2026-10-15 - Planning Board

00:49Good evening everybody. Uh 7:00, I'd

00:51like to call to order the October 15th,

00:542026 meeting of the City of Nashua

00:57Planning Board.

00:59Uh can we get a roll call, please?

01:00>> Yes, Mayor

01:02Mayor Donchess

01:04Joseph McIntyre

01:05>> Present.

01:06>> Robert Ballanger

01:07>> Here.

01:08>> Adam Varley

01:09>> Here.

01:09>> Maggie Harper

01:11Alderman Patricia Klee

01:12>> Here.

01:13>> Dan Hudson

01:14>> Here.

01:14>> Benjamin Zoller

01:15>> Here.

01:16>> Larry Hirsch

01:17>> Here.

01:17>> Cameron Green

01:18>> Here.

01:19>> All right.

01:20>> Thank you. We have a quorum.

01:22Uh next item on the agenda, approval of

01:24minutes from the October 1, 2026

01:26meeting. Has any member of the board had

01:28an opportunity to review those minutes

01:29and is willing to make a recommendation

01:31regarding their acceptance or acceptance

01:32with modification?

01:34Uh Mr. Zoller, please.

01:36>> Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion

01:37to approve those minutes as written.

01:39>> All right, thank you. Motion by Mr.

01:40Zoller. Is there a second?

01:43>> I second.

01:43>> Seconded by Alderman Klee.

01:45Any further discussion?

01:48All those in favor?

01:49>> Aye.

01:49>> Aye.

01:51>> Motion passes and uh the chair will

01:53recuse and Mr. Green will recuse.

01:57All right, thank you. Moving on. Next

02:00item, communications.

02:02Scott, Connor, anything to report on

02:04that came in late after we got our

02:05packets?

02:07>> Yes, Mr. Chair. There's been a couple

02:08changes to the packet that was first

02:10posted on Friday

02:12for the project at 10 North South Woods,

02:15conditional use permit. We have a

02:17revised staff report to incorporate

02:19comments from the engineering department

02:20as well as included fire apparatus

02:22overlay in the plan exhibit. And then

02:24for 181 East Hall Street, we have a

02:26resolved comment letter from the

02:28engineering department and an added

02:30condition that speaks to engineering's

02:32traffic contribution request.

02:34>> Okay, thank you, Connor.

02:37All right.

02:38Moving along. Report of chair, committee

02:41and liaison.

02:44All right.

02:45See nothing at this time.

02:48All right. Before we move to our regular

02:51cases, we'd like to address the planning

02:54board procedure.

02:55The procedure of the meeting and the

02:57hearing are as follows.

02:59After the legal notice of each

03:00conditional, special use permit, site

03:02plan, or subdivision plan is read by the

03:04chair, the board will determine if the

03:06application is complete and ready for

03:08the board to accept jurisdiction.

03:10The public hearing will begin at which

03:12time the applicant or representative

03:13will be given time to present an

03:15overview and description of their

03:16project.

03:18They shall speak to whether or not they

03:19agree with the stipulations recommended

03:20by staff. The board will have an

03:22opportunity to ask relevant follow-up

03:24questions of the applicant or staff.

03:27The chair will then ask for testimony

03:28from the audience and the chair shall

03:30have the ability to limit the length of

03:31public testimony in the interest of

03:32time.

03:34First, anyone wishing to speak in

03:35opposition or concern to the plan may

03:37speak. Please come forward to the

03:38microphone, state your name and address

03:40for the record. This will be the time to

03:42express your concern or ask questions

03:43you may have regarding the plan.

03:46Next, testimony will come from anyone

03:47wishing to speak in favor of the plan.

03:49The board may then ask relevant

03:51follow-up questions of the applicant.

03:52The applicant will then be given a

03:54rebuttal period at which time they shall

03:55respond to any concerns raised by prior

03:57public testimony.

04:00After the meeting is completed, the

04:01public hearing will end and the board

04:03will begin the public meeting, at which

04:05time the board will deliberate and vote

04:06on the application before us. We ask

04:08that both sides keep their remarks to

04:10the subject at hand and not to repeat

04:11what has already been stated.

04:13We want to be fair to everyone and make

04:15the best possible decision based on the

04:16testimony presented and considering all

04:18applicable approval criteria established

04:21in the Nashua revised ordinances. Thank

04:23you for your interest and courteous

04:25attention. And at this time, if I could

04:27please ask you to turn off or silence

04:29your cell phones, that'd be greatly

04:30appreciated.

04:33All right. And uh one other thing I

04:35would like to add, uh at the discretion

04:37of the chair, uh we do reserve the right

04:40to uh switch the order

04:42uh in which we hear cases, and that will

04:45most likely occur this evening.

04:48All right. Um moving along.

04:51Um first item on the agenda, uh under

04:54new business, conditional use permit, uh

04:56case A26-0187,

04:59property located at 10 North Southwood

05:02Drive.

05:04Has any member of the board an

05:05opportunity to review this application

05:07for completeness and is willing to make

05:09a motion regarding board acceptance? Mr.

05:13McIntyre, please.

05:14>> Mr. Chairman, I move uh

05:17that the application is complete on

05:21item A26-0187

05:24and that the board to take jurisdiction

05:26of the application and open the public

05:28hearing.

05:29>> All right, thank you. Motion by Mr.

05:30McIntyre. Is there a second?

05:33Uh second by Mr. Varley.

05:35Any further discussion?

05:38All those in favor?

05:39>> I.

05:40>> I. Motion passes. The board has

05:42jurisdiction. Uh Mr. Chism, are you

05:44handling this one this evening?

05:46>> Yes, I am.

05:46>> All right.

05:47>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good

05:48evening, everybody. For the record, my

05:50name is Paul Chisholm. I'm with Keach

05:51Nordstrom Associates. We're the

05:52engineers and surveyors of record for

05:54the project, representing Wendon LLC.

05:57Uh they are an affiliate of the Tulley

05:59Automotive Group. Tulley Automotive

06:01Group is really kind of the driving

06:02force behind the project, and they're

06:03ultimately going to own and operate the

06:06the building and the project here.

06:09Uh they are proposing to repurpose the

06:10existing building located at 10 North

06:12Southwood Drive. This property was

06:14originally built in 1994 with the post

06:16office. It was most recently occupied by

06:19Waveguide Solutions until the recent

06:21relocation of that business. The parcel

06:23itself is about 10 acres. It's located

06:25in the park industrial zone, as well as

06:27the water supply protection district.

06:29This proposal represents an adaptive

06:31reuse of that building and property,

06:33which will supplement the Tulley's

06:34existing automotive dealership

06:36operations down in the Exit 2 area and

06:38along DW Highway.

06:39As I'm sure most of you are familiar,

06:41the Tulley Automotive Group is a

06:42long-established national business

06:43that's experienced such dramatic growth

06:45in recent years.

06:47Um in terms of the national land use

06:48code, there are two separate uses

06:50contemplated with this proposal on this

06:52property. The first is for vehicle

06:53storage. That's uh noted on the plan as

06:56kind of the dotted area.

06:58Uh that is a use that is permitted by

06:59right. Uh the second is vehicle repair,

07:02and that is a use that is permitted

07:03subject to a conditional use permit,

07:05which is the reason why we're here this

07:06evening.

07:07Uh according to that application, um

07:10obviously, we're really here uh for the

07:12CUP. The criteria applies to the vehicle

07:14repair component of this application

07:16specifically. Um and just to kind of

07:19give you a broader sense of how they

07:21intend on using this property,

07:23um this is really not intended to be a

07:25high-volume customer-centric location.

07:27You know, they really want customers and

07:30anything that, you know, a lot of people

07:31and the transient type of people and

07:33uses and cars and stuff like that to be

07:35running through the main dealership

07:36facility down at Exit 2.

07:38Uh this is actually going to be more for

07:40uh obviously the vehicle storage

07:41component, where employees shuttle

07:43vehicles back and forth from the

07:44dealership and to this site uh as they

07:47run out of space as they typically do

07:49down at the main dealership. But, as far

07:50as the repair component, this is going

07:52to be a little bit longer-term projects,

07:53things that take multiple days uh to

07:55complete. For example, if you go in and

07:58you're looking for an oil change or tire

08:00rotation or some other service where

08:02you're kind of sitting and waiting for

08:03an hour, that's still going to happen at

08:04the dealership facility. That's where

08:06they want to funnel you through.

08:08Um to put some numbers and contextualize

08:10this a little bit, uh you know, it's

08:12probably in the order of they they

08:14estimate about 75 vehicles a month that

08:15are going to be serviced through this.

08:17So, it's not, you know, uh like any

08:19other automotive repair facility. It's a

08:21little bit more targeted to a certain

08:22thing. Um that equates to, by the way,

08:24about three or four vehicles per day

08:26that are kind of, you know, um serviced

08:28and and cleaned up and and sent out of

08:30there. So, they will experience some

08:32customers coming to the site and things

08:33like that, but obviously it will be to a

08:34limited degree.

08:36Um in general, they plan to have about

08:3825 employees on the property.

08:40Uh so, again, uh that that will consist

08:42of like just some office staff,

08:44obviously the actual service uh people

08:46as well, and then people who kind of

08:48shuttle back and forth.

08:50Um in terms of the vehicle storage

08:52component, uh that's going to act very

08:53similarly to uh their property on West

08:56Glenwood Street. If you're familiar with

08:57that one, if you're driving north on

08:59Route 3, it's the the site that they

09:01have, that white building in the big

09:03parking area that's between on the

09:05right-hand side of the highway between

09:06exits 2 and 3. Uh basically, what they

09:08do again is they kind of just as

09:10inventory fluctuates, they have the

09:12ability to shift cars up there and kind

09:14of shuttle them between the dealership

09:16facility and that. So, that that will

09:17act the same way with this property.

09:19Obviously, this site's enticing to them

09:20because the proximity to the highway,

09:23you know, they really don't have to go

09:24through local roads. Uh there's

09:25tremendous infrastructure right there at

09:27Exit 8. They're going to be able to hop

09:29on hop off the highway between those two

09:30sites.

09:32Uh as with any conditional use permit,

09:34there's nine criteria uh that really

09:36have to be met. I'll just briefly

09:38summarize each of them. We obviously

09:39wrote a pretty detailed um

09:42memorandum to that effect, but the first

09:44is that uh the authorization of the use

09:46of the the matrix uh in the land use

09:48code. And And obviously vehicle storage

09:50is permitted by right. Vehicle repair is

09:53is authorized as a conditional use.

09:56Uh the second is compliance with

09:57applicable regulations.

09:59So, there's no waivers we're asking for

10:01here. Everything that they're doing is

10:03by the book, so to speak.

10:05Um

10:06So, no issues with that. Uh in terms of

10:08number three, which is public health and

10:10safety, I mean, basically the vehicle

10:12repair use itself is going to be focused

10:14inside the building. It's not like

10:15they're going to be out in the parking

10:16lot working on cars or anything like

10:18that. So,

10:19um there's really no, I would say, um

10:21appreciable threat to the public or

10:24um to any neighbors or anything. Uh in

10:27terms of number four, impact on abutting

10:29property values, I mean, this is kind of

10:32a continuation of the style of use, I

10:34would say. It's somewhat similar to

10:36historical uses. Perhaps a little bit

10:39lower in the intensity scale in terms of

10:41uh you know, traffic to and from.

10:43Um but in general, you know, uh it's

10:46surrounded by a number of other, you

10:48know, park industrial allowed uses. And

10:50then across the street, certainly there

10:52is some residential, but there's a

10:53pretty hefty buffer not only on uh the

10:56applicant side of Tinker Road, but also

10:58on the other side on the residential

11:00side of Tinker Road as well.

11:02Uh that was set up as part of their

11:03subdivision.

11:04In terms of neighborhood compatibility,

11:07uh um

11:07again, this is this is something where

11:10uh you know, in terms of the vehicle

11:11storage, it's really basically like park

11:13cars. Uh obviously they'll have, you

11:15know, people kind of working there,

11:17parking their cars and going home at

11:18lunch or at the end of the day or

11:20whatever. Uh the vehicle repair is going

11:22to be exclusively inside the building.

11:24So, you know, you're really not even

11:25going to notice it from that end. Uh I

11:27would say that the impact from this use

11:29is not dissimilar to the previous uses

11:31that have existed there.

11:33Uh in terms of highway and pedestrian

11:35and pedestrian safety,

11:37um again, this this facility happens to

11:39be at a very convenient location right

11:41off of exit eight. Um you know, it's

11:44it's fenced in completely, so there's

11:46security fencing around the perimeter.

11:47It's not like people are going to be

11:48able to wander in or or or through the

11:50site. You know, they'll have the gates

11:51open during business hours when people

11:53are there, and then otherwise it will be

11:54closed

11:55and locked.

11:57Um number seven, natural environ- and

11:59environmental resources. Again, this is

12:01really primarily using things that are

12:03already there. There's really no

12:04additional expansions that are proposed

12:06as part of this. This is really a change

12:08of use site plan, if you will. Um while

12:10they're going to repurpose the building,

12:12there's really not a whole lot of

12:13changes there outside of cutting in some

12:14new service doors and maybe, you know,

12:16reorienting some of the office space and

12:18things like that. But right now, if you

12:20were to kind of walk through the

12:21building, it's it's basically a, you

12:22know, a big open

12:24uh a big open space that they'll be able

12:26to make what they want with it.

12:27Uh in terms of public utilities and

12:29community facilities, obviously this the

12:31infrastructure's there for this. You

12:32know, there's really not going to be

12:33much else that has to happen there. So,

12:36there's going to be no additional

12:37expenditure uh in terms of or you know,

12:40creation of excessive demand or anything

12:42like that from the utilities in the

12:43area. And then criterion nine is in

12:45regards to downtown on-street parking.

12:47And obviously this criteria probably

12:48doesn't really apply to this project. Um

12:51you know, we're not downtown, and

12:52obviously all the all the parking will

12:54be off-street and on the property within

12:56the confines of the fencing. So, um

12:59basically to summarize, I think uh you

13:01know, the applicant certainly feels that

13:02this is a great property for them. Uh I

13:04think they see a lot of potential here.

13:06Um they are, I should just make you all

13:08aware, kind of thinking about what to do

13:10in the future. Uh I don't think we've

13:12thought about any building expansions or

13:14anything like that, but certainly

13:15potentially expanding a little bit more

13:17on the, you know, vehicle storage and

13:19stuff like that. But obviously, when

13:21that's ready, that will come back before

13:22this board for, you know, um another

13:25approval if and when that happens. But

13:27just to kind of put that out there, so

13:28everyone's aware.

13:30Um and uh yeah, at the end of the day, I

13:32think they're feeling that this is a

13:33great place to kind of support their

13:34business and continue to grow their

13:35business at the same time. So, um Mr.

13:38Chairman, I'll leave it at that. I'm

13:39happy to answer whatever questions you

13:40have about uh conditional use permit at

13:42the plan. Thank you.

13:43>> Okay. Uh thank you. Um Paul, I just had

13:46one one quick question. I apologize if

13:48uh if you already mentioned it. Uh is

13:50the intent to have the the access on

13:52Tinker to remain gated or emergency

13:55>> only

13:55>> Correct. Yeah, that's exactly right.

