Good evening.

I'd like to call to order at the October 16th, 2025 meeting of the City of Nashua Planning Board.

Ms.

Harper, could we get a roll call, please?

Yes, Mr.

Chair.

Mayor Donchis.

Mike Peterson.

Bob Bollinger?

Here.

Adam Varley?

Here.

Maggie Harper here.

Dan Hudson.

Here.

Scott LeClair.

Larry Hirsch.

Cameron Green.

Here.

And Alderman Clee.

All right.

Thank you.

Next item on the agenda, approval of minutes from the September 18th, 2025 meeting.

Has any member of the board had an opportunity to review the minutes and is willing to make a motion regarding their acceptance or acceptance with amendments.

Mr.

Vartley, please.

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes as written.

All right, thank you.

Motion by Mr.

Varley.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Hudson.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any abstentions?

Ms.

Harper abstains.

All right.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Next item on the agenda, communications.

Connor or Scott, anything come in after uh packets were uploaded or uh no, no communications since pastor uploaded.

I did want to mention that I updated the staff report for the air court and fledger street after Paget went out just to typo I caught.

Okay.

Very good.

Thank you.

All right.

Next item on the agenda, report of chair, committee, and liaison.

Ms.

Harper, anything this evening?

Nothing to report, um, only that there's a historical commission meeting later this month that I'll report on at our next meeting.

All right, thank you.

Um the only quick thing I'll add, um, Mr.

Green and myself got to attend the uh New Hampshire land use uh uh law conference uh a couple weekends ago uh at Southern New Hampshire University.

Um a couple times I've gotten to go.

I think it's always a good program.

Um, but certainly we appreciated the opportunity that the city provided on that.

Um if anyone has has questions or or um wants follow-up on that, I'm sure either one of us would be happy to speak to you.

But um, so again that's that's an excellent opportunity, and I would obviously encourage other board members if you're able to attend in the future to uh take that one up.

Um so I think with that um we can move on to our cases.

Um before we do, uh just for the record, I would like to read the planning board procedure.

Um the procedure of the meeting is as follows.

After the legal notice of each conditional special use permit, site plan or subdivision plan is read by the chair, the board will determine if that application is complete and ready for the board to take jurisdiction.

The public hearing will begin at which time the applicant or representative will be given time to present an overview and description of their project.

The applicant shall speak to whether or not they agree with recommended staff stipulations.

The board will then have an opportunity to ask questions of the applicant or staff.

This would be the time to ask questions you may have regarding the plan.

Next, public testimony will come from anyone wishing to speak in favor of the plan.

The applicant will then be allowed a rebuttal period at which time they shall speak to any issues or concerns raised by prior public testimony.

After this is completed, the public hearing will end and the board will resume the public meeting at which time the board will deliberate and vote on the application before us.

The board asks that both sides keep their remarks to the subject at hand and try not to repeat what has already been said.

Above all, the board wants to be fair to everyone and make the best possible decision based on the testimony presented and all applicable approval criteria.

Thank you for your interest and Curdy's attention, and if folks could please just uh silence or turn off their cell phones at this time.

All right.

Um first item on the agenda uh under new business conditional use permit, uh case 825-0147.

Uh there is an associated case with this under new business site plan.

Uh case 825-0148 property located at 4 Beard Street.

Um has any member of the board had an opportunity to review this application and is willing to make a motion uh regarding the board accepting jurisdiction.

And I think we'll need uh if if a board member will were willing to grant the motion, we'd have to um officially just state we're accepting both cases.

Uh Mr.

Varley.

Yes, Mr.

Chair, I would make a motion as to both the conditional use permit A25-0147 and the site plan A25-0148.

That motion being that the that both uh plans are complete and ready for the board to accept jurisdiction.

All right, thank you.

Uh motion by Mr.

Varley.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Green.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Okay.

Mr.

Beals, the floor is yours.

Go right ahead.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board for the record.

My name is Ethan Beals.

I'm a project manager at Hayner Swanson doing business at 3 Congress Street here in Nashville, New Hampshire.

Here tonight seeking an extension for conditional use permit and site plan approval that was originally approved just over a year ago on September 5th, 2024 by this board.

Here tonight representing area agency properties, which does business as gateways community services, which, if you're not familiar, is a nonprofit who provides services, including housing, to the developmentally disabled community.

