2026-09-17 - Planning Board

00:28professional. Yeah,

00:38>> it's college.

02:12There was a knock there.

02:23>> Right. I'll now call to order the uh

02:26September 17th, 2026 meeting of the city

02:28of Nashville Planning Board.

02:34start the roll call.

02:40>> Your names by now.

02:43>> All right. Uh, Mayor Donis, Joseph

02:46McIntyre,

02:47>> present.

02:48>> Robert Ballinger,

02:50Adam Barley

02:51>> here,

02:52>> Maggie Harper, older man Patricia Cleave

02:55>> here.

02:56>> Dan Hudson

02:56>> here. Benjamin Zer, Larry Hirs

03:00>> here,

03:00>> Cameron Green here.

03:04>> Thank you. And we have a quorum.

03:07So, next up we have uh consideration

03:11of approval of the minutes from the

03:13September 3rd, 2026 meeting.

03:16Are there any comments on this?

03:19>> Yeah, Mr. Chair, I I was not at the

03:21meeting, but I'm attributed to a couple

03:23uh things in the minutes. So, on page

03:25five, top of page five, Mr. Hudson said

03:27not anymore. That so that wasn't me. And

03:30then uh on the last page there's a

03:32motion to adjourn by Mr. Hudson. That

03:34also wasn't me. So [laughter] I don't

03:36know who it was. Wasn't here but not

03:39>> I was here in spirit but not not

03:40physically.

03:41>> Okay. Um so other than the correction of

03:44those references to Mr. Hudson minutes

03:47any other comments?

03:50Would anyone like to to make a motion to

03:52approve the minutes with those those

03:54revisions?

03:58M

03:59>> I move to approve the meeting minutes

04:01from uh the previous board of uh

04:05planning board meeting held on uh

04:07September what was it 3rd 3rd as shown

04:11>> with with the exceptions of noted by Mr.

04:13Hudson.

04:14>> Thank you Mr. M. Is there a second?

04:16>> Second.

04:16>> Alderman Cle. Any further discussion?

04:19All those in favor? I

04:21>> I

04:22>> oppose abstensions.

04:25Two extensions. All right, that motion

04:26passes. Thank you.

04:29Communications.

04:31>> Yes. Uh so since the packet went out

04:34last Friday, uh a couple changes made to

04:36the packet. Um

04:40and it's currently up to date as of uh

04:43yesterday. So, we have a revised waiver

04:45letter for 444 Ammerst Street CUP,

04:48comment letters for uh various projects

04:53and a revised staff report for 111

04:55Northeastern Boulevard and included a

04:58fire apparatus overlay.

05:00We've also um had the subdivision plan

05:05for 78 Amber Street withdrawn as well as

05:09the eight little A condo subdivision

05:12withdrawn.

05:14And that is all.

05:17>> Thank you.

05:22>> Mr. Chairman, could you repeat again the

05:23withdrawals were which ones again?

05:25>> So just for the subdivision actions for

05:2878 Ammer Street and 8 Blue A. 78 Ammer

05:31Street does have a conditional use and

05:32site plan action still tonight.

05:34>> Okay.

05:38Oh, and uh 66 Congress Street has been

05:40postponed till October 1st.

05:45and uh mayor place LLC also.

05:54>> Yes.

05:54>> Okay. So, um report committee and

05:57liaison.

05:59>> Anyone have anything?

06:01Larry?

06:03>> No.

06:05>> All right.

06:07Okay. Before we get into our regular

06:09agenda, I will briefly go over the uh

06:12procedure for the meeting this evening.

06:14So, after the legal notice of each

06:16conditional special use permit, site

06:17plan, or subdivision plan is read by the

06:19chair. The board will determine if the

06:21application is complete and ready for

06:23the board to take jurisdiction. Public

06:25hearing will begin at that time, at

06:27which time the applicant or

06:28representative will be given time to

06:29present an overview and description of

06:31their project. They shall speak to

06:33whether or not they agree with the

06:34stipulations recommended by staff. The

06:36board will then have an opportunity to

06:38ask relevant follow-up questions of the

06:39applicant or staff.

06:42Following that, uh the board will ask

06:44for testimony from the audience both in

06:46favor and opposed. Um and the board does

06:50reserve the right to uh limit public

06:52testimony at that time.

06:56Um, following the public testimony, the

06:58board will then again ask any follow-up

07:00questions and the applicant will give a

07:02rebuttal period which time they may

07:04respond to any concerns raised during

07:06the public testimony.

07:08After this has been completed, the

07:09public hearing will end and the board

07:10will begin the public meeting at which

07:12time the board will deliberate and vote

07:14on the application before us. We ask

07:16that both sides keep their remarks to

07:18the subject at hand and to not repeat

07:19what has already been said. We would

07:21like to be fair to everyone to make the

07:22best possible decision based on the

07:24testimony presented and cons considering

07:26all applicable approval criteria in

07:28Nashville ordinances.

07:30Thank you for your interest in court's

07:31attention. I ask you turn off your cell

07:33phones or set them vibrate at this time.

07:38Uh so so again just a reminder to anyone

07:40in the audience um the uh cases with

07:45respect to 66 Conquer Street and Merit

07:48Place LLC have both been postponed to

07:51the October 1st, 2026 meeting. So if

07:53anyone is here for those cases, those

07:55have been postponed.

07:58Okay. So uh new business conditional

08:01special use permits. We have case number

08:04826-0178

08:0778 AER Street LLC owner Family Realy

08:11Investments LLC applicant

08:13uh requesting a site plan and

08:15conditional use permit and this is

08:18located at 78 Ammerst Street

08:21and we will hear that together with uh

08:25new business site plans um 826153

08:30um for the same project. So, as to both

08:34um A26 A26-0178

08:38and A26-0154,

08:41uh is there any member of the board

08:42that's willing to make a motion the

08:43application is complete and ready for us

08:45to accept jurisdiction?

08:47>> Mr. Green,

08:49>> Mr. Chair, I would like to make a motion

08:51to um accept new business 826-0178

08:56conditional use approval and new

08:57business 826-0153.

09:01the site plan approval that the

09:03application is complete and we're ready

09:05to take jurisdiction and open the public

09:07hearing.

09:07>> Make that motion uh by Mr. Green is the

09:10applications are ready uh to be taken

09:12under jurisdiction. Is there a second?

09:15>> Second by Mr. Hudson. Any further

09:17discussion?

09:19>> All those in favor?

09:20>> I opposed. Motion passes.

09:24>> Great. Thank you and good evening

09:26everybody. My name is Paul Chisum. I'm

09:27with Kee Nordstrom Associates. We are

09:29the engineers and surveyors of record

09:31for the project. The plan before you

09:33tonight is proposal to expand the

09:35existing Putinham Place condominium.

09:36This is phase two. Uh the existing

09:38condominium is six units. Uh the

09:41proposal is to expand that to 10. Uh

09:43consisting of two new duplex buildings

09:46uh and four dwelling units. As you're

09:47looking at the colored uh plan on your

09:49screen there, the four new buildings are

09:51the darker brown buildings facing

09:52Ammerst Street. Along with this site

09:55plan application, this project requires

09:56a conditional use permit to expand that

09:58existing multif family use in the RB

10:00zoning district. Uh today, this property

10:04actually consists of two separate

10:05parcels. Lot 83 is the bigger lot uh

10:08that has those six existing condo units

10:10on it, and the other lot is a smaller uh

10:13single family lot that contains

10:15basically one older single family home.

10:17Uh it's been a little bit of a derelict

10:19property for a while. Uh and that's

10:21right at the corner of Putnham and

10:23Amherst Street. Uh that house will be

10:25demolished. The parcels will be

10:26consolidated to make room for the new

10:28development. Uh and combined this

10:30property will have frontage on three

10:32streets. Uh Amherst Street, Putnham

10:34Street, and Prescott Street. Uh while

10:37the existing six units are oriented

10:38obviously more towards the Putnham

10:40Street side, again these four new units

10:42are going to be at street level and

10:44facing Amber Street. Uh just to kind of

10:47make a better site layout and make

10:48better use of the the lot in general.

10:52Uh the parking however is essentially

10:53going to be oriented in the same

10:55direction that it is now. Uh that

10:57existing driveway, you know, uh entry

11:00off of Putinham is going to remain as

11:01is. There are no proposed changes to it.

11:03It's a simple uh expansion of parking up

11:05closer towards the Amherst Street side

11:07of the property. Uh there is an existing

11:10uh driveway access point for that single

11:12family home that will be closed. Uh but

11:15other than that, like I mentioned, the

11:16drive will remain as is. Uh in total,

11:19the total amount of parking spaces for

11:20the property will increase from 15 to

11:2221. From a grading standpoint, uh this

11:25property uh has a decent slope to it.

