge it

3:21:00at about 65 dB. So you'd hear the

3:21:04freeway before you you heard this data

3:21:06center. And and that's very quiet. And

3:21:08as you get proportionally away, it drops

3:21:10off exponentially.

3:21:12>> Can I u follow up that? So is that is

3:21:15that something though that you would

3:21:17expect that noise would be a constant or

3:21:20would there be ever periods where it

3:21:22would rise above that decibel level or

3:21:23lower than that or is that something 24

3:21:26hours a day it's going you're going to

3:21:27hear that level sound?

3:21:30>> You would actually only hear that in

3:21:31very very hot days. So it was designed

3:21:33to be overbuilt so we're circulating

3:21:35through the radiator and it is much like

3:21:37your car if you listen to your car and

3:21:39electric fan will only kick on when your

3:21:41your radiators get really really hot.

3:21:43So, and they'll start up slow as a a

3:21:47slow variable rate versus full blast.

3:21:49So, you know what I the numbers I'm

3:21:51handing out are worst case scenario it's

3:21:54135 degrees here. And if that's the

3:21:56case, we've got bigger problems.

3:21:58>> Yeah,

3:22:00Dina, just pull up a little.

3:22:02>> Thank you. Um, so I understand that

3:22:04you're pulling your all of your power

3:22:06source from the grid. Um, did you ever

3:22:10>> You know, I'm growing it. Hope it's

3:22:14solar.

3:22:14>> Solar or wind or any other source

3:22:17[snorts] that you wouldn't have to

3:22:18connect to the grid for. Is that

3:22:20>> exactly? You hit the nail on the head.

3:22:22So I have fundamental patents in solar

3:22:25tracking. So a single ball much like

3:22:28your eyeball that tracks and moves 360

3:22:315° and ups the efficiency of solar by

3:22:3365%.

3:22:35So whenever possible we can use you know

3:22:38solar if allowed by the council to put

3:22:40in place uh at the site. also micro wind

3:22:43turbines. Uh the designer of micro wind

3:22:46uh and you know we can incorporate those

3:22:49as power sources and the system is

3:22:51intelligent enough it uses machine

3:22:53learning to basically pull from the

3:22:57renewable sources first. So even that

3:22:59solar park that is potentially going in

3:23:02uh to your city that may produce more

3:23:05power than you need and make your grid

3:23:08even hot. So even though it may be 50

3:23:10miles away, we can turn the data center

3:23:12up and absorb some of that excess power

3:23:15that would normally just be wasted and

3:23:16grounded or burning out your light bulbs

3:23:19or appliances in your house.

3:23:21>> So you do have that infrastructure set

3:23:23into this plan currently or is that a

3:23:25potential next phase?

3:23:27>> So that is the next phase. Hopefully

3:23:29it's not potential if allowed by the

3:23:31council because uh we are actively

3:23:34testing at Sundia National Laboratories

3:23:37very new this this tracking technology

3:23:39which I have a patent on uh for these

3:23:43micro data centers. So we can actually

3:23:45help augment and even add power to the

3:23:47grid when needed. So we can even turn

3:23:50the volume down and then feed back to

3:23:52the grid additional power to prevent

3:23:54lags in the grid.

3:23:56All right, I'm going to send you guys

3:23:57back um and uh we'll take some public

3:24:00testimony.

3:24:01>> Just Whoops. Sorry.

3:24:02>> That is not prop that is not

3:24:04>> that's not part of this project.

3:24:05>> Part of this project.

3:24:09>> Okay. Thanks, guys.

3:24:16>> All right. Who's first?

3:24:18I guess this guy's first. Come on up.

3:24:23Welcome to the table. if you could state

3:24:24your name for the record.

3:24:26>> Hello. Uh my name is Dave Hilts and I'm

3:24:28a resident of Conquered and I'm asking

3:24:31the board to deny the applications

3:24:34associated with this project um for the

3:24:37micro data center on Lock Road. I'm

3:24:39going to share with you a bunch of

3:24:40concerns that I have. Um while I do

3:24:42that, I'd like for you to keep in mind a

3:24:45couple of phrases. One is it's all

3:24:47relative and another is it seems too

3:24:51good to be true. Um, I prepared these

3:24:54comments before I came in today, but um,

3:24:58you know, listening to all of the

3:25:00testimony here, uh, hasn't changed what

3:25:03I'm going to say at all. And basically,

3:25:06a lot of what has been touted to the

3:25:09board as positives for this project, I

3:25:12actually have serious concerns about.

3:25:15Um,

3:25:19so what I did is I I spent a lot of time

3:25:22uh reading the applicant's proposal and

3:25:25their description of what a micro data

3:25:27center is and what it's supposed to do.

3:25:30Um, they basically say that a micro data

3:25:33center is going to provide computing

3:25:34capacity and digital infrastructure

3:25:37services. So what does that mean to the

3:25:40applicant? you know, who are its

3:25:43anticipated markets and uh you know, for

3:25:46for those services. Um, I heard a lot

3:25:49about how the national grid can benefit.

3:25:52Um, I heard a lot about benefits that

3:25:55aren't expected to materialize for this

3:25:57particular parcel uh for the city uh for

3:26:02this area. They're willing to pay us

3:26:04property taxes. Thanks a lot. Um, but

3:26:07basically I don't think that I've heard

3:26:10anything that convinces me that this

3:26:12project is of any benefit to the city

3:26:14whatsoever.

3:26:20So, in and almost it's like the the fact

3:26:24that this use has been deemed a

3:26:27permitted use is kind of the equivalent

3:26:29of having a zone that allows for um

3:26:33rental properties, but that the city

3:26:35doesn't regulate at all what it's rented

3:26:38out for. Um, so we have no idea what all

3:26:42this computing power is going to go to

3:26:44to doing and who's going to be doing it.

3:26:48Is it anybody in New Hampshire in the

3:26:50United States? Like, you know, where's

3:26:52all this computing power going and what

3:26:54uses is it being used for?

3:26:57Um

3:26:59the conquered monitor reported on the

3:27:0119th and I think somebody from the

3:27:03applicants um group mentioned this but

3:27:06um there was an article entitled AI

3:27:08company behind micro data center

3:27:09proposal says its design is the way of

3:27:12the future conquered would be one of the

3:27:14first it deploys that's the name of the

3:27:16article just to be clear when the

3:27:19applicant says way of the future what it

3:27:21means in the word of Mr. Howard here in

3:27:24the article he says quote we are full

3:27:27force proceeding ahead there will be

3:27:29many many data centers to follow in this

3:27:32pattern in other words conquered is

3:27:35their guinea pig

3:27:37>> um we're here

3:27:40>> so even if after you consider all of the

3:27:44information that they proposed um that

3:27:47you hear from us and everything if

3:27:49you're inclined to think that one micro

3:27:52data center is fully understood and

3:27:54reasonable. What if many many data

3:27:56centers start applying for approval in

3:27:58the next several years? Um what would

3:28:01the cumulative effect of those be? And

3:28:04if you don't know then this application

3:28:06is premature.

3:28:12I saw an uh I saw a um an email under

3:28:16the public comment uh for for this

3:28:18proposal and a citizen was arguing that

3:28:20the board should deny the application in

3:28:23order for uses like this micro data

3:28:25center to be considered as part of the

3:28:27master planning process and I

3:28:29wholeheartedly agree with that. I think

3:28:31that's what I think that's what what

3:28:33should be done in this case. And also,

3:28:35if I'm up on current events, I think we

3:28:38have the governor, I think we have um

3:28:42Senator Carson, and I think we have um

3:28:45Republican lawmakers all lining up for a

3:28:48moratorum on this. um that you know

3:28:51could be coming anytime between now and

3:28:54July of next year depending on how it

3:28:57gets enacted whether it's part of the

3:28:58governor's budget whether it's part of

3:29:00other legislation you know if the

3:29:02governor changes her mind and makes an

3:29:04executive order and I see absolutely no

3:29:07compelling reason why conquered needs to

3:29:09be out in front of this in light of the

3:29:11fact that there's bipartisan

3:29:14support gathering for a moratorum on

3:29:16this activity

3:29:19>> absolutely

3:29:22So, in his proposal, the applicant

3:29:24contrasts a micro data center with

3:29:26traditional data centers, which just

3:29:29blows my mind that we're using the word

3:29:31traditional with data centers.

3:29:36>> And like how he contrasts it is by

3:29:39saying it's relatively small footprint

3:29:42and it's 15 megawatt consumption. And

3:29:46you know, I'm obviously not an electric

3:29:48power expert or anything, but while we

3:29:50were talking about the relative like how

3:29:52much is 15 u megawws of power, I did

3:29:56Google it and it came out to like 1,250

3:29:59residential homes.

3:30:02>> Yeah. So, um but but you all, I'm sure,

3:30:05have lots of experts, you know,

3:30:06available to you and you can figure out

3:30:08what the real number is. But one of the

3:30:11things that the proposal uh that he

3:30:13doesn't contrast when he compares a

3:30:15micro data center to traditional data

3:30:17centers are things like heat. Um I think

3:30:21one of them used the phrase

3:30:23intentionally low impacts. And I I'm not

3:30:26convinced of the accuracy of that. I

3:30:29think intentionally lower impacts than

3:30:33maybe a monster data center, but that's

3:30:35where the it's all relative comes in. It

3:30:38could be a lot lower, but is that low?

3:30:42Is what that is really low? So, in their

3:30:46proposal, they say the closed loop heat

3:30:48transfer system will circulate recovered

3:30:50heat from the data center to areas where

3:30:52it can be beneficially reused. We did

3:30:55hear some of that. Some of the things

3:30:57that he says that could be beneficially

3:30:59reused on aren't part of this. So, you

3:31:03know, this isn't anything that's going

3:31:04to benefit this property. the green

3:31:06houses, like all these sidewalks that

3:31:09aren't here in this proposal, like none

3:31:12of that is actually going to happen to

3:31:14beneficially use it. It says it's going

3:31:17to be uh the heat's going to be provided

3:31:19for the caretaker unit and security

3:31:21support areas. This is the kicker.

3:31:23Excess thermal energy that cannot be be

3:31:25beneficially reused within the building

3:31:27will be transferred to outdoor dry

3:31:29coolers located behind the building and

3:31:32dissipated into the outside air.

3:31:36So even though that may sound reasonable

3:31:39and efficient, there's no frame of

3:31:41reference. So how much heat is being

3:31:44produced by this data center? Is the

3:31:46amount of heat necessary to provide heat

3:31:48to the building an extremely small

3:31:50fraction of the heat that's generated?

3:31:53Is it more reasonable to say that the

3:31:55overwhelming majority or virtually all

3:31:58of the heat is dumped into the

3:32:00environment between two wetland areas

3:32:02adjacent to conservation land used for

3:32:04active agricultural purposes next to the

3:32:07Marramac River?

3:32:09The proposal goes on to say, "Based upon

3:32:11the proposed mechanical design, six dry

3:32:14coolers are anticipated to provide the

3:32:16nest necessary system capacity. The site

3:32:19plant provides space for a seventh unit

3:32:22to provide operational flexibility. The

3:32:24equipment consists of eight fan indoor

3:32:27heat exchanger units approximately 20 ft

3:32:29long, 8 ft wide, 8 ft high installed on

3:32:32individual concrete pads. Uh the dry

3:32:34coolers utilize variable speed fans that

3:32:37modulate operation based upon actual

3:32:39cooling demand and ambient conditions.

3:32:42So these dry coolers, they sound kind of

3:32:44benign maybe, right? Um, but think about

3:32:48the undescribed levels of anticipated

3:32:51heat generation. The applicant believes

3:32:54that it needs six dry coolers, each of

3:32:57which has eight fans in a unit that's 20

3:32:59ft long. So that's 120 ft of fans.

3:33:03That's like three of my house of these

3:33:06fans. It also seems pretty clear that a

3:33:09dry cooler actually doesn't cool

3:33:11anything. It's only a delivery system

3:33:14for the environment to cool the

3:33:15exchanged heat from the liquid cooling

3:33:18system.

3:33:19The applicant makes a point of saying

3:33:21that the six dry coolers will cover

3:33:23quote the proposed mechanical design,

3:33:26but they're designing space for a

3:33:27seventh. Best case, they're anticipating

3:33:30making changes to this facility that

3:33:32will increase its heat generation.

3:33:35Wouldn't you like to know what expan

3:33:37expansion potential this facility has? I

3:33:40think some of you have expressed some

3:33:41interest and I encourage you to um run

3:33:44with that. Um worst case scenario is

3:33:46that they're not sure that six dry

3:33:48coolers are going to be sufficient to

3:33:50dissipate the heat. Um they probably say

3:33:52they don't think that, but I don't know.

3:33:55Um their application goes on to say the

3:33:58primary exterior cooling related noise

3:34:00sources are going to be these fans. um

3:34:03and that they're going to be behind the

3:34:05property and their operating speeds are

3:34:07going to be uh varied based upon the

3:34:09actual cooling demand, you know, based

3:34:11upon system demand and seasonal

3:34:12conditions. Again, that may sound

3:34:15reasonable and minimalistic, but we

3:34:17actually, you know, we heard testimony

3:34:20that 45 dB and they're comparing it to a

3:34:2460 decel highway. Okay. So, over on the

3:34:28highway where a highway was planned and

3:34:30where it actually exists at 60 dB, are

3:34:34you going to run a highway through that

3:34:36area on locked road between two wetlands

3:34:38next to the Marramac River and put that,

3:34:41you know, 45ish

3:34:43decel use right there. So, it's all

3:34:47relative. You know, it may be

3:34:49>> 45 dB. It's it like you said, it's

3:34:51hardly a conversation.

3:34:53>> So, I guess

3:34:54>> I want to try to get you to move along

3:34:56too. We got a lot of people that want to

3:34:57speak. So, you've been 12 minutes, so I

3:34:59want to

3:35:00>> Okay.

3:35:00>> wrap it up.

3:35:01>> Thank you. Um, so he talks about the the

3:35:05noise being typical for non-residential

3:35:07applications within the city's district.

3:35:10Does he mean other uses in the in

3:35:13district and other parts of the city? Or

3:35:16does he mean in district uses in that

3:35:20district down there on Lock Road? Um, we

3:35:23don't know.

3:35:25Um then uh one of the last things I want

3:35:28to get to is um he talks about the

3:35:31battery backups uh and standby

3:35:34generators. So one it's not just one

3:35:36generator, it's six and each one of them

3:35:39has over 25 I mean 2100 gallons of

3:35:43diesel fuel storage in it. So that's

3:35:462100 times six gallons of diesel fuel

3:35:49sitting down there adjacent to a flood

3:35:51zone. um if anything happens with that.

3:35:54And then I don't know anything about

3:35:55these batteries. How many of them do

3:35:57they take? What kind of heat that

3:35:59generates and what happens if they leak

3:36:01in that area. So the second part of my

3:36:04analysis was going to be doing the same

3:36:06thing with the board's comments uh by

3:36:07their staff. And I was kind of dismayed

3:36:10to see that none of the board uh board

3:36:12staff's comments dealt with anything

3:36:14that I talked about here tonight. So

3:36:16basically I think that that alone is

3:36:19very concerning that some of like all of

3:36:22these concerns which show that this this

3:36:27project really is of no benefit to

3:36:29conquered um that really needs a lot

3:36:32more time to study and I think needs to

3:36:34take advantage of the moratorum that's

3:36:36coming. So thank you very much. I'm

3:36:38sorry I took up

3:36:39>> no I didn't mean to rush you. I just

3:36:41want to make sure that everybody gets a

3:36:43chance to speak. Any

3:36:46questions?

