Good evening.

Uh time is 701.

I would like to call to order the December 4th 2025 meeting of the City of Nashua Planning Board.

First item on the agenda.

Scott, would we be able to get a roll call, please?

Sure.

Start up here.

Mayor Donchus.

Bob Bollinger.

Here.

Adam Barley?

Here.

Maggie Harper.

Scott LeClair?

Here.

Dan Hudson.

Here.

Larry Hirsch.

Here.

Cameron Green.

Here.

Patricia Clee.

Here.

Benjamin Zoller.

Here.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh next item on the agenda.

Approval of meetings from November 6th, 2025.

Uh has any member of the board had an opportunity to review the meetings and is willing to make a motion regarding their acceptance or acceptance with modification?

Alderman Clee.

I'll make that motion.

All right.

Motion by Alderman Clee.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Mr.

Varley.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Abstentions.

Mr.

LeClair, Mr.

Zoller, and Mr.

Bollinger.

Next item on the agenda.

Communications.

Staff uh anything subsequent to receiving our packets?

Uh sure.

Uh I believe we have A twenty-five oh one six two forty Groton Road.

We have a revised staff report.

Updated plans showing the phasing.

Uh the uh waiver letter as well that's signed with uh 825041 16 Panashack Street is your uh butter correspondences.

I think we had a few come in.

And then A twenty five oh one eight one, I just handed out to you t tonight, one sixty-night Gangs of the Highway.

That's adding a condition to the C UP that includes comments from the engineering department working in conjunction with the building department to address some existing issues.

Okay, and and Scott, just for clarification, if board members had uh had checked the uh the online information, the only item that was not there uh late this afternoon was related to uh 169 EWA.

All right.

Mr.

Chairman Alderman Clean.

Yes, uh may I ask a question.

All of these though are on online so that the the viewers and the residents can just go online.

Thank you so much.

Yep, and uh we've also uh a last minute change to the ZAF for A25-0180 for uh the 106 pine trade extension, just updated ZAP report there.

And a updated uh tentative agenda.

And a updated uh tenant of agenda we had our packet go out the Friday before Thanksgiving, so it was a little uh last minute um and shorter uh runway time for us, so apologies for the uh you know changes we've made.

All right, thank you for the clarification.

Appreciate it.

Um on the agenda uh report of chair, committee, and liaison.

Um I I have nothing.

I see Ms.

Harper is not here this evening.

Um any other board member have anything to share at the moment.

All right, seeing none, we'll move along.

Um before we begin our regular cases, I would just like to read from the record the planning board procedure.

The procedure of the meeting is as follows.

After the legal notice of each conditional special use permit, site plan or subdivision plan is read by the chair.

The board will determine if the application is complete and ready for the board to take jurisdiction.

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

They shall speak as to whether or not they agree with the stipulations and recommendations by staff.

The board will have an opportunity to ask relevant follow-up questions of the applicant or staff.

The chair will then ask for testimony from the audience, and the chair shall have the ability to limit the length of public testimony in the interest of time.

First, anyone wishing to speak in opposition or concern to the plan may speak.

Please come forward to the microphone, state your name and address for the record.

This will be the time you express your concerns or ask questions you may have regarding the plan.

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

The board will then ask relevant follow-up questions of the applicant.

The applicant will then be given a rebuttal period at which time they shall respond to any concerns raised by prior public testimony.

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

We ask that both sides keep the remarks to the subject at hand and to not repeat what has already been stated.

We want to be fair to everyone and make the best possible decision based on the testimony presented and considering all applicable approval criteria established in the Nashville revised ordinance.

Thank you for your interest and your courteous attention.

I ask that you please turn off or silent your cell phones at this time.

Thank you.

Um before we call the first case this evening, which would be A25-0164.

I would like to stipulate um chair Mr.

Bollinger will recuse, as will Vice Chair uh Mr.

Varley.

Uh, in order to maintain a quorum, uh we're call on aldern uh alternate member, Mr.

Zoller.

He will be voting member um for this application this evening.

Um so and Mr.

Claire is going to sit in on discussions and call the call the case.

Just to clarification, you mean case A twenty five zero one seven nine?

Yes.

Just to clear the case.

Oh, yes, I'm sorry.

Yes, okay.

My apologies.

I was so excited.

I read the DPW number.

Yes.

I was gonna say that one is January 8th.

My apologies, yes.

Replace everything I said with case A twenty five-0179.

If anyone was here for case A25-0164 under new business conditional special use permits, the that case has been postponed until January, 2026.

So all right, Scott, thanks for the uh uh clarification.

Appreciate it.

Okay, calling uh case A twenty five zero one seven nine, that's ECNH real estate holding and owner and applicant requesting modification of condition number one on the conditional use permit of a casino gaming facility originally approved on September 7, 2023, subsequently modified September 19, 2024.

This property is located at 310 Danner Webster Highway, Pleasant Lane Mall.

Uh is anybody from the board had a chance to take a look at this application and want to make a motion as to whether it's ready for us to take jurisdiction?

Uh sure, Mr.

Chair, I'll make that motion that we take jurisdiction to case A250179 finding that the application is complete.

All right, so that motion by Mr.

Hudson to take jurisdiction.

Do we have a second?

Second by Mr.

Hirsch.

Any further discussion on the jurisdiction.

All those in favor?

I so that's raise them up quick for Scott.

I will not be voting on this.

Got it?

Yep.

Okay.

So we have jurisdiction.

Uh do we have somebody from the applicant that wants to uh present this case?

Good evening, Mr.

Chair, members of the board.

My name is Morgan Hollis.

I'm an attorney at Gottesman and Hollis, 39 East Pearl Street in Nashua.

I'm here representing the owner and applicant EC NH Real Estate Holdings Inc.

This is property which is known as the Nash, the gaming uh facility down uh former Sears building.

When this was approved in September of 2023, um there was a condition of approval that prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall reconstruct Pheasant Lane, Daniel Webster Highway intersection that is the corner at Zimmerman ski boards and more business as set forth in an attached memo from Wayne Husband.

And uh the parties have agreed to do that.

However, during the course of working out those improvements, it became uh obvious that and changes needed to be made to the Zimmermans because we're closing off their entrance uh right there at that uh kind of unusual intersection.

We have been working closely over the last two years with Macy's, which owns Pheasant Lane, it is a private way.

We are uh right at the very finish line.

Uh we actually thought we were there before.

Um, but construction really can't occur after September or October, and it can't occur before March due to the holidays.

Uh so we weren't able to get it done this year, and we're hoping uh it can be extended one more year to the end of next year.

As read into the record, it was extended in September of last year to to be done by this year.

It didn't get done.

We're asking for one more year extension, so that requires an amendment of the condition number one.

Happy to answer any questions about where we are.

We have all the design.

The next step for us is to come in with an amendment to Macy's site plan, target site plan, pheasant lane mall site plan, and uh Zimmerman's.

We believe all but Zimmerman's would be administratively uh approved and possibly Zimmerman's.

We're waiting for the final changes on the Zimmerman's plan.

But that would be the next step.

We anticipate that in the next month or two.

Okay.

Questions ultimately?

Just a quick one.

Um I I can see all the things that have happened so far, but um you you named all these um amendments and so on to each to each of the plans.

Zimmerman being the the most difficult one.

Do you feel that you're really there and could actually start come uh March or paper?

Yes, I I I don't think there'd be too much trouble.

We're at we're sort of at the last uh five yards of the football field, if you will, and that you know there's some lingering issues about uh who's indemnifying who during the construction period, who's performing the construction, do we have bonds and all that?

Just all the details that would be necessary, except we have five players and we have to make sure everybody's happy.

Just a quick follow up.

And you believe this will be all these negotiations that will be done before March or something, so you can actually get it started.

Very confident of that.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Hudson?

Uh I would just I would just ask it.

Uh I intend to modify the proposed condition to have completion be by August 31st.

I was just curious if that would be problematic given the fact that Zimmermans uh has conflict after August.

No problem.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Any other any other questions?

No, I'll just again I said this last time too, but I'm aware of the discussions that have happened.

I've had discussions with uh occasionally with the engineers and the team and can affirm that they have been working to try to bring this to fruition.

So um just it didn't happen on the timeline we wanted, but I'm I'm in support of it in given the fact that they have been uh proceeding orderly to try to get it done.

So any other questions of the applicant by the board.

Yep, thank you.

All right, all right.

At this point, I'd ask uh anybody in the audience wishing to speak in opposition and the concern to the plan, go ahead and come forward to the microphone.

Anyone wishing to speak in favor?

Okay, seeing no one come forward from the audience.

Uh give the board one more uh opportunity to ask questions of the applicant or staff.

Mr.

Green?

It's really for Dan.

But um is that 2026 this year?

That amendment, or would you say into to next year or the following year?

Sorry.

No, I think 2026 next year is fine.

If they don't feel they can meet that, they'll have to come back to us and seek another extension.

But there is a time of year issue where we don't want to impinge upon uh uh Zimmerman's business, which is you know primarily uh winter sports related.

So um, so yeah, if they get if they get get the plan work they need done, get out there in the spring.

There's plenty of time to construct what they need to construct within that summer season.

So I'm comfortable.

I'm comfortable with the August 31st uh 2026 deadline.

Any other uh questions or the board lower in the hearing?

Okay, I will go ahead and close the hearing on this, open the meeting.

Um seems pretty straightforward, but uh welcome any comments, discussion by the board while we're in the meeting.

Okay.

Anybody want to make a motion give it a try?

Just agree.

I'd like to make a motion on new business A25-0179 to amend condition number one of the September 5th, 2024 approval, and to read as the following prior to the issuance of certificate certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall have received final approval from the city of Nashua's engineering department of the public uh division of public works for the design and reconstruction of pheasant laneslash unit lips or highway intersection and shall post a financial security in the form of approved in a form approved by the city of Nashua and in the amount approved by the engineering department for all improvements.

Set improvements shall be completed prior to 8 31 2026 to be satisfied to the satisfaction of the engineering department, and we'll have the subsequent condition A as noted in the staff report.

Okay, so we have that motion by Mr.

Green to uh amend this condition as stated by Mr.

Green um with the subsequent conditions you indicated.

Uh do we have a second?

I'll second that motion.

Second by Mr.

Zoller.

Discussion discussion discussion.

Uh yeah, I just I'm confused about the certificate certificate of occupancy portion because I think that's been granted unless it was like an interim one.

I don't know if staff knows that.

Uh so I'm struggling with what the uh hook would be otherwise, other than just to give them the revised deadline to complete all efforts.

I mean we'll be will we rescind the approval if it wasn't done by a time certain or something like that.

No, it's my understanding that we are still holding a surety.

Um so that that itself is the hook, you know, otherwise we pull the bond and do the work.

So we don't need the financial surety has already been posted.

It's not tied to certificate of occupancy.

Uh uh.

I I think the hook would be you know, we would we would uh pulled bond basically if the work's not completed by that date.

So, you know, I uh maybe maybe uh amended condition that you know the city will consider the project complete if all work is completed by that date, otherwise we'll proceed with certain I don't know what the right language is, but that would we need a different change.

We need some kind of a change, I think.

No, I you make a good point.

Um obviously we're amending a condition that was set before the CO was issued.

Okay, and we're we're basically we're just amending that outside date for completion of the work.

Um while we recognize there is that disconnect because time has passed and work has been done and it it's occupied.

Um, obviously the intent is still to have the off-site improvements completed by September 31.

I think that still stands regardless of the fact that this condition leads off with prior to the issuance of the CO.

Um I'm curious what the rest of the board thinks about that.

Um we can come up with some language to make that amendment and then run it by the applicant's representative.

Um I mean my for one, I'm sorry, go ahead.

No, no, please finish.

I for one, I mean I'm satisfied with that in the light of how you uh described it, it's amending in a uh a previous condition.

Some of that condition has already been satisfied, right?

So, you know, okay, that's we're amending the condition, and it reads as it was, we're just changing the date, but but a number of those things have already been satisfied and checked off the list, so to speak, so it's just the remaining date issue that needs to be resolved.