13:57Yeah, they they really intend to. So,

13:58there's three driveways, one off Tinker

14:00and then two off of North Southwood. The

14:02easiest access really is from North

14:04Southwood. Uh each of those has gated

14:07sliding fences.

14:08Um they really don't intend to use the

14:10Tinker Road uh access, but they do want

14:13to keep it just in the event of an

14:14emergency or someone, you know, for

14:16whatever reason, whatever the oddball

14:18reason is, uh they may be able to, but

14:20they're certainly not from a business

14:22perspective to be utilizing that on

14:24Tinker.

14:25>> Okay. Uh thank you.

14:26Uh open it up to the board. Uh any

14:28questions? Alderman Clee, please.

14:30>> thank you. Just um

14:32Th- This is where the old post office

14:34facility was and that the storage and

14:38and so on. So, your vehicles probably in

14:41and out aren't going to be any more than

14:43what they had

14:44with that particular facility.

14:46>> Correct. Yeah, no, I wouldn't think so.

14:47Particularly with the post office, I

14:49would imagine there there was a lot more

14:50traffic with that. The more recent um

14:52tenant that was in there was Waypoint

14:54Guide Solutions. They were a contractor

14:56of sorts with kind of bigger utility

14:58vehicles and things like that. They

15:00seemed to have a little bit of a nuanced

15:01operation that I'm not quite sure

15:02exactly how that looked, but yeah, to to

15:05your point, absolutely. I think this is

15:06a lot less intense of use than

15:08historically what existed there with the

15:10post office.

15:11>> May I continue?

15:12>> Certainly.

15:12>> Thank you. Um I think that when that

15:14post office was there, I think they ran

15:1624/7 um because they were sorting place

15:19and and so on. Um what are your hours of

15:21operation at the plan at least at this

15:23point is?

15:24>> Yeah, so um, I can look up the exact

15:26one, but basically it's going to follow

15:27the dealership hours.

15:28>> Okay. Um, so it's kind of a mix of that.

15:30Like a 9:00 to 5:00 kind of 9:00 to 7:00

15:32I think.

15:32>> mostly. So, Monday to Friday 7:00 a.m.

15:35to 6:00 p.m., Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00

15:37p.m., Sunday 11:00 to 4:00.

15:39And that's worst case scenario.

15:42Realistically, I don't know that this

15:43will be open on Sundays, but

15:44>> Right.

15:45>> Um, you know, they usually give service

15:46staff off on on Sundays usually, but

15:49>> Okay, thank you.

15:50>> Thank you.

15:51Other questions from the board?

15:56Mr. Zoller, please.

15:57>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Mr.

15:59Chisholm, any uh, existing

16:01non-conformities on the site that you're

16:02aware of? Any um, anything to note in

16:04that regard? Largely, I would assume

16:05that the site is, you know, compliant

16:07with all regulations and uh

16:08>> Yeah, yeah, as far as we know it is. Um,

16:10you know, there hasn't been anything

16:11that we've come across that was

16:12something that we would need to fix or

16:14anything like that. Um, we even feel

16:16like there's actually quite a bit of

16:17room to expand without really triggering

16:19any any kind of relief or anything like

16:20that as well.

16:21>> Okay.

16:22Excellent. That's all I have.

16:23>> All right, thank you.

16:25Other questions from the board?

16:28Okay, um

16:31All right, Mr. Chisholm, thank you. I'm

16:33just going to open it up to the public.

16:34Um,

16:35any members of the public here to speak

16:37in opposition or concern with this

16:38application?

16:41Any members of the public here to speak

16:43in support of this application?

16:46Okay, seeing none then um, Connor or

16:49Scott, do we have anyone on Zoom this

16:50evening?

16:51>> No.

16:51>> Okay.

16:52All right. Very good. Um, seeing no

16:56public comment, I'll throw it back to

16:57the board one more time.

17:01We're good.

17:03Um, all right, then

17:05we can close the public hearing and

17:09we'll go into um, our deliberation.

17:12Um

17:15To me, this one seems fairly um,

17:17straightforward. Um,

17:19I live in that part of town.

17:21Um

17:23You almost wouldn't know there was

17:24anything back there unless you were

17:25familiar with it. Um

17:27I do remember the days when the post

17:29office was was operational.

17:31Um So I would think overall from

17:36you know a traffic standpoint

17:38as testimony was given especially with

17:40just easy access to the highway

17:42basically right off of North Southwood

17:44on Somerset Parkway. Um I I don't see

17:48that is personally being that big of a

17:51deal. I think otherwise Um the written

17:55and oral testimony in support of the the

17:57CUP conditions were more than

17:59satisfactory.

18:01Um so

18:02Those are my my general thoughts.

18:04Obviously love to hear from other

18:06members of the board. Alderman Clee,

18:07please.

18:07>> Yes, I thank you Mr. Chairman. I I 100%

18:09agree with you. My Um

18:12I always look at what is the traffic but

18:14knowing that the post office had been

18:16there I don't consider this to be an

18:17issue with traffic.

18:19My only other concern Um

18:22was originally the

18:24the toxicity of an automotive repair

18:28shop near water

18:30type um situation but everything I've

18:33read sounds like that's been cleared and

18:36taken care of and not a concern so

18:38Um

18:40I think I'll just leave my comments

18:41here. I I don't have an issue with this.

18:43>> Okay. Thank you Alderman Clee. Um

18:46other thoughts or comments from the

18:47board? Mr. Hudson, please.

18:49>> Yeah, there's been discussion about

18:51traffic. I will just note that the

18:52engineering memo that's included in the

18:55packet here

18:56uh reference to request a traffic

18:58contribution to the Amherst Street

19:00traffic corridor having

19:01listened to the discussion and traffic's

19:03not routed that way I'm not sure that's

19:06quite appropriate anymore. Um

19:08I mean they do go down to the DW Highway

19:10sites maybe

19:11maybe it'd be applicable there but um

19:14Um

19:16although there may not be uh

19:18you know, traffic impact um

19:21at this site cuz the site had higher

19:22traffic, there will be a some

19:23incremental increase down at DW Highway.

19:26So,

19:27there's no specific uh

19:29re- uh you know, subsequent conditions

19:32specified for the contribution. I guess

19:34what I'd like to do is take it under

19:35advisement with uh

19:37with um

19:38uh both Mark Saunders and the senior

19:40traffic engineer

19:42I would expect you to cut that sum and

19:44maybe contribute to the DW Highway

19:46corridor instead of the Amherst Street

19:47corridor.

19:48Um

19:50so I just want to get that out there. I

19:51mean, the satisfying the conditions of

19:53the engineering

19:54um memo is one of the conditions,

19:57but that would be my intent would be to

19:59negotiate that down and towards the DW

20:01Highway instead, unless the board

20:04feels strongly that, you know, that's

20:06not appropriate in this case, in which

20:07case I'd reconsider.

20:08>> I I guess uh if the if the board members

20:10weren't uh familiar, um uh Deputy Deputy

20:13City Engineer Mark Saunders wrote a

20:15letter on October 12th where that that

20:17fee was was established, the 18,750,

20:20750, excuse me.

20:22Um

20:23so, I guess I I understand Dan the the

20:25the the rationale there. I think that's

20:27a that's a salient point. If it's meant

20:29to be corridor specific, um is it best

20:32utilized elsewhere? Um so, I I guess

20:34perhaps and Alderman Cleary, I know you

20:36want to chime in on this. Um

20:38uh Sam, from a procedural standpoint,

20:41how would we want to treat that

20:43in laying out conditions? Um

20:47is

20:48should we keep it in there for now?

20:50Uh and allow that to be

20:53negotiated and or

20:54>> Yeah, I would I mean, for lack of

20:56anything better, I would I would I would

20:58modify it to a $9,000 contribution,

21:01approximately half of what you had asked

21:02for,

21:03um towards the DW Highway uh traffic

21:06corridor account. That would be my

21:07request in the moment. Um,

21:10if the board wants to leave it to my,

21:11you know,

21:13if we want to code or codify that

21:14basically in the conditions. If we want

21:15to leave it open then

21:17then I'll take it back and discuss it

21:18with the with the group.

21:20>> Okay.

21:21Thank you. Alderman Clee.

21:23>> Thank you. I

21:25I I do believe we need to leave certain

21:27things to the experts, but my concern is

21:30that the amount of traffic it sounds

21:31like this

21:33um, traffic that will be going will

21:35probably go on the highway, but we still

21:36have that intersection

21:38which does get affect could potentially

21:40get affected and these cars will be

21:42coming off the highway and as you

21:43pointed out going to the DW. Um, which

21:46is already congested coming off of that

21:48exit three and so on. So, I wouldn't

21:50have a problem with this being

21:51transferred to that quarter, but I don't

21:53necessarily feel that we should cut it.

21:56Um, but again, that's just my opinion.

21:59Um,

22:00I I I think that there's still going to

22:02be the amount of traffic that was looked

22:05at while it's not hitting the Amherst

22:06Street specifically, it is going to

22:09still hit DW Highway and it it will have

22:12an impact on that intersection. I don't

22:13know if that intersection is part of the

22:15court the Amherst Street quarter. So,

22:17>> Oh,

22:18the north

22:19close to the south way you mean?

22:21>> Yeah.

22:21>> No, I mean that's that's

22:23it's not part of that quarter.

22:25>> Okay.

22:26>> So, yeah, I think it is more

22:27appropriately directed to DW Highway

22:30since this is, you know,

22:32supplementary

22:33uh, activity uh, related to that

22:35development down there.

22:37>> Yeah.

22:37Thank you.

22:38>> Mr. McIntyre.

22:39>> It's just a point of clarification from

22:41either of you or anyone who else knows

22:43on the board. Is this

22:45this specific item detail that we're

22:48talking about right now

22:50salient to the level of the planning

22:52board or could just have been handled by

22:54the traffic department?

22:57>> My presumption is and if we need to we

22:59can call them up here. Reopen the public

23:02hearing and hear from the applicant. I

23:03would imagine that this this monetary

23:05amount was presented to the applicant

23:09already.

23:10I'm assuming that they agreed to it.

23:13I'm I'm certain that they they wouldn't

23:15complain if it were lowered.

23:18But it's just just the mechanics of how

23:20this board makes a transfer. I would

23:22prefer not to do that and relegate that

23:24to staff

23:26in terms of specifying Amherst Street

23:28Corridor versus Daniel Webster Highway

23:30Corridor. But the the I think where the

23:32the

23:33crux of it for us is

23:35one of the subsequent conditions is

23:37prior to the establishment of use all

23:38comments from the engineering department

23:40shall be addressed to the satisfaction

23:42of the Division of Public Works. And is

23:44that open-ended enough or does that need

23:46to have greater specificity to address

23:48the concern that that Mr. Hudson brought

23:50up with regard to which specific

23:52corridor and the specific dollar amount.

23:55So, that's that's a question for Sam

23:57I'll put out there. Um

23:59if you have an answer.

24:01>> I do. Um I would leave it as is. It

24:03gives the engineering department the

24:05flexibility to go back and study it and

24:08make a

24:09an informed determination on what that

24:11amount should

24:12inevitably be. Um obviously if the board

24:15feels strongly about a dollar amount,

24:17you can certainly, you know, wrap that

24:19into a motion. But at the end of the

24:22intent it really is to the satisfaction

24:24of the engineering department. Uh and if

24:26they determine that they're satisfied at

24:289,000 or 10,000 or whatever it ends up

24:30being, that condition is still

24:32satisfied.

24:33>> And with that being the case, Sam, thank

24:35you for the clarification.

24:37The cherry I'll put on top of it is

24:40I would be okay following Sam's advice

24:42and in terms of the actual dollar

24:43amount,

24:44I would rely on staff to develop a fee

24:47which they feel is proportional based on

24:50this individual applicant's level of

24:52impact. So, Mr. McIntyre, I know you

24:55wanted to chime back in.

24:56>> a follow up. The the intent of the

24:57question, right, wasn't necessarily how

24:59this is

25:00how they developed the idea to get some

25:03funding. It was about whether or not it

25:06rose to the level of detail for the

25:09board to be managing the transactional

25:13stuff that the

25:15traffic department could, I think,

25:17easily handle without us getting in

25:18their way.

25:20So, that's why I was asking if we could

25:21just

25:23get a clarification because I just want

25:24to know it for a moment. learning

25:25experience if how deep are we going to

25:27go on some things sometimes. I guess

25:29it's all relative.

25:30>> Yeah, and and I I would I would say I

25:33think I think Sam gave us a path such

25:35that we don't have to get into the the

25:37granular details of exactly how that

25:39number is is calculated. I have full

25:42full faith in Mr. Hudson and his staff

25:44on the on the matter, so

25:46Alderman Klee.

25:47>> Thank you.

25:49As as I vote on a lot of different

25:51things. When I have to vote on something

25:54and say that we accept engineering's

25:57reports and so on.

25:59The reason I feel that we should chime

26:01in if there's going to be a change to it

26:03is because we're voting on it and we're

26:05saying we're accepting as it's written.

26:08So, I want to make sure that I know how

26:10it's written.

26:11Now, if we say we're going to accept it

26:13and allow them to make the necessary

26:15changes, I would feel very comfortable

26:17with that. I just don't feel I don't

26:20feel comfortable putting a dollar amount

26:22on it. I don't feel comfortable

26:23specifying. I have an opinion, but I

26:25don't feel comfortable specifying, so I

26:27would rather

26:29put in the caveat that they can make the

26:32changes as appropriate necessary.

26:34But, I need that to

26:36be

26:37stated as we're approving this with

26:41condition subsequent conditions.

26:43>> And and to

26:44>> Does that make sense?

26:44>> No, I I totally I think I understand and

26:47and Alderman Klee, I guess I'll I'll

26:48I'll I'll

26:51chime in on the side of

26:52>> Yeah.

26:52>> I I think the language is broad enough

26:55as written that it would be okay because

26:57it simply states shall be addressed to

27:00the satisfaction of the division of

27:02public works and I think that gives DPW

27:06enough latitude to

27:07um you know

27:09compute that in in the manner in which

27:11they best see fit. Um and it seems like

27:14there's already had there are already

27:15been discussions with the applicant

27:17regarding some level of monetary

27:18contribution, so um I would hope that

27:21those conditions would those

27:22conversations would continue

27:24subsequently, so

27:25>> That works for me. Thank you.

27:26>> Okay. Thank you.

27:28All right.

27:29Um

27:34All right. Um

27:36anything else on the board's mind on

27:38this one?

27:41All right.

27:42Well, I guess we're at the point now uh

27:45we heard enough where any member of the

27:46board is comfortable making a a motion

27:49on this one. Um let's see.

27:51Uh

27:52grant the conditional use of uh

27:55permit.

27:58Uh Mr. Varley, please.

28:01>> Uh Mr. Chair, um

28:03I would make a motion to

28:05approve new business A-26-0187

28:08conditional use permit

28:10and that would be with a finding that

28:14um

28:15the applicant has provided sufficient

28:17rationale

28:19um in its CUP narrative

28:21and that the conditional use permit

28:23otherwise meets the approval criteria

28:25detailed in section 190-133F.

28:29And that

28:30approval would be subject to the two

28:32separate conditions that are identified

28:34in the staff report.

28:36>> All right. Thank you. Motion by Mr.

28:37Varley. Is there a second?

28:39Second by Mr. Zoller. Any further

28:41discussion?