3:36:50>> Any Hang on. Any questions, Chris? No.

3:36:52Okay. Thank you very much for your

3:36:53testimony.

3:36:56>> Come on up.

3:37:00>> Welcome to the table. If you could state

3:37:02your name for the record.

3:37:03>> I'm Moren Heric. Um, born and raised in

3:37:06conquered. I have lived

3:37:0958 years within two miles of wood.

3:37:14[clears throat]

3:37:14planning to have this. Um, I've got a

3:37:17lot of concerns. Um, number one, it

3:37:22being and I I I understand change. I

3:37:24understand change needs to happen in

3:37:26order for things to continue on.

3:37:28However,

3:37:31there this is the first one. Why do we

3:37:34have to be, like the guy said, a guinea

3:37:35pig?

3:37:37Come back and see us in 15 or 20 years

3:37:40since you're going to build so many of

3:37:41these. come back and see us in 15 20

3:37:44years when they're if they're all

3:37:45successful then maybe we would be love

3:37:47we would be happy to have that right now

3:37:49there's nothing that I can say or that I

3:37:53have seen other than this guy telling us

3:37:55this that this is not going to happen

3:37:58that's not going to be loud it's not

3:38:00going to use a bunch of water it's not

3:38:01going to use a bunch of electricity what

3:38:03happens in two years if that's not true

3:38:06and they come back and they say well you

3:38:08know it didn't work out we're going to

3:38:09have to build it bigger

3:38:12What happens then? Where who's going to

3:38:14protect us from from that happening?

3:38:18Because I live right now about a mile

3:38:20and a half from there. And I can tell

3:38:22you that

3:38:26I would not be happy at all. What 30

3:38:29years ago when we built the sewage

3:38:30treatment plant, never in never in a

3:38:33God's world did those people that live

3:38:35right down near there think that it was

3:38:37going to smell like crap. the majority

3:38:39of the of the year where was their

3:38:43protection there wasn't any

3:38:45you know so that's what I'm asking if

3:38:49nothing else but history and conquered

3:38:51has taught us

3:38:53do your diligence

3:38:56do your education we don't have to be

3:38:58the first ones like these people are

3:39:01going to pay all of our taxes for 10

3:39:02years

3:39:04nothing that's going to benefit us other

3:39:06than what can be a disadvantage to us

3:39:10and then it's too late for this

3:39:11taxpayers of conquered this and the

3:39:13citizens in in the area. And I think

3:39:16that as the city council and this

3:39:18planning board, we owe it to conquered

3:39:22and to the citizens to be respectful and

3:39:24to be mindful of what you're planning to

3:39:27bring in. Where's I want it in writing.

3:39:30I guess you're going to bring this in. I

3:39:32want it in writing. Where's my

3:39:33protection? My property value goes down

3:39:36$200,000.

3:39:38city going to reimburse me that?

3:39:41I doubt it. And I think that that where

3:39:45we're at in conquered right now, we're

3:39:47already got enough conflict going on.

3:39:50We've got the taxes. We've got the

3:39:53school. We've got the police department.

3:39:55We've got the bar up at the the at the

3:39:58uh golf course. There's already enough

3:40:00stuff that has got people irritated at

3:40:03this point. bringing this in and then

3:40:05having it be a fail and you're 5050

3:40:08because it's you have no idea and

3:40:11neither does he that it's going to be

3:40:13successful.

3:40:15Um

3:40:17the other thing is, you know, so all

3:40:19right, what happens if somebody if it

3:40:22really irritates somebody and there's an

3:40:24act of terrorism? What if somebody

3:40:27decides we're really ticked off at this

3:40:29and they decide to do something bad?

3:40:31Where's what is your plan for that? What

3:40:35is um what if there's a local issue and

3:40:38that creates a safety issue in this

3:40:40area? What if there's an explosion in

3:40:43this place? What's going to happen to

3:40:46And you say that this there's no real

3:40:49there's a lot of local people that are

3:40:51in this area. Like I said, I'm only a

3:40:54mile and a half. People on Wester Street

3:40:56are far less than that.

3:40:59Even with that actually West Conquered,

3:41:02if this becomes really loud, West

3:41:04Conquered is going to be affected. It

3:41:05isn't just East Conquered.

3:41:08It's that entire area. It's the people

3:41:10who are by the old writing. It's, you

3:41:14know, Walker, all of that up to Beaver

3:41:17Meadow. They're all going to be affected

3:41:19by this.

3:41:21It is irresponsible

3:41:24to just keep going ahead. They want to

3:41:26start building by the end of the year.

3:41:29Well, that tells me that this has been

3:41:31in motion for a while. Why didn't we

3:41:33know about this? How can they move this

3:41:35along? Something that's has a huge

3:41:37potential for this city. How can that be

3:41:40moved along and have them say that they

3:41:41want to start building it the end of

3:41:43this year?

3:41:45And what happens if they do decide to

3:41:47build bigger again? Where is our

3:41:50protection? None.

3:41:53So, I mean, I have

3:41:56There's just no guarantees.

3:41:59>> There's not.

3:42:01>> And I'm and and I get that with a lot of

3:42:04things, but this is something that we

3:42:06have a choice in. You know, you go into

3:42:09surgery. Yeah. Everybody can die in

3:42:11surgery. But you're going in typically

3:42:14for a medical

3:42:16issue. You're going in because it's an

3:42:19emergency or it's, you know, that you

3:42:23don't have a choice. Even orthopedic

3:42:25doesn't for the most part doesn't have a

3:42:26choice. This is a choice that you guys

3:42:30apparently you guys are the ones that

3:42:32can make this decision and

3:42:36it doesn't have to happen. You can wait

3:42:3910 years

3:42:40that

3:42:42there'll still be a spot to make it in

3:42:4410 years. I'm sure. Why do we have to be

3:42:46in such a rush?

3:42:48>> Okay.

3:42:49>> Thank you FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.

3:42:55GOING TO RUN up to the table now. How

3:42:57about how about if I call you up to the

3:42:58table? How how about that?

3:43:01>> Uh good evening. My name is Suzanne

3:43:03Brand and I've been a resident of

3:43:05Conquered for my entire life. Um I'd

3:43:07like to start by addressing how much

3:43:10energy 15 megawatts is because there was

3:43:13a claim made earlier that that could

3:43:15supply energy for 300 homes. According

3:43:19to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

3:43:2215 megawatts of energy is enough to

3:43:24provide power for 6,000 to 14,000 homes.

3:43:29>> That is an entirely different figure

3:43:31than the one you were told.

3:43:33>> That's right.

3:43:34>> And so given that information and given

3:43:38that AI companies are already

3:43:41hemorrhaging money, it just screams

3:43:43unsustainable to me.

3:43:47It seems like the city is going to be

3:43:50expected to take the brunt of this data

3:43:52center whether it's in a way that's

3:43:54environmental or it's because of energy

3:43:57strain and it should not be on the

3:44:00people of this city to have to deal with

3:44:02those consequences

3:44:05and I'd like to conclude by saying that

3:44:08the consequences the long-term

3:44:11consequences of we if we see data data

3:44:14centers like this popping up all over

3:44:16the world. The effects of that are going

3:44:19to be passed down to my generation. So,

3:44:22as a teenager, I'm asking you to take

3:44:24that into consideration because we don't

3:44:27want data centers. We want to inherit a

3:44:30world that isn't too damaged to fix.

3:44:33[snorts] And that starts here.

3:44:46Hi.

3:44:46>> State your name for the record.

3:44:48>> Yes. I'm Llaya Flynn. I'm a resident of

3:44:49Conquered Ward 4.

3:44:51>> Just push that microphone back this way

3:44:52a little. It doesn't need to be that

3:44:53close. Keep going.

3:44:54>> Is that Is that okay?

3:44:56>> Thanks.

3:44:56>> Okay. Um, so I would like to explain

3:45:02a concern I have and it's a little

3:45:05complex so I'm going to try to explain

3:45:06it the best I can. I'm a civil engineer

3:45:08by trade. This is not my area of

3:45:10expertise. I just have an amateur

3:45:12knowledge of um this system. I do think

3:45:16it's as from an engineering perspective,

3:45:18it's it's a very impressive efficient

3:45:20system. Um so I do I do have like quite

3:45:24an appreciation for the the closed loop

3:45:26system um with the water and the the

3:45:29potential impacts in the future for

3:45:31taking grid load demand. Um I'd like to

3:45:35describe an issue that's been studied in

3:45:37data centers that's uh regarding it's

3:45:41called uh like a harmonic distortion and

3:45:44basically what that means is so massive

3:45:47AI centers and computing data centers

3:45:50draw intense highly variable electric

3:45:53loads and use power heavy components

3:45:56like uh drivers uh large fans and

3:46:00chillers. So these induce noise or small

3:46:04deviations. These are like the harmonic

3:46:06distortions into the local electrical

3:46:08grid and the worst effects typically

3:46:12occur within 50 miles of a a data center

3:46:16facility. So what this does is these

3:46:19distortions when it reaches residential

3:46:21areas and it exceeds the the typical

3:46:24normal harmonic distortion limits in um

3:46:28applications with like appliances with

3:46:30electrical motors such as your home

3:46:32refrigerators, washing machines and air

3:46:34conditioners. This poor power quality

3:46:38can cause the motors to oscillate and it

3:46:42can cause extra mechanical stress and

3:46:45cause fatigue, premature burnout, um,

3:46:48and risk of malfunctions and electrical

3:46:50fires. Um, this data center is

3:46:53different. I'm learning more about micro

3:46:55data sensors that they don't have such

3:46:57an intense power draw and they're using

3:47:00their 15 megawatt power that was

3:47:02allotted to this site. um which I think

3:47:05is is fair and typical of an industrial

3:47:08use. But this particular application is

3:47:12I would say different than a normal

3:47:15industrial site because of those

3:47:17harmonic oscillations even for the micro

3:47:20data centers. Um because they still do

3:47:24contribute to

3:47:26the harmonic oscillations in the grid

3:47:28like they disturb what's the baseline

3:47:30that's what's there. Um, and I would say

3:47:33they actually I mean I'm not very

3:47:35familiar with the the new micro data

3:47:37system, so I would love to hear more

3:47:39follow-ups to it, but from my

3:47:42understanding they might even have less

3:47:43protections than the large facilities

3:47:45because um the large facilities

3:47:47typically have to travel through heavy

3:47:50high voltage transmission lines which

3:47:53inherently like dampens some of those

3:47:56noise frequencies before reaching homes.

3:47:58Whereas the micro data centers are

3:48:00already placed in these residential

3:48:03areas. Um and they would connect

3:48:06directly to the low our low voltage

3:48:09distributing transformers. Um and it

3:48:13wouldn't that noise wouldn't get diluted

3:48:15and would dump immediately into the

3:48:18neighborhood homes directly impacting

3:48:21the households of appliances nearby. Um,

3:48:26so I guess to summarize this, I I don't

3:48:29know how much you understood that, but

3:48:31basically it's not typical of like a a a

3:48:35normal industrial use because it

3:48:38contributes to that that pollution to

3:48:41the grid to our the typical harmonic

3:48:43oscillations. And I bet you the city of

3:48:45conquered probably doesn't have their

3:48:47own engineers that could know that type

3:48:49of background. So, I would really

3:48:52encourage that the city look into having

3:48:55a consultant and working with Eversource

3:48:58to look into what the micro data center

3:49:00would potentially be contributing to

3:49:02that pollution to the grid and how that

3:49:04would affect [snorts] everyone's local

3:49:06appliances. And I would look into that

3:49:08before approving this. Thank you.

3:49:10>> Thank you,

3:49:15>> Matt Cessna. Again, um I'll be very

3:49:17brief. This doesn't happen doesn't have

3:49:19to happen today. It doesn't. You can

3:49:22table this issue.

3:49:25I'm an attorney and uh I do criminal

3:49:28defense work and one of the things that

3:49:30we do is we ask witnesses questions and

3:49:32what I tell a jury is if that witness

3:49:34lies to you about one thing, they are

3:49:36probably lying to you about other

3:49:38things. One of the witnesses who sat in

3:49:40front of you today claimed that the

3:49:42megawatt usage was 30 or 350 homes. A

3:49:46simple Google search proved that he he

3:49:48undersold that by I don't know 30%. This

3:49:52is insane. That is a lie. That is an

3:49:55outward lie to you all saying this is

3:49:57what it's going to cost. What else can

3:49:59we trust that came out of his mouth?

3:50:02With all respect to Miss Rosenberger, I

3:50:04really appreciate you calling Unatil and

3:50:06asking them, but UNATIL is the drug

3:50:09dealer. They're the ones that are

3:50:11benefiting from selling more energy. if

3:50:15they sell 1,000 more homes worth of

3:50:17energy, they're going to make a hell of

3:50:18a lot more money. So, I would ask that

3:50:20we use an independent consultant to

3:50:22verify some of these things. This is

3:50:24extremely important. And the last thing

3:50:27I will note is that data centers are

3:50:29documented for destroying the

3:50:31environment. I don't know who looked at

3:50:34this and said dissipating all of this

3:50:36heat in this novel way is going to do

3:50:38nothing. That seems so absurd to me. How

3:50:41could that wetlands absorb all this

3:50:43extra heat and extra energy? And then

3:50:45finally, the last thing I'll say is when

3:50:47I'm awake at night, because I'm a bit of

3:50:49a night owl, and I go outside and I

3:50:52listen, I look at the moon and I hear

3:50:54the highway roaring,

3:50:56I'm not happy.

3:50:59Comparing this to a highway is not a

3:51:01good comparison.

3:51:04This the the noise isn't just going to

3:51:06be during the day. It's going to be 24

3:51:08hours a day, all night. It's not going

3:51:11to be good for us. This is something

3:51:13that could kill this town. This is

3:51:16something that could drive people away

3:51:18from conquered. And I would also echo

3:51:21this is something that not only could do

3:51:22that, but could invite so much civil

3:51:25unrest that we are not ready for it.

3:51:28People are mad. They're going to get

3:51:31violent, and I don't want that to happen

3:51:33in my backyard.

3:51:36>> Thank you for YOUR TESTIMONY.

3:51:42I'M GOING TO be brief as well. My name

3:51:44is Mariana Saskitz. Um I live over on

3:51:48the where Shaker Road meets Mountain

3:51:51Road. So it's about half a mile away

3:51:54from the site as the crow flies. Um I

3:51:58live there with my husband and our

3:52:01four-month-old son. And when we bought

3:52:04the house two years ago, um we bought it

3:52:07because it's a beautiful, safe,

3:52:10wonderful area for our to for us to grow

3:52:13our family in. And I have different

3:52:17feelings about it now if this plan goes

3:52:21forward. And it's really unfortunate and

3:52:24it's discouraging to have something with

3:52:28that much diesel in an area where if we

3:52:31got hit with an ice storm like the ice

3:52:33storm of08, what's going to happen? And

3:52:36then my other concern is how many jobs

3:52:38does this create?