Yeah, it's kind of how I read it, is just that this is the old condition, some of it's been met, but not all of it has, but it's seems appropriate to leave the condition as is and just change the date because they they still have to meet all the parts of it.

Yeah, absolutely.

Alderman Clean.

Uh thank you.

Um I think I'm on the opposite side of your thinking, because as I read this, it says that nobody can be there until December.

And the thing I'm reading here is December 31st, 2026.

Um we already know they have the I I don't know if we say that we are we can we can amend condition number one, but I think there should be a comment in there that while the um certificate of occupy has been granted, the assurety barn or whatever it is will be held um in lieu of until this work is is completed.

I I I do think that we have to state because we're amending it.

So the amendment is going to say the condition has been met for I'm not conditioned, but the certificate of occupancy has been granted.

However, it was granted for whatever reason.

This would read that we're not going to give them a certificate of occupancy until that, and and I know it's already been done and so on.

I just if I were to come a hundred years from now and read this, I'm not gonna know this whole thinking, and I'm gonna think that they didn't give certificate of occupancy.

So I try to always think of it that way.

So I'm not sure I feel comfortable.

Yeah, if I can just break down the condition and kind of the ordering a little bit um further.

You know, we say prior to the issuance of a CO, we require approval of the design.

Yes, that's been done.

Then we require uh financial surety, and that has been done.

And then there's a period.

So those two conditions, the design and the the money to build the design, that is all tied to the CEO.

Those two items have been completed, therefore the CO can be issued.

The last part of that is relative to the completion of those improvements.

And that's that outside date that we have the flexibility of still shifting while the CO has been granted because those two direct items that are tied to it, those have been completed.

I understand where you're coming from.

I think because of the way the condition was structured and frankly where the period is, I think we're okay leaving it as is.

But if if you're not comfortable with that, we can seek an alternative.

Ben?

Go ahead.

Yes.

Thank you.

Um no, I do feel comfortable when you when you when you state it that way um that the this improvements is not part of the um certificate of occupancy.

But you're saying this is this is separate and distinct from the the necessary items to give the certificate.

I feel comfortable now.

So thank you.

Any further discussion?

Ms.

Todson.

J to make it messier.

Could we just say uh amend the second sentence and condition not one and strike all and strike the whole first sentence so there's not duplication of the original first sentence?

Because the only thing we're amending is the date.

And somebody could go back and see what the first sentence was if they want, I go back to the previous agreement, but all that's been satisfied.

Just you know it would read um somebody a lay person reading it that hasn't had benefit of this discussion, could be confused and as as I was to start.

So may I it i if if the amendment itself just read change the date from this to this, that would be really clean.

Um because the the condition is still gonna exist.

The only thing you're changing in the condition is in fact the date, correct?

Yes.

So shouldn't what we read is that we are amending this condition number one, just that one date rather than trying to read the entire thing.

I again I'm just talking about from clarity.

Not that a hundred years from now people are gonna care about this, but if someone were to go back and look at it historically, I think it could be confusing.

Mr.

Green, can we just amend the first condition to draw up the second sentence and then do a new condition for the said and well the improvements at that intersection?

And then all subsequent conditions attached to that.

Um so Mr.

Hudson, you're saying strike the first sentence, which is the bulk of that condition, correct?

Yeah, I'm saying that in the header saying the motion is to amend amend the second sentence in condition one.

So we don't re-regurgitate the first sentence and confuse people.

That was my recommendation.

I didn't I'm not sure I quite understood what uh Mr.

Green's suggestion was.

So I follow that the second sentence relates back to the first in said improvements.

So therefore, you know, in the first sentence, the improvements are you know created as a condition.

The second sentence relies on the first.

Um I I'm saying explicitly call out the improvements.

But I guess it's tied back to the plan that was approved.

Yeah, I think for the sake of argument, um the planning department would kind of be the enforcing agents of this, if you will.

Um I think it's we have an understanding of what the situation is.

Um I think the the applicant has stated that or the applicant's representative that you know things are very close uh to to resolving.

Um just for the sake of simplicity, uh and if the board is comfortable, I would recommend keeping the language as is.

I think you know we've we've kind of come at this a few different angles, and I think the understanding is there.

Um but again, we can wordsmith this if the board feels it totally necessary.

Any other discussion by the board?

No, um yeah, yeah, just that I'm set I'm satisfied with the staff's uh draft if if uh we've tried to we've tried to change it a couple different ways.

If somebody really puts the whole record together, they can understand it, you know.

So I'm I'm fine with the way it is after the discussion.

Okay.

Any other discussion?

Mr.

Zoller.

Mr.

Chairman, can we just clarify the date uh for this condition?

I'm seeing December 31st, 2026.

Mr.

Hudson is uh suggesting 831 26.

Uh could we clarify it's yeah, the motion by Mr.

Green was for August 31st of 2026.

That's the motion that's on the table.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

All right, so we had the original motion, it's still in play.

I think it was seconded by Mr.

Zoller.

Okay.

All those in favor?

Hi.

Okay, so that motion passes unit.

And again, I'm not voting on it.

Okay.

Thank you, Scott.

Appreciate it.

Um Mr.

Varley and Mr.

Vollinger have returned as voting members of the board.

Uh moving on in the agenda.

Um case 825-0181.

Property located at 169 Daniel Webster Highway, requesting conditional use permit approval for medical office space.

Is any member of the board had an opportunity to review this application?

Is willing to make uh a motion regarding um board accepting jurisdiction and the application's completeness?

Mr.

Chair, prior to that point of order or question, I guess.

Yes.

Uh Mr.

Zoller, he sat on the last case.

Is he sitting on this case?

Thank you, Mr.

Hudson.

Uh Mr.

Zoller and Mr.

Leclerc are alternates.

Yeah.

Um they will have the opportunity to uh participate in discussion, um, but they will not be voting members of this particular case.

So just for their further question, I mean we don't have a full board, but that so we only seat them when we need a quorum for short quorum.

Correct.

Since we we have five uh a constituency comprised of at least five regular members plus our ex officio members that would take priority from a voting procedure.

Um and again, Mr.

Leclerc uh and Mr.

Zoller are welcome to participate in the discussions.

It's just technically, unless there is another refusal on another case this evening.

Um we would not then need them to be actual voting members.

All right, thanks for clarification.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Uh I guess getting back to uh case 825-0181.

Has any member of the board had an opportunity to review that application for completeness and is willing to make a motion regarding board accepting jurisdiction, Mr.

Varley.

Yes, Mr.

Chair.

Um I would make a motion that a case 825-0181 is complete and ready for the board to take jurisdiction.

All right, thank you.

Um motion by Mr.

Barley.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Hirsch.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

All right.

Board has jurisdiction.

Is there a representative on the half of the applicant?

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh members of the board, my name is John Crowley, uh representative of 169 Daniel Webster Realty Trust, uh, the landlord, and then also of optimal dermatology, the proposed tenant at 169 Danny Webster Highway.

Um from 11 New Hampshire Avenue in Fort Smith, New Hampshire.

Uh so currently at 169 Daniel Webster Highway, we're proposing a uh medical office use performing dermatological care, including medical and cosmetic uh outpatient services located on the third floor, converting an existing office space to a medical office use.

Um criteria of a uh of use, uh, the first being uh authorizes a conditional use, the medical office use is allowed in the uh RC district by conditional use pursuant to 190 15 table 15.1 use 247.

The existing building is uh presently used for office and medical office purposes, including a REMAX office and a men's health clinic uh operating as men's uh game day men's health, who previously received a CUP uh at some point believe last year, uh demonstrating both eligibility for the existing code and precedent for medical office on this parcel.

There would be compliance with uh applicable requirements and standards.

The proposed medical office uh would comply with all dimensional parking, signage, lighting, and landscaping and performance standards.

There are no proposed changes to the building footprint or height, uh, and this is only in reference to an interior fit up of the current building.

Uh there'd be no material endangerment to public health and safety.

This is a low impact uh appointment-based use with predictable and staggered patient arrivals.

There's no emergency department function uh and any medical biohazard waste handled by uh state and and local regulations as part of our best practices at optimum dermatology.

Uh and the site is also accessed via an existing signalized intersection on Daniel Webster Highway, uh, which supports safe egress and ingress.

There'd be no substantial devaluation of the abutting property.

Uh there the neighboring abutting property is St.

Joseph's Hospital, currently operating as a uh medical office facility as well.

Uh the rear of the parcel also has uh residential use divided by a thick tree line with no access from the uh the access to the parcel uh to the residential uses in the rear.

The compatibility with neighborhood and adjoining uses, uh it's located on Daniel Webster Highway, a busy commercial corridor containing heavy retail and office uses and directly abuts the aforementioned St.

Joseph's Hospital Medical Building.

Uh the residential butters to the rear, as I mentioned, are separated by that tree line and provide year-round acoustic and uh visual buffering to the medical office use.

There would also be no adverse impact on highway or pedestrian safety given that there's no exterior changes uh to the parcel.

The uh no substantial adverse impacts to natural environmental resources, uh again, no no exterior changes proposed uh for our use, just the uh conversion of the existing third floor of the parcel or the property, uh, and then adequate public utilities and and community facilities.

Uh it's already serviced by public water sewer electric.

Uh the proposed use will not require system expansions or extraordinary public expenditures.

The initial water use and infrastructure in the building has been reviewed by our general contractor and our uh mechanical engineer for anticipated fixture counts and any uh necessary improvements for uh water use for exam room sinks and and the like and don't anticipate that being uh uh need in this uh building, and then uh the last criteria uh there will be no uh downtown parking requirements.

This is not located in that district.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um before you step down, uh questions from the board.

Mr.

Hudson.

I just want to uh confirm you received the December 1st, 2025 uh letter from uh engineer Joe Mandola and take no exception to any of the conditions requested.

Uh I I did not.

I heard that uh mentioned.

Happy to address any comments on that now.

Yeah, I'll I'll just briefly cover on comment.

Comment one is that uh the sewer service dates back to 1980.

Uh we're requesting a uh a video just to confirm the sewer service is still in good condition, and so we will continue to use comment two is a modification of sewer permits required for the change in use.

That's that's generally true for any any such modification.

Um then three, a stop buyer should be painted at the approach to the driveway intersection.

And then four is that we request a traffic impact report.

That's just to document any change in uh traffic volumes as as as a result of the report.

So you can that usually is a comparison of the existing use versus the proposed use, and there's a form to be filled out by somebody uh a professional that's uh you know familiar with that process, and uh you know, once we have that, we can determine if any additional you know mitigation or anything is required as a result of the traffic impact, but we can't really do that until we have that.

So that's the summary of the conditions, and I apologize you didn't receive them till now, but um if you take exception to those, let me know.

But we do intend to I hope the board uh approves this with a condition that those be satisfied uh prior to issuing the building permit.

So that's what the proposed condition is.

Yep.

Um uh happy to uh meet those conditions.

Uh the only one I have a question on is just the traffic impact report.

Uh if there's the existing conditional use of medical office on this property as it states right now, just specific for this tenant or is there any ability to is that no is there is that in the same space like the space you're using now, is that a medical office?

Is this a medical office to medical office?

It's uh no that third floor is a uh currently a standard office.

Oh yeah, yeah.

But in within the building, it's mixed uh office and medical office use.

Yeah, I think at this point I um I like to leave the condition as written to have you do a traffic impact report.

Having said that, if you want to follow up with my office, we can talk to the senior traffic engineer and see.

I I don't know that I don't know if uh I mean we need somebody to make an assessment of what's changes, but we can we can further discuss it, I guess is is what I'm offering.

But I'm not ready to make a change to that at this point.

The only thing Mr.

Hudson I would offer just in terms of the of the nomenclature, obviously it's referred to to that in in city ranks, but it it doesn't inherently mean you're doing a full traffic study along all the Webster Highway.

It's it's a fairly rudimentary form.

Um I I can't pretend to know what the results would say, but um I I think if you work with with Mr.

Hudson and his staff, they can give you the proper guidance, and I I don't believe that this would be terribly burdensome um to your to your effort.

