2026-09-03 - Planning Board

00:37I feel feel good. All right.

00:43All right. Uh good evening. It's uh 7

00:45o'clock. I'd like to call to order the

00:48September 3rd, 2026 meeting of the City

00:51of Nasha Planning Board. Um could we get

00:54a roll call, please? Uh staff, are you

00:58able to

00:59>> Sure. Uh Mayor Donis,

01:02Joe McIntyre

01:03>> here.

01:04>> Bob Ballinger

01:06>> here.

01:07>> Adam Farley

01:08>> here.

01:08>> Cameron Green.

01:10>> Benjamin Zer

01:12>> here.

01:12>> Dan Hudson.

01:14>> Larry Hirsch

01:15>> here.

01:16>> Maggie Harper.

01:18>> Alderman Patricia Cle

01:20>> here.

01:21>> We have a quorum.

01:23>> All right, Scott. Thank you. Um, next

01:26item on the agenda, approval minutes

01:27from the meeting of August 6th, 2026.

01:31Uh, have members of the board had an

01:32opportunity to review those minutes and

01:34is any board member willing to make a

01:36motion regarding their acceptance? Uh,

01:37Mr. McIntyre, please.

01:38>> Yes, Mr. Chairman. I move to accept the

01:41meeting minutes of August 6, 2026,

01:44National Planning Board.

01:46>> All right. Thank you. Motion by Mr.

01:47McIntyre. Is there a second?

01:50>> Second.

01:50>> Second by Alderman Cle. Any further

01:52discussion?

01:54All those in favor?

01:56>> I I abstensions. One, Mr. Hirs. Motion

02:00passes.

02:02Uh, next item on the agenda,

02:03communications. Um, uh, anyone on staff,

02:07uh, any late communications that were

02:09not in the packets as of this afternoon?

02:11>> Uh, actually the, uh, last, uh, update

02:15would have been

02:17today or yesterday.

02:20I know the the recode made it up there

02:23this afternoon.

02:24>> Okay.

02:24>> And I I

02:25>> we added the engineering comment letter

02:27to the staff report for 20 Lincoln AB.

02:30Okay. So that that report can be revised

02:32and we added some um the slide deck for

02:34the presentation today. Okay.

02:36>> So you're fresh now. It should be all up

02:38to date.

02:39>> Okay.

02:40>> Plans uh corrected the uh tax partial

02:44and the addressing on this subdivision

02:47plan. So you should see uh

02:52tax mass parcel 911 and 918.

02:55>> Okay. Address one.

02:59>> On the staff report,

03:01>> do you recall the exact time this

03:03afternoon that like hypothetically if I

03:05downloaded this at 5:33 p.m.? Uh

03:08>> you should be good.

03:08>> Okay. Awesome. Definitely. Definitely.

03:10>> Okay. Good. It was either late yesterday

03:12or early.

03:13>> Okay. Gotcha.

03:16>> All right. Thank you. Very good.

03:18Appreciate it. Thank you, Scott.

03:21All right. Uh, next item on the agenda,

03:24report a chair, committee, and liaison.

03:26Um, nothing for me this evening. Uh,

03:28Larry, anything to report out or?

03:30>> Uh, nothing. Uh, I just one comment I'd

03:32like to make. If anyone would like to

03:33serve on Easter Commission board,

03:35they're more than welcome to take my

03:36spot.

03:37>> I find it very frustrating.

03:40[laughter]

03:42You're really selling it.

03:45fantastic guy. What can I tell you?

03:47>> We we do appreciate your service and

03:48your cander. Um, Mr. So, [laughter]

03:52uh, perhaps that pitch might go over

03:54better and we we've got a fuller a

03:56fuller board.

03:56>> Maybe you should take over that role.

03:58>> Well, we have another role. I'd like to

04:00to do you need a motion, Mr. Chairman?

04:04>> No. No.

04:05>> No. We can't have a motion, I think, to

04:07fire Larry from the historic commission,

04:09but um there [clears throat] there there

04:11are there are other folks uh apparently

04:14if you are willing and able and capable.

04:16Um thank you for bringing that up

04:17though, Larry. Um it's something we can

04:19we can discuss. Um because there there

04:21might be another uh position available

04:23as well. So, Alderman Clay. Yes.

04:25>> Um yeah, I think for for Mr. Hirsh, it's

04:27very frustrating being in real estate

04:29market and seeing the the part of it. It

04:32it kind of it I can see that I can see

04:34how it was very difficult. Yeah, I know

04:35it was.

04:37>> Yeah, it it's hard to remove that bias.

04:40>> Your frustration is noted. Uh,

04:42[laughter]

04:42Mr. Zer, please.

04:44>> Larry, when are those meetings and

04:45what's the frequency? Just out of

04:46curiosity.

04:47>> What are they like every every other

04:48month roughly?

04:49>> No, it's once a month.

04:51>> Yeah, Monday. Fourth Mondays.

04:53>> It's It's what? The second Monday. Is

04:54that what it is? I can tell you in a

04:55second. And it starts at six o'clock.

04:58>> They change it to the fourth Monday.

05:00>> Is it the fourth Monday? First Monday.

05:02Go. Hold on.

05:03>> I can tell you in a second.

05:05I have it on my calendar, but uh it

05:07starts at six o'clock. That's

05:08>> not not to throw my hat in the ring. I

05:10was just by all means.

05:11>> Yeah, we can Mondays

05:14>> maybe Sam maybe next time we chat we

05:17could we could bring up that and that

05:19there's the NRPC commissioner role I

05:22think is one that has been slightly

05:24neglected admittedly. So

05:27>> um maybe we'll put that out. And so

05:31>> you aren't trying to sherk your CIC

05:33duties, are you?

05:34>> Pardon?

05:35>> Your CIC duties. Those are still

05:36>> That is required. That's

05:38>> You hold that near and dear. I know

05:39>> that that I that I own, but NRPC was was

05:43self-inflicted. Um with the

05:45[clears throat] best of intentions, mind

05:46you. It's just there's become some work

05:48conflicts where it's

05:49>> not been conducive. So

05:53now

05:54>> All right. Well, thank you, Larry, for

05:56for starting that discussion. uh with a

05:58pretty light case load tonight. We

05:59needed something, you know, to

06:02>> get us all fired up, right? So, uh Ben,

06:05thank thank you for for the inquiry at

06:07least. But that's that's something we

06:08can we can talk um over and if there's

06:10an opportunity, Larry, to relieve you,

06:12we'll we'll see what we can do. So,

06:14>> before I get in trouble.

06:15>> Understood. [laughter]

06:17>> I can see that.

06:18>> Understood.

06:20>> Right. I know. All right. No fighting

06:23though until we we resolve this. Okay.

06:26>> Promises,

06:26>> Mr. Chairman, may I add something,

06:28>> please? Alderman,

06:29>> Larry gave us some very good

06:30constructive criticism about um how we

06:33need to plan things a little bit better

06:35and get more information out. So, he was

06:37a valuable tool even to beat that.

06:38>> I held I held back quite a bit.

06:40>> Yes, you did. You did.

06:41>> See, Larry, some sometimes the

06:43resistance can be valuable. So,

06:46>> when we start voting on color palettes,

06:47I lose. [laughter]

06:51>> Understood. Understood. So, [laughter]

06:55all right. Well, uh, anything else? No,

06:58that Well, that was good. I I appreciate

07:00it. Thank you. All right. Um, moving

07:04along. Uh, it doesn't look like there's

07:05anybody in the audience, uh, for 78

07:08Amherst Street. Uh, if you're if you

07:10were or if you're online, uh, that has

07:13been postponed till the September 17th

07:16meeting.

07:17Uh as such uh our first regular case on

07:20the agenda under new business or excuse

07:23me uh old business subdivision plan case

07:26826-0103

07:29uh property located at 28 Lincoln

07:31Avenue. Uh has any member of the board

07:34had an opportunity to review this

07:35application and is willing to make a

07:37motion regarding um board jurisdiction?

07:39Mr. Barley, please.

07:41>> Mr. Chair, [clears throat] I would make

07:42a motion to determine that case number

07:44A26-0103

07:46is complete and ready for the board to

07:48accept jurisdiction.

07:49>> All right. Thank you. Motion by Mr.

07:50Barley. Is there a second? Uh second by

07:53Mr. Zer. Any further discussion?

07:56All those in favor?

07:57>> I

07:58>> I motion passes. Board has jurisdiction.

08:01Uh is there anyone here this evening

08:03that would like to present or speak to

08:05this application?

08:18Go ahead. The floor is yours.

08:20>> All right, Mr. Chairman, members of the

08:22board, I know we have a very

08:24>> Oh, I'm sorry. If you could just

08:26introduce yourself for the record,

08:27please.

08:27>> Yes, absolutely. Sorry. My name is Greg

08:29Wood. I'm here on behalf of Meridian

08:30Land Services representing Kelly A.

08:32Mallister. Uh tonight we are proposing a

08:36two lot subdivision of 28 Lincoln

08:38Street. Uh Lincoln uh 28 Lincoln Street

08:41is also known as lot 9-18. It is

08:44currently located in zone RB. Um the lot

08:47itself is just over 21,000 ft². Tonight

08:52we're proposing a new lot just over

08:546,000 ft with the remainder around

08:5615,000 square feet. The lot is primarily

09:00flat, sloping east as you get towards

09:02Fieldfield Street. Um, and tonight as

09:05well, we are requesting three waivers.

09:07Uh, three that are quite common from my

09:10time presenting here. First one being

09:12190-282B9

09:15for the existing conditions within 1,000

09:17ft. Second one being 190-221A

09:21um for underground utilities to be

09:23located underground. and the third being

09:26190-275

09:27to provide a lighting plan. That being

09:30said, with that waiver, we do feel we

09:32kept the spear in the intent of the

09:34ordinance in preparing the subdivision

09:36plan. Um, I also want to make note, I do

09:39apologize for the um last minute

09:42addition with the engineering comments.

09:44I believe we received those 4:30 2 days

09:47ago if I'm not mistaken. So, we tried

09:49our best to get those in with enough

09:51time, but I do realize that the plans

09:53were updated around noon today. So, I do

09:56want to apologize for that. Um, with

09:59that being said, um, I do feel this is

10:02fairly straightforward in this case. We

10:04do meet the ordinances and if you have

10:06any questions, I'll be more than happy

10:07to do my best to answer them.

10:10>> All right. Um,

10:13thank you. Um,

10:16I did have a question. Um Sam, in the

10:20staff report, is it a is it a formal

10:22request

10:24um that they provide a landscaping plan?

10:26Is that

10:28or

10:30under technical comments? Is that

10:32something that number five?

10:36>> Um we do have landscaping requirements

10:39and they are universally applicable to

10:42our uh all of our applications that come

10:44before the board. Um, while it may not

10:46necessarily be a full standalone

10:49landscaping plan, uh, it could be just a

10:51simple planting detail of, you know, I

10:53believe it's two shade trees per

10:55dwelling unit or I may have that flip.

10:58Basically, there is a planting

10:59requirement if if there's just all you

11:01have to do is identify where on the

11:02plan, show us that trees can be planted,

11:05know what they are.

11:06>> Okay. And is that is that covered in the

11:08engineering review letter or

11:10>> it's an item D? Is is it

11:14more so?

11:16>> Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. Um

11:19All right. Um I think

11:23uh Sam the only other question I guess I

11:26had on on the waivers from a staff

11:28perspective. Um uh a A and B um uh

11:33underground utilities in this area. I

11:35can understand that. And obviously the

11:36thousand foot property um distance um

11:40lighting plan any staff opinion on that

11:43one way or the other?

11:45>> Nope. And it might even be such that

11:47this waiver is not applicable simply

11:49because if there's no lighting being

11:51proposed then no need for a lighting

11:54plan.

11:55>> Okay.

11:56>> Is that something the board should

11:58consider? Is it possible or should belt

12:00and suspenders? Should we potentially

12:02>> I would put it to the applicant to see

12:04if there's any intention for lighting

12:06aside from you know standard like a wall

12:08sconce by the front door sort of deal. I

12:10would imagine there's no lighting

12:11proposed. If that's indeed the case then

12:13>> I think the last time we came up it was

12:15for a similar type situation. Um most

12:18homes have some form of exterior

12:20lighting without

12:23I guess additional.

12:24>> No harm done in granting the waiver

12:26though.

12:26>> Okay. Do you have any strong opinion one

12:29way or the other on this one or

12:31>> I do not I do not know the intent of the

12:33structure that's going to be built. Um

12:37I've seen some building plans and

12:39there's nothing proposed out of the

12:41ordinary from what I can see.

12:43>> Okay. And Mr. Barley, please.

12:46>> Yeah. Just another followup question for

12:48staff. What I guess just to clarify,

12:50what what would trigger

12:53a lighting plan? I mean, Sam, you said

12:55no new lighting proposed, but you know,

12:58obviously there's there's some sort of

13:00like you said, sort of exterior to the

13:01house lighting. I'm assuming like same

13:03thing with like an outside lamp post

13:06that's not attached to the house, that's

13:07not going to trigger a lighting plan

13:09either, right? Um, so I'm just curious

13:11as to like what if we grant a waiver

13:14like what not knowing what the the plan

13:16is like what is the what would be the

13:19level at which that would be triggered?

13:21>> Yeah. Um it's a a very weedy question.

13:24Um right where where is the line? Um you

13:27know we're using a bit of judgment here.