3:52:41One, we have a caretaker and that's it.

3:52:46So

3:52:47where is the benefit for us? I read in

3:52:50the conquered monitor that this could

3:52:53generate $30 million a year, but how

3:52:57much of that is going to be

3:52:58redistributed through the local economy

3:53:01and how much is just going to stay in

3:53:03one person's pockets?

3:53:05>> That's it.

3:53:05>> Okay. Thank you for your testimony.

3:53:14>> Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of

3:53:15the board. My name is Chris Lec and I

3:53:17live in W 9 here in conquered.

3:53:20Uh the first gentleman uh kind of talked

3:53:22a lot about what I wanted to say, so

3:53:24I'll keep I'll keep it brief. Uh ladies

3:53:26and gentlemen, that is not a micro data

3:53:28center.

3:53:30According to industry research, a micro

3:53:32data center is a compact self-contained

3:53:35uh unit. Industry sources describe a

3:53:37micro data center as a single unit,

3:53:39typically one rack, drawing roughly 100

3:53:42to 150 kilowatts and under 200 square

3:53:45feet. This project is over 8,000 square

3:53:49ft in over 7,000 square feet of data

3:53:52center space that's listed on the

3:53:54application and it's 15 megawws and up

3:53:58to up to a,000 servers. that is at least

3:54:0235 times the floor size of a typical

3:54:05micro unit

3:54:08um and 100 times its capacity.

3:54:13One industry fact place this places this

3:54:15quote edge facility

3:54:18up to 10 megawws in uh in places 15

3:54:22megawws in a collocation category not a

3:54:25micro category.

3:54:29Um, and so I just want to talk about one

3:54:30other thing that really hasn't been

3:54:32talked about tonight, and that's the

3:54:33singlephase immersion cooling.

3:54:36Uh, so I did a little bit of my own

3:54:38research. Singlephase immersion cooling

3:54:41does have its advantages.

3:54:43And I looked into one specific article

3:54:45and I have I have sources that I'm happy

3:54:46to pass out to you guys tonight for you

3:54:48to take a look. But in a 2025

3:54:50peer-reviewed life cycle study in a

3:54:52journal called nature which is a

3:54:54scientific peer-reviewed journal and was

3:54:57written by Microsoft employees and it

3:54:59found that onephase immersion cuts

3:55:01greenhouse gases emissions energy and

3:55:03water consumption

3:55:06as compared to air cooling. So it does

3:55:08have some advantages. However, they did

3:55:09note the authors uh say that the results

3:55:12are sensitive to design assumptions. the

3:55:15cooling fluid data uh the cooling fluid

3:55:18data was not readily available uh and

3:55:20that better data was needed and those

3:55:23savings per per unit of computing uh

3:55:26sorry those savings are per unit of

3:55:28computing so they they do not cap total

3:55:30energy use if a if a facility grows

3:55:34the study also names the risks of oils

3:55:39uh sorry I lost my place

3:55:44Um, oh okay. The study also names the

3:55:47risks of the oils that's used in the

3:55:49singlephase system. It talks about

3:55:51flammability, leaks, and spills that can

3:55:54contaminate groundwater. The study also

3:55:57recommended triple containment and

3:55:59citing fac inciting facilities away from

3:56:02bodies of water.

3:56:04This parcel has two large wetland areas

3:56:08uh adjoining the city and adjoins the

3:56:10city conservation land and its western

3:56:13part is in the Marramac River flood

3:56:15plan. The application describes a

3:56:18specialized dialectric cooling fluid but

3:56:21does not name the fluid or the total

3:56:23quantity. It also describes, as others

3:56:27had said, six diesel backup generators

3:56:30and a generator specification sheet uh

3:56:32with over 6,000 gallons of water.

3:56:36If this project were to move forward,

3:56:38which I hope it doesn't because I'm

3:56:40asking the board to deny this

3:56:41application, but if it were to move

3:56:43forward, I would ask that you require

3:56:45the specific fluid, the quantity, the

3:56:48containment design, the fire plan, the

3:56:50generator, the fuel storage and testing

3:56:52plan, and the decommissioning of the

3:56:54fluid disposal plan itself.

3:57:00I understand the board's role is to

3:57:02apply conquered site plan standards and

3:57:04not to state not to set state energy

3:57:06policy. But I am asking the board to see

3:57:09this for what it is. An entity looking

3:57:12to push forward through quick building

3:57:14so it doesn't meet the condition of a

3:57:16moratorum that every state leader is

3:57:19calling for. We want guard rails. We

3:57:21want independent studies, enforceable

3:57:24caps, and public disclosure.

3:57:27Um, I ask you to please pump the brakes,

3:57:32deny this project, and let our state

3:57:34governing body set the requirements. Let

3:57:38them set the precedent.

3:57:44We want guard rails, more information,

3:57:46and we want you to be transparent with

3:57:48the people who live here and work here.

3:57:50Thank you.

3:58:00Okay, I'm still Roy Schwagger and I'm

3:58:02going to give you a reason to deny this

3:58:05that has nothing to do with anything

3:58:06anyone said so far.

3:58:09And that is Mr. Pollock has put a fast

3:58:11over on the staff. He keeps saying this

3:58:13is the end of Lock Road. This is not the

3:58:15end of Lock Road. This is 52 Lock Road.

3:58:18The next lot out is 58 Lock Road that's

3:58:21owned by the city. you will see, and

3:58:24this isn't the right slide to show it,

3:58:26but there's another hammerhead further

3:58:28up on this lot for an extension of Lock

3:58:31Road. And normally, just like they were

3:58:34talking about with those hammerheads at

3:58:36the

3:58:39whatever lane it was,

3:58:40>> South Yeah, the South End development.

3:58:41Yeah,

3:58:42>> South End. That when you build another

3:58:44thing, you extend the hammer shed and

3:58:46you give back the one of the people that

3:58:49had it. So what these people should be

3:58:51required to do is move the hammerhead up

3:58:54to where it's shown on their property

3:58:55and give back that piece that's there to

3:58:58the a butter that's got the temporary

3:59:00easement and they haven't proposed to do

3:59:03that. I would say failing to do that

3:59:05violates the uh city's expectations for

3:59:09developments and therefore this is not

3:59:12in accordance with the city planning

3:59:16policy. They need to come back with a

3:59:18plan that builds that uh hammerhead or

3:59:21loop or whatever it is on their property

3:59:23at their expense so that the city can

3:59:26access its land. And right now he's

3:59:29talking about a conservation land and

3:59:30nothing's being done with it. But the

3:59:32city is very short of industrial land

3:59:35and having a lot in an industrial park

3:59:37would be very valuable to the city and

3:59:40developers and so forth. So, we should

3:59:42make them pay for that road extension

3:59:44that they're supposed to as part of the

3:59:46usual process and maybe that affects

3:59:50this and maybe it doesn't. But certainly

3:59:52they've got to come back with a plan

3:59:54that shows them doing that. And as a

3:59:56consequence of that, I'm not sure

3:59:58whether any of those coolers or

4:00:00generators or whatever they are would

4:00:02then suddenly be close to the to the

4:00:04road and would have to move. But you

4:00:07need to, you know, think about what's

4:00:09supposed to happen there. They're

4:00:10supposed to extend that road. They

4:00:12didn't. They need to come back with a

4:00:14plan that does. Thank you.

4:00:15>> Thank you.

4:00:17>> Question. Thank you for

4:00:32>> Hi, my name is Mila Paul and I live in

4:00:35conquered.

4:00:37Um, I was interested to hear the

4:00:40proponents speak today and um, my

4:00:43sympathies for you for um, you know,

4:00:46having to be so brave as to listen to

4:00:48that lawyer. He's a little frightening.

4:00:54Um, I also feel like the the stories

4:00:57about the farms were interesting.

4:01:01I I've worked on a number of farms, most

4:01:03of them organic,

4:01:06and we used to cut wood um up to the

4:01:09limit for firewood allowed by the state

4:01:13and we had to get permits to cut more

4:01:17than that.

4:01:19It I understand that the property here

4:01:24was clearcut

4:01:26without a permit.

4:01:28>> I believe they addressed that. that was

4:01:30done by the prior the prior person that

4:01:33owned the property.

4:01:33>> I understand that. However,

4:01:36from what my work now in forestry as a

4:01:40technician has shown me, any land that's

4:01:43been cleared illegally must be replanted

4:01:48by law.

4:01:50So if somebody else wants to clear

4:01:52replanted forests to build a data

4:01:55center, they might need to think about

4:01:57it a little.

4:02:00So there are there are laws about this.

4:02:03>> Okay.

4:02:05Anyway, um on to the research that I

4:02:08have done uh because one of my other

4:02:10jobs that I've done for a number of

4:02:13years was as a camp counselor for New

4:02:14Hampshire Ottabon

4:02:17and um I have some friends there who are

4:02:19bird biologists

4:02:22and uh also some friends at New

4:02:24Hampshire Fish and Game. And so

4:02:27according to one of my friends at

4:02:29Fishing Game who did some research, she

4:02:32told me that from a review standpoint,

4:02:35we were previously consulted

4:02:38for a project at this location of 52

4:02:41Lock Road. However, the project

4:02:44description and plans back then were for

4:02:48a four building warehouse self-s storage

4:02:50unit. You're familiar with that

4:02:52proposal.

4:02:54not a single building data center.

4:02:58So, the comments are not really

4:03:00applicable.

4:03:02Since the project plans have changed

4:03:04substantially, the applicant needs to

4:03:07resubmit an ecological review from dees

4:03:11in order to obtain an AOT permit.

4:03:17I suggest a that you deny this

4:03:20application on those grounds

4:03:23and b

4:03:26maybe think about waiting until after

4:03:28July

4:03:31questions.

4:03:31>> Um I have a few more things to say.

4:03:35The range of noise, the range of noise

4:03:39from a small data center, mini, micro,

4:03:42or whatever you're going to call it in

4:03:44this application.

4:03:46It ranges from 27 according to the

4:03:49application.

4:03:51Now, that depends, you know, who knows

4:03:53how it will really be because, you know,

4:03:56machines do change shape and all that as

4:03:58they function in time.

4:04:0227 dB to 44.

4:04:07At 27, well, yeah, that's a rustle of

4:04:11leaves.

4:04:13When you walk in a forest, even with a

4:04:16highway behind you and you rustle the

4:04:19leaves, guess what happens? The birds

4:04:23fly away.

4:04:27Tell me you've not seen that.

4:04:30They do. They fly away

4:04:34at a rustle of leaves or a deer if it

4:04:37hears you and you're hunting.

4:04:39Rustle of leaves they run.

4:04:44The wildlife don't care how quiet it is.

4:04:47And low frequency noise

4:04:51is still noise if it's quiet.

4:04:56I want you to think about that.

4:04:59And I also want you to think about the

4:05:02fact that there's been research not

4:05:05necessarily on data centers because it's

4:05:08so new. The biologists haven't caught up

4:05:11with this yet. And that's a big reason

4:05:14to wait.

4:05:18>> We don't have the data to say what the

4:05:21impact is on wildlife because it's so

4:05:23new.

4:05:25But we do have info on urban and what

4:05:28they call anthropogenic noise and the

4:05:30impacts on wildlife specifically birds.

4:05:36From what I understand from my bird

4:05:38biologist friends, it varies based on

4:05:41bird size and clutch size. So when you

4:05:45have low frequency noise,

4:05:49even

4:05:5227 dB and it's a hum from a machine,

4:05:59it can affect clutch size and mating

4:06:03success as well as more like mortality

4:06:08from the nest.

4:06:10It has to do with the size of the bird

4:06:12and the size of the clutch. So, some

4:06:15birds have a lot of eggs in a nest and

4:06:18some birds have a few. Some birds are

4:06:21big like an owl and some birds are tiny

4:06:24like a golden crown kinglet.

4:06:27So, it depends on the size and yeah,

4:06:30size matters with the birds. So, these

4:06:33things are important.

4:06:39I think that I've said enough here. I

4:06:41really am serious about you rejecting

4:06:44the proposal and getting it to dees

4:06:47and I hope it takes till after July.

4:06:51>> Thank you for your testimony.

4:07:02>> Welcome to the table. If you could state

4:07:04your name for the record. Uh,

4:07:05>> good evening. My name is Eric Allen. and

4:07:09I've lived with my family in conquered

4:07:11since 1998,

4:07:13currently in W 6.

4:07:16Um, I'm actually a big fan of AI. I uh I

4:07:19use it a lot. I work for the state of

4:07:22New Hampshire and the Department of

4:07:24Information Technology, have done so for

4:07:26over 20 years. And um data centers are

4:07:29important to our existence, to our

4:07:30success. We have them on site.

4:07:34We also use third party data centers.

4:07:37But I'm not here on behalf of DIT. I'm

4:07:39I'm here on behalf of people of

4:07:42conquered.

4:07:44I'm here because this proposal is

4:07:46described as micro.

4:07:50But the applicant's own numbers say 15

4:07:52megabytes megawws and up to a thousand

4:07:55servers.

4:07:56It may be a micro data center,

4:08:00but it is still

4:08:02a signific significant facility.

4:08:07So, I have a few questions

4:08:09and I'd really like to see those answers

4:08:11in writing.

4:08:14So, at a 70% run rate, which is about 10

4:08:17and a half megawws,

4:08:19which is 70% is right in the middle of

4:08:21the 60 to 80% average run rate for data

4:08:24centers, the real big data centers like

4:08:26what B is looking at.

4:08:29If you look at the Energy Informations

4:08:31Administration's numbers for conquered

4:08:34based on utility rates,

4:08:36the numbers that everybody's told you is

4:08:37actually low, even ones who came close.

4:08:41We're looking at 8,000 to 12,000 homes

4:08:45worth of energy utilization.

4:08:48If you have any doubts about the

4:08:50numbers, and you should because you

4:08:52haven't heard any consistent numbers on

4:08:54this,

4:08:55>> get the facts.

4:08:57So,

4:09:01do any of you know, and this is on your

4:09:03website,

4:09:05how many megawatts of energy the city of

4:09:07conquer, the entire city of conquered

4:09:09uses a year? Does anybody here know

4:09:12this?

4:09:14It's less than 55 megawws a year.

4:09:18That's something you can compare this

4:09:20to. They cited hospitals using 15

4:09:23megawatts.

4:09:25Check your facts. Conquered Hospital

4:09:27uses between 1.7 and 2.8 megawws of

4:09:32energy a year. Get your facts down

4:09:35straight.

4:09:38They compared it to a data center. I

4:09:41know data centers.

4:09:43A typical data center, not an AI data

4:09:45center, not a micro data center, uses on

4:09:48average about 94 watts per square foot

4:09:52of energy.

4:09:54A micro data center uses over 2100

4:09:59watts per square foot. They're packing a

4:10:02lot into a space the size of about four

4:10:06homes.

4:10:08That thing is churning away. So, don't

4:10:11be

4:10:14what's the word I'm looking for?

4:10:17>> Um confused. Uh don't be um

4:10:21>> lied to. No, I don't want to say lied

4:10:24because the facts are the they laid out

4:10:26the facts, but 15 megawws is a serious

4:10:30amount of energy for a building this

4:10:31size.