Their existing group home and single family dwelling at 4 Beard Street has reached the end of its usable life, and gateways made the decision that it was not viable or cost effective to try to update this house.

The plan has not changed from a year ago, and it is still being proposed to redevelop the existing property by demolishing the existing single family home, constructing a nine-unit multifamily residential building.

This first of a kind building project will be owned and operated by gateways and will house a mix of clients and gateway staff to support those clients.

Since the time of our approval, our client has been successful in securing portions of funding from home ARP and in invest New Hampshire, and is actively engaged in conversations with NHFFA, Senator Shaheen's office, and other funding sources, in addition to their own fundraising.

As you can imagine, the critical hurdle in any nonprofit building project is fundraising and is securing the funds.

Here tonight, requesting the waiver or excuse me, here tonight requesting the extension, which will allow our client to continue to fundraise and seek additional funding sources to help pay for this project.

Be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Questions from the board at this time.

Seeing none.

Sir, are you here to speak on this case this evening?

Oh, it's due to my own case.

Okay, very good.

Um do we have anyone on Zoom this evening?

Nope.

That was your request.

All right.

Last chance for the board.

All right.

Uh seeing no questions, um close the public hearing on this.

We'll go into our our meeting.

Um this seems pretty straightforward to me.

Uh no real issues.

Uh first extension.

Um I would have no problems supporting this.

So there's uh any further discussion on that.

Uh obviously happy to hear it.

Uh, otherwise, um, I think we'd be looking for uh a motion to uh to grant the one-year extension for both the um the CUP uh as well as the uh the site plan approval.

Um forward member is willing to make that motion.

Uh Mr.

Green, please.

I'd like to make a motion to extend the final conditional use permit and site plan approval uh for the proposed development and associated site improvements at Ford Beard Street.

Um finding that and to grant final site plan approval, finding that the site plan meets the approval criteria under 190- uh 146D, and such final approval includes the subsequent condition A in the staff report um mentioning that the the previous conditions of the approval on September 5th, 2024.

All right, thank you.

Uh motion by Mr.

Green.

Um is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Hudson.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Motion passes.

Thank you.

All right.

Next item on the agenda uh under new business site plan, uh, case A25-0152, property located at 7th Ayer Court and L.

Fletcher Street.

Uh has any member of the board had an opportunity to review that application?

And is willing to make a motion uh regarding the board accepting jurisdiction over the case.

Uh Mr.

Barley, please.

Yes, Mr.

Chair, I would make a motion uh having reviewed new business A25-0152 that it is complete and ready for the board to take jurisdiction.

All right, thank you.

Um motion by Mr.

Barley.

Is there a second?

Second by Miss Harper.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Hi.

Motion passes.

One abstention, Mr.

Green.

Okay, I'm sorry.

Yes.

Thank you.

All right.

Um Sir, if you're here to speak on the application, just come right up to the podium.

Uh introduce yourself, uh, name and address for the record.

Thank you.

My name is Eric Parent.

Uh, I live at 120 in Ridge Road, Nashville, New Hampshire.

I am the property owner and the contractor doing the work for that project there.

Um, what we're trying to do is alleviate the issue of parking in downtown area and make accessibility to the tenants of 13 Main Street instead of walking another five stairs up, make it street level so they don't have to walk another flight or if you guys visited the site you'd be able to see what was going on.

Um it makes it more accessible for everybody, easier for everybody who lives in that building at 13 Main Street.

We're doing this, uh add least six parking spots at the lower half, or open up six parking parking spots in the lower half versus right now we're limited in parking.

So I'm looking for a 70 foot curb cut to off of Fletcher Street to allow eight cars to park on off of Fletcher Street.

That's about it.

I mean it's pretty flat and dry.

I'm right.

Thank you.

Um questions from the board.

Questions for staff, but okay.

Let me just one more time.

Any questions for the applicant?

All right, Mr.

Green, go right ahead.

So I just because I haven't seen this before in front of me.

The the minor site plan approval.

We can grant a waiver without and then revert to like the 10-day period that we have to give it, or the decision period for the application at that minor site plan approval.

Is that how that kind of works?

Um that's the only thing I was a little confused about.

Sure.

So uh this case actually um isn't going to be for a major site plan amendment.

Um there actually is no like credible site plan on file we have for this property, it's a very old site.

