All right, good evening, everybody.

We're going to get started.

So welcome to the November 25th meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.

My name is J.

Mankara, ZBA Chair.

To my right is Vice Chair Josh Neely.

And to his right is a member JP Boucher.

Across the stage, we have Member Robert Shaw, Member Steve Lionel, and alternate Joseph Patrick.

We do have a full compliment of five members this evening, so Mr.

Patrick can join in all of the discussions and deliberations of the board, but unless somebody a member has to recuse himself, he won't be voting this evening.

And I'd also note that to my left is a deputy planning manager, Carter Falk.

So this evening we have uh two different types of cases in front of us.

We have applications for special exceptions and application for variance.

A special exception is a use that's allowed under the zoning ordinance so long as certain conditions are met.

A variance is a request to deviate from the requirements of the ordinance.

And in order for the zoning board to grant a variance, we have to find that granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest, that it would be within the spirit of the ordinance, that granting the variance would do substantial justice, that there would be no diminution of surrounding property values, and that owing to a special condition in the property, denying the variance would result in an unnecessary hardship to the owner seeking it.

So just in terms of the order of business, um, uh I'll start off by reading a case into the record, and the applicant will be invited to come forward and uh present his or her case.

Uh each applicant will have up to 15 minutes to make your initial presentation.

Uh you don't have to take all 15 minutes, um, but you do have that um option.

Following that, uh I'll ask if anybody in the audience uh wishes to speak in favor of the application.

Um if the and each in and each individual um who wants to speak in favor will come forward to the podium.

Ben state uh his or her name uh and address for the record, and we'll have up to five minutes to address the board.

Following that, I'll ask if there's anybody who has any questions, concerns, or opposition to the application.

Uh once again, each of those individuals will be invited to come forward, uh, give your name and address, and have up to five minutes to address the board.

Following that, the applicant will have the opportunity to come back up to the podium and rebut any of the quite or I should say rebut or answer any of the questions or concerns that were raised.

And we'll have up to five minutes to do so.

Then following that, uh one person who spoke uh with questions, concerns, or opposition has the opportunity to come forward and have the last word.

Um so typically the way we manage that when there are multiple people is you kind of have a chance to talk amongst yourselves and decide you know who that person would be to come forward and have the final word.

Uh following that, we'll close the public hearing and open up the deliberations of the board.

The board could choose to act, um, either granting or denying the application this evening, or uh in some cases where say additional information is needed, the board could continue the application to a future date.

Uh so it's overall the uh course of business.

Uh I do just want to note that for anybody who may be here for case number one.

That's the City of Nashua Division of Public Works, uh, applying for a special exception to impact two other wetland areas.

This is uh for, again, that this is for a public work.

This is not for the fire department, but that case number one is postponed until the December 12 meeting.

I'm sorry, the December 9 meeting.

So if you're here for that case, we will not be hearing it this evening.

Again, that's not to be confused with the application for the uh you know fire department, uh which is on the agenda this evening.

Uh so following that, uh, any other changes to the agenda, Mr.

Fox?

Uh no, sir.

No, they're not.

Seeing none, then I'm gonna call roll.

Uh Mr.

Neely.

Present.

Mr.

Boucher.

Present.

Mr.

Shaw.

Present.

Mr.

Lionel.

Present.

Mr.

Patri.

Present.

And I Jay Mankara.

I'm present.

Uh so with that, I'm going to read uh the first case into the record that we will be hearing this evening.

This is the application of Vasu Dev and Latha Shrinvasa Desari of 21 hibiscus way, requesting a variance from land use code section 190-31 to encroach three feet into the six-foot required left side yard setback to construct a 12 by 12 shed.

This is in the F UOD zone in Ward 5.

Is the applicant present this evening?

Please come forward to the microphone.

And just once again, you know, give us your name and address for the record.

Good evening, uh Chairman and everyone.

Thank you.

This is the first time coming to this kind of meetings.

Sorry, I'm a little uh wavery.

Uh hopefully it goes smooth.

My name is Vasid Dasari, and my wife Lata is also here.

Um as you said, we are requesting a variance.

Um we decided 21 heavy space.

I prepared a note space can I read it out.

Absolutely.

Uh we are here we are here today to request a variance to allow a 12 by 12 uh foot accessory shed to be placed with a three-foot side uh yard setback instead of the required six foot setback for our R9 zone property.

Uh the dimensional release that we are need requesting is necessary because our property is unique and has special condition that the rearmost property, the southmost southwest portion of the property, uh, is wooded and it has a good canopy of uh oak and pine pine trees.

We had that portion of land cleared, like uh when we built the house, so that we can lay the uh lawn.

Uh but because of this pine and oak trees, that section of land was always barren and it looks so ugly for us.

Um then we decide to build a shed, and we found that we find that that is the good place to place the shed.

Because the rest of our of our yard is nice, uh it has we have vegetable garden and we have flower trees, and also uh lawn is growing nicely there.

There's no point in putting there.

Uh that's the reason why we chose that uh back portion of the land.

So granting this variance is helpful to us to enable reasonable use of our property.

If you strictly strict adhere to the six foot setback, we would be forced to destroy existing landscaping or position the shed anesthetically uh in the center of a primary uh unusable yard space, which constitutes an unreasonable burden with this unnecessary hardship.

So what I'm asking is the shed we are we are proposing.

Uh we have a neighbor uh say, for example, this is uh say this is our house.

Yeah, you have to uh keep speaking into the microphone.

Sorry.

So for example, this is our house, and this is the friend this is the friend portion of the house.

We're asking to put a shed on the back side.

Um there is a fence uh next to our house here.

We're asking to put a three-foot uh we're going to go as close as three foot uh to the side.

From the back side, it's like almost nine foot from the back side.

So I uh I hear that the minimum requirement is six foot from the back side, but from the front it should be it should be six foot also.

But I'm asking for three foot on the right side.

Um we request this.

We believe this request observes the split of ordinance because the shed will be fully hidden from the public view and substantially hidden, uh substantially screened from our neighbors by existing mature trees and fencing.

The purpose of the setback to provide light, air, and privacy is already received in the non-visible manner because of the trees surrounding this.

Furthermore, this variance will not be contrary to the public interest and will not diminish the property values.

We have intentionally selected a high quality permanent structure, permanent structure from Reed's shed, ordering it with vinyl siding and window shutter clubs that will exactly match our primary home.

This thoughtful approach ensures an attractive and harmonious addition to our property, and also it looks nice from the other side also.

For these reasons, because granting this variance results are unnecessary hardship, ensures in substantial justice and protects the spirit of our ordinance and public interest, we respectively request your approval for our variance application.

I'm now happy to answer any questions that you have.

Any questions for the board?

Mr.

Shaw.

Um, from your pictures, I'm trying to make sure I understand.

Like you have the one where you you have the red box and you show the three-foot offset, but is the red box essentially the 12 foot by 12 foot footprint of your proposed shed?

Or I think yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

And so which is basically then the it looks like it's essentially like pressure treated lumber or whatever that's kind of demarcating around that.

There is some that you shove the three-foot to that, and I'm assuming there's some buffer to the other parts of this as well.

Yeah, the one which I've seen in the photograph, is it's a footing by poten uh boundary.

And our thing is going to be uh within in in the middle of it.

So on the right side, there'll be like 12 foot from my shed to the bond to the lumber, and also between the lumber and the fence is one foot.

And the back side uh from the shed to the uh back, it's like almost like eight or nine feet.

Right.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

Is there anything else you'd like to add?

Um I did not bring any of my friends here to my case.

That's fine.

You're free to have a seat.

Thank you.

Uh is there anybody in the audience who'd like to speak in favor of this application?

Is there anybody in the audience you'd like to speak with questions, concerns, or opposition to the application?

We do have one letter which I will read into the record.

Um this is from Rakhish Prasad and uh Prignyaka uh Prasad have five daffodil lane.

I apologize for butchering the name.

Uh that's in Nashua, and these would presumably be a butters to the rear.

Uh dear members of the Nashua Zoning Board of Adjustment.

I'm a resident of five daffodil drive, Nashua, and I oppose the variance request for a three-foot left side setback at 21 hibiscus way.

My concerns include visual impact, proximity to the property line, and potential maintenance issues.

I respectfully request that the board deny the variance.

My primary concern is a potential for encroachment given the significantly reduced setback.

A three-foot distance from the property line leaves the minimal buffer space, which may create access, maintenance, and boundary issues in the future.

Additionally, the proposed 12 by 12 structure is quite large, and placing it so close to my property will have a negative visual impact from my backyard.

This raises concerns regarding the overall aesthetics of the backyard and may potentially affect the value of my property.

We respectfully request that the board consider whether the shed could be placed on the right side of the property instead, where it would not directly impact my home to the same degree.

If you would like you have up to five minutes to provide a response.

Yeah, Rakesh and Brianka, they are uh our back neighbors.

Um from their property line, I have like nine nine-foot buffer.

So it's not three foot as mentioned by uh uh it's not three foot for his property line.

It's my neighbor, my left side neighbor's property line is three foot.

Understood.

Anything else you'd like to add?

Um I what I mean to say is like probably the letter is maybe he misunderstood the where the property is located.

Probably that's the way he mentioned three three-foot thing.

And um actually, even for his property, also from if you look from the back side, I think it's going to look good.

Uh right now, if he looks from his property side, uh my house is there, and then entire wooded area is on on the other section of it.

Yeah, I don't know how you want to look at it, but that's right.

Any questions for the board?

If not, then you're free to have a seat.

Thank you.

And um we're gonna close a public hearing and open up the deliberations of the board.

Thoughts from the board.

Mr.

Neely.

So this um this is not uh uh a nice uh square shaped property as as we can see it tapers in the back because they you know they have butt their rear abuts uh five uh daffodil.

Um so it's normal in the Northeast to have a shed.

I think most folks probably have a shed.

Um at no point have we ever on this uh board heard that anybody's property values were gonna be devalued because of a Reed's ferry shed, um, as we know their uh quality.

I'm not trying to give them plug here, but um you know uh obviously I was walking in concerned to see this letter uh with concerns about about property values being affected, and that usually drives uh my vote.

Uh that being said, I think it's important to note that the the application was for a three feet, three-foot variance from uh the side of 23 hibiscus.

So where this shed is gonna sit is is not uh is not within the rear setback uh that would affect five daffodil.

So while I while I don't want to discount this letter, I think it's important to note that that may be a little extraneous to what we're looking at here.

So I am in favor of this application.

Um I I do believe also that property if I looked at it properly when I was walking by, it looks like there's a hill back there.

There's only so many places they can put a shed.

It doesn't make sense to put in the middle of the yard.

You can you're gonna lose out on on uh full use of your yard.

So uh for those reasons I'm in favor of this application.

Other thoughts.

Mr.

Shaw.

I'm um I've struggled with this one.

I still am.

Um and I do kind of appreciate the fact that yeah, I think the reality is the neighbor to the rear is they're not being affected really directly by the set side yard setback.

I guess I'm just looking, so I think that is less impactful than I thought it was going to be, you know, originally.

Um but I guess what I'm I'm not convinced that either a lesser footprint shed would not be a reasonable option as far as like a nine by twelve, and then the setback could be met, or that there still isn't some margin to still get closer to meeting the full six-foot setback, even with a 12-foot by twelve-foot.

Um maybe that does require taking a tree out or something like that.

But I I guess I just didn't really see I can't quite come to the hardship on this one, so that's where I'm at at the moment.

Other thoughts.

Mr.

Boucher.

Um like Mr.

O'Neely uh stated, uh I drove around the neighborhood a few times and went on daffodil, and um it took me a little bit to look through uh a couple houses down to look at an angle at the property in the back, and there's definitely this berm that exists.

Um Mr.

Shaw is right.

I I don't know exactly how many feet we could get over to the berm, but um having gone around the property a few times, um again, I don't know uh you know, a lesser size shed could be there, but I think again from from my point of view, um it's uh again it's on the left side is the impact.

Um that neighbor is not here, and again, the unique shape of the property, and it's again it's this like almost triangle type lot, and it's it's kind of in the back.

So again, I do see why the shed would be placed in that corner of the property.

Uh again, um we don't walk in somebody's backyard, so I couldn't exactly see exactly where that berm starts.

Um, but it was definitely a berm, I could see from the daffodil side.

Um so I I think in my mastermish, I think it's a it's a reasonable ask.

So I'm gonna support the application.

Okay, I I I I was also on the fence.

Um I I I think for me, what kind of puts me over is uh I I'm I'm taking uh because I think like Mr.

Boucher, I did not walk in the backyard.

So I am um I'm accepting the testimony that uh it would be challenging to move it over because of the wooded area.

Granted, you couldn't cut a tree.

So cutting a tree is not necessarily a hardship.

Um so that that's certainly an arguable point and and the terrain.

But I think overall, uh could there could there be a smaller shed?

Yes, 12 by 12.

I wouldn't say is unusually large, although it's certainly a substantial shed.

Uh but I but I think given the shape of the property and the wooded area in the corner, the potential impact of the sub, I would come down in favor.

Mr.

Lynnell.

Yeah, I pretty much echo Mr.

Mankara's comments.

Um I noticed there's no uh no fence or anything else between uh this property and five hibiscus.

Um yeah, I mean it's there's gonna be something there that that's going to be visible, but uh as has been said, sheds are normal, they're often placed, usually placed in the back corner of a property.

Um we've accepted sheds even closer to a property line than this.

So I'm I would vote in favor of it.

Does anybody want to make a motion?

Mr.

Neely.

Okay, I would like to excuse me, I'd like to make a motion to approve the variance for Vazu Dev and Latha Srinavasa Dasari owners 21 hibiscus way, sheet C lot 2698 requesting variants from land use code section 190-31 to encourage three feet into the six-foot required left side yard, left side yard setback to construct a 12-foot by 12-foot shed.

This is in the F U O D zone in Ward 5.

Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest, in that many of the houses in the same development already have uh sheds.

This house does not have one.

Uh so it would be in their interest to be conforming to the rest of the neighborhood.

The spirit of the ordinance would be observed primarily because the location of the uh shed footprint is being driven by the berm in the back of the uh property, and the property is a irregular uh shape property.

Uh so it is much smaller in the back, it does taper to the back.

Uh therefore there are limited places for a shed to be placed, and in the northeast in this area specifically, it is normal to have a shed uh somewhere near your back property line.

Um variants would do substantial justice once again because these uh applicants would be able to have a shed uh placed in a normal uh place where many other sheds in this neighborhood are located, which is at the rear of the house towards the back of the property line.

Um the values of the uh surrounding properties, in our opinion, would not be diminished.

We did have a letter from a rear uh butter uh concern with the property values, but uh during discussion uh I did bring it up that we have never seen any negative uh property value created by a Reed's Ferry shed.

This is a brand new shed that's gonna be placed in this area, and we did uh receive plans to what that shed is going to look like, uh which is uh similar to once again sheds in this in this neighborhood.

As to unnecessary hardship, uh the shape of the property and the fact that there's a berm in the back of the uh property is driving the unnecessary hardship.

Uh the board did have discussion about uh making a smaller footprint or uh potentially cutting down some trees.

Uh we do think that in this case, um, due to the once again the shape of the rear of the lot and the berm, uh it does not make sense to uh require the applicant to cut down one tree or two trees.

Uh in addition, a 12 by 12 foot shed is not unreasonable for a size for this area.

So for those reasons, I make a motion that we approve this variance.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Mr.

Boucher.

Uh any discussion.

All those in favor.

Opposed.

Mr.

Shaw.

Your variance application has passed.

