Oh that was nice.

My um my Texan parents weren't into the New Hampshire weather.

No, yeah, then not.

And it was just a bad couple of days from being here because it was so much.

Yeah, right, exactly.

It was like almost unseasonally cold.

Was that the first time here?

My dad had never been here before.

My mom had visited occasionally.

Well, I got to meet my son for the first time.

So that was great.

Yeah.

Special.

Yeah.

Good.

Good.

No traveling for us, sir.

Well, we had a whole bunch of people here from all over the places.

Yeah, but for Christmas was just kind of like the local crowd.

I mean, my mom and sister and brother-in-law were the only ones who came from out of town, and they're like in a couple of hours drive.

So not too much.

Yeah.

Everybody good?

I guess 7 o'clock.

Larry, if you don't mind, sir.

We still have that role.

I appreciate it.

Good evening.

I'd like to call to order the uh January 8th, 2026 uh meeting of the City of Nashua Planning Board.

Uh first item on the agenda.

Uh can we have a roll call?

Sure.

Uh Mayor Donches.

Bob Bollinger.

Here.

Adam Varley.

Here.

Maggie Harper.

Scott LeClair.

Dan Hudson.

Here.

Larry Hirsch.

Here.

Cameron Green.

Here.

Patricia Clee.

Here.

Benjamin Zoller.

Here.

You have a quorum.

All right.

Thank you, Scott.

Next item on the agenda, approval of minutes from the December 4th, 2025 meeting.

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

Alderman Clee.

I will make that motion.

All right.

Thank you.

Motion by Alderman Clee.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Hirsch.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any recusals?

No.

Motion passes.

All right.

Next item on the agenda.

Communications.

Scott, anything that came in late that wasn't in our original packet?

I'm going to I guess we can't.

Connor can update you.

Yep.

So we had a few changes since we published the uh packet on Friday.

We had an updated staff report for uh several cases just to uh better position the staff comments of fire and engineering uh for each project.

We also had uh a change to the CUP criteria letter for A250164 for the DPW garage, and they also provide some additional uh presentation materials.

Thank you very much.

And uh I also understand uh under general communications we may have a member of the public that would like to um uh to speak uh this evening.

Um Ms.

Raymond, if you're if you're present, uh please come right up.

It's lovely to see you again.

I I'm I'm sorry uh about waking you wait last time.

But the uh the floor is yours.

If you could just introduce yourself for the record, please.

My name is Beth Raymond.

So I've I am uh member of the uh member of the general public.

I'm a native uh I'm from Nashua, and I've only recently had the opportunity to attend some of the planning board meetings.

My impression, not knowing what to expect, was it that your work is really important and that your work is really complex to see the the size of the applications you're reviewing, the expertise that you all have to have in various age and areas, and you do it twice a month.

So it was I felt moved to write to a thank you note from my perspective because what you do is really important, and if we didn't have what you're doing tonight, um buildings and projects would not be safe for people like me.

So you got a thank you note from one of your constituency.

So anyways, that's what I wrote.

We we really appreciate it, and so you know your letter is part of the official record for it for this meeting.

Um, and again, all apologies um extended to you for the wait at the last meeting, but thank you.

No, the the way was fine from the board and what you do, so I was glad to be there.

Very good.

Thank you, Ms.

Raymond.

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

Ums Harper is not here.

Um I do have one thing I would like to mention though.

Um today is a big birthday day.

Uh Mr.

Hudson as well as uh Mr.

Durfee, both chair of birthday.

So um, and they decided to spend it with us this evening.

Uh so uh happy birthday to you both.

I I hope we make it memorable and enjoyable for you.

So I hope not.

All right.

Um before I start our our regular cases this evening, um, would just like to say we have a fairly lengthy agenda this evening.

Um we're gonna certainly try to get to everything on the agenda.

Um I would like to note uh the board does reserve the right um after 10 o'clock to stop hearing new cases.

Um but that that said um we'll sort of take the temperature as we move along here, and obviously the flow of of the cases we're hearing tonight will will determine what we're able to get through and what we're not able to get to potentially.

Um so I would like to read the procedure at this time.

The procedure of the meeting is as follows.

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

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

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

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

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

The chair will then ask for testimony from the audience.