4:10:35So, that was my first part of my

4:10:36question. The second is, you know, we've

4:10:38heard a lot about noise.

4:10:40We've heard about how loud their system

4:10:42is. We've heard they're going to have

4:10:44diesel generators. Has anybody done an

4:10:48independent noise study of what these

4:10:52generators sound like? Because until you

4:10:54actually have, again, facts, you don't

4:10:57really know what you're talking about

4:10:58and what you're evaluating.

4:11:05How often are these generators going to

4:11:06be tested for safety?

4:11:11We've also heard mention of the

4:11:13wetlands.

4:11:16We heard people concerned about

4:11:19replanting the area. We I actually know

4:11:20that in their plan, they do plan to

4:11:22replant that area very aggressively.

4:11:25That sounds really good.

4:11:28What provisions do you have in this

4:11:30proposal for followup? You can plant

4:11:33plants, but go look around the parking

4:11:34lot that was just put in in downtown

4:11:36conquered. How many times has that had

4:11:38to be replanted? Do you have measures in

4:11:40place to ensure that when they replant

4:11:43that area that they're going to sustain

4:11:44it?

4:11:47I heard they're not going to use be

4:11:49using public water.

4:11:51Where's the water coming from?

4:11:54How do you know this? Do you know where

4:11:56it's coming from? Do you know how it's

4:11:57going to infect the environment? If it's

4:11:58not coming from public water, it's not

4:12:01coming from the air. Unless they're

4:12:02collecting rain water for this

4:12:03operation, it's coming from local soil.

4:12:10They're going to be using dilectric

4:12:11fluid to cool the servers. It's a really

4:12:13neat technology.

4:12:15Great energy recapture.

4:12:20They haven't said what's in it, but

4:12:22typically what's in it are based on

4:12:25petroleum products.

4:12:32The fire department approved this. I

4:12:33hope they know what they're approving.

4:12:41The proposal I said the applicant has

4:12:42said that the water connection is for

4:12:44fire suppression limited domestic use

4:12:46not cooling.

4:12:48I'd ask that this be written in as a

4:12:51condition to the proposal just because

4:12:54they say that's how they're going to use

4:12:56it. What enforcement mechanisms do you

4:12:59have in place to ensure that's how they

4:13:00use it? What caps will you put on their

4:13:02water usage?

4:13:09And my my last area really is

4:13:12will the approval

4:13:15if you put one/4th and honestly I'm not

4:13:19a fan either

4:13:21but if you do approve this are you going

4:13:23to have any caps on the power load and

4:13:26the server count will you require new

4:13:29review if there's an expansion or is

4:13:32this going to be

4:13:35And what kind of decommission plan do

4:13:37you have in place? Do you have a bond

4:13:38set up for a decommission plan so that

4:13:40the cleanup doesn't fall to the

4:13:41residents of conquered?

4:13:44The city planner said that this scale of

4:13:47project is unusual

4:13:49and it was classified

4:13:52by its comparison to existing permitted

4:13:54use which has nothing to do with what

4:13:56you're looking at. Your permitting your

4:13:58permitted use, you mentioned it earlier.

4:14:00you should be looking at your your

4:14:01categories for that and how you evaluate

4:14:03permitted use. You damn well should be.

4:14:06The state is doing the same thing. And

4:14:08the state is saying no until they can

4:14:10until they can actually figure out how

4:14:12to proceed.

4:14:15What that really means is that what you

4:14:17do here is the only protection that we

4:14:20have as residents of conquered.

4:14:23We're counting on you to get this right.

4:14:28So, I'd ask the board first

4:14:32to attach enforcable

4:14:34conditions

4:14:37on noise,

4:14:40water use,

4:14:42fluid containment,

4:14:45power capacity,

4:14:47and decommissioning.

4:14:51Second,

4:14:53it sounds like the abutters and the

4:14:55conservation committee, the conservation

4:14:57commission

4:14:58have said they are okay with this. Is

4:15:00that on the record? I heard it from

4:15:02them. I haven't heard it from the

4:15:04conservation commission or Butters.

4:15:07This needs to be on the record.

4:15:11Third, I'd ask you to refrain from

4:15:13approving this proposal

4:15:15until these questions are answered and

4:15:18reviewed in a follow

4:15:21up public meeting. I can't imagine you

4:15:24could approve this today. Thank you very

4:15:27much.

4:15:28>> Thank you.

4:15:37I'll sign in after

4:15:43Hi everyone. Can you hear me? Okay.

4:15:45>> Yeah. Welcome to the table if you could

4:15:46state your name for the record.

4:15:47>> Sure. Uh my name is Tyler Watt. I'm a

4:15:50citizen of conquered resident of Ward 3.

4:15:53Um I happen to work in the tech industry

4:15:55and I'm thankful that I've had the

4:15:56opportunity to do that because it's

4:15:58allowed me to buy my first home here in

4:16:01conquered and I'm so proud to be a part

4:16:03of the community. Um, [snorts] however,

4:16:05having my first home here, you know, got

4:16:07an old house built in 1896.

4:16:10Um, not the most uh tools savvy

4:16:12bluecollar guy out there, but one of the

4:16:15phrases that comes to mind for me is to

4:16:19measure twice and cut once.

4:16:26And what has what has become clear to me

4:16:29at this session tonight is that there

4:16:32have not been enough of the right

4:16:35measurements to fully understand or

4:16:38gauge the risks involved with a project

4:16:42of this type. Less concerned about the

4:16:44size but data centers is not really in

4:16:47the wheelhouse or the toolbox or the

4:16:50skill set right of of New Hampshire.

4:16:53This is new stuff. Um, I originally come

4:16:56from the Midwest, Kansas City, Missouri.

4:16:58This is a part of the country that has

4:17:00welcomed and expanded very large data

4:17:04centers for about the past decade. And

4:17:07for those that work in the the um the

4:17:10IEC um engineering construction type

4:17:13trades, it's been uh wonderful, right?

4:17:16Very profitable. But I have to ask, why

4:17:20is it that an applicant from the state

4:17:22of Washington has traveled so far away

4:17:26from a very eco-friendly green community

4:17:30to a place like conquered New Hampshire

4:17:33to do a a proof of concept, right, to

4:17:36make a guinea pig of this undertaking

4:17:39here in our backyard. And I think what

4:17:42we've heard tonight is that this

4:17:44applicant has found uh an opening or a

4:17:48soft code offered by a city council that

4:17:52did not see this coming. Right? This is

4:17:54a very opportune time to try out

4:17:57something new that's never been done

4:17:59before. And that should be a cause for

4:18:02concern for everyone here. Okay. So, the

4:18:05moral of the story is you don't know

4:18:08what you don't know. And this decision

4:18:10will have lasting effects for the rest

4:18:14of your life, for your children's lives,

4:18:16and for the lives of your of your

4:18:18grandchildren. Right? This is a really

4:18:20big deal. Um, someone before talked

4:18:23about about uh Unatil, and I'm glad that

4:18:25you did your research, but this is the

4:18:28drug dealer, right? This is the Perurdue

4:18:30Pharma for the opioid crisis. I know

4:18:34that's something that's very unique

4:18:35here, right? Very close to home. UNATIL

4:18:38is somebody that's always they're not

4:18:40they're never going to say no to this,

4:18:42right? So, we have to discredit uh that

4:18:44entity here

4:18:49and we still have yet to hear what are

4:18:51the benefits to the community, right?

4:18:52And and and above all else, you don't

4:18:54have to make a decision right now. This

4:18:56is something that you can take your time

4:18:58with. You can table it. You can deny it

4:19:00on its face. Um but some of the other

4:19:02key words that we've heard is moratorum,

4:19:05right? bipartisan opposition and making

4:19:08this a part of the master plan, right?

4:19:10Having outside consultants perhaps um

4:19:14you know my employer or others uh

4:19:17provide more expertise and guidance on

4:19:20an undertaking of this type. And so, um,

4:19:23you know, to wrap up, um,

4:19:28I of course I I never encourage

4:19:30violence, but one of the things that's

4:19:32really popped out to me living in New

4:19:33Hampshire, there are some headlines in

4:19:35this state that are just that are just

4:19:37wild and really grabbed my attention

4:19:39coming here from the Midwest. And when I

4:19:41think about data centers, these things

4:19:43look like airports back home. They've

4:19:45got really thick concrete walls and all

4:19:47types of cameras. You cannot penetrate

4:19:50these data centers in the Midwest. And

4:19:52what I'm seeing here is is something

4:19:54neat and pretty like like it's a

4:19:56library. It's part of the community. But

4:19:58when we hear about thousands of gallons

4:20:01of diesel, I automatically think about

4:20:05uh the individual in the news from Keen

4:20:08who was just arrested and charged with

4:20:10crimes like pipe bombs, right? There's

4:20:13folks in New Hampshire that apparently

4:20:15make pipe bombs, right? And then they

4:20:17get caught. So that's really really bad.

4:20:19Combined with thousands of gallons of

4:20:20diesel. We also have folks uh in the

4:20:24past couple years that made the news by

4:20:26rocking their neighborhood uh from

4:20:29dynamite explosions to celebrate the

4:20:32birth of children.

4:20:34This this is this is fact, right? If you

4:20:36guys didn't see this, right? This is

4:20:37wild stuff. And I live by the Granite

4:20:39Corey where blastings are known to take

4:20:41place, you know, every so often. So it's

4:20:44no secret there there are access to

4:20:47explosives in this state and there's no

4:20:49security mechanism to prevent anyone

4:20:52from making a mockery of this high-risk

4:20:56area. This is going to put conquered on

4:20:57the map and it's going to be really

4:20:59really bad and you guys have to vote no

4:21:01today.

4:21:10>> Need to

4:21:12>> Hi. I know it's getting late. I want to

4:21:13be respectful of everybody's time, so

4:21:15I'm going to be quick. My name is Lynn

4:21:16Powers. Uh I live in Hookit, and I'm

4:21:18here because data centers are a regional

4:21:19issue that don't stop at city borders.

4:21:22Um I just wanted to reiterate what other

4:21:24folks have said in that does conquer

4:21:26really want to be the first. This is a

4:21:27novel technology. Levitate is on their

4:21:29website advertising that they have three

4:21:31pilot projects across the US. One in

4:21:33Montana, one in Washington on Mr.

4:21:35Howard's Flem Farm, and one here in

4:21:36Conquered. Um, I think that communities

4:21:39across the US have really found to their

4:21:42detriment have not loved the experience

4:21:44of being the first to experience

4:21:45hyperscale data centers. We've all seen

4:21:47the news headlines at this point of the

4:21:49kinds of experiences people have had. At

4:21:51one point, someone else was first. Do we

4:21:53want to be first? Um, I would also say

4:21:55with the diesel generators that we've

4:21:57been talking about, the applicant

4:21:58talking about the possibility of the

4:22:00power company cutting power if needed.

4:22:02Just a week ago in Virginia, um one data

4:22:05center uh ran off of their backup diesel

4:22:07generators for 24 hours straight and the

4:22:09the air pollution was so terrible that

4:22:11people were [clears throat] like

4:22:12literally fleeing their homes. So these

4:22:14are things that raise for me deep

4:22:16concerns. Um I would also say it sounds

4:22:18like we've potentially identified a gap

4:22:20in conquered city code and in zoning in

4:22:22that data centers are not currently, you

4:22:25know, listed that we had to go to city

4:22:27staff, ask about a variant. So we can't

4:22:30just wait for who knows when a moratorum

4:22:34is going to come from the state. I would

4:22:36really encourage folks who feel strongly

4:22:38here and folks on the the commission to

4:22:40think about you know um revising the

4:22:44code and taking a look at it and seeing

4:22:46what needs to be done for the future and

4:22:49looking into potentially bans and

4:22:50moratoriums. And I really hope um that

4:22:52this doesn't pass. And I would also just

4:22:54say that this potentially just like

4:22:56opens the door to a lot of very big

4:22:58questions and to potential other

4:22:59facilities. So thank you.

4:23:01>> Thank you for your testimony.

4:23:05>> Try to want to try to wrap things up

4:23:07here. So

4:23:13>> I promise to be very brief. It's late at

4:23:17night. My name is Steve Merrill. I was

4:23:21born here in 1949 and I had the pleasure

4:23:24of serving on this board. So I

4:23:26appreciate all of the efforts everybody

4:23:28takes in this. Uh I left the board in

4:23:312007 when I moved to Colorado. My

4:23:34background is utilities. I began my

4:23:36career at Conquered Electric, now known

4:23:39as Unatil. Spent eight years there. Then

4:23:41I went to New England Telephone as an

4:23:44engineer and operations manager. Started

4:23:47in New Hampshire and ended up in Boston.

4:23:49Go figure.

4:23:50I went out and I took a look at the old

4:23:52pole line on Lock Road. Very familiar

4:23:55with it. I lived uh out on Ho Road for

4:23:58for 18 years and uh I kept hearing

4:24:02different levels of how many are served

4:24:05by megawws and all of that stuff. Today

4:24:07I it's the first time I've looked at

4:24:09this application. The average consumer,

4:24:12residential consumer in conquered runs

4:24:14between 600 and 650

4:24:18kilowatt hours a month.

4:24:20I I looked up how many single

4:24:22residential units there are in conquered

4:24:24and that includes everything you

4:24:26consider a single residential unit and

4:24:28is roughly 19,000 believe it or not

4:24:31between apartments and homes and

4:24:33everything else that goes with it. If

4:24:35you do the simple math and I did the

4:24:37simple math the average residential full

4:24:41load for unitil based upon my

4:24:43calculations is about 12 megawws a

4:24:46month. Okay,

4:24:49the proposal is to put in 15 megawws.

4:24:52Now, I was involved with the layout of

4:24:54pole lines, conversions to higher

4:24:57voltages. You got a 34,000 volt line

4:24:59that feeds in there. Now, I'd be

4:25:01absolutely amazed if they have that much

4:25:04stranded capacity to swallow when you

4:25:06got 12 12,000 megawws going to the

4:25:09residential load right now in in

4:25:11conquered New Hampshire. So, this is my

4:25:14point. The state has a lot of concerns

4:25:17on the price of energy. Perhaps they had

4:25:20that concern back in 1970 when I started

4:25:23with conquered electric. We've always

4:25:25been a high cost center for for for

4:25:27electricity.

4:25:29The state is very concerned. I think the

4:25:31Department of of Energy uh is charged

4:25:35with trying to figure out how to get

4:25:36electricity to be less costly in New

4:25:39Hampshire. You've got the Department of

4:25:41Energy, you got the Public Utilities

4:25:43Commission, you've got Unatil. And I

4:25:46appreciate you calling Unatil. I don't

4:25:48know who you talk to, but I don't

4:25:50believe they probably even done an

4:25:51engineering study yet to see what they

4:25:53got to do with their distribution plant

4:25:55to get there. I really recommend that

4:25:58you get something formally from UNATIL

4:26:00in regards to what their true capacity

4:26:04is and what they've got to do to put the

4:26:06capacity in to support a 15 megawatt

4:26:09operation. I am assuming they've got to

4:26:12run a new circuit and probably beef up

4:26:14some substations here and there. And if

4:26:16they do have to do that, that cost

4:26:18should be borne by the petitioner for

4:26:21for having this this done. So, with

4:26:24that, uh, I've only looked this thing

4:26:26for about five hours and took the ride

4:26:28at 3:00 down Lock Road and and I think

4:26:32Unatil is a very solid distribution

4:26:34company. That's what they are. The

4:26:36supply comes from someplace else and in

4:26:38the position we'll have to purchase that

4:26:40somewhere else. And you've also got a

4:26:42transmission in the middle of the whole

4:26:44thing. It's not just a simple thing that

4:26:46you've got a 345 KV line sitting there.