Uh the applicant has been working with city staff for some time on some level of site improvement to the property as he mentioned.

Uh building department informed us that they he may need a planning approval.

So he submitted a planning application administratively.

Our planning manager at the time determined that uh a waiver was needed for the curb cut width that's proposed.

And so uh right now the approval or the motion is just for the waiver, and then if approved, it would revert back to administrative authority where it can be processed as the administrative application.

All right, so there's not gonna be a site plan amendment.

Um it's just administrative application that needs a waiver from the planning board.

Okay, so we we don't need to approve a site plan tonight.

That's correct.

Yeah, uh, we thought I wasn't required to have a site plan.

That's correct.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying.

Yeah, my I'm not required to have a site plan.

That's why I'm like this is supposed to be cut and dry.

I was like, give me the waiver, I should be able to start doing the work if I wanted to next week and take the chance of 30 days.

I know I got a 30-day period for a rebuttal for somebody.

That's a safe way to read it.

That would still apply, yes.

Yeah, no, I know it still apply, but I mean I know the area, I know the tenants are on the area, so I should I don't think of an issue.

This is a benefit to everybody in the area.

So I think you've been working with the building department as well for a while.

In two maybe you've been working with the building department for a while on this.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

We've been I've been, you know, I'm off and on, you know, yeah, been in business with them with 30 years here, so and sir, just for clarification.

I don't I don't think it was intended as a as a criticism of the plan or oh yeah, I know I go through extra hurdles.

I I just think the way in which usually this board sees cases, this one's just a little bit unique.

Oh, it doesn't make you proposing anything extraordinary as such.

So I think um it was just try to get clarification amongst the board.

That's fine.

Yeah, um, and Mr.

Hudson, I saw your hand raised right ahead.

Yeah, just to put a finer point on.

Do you have a permit for the building department to construct the wall?

Yes, I have actually I already had to I had the department to build the wall because the wall that's holding up the street now is ready to fall.

Yeah, I'm I'm familiar with the case, yeah.

And um I already I was ready to go into the street and dig the street out and put the wall in and all that, but I'm like, why am I doing all this work where I can just move the wall 24 feet back, yeah, put eight parking spots there, make life easier for everybody.

Yeah, and I wouldn't even not touch the street.

Yeah, I agree.

I think so it would it was a I brainstorm after like two weeks of thinking about it, I finally figured it out.

So that was the only reason.

Go ahead, Mr.

The sketches made complete sense, and like I said, it'd be easier for both the town and yourself to do so.

So I'm I'm sorry about the thing on the sketch.

I did the best I could.

It's just one of those things I didn't see the point of paying an engineer or an architect to draw it off for you know 10 grand and to waste the money on architectural plans.

I mean you pretty much see what I can do.

Mr.

Hudson?

Yeah, yeah, and I can affirm uh uh the applicant has coordinated with Deputy City Engineer Mark Saunders.

I was aware of this case.

Uh we talked about plans, we came to the same assessment that the intent is well shown on the sketches.

Um it is it is uh of urgent uh nature to get this construction done to not only uh provide what the applicant's trying to accomplish here, but also ensure that the street doesn't uh have any issues, you know.

Um because the current wall was supporting the street to some degree.

Um so we're we yeah, our assessment was the same uh fully engineered plans weren't really necessary uh provided the building department was uh received whatever they needed to in order to permit the wall, and apparently that's the case.

So from an engineering perspective, we're satisfied.

You didn't see a letter on this one from Joe Mandola because it's not a traditional set of plans.

Uh uh, but I just want to relay that um engineering DPW engineering has had an opportunity to talk us through a review of the materials and is satisfied with it.

And I appreciate that.

I I think uh Dan, uh you you and the applicant I think answered the question before I even asked it, which is basically is there is there a proper design for for the actual retaining wall?

And it seems like you've done a lot of the legwork behind this already.

So um I I would agree though wholeheartedly, I think the sketches you provided provide a pretty complete picture of what the intent was.

So um so I I this moment I don't have any any further questions, but I uh I hope that testimony um and input from um Mr.

Hudson provided some clarification on what's being done.

Um but obviously um if you have any additional questions, please feel free.

See none at this time.

Um there's obviously nobody here in the audience.

Uh no one on Zoom for this one either.

No.

All right.

Uh last chance for the board.

No.

All right.

