2026-10-01 - Planning Board

00:26Okay. I now call to order the October

00:291st, 2026 meeting of the city of Nasha

00:32Planning Board.

00:32>> Can you speak up, please?

00:35>> Yeah.

00:37>> Um staff, could we do the roll call,

00:40please?

00:43>> Sure.

00:50Disres,

00:52>> Joe McIntyre

00:53>> present.

00:54>> Bob Ballinger.

00:57>> Adam Barley

00:58>> here.

00:59>> Cameron Green.

01:01>> Benjamin Zer

01:02>> here.

01:03>> Dan Hudson

01:04>> here.

01:05>> Larry Hirs

01:06>> here.

01:07>> Maggie Harper.

01:09>> Aldwin Patricia Cle

01:11>> here.

01:13>> Amber Morgan and Scott Mlair.

01:17six people who have a quorum.

01:19>> Great. Thank you. Uh appreciate that,

01:21Scott. So, yes, we have a quorum. Um

01:24next up on our agenda is approval of the

01:27minutes from the September 17th, 2026

01:30meeting. Is there a member of the board

01:32who's had an opportunity? Mr. McIntyre.

01:34>> Mr. Chairman, I move to approve the

01:37minutes of the planning board meeting

01:39held September 30th, 2026.

01:44>> Is that the date?

01:46Oh, I'm sorry. I'm reading. See, I'm

01:48doing the wrong thing by reading.

01:49[laughter]

01:50>> The date was the 17.

01:52>> 17.

01:52>> Please correct that to the 17th.

01:54>> Yes. Very good.

01:55>> Yes, sir.

01:56>> So, uh, that motion by Mr. McIntyre to

01:58approve. Is there a second? Seconded by

02:01Mr. Hudson. Is there any further

02:03discussion, corrections, comments? No.

02:07All those in favor?

02:08>> I

02:08>> I oppose.

02:11>> Extensions.

02:13One abstension. So that motion passes.

02:17Okay. Communications.

02:19Turn over to staff.

02:21>> Yes, we've had a couple communications

02:23since or changes to the agenda since the

02:26uh published on Friday. So the site plan

02:28application for 181 East Hall Street has

02:30been postponed to the October 15th

02:32meeting by applicant request. That's

02:34reflected in amended agenda for the

02:36meeting packet. Uh we have a revised

02:38staff report for 8 blue AB striking a

02:40previous condition by mental health. We

02:43have a revised staff report for 66

02:45Conqueror Street subdivision to include

02:47engineering comments received September

02:4829th. Uh additional public

02:50correspondence received for 8 Merit

02:52Parkway site plan and a revised tenative

02:54agenda. And that was all updated as of 4

02:57p.m. today.

02:58>> Great. Thank you.

03:03Okay. Report of committee and liaison.

03:07Do we have any reports from any members

03:09of the board?

03:12No,

03:13>> does not look like we do.

03:15>> Okay.

03:17Okay. Before we uh head into our regular

03:20agenda, I'm just going to briefly read

03:22the procedure of the meeting for this

03:24evening.

03:27So, after the legal notice of each

03:28conditional special use permit site plan

03:30or subdivision plan is read by the

03:32chair, the board will determine if the

03:34application is complete and ready for

03:36the board to take jurisdiction.

03:38The public hearing will begin at that

03:40point at which time the applicant or

03:42representative will be given time to

03:43present an overview and description of

03:45their project. The applicant shall speak

03:47to whether or not they agree with the

03:49stipulations recommended by staff. The

03:51board will then have an opportunity to

03:52ask relevant follow-up questions of the

03:54applicant or staff.

03:59Um the board will then take public

04:02testimony.

04:04Um, and I just do want to note for the

04:07record that the uh the chair myself have

04:10do have uh I do have the ability to

04:12limit the length of public testimony in

04:15the interest of time and um the board

04:18has routinely done that.

04:20Um when considering public testimony, we

04:23will first uh hear from anyone wishing

04:25to speak in opposition or concern to the

04:27plan and then we will hear from anyone

04:30wishing to speak in favor of the plan.

04:33Uh after hearing the public testimony,

04:35the board will ask uh re relevant follow

04:38questions of the applicant and the

04:39applicant will be given an opportunity

04:41to uh provide a rebuttal to any public

04:43testimony. After this process has been

04:46been completed, the board will begin the

04:48public meeting at which time the board

04:50will deliberate and vote on the

04:51application before us.

04:54We ask that both sides keep their

04:55remarks to the subject at hand and to

04:57not repeat what has already been said.

04:59We want to be fair to everyone and make

05:00the best possible decision based on the

05:02testimony presented in considering all

05:04applicable approval criteria in the

05:06national ordinances. Thank you for your

05:08interest and courteous attention and I

05:10ask you turn off your cell phones or

05:11silent them at this time.

05:16Okay, so turning to our regular agenda.

05:19First up we have new business

05:21conditional use permits case number

05:23A26-0194.

05:26Paul Francis Development Group LLC owner

05:28and applicant requesting a conditional

05:31use permit to convert a duplex to a

05:34two-unit condominium. This property is

05:36located at 8 Blue Hill A and that is in

05:40Ward 4. Um, as to this case, is any

05:44member of the board willing to make a

05:46motion that the application is complete

05:48and ready for the board to accept

05:49jurisdiction?

05:57Mr. McIntyre,

05:58>> I'm on a roll. [laughter]

06:00>> Uh, Mr. Chairman, I move uh to accept uh

06:05the application as complete for item

06:08A26-0194

06:128 Blue Hill Avenue.

06:15>> Thank you. So that motion has Mr.

06:16McIntyre to accept jurisdiction of

06:18826-0194.

06:21Is there a second?

06:23Second by Mr. Zer. Is there any further

06:25discussion?

06:27All those in favor? I

06:29>> I opposed. Okay, that motion passes.

06:34I don't know if there's anyone yet

06:35wishing to speak this application.

06:39>> Good evening. My name is Connor Walsh. I

06:41am the owner of Paul Francis Development

06:43Group. Um I own the property at 8 Blue

06:45Hill A right now. It's currently a two

06:48family uh property. uh single ownership,

06:52meaning there's one deed that owns the

06:54property. Um, I'm requesting a

06:56conditional use permit to convert that

06:58multifamily into two different condos. I

07:02don't plan on doing any exterior

07:04renovations. I won't be changing square

07:06footage. I won't be adding uh bedrooms

07:10or uh bathrooms to the property. I've

07:13already renovated the property as it

07:15stands. I I requested a permit from the

07:18city and that's been approved and

07:20inspected and completed. Um so at this

07:22point now I'm ready to list it for sale

07:24and it's either going to be sold as a

07:26multif family or sold as two

07:28condominiums which I prefer because

07:31there's a about a 10 to 15% per square

07:33foot premium to do so. Um there's no

07:37impact to traffic or environmental

07:39safety um as as a part of this request.

07:43Um, and then lastly, there was one

07:45condition that I saw um, regarding the

07:49individual sewage disposal system, but

07:51this property is already connected to

07:53city sewer and city water. So, um,

07:55there's no on-site private septic there,

07:58and I appreciate your consideration.

08:01>> Thank you.

08:03Questions from the board,

08:06>> Mr. Johnson?

08:07>> Uh, just relative to the sewer service,

08:09is there one sewer service shared uh,

08:10for this property? And if so, how does

08:13future maintenance and that sort of

08:15thing of that sewer, how is that

08:16covered? Is there a set of condo docks

08:18that goes with that or something?

08:19>> Yeah, so there's condo uh condo

08:22documents that we've drafted. Um sewer

08:25is considered a common area or a

08:27commonly owned utility at a 50/50 split.

08:29So the condo association would charge

08:31each unit owner 50% uh each to cover any

08:35charges.

08:37[snorts] Thank you.

08:39Other

08:43questions from the board?

08:49Looks like we're all set for now. Thank

08:51you.

08:52>> Thank you.

08:56>> Is there anyone in the audience wishing

08:58to speak in opposition or concern to

08:59this plan?

09:02Anyone wishing to speak in favor?

09:07Does staff have anything to add?

09:13Okay. Um, anything else from the board

09:15while we're still in the the public

09:17hearing either for the applicant or

09:19staff?

09:22>> No.

09:23>> No.

09:24>> All right. In that case, I will close

09:26the public hearing on this matter and we

09:28will move into the public meeting.

09:31Um,

09:33this seems about as straightforward as

09:35it gets. uh no changes to the site

09:38whatsoever. It is, you know, effectively

09:41just a change to the the formal legal

09:44ownership. So, um no concerns from my

09:47end, but certainly happy to hear from

09:50other members of the board if you have

09:52have questions, concerns,

09:54anything anyone wants to raise.

10:03Well, if anyone is so inclined,

10:08um we you know, we don't have any

10:11waiverss here, so it's just a matter of

10:14um

10:16a motion on the conditional use approval

10:21whether to to grant that or not. So,

10:26Mr. McIntyre,

10:27>> Mr. Chairman, I move to approve

10:30conditional uh use for item A26-0194,

10:38Paul Francis Development Group, 8 Blue

10:42Hill Avenue as discussed.

10:46Thank you. So, that motion is by Mr.

10:48McIntyre um to grant conditional use

10:52approval for 826-0194.

10:56Is there a second? I'll second.

10:58>> Second by Alderman Cle. Is there any

11:00further discussion?

11:04All those in favor?

11:05>> I

11:06>> opposed. And that motion passes.

11:09>> Thank you.

11:18>> Okay. Next we have new business

11:20subdivision plans

11:22A26-0167

11:26Crimson Properties LLC owner and

11:28applicant requesting a two lot

11:30subdivision. This property is located at

11:3366 Conquer Street in Ward 3.

11:37Um, so again to to start I would ask

11:42whether there's any member of the board

11:43who would be willing to make a motion

11:46that this application is complete and

11:47ready for the board to accept

11:49jurisdiction.

11:52>> Looks like I'm the guy.

11:54>> All right, [laughter and clears throat]

11:55Mr. McInt.

11:57>> Mr. Chairman, I move uh to um say

12:04that um item A26167

12:08Crimson Properties LLC

12:10located at 66 Conquer Street is

12:15what's the rest of it again? Uh complete

12:18and ready for board review.

12:23So that motion is by Mr. McIntyre um

12:26finding that A26-0167

12:28is complete and ready for the board to

12:30accept jurisdiction. Is there a second

12:32to that motion

12:34second by Alderman Cle? Is there any

12:37further discussion?

12:39All those in favor?

12:41>> I opposed. That motion passes.

12:46>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good

12:47evening everybody. For the record, my

12:48name is Paul Chisum. I'm with Kee

12:50Nordstrom Associates. We are the

12:51engineers and surveyors of record for

12:53the project. Uh I am joined tonight by

12:55Brad Wesgate who's an attorney with uh

12:57Welss White and Fontaine. We are

12:59representing the property owner and

13:00applicant Crimson Properties LLC. Mr.

13:03Randy Tural, who's the principal of

13:04Crimson Properties LLC, is actually

13:06joining us tonight by Zoom as well. The

13:08project before you is relatively simple

13:10in concept, but there are a few

13:11important nuances that we'd like to go

13:12over given the history and location of

13:14the property. [clears throat]

13:16The applicant is proposing to subdivide

13:1866 Conquer Street into two parcels. In

13:20conjunction with that subdivision, the

13:21applicant intends to undergo a

13:23substantial revitalization of the

13:24property, including full restoration and

13:27renovation of the existing home, raising

13:29of the carriage house, which actually

13:30has already been done, constructing a

13:33new carriage house in the same style as

13:35the old carriage house, but relocating

13:36it behind the existing home, and

13:38ultimately constructing a new single

13:40family home with a detached twocar

13:41garage on the newly created lot.

13:44The existing existing parcel contains

13:46just under 25,000 square feet in total

13:49area. It's a corner lot with frontage on

13:51both Conquered Street and Hall Avenue.

13:53It's situated in the RB zoning district

13:55as well as the historic Overlay

13:57district. It's relatively flat and it

13:59contains good sandy soil as well as uh

14:02city utilities which are pretty typical

14:04for that area of the of Nashville.

14:07Uh the existing residence is listed as a

14:09five- bedroomedroom single family home.

14:11According to assessing records, the

14:13original construction actually dates

14:14back to 1870. Uh this home is in

14:17complete need of repair, renovation, uh

14:20and needs to be restored. It's in really

14:22tough shape at the moment. Uh those

14:24activities are underway as well.

14:26Currently, there's two curb cuts serving

14:28the property, one off of Hall A and

14:29another off of Conquered Street. Uh as

14:32that driveway kind of loops around and

14:34connects to both of those streets, it

14:36goes behind the house and passes under a

14:37portico.

14:39Uh the proposed subdivision would divide

14:41this property into two lots with the new

14:43lot having frontage on conquered street.

14:45As I mentioned, that existing lot is

14:46serviced by the city utilities as would

14:48the new property as well. Importantly,

14:51uh both resulting lots comply with all

14:53dimensional requirements and regulations

14:55of the RB zoning district. We're not

14:57here asking for any relief in that

14:59regard. Uh there's nothing here that's

15:01undersized and we're not trying to

15:02reduce frontage setbacks or any other

15:04dimensional requirements.

15:08The applicant has given considerable

15:09thought as to how to develop this

15:11property in a in a reasonable and

15:12responsible manner.

15:14A very specific architectural concept

15:16has been developed based on the

15:17available building envelope and the

15:19character of the surrounding

15:20neighborhood. The intent is for the new

15:21residents to draw from the architectural

15:23elements that exist uh around it and

15:25including the house located at 66

15:27Conquer Street and of course fit

15:29comfortably within that existing

15:30streetscape along Conquer Street as

15:32well. The intent is for each of the

15:34homes, both the existing and the new

15:35one, to be constructed, uh to have those

15:38detached carriage style uh garages, uh

15:41with an opportunity to also house an ADU

15:43above them on the second floor.

15:45[clears throat]

15:46The applicant has provided rendering

15:48showing both the renovation of the

15:50existing residence as well as the

15:51concept for the proposed new home. Um

15:54Sam or whoever, I I don't know if it's

15:56possible to pull those up to kind of get

15:58a sense and flavor for what they are.

16:01Um, these renderings, at least for the

16:03existing home, [clears throat] has

16:05appeared before the historic district

16:07and at its July 27th, 2026 meeting

16:10received unanimous unanimous approval

16:12for the repair and renovation. Um, the

16:15first [clears throat] one that we're

16:15looking at there at the top is actually

16:17the new home situated adjacent to the

16:19existing home. As we scroll down on the

16:22screen there, you'll see just a couple

16:23different views of the existing home and

16:25kind of all the proposed finishes and uh

16:28retouching up of of [clears throat] that

16:30property and of that dwelling.

16:33Uh we have asked staff to include

16:35minutes from the HDC meeting in the

16:36record because there's obviously a lot

16:38of considerable detail that goes into uh

16:40this type of thing and um you know just

16:43for context I think it's important to

16:44have that as part of the record and for

16:45your review as well. uh in earlier in

16:48the initial concept for this subdivision

16:51did contemplate three fully conforming

16:53lots as the subdivision which included

16:56another um uh parcel located off Hall

16:58Avenue. Uh during the conversations with

17:01HDC and just as things kind of developed

17:04on this property, I think the applicant

17:05realized that it was probably a better

17:07project to move forward with just simply

17:09the two lot subdivision that's before

17:11you tonight.

17:14Um, while these renovations to the

17:16existing house did have that HDC

17:18approval, the proposed new residence

17:19itself has not yet been reviewed. So, I

17:21just want to make sure we're all clear

17:22on that. I don't want to make any

17:23misrepresentations.

17:25Um, you know, he's pulling inspiration

17:27from those conversations that were had,

17:29but that conversation hasn't been

17:31presented fully yet. Um, obviously, if

17:34um things go well tonight, that's the

17:36next kind of step in the process for

17:38him. Uh, but of course, Randy does

17:41remain committed to returning to the

17:42HCC, having all those necessary

17:44conversations and gaining their approval

17:45for anything that would be constructed

17:46on the new lot or any changes to that

17:48existing one.

17:50The staff report makes note of two cases

17:52that came before the planning board

17:53years ago, including a subdivision on

17:55Conquered Street. The first case is

17:56actually earlier than that. It's from

17:581987. It's known as Victorian Reality

18:01Group versus um City of Nshawa. This

18:03actually involved two pro properties on

18:05French Street and Manchester Street. We

18:07believe that the addresses of those are

18:09uh 10 French and four Manchester. The

18:12other case uh which is a little bit more

18:14recent is Gutman versus the city of

18:16Nashville. That's from 2009 that

18:18involved uh the property with an address

18:20of threewart Terrace uh which um had

18:24frontage on conquered street as well and

18:26was located at the extreme north end of

18:28the historic district. Uh the materials

18:31made available to you include the court

18:32decisions in each case as well as the

18:33planning board minutes for the

18:34government case. Attorney Westgate, as I

18:36mentioned, is with me tonight. He can

18:38address questions that you may have

18:39regarding those core cases or kind of

18:41their impact on the proposal here

18:43tonight. As well for this particular

18:44subdivision, I think it's important to

18:46note that the cases do not stand for the

18:48proposition that no subdivision is

18:50allowed on Conquered Street. Um, but

18:53rather for the proposition that the

18:54planning board looks to approval

18:56criteria in the land use code and in

18:58this case section 190 138 when

19:00evaluating really any subdivision uh

19:02plan. As noted in the government case,

19:04these criteria include the notion that

19:06the subdivision be compatible with the

19:08existing character of the neighborhood

19:10uh and to ensure that it preserves the

19:12natural character and features of the

19:13area and surrounding properties as well.

19:16I should note that section 1913 G1 also

19:20indicates that the subdivision be

19:22consistent with the goals, objectives,

19:23and strategies of the city's master

19:25plan. Of course, the land use code in

19:27its current form was adopted January

19:292nd, 2006. So that 1987 case was heard

19:32under a different set of circumstances

19:33and with a different criteria.

19:36Um in light of those cases, however, I'd

19:38like to provide some details regarding

19:39the historic district and the trends and

19:41elements of its character and how this

19:43proposal has its own unique aspects that

19:46are much different from those other two

19:47cases. In short, we believe the facts

19:50and con uh and the context surrounding

19:51this particular proposal are materially

19:53different. To understand why, I think

19:55it's really important that you actually

19:56first take a look at the historic

19:58district. Um, I did submit uh a little

20:01three-page visual uh that should be with

20:04you guys electronically. Uh, the first

20:06page looks like this. It's an overview

20:09of the historic district. If anybody

20:10would like a paper copy instead, I'd be

20:13happy to pass them out.

20:19>> Don't want you to do the work for

20:20nothing.

20:27Just going [clears throat] through that

20:28real quick. Um, yeah, this this first

20:31sheet here again is really just an

20:33overview of the historic overlay in its

20:35entirety. On that, it's the green dash

20:38line. Um, you'll notice that it really

20:41spans, uh, a number of different, you

20:43know, zoning districts. You know, from

20:46the very north end of this, uh, it's the

20:48RA district. uh things transition south

20:52along Conquered Street into more dense

20:54residential uh like the RB zoning

20:56district which this property is within

20:58and then the RC residential district and

21:01then you even get down into you know the

21:02downtown mixeduse as well as even

21:04clipping a little corner the uh general

21:06industrial mixeduse zoning districts as

21:09well correspondingly there's a broad

21:11range of existing uses throughout this

21:13district uh as you can imagine with so

21:15many different underlying districts uh

21:17they include anywhere from single family

21:19homes homes, multif family residences, a

21:22variety of commercial uses, schools,

21:24churches, and of course uh many other

21:26things. There's also a significant

21:28variation in uh lot area, frontages,

21:31widths, depths, building setbacks, and

21:33of course spacing between structures.

21:37The context is important because the

21:38question is not whether a new lot being

21:41created in the uh can be created in the

21:43historic district but you know how can

21:45it be created in the historic district

21:47with uh fitting into the neighborhood

21:49and surrounding area. The second sheet

21:52of that packet kind of takes a little

21:54bit closer look and zooms in on the

21:56north part of the historic overlay.