11:28The high point is the Amber Street side

11:30of the property and the low point is the

11:31Prescott Street side. If you take the

11:34highest corner to the lowest corner,

11:35it's about an 18 foot drop from one side

11:37to the other.

11:39Uh in terms of lighting, uh the proposed

11:41lighting will remain consistent with the

11:42residential character of this

11:44development and the neighborhood. Uh

11:45there's only really small scale

11:47residential lighting proposed, which

11:48just kind of keeps in the scheme that

11:50they set out in phase one of this

11:52project. Uh there is a number of street

11:54lights that exist on some of the

11:55existing street poles. So we didn't feel

11:57the need to really kind of overlight

11:58things if you will and we kept that

12:00relatively simple and small scale. Uh in

12:03terms of landscaping that will also be

12:04improved as part of this project. There

12:05are a number of uh I would say actually

12:08a few number of trees that are existing

12:10out there today. Um we do have some

12:12comments from staff to increase the

12:14number of shade trees and provide a

12:15different variety and mix of that. But

12:17we'll continue to work with staff to

12:18address that. Um, obviously the

12:20applicant takes no concern with that

12:22issue whatsoever. Uh, in addition to

12:24just kind of what's required, we also

12:26have some supplemental screening that's

12:28going to happen at the very northeast

12:30corner of the property there, uh, at the

12:31Putnham and Amber Street intersection.

12:34Uh basically there's going to be a six-

12:36foot high stockade fence, a couple

12:38arborites, some additional plantings, uh

12:40and things like that just to kind of

12:42help uh screen and and you know lighten

12:45uh I guess the view of the parking lot

12:47from the Amherst Street side of the

12:48project.

12:52Uh as with any new site development, uh

12:54we do have to conform to all the storm

12:55water management regulations as well. An

12:57expansion of that existing system is

12:59what's going to happen here. That's an

13:01underground chamber system. uh it's a

13:03pretty small scale um addition to that

13:06system uh that will take care and

13:08address any long-term water quality and

13:10runoff issues. And then of course during

13:12construction, our plan set has a

13:13sedimentation and erosion control plan

13:16uh to help you know kind of keep things

13:17fit during construction. From an

13:19architectural perspective, these

13:21buildings are going to look very very

13:23similar to what exists out there today.

13:25The face of them will look similar. Uh

13:27all of those units basically have a

13:28first floor and then a lower level

13:30walkout. That's all going to hold true

13:32here. Really the key difference in the

13:34architecture in this case is just the

13:36decks in the backside of these. Uh if

13:38you were to go out there, if you've kind

13:39of seen what's existing from an aerial

13:41or even on our plan there, you'll see

13:42that there's actually like it's it's a

13:44lot of steps to get down from those

13:46decks down to the lower level, they're a

13:48little bit beefy, if you will. Um when

13:50we were at the zoning board for this

13:52project, uh one of the existing

13:54condominium owners was actually at that

13:55hearing. And while they were supportive

13:57of what's going on here, uh, they did

13:58have a little bit of concern with

13:59getting too close to their unit. They

14:01own the one closest to the four units

14:03that are going in. So, the applicant

14:04agreed to work with them and basically

14:06took out stairs and kind of reduce the

14:08size of those decks. So, that's really

14:09the only change from what's existing out

14:11there.

14:13Um, as I [clears throat] mentioned, uh,

14:15this this project also does require a

14:17conditional use permit to expand that

14:18existing multif family use.

14:21Um, I'd be happy to walk the board

14:23through each of the criteria. If there's

14:24specific criteria you want to uh

14:26discuss, that's fine as well. However,

14:28in general, this applicant believes that

14:29this is a logical and compatible

14:31expansion to an existing condominium

14:33development. It's going to provide

14:35continuity to the area. uh reusing that

14:38existing building style and it will not

14:40substantially change the character of

14:41the property or the neighborhood uh

14:43while making productive use of an

14:45adjoining parcel that really um you know

14:47is I would say somewhat constrained as a

14:49you know uh standalone residential

14:52property uh you know in the future here

14:55along with the conditional use permit

14:57and the site plan we do have three

14:58waiver requests for your review and

14:59consideration as well. Uh the first is a

15:01pretty typical waiver request. It's, you

15:04know, basically not locating all of the

15:06existing features within 1,000 ft of the

15:07site. Obviously, with any project, what

15:09our firm does is we go offsite to the

15:11extent that's practical and needed to

15:13provide not only the board here, but all

15:15the different departments enough

15:16information to make informed decisions

15:18on the project. Uh there is a cut off

15:20point with that where really it's just

15:22extra work for no additional benefit. Um

15:24so we didn't go out the full thousand

15:25ft. Um but we did a reasonable amount.

15:28Uh the second waiver is uh to allow

15:30overhead utility connections. This is a

15:33pretty overhead driven area if you will.

15:36Um, you know, one of the ideas with

15:38providing underground uh utilities is

15:40actually to reduce clutter. For example,

15:43um, a lot of times when you have these

15:45new underground utilities, they actually

15:46have to install a new pole and then feed

15:49from there. Uh, in this case, I think

15:51adding a pole would actually be

15:53detrimental to that concept. I think it

15:55would actually add clutter. Uh, beyond

15:57that, you know, you think about

15:58reliability and things like that. You

16:00know, this is obviously an area that I

16:01wouldn't say has any concerns from

16:03maintaining overhead and just kind of

16:04keeping in character with that existing

16:06uh kind of neighborhood feel. Uh the

16:09third waiver request is in regard to

16:11maximum amount of parking spaces. So the

16:14project proposes 21 and the maximum

16:16allowed is 19. Uh there's a practical

16:19reason for this number. 21 makes sense

16:21because each unit will be assigned two

16:24parking spaces. uh not necessarily

16:26specific ones, but they'll be allotted

16:28two parking spaces, and that leaves one

16:30left over. Uh in the future, should any

16:32resident need ADA accommodations or

16:35anything like that, what they can do is

16:36basically convert two into one with the

16:38appropriate loading space and signage

16:40and all of those things, and it would

16:42still afford the condominium uh two

16:45spaces per unit. So, that's really why

16:47we ended up with 21. Uh and that's uh

16:50you know I think a reasonable request

16:52given that it's only two above you know

16:54the the maximum.

16:57Uh in terms of review comments, we've

16:58had chance and received review uh

17:00feedback from DPW, from planning staff,

17:02and from the fire department. Um we

17:04haven't had a chance to address all of

17:06those, but in [clears throat] reviewing

17:08them, we don't really see any major

17:09issues or obstacles kind of standing in

17:11the way of this project. So, I think we

17:13feel comfortable certainly uh you know

17:16with the conditions that were proposed

17:18uh in terms of like continuing to work

17:20with those departments to address each

17:21of those concerns. Um along that lines,

17:25we've also had a chance to review the

17:26staff report. We don't take any concerns

17:28or exceptions to any of the conditions

17:30proposed. Uh so with that being said, I

17:33think you know the bottom line here is

17:34the applicant feels this is a reasonable

17:36expansion to kind of what started. it

17:38seems to fit this area nicely and

17:40provides continuity to the to the

17:42property. So, um you know, we'd be happy

17:44to answer any questions you have or like

17:46I said, if you want to walk through any

17:47of the waiver criteria or the

17:50conditional use permit criteria, I'm

17:51certainly happy to do that.

17:53>> Thank you. Thank you. Um appreciate the

17:55the presentation. Um just one quick

17:58question on the overhead [clears throat]

18:00utilities waiver. I'm assuming the

18:01connections to the existing units there

18:04are are overhead.

18:05>> They are. Yes.

18:07Um, other questions from the board,

18:12please.

18:12>> Actually, just a quick one. Um, how many

18:15additional units beyond the six that

18:17existed now? Right. There's six that

18:19exist.

18:19>> There's six existing and there's going

18:20to be four.

18:21>> Four more. Two and two kind of similar

18:23to what you have on that.

18:25>> May I ask an additional course? Thank

18:27you. Um, you mentioned um about the arb

18:29of ID and the fence on Amherst Street.

18:32Where would that be located between the

18:33two units or

18:35>> uh No. So, it's actually at kind of the

18:37in between the edge of the parking. If

18:39you look on the plan on the screen

18:40there, there's a green strip between the

18:41edge of the parking area and where

18:43Amherst Street is to the right, the

18:44bottom right hand of that sheet. It's

18:46actually be right along the edge of kind

18:49of right in the middle of that area

18:50there perpendicular and going along kind

18:53of Amherst Street in that orientation.