Um I didn't mention this earlier, but there is a 30-day window of appeal, so just be mindful that somebody could file for uh a motion for reconsideration in that 30 days.

But otherwise you are free to proceed with your project.

Good luck.

Next case is the application of the City of Nashua.

Um Chief Steve Buxton, Nashua Fire Rescue, is the applicant.

25 Teak Drive and 840 West Hollis Street, uh requesting the following.

First, a determination whether a material change of circumstances affecting the merits of the application has occurred, or that the application is for the use that materially differs in nature and degree from the special exception for an access driveway that was denied by the zoning board on October 14, 2025.

And if so, requesting a special exception from land use code section 190-112 to work in a 40-foot other wetland and wetland buffer to construct a water line service from Teak Drive to the Four Hills landfill property for the proposed fire training facility.

This is in the R9 and R30 in GMZ zones, and it is in ward five.

Just for a note of explanation, when the zoning board has acted uh to deny a case previously, we have to go through what is, and somebody reapplies for another similar case on the property.

Uh, the zoning board has to go through what we call a Dover v.

Fisher determination as to whether or not there's a significant enough change from the last application for us to hear it.

So we're gonna go ahead and have that discussion uh as a board, and if we find that there um has been either a material change of circumstances or the application is substantially different, then we will proceed to hear the case.

So just gonna kick off a conversation of the board for your thoughts on whether or not you see a material change of circumstances.

Mr.

Lanel.

Yeah, I I do think this is materially different.

Um the previous one was to build an access road with uh potential with vehicles uh going in and out, and this is simply uh to uh run the water line.

Um any disturbance would be temporary.

Um given that the concom had previously uh uh approved the wetlands crossing.

Other thoughts Mr.

Shaw.

I pretty much concur with that.

I think that the fact that the access road is no longer part of this makes this a very different case.

Yeah, I and I would agree.

I I think uh in fact the access road, the fact that it was a road was uh a major factor in the prior case, which is not present in this case.

Any other thoughts?

Um anybody want to make a motion I don't you go ahead if you know how to worry about I'm just gonna wing it, but um so I I think I'll skip the whole description of the case again, but regarding the the uh application for this 25 teak drive in 840 West Holly Street.

Um the Fisher v.

Dover uh question as to whether or not uh the board feels that there is a material difference in this application versus the one that we uh denied in October 14th, 2025 hearing.

Uh the board does feel that there is a significant difference to this case versus the previous one in that the access road is no longer part of the proposal, and therefore I move that we approve um that consideration and allow us to move forward with hearing the uh application for the uh work itself.

Is that a second, Mr.

Lionel?

Uh any c any discussion.

Now all those in favor of granting the motion to hear the case, essentially unanimously.

So I am assuming attorney prolman, you are here to represent the applicant.

Mr.

Chairman, members of the board, good evening.

Mr.

Chairman, you were correct.

Uh Andy Prollman, attorney with Prunier and Pearlman here at Nashua.

I hear I am here on behalf of Nashville Fire Rescue and the Department of Public Works with respect to the wetland special exception uh coming off of Teak Drive to permit a 10-inch water line to service the new fire training facility that is being proposed.

Um I have two preliminary matters.

Uh one is a handout and one is uh some comments from a few weeks ago, Mr.

Chairman.

If I may, Mr.

Shaw, I was here a few weeks ago, uh, and you expressed your frustration with the city postponing the DPW garage without any explanation.

Uh there's a good explanation for that, and but the city could have handled it better.

The city could have explained that in order for the DBW garage to start the permitting process, we have to get the fire training facility squared away.

Because the DPW garage is going where the fire training facility is now face from West Charles Street facing the new T DPW garage built office building, the garage is going to go behind kind of kitty corner behind that right where the fire training facility is.

That should have been explained in the in the postponed request.

It wasn't could have done could have been done better.

That's the explanation.

Thank you.

But I was sitting in the audience, I just wanted to call that out.

Uh my second preliminary matter, Mr.

Chairman, um, is I have a handout for the board of a couple of uh plan or a map from GIS and a couple of uh a couple of uh documents.

They may be repetitive already in the pack, but I just want to make sure you have them.

In your application packet, as prepared by um city engineer uh Dan Hudson.

Um there was the application itself for the wetland um special exception addressing the wetland criteria.

Uh also included was the uh GOVE environmental services uh wetland report uh dated May 19th, 2025.

That's the very same report that was submitted to Conservation Commission and to this board um earlier uh for your um October hearing uh where the application uh for this was denied largely because of the road.

And I will be coming back to the criteria uh when I speak um to this uh request.

Um but Brendan Quidley, the uh environmental scientist, uh he issued his report uh with respect to the road and the water line, and again we just have the water line uh here tonight, so we have much much less of an impact that we're talking about.

And what we're talking about specifically, uh Mr.

Chairman and members, uh we are requesting uh temporary impacts of 400 square feet of wetland impact and 2075 square feet of buffer um impact.

Um again uh when the water line is installed, we expect that the uh the uh area where it was was a saw is going to grow back over um over time.

Um and Mr.

Um the DPW who plans to do this themselves, they don't intend to hire a third-party contractor.

DPW cuts a 20-foot swath through the trees coming off of Teak.

And you you may recall that uh the Gosland Street is a paper street that uh butts uh ends at the um uh landfill, um, but right where that paper street is is a big vertical pool.

So we're shifting the water line out of that right-of-way and uh excuse me, yeah, yeah, out of the right-of-way and away from the vernal pool.

So that's why you see a little bit of a jog between the gauze on paper street, the vernal pool, and where the water line is being proposed.

But what the city does is they cut a 20-foot swath, enough for machinery, a backhoe, uh men and the crew to get out on site, dig a trench five to six feet deep below the frost line, install the water line, backfill with the same material, and then replant.

Um and again, we expect you know that will grow in over time.

Uh when I was at the Conservation Commission a few weeks ago, uh the Conservation Commission added two conditions to their previous approval, one of which is they want to see a landscape plan, and so we have to go back to them.

And the conservation commission was very specific on the types of plantings that they're gonna want to see.

Um, and so we have to go back to the conservation commission, not necessarily for approval, but really just a courtesy.

Here's the landscaping plan using the native species that we're going to be installing.

Um, and so once all once all that's done, that's the only activity we're gonna see out there.

We we don't expect um we don't expect people to be using this uh waterline area.

Uh we don't expect bicycles or walkers, it's not really a walking path by any means, it's just gonna grow back in over time and you know kind of blend in with the with the area.

Uh before I get to the variance, the special exception right here, Mr.

Chairman.

I did want to speak uh a couple a few minutes on the um uh on some opposition comments.

But let me go very back to the beginning beginning because I got ahead of myself.

Um with me tonight is uh Chief Buxton.

Uh Chief Buxton um is here to any and answer any questions uh the board may have about the fire training facility.

Also with us tonight is Commissioner Tom Kelly, who who does want to spend a few minutes with you explaining the importance of the uh fire training facility for the city.

Um I don't expect that would take long, but let me just if I could just talk to the some opposition concerns because I did receive a number of um letters and emails and and petitions um and there were there seemed to be four categories.

Um there were some comments or some criticisms that the conservation commission got it wrong, that they didn't have the proper information in front of them.

They they uh based the based their decision on incomplete information, and frankly that's not true because you will recall that the conservation commission had this before them three times with respect to the road and water line, and they gave a positive recommendation.

Um then I was there a few weeks ago on November 5th, where we're talking about just the water line, and we got into a lot of details again about the plantings about native species and what's gonna be coming back.

So conservation commission takes their task very seriously.

Two times they um uh gave a positive recommendation to this uh board and uh with additional conditions for my hearing on November 5th.

So I think the Conservation Commission their decision should be respected.

Um another comment that I've seen is people like the idea of directional boring horizontal directional drilling is a technical term, um, where we dig a large pit 10-15 feet deep, uh, that's about 10 or 15 feet wide, you bring in machinery and you drill underneath um and in the ground underneath.

Um that's that's all well and good if you know the world had an unlimited supply of money, but we are presenting what we believe to be uh what the city believes to be the uh the most practical um and the most least invasive method with the trenching uh and the backfilling and letting the whole thing grow over.

Um so that comments is out there, uh we don't think it's practical for this particular project.

Another comment was the uh there was some comments about uh visual impact uh with the cutting and the clearing of trees.

We're gonna lose, we're gonna see the um we're gonna see the dump, we're gonna see the fire training facility, um it's gonna just gonna devastate the area.

I don't I don't think that's all true because if you look at two things.

First off, my handout that I gave you, the very first page of the handout is um I have four different colors um on this particular um site that I I my rudimentary uh engineering skills um is presented to you.

Um in red, I have a 900 feet, and that's taken from Google Maps, and that is the closest point from the backyard of Teak Drive to the fire training facility, and it's all woods in there.

And granted, the leaves come down in the winter, but it is still healthy buffer, far more of a buffer than uh most folks have um around there in their homes.

Um the blue is the water line that I have, and the water line is my rough um estimate of where the water line goes.

But um if you look at the plans with um the application, I'll show that in a bit.

Um the water line goes straight across that um small lot that the city owns and then takes a jog um to the to the south, I guess.

Um so that the first hundred, 120 feet is a straight shot for the water line, then it turns and then it turns again, making its way over to the fire training facility.

Um so with uh the cut with the turn and the pathway with the um pathway growing over, we don't see that uh over time, we don't see that there's gonna be the uh visual impact that some folks were concerned about.

And finally, there was a I saw a couple comments about water pressure.

Um and I had the very same thought yesterday as I was thinking about this thing.

So this morning I emailed um Penichuk, and the last item is an email uh from distribution engineer Zach Sagendorf from Penichuk, and I asked specifically whether will a 10-inch waterline and teak impact the water pressure um to our neighbors on TEAK and then in the surrounding neighborhoods, and you can see uh Mr.

Sagendorf's answer 10 inch water line and teak to the fire training facility will not adversely affect the water pressure for neighbors at Teak and the surrounding neighborhood, respectfully submitted.

Zach Sagendorf Penetrect Water.

Um so those were the those are the big comments that I saw.

There may be some other concerns, um, but those are the big comments that I saw coming from the uh folks um in the neighborhood.

Now, what I provided to you a couple things.

Um the map, oh, let me just talk about this um my map again.

Um the the heavy black line uh that you see on the map, that's the new route how the fire trucks are gonna get to the site.

Um at the last hearing at CONCOM reading through meeting minutes, uh there was some discussion that the roadway to get the fire trucks to the site would need a whole heck of a lot of improvements, would need a lot of uh a lot of cost to get there.

And I think what people were talking about, I'm not upset, but I think what what people are talking about, where we're having yellow, there's a dirt path, like a little old loggy road that's used from time to time, but it's a dirt path.

Uh it can't support a fire truck, and it kind of weaves its way around Trestle Brook.

All right, so if we were to try and improve that and permit that, we would have far more wetland impact than what we're talking about tonight.

Um so that was the path, I think maybe was uh originally contemplated, but what um I found out yesterday from our meeting at DPW was that the fire trucks are gonna be taking this black, heavy black line around.

Um it's not ideal, but it's there, it doesn't need any improvement.

It holds trash trucks now toward the where the back of the dump where the trash trucks are going.

So that that's actually like a cost savings that it can use that.

My um packet tonight has the two letters from the National Conservation Commission.

Uh we have no objection to the CONCOM's suggestions.

Uh you have a letter uh from Pete Tetter, distribution engineer manager who says that um water pressure is coming from TEAK or Twilight.

We're not coming from Twilight, but coming from Teak, um are far superior than water pressures coming from uh West Hall Street and that eliminates the cost as well.

Um so and then at the end of that is the um letter from uh Zach about the water pressure.

So with that, Mr.

Um Chairman, if anyone had any questions initially, I was just gonna run through the uh special exception criteria, if you don't mind three seconds.

I'm not gonna read the verbatim the criteria, I'm just gonna touch on the points.

And just as a note of warning, you have about three minutes.

So best not to read a verbatim.

Excuse me.

If that's the case, Mr.

Chairman, then I'm not gonna recite the uh the um application itself.

I will I will I did want to say this though, because the city's special exception application does not match 1901 34 F for the special exception criteria.

So if I could just briefly touch on that, and then I'll leave the um application to you folks and have um Commissioner Kelly um speak momentarily.

So 190-134 F1 are the five criteria for the special exception.

The requested use is listed as a special is a use it as a special exception in use matrix.

That's true.

Use matrix use number 277 allows utility water lines throughout all districts in Ashua.

Uh the requested use is not going to create any undue traffic.

We have no traffic at Teak, traffic is not moved over to West Hollis.

We're not going to overload any public water system.

We have the evidence from uh Penichuk, special regulations, the one special exception, such as section D.

Um, and then finally, we're not going to impair the character of the neighborhood or the immediate uh area.

And we don't believe we're going to because once this water line is installed, you know, the city is not going to be using TEAK whatsoever.

Um so with that, Mr.

Chairman, you have the full application.

You have the um all the information uh from uh uh Mr.

Hudson, uh Brendan Quigley, you have the uh Natural Heritage Bureau um letter uh that says there are a few animals out there of concern in the area, but measures are being taken to address that.

So I'm happy to answer any questions.

The board or I would have uh Commissioner Kelly come speak, but I'm trying to be respectful of our time.

Questions from the board.

Uh Mr.

Shaw.

And this is uh maybe I'll start with you, Mr.

Falk, and it might also go to the attorney probably.

I'm I'm feeling a little confused at the moment in the sense of the the advertised and even the cover of the application does reference section 190-112, but then the special exception criteria is listing uh 190-115B.

So does can you help just kind of clarify that and make sure I we usually use section 112 because that specifically states that a special exception is required to work in a wetland or wetland buffer?

Any of those sections in the wetland ordinance really will work.

115 will work, 112 works, so we just used 112.

All right, I just wanted to make sure we didn't have any of it all.

Section 112 is the start of the wetlands ordinance.

Yeah.

Um, and so uh it's kind of a generic catch-all for advertising.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um and then the other thing I just wanted to go to um your um through your testimony.

I think it's pretty clear to me, but essentially there will be no permanent impact to any of the wetland um the wetland buffers that that are being impacted, it's all temporary, right?

It's all temporary.

So the the ditch gets dug, line installed, backfilled, re-vegetated, um, and what that does is it allows water flows to continue at their natural grade.

Um, and so uh everything's temporary and then you know everything grows back over time.

And I guess just one other thing that it come to mind also when you were talking about that you know there won't be any sort of trail or anything inviting people in, and and that's obvious.

I think I don't think anybody wants that, but has there been any discussion about any sort of even just like temporary fencing or uh something that would help kind of especially maybe if there's a need while vegetation is growing back to discourage any you know ingress uh that uh Mr.

Chairman is uh at the board's discretion.

If uh I'm authorized to say that if the city um either through this board or the planning board wants some type of gate or temporary fencing, the answer is yes.

All right.

Um after our CONCOM meeting, I met with some of the neighbors, and uh there wasn't a hard decision either way.

And if the neighbors all say yes, we want to gate, fine.

If they don't want to gate, that's okay too.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

I I just wanted to continue on that because I was sort of wondering about I I don't remember now.

Is there any kind of fencing along that the border?

Uh there isn't now okay.

So the idea of putting a gate there, it would be kind of kind of strange, but you you could they could put some temporary fencing to block off access to the path and and uh yeah, okay.

That's fine.

Yeah, it could look odd, you know.

It could, you know, the the downside of some type of permanent gate is that it draws attention to something that's not otherwise there.

Yeah.

So again, uh those boards discretion, plain board's discussion, either way is okay with us.