Understood.

Thank you for that clarification.

Yeah, Alderman Clee, please.

Thank you.

And this may be for Mr.

Hudson or for the the board in general.

Um when we request a traffic impact study report, and again, I don't think there'll be necessarily anything significant with this particular thing.

What is it that we are looking for just to say what the impact is?

Because if if it were significant impact and we'd already approved this, it would be out of our hands.

Um that's kind of yes, Mr.

I don't I I don't view I don't think this will be significant impact.

I think it's uh fairly low generator use to another fairly low generator use.

Um we do have the uh you know contribution that requests for a quarter fund sort of thing, and we just want to document what the change in peak hour trip rate is to see if there's a basis for you know it being sufficient that we would request some kind of a uh financial contribution.

Um we we you know typically for the applicants benefit, usually we request a contribution to the uh DW highway quarter fund of 250 dollars per uh increased trip uh uh count um during the PM peak hour.

So that's that's kind of the basis for the comment.

Um it maybe there will be any impact based upon the uses.

I don't know that that's just why we need this exercise completed.

And it probably should the condition probably should set a TIR form because that's we have a we have a form as uh the chair noted we have a form to kind of fill out uh initially, it's not like a full traffic study, uh, and I don't envision this blowing up to a full traffic study, but but we do want documentation of what the change in the trip rate will be during the PMP car.

Just to add further clarification, it's it's generally required of all applications.

It's it's a preliminary worksheet.

I again my presumption would be as Mr.

Hudson alluded to, this is not going to show a significant impact.

Um but I I think that for completeness that's what they're asking for.

So I don't want to again compound the issue of traffic on Danny Webster Highway is what it is.

I don't think that you're gonna add to that substantially.

Nevertheless, the city does have means and mechanisms whereby they are trying to improve the corridor.

So any documentation that you can provide subsequent to the fact would I believe further the city's goals and trying to uh uh maintain and upkeep the that corridor.

So again, this is not gonna turn into some nebulous traffic issue where you're solving problems up and down the corridor.

So please don't construe it as such.

Um Alderman Clee.

Thank you.

Um still on that particular thing where we we just say um even if we said traffic impact report form, if in fact that does show any whether significant or insignificant change you mentioned a 250 uh five dollar over each one.

Is that implied um or do we have to state that they would have to meet the if there is an increase they have to meet it?

Do we need to put that in here?

It would be better if the condition, if there was a condition basically that and you know, and request a contribution, uh you know to the DW highway quarter fund, 250 dollars per increase trip if applicable, you know, that would be better.

Yeah, I would feel more comfortable if we were to change that to to read that if that's okay.

You yeah, certainly, even if um maybe even without uh at the end, you know that's the number.

I just don't want to paint that.

That is the number per trip.

I just don't know.

I don't know, obviously I don't know what the impact is, if any.

Certainly.

Uh just just to clarify though, I mean that that's a um in terms of how that's structured in the ordinance.

I mean, it is a request for contribution, right?

Yes.

So it's not it's not really uh it's not an really a condition.

I think we can so I just want to clarify.

I think the the way we would probably word that is that in the event that it generated sufficient number of trips, did you would expect a contribution request?

Sure.

That's good.

Okay.

Other questions or comments from the board?

All right.

Um thank you.

I will open up to the public.

Um any member of the public wishing to speak in opposition or with concern to this application.

Any member of the public wishing to speak in favor of this application.

Seeing none, uh, throw it back to the board one more time.

All right.

Uh gonna close the public hearing uh at this time.

We'll go into our meeting.

Um appreciate the clarification, Dan, on some of the outstanding um uh technical matters.

Um that being said, I I I otherwise think this is fairly straightforward.

Um, but we have had the piping or the sort of question come up on other CEPs, so um that this is not uh something that's being you know uniquely applied to to this applicant.

Um you know, similarly with the the TIR worksheet, um that's more or less required of all applicants.

So again, I don't think that's uh an undue burden passed along uh to this applicant.

Um so I I think if it it seemed like the board was comfortable with the um stipulations in the engineering letter um uh dated earlier this week um with obviously one potential modification um regarding um uh the potential for for some sort of off-site exaction or voluntary contribution.

Um I don't know if that's kind of my two cents, but obviously like to hear from the board if you have any other thoughts on the matter.

I personally agree with what you've just said, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Um further discussion amongst the board.

Uh if not, I think we'd be looking for for a motion if uh any member of the board is comfortable doing so at this time.

Uh Mr.

Varley, Mr.

Chair, I I will go ahead and take a shot making a motion on this one.

Um so I would make a motion to approve new business A25-0181.

Um finding that it does meet the criteria uh for conditional use permit approval in NRO section 190-133 F.

And um that would include um one condition, and um I'm going to amend the conditions written in the staff report, so it will read prior to issuing the building permit, all comments and memo from Joe Mendoa, senior staff engineer dated December 1st, 2025 will be resolved to the satisfaction of the division of public works, and furthermore, um to the extent that the uh required traffic impact report indicates um that additional trips would be generated at the site.

Um with the understanding that the division of public works would then request a uh voluntary contribution of 2500 250 dollars per trip in accordance with the ordinance.

Thank you.

Uh motion by Mr.

Varley.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Green.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Motion passes unanimously.

Who's the second on that?

The second.

Us, Mr.

Green.

Mr.

Green, thank you.

All right.

Moving along in the agenda, uh, new business site plans.

Uh again, the uh division of public works project has been postponed until January 8th.

Um next item on the agenda would be case 825-0162 property located at 40 Groton Road.

Has any member of the board had an opportunity to review this application for completeness and is willing to make a motion regarding the board accepting jurisdiction?

Mr.

Varley, please.

Mr.

Chair, I would make a motion that um having reviewed case A25-0162 that is complete and ready for the board to accept jurisdiction.

Thank you.

Motion by Mr.

Barley.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Hirsch.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Hi.

All right.

Board has jurisdiction.

Mr.

Zayjack, the floor is yours.

Thank you.

Well, good evening, uh, Mr.

Chair, members of the board.

For the record, my name is Tom Zayak.

I'm a civil engineer with Heiner Swanson.

Now I make three Congress Street here in Nashua tonight representing the applicant, uh, Bishop Gerton High School.

Uh tonight we're seeking uh site plan extension uh for the approval of a athletic field complex located at 40 Groton Road.

Uh this is our third uh extension request.

Uh this project was originally approved in September of 2022.

I think most of the board members uh were here for the original project, so I won't go into too much detail, but we've got a great program here for uh Bishop Curtin High School in terms of uh multiple fields, tracks, tennis courts, a maintenance locker room facility, uh about 225 parking spaces as well as a number of uh public uh pedestrian improvements uh on site.

Um we were pretty up front with the board when we came in originally in uh 2022.

Uh we were moving forward with the permitting of this project in advance of Bishop Gurton uh purchasing the property, which they did after the original approval, but we were up front that we would be back because it was gonna be a long process, and here we are three years later, um, hopefully near the end of that process and ready to break ground.

So uh BG did move forward with purchasing the land.

Uh there are a number of things that we've been working on since that time.

Uh most importantly is fundraising for the project.

Uh but there's also there was a little bit of hair on the property in terms of we discussed this a triangle of land.

We've been working with DOT to acquire that land.

If anybody's been uh part of a surplus land acquisition with uh DOT it takes some time.

Um along the way uh over the last couple years we've modified a couple of the original conditions of approval again just to help facilitate and and give uh BG a little bit of flexibility as they execute uh this vision.

Um so tonight again we're here seeking uh a third site plan extension.

Uh as part of that request, we're also seeking a waiver of section 190146 E1.

It's outlined in my letter uh dated November 24th, 2025.

Um waiver request essentially to uh extend the typical 12-month period that uh the applicant would have to either uh obtain a building permit or establish a use on site and to allow us to extend that by 12 months for a total of 24 months.

Um again, uh this is a unique uh user, unique uh project in terms of a nonprofit or organization seeking to raise funds.

Uh I'll talk about phasing in a second, but essentially what that would do is give us a little more time uh to to complete portions of the project to vest it, so we're not consistently coming back here.

Um we are ready to start, which was a different message than I've been uh preaching previously.

Um there are some conditions we need to wrap up uh before that uh happens, um, and then some conditions that we'll need to continue to uh work through as the project progresses.

Uh the one change to the site plan uh is the addition of phasing plan, so those are in the back of the set.

I think Scott's gonna kind of roll through some of those uh for you.

Um this was really driven again by a need uh realistic view of what BG can construct over time, and again, allowing us to both best the project and uh establish the use.

It's it was also required by uh DES as part of our AOT permit process uh to break down uh 20 acres of development into chunks.

I'll really quickly go through those.

So the first phase is just mass grading earth work and prep again uh to create that pad site.

Um the second phase is really starting on the west side of the site or on the left hand side of the plan as you're viewing it.

We would construct the entrance drive, some of the uh infrastructure, including water, electric, drainage, the multi-sport field, uh parking, uh, and then maybe most importantly, uh the public uh parking and trailhead connection uh from the site uh through to the Dunstable Mass Conservation Land.

Uh the second phase would be kind of more in the middle part of the site.

Uh you've got your maintenance locker room building, the tennis courts, and some additional parking.

Uh finally the fourth phase again moving from left to right on your screen to the easterly part of the site would be uh the track and field and some additional improvements along uh Groton Road.

As I mentioned again, this is uh being proposed uh to really establish the vesting and use on site as well as meet AOT permit requirements.

So that's really it in terms of my presentation.

Those are fine with the applicant, and be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Tom, one quick question.

But I think in your letter, there was a second waiver request related to site plan standards.

I just wanted to make sure we have we have the correct information.

Oh, I think that's just my uh justification in terms of meeting the uh waiver criteria.

Okay, that was true.

You you worried me for a second.

All right.

Okay, no, I just want to make sure that's just just one waiver.

One waiver, two waivers.

Gotcha.

All right.

We're um other members of the board.

Alderman Clee.

I think it's it's not so much a question.

Well, in some respects it is, um, I I understand um the the need to have approvals in place in order to be able to get fundraising, especially those larger dollars, they don't want to donate unless they know that you're you can move forward with it.

Is is that kind of where you're coming from that you you need to be able to get it, but you have to keep all this stuff in place in order for them to say, okay, I believe that you're really gonna use my money in the right way.

Exactly.

It's a little bit of a if you build it, they will come.

So that's what we're hoping to do.

And uh we've got we've got uh you know that initial momentum to be able to start the project, and certainly that's our hope uh is to uh once folks see uh the site and see it being built, uh, we'll be able to move quicker uh than we have so far.

I I think that's pretty pretty common.

Um I I think the humane society has had that issue.

I can tell you with the performing arts center, we had the same issue.

You you have to show you have everything in place for the um larger wallets to open up.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Uh questions from other members of the board.

Mr.

Hudson, please.

I don't I don't know.

Is this so much a question as uh kind of an ongoing uh issue or a thing to figure out, so to speak, so that when we approve this, there was some sort of unresolved traffic mitigation questions.

There was a study that was being completed that was done, I believe, uh date back in 2022, but I don't I don't know as we fully vetted what those off-site improvements would be.

Um I this being broken into four phases, but makes perfect sense.

You know, I just I don't want to wait 10 years or however long it takes to build this out for all those mitigation items to be completed at when I want to time some of those for when the site starts generating traffic.

Um so I don't know as we're to the point that we have anything specific to bidding conditions, it's just I I believe there's some previous condition about uh addressing those comments.

I just want to make the board aware of that.

Um we're not necessarily in a position today, like I said, to stipulate a certain improvement at a certain point in time.

Um I believe we owe the uh traffic engineer and the and the applicant basically uh a response to that report.

Um working with uh senior traffic engineer uh husband on it.

Um I don't think I don't think this has gone out, but we basically talked about the following items.

I'll just mention briefly.

Um these are our comments on traffic study.

We would like to see new traffic counts for the AM and P on peak hours at the intersection of Buck Meadow Road and Main Dunstable Road.