22:00uh basically from uh that Manchester

22:03Street, Conquered Street split and up to

22:06the northernmost part obviously the

22:09southern portion of that right at the

22:10splits in the RC zoning district

22:13underlying um then as you move forward

22:16uh and and north on that again the 66

22:18conquer street pro property itself is in

22:20the RB and then it extends as I

22:22mentioned all the way north to the RA.

22:25Um you can actually see the physical

22:26manifestation of these zoning

22:28transitions. I think by looking at this

22:31uh clearly as you move north these lots

22:33do get bigger as you go up on the sheet.

22:36Uh and then you'll notice that there's a

22:38red line drawn in uh just north of Stark

22:42Street. The applicant believes that's

22:43really actually the transition point

22:45between kind of larger lots to the very

22:47north end of this district and smaller

22:49lots um to the uh south of that. The

22:53last sheet of this handout actually

22:56shows basically the what we kind of

23:00consider what the applicant considers

23:01the the neighborhood and um

23:04stylistically the neighborhood that

23:06surrounds the property at 66 conquered.

23:08Uh on this you'll also see in red lines

23:10the proposed subdivision lines and then

23:13um the uh three red blocks are basically

23:16the um proposed structures kind of as

23:19they're shown on the plan here tonight.

23:24Um within this area on this third sheet,

23:27there's about 23 properties here. The

23:30subject parcel is the largest. Uh after

23:32the subdivision, the uh remnant parent

23:35uh parcel will remain uh in the average

23:38size of about 15 to 16,000 square feet,

23:41which is typical for lots kind of in

23:43this little neighborhood area here.

23:46Um, of course, the uh new lot that

23:49fronts exclusively on Conquer Street

23:51will be a little bit smaller, but I

23:52should note it's not the smallest in the

23:54district. Uh, it doesn't have the least

23:56amount of frontage or lot width or

23:59anything like that. It's certainly on

24:00the smaller side, but isn't the

24:02smallest.

24:03Um, particularly interesting is the

24:06block just to the north and block to the

24:09south of of this property are very

24:12similar uh situations that already

24:14exist. kind of what's being proposed in

24:16that if you take a look at lot 6590

24:19that is a a more narrow smaller parcel

24:22sandwiched in between two corner lots

24:25and then again on the south side of that

24:27looking at lot 6670 and 6632.

24:31Uh those are also a little bit narrower

24:33and smaller lots um each with less

24:36frontage than the proposed lots here. Uh

24:39and those have 54 and 43 feet of

24:41frontage respectively.

24:43Um [clears throat] so while this

24:44proposal introduces an additional lot

24:46the resulting pattern is not foreign to

24:48this area or this section of conquered

24:50street um there's obviously these

24:53properties that exist in the immediate

24:54vicinity uh with comparable lot widths

24:56and frontages

24:59taken together with these facts um that

25:02distinguish this proposal from the SWAT

25:04terrace subdivision. Uh this obviously

25:07is, you know, as I mentioned, it started

25:09off as a fully compliant in terms of uh

25:11dimensional requirements, a three lot

25:14subdivision. Um you know, this isn't a a

25:17proposal that tries to maximize this

25:18property and squeeze every last little

25:20thing out of it.

25:22Um

25:23the existing carriage house, which was

25:26beyond repair, has obviously um you

25:28know, been raised and it's going to be

25:30uh replaced similarly uh as it had

25:33existed. Uh and the proposal obviously

25:36to construct a new carriage house to the

25:38rear of uh the main home now uh is going

25:42to comply with all the requirements in

25:43the underlying district as well.

25:47The applicant has developed a specific

25:49architectural concept. I think you saw

25:51pictures of that a little bit earlier in

25:52the presentation. Uh again, this new

25:54residence draws upon the character and

25:56architectural features of uh the

25:58property at 66 Conquer Street, which is

26:01existing, as well as these surrounding

26:02properties as well. Uh in short, the

26:05proposal respects the existing

26:06development pattern along this portion

26:08of Conquer Street while also allowing

26:10for the restoration and productive use

26:11of an important historic property. Um,

26:14the intent is not to introduce something

26:16incompatible uh in form to the

26:18development of this area or into the

26:20historic district, but rather uh make a

26:23compatible addition to something that's

26:24already here uh while preserving and

26:27reinvesting and reinvigorating a

26:28property that's in desperate need of of

26:31um uh redevelopment.

26:35Uh when considering to improve an

26:36application, the HDC looks at the

26:38governing ordinances. uh in this case

26:40section 19022A2B

26:42which deals with the proposal's general

26:44compatibility of exterior design,

26:46arrangement, textures, materials uh

26:48proposed to be used, including its

26:50setting. Uh this is among the same

26:52criteria that was considered by the

26:53planning board in 2009 government case,

26:56but of course um that that project was

26:58denied. With respect to 66 Conquer

27:01Street, the HAC has already approved the

27:02applicant's uh proposed renovation of

27:04that existing house and already approved

27:06the reconstruction of the carriage

27:07house. uh and basically kind of agreed

27:10that those characteristics have been

27:12met. Uh again, the applicant because of

27:13that feels fairly comfortable in being

27:15able to do the same thing and

27:17replicating that on the new lot as well.

27:22Um in terms of uh you know abutters and

27:26the surrounding area uh there were a

27:28number of letters of support that I

27:30think were received by the board. Um and

27:34uh I think that was also a pretty stark

27:36difference between both the 1987 and the

27:382009 cases as well. Those had pretty

27:40significant opposition is my

27:42understanding.

27:44Uh you know finally uh you know this is

27:47an application a subdivision application

27:49just like any other. Uh we do have two

27:51proposed waiver requests. Um one is

27:53pretty typical in that we've asked for a

27:55waiver not to survey and locate all

27:57existing features within 1,000 ft of the

27:59site. Um uh the second is to allow

28:01overhead utilities which is obviously

28:03something that really exists throughout

28:05this area quite prevalently. Um there

28:08are full letters speaking and addressing

28:09kind of the criteria of those waiverss

28:11that were included in your packet. I

28:12would be happy to go into those in more

28:14detail should anybody um ask or or want

28:18to discuss either of those in more

28:19detail. Um we have reviewed the staff

28:22report and the recommendations and

28:23conditions of approval. We don't take

28:25any exception to any of those. I think

28:27there was one staff comment in there too

28:29to kind of work with them to better

28:30develop a landscaping plan. We're

28:32certainly committed to doing that and

28:33make sure that this comes out to be, you

28:36know, an appropriate scape uh landscape

28:38plan for what this area is and what this

28:40property is. Uh and so with all that

28:43being said, um you know, we're certainly

28:45happy to turn it back over to the board

28:46and address and answer any questions you

28:48or the public might have. Thank you.

28:50>> Thank you. Uh just initially a a

28:52question or maybe sort of point of

28:54confirmation with staff in this

28:57refers to a point the applicant made. If

29:01the board were to act favorably on this

29:04application tonight, um my understanding

29:07is that the the building itself um

29:10whatever is constructed on the

29:12subdivided lot would then still have to

29:14go before the HDC in order to get a

29:17building permit. Is that correct?

29:18>> Yeah, that's correct.

29:19>> Thank you. Um okay, questions from the

29:23board for the or for staff? Sure,

29:26>> Mr. M.

29:27>> I want to actually ask a series of

29:28questions, but they're al mostly really

29:31uh discussion questions. Okay. Uh just

29:33for clarification points. So the um you

29:37know, I don't have to agree with um uh

29:41the um everything that you said, but um

29:44especially on the the idea of u to me

29:46conquered street the you know the the

29:49view starts really a little earlier than

29:52what you had said. [snorts] But uh and

29:54again I'm not on the historic uh

29:56district commission. I'm only here to

29:57talk about the site um uh subdivision

30:00and follow you know all the accepting

30:02approval criteria that we're supposed to

30:04follow. Right. So um given that I also

30:08want to say you know uh just feedback

30:10for us is the building itself is very um

30:14again please this is not a HDC comment

30:17uh is very historical in the sense that

30:19it's it's from 1898 I think and um I'm

30:23pleased that you're rehabbing that

30:25building because that building uh sure

30:27could use a lot of work and I've driven

30:29by it uh twice this week to get a better

30:32appreciation for it. So that that looks

30:34good and continue your work with what

30:35you're doing with HD uh DC on your

30:37building permits. Thank you. Um but um

30:41you know one of the uh criterias for us

30:44is the site plan should be consistent

30:46with the goals and objectives of the

30:48strategic plan and I always say that at

30:50these meetings because that's one of my

30:52uh hot buttons especially uh because I

30:54represent um the mayor's seat. Right.

30:58So, um, the master plan, when I saw the

31:01visuals of the second building that

31:03you're building, the smaller building, I

31:05didn't think I saw anything but a 21st

31:07century, uh, building, you know, and uh,

31:11if we were talking about consistency

31:13with the master plan, I think

31:16you're still not that far off that it

31:18that to me that I should be making a big

31:20stink over it. But I I I don't see

31:22anything other than pitch roofs

31:24similarities. Okay. Feedback. Um but uh

31:28I can't really necessarily say that

31:30that's a uh a major diversion from the

31:33city's master plan. Um the other thing

31:36that I was going to say was um I find it

31:38unfortunate that um you know uh this is

31:43a personal opinion which really doesn't

31:45matter. What [clears throat] really

31:46matters is the the rules and regulations

31:48and things like that. But I do find it

31:50unfortunate that it that that lot which

31:53is a big beautiful lot will be

31:55subdivided because uh uh you know that

31:59whole frontage area of that street of

32:01that street has a lot of big homes that

32:04make it almost like a a touring visit

32:07for people want to see national

32:09architecture. So when you split that up,

32:11I think you've you've kind of um

32:15uh you know gone against the spirit of

32:17of of the um of the of the gist of that

32:22place. But if you're within the um again

32:26the uh context of our approval criteria,

32:28there's nothing I can really do about

32:30that. So, my last piece I guess was in a

32:35form of a question for either uh the the

32:37staff and if you want to follow up, but

32:40uh I've read the staff report and and

32:42have had a good review of it. Um they're

32:45following all of the criteria of um of

32:49the ordinances and the state laws and

32:52they have um a favorable staff report,

32:56right, to go ahead on the um

32:59uh project. But um is there anything I'm

33:03missing um that uh is

33:08debatable for subdividing this land

33:14from a from an from a rules and

33:16regulation standpoint?

33:19>> I think you've adequately captured um

33:22with a comment about uh the approval

33:24criteria. You know, really what the

33:26scope of this board's review is. Now

33:29[clears throat] while it's limiting in a

33:32way you know those are the the criteria

33:34against which you need to judge a

33:36project by um we have also provided you

33:39with some recent case law um that has

33:42supported uh past denials of

33:45subdivisions within the district. Um and

33:47I do just want to uh make one correction

33:49in that the um

33:52>> the staff report remains neutral okay

33:54I'm sorry

33:54>> on this on this case. I I do want to be

33:56clear about that. Yes. And and the

33:58reason being is that because while while

34:01the proposed lot certainly meets

34:02[clears throat]

34:03regulation in terms of the the

34:05dimensional regulations of the

34:07underlying district, um there's

34:10obviously quite a bit of nuance here

34:11with with the previous case law. Um so

34:14we wanted to provide the board with all

34:16of that information so that the board

34:17can make an informed decision. Um

34:20because there is a lot of nuance here.

34:22Um so

34:24>> okay. So, please accept my apology for

34:26misrepresenting the staff report.

34:32>> Other questions from the board?

34:39>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a few general

34:41things, Paul. Um, in looking through the

34:43subdivision application, um, I'm

34:44noticing on the demolition plan, you're

34:46not calling for a whole lot of trees to

34:47be removed on the south side or on the

34:49western side. Um, any big trees that are

34:52being removed from the perimeter of the

34:53building. I know obviously or from the

34:54the lot, excuse me. I know you'd have to

34:56take out a few in the center. Um that

34:58vegetation buffer I think would

34:59certainly be important for for the

35:01neighbors. Um any thoughts there? Um

35:03anything you can speak to?

35:05>> Sure.

35:06>> Yeah. And let me just pull open that uh

35:09plan so I can walk through that for a

35:11minute.

35:17Yeah, I think um just generally

35:19speaking, I know uh Ry's interested in

35:21kind of maintaining and preserving as

35:23much as possible. There's obviously some

35:25things that are just going to have to

35:27go. They're in the way, that sort of

35:28thing, right? Um there are a number of

35:31trees that actually between the

35:33Southernly property line, there's

35:34actually like two trees that are are

35:36pretty mature and big that actually

35:38exist on the adjacent property. So, you

35:40know, obviously we can't do anything to

35:41remove those, you know, unless some sort

35:44of agreement was reached with them, but

35:46that's not even something that's

35:47contemplated or that he's thinking about

35:49doing. Um, at the end of the day, you

35:51know, again, and this speaks a little

35:53bit to your point about the

35:54architecture, right? It's not

35:55necessarily your cup of tea, per se. Um,

35:57I think the folks that do have to judge

35:59that are the HDC and I think they're

36:01going to work through that and they're

36:02going to make sure that the appropriate

36:03details are on there and that any little

36:05architectural features that they feel

36:06are missing maybe such as you have um,

36:09you know, would be provided. In doing

36:11that, I think that's going to change the

36:13shape and form of this a little bit, you

36:15know, so I can't sit here and say, "Oh,

36:16this tree is going to stay, that tree is

36:17going to go." Um, obviously I think he's

36:19going to take care to kind of keep the

36:21trees. I think that's part of the charm

36:23of the property, quite frankly. Um, I

36:25will say that, um, if you look at, for

36:27example, on our subdivision plan, we

36:30have a an easement for the sewer service

36:32that runs between the properties and out

36:34to Hall A. Oddly enough, this section of

36:37Conquer Street just doesn't have sewer

36:38along the frontage. It's it's honestly

36:40kind of bizarre. Uh, but simple enough

36:42to solve. Um, right now we are actually

36:45showing that we we kind of tried to uh

36:47we engineered it a little too hard, I

36:49think, and tried to keep it away from

36:50buildings. uh in looking at that Randy

36:52actually did want me to adjust that so

36:54that tree could be saved. So I mean you

36:56know he's looking at things like that

36:57actively kind of at every step along the

36:59way and as he makes adjustments to get

37:01all final approvals and everything like

37:03that you know those thoughts will be

37:04considered

37:06>> in keeping with the landscape as well.

37:08I'm curious have you engaged in a

37:09landscape architect or engaged a

37:10landscape architect yet I know to

37:12address that technical

37:13>> we have not but I think that's that's

37:14certainly the way to address that

37:16concern from staff. Yeah.

37:18>> Was just curious about yeah how

37:19significantly or or what the plan was

37:21for plantings whether it's you know

37:22preserving the view and not necessarily

37:24doing a whole lot of plantings on the

37:25frontage or kind of creating more of a

37:27barrier there. Just curious about the

37:28intent.

37:29>> Yeah. And I'm not a landscape architect

37:31so I don't want to you know uh say

37:33anything kind of out of line here. But

37:35um certainly I think at the end of the

37:36day we're going to work with staff to

37:38make sure that there's something

37:39appropriate there and that that's not

37:40lost in translation by the end of this.

37:42>> Okay. Okay. Thank you. Um just just one

37:45or two more questions. Um, I'm noticing

37:47a uh a hatch along Hall Avenue for the

37:49um sidewalk. There's a note for removal

37:52of sidewalk in certain areas. That's

37:54just for a utility patch. Is that right?

37:55That sidewalk will be maintained all

37:57throughout.

37:57>> That's correct. Yeah. The intent here is

37:58really to make use of those existing

38:00curb cuts for the driveways. Uh

38:03anything, you know, obviously there's

38:04just some utilities that have to go

38:05underground and we'll have to kind of

38:06cut through areas and will have to be

38:08replaced. Uh so that's that's precisely

38:10what that is.

38:11>> Any thoughts on uh you know, ripping up

38:13the sidewalk there and redoing it? It's

38:14kind of in disrepair at the moment. I

38:16know it's not private property at that

38:18mo at that spot. It's more public, but

38:20any any thoughts about refurbishing the

38:22sidewalk there?

38:23>> Sure. Uh to be honest, it we haven't

38:25contemplated it. Um we did receive some

38:27feedback from DPW that we haven't truly

38:30fully digested yet. I'm not sure if that

38:32is worked in there at all, but um

38:34>> uh you know, obviously it'll be kind of

38:35patched up in areas it has to be and it

38:37may make sense to do more, but um that's

38:40that's about where that sits in the

38:41Okay,

38:42>> that's it for me. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

38:44Thank you, Alderman Cle.

38:46>> Um, thank you, Mr. Chair. I am on the

38:49HTC committee. Um, I wasn't there when

38:52Mr. Tal um, presented this, but I was

38:54there when he presented the first time.

38:56I wasn't there when he did the final

38:58approval and he made some sub

39:00substantial changes um, where he wanted

39:02the three subdivisions and then he

39:05worked with neighbors, he worked with

39:06with all the I have been inside that

39:09house and there are some gorgeous

39:10elements to it. Um that one room with

39:13the the ceiling and the wall just

39:15beautiful. Um but there's not one

39:20floor that's straight. They all go like

39:23this. Be great for little matchbox cars,

39:25but uh not so much for trying to live in

39:28it. Um he he did have to go in front of

39:31the HDC where they had to talk about the

39:34big picture windows, what was going to

39:35be changed. the historic district cannot

39:38discuss or cannot um mandate any changes

39:41or no changes with inside the building.

39:43It's only on the outside of the

39:45building. So, so he did he did come he

39:47did talk he did um compromise to two um

39:52subdivisions. Um

39:55the the house that will be put next to

39:58it will go under scrutiny of the HDC,

40:02strong scrutiny of the HDC because it

40:04has to be keeping with the

40:05characteristic of the neighborhood. But

40:08the house prior just before that is very

40:11different than this Frank Cook house. Um

40:15and uh at one time I think there was a

40:1764 conquered street where there was

40:18another Italian style home that was kind

40:21of in between that area. So, my feeling,

40:24and this is just me, um, as long as he's

40:27maintaining the historic

40:30historicness, I'll use my own word here,

40:32of the Frank Cook home that was

40:34originally built and so on, the fact

40:36that he wants to subdivide, it does

40:38change the size of the lot, but I don't

40:40foresee that as truly changing the

40:43neighborhood.

40:44It'll be the historic district's um um

40:48strength and vote that will determine

40:51what type of home and and so on that can

40:53be built there. And I do think we need

40:55to keep with the um subdivision. I think

40:57all the rules and regulations have been

40:59met for that. So just

41:02I I just wanted to kind of give my

41:04colleagues here some background as to

41:06that. I have been there and been on the

41:08HDC

41:11Other

41:16questions from the board?

41:21>> We're all set for now. Thank you. Thank

41:22you.

41:27>> Is there anyone in the audience wishing

41:29to speak in opposition or concern to

41:30this plan?

41:33So, I'd ask you to come forward.

41:38Is there anyone? Do we have anyone on

41:39Zoom other than Randy?

41:44Is there anyone in the audience wishing

41:45to speak in favor of this plan?

41:50Okay.

41:53Um, one last chance for the board. Any

41:55questions for

41:57the applicant or staff while we're in

41:59the public hearing?

42:03All right. Well, in that case, um I will

42:07close the public hearing on this case

42:09and we will take our deliberations into

42:11the public meeting.

42:15Um so I think a good place to start is a

42:19segue there from Alderman Cle's remarks.

42:22Um, as she indicated obviously and in

42:25his staff had confirmed and the

42:27applicant as well, the historic district

42:29commission will will of course have the

42:33opportunity to review

42:35um the character of the building itself.