So Ms.

Any other questions from the board.

Okay, if I could uh call up uh Commissioner Kelly just briefly to I assume he will be somebody one wishing to speak in favor.

Yes.

Thank you.

Absolutely.

Is there anybody who wishes to speak in favor of the application?

If I don't get the opportunity, happy Thanksgiving, everyone.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, members of the board, as well as members of the community.

My name is Tom Kelly.

I live in mind just speaking into the street and Crown.

I'm sorry, Commissioner, if you wouldn't mind just speaking into the microphone, so we're I'm sorry.

My name is Tom Kelly.

I live over in Crown Hill on Under Hill Street.

Uh just to make sure that the members of the board know, but the community know that I am not a member of the fire department.

I am an elected official.

Uh as a representative of the city to be able to represent the.

I'm sorry if I could just ask once again that you speak into the microphone.

Oh, and then forget can I further clarify?

Yes, all of your commentary is really supposed to be addressed to the board.

Fair enough.

We'd appreciate it if you just direct it that way.

Thank you.

What I'm here to do today is be able on behalf of the fire commission and the members of the city to be able to talk of the importance of the fire department.

I'm not an expert in fire uh fire fighting, but as a representative, I'm kind of an expert citizen witness.

In my two years on the uh commission, I've been to dozens of fires, medical events, served with the uh served with shifts with the firefighters, and the one thing that I've learned as a commissioner to the three decisions that we get involved in that are the most important and the most profound are those involving the people that we hire, the equipment that's purchased to support them, and the training that the firefighters go through in order to be able to execute the job and maintaining uh safety of the city.

So I know that there's a lot of discussions about wants and don't wants, but what I was asked to be able to do is really be able to, on behalf of the commission talk how important it is that this training facility be established and continue to move forward.

First, training is more important that they have a realistic environment that they work in.

Having a training facility outside of the city limits will take them out of the community that they serve, and it would dissolve and dilute the training that they conduct.

Have it having the facility here in the city is going to allow to have more realistic training in the environment that they're going to work.

The training within the city limits also keeps the crews in district.

If you take crews out on a quarterly basis, a routine basis for training outside of the city, they're not readily available available to be able to support calls that come in as they come in.

And that could be a significant issue in influencing uh the safety of the city.

Cost efficiency and ISO impact.

A national-based facility significantly reduces travel time, fuel consumption, vehicle wear, and rental fees.

It also directly supports the city.

Uh ISO rating, which affects insurance premiums for residents and businesses.

The ability to conduct required specialized training.

A dedicated facility is essential for live fire operations, technical rescues, hazardous material training, ladder operations, and fighter fire survival skills.

NFPA standards require this type of hands-on training, and it cannot be safe, safely or consistently provided without a purposeful site in located in the city.

The commission does fully acknowledge the concerns of the abutters of Nashua Fire and Rescue, which is operated in the current training facility for more than 40 years with no record of complaints.

The proposed location provides an even larger buffer than what exists today.

We're committed to being good neighbors and to operating the facility responsibly with appropriate safeguards and communications.

And if I may, you have about one minute left, so just be mindful.

We respectfully ask for the board's support so Nashua Fire Rescue can continue to provide the highest level of service to the residents of the city.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Any questions from the board?

You're free to take a seat.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else who'd like to speak in favor of the application?

Seeing none, is there anybody who would like to speak with questions, concerns, or opposition to the application?

Please come forward and uh state your name and address for the record.

I am uh Rodi Arrontes from Three Julori Lane.

My um have written quite a few documents to you uh the board.

And uh I couldn't have said it better myself.

I think what he said is exactly what how we feel.

We feel like they should be well trained and they should have all the resources they need.

And I don't think anyone here will say anything against that.

We are all for the fire department having the resources they need.

Um I was actually gonna uh quote the uh the fire chief, but I'll I'll uh explain that um I'll use his own words because I have the recording here of the last hearing uh as to the reasoning of why the the DPW is actually rescheduling.

And it shows here.

Let me just play here for you guys or hear, because I want everyone to understand.

Well, the things that Alden Jetty said.

Um the garage placement of the DPW is not driving this.

Um the growth of the fire department, the growth of our community is truly the driver.

Um yeah, we are in close proximity to each other over there.

Uh there are some days where we're tripping over each other, but we could exist uh with the addition of the garage over there.

So clearly they could stay there.

There's no real push for them to get out of there.

Um I think that that is something that has been kind of driven to push people to under to think that either we give them the water and the power and the water line and the road that they originally needed uh back in during the last hearing.

Um, but it was either that or they would have to drive all the way to Concord to get their training, right?

And we all know that that is not the case.

They could either stay there, which you know they could possibly stay there for extended periods of time, or as I sent one of the documents that I sent you guys, there's a proposed location that they could actually use in the city and get their own space to get their own long-term planning.

As the city should be really thinking about that long-term planning rather than the short-term um solutions that are gonna either spend 10-15 million dollars into this new facility that is temporary once again, and in a few years, once the DPW needs that space, they're gonna get kicked out again, and then we're gonna, as taxpayers, you guys also are all gonna have to pay for this.

So we're gonna run into this again.

Um regards to the service being temporary, that is not the case at all.

What they stated was that once they take out the trees and they clear, and and one thing that I have to say against the um the decision that was made at the beginning of this hearing is that there's not enough material evidence that this has actually changed much.

What all that has changed was really that they took the 20, the 40-foot opening with a road.

They kind of just, and even the drawings that you can see there, they just stripped the asphalt alt and they just put a 20-foot opening.

They're not letting that regrow.

They said that they cannot let that regrow back because they want to make sure that it's clear for them to maintain the pipes.

And it's gonna turn into just a clear road, which is gonna damage the wetlands, it's gonna damage all the location.

And if you think about it, it's a 20-foot wide opening just on the wetlands is gonna cross about 40 feet.

That's 800 square feet.

But the total length of the road is roughly eleven hundred feet.

That totals to about 22,000 square feet of area that is going to be totally cleared and never gonna be able to regrow because they want to keep it clear.

And um, during the last hearing, it's funny that he mentioned uh the the lawyer mentioned that he spoke with us downstairs.

We literally said we do not want a gate there because once again he does not conform with the neighborhood.

We told him that.

I don't know if he thinks that there is some ambiguity there, but I'll I'll tell you again, we do not want a gate there.

That does not conform with the neighborhood.

And the reason he also told and we know that they want to put the gate there because once that is cleared and opened, uh we know that bad actors are gonna drive in there to do whatever they want to do because it's gonna be open.

It's a 20-foot open that's wider than our road, the TIC drive.

It's it's about 18 feet wide, that is 20 feet.

Like it's wider than our road.

You can drive pretty much anything into there at any time of the day or night to do whatever you want.

And we do not want that in our neighborhood because it does not conform.

And I think I I sent quite a few documents explaining on on uh criterion four and five why this does not meet the criteria.

Um another uh thing that I would like to mention is um I don't think anyone said that the Conservation Commission was missing any information.

I think that they they themselves said it that they were missing information.

One of their members on the Conservation Commission mentioned that they they did not feel like they had enough information to make a decision, and that was when they were given a long speech and uh coerced thing to voting.

Um and that was part of one of the the petition that I submitted on behalf of over 150 people that have signed it, and I was hoping that you would vote into that too to see uh if you could maybe not use that conservation commission positive um recommendation because that wasn't in in in good faith.

I I am over 150 people in our neighborhood feel that uh and regarding the pricing, I I think uh the the lawyer also brought up the you know the pricing being uh substantially high.

Um I got a quote.

I also included that.

I got a quote from a company, a local company that does work all over Massachusetts.

Um they draw under 93 and and on a daily basis, crossing uh piping under, and they never had a problem.

They said that they do that on a regular basis.

This would be a very small job.

They came outside and look at it with me, said it would never be, shouldn't be really a problem at all.

And the price per foot was literally the same, as Penachuk said that it would charge for that type of work, which was the price that I got when I was actually looking at the um the pricing for the uh uh Ridge Road uh to get an idea of the cost that it would be incurred to actually get that location, which was another of the documents that I sent in, a full proposal for dots.

And you are running out of time, if you wouldn't mind just wrapping up your comments.

And um regarding the clearing, um, you will say that we shouldn't really be able to see the the path and the and the facility and from right now if you stand on the road because it's it's you know getting close to winter, the leaves have uh fallen, and you can see the dumpster that is at the same location where the fire training facility hydrants are gonna be installed.

So you can see that standing from the road.

Great.

Thank you very much.

And next.

Good evening, members of the board.

You're free to pull that down if you'd like to.

I know.

I'm so short you won't be able to hear me.

Most of the people know me anyway.

My name is Paula Johnson, Alderman Elect for Ward 5.

I'll be seeing you probably a lot with my constituents.

I live here, 15 Westbourne Drive in Nashua.

And I'll tell you, um, I think this is a sad thing that people have to come out and always fight for their neighborhood.

I wanted to read something, if you don't mind, from um one of my future constituents who was unable to meet, be here tonight from Lee Atkins.

She's the president of Westgate Village Homeowners Association.

I represent the community of 198 single-family homes, 159 townhouse condominiums, and 60 garden-style condominiums.

We are all we all care about the neighborhood.

We chose our homes and by the extension of the City of Nashville.

Westgate Village Crossing is the main road through Westgate Village and intersects with Goslin Road, which intersects with Teak Road.

Many of our residents walk these surrounding streets as I do.

We are very familiar with the neighborhood, its neighbors, and we have developed a very close-knit community.

This is a serene and picturesque family-friendly neighborhood with abundant trees and wildlife.

To preserve our West Village community and the community of our neighbors, I would like to express my strong opposition to this project as it is non-conforming with the neighborhood we look we know and love.

I would just like to point out a few things that I'm listening to here tonight.

You know, everything is no big deal.

No big deal.

We're gonna cut a 20-foot SWAT and dig a trench.

That's no big deal.

It's a big deal to the people in this neighborhood.

They bought these homes and they did never expect it that this was going to happen.

No big deal.

No big deal.

No big deal that you're going to take down trees, and then we're going to replant with soil and do coverings.

That's no big deal.

But it's a big deal to these people in the neighborhood, because they're going to feel that this is really non-conforming now, because you're digging that ditch, you're taking out their trees, their foliage, the vegetation, and it is going to be close to that little wetland, and we know that there's endangered species.

I talked about that the last time.

There's never a big deal because no permanent impact to wetlands is going to happen.

We're going to just take all this out to trees.

That makes the area beautiful and loving.

And we're going to backfill it and put some seedling on there.

Maybe we'll put a fence and nobody can go there.

But we have shown, and the neighborhood has shown that you can do HDD drilling, which won't impact.

And matter of fact, I spoke to somebody in the planning department today, which makes this argument even more if you're going to do something like this.

I don't know if the attorney looked into this with the DPW.

But I was told that when they have to correct any problems with the sewer in the river, they have to go under and do HDD drilling.

Because they can't dig up a river.

You have to do something that's going to preserve the wetland and the integrity of that area.

Because there's laws about wetlands.

So when they say they can't do it, it's going to cost more money, because we're going to bring in DPW to do this.

But yet DPW does this if they have to do anything in the river.

It does not make any sense here.

So I hope the board's gonna kind of investigate a little bit more on this HDD drilling, because when the attorney talked about that, and I guess I feel this, and probably the residents of the city feel this way.

And I know this isn't part of the zoning board, but I resent the fact that the city hires an attorney, the fire and rescue, to go against us, we, the taxpayers who pay for all this, and they're fighting against the neighborhood who are begging the board, please don't disturb our neighborhood.

And this is just not here, it goes on all the time that residents have to come in and beg for something.

So I think the board really needs to do more homework, probably, and disregard some of what the attorney is saying about the HDD drilling, if the city does it already.

And this way it will not disturb the wetlands, it will not disturb the mature trees, because once you take down those mature trees, it takes 20, 30, 40 years to get mature trees again.

So now the neighborhood is not the same, the values are not the same on the properties because you've disturbed everything.

And you know what?

In my opinion, it does not conform to the neighborhood anymore.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Anyone else would like to speak?

Sir Thank you.

Uh my name is Jay Lustig.

I live at 14 Olympia Circle in Westgate Village, and I've been there for just over 40 years.

Um there are a couple of things that I'd like to bring up.

Over the last 40 years, there's more and more traffic in the landfill, um, which results in a lot of noise in the neighborhood as well.

Uh early morning gunshots to scare off the birds, trucks, uh trucks from other towns coming in, commercial waste products coming in.

Um you even mentioned this when the other gentleman was here talking about the shed was the visual effects of the neighbors.

Right.

You're gonna open up 20 feet through the woods, through the wetlands, and give everybody a really nice view of the landfill, plus taking out any trees, wild um growth in that area also acts as a sound barrier that's not going to be there any longer.

So that's my piece.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else who wishes to speak?

Good evening.

My name is Andreas Weiss, Six Cimarron Drive in Nashua in Westgate Village.

Uh my background is in engineering.

Uh previously trained in hazmat training.

Truly I appreciate what the fire department is up against.

And I I respect what you do.

But what hasn't been discussed here is the mentioning to death tonight about hazmat.

If you would mind just keeping your comments addressed to the board.

Sure.

Hazmat training that occurs, the chemicals that are being utilized in that training uh to extinguish the flames, uh, and the effects that has on the environment and the community.

If you take a look at the training product program details, safety protocols, and record retention associated with fire hazmat training, it's extensive.

Why?

Because of health concerns to the fire department and the firefighters.

It also trickles into the community.

The neighboring community, all of Nashua, frankly, because Nashua is downwind of this training facility.

So my question is have we actually looked at that, the impact of that?

And I'm sure that those exercises have occurred in the past.

Is this 10-inch line actually larger than what is currently in place?

And is this facility larger to take on larger activities as a fire suppression training exercise location?

These are just questions we should consider.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else who wishes to speak with questions, concerns, or opposition?

Ma'am.

My name is Miran Howell, and I live on Teak Drive, 35 Teak Drive.

And as Rodi said, I'm a hundred percent, you know, in support of our fire department.

This has nothing to do with their need for training.

But what I heard uh tonight and what I saw in the application was a description of a temporary dis disruption that we cut a 20-foot swath backfill replant.

I heard walking path, it'll grow back in over time.

Wetland buffers, the impact is all temporary.

Those are all quotes that I heard tonight.

And what I read in the conservation commission recommendations is that you plant some wild flower mix and you know seeds.

This is not going to replace trees.

Trees that have taken you know 40 years to grow.

So, you know, the um the town, the city of Nashua has a um an article on wetlands where they talk about it being a valuable natural resource.

And you know the general legislation requires requires that they ensure the protection of valuable wetland and buffer resources, prevent the harmful filling, draining, sedimentation, or alteration of wetlands and buffers, and prevent the destruction or significant degradation of wetlands and buffers, which provide flood and storm control.

So, you know, I feel that um this is being totally disregarded, um, and it's being described as a temporary disruption, but it clearly won't be.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else who wishes to speak with questions, concerns, or opposition?

My name is Heliteropoulis.

I'm at 31 Teak Drive.

I have property above the landfill.

Um my concern is with the tree cutting.

Um I can see the landfill now.

I took a video this afternoon.

I can see one of the green trucks driving through.

You cut 20 feet wide out of those trees.

It's going to impact our homes, it's going to impact our property values.

Um more trees, not less trees.

Thank you.

Hello, uh zoning board.

I'm Hannah Nedzbala.

I'm in Westgate Village at Six Valencia Drive.

And I want to just say I'm in complete.