18:55>> Okay. Um, may I just for clarification?

18:59So, it's going to go from Amherst Street

19:01to where?

19:03>> Yeah, correct.

19:05Okay. And you said that the the current

19:08driveway is going to stay and that's

19:10kind of in behind the 78 that exists

19:12now, right?

19:13>> That's exactly right. Yeah. So, the

19:14existing driveway that um basically

19:16provides access to those six units will

19:18stay. There is a driveway behind the

19:21house also pun that's going to be closed

19:23and and basically

19:25Okay, I saw that then. Okay. Thank you.

19:27Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

19:30>> Other questions from the board?

19:35Looks like we're good for right now.

19:36[snorts]

19:36>> All right. Thank you.

19:39>> Uh, are there any members of the

19:41audience who wish to speak in opposition

19:43or with concern to this plan?

19:48Are there any members of the audience

19:49who wish to speak in favor of this plan?

19:54I'm assuming we don't have anyone on

19:56Zoom tonight. Um, staff have anything to

19:59add here?

20:00>> Nothing to add. Okay.

20:02[snorts]

20:03Um, any other

20:05>> questions for staff? Okay. Now,

20:07>> yeah, absolutely.

20:08>> Okay. I do this all the time, I know, so

20:10bear with me. Um, I think this is 67

20:14acres, this site, and there's six um um

20:19condos there now, and they're going to

20:21add the four more to get to 10. So, just

20:24to clarify and educate me on a a site

20:28that small

20:30and they're not going up, but they're

20:32going out. Is this in spirit with the

20:38master plan?

20:44>> Uh, sure. So from the just the context

20:47of

20:49more building on lots and lot coverage

20:52perspective, uh it's in keeping with the

20:54regulations. Um so I wouldn't say that

20:57the master plan gets so granular as to

21:00dictate those sorts of lot coverage

21:01regulations. Uh more broadly speaking,

21:04uh proliferation of housing is is very

21:06much a master plan goal and so this is

21:09absolutely uh in keeping with that

21:11master plan goal.

21:12>> Okay. So one followup only just to cl um

21:16make my questioning a little clearer. So

21:19at at a 67 size acre I mean this is a

21:22small project so I I'm not really too

21:26whacked out on this. I'm just saying

21:28it's a small project. So um

21:31[clears throat]

21:33what do the regulations state for

21:35density of units on that size?

21:38>> Yeah. So that's that's a good question.

21:40So maximum density is seven units per

21:42acre. uh and what is being proposed is

21:44uh almost 15 units per acre. They did

21:47receive a density variance from the

21:48zoning board.

21:50>> Okay. And then just one comment is uh I

21:53do agree with you on the um aesthetics

21:56of not what necessarily what you're

21:57doing on Putinham, but of knocking down

22:00the old house and and and making that

22:03area a little prettier now. So that's a

22:05good move that what you guys did. So

22:06thank you for doing that.

22:10All set. Thank you.

22:12Absolutely. Um, other questions from the

22:14board before we close the public

22:15hearing.

22:17>> Uh, thank you. Um, Dan, I'm sorry, Mr.

22:21Hudson. Um, when I was reading the the

22:23notes from the, um, staff report that

22:25talked about the sewering capping, we're

22:28talking about the old sewer that was

22:30there that's part of the house and

22:32there'll be a new sewer line and so on

22:34being brought into these four units. Uh

22:37so yeah, the the the reference was to

22:39the sewer service for the existing house

22:41which is going to be demoed. Um there's

22:43an existing uh sewer for the current

22:47development that they're going to be

22:48tying into. So they won't they won't

22:49need to run a new line to the street.

22:51They're just tying into that previous

22:52line that comes onto the site already.

22:55They're sharing that whole site's

22:58sharing the same sewer service

22:59>> and it and that already exists

23:02>> and it can handle 10 units.

23:03>> Yeah, we believe it can. We've asked

23:05them to prove that out through

23:06calculations. That's one of the

23:07comments. But yeah, we believe we can.

23:09>> May I ask the to the developer or

23:13whoever

23:15>> you concur? And there's no issues with I

23:18heard you say that you hadn't looked at

23:19everything um specifically fire and so

23:21on, but this is not an issue for you and

23:23you will

23:23>> correct just given you know minimum

23:25sizes of sewer pipes as a like base

23:27requirement can handle quite a bit of

23:29flow compared to what this development

23:30is going to do. So yeah, although we

23:32haven't run the calculations, I've run

23:34them a h 100 times in my life and just

23:36tell you that they're going to follow

23:37>> and you'll be providing those as well.

23:38>> Yeah. And and if there's any other

23:39improvements that need to be made, the

23:41applicants obviously going to do what we

23:42have to do to make it work. So

23:44>> perfect. Thank you so much. I appreciate

23:45it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

23:48>> Okay. Any other questions before we

23:51close public hearing?

23:55>> All right. Um we will the board will now

23:57close the public hearing. we will uh

23:59enter the public meeting and in our

24:01deliberations. Um so

24:04I from my perspective this is a you know

24:07Mic I I

24:12mean this is an improvement over

24:14existing state it's it's a fairly modest

24:17expansion of you know what seems to have

24:19been a successful project already and I

24:21I would just add to to Sam's statement

24:24about the master plan. I mean my my

24:26feeling having been involved in that

24:28process is you know housing was a big

24:30focus but and you know increased density

24:32to allow for you know um for meeting

24:35that goal as well. So I I I would view

24:37it as consistent with the master plan um

24:40but just want to open it up

24:41>> please.

24:44U thank you Mr. Chairman. My only

24:46comment is um when we had um the review

24:50by an outside um consultant who walked

24:54us around the different neighborhoods

24:55and said that when we're building we

24:57should be building like to what the

24:58neighborhood is. Um oddly enough, and I

25:01mean no offense to this, um when we we

25:04specifically looked at those six units

25:06and said that was a perfect example of

25:08something that was not consistent with

25:10the neighborhood. Um I still feel the

25:13same way. I'm not going to not vote for

25:15this. I think it's getting rid of what

25:17is an eyesore. But I do want to go on

25:19record is that I don't believe this is

25:20consistent with the current

25:22neighborhood,

25:24excuse me, of that ward and and so on.

25:27And I think in the future we need to

25:29kind of keep looking at this because it

25:30is very important that as we're um as

25:34we're looking at things and doing

25:35things, we don't want to change the look

25:37of a neighborhood that's an old

25:38neighborhood and so on. But knowing that

25:41this also abuts those um the the

25:44low-income housing that's right next to

25:46and so on, I don't think it's too much

25:48out of out of character. But I think in

25:50future because if you just went right

25:52down to Sergeant A and so on, it's a

25:54whole different kind of feeling and

25:56looking and this is very close to that

25:58area. So um I just want to put that out

26:01on the record and and so on. So thank

26:03you, Mr. Chairman.

26:05>> So just to piggyback on that just for a

26:07second, I generally agree with what

26:08you're saying. I mean, when you drive by

26:10there, and like I said, I like to drive

26:12by each one of these. It it's I lived in

26:14Nashville for so long, and I drove by

26:16there and I said, "Whoa, this kind of

26:18stuck stuck out because it's almost like

26:21a a modern view of an old neighborhood,

26:25right?" Uh, my only real concern was to

26:29get clarification from the team about

26:32how much we're going to jam-pack on a

26:34small lot. Okay. And this is pushing it,

26:37I think. But uh if it's if it's within

26:41uh regulation and acceptable and we say

26:44okay then I'll go with it. But I I

26:47understand the developer wants to you

26:49know develop as much as he can and get

26:51as much revenue as he can. So I don't

26:52begrudge him for that. It's just that I

26:54think this is so close to being a little

26:58too much on too little.

27:04>> Mr. Great.

27:04>> One thing I I want to say, I used to

27:06live like shared the window with this

27:08lot looking out onto it and um was there

27:12for the original construction of those

27:14first six and the the way that the site

27:17laid out. I think this makes it a much

27:19better plan these last four and really

27:21kind of completes the Amherst Street

27:23portion. But yeah, I also live on

27:24Sergeant A and it is a completely

27:26different it's a weird neighborhood in

27:28the first place, but um I think this

27:30makes it more complete than what it was

27:31before. So,

27:37>> I just want to add something that I kind

27:39of already said. Um, if it weren't for

27:41the fact that those other apartments

27:45existed there, I'm not sure I could vote

27:47yes for this because I would want a

27:49different look to the facade

27:51>> because yes, now this goes into

27:54continuation, but I would kind of like

27:56to hide. Not that they're unattractive,

27:58but it's a parking lot and then a home

28:00there. So, it's not keeping with the

28:02neighborhood. And my fear is that we're

28:03going to change the flavor of it. And

28:05that's what the consultant that we hired

28:06and paid a lot of money kind of talked

28:08to us about creating. That's kind of

28:10what the um resoning, if I'm if I'm not

28:12mistaken, um Mr. Dury, that's kind of

28:14what the resoning is doing. This this

28:16new kind of that we're doing is to keep

28:19neighborhoods similar. So, if those

28:22didn't exist, I would have asked for a

28:23different type of facade to kind of go

28:25with the ones that are next door.