First, anyone wishing to speak in opposition or with 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 to ask questions they may have regarding the plan.

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

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

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

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

Above all, the board wants to be fair to everyone and make the best possible decision based on the testimony provided and all applicable approval criteria established in the Nashua revised ordinances.

Thank you for your interest and courteous attention.

And at this time, if I could respectfully request that you uh uh silence or or vibrate uh your mobile devices, that would be fantastic.

All right.

Um before we get going, I do just want to state um if anyone is here for the property located at 16 East Glenwood Street this evening.

Um that case has been postponed to the January 22nd meeting.

Uh other than that, uh everything else uh on the agenda will proceed.

Um business under conditional special use permits.

Um first item on the agenda is property located at 840 West Hollis Street, uh City of Nashua, owner and applicant.

Um I would suggest to the board if they make a determination for um completeness of the application and uh acceptance uh by the board for jurisdiction.

We could also um combine that with case 825-0165, which falls under new business site plans.

Uh Mr.

Hudson, before we hear that case, you would like to recuse.

That's that's the case, uh Mr.

Chair.

Um I'm an employee of DPW, so I'm gonna recuse myself from voting, but as in my capacity as city engineer, I'll be available to answer any questions as may come up by the board.

Certainly.

Thank you, Mr.

Hudson.

All right.

Um has any member of the board had an opportunity to review those applications both um for the conditional use permit uh as well as the site plan application and is willing to make a motion regarding completeness uh and the board accepting jurisdiction over both of those cases.

Mr.

Varley, please.

Mr.

Chair, yes, I would make a motion as to both A25-0164 and A25-0165 that both applications are complete and ready for the board to accept jurisdiction.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Varley.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Green.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Hi.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Board has jurisdiction.

Uh, if there's a representative on behalf of DPW, attorney Pearlman.

Thank you.

I think you know the drill.

Uh the uh the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Happy New Year, everyone.

Andy Pearlman.

With Prunier and Pearlman uh here on behalf of the City of Nashua and the Department of Public Works.

I just have a brief introduction.

Um, and then um I'm gonna introduce our team, and then uh you'll be happy to know that I'll sit down.

We are here for the proposed DPW garage and the associated buildings and improvements at 848 84848 West Hall Street.

The proposed garages to be located directly behind the new office building that the city recently approved and built, and the W offices are in there now.

With me tonight is Ethan Beals of Hainer Swanson.

Hi Meg, but Hainer Swanson.

And Ethan's going to walk us through the plan, the conditional use permit, the waiver requests.

Stephen Haas of Hoyle Tanner will speak to traffic issues.

We know traffic is an issue for this application.

Janet Slamenda of H ke HKT architects is also here to speak to the building design.

We were here in this in this room last month getting the zoning board approval for the what was special exception.

So the site can be kind of a flat site could be built out.

And I'm going to turn it over to Ethan.

But actually, I'm not concerned about you said I'm going to ask if we could indulge me and have our um some aldermen speak to the uh their their support for this project.

But before I do that, I just want to call out uh to this board that this is not TEAG Drive.

That's a bit unfortunate unfair to you folks because you don't have a you may not know what I'm talking about.

You don't have a TIC drive application in front of you.

The City of Nashua is um seeking to permit a water line coming from Teak Drive for a future fire training facility.

Um that's been somewhat controversial.

A lot of people have uh voiced their concerns about that.

That's not this application.

This application is the garage, so it's nothing to do with teak drive.

Um so I just want to call that out there.

Um frankly, I'm speaking more to perhaps some audience members than to the board, uh, but we're not here to uh uh to speak the teak drive uh issue.

So with that, Mr.

Chairman.

Um I am gonna have Ethan come up, but before I do that, um I know at least all the women Greg wants to speak.

Um, perhaps uh Aldo Mendowed as well, if I may.

So thank you.

We can answer any questions as we as we go along.

Certainly.

Thank you.

Good evening, thank you.

Um I'm Alicia Greg, Alderman at large uh for the city of Nashua.

I also am a state representative representing Ward 7 in Nashua.

I appreciate all of your work on important projects like this.

I'm here to speak in support of the DPW Garage Project, which received unanimous approval from the zoning board some weeks ago with zero public opposition.