42:38Um, and frankly I don't know that we

42:40really have enough information even if

42:43even if if the you know we were so

42:46inclined to to consider the character of

42:48the building um to make a judgment about

42:50that. But I think as staff has indicated

42:54um you know there are some cases

42:58um some precedent that indicates that

43:00the board can consider the the lot size

43:03dimensions itself in terms of character

43:06of the neighborhood um and and therefore

43:09you know whether in this particular

43:12district the you know the subdivision

43:14meets the character on that basis. um

43:18you know my my personal perspective on

43:20that and I think the applicant did a

43:21good job of of kind of illustrating this

43:24pictorially right in terms of that that

43:27section of the the neighborhood. Um you

43:30know demonstrating that that there are a

43:32number of other lots that that are

43:35similarly sized to the the new lot that

43:38would be created here. Um, and so, you

43:43know, at least from my perspective, and

43:44and obviously reasonable minds could

43:45disagree, but,

43:47um, you know, it seems to me that it is

43:50not I I would not call this the new lot

43:53being created here is out of character

43:54with the neighborhood given just what we

43:57see, you know, in the blocks north and

44:01south immediately of of this proposed

44:03lot. So, I I personally would be would

44:06be comfortable with, you know,

44:08determination that, you know, the

44:09subdivision here meets the character of

44:11the neighborhood, but um I would like to

44:13open it up for comments from the other

44:15members. Alderman Cle.

44:16>> Uh thank you. I I want to add to what I

44:18said. Um and I think this lot was

44:20referenced 70 Conquered Street. I think

44:22you called it 691 170. Um 70 Conquered

44:25Street. If one were to look at that,

44:27it's a very old home as well. um it's

44:31needs a little work, a little TLC on it

44:33and so on. Um with because it too has

44:35overgrowth, but it's got the narrower um

44:38frontage widthwise and so on. Um so if

44:41that is keeping with within the

44:43neighborhood um I also feel that um

44:46subdividing this and doing that if if

44:50this home were a little bit further up

44:52north, I might have um a little anxiety

44:55about it being subdivided and put have a

44:57newer home put in there. Um, but I know

45:00that the that the historic district

45:03commission um members are very very

45:07vehement about keeping things as

45:08historical as possible. So I believe

45:10that in that other property they will

45:13keep with that from the south. They're

45:16not going to build a big giant mansion

45:18style home there. It it will be a more

45:20modest home there. Um, someone can bring

45:23up the fact that we allowed a

45:24subdivision on Manchester Street also in

45:26historic district. Um, but I will just

45:29want to reiterate, it sounds like I'm

45:30contradicting myself here, but

45:32Manchester Street Historic District and

45:33Conquered Street historic districts in

45:35my opinion are two different um animals.

45:39However, there's nothing that says they

45:42are different. So, keeping with that,

45:45it's something we already have done on

45:47Manchester Street um with the historical

45:50district home. So, just want to kind of

45:53add that to it.

45:55Mr. M,

45:56>> just to continue just to get it on the

45:57record. I mean, it's it's not a um a uh

46:01deal breaker, alderman, for me. Um and

46:04I'm not going to talk again about the

46:06historic district commission's um um um

46:10mission. You know, they've already

46:12allowed building permits. They're

46:14working on the building right now. So,

46:16they're doing what they got to do with

46:18the owner. Okay. the the the discussion

46:20for me was whether or not we want to

46:22make a subdivision on a lot that size.

46:25And then secondarily is the points that

46:28I was making about, you know, within our

46:31site approval site plan approval

46:32criteria, the idea of of does it align

46:35with the goals and consistent

46:37strategies. Okay, debatable, right? And

46:39I'm not going to continue on it, but

46:41it's debatable in my mind. And then

46:44another one is unique aesthetic,

46:45architectural and visual character of

46:47nearby buildings or cluster of buildings

46:49shall be maintained and the site plan

46:50shall be in harmony with such character.

46:53Okay, those are part of our criteria and

46:56it's borderline for me. The point I'm

46:59making finally on this is um and and

47:02again it's not necessarily uh anything

47:05other than a a a um observation but you

47:10know

47:11the planning board sometimes has to make

47:14tough calls, right? And uh the the

47:18guidelines of staying to the rules and

47:20regulations and the ordinances and all

47:22that kind of stuff is the real Magna

47:25Carta, right? to to to make sure that we

47:28don't violate anything like that.

47:31But there will come a time when maybe

47:35not my term, I'm sure, probably not my

47:37term, uh but but um you know where

47:40you'll have to make some discussion that

47:43are going to be pausing you to not think

47:47necessarily about black and white. And

47:50so that's why I'm bringing up those

47:52points because in my view there's some

47:54gray in here and it doesn't feel hey way

47:58to go completely but the owner is doing

48:01what he's allowed to do. And I hope

48:05without belaboring it again that the HGC

48:07does all they can to work in concert

48:10with them to keep a good um aesthetic on

48:13the thing. But, uh, I've got to follow

48:16what's what's what, uh, uh, I believe

48:19are the, um, rules and regs rather than

48:23my opinion. So, that's where I am at.

48:28>> Mle.

48:29>> Uh, thank you. Um, I do want to add um a

48:33little additional information to this

48:35that that we've seen on the plan and and

48:37please correct me if I'm wrong, but um

48:40the proposed location of the building in

48:45that second subdivision um is set back

48:48even further than the home at 62

48:50Concrete Street, which is right next

48:51door. Um so it's keeping I think within

48:55in line of that. So, it's not quite up

48:57to the street. When you look at 62

48:59Concrete Street, it's much closer.

49:01There's less frontage to to that

49:03property. There's also a parking lot

49:04alongside that. So, I always consider as

49:08I'm driving through on my from, you

49:10know, heading north that this home is

49:12actually, in my opinion, when we look at

49:15the big beautiful homes, it's the first

49:17house on the left of the true strong

49:20historic district where you might see a

49:22plaque and so on. that's part of the um

49:25um you know the registry and and so on.

49:27I don't see the subdivision as being a

49:30change. The carriage houses um the

49:34garage for lack of a better term has

49:35already been knocked down and so on and

49:38you know this is going to kind of go

49:39more towards that direction. So I don't

49:42see it even from a personal point of

49:45view. I I am the alderman for W three.

49:49This is my district. Um I was very with

49:53the neighbors when they said, "Oh my

49:55god, this is going to be happening." So

49:57the um developer has gone and talked to

49:59all the neighbors. Um while they may not

50:02like every part of it, they've kind of

50:05appreciated his changing. I don't see

50:07this even changing the character of the

50:09neighborhood because it's right, like I

50:12said, right next to 62, I think 62

50:14conquered, um which is closer to the

50:16street. This is going to be actually

50:17behind that.

50:19>> So yeah.

50:20just add one last thing. You know, no

50:22one came in to say they were against it,

50:25okay? And and no one really had to say

50:28anything about being approved because

50:29they represented it. So, you know, if it

50:32was

50:33a little more of resistance, maybe I'd

50:38be more uh willing to um go against

50:41this, but I don't see it. So, I'm okay.

50:51Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, just to

50:52reiterate something that Mr. Chisum had

50:54said, um, this new lot that would be

50:57created, it is it is not providing the

50:59least amount of frontage along Conquered

51:01Street in terms of, you know, the the

51:03desire for having larger lots there. I'm

51:05looking at a few lots, you know, in the

51:07vicinity, 54 feet of frontage, 42 feet

51:10of frontage, uh, 51 feet of frontage,

51:12and what's being provided in the new lot

51:14is 60. So, it's I don't think anyone can

51:16make the case that, you know, this is

51:18going to be the worst lot on the block

51:20in terms of size and frontage. Um, so I

51:22think that's certainly something to

51:23note.

51:25>> Thank you.

51:28>> I didn't say that, but [laughter]

51:32>> you warm me up to

51:33>> Okay, great.

51:35>> Okay. Other uh comments, questions from

51:39board members?

51:41Anyone

51:44inclined to make a motion one way or the

51:46other here?

51:51Um, and just to

51:54to note, we do in this case have

51:57the two waiver requests. Um, as Mr.

52:00Chisel had indicated, um, the existing

52:04conditions and the above ground

52:07utilities. So, we'll just have to um

52:11address those waiver requests first.

52:13Alderman McLe.

52:14>> Thank you. I I do want to make a comment

52:17um to what Mr. McIntyre said about

52:19people not being here to oppose and so

52:21on. When you look at the um the public

52:24comment and so on, I mean, the first one

52:25that I see um and I I'm sure there are

52:29other people that feel this way, they

52:31they withdrew their formal um opposition

52:34to it and so on. So, um I think the

52:37neighbors and those that live in the

52:39area, um may not like it. I'm I'm not

52:43saying that they're they're truly for it

52:44or have this strong feeling for it, but

52:46they're not opposed to it anymore. And

52:48they're willing to to work. And he was

52:50willing to work. And I think that is the

52:53true compromise that we have within the

52:56city. And I will tell you that people in

52:59W 3 are not shy.

53:02we speak out as we will hear from other

53:04words too. So

53:10>> thank you

53:13>> Mr. Hudson.

53:14>> I'll make a motion. We're ready for

53:16that.

53:16>> Please

53:17>> do my part here tonight. Um

53:21uh so in case uh A26

53:24uh 167, I would move that the board

53:28grant the following waiver requests. uh

53:31first from 190 section 190 282B9

53:35waving the requirement to show existing

53:36conditions within 1,000 ft of property

53:38boundaries and the second uh being from

53:41section 190 221A to wave requirement to

53:45locate all utilities underground. uh in

53:47granting these uh the board is utilizing

53:50the criteria from RSA 674 colon 36 uh

53:55Roman 2N and 674 col 44 Roman 3E and

54:01section 19148D of the NRO's U finding

54:06that strict conformity would pose

54:07unnecessary hardship to the applicant uh

54:09and specific circumstances and

54:11conditions of the land indicate that

54:12waiver will probably carry out spirit

54:13intent of the regulations uh further um

54:16supported by the applicants waiver

54:18request letter dated August 5th, 2026.

54:22>> Thank you. So that motion by Mr. Hudson

54:24is to grant the two waiverss requested

54:26by the applicant. Is there a second?

54:28>> I'll second that motion.

54:29>> Second by Mr. Zer. Um is there any

54:31further discussion?

54:34>> All those in favor?

54:35>> I I

54:36>> opposed. None. All right, that motion

54:38passes. And Mr. Hudson, you want to

54:39continue?

54:40>> Sure. I make a a second motion and that

54:42would be to uh in the case of uh A26167

54:47to grant the subdivision application

54:51um for the property at 66 Conquer

54:53Street. Um

54:56and finding that the application meets

54:58the approval criteria outlined in NR

55:0019138G

55:02subject to subsequent conditions

55:05A through M as uh noted in the staff

55:08report.

55:10>> Thank you. So that motion uh by Mr.

55:12Hudson is to approve the um subdivision

55:16application with the subsequent

55:17conditions indicated. Is there a second

55:19to that motion?

55:21Second. Second by Alderman Cle. Is there

55:24any further discussion?

55:27All those in favor?

55:28>> I

55:29>> I opposed. None. That motion passes

55:32unanimously.

55:35Right.

55:38>> Thank you.

55:40>> Thank you.

55:44>> Okay.

55:49Next up we have new business site plans

55:53case number A26-0166

55:57Merit Place LLC owner and applicant

56:00requesting site plan approval for 44

56:02unit townhouse development with

56:05associated site improvements. The

56:07property is located at 8 Merit Parkway.

56:10Um and this is in Ward 5. And uh this

56:14this case is coming to us uh in somewhat

56:16of a unique procedural posture. Um so

56:21I'm going to let staff kind of introduce

56:23that um that that procedural issue first

56:27and then we'll kind of talk about what

56:29that means in terms of how we how we

56:31then carry out that process.

56:34>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, as I believe

56:37most of the members of this board will

56:39remember, this case or a very similar

56:41iteration of it came before us in 24.

56:44Uh, that case while granted an approval

56:48by this board was subsequently appealed

56:50and it is still in under litigation

56:53before the Supreme Court. So there's a a

56:56principle in land use where you know

56:59it's almost like double jeopardy, right?

57:01where you you can't apply for the same

57:03thing twice if either, you know, denied

57:06or or overturned. Uh right, unless

57:09there's a significant change in in what

57:12the project is or if there's a material

57:15change in circumstances. Uh it's known

57:17as the Fischer v. Dober analysis. This

57:19was a court case uh that kind of set

57:22this precedent. Um so on those two

57:25prongs,

57:26the first one being is there a

57:27significant change in what the project

57:29is? It's quite obvious that the answer

57:31is no. You know, the 24 application was

57:3544 town homes. This application is 44

57:37town homes in the nearly identical

57:40layout. So, the second prong is a matter

57:42of you know significant change in

57:45circumstances.

57:47There have been a couple uh three

57:50actually uh bills that have um

57:53subsequently amended RSAs uh 67477

57:57and 67480.

58:00uh that deal and specifically address

58:03and contemplate some of the relief that

58:05this project had previously been

58:07required to seek uh back in 2024. uh

58:10that relief and in the city's

58:13interpretation of these bills and the

58:15subsequent uh amendments to the law no

58:17longer require uh that relief and

58:21specifically that was to um relief to

58:24density, relief to maximum story height.

58:28Uh but then more importantly uh in the

58:31waiverss really in in the variance

58:32fashion if you will um relief from the

58:36multif family uh prohibition on use. So

58:40they needed that relief to to do a

58:41multif family use uh but then also the

58:44restriction that the units be age

58:46restricted uh elderly housing units. So

58:48it is the city's interpretation that

58:50because of these changes in state law

58:52that relief is not needed. Therefore, uh

58:55there has been a material change in

58:57circumstances. So therefore, that prong

58:59of the Fiser V do analysis is satisfied

59:02and that's um explained in detail in the

59:04staff report.

59:06>> Thank you, Sam. So just to to then sort

59:10of follow on in terms of the process and

59:12so we have to as a board make a an

59:16affirmative determination in the first

59:18instance as to whether as Sam was just

59:21describing one or both of those criteria

59:24are met under the Fisher VO analysis. If

59:27we were to conclude that those criteria

59:29had not been met then we would be

59:31precluded from taking jurisdiction over

59:33the case. If we determine that the those

59:36criteria, one or both of them have been

59:37met, then we could take jurisdiction

59:39over the case um and continue on to

59:42consider the merits of the case. So just

59:45in terms of of of how we're going to

59:48proceed next, and this is I'm speaking

59:50to the audience as well, just so

59:51everyone understands uh how this is

59:53going to proceed from this point

59:55forward. So because the Fiser v do test

59:59explicitly contemplates that it is the

1:00:01applicant's burden to demonstrate we are

1:00:04going to hear from the applicant. Um

1:00:07notwithstanding the fact that we've got

1:00:09the the excellent analysis from staff we

1:00:11still want to hear from the applicant

1:00:12and because we're going to hear from the

1:00:14applicant we will also open it up to the

1:00:18the audience to the extent that there's

1:00:20anyone who wants to speak on this issue.

1:00:22But just in terms of of how how we're

1:00:26going to take testimony on this, I just

1:00:27want to be clear for purposes of this

1:00:29this process analysis, we are not going

1:00:33to take testimony at this time on the

1:00:35merits of the case. That will come if

1:00:39and when we decide that we can take

1:00:42jurisdiction and at that point we would

1:00:44then proceed with the normal public

1:00:45hearing and consider testimony from the

1:00:48public on the merits. At this stage, we

1:00:50were we are only considering testimony

1:00:53on that process issue that Mr. Dery just

1:00:56described, meaning have there been

1:00:57substantial change in circumstances. So,

1:01:00if there's anyone in the audience who

1:01:02speaks who feels qualified to speak on

1:01:04that legal issue, you know, we we will

1:01:07happily hear your testimony on that. But

1:01:10otherwise, if you're here to speak on

1:01:11the merits of the case, whether that's,

1:01:14you know, uh traffic or or any other

1:01:17issue that would come only if and when

1:01:19we take jurisdiction over the case. Um

1:01:23so with that in mind, I would ask Mr.

1:01:26Chisum if if you would um if you could

1:01:29speak on behalf of the applicant on on

1:01:31this issue.

1:01:33>> Sure. So again, uh for the record, Paul

1:01:35Chisum with Kee Nordstrom Associates

1:01:36representing the applicant Marplace LLC.

1:01:39Um I think the staff report summed up

1:01:41what um the applicant uh believes and

1:01:44agrees with as well. You know, it's

1:01:46really interesting. Uh in the final

1:01:47motion from the superior court during

1:01:49that from stemming from that 2024

1:01:52approval, uh Judge Class, and I'm

1:01:54quoting him here, said the appropriate

1:01:56remedy is legislative in nature, not

1:01:59judicial. I think that's really

1:02:01important. Uh that's exactly why we're

1:02:04back here tonight. The legislation did

1:02:06change. HB 631, HB1588 amended RSA

1:02:1167480.

1:02:12Um those now require that municipalities

1:02:16must approve uh multifamily dwelling

1:02:20units on commercially zoned land. That

1:02:22is this exact situation. Uh I know you

1:02:24all have copies of that RSA in your

1:02:26packet. I'm sure you've taken time to

1:02:28review it. The language is simple. It's

1:02:30clear. It's concise. Quite frankly, we

1:02:32don't feel you could interpret it any

1:02:33other way. uh this definitely classifies

1:02:37as a material change in circumstance

1:02:38affecting this proposal uh and therefore

1:02:41uh you know the applicant believes that

1:02:43the board should um take this site plan

1:02:46um you know back under jurisdiction for

1:02:48review. Thank you.

1:02:49>> Thank you

1:02:50>> Mr. Chair.

1:02:51>> Yes.

1:02:52>> I just want to I believe the caveat

1:02:54should be added there. there's a

1:02:56statement that must approve it that that

1:02:57would be you know um only if there's

1:03:00adequacy of facilities you know sewer

1:03:03traffic those sorts of things obviously

1:03:05we we don't have to approve something

1:03:07that doesn't have adequacy

1:03:08>> right right teachers

1:03:10>> correct and and and and again too I and

1:03:12obviously the issues are are linked a

1:03:15little bit um but absolutely I agree

1:03:17that um that the board still has

1:03:20discretion as to whether to ultimately

1:03:22approve the project um but in terms of

1:03:25the the the issue being raised by the

1:03:27Apple at this stage and and that we have

1:03:28to consider is is whether the the change

1:03:31in the law is significant enough that we

1:03:33can hear the case again given that the

1:03:36that the the plan itself is essentially

1:03:38the same.

1:03:40Um it just for the board to it, you've

1:03:45probably all reviewed these materials,

1:03:47but I did just want to note that there

1:03:48is there are two letters in the

1:03:51materials from

1:03:53council to one of the abutters, uh

1:03:55Jeffrey Spear. Um and he does speak to

1:03:59this issue um in terms of you know

1:04:02whether the the Fischer VO test is met.

1:04:07Um the the conclusion in in in that

1:04:12letter contrary to the conclusion of

1:04:14staff and to the applicant is that that

1:04:16the the law doesn't um

1:04:20doesn't you know impart the change that

1:04:24that this that staff and the applicant

1:04:25are saying um and therefore wouldn't

1:04:27support taking jurisdiction. So I just

1:04:29want to note that for the record. Again

1:04:30that's in the materials. Um I think

1:04:32everyone's had an opportunity to review

1:04:33that. Um, and then I would just again

1:04:37turn it over to anyone in in the

1:04:40audience. Again, if you want to speak

1:04:42and again I just want to remind you we

1:04:44are limiting the testimony at this point

1:04:46just to this technical legal issue. So

1:04:49if if you're if you're speaking to that

1:04:50that's fine.

1:04:57>> My name is Santo Salvi.

1:04:59Uh the reason I'm here is basically I'm

1:05:02a state representative also.

1:05:05uh I know a little bit of definitely HB

1:05:08631 and the intention but by looking at

1:05:12the law and we have already given you

1:05:14the two letters from our attorney

1:05:17Jeffrey Spears that clearly says that

1:05:22there is no age restriction override

1:05:25okay in the law HB 631 there is no uh no

1:05:30legal interpretation of HB 631 from any

1:05:33known

1:05:34source that justifies overriding or

1:05:37removing the land use codes of age

1:05:40restriction clause LUC 190-2582C.

1:05:46So we cannot just automatically

1:05:49remove the age restriction.

1:05:53The second thing is the strict statutory

1:05:55limits. HB 631 strictly defines multif

1:06:00family structure by unit count. Means if

1:06:03we have unit count of more than two, it

1:06:05is considered as a multif family. It

1:06:08does not govern or mention or alter

1:06:12resident occupancy age rules. Again, I'm

1:06:15coming to the same point that we we

1:06:18cannot override the age restrictions.