4:26:50That's 34.5

4:26:5134,500 bolts face to face and sitting

4:26:56there and they've already got some some

4:26:57services hanging off it. I'd be

4:26:59absolutely amazed if they don't have to

4:27:01run another circuit and I don't know how

4:27:02many miles is going to be involved with

4:27:04that. But that cost should not be borne

4:27:06by the rateayers of Unatil in the city

4:27:08of Con. You really need some definitive

4:27:10answer on that. Thank you very much.

4:27:12Have a great Thank you.

4:27:17>> All right, we got time for just a couple

4:27:18more. So, welcome to the table. If you

4:27:21could state your name for the record.

4:27:22>> Hi, my name is Elise Eiffeler. I am a

4:27:25resident of Conquered. I live right down

4:27:26the road, a couple blocks away. Um,

4:27:30thank you for your time. I know we've

4:27:32been here for a long time. Um, I have

4:27:34rewarded some of the things I was going

4:27:36to say. I think that all the people who

4:27:38have spoken tonight have a lot of

4:27:40concerns and those concerns sit with me

4:27:43as well and I agree with all of them.

4:27:45Um, all in all, I'm just unsure what,

4:27:50sorry, let me pull up my notes. I'm

4:27:52unsure of what the benefits of this AI

4:27:54data data center are to our community.

4:27:56Is it creating jobs? No. Besides, after

4:28:00at least after construction, there'll be

4:28:02probably one person working here, so

4:28:04it's not creating jobs. Does it have a

4:28:06potential to impact our waterways that

4:28:08we rely on our wildlife and pollute our

4:28:10air? Yes. The applicant shared that the

4:28:13generated heat that will support melting

4:28:16of snow in the winter um is going to be

4:28:19beneficial to our land, beneficial to

4:28:21the farmland, beneficial to the wetlands

4:28:23in this conservation area. However, two

4:28:27weeks ago I visited Hubard Brook

4:28:29Experimental forest. Some of you might

4:28:31know it. It is used for it is cited

4:28:34numerous times in PhD studies in geology

4:28:37and hydrarology and they are a top tier

4:28:39experimental forest. Um, and one of

4:28:41their tests that they've been doing is

4:28:42they've been running um they've added

4:28:46heat pumps beneath parcels of forest and

4:28:49have used it to melt snow in the winter

4:28:51to see the impacts of climate change and

4:28:54the impacts of less snow. And what that

4:28:56has done is they've seen, you know, what

4:29:00they've seen is a really detrimental

4:29:02impact to roots and microbes in the

4:29:04soil. So, and that's be sorry that's

4:29:08because the insulation that the snow

4:29:10creates isn't there any longer. And so,

4:29:13what they're saying by this distribution

4:29:14of heat into the soil and into the land

4:29:18um is going to be a benefit to this

4:29:20farmland, going to produce more food

4:29:22through green houses. It's going to

4:29:24support and benefit these this

4:29:26conservation area and wetlands.

4:29:28Actually, it could really cause a severe

4:29:30detriment to the soil and to the um the

4:29:33microbes in the soil because that

4:29:36insulating layer of the snow will melt

4:29:38and then that protection over the

4:29:40wetlands and conservation easements um

4:29:42will be impacted.

4:29:49Um

4:29:52and then

4:29:54um I guess lastly it's something that

4:29:56has been said time and time again by

4:29:58multiple people is that opposition to

4:30:00data centers is a bipartisan topic. The

4:30:04um you know Kelly Aayot has come out and

4:30:06said that if she's reelected she will

4:30:07put a more statewide moratorium on data

4:30:10centers. So we're just kind of moving

4:30:13toward an impending doom of if there is

4:30:14a moratorum and we support this data

4:30:16center. What does that mean once that

4:30:18morator moratorum comes up? Um and

4:30:22according to a Gallup poll, 70% of um

4:30:26over 70% of people in the US are opposed

4:30:29to data centers. And you are here to

4:30:32represent us um and support us as

4:30:35constituents of this community. And so

4:30:37we have put our trust in you to support

4:30:40us. And if 70% of people are against the

4:30:44construction of data centers, I think

4:30:45that is is in your best interest to

4:30:47support that 70% of people because that

4:30:50is a super majority. Um and so what I

4:30:53propose um as other towns in this state

4:30:56have done um from you know people

4:30:59showing up here tonight in opposition we

4:31:01haven't heard a single person who has

4:31:03been pro building of a data center um in

4:31:07conquered um and what we've saw with

4:31:10turnout in bow and we've seen with

4:31:11moratoriums that have been placed in

4:31:13other towns and cities throughout New

4:31:15Hampshire I recommend that we pause and

4:31:18deny this um proposal for the data

4:31:20center and wait for a moratorum and come

4:31:22together to figure out what the best

4:31:25policies, rules, and regulations are to

4:31:27support our community and make sure

4:31:28we're um protecting both our community

4:31:32and the environment. Um yeah, so I

4:31:35propose a denial and a moratorum so we

4:31:38can take the time and get a independent

4:31:42consultant and an idea of what makes the

4:31:44most sense for building any kind of data

4:31:46center in conquered and [snorts] in the

4:31:48state. Thank you.

4:31:49>> THANK YOU.

4:31:57HELLO.

4:31:58>> DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK? [clears throat]

4:32:00>> OKAY. SO, one we're going to end with

4:32:02you then. Okay.

4:32:04>> Quick.

4:32:04>> I'm sorry. We can't I It's 11:30. We got

4:32:07to We got to call it. So,

4:32:08>> you started this meeting at 8:30 or

4:32:109:00.

4:32:11>> I started this meeting at 7 o'clock,

4:32:12sir. Thank you.

4:32:13>> What was on the agenda? You put this

4:32:14last

4:32:15>> No, we didn't choose anything. That's

4:32:17not the way it works. Go ahead. I'm

4:32:19sorry for the interruption.

4:32:20>> Good. I'll keep it quick. It's past my

4:32:22bedtime, too. Um, my name is Megan

4:32:25Gardina. I live in Conquered. I'm in

4:32:27Ward 6. Um, I agree with so much of the

4:32:29comments that have already been said, so

4:32:31I'll just keep it kind of brief. Um, I

4:32:35wanted to speak to the wetlands. Um, I

4:32:37grew up around wetlands pretty close to

4:32:39here. Um, it's beautiful, incredibly

4:32:41biodiverse, one of our most um, diverse

4:32:44biomes that we have in North America.

4:32:46Um, and they mean so much to our

4:32:48ecology. how healthy a wetland is means

4:32:51so much for how healthy the rest of our

4:32:53environment is. Um there also buffers

4:32:55for flooding. Um and with climate change

4:32:57and intensified rain events, um this is

4:32:59really not the time to be impacting

4:33:01these biomes. And we know that there's a

4:33:03flood zone here. Um so it just doesn't

4:33:06seem like a great place for this. And

4:33:08there has already been conversation

4:33:10about potential expansion. I understand

4:33:12if there was an expansion, they'd have

4:33:14to come back and propose this expansion.

4:33:16Um, but I just think that building this

4:33:19here now, even with thoughts of maybe

4:33:21expansion later, just sets a bad

4:33:23precedent um, for this particular

4:33:25location. And I understand that previous

4:33:28uh, people on this lot cleared that

4:33:30land. But just because it's clear, I

4:33:33don't think means that we should go

4:33:35ahead and build something there. So, we

4:33:37should build a data center there. Um,

4:33:40just my thoughts. Just because somebody

4:33:41else did something wrong doesn't mean

4:33:42that we should go ahead and just use it.

4:33:45Um, and then finally, I just I don't

4:33:48think that the discussion tonight is a

4:33:52choice between building this micro data

4:33:54center and one of those giant ones that

4:33:56we're all afraid of that's being built

4:33:58elsewhere. I know that there was a lot

4:33:59of conversation um brought up before all

4:34:02these points about how this data center

4:34:04is so much better than the other big

4:34:05ones, but I don't think we're choosing

4:34:07between a big one and a little one.

4:34:09We're choosing between this little one

4:34:10or none at all.

4:34:16Thank you so much. Um, just to be really

4:34:18clear, I'm against the death center.

4:34:29>> Welcome to the table. If you could state

4:34:30your name for the record.

4:34:31>> Howdy. My name is Logan Noel and I live

4:34:33just off of Louden Road. So, I think

4:34:35that's W 9. I'm not sure. As you can see

4:34:38from my Moxy hat, I've been a uh

4:34:40lifelong New Hampshire resident. And I

4:34:42have a few things to say about this.

4:34:45Live free or die is a testament to our

4:34:47values as proud New Hampshire. We're not

4:34:50one to let anyone, the government or

4:34:52otherwise, stomp all over us. And we're

4:34:55here to discuss Ryan Howard's vision of

4:34:57his New Hampshire. In this big tech

4:35:00vision of his, the people surely don't

4:35:02come first. Whether it be through the

4:35:05destruction of our protected wetlands

4:35:07via noise pollution or otherwise, or by

4:35:10raising our already high energy bills

4:35:13with a power- hungry data center when

4:35:14they want to expand. It is clear that

4:35:17these data centers only serve to enrich

4:35:19faceless tech giants while the rest of

4:35:22us only serve to foot their bill. Once

4:35:25the data center is built and

4:35:26operational, how many long-term stable

4:35:29jobs will it create? How much of the

4:35:31profits of this data center will benefit

4:35:34us here in conquered?

4:35:36Levitate Inc. is registered in New York

4:35:39City. A true local business, a true

4:35:42local business would serve our

4:35:44community, not use it to extract profits

4:35:46for some outofstate tech company. There

4:35:49are simply too many unknowns to go

4:35:51forward with this proposal. I could go

4:35:53on, but I'll just leave that list since

4:35:55we're pretty, you know, stretched for

4:35:57time. If you care about New Hampshire

4:35:59the same way I care about New Hampshire,

4:36:01you will send Ryan back to his

4:36:03million-doll home in Bofville,

4:36:05WASHINGTON. [applause]

4:36:13>> Did you want to speak? I didn't mean to

4:36:15cut you off. If you if you want to come

4:36:17up, I just got

4:36:29All right. Good evening.

4:36:32>> Welcome to the table. If you could state

4:36:33your name for the record.

4:36:34>> Yes. My name is Ace Caleb. I live in

4:36:36Ward 6. Usually on the other side of

4:36:38this table. That's more fun over there.

4:36:41This is scary. Um

4:36:45I am curious if anyone knows how Mr.

4:36:47Howard found. Oh, I'm speaking on behalf

4:36:50of just me. Just my own opinions,

4:36:54>> not the view of city council. Sorry.

4:36:56Disclaimer. I'm curious if anyone knows

4:36:58how Mr. Howard found out about this

4:37:00site. I did not realize he was from

4:37:02Washington State. So far away. I don't

4:37:04know if any does anyone know.

4:37:06>> It doesn't really matter, does it? Does

4:37:08it?

4:37:08>> It kind [laughter] I mean I

4:37:11>> It's a property that's available for

4:37:13sale.

4:37:13>> It's just so interesting.

4:37:15>> Is that the only thing that matters?

4:37:17God.

4:37:19>> Wow.

4:37:19>> That's a question.

4:37:20>> You know, um

4:37:24I think it does matter because the

4:37:27reason that you all are worried about

4:37:30denying this. I don't think you're

4:37:32allowed to necessarily because it falls

4:37:35within the permitted use. You all you

4:37:39all are concerned about that. I

4:37:41understand you're in a really tough

4:37:42spot, but these AI companies are going

4:37:47to be circling like vultures around

4:37:49communities that do not have any sort of

4:37:52banner moratorum. And that really deeply

4:37:55concerns me. That's why I asked that

4:37:56question. He could have popped that

4:37:58right in the chat, GBG, and um

4:38:01asked it. Give me a community with

4:38:03available land that doesn't have a ban

4:38:05on a data data center. Um,

4:38:09so [sighs and gasps]

4:38:10I know you have a serious choice in

4:38:12front of you. I'm not sure about denying

4:38:14it if that's possible. I don't know

4:38:16about delaying it. Um, I think that is

4:38:19possible. I believe you can delay it for

4:38:21some sort of impact study. This is not

4:38:25my area of expertise, but I do hope that

4:38:28the city council um

4:38:31a

4:38:33permitted use. I don't I don't know. Why

4:38:35not? Why?

4:38:36>> It's a permitted. It's a permitted.

4:38:38Well, we can talk about it afterwards.

4:38:40Go ahead. Finish your question. Sorry.

4:38:41>> Yeah. Um I think you get what I'm trying

4:38:44to say.

4:38:45>> Yeah.

4:38:46>> So, I'll leave it at that.

4:38:47>> Madam, thank you for taking the time to

4:38:48come, you know, come up and talk. My

4:38:50question for you is um even though

4:38:52you're not speaking as a city councelor,

4:38:55would you like it to come back to the

4:38:57city council to this issue to come back

4:38:59to the city council so that you could

4:39:01discuss this as elected officials and

4:39:04make the decision?

4:39:05>> I think that as the people who set

4:39:08policy, I think I would certainly

4:39:10welcome this to come before city

4:39:12council. think it would be incredibly

4:39:13important that we discuss because it is

4:39:15clear at least to me tonight that the

4:39:18community has very strong feelings about

4:39:20this and I would personally love to see

4:39:23it come to city council but I don't know

4:39:25how that happens so

4:39:27>> well it can I mean this this for future

4:39:31>> yeah yeah but thank you all for you know

4:39:33your consideration of all these comments

4:39:35this is a lot and you're in a tough spot

4:39:39and I will truly leave it at that and

4:39:40I'll get [clears throat] out of

4:39:42Thank you very much for your testimony.

4:39:46>> Okay. Uh with that, we're going to close

4:39:49the public hearing portion of it. And

4:39:51the question was asked on, you know, I

4:39:53know you can't deny the application. And

4:39:56there's there's

4:39:58there's a certain point where our our

4:40:01responsibility, what we're what we're

4:40:03given the responsibility to do is look

4:40:05at applications that are brought

4:40:07forward, waiver requests, conditional

4:40:10use permits that affect those requests

4:40:13and make a legal decision that says

4:40:16they're outside the bounds. They can't

4:40:17do it because of this. They're asking

4:40:19for this waiver and we don't want to

4:40:20approve it. Right now in the packet,

4:40:22there's no waiver requests. Excuse me.

4:40:24There's two waiver requests. Both of

4:40:26them are for sidewalks. Um there's no

4:40:28waiver requests for buffer and and and

4:40:32incursions and other things like that.