28:27Truthfully, there's, you know,

28:28Cumberland Farms. it's not too far from

28:30it and so on and and so on, but it

28:32doesn't have that old flavor of the

28:33neighborhood. So, but I am not going to

28:35vote against it. I'm going to vote for

28:37it. So, thank you,

28:38>> Mr. Green.

28:38>> Yeah. And I think it's just like a a

28:39natural kind of ending stop on Amber

28:41Street before it continues into a much

28:43more residential like feel. So, agreed

28:46on kind of what you're saying there. If

28:48it wasn't there, it'd be a very very out

28:50of place.

28:50>> Yeah.

28:55>> Any other

28:55>> No, I'm done at this point. So, I mean,

28:58um, subject to any anything else that

29:00anyone wants to add, I would just know

29:02we've got three three different motions

29:04that we need to consider. Um, first will

29:07be the the waiver request, then the

29:09conditional use, and then the the final

29:12site plan approval. So, um

29:17I guess starting with the waiver

29:20requests, I don't know if we have um

29:24>> we have a a member who's uh willing to

29:27to make a motion on that.

29:35>> Agree. I would like to make a motion for

29:39new business A26-0000178

29:43and A26-0000 [snorts]

29:46sorry 826-0153

29:49site plan approval to grant the

29:53following waiver 190 uh-279E

29:59to wave all the requirements show all

30:01existing features on JC parcels 190-221

30:05to wave requirement to install all

30:07utilities on the ground and 190-198

30:11to wave requirement to exceed the

30:13minimum number of parking spaces. uh

30:16util utilizing RSA uh 674 362N

30:20and RSA 6744

30:243E and 190-148D

30:30finding that strict conformity would

30:32pose unnecessary hardship

30:34and the [clears throat] specific

30:35circumstances of the land will per uh

30:38the consent of the lands will indicate

30:40that the waiverss [snorts] will properly

30:41carry out the spared intent of the

30:42regulations using their rationale letter

30:45provided July 20th and August 25th,

30:472026.

30:48>> Thank you, Mr. Green. And just one minor

30:50clarification on the parking waiver. I

30:52just want to cover that's the to exceed

30:54the maximum.

30:55>> Oh, sorry. And I'll amend that to say

30:58exceed the maximum for the 190-198

31:02waiver.

31:03>> Great. Thank you. So, motion by Mr.

31:05Green to approve those three waivers. Is

31:07there a second? Second by Alder Cle. Is

31:11there any further discussion?

31:14All those in favor?

31:15>> I

31:15>> I oppos. Motion passes.

31:18>> Mr. Green, you want to continue?

31:20>> Yes.

31:20>> I would like to continue my motion to

31:22grant conditional uh grant the

31:25conditional use approval pursuant to

31:27190-15 use number 15 table 15-1 to allow

31:32stat establishment of total four new

31:34condominating units in the urban

31:36residence zone granting this cup. Uh

31:39yeah, granting the CUP. The board finds

31:42that the applicant has provided

31:43sufficient rationale in their narrative

31:45submitted on August 26, 2026 and it

31:48meets the approval criteria detailed in

31:50190-33-f.

31:54>> Thank you, Mr. Green. So, uh, motion for

31:56Mr. Green to grant conditional use

31:58approval. Is there a second to that

31:59motion?

31:59>> I'll second it, but I'd like to make a

32:01correction.

32:01>> Okay, Alman Clee, a second, but so

32:04further discussion. Alman Cle,

32:06>> um, you you mentioned 190-33. It should

32:10be 190-133

32:13>> 190-133-

32:17>> I'd like to amend my motion [laughter]

32:19noting that the CUP uh meets the

32:22approval criteria detailed in 190-133-

32:29going to second that amended motion.

32:31>> Is there any further discussion?

32:34>> All those in favor?

32:35>> I

32:36>> I opposed none. Motion passes. Mr. Mr.

32:40Green, you'll

32:40>> I'll try not to mess this one up.

32:42>> You're doing great.

32:44>> I'd like to make a motion to grant final

32:46site plan approval for the demolition of

32:47an existing home in the construction of

32:49four new units for a total of 10 units

32:51on site.

32:54>> Is it 10? Yes, 10. All right. um finding

32:57that the application meets requirements

32:58outlined in 190-146D

33:01subject to the subsequent conditions A

33:04through

33:06P as noted in the staff report.

33:11>> Thank you. So um again motion by Mr.

33:13Green to grant final site plan approval

33:16with the subsequent conditions as

33:17indicated. Is there a second to that

33:19motion? Second by Alder Cle. Is there

33:22any further discussion?

33:24All those in favor?

33:25>> I done none. That motion passes.

33:29>> Thank you.

33:35>> I took a week off, man.

33:36>> Yeah,

33:39>> I couldn't do it.

33:39>> He's going to get back into the bullpen

33:41and run a few weeks.

33:43>> Stretch the legs a little more.

33:44>> All right. Next up, we have uh new

33:47business conditional use permits uh case

33:50number A26-0170.

33:54EC New Hampshire Real Estate Holdings

33:57owner and applicant requesting a

33:58modification of condition number one uh

34:01but conditional use permit approved on

34:03September 7th, 2023 and amended on

34:05September 5th, 2024 and December 11,

34:082025. Uh this property is located at 310

34:11Daniel Webster Highway.

34:14Is there a member who was willing to

34:16make a motion this application is

34:17complete and ready for the board to

34:18accept their Mr. Green?

34:22>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to

34:23make a motion for new business A26-0170

34:27uh amendment of the CUP CR uh CUP

34:30approval. Um

34:33determine that the application is

34:34complete and we're ready to take

34:35jurisdiction.

34:37>> Thank you. Motion by Mr. Green that the

34:39application is complete and ready for

34:40jurisdiction. Is there a second to that

34:42motion? Second by Mr. McIntyre. Is there

34:44any further discussion? All those in

34:46favor?

34:47>> Opposed? None. That motion passes.

34:51>> Evening. Good evening, Mr. Chairman,

34:52members of the board. My name is Morgan

34:54Hollis. I'm an attorney at Goddisman and

34:56Hollis, 39 East Pearl Street in NSHA,

34:59and I'm here representing ECNH Real

35:02Estate Holdings, Inc., which is the

35:04owner of the former Sears building, now

35:06the Nash Casino. Uh, I wrote a letter

35:08dated August 6, which I'm sure you all

35:10have. Uh, it sort of sets out the

35:13situation. Uh, this is my third time

35:16back asking for an extension, and I

35:18apologize for that. Um, as my client has

35:21said, what the heck has taken you so

35:23long? But bottom line is, uh, I think my

35:26letter sets it out. But to make a clear

35:28picture, um we have um we have

35:33improvements that are being made to the

35:35Zimmerman site, which we have finally

35:37reached agreement uh and have a signed

35:40document with Zimmerman and my client,

35:42which we can now move to the other three

35:45players, Macy's, Target, and um Simon.

35:49and that this has been a very

35:51complicated and fluid situation and that

35:55there are a lot of improvements

35:56benefiting the Zimmerman parcel which

35:59are going to incur on other parcels and

36:02everyone has uh engaged their own law

36:04lawyer and engaged their own development

36:06vice president and they've changed over

36:08the years as well but I'm I'm here to

36:11say we have a signed agreement finally

36:13with Zimmerman and that will advance the

36:15ball significantly because somebody has

36:17to blink first and we've we've reached

36:20agreement. So that just happened this uh

36:23past week. I've mailed it to copy of the

36:26agreement with some sections redacted to

36:28Mr. Hudson and Mr. Husband to keep the

36:31staff updated. I'm I'm very optimistic

36:35that we'll have this done by the time

36:37frame uh asked. My client is as

36:41disappointed as anyone because every day

36:44of delay costs money, as you know,

36:45construction costs just keep going up.

36:47they're ready to make the make the move.