I understand your role is to look at how this project fits into our city's broader infrastructure and development picture, so I want to address that directly.

I also need to be frank about what I saw when I toured the current Streets Department garage facility.

The conditions are sorely outdated and deteriorating, and I have genuine concerns about the health implications for workers reporting there every day.

These aren't abstract concerns.

I saw it firsthand.

We're trying to operate a modern municipal service with equipment that can no longer fit in facilities designed for a much smaller operation.

Just as critically, that location has absolutely no ability to expand.

We cannot build what we need where we are.

The choice isn't between expanding there or building new.

Expanding there is simply impossible.

Beyond the immediate needs, this is smart fiscal planning.

We're talking about protecting and maintaining a fleet of over a hundred and sixty vehicles.

Our current streets department can host a tiny fraction of our main fleet.

Proper indoor storage and consolidated maintenance facilities will extend the life of this expensive equipment and reduce our long-term replacement costs.

That's taxpayer money that we're protecting.

Operational coordination also matters tremendously, especially for time-sensitive services like snow removal.

Having our fleet equipment and coordination capability in one consolidated location means faster response times when residents need us most.

I should also note the DPW workforce operates on a 645 a.m.

to 245 p.m.

schedule.

They're arriving and departing outside of peak traffic hours.

So our trucks and equipment will be moving when residential traffic is the lightest.

This project has been thoroughly vetted.

The conservation commission gave their approval.

The Board of Public Works approved it, and zoning approved it unanimously.

Everybody that has reviewed this has recognized it's necessary and appropriate.

We also have to consider what's at stake operationally.

The DPW manages $7.5 million in annual paving, maintains our entire street system, handles solid waste for the whole city.

The workers doing this essential work, just our facilities that are safe and adequate.

And our city deserves infrastructure that supports these critical operations.

We have already invested a great deal of money in the development of this.

This is sound planning for essential city infrastructure.

I encourage your approval and thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Alderman Rick Dowd, Alderman Ward 2, 8 Ascog Park here in Nashville.

I've done a little bit of research on these types of buildings and why they're critical.

And this is one of the most important acquisitions the city is going to have in quite some time.

One is that we have a number of vehicles now stored outside.

And I want to read something from you from a national interest in storage facilities.

Outdoor storage slows productivity and cuts down vehicle life, especially in regions with more extreme winters.

Personnel that don't have heated storage, waste countless hours while warming up vehicles in the winter.

Then there's the toll of the coal, snow, and ice take on unsheltered vehicles.

Also, those extended outdoor warmups pump more exhaust into the environment.

Right now, the majority of our trucks are stored outside.

And we're spending hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars on this piece of equipment.

And we're having more and more pressure on our surf accounts for a number of reasons.

One, funding, and two, uh these vehicles take much longer to procure now.

Our fire trucks can take up to four years to procure.

So we're gonna have to modify our surf timing.

And to be able to keep vehicles longer and functional is going to be critical to saving hundreds of thousands of dollars every year for the city.

There's been a question about funding, it's very expensive.

Yes.

But when we on the Board of Alderman, if we approve the bond for the building, that money doesn't get spent right away.

It will be spent over two or three years.

And the way we handle projects, because I've been involved in many school building projects, is when the expenses first come in, they're paid out of cash.

Then when it's prudent, the treasurer sells the bonds to recover the cash that was paid for the work that was done.

Not the whole bond, not the whole bond authority.

So there's a cost savings in that area.

As was mentioned, the West Hollis Street traffic may come up as a as a something against it.

Actually, done my research, the tracks going to be less.

Right now, the vehicles travel between the landfill where they're stored outside and the maintenance facility, and then back.

Now they'll be stored at one location, go do their thing, go right back to that one location.

So there'll be less traffic on West Hollow Street, less less fuel used, which is also critical because fuel is expensive.

So that's one thing.

The other thing in the current uh Alden Greg mentioned quite a bit about the current facility.

If you've ever toured that facility, you realize that it was built a long time ago for far less vehicles, and now does not meet a lot of the criteria for maintaining our current vehicles.

The facility will give us more space, store many of the vehicles inside that are extremely expensive.

And the other thing beyond the vehicles of DGW, this vehicle this facility will be able to handle our other vehicles, whether it's police cars or fire trucks, as far as there'll be a washing bay that will allow them to save on those vehicles.