You may recall that we did the study for the middle school, now that's open.

We really want to post to assess what are we actually seeing now that that's done versus what was projected and and uh you know how that may be impacted by this development.

Um the warrants.

We note that the warrants are met for an exclusive left turn lane on Groton Road.

We're not requesting a full left turn lane, but we believe an eight to foot, 10 foot bypass shoulder may be appropriate treatment.

So again, that's something we would want to further discuss with the applicant what's feasible and when maybe that should happen.

Um we had a lot of crashes at the uh main dunstable and buckmound road, Gilson Road intersection.

We recently put up some flashing stop signs there.

I don't know if people have seen those.

Uh sorry, yeah, sorry to hear that.

Um so we in an effort to reduce speeds on a main dunstable, which we think is part of the contributing issue there.

We were gonna request a rate uh speed limit sign with radar speed feedback.

There's a couple crosswalks on Bain Dunstable uh between CONAT Road and well there's one at the Corn Road intersection, but then there's another one uh between there and Buck Meadow, and we were gonna request rapid flashing beacons for those crossings, be added for those crossings.

And uh lastly, we we were gonna request that we widen the ridge road approach uh to allow a short left turn lane.

That approach is one lane, and that would allow people to turn right while while the harder move to turn left is is happening.

So I hope those are fairly you know reasonable requests given the proposed development and that what the traffic study says for numbers again.

Uh the applicant hasn't even seen these, so I'm not gonna put anybody on the spot.

I just want to make the board aware of a continuing discussion that we'll be having.

Um and and I don't know what the mechanism is, but like I said, I don't want to wait till everything's constructed at a long future date before we accomplish some of these.

So I hope to work out a phasing plan for some of these.

Um assuming that the applicant's uh accepting of them.

So be happy to address any questions about that.

Yeah, I I I I appreciate that your thoughts on that.

Mr.

Hudson, um that said, I I'm not suggesting that you thought we should do this.

I I wouldn't know how to craft that into um, you know, but I I I I guess maybe it's a question for the applicant.

Are they amenable to working uh with DPW uh thro through through the process?

I I guess I don't know if reasonable milestones or triggers could be arrived upon.

Um but uh obviously if it some of this is new information um tonight, I I wouldn't want to put um the applicant's representative on the spot, but um I guess are we uh are we up against the deadline or should we continue this?

I mean, maybe give the applicant we'll issue the comments and have an opportunity.

If we're up against the deadline, then I'm fine to continue it and just note that we're gonna have a continuing discussion.

I just is what happens sometimes.

Like I remember when we went back two or three years ago, whatever the original proposal was, we're there was urgency, we're trying to get it approved.

So we some of the traffic stuff we hadn't resolved.

And we all were all aware of that, we knew that, and now fast forward two or three years later, whatever it is, we're still at that point.

No fault of anybody that raising money, they don't really have a project yet, honestly, right?

So I I'm not casting any dispersions on that, but we these unresolved issues still remain is my only point and information for the board.

Alderman Clee.

Uh thank you.

Um I I think I would rather have it continued so that these things don't get buried again.

And as a person who was hit and they at the intersection of um Buckmeadow and um and so on, and actually it was the person coming out of Buck Meadow that hit the end of my truck and rolled it around.

So uh I do think that things certain conditions and so on should be put in place before we even give the extension.

I I I the first person to say that I understand in order to get fundraising and so on, you need this, but you're not gonna be breaking ground yet or doing anything is this, it's just to be able to continue this.

So I guess this would be for staff.

If we if we continue this, does this hurt the applicant?

Um, in the sense that they would not lose uh the approval, it would not expire.

They have an application for extension before you, so we'd consider it in process.

Um, I'm sure the applicant would love a favorable determination this evening.

Um but if they're amenable, obviously uh to continuing this discussion.

Um, no, there their approval would not be in jeopardy of expiring.

May I just I'd like to hear from the application?

He's right there, and we're we're we're still in our public session.

So sorry.

Sorry, no, please.

Um just a couple things, and I'm happy to have this discussion.

I think the goal is to get the site plan extension in the waiver tonight.

Um if you look back through the history of the minutes, you know, Mr.

Hudson is correct.

We came here in 2022 and said, look, we've got a project, we'd like to get an approval.

We're willing to be flexible on some of the conditions.

So the way I was just looking back at the original conditions, it puts the onus on the applicant to work with Mr.

Hudson and his team related to the traffic items, and he's correct.

We kind of did it in phases, and then as this project somewhat stalled, as we were not in a rush, you know, neither side kind of pushed things.

So uh obviously I'd like the opportunity to have our team uh meet with with Mr.

But in terms of continuing, I think I'm not defer to staff, obviously the board.

I think the language is already there that it the burden is on the applicant to satisfy the traffic related comments conditions phasing prior to finding uh final site plan signing.

Mr.

Varley, did Mr.

Chair Thank you just to follow up either Tom or Sam, one of you can you do you have the that original condition in front of you?

Because that was my question.

How is that written?

Yeah, so it says prior to the chair signing the plan, the applicant shall perform a phase one traffic impact study as discussed with city planning, engineering, and traffic staff.

Period, if any off-site improvements are identified as part of the study, the applicant shall prepare and submit design plans for staff review and approval.

Um I think there's maybe an opportunity to uh broaden that out a little bit.

We've gone back and forth three or four times with pieces of studies.

There needs to be more discussion, but it can be along the lines of more of the general conditions you would see is address traffic-related comments from the division of public works to their satisfaction prior to to signing the plan, and that would put the burden back on us to come to that agreement whether there needs to be a phased approach or or not.

Yeah, I mean, Mr.

Chair, personally, I I'm comfortable that that original condition is sufficiently broad.

I think that it would encompass you know the possibility of that phasing it would allow Dan you and your team to say this is what we'd like phasing and come to agree with the applicant.

So I uh I mean that's that's where I I was sort of leaning that way as well.

And I obviously I I appreciate Mr.

Hudson bringing up reminding the board that there were sort of uh outstanding matters related to to the mitigation.

Um yeah, Mr.

Hudson.

Yeah, I would just given that reminder that it's prior to signing the site plan, I'm totally fine with that.

I just didn't want to get into a couple phases, create some CLs without this stuff and being resolved.

I didn't want it to be the end of the processing, but given that it's at the beginning of the process, you know, before the work starts that we have to iron that out completely satisfied with that, so that's fine.

Sorry, I appreciate it.

Alderman Clee, did you?

I I I really would leave it up to uh Mr.

Hudson if he feels that they can negotiate and um whether it's all the things that are there or just something that the two can the two groups can entities can work out.

I feel comfortable with it.

Go ahead.

Yeah, and I think I I may have mentioned this to Mr.

Zajak previously, but basically, we will be looking for some of the safety permits earlier rather than later in full disclosure, you know, some of the other stuff, turn lanes and whatever, those only need when you're generating sufficient traffic at the site, but uh the the quarter can use some of these safety improvements, they're gonna have a traffic impact on it.

Um so yeah, but uh we can work together.

I mean, we're reasonable.

We'll figure it out.

Obviously, I I'm not the one writing the check to me that seems reasonable.

If there's if there's you know low cost uh you know short-term measures that could be implemented sooner rather than later.

To me, that makes sense.

But it seems like it seems like there's a willingness amongst the parties here to to work together towards a resolution.

Um so I don't think anybody is is inherently objecting to that.

Um so again, I I I would lean towards approval uh of the extension or the waiver as as written, and again, understanding there there are some other uh matters that you need to to be resolved.

Um, but uh obviously staff is um gonna perform their due diligence on that.

Obviously, we we trust you and and Mr.

Husband to to follow through accordingly.

So other questions or thoughts from the board.

All right, seeing none, I will open it up to the public.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Zay Jack.

Um are there any members of the public here to speak in opposition or with concern to this application?

Yeah.

Just if you could just state your name for my name is uh Sri That Donibudi.

We leave uh the development uh right next to the uh the project.

So in the last few years, uh uh after the approval lot of trees that died, did the buffer zone back being at least uh new development uh and uh our uh development lot of trees died.

So are they going to plant uh any trees to uh that we lost uh because to reduce the noise?

So that we want to I I have a question about that.

All right, yeah, you can uh you can obviously uh thank you for addressing your comments to the board.

Uh the applicant's representative he'll come back up and he'll have an opportunity to respond to that directly.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Uh uh other members of the public that wish to speak in opposition or with concern.

Good evening, board.

My name is John Tradchalk, five Airly Ave again, also abutting the uh project.

So I just had a couple questions, more for clarification.

Um the first would be what's the actual planned use of the facility?

Obviously, if it's athletic fields, but is it for practices?

It's for games.

Um, what will the usage be?

Like wake weekdays, weekends, nights.

Um what if anything is gonna be planned to account for the increase in traffic and pedestrian safety?

As it sits currently, I do know that on the north side of Groton Road, there's a sidewalk that just kind of ends, and there's a crosswalk, and when you cross uh when you go across it on the south side, there's no sidewalk there, and that's on the side where the Dunstable Land Trust is.

And where the fields will be.

So I just want to know if anything's gonna be done there to you know make a better sidewalk for that.

Um then the last question would be is there going to be any public use of these facilities, you know, when it's not in use by the Bishop Garden School?

That's it.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Um other members of the public wish to speak in opposition or with concern, come on up.

Everybody, uh Joe Farali at 7 Airly F, actually John's neighbor.

Um, pretty much one of those houses right up button against the uh football field there.

Um yeah, my biggest thing is I've got three kids, you know.

There's a lot of kids in the area.

The area's actually completely changed in the last two to three years.

It's a lot more residential, a lot more older people.

I think there's a 55 and older uh whole entire section that's there.

Um my concern is during the construction phase.

What kind of equipment's gonna be coming down the road?

Who's gonna be responsible for fixing the road from the heavy equipment coming through?

Will there construction be going on during the weekends?

Will there be uh you know, will be going through the night?

Um, and also what kind of safety measures are gonna be doing, not just the traffic mitigation after it's built, but during so I know that that road's pretty heavily you know traveled, but when it comes to the amount of residential areas that are there and the amount of people and how dense it's become in the last two to three years, what is it gonna look like safety-wise for those large equipments coming in and out at all hours of the day and time, night, things like that.

Um there be lights installed, and does the city of Nashua have a rule against turning them off at a certain time?

Because that's gonna go right through the trees into my house.

I know it sounds like it might be in opposition to this, but honestly, I'm really excited about this as an athlete myself.

I think it's a great thing, a great feature to have.

Um, but I would also love to have my five-year-old and my three-year-old kind of be able to make use of those facilities when they're not in use.

Walk around the track.

Um, you know, just be able to make use of something that we see every single day in our backyard, if that's possible.

Um just like John said, just to reiterate, we do need a crosswalk there.

It's extremely dangerous.

Um, there really isn't anything for it to go to, it doesn't really make any sense.

Um yeah, that's pretty much it.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Uh other members of the public wish to speak in opposition or with concern.

I have one more question, and I'll go mention.

I'm the introduction.

Oh, sir, sir, sir.

Just wait till you get to the microphone.

We need to pick up the audio.

Thank you.

So the regional to main dunce table intersection, there is no shoulder there.

It's a pretty dangerous during the winter time.

Uh now a lot more kids coming, they're driving, right?

That particular area needs to be taken care of.

There is no shoulder.

If somebody makes a mistake, they will go right into a couple of houses there uh on the right-hand side of the road.

So there is no shoulder at all.

That's a decaying that uh even whatever that is left that is decaying.

So why while it may not be a BG issue to solve the problem, is it you're going to do anything, right?

Because a lot more kids will be driving to this facility.

So you can walk there and you can see that there's no shoulder at all on the right side.

Okay, Mr.

Chair.

Can we just have a clarify?

Are you talking along the front edge?

No, no, the retro to the main dunce table intersection.

Right.

Yeah, yeah, main dunce table intersection.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh anyone else would wish to speak in opposition or with concern.

Seeing none, does any member of the public wish to speak in favor of this application?

All right.