4:40:34So from a from a standpoint of of a

4:40:37denial, we don't have the legal ground,

4:40:40I don't believe, to to deny the

4:40:42application. That doesn't say we can't

4:40:43delay it. Doesn't say we can't look for

4:40:46additional feedback. It doesn't I'm not

4:40:48saying that. I'm just saying from a from

4:40:50a legal perspective, the the

4:40:52[clears throat] applicants put forward a

4:40:54plan that by right is is available on

4:40:57that property. So, I' I'd like to invite

4:41:00the applicant back up to maybe address a

4:41:03couple of the things quickly. We got two

4:41:04more items on our agenda tonight. So,

4:41:06it's certainly not the last agenda item.

4:41:08Uh

4:41:09>> just Mark back there.

4:41:10>> What's that?

4:41:11>> It's just Mark Sergeant back there.

4:41:12>> It's just Mark.

4:41:15So, you've heard a lot of public

4:41:17testimony and we seem to hear we seem to

4:41:19hear people screaming from the from the

4:41:21audience, which is entirely

4:41:23inappropriate, but um you know, you've

4:41:26heard what we've heard. You've you've

4:41:28you've sat through the the the

4:41:31>> testimony

4:41:31>> testimony and I'd love to hear where you

4:41:34stand.

4:41:34>> Thank you. We we've heard it. Um the the

4:41:37comments and the opinions are um

4:41:40legitimate. Um but they are opinions.

4:41:43Um, it's our opinion that we have put

4:41:45together a comprehensive, compliant,

4:41:48complete application that frankly plays

4:41:51by the rules. And the reason we asked

4:41:53about the rules be was because there was

4:41:56an ambiguity. Um, we were not certain

4:41:59how a data center submission would be

4:42:01evaluated in terms of the city's uh

4:42:04zoning table of uses and what is and is

4:42:07not allowed in the industrial district

4:42:09where the property is located. So we

4:42:11used the appropriate channel and got an

4:42:13affirmative response and that opened us

4:42:15up to the next step and the next step

4:42:17and the next step and where we've gone

4:42:19with this application is from that

4:42:22initial classification to a submission

4:42:25to the conservation commission for that

4:42:27buffer restoration portion of the

4:42:29program where there is no permanent

4:42:32construction proposed. um to the uh

4:42:36architectural design review to the

4:42:38staff's evaluation of two sidewalk

4:42:40related uh waiverss which I think are

4:42:43quite minor in in the scope of the

4:42:44project uh and uh the recommendations

4:42:47contained in the memo. Um there is no

4:42:51current city or state moratorum. I

4:42:54understand the reasons why there may be

4:42:56one at either or both of those levels

4:42:58but currently it doesn't exist. uh and

4:43:01the application is uh complete and in

4:43:03front of you. Uh so I I think generally

4:43:06speaking I'm agreeing with what you

4:43:08previously said uh and I'm relying on

4:43:10the process to move us along as we're

4:43:12entitled to

4:43:16>> Paige

4:43:17>> for the two waiverss that are before us

4:43:205.1A and B. If we denied both of those

4:43:24what would change?

4:43:26>> We would add a sidewalk to the plan.

4:43:28Well, let me just be clear. We would be

4:43:31adding a sidewalk to the portion of the

4:43:35frontage that's on our property. The

4:43:37sidewalk wouldn't connect to any other

4:43:39sidewalks.

4:43:42>> A follow-up question. If we denied the

4:43:44conditional use permit, what would

4:43:46change?

4:43:47>> We would not have the permission we need

4:43:49to do the buffer restoration. We would

4:43:51simply leave that area as it is today,

4:43:54which is impacted by prior uh and

4:43:57unauthorized cutting.

4:43:59>> Is there anything else up to be denied

4:44:02at this point?

4:44:04>> I'm sorry.

4:44:04>> Is there anything else we could deny?

4:44:07Well, uh,

4:44:09>> the only item the board really has at

4:44:12this point there there is section 3102

4:44:15of the site site plan regulations that

4:44:17allows for the planning board to request

4:44:19specific types of studies.

4:44:22>> UM,

4:44:30>> it is within your purview to request

4:44:32that. you will only have under the 65day

4:44:34clock until next month to make a

4:44:36decision unless the applicant grants a

4:44:38waiver of the 65day clock under the

4:44:40statute.

4:44:41>> Thank you.

4:44:42>> So was your point that the denial piece

4:44:45of it doesn't change the fact that the

4:44:48project could still go forward even if

4:44:50they denied both even if they denied

4:44:52both or both uh waiverss and the

4:44:55conditional use permit.

4:44:58>> Please stop. Please, folks, we gave you

4:45:01a chance to talk. Please,

4:45:04>> Paige, I'm sorry.

4:45:05>> In my opinion, denying any of what's

4:45:08before us currently doesn't really

4:45:10affect the project and the conditional

4:45:12use permit negatively impacts the

4:45:14environment,

4:45:15>> right?

4:45:15>> I mean, the conditional use permits is

4:45:18>> right. Do you have a question? No. No,

4:45:21I'm just thinking,

4:45:23>> Amanda.

4:45:24>> So, I did have a question because there

4:45:26are concerns about um some of the

4:45:31um energy usage and the trickle down

4:45:35effect of that based on some of the

4:45:39other points brought to light and this

4:45:42evening. Um so as far as as an

4:45:45additional study to be identifying

4:45:48whether it be the um an energy

4:45:52information that can come from an

4:45:53independent store source. I would like

4:45:55to have UNIL come and speak. I get it

4:45:58how there has been comments about that,

4:46:00but it was one comment that was made

4:46:02about the substation support of this

4:46:05power and what would how that would

4:46:08impact um our our community of

4:46:13rateayers. So, I would like to hear ask

4:46:16if the applicant would invite Unatil to

4:46:18the table. Um I'd also like to identify

4:46:22if there is additional so what was

4:46:25brought to light is the amount of energy

4:46:28that's being used based on its size and

4:46:32other

4:46:34uh energy users of of similar I guess

4:46:38industrial andor data centers because

4:46:41such so forth like um like concrete

4:46:44hospital has a data center let's just

4:46:46say you know it may not be of the same

4:46:48size and caliber

4:46:49The state has maybe something of the

4:46:52same, but where I'm going with that, the

4:46:55department of corrections has a data

4:46:56center. The the state hospital as a data

4:46:58center. What is their energy usage and

4:47:00how does this compare to that? So, is

4:47:02there some kind of comparison? It may

4:47:05not come from UNIL. Maybe there is a

4:47:08study that can identify. I don't know

4:47:10how to put that into a particular um

4:47:14request, but um if anyone has some

4:47:18contribution to that. I would be

4:47:20grateful. Now, say you get to the point

4:47:23of talking about,

4:47:26as Paige mentioned, there are certain

4:47:28things that wouldn't necessarily change

4:47:30um whether denying these waiverss or

4:47:32not, but there are conditions that can

4:47:33be requested of the applicant, such as

4:47:36how their plan for decontamination

4:47:38should there be anything that were to be

4:47:41leaky. So say if it was the diesel um

4:47:45generators what is the the plan as we've

4:47:48also identified what's the the dialectic

4:47:51fluid and how in case there is a

4:47:54catastrophe that were to happen to this

4:47:57data center what's their plan for for

4:48:00containing that and their plans for that

4:48:03so I think that that can be identified

4:48:05as conditions in should it be should the

4:48:09board choose to move forward with this

4:48:11project I think that um some

4:48:13transparency on that would be greatly

4:48:15appreciated because there's definitely

4:48:17some concern about that is as this is

4:48:20something that's very new to not only

4:48:23our community. I know that there are

4:48:25other data centers throughout the state,

4:48:27but I'm here to represent conquered and

4:48:31and so I would like to hear some of

4:48:33these things come forward to our next

4:48:35meeting so that we as a as a board can

4:48:38make this decision.

4:48:43So is that something that can occur and

4:48:47given the notice that you have today?

4:48:51>> We certainly could ask uh Unatil if as

4:48:55the local power provider they would have

4:48:58someone who could come to the meeting to

4:49:01answer questions and be available. I I

4:49:03couldn't tell you what their response

4:49:05would be. Um

4:49:08>> sorry to interrupt. Go ahead Ari.

4:49:10Um I think that I get it that that you

4:49:15can make the request. I think that it's

4:49:17that the pressure if you are going to be

4:49:20a rateayer I think that and with one

4:49:23with substantial amount of energy that I

4:49:25think they jump to come to the table I

4:49:27would assume and so to help you get this

4:49:30to pass through and if they deny then we

4:49:32don't have the information of the board

4:49:35to help guide this along in a smart way.

4:49:38So, I think it'd be to their advantage

4:49:41to show up at the table to to share this

4:49:44because

4:49:46I my concern as I asked earlier just

4:49:48about any upgrades that would that would

4:49:52need or expected for this to be part of

4:49:56the process to build this. Um, so it was

4:50:00brought up I'd like to hear, you know,

4:50:02to support this power. If they already

4:50:04have phase three and it's just a

4:50:06transmission line, great. then then then

4:50:09that's it. But if it is something that's

4:50:12incremental because of the amount of

4:50:15usage which seems to and I'd like to

4:50:18hear because I think we've had a lot of

4:50:20data points that have come from either

4:50:21Google or from you [snorts]

4:50:23and I haven't heard one straight answer.

4:50:26So, I'd like to hear from someone that

4:50:27actually studies energy audits and

4:50:36>> hang on. I got Matt first.

4:50:38>> So, of [clears throat] the many

4:50:40questions I have about this application,

4:50:42it starts with the classification is as

4:50:45an industrial use. And I would actually

4:50:48like to be able to spend some more time

4:50:51making sure that's correct.

4:50:52>> Uh because

4:50:56If it is, great. But this is a new

4:50:59technology, a new business type of

4:51:01business. So, we had to see if it does

4:51:04fit. Um,

4:51:07one of the ways to do that, I think, you

4:51:08know, with our planner, compliance with

4:51:11state laws, compliance with zoning code,

4:51:13and applicable rules. I know at the

4:51:16legislative level that this is being

4:51:18discussed. I believe the city council

4:51:20should be able to weigh in on this,

4:51:22whether we want this, just because

4:51:24allowable.

4:51:27Just because it's a loophole in the

4:51:29zoning code, it doesn't necessarily mean

4:51:31we have to allow it. I think it's worth

4:51:35[applause] I would just caution you

4:51:38because under land use law in New

4:51:40Hampshire, this is an application that

4:51:42has been accepted as complete by this

4:51:44planning board. It is currently

4:51:46protected from any future changes to

4:51:48regulations while it is in the process

4:51:51under state law.

4:51:53any change the council or the state

4:51:55makes with regard to moratorum or

4:51:58prohibitions

4:51:59>> does not affect this while it's still an

4:52:01active application.

4:52:02>> So so that mean so what I also heard um

4:52:05I think I heard this correctly so if

4:52:07this is approved and they want to expand

4:52:09it would be grandfathered

4:52:11>> they would

4:52:12>> even if there was even if there it was a

4:52:14zoning change

4:52:14>> if there was a zoning change it would

4:52:16basically freeze them as a

4:52:17non-conforming use moving forwards

4:52:19>> but could they expand onto this site?

4:52:21Not not without variances.

4:52:23>> Back with a variance. Right.

4:52:24>> If if it were in some point in the

4:52:26future, the council were to prohibit

4:52:28data centers or determine it's not

4:52:30permitted in this zone and this

4:52:32application were approved and they had

4:52:33to they wanted to come back, it would be

4:52:35it would no longer be compliant with

4:52:36zoning similar to the situation we have

4:52:39with the casino on the Heights right

4:52:40now. That was a project that is now

4:52:42currently not permitted right under our

4:52:45zoning ordinance. However, that

4:52:46particular project has received

4:52:48approvals because it was accepted and

4:52:50approved prior to those zoning changes

4:52:52taking place.

4:52:52>> Believe me, I know that.

4:52:53>> Very well.

4:52:54>> Yeah. I mean, and

4:52:57>> so clearly, I mean, we are in the master

4:52:59planning process right now. So, I think

4:53:01it's also important to understand like

4:53:02there's a lot of um people don't

4:53:04understand the process, right? You know,

4:53:06and

4:53:08that has always bothered me on being on

4:53:11the planning board is that people don't

4:53:12understand how this works. Um, and you

4:53:15know, the master plan process is

4:53:17happening right now. Uh, it's just a

4:53:20real shame that this is being this is

4:53:22being snuck in,

4:53:24>> right?

4:53:27>> I don't know.

4:53:29>> Count,

4:53:30>> of course. So, we we're all residents of

4:53:32conquered as well sitting at this table,

4:53:34right? So, I live a mile and a half from

4:53:35this as well. Um, this is my

4:53:37neighborhood. Uh, so it's not like we

4:53:39are some foreign entity like we're just

4:53:42coming in from afar, right? So we are

4:53:44your neighbors, right? Um I grew up with

4:53:46some of you. So we do care about this,

4:53:49but we are bound by what Mr. Thompson

4:53:52was saying. We are bound by laws with

4:53:54rules and regulations. And

4:53:57so maybe we will in the in the end,

4:54:00maybe we will deny this and get sued and

4:54:02then we will be paying attorneys fees

4:54:04for hundreds of thousands of dollars

4:54:07>> and that might be worth it. That's

4:54:09right.

4:54:11So that's what that's what we have to

4:54:12decide and I am absolutely not prepared

4:54:15to um vote on this tonight.

4:54:22>> Yeah, thank you. Um I also know and I

4:54:25don't know there there could be some

4:54:26people out in the audience uh here

4:54:28tonight that did not get a chance to

4:54:29speak.

4:54:30>> Yeah, and I apologize for that.

4:54:32>> Right. So, um, you know, if we were to,

4:54:35uh, continue this to our next meeting,

4:54:37that would give folks an opportunity to

4:54:39speak at that point as well, if if the

4:54:42board chooses to reopen the hearing.

4:54:44>> So, I and that that kind of would be

4:54:45what I would recommend that we would do

4:54:47that and then be able to uh,

4:54:48>> the November 18 meeting would be within

4:54:50the 65.

4:54:51>> Yeah, we have till November 20th, I

4:54:53believe. That's correct. So, we would we

4:54:54would make it in that time frame. What I

4:54:57would like is if the board is going to

4:54:59go down that road, we specify exactly

4:55:01what it is we're expecting the applicant

4:55:03to do between now and then

4:55:04>> or what we want staff or the solicitor's

4:55:07office to do, right? What are we what

4:55:08are we looking for?

4:55:09>> Well, so the other uh part of the

4:55:11information I think could be helpful

4:55:12would be uh and then you you'll correct

4:55:15me if I'm wrong, Mr. Howard, but uh

4:55:17you've had other uh as you call them,

4:55:20the micro data centers in operation

4:55:22elsewhere in the country. Is that

4:55:23correct? or is this the first one that

4:55:25you're going to be starting to operate?

4:55:27>> We have three in parallel and then we

4:55:29have Los Alamos National Labs running

4:55:32the same system.

4:55:33>> So, so you have So, how many do you have

4:55:35running currently?