Park wreck and and uh and the school department's vehicles all stored outside will will now have the capability of being maintained inside, which will be another cost savings.

So storing vehicles outside is is a lot of wear and tear on these vehicles that we're trying to avoid, whether it's batteries, tires, hoses, or just the fact that you have to start them up and warm them up for some time before you can outdrive off on them.

Whether it's batteries, tires, hoses, or just the fact that you have to start them up and warm them up for some time before you can drive off on them.

That reduces the life of these vehicles.

So I implore you to please pass this tonight.

This is very important to the city, and it pretty much has the entire support of the board of all of them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Beals, you're up.

You know the drill.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board for the record.

My name is Ethan Beals.

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

Um, Connor, if we don't mind changing, can you change it the first of the aerial display plans?

It should be the sheet one of that same PDF.

Uh it should be that same PDF, Connor, that you were just on.

But if you scroll up, yeah, it's the very first one.

Thank you.

The existing site is located at 840 to 848 West Hollis Street and is commonly referred to as the Four Hills Landfill.

It's known to the City of Nashua, Assessor's Office as Map D, lot 54, and is located in the R30, A suburban residence, R9, C suburban residence, and the GMO groundwater monitoring overlay zoning districts.

In total, the site measures about 297 acres in size and is abutted by residential uses in all directions.

While the site has small portions of frontage on Teak Drive to the north and Twilight Drive to the east, it has its primary frontage and gains access from West Hollis Street, which contains two main driveway curb cuts.

The northerly driveway serves as the primary landfill access, and the southerly driveway provides access to the DPW administration building.

The subject site is currently developed, the majority of which is used as the Four Hills landfill.

This site has been used to dispose of municipal solid waste for in the city of Nashua for over the last 55 years.

In addition to the active landfill, the site also contains resident drop-off and recycling areas, the existing garage and storage buildings that support the landfill, landfill scale and scale house, the landfill methane and leachate processing buildings, a city parks and recreation garage, fire training facility, and finally the two-story DPW administration building, which was constructed a few years ago as phase one of this overall project.

Topography on the overall 300-acre site is varied and contains several high points and steep topography on the landfill portions of the proper property.

Connor, if you don't mind scrolling to the second one.

Several wetlands were flagged within and adjacent to the project area by Gove Environmental Services, the project's wetland scientist and later field located by our office.

Importantly, all of the wetlands flagged in this area are man-made and are related to stormwater infrastructure for the landfill.

As a result, they do not carry any associated wetland buffer here in the city.

The existing DPW admin building is serviced by city sewer, water by Penetrick Waterworks, gas, and underground electric and telecommunication utilities.

Thanks, Connor.

The City DPW has long wanted to consolidate their operations at one location to help with operational efficiencies.

City DPW operations generally consists of administration and engineering, which was previously located at 9 Riverside Street, but is now moved to the 848 West Hollis Street.

Parks and recreation, previously located at 100 Concord Street, but now has also relocated the subject site.

Solid waste, which has always been located at the landfill.

Wastewater, which is the wastewater treatment facility located at two Sawmill Road, and finally the streets and fleet maintenance departments, which are currently located at 9 Stadium Drive.

Now that administration and engineering and parks and recreation have relocated to the 848 West Hollis Street, DPW would like to relocate the streets and fleet departments to the 848 West Hollis Street as phase two of the overall concept.

As a result, it is proposed to construct about a hundred and twenty eight thousand square foot garage and maintenance building that will be attached to the eastern side of the existing DPW building.

In general, the building will contain about 2,600 square feet of vehicle operation space.

This is largely the connector portion to the existing building.

And it will include things like additional locker room space and street and fleet operation and office space.

About 30,000 square foot of the building will be the fleet maintenance.

This is the portion of the building in the far eastern side of the project.

This includes about 12 maintenance bays, a tire shop, welding bays, and other associated service and parts storage areas.

A small 1,800 square foot wash bay will be attached to the main garage building.

This will be a manual wash bay where DPW staff can wash down their equipment.

And finally, the remaining 93,000 square feet of building space, which represents a large central portion of this building, is a large equipment storage garage.

This garage will contain about 120 striped parking spaces, all of various dimensions, which will be used for the storage and of vehicles and other DPW equipment, as you just heard, many of which is currently stored outside.