13:30Um typically I mean you think of the the

13:32context where there are obvious lighting

13:34plans. When there's a multif family

13:36development you're putting in a parking

13:37lot. There's going to be lighting in the

13:38parking lot. Clearly there's a need for

13:40a lighting plan. um you know what

13:43happens when you have a subdivision it's

13:46built years ago and a neighbor now puts

13:48a flood light on the back of their house

13:50and there's someone complaining about

13:51it. You obviously not caught in any

13:53lighting plan. Probably wasn't a

13:54requirement for a lighting plan in a

13:55single family subdivision nature. Um so

13:59where is the line?

14:01We don't have one defined in the code.

14:04Um but it's we have to use the judgment

14:07within the context of what's being

14:09requested. So, um, when it comes to

14:11something like this infill lot,

14:14>> residential, probably not going to be

14:18lighting on site that would

14:19traditionally necessitate a lighting

14:21plan when we're concerned about light

14:23trespass,

14:24>> so it must be in the back.

14:26>> Okay.

14:27>> Thank you.

14:27>> Great. Uh, Mr. McIntyre,

14:29>> thank you. Um, one's a comment and one's

14:31a question.

14:33>> First, a comment in general. The

14:35approach on Fivefield Street I find that

14:37to this road is so unique. I mean, with

14:39that wall.

14:40>> Yes, it is.

14:40>> I mean, that that's a place where kids

14:42learn how to drive uh manual

14:44transmissions.

14:46>> Not anymore.

14:47>> Yeah, I know. But that's one of the one

14:50of the things I had to do on my driver's

14:51ed test way back to get up that hill cuz

14:54it's so acute. So, uh that's just a fun

14:58thing. But the the second question

14:59really is for the uh experts, the uh

15:02staff

15:03>> just to guide me. This is a small lot.

15:06The whole location is pretty small. It's

15:07kind of tight in there. So, what is the

15:10general guidance for um how much leeway

15:14or far the city wants to go to divide

15:17one lot into two?

15:19>> Yeah. So, we have minimum lot area

15:20requirements. This meets that. Um so, if

15:25you and it's it is slightly oddly shaped

15:28as well with you have that that corner

15:30that kind of makes it look like a bow

15:31tie a little bit. Um, obviously that

15:34does hinder or reduce like the buildable

15:36area for a footprint for a building. If

15:39it meets the dimensional regulations of

15:41the code, it's it's a legal lot that

15:43could be created.

15:44>> Uh, followup. No doubt. I didn't expect

15:47it to be um uh the illegal lot. It was

15:50more of a a a guideline question. So,

15:52what is the general guideline for the

15:55smallest size of a lot that we would

15:56allow on a subdivision of of an existing

15:59lot?

16:00>> Uh, it depends on the district. In this

16:02district, 6,000 square feet is required.

16:04>> So, they just make it.

16:06>> That's pretty small. Um, yeah, and they

16:07do buy 106 square feet.

16:09>> Okay. Thank you.

16:11>> Thank you, Alderman Cle.

16:12>> Thank you. I apologize because I don't

16:14have my papers in front of me. I left

16:15them home. Um, so the the entrance to

16:20the one of the lots will be off of

16:21Field. Is that correct?

16:23>> Uh, so it's going to be off of Circle.

16:26>> It's going to be off the Circle. So,

16:28when I'm when I'm looking at the

16:29property, there's looks like it's a

16:31multif family home to the left of the

16:33property. Is that correct? I

16:34>> I do. Yes, I do believe that is a two

16:36family residence. Correct.

16:37>> Okay. And and will there be two

16:40driveways off of the linguin the Lincoln

16:42Circle there, Lincoln F or

16:46I I know on Field there's a big wall.

16:48Correct.

16:48>> And then there's a small wall on um

16:50there's a a small wall on Lincoln. Yeah.

16:53And then I see the driveway, but the

16:54driveway appears to be very close to the

16:58property next to it. So, would they be

16:59having a shared driveway that will go

17:00off or

17:01>> There's already a pre-existing garage

17:04off a circle with its own access off of

17:06that.

17:07>> Okay.

17:07>> So, that

17:08>> I just couldn't see it then. Okay.

17:09>> Continued to be used.

17:10>> Okay.

17:11>> And and alder Mcle, just for further

17:13clarification, the existing uh driveway

17:15on Lincoln that that serves the property

17:17currently that will remain in place.

17:19>> Right. I was thinking about for the

17:20other property. I wasn't sure how they

17:22were going to entrance. I I'm just

17:24finding in my my own ward, just as a a

17:27point of interest, that when two people

17:29are sharing one driveway like I have on

17:31Salem Street and so on, it becomes quite

17:33a a a tug and pull in every which way

17:37you can imagine. So, that's um I I they

17:41give me a little anxiety, but they'll be

17:43separate driveways. Thank you.

17:45>> Um

17:47we don't have a lot to talk about

17:48tonight, so we're we're done. No, I'm

17:50just kidding. [laughter] Yeah, we

17:52actually since the uh the the grade on

17:55Ffield was brought up, the the the site

17:57itself, at least the existing site does

17:59have some unique topo, particularly with

18:01the drop off in the back. Um are there

18:03any special drainage considerations or

18:05any any issues foreseen? Um,

18:08>> so I do believe there was a drainage

18:10letter supplied by Trevor, the engineer

18:14that was part of this project, which was

18:15taken into consideration as well, being

18:18some sort of

18:20catch basin, if you will, kind of in the

18:23middle of the lot if I'm not mistaken. I

18:26don't have the letter in front of me or

18:28all of the information that he provided,

18:30so I can't give you a specific location,

18:32but there was I know there was drainage

18:35items supplemented when we did the

18:37initial submission.

18:42>> Ben, in house expert,

18:45>> it's in the supplemental

18:47starting on page four. Uh

18:52looking

18:53>> Oh, okay.

18:56I think just adding to that if if there

19:00were no specific comments with respect

19:02to drainage in the engineering letter.

19:05>> I did remember

19:07okay I do remember reading that

19:12>> um

19:24Sorry to don't mean to do this on the on

19:26the fly. It's just um Mr. Hudson is is

19:29not here this evening. All all general

19:32engineering questions are typically

19:33directed his way. So

19:35>> No, absolutely.

19:36>> We're doing the best we can.

19:37>> Very familiar with speaking with him

19:38here.

19:38>> All right. Um I I

19:43>> Oh, sure, Ben. Go right ahead.

19:45>> Just something I want to know. Thank

19:46you, Mr. Chair.

19:47>> Um the existing garage is noted to be

19:49raised. um just a recommendation. You

19:53know, the city has any type of uh

19:55recommendations for raising building

19:57demolition, things of that nature. Um I

19:59don't know where exactly [clears throat]

20:00that is in the site regulations or or

20:01the zoning code, but I I would, you

20:03know, recommend that those are followed

20:04in terms of soil stabilization and

20:06things of that nature, whatever kind of

20:07guidelines are there for building

20:09demolition.

20:12>> Thank you. Um yeah, I I do see the

20:16drainage memorandum. Obviously, I'm I'm

20:19going to assume that's been reviewed by

20:22staff and any concerns they have would

20:24have been um included in their their

20:27letter from the first.

20:29>> Um

20:30and

20:33so long as um addressing any comments

20:37from uh public works uh that is

20:40condition four so or condition E rather

20:42subsequent. So, um it it it was more of

20:45a curiosity question just again because

20:47of that that that odd grade change uh to

20:49the east of the property. So, um but um

20:54I don't think I have any other questions

20:57um questions from the board or

20:59additional questions I should say.

21:02>> No, Mr. Chair, just to put a finer point

21:04on the drainage question, there is a

21:06yard drain proposed between the proposed

21:08building envelope and the circle. Um so,

21:10kind of like a leeching catch type deal.

21:12There is uh some notation in the

21:14drainage memo that these are very sandy

21:16excess excessively drained soils. So

21:19okay a leeching catch basin would

21:21perform in such an environment. So that

21:23is uh the proposed drainage solution.

21:26>> Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you.

21:30All right. Uh other questions?

21:34>> All right. All right. Seeing none. Uh

21:38thank you for your testimony. Um,

21:41it looks like we have no one in the

21:43audience. Is there anyone on Zoom?

21:47There are no Zoom requests.

21:49>> All right. Well, uh, this time, uh,

21:53close the public hearing. Thanks. Thank

21:55you again for your testimony

21:57and we'll go into our deliberation.

22:01Um,

22:04other than, um, as Mr. McIntyre had

22:08pointed out uh size is a little small

22:10but it does meet our requirements um

22:13it's not a perfect rectangle. I I think

22:16they tried to do what they they could do

22:19um while maintaining the integrity of

22:21the existing structure. Um but but being

22:24as though it it meets the basic spatial

22:27requirements um [clears throat] would

22:29appear after a cursor review the

22:31engineering letter that there really I

22:34guess are no deal breakers. Um, on the

22:38technical side, um, I would be inclined

22:41to to be in favor of this project, uh,

22:44or this application rather. Um,

22:48but, uh, obviously love to get some

22:50feedback from other members of the board

22:52if folks think differently on that one.

22:59No.

23:02Um

23:03well if there's no further discussion I

23:06guess on the on the technical merits. Um

23:10we could talk about the waiverss for for

23:12a moment. Um again I I I think the first

23:16two um are fairly common and I think

23:20certainly not be contrary uh to the

23:22spirit and intent um of the ordinance.

23:25Um we did a little deeper dive on the on

23:28the third waiver request on the lighting

23:29plan. Um, I guess I would I would follow

23:32Sam's advice. It's probably better to to

23:35grant it than strike it. Um, unless

23:38there's further discussion on that. Um,

23:42but beyond that, um,

23:45seems fairly straightforward. Um so I I

23:49guess if if there's no further

23:51discussion on on those matters. Um any

23:55member of the board so inclined to um

23:57make a motion? Um presumably in the the

24:00affirmative. Um first we'd want to take

24:03on the waiverss. Um is any member of the

24:06board so inclined to take on that

24:07motion? U Mr. Barley, please.

24:10>> Mr. Chair, I would um as to case number

24:14A26-0103

24:17make a motion to um grant the following

24:20wave requests. Um first from

24:25190-282B9

24:26to wave the requirement to show existing

24:28conditions within 1,000 ft. Second from

24:31190-221A

24:33to wave the requirement to locate uh

24:35utilities underground. And third from

24:38190-275

24:40to add requirement for a lighting plan.

24:42And in each case, that's with the

24:44finding that strict conformity with

24:46those sections would pose an unnecessary

24:48hardship and that the specific

24:50circumstances and conditions um

24:52indicated in this plan, including as

24:54described in the waiver request letter

24:56from the dated May 27th, 2026

25:01uh indicate that the waiver will still

25:03um allow uh the plan to properly carry

25:06out the spirit intent of the

25:08regulations.

25:09>> All right. Thank you. Um motion by Mr.

25:11Barley. Is there a second?

25:13Uh second by Mr. Hirs. Any further

25:16discussion?

25:18All those in favor?

25:20>> I. Motion passes. Uh would you like to

25:22continue? Mr.

25:23>> Chair, we just had one suggested motion.

25:25Uh I mean uh condition. Um we usually do

25:29this anyways, but just for better

25:31emphasis. Uh the uh garage needs to be

25:34demolished before any construction takes

25:35place.

25:36>> Okay.

25:37>> If you can add that as condition

25:38>> before the recording of the plan.

25:40>> Before the recording. Y

25:42>> as a as a subsequent condition.

25:44>> Okay. Yeah.

25:45>> Okay. Thank you. All right. Uh Mr.

25:47Farley, would you like to uh continue

25:49with that with that suggestion?

25:51>> Sure. Yeah. Happy to.

25:52>> So again, um as to new business A26-03,

25:58I would make a motion to grant final

26:02subdivision approval. uh finding that

26:04the application meets the criteria in

26:07NRO section 190-138G

26:12um with the stipulations

26:15um A through N as reflected in the staff

26:19report plus the addition of a new

26:23stipulation

26:24um O that will indicate that the uh

26:28garage identified on the plan will be

26:31demolished prior to recording of the

26:34All right. Thank you. Um motion by Mr.

26:36Barley. Is there a second?

26:39>> Uh second by Mr. Hirs. Any further

26:42discussion?

26:44All those in favor?

26:45>> I

26:46>> I motion passes unanimously. Right.

26:50>> Thank you. Have a great evening.

26:51>> Thank you for your time.

26:53>> Thank you. [laughter]

26:57All right.

26:59Uh,

27:01moving along. Um, under other business,

27:05review of tenative agenda to determine

27:07developments of regional impact. Um, has

27:09any member of the board had an

27:10opportunity to review those cases? Like

27:12to make a motion, um, regarding

27:16their consideration for regional impact.

27:24Not all. No.

27:25>> Just take away quickly.

27:32So there were there were some late

27:34addition or additions I should say to

27:36that and the uh because it was was a

27:38very short list earlier and then the

27:40agenda for the 17th similarly. So a lot

27:43happened after after

27:48um we we needed to revise uh things that

27:52that were already um in the books. So

27:55>> understood. Uh Mr. Chair, Mr. Vley,

27:58please.

27:58>> Uh, having now reviewed the [laughter]

28:00agenda, uh, I would make a motion that

28:04there are no proposals of regional

28:05impact.

28:06>> All right. Thank you. Um, motion by Mr.

28:08Vley. Any further discussion?

28:13Oh, actually a second, please. Second by

28:16Mr. Zer. Any further discussion?

28:20All those in favor?

28:21>> I

28:22>> I motion passes.