36:50Um, so I'm asking for a modest

36:53amendment. We have to construct between

36:55a window of March and a August. And uh,

36:59so that's what we're asking for is next

37:01August. Happy to answer any questions.

37:05Thank you. Any questions from the board?

37:13>> All right. None for now. Thank you.

37:16All right. Um, are there any members of

37:18the public who wish to speak in

37:20opposition or with concern to this

37:22application?

37:25Are there any members of the public who

37:26wish to speak in favor of this

37:27application?

37:30Staff have

37:36any other questions before we

37:39close the public hearing on this one?

37:42>> Mr. Chair,

37:44>> I Yeah, I don't have a question. Just

37:45more of a statement. I just appreciate

37:46the continued effort. This is uh

37:49something that needs to be solved. Um

37:51[clears throat] I take the long view on

37:52some of these things. This this

37:54problem's been around a long time. Um so

37:56I believe we're going to get there,

37:57which I really appreciate, but it is

37:58complicated. If it was easy, it would

38:00have been done by now. So um so I do

38:02appreciate the continued effort of uh

38:03the applicant and they have kept uh Mr.

38:06Husband and I a breast of the situation

38:08as we gone along. So um I feel like

38:11we're uh we're close and I hope

38:12hopefully we can get there this time. uh

38:15uh by this time next year. Um but again,

38:17I do just do appreciate the continued

38:19effort that's being put forth on this.

38:23>> Uh thank you, uh Mr. Chairman. Um I

38:26actually was one of the people that

38:27voted against the Nash, but I respect

38:29the fact that um I [clears throat] knew

38:32right then when it first came up that

38:34there was um a lot of very specific

38:37issues, especially with the Zimmerman.

38:39Um and I do appreciate that they've been

38:41keeping the um Mr. Hudson and Mr. her

38:43husband um a breast of everything and I

38:45knew it would not be something that snap

38:47their fingers and it would happen very

38:49quickly. I I knew that as as he pointed

38:51out, one side has to blink or at least

38:54close one eye. Um so I do get I do get

38:57that. Um again, while I I voted against

39:00it, I'm I am for this extension because

39:04I think they've been doing all the right

39:05things and I appreciate that. Thank you.

39:08>> Max,

39:09>> two things. Uh I I think the um owner K

39:15could not have asked for a better

39:16attorney

39:18uh or someone who cares as much about

39:20the city as he does. So I appreciate

39:22your work and keeping the ball moving.

39:25only have a a another clarification

39:27question towards the staff again, which

39:30is um if this work drags into August of

39:3627, is it possible that any activity

39:40going on at the Sheran Tower location

39:42farther up the road would also be going

39:46on at a concurrent time?

39:52>> That's possible.

39:54>> We don't know for sure though. I think

39:55we're still a pretty far away from

39:58actually finalizing everything with the

40:00Sheridan um and the Terara simply

40:02because what was approved were some

40:06concept plans 10% you know there's still

40:09a lot of design that needs to go on and

40:11the uh the DOT still has to you know

40:14finally approve and and they may have

40:16additional asks and that project was

40:19appealed. So um it's a big unknown.

40:22Okay, just follow. I'm pushing you on

40:24purpose. Of course, it's possible,

40:26right? I mean, anything's possible. I'm

40:28just asking if it was likely u more than

40:30anything else because I don't want to

40:32have activity if we could have avoided

40:34it at two places concurrently on a very

40:38busy situation here because the the the

40:40sheran terror thing is going to be

40:42massive. I know. I don't know when it's

40:44going to actually have any impact

40:46exactly on the timing, but that's why I

40:49was asking because I just didn't want

40:50the horror show of people saying, "Hey,

40:51we got something down here and we got

40:53something over there at the same time."

40:55That's all.

40:56>> Mr.

40:58>> Yeah, I would just uh if the two things

41:00are do happen concurrently, I don't

41:02think it's uh a bad situation

41:03necessarily. Zimmerman's the work here

41:05is pretty pretty much uh related to the

41:07Zimmermans and access to the Zimmerman's

41:10very small focus uh their driveway

41:12access configuration. Um so it really

41:15shouldn't have much of a

41:17impact on DWI traffic or anything like

41:20that. So I I I think this is a pretty

41:22focused small thing and it needs to get

41:25done when it needs to get done. I guess

41:26the time of the year I think I believe

41:28is driven by Zimmerman's business and uh

41:32and not [clears throat] wanting to

41:33disrupt them during their peak season.

41:35Uh but I I don't I don't see an issue

41:37with the two things occurring in this

41:38situation.

41:41Other

41:44question? Again, obviously we can

41:46continue discussion after closing the

41:48public hearing as need be, but any

41:50questions for the applicant or anything

41:52we want to reserve the public hearing.

41:57All right. In that case, I will close

42:00the public hearing and we will move to

42:02our uh deliberation of the public

42:04meeting.

42:06Um I I would sort of cons concur with

42:10the general sentiment here. Um I think

42:12that you know it's apparent that that

42:14the the applicant wants to get this done

42:16as well and um and since we making all

42:18efforts to do that um and it also seems

42:22like there's been you know meaningful

42:24progress made here. Um, so I'm certainly

42:27in favor of um granting, you know, this

42:30this request um in the hope that they

42:33that this will be the the final step

42:36than to allow them to get this done. So

42:38um but obviously again welcome

42:40additional comments that

42:44>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I I want to

42:45echo your sentiments and and the key

42:47thing that I want to um say here is that

42:51the only time someone we should we

42:53should hesitate on this board is if

42:54there's been no action or no activity

42:56and we know that there has been. Um so

42:59to grant them the extension is is just

43:01kind of keeping with the fact that

43:03they're trying to move forward and um

43:05there while it's not blame of any

43:07individual or any group or so on. It's

43:09just the way things happen. Negotiations

43:11happen as they happen and when they

43:13happen. So, um I think that this is

43:16something that we should approve.

43:21>> Mr. Green,

43:22>> I'd like to make a motion.

43:24>> Uh I'd like to make a motion for new

43:26business A26-017

43:29amendment of the COP approval. Um

43:35the two first well to amend the

43:37condition number one of the December

43:394th, 2025 approval.

43:43uh to read as follow or as noted in the

43:46staff report and uh be subject to the

43:49subsequent condition A with all

43:52conditions of approval of the September

43:547th, 2023,

43:56September 19th, 2024 and December 4th,

43:592025 approvals are incorporated herein

44:02and made a part of this approval unless

44:04superseded by a new condition.

44:07>> Thank you. So motion by Mr. agreeing to

44:11uh approve the amendment to the

44:12condition as uh referenced in the staff

44:14report specifically extending the

44:16deadline to no later than August 15,

44:192027 with the conditions indicated. Is

44:22there a second to that motion?

44:25Does anyone plead? Is there any further

44:27discussion?

44:29All those in favor?

44:30>> I I opposed none. Motion passes.

44:36>> Thank you very much.

44:37>> Thank you.

44:46Okay, next for new business conditional

44:49use permits, we have case number

44:51826-0164

44:54CJ Properties LLC owner Kyle Faldo,

44:58applicant requesting conditional use

45:00approval of vehicle for repair and

45:02service businesses properties located at

45:04444 Amber Street. Okay. So, as to this

45:09case, is uh there any member of the

45:11board that would be willing to make a

45:12motion that the application is complete

45:14and ready for the board to take

45:15jurisdiction?

45:17>> Mr. Green.

45:18>> Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'd like to make a

45:19motion for new business 826-0164

45:24uh conditional use approval

45:27um

45:29to that is complete and ready to take

45:32jurisdiction of the application.

45:34>> Thank you. Uh motion by Mr. green to

45:37accept jurisdiction the application. Is

45:38there a second?

45:40Second, Mr. Hirs. Is there any further

45:42discussion? All those in favor?

45:45>> I opposed. None. That motion passes.

45:49>> Good evening. Good evening. My name is

45:51Matthew Lara. I'm an engineer with TF

45:53Moran and I'm here on behalf of my

45:54client, Mr. Kyle Katavo. He is the owner

45:57of 444 Amherst Street and we are seeking

46:00a conditional use permit for having the

46:03property serve as a vehicle repair and

46:05service operations. Uh the building has

46:07been currently used as a professional

46:09photography studio. Uh but previous to

46:12that it was used as a machine shop.

46:14Currently has all the infrastructure

46:15that is needed including two garage bays

46:17for conducting any type of vehicle

46:18repairs and operations any services of

46:21that sort. It also has all the needed

46:24infrastructure parking requirements and

46:26everything needed for him to conduct his

46:28business. Uh also we are not looking at

46:31changing anything on the site.