Excuse me.

In addition to the main building, it is proposed to construct about 10 uh construct about a 10,000 plus or minus square foot salt storage shed.

Adjacent to the salt shed will be a concrete brine pad for the storage and production of de icing brine.

A 3,500 square foot detached auto wash building will also be constructed in the eastern portion of the project area.

This is a larger auto wash and will be fully automatic.

And it's intended to service all city vehicles, not just DPW, and this includes fire and police vehicles.

In terms of parking, the existing DPW admin building contains about 75 parking spaces today.

A new employee and visitor parking lot will be constructed that will add about 80 total parking spaces to this overall site.

In addition to the vehicles and equipment that will be stored inside the garage, 29 uncovered, oversized equipment parking spaces will be constructed south of the garage.

Eleven covered parking spaces will be attached to the eastern side of the proposed garage building.

And 12 covered parking spaces will be constructed in a standalone canopy structure just off of the south side of the garage structure.

In the far southern portion of the project area, it will contain a gravel laydown area.

This area will largely be utilized to store various earthwork materials, pipe, manhole covers, and other products that the department needs to keep in stock for emergency or other construction uses.

Located within the project limits are two small wetland areas.

These two wetlands are low quality wetlands as they are main made man-made, excuse me, man-made drainage ditches that really serve as a collection and conveyance ditch for stormwater runoff.

As you previously heard, the National Conservation Commission issued a positive recommendation for filling these wetlands, and ultimately the Nashville Zoning Board of Adjustment approved a special exception to permit the filling of these two wetland areas, and this really helps us create the big development pad that we need for the proposed project.

Can you switch to the other PDF, Connor?

Do you mind?

Before I turn it over to Janet to talk about the design of the building, I do want to point out a couple things in terms of how the building sits on the site in relation to the abutting properties.

First, while the building is large in scale, it is located about 600 feet away from West Hollis Street itself, and about 520 feet from the closest dwelling, which also sits on West Hollis Street.

It's also located about 700 feet from the closest dwelling on Trestle Brook Drive, 1,800 feet from the closest dwelling on Farmwood Drive, 2,400 feet from the closest dwelling on Teak Drive, 3,000 feet from the closest dwelling on Twilight Drive, and about 4,200 feet to the closest dwelling on Pioneer Drive.

I will also point out that we've tried to maintain about a hundred-foot wooded buffer from the proposed project to the closest property boundary.

The proposed building itself will largely be hidden from the public view as it is located behind the existing DPW administration building.

Furthermore, given some of the existing grading constraints in the site, we're able to site the building approximately five feet lower than the existing admin building.

In other words, the floor elevation of the garage building is about five feet lower than the first floor elevation of the DPW administration building.

The combination of these items helped minimize the visual impact from the building to the public view.

Connor, if you can scroll to the first one.

To help demonstrate this, Janet's team prepared two perspective, which shows the proposed building and its view from the public on West Hollis Street.

This first one is looking down the Four Hills Landfill Driveway at West Hollis Street.

And as you can see, again, this is clearly not this time of year with the leaves on the trees, but as you can see, the proposed building sits behind the existing DPW Admin building.

And then if you can scroll one more, Connor.

This is this second view is looking down the DPW administration building entrance, also at West Hollis Street.

And you can see the primary viewscape is really the DPW admin building with the garage sticking out just to the right of that.

As you can see by those two presented perspectives, there's not a significant viewscope of the new building to the public from West Holly Street.

At this time, I'd like to turn it over to Janet Slamenda, the project's architect for a couple minutes to talk specifically about the building design.

Good evening.

My name is Janet Slamenda from HKT Architects.

I'm a principal there.

I'm going to talk to you today about the building you see before you.

These plans were developed as the results of the city and the design team working together to plan for an efficient and cost-affected operations building for the public works division.

It's well thought through and blends in with the existing administration building as much as possible.

The building location, as Ethan pointed out, is well off the main road.

It is not easily visible from to the public road or other residential properties.

The structure will house city-owned vehicles and equipment that support the public works division and the fleet maintenance department as well as support spaces that work together to make those buildings function.