4:55:36>> There's there's three in parallel. So,

4:55:38Los Alamos is number one as far as

4:55:41testing. We've tested at every single

4:55:43They're in production. So almost every

4:55:46US national lab has tested the same

4:55:48system is converting over to it because

4:55:50of the amount of water and the chemicals

4:55:52they're saving from the treatment side.

4:55:54>> Okay. So just for clarity that's one.

4:55:58>> Well well that's what I'm trying to

4:55:59figure out.

4:56:00>> Other ones I can't talk about that are

4:56:02military based. So

4:56:03>> Okay. So so others but you can't speak

4:56:06to them.

4:56:07>> Okay. So there's one that you can speak

4:56:08to. So, I guess I'm just, you know, if

4:56:10there's any information or data that you

4:56:12can provide on that on the operations of

4:56:14the one that's currently operating in

4:56:16more detail. So, uh, and specifically

4:56:19speaking to some of the questions that

4:56:20we heard from people who testified

4:56:22tonight. So, you know, I'd be interested

4:56:25in in uh, for example, I think you could

4:56:27come to the chamber here and uh, bring a

4:56:30noise maker and give us a test

4:56:32demonstration of just how loud is this

4:56:33thing?

4:56:34>> 47.

4:56:35>> Uh, I mean, there's a lot of things you

4:56:36could do. In other words, that would

4:56:37help answer questions that that folks

4:56:39have in their minds or that members of

4:56:41this board would have. Um, and I think

4:56:43that would be helpful. Um, so yeah, I

4:56:45mean, I was kind of um uh intrigued by

4:56:49um Oh, also I guess I should say I do

4:56:51for I do approve of the comments about

4:56:54getting some additional information as

4:56:56well about um

4:56:57>> from UNIL or from from whatever entity

4:56:59would uh be able to supply that. So um

4:57:02yeah, I would strongly encourage that as

4:57:04well. Um I think there's there's too

4:57:06many unanswered questions at this point.

4:57:08>> This is new.

4:57:09>> I mean this is not you know it's not

4:57:11like we have hundreds and hundreds of

4:57:12examples uh that we can look to. So

4:57:14that's why I was asking about the one

4:57:15that you have operating currently. So as

4:57:17much information as we can get on that

4:57:19would be helpful. And that might also

4:57:21include uh I don't know the surroundings

4:57:23or the parameters or so forth but even

4:57:26uh information from the utility company

4:57:28that supplies energy to that facility

4:57:30that's operating now in your portfolio.

4:57:33and and what are the you know what are

4:57:34the electric bills what are the what are

4:57:36the amounts of electricity actually used

4:57:38um and um I guess uh you know if there

4:57:42are a butters what are the reactions

4:57:46uh you know what what is the impact that

4:57:49that residents and people in the

4:57:50community there feel or see um I think

4:57:53it would be interesting to hear you know

4:57:56what what those are uh and and I think

4:57:59um to the extent that that can be uh

4:58:02information that isn't necessarily

4:58:03distilled by you, but something that we

4:58:05can actually kind of back up with either

4:58:07some, you know, written testimony or

4:58:09data or, you know, whatever that is.

4:58:11That that would be helpful as well. Uh

4:58:13certainly helpful to the community, I

4:58:14think, was, as you can tell, for

4:58:16whatever it's worth, don't seem to trust

4:58:18you a lot. So, I think that it would be

4:58:20good to to be able to back up whatever

4:58:22you can provide is really what I'm

4:58:23saying. That would be helpful, I think,

4:58:24to everybody. Um, I don't know. I guess

4:58:27those are my just initial thoughts. The

4:58:29other question I had was uh you know I

4:58:32think that we will I I would like to

4:58:33also still consider uh some kind of

4:58:35referral to council. I just don't know

4:58:37that timing wise that's not going to

4:58:40happen 65 days and I don't know what the

4:58:42track is be the purpose of a council.

4:58:44>> I don't know what the the method to get

4:58:46to to get it to council to review.

4:58:48>> Yeah. I I so I rely on to on Mr.

4:58:51Thompson. So in other words, uh it may

4:58:53be unprecedented, but regardless of the

4:58:55outcome here, I think that I've heard

4:58:57from the community that they want would

4:58:58want to uh have some additional input on

4:59:01this. And obviously the people we heard

4:59:03from tonight, uh want to prevent further

4:59:06data centers from

4:59:08>> take that as an action then and I'll

4:59:09I'll push that back through to find out

4:59:11what if there is a track

4:59:13>> if there's a track that we could

4:59:14>> to get this to city council. I'll I'll

4:59:16see I'll see what that track would be

4:59:17and how

4:59:19>> I'll give I'll cut to the chase. The

4:59:20track is if the zone if the c this

4:59:22planning board wants to propose a zoning

4:59:24amendment, you have the power to start

4:59:25the process yourselves, hold a hearing,

4:59:28make a recommendation to council to take

4:59:29action.

4:59:29>> Yeah. Yeah. That's that's an easy one

4:59:31and I would have to do it that way. And

4:59:33>> again, as I mentioned, it would not

4:59:34impact us.

4:59:38>> And and just to be clear, that doesn't

4:59:39kick the can down the down the no. It's

4:59:42still a decision that we need to make.

4:59:44But

4:59:44>> Right. Right. But I'm just I'm just

4:59:46saying that uh you know we may be

4:59:48whatever decision uh you know as Vice

4:59:51Chair Hicks said whatever decision we

4:59:52have to make on this particular case and

4:59:54we'll we'll decide that at some point um

4:59:57uh one way or the other. But I think

4:59:59that um there still needs to be some

5:00:01kind of continuing discussion about this

5:00:04based on what we heard from the

5:00:05community tonight. I mean we can't just

5:00:07end this conversation with this

5:00:08decision. So that's why so I'm going to

5:00:10guess that you don't want to request

5:00:13a tableabling of the of the uh of the

5:00:17application.

5:00:19>> I think it was the board's desire to

5:00:21make a motion to move us to the November

5:00:24meeting. Um what I'm more interested in

5:00:26is what specific homework we're being

5:00:29asked to to deliver. I've got a bit of a

5:00:32list that I want to review if it's the

5:00:34appropriate time.

5:00:35>> Yeah, perfectly. Yep.

5:00:36>> Okay. So um [clears throat]

5:00:38Mr. Howard in particular because he

5:00:40would be the expert um has been asked to

5:00:43supply information about similar centers

5:00:46and their state of uh development. Are

5:00:48they operating? Are they in permitting

5:00:50and so forth um there was a a mention of

5:00:54at least a summary of what their

5:00:56permitting process looked like and I I I

5:00:59think that's going to be a do the best

5:01:01we can type item only because you're

5:01:03you're you're not necessarily going to

5:01:06trust our

5:01:08yeah I mean number one if they were

5:01:09permitted that it must have at least had

5:01:12an approval at some point uh and our

5:01:16characterization of that isn't going to

5:01:17necessarily be very helpful but if we

5:01:19have some ability to collect up some you

5:01:22know press coverage or whatever that

5:01:24that might be at least a somewhat

5:01:26independent source

5:01:29>> um the um there was a suggestion that we

5:01:32have some demonstration of uh noise

5:01:35level associ associated with the

5:01:36facility. I don't know exactly how we

5:01:39would do that and maybe it would be

5:01:41easier for us to just explain

5:01:44comparisons to other types of uses that

5:01:46might be familiar to to everyday

5:01:49individuals. Um, but if there's some

5:01:51ability to bring something in here and

5:01:53actually

5:01:54make noise, I guess we could think about

5:01:57that. I'd want to talk to staff and not

5:02:01uh uh get myself in big trouble. Yeah.

5:02:04>> Um and then the last thing uh which I

5:02:06think was really the thrust of the whole

5:02:08conversation um what is the power usage

5:02:11of this type of facility and what is the

5:02:14impact of that usage on the grid

5:02:16generally? Can it can it be delivered to

5:02:18the site? What would the applicant need

5:02:21to do to supplement that capacity and

5:02:24what effect does it have on

5:02:27rate pay or rates and um and the

5:02:29affordability of the grid generally? So

5:02:32there was some testimony about grid

5:02:34pollution as well. I wrote down grid

5:02:36pollution. So um if there's a if there's

5:02:38a way to address that with UNATIL, I

5:02:41think that's probably a UNIL topic um

5:02:44more so than you guys. Um I' I'd

5:02:46appreciate it from them. But from a from

5:02:48a technical perspective, um the fluid

5:02:51type, um if it's not a proprietary fluid

5:02:55or whatnot, just the type of fluid

5:02:57that's used

5:02:57>> containment was

5:02:58>> and then the de decommissioning and

5:03:00spill containment were the other points

5:03:02that I had taken taken notes on. So,

5:03:05those were kind of the the, you know,

5:03:08the the edge issues that we didn't get

5:03:10to um that if we can get those squared

5:03:13away um for the November meeting,

5:03:18that will work. And just for the record,

5:03:21the the items that are put on the agenda

5:03:23come in as they as they are are classed

5:03:26and and put into the system, and once

5:03:28they're determined complete, they drop

5:03:30into the schedule. So, the two the two

5:03:32applicants that are after you guys

5:03:34tonight have the complaint, not the not

5:03:36the fact that we kept you here for three

5:03:37and a half, four hours. So, um if we can

5:03:40do that, that would be great. We can uh

5:03:43rec table the uh

5:03:46>> continue the continue the hearing so we

5:03:48don't have to renotice it u to the

5:03:50November 8th

5:03:51>> the date certain of November 18th.

5:03:52>> November 18th and we'll put it up at the

5:03:54front of the agenda after the uh after

5:03:57the items uh for consent agenda. So, If

5:04:00you're going to be here, be here by be

5:04:02here by 7:30.

5:04:03>> Just we we did talk about I know that

5:04:06they were doing a wetland. It was one

5:04:08more thing about the wetlands

5:04:09replanting, but it was just to ple to be

5:04:12clear what you're planting when you're

5:04:15replanting the wetlands. Um so I think

5:04:18that would be

5:04:21>> it's in it is identified. Okay.

5:04:23>> I just saw the hash marks of on that

5:04:25gone replanting. So

5:04:26>> the plan so site plan has the

5:04:29remediation.

5:04:30Did we hit all the topics that people

5:04:32>> had you?

5:04:34>> So other so they they're going to ask

5:04:36unit to come to the table to talk about

5:04:39it but what any additional information

5:04:42about the energy use in comparison to

5:04:46what we're seeing as this this data

5:04:49center in comparison to what other data

5:04:52center usage. So if Unatil can provide

5:04:54that, great. If it's a broader PUC

5:04:57study, even better. I mean, what I

5:05:00really want to see is are we in this in

5:05:04this lane of of um you know, as as I

5:05:09said before, I don't know exactly what

5:05:11how to ask for this study, but it is

5:05:13compare. Maybe it's just a comparison of

5:05:15others. So if there could be I know that

5:05:17that's not very good clarification. So

5:05:19that's why I was asking you. So, my my

5:05:21takeaway from the request, and I want to

5:05:23try to get this as clear as I can.

5:05:26>> I'm sorry.

5:05:27>> I'm sorry. I was talking to Mr. Schwer.

5:05:28>> Oh,

5:05:28>> I heard the hammerhead and I'll I'll

5:05:30take that as an action.

5:05:32>> Yep.

5:05:33>> Anyway, uh my my my attempt to clarify

5:05:37what you're asking from the applicant is

5:05:40to try and get some from UNATIL to come

5:05:45here and describe

5:05:46>> that or something in writing. either

5:05:50here in person or a submission um that

5:05:54would explain the effect of this

5:05:56proposed center on on the conquered

5:05:59electrical grid

5:06:01>> um both in terms of capacity uh and rate

5:06:05paying

5:06:05>> and and their support, you know, if if

5:06:08there is additional

5:06:10just other than just getting that that

5:06:12new line to the to the street, is there

5:06:15additional, you know, support that that

5:06:18goes to their site off of Fischerville

5:06:20Road. Like, are they going to need to do

5:06:22additional support? Because that's where

5:06:24we end up paying for it if it is

5:06:26additional other than just getting power

5:06:29from the street to them. Like, does this

5:06:31does this mean additional buildout for

5:06:33them? If not, great. I mean, that's why

5:06:35we want them to come to the table as

5:06:37>> No, I I understand the questions and I

5:06:39understand the intention behind it. I I

5:06:41could I couldn't tell you whether they

5:06:42would agree to do that or not. And so it

5:06:45may be that we need to address some of

5:06:47those points with a different individual

5:06:50or consultant who would obviously offer

5:06:53their credentials for your

5:06:54consideration. But um but I so I'm happy

5:06:58to start with Unatil, but I don't know

5:07:00where we're going to end.

5:07:02>> Okay, let's wrap it up.

5:07:03>> Yeah, I was just going to say yeah, just

5:07:04further to that point, I suppose that if

5:07:06it uh you know, we heard testimony

5:07:08tonight about the current uh power lines

5:07:10of what exists there. So I guess that's

5:07:12the question fundamentally. Someone

5:07:14should be able to answer that question

5:07:16as you're suggesting. It could be an

5:07:17outside expert or consultant. That could

5:07:19be fine. It doesn't have to necessarily

5:07:21be someone from UNIL. I don't really

5:07:23care where they come from, but someone

5:07:25that would have the expertise and the

5:07:26background knowledge to be able to tell

5:07:28us, well, yeah, no, that line is fine as

5:07:30it is. You wouldn't need to augment it

5:07:32at all. Or no, you'd actually need to

5:07:34significantly augment it. And then, you

5:07:36know, the follow-up question that

5:07:37probably perhaps Unatil would have to

5:07:39answer if that's the case would be,

5:07:42well, how would those costs be

5:07:43distributed?

5:07:44>> Sure.

5:07:45>> Did you have a point, Paige? Yep.

5:07:46>> Just a question. Are we able to request

5:07:48a third party like environmental um

5:07:51facility

5:07:53evaluation?

5:07:54>> Yeah,

5:07:55>> you do, but it's going to need to be

5:07:57agreed to by the applicant in terms of

5:07:59the timing because they only have until

5:08:01November 20th for this board to make a

5:08:03decision. So, if they don't extend that

5:08:05voluntarily,

5:08:06>> the way that clock works for people that

5:08:07are wondering, um, we have to make a

5:08:10decision, deny or approve by the time

5:08:12that clock is up, unless the applicant

5:08:14agrees to an extension. Um, so,

5:08:18you know, we could deny it.

5:08:23>> Well, I'm hoping the applicant I'm

5:08:24hoping the applicant will work with us.

5:08:30>> Not a public hear.

5:08:31>> Okay. Yeah, I know. I tried. I've been

5:08:33trying all night. Okay. Anything else?

5:08:37Okay. And I got the hammerhead, Mr.

5:08:39Schwer. So, I will take that as an

5:08:41action up to city council.

5:08:43>> Okay. Yes.

5:08:44>> Are you asking us to do something about

5:08:46that?

5:08:46>> No. No. I'm I've got that.

5:08:48>> I've got that. Okay.

5:08:51>> Motion to continue to

5:08:52>> make the motion to continue to the

5:08:53dates.

5:08:54>> Jeff, hold on just a second.

5:08:56>> Yeah.

5:08:56>> Okay.

5:08:57>> Dates are November 18th.

5:08:58>> Yeah. I'll make that motion.