I don't want this to happen to the people on Teak and the air environment that comes over from the training facility if they manage to get a road in there, and it's going to take, as everybody else has said, it's going to take years for those trees to go back.

And I were not convinced that it will actually be the same as it was, and not have the training facility in there.

I would like them to look at other places that might have much better not so many people around and be on city land.

I don't know if that exists, but please reconsider not doing anything to this area.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else who wishes to speak with questions, concerns, or opposition?

Hi, uh my name is Donna Bushy.

I live on um Five Jalori.

Um, and I've been in this neighborhood.

Uh I actually lived on Teak, and then we moved to Jalori, so we stayed in the same neighborhood, but it's been like 43 years.

Um, and I find that there's a few questions that I have.

I at the last uh meeting, the conservation, I thought someone had asked if the water could be piped through the road that they're already working on in the landfill, and then it was a problem of I guess cost effectiveness because they might need a pump to get that pressure the same as they would coming up from teak.

But I'm wondering about that if there's any other way that they can um you know get water through other than coming through uh teak.

Uh also the um, you know, I've heard that it's gonna be a lot of different towns now coming.

I'm wondering how many towns, like what exactly do they do with training?

Are they just using hoses up there?

Are they setting fires or is there gonna be, you know, and part of this part of my view is also that, you know, in looking up buffer zone um definitions, uh, you know, the the trees are a huge part.

A healthy zone will have a mixture of uh plants, shrubs, and trees.

Um, you know, and that will improve air quality and um screen views, reduce noise and pollution, you know, coming from a uh facility.

So I know last the last meeting they did say they would cut the 20-foot swath of you know going up to the but there would be no more trees planted because the roots would be in the problem of the piping and they so the trees will be just wiped out.

It'll just be some yeah, shrubs and um that kind of thing, wildflowers maybe.

Um, you know, when I first moved in there, it was quite bare because it was a place that could not be built on.

And um the builder of you know, had we had to go back and try to get things going.

But I mean this has been 40 years of uh beautiful barrier, I guess, beautiful, natural and cost effective, but what's the cost to the environment, the animals, the people that live in the neighborhood.

Um, you know, it's um you know, I I just feel that um this is a very poor um plan to thank you.

Good evening.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

My name is Janice Chulin and I live on Maine Dunstable, and I just wanted to put on the record that I oppose this plan.

I do support and value the fire department.

My family and I have benefited from their services when our home caught on fire.

So I I believe in what they have to do.

What I'm asking is to reconsider l the location.

I heard you earlier, Mr.

Josh say that property value drives your vote, and one thing to consider from what everyone has given testimony over that the people who are impacted did not choose this, yet it will impact their property value when we hear comments that it's gonna give them a straight view of the of the um where we take our trash.

We heard that it's going to increase noise pollution, which is a big concern.

I'm on Maine Dunstable, and when we purchased our home, we had to consider the drawbacks of living on a busy home, which meant that our kids wouldn't be able to ride their bikes.

Um we would have to think of other ways to stay healthy.

We couldn't just walk outside our door to uh walk, but we made these adjustments with the conscious decision that we knew what we were getting into.

Many of the other homeowners don't didn't have that choice, and so I just wanted to put on the record that I oppose this plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

If anybody else who wishes to speak with questions, concerns, or opposition.

Hi.

Uh John Collins, 20 Teak.

I live directly across from where this is gonna happen.

Um when we first met on the road being put in, I was very relieved that uh it didn't get approved because it would have, if I looked out, I would have saw the road right in front of my yard.

Um but here we are again.

Same plan, uh just the road is removed.

Um I'm calling this phase one of the road development because everything's the same.

It's just a water line, 20 feet.

It's easy just to increase that and put a road in down the line if we see the need to do that for say maintenance and all that.

So uh that is my concern here that uh this is just a pre to the road be developed.

Um I feel that we are not being held uh uh heard uh the neighborhood themselves.

We had a petition signed uh by nearly 200 people that oppose this project.

Um I'm sure there's more we did we would would have more people here in opposition if it wasn't Thanksgiving week, of course.

And it's funny how it falls.

Uh this meeting falls on that.

Um if we were heard, I mean a lot of us have done a lot of research on this, a lot of research.

And uh if they would actually listen to us rather than try to steamroll us with this, we may come to a suitable conclusion, but we haven't been really heard through this entire process, or actually even told what was going on.

So I'm hoping that uh you guys can uh help with us being heard with our opposition to this, and with a new plan going forward, uh, that we can find a way to uh get the fire department what they need to do their jobs.

Um yeah, so uh with this sloth through the uh through the woods, um it will the fire uh training facility will be viewed straight from my house.

Uh and with the smoke and such, and with the leaves all down, it'll be easy to see that and uh easy for whatever is done over there to come over into our neighborhood, and that is a big concern of mine as well.

Uh so I'm hoping that you will oppose this plan so we can come up with another plan with all of us working together so we can uh go ahead and help the fire train.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi George Sturgeon, 15 Cimarron Drive.

Uh hopefully, I'm not gonna repeat everything that's been said, but I agree with all of it.

Um hopefully we're clear, it's not just a temporary disturbance.

You're taking down trees, that's permanent.

Um thing that was just said that I didn't even think of is that path, maybe it's not a straight path, maybe it's zigzags like the lawyer said.

Um, but it probably does increase noise coming in, potentially because the trees you're not gonna grow trees back, so just putting shrubs.

So I think um I'm gonna go back to to Roddy Ontares's letter to you, which has a requested action section, and he kind of gives options.

Um is to if you have to approve this to stipulate using the horizontal drilling method, which doesn't disturb wetlands, doesn't dredge, doesn't down trees, it's maybe too simple of an approach.

Um so if you're gonna approve it, stipulate that.

And he also wrote a stipulation to remind this application in and of itself and its approval of the denial on the road, so that if anything ever comes back up on that, we've got a stipulation, it's clear in here that you're referencing your old opinion, no road.

Um the other option he has table it so that the city can go back and actually look at this HDD drilling, come back to you, have another meeting, talk about it, and present a plan that does isn't dredging, removing trees and all that, and it's using the drilling machine.

I know a builder in Merrimack just got a large development, he's using HDD to gain access um to water there.

It actually has to go into the highway.

Um I would rather see you deny this.

That still gives the city the chance to come back with it an HDD drilling plan, and and Roddy's um submittal to you this plenty of and the testimony today.

There's plenty of um reason that you can decline it based on your rule four and five.

Sure, that the the impact of the neighborhood is as great as a road, and there's no safety issue because fire trucks are coming through and kids are biking, but it does change the character of the neighborhood.

So five is still in play, so I would ask you to deny this.

That still gives the city a chance to come back with an HDD drilling approach, have engineering go look at it.

Um I don't think the cost is gonna be a significant difference for them, doesn't disturb any wetlands, very simple approach.

If there's if cost ends up being an issue, personally, I don't really care.

DPW spending 40 million dollars on a new garage, probably gonna be 50.

What's another 100 grand?

So hopefully you'll deny this.

Thank you.

Anybody else who wishes to speak?

Seeing oh, sorry.

Good evening, gentlemen.

Hello again.

My name is Dan Rogers, and I'm Fort Hisel Avenue.

Tonight, I mean, as has everybody's been saying, it's it's definitely proven that I think once again the city has to go back to the drawing board again.

Because every time they try to think of something that is going to be beneficial to the department with the fire, because there is not one single person within our neighborhood or any neighborhood will never deny to the fire department to ever for training.

And whoever says so, otherwise, I'm sorry, is very foolish of thinking that we are ever going to be against it.

We never will be ever.

But once again, as I once said, I think I will say it one more time because I truly believe that it is the short term again of them staying at the four hills.

It's gonna be short term again, move again, and sooner or later, the Fort Hills will be filled with all of our dump.

Because as I was told one time that I believe that the Four Hills had to try to actually find a place within like a five to ten year term plan, because once they reach to a certain fillment, they will have to move themselves to find somewhere.

As the previous alderman once said that Nashua has many property areas, especially within industrial areas.

I once mentioned once before about Northwestern Boulevard.

That still is a very huge area, and I know once again that it is close to the airport, so yes, there is some federal regulations that will have to be passed, but I mean we also within that area.

There are other industrial buildings that are there as well.

So I believe to the back to the city that once again I think they should go back to that drawing board, but once again, we should truly think of a long term for the fire department, and this I truly believe that they should have their own facility within an industrial area, especially to an industrial era that even like, for example, that deals with hasmath materials, so they could so they could properly train to any fire department within the future of any developments.

Thank you again, gentlemen.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else who wishes to speak?

Five minutes.

Five minutes.

But if you wouldn't mind, uh no, the uh applicant has 15 minutes, each person commenting, whether it's in opposition or to speak in favor has five.

Thank you for that.

I understood it as each side had a 15-minute opening statement.

Thank you.

Tonight's title.

See, name and address.

Yeah, sorry.

Mike LaRock, 22 Teak Drive.

Looking right across the street from this proposed opening.

The words temporary disruption really shook me tonight.

So with that, tonight's title is Words Matter.

Last week it was faith in action.

Having a hard time with numbers two and five.

Can't see how numbers two is met with this issue.

But this is a lot of congestion in a neighborhood and doesn't think it meets that criteria.

The board does not feel the two criteria is met.

It's always a tough decision when we have a full neighborhood show up, an alderman, some potential alderman, and passions are high.

The fifth one about being out of character with the neighborhood.

We had a lot of testimony tonight that the existence of this access road is intended use would be detrimental to that neighborhood.

For point number five about the character of the neighborhood, this is a very quiet neighborhood and doesn't think this use is in line with that.

Several neighbors testified that that would be out of character.

Have more of an issue with point five about the character of the neighborhood.

This one I just can't support.

Struggle with this, especially criteria number five.

This is really burning a residential neighborhood and can't get past the degree to which the neighborhood would change.

If this were just for fire department use, perhaps.

But the unknown is what would attract from other communities.

There's already about five or six other fire departments that are expected to use a facility besides Nashville.

No matter what, it's going to be a change to this neighborhood.

I wish the city can find another location because I can't support this.

The board does not believe the fifth criteria is being met.

Useful impair the integrity and beat out of character with the district or immediate neighborhood in which it's located.

Does go a bit towards the fact that the landfill has always been a tricky proposition for the city.

It saved the city a lot of money because we don't pay a lot for fees and brings in revenue from tipping fees.

But it's set right in the middle of a dense residential area.

And there's been a lot done through the years to assure residents that the egress and ingress for that landfill will be happening on West Haller Street.

So this kind of breaks that bond or that understanding to some degree.

I find that troubling.

Board feels that it's not tenable for the quiet residential neighborhood.

This is a proposed end.

I don't see how the board could separate the intended use of the road from the application.

With any special exception, the board needs to understand the nature of the use.

And I'm not sure I do.

The board feels that this is not tenable for the quiet residential neighborhood where this is proposed.

Motion is to deny the special exception based on all five career not being met in the belief of this board.

It was seconded.

Motion carried unanimously to deny.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

One last comment.

Mr.

Pearlman.

Your dad Earl.

Uncle Earl.

I knew the man, he's a terrific man.

Tell them.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else who wishes to speak?

Seeing none, we did receive several letters, I think, and emails, as was noted.

The comments, I think several of the people here who spoke did also submit written testimony.

I'm not going to read through all of these.

I will just acknowledge that we did receive a letter of opposition from Paul and Rosalind Sander at one Twilight Drive.

Rodia Rantes, as has been mentioned, did uh provide uh a few different communications, and again has been noted, uh, particularly focusing on criteria four and five of the special exception criteria, and um you know, does note does believe again has been said that there'd be a negative impact to the character, does believe that there's an alternative, has been mentioned is the horizontal drilling, um which we've spoken to a few times.

Again, a second communication from the same.

Also, as referenced, uh, there was a petition that was submitted, and um appearances, it was uh submitted on behalf of 154 residents uh of the area, potentially other places as well.

I haven't checked all of the addresses.

Um we received an email in opposition from John Azelius and Mary Ann Howell.

35 Teak Drive.

And again, object, you know, noting that the or believing that the criteria has not been met.

That was their primary point.

We received a letter of opposition from Charles Fisher to the Redo Circle.

Actually, two communications.

And we received uh letter of opposition from Peter and Renee Kalgiropolis, 31 Teak Drive.

A letter of opposition from Mike LaRock, uh also particularly noting the horizontal drilling alternative.

And a letter of opposition from Lee Atkins of 12 Valencia Drive.

Those are the uh written communications that I have in my packet.

If I've missed one, I apologize.

Do note that even though I didn't read all of those communications, uh, they are a part of the record.

Board members have all received them and and have read them.

So uh given that, I'm going to uh turn it back over to the applicants if they wish to rebut any of the comments that were made, uh, noting that you do have five minutes.

Mr.

Chair.

I'm wondering if you could indulge me to ask a couple follow-up questions to attorney prolonged that have to do with the special criteria, the wetlands criteria.

Absolutely.

When he's done with this five-minute rebuttal, I think yeah, we'll open up to questions from the board.

Okay.

Uh all right.

I that feel part of the reason I wanted to ask is I feel like it could drive some parts of the response, but we can just go ahead and I'll just bring you.

Thank you.

Question Mr.

Chairman, again, uh for the record any prolong or prunier and prolman.

Uh I'm going to pause, have Chief Chief Buxton answer a couple questions.

There was some questions raised about uh hazmat issues, so and then I'll then I'll come back and we can have a discussion.

Good evening, Steve Buxton.

I'm the FIC National Fire Rescue.

Um I just want to address a couple concerns that were uh raised in opposition in regards to hazardous materials training.

Um when we uh do conduct hazardous materials training, uh, we do not use live agent.

Uh it's uh basically make-believe.

Um so there is never any live agent used on the training grounds, ever for our hazards materials training uh whatsoever.

Uh all of our training that we conduct is uh especially the live fire training is strictly um falls under NFPA 1403, that's National Fire Protection Association, uh strict standards.

Uh we can only burn uh clean wood uh like pallets and hay.

Um so everything that we're burning out there when we do conduct live fire training is all natural and uh not uh finished wood even can be used.

So I just wanted to clarify that uh for the board.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Chief.

Um I I did have a couple points, but perhaps we could answer questions.

Um just go ahead, Attorney Proman.

I okay.

I um I just I just had a couple points, a couple observations.

Um get my notes.

You know, I when I uh said to the board and when the application came to you and it said this this there's a temporary impacts, the temporary cut, the temporary uh buffer, the temporary wet weather bags.

I believe that they truly are.

By way of example, I grew up in South Nashua on Farmington Road.

Many years ago, the city came uh to my parents and said we need to run a water line.

You know, is a water line or sewer line?

I forgot exactly.

But um through the middle of your yard, through some trees, through the back brook, and we need to tie into uh some lines of the country club and that then tied into the um wastewater treatment facility.

And so the city did that, and they took a bunch of trees, they dug up our yard of you know the my my years of mowing when it took me to wayside, and um uh and they junk they took trees in the back, and you drive by there today, you would never know there's a water line or sewer line um in there.

These things grow back.

It takes time sometimes, uh but things grow back.

I don't expect a 20-foot cut through the trees is gonna permanently impact um anyone.

I believe it that it will grow back.

Um over time, some some things take longer than others, but I believe it will grow back.

Um I believe that um we have addressed the um criteria um of the um both the special exception and the wetland special exception piece.

Um we have a uh special exception application.

You know, uh I've been told that we need to move the fire training facility uh so to allow for the uh the uh DPW garage.

You know, if that's not 100% accurate, that's what I've been told.

But again, it's this wetland special exception application that's before you for really minimal impact um to to the neighborhood.