Sir, thank you for your testimony.

Appreciate it.

All right.

We'll uh close the public hearing at this time, go into our public meeting.

Um I appreciate again the questions and the additional clarification from uh from Mr.

Hudson.

Uh again, I think what's being asked for given the context of the neighborhood is is really not extraordinary.

Uh again, I have some level of comfort just because uh of some of the the legwork that's been done previously.

Um it seems like there is um uh definitely uh a semblance of a plan moving forward, and as long as that coordination continues with uh with engineering staff, and it seems like the city may get some benefit out of this as well for repairing that wall, which obviously helps to support Fletcher Street.

Um so with that being said, um I can see myself supporting the the waiver, which which is the only item before us on this application.

Um other thoughts or or questions um on this one.

Mr.

Varley, please.

Just a quick question for staff in terms of the framing of the motion to grant the waiver.

So understanding that this is ultimately to go back to administrative review the the way the waiver is written, it doesn't look like we're utilizing the the typical site plan waiver standard.

So I just want to confirm that that's intentional that we're not applying we're applying maybe a sort of less rigorous standard because it's going through administrative review or uh I actually phrase that in in a manner to uh grant the waiver for the context of this particular scenario.

I I didn't want um to it for it to be uh construed that it could be greater than 36 feet, and there's like no limit to how wide it could get.

Um I think I was actually also contemplating how to calculate the uh exact width because it takes different parcels, it's it's over two different parcels, and there's an existing curb cut width on the north side of Thayer Court.

So just to kind of avoid all the math, I really just wrote it as as shown just to avoid confusion.

Yeah, and I apologize because I don't think my question was very clear, but I was more asking, you know, for example, do we need are we in the mode of making an affirmative finding of hardship to grant the waiver?

Or is are we applying a different standard because it's it would other it's otherwise in administrative review?

I see.

Um other words using the language for the waiver that we usually do, or so I see the uh there's no I think there's no language.

Yeah, I don't I don't have I don't have an issue substantially.

I just confirming I just want to make sure we're framing the the motion correctly in terms of how we're granting it.

I believe that that was omitted by mistake.

Okay.

Um but I've got I've got the okay.

The criteria here, so might as well be consistent.

Okay, sorry, Mr.

Chair.

No, no, no, that's a good that's a great question.

Um so I I I guess if a board member were um formulating a motion, um might want to add some additional language.

Um at least including um the the relevant RSA 674 44 um and and distinctively state that um uh strict conformity would pose an unnecessary hardship to the applicant and that the waiver would not be contrary to the spirit and intent of the regulation.

And I think that that would at least make this consistent, if not identical to other waiver requests um that that the board has undertaken.

Um so again, I agree with Mr.

Varley.

This is not to the substance of the request as such, it's just administratively how the board would handle other such actions in the future.

So did that would that check all the the boxes do you think, Adam?

Is that reasonable?

Okay, yeah, I think so.

And I'm I'm I'm happy to make that motion if you'd like.

Certainly, if if you're willing, thank you.

Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I would so I'd make a motion to as to new business A25-0152, um, to grant the waiver from section 190-29A to allow the curb cut width the properties to exceed the maximum allowed of 36 feet and instead allow the proposed curb cut width and total as shown in the application with the um subsequent conditions A through C identified in the staff report, and that motion be based on the finding that strict conformity with um the code in this case would pose an unnecessary hardship and that the granting of the waiver would not be contrary to the spirit intent of the regulation.

All right, thank you.

Um motion by Mr.

Barley, is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Green.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Motion passes unanimously.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Thank you very much.

I don't know if you catch thank you for coming in.

All right.

Um moving along other business.

Uh in view of tentative agenda.

Um has any member of the board had an opportunity to review the upcoming cases.

Uh I'm willing to make a motion on the determination of regional impact.

Dan, you're gonna set this one out.

I'm gonna recuse myself of this.

Mr.

Barley.

Mr.

Chair, I would having reviewed the um tenant agenda, I would make a motion that there are no proposals of regional impact.

All right, thank you.

Uh motion by Mr.

Barley.

Is there a second second by Mr.

Green?

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Motion passes with one abstention by Mr.

Hudson.

Yep.

I would for the board's information.

I would note that uh those public works cases are not going to be heard on November 6th.

We're uh looking at December 4th, I believe, as of today.