1:06:22As you know that

1:06:24the April 2025 superior court order

1:06:28reversing the age restriction variance

1:06:30remains active and in force.

1:06:33The applicant currently holds no legal

1:06:35relief from the elderly housing

1:06:38restrictions. That is what I want to

1:06:40say.

1:06:41>> Yeah. Thank you.

1:06:45>> Are there others in the audience wishing

1:06:47to speak to this issue?

1:06:50And again, just a reminder that we're

1:06:52speaking just to this this technical um

1:06:55jurisdictional issue right now.

1:06:57[clears throat]

1:06:57>> So, good evening. Uh my name's Steve

1:06:59Danworth. Um I live right across the

1:07:03street from where this development would

1:07:05go in on Houston Drive. Um I'm also here

1:07:11uh to represent the interest of uh my

1:07:15neighbors. We're a condominium

1:07:17association.

1:07:19I'm the president of the association.

1:07:22We're 14

1:07:25single family homes on seven acres,

1:07:31right? We're about 20 people, 25 people.

1:07:36Um, we're we fit into what the zoning

1:07:41laws have said in this neighborhood,

1:07:44which is a single family homes, low

1:07:48density,

1:07:50and we're we're an over 55 community.

1:07:55Um, there's a master plan for

1:07:59NSHA.

1:08:00>> Sorry, can I can I just pause you for a

1:08:01moment again? The only what we're

1:08:04discussing right now is the issue of

1:08:07whether there has been a substantial

1:08:09change in circumstances.

1:08:10>> Could you speak up please? By the way, I

1:08:13can't could not hear you back here at

1:08:15all. I don't think the speakers are

1:08:17working.

1:08:18>> I I mean I I can hear my voice out

1:08:20there. Can you guys can hear?

1:08:23>> Is not good either.

1:08:24>> I I will I will try to be a little bit

1:08:26louder. So right now we were only

1:08:28talking about the question of whether

1:08:31the board can accept jurisdiction of the

1:08:34case. So we're not talking about the

1:08:36merits of the case yet. So I understand

1:08:39that that so I just want to clarify if

1:08:41if you would like to speak to that

1:08:42jurisdictional issue that's fine but to

1:08:45the extent you want to speak to the

1:08:46merits of the case we haven't yet taken

1:08:49jurisdiction. So we cannot hear that

1:08:50testimony. you will have the opportunity

1:08:53if we take jurisdiction of the case, we

1:08:55will then go to the public and we will

1:08:57take testimony on the merits.

1:08:59>> So, I just want to be clear about that.

1:09:01>> So, what what can [clears throat] I talk

1:09:02about? So it to the extent you may not

1:09:06have heard from staff there's a a test

1:09:10called the Fiser VO test because the

1:09:13application here is substantially the

1:09:15same as the application that was

1:09:18previously before the board and and the

1:09:20where the decision of the board was

1:09:22overturned at the superior court level.

1:09:24We cannot hear the case tonight unless

1:09:27we determine that the application itself

1:09:29is materially different which we're

1:09:32we're agreed that it's not or if there

1:09:34has been a material change in

1:09:35circumstances.

1:09:36>> So the applicant and staff have argued

1:09:39that because of the changes in state law

1:09:42there has been a material change in

1:09:43circumstances. So that is the issue we

1:09:46are considering right now but not the

1:09:48merits of the project itself.

1:09:50>> I suppose that I was talking about the

1:09:52merits. Um, couldn't hear you back

1:09:54there.

1:09:55>> Understood.

1:09:56>> Um, yeah,

1:09:58I don't think the mics are working. I I

1:10:01know you're talking to each other, but I

1:10:02couldn't hear you back here.

1:10:04>> Okay.

1:10:04>> So,

1:10:04>> but just to be clear, you will have if

1:10:06if we take jurisdiction of the case, you

1:10:08will have an opportunity to speak to the

1:10:09mayor.

1:10:09>> All right. Thank you.

1:10:10>> Yep. You're welcome.

1:10:20>> Hello.

1:10:21>> Hello. I just like to let you know that

1:10:22the Supreme Court did hear the case the

1:10:24other day, so it is up with them at this

1:10:26point. Thank you.

1:10:28>> Thank you.

1:10:31>> Okay. Is there anyone else in the

1:10:33audience who wishes to speak on this

1:10:35limited procedural issue?

1:10:39Okay.

1:10:41Um so

1:10:45again the the the issue before the the

1:10:48board right now is limited to whether we

1:10:52are able to accept jurisdiction of the

1:10:55case. Um you heard um from the abuter

1:11:00who spoke and I had mentioned that we

1:11:03have um the two letters from council for

1:11:06one of the abutters. Um the position in

1:11:10that letter again that they're

1:11:12advocating is that there has not been a

1:11:15material change in circumstances that

1:11:16would justify the board um hearing the

1:11:19case. In contrast, both uh staff and the

1:11:24applicant um have taken the position

1:11:29that the changes in state law do

1:11:31constitute a material change in

1:11:32circumstances.

1:11:34Um, so I I would just for for what it's

1:11:40worth from from my perspective, um,

1:11:43being in the position of someone who's

1:11:45tasked with doing statutory

1:11:47interpretation on a fairly regular

1:11:48basis, um, you know, my perspective here

1:11:52is that the changes in state law do

1:11:55constitute, uh, material change in

1:11:57circumstances.

1:11:59Um,

1:12:00and in particular,

1:12:02I would note that the changes to 67480

1:12:07provide that notwithstanding any

1:12:10provision to the contrary, municipality

1:12:12[clears throat]

1:12:12shall allow multif family dwell dwelling

1:12:14units. Um and I I understand the

1:12:17argument that's being made by um

1:12:20Abutters Council that it doesn't speak

1:12:22to um the age restriction, but in in my

1:12:27view, the fact that the the statuto

1:12:30language opens with that notwithstanding

1:12:32any provision to the contrary, um that

1:12:35is an indication that that that the

1:12:40board cannot consider that underlying

1:12:43restriction. um as it relates to age

1:12:45restricted housing. And I would just

1:12:48note that there's a there's a further

1:12:50provision in the

1:12:53um later in the same statute in in

1:12:55paragraph 5 that that again in my view

1:12:57reinforces that um where it says multif

1:13:00family dwelling units shall be allowed

1:13:02as a matter of right

1:13:05in municipalities shall not enforce

1:13:07additional requirements unless expressly

1:13:09authorized by this section. Um, and I

1:13:12would note to to Mr. Hudson's earlier

1:13:15point, the statutory section does still

1:13:19retain within the board um the ability

1:13:22to consider

1:13:24um the merits of the application on

1:13:28items such as infrastructure, roads,

1:13:31water, sewer, etc. So again, it's not

1:13:34that the statute says we must approve

1:13:37without discretion, but I do think it

1:13:39limits that discretion.

1:13:41Um and I do think it and again in my

1:13:45view and understanding that reasonable

1:13:47mind alliance could disagree but in my

1:13:48view um I I do think we have a

1:13:50substantial change of circumstances here

1:13:52that that justifies taking jurisdiction.

1:13:55>> Uh [clears throat] thank you Mr.

1:13:57Chairman. I hope everybody can hear me.

1:13:58Um I I was up in conquered for a number

1:14:01of years and I sat on municipality mis

1:14:04municipality and um and county and it

1:14:08was very frustrating up there because

1:14:10they were changing laws left and right

1:14:12taking more and more rights away from

1:14:13the city. This is just a a prime example

1:14:17of one that they've done. They're taking

1:14:19it doesn't mean that we can't look at it

1:14:21and so on but the minute they put shall

1:14:24and by right they tie our hands. This is

1:14:27a substantial change to where what it

1:14:30was where they would allow us to put in

1:14:33some more stringent. They've taken that

1:14:35right away and I think we do have to

1:14:37take jurisdiction whether we like it or

1:14:39not, whether we want to wait for the

1:14:41Supreme Court or not. I think we'd be

1:14:42opening up a can of worms if we didn't.

1:14:44Mr. Chairman, thank you,

1:14:46>> Mr. McIntyre.

1:14:47>> Yes. uh um for the public just so they

1:14:50know um a couple things from my

1:14:52viewpoint on this po on this Fiser uh

1:14:55DOA test, right? The first one is that

1:14:58uh the planning board is highly reliant

1:15:01on the staff reports that we get which

1:15:04give us a pretty good um 360 view of the

1:15:09issues that are in front of us including

1:15:12um analysis for um infrastructure like

1:15:16we were just talking about and and all

1:15:18the rules and regulations that we should

1:15:20follow, right? And so uh they gave us a

1:15:23very extensive report this time around.

1:15:26This was not some kind of rush job or or

1:15:31unresarched effort. They worked hard and

1:15:34gave a very good report. [snorts] Um and

1:15:38you heard Mr. Derphy's uh verbalization

1:15:42of why he thought uh the Fiser do test

1:15:46was being met on uh the second item the

1:15:49material difference of nature of the

1:15:51application itself for us to take

1:15:53jurisdiction. So I I as a planning board

1:15:56member I'm going to support my team on

1:16:00their analysis and then on on this

1:16:03point. Okay. And then secondarily, our

1:16:06vice chairman's uh comments that he just

1:16:08made are were excellent. They were he he

1:16:11has a unique um uh uh experience on

1:16:15these things and uh adds extra value to

1:16:19what the staff has already uh said

1:16:21before. So I feel very comfortable that

1:16:24we have the jurisdiction to discuss this

1:16:26and then you know let's go over the

1:16:28merits of of why why you don't want this

1:16:31or you do want the project. we'll get to

1:16:33it. Okay. And then uh if there's any

1:16:36issues later downstream on uh the HB674,

1:16:41well, go at it. You know, go ahead and

1:16:43do what you want based on what your

1:16:45legal counsel tells you to do. I'm not

1:16:47uh feeling compelled either way. You

1:16:49know, it's that's up to you. So, I I

1:16:52want to say that right up front so

1:16:54people know that we're not like just

1:16:57say, "Okay, fine, great. Gave us a

1:16:59report." No, this was an extensive

1:17:01exercise. Other

1:17:08other comments from the board?

1:17:12>> Mr. Zilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um,

1:17:16hold my mic like this. Um, [laughter]

1:17:18I've been keeping up with House Bill 631

1:17:20a little bit and it it seems uh, you

1:17:22know, the the precedent or the reasoning

1:17:24for why that bill was uh, passed or why

1:17:26it was debated, it was essentially to

1:17:28allow I mean just my interpretation to

1:17:30allow for residential in an area where

1:17:33you wouldn't otherwise allow um,

1:17:34residential and that seems very very

1:17:37applicable to the site that we're

1:17:38looking at right now to this case. Um,

1:17:39there are currently a few businesses

1:17:41there and um, now there would be

1:17:44residential proposed. So, I find it

1:17:45incredibly applicable to the case that's

1:17:47before us. Um, and I would be supportive

1:17:50of being of the stance that the

1:17:51circumstances have changed.

1:18:02>> Any other comments from the board?

1:18:03>> No.

1:18:04>> If not,

1:18:05>> no. I'd like to make a motion.

1:18:06>> Yeah, Mr. McN.

1:18:07>> I just want to be careful. I'm make sure

1:18:09that I say it the correct way. All

1:18:11right. because again my verbiage isn't

1:18:13necessarily

1:18:15completely blessed

1:18:16>> and I think to your point that uh the

1:18:18staff report I think does include some

1:18:20helpful guidance there if you have that

1:18:23in front of you.

1:18:24>> Okay. So I I move Mr. chairman uh that

1:18:28the um planning board uh take

1:18:32jurisdiction

1:18:34of the uh A260166

1:18:39site plan discussion uh on the Fiser BOE

1:18:43analysis

1:18:45um that uh meets uh our um needs to say

1:18:50that we have sufficient jurisdiction.

1:18:54Is that fair? I I I think it would be it

1:18:57would be helpful um to include the

1:19:00specific language about material change

1:19:02and circumstances. So I don't again if

1:19:03you have

1:19:05>> if you have the staff report in front of

1:19:06you page two

1:19:07>> read from here on.

1:19:09>> Yeah, page two that right there.

1:19:10>> All right. So let me rephrase it then.

1:19:12Thank you. I was trying to

1:19:13>> No, I appreciate that. Thank you.

1:19:14>> Dumb it down for me. Um okay. Sorry. So

1:19:18Mr. Chairman, let me uh amend my uh uh

1:19:21correct my motion to read uh that we

1:19:24find the application satisfies the Fiser

1:19:26voa test on the grounds that a material

1:19:29change in circumstances has occurred

1:19:31given recent changes in state law,

1:19:33specifically HB 631 2025 and HB 1588

1:19:392026. Shall I go on?

1:19:42>> No, I think that's that's excellent.

1:19:43>> Thank you.

1:19:44>> Thank you, Mr. McInty.

1:19:45>> Yes, sir.

1:19:46And um so we have that motion by Mr.

1:19:48McIntyre finding that the applicant has

1:19:52satisfied the Fisher VO test based on

1:19:54material change in circumstances and and

1:19:57that we can therefore accept

1:19:58jurisdiction. Um is there a second to

1:20:02that motion?

1:20:03Second by Mr. Hirsh. Is there any

1:20:06further discussion?

1:20:08All those in favor?

1:20:09>> I

1:20:11opposed. None. Right. That motion

1:20:13passes. And I just I think just

1:20:15technically for the record even though

1:20:17you you kind of just I think we should

1:20:18just have a second motion just to

1:20:20formally accept jurisdiction after

1:20:22having concluded under the fishery do

1:20:24test that okay that we can.

1:20:26>> So Mr. Chairman I move that we accept

1:20:30and take jurisdiction

1:20:32of the um A26166

1:20:38site plan.

1:20:40>> Thank you Mr. McIntyre. So we have a

1:20:42motion by Mr. McIntyre that um we accept

1:20:45jurisdiction with respect to new

1:20:47business 826-0166.

1:20:49Is there a second? Second by Mr. Hirs.

1:20:52Is there any further discussion?

1:20:54>> Okay. All those in favor?

1:20:56>> I

1:20:56>> I opposed. None. That passes

1:20:59unanimously.

1:21:00Okay. So now we do have jurisdiction. Um

1:21:04Mr. Chisum, you want to present on

1:21:06behalf of the applicant um in the normal

1:21:08course? That would be great.

1:21:09>> Absolutely. So, the plan before you

1:21:11tonight is a 44unit townhouse

1:21:12development located at 8 Merit Parkway.

1:21:15It's located in the Maplewood mixeduse

1:21:16village. Uh, the townhouse use is

1:21:19classified both in terms of the RSAs and

1:21:21state law as well as the natural land

1:21:23use code uh as as the town homes are

1:21:26considered uh multifamily dwellings.

1:21:28Okay. Uh, this project is situated on a

1:21:316.2 2 acre condo parcel within an

1:21:33overall 20 acre property located in the

1:21:35underlying R30 zoning district as well

1:21:37as the flexible used overlay district

1:21:38within the FOD. There's also this uh

1:21:41mixeduse village which allows all sorts

1:21:44of commercial uses. Obviously, a lot of

1:21:46those have been developed out over the

1:21:47years. This is a parcel that's kind of

1:21:48been left undeveloped and kind of

1:21:50remaining for uh I mean since the

1:21:53inception of the overlay which was 30

1:21:55something years ago. Uh the project area

1:21:58is surrounded by development consisting

1:21:59of various businesses on the property,

1:22:01adjacent residential neighborhoods on

1:22:02Houston drive, cherrywood, community

1:22:04soccer fields across from main dun and

1:22:06so on.

1:22:08The 44 units will be constructed as a

1:22:10campus style development consisting of

1:22:1111 buildings with four units each and

1:22:14have the full array of utilities

1:22:15including underground electric, sewer,

1:22:17water, cable, and gas. The units

1:22:19themselves are designed to be high-end

1:22:21and will have luxury finishes in order

1:22:22to match and support the surrounding

1:22:24land area uh in ter and support

1:22:26surrounding property types and values as

1:22:28well. Access to the site is from one of

1:22:30two roads either off Conan Road to the

1:22:33north or Buck metal road to the south

1:22:34then internally through Merit Parkway uh

1:22:37within the development. The project

1:22:38includes about 1,000 ft of new private

1:22:40roadway which will formally bring

1:22:41Manurian Lane into existence and provide

1:22:44access to the new units. Uh the new

1:22:46streets will also be well landscaped

1:22:47with a variety of trees and shrubbery as

1:22:49shown on the landscaping plans that

1:22:50create an aesthetically pleasing aura

1:22:52working in tandem with the new street

1:22:54and unit lighting. Uh additionally,

1:22:56there is a beefed up landscape buffer

1:22:58which exceeds the regulations proposed

1:23:00against the nearest residential

1:23:01properties. Uh it's on the bottom, I

1:23:04guess really the top uh right hand side

1:23:06of the sheet there. uh behind the the

1:23:08four um units you can kind of see the

1:23:11north arrow on the plan are the closest

1:23:13adjacent residential properties. Uh we

1:23:16would like to point out that in the in

1:23:17the staff report there are letters

1:23:18obtained from Penachuk Water DPW and the

1:23:21traffic department stating that this

1:23:23site is suitable and capable of handling

1:23:24this development. There's adequate water

1:23:26supply, adequate sewer capacity and

1:23:29traffic is not a concern.

1:23:32In the context of uh other board

1:23:34discretion items, uh there's one thing

1:23:36in in these RSAs that basically also

1:23:38allow the planning board to consider

1:23:40requiring in some portion or the full

1:23:43first floor of any of these developments

1:23:45of multif family dwelling units to be

1:23:46commercial. Obviously, the applicant

1:23:48doesn't believe that that makes sense in

1:23:50this case. Um that would make more sense

1:23:52for a garden style development, right?

1:23:54If you had something like that in this

1:23:55case, you know, we're on a property that

1:23:57has commercial scattered throughout that

1:23:59already exists here. mixing in this

1:24:01residential is actually going to help uh

1:24:03support those commercial developments

1:24:04and existing businesses in the area. And

1:24:06we don't feel like it makes sense in the

1:24:08context of having a townhouse style

1:24:09development to have commercial on the

1:24:11first floor in any or all of it. Um as

1:24:15with many other site plans, we've

1:24:16submitted a waiver request. I think you

1:24:18just heard it for the other property I

1:24:20was discussing earlier. It's to locate

1:24:21all existing features within a thousand

1:24:23feet of the site. This is obviously an

1:24:24extremely typical waiver. You know, like

1:24:26any other project, we survey and locate

1:24:28anything that's worthwhile and needed to

1:24:30make sure that this design is compi uh

1:24:32compliant and can conform and that the

1:24:34engineering aspects of the development

1:24:37uh are up to snuff. Um that's this case

1:24:39is no exception. We did locate some

1:24:41things offsite, but we didn't go so far

1:24:43as to locate everything within that

1:24:44thousand foot radius. Um we have reviews

1:24:47reviewed the staff report. We take no

1:24:49exception to any of the conditions and

1:24:51of course are happy to work with staff

1:24:52and any of the departments on any

1:24:53outstanding uh you know last cleanup uh

1:24:56plan cleanup comments or concerns or

1:24:58address any minor things f uh prior to

1:25:00submitting final plans. Um, I think with

1:25:03that being said, uh, the only other, uh,

1:25:05component I'd like to add is that

1:25:07obviously that, uh, with these uses now

1:25:09allowed by right because of these new

1:25:11state laws. Um, you know, the the

1:25:15applicant feels um, like this is a good

1:25:17way to develop this property. Certainly,

1:25:19there's other ways to develop this

1:25:21property in the context of these laws,

1:25:23but um, you know, this thing's been

1:25:25through it. It's been around for six

1:25:26years. We first came to this board in

1:25:272020 with a conceptual hearing showing a

1:25:29garden style building. Uh working with

1:25:32the planning board, working with those

1:25:33in in the city at city hall, everybody

1:25:36in the development world. Uh it it

1:25:38morphed into this project that you see

1:25:39today. Uh the applicant maintains that

1:25:41this is a good development for the

1:25:42property and um looks forward to uh you

1:25:45know working with you as we you know go

1:25:48through and finish up this process. So

1:25:49with that being said, happy to answer

1:25:51any questions from through the public.