Um there were some concerns, and I heard these concerns um uh uh come after the CONCOM meeting that this is just the start, then the city's gonna come back and put a road in and I think a road um if the city were to come back to the this board uh for wetland impacts for a future road would be subject to fishes versus Dover.

I don't think that gets past Fisher versus Dover.

I think what we I think you made a right decision with respect to just the water line, but if the city were to come back for the road, I I think that that's done.

I think that's that decision has been made and uh we'll stand.

Um I think that's all I had.

I I didn't um you know I I appreciate the neighbors.

You know, this is this is something coming into their neighborhood that they're um you know that that's new to them, but I I really think the city backing off the road and just doing the water line uh what is a fair compromise uh that should be considered.

We believe we've addressed the uh criteria, and I'd be happy to take questions.

Questions from the board, Mr.

Shaw.

And I might note I'm I'm gonna reference this that's in our packet.

Um is this the map, the color print.

Okay, I'm not sure I've seen that, but I I get it.

Okay.

Um and it it was basically, I think it's still from the original application in the sense of it as part of the you know uh all the uh it's important documentation, but from what I understand I just want to clarify at least one thing before I go the rest of the way with my questions.

But so there was the proposed roadway before, and there was going to be the water line with the roadway, and I understood that those are pretty much going to be kind of concurrent with each other, and now what's being basically came back to us is just the water line essentially following that same spot.

So I think this this representation is relatively accurate because I think that's more or less what you you even wrote in, like but I would agree with that.

So I my engineer hat went on during all the the questions and concerns and opposition testimony.

And so what I started wondering about, and I might this might need to go back to engineering, uh, but when I look at wetland A and wetland B, I believe there's a way to do this without crossing wetland B, and I also think there's a way to do this essentially starting in from essentially where the paper street is, but then making the angle and following the gap between wetlands A and B, so that will help that'll help in multiple ways.

There will only be one wetland crossing, because obviously you have to get across either wetland A or then you'd have to ultimately end up at wetland C, but there's no way to get in from Teak Drive without crossing the wetland at this point, unless you went all the way down to where it makes a corner and you're you're a people's home.

So that's so as far as the city owned property, there's one way, there's only I believe it could be done by crossing one wetland, not two.

And if it was an angled cut-in, you would also have a much better visual barrier in place because then instead of um I'm sorry, I think it's Mr.

Labraca 20, um, but 22, thank you.

Um he wouldn't have that entrance right there.

And in fact, he would have still some buffer of trees and whatever vegetation, and most of like the real kind of cutting in would happen more or less kind of across from Goslin and would be even less impactful.

So I'm thinking, basically, and this is why maybe we do want to table this.

I think you might want to take this back to engineering and say, can this be done?

Because right now I'm not sure I could buy into that the wetland special criteria is being met in terms of the least impactful way.

I think there's a better way of doing this.

And I think what happened, and it makes sense to me, there was a road here, and people are just saying, well, now we'll just do the water line, but like there was already a proposal, we'll just go in that same spot.

Well, I don't think it would have made sense with the roadway to try to have done that.

But now when you're only talking about a digging the trench to put a water line in and covering that back up and it's gone.

I think this is could be a little bit of a at least a win-win in terms of less visual impact, less impact to wetland, and so Mr.

Shaw, if I may, is that a question?

Or are you just commenting on your feelings on the application?

Uh I guess I put it as a question in terms of can it can you know can it be taken back to engineering, or do you know if this was discussed or you know, was any of that considered?

Um may I please approach clear?

Yeah, something like that.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, yeah, exactly.

Um hearing um Mr.

Shaw and I took the waterline only plan um and I kind of sketched so we're what we're talking about is a uh proposed water line that goes in between that comes off of the um that intersection of the paper street and goes in between the two wetland areas.

Yes, right?

Yep.

Um and it could then probably still cross where it was proposed to cross wetland A.

Because that still looks like it's about the narrowest spot.

Yep, I would agree.

Um let me say this.

I'll take this back to engineering and perhaps we uh continue this uh hearing.

I will say that the larger wetland uh that goes through the paper street, um, that's all a vernal pool.

And uh the vernal pools have a hundred foot buffer, not a 40-foot buffer.

So we want to stay away from the vernal pools as much as possible.

So I'm happy to take this back to engineering uh because I think that's a fair comment.

And I don't think that was actually considered.

Um, and so uh I do want to flush it out and see if there's any merit to that.

Um and see if there's any merit to that.

Brendan Quigley, our wetland soil scientist.

Um I guarantee you he's gonna say no, no, no.

Stay away from the vernal pool as much as possible.

However, um I I it's a fair point.

And um I would I would be willing to um I'm willing to do two things back to engineering.

Um we willing to take this suggestion back to engineering, and secondly, um we uh could provide you more information on horizontal drilling.

Because I spoke this morning with you folks know I represent developers, um I spoke with some developer clients, and they say you can do horizontal drilling, but it's the the cost is astronomical.

Um notwithstanding what someone else in the audience may have uh come up with.

But nevertheless, um I think it's a fair question.

I don't know what was considered.

Um I s I I I wouldn't be surprised if I come back with the exact same plan because of the brittle pool, but I don't have that answer.

And maybe I would suggest that perhaps even if that turns out to be part of the problem, perhaps consider still some sort of angled um entrance such that you do your best to provide existing vegetative buffer to the Trive residents.

Sure.

So that would be you know that could still be, you know, if it if that if what I was looking at doesn't seem doesn't turn out to be viable, maybe there's still something that could be proposed that would still be less impactful.

So at least that's worth asking.

And yeah, just I think maybe this is where you know I tried to kind of solve the problem here in a few minutes, but yeah, it needs to be looked at with you know better understanding by uh you know other experts.

That's fair enough.

That's a good comment.

So other questions from the board.

If not, I'm getting the sense that we may be looking at a motion to continue the public hearing.

Uh in which case I I don't know that it would make a sense to wrap it up.

May I um well I'll say does anybody wish to make that motion?

I would like to.

I'll make a motion that we uh table uh this case uh to allow uh the applicant to get some determination from engineering uh regarding the items just spoken about regarding whether uh the um path for the proposed water line could be put either uh between wetlands A and B coming off of the paper street intersection uh or some other angled uh egress ingress for that as well as uh provide the applicant an opportunity to investigate the horizontal drilling uh feasibility uh as well.

Uh and I guess proposing that to December 9th, or is it no with the holiday?

If we could go out a month, please.

The first meeting in January is January 13th, January 13, I think that's fair to the logical date.

Yeah, the team to get all the information together.

Uh that's fine.

Is there not a second meeting in December?

We don't have that's one.

This is it.

Uh December 9th is the only meeting.

Okay, so January 13th it will be.

So if that's the case, uh, if that motion is approved, please know that we'll probably be pushing back the garage.

Yeah, understood.

Yeah, so that that is understood.

It is we have to get something in writing.

Is there a second is there a second to that motion?

Seconded by Mr.

Lynel.

Any discussion of the motion?

Mr.

Neely.

Yeah, I think so.

So I'm not gonna vote in favor of pushing this back.

Um we've had these people out multiple times.

No nobody's ideas are gonna change here.

Uh, we could vote tonight to do an angled and angled entrance.

Um I'll be honest, driving by that neighborhood today.

Wetland B and wetland C is not a wetland right now.

It is it is bone dry uh with wetland A being, you know, it's it's it's deep.

It's it's a uh it's a you know little mini mini pond there.

So it's not gonna change my vote at all.

I think we're just pushing back multiple uh multiple cases.

Um and I I think I would like to have a discussion tonight about this.

Well, I appreciate your your ideas there.

Looking at this colored map, I I can't think the biologist is gonna come in and say move it closer to that legit wetlands farther away from that dry land that's there now.

It's just wetlands during a couple months of the year, so uh I I am not gonna vote in favor of pushing this back.

Other thoughts on the motion.

I think my sense is is I I would I would certainly be prepared to discuss this this evening, and I would be prepared to vote on this this evening.

However, um we have had a request for additional information.

The applicant seems amenable to providing that.

Um so I think given that I I would support a motion to continue uh since it appears that the applicant uh you know has no objection.

I don't know what other folks think.

Mr.

Pachi.

Yeah, I I'm not voting on this as the alternate, but I would also be in favor of a motion to continue.

I I think that um getting some more information on this is a good idea.

Any other thoughts?

From a staff perspective, we wouldn't re-advertise this since it's since it would be tabled to a date certain in the future.

So we would not send out all this additional package information.

The only thing we would send additional to the board is any new information that we get from the applicant.

Any new information now be it?

I'd suggest you keep all your package together.

And if I may just add, um assuming the motion passes, I would hope that the applicants would have a project engineer or engineer who could speak to the technical issues and a wetland scientist available for the next hearing so that we don't find ourselves in a situation of not being able to answer questions that are you know really on point to to the application.

Any other discussion on the motion?

All those in favor of the motion to continue to January thirteen opposed.

Opposed by Mr.

Neely.

So this hearing is continued until January thirteenth.

We might all be still opposed to that.

We might have an opportunity to say to you.

You will have that opportunity.

The hearing is the hearing is continued to January 13th.

That's a decision of the board.

The hearing is continued until January 13th.

Thank you.

Yes.

We're gonna take a five-minute break prior to hearing the next case.

I am certainly sympathetic to Mr.

Neely's not continuing to push it off, and also the I'm sure the residents is question though, you know.

We've had complaints that the decisions were made of based on insufficient information.

And um of this information that's been brought up.

So in particular the there was the criteria of you know, was this done in the least disturbing method?

And it's not clear to me that that was actually thought about.

So I think it was originally, but I think it was different.

Can I let you take with you?

I don't want to replace that.

What I said is that you feel like showing the things through without um the case is over, so I don't know.

All right, well, I'll take it in the middle of the stuff from last time.

So that way, okay.

I did see that one especially.

And even I didn't vote.

So that we're not doing this.

You know, then somebody like me goes.

Well, wait a minute.

Yeah.

Is it full on there?

Is it full of there?

No.

Nobody's out there.

Thank you.

Yeah, I was gonna ask you if we're ready for Thanksgiving.

Yeah.

We uh go in a boss and have other people.

That's that's smart.

Yeah, we're having we're having a small house, so just about twelve.

We normally have about twenty-two, twenty-three in my son's house, but we're gonna have it at my house instead, so it's a little different this year.

Normally that's what we do.

Anyway, well, if I don't talk to you, I'm only in for a few hours tomorrow, and then I'll decide what are you gonna do yet?

Oh, that's right, I've already started my part-time consulting thing.

Oh, really?

Uh and I've got I've sent my resume off to uh I'm not gonna talk about the case.

Oh no, I don't want to have a company's reach rolling.

Yeah.

Well, people I used to work.

So that's the reading.

So I really appreciate it.

So we feel like that's why we're trying to be excited.

Yeah.

Not sure we're talking about sheet.

We're trying to do the right thing.

I know.

Uh it's good.

Change is good.

Yeah.

We all care.

Probably weren't taking it like that a year ago, right?

Yeah, yeah.

That's why we're all here.

That's why there's a lot of passion happening.

Yes, but I really appreciate it.

Thank you.

Um, I rolled you.

You're an engineer, honestly.

Are you an engineer?

Yeah, how do you know?

Yeah.

Hard to figure that one out.

It's just that you know, after the last the last year that we had, I just got like so into it, right?

So I plowed through a lot of documentation, a lot of the C maps, yeah, you know, finding the other location.

I sp I doesn't sleep working.

Just like having fun.

It was really just getting worse than that.

Well, I appreciate the light reading you gave me last night.

It's nice to meet you.

Join the board.

Okay, yeah, I love that.

That would be uh I'm very very much considering my uh really should be.

It is actually kind of fun.

You learn a lot of things.

You don't get paid.

It's really interesting.

I think there's a lot of people that look at it as except boring.

Those of us that are on it's a more people buy that with uh curious satisfaction.

Well, you'll still vote and talk and everything, but I like in the year, I can listen to it, but I can just get more involved.

I think this was my first time ever getting involved in reading and actually trying to understand what you guys are doing.

This is what got me involved too.

And I and I love it.

It's usually that way.

It's not just city jobs, it's things with signs with uh subdivisions, with phones, multi-family.

It's everything.

So you it's the whole everything we do.

Yeah, it's this whole entire graph.

Maybe I'll fill it off tonight when I get home.

Feel free to watch the rest of the meeting if you're interested.

I'll just go ahead and watch over that to question the right set.

Thank you.

Okay, we're going to read the uh next case.

The record probably sure.

Um anybody wishes to chat on other items if you wouldn't mind just stepping into the hallway, we'd appreciate it.

Next is the case of Heidi St.

Hilaire, uh for Rowley Street, requesting the following.

A special exception from land use code section one ninety-one twelve to work in a seven in the 75 foot prime wetland buffer of the Nashua River to place a ten by twenty shed in front of the property and a six by ten sauna in the left rear side of the property on an existing cement pad.

And two, a variance from land use code section one ninety-thirty one to encroach eighteen feet into the twenty-foot required front yard setback for a ten by twenty shed.

And three, a variance from land use code section 190-31 to encroach two feet into the six-foot required left yard setback to install a sauna.

This is in the R9 zone in ward one, and I'm guessing you are the applicant.

I am hello.

You wouldn't mind just repeating your name and address for the record.

Yes, uh, my name is Heidi St.

Alert.

I'm here with Joe O'Brien.

We both reside at 4 Raleigh Street, which is in the Broadcrest neighborhood, and as you just said, it's R9 residential.

My plot is F387.

I know this property well.

I purchased it in 2013 because I grew up actually at 2 Raleigh Street, and I wanted to be close to family.

My sister Jackie lives at 2 Raleigh Street, so she's my direct abutter, and she is here tonight.

So I've been on Raleigh Street for about 50 years.

I'm 55.

We moved there when I was five years old.

It is beautiful.

I think I have the best plot in Nashua.

It's right on the river.

Um we have you know, cat nine tails, lily pads, the birds are incredible.

I absolutely love the river.

And the project I'm doing will not harm the wildlife vegetation or water.

Um this summer we completed home improvements.

Um we put new siding and windows on the house.

I included photos in the application of before and after.

Now I want to place two the two accessory structures.

Um they're prefabricated, they will not be built on site, just delivered and set in place.

Uh, when I applied for the permit, is when I learned about the prime wetland buffer to be 75 feet away from the water and the property setback to be 20 feet away from the front property line due to the unique circumstances of where my house was actually built in 1969.

The 75 feet and the 20 feet overlap.

So uh essentially I couldn't get a permit to place a structure anywhere on my property.

The entire property is in the buffer.

So I'm asking for a special exception or variance to encroach into the setbacks.

Um the first structure, I did bundle both of them, um, the utility shed and the sauna into this request.

So the first is the utility shed, it's the 10 by 20.

I want to put it on the front west corner of the property.

I did have an old tent garage there that was 20 feet.

That's why I chose a shed that's 20 feet.

We removed disposed of the tent garage.

Um, and that tent garage used to be like two feet back from the road, so that's why I put 15 feet into the I put 18 feet into the setback.

But the more we talked about it, we think we can pull it back five feet.

The reason we can't pull it back any further is there's a very mature tree.

There's two very mature trees in my front yard and lots of roots in my front yard.

Um, but I do think the west end is the best place for the utility shed in the front yard.

Even though it is close to the street, it is a dead end street.

There's limited to no traffic.

Um my only abutter is on the east side, and it's away from the water, it's within the 75 feet.

Um the ground is dry.

We purchased rock and blocks to level out the shed.