Also, as discussed by Ethan, I wanted to point out that the site is actually very confined in that area to the east and south of the administration building, between the recycling center and the roadway located on the edge of the landfill and west to the property line.

Multiple site and planning options were considered during the full interday, multiple multiple day interactive sessions we have with the city and the design team.

It involved the end users in every step of the process from the beginning, so that we were had a very clear idea of how the city wanted to operate, how they wanted to move trucks in and out of the site, how they wanted to move trucks in and out of the buildings, the safety of the employees and the people that would interact on this site, and then of course how the interior physical spaces are laid out to support their operations.

The civil team on that day on those days was working with us to figure out the grades.

And this is really important.

He talked a bit about the sloping of the site.

And we use that five feet as an advantage to our project, bringing the building down as low as possible on the site.

Of course, you know, if you if you try to get it any lower, you'd run into problems getting the trucks to navigate those pitches.

So they worked with us.

We got it down five feet.

Everyone was very satisfied with the concept of how these two interactive pieces would work.

The proposed structure, as you can see, the green and the blue primarily are the two main portions of the building with the green being the vehicle storage portion and the blue being fleet maintenance.

The two red boxes represent the wash bays and the proposed automatic wash bay on the right.

It's very flexible.

I do a lot of DPWs for a living, and I know that these plans will change how they use them from season to season, from year to year.

What worked last year might not work this year.

During big storm events, they'll be preparing those vehicles to get out.

They do not have to, since it's a minimally heated building, they will not have to run their engines a lot to get going.

They'll be stacked and ready to go.

They'll even use those dry aisles to get the first vehicles out as fast as possible.

It is a big building.

It's uh almost 200 uh 400 feet wide, uh, no, 200 feet wide by 448 feet long.

So it's a big building.

There's one row of columns.

The rest of it is uh clear span, which is also very typical for a public works facility.

Um, and then there are six double day uh double bay uh maintenance facilities plus welding and uh tire um areas which are specialized areas.

And then the rest of the linear blue things that you see in the back of it are office space and spaces that support parts rooms, things like that that support the maintenance departments.

On both sides of that vehicle storage, you'll see you'll see some support spaces.

We can't forget that there are staff here that are working here all day.

They need access to places to eat, places to use toilet facilities, shower facilities.

Most of the shower facilities or all of the shower facilities are in the existing building.

When we designed that original building, we planned for all of that to happen so that when we added to this building, we were it was a minimal ad.

The it's very hard to see because it's quite small, but it's a very simple building, it's low slung, keeping it as low as possible to the site.

There are many 16 by 16 feet overhead doors, which support the largest trucks coming into the building and moving.

There are is clear story windows to capture natural light along the all the facades, and then there are man doors.

There are no public entries on this building.

But there are no public access points.

So there we're not going to be mixing the public and the private anymore on the site.

From a design elevation from the buildings, the existing building, the administration building we've been there is masonry block.

There's two colors there of it.

We're going to continue to use those colors and bring them on to the building.

The pre-engineer building, which houses the vehicle storage.

We'll have also metal panels as part of the pre-engineers that are insulated, metal panels, and then the fleet maintenance is all masonry.

There are two roof profiles to look at.

It's kind of hard to see, but there is a sloping roof over the vehicle storage building.

It's almost just a flat roof that is pitched to drain, and then the rest of the building has a flat roof with some mechanical equipment that supports maintenance.

And those heights support all the incredible amount of equipment in the in the fleet maintenance.

There are bridge cranes and there are exhaust systems to keep the building safe for the employees.

So we have concrete masonry units, same colors.

And so our buildings always include a masonry base or all the way up to the top in this case in the fleet maintenance and masonry building.

Many of the buildings that I've done with that amount of clear story line, you don't need to put on the lights until later on in the day or earlier in the uh winter time when the light goes away earlier.

So those are very beneficial beneficial products.

And so we're trying to keep it low and uh and simple as as much as possible.

You have any questions for me?

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Before I ask Stephen Haas from Hoyle Tanner to come up and talk about the uh traffic analysis for the project, um, I do want to spend a minute talking about some of the internal traffic movements to the project area and to the site.

Um, the the DPW administration building driveway entrance will be utilized by employees for arrival and departure in their personal vehicles.

This driveway provides access to the proposed and proposed and existing employee parking areas in site.