28:25All right, moving on. Uh under other

28:28business. Uh

28:31next item, recode and site plan

28:33thresholds presentation.

28:37>> Connor,

28:38>> mine still says document.

28:39>> Yes.

28:40>> Oh, this is a refresh here.

28:47>> Conor, I was only kidding that time when

28:49I said I would like to get more board uh

28:51like presentations and stuff. That was I

28:54didn't really mean that, but okay.

28:57This is for you, Joe.

28:58>> Yeah. [laughter]

28:59>> Sorry, team.

29:01>> You're new. We're just catching you up

29:02on the co we're doing.

29:06>> Thank you.

29:07>> Yes. Since we had a a light agenda, we

29:10wanted to take the opportunity to

29:13uh talk with the board about an

29:15important discussion as it relates to

29:17the recode efforts. Uh you know, this is

29:19going to be

29:21a good discussion because it's it's

29:22talking about how we implement the code.

29:25um how we take you know the the big

29:27ideas

29:29on text and uh implement them in

29:32development applications and so this is

29:34going to be specifically to site plans

29:36uh we're not going to cover you know

29:38cups or subdivisions

29:40uh but yeah so let's get right to it so

29:42a quick recap

29:44the planning board's role for site plans

29:46is uh for projects that are

29:51non-residential uses and for

29:52multifamilies that are at least four

29:54units in size and for site plan

29:57amendments that are uh increase the

29:59building uh by more than 10% as long as

30:03other sites features that increase by

30:04more than 10%. Uh this is

30:08um exempted in developments in the

30:11downtown districts D1 D3 uh those go

30:14through just uh pure staff review.

30:20Uh quick recap on some recent small to

30:24medium-siz projects uh we wanted to

30:26highlight uh that were you know recent

30:29and and um I think would be good case

30:32studies for the threshold. So we have 44

30:35Franklin Street that was a office to

30:38residential conversion um on Franklin

30:40Street near downtown creating nine new

30:43units. They had some relief requests and

30:46the interesting utilization of the MU

30:48district, the Audi dealership which

30:51expanded the existing dealership by 22%

30:55and 18 Street which was a uh 4unit

30:59development that added three new

31:01creating seven total. And there was also

31:03some uh variance granted to ZBA and some

31:07waiverss.

31:10And then next we have uh two in Lfield

31:12Road. was four new units at the end of

31:14the dead end street uh detached condos

31:17106 Pine Street that is uh I believe

31:20Margaret's Place uh it's the 15 unit uh

31:24apartment building

31:26uh from the existing

31:30car mechanic shop and then for Beard

31:32Street which is the 9-unit apartment

31:33building. Again, these all receive some

31:36sort of relief. Um but really want to

31:39talk about like the the scale and size

31:41of these developments

31:43because in the the new code a lot of

31:46these commonly approved uh relief

31:49requests

31:50I guess will will go away in a sense

31:52because the recode is going to be

31:53recalibrated to um

31:57have standards that match what we see

32:00through applications what are common

32:02approval requests and so we can kind

32:05[music] of you know learn from from our

32:07lesson

32:08and get rid of the waiver for existing

32:12conditions,

32:14etc. So, um, things like that. So,

32:16again, here's a list of recent relief

32:19requests that were tied to these

32:21projects. So, the off-site parking, um,

32:24more flexible setbacks, you know,

32:26broader building placement area on the

32:28lot, um, greater residential residential

32:31density due to the density factor, um,

32:34doing away with units by acre.

32:36uh parking requirement being

32:38recalibrated and then some common you

32:40know conditional uses just being byite

32:42uh again when they're commonly approved

32:44and we don't see any issues there and

32:47Connor right now you're talking about

32:49actual changes to the code as opposed to

32:53moving the authority so it's not

32:54necessarily that this is now

32:56administrative approval

32:59you know by you guys this is just

33:01actually changing the code to eliminate

33:03the need for applicants to address these

33:06issues at all.

33:07>> That's correct.

33:08>> Yeah.

33:09>> The parking requirements, is that due to

33:11the state's change in um from the 1.5 to

33:15the one?

33:16>> So, we currently um you know, follow

33:19state guidelines for the for the 1 one.

33:21Um that will, you know, remain in the

33:24new code. Uh we will I guess it's it's

33:28more of a conversation about um other

33:31uses of you know, getting the right

33:33calibration. I think consolidating the

33:36parking uh matrix uh in the current code

33:40to you just be general uses and really

33:43fine-tuning them to be the you know

33:45demand that you know the folks in the

33:48industry know that they need and so you

33:50know we have u you know less waiver

33:53requests. Um, but if if we see, you

33:56know, a request for more than what's

33:59allowed or less than what's allowed,

34:01that would be a good tell tale to see,

34:03you know, how how accurate we were in

34:05the recalibration.

34:06>> So, the recalibration you're looking at

34:08is more on an industry type of it's a

34:11broader business. Yep. It's a broader

34:12one and not a residential is what you're

34:15thinking, right?

34:16>> Correct. It's it's all the above, but

34:19yep. Um and so with these relief

34:24requests, um you know, some of them no

34:27longer being applicable because it would

34:30just be the nature of the code would

34:32allow some of these common requests just

34:34to be as is.

34:36Uh let's go back to the projects and

34:40just looking at the the scale of these

34:42buildings or scale of these projects.

34:44if they met all regulations and no

34:46relief was required,

34:48would you guys still want to see them?

34:51And it's not a yes or no answer. At

34:53least I don't think it is. It's it's

34:54contextual. It's it's, you know, based

34:57on the scale of the development as it

35:01relates to the surrounding area, um the

35:04ability for that area to absorb it. And

35:07so in the new code, we're going to try

35:09to uh tailor a threshold where it's not

35:13just a

35:15static, you know, above the line, below

35:18the line situation that we currently

35:20have and kind of create a a a tailored

35:23review path for each development that we

35:26see.

35:26>> Can I ask a question?

35:27>> Yep. the the 18 Abbott Street. I not

35:31only is it in my ward, but I'm I'm

35:32looking at it because I see a 75%

35:34density increase because you're now

35:36adding four units to what was existing

35:39as a three unit.

35:40>> We're adding three units to a four unit.

35:42>> You're adding three units. So, it'll

35:43become seven units as well,

35:44>> which is Yeah. Which is a which is a

35:46stark um you know, it's a sticker shock,

35:48if you will.

35:49>> Yeah.

35:49>> Um but, you know, that for that

35:52development, it was like an oversized

35:54lot for the area. Um, you know, we were

35:56able to work out, uh, proper, you know,

36:00parking, curb cut, uh, you know,

36:03drainage, uh, all, you know, um,

36:07planning board's involvement was was,

36:09uh, helpful, but, you know, city staff

36:11was was pretty confident that we could

36:13address those things, um, internally as

36:15well. And so again, you know, 18 Street

36:18is that something that um you know, the

36:21the 75% increase is is stark, but if

36:25it's kind of in the same building

36:27envelope or same character of assisting

36:30area, is that still something we would

36:32want to see?

36:32>> So my concern with this is that then it

36:35doesn't come to the planning board,

36:37neighbors aren't notified and so on. So

36:40something this stark changes the

36:42neighborhood. you now have three more

36:45residents that are driving on that area

36:48towards French, towards Abbott and so

36:50on, which are very narrow streets.

36:52>> They may have parking within it, but it

36:54also creates that

36:56>> um we when we do what we're doing here,

36:59we're taking away the voice of the

37:00neighbors. We're taking away the voice

37:01of their butters, I should say. And

37:03that's kind of where my concern is

37:05something that was that large of a

37:07change. um you know when you show me the

37:0910% or maybe even the 22% but you know

37:11it's a business and so on I don't have

37:13when I see a 75%

37:15change to what exists there that's when

37:18I start to get concerned that we're

37:20we're losing the voice of the abutters

37:22and um it's not just it's not just our

37:26role here of of going beyond and so on

37:30it's the people that get to come in and

37:32that's my concern

37:33>> planning board definitely has that role

37:35of uh or opportunity for, you know,

37:38public

37:40notice and and, you know, public

37:42testimony.

37:43>> Um,

37:44you know, those those concerns are are

37:47valid. Um,

37:51>> I guess this

37:53new calibration or this new threshold.

37:56It's it's you know the board's

37:57discretion and and the board of

37:58alderman's discretion on you know what

38:01where we end up but just kind of like

38:03the new uh way we we come up to that

38:07conclusion of whether or not this is a

38:09site plan that is reviewed by staff uh

38:12professionals or through the planning

38:14board is is going to be uh my next slide

38:16so we can we can talk about that then.

38:18Yeah. with with respect to I guess that

38:20along that same line, Connor. Um

38:23projects that are only under

38:25administrative review, is there any type

38:26of signage place like is there a yard

38:28sign like with the fluorescent green? So

38:31that's not required. So yeah, uh I I

38:36guess that that is something maybe to

38:37ponder a little bit. Um I I wouldn't I

38:41wouldn't want to cut out the public

38:44inherently for from from the process.

38:46It's not not that you have toform.

38:48>> So, yeah, definitely. Um I mean, I know

38:52Sam and I have talked about like a

38:54report to the board uh for, you know,

38:56staff review and and projects um after

39:00the fact. Um

39:03the public does have um the opportunity

39:06to appeal administrative decisions. We

39:08would need to um make sure that there's

39:11a way that you know folks are properly

39:13notified, you know, in a timely manner

39:14for them to do that. So you have all the

39:16information. There's ways, you know, to

39:19to accommodate uh, you know, genuine uh,

39:23you know, abutter concerns that that,

39:27you know, we don't want to overlook. Uh,

39:30I guess it's just we're trying to

39:34find the projects that, you know, are

39:36rubber stamps common that you know would

39:39would

39:41save time and and allow the board to

39:44focus on more of the um I won't say

39:47controversial, but more of the the

39:49larger implication projects that that

39:52more discretion is is required

39:54>> and and things would by law subdivisions

39:57would still have to come provisions

40:00would still be in the purview of

40:02planning board.

40:04>> Conditional use permits

40:05>> still would um when we have a

40:09uh the adopt the overlays, you know, the

40:11utilization of the overlay would be a

40:13planning board approval.

40:15>> Okay. Alderman McLe.

40:17>> Yeah. Thank you. Um again, you know,

40:19when this when we discussed this even at

40:21the the board of aldermen um at the

40:24peedc and so on, that was I raised the

40:26same concern and I really felt at that

40:29point that it wasn't necessarily a

40:32concern because it would be for just

40:33smaller minor type things. I look at a

40:3575% density increase is not a minor

40:38thing. I mean you're you're truly making

40:41this whether you're big making a bigger

40:43footprint or you're not. maybe the land

40:44is is proper for it, but it still has an

40:46impact on the neighborhood.

40:49>> Um, you you mentioned that, you know,

40:51the the neighbors still have the the

40:53right of of not I don't want to say

40:56right of refusal, but they have the

40:57right to to controversy and so on. But

40:59my concern is how are they going to

41:01know? The public is not educated to

41:03this. When you send them the

41:04notifications, they become educated. As

41:06an alderman, I get a lot of phone calls

41:08saying, "I just got this. What's

41:10happening?" And I say, "Well, call the

41:11planning board." and sometimes I check

41:13for them and and so on, but that they're

41:16not as educated on on these manners

41:18because they're used to taking care of

41:19their own property, but and

41:21[clears throat] when someone buys a

41:22place, they expect it to stay the same.

41:23They shouldn't because they might have a

41:25subdivision and so on. But I'm just I'm

41:28just concerned that we're

41:30I I had a little anxiety when the state

41:33made the the laws that said basically

41:36ADUs were all by right and they were no

41:38longer going to zoning board and and

41:39neighbors aren't being notified anymore.

41:41you know, and I know as a real estate

41:43person, you may think differently of it,

41:44but I I think that suddenly when things

41:46start growing and so on where ADUs were,

41:49you know, I don't think many people

41:51would argue with them, but they were and

41:53they can have some negative connotations

41:55as um Sam knows some of the ones that

41:58I've had in my in in my ward. This

42:01eliminates the utters. I think that one

42:04is just too too big.

42:06>> Can I just

42:07>> Sure. because I kind of sounds like you

42:09have another slide that's going to

42:10describe I

42:13so maybe it be helpful that means

42:17um but um those are all those are all

42:20fair points um and so again this is just

42:22a conversation about

42:24re-calibrating

42:26um the thresholds to match you know what

42:30we're trying to achieve in the new code

42:32um you know the the

42:37Rico is is is involved with the uh

42:39Imagine Nashville plan to, you know,

42:42have a more consistent

42:46uh predictable development uh review

42:49process, you know, be more streamlined

42:51in some areas. And so where we find fall

42:54on that line is up to the board's

42:56discretion. Uh but it's just kind of a

42:58new way of of uh getting to that. So

43:03moving to the yeah the thresholds. So we

43:06talked about building types uh which is

43:09just you know classification of you know

43:11different building forms that that is

43:13common in NSHA district types you know

43:17zoning um just just the zoning districts

43:20for the given area uh to to match uh

43:24what is on the ground and then land type

43:27which is a new um classification that

43:32I'm not sure if we we touched on with

43:33this board but that's really about like

43:35the growth capacity for the area and so

43:39uh quick next slide just to go into a

43:41little bit further. So it's a city

43:43framework um that directs the intensity

43:45of development. So there's u six land

43:50types L1 to L6. Uh for the most part

43:54it's you know increases in intensity as

43:56you go up. So like L1 and L2 is like

43:59very restricted development. think large

44:02lots rural southwest NSHA uh three and

44:06four is like existing neighborhood

44:09patterns we don't want to see you know

44:12more growth different you know

44:14development in the future um and then

44:19five is like downtown a lot of the uh

44:23redevelopment areas that was highlighted

44:26in the master plan areas that we find

44:28that there's u desire from an economic

44:32standpoint to increase attract

44:34development there. Uh service capacity

44:38and you know no concerns about u you

44:41know impacting the existing neighborhood

44:44fabric if there is um so again land

44:48types dictate the intended growth

44:50evolution of an area. So think about it

44:51as like its future character. What do we

44:53want the area to see uh to be?