46:33Everything that is in the building will

46:35remain as the same. Uh the only minor

46:37things that might happen is there'll be

46:39a removal of some plywood where some of

46:41the existing garage bays are open and

46:43maybe some updates to that of the facade

46:45and some interior upgrades. uh but

46:47nothing will be going on structural or

46:49any changes to the site or any changes

46:51to its infrastructure.

46:53In addition to the uh conditional use

46:55permit, we are seeking a waiver for

46:56having the site plan regulations and

46:58that is because we are not changing

47:00anything on the site and we also have

47:02the most recent site that was updated

47:04and in the city's records in 2022

47:06showing the machine shop and machine

47:08shop operations and this would be going

47:10back to that operation.

47:12With that, I'm open to uh any other

47:14questions you may have.

47:18questions from the board.

47:24>> Uh, looks like none for right now.

47:29Are there any members of the public who

47:31wish to speak in opposition or concern

47:34to this plan?

47:38Um, are there any members of the public

47:40who wish to speak in favor of this plan?

47:43Any comments from staff?

47:46No comments.

47:46>> Um, and just to clarify the the so the

47:50waiver request is it's not to provide a

47:54site plan. Is is it so what what

47:56technically are we waving? We're waving

47:58the submission of a site plan.

48:01>> Correct.

48:01>> Pretty much.

48:02>> Okay.

48:04>> Um, other questions for the board.

48:09>> Um, this is probably more for Mr.

48:12Hudson. um the comment that um Mr.

48:16Saunders made relative to the traffic of

48:20cutting it to 42 to 24. Can you give me

48:23a little bit more insight on that?

48:26>> Uh sure. So um and hopefully the

48:29applicant's aware of the request for

48:30traffic contribution um relative to this

48:33development but um the traffic uh impact

48:37report that was submitted to us

48:38calculated that they estimate 42

48:40vehicles per hour during the PM peak

48:42hour. Um but uh this is a change from a

48:45previous use. Uh we typically credit um

48:49whatever the existing traffic is. uh we

48:51we we request a contribution on the

48:55increase in traffic, not on the total

48:56traffic per se, unless it's been a

48:58number of years since the previous uh

49:00business was out of business. Um so

49:02that's that that that's the credit. Um

49:05we they didn't submit uh data

49:08information on that, but Wayne Husband's

49:10estimation

49:11um is that they're due about a half a

49:14reduction of a half based upon the

49:16existing traffic relative to the

49:17proposed traffic.

49:19So, the request is for $5,250

49:23towards the Amherst Street traffic

49:25quarter account um based upon half of

49:28the tra traffic they predicted uh or 21

49:31vehicles per hour during the P uh PMP

49:34car.

49:36>> Perhaps I'm still not quite

49:38understanding. They feel that there'll

49:39be 42 vehicles in this because they

49:43didn't give us a TIR. The city just said

49:4521. I know I respect Mr. Hudson, trust

49:48me. Yeah. No, they gave us TR TR for the

49:5042. What they didn't do is state what

49:53the existing traffic was to credit

49:55against.

49:56>> Okay.

49:57>> That so Mr. Husband has estimated that

50:00based upon the use and uh what we would

50:02typically anticipate for that type of a

50:04use.

50:05>> Thank you. I appreciate that. And I

50:07don't know if this is relevant or to

50:10staff if I if I may ask. Um, I know that

50:14when the um um with the building 19

50:18um area at one time, they wanted to put

50:20like a Walmart or something there and

50:22there was concerns about an automotive

50:24or hair salon being there because it

50:26abuts um some kind of um conservation

50:30area. Um this is not too far from that.

50:33I know that this is a um also an

50:36automotive. Is is there an issue with

50:38that at all

50:40>> that you're aware?

50:41>> Nope. They're they're not triggering any

50:43uh wetland review from the conservation

50:45commission or the zoning board. Um so

50:47no, that would have been the trigger for

50:49that.

50:49>> Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate

50:50that.

50:51>> I'm guessing I'm guessing uh what Alman

50:54Cle is referencing is Penachuk has a an

50:56overlay district basically or an overlay

50:59for water supply.

51:01>> Um but I believe if they need to go

51:04through permitting, they would do that

51:06or approval, they would do that with

51:07Penchuk. Um, and if the uses are

51:10internal to the building, then perhaps

51:11that's not an issue. I don't know

51:13specific specifics of it, but I think

51:14that may be what you're referencing.

51:15>> Part in part I am, but there's also a uh

51:18like a conservation area below that too.

51:20So I I was thinking of both, but Okay.

51:23Um, thank you.

51:24>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

51:25>> Pen would address a letter usually too.

51:28We would usually get a letter from

51:30Pachuk.

51:31>> Okay.

51:32>> Thank you.

51:35>> Other questions from the board?

51:39And and just to reiterate Mr. H's point,

51:42just to make sure the applicant is aware

51:44of the the traffic order contribution

51:46request and is submittable to that.

51:50>> Thank you. Just for the record, the

51:53applicant said yes.

51:54>> That's good good news. Thank you.

51:57>> All right. Um any other questions

52:01before we move into the meeting?

52:04Okay. In that case, I will again uh

52:08close the public hearing on this matter

52:09and we will move into the public meeting

52:11to deliberate on the application.

52:15I think you know again it sounds like

52:17this is a rel relatively straightforward

52:19application. Um you know certainly

52:22minimal impact on the site um hence the

52:26you know the the request for a waiver to

52:29submit the site plan. Um and I think

52:32other than the sort of relatively small

52:34incremental impact on on traffic which

52:37you know the output is addressing in

52:38parts of the contribution not really um

52:41not really much of an impact on the

52:43site. So uh it seems like a pretty

52:45modest

52:47plan and and you know again in

52:49consistent with the historical use as

52:51well. So, um, but other other questions,

52:55comments, feedback from board members?

53:02>> Interested in a motion, Mr. Green?

53:05>> Yes. Thank you. I'd like to make a

53:06motion for new business A26-0164,

53:09conditional use approval.

53:11>> And sorry, I

53:12>> sorry to grant the first to grant the

53:14following waiver. Um, 190-271

53:18to wave the requirement to submit a site

53:19plan. uh finding that strict conformity

53:21would pose unnecessary hardship and the

53:23applicate uh to the applicant and the

53:25waiver would not be contrary to the

53:27spear and intent of the regulations

53:29um and will probably carry out you know

53:32the spear and intent um with this

53:35specific land the the board should also

53:38be considering the rationale provided by

53:40the applicant and their attached waiver

53:42request letter dated August 31st 2026.

53:47>> Thank you. So that uh motion by Mr.

53:49Green is to grant the waiver from uh

53:5219271 to submit a site plan. Is there a

53:55second to that motion? Second by Mr.

53:57McIntyre. Is there any further

53:59discussion?

54:01>> All those in favor?

54:02>> I opposed. Done. Motion passes. Screen.

54:07I'd like to continue the um the motion

54:10for new business 826-0164

54:15um to grant the conditional use permit

54:18itself pursuant to the 190-15

54:21table 15-1 use 140 to allow the

54:25establishment of automotive detailing

54:27business in the park industrial district

54:29granting this in granting the cup find

54:32that the applicant has provided

54:33sufficient rationale in their cup

54:35narrative dated September 16th, 2026,

54:39and it meets the approval criteria

54:41detailed in 190-133

54:46as well. Um, we we'd want the the

54:50subsequent condition um prior to issuing

54:52building permit, all comments in the

54:54memo from Joe Mandola, senior staff

54:56engineer, Sep dated September 16th,

54:592026, will be resolved to the

55:00satisfaction of the division of public

55:02works.

55:04>> Thank you. Uh motion by Mr. agreeing to

55:06grant the conditional use permit uh with

55:08the conditions indicated. Is there a

55:10second to that motion?

55:13Second by Mr. Hudson. Any further

55:15discussion?

55:17>> All those in favor?

55:18>> I post none. Right. That motion passes.

55:24>> Thank you.

55:30Okay.

55:31Um

55:33so we we no longer have any subdivision

55:36plans on the agenda.

55:38Um and so that will move us [snorts] to

55:41site plans and

55:45case number A26-0186.

55:50Nor Eastern SPE LLC owner and applicant

55:54requesting minor site plan amendment to

55:56place 36 self storage containers on

55:58site. And this property is located at

56:00111 Northeastern Boulevard. Uh so as to

56:03this case, is there a member willing to

56:05make a motion that the application is

56:07complete and ready for the board to

56:08accept jurisdiction?

56:10>> Mr. Green.