28:43All those in favor?

28:44>> I.

28:45>> I. The motion passes unanimously.

28:48>> All right.

28:49Thank you.

28:53All right.

28:55Uh moving along.

28:57Um

28:58under new business

28:59uh we can hear both of these at the same

29:01time. Under new business conditional use

29:03permits uh case A26-0204,

29:09property located at 4 Beard Street, and

29:12also um same property under new business

29:16site plan case A26-0188.

29:21Um has any member of the board had an

29:24opportunity to review those applications

29:27is in willing to make a motion regarding

29:29the board accepting jurisdiction.

29:32Uh Mr. Green.

29:34>> Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to

29:35make a motion for new business A26-0204

29:39and A26-0188.

29:44Um that it is complete and ready to take

29:47jurisdiction of application.

29:49>> All right, thank you. Uh motion by Mr.

29:51Green. Is there a second?

29:53Second by Mr. Hirsch. Any further

29:55discussion?

29:57All those in favor?

29:58>> Aye.

29:59>> Aye.

29:59>> Aye. The board has jurisdiction. Um Mr.

30:02Beals, the floor is yours. Go right

30:03ahead.

30:04>> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of

30:05the board. For the record, Ethan Beals,

30:07project manager at Hinckley Swanson,

30:09doing business at 3 Congress Street here

30:11in the wonderful city of Nashua, New

30:13Hampshire.

30:14Um here tonight seeking um our second

30:16extension of a conditional use permit

30:18and site plan approval that was

30:20originally granted by this board back in

30:22Septem- back in September of 2024.

30:25Just as a little bit of background, Area

30:26Agency Properties, which does business

30:28as Gateways Community Services, is a

30:31nonprofit who provides services

30:32including housing for the

30:34developmentally disabled community.

30:36Their existing dwelling or group home at

30:384 Beard Street has reached the end of

30:40its usable life, and Gateways has made

30:42the decision that it was not viable or

30:43cost effective to try to update or

30:45renovate the existing house. It's being

30:47proposed to redevelop the existing

30:49property by demolishing the existing

30:51single-family home, constructing a new

30:53nine-unit multi-family residential

30:55development in its place. This is a

30:58first-of-a-kind building project, not

30:59just for the city, but for the for the

31:01larger state, which will be owned and

31:03operated by Gateways, and will house a

31:04mix of clients and Gateway staff. Um

31:08importantly to note that the project

31:09plans have not changed since our

31:11original approval.

31:12There's no question

31:14project's off to a little bit of a

31:15slower start than I think myself or we

31:18had really hoped back when we originally

31:20got the um project approved.

31:23Um

31:23I wish I could also stand here tonight

31:25saying we're ready to break ground next

31:27month, but unfortunately

31:29um

31:30you know, being a smaller nonprofit, all

31:32of the Gateways funds are really mostly

31:34tied to providing services for their

31:36clients. As such, they are reliant on

31:39grants and other fundraising to support

31:41a building project like this.

31:43Um I I do want to mention that we have

31:45been working extensively with a number

31:47of people in the community. Um more

31:49recently worked with Matt Sullivan to

31:50secure some Invest New Hampshire money

31:53um that will be used to demolish the

31:55existing building. We're currently

31:57waiting for a vote from the Governor's

31:58Council, but we expect later this month

32:00that hopefully we will be granted um

32:03just under $300,000, which will allow us

32:05to actually demolish the existing

32:07building.

32:08For additional funds raised, um

32:10we have

32:11been granted just under $500,000 from

32:14Home ARP federal funds. Um we have

32:16currently applied for about a million

32:18dollars from Senator Shaheen's

32:20discretionary funding. Um and we've been

32:22working with NRPC to apply for um

32:25Representative Goodlander's community

32:27funds in the amount of $500,000.

32:29To our understanding that both of those

32:31um allocations are working through

32:33appropriations currently, so we We very

32:35hopeful that we're at least moving in

32:37the right direction. Um granting the

32:39extension tonight will allow our clients

32:41to continue to work through these

32:42various funding opportunities and

32:45hopefully continue to seek additional

32:46grants or other fundraising for the

32:48project. Be happy to answer any

32:50questions from the board.

32:52>> Okay, thank you. Um

32:55None for me at this time. Um

32:58Other questions from the board?

33:03Okay, seeing none.

33:05Um

33:06Any member of the public here to speak

33:07in opposition or concern

33:10to this application?

33:11Or these applications?

33:14Any member of the public here to speak

33:16in favor of these applications?

33:19Seeing none.

33:20Pass it back to the board one more time.

33:24>> Thank you.

33:24>> Mr. McIntyre, yes.

33:26>> to ask another point clarification. It's

33:28going to be a dumb one. I apologize.

33:30>> it won't be.

33:30>> It will be.

33:31>> All right.

33:31>> It will be, guaranteed.

33:33Uh I get my social service

33:35uh agencies mixed up sometimes

33:38because I did I just it just I was

33:39thinking area agency all along. Is this

33:42the Are you the same group that had your

33:44fundraiser last night?

33:49>> I do not believe so. Um so really the

33:52the overarching name for the service is

33:55area agency properties. Um the specific

33:58here they really do business as Gateway

34:00Community Project. Their main location

34:02is just across from the BAE location.

34:04Yeah.

34:04>> I'm sorry. The reason why I got mixed up

34:06with I thought I'm thinking of Front

34:07Door.

34:08>> Yeah.

34:09>> Also, cuz my daughter's on that board. I

34:11was just going to walk out of here

34:14when I saw that. But

34:15>> We would have missed you, but I

34:17understand.

34:18>> I I And again, that was a dumb question.

34:19I should have known ahead of time with

34:21my homework.

34:21>> Not at all.

34:25Thank you, Mr. McIntyre. It's always

34:26good to talk about uh potential

34:28conflicts, so appreciate that.

34:31Um

34:32Any other thoughts from the board?

34:34Or other questions of the applicant, Mr.

34:36Green?

34:37>> Now we've had a couple of these

34:37nonprofits come through. Do we want to

34:40look at extending the possibly extending

34:42the

34:43date that we're granting approval

34:45through or is

34:47a year enough?

34:48>> Um, it's something it's a very good

34:51point, Mr. Green. I I was going to touch

34:53on it as well, not necessarily the the

34:55larger extension, but the fact that

34:56we've seen this I think on on multiple

34:58recent um

34:59uh applications or extensions I should

35:01say, particularly with with

35:03non-nonprofits.

35:04Uh obviously the fundraising is is a

35:06really important um mechanism

35:08um to to literally just breaking ground

35:10in some instances, let alone going

35:12through with the the full build. Um, and

35:16um

35:16we we we have uh exerted that discretion

35:20previously.

35:22Um, I I guess um

35:24we're we're the the the hearing's still

35:26open, so um I guess Miss Mr. Beals, I I

35:30would imagine you wouldn't object if if

35:32the board were to take an action of

35:34granting longer than a year and then

35:36I'll have to ask Sam the mechanics on

35:39whether or not we can accommodate that.

35:41>> Yeah, Mr. Chairman, as as much as I

35:43appreciate my annual now uh calendar

35:46reminder to write a check for 750 and

35:49submit the application, um I do at some

35:52point feel bad for staff as well having

35:54to see it multiple times. Of course, I

35:56always love coming to a planning board

35:57meeting, but um I think it would go a

35:59long way for our clients. Um I I'm

36:01hopeful. Again, I I think we are hope

36:04hopeful that we're going to break ground

36:05in the next year, but um I can't

36:07definitively say that hey, we have a

36:09construction schedule at this point, so

36:11odds are that there's a chance that we

36:13could be back here next October

36:15if not. So, absolutely we would very

36:18much appreciate that, um but certainly

36:20at the will of the board.

36:21>> Okay.

36:22Very good. Uh any other questions of Mr.

36:24Beals before we

36:26or

36:27>> It's not of Mr. Beals.

36:28>> Okay. Go right ahead.

36:29>> Thank you.

36:31Um no, I I I agree with what Mr. Green

36:34just said and I know recently we just

36:37gave over a 1-year for another nonprofit

36:41because they were pretty sure that they

36:42would not necessarily be able to secure

36:44the funding.

36:45Um and and hearing from Mr. Beals, it

36:49sounds like if they're not going to

36:51they're

36:52hopeful but not sure that they're even

36:53going to be able to break ground in a

36:55year.

36:56Um I see nothing wrong with this

36:58application and so and so I would like

37:00to see it extended more than a year and

37:03I'd like to hear from staff.

37:05>> All right. Um I think actually if I may

37:07first I'll I'll close the public hearing

37:10on this one. I I think we're we've got

37:12all the facts in front of us. Um

37:15um but yes, Sam, would you like to give

37:18us a little guidance? Um I think that's

37:20fully within our discretion. Um just a

37:23little word change here if that works

37:25for you.

37:26>> Yep. I think that'd be fine. Uh if you'd

37:27like, you can set a date, you know, that

37:30way uh Mr. Beals can be very certain

37:33about when to set that calendar reminder

37:35for. Um

37:37that could potentially be October 19th

37:40of '28. That would be the second meeting

37:42in October.

37:43Uh should you wish to be so specific,

37:45you can continue extend that approval to

37:48that time.

37:50>> 10/19/28.

37:53All right. Did somebody write that down

37:55or did we All right.

37:57Um I I would I would personally be be in

37:59favor of that. Um

38:02again, it's it's

38:04we're certainly not setting precedent

38:05here and I think given some of the

38:07extenuating circumstances with

38:09particularly with regards to the

38:11fundraising element. Um if if if we can

38:15spare a nonprofit another application

38:17fee or at least on an annual basis um

38:20and it's within our power to do so, I I

38:22think that would be a

38:23a good decision by by this board.

38:25Alderman Cleek.

38:26>> I 100% agree with you and

38:29while some people would say it's only

38:31$750,

38:32that becomes $1,500, it becomes, you

38:35know, $2,200 and and and so on. So, I

38:38think

38:39knowing that um

38:42they have they have to go through this,

38:44they have to do the fundraising,

38:46um in this economy it's becoming more

38:48and more difficult and I think it would

38:50take the burden off of them.

38:53I would not want to go beyond

38:552028

38:57um simply because my

38:59my anxiety would go up with that this

39:01property will languish. So, I think

39:04that's more than generous of us, but I

39:06100% agree that we should do it.

39:08>> Okay. Um thank you.

39:10Um in terms of verbage, um

39:15because it's subsequent condition is

39:17what specifically

39:19um

39:20mentions the one year. So, we could

39:21change that to

39:23a date certain or

39:27>> I would I'd put it in the motion to

39:29extend final conditional use and site

39:32plan approval to

39:34>> 10 19

39:35>> 2019 2028.

39:36>> That'll work. All right, thank you.

39:39All right.

39:40Um

39:42I'll appreciate the the discussion on

39:44that one

39:45and some of the unique circumstances.

39:48Um so, I guess we've we've reached the

39:50point if any member of the board is

39:52comfortable

39:53making such a motion at this time. Mr.

39:55Green, please.

39:56>> Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

39:58I'd like to make a motion for new

39:59business A-26-0204

40:03and A-26-0188

40:08to uh

40:10extend the final conditional use and

40:12site plan approval

40:14to October 19th, 2028 for this nine-unit

40:19multi-family

40:20development and associated improvements

40:22for the property at 4 Beard Street. Um

40:25finding that the applicant meets the

40:26requirements outlined in NRO 190-146D,

40:32subject to the subsequent conditions A

40:34through C noted in the staff report.

40:37>> All right, thank you. Motion by Mr.

40:39Green. Is there a second?

40:41Seconded by Alderman Clee.

40:44Any further discussion?

40:45>> Yeah, just quick.

40:46Uh I would like to, Mr. Chairman, um

40:50say I'm very impressed with the forward

40:52thinking and wisdom of my young

40:53colleague, Mr. Green.

40:56He has uh come up with a very good idea

40:59on a um forward thought

41:01and uh way to go. So, thank you. And

41:04then Mr. Beals, I don't really empathize

41:07with your schedule.

41:09Uh

41:09you're a you're a pro. You can handle

41:11it, right? Okay, so I I little

41:14tongue-in-cheek, but I thought it was a

41:15very good idea that he came up doing

41:17this. Way to go.

41:20>> All right. Noted for the record. Thank

41:22you. Thank you, Mr. McIntyre. Right.

41:25Any additional further discussion?

41:27All right.

41:28All those in favor?

41:29>> Aye.

41:30>> Aye. Motion passes unanimously.

41:33>> Thank you.

41:34>> Have a good evening.

41:36>> Hey, where you going?

41:39>> All right.

41:41Um we're we're we're going to tweak with

41:43the order a little bit. Um next next

41:47item on the agenda, um we're going to

41:49take new business, uh site plan, case

41:53826-0198.

41:56Uh property located at L. Daniel Webster

41:59Highway, uh Innovative Way.

42:02Um has any member of the board had an

42:04opportunity to review this application

42:06and is willing to make motion regarding

42:07board accepting jurisdiction?

42:11Mr. Green.

42:12>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. For new business

42:14A-26-0198,

42:17I would like to make a motion

42:19I would like to

42:20note that the

42:23application is complete and we are ready

42:24to take jurisdiction.

42:26>> All right, thank you. Motion by Mr.

42:28Green. Is there a second?

42:31Second by Mr. Hirsch.

42:32Any further discussion?

42:35All those in favor?

42:37>> Aye.

42:37>> Aye. Motion passes. The board has

42:39jurisdiction.

42:41You're here this evening on behalf of

42:42the applicant?

42:43>> Yes, sir.

42:44>> Okay.

42:45>> Good evening, everyone. My name is Dan

42:46Borowski. I'm a land surveyor with

42:48Fieldstone Land Consultants. I'm here

42:50tonight with Mr. Kevin Walker, a civil

42:52engineer for the John Flatley Company.

42:54We're here to

42:56present the site plan for approval

42:59on tax map of lots A-44 and A-712, which

43:03are collectively about 21 acres.

43:05On this site, there will be a 48,000

43:08square foot flex building.

43:11I can get into all the particulars of

43:13the application or I can just remind the

43:15board that this is

43:16the same application that was approved

43:18in 2022.

43:21The local approval had lapsed.

43:23We had

43:25secured all the required state

43:27approvals, so those are all still valid.

43:29We're here to basically seek approval

43:31for the same site plan that was

43:33presented then. We reviewed the staff

43:35report and we're agreeable to all the

43:37conditions uh

43:39stipulated in that.

43:41So, I can I can go into the particulars

43:43of the project or if the the board

43:45recalls this from a few years ago um

43:48I can answer any questions that they

43:50that they have.

43:52>> Um

43:54we just heard a rather lengthy

43:56So, curiosity question rather lengthy

43:58discussion on extensions.

44:00You didn't want to come in for extension

44:02at some point in the intervening couple

44:04of years. So, you So, See So, you

44:05reapplied?

44:06>> Um

44:07unfortunately we did not know.

44:09We

44:11We had we had to reapply as a as a new

44:13application but the the application as

44:15you will see from from the staff

44:16comments is is the same same one that

44:18was submitted back then.

44:20>> Okay. So I

44:21wasn't actually trying to give you a

44:23hard time. I just

44:25that is an option though in the in the

44:26future if you okay, all right. Just

44:29letting you know.