44:57And here's a list of the uh land types

45:00again.

45:03And I I wish I had a map for you guys.

45:05Uh but again, think about the uh imagine

45:08Nashville master plan like core areas

45:11for growth. That is where the most

45:13intense land types are going to be where

45:15you know all the established

45:16neighborhoods already are going to be

45:18you know L3 and lower uh given you know

45:22their their uh patterns and then L4 is

45:26just kind of like more the inner city

45:29neighborhoods. French trail streets that

45:31can accommodate, you know, more density

45:35because there's already density there.

45:36Um, but you know, ones that that match,

45:40you know, the existing pattern

45:44and so

45:46looking at all the the components of the

45:48thresholds, you have building types,

45:51district types, and land types. I might

45:53have jumped the gun and um I want to get

45:56back to this one. So combination of all

45:58these um aspects of a project

46:02would

46:04dictate its review path. And so I

46:07created a little hierarchy for each.

46:10Here's building types where the cottage

46:12is, you know, the least um the smallest

46:16scale development all the way up to a

46:18block building which is you know a

46:20building that encompasses an entire city

46:22block. Same with districts, residential,

46:26rural, all the way down to uh mid-rise

46:30in downtown.

46:31And then land types from preserve, which

46:35is pretty much no development, and uh

46:38intended land where it's we want uh the

46:41most growth and and the most intensity

46:43development there. And so when a

46:46proposal comes to the city, comes to the

46:48planning board, we think about okay,

46:52what are they proposing in terms of

46:53scale development,

46:55what is the area, the district that they

46:59are in

47:00what is the land type, the the growth

47:03capacity for the area and from there we

47:06can get a pretty good estimate on what

47:08the level of review is needed for that

47:11project. Um now like the

47:16district type it's it's district type

47:18compatibility with surrounding area that

47:20is like a very it's it's in line with

47:23some of the review criteria of the

47:25planning board for site plans or um the

47:28ability for it to be served by you know

47:31city infrastructure that isn't also in

47:34line with u approval criteria for the

47:36planning board. So we're also trying to

47:39like predetermine

47:41the scale of development in a tailored

47:43way for different areas of the city. So

47:47reducing the you know um burden of the

47:51board to weigh the merits of individual

47:55cases when you can uh you know

48:00preemptively plan and say okay this type

48:04of development in this type of district

48:07with this capacity for growth should be

48:10done and we should have a streamlined

48:12process to do that and that can be

48:14reviewed with uh staff professionals.

48:17And for projects of a larger scale that

48:20we still need discretion for that can be

48:22still go to the board for for a

48:24discretionary review. And so I've I've

48:26listed listed out conservative,

48:28moderate, and aggressive approaches. And

48:31uh it' be up to the board's discretion

48:33on you know where in the the scale you

48:36guys want to land on. So you guys can

48:39you take a look at that and then have

48:40questions.

48:56Yes.

48:56>> So, are you saying that if it was a a UR

48:59district with an L4

49:01um looking at the aggressive that if an

49:03apartment building was going to be

49:04built, it would not have to come here?

49:08>> Correct. Um, so again, think about the

49:10the downtown districts D1 and D3. They

49:14currently don't go to uh planning board

49:17for site plan review. They reviewed by

49:19staff. We are

49:23um adjusting you know that decision to

49:27you know move to like L5 the land type.

49:30Um so it almost be like a similar amount

49:33of um you know delegation by the board

49:37but that decision was made because

49:41um you know city leaders thought that

49:43this area um is is a good place for

49:48intense development. um it can be

49:51absorbed by city infrastructure, city

49:53services and so it removes the need for

49:57uh planning or or discretion because

50:00we've already determined that that's you

50:01know the area we want to see development

50:02so it can just go through staff uh to

50:05make sure it meets regulations and then

50:07get built and so we're building off of

50:09that but I guess expanding that idea to

50:11have more of a a tiered uh review path

50:15for other areas of the city that might

50:16need it. So, like you mentioned, UR and

50:20L4, that's going to be the tree streets.

50:23And so, right now, there's small

50:25apartment buildings in the tree streets.

50:27um

50:29since they're they're existing and the

50:31city knows that it can uh service it and

50:35um apart from some

50:40um

50:42other thing we would we wouldn't catch a

50:45butters

50:47who live next to a small apartment

50:49building you know would expect already

50:51expect what's it like to live next to a

50:54small apartment building so it wouldn't

50:55be other you know neighborhood impact

50:57ramifications.

50:59>> And where is L5?

51:01>> L5 is going to be like the downtown

51:03areas and um over by the river um kind

51:07of in the existing TOD area. you would

51:10you had mentioned French Hill and

51:12>> French Hill would be um L4

51:17uh like by canal and then as you kind of

51:19get further up maybe L3

51:21>> when you're going okay

51:24>> just a question about sort of the

51:27overarching approach here so is the idea

51:30that

51:32you know let's just say hypothetically

51:34speaking that the board said yeah we

51:36think moderate is the right approach is

51:39the idea that you would hardwire that

51:41into the code or is the idea that the

51:44code would

51:46create flexibility

51:49to sort of move between these different

51:52categories. So let's just say every you

51:55know initially people said gee

51:57conservative seems like the right way to

51:59go but then over time you say actually

52:03you know moderate seems reasonable. Is

52:06the code gonna allow flex between going

52:09from conservative to moderate if there's

52:11or is that gonna would that require a

52:13>> it would require it would require like a

52:15amendment um I don't think it would be

52:17something that um would you know be

52:19flexible in a way it it would you we'd

52:21have to stick to a threshold of some

52:23kind and and how this looks at in the

52:26code um we have to do some thinking I

52:29mean the you know most like to get it

52:32all on one page would be some like sort

52:34of like cable with like a shade and you

52:36know you connect the two to see where

52:39you're at. Um but and again these are

52:42just um

52:45estimates of what you know would be

52:46considered conservative, moderate,

52:48aggressive, right? The board you know

52:50may find that they want to do all

52:51conservative or or you know my

52:53interpretation of that is is different

52:55from your guys. But again, this is just

52:57an exercise of of what level of comfort

53:01uh for you guys that you have given what

53:03we have about um information regarding

53:07the master plan, what we're trying to

53:09get um through the code um and

53:14um

53:17the downtown districts, like keeping all

53:18of those together, like how how do we

53:20want to um improve those and achieve

53:24those through this matrix?

53:27So, but I I guess part of Conor part of

53:30the thing I I

53:33Well, it's a question. Um,

53:36we're not elected officials, but by and

53:38large, we're not other than

53:40>> I I I [laughter] don't want too much

53:41unilateral authority with an unelected

53:43board. Like, does this have to pass

53:45muster at

53:47>> the alder part of the code that would

53:50get adopted by the board of alderman?

53:51>> Yep.

53:52>> Okay. But as the planning board uh um as

53:54the as the principal authority for site

53:56plans uh you know we definitely want to

53:59make sure that the board is is

54:01comfortable with

54:02>> um you know the level of of projects

54:04that get

54:05>> approved with you or you know through

54:08staff professionals

54:09>> and this is already going on. It's just

54:11a matter of I guess you're you're trying

54:12to maybe define it a little bit better

54:15or

54:15>> Yeah. Right now it's it's either all in

54:17non-residential or projects four units

54:20and up. And so um we're trying to

54:22recalibrate that to more granular, more

54:24tailored based on you know the the

54:27context of the development.

54:29>> Right. So it's nothing which is not

54:31already happening. It's just whether or

54:33not refinement is in order I guess is is

54:37that a fair summary of what's going on

54:39going?

54:40>> Yerman

54:42Cle.

54:42>> Uh thank you. um when we say this is

54:45already happening it I know it's going

54:47through the this the TRC and so on but

54:51in many cases um when it's come here we

54:54get the reports and so on of the of the

54:56the staff reports and and so on. So it's

54:59it's being reviewed but it's not

55:00necessarily being approved or is it

55:02already being approved [clears throat]

55:05>> for um projects that

55:06>> for yeah for the projects that you're

55:08you're talking about. Have we already

55:10started the process where where it's

55:12being approved and not coming to the

55:13planning board?

55:14>> No, no, no. So the only projects that uh

55:17don't go to the planning board now or

55:19ones that are below the current

55:21threshold. So like a site plan amendment

55:23that doesn't meet the threshold to go to

55:25the board or again projects in the

55:28downtown districts. Um you know it's

55:30going to be large multif family

55:31buildings. But again um you reviewing

55:35authorities have determined that that

55:38area uh can you know u we want to see

55:40that kind of element there and so

55:42there's no need for the discretion of

55:45the compatibility with with the

55:47neighborhood. We want that neighborhood

55:49pattern uh or the need for you know does

55:52this can the city absorb it with service

55:55and infrastructure that was

55:56predetermined. So, I guess we're we're

55:58following along those those lines and

56:00see if if there's other, you know, uh

56:04decisions we can bake into the code um

56:08to let you guys, you know, focus on on

56:10more of the uh bigger projects.

56:12>> May.

56:13>> Yep.

56:14>> Thank you. Um I'm of two minds here

56:16truthfully. Um I want to see things get

56:18streamlined. I really do think that I

56:21don't want to overburden this board. Um,

56:23but I guess as an elected official, I

56:25also have anxiety that people's voices

56:27aren't being heard and that they're not

56:29going to have um the voice. They're not

56:32going to be able to at least speak out

56:35whether whether they're heard or not, at

56:37least speak out. Um, that's my biggest

56:39concern. If we did go at something, if

56:42because I do want to streamline, I do

56:43want to help um the the smaller people

56:47not having to come in here and do all

56:48these these things and so on. I would

56:50prefer us to to look at least at the

56:52conservative and not go beyond that. I

56:54mean,

56:55>> the conservative is is is

56:57leagues ahead of what we currently do

56:59now.

56:59>> Right. I I can see that. I can I can see

57:01it. I would never want to go beyond the

57:03the conservative. I'm sorry.

57:05>> Yeah. It's just uh depends on the uh the

57:10you know,

57:11>> high levels that be the planning board,

57:13the board of elements, you know, um you

57:15know, how they want to prioritize um you

57:18know, development

57:21and and um I guess the

57:24planning board site plans. Um

57:28I guess what what you guys are are

57:31actually trying to review and and decide

57:33upon is like the review criteria. I know

57:35Sam and I wanted to kind of do a line by

57:37line of the approval criteria, but you

57:39know, are there some projects that you

57:41feel that you're kind of just running

57:43down the list, rubber stamping them? We

57:45want to make sure that you know those

57:47projects that are common that you know

57:49we want to have can be you know easily

57:52uh uh built and what projects that

57:55actually discretion you know should be

57:57um the focus but again it's just it's

58:00just a threshold that you guys can

58:01decide upon.

58:02>> Just just to be clear I think to go back

58:04to on the prior question there there is

58:08an existing threshold below which

58:10planning board meeting is not required.

58:12like this this process does exist

58:14currently where there's administrative

58:15review and approval without planning

58:17board input. Right. So

58:19>> yes,

58:19>> so what we're talking about is just

58:21moving that threshold up.

58:23>> Yes.

58:24>> Yeah.

58:26>> I I just wanted to I just wanted to

58:29complete my thought of right now we have

58:31the way the public looks and and I'm

58:33going to speak as an alderman here. The

58:36way the public looks at the city at

58:37times is lack of transparency and lack

58:40of this. My fear about going this way is

58:43that we're going to give them more

58:44fodder. Right now, we have a volunteer

58:47board here of a variety of different

58:48people that we call citizens. They're

58:50helping to make these decisions. Now,

58:53we're going to take even of the smallest

58:54things away and we're going to be giving

58:57them to staff and we're going to be

58:58giving them to that. And that's kind of

59:00some of the complaints is that that

59:02citizens don't know what's happening.

59:03So, I really need to put that out on the

59:05table, but at the same time, I I really

59:07do want to try to do this. So I think

59:10even for me the conservative is real

59:12high jump but if we were to go anywhere

59:15I don't want to go below that and I'm

59:16sorry I keep talking but

59:18>> no no it's all fair points and and and

59:21uh again it's just where that that

59:22threshold leads. I I know this this was

59:24brought up because the

59:27you know current thresholds we we didn't

59:28think that they were aligned with um you

59:31know how the the new code functions and

59:33you know some of the goals of the

59:35imagine national plan. So this is a

59:38great exercise and and you know our our

59:39comfort level on you know development

59:42procedure.

59:43>> Ben Ben, I'm sorry. Did you have your

59:45hand up first? I just wanted to throw

59:46something.

59:47>> Yeah.