56:11>> Yes. Thank you. I would like to make a

56:13motion for new business 826-0186

56:16miter site plan amendment to first make

56:19the determination that the applicant is

56:21not uh the application is not of de

56:24development of regional development of

56:26regional impact under RSA 3655 the

56:29application is complete and then we're

56:31ready to take jurisdiction so

56:34>> thank you Mr. Green that motion is to

56:36accept jurisdiction is there a second

56:39by Mr. Hersh. Is there any further

56:41discussion?

56:43All those in favor?

56:44>> I

56:46>> opposed? None. That motion passes.

56:48>> Good evening.

56:49>> All right. Good evening, board members.

56:50My name is Chris Swinarski. I'm an

56:52attorney from Divine Milit representing

56:54111 Northeastern SPE LLC. Uh they are

56:58the owner of 111 Northeastern Boulevard.

57:00Um the property that is the subject of

57:03this application and the property is

57:05located in the PI zone. Um, as you know

57:09from the very thorough staff report that

57:12these gentlemen have prepared, uh, we're

57:14requesting site plan amendment and

57:16waiverss, uh, to essentially eliminate

57:1936 existing parking spaces. Um, and they

57:23will be used for the placement of self-

57:25storage containers. Currently, the site

57:27has 53 parking spaces. Um, and as a

57:31result of this amendment and waiver, we

57:33will end up with 15. Um, I think it's

57:36important to note there won't be any

57:38actual physical change to the site. So,

57:41the these parking spaces are not like

57:43really being removed. They're being

57:45removed just from the site plan. Um, the

57:47storage containers will be placed on top

57:49of them. The storage containers are not

57:51actually buildings that are constructed

57:53with a foundation or anything like that.

57:56So such that um if 20 30 40 years from

57:59now uh there was a change in use uh

58:02there would not be buildings in this

58:04place as a result of this amendment um

58:06and waiver.

58:10Um so really I mean it is that simple.

58:12There isn't much more to this. Um as for

58:15the waiver criteria I I do think we meet

58:17those pretty handily. um strict

58:20conformity with the current existing

58:22site plan um creates a hardship simply

58:25because it it forces us to uh retain and

58:30maintain 36 parking spaces that really

58:33aren't used at all.

58:36um we we don't conflict with the intent

58:39of the site plan regulations or or the

58:41existing site plan because the use that

58:44is contemplated here does not require

58:47any parking really. Um there's typically

58:50one or two staff members um and we're

58:53still going to have 15 parking spaces.

58:56self storage is not really a use that uh

58:59generally requires much parking at all

59:02because the activity would be more

59:05accurately characterized as active

59:07loading and unloading kind of like that

59:09zone at the airport where you're you're

59:11not allowed to leave your car. Um it's

59:13just not common for people to you know

59:15park and lock the car and self storage.

59:17It's really that simple. Um, and then

59:20the circumstances of this parcel are

59:21just such that it was developed in I

59:24think 1994

59:26um for a very different use as I

59:28understand it from the staff memo. I

59:30don't have any firsthand knowledge of

59:31that, but it was sort of a a mixed uh

59:34retail office and some type of warehouse

59:37use. Um, what we're doing now is really

59:40just an adaptive reuse of that site for

59:44uh a demand that the community needs. um

59:47a demand that we see in many communities

59:49all across the country really. Um one

59:52thing I would point out that I also

59:54think is important, this application is

59:56in connection with a contemplated sale

59:59of the property. Um attorney Brad

1:00:01Westgate is here. He is representing the

1:00:04buyer and I think if you have any

1:00:06questions about the proposed future use,

1:00:10uh attorney Westgate would probably be

1:00:12the best person to answer those. I

1:00:13wouldn't want to speak on behalf of uh

1:00:16the potential buyer. And conversely, if

1:00:19you have any questions about the

1:00:21existing conditions at the site or the

1:00:23existing use, I'm happy to try to answer

1:00:25those if I can. Thank you.

1:00:27>> Thank you. Um and just to clarify, as I

1:00:30understand, this the internal at least

1:00:34part of the existing building that's

1:00:35there is already used for self storage.

1:00:37Correct.

1:00:37>> Yeah, the majority of it.

1:00:39>> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Um, questions

1:00:42from the board. Alman Cle.

1:00:44>> Um, I I read the staff report and it I

1:00:47think it said something to the effect of

1:00:48that originally it was 80 um parking

1:00:52spaces that would have been ultimately

1:00:54required and it was brought down to 56

1:00:57or something to that nature if I'm not

1:00:59mistaken. And now you wanted to go down

1:01:02to 15.

1:01:03>> Yeah.

1:01:04>> Um I I've used a lot of self storage.

1:01:06you're I don't know how many or whoever

1:01:09the person is is going to do how many

1:01:10self-s storage units they have currently

1:01:13and how many self storage units they're

1:01:15going to be adding to it but this means

1:01:17that only 15 people at any given time

1:01:20including staff which you said there's

1:01:22only a handful of them um can be there

1:01:25is that correct

1:01:26>> uh no because so 36 units are are

1:01:30contemplated could be give or take one

1:01:32or two depending on what fits in the

1:01:34parking spaces but but Again, you know,

1:01:37the idea of self- storage, as you're

1:01:39probably familiar with, you really don't

1:01:41park. So, um, you don't go to a parking

1:01:44space, lock your car, and then go to the

1:01:46self- storage unit. You pull up to it,

1:01:48and it's an active, uh, loading and

1:01:50unloading situation. So, there's really

1:01:52no need for parking. Um, the the 15

1:01:55spaces are probably far more than is

1:01:58needed for the use. Um and I I think the

1:02:01staff report showed how uh in the past

1:02:04this use in the city has actually had a

1:02:07significantly lower ratio of parking

1:02:09spaces uh compared to the number of

1:02:12units. And and again it's just for that

1:02:14reason like you simply you don't park

1:02:16your car when you go to a self- storage

1:02:18unit. You pull up you you grab what you

1:02:20need or you drop off what you're leaving

1:02:22um and then you leave.

1:02:24>> Thank you.

1:02:27>> Min would be appropriate, Mr. Did you

1:02:30have to find out what he was referencing

1:02:31about the uh future use just for the

1:02:33record so we would know just for the

1:02:36>> Yeah, I think that's fine. It sounds

1:02:37like attorney Ruskate would would be

1:02:39>> Yeah. Is that an appropriate question to

1:02:41ask?

1:02:42>> I I think we can ask you know Mr.

1:02:43Westgate is here so

1:02:45>> I'd like to do that

1:02:45>> presumably he's he's ready to question

1:02:48>> have it. [clears throat]

1:02:54>> Thank you Mr. Chairman members of the

1:02:55board. My name is Brad Westgate. I'm a

1:02:57lawyer with Wells, White and Fontaine,

1:02:5829th Factory Street in Ashawa,

1:03:00representing the prospective buyer of

1:03:02the property as Mr. Swinarsski noted.

1:03:05Um, this will be a self-s storage

1:03:07facility. It is effectively [snorts]

1:03:09that now um the additional outside units

1:03:13are just adding more rentable space to

1:03:15it.

1:03:18>> Thank you. Sorry. the uh so the

1:03:21additional outside storage uh units or

1:03:24boxes wherever they are, are they going

1:03:26to are they going to stay on site and

1:03:28people will access them and come and go?

1:03:29Are they going to be like delivered to a

1:03:31property filled up and then returned to

1:03:32here? Is there going to be a lot of back

1:03:34and forth with these moving in or out or

1:03:36are they going to basically stay on site

1:03:38site the whole time?

1:03:39>> The idea is do they stay on site

1:03:41indefinitely? Okay. It's not the sort of

1:03:43portable my box where you go rent one,

1:03:45bring it to your

1:03:46>> home or office or shop and take it back.

1:03:50Is it think to be really thought of as

1:03:52the functional equivalent of what would

1:03:54be the normal sort of foundationbased

1:03:58garage door open, go in, put the you put

1:04:01your belongings in there. Yeah. As some

1:04:05as some become obsolete, they might get

1:04:07replaced out, but it's not a rental

1:04:09concept.

1:04:10>> Yeah. Thank you.

1:04:12Please,

1:04:13>> can I just ask a real quick question of

1:04:15um of these storage units when you say

1:04:18that people will just stop drop, you

1:04:19know, drop their stuff off and pick

1:04:21their stuff up. I I understand that

1:04:22concept. Um the my question is so they

1:04:27won't be necessarily parking in a

1:04:28parking space, correct? They'll just be

1:04:30right in front of the unit because

1:04:31there's or will there or these 15

1:04:33parking spaces in front of units? um the

1:04:35they're not in front of the unit, but

1:04:37it's also important to remember that the

1:04:39the main building is inside storage,

1:04:42>> right?