Seeing none, I'm gonna allow uh the applicant to respond to the questions that were raised.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um as you know, we're here for the site plan extension and the waiver request.

Um I'm more than happy to speak to some of the items uh both the uh airly ab development and the Terrell farm development across the road uh were either um not yet constructed or under constructed when this project was originally approved.

So I certainly appreciate the the questions and comments from those uh residents, and I'm happy to answer them here and certainly happy to speak to them after in terms of uh all the information we went through as part of the original project, the use, the hours of operation.

Um I'll speak to the the the tree buffer that you know uh measure that's out there.

So I think that on their uh property, that property was uh I believe it was a conservation subdivision.

So there is a stretch of open space land that exists on their side of the line, and then as reflected on our site plan, there is a buffer that will remain there after this full project is completed.

So there will be a treat a treat buffer at that location.

As I talked about in terms of phasing, we're planning on working our way from west to east, so furthest away from them to start.

Um in terms of uh hours of operation and use.

I mean, a lot of that is on record in terms of what we described and what we talked about.

Uh this was intended to be uh uh more of a uh off-site practice facility uh for varsity, JV freshman levels, as well as uh competition games for some of those you know, lower intensity uses.

I think we were uh you know described that BG continues to utilize Stella Stadium for their you know larger events, and that would continue.

That's not really the intent of the facility as it was proposed.

Um it will be a private facility, so it's fully fenced in in terms of the fields, it wouldn't be open to the public.

But uh one of the really cool things that we thought about this project is um the public improvements in the pedestrian connectivity.

So this site sits in between Southwest Park, Udicki Farm, uh the rail trail, and of course the Dunstable conservation land.

Um as the neighbors probably the residents probably know uh uh the public uh parks along Groton Road.

If you're out there on a busy day, there's maybe sometimes 30, 40 cars that are all parked along there, and they utilize an existing path that you see on there to access the Dunstable conservation land, trespassing through the property, it was never really a force, so everybody kind of does it.

So as part of the project, there's a public trailhead that will be built parking and trailhead interior to our project outside of the fence and allow the public to park in a safe manner and walk around uh this development and access to Groton Road.

There's also a shoulder extension along Groton Road that will serve as a pedestrian connectivity to the rail trail to the west, and the uh crosswalk that the gentleman spoke with, which was put in uh for the Terrell Farm Project across the street, and we're gonna connect to that and kind of formalize that connection.

So I think a lot of those uh pedestrian uh improvements are really gonna benefit uh the general public in that in that area.

Um we spoke a little bit about traffic as Mr.

Hudson alluded to.

There's some discussion to talk about.

Uh I will say for the record that this project should not necessarily be responsible for fixing all the ills along the corridor all the way back, but um I stand by my statements that we'll work with with Mr.

Hudson and his team as we always do to come up with a solution that works for for all parties.

Um we didn't really get into discussion on lights and other things as part of the original approval.

I think we uh talked a little bit about the the standard hours that the city parks would have.

Um it's important to note that because this is a you know private facility to be you know used by Bishop Gerton and and other and other folks in terms of traffic.

I do think it's more of a seasonal use.

So during the winter time, this isn't gonna be used during the daytime.

Uh there would be little use if any, so in terms of traffic, certainly there would be peak uses, but in other times uh the site would be would be vacant.

Um and then lastly, there were some uh questions and comments about uh construction noise and traffic, and certainly BG and their their uh site team would would uh follow all city ordinances in terms of uh traffic and uh hours of of construction.

No, Mr.

Chair.

I I apologize if I missed anything.

I tried to address some of the notes I took down.

No, Mr.

Zajak, thank you for uh for addressing them.

Um follow-ups for for Mr.

Zajak, uh Alderman Clee, and I I guess I do just want to state one thing.

Um the request this evening is for a time extension.

I it's not to reopen what was already approved.

So I think we have heard about the traffic element um eloquently from Mr.

Hudson.

Um so I I I guess I'll I'll I'll leave it at that, but I did just want to state that for the record.

They are just here not as a reapplication but as uh for an extension of time.

So go ahead.

Think thank you.

Um I I was gonna address the fact that that many of the comments weren't towards the waiver, but I do understand.

I always understand residents sometimes that have just kind of heard about this being re-upped and so on, do have some concerns and so on.

Um and and your comment about that you shouldn't have to fix the ills of of the past.

I couldn't agree with you more, but I've always said this since I've been on this board and being an alderman is that as things grow, the people on the ends are the ones who suffer.

So while I do agree with you, I also have to say someone's got to pay the piper.

Um so as we grow, we do try to make each growth kind of pay and do something.

Um but the newest person on the block is the one who's going to have to have to take care of it, and the residents who are living there shouldn't have to suffer as a way.

But um, I do agree with um the chairman here is that that is not your waiver, and as long as you really are willing to work with the with our engineering department and someone, I do feel a little bit comfortable.

And thank you for addressing their their issues because the we do need to hear from the public.

So thank you.

Other questions from the board?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, I I mean you you you can, but is it something that has not been addressed, or I because at some point we're gonna close the public hearing and go to our meeting?

Yeah, yeah, don't quite go on.

Reintroduce yourself for the record.

Yeah, uh Joe Farley, seven early, F.

Um, what is the city of Nashville get out of this extension besides them not having to do extra paperwork?

I mean, you're giving them a 24 month extension, right?

That's what's up, 24 months.

The it could be completely different in 24 months.

Why not have them come back in a year and then you guys reassess what the whole property looks like?

Things may change.

Giving them two years, get two divisions that were built in two years.

Who's to say it's not gonna change anymore, right?

So I say, hey, listen, let them do the extra paperwork.

What's wrong with that?

You know, have them sit in front of you guys and not have to like, hey, we did this two, three years ago, let's get another two years.

That's five years.

Like, why wouldn't you guys just say, let's talk about this in a year?

We'll give you an air extension, and then we'll talk about another year or two after that.

Just see how the land's already been laid and what it's gonna look like in the future.

So that's all I got.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Um I'm not gonna address it.

The board shouldn't have to, other than it was a legal application.

The board is found to act on a legal application that we took jurisdiction over.

Um Mr.

Zayak, I don't know if you have anything to add to that.

Uh two years versus one year, but you're welcome to respond.

Yeah, uh I think our waiver letter lays out the case of the uniqueness here.

It's it's not that um it's the two years is to get to the vesting in terms of the building permit or establishing the use.

So um we're not asking for 24 months to have the next site plan extension.

We're asking for once we get going to be able to have 24 months to establish the use.

So um, I think it's it's different than what was described.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Alderman Clee, please.

Uh thank you.

Um I I kind of want to elaborate on what was just said.

Um the if I'm not mistaken at please, Mr.

Chairman or staff, correct me if I'm wrong here.

If they started working tomorrow um but couldn't finish it within a year, they would be partly through the project and have to come back and ask for an extension.

Is that correct?

If we didn't give them the 24 months, uh not necessarily.

There's a concept called um active and substantial development, um, which is generally defined as uh foundations and and footings.

Um this board has modified that uh threshold in the past, um, but basically once you've achieved that level of substantial development, your your approval has vested and it remains active and and you would not be subject to changes in local ordinances.

Um but yeah, so that's that's what that's so if I may follow up.

So if they were granted 12 months but were able to break ground in 12 months, then that would not become an issue, is that correct?

Right.

So if they were able to what just to ensure ensure that we're talking about the same thing.

When you say break ground, well do you do you mean achieving this level of threshold?

Yeah, so if they did within 12 months, you know, they would not have to keep coming back for extensions.

May I ask the applicant a question?

Certainly.

Thank you.

You you don't feel that you would be able to reach that goal within 12 months.

Is that why you have the 12 24 months?

Yeah, it's it's a little bit about the uniqueness of the project and the phasing.

So typically that uh process is completed, that milestone is achieved when you're issued a building permit.

But all we have here were mostly site, so we just have this small locker room maintenance building that's gonna be in a future phase.

So it's just making sure that as BG moves through that phasing process that they're able to establish the use uh once they get started rather than having to come back.

Um we're not asking for an extension.

We're in a conditional, we're still conditionally approved plan.

We're not asking for an extension of that.

We're asking an extension of once we finalize the site plan.

We'd like 24 months to get to that point of vesting.

Okay, thank you.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Mr.

Bartley.

And just to have maybe have staff reiterate because I think this this may address in part the the concern that was raised by um the abutters, you know, it's if some material change were required to the site plan in the intervening period, the applicant would have to return to this board to seek approval of any material change to the site plan.

Yes.

So it is just a function of meeting that you know, substantially underway test.

It is not a matter of an ability to change the site plan in the interim intervening period.

Thanks.

So right, but even without going down that path, all prior conditions still hold.

Like it's the same application, it's the time extension, so that is the crux of the matter.

So they can phase it however they want, or however it's financially viable for them to do so.

It's been approved, there's existing conditions of approval, and I think that's the matter at hand before the board this evening is whether or not the waiver for the two-year extension is applicable and satisfactorily met.

Um so if there's no further public input at this time, I'm gonna close the public hearing.

We're gonna go into our meeting.

Um quite a bit of testimony this evening for a time extension.

Um I appreciate Mr.

Hudson's feedback considerably on the outstanding traffic elements.

Um, but it it seems like there's there's a path to to resolution there, at least with um proportional impacts related to to this application.

Um and if there's an opportunity for um some interim or shorter term in uh improvements, uh it seems like the applicant is amenable to that.

Um so I I personally would would have no issues granting the waiver for the time extension, uh, but obviously I'd I'd love to hear um from other members of the board on that Mr.

Barley?

Mr.

Chair, just I I think just briefly for in part for again the benefit of members of the public here.

I mean and to reiterate some of the points that you've made, you know, obviously this you said this plan is coming before us for an extension.

Um the only change that's being proposed, you know, other than the extension is the phasing itself, none of the underlying features of the site plan are being modified, and and so just you know, uh obviously this is a little bit unique in the sense that there has been some you know uh development on the abutting properties in the interim period, so that that changes sort of just the the practical um you know layout around the site, but just so everyone understands this this you know this plan was thoroughly vetted by the planning staff when it originally came before us was you know vetted by this board.

There were a number of conditions imposed, so it's not as if we're giving short shrift to the concerns that have been raised, it's just that we've we've already had the opportunity to vet those and we've done so and you know we've we think we could be effectively addressed them through the conditions that were originally opposed.

Um so just wanted to you know just say that for everyone's benefit.

Uh thank you for doing so uh for the record, Mr.

Barley.

Um further discussion questions for staff um this with that being the case, um have to uh take a motion on the uh the waiver first.

I don't know if uh any member of the board is prepared to make a motion uh regarding the waiver.

Uh Mr.

Green, please.

I would like to make a motion for new business A25-0162.

Um that their waiver requests uh using the rationale provided in the attached uh letter dated November 24th, 2025, uh that 190-146E1 to allow 24 month period for the building permit to be issued by the administrative officer, or the use to be established from the date of the site plan approval to where it is a 12-month period or where a 12-month period is the maximum allowed.

So we are using uh I messed that one up a little bit.

Um we are we want to extend that approval for 24 months instead of that 12-month period.

Um finding that strict conformity would pose unnecessary hardship to applicant, and it would not be contrary to the spirit intent of the regulations.

And the specific circumstances or conditions of land indicate the waivers will be properly carry out the spirit intent of the regulations.

Okay, thank you.

Uh motion by Mr.

Green.

Uh is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Barley.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Um Mr.

Green, would you care to continue the thought on granting final site plan approval?

Yes, uh, for new business A25-0162.

I'd like to make a motion to grant final site plan approval um for the one-year extension of the site plan approval and implementation of the phasing at 40 Groton Road, uh that it meets the requirements outlined in 190- uh 146D.

Uh subsect uh subject to the following subsequent conditions one and two and the staff report.

All right, thank you.

Uh motion by Mr.

Green.

Is there a second?

I may I ask a question.

Well, I think that to the second on the motion first, and we can have discussion.

So second by Mr.

Hudson.

Uh any discussion.

I do.