59:47>> Um so effectively what we're talking

59:49about is you know bringing certain

59:51projects from a planning board site plan

59:53review application into more of an admin

59:55review type application where the city

59:57staff would just go ahead and review. Um

59:59maybe Connor it would be helpful to hear

1:00:01some examples about what kind of project

1:00:02would be an administrative review

1:00:04currently that you know the planning

1:00:05board typically wouldn't see and maybe

1:00:07that can help our discussion with well

1:00:09should we you know throw more projects

1:00:10into that bucket should we even take you

1:00:12know projects out of that bucket for x y

1:00:14and z reasons. What are some of those

1:00:15examples for a project that would go

1:00:17through admin review currently?

1:00:19>> Sure. So, um I guess the

1:00:23best examples are projects that are uh

1:00:26single lot or existing lots, one to

1:00:29three units. So, single family, duplex,

1:00:31triplex, those need to go to planning

1:00:33board. Um now, would a four-unit

1:00:37building be too much like of that that

1:00:40logic of like the the one to three

1:00:42units, can that be applied to one to

1:00:43four

1:00:45across the city or in certain areas? And

1:00:47so that's that's kind of where we're

1:00:48trying to get at. You know, is there a

1:00:50path for a four-unit building in the

1:00:52tree streets to be built without going

1:00:55to the planning board for site plan

1:00:57approval? Um, also downtown, you know,

1:01:01we've had a few, but they're they're

1:01:03quite large. Uh, apartment buildings,

1:01:05you know, I think High Street Flats is

1:01:07over 100 units. That was done with

1:01:10professional staff review. Um, it's it's

1:01:14a big project. It's it's a big change to

1:01:16the city's uh skyline. Um there might

1:01:20have been some um discussion on that,

1:01:23but overall I think it's it was a u

1:01:28great project that you know the city uh

1:01:30made sure that all regulations were met

1:01:33and um I'm not aware of any like

1:01:35occurring

1:01:38uh issues with that one. Um so again

1:01:41it's just the the scale of the project

1:01:43given the area um what is what is the

1:01:47priority of the board to delegate to

1:01:50staff and what do they want to keep

1:01:51their eyes on have more um involved uh

1:01:56review on it.

1:01:59>> Uh I don't want to interrupt him until

1:02:01he's done but I do have some feedback

1:02:03that I'd like to make sure I get on the

1:02:05record.

1:02:05>> Sure.

1:02:06>> Yeah. Okay.

1:02:07>> So you still have more, right? Yeah, but

1:02:10uh yeah, feel free to to chime in

1:02:11whenever.

1:02:12>> All right, I I I'll give it now. I guess

1:02:14just uh and one's a question that's like

1:02:16I like to do asking semi notable, but

1:02:20[clears throat]

1:02:20look um I I have no qualms with what

1:02:24what this is. I mean, the recalibration

1:02:27and resetting of the processes is

1:02:30something that you a good organization

1:02:32should be doing on a um fairly regular

1:02:35basis, right? And the resistance to

1:02:38change is always going to be an issue

1:02:41for you. And I I kind of think as you

1:02:44try to get to an alignment for the

1:02:46current state of how things you'd like

1:02:47to see flow is a good thing. Okay. So

1:02:51that's not a a a broad, you know, okay

1:02:55kind of thing, but it's close, you know.

1:02:57And then um I think one of the key

1:02:59things for you is going to be like

1:03:02you're doing now is messaging and the

1:03:05actual practice of what you're doing to

1:03:08see if there's um you know uh changes

1:03:11that you have to and finetunings that

1:03:13you have to do as you learn from your

1:03:14mistakes. That's a natural thing to do

1:03:18when you're trying to roll out

1:03:20especially change in new processes. So

1:03:23way to go. I think that's good and I can

1:03:25see the good work and the thought that

1:03:27you're doing it. Okay. Clearly

1:03:29understand Mrs. Cle's concern. Um, you

1:03:33know, the last piece about this is uh it

1:03:35is a little pontificating, but uh

1:03:37there's an acronym for fear, the word

1:03:40fear, which is false evidence appearing

1:03:42real. So sometimes I think it's really

1:03:46going to be just how do you how you

1:03:48communicate this information out because

1:03:49people will run with uh uh with issues

1:03:53that really probably aren't issues,

1:03:55right? Cuz you're just describing some

1:03:58of these things about um levels of of uh

1:04:02impact and things. And I I I think

1:04:04you're you're you're close to being spot

1:04:06on. So, I wouldn't go down the fear path

1:04:09as much with with this, but I'm just

1:04:11saying that's going to be you should

1:04:13inspect that later, right? And and then

1:04:16the last thing is the the semi-technical

1:04:18question was um uh relating to the uh

1:04:22imagine plan. Um I don't know I don't

1:04:25know if if this is a ZBA or a planning

1:04:27thing but uh you know one of the things

1:04:29was to try to encourage by right zoning

1:04:33and uh you know and conditional uses and

1:04:35stuff like that. So has your department

1:04:39both or the departments seen uh an

1:04:42increase of by right stuff over say the

1:04:45last three to five years.

1:04:48you know, people coming in and just

1:04:50getting that done right then and there.

1:04:53>> Not really because our regulations

1:04:55haven't changed.

1:04:56>> Um,

1:04:58we regularly have a higher case load for

1:05:00the zoning board than we do the planning

1:05:02board. Um, granted the

1:05:06quality of the applications, and I mean,

1:05:08um, quality in terms of, you know, a

1:05:10casino isn't going to the zoning board,

1:05:12it's coming here to the planning board.

1:05:15uh three-foot encroachment for a deck

1:05:17addition isn't coming to the planning

1:05:19board. It's coming into the zoning board

1:05:20because that's a setback encroachment.

1:05:22So, very different natures. Um and

1:05:25again, I think this is before Carter

1:05:28Faulk retired. I asked him to run an

1:05:30analysis of zoning board applications

1:05:34over the past five years. I wanted to

1:05:36see how many I wanted to see where in

1:05:39the city they were happening and what

1:05:41sort of requests it was. And a lot of it

1:05:43are these setback encroachments and

1:05:45we're looking where they're falling in

1:05:47the city. There's a fair bit in um

1:05:50wellestablished neighborhoods, French

1:05:52Hill, Crown Hill, a lot in um

1:05:55[clears throat]

1:05:56kind of uh Ward 9, Ward 5. Um not quite

1:06:01R30, but like the R9s, the R18s where

1:06:05you have those smaller lots. And the

1:06:07evidence was

1:06:09you could not build those communities

1:06:12under the current code. There was a

1:06:14disconnect between the regulations and

1:06:16the in the existing patterns. And so

1:06:19that's a lot of the work that we're

1:06:20doing. But to answer your question is

1:06:23we're hopeful that when the new code is

1:06:26in effect, we will see a dramatic

1:06:28decrease in zoning board case load

1:06:32because it has identified these

1:06:34discrepancies between existing patterns

1:06:36and existing regulations. And the

1:06:38correction is we see what is on the

1:06:41ground. We are permitting that by right

1:06:45with a little bit of growth. So maybe

1:06:47that that garage that that detach ADU

1:06:51can fit now rather than having to go

1:06:53through the zoning process.

1:06:55>> So So is it fair to say that was a good

1:06:58answer. Is it fair to say that you're

1:07:00hoping or expecting for more byite

1:07:03activity once this is done?

1:07:04>> Yes. Thank you,

1:07:08>> Alderman. Oh, I'm sorry.

1:07:11The only thing I wanted to make a

1:07:12comment about you you brought up the

1:07:14high street um flats. Um there was an

1:07:18issue with the high street flats and

1:07:19that was the lights

1:07:21>> that went down. It was Yeah, I was

1:07:24>> they were they were constructed not to

1:07:26plan. We found the issue the on the plan

1:07:29they were good they were not installed

1:07:30correctly.

1:07:30>> Okay. So even if that had come here and

1:07:33we had made as we talked about the So

1:07:35that's my second one. the case that we

1:07:37got here um today, would that under

1:07:41conservative would that not come here?

1:07:43>> Well, it's a subdivision, so it's

1:07:44>> a subdivision, of course. Yes. And I'm

1:07:46sorry, a whole different Yeah. ball of

1:07:49wax there. But yeah, so the the high

1:07:51street flats, they put them in

1:07:52incorrectly is what you're saying. And

1:07:54that's what that issue was. So once you

1:07:57brought it to their attention, they

1:07:59fixed it somewhat.

1:08:00>> Um they've been turned off.

1:08:02>> They've been turned off. Yeah, that's

1:08:03why I said somewhat. They didn't really

1:08:05fix them. They just don't use them.

1:08:07>> The fix is expensive.

1:08:09>> Yeah. No, they should have done it right

1:08:10the first time.

1:08:14>> That's why we have a code enforcement

1:08:15department.

1:08:16>> I appreciate that. Truly.

1:08:18>> Well, that's something not to lose sight

1:08:19of. We some project could come to us. We

1:08:22could approve it or not approve or let's

1:08:23say we approve it. We're not responsible

1:08:26for their construction activities for

1:08:28them fulfilling their conditions. um we

1:08:31can plan everything A to X and they

1:08:35either follow through or they or they

1:08:37don't. Like you know, we're not a

1:08:39lawmaking body. We're not an enforcement

1:08:40body. Um I was at a public hearing last

1:08:44night in another community and uh this

1:08:47general issue came up. We are bound by

1:08:50the laws of the state of New Hampshire

1:08:52and by the ordinances of the

1:08:54municipality that we're in. And I think

1:08:56that is obvious but maybe doesn't get

1:08:59stated enough. So we're we're not

1:09:01rewriting

1:09:02um NSHA revised ordinances nor New

1:09:05Hampshire RSA here. Everything that is

1:09:08proposed in theory um is consistent with

1:09:12that or it would be up to bodies beyond

1:09:15the one in this room right now to to

1:09:17alter them. So um I think I think we're

1:09:20just trying to still color within the

1:09:21lines. It's just we're talking about

1:09:24exactly where those lines are and if the

1:09:26board has general input on it, but we

1:09:28don't get to make that final

1:09:29determination is my understanding unless

1:09:32that's misstated in some way. Um I might

1:09:35be misreading the RSA, but the I guess

1:09:39site plans can be um like minor site

1:09:42plans can be created where I thought the

1:09:46planning board would delegate.

1:09:49Is that a decision decision the planning

1:09:50board actually makes where they delegate

1:09:52or is that like the board of law telling

1:09:54the planning board to do so?

1:09:56>> Yeah, it's it's

1:09:59the way that

1:10:00>> Yes, that structure is correct um by the

1:10:05board of alderman adopting the code.

1:10:08That is basically the board of alderman

1:10:10vesting authority with the planning

1:10:12board and therefore the planning board

1:10:13then vesting staff TRC with certain

1:10:16authority.

1:10:20>> Altering

1:10:23then yes first and then

1:10:25>> yes please

1:10:26taking up much time.

1:10:27>> Sorry. Um going back to what Sam said

1:10:31about you know essentially getting new

1:10:33applications to fit in with the fabric

1:10:36of an older neighborhood. um you know,

1:10:38certain older neighborhoods in Nashville

1:10:39might have certain deficiencies in terms

1:10:41of safety. Um you know, if an old

1:10:43neighborhood was laid out more than 100

1:10:44years ago, maybe ADA wasn't really a

1:10:46consideration. You know, maybe there

1:10:48wasn't much thought to, you know, fire

1:10:50code and exactly how far away certain

1:10:51buildings from be should be from one

1:10:53another. So, I I wouldn't want to lose

1:10:55sight of that either. You know, maybe uh

1:10:57I think the National Fire Standard

1:10:58speaks to buildings not being more than

1:11:0012 feet uh or closer than 12 feet from

1:11:03one another for for fire rate reasons.

1:11:06you know, c maybe there's certain

1:11:07sprinkling requirements and things like

1:11:08that. So,

1:11:09>> fire department is in the technical

1:11:12review committee and and that would all

1:11:13be addressed and and you know, um the

1:11:17projects you see now, you know, are

1:11:19routed through fire department, make

1:11:21sure there's any issues and that would

1:11:22still take place.

1:11:24>> Okay. Okay. Excellent. Yeah, that that

1:11:25was kind of where my my head went is,

1:11:27you know, getting new developments to

1:11:28kind of fit into an older fabric. Maybe

1:11:30there's, you know, certain necessities

1:11:32that there.

1:11:33>> Understood. Great. Uh, actually before

1:11:36we take a next question,

1:11:38>> Connor, are you able to guide us a

1:11:39little bit here? I wasn't sure what your

1:11:41kind of what your target was here cuz

1:11:44obviously I think we have enough ammo

1:11:45here to pepper you all.

1:11:47>> Yes, different things. Seems like the

1:11:50matrix I guess is like the big um like

1:11:53idea for this discussion. Um now I I

1:11:57recognize that there might be some um

1:12:01you know back stops needed and so um I

1:12:06guess the next slide was

1:12:08um so if if the board sees that you know

1:12:13a

1:12:154unit development um can be approved

1:12:18administratively we don't want um a

1:12:22developer to come in and create like

1:12:25multiple four-unit buildings on a

1:12:27development site to like circumvent

1:12:30planning board review. And so this was

1:12:32kind of just the the the basis of that

1:12:34back stop is to come have some sort of

1:12:36like

1:12:38um uh floor area threshold that's tied

1:12:42to the maximum building type that you

1:12:46guys are okay with leaving for staff

1:12:50professional review. And so that was

1:12:52just kind of a a backs stop. though we

1:12:54don't have any uh folks trying to you

1:12:56know circumvent um the review.