44:30Um, all right. Um, I I guess just going

44:34over a few staff comments.

44:37Um,

44:38in terms of the the waivers

44:41um,

44:42just to kind of refresh everybody's

44:44memory it doesn't look like there is

44:45anything really outstanding here. Um,

44:48the adjacent parcels waiver is one we

44:50see quite frequently.

44:52Um, and the only other waiver was with

44:54respect to drafting details. Um,

44:57sometimes with these larger parcels

44:59we've seen that on a couple other recent

45:00applications. It's not uncommon where

45:03the specified scale uh, in the regs

45:06doesn't always gel with with the

45:08property under consideration. Um,

45:11I I

45:14think most of the members that were on

45:16the board at this time

45:19have have at least a vague

45:21recollection of this and it would appear

45:23on the documentation submitted that

45:25there

45:26have been no changes. I I guess um,

45:28I'll I'll defer to our in-house experts

45:31though. Dan, have you had a chance to

45:34take a look at this?

45:36Is it?

45:38>> Yeah, I mean it's it's the same

45:40application as before.

45:42Um, there's a memo here from uh,

45:45engineer Mandola in the packet. Just

45:48references that's the same plans that we

45:49previously approved.

45:51Um, all the

45:54comments that on the plans have been

45:55previously approved. The previous

45:57comments did request traffic

45:58contribution.

46:00$2,750

46:02and that had not been received to date,

46:04but that's referenced in

46:06uh Mr. Mendola's letter of October 8th,

46:082026. So, that's incorporated by

46:10reference and

46:11subsequent conditions or proposed

46:13subsequent conditions. I think we're

46:14covered covered there as well.

46:16Um but no, it's the same application. We

46:17found no reason to

46:19find any differently than we had found

46:20before or

46:22and everything had been addressed

46:23before, so.

46:24>> Okay. Thank you, Dan, for the uh for the

46:26update on that. Appreciate it. Um

46:29I guess with with that said, I I I don't

46:31have any specific questions for the

46:33applicant. Um but I obviously want to

46:35open up to the board. Um

46:38Um you know, we we can certainly uh I'm

46:40not trying to to shortchange anybody. Um

46:43for a refresher, we could certainly ask

46:45the applicant to go over some of the

46:46basic site plan elements um for folks

46:49that that weren't here. I don't want to

46:51appear as if we're rushing to a to a

46:52vote on this project. Um

46:56but um kind of leave it

46:58you know,

46:59to the discretion of the board. Uh how

47:02much or how little detail would you like

47:03to hear about on this one, Mr. Zoller?

47:06>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I remember

47:08somewhat recently there was a flatly

47:09application for a site plan that we had

47:11approved. There was a loop road in this

47:13vicinity and there was a warehouse type

47:15building that was going up there as

47:16well.

47:18What we're looking at here is more of a

47:19dead end

47:20street, you know, extension basically.

47:22So, I'm I'm curious how those two play

47:24together.

47:25Um

47:27can you speak to that at all? Is there

47:28any um

47:29>> Um

47:30>> And then maybe a a good question for

47:31staff as well. Does my memory serve me

47:33correctly, was there a previous site

47:35plan application for a a loop road that

47:36was meant to facilitate

47:38>> Yes. Future buildings up here?

47:39>> Yes. So, that would be to the north of

47:41this location.

47:42So, that that extension, this is

47:45the road that would serve this building

47:46as an extension of the existing

47:48Innovative Way that kind of terminates

47:50right at Digital Drive, which is the

47:51access to those apartments as you see to

47:54the

47:54west. Um

47:56so, yes, that loop road is an extension

47:59from this extension, if you will.

48:01>> I see. I'll be going up this way. I see.

48:03Okay.

48:04>> I've been there here.

48:06>> Okay. Um

48:07So, essentially this section of road

48:09would need to be in place in order for

48:10the loop road to come in later. Is there

48:12a timing and a sequencing type

48:14issue here?

48:15>> Nothing from a approved phasing plan

48:18between the site plans, which there's no

48:21requirement for there to be. It's just a

48:23matter of you would suspect that the

48:25building permit would be pulled for this

48:27application before building permit is

48:29pulled for that more northerly building.

48:32>> I see. I see. Okay.

48:34>> Um

48:35I I Kevin Walker from the John Flatley

48:36Company. I just uh kind of clarify the

48:39whole

48:40uh

48:41how they coexist together is the uh

48:45the building we're talking about to the

48:46far north, this portion of the roadway

48:49in front of this building was also shown

48:51on that site plan.

48:52So, either one of them can be built. Um

48:55This one, obviously, the road is only

48:57approved to where it's shown here. If we

48:59decide to do the other building before

49:01this building,

49:02um this portion of the road will be

49:04built as well as the loop to get up to

49:06that that second building.

49:07>> Okay. I see.

49:10Okay. I I think that answers my

49:12questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

49:14>> Other other questions from the board?

49:21All right. And And just for

49:23clarification, this is just um no

49:25specified tenant, speculative flex

49:28space,

49:29industrial, or

49:32>> Yeah, it's it's a it's a bigger size

49:34flex building than what we have built

49:36out there where the brewery is

49:39and the other two flex buildings.

49:41Similar, but this one's 48,000 sq ft and

49:45the other ones were nothing 10, 12, and

49:4718,000 sq ft.

49:48>> Okay.

49:49All right. Thank you.

49:50>> You're welcome.

49:51>> Uh

49:52Other questions from the board?

49:56All right. And again, I meant that

49:59sincerely. I did not intend to to rush

50:00through this. So,

50:02keep that in the back of your mind.

50:04Um,

50:05so I I think gentlemen, it looks like

50:06we're we're satisfied for the moment.

50:08I'll just open it up to the public to

50:09see

50:10is any member of the public here to

50:12speak in opposition or concern

50:14with this application?

50:18Any member of the public here to speak

50:20in support of this application?

50:24Seeing none,

50:25throw back to the board one more time.

50:28Um,

50:29any additional thoughts or questions of

50:32the applicant at this time before we

50:33close the public hearing?

50:37All right. Seeing none,

50:39um, at this time I will close the public

50:42hearing. We'll go into our deliberation.

50:45Um,

50:48based on all the testimony we've

50:51heard and have seen from from staff. Um,

50:55quite literally the exact same thing

50:57that was approved a couple years ago.

51:00Um,

51:00um,

51:02as Dan alluded to, we we do have

51:03coverage still with the impact fee in

51:06the subsequent condition. So, it looks

51:08like

51:10um,

51:11you know, all the all the bases are

51:12covered there.

51:14Um,

51:15um,

51:16city staff both fire were was able to

51:18take a second look at this as well. So,

51:20there's commentary in there. So, um,

51:24as is,

51:26um,

51:27this seems relatively straightforward.

51:30Um,

51:32uh,

51:34in terms of the waivers, we kind of

51:36touched on that at the beginning of the

51:38discussion. I don't think there's

51:39anything there

51:41that's

51:42prohibitive.

51:44Um,

51:45so, but I obviously I'd love to hear

51:48back from the board if you have any any

51:49additional thoughts on on this one.

51:52Uh Alderman Cleary.

51:53>> Yep. Uh just two. One is um and this is

51:56more for staff for my own education.

51:59Why would someone not just request an

52:02extension when there's no changes versus

52:09>> I do not want to speak for the

52:10applicant.

52:11>> Okay. Okay, so it's an applicant's

52:12choice. That's what I'm That's the

52:14question I'm asking. I'm not I'm not

52:16trying to put you on the spot in that

52:17one. And then my other question while

52:20it's not something that we would

52:22litigate here, it would be something for

52:24public works to litigate.

52:26When this continues to be extended in

52:29time, would the um dollar amount change

52:34based on

52:36things kind of going up price and and

52:38and so on.

52:41>> Yeah, we historically we had done, you

52:42know, $200 a trip and then we bumped

52:44that up to 250 maybe a year and a half

52:47ago or something to that effect. So,

52:49there's been a fairly recent bump. Um

52:52So, I can't I can't remember how far

52:54back this went, but I'm not I'm not I'm

52:56not going to lose a lot of sleep over a

52:58>> Right.

52:58>> $50 change for this level of traffic uh

53:02contribution. I think we just felt the

53:03fairest thing was just since it is

53:06you know, all intents and purposes, you

53:08know, could have been should have been

53:09maybe an extension that we would just

53:10carry forward the same uh approval

53:12criteria.

53:13>> Okay. Thank thank you.

53:14>> Thank you.

53:15>> I had.

53:18>> Uh any other thoughts from the board?

53:22All right.

53:23Um

53:24I don't know if any member of the board

53:25would be so inclined to to make a motion

53:28on this.

53:29Um

53:32I don't want to say reapprove. It's a

53:33new application, but Mr. Mr. Green, go

53:35right ahead.

53:36>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. For new business

53:37A-26-0198,

53:40I'd like to make a motion

53:43to grant the following waivers.

53:47Uh,

53:48190-279EE

53:51to waive the requirement to show

53:52existing conditions adjacent to our

53:54parcels.

53:55And

53:57190-282A

53:59to waive certain drafting standards for

54:01the plan to be no smaller than 50 ft to

54:041 in.

54:06Um

54:08And in doing so, I'm considering the RSA

54:13uh, 674-36-2N

54:15and RSA 674-44-3E.

54:20And 190-148D

54:24finding a strict conformity pose

54:26unnecessary hardship to the applicant.

54:28In specific circumstances,

54:31um, we'll probably carry out the spirit

54:33and intent of the regulations.

54:35Utilizing the rationale provided by the

54:36applicant and Fieldstone waiver request

54:39letter dated October 23, 2023

54:42and the January 12, 2024 email from

54:45Kevin Walker.

54:48>> All right, thank you. Um, motion by Mr.

54:51Green, um, on the waivers. Is there a

54:53second?

54:55Second by Mr. Varley.

54:57Any further discussion?

55:00All those in favor?

55:01>> Aye.

55:02>> Aye. Motion passes unanimously. Would

55:04you like to continue, Mr. Green? Go

55:06right ahead.

55:07>> Uh, I'd also like to make a motion for

55:08to grant final site plan approval,

55:11uh, for the buildings and associated

55:14site improvements. Um,

55:17following uh,

55:18finding of the application meets

55:20requirements outlined in 190-146D

55:24subject to subsequent conditions A

55:26through O in the staff report.

55:30>> All right, thank you. Uh, motion by Mr.

55:31Green. Is there a second?

55:35Second by Alderman Klee.

55:37Any further discussion?

55:39All those in favor?

55:41I. Motion passes unanimously.

55:45Thank you. Have a good evening.

55:53All right.

55:56Moving on. Next item on the agenda under

55:59new business, site plan

56:02case A

56:0426-0155.

56:07Property located at 181 East Hollis

56:10Street. Has any member of the board had

56:12an opportunity to review this

56:13application for completeness and is

56:15willing to make a recommendation or a

56:17motion

56:18regarding the board accepting

56:19jurisdiction?

56:23Mr. Green.

56:24>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to make a

56:26motion for new business A26-0155

56:30that the

56:33application is complete and ready to

56:34take jurisdiction.

56:36>> All right. Thank you. Motion by Mr.

56:38Green. Is there a second?

56:39Second by Mr. Zoller. Any further

56:41discussion?

56:44All those in favor?

56:46I.

56:47Motion passes. The board has

56:48jurisdiction.

56:50Mr. Madsen,

56:52the floor is yours. Just introduce

56:53yourself.

56:55>> Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the

56:56board. My name is Pete Madsen, project

56:58manager at Keach Nordstrom Associates,

57:00representing the project applicant

57:01Bulduk Enterprises LLC.

57:04With me tonight is Nick Bulduk from

57:05Bulduk Enterprises, as well as Paul

57:08Chisholm from KNA decided to stick

57:09around, and Tina Walker from Northpoint

57:12Construction Management, who's the

57:13project architect and GC.

57:16Here tonight to present a residential

57:17site plan for a proposed 48-unit

57:19apartment building on map 24 lot 50.

57:23Just to start with a quick overview for

57:24you folks.

57:26The property is located at 181 East

57:27Hollis Street. It also has frontage

57:29along Crown Street um the existing

57:32turnaround there.

57:33The site is zoned general industrial,

57:35however, it also falls within the TOD

57:38uh overlay district, which allows

57:39multi-family developments to be

57:41permitted by right.

57:43That's currently developed with an

57:44existing auto body shop and paved

57:46parking lot with two existing curb cuts,

57:48one off of East Hollis, the other off of

57:50Crown Street. Um you know, like I

57:52mentioned, the project proposes to

57:54develop the site to accommodate a

57:55five-story, 48-unit apartment building

57:59uh with podium parking underneath. It's

58:01about a 12,500 sq ft footprint.

58:04Um the building will feature a mix of

58:06studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom

58:08units.

58:09Uh that plan in front of you includes a

58:11total of 53 parking spaces. That's 27

58:14outdoor surface spaces and 26 spaces in

58:16the garage.

58:18Um the garage will also feature uh

58:20several rooms for amenities, as well as

58:22utilities, including trash, mail, lobby,

58:24elevator, and uh some bicycle racks for

58:27uh for the tenants.

58:29Um we are also proposing to add an

58:31additional curb cut along East Hollis

58:33Street, um which will help with site

58:35circulation, as well as uh emergency

58:37vehicle access.

58:38Uh quickly touching on the drainage and

58:40utility systems for this site, we have

58:42two subsurface detention systems

58:45uh underneath each parking lot. Those

58:47have downstream water quality units to

58:49uh deal with stormwater treatment and

58:51peak runoff weight rates before

58:53stormwater's discharged back into the uh

58:55city stormwater system.

58:57Uh we'll be tying into sewer, natural

59:00gas, and electric along the driveway

59:02entrance from East Hollis Street. Um

59:05bring Pennichuck water up along the

59:06shoulder of Crown Street.

59:08Uh you know, I'd just like to mention

59:09that these plans have been reviewed and

59:11approved by DPW. Um however, we'll

59:13continue to work with uh Pennichuck

59:15staff to coordinate the uh the water

59:17plans.

59:18Um as for landscaping and lighting on

59:20the site, we have a compliant landscape

59:22plan um with appropriate shade and

59:24ornamental trees along the uh property's

59:26frontage, as well as some uh perimeter

59:29shrubs um between some of the uh

59:31neighboring abutters there. Uh the

59:33lighting plan that we've provided um has

59:35some standard wall packs mounted on the

59:37uh the perimeter of the building, uh as

59:39well as a couple light poles uh to

59:41provide lighting for the parking lots.

59:43Um just specifying all fixtures are full

59:45cut-off to eliminate any light trespass

59:47onto the abutting properties.

59:49Um as part of the package, we've also

59:50included some architectural plans for

59:52consideration um from Northpoint. They

59:54show a nice uh uh renderings, some

59:56elevation views, uh as well as some

59:58floor plans.