1:25:53>> Thank you. Um just one question for me

1:25:56initially and and this is sort of

1:25:57anticipating what I saw as a a a comment

1:26:01that that was repeated in in a lot of

1:26:03the the public um feedback that we've

1:26:07received in writing at least in advance

1:26:10um and that is can you speak a little

1:26:12bit to the degree to which the the

1:26:17development is going to require clearing

1:26:19of existing vegetation? I understand,

1:26:22you know, you're leaving more of a

1:26:25buffer than than is required, but just

1:26:27if you could kind of speak more

1:26:28generally to what what degree of

1:26:31clearing is going to be necessary here,

1:26:32that would be helpful.

1:26:33>> Sure. Absolutely. Well, obviously on the

1:26:34site plan, we show the extent of

1:26:36clearing as the tree line that you see

1:26:38kind of around the development. Uh I

1:26:40think the area where things really get

1:26:41into it the most is for the storm water

1:26:43management areas. You know, those are

1:26:45obviously required for a variety of

1:26:46reasons. uh alteration terrain permit

1:26:49regulations. The city has its own storm

1:26:50water regulations. Water quality is

1:26:52obviously a very important thing to

1:26:53consider. Um those areas have a tendency

1:26:56to just be in the lower lying areas of

1:26:58the site. In this case, uh the rear of

1:26:59the property, uh kind of the east side

1:27:01of it, you know, there's the brook that

1:27:03kind of runs through on the other end.

1:27:05You know, water typically flows to the

1:27:07lowest point on the property, right? Uh

1:27:09and so that's where that stuff is. So,

1:27:11yes, there's going to be some clearing

1:27:12in those areas. Obviously, we've limited

1:27:14it as much as we possibly could. We've

1:27:16left buffers where we where we can. Um,

1:27:20you know, it's really just been

1:27:21minimized. We knew that obviously this

1:27:23is going to be a proposal that's

1:27:24scrutinized. We really did our best to

1:27:26maintain and protect everything that

1:27:27could be protected while also, you know,

1:27:30providing the things that are necessary

1:27:31for development of this scale.

1:27:34And just and and I'm not going to hold

1:27:35you to this, but like in terms of the

1:27:38existing vegetation on the site and what

1:27:40you're clearing, I mean, can you just

1:27:41give a rough ballpark percentage like,

1:27:43you know, we think we're clearing 20% of

1:27:45that, 30% of that, you know, and again,

1:27:47I'm not asking you to for precise

1:27:49numbers, but just

1:27:50>> Sure.

1:27:51>> You know, again, I'm just anticipating

1:27:52that this this is going to be um an

1:27:56issue that's going to come up when we

1:27:57when we take public testimony. So

1:28:00>> yeah, I mean, you know, when I really

1:28:02look at this, a lot of the sites cleared

1:28:03already, right? You know, again, the

1:28:05areas that we're really going at, if you

1:28:07look at the uh removals and demolition

1:28:09plan, which is sheet three of 25 on the

1:28:12PDF, Connor, it's probably the fourth

1:28:14page. Um, you know, there's kind of a

1:28:17chunk uh to the south and then there's a

1:28:20chunk for the storm water management

1:28:22area that kind of like you said, weaves

1:28:24its way around. If I had to guess on the

1:28:27percentage of, you know, the site, how

1:28:29much area that is,

1:28:3215% maybe if I had to ballpark it. But

1:28:36>> and that's and that's good enough.

1:28:37Again, I just Yeah, just a just an

1:28:38estimate.

1:28:39>> Y

1:28:40>> um and just to confirm, I I I believe

1:28:43this is on the plan and in in your

1:28:46report, but you're not none of the site

1:28:49work has to be done within the wetland

1:28:50buffer. Is that or is there

1:28:52>> Yep. I believe that's true. I think we

1:28:54actually specifically avoided it.

1:29:00>> And so again on um yeah, if you look on

1:29:03the residential site plan, which is

1:29:04sheet four, uh you'll notice that the

1:29:07wetland buffer itself uh extends on

1:29:09really the eastern most property line,

1:29:11that's the bottom right hand side of the

1:29:13sheet. Uh it's a 40 foot buffer off of

1:29:15that wetland.

1:29:16>> Um you know, we're obviously designing

1:29:18to go up to it, but not into it.

1:29:19>> Y great. Thank you. Um, questions from

1:29:23the board. Mr. McIntyre.

1:29:25>> Yeah, I probably want to throw you a

1:29:27little bit of a curveball. Um, you said

1:29:30the words high-end.

1:29:32>> Okay. So, um, if statistically we look

1:29:35at NSHA for its, uh, lowest um,

1:29:41u ability to meet requirements, it's

1:29:44lowincome housing and affordable

1:29:46housing, right? And this sure as hell

1:29:48isn't one, right? But um uh and I know

1:29:52that you know it's kind of a a funny

1:29:55situation because this location in this

1:29:57neighborhood if it was I'm sure the

1:30:01people who live there would be up in

1:30:02arms right so it's it's funny

1:30:05contradiction right but did you look at

1:30:09any of the 11 to be offered in any kind

1:30:12of uh affordable housing way?

1:30:16>> Uh no we did not.

1:30:19Okay,

1:30:21>> there'll be more that will come to the

1:30:22board of projects that will, but I just

1:30:24want to ask that question. Thanks,

1:30:28>> Autumn McLe.

1:30:30>> Thank you. And this was probably for

1:30:31staff. Based on the numbers of these,

1:30:33the inclusionary zoning does not kick in

1:30:36for this. Correct.

1:30:37>> Um, well, so the inclusionary zoning

1:30:40ordinance is incentive driven.

1:30:41>> Okay.

1:30:42>> Right. So while the underlying district

1:30:44here has density requirements as

1:30:47identified in the staff report, the

1:30:49changes and in the statute um

1:30:52specifically rendered by uh I believe

1:30:551588 the way that 67480 reads now we

1:30:59cannot regulate density on a units per

1:31:00acre basis. So therefore there is no

1:31:03incentive for the applicant to utilize

1:31:06the inclusionary zoning ordinance. Uh so

1:31:08we cannot mandate that they do that.

1:31:10That is against state law. It can be

1:31:12incentive only, but the state law has

1:31:14then taken away our ability to regulate

1:31:16on a perunit basis, nullifying any

1:31:19incentive whatsocclusionary zoning. So,

1:31:22we've basically just been shot in the

1:31:24foot for it. So,

1:31:26>> thank you, Conquered. [laughter]

1:31:28Thank you,

1:31:31[clears throat]

1:31:31>> Mr. Hudson.

1:31:33>> Uh, yeah, just an inquiry about

1:31:35clarification on the plan. So I see the

1:31:37wetlands uh along the property boundary

1:31:39you noted with a wetland buffer is like

1:31:41a uh peninsula of tree clearing you're

1:31:44not going to clear around

1:31:47uh something else which looks like

1:31:48wetland but was that determined to not

1:31:50be wetland?

1:31:51>> No that that's wetland. Yep.

1:31:52>> I don't see a corresponding buffer. Is

1:31:54there a buffer associated?

1:31:55>> It's too small not to h so it does not

1:31:57have one. Okay.

1:31:58>> That's correct. Y thank you. Um, and

1:31:59really really Dan, what that area is, it

1:32:01it's actually an existing storm water

1:32:03area that just was built a long time

1:32:04ago, never maintained. Uh, the state

1:32:06wetland, you know, bureau basically

1:32:08considers that a jurisdictional wetland

1:32:10at this point. So, we had to avoid the

1:32:12area.

1:32:13>> Okay. Thank you,

1:32:20>> Mr. Solar.

1:32:21>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Mr. Chisum,

1:32:23you included the alteration of terrain

1:32:25permit application. Yes. Um just curious

1:32:27if there was any feedback, any RFMIs

1:32:29received from the AOT bureau yet? Um any

1:32:32correspondent?

1:32:32>> It's been approved.

1:32:33>> Oh, it's been approved. Okay. Um any

1:32:36major comments that were worked through

1:32:37there? Anything that you think the board

1:32:38should know? Any problems that were

1:32:40worked out with the

1:32:41>> No, I don't think so. You know, our firm

1:32:42does quite a bit of those AOT permits

1:32:44and uh we're pretty used to the

1:32:45requirements and we try to include them

1:32:47obviously as much as we can on the

1:32:49upfront end. You know, obviously with

1:32:50any project, you know, different people

1:32:52have different opinions about things and

1:32:53everything, but uh I think this one went

1:32:55through pretty smooth from what I

1:32:56remember.

1:32:56>> Okay. Okay. Excellent. Um the only other

1:32:59question, Mr. Chairman, that I would

1:33:00have would be from an operation

1:33:01standpoint. Um hours of operation for

1:33:04the adjacent businesses that are there.

1:33:05I think there's a convenience store, a

1:33:07few restaurants. You just thinking down

1:33:09the line if those are open late, you

1:33:10know, would the city be prone to any

1:33:12comments, you know, from new residents?

1:33:13Oh, hey, they're keeping me up in the

1:33:15middle of the night. Any operationally,

1:33:17how do those two uses cooperate with

1:33:19each other? Yeah, I mean I to be honest,

1:33:21I don't have the idea exactly when each

1:33:24use is in there. I know there's some

1:33:25restaurants and things like that that

1:33:26are in there that are probably open a

1:33:27little bit later. Quite frankly, I I

1:33:29would think that would be a benefit for

1:33:30potential, you know, users. Uh at the

1:33:32end of the day, people are going to buy

1:33:34this. They're going to know exactly

1:33:35what's there. They're, you know,

1:33:36probably not going to buy this site on

1:33:37scene, right, when they go in there. So,

1:33:39they're going to know what it is, where

1:33:41it is, and kind of what they're what

1:33:42they're up against of sorts. Obviously,

1:33:44should anything change in the future,

1:33:45that's a whole different animal, but you

1:33:46know, we can't obviously speculate what

1:33:48that might be.

1:33:50>> Along those lines of the the commercial

1:33:52and the residential getting along, um

1:33:53I'd imagine I I haven't looked too

1:33:55closely at the plans, a decent

1:33:56pedestrian access for circulation in

1:33:58case someone wanted to walk from their

1:33:59their unit over to the convenience

1:34:00store, buy something, walk back, that's

1:34:02facilitated.

1:34:03>> Yeah, this is an incredibly walkable

1:34:04site. Uh not just within this property,

1:34:06it's also connected to some of the

1:34:07trails that kind of run [snorts]

1:34:08throughout the southwest quadrant. So,

1:34:10it's it's quite good um in terms of

1:34:12walkability and things of that nature.

1:34:14>> Okay. Thank you. That's it for me, Mr.

1:34:16Chair.

1:34:17>> Thank you.

1:34:19>> Other questions from the board for the

1:34:21applicant before we open it up to the

1:34:22public?

1:34:26>> Looks like none right now. So, thank

1:34:27you.

1:34:29>> Okay. So, now um as I had promised

1:34:32earlier, we are going to open it up to

1:34:35public comment here. and this is the

1:34:38opportunity to speak to the the case on

1:34:41the merits. So, to the extent that you

1:34:43would like to speak in opposition or

1:34:44concern, um please come forward as as

1:34:47always, state your name and address for

1:34:49the record. Um and then we're we're

1:34:50happy to hear your testimony.

1:35:04Good evening. Sorry, I'm vertically

1:35:06challenged.

1:35:07>> Yeah, I can just pull that right down

1:35:08there.

1:35:13>> Okay. Is that better?

1:35:15>> Gloria McCarthy, 65 Musket Drive, NSHA.

1:35:19Uh, I'm here to oppose the construction

1:35:21of the 11 multif family buildings

1:35:23totaling 48 44 units at 8 Merit Parkway.

1:35:27As a member of the conservation

1:35:29commission, my concerns about this

1:35:31proposed development are about more than

1:35:33meeting a required buffer, but looking

1:35:35at what happens beyond that buffer. 44

1:35:38units will bring significant artificial

1:35:41lighting, which is disrupt destru

1:35:46disruption, sorry, to art to wildlife

1:35:49and plant life. Fertilizers, pesticides,

1:35:52and rodenticides don't stop at a

1:35:54property line. They migrate through the

1:35:56surrounding environment and can

1:35:57potentially harm wildlife, vegetation,

1:36:00and water quality. Protecting

1:36:02conservation land requires more than

1:36:04drawing a buffer line on a site plan. We

1:36:07need to understand what will actually

1:36:08happen to the land beyond it. As a

1:36:11nearby resident, I'm also very concerned

1:36:13about the additional traffic this

1:36:15project will bring. Neighborhood traffic

1:36:17conditions have changed significant

1:36:19significantly. The Brian S. McCarthy

1:36:22Middle School is now open. New homes

1:36:24have been built along Buck Meadow and

1:36:26and Ridge Road. Uh Bishop Girtton is

1:36:29building a new sports complex on Main

1:36:32Dunstable Road. And Wise Owl Academy,

1:36:34which directly abuts this lot at the

1:36:36intersection of former Merit Parkway and

1:36:38Manerian Lane, has expanded its business

1:36:41to a second building across the street

1:36:43from their original location on Merit

1:36:45Parkway, increasing the number of

1:36:47students and staff crossing at that

1:36:49corner, particularly during pickup and

1:36:51drop off drop off times. and that's the

1:36:53roadway that's going to lead directly

1:36:55into this complex.

1:36:58Uh the ZBA recently denied a project on

1:37:00Buck Meadow Road in part because of

1:37:03concerns about traffic and pedestrian

1:37:05safety, noting the roads limited

1:37:07sidewalks, narrow shoulders, and large

1:37:09numbers of children walking and

1:37:11traveling by bicycle and scooter. That

1:37:13project was expected to generate 99

1:37:15trips per day. According to page nine of

1:37:19the applicant's traffic report, these 44

1:37:21units are projected to generate

1:37:23approximately 322 daily trips, nearly

1:37:26four times as many. If 99 additional

1:37:30trips raised serious safety concerns

1:37:32with the ZBA, how can the impact of

1:37:35approximately 322 daily trips be

1:37:39dismissed?

1:37:41Neither Conan nor Buck Meadow roads have

1:37:43become less congested. They are busier.

1:37:46This proposal should be evaluated on

1:37:48current conditions. Finally, I would

1:37:51like to address the developer's repeated

1:37:52description of these as high-end town

1:37:54houses. Where are the amenities normally

1:37:57associated with a high-end development

1:38:00other than some nice interior finishes?

1:38:02There are no plans for a pool,

1:38:04clubhouse, fitness facilities, tennis

1:38:06courts, or other comparable amenities.

1:38:09Even the upscale elevators that were

1:38:12shown on the earlier plans have been

1:38:14removed.

1:38:15Uh, this neighborhood has respectfully

1:38:18requested a development that is

1:38:20compatible with the surrounding

1:38:21community. Approximately 250 emails in

1:38:24opposition have been sent to you about

1:38:27this on and about the density since the

1:38:30initial plans were presented in 2021.

1:38:33As a compromise, we're hoping a

1:38:35combination of single family homes

1:38:37similar to those at West Westchester

1:38:40Colony Club, uh, combined with perhaps

1:38:43some duplex town houses rather than four

1:38:46four town houses together along with

1:38:48some actual upscale amenities would be

1:38:50more visually appealing, provide an

1:38:52assortment of housing styles and price

1:38:54points, uh, while upgrading the

1:38:57overcrowded, featureless rowhouse look

1:38:59that is currently proposed. you look at

1:39:01the plans, would you want someone from

1:39:03building B13 looking into your unit at

1:39:06C11?

1:39:08Uh, House Bill 631 allows residential

1:39:11units in commercial zones, but allowing

1:39:14development does not mean every

1:39:15available space needs to be filled to

1:39:18the maximum possible density. I

1:39:20appreciate the care and the

1:39:22deliberations that you took with the

1:39:24Concrete Street application just a few

1:39:25minutes ago and your concern for how the

1:39:27buildings would fit into the

1:39:29neighborhood. I hope you will take the

1:39:31same care and look at the density that

1:39:33this is compared to the other homes in

1:39:35the area uh and and the um surrounding

1:39:40neighborhood uh which are not sh which

1:39:42are not shown on the plans. All you're

1:39:44seeing is the plans for these condos.

1:39:46You're not seeing the rest of the

1:39:48neighborhood. So, you're not seeing how

1:39:50things are spread around and they're not

1:39:51on the plans. Um, so just remember that

1:39:55just because you can make something more

1:39:57dense doesn't mean you should. So please

1:40:00deny this application in its current

1:40:02form. Thank you very much.

1:40:04Oh, and we can't really The gentleman

1:40:07that was speaking earlier is right. We

1:40:09really couldn't hear some of your

1:40:10conversation at the back of the room. So

1:40:13we can hear you, but we can hear other

1:40:16people. Thank you.

1:40:18I would note that there's plenty of room

1:40:19up front here too if it's easier to hear

1:40:22up front. Um others, yep, please come

1:40:25forward. Um

1:40:30and again, I know you were up before,

1:40:31but if you don't mind just saying your

1:40:32name and address for the record again.

1:40:35>> Well, I'll repeat a bit what I said

1:40:37before. [clears throat] So, I live

1:40:39across the street from this development.

1:40:40>> Sorry. Could you just get just for the

1:40:42record, we just need your name and

1:40:43address?

1:40:43>> My name. Sorry. Steve Banworth, uh, 15

1:40:46Houston Drive, NSHA.

1:40:49I live across the street from where this

1:40:52development would go in.

1:40:54I'm in a condominium community of 14

1:40:59homes,

1:41:01single family, and on about seven acres.

1:41:06So, I think that that's really what um

1:41:09everybody that bought their home there

1:41:12um believed they were the type of

1:41:14neighborhood they were getting into. Ma

1:41:16Maplewood was single family homes

1:41:20um

1:41:22not multi-story,

1:41:24not multifamily

1:41:26or you know, no single family homes. And

1:41:30um what's being proposed in this

1:41:32development does not um agree with what

1:41:37the people that bought their homes

1:41:38believe they were buying. Now I there's

1:41:42a city of Nasha

1:41:45master plan. Um and in there in that is

1:41:49a map. Uh I think the planning board

1:41:52puts together the master plan. I don't

1:41:55know if that's right, but I think they

1:41:57do. There's a a map in there and

1:42:02southwest of downtown Nasha is all

1:42:05yellow

1:42:07which is

1:42:09mid medium density homes one and a half

1:42:12to five uh units per acre which we which

1:42:18our community meets. What's being

1:42:20proposed is

1:42:23about seven I believe about seven units

1:42:26per acre which is high density and I

1:42:30think the master plan is something that

1:42:33um should be followed. It's out there

1:42:36for a reason. It's part of NSHA's

1:42:39future. Um and to not follow it would

1:42:44really be a mistake. So, um I'm speaking

1:42:48for the residents in our community that

1:42:51we really don't want um don't feel like

1:42:55we should be faced with um a community,

1:42:59a development that's um going to have

1:43:03clearly more than a hundred people

1:43:05living there. um in on these seven acres

1:43:10probably um 75 to or more cars

1:43:15um

1:43:17it's going to be a huge change and not

1:43:20what we moved in understanding would be

1:43:23there in the neighborhood.

1:43:25So, um I ask you to um look at that

1:43:29master plan for NSHA

1:43:32and um it's all yellow which um is for

1:43:36medium density and if this development

1:43:40goes in um you'll have to change the map

1:43:44because it won't be yellow anymore.

1:43:47There'll be some red spots.

1:43:50So, thank you very much.

1:43:52>> Thank you.

1:44:08Uh my name is Santo Salvi and I'm from

1:44:11For Ailia Lane. First of all, I'm living

1:44:14in this neighborhood since 1997.

1:44:17I have seen the neighborhood developed

1:44:19right from the dirt road.

1:44:22Uh my kids have gone to the wise owl

1:44:25which used to be nature of thing before

1:44:28and my mom and all used to walk to the

1:44:32nature of thing to drop my kids.

1:44:35I'm not sure after this 44 units any of

1:44:40the grandparents can take their kids to

1:44:43wise. Wise Owl is expanding right now.