1:13:02And the other back stop I had um is in

1:13:05relation to 24 East Street or at least

1:13:07that's that's an example that I want to

1:13:09uh tie to it. And so uh it's a district

1:13:12transition threshold. And so if a um in

1:13:18you know the downtown area by

1:13:22um Arson by um that kind of little

1:13:26neighborhood the uh zoning the bay

1:13:30zoning proposed is tied to a lot of like

1:13:32the existing conditions. So there's some

1:13:35residential of the of the older

1:13:37neighborhood pattern. There's some MR3

1:13:40of like the office buildings. Um 24

1:13:44years a

1:13:46MR4 which is you know similar to what

1:13:48was approved which is like a apartment

1:13:50building of that scale. Um but if a

1:13:54project you know was MR4 and the board

1:13:57thought that okay MR4 downtown I mean D3

1:14:02right now it's already going to be

1:14:04through staff review but if it abuts a

1:14:07district that is um lower than that then

1:14:12that should automatically trigger it to

1:14:13go up to plan board review and so um the

1:14:18example I had was yeah arson so the near

1:14:21road to the is going to be zoned

1:14:24residential because it matches the

1:14:25existing area. Uh MR 4 is for the

1:14:30property in red. And so um if you guys

1:14:34can decide that in that district in that

1:14:38land type um you know an apartment

1:14:42building would make sense. However, this

1:14:44back stop prevents it from u impacting,

1:14:48you know, surrounding properties that

1:14:49aren't the same level of development and

1:14:53uh fabric.

1:14:55And so maybe like a townhouse

1:14:58development would be something that

1:15:00could be, you know, done abuing the UR

1:15:03and that's something that the board

1:15:04would, you know, or the threshold would

1:15:07would uh make into effect.

1:15:15Adam, go ahead.

1:15:16>> Connor, does the current administrative

1:15:19review level does it give discretion to

1:15:22staff to refer something to the planning

1:15:26board?

1:15:26>> Yes.

1:15:27>> Okay. because that to to me that is

1:15:30that's an important element to get going

1:15:31to like the backs stop component like if

1:15:33because if you can say whoa like even if

1:15:36it's not automatically you know doesn't

1:15:38fit within the criteria hits one of

1:15:40these things like if you guys have the

1:15:41discretion to say you know what we think

1:15:44this should get planning for review

1:15:45>> the ones I had automatic and then you

1:15:47know the the administrative officer

1:15:49planning manager Sam always has the

1:15:51discretion to make that judgment

1:15:54>> alderman cle

1:15:55>> thank you Um I think I know the answer

1:15:58to this but currently everything kind of

1:16:00goes through this review committee. So

1:16:03fire looks at all the plans as as well

1:16:05as everything. So us doing this is not

1:16:07creating any extra work for current

1:16:09staff. So we're not going to hear

1:16:11someone coming back and saying now the

1:16:12planning board has put all this on us

1:16:14and we need more staff.

1:16:18>> No. So

1:16:18>> it's no it's not an extra job. They're

1:16:20already doing this. It just stops it

1:16:23from having it it streamlines it so it

1:16:25doesn't have to go.

1:16:26>> Yeah, I think there's a little there's a

1:16:27little bit of like formalization that

1:16:29will have to happen. I mean um when we

1:16:31do admins I mean I'm in the process now

1:16:34of uh developing just more formal

1:16:37letters and notification of saying hey

1:16:38look your application's been approved

1:16:41you know if we have conditions you know

1:16:42it's going to look similar to a planning

1:16:43board decision letter it's just going to

1:16:45this is a a process that we would have

1:16:47to formalize and I think it's important

1:16:49to note that I mean this board already

1:16:52puts a lot of faith into the city's

1:16:54regulations and its technical staff so

1:16:57that when projects come before you

1:16:59they've been vetted

1:17:01And uh I think it's fair to say that

1:17:05what we are doing with this code, the

1:17:07regulations will objectively get better

1:17:10and stronger and are informed by our

1:17:13experience reviewing plans that you've

1:17:15all seen. Um so we know the pain points,

1:17:19we know the discussion items, we know

1:17:22something like this is going to be

1:17:23contentious. And so that's why, you

1:17:25know, Connor's taken the time to develop

1:17:27these these back stops. You know, we've

1:17:29learned a lot. Every planning board

1:17:31meeting, there's something else that we

1:17:32can glean from it. And so the

1:17:34regulations, this suffice it to say that

1:17:37I'm hopeful that this board will have

1:17:40even more faith in the regulations under

1:17:43the new code in that it protects

1:17:45neighborhood character and it still

1:17:48achieves the master plan goals of

1:17:52opening up development potential in

1:17:55certain areas in a way that is context

1:17:58appropriate.

1:18:00I I'll just piggyback on that. Um just

1:18:02be because of my day job. I I work in a

1:18:05lot of communities that don't have the

1:18:07professional staff that that we're

1:18:09fortunate to have in NSHA. So there

1:18:11>> there's more reliance on outside uh

1:18:13consultants. Not that that's a bad

1:18:15thing. There's more reliance on the

1:18:17regional planning commissions um for for

1:18:20technical reviews of site plan and

1:18:22whatnot. Um you know and and here we we

1:18:26do have the good fortune. I think we

1:18:28have full-time planning staff, full-time

1:18:30engineering staff, full-time

1:18:31firefighters. A lot of communities don't

1:18:33have that either. I I think for the size

1:18:36of our our city, we're

1:18:37>> we're properly, you know, staffed in

1:18:39those regards. But, um,

1:18:41>> to to Sam's point, I would just, uh,

1:18:43clarify because I've seen it the other

1:18:45way where

1:18:47reviews don't happen as quickly. If

1:18:49you're relying on a planning a regional

1:18:51planning agency, something may take

1:18:53months instead of days or weeks. And

1:18:55again, that's not a criticism of those

1:18:57agencies. It's just they're they're

1:18:59spread thin and they're serving multiple

1:19:00communities. So, um it it seems like we

1:19:04already sort of have the the expertise

1:19:06um in house even if even if folks were

1:19:09to change or move on that the those

1:19:12institutions are sort of memorialized

1:19:14here within the city and they're more

1:19:17than likely not going anywhere. Um, so,

1:19:21um, and I think that we've demonstrated

1:19:24by the amount of back and forth we have

1:19:26with planning staff, uh, and Dan when

1:19:29he's present during the evening. So,

1:19:31they they certainly make themselves

1:19:34>> available and they're doing a lot behind

1:19:35the scenes that we we don't see.

1:19:37>> I truly rely on the technical review.

1:19:39That's one of the first things I I read

1:19:42what they're asking for and then I go to

1:19:43the technical review. So, I rely on that

1:19:46and I know that's happening and I feel

1:19:48important. My only concern is I keep

1:19:50falling back to the lack of butter

1:19:52notifications and and you told me that

1:19:55they have the right to to um I'm using

1:20:00the I'm sorry, I'm groping for words

1:20:01when I say right of refusal, but they

1:20:03have the right to come in and say no, we

1:20:04don't want this or no, we have a

1:20:05problem. But if they don't know what

1:20:08their time frame is from when it was

1:20:09approved to when it actually starts

1:20:11working, how how are they going to be

1:20:13educated on that? That's the piece I'd

1:20:15like to see. I'm not going to I'm not

1:20:17going to buck this at all because I

1:20:20think we do need to to streamline and we

1:20:22need to do that. But I just want to take

1:20:24into consideration this a big change for

1:20:26people that are that are out in the

1:20:28community. Um

1:20:30>> absolutely. Yeah. So, I'd like to I'd

1:20:32like to know as an alderman, not just as

1:20:34a planning board, as an alderman, I'd

1:20:36like to know how the constituency, how

1:20:37the residents, how the taxpayers

1:20:40>> are going to be notified that something

1:20:42may be very significant. Now, while I

1:20:45agree with you, townhouse probably would

1:20:47be great there, so you don't probably

1:20:49have to come to this, but now suddenly

1:20:52there's a change. Uh maybe at one point

1:20:54it was a um you know a um a ranch style

1:20:57type thing and now they're going to

1:20:58build town houses there or or something

1:21:00like that. That changes the flavor of

1:21:02the neighborhood. It changes how these

1:21:05people have been viewing their

1:21:06neighborhoods. Trees change and

1:21:08everything like that. So we're taking

1:21:10their voice away. So I just like to know

1:21:11how they get notified that this decision

1:21:13has been made. That's it.

1:21:15>> I just want to say one thing and I'm I'm

1:21:17kind of going to dance around and answer

1:21:19okay

1:21:20>> for you. But I'm hoping what I'm about

1:21:21to say will add some context. Um, you

1:21:24said significant.

1:21:26The idea is that this process that we're

1:21:30talking about, what is then allowed by

1:21:33right is not a significant change.

1:21:36That's kind of the idea. That's why

1:21:37we're looking at land types, we're

1:21:38looking at districts, we're looking at

1:21:39building types. All of these things need

1:21:41to blend together to show that, okay,

1:21:44well, this it it's a fourunit building.

1:21:47It's adding two units to six units.

1:21:49there are a bunch of apartment houses in

1:21:51the area. That is not a significant

1:21:53change, right? So context is important.

1:21:56Um

1:21:58we also have these um approval criteria,

1:22:03right? And this board has been very

1:22:06diligent in understanding its what it

1:22:10can and what it can't or what it

1:22:12shouldn't do, right? An appeal can come

1:22:15from either direction. You deny an

1:22:17application, the applicant can appeal.

1:22:19You approve an application and a

1:22:21butterwithstanding can appeal. Right?

1:22:23And so this board has to walk a fine

1:22:26line of of very uh finely articulating

1:22:30rationale and findings in support of the

1:22:32decision whatever that decision is. Um

1:22:34and I I do want to kind of plant the

1:22:36seed for a future conversation around

1:22:38our approval criteria. And so the reason

1:22:41I bring this up is when we do receive a

1:22:44butter testimony. Um

1:22:48it isn't not all of Butters are are well

1:22:52versed enough in what our approval

1:22:53criteria are. And so they may come and

1:22:55they may express their thoughts and

1:22:56feelings about all this and the board

1:22:59knows this board knows what it approval

1:23:02criteria are and the things that it can

1:23:04legitimately consider. Now in the

1:23:07context of uh 18 Abbott 75% increase in

1:23:12units that's a big number it's only

1:23:14three units and so on you were

1:23:17referencing traffic three units will not

1:23:19trigger a traffic study

1:23:21>> correct

1:23:21>> so in terms of significant that is not

1:23:24significant however someone who is

1:23:26living there may see that as significant

1:23:29and that is a significant change for

1:23:31them but within the context of this

1:23:34board's approval criteria

1:23:37those concerns

1:23:39and I think board members who have gone

1:23:42through appeals and seen very hard

1:23:44decisions

1:23:46probably would not feel comfortable

1:23:49denying that sort of an application

1:23:50based on traffic concerns.

1:23:55>> Yes. Without getting into the minutiae

1:23:57of a traffic say

1:23:57>> no talk about traffic. No, no, no. But

1:24:00what I was going to talk about was I

1:24:02agree with what you're what you're

1:24:03saying. I I have nothing no issue about

1:24:05that. I'm not going to talk about

1:24:05traffic study, but what I'm going to

1:24:07talk about is the context of when

1:24:10something like that might have come here

1:24:11to the board.

1:24:13>> The butterers may come and they may

1:24:16speak and the developer will then say,

1:24:19"Okay, I'll put up a little extra trees

1:24:21or I'll do this to make the neighbors

1:24:23happy." That voice is what's going away.

1:24:26>> So, that's what I'm saying is that's

1:24:28that's the part that I'm talking about.

1:24:29There's been I've watched give and take

1:24:31here. the board might not be doing

1:24:32anything, but the developer says, "You

1:24:34know what? I want to make the

1:24:35neighborhood happy. I'm not here to to

1:24:37mess with anybody and so on." That voice

1:24:40goes away.

1:24:41>> And you're getting to this the second

1:24:42half of of what I wanted to say. And

1:24:45that is

1:24:47that is something we have learned from

1:24:50these infill projects. And it really is

1:24:51the infill projects where this kind of

1:24:53this is the change that was a vacant

1:24:55lot. It was underutilized lot. It was

1:24:57the single family in a group of

1:25:00three families, multiplexes, whatever.

1:25:03There's a there's a step change, right?

1:25:05And we recognize, you know, a fence,

1:25:08intentional landscaping that matters a

1:25:11lot when to mitigate impact

1:25:14that is fundamental when we are

1:25:16considering these new regulations.

1:25:19So the hope is that through all this

1:25:22experience and through the drafting of

1:25:24these new regulations

1:25:26that concern that ask that minor change

1:25:30to the plan to mitigate is already baked

1:25:33into the regulations. So this is not I'm

1:25:36not trying to say

1:25:39butters everywhere. We've heard

1:25:40everything that you could possibly say

1:25:42and we are we're writing it into the

1:25:44regulations. Don't worry that's

1:25:46impossible. But we've heard a lot and we

1:25:49are trying to do as best we can to to

1:25:52raise the level of site design and

1:25:54performance so that mitigation is

1:25:57already baked in and impact is is

1:25:59lessened as much as possible without

1:26:01being overly burdensome and without

1:26:03killing development. It's a line that we

1:26:05have to walk. But

1:26:08I think I've made my point.