59:59Uh with regards to the site layout

1:00:02itself, um I think you'll notice from

1:00:03looking at the plans it's a bit of a uh

1:00:06an irregularly shaped lot in that it

1:00:08has, you know, that frontage along East

1:00:10Hollis Street and a little 50-ft swap,

1:00:12as well as some frontage along Crown

1:00:14Street at that turnaround. Um you know,

1:00:16it's it's interesting on that Crown

1:00:18Street turnaround, right? If this were a

1:00:20standard rectangular-shaped lot and that

1:00:22turnaround wasn't there, you'd kind of

1:00:23have more area for, you know, a front

1:00:26yard and and kind of setbacks in that

1:00:28area. So, just something interesting to

1:00:30point out about that. Um but, you know,

1:00:32what what this really led to um from a

1:00:36designing standpoint is um you know, we

1:00:38kind of had the idea that we would need

1:00:40some relief from the regulations,

1:00:41whether it be from the ZBA, um planning

1:00:44board, or or planning department staff.

1:00:46Unfortunately, the regulations for the

1:00:48TOD

1:00:49overlay district kind of allow for such

1:00:51things, as I'm sure you folks are

1:00:52familiar given the other developments in

1:00:54the area. Um so, just for reference, we

1:00:57received a variance in September for uh

1:00:5915-ft maximum setback, which is required

1:01:02in the TOD overlay district along East

1:01:04Hollis Street. Um we also worked with

1:01:06planning manager regarding the proposed

1:01:08side setback of this piece. Um the the

1:01:10building is about 1.6 ft uh setback

1:01:14along the southern property line, where

1:01:1510 ft is required for infill lots. Um

1:01:17the last two areas of relief that we're

1:01:19requesting from from you folks tonight

1:01:22um can be granted by you for the

1:01:23guidelines within the TOD district

1:01:25regulations. Um one of those items is

1:01:28from section 190-16,

1:01:30uh table 16-3, which is to permit a

1:01:33floor area ratio of 2.1 where 2.0 is

1:01:36required in the underlying general

1:01:38industrial zone. Uh the second item we

1:01:41is from uh section 190-17

1:01:43E1, which is to permit a cumulative

1:01:46driveway width of 70 ft in this case um

1:01:49consisting of three separate curb cuts

1:01:51where 36 ft and two curb cuts is uh

1:01:54typically the required maximum. Um and

1:01:56really the justification for for both of

1:01:59these requests kind of boils down to

1:02:01that irregular-shaped lot like I had

1:02:02mentioned previously. Um you know,

1:02:04regarding floor area ratio, we have a

1:02:06relatively small lot here,

1:02:08um you know, 30,500 sq ft for a 48-unit

1:02:11apartment building,

1:02:13um which is 63,000

1:02:15um sq ft in, you know, gross floor area.

1:02:18So, when you divide those two numbers,

1:02:19you get that value of 2.07 where two is

1:02:22required.

1:02:23Obviously, 2.07 just incrementally over

1:02:25the two that's that's required. Um and

1:02:28you know, something to keep in mind,

1:02:29there's no residential density maximums

1:02:32um here at the underlying zone or the uh

1:02:34TOD district. So, we feel this is an

1:02:36appropriate request in this case.

1:02:39Um as for the curb cuts, we are reusing

1:02:41the two existing curb cuts, um but like

1:02:43I mentioned earlier, the the addition of

1:02:45that third curb cut really allows for uh

1:02:48better site circulation as well as uh

1:02:50emergency vehicle access. Um and just

1:02:52something to clarify that I noticed in

1:02:54the staff report, um just the total

1:02:57width that we're requesting is actually

1:02:5870 ft and not 68. We had worked with the

1:03:01fire department, um and they had

1:03:02requested a little bit wider entrance

1:03:04for that new driveway off of uh East

1:03:07Hollis. So, that's where the the

1:03:08additional 2 ft comes in.

1:03:10Um as far as waivers go, we have one

1:03:13waiver we're requesting from section

1:03:14190-279

1:03:16EE um to waive the requirement to show

1:03:18all existing conditions on adjacent

1:03:19properties.

1:03:21Um, you know, obviously the project and

1:03:22surrounding roadways were surveyed and

1:03:24we show all that relevant, um, existing

1:03:26features

1:03:27on and around the project vicinity. Um,

1:03:29you know, showing additional features on

1:03:31the abutting properties would pose a

1:03:32hardship for the applicant.

1:03:35Um, you know, just kind of wrapping up

1:03:36here, two permits, two state permits are

1:03:38required, a shoreline permit and sewer

1:03:41connection permit. Both of those will be

1:03:42secured prior to final approval.

1:03:45Like I said, I I mentioned that thing on

1:03:47the, uh, staff report, but I looked at

1:03:48the conditions of approval and and we

1:03:50have no exceptions,

1:03:51um, save for that one change from 68 ft

1:03:54for the driveway width to 70 ft. So,

1:03:56happy to go into further detail on

1:03:57anything in the package and plans. Thank

1:03:59you.

1:04:01>> Great. Um, thank you. Um, just one

1:04:04second, Mr. McIntyre. Um,

1:04:10I think you you sort of alluded to it. I

1:04:12obviously there there are some

1:04:13constraints just with the the physical

1:04:16size and layout of the existing lot. Is

1:04:19that really

1:04:20kind of what's

1:04:22I guess driving some of the

1:04:24>> Yeah, that's that's really the crux of

1:04:25the argument. Yes.

1:04:27>> Right.

1:04:28Um, and I guess my

1:04:30follow up at the moment, um,

1:04:33you did prepare site plan suitability

1:04:37report. Um,

1:04:39I don't know how much

1:04:41or how little detail you you wanted to

1:04:43go into. Obviously your letter is part

1:04:45of the the record, um, but if you just

1:04:47wanted just because uh, it's it's

1:04:49something unique to to this, um,

1:04:51to this district, if you just wanted to

1:04:53touch on maybe some of the more salient

1:04:55points there and just kind of walk us

1:04:57through that a little bit.

1:04:58>> Sure, yeah, absolutely. Thank you, Mr.

1:05:00Chair. Um, so, you know, like you said,

1:05:01we prepared a site plan suitability

1:05:03report here. Um, kind of highlighted a

1:05:06couple different things, you know, part

1:05:07of that being the, uh, the

1:05:10you know, regulations from the TOFD that

1:05:11we're requesting modification of from

1:05:13you folks. You know, that being the

1:05:15floor area ratio like I mentioned as

1:05:16well as the driveway width. Um, you

1:05:18know, for the actual site plan

1:05:20suitability report and the criteria in

1:05:22there.

1:05:22Um,

1:05:23any any reason to go deeply into these,

1:05:26Mr. Chair, or

1:05:27>> Um,

1:05:28I I guess

1:05:30for for completeness, um, high level on

1:05:34Pete, it might be worth it just similar

1:05:35to what we heard earlier on the CEP um,

1:05:37application just just to make sure

1:05:39that's kind of formally touched upon in

1:05:42the record.

1:05:42>> Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, so um,

1:05:44you know, criteria A here, analysis of

1:05:46the ability of the proposed use and

1:05:47existing uses to coexist. Um, and the

1:05:50potential impacts that proposed and

1:05:52existing adjoining and surrounding uses

1:05:54and buildings may have upon one another.

1:05:56Um, you know, obviously you guys have,

1:05:57you know, probably seen

1:05:59a lot of similar proposals come through

1:06:00here lately. I know, you know, some of

1:06:02the surrounding properties here directly

1:06:03to the west as well as the south. You

1:06:06know, one

1:06:07project recently under construction, I

1:06:09think, built out now and the other one

1:06:11um, to the south recently approved. You

1:06:13know, we feel that this use is is

1:06:15appropriate and you know, in concert

1:06:17with uh, a lot of the other surrounding

1:06:18uses in the zone.

1:06:21Um, moving on to B here, analysis of any

1:06:24impacts on significant natural,

1:06:26architectural, visual, or aesthetic

1:06:28qualities of the surrounding

1:06:30environment. Um, you know, this

1:06:33the existing building that's on site

1:06:35today is, you know, in in certain states

1:06:37of disrepair. What we're proposing kind

1:06:39of cleans this area up. Um, you know,

1:06:41fresh pavement, obviously nice new

1:06:43building. I think you can see from those

1:06:44architectural plans.

1:06:46Um, you know, important to note that

1:06:48um, you know, we're right on the river

1:06:50here. So so some more nice aesthetics as

1:06:52well as the uh, the landscaping and

1:06:54lighting plans that we've we've provided

1:06:56kind of speak to that as well.

1:06:58Um, the next point here, C, analysis of

1:07:00the health and safety impacts on

1:07:02customers, residents, employees, and the

1:07:04general downtown and inner city

1:07:05population. Um, you know, we we feel

1:07:08that the proposed residential

1:07:09development will not adversely impact

1:07:11any health, safety, of customers,

1:07:13residents, employees, or the general

1:07:15public. Um, you know, we comply with all

1:07:17federal, state, local regulations

1:07:19pertaining to that kind of thing.

1:07:22Um, the analysis of economic or property

1:07:25value impacts.

1:07:26Um, you know, we don't feel that this,

1:07:28you know, being in concert with a lot of

1:07:30the other uses, similar uses around the

1:07:32area, we feel that this doesn't really

1:07:33have an impact to negative impact

1:07:36on Um, you know, property values, that's

1:07:37for sure. And obviously, you know,

1:07:40bringing a little bit more money, um,

1:07:42you know, revenue for, um,

1:07:44you know, the economy and, uh, you know,

1:07:46municipal tax base, really, um, for for

1:07:49apartments to be rented in this area.

1:07:52Uh, moving on to E here, analysis of

1:07:53traffic and parking impacts. You know,

1:07:55obviously, we submitted a traffic impact

1:07:57report, um, you know, the worksheet that

1:07:59you guys have,

1:08:00um, didn't it didn't trigger any of the

1:08:02thresholds for, uh, for any, uh, traffic

1:08:04study event or anything like that.

1:08:07Um, moving on to F, analysis of the

1:08:09adequacy of existing municipal

1:08:12facilities and services. Um, you know,

1:08:14like I mentioned, the site is going to

1:08:15be fully serviced by, you know,

1:08:16Pennichuck, um,

1:08:18city sewer, city

1:08:20city drainage, all all infrastructure

1:08:22like that, Liberty Utilities, natural

1:08:24gas.

1:08:25Um, so, that that stuff is adequate.

1:08:28We're also in, um,

1:08:29you know, conversations with Pennichuck

1:08:31regarding, um, the extension of that

1:08:32water main as well.

1:08:34Um, lastly, G, the consistency of the

1:08:37site plan with the mixed-use district

1:08:38objectives and guidelines established by

1:08:40this section, master plan, and sound

1:08:42planning and development principles.

1:08:44Um, you know, really, the the purpose of

1:08:46creating this this TOD overlay district,

1:08:49um, based on the plan things from 2004

1:08:51that that we kind of read through when

1:08:53we looked at this,

1:08:55you know, it was kind of to promote this

1:08:56mixed-use environment, and and that's

1:08:57what we're doing here with, um, you

1:08:59know, a residential piece,

1:09:01um, and in concert with some of those

1:09:02other residential pieces in the area.

1:09:04So, you know, we feel that this is

1:09:07appropriate with the master plan that

1:09:08was proposed in that 2004

1:09:122004 plan.

1:09:14>> Excellent. Thank you very much.

1:09:17All right, I'll I'll I'll relinquish

1:09:19here. Mr. McIntyre, I know you had your

1:09:21hand up earlier. I'll go right to you,

1:09:22sir.

1:09:23>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple

1:09:24questions for the project manager. And

1:09:26then, when we get into um

1:09:29general discussion, I have a couple

1:09:31questions for the team.

1:09:32>> Go for it.

1:09:33>> Okay, thank you. Um

1:09:35Mr. Project Manager, this auto repair

1:09:38shop that it is existing right now,

1:09:40what's the name of it?

1:09:41>> I think it's Brazilian Family Auto

1:09:43Repair, I think is the name.

1:09:44>> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I I I I I I just want

1:09:46to make sure I I I've been through this

1:09:48area.

1:09:49Um second question is

1:09:51um

1:09:52did the um

1:09:54owner

1:09:55uh consider any percentage of these

1:09:58units to be affordable housing?

1:10:00>> I don't believe that's considered at

1:10:01this time.

1:10:04>> Okay.

1:10:05Now, hold until

1:10:08>> Certainly. Alderman Cleary.

1:10:10>> Uh thank you. A couple questions here.

1:10:11One is um

1:10:13I know that you're somewhat abutting 193

1:10:16East Hollis. Um

1:10:19It it looks like it needs a little bit

1:10:20of work there, but it's also surrounded

1:10:24um in the back and so on by trees and

1:10:28etc. Will you be um how much of that

1:10:31will you be removing?

1:10:33>> I'm sorry, can you just specify which

1:10:35which area?

1:10:36>> 193 East Hollis. That's kind of like in

1:10:39your little bit of a corner there.

1:10:42Um

1:10:43>> Okay. Yeah, that's the uh adjacent

1:10:45residential piece there. Yeah, um the

1:10:48idea is that, you know, we're we're what

1:10:50we showed on this plan doesn't encroach

1:10:51into

1:10:52uh you know, the the abutting property,

1:10:54obviously. Um there's a row of hedges

1:10:56and a fence, I believe, that exists on

1:10:58the property. We're we're not planning

1:11:00to impact any of that. Um, and like I

1:11:02mentioned with the uh landscaping plan,

1:11:05we proposed some uh you know, additional

1:11:07rows of shrubs and and perennials and

1:11:09plantings along the the driveway that

1:11:12abuts the property, as well as

1:11:14the parking spaces that abut the

1:11:16property on the other side.

1:11:17>> Um, may

1:11:18>> Yes, continue.

1:11:19>> Yeah. So, I guess my question is

1:11:22it was very difficult for me to tell

1:11:24where your property line is there, but

1:11:26it looks like there's a lot of greenery.

1:11:28It looks like there's a lot of trees and

1:11:30so on between your two properties. How

1:11:32much of that is on the property that

1:11:34you're working on, and how much of that

1:11:36will be removed? Will it all be gone?

1:11:38>> Yep, understood. Um, the majority of

1:11:40that stuff is on the abutting property.

1:11:42I think there's a row of hedges and then

1:11:43a couple uh I don't know

1:11:46oaks, but there there are some larger

1:11:47trees on there. So, the idea is that

1:11:49we're not impacting any

1:11:50>> So, so it is it is on the abutting

1:11:52property. Um,

1:11:53and the reason I asked this question is

1:11:54because I know there's the new Avery

1:11:57apartments and so on, and so my next

1:12:00question is and I'm and I'm sure this

1:12:02has all been taken care of and I and I

1:12:03probably missed it within it. Um, your

1:12:0646 units, while not as impactful as

1:12:10Avery was, which was much much larger

1:12:12and so on, um it just does add to the

1:12:14traffic. You really

1:12:17your curb cut will be on East Hollis or

1:12:20on

1:12:21the crown?

1:12:22>> It'll be on East Hollis.

1:12:23>> Okay, so

1:12:24>> Kind of at the apex of the turn.

1:12:25>> Right, as it goes around that corner

1:12:28there. Um,

1:12:29do you feel that there'll be any

1:12:30additional traffic that will be

1:12:33Obviously, they've been hit with a lot

1:12:34of East Hollis been hit with a lot of

1:12:36traffic because of that the newer

1:12:37buildings and so on.