The four hills land four hills landfill driveway entrance will be utilized by employees making work-related trips and work-related vehicles.

The current scale, scale house, and resident trash drop-off areas will remain in their current locations.

Commercial and city trash trucks visiting the landfill will continue to enter the site using the landfill driveway entrance.

They'll drive up and over the scale, follow the landfill access driveway, which runs along the eastern project limits, ultimately proceeding to the active part of the landfill located in the southeast portion of the property.

Adjacent to the scale is the resident bypass lane.

Residents visiting the site will also enter the site using the landfill driveway entrance, drive down the resident bypass lane before proceeding to the approved resident drop-off area drop-off areas which exist north of the project area.

Finally, adjacent to the bypass lane will be the main entrance to the DPW garage facility.

The internal driveway for the maintenance maintenance garage facility has been designed to separate garage traffic from the previously mentioned landfill traffic by utilized utilizing landscaped islands, retaining walls, and guardrails.

The proposed garage and fleet portions of the building will contain several overhead doors that Janet just mentioned, primarily on the north and south side of the building, which will be used to enter and exit both the garage and fleet portions of the building.

To exit the overall facility, a connection to the landfill access road east of the project area will be constructed.

This will allow vehicles to exit the project area, loop back around, and ultimately leave the total site by utilizing the landfill driveway.

A second driveway exit will also connect back to the employee parking area, but this will be gated and only use the secondary access in specific circumstances.

All the internal site driveways have been sized to adequately handle all of the large vehicles and equipment that will operate on the site.

This time I'd like to see if Steve Haas could come up and talk about some of the traffic analysis for the proposed project.

Thank you, Ethan.

Thank you to the board.

As Ethan mentioned, my name is Stephen Haas.

I am a vice president and traffic operations engineer with Hoyle Tanner and Associates.

So a bit of background.

Evaluating the impacts of relocating all of the DPW operations, administration, engineering, streets and fleets, parks and rec.

As we're here talking about only a portion of that relocation has happened to date.

Since that time period we had COVID.

Certainly during those years, but also after has affected travel patterns, you know, when peak hours occur and how much traffic is actually utilizing roadways.

So we wanted to revisit this study, make sure the assumptions that were done during that 2019 study were still valid and see how the you know the new traffic out there uh interplayed with the DPW relocation, or sorry, the street fleet street and fleets relocation.

So the scope of our study, uh, as Ethan pointed out, uh we have the DPW driveway and the four Hills Landfill driveway that are up there on the screen.

Those were evaluated in the original study.

Those are both uh three-leg stop-controlled intersections.

But we wanted to have more of a sense of what was going on to the east of the DPW garage here, uh closer out towards the existing facility.

Uh so we also added the intersection of Wellesley Drive and excuse me, Wellesley Road and Ledgwood Hills Drive to this project or to the study.

This is about a mile from this location to the east.

And it's a signalized intersection location.

We wanted to have an idea of what the impacts would be there.

Uh we wanted to make sure we had um updated traffic counts, as I mentioned, uh post-COVID count or pre-COVID counts really weren't necessarily applicable, so we wanted to see how things had changed.

We had a 2023 count at uh Wellesley Road available to us.

We also had the Regional Planning Commission conduct brand new counts at the new DPW drive and the Four Hills Landfill Road Drive, so we could have the latest information.

So we understand there's approximately 44 employees to be relocated to this street and fleet garage at this point.

One thing to point out this is a relocation.

It's not a new generation of trips.

These trips exist on West Hollis Road.

They just exit the road sooner.

So now we're seeing what the impacts of that relocation further to the west down West Hollis are.

Typically with a traffic study, how we get an idea of the amount of trips that will be generated are using the ITE or the Institute of Transportation Engineers traffic trip generation manual.

So this book is a collection of studies basically looking at different land uses around the country and determining how much specific land use would generate for trips, both entering and exiting vehicles based on the square footage of the building, the number of employees, and other metrics.

For a facility like a DPW facility, there typically isn't great data in this book.

To our benefit, you know, that forced us to go out and do a count.

So an actual count was done at the existing facility to truly record how much traffic is entering and exiting that building.

So that's the most accurate data you're going to get when you're actually measuring the facility.

So that is what was utilized for the study.

