• Delete the list of purposes in the Gateway Commercial District (Section 605.3.1) and replace it with (1) Provide for an area of commercial development, including mixed use of retail, service, and professional offices, all of which are designed to take advantage of the proximity to Route 111 and the I-93 interchange, (2) Ensure that the entrance of the Town reflects and/or compliments the architectural style of New England, maintains the historical character of Windham, and reflects the aesthetic vision and goals of the Design Regulations for the District, and (3) Minimize sprawl, promote pedestrian-friendly design and maintain efficient traffic circulation and safety;

Ms. Skinner read the Gateway Commercial District proposed changes into the record.

Chairwoman Post explained that this references the “Design Regulations” which may not be in effect when this proposal goes to ballot and recommended adding the phrase “if and when adopted” after the words “Design Regulations” in the proposed Ordinance.

Ms. Webber noted there is more than one Gateway to the Town, and should not all Gateways be made as nice as the I93 Gateway District. The Board decided not to address re-zoning tonight.

Mr. Phil LoChiatto of 5 Faith Road is concerned with an Ordinance that references something that is not yet in place. He thinks voters should not be asked to vote on something of which they have no idea.

Mr. Karl Dubay suggested

• Replacing the words “Design Regulations” with “Performance Standards” which are currently in existence in Section #605.3.3. They reference qualified and quantified standards.

• On bullet 2, he suggested removing all text before the word “reflect” and replace it with, “Reflects the esthetic, mission, and goals of the performance standards of the District.”

• On bullet 1, he thinks it is awkwardly phrased and would like “take advantage of the” to read, “reflect the economic proximity to….”

• On bullet 3, he clarified that the term “pedestrian friendly design” really refers to pedestrian walkways within the shopping area; not the notion of walking across town to get there.

Ms. Nysten questioned whether using the term “Performance standards” might conflict with “Design regulations” when/if they become approved. She suggested reverting to the original wording, “and will be of architectural merit.” Chairwoman Post would like to come back to that thought.

Mr. Ralph Valentine suggested striking the “Design Standards” which have not been passed.

Mr. Bob Coole, referring to bullet #2, asked what “architectural style of New England” means. What if a Taco Belle wants to come to Town with a stucco design?

Chairwoman Post explained that this phrase gives the Board a hook to request that Taco Belle modify their design to be more a NE style, should the Board want.

Chairwoman Post closed the Public Hearing.

Chairwoman Post noted that even if the Design Review Standards are not referenced, they will still apply; as will the Performance Standards, which are in the Zoning Ordinance. Attorney Campbell is being consulted to recommend language so that should there be a conflict between the Zoning Ordinance and the Design Regulations, it will be resolved.

Mr. McLeod motioned to approve the proposed language in the Gateway Commercial District purpose section (Section 605.3.1) to read:

The purpose of the Gateway District is to:

• Provide for an area of mixed commercial development, including mixed use of retail service, and professional offices, all of which are designed to reflect its economic proximity to the I-93 interchange;

• Ensure that development in the District is of architectural merit;

• Minimize sprawl, promote pedestrian-friendly design and maintain efficient traffic circulation and safety.

The Board did not second the motion and decided to address the motion bullet by bullet. Mr. McLeod edited his previous motion to read:

Mr. McLeod motioned to approve the amended proposed language of Bullet #1 in the Gateway Commercial District purpose section (Section 605.3.1) to read:

The purpose of the Gateway District is to:

• Provide for an area of mixed commercial development, including mixed use of retail service, and professional offices, all of which are designed to reflect its proximity to the I-93 interchange.

Seconded by Mr. Sycamore. Motion passed: 6-1. Ms. St. Laurent opposed.

Ms. Nysten motioned to approve the amended proposed language of Bullet #2 in the Gateway Commercial District purpose section (Section 605.3.1) to read:

• Ensure that the entrance of the Town reflects and/or complements the architectural style of New England, maintains the historical character of Windham, and will be of architectural merit.

Seconded by Mr. McLeod. Motion passed: 4-3. Ms. St. Laurent, Ms. Skinner, and Mr. McLeod opposed.

Ms. Nysten motioned to approve the proposed language of Bullet #3 in the Gateway Commercial District purpose section (Section 605.3.1) to read:

• Minimize sprawl, promote pedestrian-friendly design and maintain efficient traffic circulation and safety.

Seconded by Mr. McLeod. Motion passed: 7-0.