5:09:00So just for the record made a motion to

5:09:02>> second

5:09:03>> push to date certain of the the uh

5:09:06>> November 18th

5:09:06>> November 18th meeting is seconded by

5:09:08council tall. All those in favor I

5:09:10>> opposed. Motion carries. So we'll

5:09:12continue to the November meeting.

5:09:18>> All right. You're all going to stick

5:09:19around for the last two items. We got

5:09:21two more items on the agenda. So

5:09:24>> I can recuse myself for 7.

5:09:26>> Read item seven whatever it is into the

5:09:28agenda if we could. We are on 7M.

5:09:31This is Richard D. Bartlett Associates

5:09:33Division of Nois Group on behalf of 125

5:09:35NSS LLC, 10 Bradley Street LLC, Fred and

5:09:39Murdy Larter Revocable Trust 2017, and

5:09:4320 Franklin Street, Conquered LLC,

5:09:45requesting minor subdivision approval

5:09:48for a lot line adjustment between Tax

5:09:49Map 623, lot 86. Uh, address is 20

5:09:54Franklin Street. Tax map 6522Z lot 1

5:09:57address is 125 North State Street. Uh,

5:10:0022 Franklin Street and 10 Bradley Street

5:10:03in the neighborhood residential. This

5:10:04applicant is seeking a lot line

5:10:06adjustment which would restore the lot

5:10:07configuration of the four parcels back

5:10:10to their original location prior to a

5:10:122024 lot line adjustment and eliminate

5:10:14the easements that were established at

5:10:16that time. I recommend the board uh find

5:10:18the application be complete not a reg

5:10:20development of regional impact. vote on

5:10:22the waiverss and grant conditional

5:10:23approval after the public hearing.

5:10:25>> I get to recuse myself. I have an

5:10:27attorney client relationship with the

5:10:29applicant.

5:10:29>> All right. Well, you're free to go.

5:10:31>> Okay.

5:10:32>> We're into the next day.

5:10:33>> Sorry.

5:10:34>> You're free to go. It's Thursday.

5:10:37>> Come [laughter] to think of it. Wait a

5:10:38minute. I think I have a conflict also.

5:10:40>> How many others have How many others

5:10:43[laughter] have a serious conflict?

5:10:45>> Okay. So, first we need acceptance and

5:10:48>> so we have a uh staff has determined the

5:10:50application complete not a development

5:10:52of regional impact and recommends

5:10:53opening the public hearing. Would

5:10:54someone like to make a motion to find

5:10:56the application complete and open the

5:10:58public hearing?

5:10:59>> So much second.

5:11:00>> Motion's made and seconded. All those in

5:11:01favor?

5:11:02>> I opposed. That motion carries. We are

5:11:05on the record. Welcome to the table. If

5:11:06you could state your names for the

5:11:07record.

5:11:08>> Dan Mullen, the survey project manager

5:11:10for Novas Group.

5:11:11>> Red Potter representing the owners. Mark

5:11:14Guerrera, supporter, President Conquer.

5:11:17>> Great.

5:11:18>> Well, welcome. Sorry you ended up at the

5:11:20end of the agenda, but that's the that's

5:11:22the roll of the dice.

5:11:22>> That's what it is.

5:11:23>> It is what it is. Tell us a little bit

5:11:25about this. I got to tell you, this is

5:11:26the first time I've gotten a petition in

5:11:28favor of something. I think in my 12

5:11:31years on the board, I usually see

5:11:34petitions that are uh opposed to

5:11:36everything, opposed to everything. And

5:11:38>> we had the Mark Subarrowski project.

5:11:39>> Oh, the Mark Subaroski one. That's true.

5:11:41We did get that. So two you guys have

5:11:43>> we're trying not to be controversial.

5:11:44>> You're in good company anyway. So

5:11:46>> So

5:11:47>> well welcome. Tell us about this.

5:11:48>> Okay. Mr. Potter is is the owner of all

5:11:51four properties that are involved with

5:11:52this. And two years ago he had done a

5:11:55series of lot line adjustments to

5:11:57accommodate what was going to be a

5:11:58proposed uh parking expansion for 125

5:12:02State which is on the roundabout. And

5:12:04with that there was going to be

5:12:06accessments to uh get to Church Street

5:12:08and to Bradley Street. Well, the parking

5:12:11expansion did not occur. So now what he

5:12:14wants to do is basically undo what uh he

5:12:18had done before to re restore the lots

5:12:20to where they were prior to the first

5:12:22lot line adjustment. So what you see in

5:12:24yellow is what the current configuration

5:12:25of 125 and what state street is. What

5:12:28you see in red below that is what the

5:12:30block configuration will be which is

5:12:31what it was prior to 2024.

5:12:34And that's it in a nutshell.

5:12:37>> In a nutshell.

5:12:38>> Yep.

5:12:38>> Questions from the board? This one made

5:12:40me laugh. [laughter]

5:12:43>> We did all this and stripped them all

5:12:45out before. Now we're putting them all

5:12:47back.

5:12:47>> Any member of the audience have any

5:12:48questions or concerns about this?

5:12:50>> Just to let you know that

5:12:51>> we've talked to all the neighbors and

5:12:53abutters. We believe they're all in

5:12:54support. Y

5:12:55>> this is trying to leave in an orderly

5:12:57way.

5:12:57>> Yeah. Yeah.

5:12:58>> When something didn't work out as

5:12:59anticipated.

5:13:00>> Exactly right.

5:13:01>> And that's exactly what we're trying to

5:13:02do. That's good.

5:13:03>> And rather than hear from everybody,

5:13:05they're very happy to give the address

5:13:06where they live and just say they're in

5:13:08support. You also have some written

5:13:09things and some other people had to

5:13:11leave earlier, but we don't want to take

5:13:12any more of your time.

5:13:13>> Perfect. If everybody's in support and

5:13:14nobody has any questions or concerns.

5:13:17>> No.

5:13:18>> Okay. We'll close the public hearing.

5:13:19Thank you very much for your testimony

5:13:21and

5:13:23>> in our 9.1 way down here. 9.1. Uh so

5:13:29again, we'll use as our findings of fact

5:13:31the information that was in our packet

5:13:32the uh the staff reports and the uh the

5:13:35information that the applicant provided.

5:13:38Uh 9.2 is to grant a waiver request for

5:13:40the listed sections of the subdivision

5:13:42regulations listed below. Uh and those

5:13:44are outlined in section well I'm going

5:13:46to do

5:13:47>> 92 A through F

5:13:48>> A through F. Uh would someone like to

5:13:50make a motion to grant that waiver

5:13:52request as outlined?

5:13:53>> Second.

5:13:54>> Motion's been made and seconded. Uh any

5:13:56discussion? All those in favor?

5:13:58>> I opposed. That motion carries. 9.3 is

5:14:01to grant minor subdivision approval for

5:14:02the lot line adjustment between four

5:14:04parcels located at uh and again I'm not

5:14:07going to list all those addresses but

5:14:08located

5:14:09>> Franklin

5:14:10North State and

5:14:12>> church no

5:14:15>> so uh and then uh those are outlined

5:14:17with precedent conditions

5:14:19>> 93 A1 A and B 93A 2-6 and 93B 1 through3

5:14:25>> okay would someone like to make a motion

5:14:26to grant minor subdivision approval I

5:14:29have a motion Second.

5:14:30>> Second.

5:14:31>> Motion's been made and second. Any

5:14:32discussion? All those in favor?

5:14:34>> I

5:14:35>> opposed. That motion carries.

5:14:38>> Next. 7N. [laughter]

5:14:40>> Thank you. Richard D. Bartlet Associates

5:14:42Division of Novas Group on behalf of

5:14:44Paul Basil Mris Revocable Trust 2006 and

5:14:47Theali Holdings LLC requesting a minor

5:14:49subdivision for a lot line adjustment to

5:14:51annex 1,411 square ft from tax map

5:14:557321Z. Lot 23 addressed at 110 School

5:14:58Street to tax map 7321Z lot 24 addressed

5:15:02as 106 uh school street both located

5:15:05within the single family residential

5:15:06district. This minor subdivision lot

5:15:08line adjustment would move uh 11411

5:15:11square ft uh by shifting the lot line

5:15:1411.58

5:15:16ft to the northeast. Both lots contain

5:15:18existing residential buildings and are

5:15:20owned by the same person uniquely by a

5:15:22trust and an LLC. Uh we recommend the

5:15:24board uh find the [clears throat]

5:15:25application complete, not a development

5:15:27of regional impact, open the public

5:15:28hearing. Following the hearing, grant

5:15:30the waivers and grant conditional

5:15:31approval per the recommendations.

5:15:33>> Great. So staff has found the

5:15:34application complete, not a development

5:15:35of regional impact, and recommends

5:15:37opening the public hearing. Would

5:15:38someone like to make that motion?

5:15:39>> So moved. Second.

5:15:40>> Motion has been made and seconded. All

5:15:42those in favor?

5:15:43>> I opposed. That motion carries. Public

5:15:45hearing is open. Welcome to the table,

5:15:47Mr. Sergeant. Sometimes you sometimes

5:15:49you live by the sword and die by the

5:15:50sword. You get on the front end of the

5:15:52agenda. You're okay. Hey, you get on the

5:15:53back end and you're tough. But, uh, tell

5:15:55us a little bit about this and, uh,

5:15:56we'll roll from there.

5:15:58>> Okay. Um, well, this the sites are

5:16:00located, uh, 106 and 110 School Street.

5:16:04Uh, excuse me, I've got a upper

5:16:06respiratory. Gives me a nice deep voice.

5:16:10>> Uh, 106 School Street, uh, has an area

5:16:13currently of 13,220

5:16:15ft, 105 ft of frontage, has an existing

5:16:19single family home. The 110 School

5:16:21Street currently has an area of 13,120

5:16:25square feet, 105 feet of frontage, and

5:16:29that also has a single family home. Um,

5:16:32we've come before the board this evening

5:16:34because the the home at 106 only has 3.5

5:16:38ft separating it from the uh the

5:16:42property line there. Um,

5:16:45so the proposal before the board this

5:16:47evening is to annex 1411 square ft of

5:16:50110 to 106 includes 11.58 ft of

5:16:54frontage. That increases the area of 106

5:16:57to 14,631

5:16:59square feet and adds frontage for a

5:17:03total of 117.38

5:17:05feet and increases the distance from the

5:17:08house to the lot line from the uh 3 and

5:17:111/2 ft to the 15 ft which brings it into

5:17:13compliance with zoning. Uh this reduces

5:17:16though the lot area of 110 to 11,79

5:17:20square ft and frontage at 93.42 42 feet

5:17:24but leaves a sideyard of over 30 feet.

5:17:26Um it did require that we go to the

5:17:29zoning board. We did uh get a variance

5:17:31to allow us to have a substandard

5:17:33frontage and substandard uh area on the

5:17:36110. And

5:17:39again in a nutshell that's

5:17:41>> and this is another application that

5:17:42took advantage of the new zoning

5:17:44amendments did not require variances for

5:17:46the existing garages to remain where

5:17:47they are.

5:17:48>> Does it need a second driveway cut?

5:17:50>> Don't even go there.

5:17:51>> Sorry. [laughter]

5:17:53I I've already Okay. I've already

5:17:54already talking about that.

5:17:56>> Yeah.

5:17:56>> I just have one question.

5:17:58>> Was there ever a driveway

5:18:01>> to to to 106? Was there ever a driveway

5:18:04that that building in the back? Oh,

5:18:06[clears throat] poor you.

5:18:07>> Uh yeah, I'm sorry. You know,

5:18:09>> I should just make the motion. We

5:18:10>> got an 8-year-old granddaughter that

5:18:12goes to his school and I give her a ride

5:18:15to school. [laughter]

5:18:17>> Mark, I'm not sick with her all day.

5:18:21There is a driveway there, Tracy. Uh,

5:18:23right along the property line

5:18:24>> right there that goes back to that

5:18:26>> goes all the way back to the garages

5:18:27back there,

5:18:28>> but they've never used it.

5:18:32>> Balls here.

5:18:33>> Do you do you use it

5:18:34>> on a daily basis?

5:18:35>> Oh, I thought you were putting it in

5:18:36because you didn't have a driveway.

5:18:38>> No, I'm not adding driveway.

5:18:41>> Oh, you're just adding lane.

5:18:43>> I just want to bring the side

5:18:45>> to compiance with zoning. So there can

5:18:49be some improvements made otherwise you

5:18:52a beautiful job and all the ladies walk

5:18:54by walk by that lot and we're trying to

5:18:56figure out what you know what you know

5:19:00how do you get over anyway?

5:19:01>> Yeah there will be no second drive.

5:19:04>> Okay so you're still going to do the

5:19:06driveway where on the right hand side

5:19:08okay all right well the ladies were all

5:19:10wrong but you're doing a [laughter]

5:19:12beautiful job. I mean, it's just

5:19:14spectacular.

5:19:17>> Okay. Anybody in the audience have any

5:19:20questions or concerns about this

5:19:22application?

5:19:23>> No. Seeing none, we'll close the public

5:19:25hearing. Thank you, Mark, for your

5:19:27testimony. Okay. 9.1 is again our

5:19:30findings of fact. We will use the

5:19:32information in our packets, the

5:19:34materials that were provided by by the

5:19:36applicant. Jesus, that's [laughter]

5:19:38>> they know we're still working.

5:19:39how in the documents provided uh in by

5:19:43the by the applicant. Uh so based on

5:19:46that 9.2 is to grant the waiver request

5:19:48for the listed sections of the

5:19:49subdivision regulations listed below.

5:19:51>> There are three of them they did request

5:19:53for we made the determination that the

5:19:55usable lot area rectangle is not

5:19:57necessary because these lots are already

5:19:58developed and that requirement is

5:20:00intended for lots for development.

5:20:02>> Okay, make that motion.

5:20:03>> So 9.2 making a motion to grant the

5:20:05waiver request as outlined.

5:20:06>> Second.

5:20:07>> Motions are made and seconded. Any

5:20:08discussion? No.

5:20:10>> All those in favor?

5:20:11>> I

5:20:12>> opposed. That motion carries. 9.3 is to

5:20:14grant minor subdivision approval for the

5:20:16lot line adjustment between tax map lot

5:20:197321Z.

5:20:23110 school street subject to the

5:20:24following conditions.

5:20:26>> Items 931 A through C, 9.3A

5:20:312 through 7, and 93B 1 through3.

5:20:34>> Okay. Okay. Would someone like to make a

5:20:35motion to grant minor subdivision

5:20:37approval as outlined? Has been made and

5:20:40roundly seconded. Uh all those in favor?

5:20:42>> I opposed.

5:20:43>> That motion carries. You are all set.

5:20:46>> Good night.

5:20:47>> Good night.

5:20:48>> Good morning.

5:20:49>> Good morning.

5:20:51>> Okay. I believe that's all that comes

5:20:53before the board this evening.

5:20:54>> Uh so with that, we will entertain a

5:20:57motion to adjurnn.

5:20:58>> I'll make a motion.

5:20:59>> Second.

5:20:59>> Motion was made and seconded. All those

5:21:01in favor?

5:21:02>> I opposed. That motion carries. We are

5:21:04insurance. Thank you.