Yeah, thank you.

Um the the subsequent conditions, we do not have to put the um uh what Mr.

Hudson spoke about um for the for the traffic and so on.

Is that because that's already part of the original um stipulations or or conditions?

Good question.

That's my understanding, but a perfect uh opportunity for Mr.

Hudson just to clarify.

Yeah, I think uh the discussion was that it's those conditions need to be met prior to signing of the plan.

So basically, I think we're covered via the previous condition, which is referenced here.

All right, okay.

So the the comment number one where it says all prior conditions of approval as indicated.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Um any further discussion on that motion?

All right.

So that motion is uh still on the table.

Um all those in favor?

Hi.

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

Motion passes.

Next item on the agenda uh case A twenty-five-0041, property located at 16 Penichuk Street.

Has any member of the board had an opportunity to review that application for completeness and is willing to make a motion regarding board uh accepting jurisdiction.

Uh Mr.

Varley.

Mr.

Chair, as to uh A twenty five-0041.

I would make a motion.

This application is application is complete and ready for the board to accept jurisdiction.

All right, thank you.

Motion by Mr.

Varley.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Hirsch.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

All right, thanks.

Uh board has jurisdiction.

Is someone here on behalf of the applicant would like to speak?

Good evening, Mr.

Mr.

Chair, members of the board.

Um Trevor ended up with Meridian Land Services here on behalf of Gateway Helps and the owners here in the audience as well.

Um as far as uh brief overview of the project, it's a six-unit single-family uh detached condominium on a 1.8 acre parcel on Penichuck Street in the north end of the city.

Um the applicant uh did receive a variance from the ZBA back in July of this year to permit multiple primary structures and a lot.

Um density proposed is 3.27 units per acre.

Uh they allowed density of six, so we are well under that threshold, but as I'm sure you can see by the plans, we've kind of got what we can fit on this parcel where we think it's uh reasonable, both the people that are gonna own it and keep in character with the surrounding area as well.

Um it's surrounded by single family residential, you know, between a quarter and half acre lots, um 300, you know, in all in all directions.

Um it's gonna be serviced by municipal sewer and water.

Um the sewer is a little bit of a unique um case just due to uh topography of the lot versus uh sewer and penichuck street isn't isn't really viable to receive gravity flow.

Um, so we are proposing to connect via uh sewer easement through two parcels to the north uh northwest to connect down to Brenton Street.

And we have um had discussions with um Mr.

Hudson's office uh just indicating that that's you know it's an acceptable route to proceed as far as that goes.

Uh the units would be served by a cul-de-sac road, uh roughly 350 feet, just a little more uh in overall length, 24 foot width.

Um stormwater for the site is via three infiltration basins.

There's one at the entrance uh to the site that would receive runoff from kind of the straight section of the road via sheet flow and uh then be uh infiltrated into this underlying soils.

We did have very deep, you know, we didn't encounter seasonal high water table or ledge.

Um it's all pretty sandy uh good good material out there to promote um recharge as far as that goes.

We are uh post-development peak flow rates are all less than the previous pre-development conditions.

Um so we feel that it's uh it's uh more than adequate to to service the site.

Um as far as traffic, I know at the ZBA hearing there was concern from the abutters brought up just in terms of the amount of traffic.

Um while I I can't deny that there will be an increase in traffic, the increase itself is gonna be fairly negligible when looking at the under uh surrounding areas.

We're looking at around six trips per hour during the peak uh you know, four to six p.m.

or the seven to nine a.m.

uh window there.

So um I know that's been raised, but we don't don't feel that it's a uh a huge issue at this point in time.

Um as far as the staff report, I know um staff had pointed out kind of three um three comments regarding um just some some follow-up items that the applicant needs to take.

We don't take any exception to those three items in terms of the road names, um, the development sign or the stormwater operations and maintenance plans, those will all be incorporated into the final set of drawings.

Um those haven't changes haven't been made yet, but they we intend to do that.

Um I guess speaking quickly on the development sign.

I think at this point in time the applicant's not going to pursue anything of that nature at this point, and if they want to in the future, they understand that they'd have to come back for that.

Um we are seeking three waivers from the land use code as outlined in the staff report.

Um the first one being existing conditions within a thousand feet.

Um feel that that's gonna be an unnecessary hardship for the applicant, just given that we've prepared a complete existing conditions drawing that is adequate to depict the the surrounding area and the development that's gonna occur on the on the parcel.

Uh the second one being the requirement of a lighting plan.

Um the lighting that's proposed is all gonna be building mounted porch lights, if you will, um that are fairly uh, you know, don't give up any significant amount of light.

We don't feel that an illumination photometric plan is is really warranted in this scenario.

Um the third being the sidewalk uh waiver, the applicant is elected the inlu fee contribution.

There's no sidewalk on Penichuck Street or anywhere.

I think on Concord Street's probably the closest uh one.

So again, it doesn't feel um applicable uh for for this project.

Um and I guess lastly, regarding the engineering comments issued by Mr.

Hudson's office.

Um I did follow up with uh Joe Mandola um a couple days ago or yesterday.

Um most of them we take absolutely no exception to.

They're mostly clerical, just cleaning up the plans.

I'm happy to answer any questions and appreciate the time.

Thank you for the presentation.

No questions for me at the moment.

Questions from members of the board?

Alderman Clee, please.

I'm sorry to be the person on this one.

I I I have driven by this, and I know you've got a narrow entrance way into the um, which was I think a concern from some of the residents within that area whether or not you were going to be able to negotiate uh would you be coming in when they're trying to pull out of their driveways and so on.

I did not see that as an issue, but um is there the that was just a comment I wanted to make, but my my true question is about the thousand the waiver for the thousand feet.

Um where is it that I I I get I'm not as good on on reading these things, but where is it that the thousand feet is being required?

Um apologize.

Section 190-282 um item B9.

I I know, but I'm saying on on your property, where is the thousand feet from the I mean it's uh my I can speak to that if if you'd like uh so it would be thank you.

I apologize for this.

Lenny's code uh requires that uh a number of site conditions be shown uh and notated on plan sets, and this could be from uh roads, trails, uh rock features, terrain, and it's a thousand feet uh past the property boundary line of the subject property, and a lot of the time that the applicant requests to waive that because it's it's kind of a non-issue.

It's just not uh it's not necessary for the review of the uh site on hand.

And so they've given a general uh indication of the of the layout of the of the surrounding properties, but again, you won't see like the terrain, you won't see the um all the structures there.

So this is just a waiver for that requirement.

May I certainly thank you.

I I I guess I just wanted to make sure that this was not uh within a thousand feet of an abutter that could affect their property.

Is that or is it just of structures and so it's strictly like a uh a notational uh survey uh requirement that's in the land use code.

Fine, thank thank you so much.

Um and if I may, just one quick question.

Going back to my my first comments about the your your drive coming out and so on.

Um I will be honest.

Um the opposite side of where you are is my ward, ward three.

The other side used to be my ward, it's now ward two since they've done redistricting.

Um so I I have heard from constituents about that concern.

Um, and I'm just gonna throw this out.

It's not a requirement, it's just something as an alderman.

I'm kind of stating.

Um, they had asked if you could have like kind of a yield or stop sign, kind of just to tell people be careful when you're pulling out on the street.

There it's not a requirement, it's not from this board, it's just as an alderman speaking.

Yep, understood.

And I believe we do have a stop bar and a stop sign proposed at the at the end uh egress point of the site.

So thank you.

I appreciate that.

Yeah.

Uh thank you, Alderman Klee.

Um other members of the board.

Uh certainly.

Mr.

Zoller, please.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um in regards to rubbish and recycling is the intent for DPW trucks to come into the site, um, and you know, make collections within the site itself.

The the call to sex seems you know a bit tight uh just from a visual look.

Um is that gonna be collected at the main street in the driveway?

What does that look like?

The intent uh is for it to be a private waste management company.

Yeah, yet to be worked out, but that's the intent.

Thank you.

Yeah, for just further on that, uh DPW doesn't pick up trash on private streets.

And it's important to note that up front we started adding that in our uh right up front so that people aren't surprised because we had a couple developments that got developed and they thought we would come and pick up because they were single family-ish type homes with their in private streets.

So it's a it's a good question you ask you.

That's something that we try to call out and make known right up front.

Again, just to finish the thought, you're not gonna plow it either.

It's uh that's true.

We're not doing nothing.

We're not doing anything.

Okay, we we love this type of development.

Mr.

LeClair, please.

Yeah, I just had a question about the sewer easement whether you know Dan, your group reviewed that location.

I mean, it it is there a reason why it couldn't come off the northwest corner and only affect one.

It sort of goes across two lots and two properties, and it has a pretty significant easement length.

It seems like you could cut it in half if you brought the easement off the northwest corner of the actual site.

I don't know.

Is it a terrain issue or just to be clear, you're talking about essentially just just having it be lot 49-270?

Yeah, correct.

Yeah, so we did look at it.

It's a shorter run.

I agree a hundred percent with you.

There is uh there, I believe there's like a ledge outcropping or and there's some there might even be some improvements from that abutter there as well.

Um more significant than you know, we know there's like a there's a playground area on um on lot 207.

Um, but the uh the owner has kind of been working both of those abutters um and they're both on board with it, and it's um I think the easiest path to tying in, you know, avoiding any hammering of of ledge or or anything like that.

Okay.

Yeah, and just to further expound upon that, that will be a private service.

So it's basically uh an easement between private entities, it's not an easement to the benefit of the city.

So uh, you know, the in work they've worked with the abutters is my understanding to develop the rights, and so maybe it's shorter go one way, but maybe it's more feasible to go another forever, whatever reasoning there is between the parties.

Other questions from the board Alderman Clee to answer one of your earlier questions, just uh flipping through the site plan set.

It looks like there is in fact a stop bar and a stop sign proposed just to confirm um what Trevor had said.

I I truly do appreciate that.

Thank you.

Um the only thing uh actually I had uh additionally at this time, uh Trevor, was um there was a letter that that came in, I think it was yesterday or today, uh, regarding that a tree.

I don't know if you had an opportunity to review that correspondence.

Um I'm not gonna read it.

Uh oh, it was that all right.

I I don't know if um well, test your young eyes.

Yeah, that that individual actually maybe Trevor, I didn't mean to put you on the spot.

I thought you would have seen the letter, but um let me ask this.

Other questions for for the applicants rep at this time or because if not, oh just this is not this just a quick note just so we don't forget it.

I think in the staff report the sidewalk contribution is is listed as 2250.

I think it's 2550 based on the at least bait based on what the applicant's uh letter indicates 51 feet at a minor difference, but just so we don't forget it.

Okay, no, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Barley.

Um I I did want to open it up to to the public just again to address the letter.

If I don't know if that individual's here, but before I do that, uh other questions from the board at this time.

Okay, see none.

Um thank you for the moment.

Um is there anyone in the audience that wanted to speak um in opposition or with concern to this application?

Okay, none.

Uh anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application.

See none.

Um I'm gonna put staff on the spot.

Would would you care to briefly summarize the letter?

I don't want to make Trevor read through it all in order.

There's some some citations in there and whatnot.

So we received this uh correspondence last yesterday, and uh basically they are aware of the project and saw it.

Um I understand there's gonna be some tree clearing uh for site prep and was concerned about a uh tree that is on her property, but might be affected and could die, I guess, because of the uh site work and was wondering if it could be cleared as well.

I guess just as a neighborly request.

Um we ha I haven't spoke to the individual who sent this um to get more information about what what uh she was asking in detail, but that is that is a summation issue as worried about.

I don't think it's this board uh we'd have the authority to mandate that this applicant cut down a tree on someone else's private property.

Um it was more about making the applicant be aware that there was this correspondence if they choose to deal with that privately amongst themselves.

Um that that that's up to them, but I don't think that's uh any any stipulation that that we could mandate.

Um Trevor, I don't know if you want to respond, you don't have to necessarily I I think we just discussed what the ask was, and I don't know if you have anything to add on the matter.