1:12:39>> Right. Yeah. Um, no, I honestly think

1:12:41you know, personally, I don't I don't

1:12:42feel that way. Obviously, we've prepared

1:12:44the the TIR worksheet, as well, which

1:12:46which supports that. Um,

1:12:48but you know, the idea is that

1:12:50you know, people are either coming on

1:12:51coming off of East Hollis and they're

1:12:53turning right into the site on one of

1:12:54the two entrances there and either

1:12:55entering the garage or entering the the

1:12:58surface parking and then, you know,

1:12:59circulating through the site leaving via

1:13:02uh the turnaround at Crown Street. So.

1:13:04>> Thank you. Just one more comment if I

1:13:06may.

1:13:06>> Certainly. Yeah.

1:13:06>> Um and I I am glad to see something go

1:13:09in there versus what's in there

1:13:11currently. I think aesthetically it'll

1:13:13be much much more pleasing and and I

1:13:15always like seeing new homes go, but I'm

1:13:18always concerned about those residents

1:13:20that are living there. It looks like

1:13:21things have been being built up around

1:13:23them. So, but thank you.

1:13:26>> And Alderman Oh, go ahead, Dan. Yeah.

1:13:28>> Just further on traffic um

1:13:31the applicant's uh study wrote

1:13:33estimates 19 additional vehicles during

1:13:35the development peak hour.

1:13:37Um it's one of the things I was going to

1:13:38bring up later again. This seems like

1:13:40the traffic contribution meeting here,

1:13:41but uh

1:13:42>> I was going to ask the Main Street or

1:13:44East Hollister Street. Which Which do

1:13:46you prefer?

1:13:46>> Well, there is unfortunately we don't

1:13:47have a specified traffic court account

1:13:49for East Hollister Street. I wish we did

1:13:51and there's a couple quarters that we

1:13:52need to legislate to do that. So, Main

1:13:54Street is the nearest uh traffic court

1:13:56account. Um there was an earlier member

1:13:59memo from Joe Mondello which had a whole

1:14:00bunch of plan conditions and it did

1:14:02reference a progressive traffic uh

1:14:05quarter account contribution of $4,750.

1:14:09Uh Joe is on vacation. So, uh

1:14:12Engineer Saunders back checked the

1:14:14latest versions of plans and all the

1:14:15plan comments have been satisfied, but

1:14:18uh Mr. Saunders failed to reference the

1:14:19previous traffic contribution request

1:14:21which to my knowledge which the city

1:14:22hasn't received. Um so, I did just want

1:14:24to confirm with the applicant that

1:14:25they're still uh accepting of that

1:14:27traffic contribution request and and and

1:14:29uh

1:14:31ask uh that we add that as one of the

1:14:33conditions in the subsequent conditions.

1:14:35>> Okay. I guess uh thank you, Dan, for the

1:14:37clarification. It is um incorporated uh

1:14:40as subsequent condition J at least at

1:14:43the version of the staff report I'm

1:14:44looking at, it, as as long as we have uh

1:14:47the applicant here, we're we're still in

1:14:49the public hearing.

1:14:50Um

1:14:51were you aware of of that contribution

1:14:53and you are you amenable to that?

1:14:55>> Yes, absolutely. Yes, sir.

1:14:56>> Okay.

1:14:58All right. Thank you.

1:14:59>> Thank you.

1:14:59>> Thank you.

1:15:01Uh

1:15:02other questions from the board? Mr.

1:15:04Zoller, please.

1:15:05>> Thank Mr. Chairman. Given the site's

1:15:06proximity to the river, could you just

1:15:08give us a bit of an overview on

1:15:09flooding? Are you within the flood plain

1:15:11as it's outlined by FEMA? Are you

1:15:12required to obtain flood insurance? Any

1:15:14natural protections that you're planning

1:15:16to employ because of the flood risk?

1:15:19>> Yep, absolutely. Great question. Um so

1:15:22to your point about flooding, um there

1:15:24is an existing firm levy. I don't know,

1:15:26you know, exactly what it's called out

1:15:28there, but it it runs kind of that strip

1:15:30of city-owned land that's out there.

1:15:33Um and you know, I I I would assume

1:15:35there was some kind of permitting or

1:15:36something that went along with that back

1:15:37in the day, but we are not within the

1:15:39flood zone here. We are within the

1:15:41250-ft shoreline uh protection water

1:15:44quality protection act buffer. So, we

1:15:47like I mentioned, we do have that

1:15:48shoreline permit, but nothing from a

1:15:49flood zone perspective.

1:15:52>> Um I was looking at your grading plan.

1:15:54There are some spot grades that are, you

1:15:55know, in the neighborhood of 114, 115,

1:15:57116. And I'm seeing uh base wood

1:16:00elevations of 113, 114 in that vicinity.

1:16:03So, I think you're probably okay. Um

1:16:05the FEMA map also outlines the areas

1:16:07that it it listed as area with reduced

1:16:10flood risk due to levy. So, that that

1:16:12all tracks. Um which is very curious,

1:16:14but thank you.

1:16:16>> Thank you.

1:16:18Other Mr. Hudson?

1:16:19>> Yeah, further on the levy, I just can't

1:16:20couldn't resist.

1:16:23But there's a we have an ongoing

1:16:24discussion with both Army Corps and

1:16:26FEMA. FEMA's, I don't know if you're

1:16:27looking at the uh

1:16:29Just on pending maps or the current

1:16:31maps. Uh FEMA is up updating maps. We've

1:16:34had some studies done recently area in

1:16:36the area that's that uh results indicate

1:16:39that the

1:16:41the 100-year flood elevation is at below

1:16:42the total total of the levee.

1:16:44Um

1:16:45So, we don't anticipate any flooding

1:16:46issues. But even having said that, other

1:16:48developments in the area, the first

1:16:49floor, you know, has been non-habitable

1:16:52space, so to speak. And I believe with

1:16:53this,

1:16:55the ground floor being the parking

1:16:56garage, I think they kind of satisfy

1:16:57that requirement as well. So,

1:17:00at least from engineering's perspective,

1:17:01we don't have any concerns about the

1:17:02flooding issue.

1:17:05>> Thank you for that clarification.

1:17:06Thanks, Dan.

1:17:08Other questions from the board?

1:17:15Okay,

1:17:16seeing none at this time, Mr. Madsen,

1:17:18thank you. I'll just

1:17:20Is everybody in the audience Well, is

1:17:22there anyone in the public that wishes

1:17:24to speak with opposition or concern with

1:17:25this application?

1:17:28Any member of the public wish to speak

1:17:30in support of this application?

1:17:33Okay, seeing none. Toss it back to the

1:17:35board. One last chance.

1:17:39All right. All right, Mr. Madsen, thank

1:17:41you very much. I'm going to close the

1:17:42public hearing.

1:17:43We'll go into our deliberation.

1:17:45Um

1:17:49I think it's a it's it's a good reuse of

1:17:51of that property.

1:17:53Um

1:17:54Um I I know there was a line of

1:17:57questioning brought up basically

1:17:59regarding affordable units. Um

1:18:02I think, Sam, just for clarification,

1:18:04that's that's voluntary, right? That's

1:18:06for

1:18:08It's incentive-based, or I'm probably

1:18:10miswording it. You could state it

1:18:12better, but it It's come up on a couple

1:18:14other cases at other meetings, but would

1:18:16you mind giving us the

1:18:17reader's digest version of how that an

1:18:20applicant may enter into that or may not

1:18:22enter into

1:18:22>> Be careful.

1:18:23>> Just just for the board's Just for the

1:18:24board's edification.

1:18:26>> Um

1:18:28Yeah, so this is very similar to other

1:18:31applications where this question has

1:18:32been asked where these projects are

1:18:34located in districts base districts that

1:18:37do not have density regulations. Again,

1:18:40the IZ is incentive-driven, inclusionary

1:18:43zoning is incentive-driven with a

1:18:45density bonus. Now, what good is a bonus

1:18:48when there are no density regulations,

1:18:50right? There is is quite literally no

1:18:52reason why an applicant would be

1:18:54incentivized to provide affordable units

1:18:58in these districts that do not have

1:19:00density regulations.

1:19:02>> Understood.

1:19:03Um

1:19:04so, yeah, I wasn't trying to to make

1:19:05that more complicated than it needed to

1:19:07be, but I think it's it's just good it's

1:19:08good for me to hear again. Just

1:19:10>> That's not my line of questioning, but

1:19:12yeah.

1:19:13>> All right.

1:19:14Um

1:19:15all right. Um but yeah, other than that,

1:19:17um on terms of

1:19:19um

1:19:22the waiver request, um specifically

1:19:26again,

1:19:27the existing conditions one is one we

1:19:28see fairly frequently.

1:19:30Um

1:19:31I wouldn't have any issues with with

1:19:33that. Um

1:19:37this one the board uh also would need to

1:19:39modify a modification of the dimensional

1:19:42standards.

1:19:43Um

1:19:44I I don't think there's anything too too

1:19:46glaring here. Um in terms of the the

1:19:49floor area ratio, it's it's a

1:19:52it's a minor difference. I don't I don't

1:19:54see it being rising to the level where

1:19:56it's it's concerning.

1:19:58Um uh

1:20:00And then I guess the the last one on the

1:20:02on the driveway with um And again, I

1:20:05believe we heard testimony it it's

1:20:07written in the staff report at 68 ft.

1:20:09It's actually 70 ft.

1:20:11Um

1:20:13but I I I think a lot of the uniqueness

1:20:15with respect to the driveway is

1:20:17um

1:20:18here again, it's it's it's really kind

1:20:20of dictated

1:20:21by just the the uniqueness of of the

1:20:24site. Um the fact that you've also got

1:20:28driveway access on on Crown Street and

1:20:30East Hollow Street. So, um

1:20:34that's something I wouldn't see that

1:20:36that modification as as prohibitive.

1:20:39Again, given just sort of the unique

1:20:42shape of the lot and it's it's it's

1:20:43unique access points potentially

1:20:45abutting Crown and and East Hallis.

1:20:49So, I guess I'll I'll kind of leave it

1:20:50there

1:20:51for for my thoughts.

1:20:53Love to hear back from the board if you

1:20:55have any any additional thoughts on the

1:20:57matter. Alderman Clee, go right ahead.

1:20:59>> Um

1:20:59it's going to be fairly quick. Um I I

1:21:02have no issues with the 68

1:21:04foot driveway.

1:21:06Um

1:21:07you know, I know we try to limit how

1:21:09much

1:21:10of width, but in this particular case,

1:21:13I think it would give relief to East

1:21:17Hallis or Crown Street getting all of

1:21:19the traffic if we only had one um

1:21:23one entrance to it. And I think these

1:21:26three separate curb cuts are necessary

1:21:28based on the odd shape of this

1:21:31facility and so on. So, I think that's

1:21:33fairly good. And as you pointed out the

1:21:36floor area ratio 2.1 versus the 2.0, um

1:21:40I don't see that as being being an

1:21:42issue. And again, I think overall this

1:21:44is going to be

1:21:46um

1:21:46better than what's there.

1:21:48So, I think it would be good for the for

1:21:50the neighborhood. Thank you.

1:21:52>> Yeah, and and I'll just add one other

1:21:54thing on on the aesthetics. Um

1:21:56the architecturals look I I think pretty

1:21:59pretty impressive on on this. Um

1:22:02but

1:22:03um

1:22:05Um anyway, but um Mr. Green, please.

1:22:08>> Yeah, just a quick question for staff

1:22:10and maybe I missed it in that density um

1:22:13question. What is the like planning

1:22:14purpose of the floor area ratio from

1:22:16like a city's perspective? Like in the

1:22:19GI, like is it just because it like a

1:22:21little help there for me? Be nice.

1:22:24>> Sure. So, uh floor area ratio is

1:22:30at the very least redundant in areas

1:22:33where there's density, but also might be

1:22:36a little antiquated planning

1:22:39instrument to measure a development

1:22:41intensity. I think that given the base

1:22:44zone is GI, that is one way to measure

1:22:48um

1:22:49a

1:22:50development intensity where

1:22:52density isn't there, whether it be

1:22:54because it's a multi-family property or

1:22:57a commercial property. So, you can think

1:23:00of floor area ratio as the density of

1:23:02non-residential buildings.

1:23:06>> Thank you.

1:23:08>> Okay. Mr. McIntyre, please.

1:23:10>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bear with me,

1:23:12please.

1:23:13Um

1:23:15For Bolduc Enterprise, I don't take any

1:23:17exception to your um

1:23:20your plan and your desire to

1:23:24profit. That's fine. Not a problem. And

1:23:26I don't have a problem with

1:23:29that this particular one wasn't uh

1:23:3148 units of affordable per se. Let me

1:23:34Let me get into it, and it's really

1:23:36going to be divergent from you guys, and

1:23:39mostly towards the staff and the and

1:23:42the board here, okay?

1:23:44Uh I take my role to be kind of an

1:23:46irritant sometimes

1:23:48seriously.

1:23:50And what I mean by that is

1:23:52um you know, I may look stupid, but you

1:23:55know, with a with with a with a with a

1:23:57development called Waters Edge, I never

1:24:00thought that it was going to be

1:24:01affordable housing with with with vistas

1:24:04looking out at the Merrimack River,

1:24:06okay?

1:24:07But, here's the butt.

1:24:09Um

1:24:11I always talk about the master plan, and

1:24:13I always talk about impact. And you

1:24:16know, the board is really good at exec-

1:24:19execution, right? But, how does the

1:24:22board somehow find a way to offer

1:24:27its viewpoints on policy, right? Now,

1:24:30again, I'm not an alderman.

1:24:32We have an alderman. I'm not the mayor,

1:24:34but hey, I'm sitting as the mayor,

1:24:36right? So, I try to think of this as a

1:24:38city issue and and the the concern about

1:24:41how we talk about and talk about

1:24:44affordable housing and use that term so

1:24:47fluently and frequently. But, you know,

1:24:50I haven't seen one yet, and I know it's

1:24:52a been a short year for me,

1:24:54but uh

1:24:57hear me out on this one first, cuz I

1:24:59want to ask you a couple questions,

1:25:00staff.

1:25:01The first question is, do we have a

1:25:03pipeline or funnel of projects,

1:25:05potential or real,

1:25:07for affordable housing projects in the

1:25:10in the city?

1:25:13>> It's not a pipeline that the city owns

1:25:15and manages. So, the key vehicle for

1:25:19affordable projects is low-income

1:25:21housing tax credits. So, this is a

1:25:23source of funding that

1:25:26I don't want to use the word is is

1:25:29gatekept. There is a very lengthy

1:25:32application process. There are

1:25:34development companies that specialize in

1:25:36LIHTC projects. They get low-income

1:25:38housing tax credits.

1:25:39Uh because the

1:25:41um

1:25:42the application process is so onerous.

1:25:45Um

1:25:46there are standards and and eligibility

1:25:48criteria which make these sorts of

1:25:51projects that receive the bulk of their

1:25:53funding from these programs, it's very

1:25:55hard for them to make them mixed-income.

1:25:58So,

1:25:59from a policy standpoint,

1:26:02the city, very broadly speaking, we we

1:26:05need housing at all price points.

1:26:09We do not want to see

1:26:11concentrated pockets of low-income

1:26:14housing. We want to see diversity in

1:26:17incomes. While we may not be able to

1:26:19achieve that at a building level, you

1:26:22know, you know, every other door in a

1:26:24hallway is a different income threshold,

1:26:27again because of I I think general

1:26:29faults in these funding programs.