Uh I did go to the conservation commission meeting on 11.5, and then the commission did a site visit and a vote on 1112.

Um, they did give an unfavorable recommendation and suggested a second site on the east side of my property.

Um this would be a secondary choice for me.

The east site is close to my direct neighbor, and um we would have to cut a tree limb of hers.

Uh, it's also very close, essentially right next to my driveway, and we have four cars between me, my boyfriend, my son, and his girlfriend.

Um they also recommended that we have a boat on a trailer because it's um out of the water now, and that we move that, so they wanted us to move that into the driveway.

So they wanted us to move that into the driveway.

It's very congested on that east side.

I mean, that's where the mailbox is, that's where there's two trees there, and the light post with the wires going to my house.

If you look down the street, the west side, there's nothing there.

So it would essentially give more curb appeal, and my house would kind of look like an L-shaped ranch, even though there's a tree in between.

So I still really would like it on the west side.

My hope is that you will approve the site on the west corner.

The sauna is uh six by ten sauna.

I want to put that into the backyard.

There is a uh slab that's already there, cement slab that was put in in the 70s.

We had an old shed there that was rusty, like an old Home Depot shed we disposed of.

Um so it's just a flat cement slab that's 10 by 10, and so the sauna is six by ten to fit there.

Um that is within the wetland buffer because my whole backyard is, and um probably within the six feet to the property line.

It's hard to know.

There is really isn't a marker there.

There's um like a divot.

Um, but it it would not impact um the abutters property.

So the conservation commission, they were fine with the sauna.

They did want me to add bushes and ground cover on the slope that goes into my backyard to reduce runoff and erosion.

So I created a landscape plan and I submitted that to them yesterday.

Um, and they also wanted me to move the boat.

I already said that.

Um my arguments are uh the spirit of the ordinance is to keep the wetlands and property safe and in good condition.

These accessory structures will improve the property and do no harm.

They will increase and improve the look of the home and the neighborhood and provide curb appeal.

They will not impact the wetlands, will not impact the river bank, will not cause erosion, will not impact habitat of any species, plants, or trees, um, and they will not impact absorption of water because I'm not installing any new cement.

The cement slab is already there.

Uh for fairness and substantial justice, right now it's unfair that everybody else in the neighborhood can have a shed, and due to the unique circumstance of where my house was built, I cannot.

Um because of the buffer and setbacks, I cannot use my own property, and it is unique to my property and a special condition.

Uh my lot should be grandfather closed to be able to use it.

Also, at one time I did have that old rusty shed and a tent garage.

Um it seems unfair that I can't replace them with better structures.

I'm trying to upgrade and improve my property.

So granting the variants, justice would be served, and it would allow reasonable use of my property at no cost to the environment neighborhood or general public.

Just some extra notes about the shed.

It will improve the look of the property, clean up the yard, um, the style, color, roof line match the home and character of the neighborhood.

I did include a picture of the shed.

Uh, my new siding is like a slate gray, and the shed is also a gray color with white trim.

Uh the road is short, it's a dead-end road, limited to no traffic.

Uh both of these structures, no electrical, no plumbing, no foundation that's new, no abutting, so I really feel that the variance is necessary.

The sauna is on a pre-existing slab and will do no harm.

The benefit of the sauna for me is it's something that I've always wanted.

It's beautiful and healthy.

Uh my cultural background is Finnish from Finland, and the Finns always build the sauna before the house.

So I've had that in my mind that I want a sauna.

My grandparents in Maiden Mass had a sauna when I was a kid.

Um, so I'm getting it for me and my mom and my sister to use.

And I'm gonna convince my boyfriend Joey that he'll like it as well.

In summary, my understanding is the prime wetland um is designed to assist with determining project proposals, but you as the zoning board can make an exception.

If you look at the property, the plot plan and photos, I believe you will agree that these are the best places for the structure.

So please grant me the special exception or variance.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Questions from the board.

Mr.

Neely.

So if if um if you were to follow the um conservation commission request and and move the shed to the what do we say it was the east side?

Yes.

Is that out of the 75 foot?

No, it's still within the 75 foot.

It's not uh as close to the road, the 20 foot.

Okay.

It's back, I think like 24 feet.

And your um your neighbor at three Rowley also sent us a letter concerned about snow meld, where the snow plows are are gonna leave the snow if you go forward with the um shed on the west side.

I mean, what's your thought on that?

Well, um they plow directly down the dead end and push the snow till the end.

You can actually see the barriers where they leave it.

It shouldn't affect the snow removal at all.

Um they'll just plow right by like they always did when I had a tent garage there.

So I don't think it will impact snow removal.

Okay, thank you.

Um and by the way, this is one of the most unique properties that I've seen in Nashua with where it sits on the river.

It is it is really neat, so uh congratulations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Other questions from the board, Mr.

Lannell.

Yeah, um where are you going to put the boat?

Uh we're gonna have to move it over with the cars because they wanted us to move it.

I think they're afraid it might leak gas or oil or something.

I don't know, it's on a trailer, and that's where we've always stored it when it's not in the water.

So I'll just comment that you you could have a shed.

Um you could put it where you're planning on putting in the sauna.

Um so there's there's in terms of uh the the neighbors have a shed and you don't, you could have one, so there's nothing preventing you.

You know, I know that you also want a sauna, but um the shed could go where that pad is, and you could you could enlarge the pad to have a slightly larger one.

That's always a possibility.

Yeah, okay.

Can you tell me when the how long ago was it that um the the uh old shed that the pad that you want how when was that taken down?

When was the last time you used that?

How many years ago or months ago?

Probably like five to seven years ago-ish.

We took it down.

We've been having like chairs there, and um yeah, that's what it was.

Yeah, but it had been there for a long time.

Yes, correct.

Thank you.

Yeah.

My point was just trying to improve the property.

It now that I know this process, any time I remove something old, then I have to go through conservation and all of the things.

So I was putting bundling the two requests together.

Other questions from the board.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Is there anybody who wishes to speak in favor of the application?

Hello, my name is Jacqueline Hackett.

I live at two Raleigh Street.

Um I did write an email, but I'd like to present it in person.

I did not disclose that I'm also Heidi's sister, but now you know.

Um I am full in full support of the three requests that Heidi St.

Hilaire of Four Raleigh Street is requesting.

Miss St.

Hilaire has done numerous improvements to her property in recent years to update and make her home more energy efficient and visually appealing.

These two structures will continue, contribute positively to the neighborhood aesthetic while at the same time improve the appearance of her own property.

The structures will have no impact on snow removal, trash pickup, or the view of the Nashville River.

I have no concerns about item number three, which references the request for the variants for the six-foot required setback in the area of her yard that abuts my property.

That's it.

Thank you.

Questions from the board.

Anyone else would like to speak in favor?

Anyone who'd like to speak with questions, concerns, or opposition to the application.

We did get one letter, I think has already um been referenced.

If I can find it and all my stuff.

Um and that that was a concern specifically, thank you, um, related to the snow removal.

So this is from Agaia Shane.

He works with us.

Shane works.

Oh, oh, okay.

Shane's the first name.

I'm sorry.

Shane Nagayo is the employee.

It's from Herb Covey.

And three Raleigh Street.

I see there was a code variance issued to 4 Raleigh Street for zoning code 190-31.

This does have an impact on me.

They had put a temporary shelter shed a few years back.

In the winter time, the plow truck pushed the whole street's worth of snow on my side.

Where the snow at the end of the street to the edge of my driveway.

Not to mention the snow bank in my driveway, so I could not get a big, so that I would not get a deep big puddle in front of my mailbox and driveway.

I was declined.

Oh, I'm sorry, they asked to repave it.

I missed that sentence.

You know, etc.

He's concerned about the water with going uh mounding and going down his driveway.

Thank you for more inconvenience I have been given.

Then there's a second, at least the very last page of the staple is one we die.

Same person.

Apologize for not having all my paper here.

Um I'm sending this email in case I cannot make it to the public hearing.

I object to issuing a special exception for installation of the 10 by 20 shed in the front yard.

My objection is due to the impact it will have on me over the years moving forward.

Shed installation is basically across from my driveway.

In the winter, the plow trucks push the snow to the side of the street I live on.

At times leaving two to three, uh two to three foot snow bank in front of my driveway, while the driveway for four Rowley Street has a six-inch to one foot uh snow bank.

You may ask how I can say this when the shed has not been placed yet.

Well, not long, not too long ago, um, after they moved in, they added a portable storage uh uh portable shed slash garage in the same area.

So the plow drivers would push the snow onto my side of the street, so as not to make the shed slash garage unacceptable.

Or well, I think it means inaccessible.

Um I've had a snowbank encroach to the corner of my driveway, and on their side of the street, the edge of the bank was past their shed slash garage.

Judging by all the wanting to getting a special exception leads me to say one was never applied for in the past.

I'm 68 retired and on a limited income.

So I still do yard work and snow removal myself.

The first picture looking down the street is to give you an idea of how much snow would be pushed down the street.

And we did receive pictures um showing.

Then there's more text at the very last.

I'll go past all of this.

Oh, there it is.

Next picture would be four Rowley Street, and then three Rally Street.

And again, the picture.

Then this picture is looking for my driveway at 3 Rowley Street, looking across where he's in.

These are really just the intros to each other.

And then the last page.

Yeah, yeah.

So with all this said, I highly suggest this does to be allowed to happen.

Now for the second part about the sauna.

I'm an outdoor enthusiast who believes in keeping our wetlands and forests safe and clean.

We have zoning codes to enforce to keep these areas pristine, which has me confused why the city is allowing this hearing for a special exception to place a sauna because of existing pad.

Well, like the shed, 4 Raleigh Street is previously put a sauna in that spot again without any regards to zoning codes.

I object to this as well being an outdoor enthusiast.

Thank you for allowing me to express my thoughts and concerns with this issue.

I truly hope that if everything at all is to not allow the exception for shed placement due to the long-term impact it will have on me.

And those are the only comments we've received.

Would you like to respond?

I mean, if you if you're going to speak, both of you have the same five minutes, so you might as well share it now.

I had included a picture in my original packet, too.

Although it's kind of hard to see.

I don't know what those metal thing pine things are called.

They would just wall is folded over.

So they clearly have in that plow truck.

And if I look at the street, it's probably 20 something wide.

Any literally back as well.

So they come out this side, back all the way back up to the AC3, and it comes on our side.

We don't take sides and say, Okay, we don't have to look forward to the covey side.

I don't understand that.

That's kind of odd.

And we've never had a problem with the shed.

When we're not going to walk as you do, he is an outdoor guy.

We get it.

We are from the common art yard, large, all that stuff.

So we I don't understand that part about the snow removal.

It doesn't bother the trash truck.

Now it has a problem.

And the guy always pushes the snow the same distance down that street since we lived there.

He can't stop any further.

He just has to do it.

As he goes down these cloud rises, and he carries both walls.

There's a fairly ridiculous woodline.

So at the plow, the snow thing is, I think it's a little recessive.

I think you use the order retired.

And you got the lifestyle.

We get the same model of the left side and see this on the right.

So that's kind of I don't understand that, but that's all I want to touch it on.

And the boat might be on marketplace if you're interested.

But it's not looking at wrapped for the winter, it's unwrapped now because people are going to be viewing it.

And if I have to move it to the other side, I will.

But again, I'm gonna move from one buffer zone to another one.

So that that's another thing I kind of know is worse case I could put it out on the street by showing it, you know, on the pavement, but I don't want it rolling.

So I don't know what I'm gonna do yet about that.

So that's another thing that I I was misled by the comedy folks over the great.

And where they want us to put a shed is I'm actually bothering more room beds by moving the shed from where I proposed it originally by putting it on this side of my house.

With a power line above it now, with the tree that I have to trim half of because it sits on our crop, versus me putting it on a dead end street, it doesn't affect that gentleman whatsoever across the street.

He's never said a word to me about this till this letter came and you know we found out the road here.

Sir Can you speak to the mic though?

I think it might be picking you up, but I don't know if it is the letter.

She's the better talk, right?

I just wanted to.

I was also reminded that uh we we neglected to ask you for your name and address.

Um Joel O'Brien before Raleigh Street.

Thank you, gentlemen, for your time.

Yeah, I I think uh he summed it up.

My only thing about the snow is um they plow like the circle in our neighborhood, but they wait for the dead end roads, and often when they plow, it is a huge snowbank, has nothing to do with the shed or the tent garage.

It's just a lot of snow that they plow down our road.

So we have to clean it just as well as he would have to clean it.

I don't believe the shed in any way affects the snow removal at all.

So thank you.

Thanks.

Mr.

McCarrow.

Hang on.

Yes.

Uh question.

Sorry.

So just to follow up on the Concom's uh recommendation that they wanted to switch the set to the other side of the driveway, which would be the same distance from the street that you proposing now, right?

It would be further back from the street, but it would be closer to um into the wetland area.

Right.

So how it would be directly next to my neighbor's shed, like right on the property.

So that's um, I just want to reference that real quick.

That's uh a little further back.

That's probably like lining up with the back side of your house.

I have I could show you.

Yeah, come on.

The part of the application.

Yeah, yeah.

We have we have we have we have the proved the west side, we have not.

I wrote up an application for the east side, which has a new plot plan and the picture from the map from the website.

So it's yeah.

I just I'd like to see what what the alternative was.

So that would be your alternate location, would be the shed would be kind of starting with in line with the front of the edge of your house.

Yes.

Um that would be your the second preferred location.

Basically, you wouldn't want to push it any further back, that would be where you'd want it.

So if it's on the west side, yeah, where I want it, it's like five feet back from the road because of the tree.

If it's on the east side, it's gonna be parallel to my driveway close to the neighbor's property.

Right.

And I guess what I'm asking you is I'm trying to remember.

I I did go down your street again today, uh, because I want to actually see down the side of your house.

I'm trying to remember if there was any tree there or not.

There's two trees.

There's one tree on my property and one tree on.

So you can't get it for you can't get it closer back to that cement pad than this.

No, it it goes down into the backyard.

That's where they want me to plant the erosion plants.

Okay.

All right.

Do you want to take a look at this?

Okay, so I just wanted to understand uh when we go in deliberations what what uh you know what I know what your application is, and that's something different, but we just I just need to understand um where we're at.

Any other questions from the board.

If not, we're gonna close the public hearing and open up the deliberations of the board.

Thoughts from the board.

So go for it.

Mr.

Boshe.

So no matter what happens to this piece of property, uh, you know, uh, I think it was kind of really put well.

Um again, we understand um contamination of of wetlands area, and so you know, like wherever you park the boat or wherever you park the car, it's you know on this piece of property, um, it could be viewed as a potential hazard, right?

In a way, you know, uh in some respects.

So I'm so I'm just laying out the fact that that I don't think there's an ideal location for anything here.

So um I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind the CONCOM's um recommendation of moving the shed to the other side.

Um from what from from from the s from the from the proposed location to putting it next to the driveway on the other side.

So I I'm just gonna if I could just jump in on that.

I I'm uh I I think the the only relevance of that is uh as it may relate to the criteria for granting the variance or the special exception in that one could argue there's a reasonable alternative.

Um but I we I don't believe that we can decide that the shed should be relocated to that side of the property because that's not how it was advertised.

That's not the case that was submitted.

So yeah, so so to and you're making I guess making my point is that is that um you know we we rely on some of this information, um, but in this case, um I don't feel I don't see the I don't see any detriment to having the shed located where it's being proposed on this property because again, because of what what the lot is because it's a dead end, because there was an existing um temporary garage there for for many years um that existed for many years, um I uh again I move it uh and again I'm not proposing to move it, and that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that that there is no alternative to this application that would would would deem it with that they could do this without having to have an application.