1:44:47They took one more building over there

1:44:50and with this 44 units you are basically

1:44:54putting 99 more cars over there.

1:44:58On top of that, I had a meeting with

1:45:01mayor and Sam as Sam also because I was

1:45:05getting so many complaint from the rest

1:45:08from the neighborhoods that we have a

1:45:11intersection there's a stop sign at the

1:45:14main dunstable Gillis road as well as

1:45:16the buck middle we have many accidents

1:45:19many speedings because the main

1:45:22dunstable is definitely uh uh highway

1:45:26state highway basically internal

1:45:28which goes at certain speeds. So there

1:45:31is a possibility of basically having

1:45:34already we have a lot of elders as well

1:45:37as the young kids cannot even cross the

1:45:40road and on top of that we are basically

1:45:42adding this another 44 multif family

1:45:45units which happened to be the last

1:45:48parcel in this neighborhood. We are

1:45:51changing the characteristic of the

1:45:52neighborhood for the last parcel.

1:45:56The neighborhood is basically the entire

1:45:58community is fighting with the

1:46:02uh with the basically

1:46:04uh with the city for last 8 years. We

1:46:07are really really collecting money from

1:46:10the each and every house and trying to

1:46:14basically pay for the attorney. We feel

1:46:16like after paying a taxes we are paying

1:46:19sir charge on top of it and this is

1:46:22being a really really obedient

1:46:26resident of Nshawa. There are many

1:46:28families like that more than 250

1:46:30families who are living there

1:46:32peacefully. You guys are b really

1:46:36putting their daytoday life at a

1:46:39different stage and more stress.

1:46:43Other thing I wanted to talk about uh

1:46:46intention of 631. 631 intention was

1:46:50there are many

1:46:53commercial unused spaces like a

1:46:55warehouse, the manufacturing plant.

1:46:58There are some businesses which are not

1:47:00doing well. So those unused spaces were

1:47:03not utilized for anything else and we

1:47:06have some housing crisis. We need

1:47:09affordable housing and that's the reason

1:47:12the 631 was built to more build more

1:47:15multif family affordable housings with

1:47:18this particular 631 intention is not

1:47:22being served we are creating the

1:47:24high-end multif family housing out of

1:47:27this [clears throat] I really do not

1:47:29even understand uh the basic thing on

1:47:32top of that is

1:47:35we are straight away kicking out the

1:47:38elderly housing from this neighborhood.

1:47:41We have 21 families living there right

1:47:44across from that road on Hudson Drive.

1:47:47They are there as their last house.

1:47:51They came to Nashua for a some kind of a

1:47:54peace that they can basically enjoy

1:47:56walking on the street. They can go two

1:47:58or three times in a day to walk. They

1:48:01find that particular place to be

1:48:03peaceful and we are just ruling that

1:48:06being a last parcel which we are

1:48:09developing and we today

1:48:12all are taking that decision and you are

1:48:15changing the life of at least 500 plus

1:48:18Nasha resident and I'm really not happy

1:48:22with that. I do understand that every

1:48:25businesses needs to make money. The

1:48:27builder basically brought the property

1:48:29from Hanfford with the intention of

1:48:32building the elderly housing. I am fine

1:48:35with building the duplex. I'm fine with

1:48:39building the attached town houses. So

1:48:42the characteristic of the neighborhood

1:48:43never ever change and still everybody

1:48:46can live peacefully. I have also

1:48:48requested uh mayor if is it possible to

1:48:52buy that land and try to make a park or

1:48:56maybe some kind of a winter activity

1:48:59like Roi Park. Uh he tried it but again

1:49:03basically the land belongs to the

1:49:05builder. He has a right to keep it or

1:49:07sell it. We cannot force that.

1:49:11After going through all this thing,

1:49:14every day basically I'm getting so many

1:49:17emails as a state representative from

1:49:20the community

1:49:22requesting me to basically can you do

1:49:24something about it? Can you do something

1:49:26about it? And we have a six intelligent

1:49:28people right in front of me. They are

1:49:31trying to basically go through the stuff

1:49:34and trying to take the right decisions.

1:49:37So I'm really expecting them to just not

1:49:41read the law, try to interpret the law

1:49:44for the benefit of the public. That is

1:49:47what I'm looking for and that is what I

1:49:50trust all of you to do that and try to

1:49:53basically follow the process and try to

1:49:56see do something good for the NSHA

1:49:58community. Thank you very much.

1:50:02Thank you.

1:50:11My name is Jessica Taylor and I live at

1:50:1333 Gillson Road. I am in opposition to

1:50:16the proposed 44 unit town home

1:50:18development at 8 Merritt Parkway.

1:50:21Living, commuting, and interacting with

1:50:23this area every single day. And having

1:50:26grown up visiting and going to this area

1:50:28every weekend, I know for an absolute

1:50:30fact that there are many reasons to

1:50:32discourage and prevent this development.

1:50:34The south southwest quadrant of Nshawa

1:50:37is a gem of NSHA. You are bound to walk

1:50:40along Buck Meadow in the adjacent

1:50:42neighborhoods and come across some

1:50:43notable bird, plant, or animal.

1:50:46Just recently, the 34 Buck Meadow

1:50:48proposed storage facil facility was

1:50:50denied by the zoning board. The zoning

1:50:52board brought up an excellent point in

1:50:54regard to the concentration of this area

1:50:56and how adding to the traffic poses a

1:50:58danger to students coming in and out of

1:51:00the McCarthy Middle School. It takes one

1:51:03drive on Conent, Maine, Dunible, Buck

1:51:05Meadow, or Gillson Road to see that

1:51:07walking and biking is and will continue

1:51:10to be a very prevalent form of

1:51:12transportation and recreation. Much of

1:51:15that interaction coming from the school

1:51:16and involving families. Kids hang out at

1:51:19Captain's Corner, walk to the soccer

1:51:21fields, and families make their way to

1:51:23the trail or the Udiki Park. That should

1:51:26be the focus when thinking of improving

1:51:28this area, not squeezing as many people

1:51:30into the area as possible. Any resident

1:51:33of this area knows this and observes

1:51:35this every day. and taking into account

1:51:38these observations should be a huge part

1:51:41of the decision to completely alter a

1:51:43fantastic neighborhood. I'm fairly new

1:51:46to being aware of this proposed project

1:51:48considering how long is it it has been

1:51:50fought against and I'm still educating

1:51:53myself a bit on all that has gone on.

1:51:56However, the apparent fact is that you

1:51:58can't keep rehashing something and

1:52:00expect a different result. No matter how

1:52:03many times this is brought to the table,

1:52:04the residents that this affects are

1:52:07against it every time. If this

1:52:09development proceeds, there is no going

1:52:11back. Nature will be pushed out. Kids

1:52:13will be discouraged from walking or

1:52:15biking due to safety and more accidents

1:52:17will occur. That is a concept that

1:52:20concept is a very stark contrast to the

1:52:23beauty, character, and interaction that

1:52:25this neighborhood provides. Now, uh, the

1:52:28neighborhood cannot sustain nor does not

1:52:30want resident more residents in traffic.

1:52:34Thank you.

1:52:36>> Thank you.

1:52:47>> Raymond Jonas, one Houston Drive,

1:52:49National. Uh, I just

1:52:52want to talk about a few things you've

1:52:54already heard, but I'm going to say them

1:52:55again.

1:52:56The number of vehicles that are going to

1:52:59be over there would be 88 plus.

1:53:02Now you've got two two an entrance and

1:53:05an exit to that place. It's all going to

1:53:07go on Conan Road or Main Dunlow Road.

1:53:10There's backups on main Dunlow Road now.

1:53:13And with 88 more cars coming down there,

1:53:16it's going to back up as far as

1:53:17Westgate.

1:53:19Um ne and the other thing about those

1:53:22cars, I don't know where they're going

1:53:23to park them there. There's you're going

1:53:25to pack 88 cars possibly plus they're

1:53:29going to get guests coming in,

1:53:32prime trucks, UPS. It's going to be very

1:53:35busy over there and no place to park.

1:53:38And

1:53:40I'm also concerned about blasting over

1:53:42there. I know they said there'd be

1:53:43minimum amount of blasting, but if you

1:53:45look at it, there's plenty of rock over

1:53:47there.

1:53:50The other uh issue you mentioned the

1:53:53vegetation

1:53:54where seven of those units are going,

1:53:56you're going to have to remove 100% of

1:53:58the vegetation.

1:54:01That's a lot of vegetation. And the deer

1:54:03come right through there.

1:54:05That's all.

1:54:07>> Thank you.

1:54:15Is there anyone else who

1:54:17uh wishes to speak that hasn't yet had

1:54:19the opportunity to speak?

1:54:25Okay.

1:54:27Is there anyone in the audience that

1:54:28wish to speak wishes to speak in favor

1:54:30of the plan?

1:54:35Okay. Um just confirming one last one

1:54:38last chance. Uh, no one else wishes to

1:54:41speak in opposition or concern. Okay.

1:54:44Um, if that's the case, I would then um

1:54:48turn it back to the applicant to um

1:54:50speak to the concerns that were raised

1:54:53um and to provide any rebuttal you want

1:54:56to provide. And just for your I'm sure

1:55:01you were you were taking good notes, but

1:55:03um you know the things I heard were

1:55:05impact on wildlife vegetation. We talked

1:55:08a little bit about that. already

1:55:10obviously a lot of comments about

1:55:11traffic. Um I would say sort of density

1:55:15of the development slash the character

1:55:18of the development with the surrounding

1:55:20neighborhood. Um

1:55:22and lasting that was the last thing I

1:55:25had. So um so just in case you that that

1:55:29you know doesn't match your list.

1:55:30>> Sure. Yeah. Absolutely. So um you know

1:55:33at the end of the day the law is the law

1:55:35right. uh multif family housing is

1:55:37allowed by right on this property and

1:55:39that's what's being proposed. In regards

1:55:41to the traffic, the city has specific

1:55:43criteria for traffic analysis. An

1:55:45appropriate level of analysis was

1:55:46provided. Uh that analysis was reviewed.

1:55:50Um there's a letter from Wayne Husband

1:55:51and the staff or board speaking to that

1:55:53and that there's sufficient capacity. Um

1:55:56in terms of wildlife, you know, that

1:55:57coordination happens through the

1:55:59alteration of terrain permitting

1:56:00process. Uh that's not just with dees,

1:56:03that's also with the fishing game. Okay.

1:56:05So all of that happened. Uh we did

1:56:07receive the permit. So uh obviously uh

1:56:10there weren't concerns there to the

1:56:12level of not allowing the project to

1:56:13move forward. Uh in terms of blasting,

1:56:16yes, there's definitely some outcropping

1:56:17and some things like that that will have

1:56:18to be, you know, hammered out or or

1:56:20whatever. But um uh obviously the design

1:56:22was in an attempt to try and limit those

1:56:25things to the maximum amount

1:56:26practicable. Uh there are specific laws

1:56:28quite frankly uh regarding blasting.

1:56:30quite frankly, it's above my pay grade,

1:56:32but obviously anything that does need to

1:56:33be done has to follow specific protocol.

1:56:36You know, this isn't the wild west. You

1:56:37can't just go blast wherever you want,

1:56:38right? So, um, all those things will of

1:56:41course happen, uh, the way that they're

1:56:42supposed to happen. Uh, and I apologize,

1:56:44Mr. Chairman. I don't know if there was

1:56:45anything else besides the traffic, the

1:56:47wildlife, the blasting, and the use that

1:56:48I that you heard that I didn't answer.

1:56:50Yeah, I think you and I think you to

1:56:52some degree already addressed this, but

1:56:53this is sort of there was the related

1:56:55sort of the density of the development

1:56:57and sort of character of the um of of

1:57:00this development in relation to the

1:57:02surrounding uses. I think I think you

1:57:04probably covered that. I I just in terms

1:57:07of um traffic, I'm wondering if you

1:57:10could speak in a little bit more detail

1:57:14to the TIR that was provided. So just

1:57:16maybe give for the benefit of everyone

1:57:18just give a little background on you

1:57:20know what what you did in response to

1:57:24the required city relations what you

1:57:26provided um what what the findings were

1:57:29in that TIR and then what what the

1:57:31implications of that were meaning in

1:57:33terms of you know not reaching the

1:57:35threshold to require a full traffic

1:57:38report for example.

1:57:39>> Correct. Yeah. So basically the way that

1:57:41it works is the Institute of Traffic

1:57:43Engineers uh is is a recognized you know

1:57:47organization that publishes data and

1:57:49this data is driven from uh actual

1:57:52developments that exist out there and

1:57:54they take this analysis and they

1:57:55basically uh create these general

1:57:58calculations that can apply to specific

1:58:00types of development. Um I want to say

1:58:03there's I don't know Dan might know a

1:58:05little bit better than me but uh maybe a

1:58:07couple hundred uses in that book. 100

1:58:10200 something like that. Um the specific

1:58:13use applied in this metric is uh 220

1:58:16which is land use code 220 which is

1:58:18multif family uh attached housing. Okay.

1:58:22Um and basically you know in terms of

1:58:24that we we take in the size of the

1:58:26development in this case uh there's

1:58:28multiple different ways to look at it

1:58:29depending on what kind of development

1:58:31you have. Residential um you know in

1:58:34this case it's it's by unit count right.

1:58:37Um there's certain thresholds that the

1:58:39city has that trigger further analysis

1:58:42outside of you know uh kind of

1:58:44calculating what impact will be. Uh the

1:58:47first is for adjacent roadway peak hour

1:58:50traffic in both the morning and the

1:58:52afternoon. Uh the the threshold for that

1:58:55is 75 trips per hour. Uh the peak for a

1:58:5844 unit townhouse development is 24.6

1:59:02trips per hour during the PM condition.

1:59:04The morning conditions even less. is

1:59:0620.2. Uh for the development peak hour,

1:59:09the threshold is 100 trips per hour.

1:59:11That's reviewed in both the morning, the

1:59:13afternoon, and on the weekends, in this

1:59:16case, Saturday. Um the maximum out of

1:59:19those was 30.8 trips. So again, that

1:59:21threshold was 100. The maximum

1:59:23calculated and expected is 30.8. During

1:59:26a full 24-hour period, so basically

1:59:28daily trips, uh it was calculated to be

1:59:31358 trips on a Saturday. Saturday is the

1:59:34peak there. During the weekdays it's

1:59:35322.

1:59:37Uh the threshold is 1,200. So you can

1:59:40kind of see it's just about the same

1:59:42percentage. We're under those thresholds

1:59:43kind of any way that you can uh slice it

1:59:46and dice it through the analysis.

1:59:49>> Great. Thank you. Um other questions

1:59:52from the board.

1:59:55>> Uh we'll start with Mr. Zer and then go

1:59:57to Mr. McIntyre.

1:59:58>> Thank you Mr. Chairman. Um, something

2:00:01that I had noted from public comment,

2:00:03site lighting and photometrics. Um,

2:00:05looking at the lighting plan now, I'm

2:00:07not noting or not seeing anywhere um

2:00:09that lists whether or not the fixtures

2:00:11that are proposed are dark sky

2:00:13compliant. I'm wondering if there's been

2:00:14any thought given to that. If the

2:00:15fixtures that are proposed are dark dark

2:00:17sky compliant, if the public is, you

2:00:19know, speaking to a neighborhood that's

2:00:21a little darker in the evening and, you

2:00:22know, if there's an interest to maintain

2:00:23that, would the applicant be open to,

2:00:25you know, proposing dark sky compliant

2:00:27fixtures?

2:00:28>> Yeah, absolutely. There's certainly the

2:00:29intent to provide that. I don't know. We

2:00:31may have a note on here that uh says

2:00:32that. I It's been a minute since I've

2:00:34looked at the lighting plan in that kind

2:00:36of detail. I think the general intent of

2:00:37the lighting design is not to overlight

2:00:39it. This is a residentially scaled

2:00:41lighting design. You know, this isn't a

2:00:42commercial development in this location.

2:00:44You don't want to have lights

2:00:46throughout. You know, there's an

2:00:47appropriate level of it. Uh we work with

2:00:49a lighting consultant. Uh in this case,

2:00:51Exposure. Uh we've worked with them for

2:00:54many years. We have a long-standing

2:00:55relationship with them. And uh basically

2:00:57we kind of work together to come up with

2:00:59the the best game plan for this

2:01:00particular development. You'll see that

2:01:01on Manurion there's a couple you know

2:01:03residential style street lights or

2:01:04whatever. Uh and then there's obviously

2:01:06you know unit lighting that's associated

2:01:08with it as well. Um absolutely fine if

2:01:12there's some sort of condition or

2:01:13anything like that that requires the

2:01:14lights to be dark sky compliant. Um

2:01:16that's not an issue at all. That's

2:01:18certainly something that the developer

2:01:19is going to do.

2:01:20>> Okay. I'm not sure if we're required to

2:01:22hold you to that or not, but it would

2:01:23just be a recommendation.

2:01:24>> Yeah. I I think um I'm not sure it might

2:01:26be required by regulation in the land

2:01:28use code and Sam maybe you can confirm.

2:01:30>> Yeah, I did take a look at this. Um we

2:01:32don't have the words dark sky compliant

2:01:34in the code. Um but the intent and and

2:01:37you know downcast lighting like those

2:01:38sorts of terms are in the code. Um so

2:01:41the effect is the same.

2:01:42>> Okay. I think it's a national standard

2:01:44uh that certain fixtures can conform to.

2:01:46Um but it regardless I'm not sure we can

2:01:48hold you on anything. Just a

2:01:49recommendation and it sounds like that's

2:01:51already the intent. Um, and I think it's

2:01:52important for the public to know that as

2:01:53well that you you thought through that.

2:01:55>> Yeah. And I mean, not for nothing, but

2:01:56the residents that live here are going

2:01:58to be the ones that are mostly affected

2:01:59by this lighting, right? So, certainly

2:02:01that's kind of what we were looking at

2:02:03first when we were looking at this, but

2:02:04that also bleeds out to anything outside

2:02:06of this development as well.

2:02:09>> Yeah, that's all I had. Thank you.

2:02:10>> Thank you, uh, Mr. McIntyre.

2:02:12>> Yeah, pardon me for stream of

2:02:13consciousness, please, um, on this, but

2:02:16I have a number of things. Um, one of

2:02:18the things that the public had uh

2:02:21mentioned was the uh the idea of the um

2:02:23master plan. Again, that's my my um

2:02:28push button. [clears throat] Uh you

2:02:30know, it's a blueprint. It's a blueprint

2:02:33and it's not made by the planning board.

2:02:35It's made by a whole conglomeration of

2:02:38people uh from um pieces of city hall

2:02:42people, professionals, volunteers,

2:02:46um you name it. Uh experts, subject

2:02:49matter experts. So, it's not it's not a

2:02:51planning board

2:02:53u published document in the sense of

2:02:56that we did it, right? I mean, it's it's

2:02:58the city of Nasha that did it, but we

2:03:00should follow it as much as we can. And

2:03:03so I I I um I'm very cognizant of that

2:03:07and I try to make that a a point every

2:03:09time we have these meetings. Um so in a

2:03:12minute I'm going to ask Sam some

2:03:13questions related to that. Um you know

2:03:17just historical again you know this area

2:03:20the southwest quadrant of NSHA is the

2:03:22area where um the last frontier really

2:03:27of uh of um home development. not not

2:03:32highrises going up or u you know city uh

2:03:36dwellings and stuff but available land

2:03:39right was initially the southwest

2:03:41quadrant is is pretty much most people

2:03:44think is the last area. So, the reason

2:03:47why I'm saying that is it's not going to

2:03:50make me or anybody else feel good about

2:03:53it, but um if there's land to be

2:03:56developed in the city and it tends to be

2:03:59over there, this is what's going to

2:04:01happen. These kinds of things are going

2:04:03to happen. Um so, uh it's not the same

2:04:08place that you grew up in. It's not the

2:04:10same place that I grew up in. I lived

2:04:11off of Conit Road when I was a kid. uh

2:04:14and it's not the same place uh uh going

2:04:18forward. So, you can clarify that u if

2:04:22you want if I'm off on that, but I think

2:04:23that's the area of the city where most

2:04:25of the potential new home development

2:04:28type things can happen. Is that correct?