1:04:42>> So I would if I had a inside storage

1:04:44unit there, I would drive to it. I would

1:04:46park in a space to go in and out of the

1:04:48building, not be there very long. If I

1:04:51use one of the outside units, I might

1:04:53park right next to it because that's

1:04:54typically what people do. Um, I did note

1:04:58the staff report does mention three

1:05:00other self-s storage sites in the city

1:05:02in which significant parking reductions

1:05:04waiverss were granted. Um, I don't know

1:05:07about you, but literally every time I go

1:05:09to one of these, our office has had one

1:05:12for a good long time, but frankly, it's

1:05:15hardly anyone ever at them. And they're

1:05:17multiple units as well. Of course, it's

1:05:19probably all our experiences, I suspect.

1:05:23>> May I I I do agree with you. uh

1:05:26attorney. Yes, I I've been to when I

1:05:29I've used storage spaces. I've done to

1:05:30it and there's not necessarily a lot of

1:05:33people there, but there have been times

1:05:35when I've I've been I use the self-s

1:05:38storage place um um

1:05:41near Dartmouth,

1:05:43>> for lack of a better term to say, and um

1:05:46they've got a lot of quite a bit of

1:05:47parking space there. But um I agree with

1:05:49you that there hasn't been a lot of

1:05:51people, but I don't agree necessarily

1:05:53that everybody comes in and out. I can

1:05:55tell you I was constantly going in and

1:05:57trying to move things around to find

1:05:58something because you don't always put

1:06:00them in the right order and the the

1:06:02thing you want is always in the back.

1:06:04>> So, thank you.

1:06:07>> Uh to the two attorneys, I agree with

1:06:09what you have said about um general

1:06:12reference to the impact of the traffic

1:06:14on the area. Um, my only tongue-in-cheek

1:06:17concern was that it would add any

1:06:19traffic to my access to the pizza

1:06:21parlors that are in the area, [laughter]

1:06:23but it doesn't appear that that's going

1:06:24to be the case either because I drove by

1:06:26there today to go look at the look at

1:06:28the place and uh, looks everything

1:06:30should be okay. Uh I did make one uh

1:06:33other reference is that uh I hope the uh

1:06:37new site people when you take it over if

1:06:39they can do some kind of um

1:06:42uh

1:06:44cleaning up of the area of the outside

1:06:46of the building. It looks really old and

1:06:49terrible. I know it's not a a

1:06:52requirement or anything like that, but

1:06:53if we're just talking about pretting up

1:06:55the area, I know it's a warehouse type

1:06:57of environment, but it's really not that

1:06:58attractive. Yeah,

1:07:00>> one of the principles uh of the buyers

1:07:03is in the audience tonight.

1:07:05>> I'm sure he heard your message.

1:07:06>> Yeah. Thank you.

1:07:11>> Uh just a question for staff. Has has

1:07:13fire had an opportunity to comment on

1:07:15this? I I did see the fire routing uh so

1:07:18the truck can get through the site, but

1:07:19I'm just curious if there's been any

1:07:21input on storage containers, you know,

1:07:24sitting next to buildings, if that was

1:07:26any kind of a fire concern or anything

1:07:27like that. So the fire department did uh

1:07:30send out a letter to uh the plan

1:07:32department and we forward it to the

1:07:34applicant. It was mostly in regards to

1:07:36whether private uh fire hydrants would

1:07:38be located on site. Um update of um

1:07:42knockboxes and the apparatus overload

1:07:45which was provided. Those were all

1:07:47addressed uh prior to uh this meeting.

1:07:50And so um fire was was satisfied and and

1:07:53um I actually removed the um condition

1:07:57that would address those.

1:07:58>> Okay. Thank you.

1:08:03>> Other questions? Yeah. Again, staff in

1:08:06the hearing.

1:08:10Look

1:08:10>> like we're all set. Thank you.

1:08:11>> All right. Thanks.

1:08:16have anything else to add?

1:08:20Uh, I'm going to assume the answer to

1:08:22this is no, but just for the record,

1:08:24anyone in the audience wishing to speak

1:08:26in opposition or concern of this plan

1:08:30or in favor of the plan.

1:08:35All right. And just one one last chance.

1:08:37Any questions for ahead? Nope. All

1:08:40right. In that case, I will uh close the

1:08:43hearing on this matter and we will uh

1:08:45move our discussions into public meeting

1:08:47to deliberate on the case. Um

1:08:51it seems like a very straightforward

1:08:52plan and and you know we have had this

1:08:56discussion about parking for self-s

1:08:58storage facilities on on a number of

1:09:00prior occasions and I know staff had

1:09:02helped provide some examples in the

1:09:04staff report. I think we've we've we've

1:09:07gotten pretty comfortable with the idea

1:09:08that there's, you know, there's pretty

1:09:10minimal parking require these types of

1:09:12facilities. So, you know, I personally

1:09:13don't have any have any concern with

1:09:15that that waiver. Um, but, you know, I

1:09:18mean, they obviously get input from

1:09:19other board members here,

1:09:21>> Mr. Green.

1:09:22>> Yeah. A lot of the impact that I've

1:09:24seing

1:09:26the building. It's not impacting the

1:09:27frontage. So, I don't think it really

1:09:29impacts the neighborhood too much

1:09:30outside of their their own internal

1:09:33flow.

1:09:38Mr. Green,

1:09:39>> I'd like to make a motion,

1:09:40>> please.

1:09:41>> Uh, I'd like to make a motion for new

1:09:43business 826-0186

1:09:47um to

1:09:50uh grant the following waiverss. Uh,

1:09:53well, the following waiver 190-19

1:09:58Do I have the right one? Yeah. 90-198

1:10:01to allow 15 parking spaces where 50 are

1:10:04required. Um we are utilizing the

1:10:07criteria in the RSA 674 362N and RSA

1:10:1167443E

1:10:13as well as 190-148.D

1:10:16finding that strict conformity would

1:10:17pose unnecessary hardship to the

1:10:19applicant. um and the specific

1:10:22circumstances of the waiver will uh

1:10:25properly carry out the spear intent of

1:10:26the regulations using the rationale

1:10:28provided by the applicant and the

1:10:30attached we request letter dated uh

1:10:33September 2nd 2026.

1:10:37>> Thank you. Uh that motion by Mr. Green

1:10:39is to approve the waiver request. Is

1:10:42there a second to that motion?

1:10:45Second by Mr. Hirsh. Is there any

1:10:48further discussion?

1:10:51All those in favor?

1:10:52>> I opposed? None. That motion passes. Mr.

1:10:57I'd like to

1:10:59>> continue my motion uh to grant final

1:11:02minor site plan amendment approval to

1:11:05place the self- storage containers on

1:11:06approximately 36 existing parking spaces

1:11:09for the property located at 111 and 113

1:11:11Northeastern Boulevard finding the

1:11:13application meets requirements outlined

1:11:15in 190-146D

1:11:18and subject to subsequent conditions in

1:11:20the staff report A through B

1:11:24as written.

1:11:26Thank you. That motion by Mr. Green is

1:11:28to uh grant final uh site plan approval

1:11:31with the conditions indicated. Is there

1:11:33a second to that motion?

1:11:36>> Seconded by Alderman Cle. Is there any

1:11:38further discussion?

1:11:40>> All those in favor?

1:11:42>> I

1:11:44none

1:11:45passes.

1:11:48>> Thank you.

1:11:48>> Thank you.

1:11:54Okay.

1:11:57>> So, moving on to other business. Uh,

1:12:02tenative agenda. Has anyone had an

1:12:04opportunity to review the tenant agenda

1:12:06for proposals of regional impact?

1:12:15>> Uh, Mr. Chair, haven't reviewed the

1:12:16tenative agenda. I would make a motion

1:12:18that the board find that there are no uh

1:12:23upcoming projects of regional

1:12:24significance.

1:12:26>> Thank you, Mr. Hudson. So, that motion

1:12:28is to determine no proposals of regional

1:12:30impact. Is there a second? Seconded by

1:12:32Mr. Green. Is there any further

1:12:34discussion on that?

1:12:37>> All those in favor?

1:12:38>> I oppos.

1:12:41Motion passes.

1:12:44Um

1:12:46that's it for the regular business any

1:12:48discussion items staff anything

1:12:52from board members

1:12:54>> Mr. Green

1:12:55>> motion to adjourn motion to

1:12:56>> adjourn

1:12:58all those in favor

1:13:01>> I

1:13:03done that motion passes right and we are

1:13:05adjourned at 8:13 p.m.

```*