I think the the applicant has discussed it with that individual, and I I guess I just leave it at that um for them to work it out if at agreement could be reached or something.

We we won't be involved in making you work it out.

Oh okay, all right, or not working it out.

Whatever.

Yeah, okay.

All right.

Um I think if there's there's no uh no other public input.

Uh one last chance um questions of the applicant.

Oh this time then um thank you for your testimony.

I'm gonna close the the public hearing.

We'll go on to our meeting.

Um some good discussion on on this one.

Um we don't get enough drainage questions, Scott.

Thank you.

Uh but uh Dan, it it it seemed by and large reading through the uh there was quite a list of engineering comments, but there didn't seem to be anything super substantial carry comment on the yeah, I I I'd uh affirm uh what Trevor stated generally about the comments and that most of them are fairly minor.

The the one about the drainage is one that we need to resolve.

There's some there's some uh overflows from the retention areas or infiltration areas, I should say, that kind of direct towards budding properties, and so there's a few things that we still need further discuss.

I think they're all that can all be mitigated and modified.

It's gonna mean some small changes to the plan probably to do that, but I I don't think they're insurmountable, so I'm comfortable with moving forward.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Alderman Clee.

Uh thank you.

Um I just I just want to make a comment that I think that this um um development and so on is gonna be very similar to what it abuts at Nathan Court Nathan's court.

I don't see too much difference within that.

Um I think there's almost about the same number of homes when you go completely around that cul de suck of Nathan's court, and that goes into Brinton.

Um, you know, Brinton is a newer street and so on and so forth.

But um I I feel very comfortable as long as the drainage issues and the um issues from engineering have been satisfied before anything gets signed and and put into place.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Um further discussion or questions for staff.

I think seeing uh none.

Um couple of thoughts on on the waivers.

Um the the thousand foot requirement is one is probably probably one of our most frequent um waiver requests.

Um that's the first.

I'll skip to the third.

Mr.

Varley, I I apologize.

I didn't do the arithmetic, but I know you did um 2025 instead of 2250.

2550.

All right.

Uh I guess the other one was the the lighting plan.

Um I don't know if staff had any comment on on that, if that's reasonable given the surrounding irons or uh we don't feel that that uh a interior uh uh utility light uh layout is is necessary for this site.

Uh it's gonna be similar to what the neighborhood already is with just the property lights being on the building.

I appreciate that.

Thank you, um yeah, I I I again I I thought it was a very complete um package and and presentation.

Um it seems like the technical matters on some of the remaining issues um um can be worked out with staff.

Um yeah, other other than that, I'd I'd be inclined to support this project.

Um that said, I I don't know if um any member of the board is um willing to move forward on this.

Uh but we would oh Alderman Clee, I I apologize.

I do have just one more question, and I I had seen it earlier.

Um there was a technical comment on in the staff report about the um installing a development sign at the entrance.

Um I believe there was testimony uh it was we've closed the public hearing, so you can give a nod that um you were not going to pursue a sign um an exterior sign for this point.

Not at this point.

I I thought that's what had been said, so that's why I just wanted to reiterate it.

So thank you so much.

I appreciate you indulgence.

No, thank you for the question.

Um board member were so inclined.

Um we'd have to take up the waivers first.

I don't know if anybody's prepared to make a motion at this time.

Um Mr.

Green, all right, go for it.

I'd like to make a motion for new business A25-0041 uh to grant the following waivers.

The first 190-279 EE to waive the requirements show existing conditions on adjacent parts.

Um the second is 190-275B to waive the requirements provide a lighting plan.

And the third 190-212A one to waive the requirement that the sidewalk be located on at least one side of the street.

The applicant has agreed to make a contribution of amount of $2,550 in lieu of sidewalk construction uh pursuant to 190-2 and two D2.

And this is using the rationale um provided by the applicant on their October 23rd, 2025 letter, finding that strict conformity would pose unnecessary hardship.

And it's the specific circumstances and conditions of the site will properly carry out the spirit intent of the regulations laid out in the staff report.

All right, thank you.

Uh motion by Mr.

Green.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Hirsch.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Uh Mr.

Green, would you care to continue?

I will continue.

Um for new business A25-0041.

I'd like to make a motion to grant final site plan approval um for the construction of the six-unit single-family detached condominium development on 16 Pinnachuck Street.

Finding that the applicant meets requirements outlined in 190-146D, subject to the following subsequent conditions noted in the staff report A through O and an amendment to K.

Um, noting that the amount is $2,550.

Um that was also mentioned in the uh previous waivers.

All right, thank you.

Um motion by Mr.

Green.

Is there a second?

Mr.

Barley.

Uh any further discussion.

All those in favor?

I motion passes.

Moving along, uh case 825-0180, property located at 106 Pine Street.

Is any member of the board had an opportunity to review this application for completeness and is willing to uh make a motion regarding board accepting jurisdiction alderman Clee.

I'll try to take a crack at this.

I'd like to motion that the board take jurisdiction and that all requirements have been met.

Thank you.

Motion by Alderman Clee.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Barley.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

Mr.

Zayak, welcome back.

Go right ahead.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair again for the record.

My name is Tom Zajak.

I'm a civil engineer with Heiner Swanson.

Now I make uh three Congress Street here in Nashua representing Marguerite's place on this application.

Uh Mr.

Chair, this one is a fairly straightforward request.

Uh we're seeking a one-year extension uh from the uh approval last fall.

Uh this is an exciting project for Marguerite's place.

I'm happy to talk about it in more detail, but uh we're not proposing any plan changes, no changes to the conditions of approval.

Uh the reason for the extension is uh Marguerite's place and their team, including uh Harvey Construction, uh ready to start the project next uh spring or summer and are waiting uh the last piece of their funding, which they hope to come in uh at the beginning of uh this uh next year.

And uh looking forward to uh constructing the project and getting them their much needed space.

Um as you know they're a vital vital group to uh to our community and uh we'll provide them much needed uh apartments as well as uh meeting space and offices uh that abut their current locations uh on uh Palm Street to our rear.

So um the only question I guess I had for staff, I think I heard in the initial communication that there was maybe a change to the staff report or an update.

Um I know Scott did a good job providing the history, the conditions on the one I read uh just seemed to be all previous conditions, so it was just a typo uh from kind of using a previous staff report.

We we referenced uh a property that's not relevant to this case.

Perfect.

With that, Mr.

Chair, I'll turn things back to you.

All right, thank you.

Um questions for Mrs.

Ajack at this time.

Seeing none.

Um are you here to speak on this application this evening?

No, okay.

All right.

Uh all right.

Uh no members of the public are here.

Uh one last chance for the board.

No.

Close the public hearing then, uh go into our meeting.

Um a more uh straightforward uh time extension um than our previous one, but um I'm I I would be all in favor of this.

Um I thought it was a good project previously.

Uh Alderman Clee, please.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I I a hundred percent agree with what you just said.

This is an incredible project.

I think that it's um something that is needed for our community and considering the the local issues that we're having with homelessness and um and and how unhoused in general.

Marguerite's place does such an incredible job.

I think they've met all the criteria and everything.

So to give them this extension for funding needs, much like I said in the previous one.

I understand that you can't get funding unless you have approvals.

And uh so I think it is important for us to do this.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Anything else from the board at this time?

Okay.

Uh the board were so inclined.

Uh I guess we'd be looking for uh a motion to make a determination regarding too small for me to read.

I try I trust I trust someone else can do it.

Mr.

Green, thank you.

Yeah, of course.

Um I'd like to make a motion for new business A25-0180.

Um to make a determination to extend the final site plan approval uh for the proposed development and associated site plan improvements on 106 Pine Street.

Um we are using we are finding the site plan meets the approval criteria under uh 190-46D, and that such final approval includes the following subscribe so the following conditions uh subsequent conditions noted in the staff report, and that is there's only one, and that is A.

All right.

Thank you, Ms.

Motion by Mr.

Green.

Is there a second?

Uh second by Alderman Clee.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

All right.

Um review next time on the agenda on your other business review of tentative agenda.

Um member of the board had an opportunity to uh review uh the projects.

Um the project list for for projects of regional impact uh as well to make a motion.

Mr.

Green.

Before we do, what was the one that was added to this one again?

Didn't you mention there was a change in the staff report or the um tentative agenda?

Yes, we updated the tentative agenda uh just to include items that um we fielded.

So the the deadline for the January 8th uh meeting was the same day as the packets went out.

So we didn't have necessarily time to do a turnaround, but I thought that since I could update it, uh I would so these are just to include uh new cases that are going forward uh to the January 8th meeting.

Thank you.

No did that satisfy your your question.

I haven't read those ones yet.

So that's not to put it on Mr.

Green.

Um I'll give him an opportunity to peruse the list of Mr.

Varley.

I I mean if I I can I can vote off.

But wait.

Um but I I would be willing to make a motion that uh having reviewed the attendative agenda that there are no proposals of regional impact.

All right.

Motion by Mr.

Barley.

Uh is there a second?

Second by Alderman Clee.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Hi.

Aye.

Uh opposed abstention?

Yeah, very so that was Dan abstending camera.

Okay.

And it's trying not to bias his own project.

I understand the play.

It's our it's all right.

It's all right.

Okay.

All right.

Next item on the agenda.

Uh Board of Alderman referral.

Uh R20, R-25-221 relative to tax-deeded property auction.

Umor, I I didn't did you want to provide any context here?

Sure, yeah.

So this is uh a list of properties that have been uh conveyed to the city by tax deed.

Uh there's several properties going back to seven that had tax levies that as a matter of last resort, the city acquired and are now seeking uh planning board approval to dispose of them via auction.

And uh a previous previous uh proposal came to the board earlier this year, uh the auction office somewhere I believe in the summertime, and I guess enough is accumulated to to warrant uh another action uh to dispose of of new properties.

Um Alderman Clean questions.

Yeah, i i if I if I may discuss this more because as as was um um stated, um we had many properties come to the board, and if I if you'd indulge me and I can explain a little bit about how all this happens is um by state law, if X number of years are not paid in taxes, the um city is not just had the right but has to start the deeding process, meaning that we take over the the property um and can use it for the city's purpose or we can auction it off.

The key here is that the city by state law cannot um gain more money than the past taxes and interests plus the cost of disposing of these properties.

Any money that an auction that comes above that is returned to the current person's name on the deed, whether it be um oftentimes it's not just a person that we're deeding the home from, sometimes it's people that have died and the estate and so on.

So we have to do all that, and that's a very extensive process.

Um we don't we don't do um, I don't believe we do deed backgrounds and so on to find out if there's any other encumbrances or liens on it or something.

City has the first right on it.

Um the other thing is during this entire process, the city makes every effort possible to work with the current owners to um get them to literally buy it back once we've done a taking, and that's what's called doing a taking.

Um the um the city works with the people to find out if their payment plan can be done.

There is interest in it, it's not just a free payment plan.

Um and and so on.

So every effort is made, and I can tell you the last takings that we had literally just as we were going to auction, there were a couple of buybacks.

Um and just as a side note to properties that may not be listed here, but to people who are listening, they'll say, Well, taxes haven't been paid on this property for a long time.

Why haven't you done a taking of it?

And sometimes we don't do a taking of it because there's underground things that the city does not want responsibility for.

We would have to do cleanup.

So just that's just kind of a side note.

Um this is heartbreaking to do to do this taking, but at the same time, if the city left these taxes go unpaid and so on, we're doing a disservice to the rest of the residents.

So sometimes you have to put your heart in your desk drawer and work with your brain.

But I will tell you the city of Nashville does everything possible.

So even if this is approved, this is not cast in stone that these in fact will be auctioned off.

In the meantime, the city is working very hard with these people, or the families of these people.

Some of them are businesses, and so on.

So thank you.

Thank you for the context.

Questions for staff or or other comments on the matter.

Mr.

Hudson.

Yeah, I just been looking through the properties quickly here, but uh three to five Curtis out of buttons a wetland area on the other side is those are still on there.

Those should have been pulled off.

Three under land, it's number it's number six on here, so three to five Curtis, that buttons a wetland area.