2:04:33In a general sense,

2:04:35>> I don't know if I would entirely agree

2:04:38with that. Um mostly because the master

2:04:40plan has some very specific targeted

2:04:42areas for redevelopment and I'm saying

2:04:45redevelopment. Now there there is land

2:04:48raw land green field development as we

2:04:50often refer to it and this is one of the

2:04:52last remnant parcels of that and and

2:04:54obviously the southwest quadrant being

2:04:57more rural in nature larger lot sizes.

2:04:59Yes, the opportunity for subdivision for

2:05:02further thickening up within the

2:05:03ordinance exists here more than it does

2:05:06anywhere else in the city. Um, but to

2:05:08speak more to the master plan, the

2:05:10master plan does have very intentional

2:05:12areas of the city where it wishes to

2:05:14develop. Um, you know, we've given

2:05:16presentations to this board as to how

2:05:17the new land use code will will speak to

2:05:19that. Um,

2:05:21I'll leave it there unless you'd like me

2:05:23to go.

2:05:24>> No, no, no. I I I would just just as an

2:05:26aside, you know, uh um I fine-tune my

2:05:30words a little bit better, but uh sure,

2:05:32I'm very aware there are uh uh sites all

2:05:35across that master plan that we want to

2:05:37try to do various types of developmental

2:05:40approaches. So, uh I was mostly talking

2:05:43about uh available new undeveloped land

2:05:47as opposed to some of the other uh

2:05:50characteristics. Okay. So the reason why

2:05:53I say that is because I think the the

2:05:56public especially needs to be aware of

2:05:58that because I think this is a potential

2:06:03maybe downstream of more stuff to come.

2:06:05I don't know. I don't know, but it it it

2:06:07makes me think that it was. And then Sam

2:06:09on R30 designation, right? Um which is

2:06:13the um designation for this area, right?

2:06:16Does this style of

2:06:20of um development violate R30?

2:06:25>> Yes, it does. Um because the underlying

2:06:28zoning district, it it regulates on

2:06:31density. It has lot sizes. Um, but the

2:06:34FOD, which is the overlay, it allows

2:06:38commercial uses. And so these state

2:06:41bills have preempted our ability to

2:06:45regulate and plan in the way that both

2:06:47the master plan and the zoning ordinance

2:06:49currently contemplates this area. Um, so

2:06:53it's been said before, our hands are

2:06:56tied to a degree. That does not take

2:06:59away from the board its site plan

2:07:00approval criteria. Those are the metrics

2:07:03against which you can evaluate this site

2:07:05plan. Um, but what it does take away is

2:07:09all of the relief that this project had

2:07:11to receive in 24. We cannot regulate

2:07:14density. We cannot regulate uh the

2:07:17stories, the number of stories. We can

2:07:19regulate height. Height is limited to 35

2:07:22ft in this district. Their buildings are

2:07:2334. They meet height. Um, we our our

2:07:27ordinance doesn't allow multif family in

2:07:29this area. They had to get that relief.

2:07:31uh HB631 takes that away from us. Uh I

2:07:34think that the elderly restriction,

2:07:36while there's some debate about HB631

2:07:39and how that addresses this, I think Mr.

2:07:41Varley was very accurate in his

2:07:42characterization of how HB 1588 goes

2:07:47further and rest very

2:07:49clearly and blatantly restricts our

2:07:51ability to impose additional

2:07:53requirements. Age restricted housing is

2:07:55an additional requirement that is not

2:07:57specifically allowed by that section.

2:08:01That section being RSA 67480. Uh so to

2:08:06answer your question directly, yes, it

2:08:07does violate our zoning, but state law

2:08:10has told us that that does not matter

2:08:12and this project has to be permitted by

2:08:15right. Uh but again, that does not uh

2:08:18remove the board's discretionary

2:08:20judgment as it applies to the site plan

2:08:22approval criteria.

2:08:23>> Okay. So, uh, Mr. Chairman, may I

2:08:25continue? So, uh, again, this is part of

2:08:28how I view my role on this board, which

2:08:30is to encourage,

2:08:32um, difficult questions and, um, and

2:08:36discussion as opposed to um,

2:08:41everything by the numbers kind of thing.

2:08:42I don't want to be that misinterpreted.

2:08:45So, that last misinterpreted u, that

2:08:48last piece of what you said about

2:08:50discretion.

2:08:51Okay.

2:08:54Does that mean that via the site plan

2:08:57approval criteria I can apply my

2:09:01discretion on whether or not this type

2:09:06of development

2:09:08um is uniquely aesthetic structural and

2:09:11visual character of the nearby build

2:09:13what like of that segment as an example

2:09:16I I'm asking for some guidance.

2:09:18>> Yeah. No, I think you you're asking the

2:09:20right questions. Right. So now we're

2:09:21we're entering the realm of where this

2:09:25these approval criteria intersect with

2:09:27the state preeemption, right? So so the

2:09:29the character, right? You know, is

2:09:31multif family out of character? You

2:09:34know, it might be subjective, but you

2:09:36know, there is no multif family in this

2:09:39area. So this is a change. However,

2:09:42because state law says that we have to

2:09:44allow it, I would uh advise the board to

2:09:48exercise caution in saying the use the

2:09:52nature of the use multif family uh is

2:09:55out of character. Therefore, uh we we

2:09:57would deny the site plan because of that

2:09:59because the state has changed the law.

2:10:03Uh I don't believe that that would be a

2:10:06a viable reason to deny. Uh, and

2:10:09actually I'm glad you've raised this

2:10:11because there there's an additional

2:10:12section of uh 67480 that was added by

2:10:161588. Um, and and I wrote it down uh

2:10:19because it's it is striking that this

2:10:22was included in state law. Any owner

2:10:25improperly denied an application or who

2:10:28is subjected to requirements beyond

2:10:30those allowed in the section and who is

2:10:32therefore required to file suit against

2:10:35a municipality to exercise the property

2:10:38rights uh thus recognized shall be

2:10:41reimbursed reasonable attorney fees

2:10:43incurred as a result.

2:10:45>> The legislation encourages developers to

2:10:48file suit against municipalities who do

2:10:50not adhere to the state law. I have

2:10:52never seen such a statement in state

2:10:54law.

2:10:55>> I think the intent uh as as intent of

2:10:57this regulation was raised is very clear

2:11:00and it is giving a warning to

2:11:02municipalities to uh read what I think

2:11:05is very plain language in this statute

2:11:08as it applies and therefore allows a use

2:11:11that yes may be out of character with

2:11:13the area. But again, I advise the board

2:11:16to exercise caution in in stretching

2:11:19their interpretation and application of

2:11:21these approval criteria in a way that

2:11:24may violate the new law.

2:11:25>> Okay. So, I have two last things on this

2:11:27and then I'll I'll back off. Okay. So,

2:11:29given what you just crystallized for me,

2:11:34uh I believe I could say it in a

2:11:36slightly different way and you tell me

2:11:38if I put words in your mouth, but that

2:11:41is we have to follow the state law. We

2:11:44have to follow the state law and then

2:11:47that can be under interpretation by

2:11:50others

2:11:52right in other ways right so in a sense

2:11:57public I feel like my hands are tied in

2:12:01terms of of of

2:12:04anything that would give me discretion

2:12:07because of the way the new laws are in

2:12:09place. So Mr. Vice Chairman excuse me

2:12:12Mr. Jim, you correct me if I said

2:12:14anything wrong thereafter. And then the

2:12:16other thing is kind of like a freebie uh

2:12:18throw on. I don't mean to make it sound

2:12:20like it is, but um uh I didn't see

2:12:22anything in any of the staff reports

2:12:24about any um uh all reference to the

2:12:28conservation commission because they do

2:12:29a great job, but I didn't see anything

2:12:31that said that there were any um uh

2:12:34conservation

2:12:36uh sensitivities here uh that would make

2:12:40me see a red flag or even a yellow flag.

2:12:44Am I correct on that?

2:12:46>> Sure. sort of put a finer point on that.

2:12:48Um, typically the interaction between

2:12:50planning board and conservation

2:12:51commission boils down to if there is

2:12:53work proposed within a wetland buffer

2:12:55and that follows a conservation

2:12:57commission uh recommendation on a

2:12:59special exception application before the

2:13:01zoning board. That's a prerequisite to a

2:13:02site plan application before the

2:13:04planning board. That process hasn't

2:13:06happened because there is no work

2:13:07proposed in the wetland.

2:13:09>> And the last thing on this was, you

2:13:10know, again from the mayor's design seat

2:13:14viewpoint, right? I'm making a big point

2:13:15about that and uh uh please don't fire

2:13:19me, Mayor Donis. But I haven't heard

2:13:21from the mayor of any exception to this

2:13:25um development. I haven't heard from any

2:13:28alderman

2:13:30on any uh exception to the development.

2:13:34So, uh, we've heard a lot from the

2:13:36public, but from the legislators

2:13:40representing the public,

2:13:42I have not had that, uh,

2:13:46guidance, uh, or warning or anything

2:13:48like that. So, I just want that for the

2:13:50record.

2:13:56>> Uh, thank you. Um,

2:13:59Mr. Driffy, please correct me if I'm

2:14:01wrong. When I'm looking at 67480,

2:14:04um I agree that last paragraph is going

2:14:07to seem to appear in many things that

2:14:09are going to encourage people to sue us.

2:14:11So, we don't do anything. We um we need

2:14:14to be cautious in all our changes. But

2:14:16while our hands are tied, they're not

2:14:19completely they didn't make that knot so

2:14:22tight that we can't do things. If I'm

2:14:24correct on 67480

2:14:26under um Roman numo one um the items A B

2:14:33C are the only stipulations that would

2:14:37allow us to um say no to this and one of

2:14:42them being A being road infrastructure

2:14:45require a traffic impact study to

2:14:48ascertain the political I'm not

2:14:50political this mean this is all

2:14:52political potential impacts to the

2:14:54existing traffic condition in the

2:14:56vicinity of the project, including but

2:14:58not limited to the ability to existing

2:15:00road infrastructure to accommodate

2:15:01increased vehicular traffic, the

2:15:03availability of sidewalks,

2:15:05infrastructure to ensure pedestrian

2:15:06safety. Pedestrian safety kind of hit me

2:15:08hard there. Um, but basically this kind

2:15:11of talks to a traffic study or and and I

2:15:14know numbers were given and everything

2:15:16was met. May I ask when that uh review

2:15:20happened and was it before these other

2:15:24items, these other places have moved in

2:15:26and um and and so on because I know

2:15:29people are talking about other things

2:15:30that have been done and we know that the

2:15:32zoning board turned down another um

2:15:35business. So

2:15:37>> yeah. Um so to speak again to traffic um

2:15:40you know the city has set criteria for

2:15:42when a traffic study is required and

2:15:43when it's not. Um, we've submitted this

2:15:45as part of this application. Uh, it's

2:15:48been reviewed. There's a letter from

2:15:50Wayne Husband that speaks to that. Also

2:15:52speaks to a study that was done

2:15:54separately by another consultant from

2:15:56what my understanding is fairly

2:15:58recently. Uh, looking at the

2:15:59intersection of Main Dunville Road and

2:16:01Buck Meadow Road. Um, so yeah, no,

2:16:04there's not been like a formal traffic

2:16:06study because it just hasn't risen to

2:16:08that level. Um but uh but it sounds like

2:16:11there have been other studies in the

2:16:12area that have been recent.

2:16:14>> Um a comment that I I make quite often

2:16:17when new places come into existing areas

2:16:20is that we're going to get to a point

2:16:22where things become saturated. So the

2:16:24last person on that totem pole is pardon

2:16:26my language going to be no because you

2:16:30just kind of tip things over. Um I I

2:16:34understand where the um uh were the

2:16:37residents who spoke out um how they

2:16:40feel. You know, I too have um felt the

2:16:44impact of growth within u my ward um

2:16:48where seven acres of green space were

2:16:53cleared. Um it was very very

2:16:56frustrating, very aggravating and it

2:16:58changed the entire um environment of

2:17:00that of that area including animals. We

2:17:03actually have bears in in Gley Park um

2:17:06and and so on. So the other two items if

2:17:10if I can continue u Mr. Chairman is just

2:17:13the the water infrastructure required

2:17:15that the applicant receive permission

2:17:17for the owner of a public water system

2:17:18and so on and I saw the letter from

2:17:20Penachuck in there and the other one was

2:17:22sewage infrastructure. Um, and that too

2:17:24seems to be addressed. So, knowing that

2:17:26A, B, and C are our only outs, this is

2:17:29extraordinarily frustrating because I'm

2:17:31sorry to say, I think even what you feel

2:17:34might be a little additional is going to

2:17:36create um some kind of pedestrian

2:17:41um safety issue. I personally had an

2:17:44accident at Captain's Corner where

2:17:46someone came out. I was in a truck with

2:17:49my husband and dog and they spun us

2:17:51around because they didn't stop. So, um,

2:17:55and I've been there with the dog park

2:17:57that's down the road at Yuckucky and,

2:17:59um, gone for walks on those trails and

2:18:01that traffic is getting worse and worse.

2:18:03So, um, I saw your numbers. I heard your

2:18:06numbers, but I still personally feel

2:18:09this is going to have a traffic impact

2:18:11on on everybody that lives there. So, I

2:18:13just wanted to say that. Thank you,

2:18:17>> Mr. Hudson.

2:18:18>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. So, there's

2:18:20been some discussion about traffic and

2:18:22potentially safety, so I figured I'd

2:18:24just speak to it a little bit more. Um,

2:18:27in the packet, there is a memo from or a

2:18:30letter from uh, senior traffic engineer

2:18:32Wayne Husband. Um the pertinent quote

2:18:35here is that he says there is more than

2:18:38sufficient capacity available along the

2:18:39existing roadway networks uh to

2:18:42accommodate an additional 44 residential

2:18:43dwelling units is subject uh merit place

2:18:46at 8 merit parkway and I uh I I agree uh

2:18:50with Mr. Hus husband on that point. Um I

2:18:54don't know is it so much a matter of

2:18:56traffic volume here. This is a small

2:18:58incremental change to um to the area.

2:19:02The there's been other developments such

2:19:04as the school which had a much more

2:19:06significant impact on traffic, much much

2:19:07higher volumes of traffic. Frankly, a

2:19:09grocery store would be much higher than

2:19:11what's proposed uh currently and I think

2:19:12that was discussed the last time this uh

2:19:16this something was contemplated like

2:19:18this uh in a previous case. So, um

2:19:22I do though understand uh we have an

2:19:25epidemic, I'd say, of bad uh driver

2:19:28behavior throughout the city. People are

2:19:31driving too fast. They're not obeying

2:19:32the speed limits. Uh apparently somebody

2:19:34didn't stop where they're supposed to

2:19:35stop. So, people don't follow the rules

2:19:37and regulations as they should. I don't

2:19:39know really how to address that.

2:19:41Certainly addressing that is far beyond

2:19:43the specific merits of or you know

2:19:46responsibility or or ability of this

2:19:48project to address that would be what I

2:19:50would say. But the board is free to

2:19:53disagree with Mr. Husband and I should

2:19:54they see fit. I mean you're certainly

2:19:56within your your your uh jurisdiction

2:19:59requested additional traffic study or

2:20:00anything like that should you seek

2:20:02additional information. Um Mr. Husman

2:20:04does reference uh some recent studies.

2:20:06Of course there was a quite extensive

2:20:08study that was done for the school

2:20:09before that came in um post school

2:20:12construction there was a study related

2:20:14to the Gilson road proposal um um

2:20:19uh for the BG facility down there pract

2:20:22practice field facility. Um the study

2:20:24that was done kind of affirm that

2:20:28traffic um that has resulted is

2:20:30consistent with the previous school

2:20:32traffic study. Um, but we have been

2:20:36getting requests and and concerns about

2:20:38the intersection of Maine, Dunville, and

2:20:39Buck Meadow. So, uh, we had asked that

2:20:42to be specifically looked at. Um, and as

2:20:45referenced in Mr. Husman's letter, um,

2:20:48the current traffic conditions out

2:20:49there, they don't warrant uh, converting

2:20:51the signal or converting the

2:20:53intersection all stop intersection,

2:20:55which would be kind of the next measure.

2:20:57Right now, there's uh, stops on the two

2:20:59uh, minor streets, so to speak, but not

2:21:01on Buck Meadow. I mean not on main

2:21:04dunel, sorry. Um and further they

2:21:07certainly the the the warrants for any

2:21:09kind of traffic signal aren't met.

2:21:11There's been some repeated requests for

2:21:14such a such a uh treatment out there and

2:21:17we just just the traffic uh doesn't rise

2:21:20to that level of warrant. Um there have

2:21:22been crashes or been some serious

2:21:24crashes out there. the crash frequency

2:21:26though we're not seeing you know uh a

2:21:30high numbers of crashes at that location

2:21:32per se but we are seeing is a few

2:21:34relatively severe crashes and that's

2:21:37again a function of the bad driver

2:21:39behavior I would say with speeds and

2:21:41people not following the rules of the

2:21:42road so to speak um um so that is

2:21:45concerning but um

2:21:48um but this small increment of traffic I

2:21:50think for this site doesn't doesn't

2:21:52warrant uh anything uh any changes in

2:21:55that regard. Um

2:21:58the in terms of pedestrian travel, there

2:22:02are some there are walkways to my

2:22:03understanding within the development um

2:22:06currently uh which is all private. So so

2:22:08that's uh and and there are some

2:22:11additional walkways proposed I believe.

2:22:13So um I don't find

2:22:17this condition going to change there

2:22:19necessarily. Sure. I can understand

2:22:21people want better uh sidewalks maybe

2:22:24along Buck Meadow or any other thing and

2:22:26people all over the city would love more

2:22:28sidewalks, right? Um but those those

2:22:30come in a at a maintenance uh

2:22:33they they come in a maintenance um

2:22:35requirement and uh we just can't provide

2:22:37those everywhere. We we have a vast

2:22:39sidewalk network. We um we have trouble

2:22:43just keeping the what we have currently

2:22:45maintained. So adding additional

2:22:46sidewalks, although that'd be uh nice to

2:22:49have. Um just also I don't think was in

2:22:52the scope of this project nor

2:22:53necessarily warranted by this uh

2:22:55proposal and the level of traffic and

2:22:57whatnot that's part of this development.

2:22:58So um those are kind of my thoughts on

2:23:00it, but um I'd be happy to address any

2:23:02questions anybody else has and regard to

2:23:04those things.

2:23:06I would just say on the sidewalk point,

2:23:08you know, living down the street from

2:23:10this um proposed development, the

2:23:13sidewalk infrastructure here is actually

2:23:14pretty good. Um you know, certainly

2:23:17around this site, I mean, you've got a a

2:23:19sidewalk that goes out Conan Road,

2:23:21crosses and connects to a sidewalk on

2:23:23Main Dunable. You've got a sidewalk that

2:23:25runs Buck Meadow at least from

2:23:28Cherrywood up to main Dunel and then

2:23:31down Gillson.

2:23:32Um, you've got a sidewalk that runs

2:23:34around runs along main dunstable on

2:23:37that, you know, I guess the west side of

2:23:39[cough and clears throat] the

2:23:39development. So, I mean, relatively

2:23:41speaking, to your point, I mean, there's

2:23:42there's probably a lot of areas in the

2:23:44city um, where you would say the

2:23:47sidewalk infrastructure is significantly

2:23:49more deficient here. I mean, I think

2:23:51you've you've got pretty good

2:23:52infrastructure existing right now.

2:23:55>> Yeah. Uh, I did want to highlight a

2:23:57couple things that the city has done to

2:23:58try to improve conditions in this area.

2:24:00So um we put in rectangular repeting

2:24:04beacon crossing on main dunable at the

2:24:06intersection. Um that was to try to

2:24:09improve pedestrian safety especially in

2:24:11crossing the street. Um we put up

2:24:14flashing uh stop signs because there

2:24:17have been cases where people missed the

2:24:18stop sign uh coming down and so uh we

2:24:21hope those have been uh an improvement.

