From: RMower on behalf of RMower Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 1:46 PM To: Michael Behrendt Cc: John Parry; Ann Welsh; Karen Edwards Subject: Site Plan Review Regulations | public hearing | Landscaping ADDENDUM Attachments: Stratham Site Plan Review Regs 2010.pdf; Concord Site Plan Regs 20130417.pdf Greetings, Michael -- Would you please forward this email to the Planning Board for consideration during the public hearing on the Overhaul of the Site Plan Review Regulations? In addition, since it will not have been included in the packet and is being sent late in the process, perhaps Karen could print copies for the Board to refer to at the meeting. Thank you. -- Robin * Greetings, Members of the Planning Board -- The overhaul of the Site Plan Review Regulations provides us with an opportunity to improve the landscaping requirements that we cannot afford to miss. Reading the regulations of neighboring communities convinces me that Durham would not be alone in requiring -- rather than recommending -- certain best practices. So even though you have already reviewed the landscaping section extensively, I am writing to you to ask that you consider the below additional comments during the public hearing on the overhaul of the Site Plan Review Regulations. I apologize to all for the timing and for any errors or oversights in this or other documents that I have sent to you; vacation travel logistics have made commenting a bit challenging. The below comments refer to Part III, Article 5. Landscaping and Screening Standards. (MINOR POINT: Subsections in Section 3.5 Topsoil and Trees should be renumbered.) ONE: LAWN___________ I would like to request that the Board further amend the Durham Regulations to include language similar to that below (almost verbatim to Stratham's; please see pages 21 through 30 of the attached Stratham regulations and pages).... Somewhere in Section 5.3, add: -- Minimize lawn areas: most lawn grasses require supplemental irrigation and regular applications of fertilizer to stay green. -- Where lawn is necessary, favor fescues and other drought-tolerant species. Related query: Should the word *grass* be replaced with *lawn* in sections 5.3.3 and 5.8.9? TWO: BIODIVERSITY____________ The Board, Town Planner, John Parry, and I have had a bit of a tussle about including specific requirements relative to selection of plant materials to increase biodiversity. While Concord takes a slightly different approach, it DOES require -- rather than RECOMMEND -- species diversity, evidence that such a requirement is not seen as overly burdensome on either staff or applicant. I hope that the Board will now take under advisement John Parry's professional advice about specific requirements of plant selection relative to biodiversity. Concord requires (see page 87): (4) Biodiversity: Proposed trees shall be selected to encourage biological diversity. No more than twenty five (25%) percent of the trees to be planted in any development shall be of the same species. When more than 100 trees are to be planted, no single tree species shall consist of more than fifteen percent (15%) of the total planted. No more than twenty five percent (25%) of the trees to be planted shall be classified as ornamental trees, and the balance of the required trees shall be deciduous shade trees. Durham proposes: -- 5.6.5 Landscaped areas shall be designed with a variety of plant species that provide seasonal variety and biodiversity. -- [definition] Biodiversity. Contraction of the term “biological diversity,” as defined by the Convention on Biological Diversity, meaning the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; thiswhich includes diversity within species, between species, and of ecosystems. With respect to these Regulations, see General Landscaping Subsection 5.6.5 for requirements to increase plant materials’ resilience to pests and diseases and of ecosystems, thus, their longevity. << NOTE: The title page states that it was revised April 17, 2013, but the footer states that it is the 10/19/11 Public Hearing Draft. A Concord planner confirmed by email today that this version IS the current, approved version. STRATHAM -- July 2010