So no matter where they're gonna put the shed on this property, um it's gonna be an issue.

So I'm looking at it as the way it was uh advertised and and and going to uh respectfully ignore the concom's recommendation or their idea to move it to the other side, and I'm just gonna look at it as as it advertised.

So with that, I don't think again it's unreasonable for somebody to have a shed.

It is unique to have the shed kind of like in the front yard uh in the situation, but because again, the use of the property where it's located, um, what the property is sitting on and how it's um situated and right next to the river.

Uh I don't think there's really a better uh I don't think there's anything uh that's better for this for this property, um, if if that's making sense to you.

So uh so with that uh I'll leave it there.

Mr.

Shaw.

Yeah, I just uh the concom said the reason they wanted to do it was they just simply said if it was moved um to the wet on the west side of the property to the east side to be further away from the edge of the wetland.

But you know, when you look at this, it probably comes down to a few feet if it's not something significant.

And then I think you made a really good point in there that you know it's this isn't even what you know even though the CONCOM saying this, it's not what's advertised, it's not supposed, so it's not really a viable thing for us to consider.

So I think it tends to be kind of a moot uh point ultimately.

So I guess I'll just I I feel in support of this.

I think it is a very unique property.

Um I think you know, the entire property is within the wetland buffer.

Um, at first when I just saw like the the you know uh a shed basically, right, you know, basically sitting on the front, you know, property line.

I was like, well, that's like, you know, and now it makes sense.

But like just you know, kind of on paper, it was like this like I don't see how this works, but now it makes a lot of sense and why.

I think there's a lot of existing use that's been there.

I don't think there's any great alternatives like I think you were trying to really get at, Mr.

Boucher.

So I think ultimately it's just I think the requests are reasonable.

Um they're not excessive and they're actually consistent with the way the property's been used for quite some period of time, especially the the pad where the sauna is proposed.

I mean, that's clearly seems like it's it's probably a multi-decade item.

It's not quite as clear, and I I don't know if it was said, but you know, even even that that original structure that was there where the proposed shed is at the front, I think it's been there for quite some time.

So yeah, I think ultimately, I just don't think there's any these are reasonable requests.

Um not excessive, and there's no, I don't think there's any compelling other ways to do this other than what's been proposed.

So just this is any other thoughts.

Anyone want to make a motion?

I'll take a stab.

Special exception in a variance.

Right.

So this is a special exception for in a variance, and um although I I I I I wasn't thinking that it made sense previously.

I think that I'm just gonna take a stab at this as one motion because you can't do any of this without needing a special exception and a variance.

So I, you know, just kind of taking it all together.

Uh I'd like to make a motion that the application of Heidi St.

Hilaire for Rowley Street uh requesting the following a special exception from land use code section 190-112 to work in the 75-foot prime wetland buffer of the Nassau River to place a 10 by 20 shed in front of the property, and a six by ten sauna in the left rear side of the property on an existing cement pad, and two, a variance from land use code section 190-31 to encroach 18 feet into the 20-foot required front yard setback for a 10 by 20 shed, and three, a variance from land use code section 190-31 to encroach two feet into the six-foot required left-yard setback to install a sauna.

Um starting with the variance criteria, we find that granted the variance would not be contrary to the public interest uh because it would not adversely impact the public health safety or welfare.

We do note that there uh we did have uh a letter from an abutter um asserting that it would impact snow removal.

And uh it also appears snow removal maybe just generally the snow plowing may be an issue in the area directly, but I think from testimony uh from the applicant and the fact that the proposed shed is entirely on the applicant's property.

Uh we we don't find that there would be uh an adverse impact to the the public.

Uh and there would not be uh you know any significant change to the character of the neighborhood.

Um this is a shed, sheds are not uncommon, and this is a dead end street, which is really not going to impact uh anybody again, uh other than one or two uh butters.

We find that the spirit of the ordinance uh would be observed for the reasons previously stated, and also because of the setbacks are there to help uh avoid overcrowding and to uh help protect open space spacing between buildings and homes.

In this case, um there really is no reasonable alternative.

The uh setback at issue uh is from a dead end road where there's again really very little impact uh to anyone else.

Granting the variance would do substantial justice because it would allow reasonable use of the property.

A shed is, as we have said before, is a very typical use in this part of the country.

Granted, the sauna is perhaps less so, but the pad that's being utilized as an existing pad, so there really is no uh further encroachment on that side.

Um we have no evidence or testimony that surrounding property values would be impacted.

Again, we had some concern related to uh the snow plowing, uh, but not to the impact of the property.

Uh and we do find that owing to special conditions of the property to distinguish from other properties uh in the area of the denial of the variance would result in an unnecessary hardship.

I think as we've noted, this is really quite the unique property, uh just given its location on the National River, uh, its size, its location on the dead end street, and most notably the fact that there really is nothing that you could do on this property without being within a wetland buffer or within a setback.

Um therefore there's no fair and substantial relationship with the general purpose of the ordinance and its application specifically to this property, and that has also been noted that the proposed uses are reasonable uses.

Um I'm gonna move on now from that to the special exception criteria.

Uh we f uh the requested use is listed in the uh use matrix uh section 190-15.

What's being proposed here is a shed, which is a permitted accessory use, and basana presumably is also a permitted accessory use.

Um the requested use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly prepare uh impair pedestrian safety.

There's been no testimony that it would, although again we've had concern expressed over the snow plowing.

The requested use would not overload any public water drainage, sewer system, or other municipal system.

Uh in fact, they uh be unlikely to at all.

And um or uh subject um in the area, you know, the area of the city to hazards affecting the health safety or general welfare of the public.

Uh the special regulations uh set forth are fulfilled, uh which I will go over in a moment, and the requested use will not impair the integrity or be out of character with the district or immediate neighborhood, which is located, nor be detrimental to the health, morals, or welfare of the residents of the city.

And once again, we spoke to those um issues in the uh variance criteria.

Going to the uh special conditions, the use or activity proposed and its attendant impacts cannot be reasonably avoided.

I I think as we previously noted, virtually this entire property is within uh a wetland buffer area.

Uh the least damaging route and methodology have been selected.

Um, that which is being uh proposed is the best practical alternative.

We did have uh testimony by way of the conservation commission's letter, and um are you know we also discussed uh an alternative location for the shed, but that alternative location is also within the uh wetland buffer area.

Um that reasonable acceptable impact mitigation uh measures have been incorporated where necessary and appropriate to minimize uh the loss or degradation, and I'll I'll get you that as um when we uh bring up a condition.

I'm gonna bring up a potential condition of approval.

That the overall impact of encroaching into the wetland or buffer area is necessary for the productive use of the adjoining buildable land, and that such uh as such non-encroachment is outwit by the benefits thereby derived, and you know once again uh the uses that are proposed are reasonable, and there really is no place to put them that is not impacting on a buffer.

Uh no significant uh impact on habitat if we're endangered species or exemplary communities uh will result.

No testimony that that would be true, and I think just looking at it visually pretty clearly, this is a residential lot, it's not a conservation area.

Um, and that the best available adequate erosion and sedimentation control methods are incorporated, that the projectivity shall not significantly impair wetland capacity to provide important wildlife and fishery functions, etc.

That the project will not impair the stability of the water bodies bank, uh, it won't be adjacent to the bank in any way.

And the wetland buffer uh function, et cetera, uh will not be impaired.

Um I would just like to add uh one condition to that, and that is the condition recommended by the conservation commission that they provide a landscape plan to the conservation commission to include three rows of natives shrubs on the east side of the property behind the newly uh well they say the newly recommended shed location, but I think we understand the shed location and the ground cover on the slope leading to the backyard to reduce runoff and erosion.

Um that I think addresses our criteria number three um acceptable mitigation impacts.

So uh with that I'd like to make a motion that the application be approved.

Sir Second seconded by Mr.

Sha.

Discussion.

All those in favor.

And your multiple requests pass unanimously.

Although it goes once again, be uh if you didn't hear previously, um, there is a 30-day window of appeal where somebody could file for a motion for reconsideration.

So just be mindful of that.

But you are free to proceed with your project.

So we need to have the ship that we delivered.

Can we make that call on it?

Sorry, we had a weight, so we have to say why we want to be charged like that.

Uh you'll want to speak with um, you know, probably Mr.

Falk as a follow-up, but my understanding is is yes, you're free to proceed at your own risk.

And finally, we have the application of silver lining development LLC, 16 East Glenwood Street, and L.

Linton Street, uh requesting a special exception from Land's use code section 190-112 to impact approximately 6,500 square feet of wet and buffer area to construct a private shared driveway off Linton Street, along with associated site improvements for the future construction of three single-family residential lots.

This is in the RA zone in Ward 7.

Mr.

Chairman, members of the board, good evening.

Uh, my name is Andy Prolman, attorney with Prunier and Pearlman here at Nashua.

Uh, and I just have a brief introduction because um Ethan Beals, our project engineer is going to lead uh most of the discussion.

I'm here on behalf of silver lining development for the wetland special exception tonight.

Silverlining development is the Oregon applicant.

Um we were here before you back in July, where you folks were gracious enough to grant uh 12 dimensional variances for uh an odd oddball uh shape of uh watts uh based upon an old plan from the 1920s.

But we um proceeded uh from that approval to CONCOM.

We had an initial meeting with CONCOM.

We had the uh sitewalk on October 20th, and we had our meeting with CONCOM on uh November 5th.

Uh and you have the letter of 4-3 vote for an unfavorable recommendation to this board, and we know we have that recommendation before you uh believe that we meet these special exception criteria.

If you look at that vote, there are six stipulations.

Um, and I will tell you that you don't really get into stipulation discussions unless things are going your way.

And so we thought we had this um squared away with CONCOM, and then for the final minute, we had a 4-3 vote, but we do have stipulations.

They recognize that uh this uh application you know could go forward.

Um, but we have um a couple points to make with you.

Ethan's gonna run through the other criteria, but at the outset, uh we want you to know that we did our best with CONCOM.

We we tried to address every question, every issue that they raised with us at the first meeting at their site walk, um, and we uh gave them everything we wanted.

Uh we want you to know that the wetland being uh the buffer being impacted, it's not a pristine wetland.

It's already been disturbed because there's a sewer line uh where the wetland is.

Um, so there's no vertical pool, there's nothing pristine about this.

Um this has been uh disturbed previously.

There's not a high quality wetland by any means.

We believe we we meet the uh special exception criteria.

So we're hoping for a favorable vote tonight on the special exception.

Uh should this go forward?

This this plan still has many steps to go.

We have uh because we have a um certainly planning board, um, but because we have a uh uh paper street right of way, we have to go through the Board of Public Works and the Board of Aldman process to work out private driveway for that.

So there are many more steps to go in this process.

This is um this is one of uh one of many um, and we believe we have the uh criteria addressed for the board's consideration.

So with that, uh you can take over.

Thank you.

Yes, uh, we have a question.

Attorney Prolman.

If if memory serves me correct, wasn't the big concern of the neighbors last time just the amount of runoff?

It wasn't had nothing to do with disturbed wetlands or or um uh any potential animals.

It was just about getting flooded out downstream.

That was that was a concern.

That was concern raised with uh COGOM.

It's concerned with raised with neighbors.

I'm not an engineer, but the plan I've been around enough plans to know that I believe this plan is going to work.

We've removed all impervious pavement.

We have porous pavement proposed that actually improves the situation that's there today.

So we we we're taking every step we can think of to address uh the uh the runoff of the wetland concerns.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board for the record, Ethan Beals, project manager at Heiner Swanson doing business in three Congress Street here in Nashville, New Hampshire.

Um attorney Prollman did a good job kind of stealing my thunder, but I'll go into a little bit more detail and I'm gonna walk kind of step by step through those uh packets that I had sent out earlier.

Um as he mentioned, we originally met with, well, we met with the Conservation Commission three times.

The initial primary meeting on October 7th, the site walk on October 20th, and our final meeting on November 5th.

At each of the three meetings, uh, we took input from the Commission on what they thought or how they thought we could improve our project and really tried to respond and answer any question that they may have.

Again, I'm gonna walk kind of step by step.

I did my best to break it out into separate figures, and I'll try to explain what some of those pieces are in your packet.

The very first one in your handout today is a revised special exception application and the associated criteria.

In response to feedback and suggestions from the Conservation Commission, we actually updated the project's design from the original design and therefore needed to submit a slightly revised and reduced application.

Figure A in your packets is the updated wetland buffer impact that goes along with that revised special exception application.

The updated design contemplates a shared driveway slash the Linton Road extension as porous pavement.

We've relocated the car turnaround and the others and other small impervious areas so that there is now no impervious surface or paved surface located within the buffer.

We've also regraded and pulled back the slope to remove the previously proposed retaining wall that was located in the buffer area.

And as a result, we've slightly reduced the buffer impact by about 450 square feet, bring the new total buffer impact to 6,050 instead of the 6500 that was originally proposed.

Most importantly, we are still not proposing any direct wetland impacts.

Second, if we can flip to figure B, or if you don't want to follow around with me, that's okay as well.

Um, of the proposed 6,050 square foot of buffer impact.

It's important to note that about 3,200 square feet of that today, or about 53% is currently disturbed and maintained as either yard area or as part of the sewer easement that is currently bisects this portion of the property.

Additionally, another 1,777 square feet fall within that same sewer easement, with the city, of course, having rights to maintain in that sewer easement if they ever needed to replace that sewer.

In other words, out of our proposed 6,050 square foot of buffer impact, approximately 4,977 or 82% of it is either currently disturbed or falls within that existing sewer city easement.

Next, figure C D and E, and I'll take them together.

Figure C is a stormwater summary where I summarized portions of the stormwater management study that was prepared for this project, and figures D and E are the associated drainage maps that go along with it.

As previously mentioned in our original in our original presentation to this board, there was a lot of questions regarding stormwater management.

At that time, the project was in a very preliminary stage, and we hadn't done a deep dive in the stormwater management.

We have now.6 of it is impervious, so roadway, driveway, roofs, etc.

This drainage pattern does not today contain any formal qualitative or quantitative treatment practices.

As a matter of fact, if you visited this area of the site, you would notice that runoff flows down Linton Street.

It channelizes and is actually causing some active erosion along the slope at the very end of Linton Street.

The updated design contemplates a shared driveway be constructed of porous pavement.

Figure E shows the post-development drainage pattern, including the drainage pack drainage area that will now receive treat stormwater treatment, which is outlined in red.

That totals approximately 2.16 of the previously mentioned 2.9 acre drainage area.

So we're providing treatment for about 2.2 out of the 2.9 acre drainage pattern that flows in this direction.

Porous pavement is a qualified best management practice or BMP that provides treatment of runoff through the use of filter media and the infiltration of runoff back into the ground.

Using this practice and outlined in table one of Figure C of the stormwater summary, we demonstrate that significant reductions in peak rates of runoff leaving not only our site but the larger portion of Linton Street and flowing into the wetland when comparing the post-development condition to the pre-development condition.

So we're demonstrating reductions in peak rates of runoff compared to the existing condition today once constructed.

The end of the stormwater summary also includes some detailed information that demonstrates that porous pavement actually provides better pollutant removal or qualitative treatment of runoff than a vegetated buffer strip or a wetland buffer.

It was our professional opinion that the proposed project provides significant stormwater management improv improvements when compared to the existing condition today by providing both formal quantitative and qualitative treatment of runoff, including treatment of runoff from a portion of Linton Street that currently flows untreated to them to the wetland.