2:24:23We cleared the sight line looking left

2:24:25from Buck Meadow because previously that

2:24:27had been challenging. Um we broke out

2:24:29left and uh we broke out the Buck Meadow

2:24:32approach in the left and right turn

2:24:33lanes because the majority of traffic

2:24:34turns right. Um that was a to try to uh

2:24:38alleviate some congestion where one left

2:24:40turner would be blocking up everybody uh

2:24:42wanting to turn right. Um this proposal

2:24:45has propos as one of the off-site

2:24:48mitigated measures um will add another

2:24:51RFB set up at acrossing uh kind of mid

2:24:55mid mid property front on Buck Mill

2:24:57Road. So they're they are taking a

2:24:59measure to improve pedestrian safety

2:25:01through through the development here. Um

2:25:04so I I just want to highlight those

2:25:05things. We have heard the concerns. We

2:25:07are trying to take measures to improve

2:25:10things. Uh but there are you know there

2:25:12are still challenges as there are

2:25:13throughout the city.

2:25:18Anything

2:25:22else from the board right now in the

2:25:25public hearing for the applicant or

2:25:28staff?

2:25:34Does staff have anything to add in the

2:25:36public hearing? Obviously, we can always

2:25:37come back to you in the deliberations,

2:25:39but okay.

2:25:42Everybody's okay with

2:25:44>> some hands in the Mr.

2:25:47Mr. Hudson,

2:25:48>> I did I just did just want uh the

2:25:50applicant to address there was questions

2:25:52about parking. Was there enough parking

2:25:54on site? I just wanted uh somebody to

2:25:56address the ad adequacy of on-site

2:25:58parking.

2:25:59>> Okay. Sorry, just come back and address

2:26:01that, please.

2:26:04>> Yeah. So, basically every every unit is

2:26:06designed, you know, to have a a garage

2:26:08space and a parking space in the

2:26:11driveway as well. Um so, that meets the

2:26:13requirements in that regard. So uh but

2:26:16beyond that you know the I believe we

2:26:18actually have a parking calculation for

2:26:20this overall you know mixeduse

2:26:22development on the property and so there

2:26:25is you know when you have these

2:26:26offsetting uses in terms of like

2:26:28residential and commercial things are

2:26:30kind of used at different times there's

2:26:31kind of and the land use code

2:26:33contemplates this um there's kind of

2:26:35like peaking factors for certain things

2:26:37when other things aren't you know

2:26:39peaking right and so the shared parking

2:26:41analysis I think kind of a uh applies

2:26:44here and and We certainly feel

2:26:45comfortable with that and you know

2:26:46obviously it's been something that's met

2:26:48the regulations all the way through the

2:26:49project from the start. So

2:26:50>> thank you.

2:26:51>> Yeah. Clean.

2:26:53>> Thank you. On that note um the kind of

2:26:56the off-site parking that you have from

2:26:58those businesses and so on. I hope

2:27:00everybody can hear me from those

2:27:02business and so on. Um you have um

2:27:05agreement with them that that is

2:27:07acceptable and people aren't going to be

2:27:08towed for parking in the non-residential

2:27:12area.

2:27:13>> Yeah. So basically it's almost a

2:27:15community thing, you know, um there's

2:27:18this is a an existing condominium

2:27:20development that's privately regulated

2:27:21with that. So this isn't like, you know,

2:27:24multiple site plans. It's kind of like

2:27:25one big area, if you will. And the the

2:27:28parking is really set up for everything.

2:27:30You know, it kind of consider everything

2:27:31on the property as a whole. And this is

2:27:33just another level of that.

2:27:34>> Okay. Thank you.

2:27:41>> Anything else? Good. All right. Um,

2:27:46so just because we we've already

2:27:48concluded the the the public testimony

2:27:52component of the hearing. Um,

2:27:54>> doesn't one person excuse me.

2:27:57>> No, we that used to be we we moved away

2:28:00from that because it got confusing as to

2:28:03to sort of

2:28:04>> Thank you.

2:28:04>> how we would proceed on that basis. But

2:28:07um

2:28:08so just again to sort of recap the

2:28:11procedure, we we heard from the

2:28:12applicant. We allowed public testimony

2:28:16so far as anyone wanted to testify.

2:28:18We heard rebuttal from the applicant and

2:28:21had the board uh give the board the

2:28:23opportunity to ask, you know, questions

2:28:24of the applicant as respects that

2:28:26rebuttal. Um, but unless the board has

2:28:30additional questions, I I would propose

2:28:33to close the the public hearing at this

2:28:35time.

2:28:40We go then. All right. So, um, with that

2:28:43then I'm going to close the public

2:28:44hearing. Um the board uh will now enter

2:28:49into the deliberation phase in the

2:28:51public meeting and and you know just for

2:28:54the sake of saying this the board always

2:28:56reserves the right to reopen the public

2:28:59hearing if if any board member thought

2:29:00that that was necessary.

2:29:02Um

2:29:04but I I think at least initially here um

2:29:08I'd like to to you know hear from um

2:29:12board members as to the you know the

2:29:15issues that have been raised by the the

2:29:18the public testimony and that have been

2:29:21um responded to by the applicant.

2:29:24um and just you know get an

2:29:26understanding of of whether board

2:29:28members have uh you know questions or

2:29:30concerns that they think you know um

2:29:33they would like to discuss at this time.

2:29:36>> Uh thank you um Mr. Chairman. Um the I'm

2:29:40going to be very honest. Um I did not

2:29:43vote for the Bishop Girtton um adaption

2:29:48and so on. Um and ordinarily I would

2:29:50have probably not voted for this

2:29:53I am going to vote for it simply because

2:29:56of the new state regulations. I do feel

2:30:00as was stated before our hands are tied.

2:30:03I would um I have anxiety about that

2:30:06last paragraph within the um 67480 as

2:30:10was brought up by Mr. Dery um because it

2:30:14talks about the applicant

2:30:16um suing us and if we don't cross every

2:30:19te and dot every eye, we are on the

2:30:22hook. the city, the taxpayers are on the

2:30:24hook for that cost. That's already

2:30:27happened once

2:30:29in since I've been here, not with the

2:30:31planning board, but with another board.

2:30:33Um, and uh, it was costly to the city.

2:30:37Um, with with a lot of litig litigation

2:30:39going back and forth and so on. I don't

2:30:41want to see that here. I think those

2:30:43three items that I stated are the only

2:30:46exceptions that we have. So, I do I

2:30:49think our our hands are tied and you

2:30:52know, truthfully, my heart goes out to

2:30:54all those that are opposed to this, but

2:30:57um don't want to be political here, but

2:31:00elections count and they matter. So,

2:31:03thank you,

2:31:05>> Mr. McIntyre.

2:31:06>> So, I that's clear to me from one side,

2:31:09>> right? But there's nothing that stops

2:31:11the uh abutters or the neighborhood from

2:31:13suing the city, right? They could if

2:31:15they felt like it, right? based on

2:31:18whatever we do. So there's two sides to

2:31:20that coin. One of them is

2:31:24whether or not we're on the hook for it.

2:31:25Right. Okay. So that's just a point of

2:31:28clarification.

2:31:30That's all.

2:31:31>> Yeah. I mean I guess and just to that

2:31:33point, I mean I understand that I um

2:31:36agree with Mr. Jeffy that that we should

2:31:38be cautious in relation to the changes

2:31:40to state law. Having said that, I I I

2:31:44think this board needs to make a

2:31:45decision based on, you know, the merits

2:31:48of the case and whether we think it

2:31:49meets the the the criteria and whether

2:31:51we think we can approve it based on

2:31:53those criteria and the application

2:31:55before us and not based on a fear that,

2:32:00>> you know, the developer might sue the

2:32:01city and and recover attorney's fees.

2:32:03Um, so I I and you know I and again I I

2:32:08appreciate the the note of caution

2:32:10because I think it's warranted but I I

2:32:12also want to sort of balance that out

2:32:13against I do think we we nonetheless

2:32:15have a duty to you know so even if we

2:32:18you know even if there's some risk of

2:32:20that um you know the board still has to

2:32:23make a decision based on you know the

2:32:25application before us and the criteria

2:32:26that apply to it. Um

2:32:30I I guess just I would just offer a

2:32:32couple things. I mean

2:32:34because traffic was such a consistent

2:32:37comment, you know, one of the things

2:32:39that I thought was interesting from the

2:32:40applicants, you know, I had asked the

2:32:44applicant about the TI because I was

2:32:47wanted to get a sense of like how close

2:32:49they were to triggering

2:32:51uh a full traffic report. And you know

2:32:54what I heard was by any measure they

2:32:57were significantly under the the

2:33:00requirements to trigger a traffic

2:33:02report. And to me that's meaningful

2:33:03because you know Alderman to your point

2:33:06you know that traffic is one of the

2:33:08items that's explicitly identified in

2:33:10the statute as where the board certainly

2:33:13retains discretion. Um, I think it's

2:33:16reasonable for the board to not exercise

2:33:18that sort of discretion here because

2:33:21you know the the applicant is only at

2:33:24approximately 30% of the level of

2:33:27traffic that would otherwise trigger a

2:33:29full report. Um, and I can tell you

2:33:33there have been many instances, you

2:33:35know, where we've dealt with similar

2:33:37circumstances where it is the

2:33:38incremental increase in traffic. um that

2:33:43you know understandably nobody ever

2:33:45wants more traffic and I I I certainly

2:33:47appreciate that consideration but I

2:33:49think you know our job is to say is the

2:33:52traffic significant enough

2:33:55that it either warrants some further

2:33:57study or some further action by the

2:33:59applicant and I personally I I don't see

2:34:01that we can say that based on the

2:34:04figures here based on the impact that

2:34:06this project has um

2:34:09so sorry just wanted to speak to

2:34:11briefly, but uh other other comments

2:34:15from board members. Mr. Hirs,

2:34:17>> I voted for this back I think in 2024. I

2:34:20think it's a good project overall. A lot

2:34:22more attractive than the potential

2:34:23commercial development there. Far less

2:34:25impact and far less negative impact on

2:34:28the residential abutters in a Hannerford

2:34:31or whatever would have in terms of you

2:34:33know every almost every element you

2:34:36think about be it traffic or lighting or

2:34:38or whatever. So I I I think it's a good

2:34:41I think it's a good project.

2:34:43>> Yeah, it's a good point. I mean, and

2:34:44it's not just hypothetical, right? I

2:34:45mean, Hannerford owned the property

2:34:47prior to this developer. So, they could

2:34:49have come before this board with a

2:34:50proposal for, you know, a smaller

2:34:53grocery store. And Mr. Hudson, as I

2:34:55think you alluded to, I mean, the

2:34:56traffic impact would have been

2:34:57substantially

2:34:59higher if you had some sort of

2:35:02commercial development like that. And

2:35:04that that would have been permitted

2:35:06irregardless of the changes to state

2:35:08law, right? we would have been we would

2:35:10have been dealing with an applicant

2:35:11coming before us and saying this is this

2:35:13is something that's already by right. Um

2:35:15so I I I tend to agree. I think this is

2:35:17a pretty modest

2:35:19um a pretty modest development plan.

2:35:22It's one that's that's much less

2:35:24impactful than frankly could be

2:35:26particularly with the changes of state

2:35:27law now and I don't Mr. Chism referred

2:35:30to the original conceptual plan that was

2:35:32presented to the board in 2020 and I

2:35:34remember getting that plan and I was one

2:35:37of the folks who commented development

2:35:38and said this is you know this is way

2:35:40too big.

2:35:40>> It was terrible.

2:35:41>> Yeah.

2:35:42>> It was it was not I don't think that it

2:35:44was a good plan for the site and and you

2:35:46know to his credit he he took that

2:35:48feedback and came up with a very

2:35:51different plan um when they ultimately

2:35:53became before the board. So I I I tend

2:35:57to, you know, agree with your sentiments

2:35:58about the the sort of impactfulness of

2:36:00the project relative to this site here

2:36:02and what it could be.

2:36:04>> Mrs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to

2:36:06kind of piggyback and touch on uh you

2:36:08know, proposed use or intended use in

2:36:10that area. Um touching on the flexible

2:36:12use overlay district um and its

2:36:14intentions for uh or the thought being

2:36:16that there could be a mixeduse village

2:36:17type use there, getting more mixed use

2:36:19into the area. This plan would

2:36:21essentially allow for more mixed use.

2:36:23there's a little bit of commercial, you

2:36:25know, immediately adjacent. Now you get

2:36:26the residential piece to it. And that

2:36:28kind of is the whole underlying idea of

2:36:29a mixeduse development. You get a, you

2:36:32know, businesses and residences that are

2:36:33kind of mutually benefiting each other

2:36:35um with the business. And I think there

2:36:36is a walkability aspect to it as well.

2:36:38So the FOD, which is already on the

2:36:41books, which you know, encourages

2:36:42mixeduse developments. We're

2:36:44effectively, in my opinion, looking at a

2:36:46mixeduse development right now. even

2:36:47though we're not proposing any new

2:36:48commercial here, it the residential

2:36:50would kind of interact very closely with

2:36:52the commercial that's there, creating a

2:36:54mixeduse type environment. So, it it

2:36:56seems like from that stance, the the

2:36:58applicant is trying to conform to the

2:37:00overlay district.

2:37:12>> Nothing else for me. Thank you.

2:37:16Um,

2:37:21so I'm certainly not rushing anyone into

2:37:23anything, but

2:37:25to the extent that um

2:37:30there is ultimately a desire to consider

2:37:33a motion, I would just note that um

2:37:39we would, as in a number of other cases,

2:37:42we would have first um

2:37:46the waiver request that that the board

2:37:48would need to consider and act upon.

2:37:52And um again, that's the the pretty

2:37:55standard waiver of the uh existing

2:37:58conditions within a th00and ft. And then

2:38:01uh if the board were to act favorably on

2:38:04that waiver request, then we would need

2:38:05to consider the um

2:38:13the uh the the consideration of uh final

2:38:16site plan approval.

2:38:24>> Mr. Hudson.

2:38:25>> Oh, yeah. I'll I'll wager a motion if

2:38:28people are ready. [laughter]

2:38:30to move this along. Um, in the site plan

2:38:35case A266,

2:38:38uh, I move that the board grant uh,

2:38:42waiver from section 19279E

2:38:47u relative to the requirement show

2:38:49existing conditions on adjacent parcels

2:38:51as appropriate. In granting this waiver

2:38:53request, uh, the board's utilizing the

2:38:55the, uh, criteria from RSA. The RSA is

2:38:58noted here in the staff report um in

2:39:00addition to the applicant's uh waiver

2:39:03request letter dated May 5th of 2022

2:39:06finding that uh strict conformity with

2:39:08the regulations unnecessary hardship to

2:39:10the applicant and the waiver would not

2:39:12be contrary to the spirit intent of the

2:39:13regulations and two that specific

2:39:15circumstances or conditions of the land

2:39:16indicate that the waiverss will properly

2:39:18car properly carry out the spirit and

2:39:20intent of the regulations.

2:39:22>> Thank you Mr. Hudson. So that motion is

2:39:24to grant the waiver with respect to

2:39:27190-279E.

2:39:29Is there a second to that motion? Second

2:39:31by Mr. Hirs. Is there any further

2:39:33discussion?

2:39:35All those in favor?

2:39:37>> I opposed. None. That motion passes

2:39:39unanimously. Mr. Hudson, do you want to

2:39:42continue?

2:39:42>> Sure, Mr. Chair. Um so further I would

2:39:46move that the board grant final site

2:39:48plan approval for uh site plan case 826

2:39:520166

2:39:54um for the development of 11 four unit

2:39:57town home buildings and associated

2:39:59improvements at 8 M Parkway finding that

2:40:00the site plan meets the approval

2:40:02criteria under uh NRO section 1901 146D.

2:40:06Um and that such conditional approval

2:40:10include the subsequent conditions A

2:40:14through U as um specified in the staff

2:40:18report.

2:40:21Thank you. So that motion by M Mr.

2:40:23Hudson is to grant final site plan

2:40:25approval with the conditions indicated

2:40:28in the staff report. Is there a second

2:40:31to that motion? Seconded by Mr. Hirs.

2:40:34>> Is there any further discussion? Yes,

2:40:36there is.

2:40:36>> Mr. McIntyre.

2:40:37>> Uh, may I request a roll call vote for

2:40:40the record?

2:40:42>> Sure.

2:40:45>> Um, other any other discussion beyond

2:40:47that point?

2:40:51>> Okay. So, um,

2:40:55Scott, can I ask you to assist with

2:40:56that?

2:40:57>> Oh, sure.

2:40:57>> Just to do the the roll call. So, um,

2:41:02this is again on Oh, I actually I

2:41:04apologize. First, we need uh No, we had

2:41:07a second.

2:41:07>> Yeah,

2:41:08>> Larry.

2:41:08>> Second.

2:41:09>> Larry seconded. So, we have a motion. We

2:41:10have it seconded. Um so, could we could

2:41:13we take a a roll call vote? Um Scott, do

2:41:15you mind calling that role?

2:41:17>> Absolutely. Um Chairman Bick,

2:41:20>> yes.

2:41:23>> Benjamin,

2:41:24>> yay.

2:41:25>> Alderman Cle?

2:41:27>> Yes.

2:41:28>> Larry Hirs.

2:41:29>> Yes.

2:41:30>> McIntyre,

2:41:31>> yes.

2:41:32>> Dan Hudson,

2:41:33>> yes. Thank you. So that motion is

2:41:36approved unanimously and thank you

2:41:38Scott.

2:41:44>> Thank you very much everybody.

2:41:57>> Okay. So,

2:42:00moving on to other business with A26155

2:42:04having been postponed to October 15th.

2:42:06We've got uh review of the tenative

2:42:09agenda to to determine uh whether there

2:42:12any proposals of regional impact.

2:42:16Um has anyone had a chance to look at

2:42:18the tenative agenda?

2:42:22>> I I would like to just say one thing.

2:42:24It's kind of funny uh actually about

2:42:25this and it's it's it's my uh

2:42:28inexperience and age. Okay, Sam. So,

2:42:31when the uh today we also got uh the

2:42:35October 15th agenda sent to us, right?

2:42:39And I'm reading everything I possibly

2:42:42could for today, right? For today's

2:42:44stuff. And then I saw this. I look real

2:42:46quick and I I didn't see October 15th as

2:42:48you could tell when I did today when I

2:42:50started with the wrong date. and I and I

2:42:52saw the other uh the other places that

2:42:54will be looked at for the 15th and I

2:42:56said, "What happened to all the things

2:42:57that we were going to do today?" So, I

2:42:59only asked that they do the um next

2:43:03meeting's um uh agenda one day after we

2:43:07finished one just so I don't get

2:43:10confused.

2:43:11It's just a suggestion. Boss,

2:43:13>> we can do that.

2:43:14>> Thank you.

2:43:15>> We can do that.

2:43:15>> It's happened to me, too.

2:43:16>> Yeah. I was like, "What happened? They

2:43:18took everything off." And here I thought

2:43:20you were going to talk about the

2:43:21tenative agenda.

2:43:22>> No, I know. No. I have pursu uh per

2:43:25perused the list and I I think I I could

2:43:28make a motion to say that none of them

2:43:30have any regional impact.

2:43:32>> I I will take that as a motion by Mr.

2:43:34McIntyre that that there are no

2:43:36proposals of regional impact and I see

2:43:38Mr. Hirs maybe seconding that. Second

2:43:41from Mr. Hirs. Uh any further

2:43:43discussion?

2:43:44>> All those in favor?

2:43:45>> I opposed. None. That motion passes

2:43:48unanimously. All right. Uh, discussion

2:43:51items. I'm I'm I'm praying not.

2:43:53>> No.

2:43:55>> Okay.

2:43:55>> Do you hear the one about No, I'm sorry.

2:43:57[laughter]

2:43:58>> So then I will uh happily take a motion

2:44:03to adjurnn. Mr. Zer.

2:44:04>> Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion

2:44:06to adjurnn, please.

2:44:07>> Uh motion by Mr. Zer to adjurnn. Uh all

2:44:10those in favor?

2:44:12>> I opposed. That motion passes

2:44:14unanimously and we adjourned at 9:44.

2:44:17>> Thank you.

2:44:19Thanks. much earlier than I thought.

2:44:22And I only did the roll.

```*