1:26:09>> Yes. Thank you. No, I appreciate it. I

1:26:11appreciate that clarity. I do. Thank

1:26:13you. I'm sorry to be so much trouble,

1:26:15but I I really I walk that fine line of

1:26:17being an alderman and being a member on

1:26:19the pling board and my voice is why a

1:26:22member from the board of alderman is put

1:26:24here. In the past, they haven't always

1:26:26showed up. So, lucky you, you guys got

1:26:28me. [laughter]

1:26:29>> It's it's it's it's it's certainly

1:26:32appreciated. So, uh

1:26:36Connor, steer this ship in the port. So,

1:26:39uh,

1:26:39>> sorry,

1:26:40>> the the thresholds that I I talked about

1:26:42the matrix, all those things, they've

1:26:44currently um really been only for

1:26:47residential and multi-use districts. So,

1:26:50we have to treat commercial districts

1:26:53entirely, like folks where folks don't

1:26:55live. And so, this was my best attempt

1:26:58at a like conservative, moderate,

1:27:00aggressive. Personally, I'm, you know,

1:27:03more in favor of a a conservative um

1:27:07aspect for commercial just given the the

1:27:09nature of commercial uses being much

1:27:11different from residential mixed use.

1:27:13Um, and so, but again, I think there's

1:27:17opportunity where, you know, a small

1:27:22shop storefront, you know, wants to get

1:27:24built in a existing heavily traffked

1:27:28commercial area, you know. Um um is

1:27:31there discretion needed for you know

1:27:34compatibility for ability to accept you

1:27:36know the the ability to to serve that

1:27:38from a city standpoint? Um I think there

1:27:40is opportunity from you know a

1:27:43commercial standpoint where the current

1:27:44threshold is all non-residential uses.

1:27:47You know maybe it's you know most and

1:27:50there could be some opportunity for for

1:27:51buy right commercial.

1:27:56Um, yep. So, talked about new site

1:27:59plans. So, site plan amendment would

1:28:02would be the same logic um tied to you

1:28:06know what was um

1:28:10you know the new site plans. And so my

1:28:12site plan would be anything that falls

1:28:14below um what is uh approved by the

1:28:19board to be done you know through staff

1:28:23uh administration. Uh and then for major

1:28:25site plan would be a change or expansion

1:28:28or design modification that would uh

1:28:30creep up into that threshold where now

1:28:31planning board uh is required. And so

1:28:35think about um

1:28:39a project that's five units and it wants

1:28:42to go into six. That is above a 10%

1:28:46increase. But five to six, the board can

1:28:48make that decision or there could be a

1:28:50decision made where you know the the

1:28:54board wouldn't see a new six-unit

1:28:56development in that area. So why should

1:28:57it see a five unit going to six? So

1:29:00that's kind of the logic there. And um

1:29:03again administrative officer always has

1:29:04the ability to refer projects if they

1:29:07need discretion warranted.

1:29:10>> I have one more question.

1:29:11>> Certainly.

1:29:12>> Okay. Um you have the discretion.

1:29:16um the administrative board has that has

1:29:18that discretion. Is there a chance that

1:29:21someone could come back later and say

1:29:24that you're not you're not putting the

1:29:26same standards to everybody and they

1:29:28feel that because you made it go to the

1:29:29planning board it was delayed and could

1:29:32that be an argument in the courts and

1:29:35and so on?

1:29:38>> I wouldn't say no. Anything is possible.

1:29:41Um but we are following our duly adopted

1:29:45ordinance theoretically and so the court

1:29:48would say they're following process you

1:29:51know and then we would obviously justify

1:29:54anytime we we say oh you know what this

1:29:55isn't this is different we need to treat

1:29:57this a little differently we have a

1:29:59basis for whatever that is and then we

1:30:02would lean on that justification

1:30:04>> I I I live in fear of going to court you

1:30:08know and I'm always thinking of what if

1:30:12it's gives a challenge like

1:30:14>> right

1:30:14>> what do how do I explain myself and so

1:30:18we we we try to be very thoughtful in

1:30:20any decision that we make with that very

1:30:23much in mind

1:30:24>> now I'm going to play devil's advocate

1:30:26that's you what about the next person

1:30:28that comes in behind you

1:30:30>> Nasha is such a wonderful city and place

1:30:33to work you will only attract the best

1:30:35talent that is available [laughter]

1:30:38even if Sam forbid

1:30:40were to leave the code the code lives

1:30:42on. So, uh I I would hope that that

1:30:47carries the day. Uh

1:30:49>> whoever has your job has that same fear.

1:30:53>> A good planner would.

1:30:54>> Yes.

1:30:55>> Or they would learn quickly.

1:30:58>> Uh yeah. Again, this is just a recap on

1:31:00a tech review committee. So it's a staff

1:31:03inter interdep departmental committee

1:31:05made up of professionals in engineering,

1:31:07public works, planning, fire, electrical

1:31:09health, building safety. Uh this

1:31:12committee reviews projects already for

1:31:14all plan planning board projects. you

1:31:16know, we we try to um give you guys the

1:31:20most complete review um when it gets

1:31:23heard and um again, Tech Review already

1:31:27views projects for the downtown

1:31:29districts. Um and so this would just be

1:31:32a kind of more of a formalization

1:31:36um for the the review authority that

1:31:40that this committee would have.

1:31:43And um yeah the the three tier review

1:31:47approach is it's existing right now. Um

1:31:49it's just we would refine it further

1:31:51again. So no site plan for the building

1:31:54permit that's the you know one to three

1:31:56unit buildings we see right now. Um tech

1:31:59review committee. So what is decided to

1:32:02be um not in the board's review

1:32:06authority but delegated to staff

1:32:08professionals and then planning board

1:32:10for larger projects that the board has

1:32:13retained and or projects that request uh

1:32:16waiverss utilization of overlays some

1:32:19sort of um relief mechanism those would

1:32:22still go through the board. Um,

1:32:26and that is all I had.

1:32:31>> May I bother someone?

1:32:33>> I I was just going to first of all thank

1:32:36Connor for uh

1:32:37>> taking taking the rapid fire.

1:32:40>> Oh, yeah. So, uh, was good.

1:32:44>> This was just going to be for Sam, I

1:32:46think. Um, currently when it comes to

1:32:48the the planning department and so on,

1:32:51when someone comes in, um, needing a

1:32:54permit of some sort, um, whether it be

1:32:57for a deck or anything else like that,

1:32:58when it goes to that, it's taking up to

1:33:026 weeks at from what I' I've heard on

1:33:04some of them. Um,

1:33:07and because of short staff, is this

1:33:10going to add to that?

1:33:12>> Oh, I see. Um, I will preface this with

1:33:16I am not throwing the building

1:33:18department under the bus.

1:33:20>> Okay.

1:33:20>> Um,

1:33:22it's a it's usually a building permit

1:33:24question. Like the building department

1:33:26has the job of reviewing the technical

1:33:29plans and drawings and specifications,

1:33:31making sure they are up to the building

1:33:32code. That is a painstaking process.

1:33:36>> The building department is short staffed

1:33:38currently um and and we are getting

1:33:40inundated with requests. um

1:33:44any development that is whether it is

1:33:46approved by the planning board or is it

1:33:49approved by TRC or administratively

1:33:52however if it results in a building

1:33:54permit it's still the same process as

1:33:56far as the building department is

1:33:58concerned um so whether exactly doesn't

1:34:02matter how it's approved it results in a

1:34:04building permit the review still happens

1:34:07>> okay thank you I just wanted to clarify

1:34:08that in my head

1:34:12Uh other questions of Connor or staff?

1:34:15Uh Larry, go ahead.

1:34:16>> Will the whole process be speeded up

1:34:18essentially for an applicant coming into

1:34:20you guys uh with these administrative

1:34:22reviews as opposed to going to the

1:34:24planning board and all the not notices

1:34:25and all that?

1:34:26>> That's that's the intent. Um it it's

1:34:29also, you know, we're trying to have a

1:34:31more of a predictable review path for

1:34:34folks where, you know, folks know that,

1:34:36you know, what can be done. Um you know,

1:34:40what uh development um rights that, you

1:34:44know, that the property owners can

1:34:47pursue. Uh you know, it' be up to them

1:34:49to to meet regulations. Uh but it's it's

1:34:52yes we're trying to uh streamline review

1:34:56and make u development you know

1:34:59expectations consistent for both you

1:35:02know residents and the development

1:35:04community.

1:35:06>> Thank you.

1:35:09>> Yeah I just had a note that I wanted to

1:35:10mention just generally in terms of the

1:35:12recoding efforts. Um there are a lot of

1:35:14things that have been happening at the

1:35:15state level. um New Hampshire House Bill

1:35:17631 comes to mind, how there's, you

1:35:19know, essentially an overlay where in

1:35:21the entire state there's uh a push to

1:35:24allow for residential use in in a

1:35:26commercial zone. I I would just ask that

1:35:28that stays in mind as the recoding

1:35:30effort goes on. Um you know, in order to

1:35:33prevent unnecessary hardship for an

1:35:35applicant in terms of having to prepare

1:35:36an application that conforms to local

1:35:38rags and then separately would, you

1:35:40know, conform to state rags. Does it

1:35:42make sense to, you know, gear the recode

1:35:44in line with state legislation or is

1:35:47there, you know, a reason or a rhyme or

1:35:49rhythm to go, you know, prevent state

1:35:52rules from coming into it? I mean, Sam,

1:35:54I see you smirking. I'm really anxious

1:35:57to hear what you have to say.

1:35:57>> Yeah, Ben, we'll follow state law.

1:35:59Thanks.

1:36:01>> I'm sorry. I don't I don't mean to be

1:36:03pedantic. Yeah. No, you're absolutely

1:36:06right. I mean they are throwing

1:36:07curveballs at us left and right and um

1:36:10I'm getting a little bit salty about it

1:36:12to be frank um because on the one hand

1:36:16they they do these state preeemptions

1:36:18and then there's also HP 1103 which just

1:36:21expanded 7in which is a a tax break

1:36:25mechanism where okay state is now asking

1:36:28municipalities to to forego up to 13

1:36:33years of postdevelopment tax revenue on

1:36:36projects while taking away zoning

1:36:39authority. And then, you know, we have

1:36:42our taxpayers saying, "Hey, what is

1:36:44going on with our tax rate?" And the

1:36:45state's just like, "Build more housing,

1:36:47but use our laws, but give them tax

1:36:49breaks." And it we're getting hit on all

1:36:52angles, and we're doing the best we can.

1:36:55And uh I wish they would just give

1:36:58cities an exemption to all this crazy

1:37:00stuff because we are planning very

1:37:03intentionally and we are delivering

1:37:05housing units. We're we're doing the

1:37:07best we can. But yeah, we we are rolling

1:37:10with the bunches.

1:37:12>> Oh, I'm sorry. Ben, did you have a

1:37:13followup on that?

1:37:14>> Just a quick one. Yeah, I I've heard

1:37:16that, you know, there's all kinds of

1:37:17different approaches to this. Maybe

1:37:18smaller towns are trying to, you know,

1:37:20resist this as best they can with maybe

1:37:22changing getting creative about setback

1:37:24requirements and, you know, going

1:37:26against the intent or going with the

1:37:28intent. I mean, it's it's very

1:37:29interesting to see how certain towns are

1:37:30doing it. And, you know, I'm I'm curious

1:37:32to see what our approach is for how we

1:37:34tackle that that challenge.

1:37:35>> We have a strategy.

1:37:37What this HP 631 in particular does not

1:37:41contemplate is form-based code. There

1:37:44are some very savvy avenues that we are

1:37:48going to be taking that protect us but

1:37:52also still can achieve the overall state

1:37:55goal of producing housing in commercial

1:37:57districts. We have a way to make this

1:37:59work for us while keeping the spirit of

1:38:04that regulation while also still being

1:38:06fully compliant with state law. I'd be

1:38:09happy to get into the weeds often. That

1:38:12was a great answer. Thank you, Stan.

1:38:13Thank you.

1:38:14>> Thank you, Mr. Church. Certainly, Joe.

1:38:16>> Yes. Thank you. So, I just wanted to add

1:38:18to the chorus of thank yous that you

1:38:20started

1:38:21>> cuz uh this was good work. So, good

1:38:23work. And um you know, Conor, I'm not

1:38:26your boss, but if I was, I would have

1:38:28given you the rest of the night off,

1:38:30[laughter]

1:38:32but these guys over there

1:38:35be kind of upset. So, for this,

1:38:38>> Joe, there's still time. He only has to

1:38:40be here as long as we want him to. SO

1:38:47keep my garments down. No, Connor, you

1:38:49did a great job and thank you so much. I

1:38:51just

1:38:52>> as we're moving forward, please just

1:38:54keep what I said in mind.

1:38:55>> So, if I may press this board a little

1:38:58bit. We had a matrix up there. It seemed

1:39:01like the conservative approach was what

1:39:04was generally

1:39:06I I just like to put a finer point on

1:39:08that if that's the way the board wants

1:39:09to go. I just want some affirmation and

1:39:12I would then subsequently bring this to

1:39:14PEEDC to say hey look the board feels

1:39:17this way about this strategy uh so that

1:39:19you know the PEDC gets in the loop on

1:39:21this as well.

1:39:22>> I get a second bite at the apple.

1:39:23>> You do.

1:39:25>> Um go right ahead Sam. along those

1:39:28lines. I'm wondering if you know maybe

1:39:30the nomenclature could be different here

1:39:32in terms of conservative

1:39:34>> absolutely

1:39:34>> conservative moderate and aggressive

1:39:36with defining an apartment building a

1:39:38townhouse you know a a really really big

1:39:40townhouse complex could be bigger than

1:39:42an apartment building you know a smaller

1:39:44apartment building maybe it's a question

1:39:45of density in terms of conservative

1:39:48moderate and aggressive maybe where a a

1:39:50small increase in allowable density

1:39:52could be the conservative line you know

1:39:54a big big increase in allowable density

1:39:56could be the the aggressive of line.