1:26:31Um

1:26:32we want to see projects intermixed at

1:26:36different income levels. So, with

1:26:38respect to this specific block, right?

1:26:41Avery Lane has just been built, it's now

1:26:43occupied. That was a LIHTC project. 60

1:26:46Crown Street, which is just to the south

1:26:48of this project, is also a LIHTC

1:26:50project. This is the first

1:26:52market rate project on this block. There

1:26:55are other market rate projects in this

1:26:57area of the city.

1:26:59But, to achieve that mixed income, this

1:27:02is the best tool that we have right now.

1:27:06Um

1:27:07with the new code, not to ever miss a

1:27:09chance to plug the new code,

1:27:11um

1:27:11we will be fixing these holes in our

1:27:13density regulations, and we will have

1:27:15real market-calibrated incentives where

1:27:18we actually can have projects that

1:27:20successfully

1:27:22uh internally subsidize affordable

1:27:24units, so we can have some true mixed

1:27:27income.

1:27:28Uh

1:27:29I hope that answers your question.

1:27:32>> Partially.

1:27:33>> Okay.

1:27:34>> May I continue?

1:27:34>> Oh, certainly. Please.

1:27:35>> Um

1:27:37Mr. Durfee, your your experience and

1:27:39knowledge is so far superior to any of

1:27:42the stuff that I have. So,

1:27:44everything that you said was was

1:27:47understood and uh pleasant to hear,

1:27:51especially on the two older projects

1:27:53that you talked about already.

1:27:54Here comes the rest of it, okay?

1:27:57Um

1:27:58I look at

1:27:59the the city, and I see our political

1:28:04landscape, and I know this is an

1:28:06offshoot, sorry, it's not the rules and

1:28:08regulations, but the political landscape

1:28:10pushing

1:28:11right for affordable housing and

1:28:14increasing all levels of inventory,

1:28:16whatever types it were and you were

1:28:17clear about how you like the diverse

1:28:20approach or how the city likes diverse

1:28:23approach.

1:28:24What what's not connecting for me right

1:28:27now is

1:28:29um

1:28:31What do we do? Do we sit and wait and

1:28:34hope that people are going to develop

1:28:36these things or do we encourage them to

1:28:38do we do something unique as a city or

1:28:42God forbid, I'm sorry to say this, as a

1:28:44planning department to encourage people

1:28:47to do this type of activity. That's kind

1:28:50of like the secret

1:28:52uh uh question that I don't know the

1:28:54answer to.

1:28:56>> That's a very good question. Um

1:28:59So, these LIHTC funds are incredibly

1:29:02limited and incredibly competitive.

1:29:05Every time every tranche of funds are

1:29:07allocated, every single time.

1:29:11There are communities in the state that

1:29:14do not want these projects.

1:29:16Nashua is very much a welcoming

1:29:18community. The cities in the state

1:29:21largely are simply because it's a

1:29:23product of our ability to serve

1:29:26multifamily very broadly speaking. We

1:29:28have

1:29:29immense infrastructure capacity. Uh so,

1:29:32you know, multifamily is is something

1:29:34that we can deliver and service.

1:29:36Um

1:29:37so

1:29:38it's not that we're necessarily doing

1:29:40something unique. The city itself is

1:29:42uniquely positioned and has a history of

1:29:45welcoming these sorts of projects

1:29:47simply by being a

1:29:50well-equipped recipient of these sorts

1:29:52of applications sets us far apart from

1:29:55other places which may have land to

1:29:57support these.

1:29:59There are other reasons why people come

1:30:00to do business with these sorts of

1:30:02projects in Nashua, in Manchester, in

1:30:05Concord. Uh and I think that is

1:30:08really the secret sauce, if you will.

1:30:11Not to say that, you know,

1:30:13we as a department we're not making any

1:30:15policy decisions. We work with any

1:30:17applicant coming in with a project.

1:30:20But,

1:30:21if we saw a problem where we were not

1:30:23getting these, it's not likely a factor

1:30:26of

1:30:27any sort of specific policy of the

1:30:29direction that the city is setting. It's

1:30:32construction costs, it's availability of

1:30:33land, it's a competitive LIHTC

1:30:36application process.

1:30:38>> Mr. Chair, may I ask a final question on

1:30:40this? All right, so uh now the either

1:30:42for you or for the

1:30:43the team.

1:30:45Um

1:30:46when we segregate the levels of

1:30:48inventory by broad grouping, I don't

1:30:51know whatever grouping is the technical

1:30:53terms for them, but

1:30:54uh you referenced I think three. But, um

1:30:57but generally speaking, the city of

1:31:00Nashua,

1:31:01where are we

1:31:03least

1:31:05um

1:31:06effective in meeting any kind of target

1:31:10area or number for, even if it exists,

1:31:13for any of these zones?

1:31:15>> That's another very good question.

1:31:17LIHTC projects typically service very

1:31:21low income, like 30% AMI up to 60% AMI,

1:31:26area median income.

1:31:27Market rate, you're typically seeing

1:31:30120% to 150%

1:31:32AMI. So, the gap is that 100%, that 80%

1:31:37AMI, those are very specific AMI targets

1:31:41that we are coding for in the new code.

1:31:44So, that is the the band the bands in

1:31:47the income spectrum that fall through

1:31:50the cracks, right? These are These are

1:31:51individuals who are workforce housing,

1:31:53if you will, right? These are people who

1:31:54are making

1:31:56decent money in good, stable jobs, but

1:31:58because of

1:32:02the cost of living in this part of the

1:32:04state, this part of the country, they're

1:32:06getting squeezed, they're getting, you

1:32:08know, rent or house burdened because of

1:32:10the cost of living. And that is the the

1:32:14again, the bands of the income spectrum

1:32:16that we are trying to accommodate to the

1:32:18extent that we're able to through land

1:32:19use regulation and inclusionary zoning.

1:32:23>> So So, Mr. Chairman, the the last thing

1:32:24on this and again, I'm trying not to go

1:32:26point counterpoint with you, you know,

1:32:28Jack and Shayna.

1:32:30You're too young to know what that

1:32:31means, but

1:32:32um

1:32:34what I wanted to get to is um

1:32:37you know, kind of again, this this this

1:32:39idea of influence, right?

1:32:42Um

1:32:44is it appropriate

1:32:46for us to have

1:32:49uh a report or

1:32:52uh a update on

1:32:57what my question kind of really was,

1:33:00which he helped, but was

1:33:02you know,

1:33:03if we have slices of housing categories

1:33:08that that come to us, high-end, middle,

1:33:10low, whatever it is. Remember, we were

1:33:12talking about that. How well are What is

1:33:15the preponderance of what comes to us?

1:33:17You know, and and is it is it

1:33:19statistically enough information to do a

1:33:22six sigma on, "Hey,

1:33:25what we see is always coming in and

1:33:27hitting over here. It's never getting to

1:33:30over here." I don't know those answers,

1:33:32and I don't know if it matters to the

1:33:33planning board, but I would hope other

1:33:36boards

1:33:37might care.

1:33:39>> Well,

1:33:40I I I I I guess, and I I appreciate the

1:33:42question. I'm not in a position to

1:33:43answer it, and I I know there's a couple

1:33:46of hands up, but I I think I maybe like

1:33:49to rein this in a little bit to the

1:33:51matter at hand on

1:33:53It It's These are wise questions to ask,

1:33:55but in in terms of the applicants

1:33:58time, we're kind of uh in a position

1:34:00where we just need to vote or discuss

1:34:03the matter at hand. Um so, uh it's

1:34:06appreciated, Alderman Clee, if

1:34:08>> I just

1:34:09>> I'll let you go for a you got a little

1:34:11bit of latitude, but

1:34:12>> to be It's going to be very quick. What

1:34:14I What I'm going to ask is if this

1:34:15conversation can happen after

1:34:18all of these have gone through, and then

1:34:21perhaps we can continue this

1:34:22conversation for Mr. McIntyre or Mr.

1:34:25Green, whoever it is that wants that

1:34:26conversation, so that we can let the

1:34:28applicant move forward.

1:34:29>> or we can potentially have a separate

1:34:31workshop session. Sam, I'm sure we'd be

1:34:33delighted to prepare something

1:34:36special for us. And these are These are

1:34:38all

1:34:39you know, good good questions, and I'm

1:34:40not trying to stifle any sort of

1:34:42discussion or debate on it.

1:34:44Um but what this board typically does,

1:34:46you know, we have to vote up or down on

1:34:47the merits of the individual application

1:34:49before us. So, um so, with that being

1:34:53said, Mr. Green, I saw your your hand

1:34:54up,

1:34:55>> but I was about to make the same

1:34:56suggestion Mr. Clee has made. We have

1:34:58plenty of time afterwards to talk, so

1:34:59>> Yes.

1:35:00>> We um

1:35:00>> Pardon my my uh

1:35:02>> No, it's a good good conversation.

1:35:04>> Yes. Yes.

1:35:06>> But we uh we are

1:35:08in our deliberation, so

1:35:11um with that being said, um if there's

1:35:14there's no further discussion on the

1:35:16specific merits of of the application,

1:35:18um might be at a point where we're

1:35:21looking for a couple of motions. Um

1:35:23firstly,

1:35:24um obviously, we'd have to deal with the

1:35:26waiver request first.

1:35:28Um we'd have to deal with the

1:35:29modification of dimensional standards

1:35:32um separately.

1:35:33Um

1:35:35and then um

1:35:38final site plan approval, if the board

1:35:40were so inclined. So, Mr. Mr. Green, you

1:35:42look enthusiastic.

1:35:43>> Super.

1:35:44>> Go right ahead.

1:35:45>> Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to

1:35:46make a motion for new business A-26-0155

1:35:51to waive the following waiver 190-2790E

1:35:59with the rationale provided in the

1:36:01attached request letter dated July 22nd,

1:36:032026.

1:36:05>> All right, thank you. Motion by Mr.

1:36:08Green. Is there a second?

1:36:10Second by Mr. Barley. Any further

1:36:12discussion?

1:36:14All those in favor?

1:36:16>> Aye.

1:36:16>> Aye.

1:36:17>> Motion passes unanimously. Mr. Green,

1:36:19continue, please.

1:36:20>> Yes, thank you. I'd also like to make a

1:36:21motion to grant the following

1:36:23modifications to dimensional standards.

1:36:26The first 190-16 table 16-3

1:36:31to prevent the floor area ratio of 2.1

1:36:35where two is required is the required

1:36:37maximum in the GI zone. And 190-17E1

1:36:41to prevent cumulative driveway width of

1:36:4370 ft spread across three separate cuts

1:36:47where 36 across two separate curb cuts

1:36:50is the required maximum.

1:36:52Granting these modifications, we are

1:36:53considering the rationale provided by

1:36:54the applicant in their site plan

1:36:58suitability report dated August

1:37:0018th, 2026.

1:37:02Finding that the guidelines for the site

1:37:04plan evaluation under 190-23E

1:37:07and F are met.

1:37:09>> All right, thank you. Motion by Mr.

1:37:12Green on the dimensional standard

1:37:14modification to dimensional standards.

1:37:16Is there a second? Second by Alderman

1:37:18Clee. Any further discussion?

1:37:22All those in favor?

1:37:23>> Aye.

1:37:23>> Aye.

1:37:24>> Motion passes unanimously.

1:37:26Would you like to finish off, Mr. Green?

1:37:27Go right ahead.

1:37:28>> I would. I'd like to make another motion

1:37:30to grant the final site plan approval

1:37:32for this 48-unit multi-family

1:37:34development and all associated site

1:37:36improvements on

1:37:37181 East Hollis Street finding of the

1:37:39applicant provided sufficient rationale

1:37:41in the site plan suitability report

1:37:43dated August 18th, 2026 and the

1:37:46applicant in the application meets the

1:37:48approval criteria in NRO 190-2-23F

1:37:53and the requirements outlined in NRO

1:37:55190-146D

1:37:58subject to the subsequent conditions A

1:38:00through

1:38:02M in the staff report.

1:38:06>> All right. Thank you. Motion by Mr.

1:38:08Green. Is there a second?

1:38:11Second by Alderman Clee. Any further

1:38:13discussion?

1:38:15All those in favor?

1:38:17>> I.

1:38:17>> I.

1:38:18>> Motion passes unanimously.

1:38:21Thank you. Have a good evening.

1:38:27All right.

1:38:29Moving along.

1:38:32Next item on the agenda, other business.

1:38:35Review of tentative agenda.

1:38:37Has any member of the board had an

1:38:39opportunity to review the upcoming

1:38:42projects? Mr. Zoller, please.

1:38:44>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Having had a

1:38:45chance to review the tentative agenda

1:38:47for the November 5th scheduled meeting

1:38:49of the planning board, I find that there

1:38:50are no agenda items of regional impact.

1:38:52>> All right. Thank you. Motion by Mr.

1:38:54Zoller. Is there a second?

1:38:57Oh. Oh, second by Mr. Varley.

1:38:59Any further discussion?

1:39:02All those in favor?

1:39:03I. Motion passes.

1:39:06All right.

1:39:09Additional

1:39:11stuff.

1:39:13In terms of discussion, Mr. Green.

1:39:15>> Yeah, as I did

1:39:16Did you want to continue any of your

1:39:18additional comments just to make sure

1:39:19you get closure on everything?

1:39:21>> I was trying to make a point. I think it

1:39:23was clear that I was

1:39:24trying to uh

1:39:26get to a

1:39:27almost a statistical look at how we're

1:39:30doing.

1:39:31And

1:39:32let us look at some uh

1:39:34you know, data trends.

1:39:36I don't like it when the emperor has no

1:39:38clothes.

1:39:39And sometimes I bring that point up and

1:39:41I know it was a political point. I

1:39:43apologize Mr. Chairman that we I let it

1:39:46divert. But you know, I I hear it all

1:39:49the time. Every candidate that's running

1:39:51for alderman is going to have a point

1:39:53about saying affordable housing, right?

1:39:56They're all going to.

1:39:58Every mayor candidate will do the same.

1:40:01But what are we doing in meeting any

1:40:04targets and what are we doing for

1:40:06incentives? And if it's okay, great, but

1:40:09I'm I'm flying blind.

1:40:11I'm only as one person.

1:40:14Thank you.

1:40:15>> You want to

1:40:16Alderman Clee?

1:40:17>> Yep.

1:40:17>> Uh yes, thank you. First off, I'm going

1:40:19to correct the record. You're not going

1:40:21to hear me talking about affordable

1:40:22housing because it's a frustrating

1:40:24frustrating thing. Um as I've been here

1:40:27on the board for 9 years, we put in

1:40:29inclusionary zoning

1:40:31and each time the the Board of Aldermen

1:40:34speaks to new such as what may be

1:40:37happening in Elm Street, you know, we

1:40:38try to get them to or even what what's

1:40:42happened over at um

1:40:44um

1:40:45I can't even think of the the the name

1:40:47of it where the Nimco building is and so

1:40:48on. We try to get them to to agree to X

1:40:52number of affordable housings and so on.