A lot of the conversation with the CONCOM at the site walk also revolved around the maintenance of that shared driveway, and if there's any way to prevent a future homeowner from negatively impacting the stormwater management practices.

In response to this comment, Attorney Prollman did provide a draft easement, and that is figure F in your packet today, that will be recorded along with the property.

This easement provides and requires ongoing maintenance and maintenance recommendations for the porous pavement, leach and catch basins, and associated drainage.

It also includes violation language and requirements regarding the replacement of these areas if it is ever needed.

Finally, figure G is the wetland field report provided by the wet the project certified wetland scientists.

I'll direct you to the set the second page which has his conclusion on it, but I'll quote directly from it.

Provided appropriate best management practices are implemented during construction and site stabilization is maintained over the long term.

There should be no adverse impact to the adjacent wetland resource area.

I'll conclude my presentation by mentioning, and as attorney Prollman did earlier, we did agree to several items with the Conservation Commission, despite the negative recommendation that were issued by the CONCOM as stipulations.

They included items like re-vegetation, removal of invasive species, and ongoing maintenance, all of which were agreeable to our clients.

At this time, I'm going to turn it back over to Attorney Prollman for some of his final remarks.

Thank you very much.

Happy Thanksgiving.

I didn't have anything for again.

We believe we've met the criteria for the special exception.

So we are hoping for a favorable vote tonight.

Thank you.

Questions from the board, Mr.

Neely.

So what when you're at the CONCOM, what during their discussion, what really what was their what led to the to the unfavorable vote?

In my opinion, I think going in.

I didn't think they like the number of trees being cut down.

In or out of the buffer.

And you know, we try and play nice, we bite our tongue, but the it would not be out of the line for us to say anything outside the buffer is not your jurisdiction.

But I don't think they like the number of trees coming down with this project.

Okay, that's fair.

A couple more questions.

Yes.

Um, you presented this to the neighbors?

I I and the reason I ask when we when you first came before us, we had quite a few people out here, and I am surprised there is absolutely nobody here, I assume, to speak against it.

So, what have you done to to do some outreach to the neighborhood to uh ensure that they're happier with this plan than what we originally saw?

Um we um likewise, so I don't think we had anyone at CONCOM for this.

So we haven't to be perfectly honest, we have not done any additional reach out to the neighbor.

I happen to be personal friends with the immediate neighbor uh on Linton.

So they're I've been keeping them up to date on the project, um, but we have not done any additional reach out to any of the other neighbors on Glenwood or anywhere else around.

Okay.

And last question, um, and I apologize, Ethan.

This is a lot to absorb.

Um it looks to me that that at no point there's nothing really we could do with those three lots that we will not be in the buffer zone.

Is that is that a fair statement.

Um I think that's a fair statement.

Lot 259 is an existing lot of record, and then of course, we're we're proposing a subdivision of lot 187.

Um there is some decent topography if you if I don't know if anyone had visited the site, but if you visited the end of Linton Street, you'll see it falls off pretty quickly.

And effectively, what we're proposing is to try just slide that slope out a little bit.

Um, and in order to do so without a pretty uh excessive retaining wall, you're going to be working within that buffer.

Even if you were to construct a even a 10-foot retaining wall, to do so, you're going to likely be impacting that buffer.

And as a as both attorney Prollman and I had mentioned, there's an existing sewer easement and sewer cross-country sewer main, which services the elementary school, Sunset Heights Elementary School that runs directly through this buffer, and part of part of the buffer work is that.

So I didn't tell the truth.

I have one last question.

So it looks to me the last the end product with the three dwellings.

None of those dwellings will be in the buffer.

It'll basically just basically be their yards.

Correct?

Yeah, that is correct.

So again, to reiterate a quick point, and again, I I apologize for throwing so much in such a detailed packet.

I did my best to try to outline the different figures and walk through it.

Um part of the feedback and part of it was in our initial plan, don't get me wrong, but um we worked pretty hard to push every bit of pavement, pervious or impervious, including building rooftops, including all that, and get that directly outside the buffer.

So to answer your question, yes, you're correct.

There is no pervious or impervious surfaces, pervious pavement or impervious pavement or rooftops that are in the buffer area.

All right, thank you.

Any other questions for the board?

If not, is there anybody in the audience who wishes to speak in favor of the application?

Is there anybody in the audience with questions, concerns, or opposition to the application?

Seeing none.

I'm going to close the public hearing and all right.

I take it back.

We do have a letter.

Um we do have a letter from one of the abutters, Mark Connolly, at 36 East Glenwood Street, to whom it may concern.

Due to conflicts with my schedule, I could not make the meeting on Tuesday, um, 1125-25.

The changes sought to the special exception for the buffer area to create a shared driveway on Linton Street and East Glenwood Street seem to me and to any reasonable person that they will impact the drainage and runoff and possible increased flooding in the area of East Glenwood Street.

Sections of East Glenwood Street have been flooded in times of high rains, and I believe that it will get worse with this development.

In addition, where will the snow from Linton Street be pushed after snowstorms and where will that melt?

I have little faith that anything the neighbors say to the zoning uh or planning boards will be listened to.

Since after the last meeting with the planning board, it was clearly a predetermined outcome and was rubber stamped with their approval.

Thank you for reading this comment, Mark Connolly.

Would you like to respond?

Only if you wish.

Um again to reiterate just a quick stormwater point.

After our very first meeting, understanding the concerns of several neighbors, if you had mentioned Mr.

Nealy, um we we've now had the opportunity to do a detailed stormwater management analysis of not only our properties but a good chunk of the abutting neighborhood.

And um the the numbers that were submitted to the planning board as part of our stormwater management report and summarized in in your packets today show a clear in our professional opinion, a clear improvement both on the quantity and the quality of stormwater reaching that wetland that will be um proposed that will result from our proposed project.

In terms of snow, I that that is an ongoing element that we need to work out with the operations of the city.

There's going to be there's a lot of nuances when you build a shared driveway on city right-of-way land.

Um, and there's a reason that we're building a shared driveway that the city has communicated to us.

We don't want more public roadway to have to maintain, and so by doing it as a shared driveway, we own that maintenance.

We own the maintenance of the stormwater, we own the plowing, we own all of that in our piece.

Um we do have to work out and have further conversations with um City DPW about exactly how they pave that today, how they would see that going forward, and how we can work with them as a partner.

Um, as attorney Prolman mentioned, this is we're still early in this project.

There's a lot more steps to go that are kind of atypical for a smaller size development like this, but um we're committed and have had multiple conversations already with city DPW, um, but there's still many to go.

Thank you.

Questions from the board?

I see none.

Now I'll close the public hearing and open up deliberations from the board.

Thoughts from the board.

Mr.

Leno.

It seems that they've done an exemplary job of addressing the concerns and uh redesign the proposal to uh address what we were asking about and what their neighbors were asking about.

So I'm in favor.

Other thoughts?

Mr.

Schaff.

Yeah, I'm in support, and I feel like um this is ultimately one of those that I believe by them doing this work that it's actually going to be an overall net positive for all these folks that did come and expressed all these concerns.

I think it's seems to be a very good outcome overall will result from this effort.

And I I mean I also applaud the applicant and the you know the work that they've done to get this project to this point, because it seems that you know there's there's a obviously been a lot of challenges to this for you know just a lot of logistical type things, but then when it really comes to this kind of uh some of this hard engineering, uh you know, I think it's been some very good work done.

So I think bottom line, I don't I think it looks like it will be a net positive and um in support.

Mr.

Neely.

When when I think back to the um to the first time they came before us, I mean we all did a site visit, there's quite a drop-off there, but these folks need to have the ability to develop their land, and and I think that this plan uh has gone above and beyond um you know, really, and that's why I asked attorney Krollman because he was there at CONCON like what was the real discussion?

Because I didn't I didn't watch the tapes, I I read the the transcripts and and that's uh why I wanted to hear really what they were talking about.

Uh trees have to come down.

I mean, it is what it is.

Our biggest concern before was that was the flooding.

Uh they've done a good job to keep the permanent houses out of the you know, the houses themselves out of the uh the buffer zone.

Uh I'll be honest, I'm one of the toughest critics when it comes to to wetland buffer zones.

Like I want I want you get in, get out, do whatever you gotta do.

Let's let's not touch them if we don't need to.

But I think the net end product of this, as as these gentlemen were talking about, is better because when you drive by there, there is erosion going on.

There's there's some some bad stuff going on, and quite frankly, the snow plow drivers will figure it out.

They're professionals, they do it every year.

You know, they'll figure out the place to put the snow.

Uh, I know we we've seen now multiple cases where people have commented on the snow removal, but Nashville snowplow drivers know what they're doing, they'll get it figured out.

So I'm in favor.

Uh and I agree.

Uh anybody want to make a motion?

I'll make a motion, Mr.

Boucher.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the special acception for silver lining development.

LLC owner 16th East Glenwood Street and L.

Linton Street, sheet 129, lots 187 and 259 requesting a special accession from land use code section 190-112 to impact approximately 6,500 square feet of wetland buffer area to construct a private shared driveway off of Linton Street, along with the associated site improvements for the future construction of three single family residential lots.

It's in the IRA zone ward seven.

We find that the requested use uh uh we we find that the residue is listed as a special exception in the use matrix.

Uh the requested use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair progesterone safety.

We find that the requested use will not overload any public water drainage or sewer system or any other municipal system to such an extent that the requested use or any developed use in the immediate year or in any other area of the city will be unduly subjected to hazards affecting health safety or the general welfare.

Uh the wetlands um special uh conditions uh um the nine criteria have have been uh met the requested use will not impair the integrity of the character with the district or immediate neighborhood in which it's located, nor be detrimental to health morals or welfare of the residents of the city.

Um also um there was a meeting on November 12th with the Concom.

Uh even though they uh uh recommend unfavorable uh recommendation.

Um we are uh this motion is to approve uh this application, and we will um put as a uh special the initial stipulations there are six that was listed in the letter.

We are gonna adopt those as part of the approval of this uh special exception.

So with that, I make a motion to approve the special exception.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Mr.

Shaw.

Uh any discussion.

All those in favor.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

All right.

So moving on to uh other business.

Has everyone had a chance to review the agenda for the next meeting?

Yes.

Does anybody see any regional impact?

No.

I do not either.

Could um could I ask though about the last item on that?

That about the public meeting only for 36 Granite Street and the HAB and all that.

So yes.

The HAB did not like the response from the board.

So they want the board to go back to their original to their original order.

And it addressed that.

So I think it's being more clear on the points of law.

How many times are we going to do this?

Apparently one more time.

We can talk about it afterwards.

But it's that's our understanding is they they want you to go back to the original hearing.

We believe we put together a package with their order and the minutes and the case information from the last time it went.

And um I thought it was all clear in the first place myself.

I think all of our staff did.

I mean, there was nothing in the or in the the HAB's order that said we had to restrict ourselves to um whatever the new points were.

I mean, I it seemed like we could uh from from my read of the order, I mean we seemed like we could do kind of a de novo review, but obviously the court mostly agrees.

They disagree with that, and they thought that was erroneous, and we should not have done that.

But that was our direction from correct right.

So I think that's why we did that that way.

And Mr.

Durfee had a proposed recommendation whether to have the board deny it or support it.

Right.

Solely up to the board.

Nothing to do with staff at all, because that was kind of blamed us, and the court also felt that Mr.

Durfee gave you the letter, you considered it.

You didn't even have to consider it, but you considered it, and you made your recommendation.

Solely the board did it, nothing to do with staff.

So they were okay with that.

I think they want to go over the reason why it came there in the first place.

I I read through the whole thing.

I I thought the motions were all very clear, very detailed, but I read through it also.

It just seems to me, I mean, I don't know what to do.

Just to editorialize it, although I probably shouldn't, that it seems like a waste of time for everybody concerned.

But nevertheless, it is what we need to do.

And so I I I I think we would you know we just need to read me the minutes, my view is it's it's based strictly on the record.

And that's that.

Because this is only a public meeting.

There's no public hearing.

We didn't advertise the abutters were notified, it won't be in the paper other than that little board at the end of the agenda.

Right.

So there won't be anybody here that can speak in in favor of it or against it on either side, because there's quite a bit of opposition.

So it's just the board.

But then we come up with the you know, our more clear amended findings, and then that's appealable.

So that's just all we can do.

Can you can you send us this goes back so far?

Can you see if somebody can find the YouTube and just send us the link so we can look watch it again or something?

Because either one, any of them, I don't know.

But the point is probably the first one is is is because this is goes back to the first one, right?

No, no, only from September of 2023.

And then it was about a year later in 2024, by the time it got back from the by the time the city got the order back from the HAB, it was about I think October of 90, October of 24.

Okay.

And I was out for those few months.

See what happens when you go away?

Sorry.

I know.

So somebody's gonna send us something so we can.

I'll see if I can find some kind of a UR read.

I mean, it may be in the if you go into YouTube, you can do city again, it just gave us the dates.

Whatever the dates are, so we can do that.

I'll give you all the dates.

I'll see what I can do.

Yeah, it does reference this 926-23 date, so that's why the place to start.

And so are we only gonna look at the 92623 and disregard the 24.

The 24 was where they objected to the decision that we made.

So then but then we had reopened the whole thing again.

That's what he objected to.

I think well, I I I I'd have to look back at it to make sure to uh I remind myself of which the dates are.

But that they are they are referenced in the order of the code.

I've read that order about six or seven times, and I'd have to read it another six or seven times to maybe understand it because it's not very clear.

Okay.

Um I don't think it was very clear in the very first order was very clear.

No at all.

That's all right.

We add I I read it pretty narrowly.

I read it to say, you know, we're gonna make we have to go and make a decision based on the record.

So based on the reckons the minutes in my view, so we have uh a little bit of a stack for everybody's reading pleasure.

At least it's before the Christmas break, so it'll be um hopefully uh uh it is what it is.

Yeah, just leave it that way.

I'm not quite sure the tiny in there, but yeah, when I when it's not gonna say any more about it when it comes to the next agenda, um so we're not gonna push back the DPW building, right?

They have they have to request that.

They have to send that send something to us in writing.

Otherwise we can't go on.

Right.

Someone's saying that we have to get something.

The expectation is it won't be till at least the second meeting in January now based on what we said.

But we have to unofficial right now.

There's still a lot of information that they need to come up with.

You know, yeah.

And I'm sure it has to go to the we may have to go to the fire commissioners, we may have to go to the board of public works.

There may be other people involved if there's funds and money involved, maybe additional reasonable to assume though that that item will not be on the agenda.

So we yeah, we will not probably not have the maintenance garage, the next meeting.

Probably not.

Yeah.

So that just gives us more time to chat.

Yeah.

All right.

My little question turned out to be a lot more than I know.

Expecting.

Forgetting about.

So now on to the minutes.

Just a couple of typos.

Um page seven, the paragraph of director Andrew Piper um line one and two last word of the third line place, I think should be space.

And then one, two, three, four lines out from that.

There's an extra um, there's an extra comma um after yard.

Um then um the only one that only further what I thought is page eight, uh where it says end of public hearing.

Line one, two, three, line four should start with R um instead of is.

That's it.

Anyone else have any changes?

No.

Seeing none, can we get a motion on the minutes?

So moved.

Move by Mr.

Lionel.

Second.

Seconded by Mr.

Neely.

All those in favor.

Is there any other business that we have this evening?

I think so.

Seeing none that motion to adjourn.

Move by Mr.

Shrine 37.

We have a second on that motion.

Seconded by Mr.

Neely.

And we are adjourned.

All right.

Hold on to your I maybe.

Yeah, taking the