So should be a light agenda on the six.

Well, I mean it's Kate's gonna have to update that.

She sent it out today and it was on there.

So uh that's all right.

Sorry, I'm sure it happened as your practice.

Okay, that's all right.

After she sent that.

No worries.

I appreciate the heads up though.

Thank you.

All right.

Next item on the agenda.

Uh 2026 meeting dates.

Um I know we had a chance to discuss this briefly at our prior meeting.

Um the version that was in your packets for tonight's meeting um is redlined.

There was a couple dates that we talked about um the the second meeting in June, and then trying to move that meeting from uh the week of 4th of July to to the week after.

Um that's consistent with with my memory.

Um I think in terms of accepting this one way or the other, um I just want to point out the uh the timeline that's required only because um applications beginning for that January meeting.

Um applicants are gonna have to start thinking about that in the next month or so.

So I I think if the board um did have uh a good feeling or was compelled to accept the dates as drafted tonight, um I think that would certainly certainly be a positive thing.

Um but if if folks had not had a chance to fully absorb this, I I think worst case we could push this to the November 6th meeting if we had to.

Um without trying to influence your your vote in any way.

Um I have no issues with the the um addendums or revisions that that were posted for tonight's packet, so I would be willing to accept it as is um myself, but again, I'm not trying to force anybody's hand if you haven't had a full opportunity to absorb that yet.

Um any discussion on that matter or um Mr.

Hudson, please.

Uh so I have no objection to setting the dates tonight.

I was just curious if there it turns to out to be a conflict.

Can we amend a date at a later date?

Can we modify this calendar to future meetings say if uh any of the other members had an issue?

I mean I I find it unlikely that we're gonna get all members at a meeting to where we can all check the dates at the same time.

I I think um yeah, that that might be a hard ask.

Your point is well taken though.

Um I think there's always um a certain ebb and a flow to the to board member availability.

I I think that's that's understood uh as a as a primarily you know volunteer board.

So um the other good news uh potentially, and I had a chance to mention to you uh earlier um we we do have a candidate for an alternate position, so excuse me.

That may help fill in some of the gaps as well.

Um with in terms of uh changing dates.

I can't remember if we've ever moved one as such.

I know we've added some in the past, um usually because of a heavy load or a unique case.

Um so I think for for general scheduling purposes and just so applicants are aware of target days.

I think we'd kind of have to deal with that on a case by case basis.

Uh yeah, my only fear, Mr.

Chair, is that should should the November 6th meeting not happen given that we have one case on it right now that we would lose an opportunity to set the January 8th date, which by the way, I know I I have a conflict with that date, but I'm I think uh individually that I'm not gonna I don't think we should move a meeting for one member uh as attendance.

So um so that's why that's another reason why I'd be inclined to adopt the dates tonight, but unless there's some reason that then can't later modify it, yeah.

I I would I would say we'd have to take that up on a case by case basis if it came to that, but I I I think um the the members of the board tonight could potentially etch this in stone if you if you so desired, and then everyone else will will have to deal with it.

And again, this is not substantially different um other than those two changes which were discussed last time.

Um and I this is pretty consistent with what's been put out previous years, you know.

Uh yeah, we try to avoid April vacation and um you know we stick to the the one meeting a month typically in the summer months and and one meeting in December, and so um well Mr.

Chair, I'm gonna make a motion to uh adopt the um the 2026 meeting and deadline dates uh as uh per the red line copy received um as uh in the packet for the meeting.

All right, um motion by Mr.

Hudson.

Uh is there a second second by Ms.

Harper.

Chair I'm gonna make a motion to uh adopt the um the the 2026 meeting and deadline dates uh as uh per the red line copy received um as uh in the package of the meeting all right um motion by mr hudson uh is there a second second by miss harper um any further discussion um i just added dan i do appreciate the discussion on the matter um but i can uh thanks you can vote no i won't no i'm i'm on just this is a second meeting we've seen the date so i'm I'm ready to go I know I didn't want to leave Larry uh no it's just he should have been here tonight then yes you know it's his own fault right sorry Larry but all right um there's no other discussion um all those in favor aye aye motion passes all right uh any other discussion items if not I think we'd be uh looking for that all-important motion to adjourn Miss Harper Mr.

Chair I'd like to make a motion to um adjourn all right all those in favor aye motion passes good job well well without excuse me