1:40:54So So we do we we really do do that. The

1:40:58problem that we're I'm seeing right now

1:41:00Mr. McIntyre and and I do I would love

1:41:04as as the chairman had spoken to kind of

1:41:06get a little tutorial about it is

1:41:07there's a lot of things happening up in

1:41:09Concord that are affecting us and our

1:41:13ability to push

1:41:16um

1:41:17affordable housing specifically based on

1:41:19the land use codes that are constantly

1:41:22changing and and please Mr. Durfee,

1:41:24correct me if I'm wrong. It's it's

1:41:25becoming quite a frustrating thing. I

1:41:28see the land use codes changing up there

1:41:30that

1:41:32while everybody's screaming affordable

1:41:33housing, they are doing kind of the

1:41:35opposite. Um

1:41:37they there may be some changes that are

1:41:40being affected, but and I think the city

1:41:42is really trying to do a good job and I

1:41:45do know that economic development as

1:41:48well as community development does try

1:41:50to bring people into the city that want

1:41:52to build this type of housing

1:41:54and so on. In this one here, I tend not

1:41:57to push for market housing, but I see

1:41:59this particular housing being surrounded

1:42:01by some more affordable housing within

1:42:04that area. Whether it be Marshall

1:42:06Street, whether it be Avery or or so on.

1:42:09There's some really large affordable

1:42:11housing buildings within this area

1:42:13and I think this is actually a really

1:42:15good

1:42:18change to that.

1:42:19Even the the housing that went in the

1:42:22downtown Monahan Manor and so on, there

1:42:24are some more affordable housing in that

1:42:27as well as below income very affordable

1:42:29housing. So, we are trying to mix and we

1:42:32don't want to create a community. I grew

1:42:34up for first like eight years of my life

1:42:37in

1:42:39low income housing. I grew up in the

1:42:40projects in Holyoke, Massachusetts. So,

1:42:43we were surrounded actually by mansions,

1:42:46which which meant that when I went to

1:42:47school, I had mixed. It was a really

1:42:49great environment. My housing may have

1:42:52been that and I think the city is trying

1:42:54to work towards that. We're trying to

1:42:55create as much mixture as possible. So,

1:42:57we don't just say these are the poor

1:42:59people and these are the rich people.

1:43:00We're trying to to get them together as

1:43:02much as possible, but

1:43:04Mr. Chairman, I I would love to to have

1:43:07Mr. Durfee give some kind of tutorial as

1:43:09to

1:43:10what the planning board can do if

1:43:12anything and I know the the board of

1:43:13Aldermen does work very specifically.

1:43:15This I think is my dilemma personally

1:43:17because I I think

1:43:20this board does not make policy. This

1:43:22board needs to vote projects

1:43:24applications down based on their merits

1:43:26per

1:43:28per per per NRO

1:43:30Um, and and I I wouldn't want to see uh

1:43:33cuz I don't think we can

1:43:35statutorily or by charter

1:43:38become advocates for certain or

1:43:40proponents for certain types of housing

1:43:42versus that's outside of our our

1:43:44purview.

1:43:46Um,

1:43:47so again, it's not that it wouldn't be

1:43:50good if if individuals wanted to do

1:43:52that, you know, and try to influence

1:43:54your elected representatives, but I I I

1:43:57guess I don't want to see this become an

1:43:59advocacy board. Um, if we start going

1:44:02down that that path.

1:44:04Um, so I That That said, um, I

1:44:09anytime this board is interested in

1:44:11hearing more about processes or

1:44:13statistics or things of that sort or

1:44:15legislative updates, um, you know, we we

1:44:18see that all the time where there's a

1:44:20new a new law passed up in Concord and

1:44:23and we we kind of as a board well all

1:44:25all planning boards throughout the state

1:44:26sort of have to accept those changes in

1:44:28real time as they're passed by the

1:44:30legislature. Um, so I I think I think

1:44:33Sam and staff has done have done a

1:44:35really good job of trying to keep us

1:44:36apprised and that's why I kind of

1:44:39if only for my own refreshment, tonight

1:44:42I wanted to hear Sam again remind me cuz

1:44:45I forget exactly what those requirements

1:44:47are and again, it wasn't that I was

1:44:48advocating one way or the other that

1:44:50this development should have considered

1:44:53it.

1:44:53That's not up to me. Someone else bought

1:44:55the land. Someone else paid the

1:44:57engineers and the architects and

1:45:00the other folks to to try to develop it.

1:45:02So they're they're allowed to, you know,

1:45:04spend their money as as they wish.

1:45:06Um,

1:45:07so I I guess that's what I would

1:45:10try to

1:45:11maybe steer steer away from. It's not

1:45:13that these are not lofty goals to to,

1:45:17you know, that we

1:45:19wouldn't like to see implemented, but on

1:45:21a case-by-case basis, this board's

1:45:23always going to be in the position of

1:45:25evaluating the merits of a specific case

1:45:27and not necessarily not necessarily

1:45:29questioning why an applicant made

1:45:31certain financial decisions. So, that's

1:45:34just the the line of demarcation that I

1:45:37would like to to have. Yes, ultimately

1:45:39>> Um I I 100% agree with what you just

1:45:41said. My my comment was not

1:45:44um for us to change the decision-making

1:45:48of those that are coming to us, those

1:45:51projects that are coming to us, but Mr.

1:45:53Derby can explain to land use code as

1:45:55he's been going along

1:45:57and showing us the changes and so on

1:46:00that we've rece-

1:46:01that

1:46:02we're eventually going to be putting

1:46:03forward and passing and have passed and

1:46:07and and and so on.

1:46:09The only thing that I was advocating for

1:46:12was um

1:46:13perhaps an update on some of the land

1:46:15use codes that have come down from

1:46:17Concord that may have changed so that we

1:46:20can understand. It's It can't affect our

1:46:23decision um when someone brings us a

1:46:25plan. You're pointed out perfectly.

1:46:28These are private citizens making

1:46:30private decisions.

1:46:32In some cases we can offer incentive, it

1:46:33doesn't mean that they have to take it.

1:46:36When we did the inclusionary zoning, we

1:46:38kind of said, you know, if you do this,

1:46:42we're going to help. Well, if you don't,

1:46:45there's going to be I don't want to call

1:46:46it a penalty, but there's going to be an

1:46:47extra cost and so on.

1:46:49Um so, that's the point that I was

1:46:52trying to make is I think even our

1:46:53inclusionary zoning that we originally

1:46:56had passed has been affected by some of

1:46:58the changes. That was my only comment,

1:47:00not to affect anything that's going to

1:47:02has come for- to us or coming forward.

1:47:04>> Right. And and and

1:47:06and

1:47:08chose my words inappropriately there, I

1:47:09didn't mean to imply that. I I just mean

1:47:11I think these are all valid topics to to

1:47:13bring up. And again, I'm sure staff

1:47:15would love to keep us informed. Um but I

1:47:18I would I would just wouldn't want to

1:47:19see this board go down a path where

1:47:22>> Political. Yes.

1:47:23>> Every residential development

1:47:26potentially is

1:47:28asked why or why not they they did or

1:47:31didn't pursue something.

1:47:33So I

1:47:34that's again my my thoughts on it, but

1:47:37again I I think

1:47:40Sam, I think you might have heard enough

1:47:42this evening where

1:47:44kind of got the pulse of the board a

1:47:46little bit and if there

1:47:48is information that you think would be

1:47:50helpful to pass along at some point when

1:47:52when aggregated or

1:47:55even just to explain

1:47:57again the incentive process, I I think

1:48:00we'd be we'd be all ears. So

1:48:05>> I can put something together.

1:48:08>> Excellent. Thank you.

1:48:10We'll expect that report tomorrow

1:48:12morning. So

1:48:15>> 7:00 a.m.

1:48:17>> Mr. Mr. Mr. McIntyre, please.

1:48:18>> Yeah, it's not 10:30 yet, so

1:48:21>> Oh, yeah, we're we're we're cruising.

1:48:23>> We're working.

1:48:24Now I'm on a roll.

1:48:26>> Mr. Chairman, this is probably the first

1:48:28time that I've taken exception to your

1:48:30positions.

1:48:31In

1:48:33terms of and you would know better than

1:48:35I would anyway because for your

1:48:37longevity about the um

1:48:40you know, kind of like the raison d'etre

1:48:41of the board, but um

1:48:44to me uh

1:48:46I I don't have a problem

1:48:48as one member one member asking anyone

1:48:51who comes to us if they had

1:48:55ever thought of that that

1:48:57you know, of that activity.

1:48:59That to me is just a good uh

1:49:03data point for me for future to see how

1:49:05like I said, how are we tracking?

1:49:08And again, I know we're not a policy

1:49:09board per se,

1:49:11but life is gray. It's not always black

1:49:14and white.

1:49:15And that's why I was such an irritant

1:49:17back on this point. I'm not here in the

1:49:20business to create work for you guys.

1:49:23No way.

1:49:24I am here to try to find out things like

1:49:27are we meeting the strategic plan?

1:49:29And this is an item of the strategic

1:49:32plan and that is an important piece of

1:49:35our cognizance of projects that come to

1:49:38us as board members

1:49:40for the planning board outside of the

1:49:43P's and Q's. So, I'm sorry if I

1:49:46uh uh

1:49:47am one minority member on this

1:49:49particular issue right now, but uh I

1:49:53think it's important to see if we're

1:49:55walking the talk and sometimes

1:49:58if we have to give feedback to other

1:49:59areas about that, I think we're in a

1:50:01good position to do it.

1:50:04Thank you.

1:50:05Thank you.

1:50:08All right. Mr. Green.

1:50:10>> Yeah, just one thing with the feedback.

1:50:11I think Sam does a good job of answering

1:50:14and getting more like a couple of those

1:50:17questions the applicant just keeping

1:50:19their time in mind.

1:50:20>> Oh, not even talking about that. I was

1:50:22talking about

1:50:23this seminal point.

1:50:25I agree with not diverting that from

1:50:27finishing up the task.

1:50:31Mr. Green, please.

1:50:33>> Just to say we have two people in the

1:50:34audience. Were you guys here to talk on

1:50:37anything particular or questions?

1:50:40>> I just wanted to watch.

1:50:43>> I'm here for a college assignment.

1:50:45I'm taking notes and then I have to

1:50:47write a paper, so

1:50:49I was trying to get everybody's

1:50:50perspective on things so that I can

1:50:51build something

1:50:52to turn in to my professor. She works

1:50:55for um

1:50:56um

1:50:58Congress

1:51:01um

1:51:03Sherry Carson.

1:51:04>> Okay. Yes, she's a she's a senator,

1:51:07Senator Carson.

1:51:08Oh, okay.

1:51:10Yes, she's she's up in the state state

1:51:11house, yes.

1:51:12>> Sorry, I was I was informed uh about

1:51:15about one of our guests earlier. That's

1:51:17actually Scott's daughter in the back.

1:51:20And and then you're welcome too. We

1:51:24didn't mean to exclude you. I just

1:51:27you're always welcome to sit in on any

1:51:30any public meeting for for any board,

1:51:33so.

1:51:39You just decided to

1:51:41have an easy night tonight where it was

1:51:42a

1:51:43all right.

1:51:47>> Well, if you like it that much, talk

1:51:50to Sam.

1:51:53We love to to have you sit up here.

1:51:58>> I'm sorry if I gave you the wrong

1:51:59impression.

1:52:01We're bored and I I spoke almost as an

1:52:03individual.

1:52:10>> Thank you thank you both for joining us

1:52:12tonight. I'm I'm sorry I should have

1:52:14pointed that out earlier. So thank you

1:52:16Kim, so.

1:52:19So

1:52:21all right, there was actually a couple

1:52:23of quick things I had. This is not to

1:52:26paint anybody into a corner tonight.

1:52:28Um

1:52:29Sam maybe a separate email

1:52:32might might help to reinforce it. We do

1:52:36have a couple of volunteer positions. I

1:52:37know one we've at least brought up the

1:52:39historic commission

1:52:40liaison.

1:52:42Again, I'm putting that out there that's

1:52:43still available.

1:52:45But

1:52:47the the other one is

1:52:50uh

1:52:51serving as a commissioner on the

1:52:53national regional planning commission.

1:52:57Not a huge time commitment for that.

1:53:00Obviously

1:53:02I don't want to volunteer any anybody.

1:53:05It it be of your your own volition.

1:53:07Um, but it's it's a good group. Um, Jay

1:53:09Minkara and his staff there, um, I think

1:53:12do a do a really commendable job. Um,

1:53:16and, uh,

1:53:17uh, I I have not been able to, uh,

1:53:20devote the time to that that I had

1:53:21originally hoped for when when I

1:53:23volunteered, uh, for for for that

1:53:25position.

1:53:26Uh, which is which is a shame because

1:53:28Na- Nashua is the the largest

1:53:29municipality in the NRPC region. Uh,

1:53:32it'd be wonderful to to have some

1:53:34planning board representation. Um, uh,

1:53:38that when they they typically will meet

1:53:39quarterly in person right up at their,

1:53:42um, headquarters on the other side of

1:53:44Main Street.

1:53:45>> yeah.

1:53:45>> Exactly. Um, and there's always snacks

1:53:48there as well if that's

1:53:50>> They do. Yes.

1:53:51>> great great great platter of, uh,

1:53:54desserts and other stuff, so.

1:53:56>> It's a really good meeting. I've been to

1:53:58a number of

1:53:58>> Okay. Um, so again, I I don't want to

1:54:01put anybody on the on the spot this

1:54:03evening, but, um, in addition to your

1:54:05your volunteer time with with this

1:54:07board, um, there are some additional

1:54:09liaison positions that, um, uh,

1:54:12I would just ask you to consider it.

1:54:14Um, so I guess with with that being

1:54:17said,

1:54:18>> the historical?

1:54:19>> Uh,

1:54:19>> I

1:54:20>> I thought

1:54:21>> I'm assuming you're a volunteer tonight.

1:54:22>> I can No. I I thought about it. I being

1:54:25more on the development side of things

1:54:26in my professional life, I think I would

1:54:28have, you know, more objections, you

1:54:30know, than the average person sitting on

1:54:32the historic board.

1:54:33>> I think so, you know.

1:54:34>> All right.

1:54:38>> So, I

1:54:39similar to there, I think I would have

1:54:41>> Could we put Sam on it? I mean, I'm

1:54:42giving him tasks

1:54:44left and right.

1:54:46>> He told me he's on the easy list.

1:54:48Connor, anybody else?

1:54:49>> I think Connor would love to be on it.

1:54:50>> Yeah, more tasks.

1:54:52>> Scott runs it. He does a really good job

1:54:54of it and running the historical.

1:54:56>> I have no authority, but

1:54:58>> You guys can see each other more.

1:55:00>> So,

1:55:01>> That's fine.

1:55:02Consider it Mr. Varley.

1:55:04>> What are you What are you looking for?

1:55:06>> I I that that was it. Yeah, I didn't

1:55:07want to I didn't want to debate those

1:55:09those positions tonight and yeah, we if

1:55:11staff could send a

1:55:13blast out just so all all members even

1:55:15the ones who aren't here tonight

1:55:16including alternates uh

1:55:18if that's allowed um

1:55:20>> Yep.

1:55:21>> That'd be that'd be great. So all right.

1:55:24I think uh

1:55:25there's nothing else on anyone's mind.

1:55:27Mr. Varley, go forth.

1:55:28>> I would make a motion to adjourn.

1:55:30>> All right. Motion by Mr. Varley. All

1:55:33those in favor?

1:55:34>> I.

1:55:34>> I. Motion passes. We are adjourned at

1:55:378:55. Thank you.

```*