Half of that's in water, yeah.

Yeah, I don't know if that's one that we should be selling necessarily.

I would say no.

Uh if someone tries to put a building permit forward on that half the property is in water right now.

So maybe maybe we'd sell it some butter, but I don't I don't know if it's a buildable law.

Um no, I is that the criteria that we're uh not the buildable law forget I said that.

No, no, no, no, no.

Your your point is well taken though.

It may have it may have a higher because city use is the point.

Yeah, because I I think the the question just seems to be uh with mobile as with most aldermanic resolutions, we would need to make either a favorable or unfavorable recommendation.

Um I'd have to make the presumption given given the testimony we heard from Alderman Clee that this has been thoroughly vetted.

Um I don't know if the three through five lot is is a typo perhaps, but I would imagine that could be rectified if if there was an error there through aldermanic process.

Um if I may I do I do want to comment that by the time this gets to the vote with the aldermen, some of these may have been taken off.

I I know that we probably have always done a thumbs up and a thumbs down.

Um I will look to staff if there are some concerns about um the property if we could put that in just comment so that when it came to the board of Alderman, the board of Alderman would have that context.

I don't see and I don't see any problem with that saying we approve this with the following com comments, or we give a thumbs up or you know, or something to that nature, because I do think you know, I'm here and I could bring it up, but heaven forbid I don't make that board of alderman meeting.

I would like to see something in writing that that just addresses it.

Um and again, we get we get this, and then sometimes we get what we call the goldenrod, it's bright yellow, like this, which is the amended version of it, and some of them will have been taken off by then.

We will also have public hearing, we will have many other different things that happen to this.

So uh just a question to to follow up on that.

Um what you're describing would essentially be the board giving staff some latitude in creating language that supplements your favorable assuming recommendation uh regarding some properties that we clearly need to do a little further research on.

Um, so we would be prepared to give you language that we would be essentially be speaking on your behalf relative to property, you know, if if we determine that this is you know it's either wetland or it may even be conservation land or something like that.

Um I I'm not sure if the board is comfortable with just giving us the latitude to do that.

Um, but I just want to frame it that way as as that would essentially is is what you seem to be asking for.

I I think in the past it it doesn't happen often.

I believe we have added specific pointed language, though.

I I guess I would ask that it if the board had the appetite for that that it is specific pointed language rather than or perhaps tying some nebulous comment that allows staff to be an intermediary between the board because I think this is our opportunity to comment uh uh on it.

I I'm I'm um despite obviously some of the hardship and um that that you described behind the process, um you know, I'm I'm I'm willing to to sort of accept it's an aldermanic duty, and and at least the list that is present again.

Um I'm sort of presumptively assuming that it's correct, knowing that as you previously indicated things could change after the fact.

Um but I I think still think we'd have to make our recommendation based on you know the the best information that we have in front of us uh at the time.

Thank you.

Um I I don't disagree with you, but but it gets forwarded to various different committees um for their perspective, for their eye to be on it.

Um and I and I think to just say we agree with it or we disagree with it, um, doesn't do the knowledge of this board or Mr.

Hudson or something justice in that we I have no I personally have no problem with Mr.

Durfey's um comments about you know taking what we've said and kind of because the letter actually is from the board um but it's summarized by um the planning department.

I I do think for the education of the board of Alderman, we are not all knowing and um omnipotence, although sometimes we think we are um and we rely on boards like this.

We rely on public comment, believe it or not.

We rely on everything before we make our decisions.

So the fact that it was sent to here for our comment, I think would be a good idea for us, even if it's just a side note.

You know, there were concerns raised about this, and and Mr.

Durfee could say, no, this really isn't wetland.

I I trust Mr.

Hudson's comments on it, but um again, I guess we're at head of the board.

I guess my my only and then so I'll let Scott chime in.

Okay, I guess it's not our determination tonight to decide whether it's a buildable lot or not a buildable lot, it's just a disposition of property.

Uh the one Dan mentioned though, three through five Curtis, uh at least when you GIS the city already owns that, so I think that they they own all these.

No, that's what I so how they they sell them after the fact it's not up to us to ultimately decide what their highest and best use is, Scott.

Yeah, I mean we've done a bunch of these in the past, and it's totally fine to put a comment.

Yeah, you know, you can say anything you can say favorable recommendation, you know, recommend you review all the properties for you know additional environmental impacts and other, you know, or something.

You can make it like that too, just to flag that you might you know, and you can even say in particular these lots may need further investigation.

I think something like that's a good catch-all.

Again, if that's if that's what you're replying, Alderman thing and I miss that, then my apologies.

So uh I I don't think I was clear enough.

I'm not asking for any of these to be taken off the list that will be determined through our tax people and so on.

And I'd I have not seen the board of Alderman take anything off the list.

We just do the action.

But in our discussions and so on, we rely on um people in the room that are smarter than us, is that what I always tend to say?

Um, and I look at this board as being as being that you guys have that impact, and I'm not asking you to take anything off.

I'm not even asking you to recommend, but I I think comment uh of that of that there was question or there was, but I I also think that Mr.

Durfee's um office can can clarify that, and I would trust his language.

I I guess my follow-up would be then how would how would we want to craft that if we were to I'm not putting you on the spot.

Uh I I think I think what Mr.

Leclerc had basically said um is just that we give final approval with um the caveat of perhaps some of the properties, and you can even say uh you know, such as number six, three to five Curtis Drive that for the for any kind of environmental impact and so on.

Properties may need further technical evaluation prior to public auction, Mr.

Hudson.

Yeah, I look I look through them, I would recommend that three pro three of these properties be evaluated that way.

Three to five curves as I noted, and then uh L Irene Street and El Narrow Street, those are ones that I question if we should be proceeding with sale, they all seem to abut other conservation property, and or the first one being a wetland property.

So those are the three that I would pull out and highlight if we so chose uh um as recommending further consideration or possible city retention uh for for environmental conservation needs.

How's the how about that?

I I like that and it's possible after our I'm sorry, I spoke out of turn.

Oh no, you didn't know here.

I I and I and I think even possibly after this the board reading this um and and so on, and and here would you have we we might even further send it on to the conservation committee for their for their input and so on.

And that's how things kind of progress.

So I I I really do like this idea.

But good point.

Larry, go ahead.

Oh, would it be more appropriate for Dan to basically send his own letter to the board of Alderman saying these are my concerns?

Because we're not evaluating all the properties.

We haven't seen them about them.

It's all secondary information.

Not that I'm doubting it, but it's just we're not in any position to do that.

If they were to write a letter to the board, comment on that.

Certainly as staff I could do that myself as a city engineer.

But why did this come to this board?

Right.

We this board is supposed to be considering these, and if we concur that they should be sold or not, that's why it's being referred to us.

So, you know, if if the board isn't to the place that we've individually reviewed each one and we've come to that assessment, that's fine.

And I th I in fact just reviewed them just barely myself.

So I'm not taking credit as if I did this a long time ago.

So if the board's not ready to make a um motion, I'm fine with that.

I'm just and if they choose not to, maybe I will send that letter on my own, but those are the three that I see that that drew my eye for potentially requiring additional consideration.

Just to be clear, I mean the board has an obligation to take an action recommendation or not.

It doesn't preclude Dan from separately communicating with the board of all and say, hey, you're here my additional.

And Sam.

And Sam.

Others do.

Yeah, not sorry, not to pick on just you, Dan.

So I mean, I I think we can I think we've got enough where we can give a meaningful comment back to the board of aldermen and again not shut down comment from other sources.

I I I'm sorry.

Again, I apologize for speaking out of terms.

No, no, I didn't I wasn't recognized, that's fine.

You're all recognized.

I speak out of turn on the time.

I mean, maybe it's maybe it's as simple as uh uh maybe I should make a motion when I do that.

I make a motion that the uh that the uh that the board um uh provide a favorable recommendation of passage of R25 221 with the comment that and request that staff city staff be consulted regarding um any potential retention for uh environmental or conservation purposes.

I think that was a perfect without without being explicit to any property.

I think that was a perfectly crafted motion that Mr.

Hudson.

Um is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Varley.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Should we discuss the fact that we're not going to Martha?

It's a disclosed.

I I I think given uh given the hour, uh I I would be all for I I don't know what the first light agenda would be.

You guys have intimated that the first January meeting might be a little heavy.

Yeah, it won't be that one.

Thank you.

Um I I'm all in favor of uh getting together.

I I just I think we haven't had uh uh our last meeting a year ago this long in a while, so our some of our options might be might be limited, and then also there's the there's the uh the fact that Martha's was explicitly written into the agenda.

Um I don't know.

I I won't stop others from going, uh, but I'm I'm probably gonna gracefully bow out this evening.

So um so unless there's unless there's further discussion on that, um I think we'd be uh looking for a motion to adjourn, but before we do so, I do just want to say thank you all for your service again this year.

It's been uh my pleasure, and um I hope you all have a great uh Christmas holiday season at New Year's and oh no, I just I'm good.

No, behind here.

I I was saying because I was hoping there'd be an opportunity for the community, someone from the community to talk about and give testimony about the board of um uh planning board and the meetings.

Uh is that part of the it's not about a project, it's about this fund your board I wouldn't be opposed to to letting you speak uh since you waited so patiently.

Um my apologies.

I I thought I thought you were just observing when you didn't testify in any of the cases.

So yeah, if you if you'd like to speak, um certainly you just want to state your your name and uh address for the record, please.

And you can adjust the microphone if you need to.

Okay, my name is Beth Raymond, and I live at 14 Penichuck Street.

So as a result of limiting it at 14th Penic Street, I've been very interested in tracking the process that the developer next door has gone through.

And I just wanted to test to give testimony regarding the difficulty of receiving communications or accessing communications regarding projects.

I know you're the board is not in charge of the website or whatever is up on the website, but as an individual who has tried very hard to be able to get the act information regarding when they're on the agenda, what their backup documents are.

Um I was so uh I tried two or three times.

Each time I it went through differently.

I finally ended up going to my alderman to ask my alderman to give me the information regarding um what was coming up, particularly personally.

I was looking for Penichuck Street, but I just want to testify it should not be that difficult for the community but to get information regarding what was happening on your board.

Again, I know you're not in charge of the website, but you need to, I don't you need to know, I'm sorry.

You I would like you to know that as an individual, it was very difficult.

And if it was difficult for me, I can speak to the fact that it's going to be more difficult to people who are not able to access the community, uh able to access the website.

So specifically what I'm saying is that when I tried to go into the website to get a copy of the planning board documents, I had great difficulty, and I had to go to my alderman to be able to get that information.

Even to find out which meeting, I had to track the meetings because this process for that developer was several months.

I had to track the meetings, and even tracking the meetings and who was going to come up on it was very difficult.

So I know you're not in charge of the wall of the website that the city has, but you are responsible, I believe, to be sure that the community can get the information they need so that we can come to them, we can know when coming something's coming up, and we can get the backup information that um is being presented.

So it was real hard, and I think it should be easier, and I think I wanted you to know because you're responsible.

I'm sorry, and I'm saying that again, it's not that you're responsible, but you are responsible to be sure the community can get their information on e clearly and in an easier way.

So that's why I stay.

Thank you for your testimony and thank you for your patience.

Um, I'm sorry you had to wait so long.

Um just to let you know, uh, we do have professional uh city staff here this evening.

We do have one aldermanic representative on the board, so I I think your your your concerns will will be taken seriously.

Uh and again thank thank you for offering them.

Um I forgot to mention that I actually went to the staff and asked for assistance, and the information that I got was not able, was not it.

I was not able to use it, and it wasn't helpful.

I apologize you had that experience.

I'm more than happy to speak with you after this, and and uh but and I will, but I just wanted to mention the difficulties I had was uh with the information that I got on all three levels.

So but it's been interesting to sit with these meetings because I've never been here before uh and listen to the deliberations.

So I just wanted to get you let you all know.

Understood.

Thank you.

Well Merry Christmas, happy new year, happy holidays, Cam.

Motion to adjourn.

All those in favor, aye.

We are adjourned at 924.