1:39:58Maybe it's a question of density rather

1:40:00than than building type.

1:40:01>> It uh

1:40:05no, and I'll tell you why. Uh you make a

1:40:08good point about the potential of a

1:40:10really long uh townhouse. Uh really long

1:40:1720 30 unit town homes, that's not good

1:40:20for them. That's we are coding to

1:40:23prevent that. We need breaks in

1:40:26townhouse buildings. And I want to say

1:40:28we have a I'm pulling it up right now.

1:40:31We have a limitation on attachments.

1:40:34That is literally how many buildings can

1:40:36be attached to each other. And our

1:40:39townhouse limitation

1:40:43is

1:40:46>> It sounds like you're already ahead of

1:40:47me then. And it sounds like we have

1:40:48guidelines. It's also the intention of

1:40:50like the uh the

1:40:52>> thresh of the back stop for like

1:40:54aggurate, you know, building sizes. Um

1:40:56yeah, cuz you're right, like a townhouse

1:41:00row that's you know, 20 units long might

1:41:02be more um

1:41:05uh you know of a larger scale than what

1:41:08a small apartment building would be. And

1:41:10so the intent of that backs stop would

1:41:12be to prevent you know u developers

1:41:15using like a

1:41:17lower building type in a way that would

1:41:19exceed you know what is you know allowed

1:41:22to be admin versus TRC versus planning

1:41:25board.

1:41:27There are some very real lot

1:41:29constraints. A a apartment building, you

1:41:33you are getting units above, you're

1:41:35getting units in all these different

1:41:37directions. With town houses, you are

1:41:39getting units in a line. That is a very

1:41:41particularly shaped lot to accommodate

1:41:43that. Um so that that geometric

1:41:46constraint is very real, but is not

1:41:49always inherently apparent when you're

1:41:51talking about concepts, you know, on

1:41:52this this matrix. It's like I thought up

1:41:55this horrible example of 45 town houses

1:41:57all in a row. Okay. Yeah. Where you

1:41:58going to put it? You know, like that's

1:42:00that's the other side of this.

1:42:03>> And I I know it wasn't presented this

1:42:07evening. Uh if there is one, but is

1:42:08there a map that shows

1:42:11these areas um

1:42:13>> land types zoning map?

1:42:15>> It's Yeah, we're we're producing it.

1:42:17>> Okay.

1:42:18>> Yeah. Right. There is a draft zoning map

1:42:20that is available via the recode site

1:42:22that you can click through. It is not

1:42:24updated with land use types or sorry

1:42:26land types yet.

1:42:28>> Okay. Yeah. To to give you more feedback

1:42:31on what you had said a few minutes ago.

1:42:34Um I am one member and my view would be

1:42:40I would be more in favor of the moderate

1:42:42side. Um because I want process change

1:42:47based on good um good reasoning and good

1:42:52communication. I can see all the other

1:42:54reasons why people might say this, but

1:42:57really what matters is what the

1:42:58consensus as close to the consensus is

1:43:00for the board. But as one member, I'm

1:43:02probably an outlier in by saying

1:43:04moderate.

1:43:06>> Alderman Cle,

1:43:07>> thank you. Um, you said that the

1:43:09conservative was steps way above what we

1:43:12already have. Correct.

1:43:14>> Yes, I would say so. It it broadens, you

1:43:16know, the um intent of like the downtown

1:43:21districts into more of TRC review for

1:43:26smaller scale projects in different

1:43:28neighborhoods. So, so my feeling is and

1:43:31I I mean nothing against u Mr.

1:43:33McIntyre's but my feeling is if we

1:43:35started with the conservative there's

1:43:37nothing that stops the board of alderman

1:43:38or anything like that to increase the

1:43:40powers. I would rather start with baby

1:43:43steps, see how that's working and if

1:43:45that's working really well to come at

1:43:48another date to say let's kind of add to

1:43:50>> and I wouldn't take this like uh current

1:43:52list as you know

1:43:55>> what's settled on conservative versus

1:43:57moderate versus aggressive this was you

1:43:58know my

1:43:58>> just trying to give it a sample

1:44:00>> exactly you know like uh the level of

1:44:03comfort um so

1:44:05>> y

1:44:07opinion if we start with the baby steps

1:44:08and kind of move forward you said that

1:44:10even when it came to the um um the the

1:44:13other site plans you were talking about

1:44:16um business and type that um you said

1:44:19you would feel more comfortable with the

1:44:20conservative on that particular one. I

1:44:22was looking at that one I thought maybe

1:44:24moderate but I I do believe that I do

1:44:26believe that baby steps is always the

1:44:28way because it gives us a chance to do

1:44:30proof of concept

1:44:31>> and if we find that it's working then we

1:44:33can move it forward more. So, I don't

1:44:36disagree with what you're saying, but I

1:44:37just think that um this is a big step

1:44:41and the whole recode is a big step and

1:44:43and I think it's going to help move us

1:44:45forward, but I yeah, I just have a

1:44:47little anxiety about what it does to the

1:44:49the general public. While I understand

1:44:51where you're coming from in a different

1:44:52way, I come from it from the bottom up.

1:44:55So,

1:45:00so I don't know what you want to do.

1:45:01will say I I guess are you trying to

1:45:04paint us into a corner on [laughter]

1:45:06forming a motion? I mean it it's

1:45:09>> no no motion just more general

1:45:12>> thoughts are welcome

1:45:15>> getting a sense but if any no one if

1:45:18you're hesitant to

1:45:18>> I'll I'll confuse you and I I'll go

1:45:20aggressive for the sake of argument and

1:45:23and say that if so long as the board is

1:45:26not relinquishing its statutory

1:45:27authority we're still seeing all

1:45:29subdivisions of land we're seeing cups

1:45:33uh I assume if another casino comes in

1:45:36God knows we'll need a We nailed the

1:45:38last one. We handled that on the staff

1:45:40level.

1:45:41>> We we also um this is also a

1:45:45conversation we need to have with DRC

1:45:47about level of comfort of

1:45:50>> accepting responsibility

1:45:52of the decision around things that are

1:45:54potentially

1:45:56contentious because if if we render a

1:45:58decision and it legitimately is

1:46:00appealed, it is no longer plaintiff

1:46:04versus the Nashville City Planning

1:46:06Board. it is named staff which is not

1:46:09great. This is this is this is and you

1:46:12know part of what I said was for the

1:46:13sake of argument

1:46:15there does have to be some level of

1:46:17reflection amongst the staff not that

1:46:19you aren't qualified but we talked about

1:46:21back stops we talked about at the

1:46:23discretion of the director like those

1:46:25things will will still exist and I I

1:46:27doubt you know Sam or Connor or Matt or

1:46:32whomever is leading the charge on

1:46:34something is going to want to

1:46:35unilaterally accept responsibility if

1:46:38there's any potential doubt

1:46:40Uh, well, I can't say any potential that

1:46:42could happen on every application, but I

1:46:44think you know where I'm going with

1:46:45this. Would would would you, Sam, have

1:46:47wanted to take unilateral responsibility

1:46:50for for the gaming facility case we just

1:46:52heard or some of the other more

1:46:54controversial ones? My my answer would

1:46:56be not likely, right?

1:46:58>> Absolutely not.

1:46:59>> So, that that's why I I I I think I

1:47:02think in some way that that checks and

1:47:04balances is is still going to hold. Um,

1:47:08and then that puts it back on us, which,

1:47:11you know, arguably at that point is

1:47:13where it should be. We we already rely

1:47:15on staff with regard to accepting

1:47:17applications as complete. Um, and and I

1:47:21I have uh a a strong level of faith in

1:47:24their ability to be able to decide what

1:47:27they think might not be in their

1:47:29wheelhouse, even if they could decide it

1:47:31administratively.

1:47:33Um, so, uh, Sam, I know that does not

1:47:36help you narrow things down, but, um, I

1:47:40I guess I just there there's a plethora

1:47:43of diff different ways this could this

1:47:46could turn out, but

1:47:47>> and it's good to hear that it's not like

1:47:49no to everything. So I think we're

1:47:52sounds like we're on the right track and

1:47:54um you know there it's somewhere along

1:47:56these lines is is you know a good place

1:48:00to uh pursue further.

1:48:03>> Mr. Chairman May.

1:48:04>> Yes please.

1:48:05>> Again my my concern is while I have all

1:48:09faith in in the in the staff and so on

1:48:11and it would have your discretion to

1:48:13send it up to the planning board. My

1:48:16concern would be if you decided to take

1:48:18a particular case and say, you know, I'm

1:48:21feeling not quite as good about this.

1:48:22And if there was a similar case that you

1:48:24guys decided on, but this case you move

1:48:26up to the planning board,

1:48:28I would be concerned that they could

1:48:30come at you for delay of um the business

1:48:33and and so on. So, while I would trust

1:48:36everything that you guys would do, if

1:48:38there was a case, you know, maybe it's

1:48:40just looking at the application,

1:48:42whatever your reasoning for. And I know

1:48:44you you told me you would have all your

1:48:46checks and balances and and everything

1:48:48else like that. I also look at the

1:48:49planning board as a checks and balance.

1:48:52The staff does a report, the staff looks

1:48:54at everything. And if we start giving up

1:48:56the ability of the planning board to the

1:48:59staff, it becomes the the planning board

1:49:02is only for these big ones like the

1:49:03casinos and and so on. planning boards I

1:49:07think should have some power but um I

1:49:11know it gets decided elsewhere

1:49:13but I would still prefer the

1:49:15conservatives rather than the uh but I

1:49:18do understand every I [clears throat]

1:49:19understand everybody's point of view

1:49:20>> certainly I I think I've I've had a

1:49:23chance to kind of more to develop a

1:49:24response to your concern around the

1:49:26different treatment of applications the

1:49:28expectation is going through planning

1:49:30board this alternative staffdriven

1:49:34review and approval process that is

1:49:38if we decide that this is appropriate

1:49:40for it like we can we can funnel you

1:49:42into a more expeditious review process

1:49:44but like the standard is planning board

1:49:47review and you have to meet X Y and Z

1:49:50requirements to even be eligible for

1:49:51this and then we still might not take

1:49:53you for up to our discretion reasons. So

1:49:56I I feel that the case to be made of you

1:50:00you purposely made to made me go to

1:50:02planning board argument is like well

1:50:03yeah you're a site plan that's what you

1:50:05do you go to planning board so I yet to

1:50:09be tested but I feel very confident that

1:50:11we have we are fully within our rights

1:50:13to say you go to planning board because

1:50:16it's not like we're making you go to the

1:50:17zoning board unnecessarily

1:50:19um so

1:50:20>> without precedences

1:50:23if you pass somebody else so that's it

1:50:26Chris bracket.

1:50:27>> Yeah. Sorry to interrupt. So, uh, one,

1:50:30you know, one recommendation is from

1:50:34from me is a process flowchart of what

1:50:37the new process would look like with the

1:50:39decision points. Okay. Do you meet this,

1:50:41go this, if not, go here. So, you can

1:50:44see kind of where the process changes

1:50:46are. And that's what people focus on,

1:50:47you know, in in uh in a lot of process

1:50:51improvement type activities. So, I I

1:50:53would encourage that. maybe the existing

1:50:55and the proposed and and and that would

1:50:58probably graphically make it a little

1:51:00easier. I mean, I don't know if you if

1:51:02you agree on that. And um you know, I I

1:51:06got a kick out of you tonight when you

1:51:07were talking about the lawyers and

1:51:08stuff. You know, another saying, sorry,

1:51:11is um sorry uh Adam

1:51:16and Mrs. Paul. Yeah. So, is um you don't

1:51:21want people

1:51:22right.

1:51:24You want people next to you. As far as

1:51:27I'm concerned, I believe we're next to

1:51:29you. We're right here next to you. One

1:51:31goal, one team. So, I I understand your

1:51:36trepidation on some of those things and

1:51:37comments that you're saying, but

1:51:40I you're not going to make a process

1:51:42that's going to put you in a uh

1:51:44compromising position of making errors.

1:51:47So, keep keep the faith.

1:51:55No. Well, well, well, well said. Uh,

1:52:00additional thoughts? Uh, dare I say

1:52:03closing thoughts?

1:52:05>> Uh,

1:52:07Sam, any any any further deep probing

1:52:10questions that that you have? Right.

1:52:18>> Well, thank you very much.

1:52:20>> Thank you. Thank you.

1:52:21>> Appreciate it.

1:52:22>> Take the rest of the All right. Well,

1:52:24again, gentlemen, thank you as always

1:52:26for keeping us informed. Um,

1:52:31great.

1:52:32Well,

1:52:34constructive discussion. Thank you

1:52:36everybody for your thoughts on that. Um,

1:52:40additional thoughts on that or anything

1:52:43else?

1:52:44>> No. All right. Well, next meeting is

1:52:48September 17th. Uh little little heavier

1:52:53agenda it looks like uh in two weeks

1:52:55from now. So uh so rest up. But uh in in

1:52:58the interim I think uh if anyone is so

1:53:01inclined you're looking for a motion to

1:53:03one of those. Yeah.

1:53:04>> Please.

1:53:04>> Mr. McIntyre, please.

1:53:06>> I move to adjourn.

1:53:07>> All right. Motion by Mr. McIntyre. All

1:53:10those in favor I

1:53:13>> we are adjourned at 8:53. Thank you

1:53:16everybody.

```*