The last thing to point out on the scope the building is anticipated to be constructed in 2027.

So we projected, we use that as our opening year, and then we project it out to 2037.

So a 10-year design horizon, which is uh commonplace for a development study like this.

So what do we find?

Um from the trips that were counted, uh, it's anticipated there'll be 54 trips in the AM.

Again, that's entering and exiting combined, and 70 trips in the PM.

Put that in perspective, that's about uh a car a minute that'll be relocated further down West Hollis.

To further put that into perspective, um there's about 1600 to 1700 vehicles per hour during the peak hour on generally the eastern portion of West Hollis.

So those trips I just counted uh represent about three to four percent of that total.

Uh probably the most important thing to point out, as one of the Alderman pointed out earlier, uh, is that the street department peaks do not line up with the peak hours on West Hollis Street.

The street department shifts begin early.

So the actual peak from those vehicles using that facility are anticipated to be 7 to 8 a.m., whereas the peak on West Hollis is 7.30 to 8.30 in the morning.

Uh similar case in the afternoon.

Uh those shifts start early, so they end early.

So the peak from the DPW vehicles, the streets and fleet vehicles is 2 to 3 p.m., whereas the peak on West Hollis is 3.15 to 4.15 p.m.

We did, however, want to be conservative.

Uh so we didn't just say, oh, they don't line up, we're not gonna look at that.

We said let's look at the worst case.

Let's take the the peak from the from the street and fleet department and let's align that with the this the peak from West Hollis just to see you know the maximum possible impact.

Ultimately, we found that even doing so, there was minimum additional delay in queuing along West Hollis within the study intersections because of the street fleet department relocation.

So our capacity analysis gives us what's known as a level of service or LOS result.

This is a letter grade that's assigned to the operations at an intersection or a given lane group at an intersection.

Uh so this typically ranges from A to F with a stop-controlled intersection having zero to 50 seconds of delay, zero being an A, 50 being an F, and at a signalized intersection, zero to 80 again, zero being an A and 80 being an F.

So the existing levels of service at these intersections range from level service A to level of service C today.

And with this uh relocation are anticipated to remain a level of service A through C.

Level Service A is basically no delay.

It's not really a design goal.

When you're designing a new facility or infrastructure, really shooting for that level of service C target.

Level service A and B is over designed, empty roads, C is really that sweet spot.

Now it's when you start to get to levels of service E, where you're starting to approach capacity and level of service F where you're overcapacity.

So you have too many vehicles to actually get through your infrastructure, and that's when you start to see long uh delays in queuing.

That's not the result of this project.

We expect a few extra sections of delay, two to two to five seconds, uh depending on which movement you're looking at and which intersection you're at, and around one to four cars again, depending on which intersection and which movement you're looking at.

The last thing we looked at was revisiting traffic signal warrants at the four hill landfill intersection, which was looked at in the original study.

Um sorry, the traffic signal warrant basically is a measure of looking at if a given intersection and the volume of traffic that uses it if a traffic signal is warranted to improve operations.

There's different warrants that you can look at.

There's volume-based warrants for vehicles, there's pedestrian-based warrants, there's crash-based warrants.

We really focused on the volume-based warrants, uh, and it did not meet a signal warrant.

Um a lot of that is due to the movements coming in and out of these streets or out of four hills landfill.

Uh most of the traffic is coming from the east, so taking it left into the facility, you only get across one lane of traffic, and then most of it is returning to the east or taking it right out of the driveway.

So they they have less delay making those movements, and ultimately that's what uh kind of kicks it out of the signal warrant category.

Uh so in conclusion, um, the level of service within the study area intersections is expected to remain acceptable.

Again, level of service C with this relocation, even out to the 10 year horizon of evaluated.

And as such, uh, no mitigation uh of the infrastructure on the roadway was recommended.

So thank you.

Thank you.

The existing utilities in the site contain sufficient capacity to help to service and continue to service the site in this proposed building.

Once constructed, the building will be serviced by water by Penetrect Waterworks, city sewer, gas, and underground electric and telecommunication utilities.

In terms of stormwater, the project will include a combination of surface and subsurface practices.

The goal of these practices will be to provide storage and treatment of runoff, releasing stormwater in a controlled manner to reduce the peak flows leaving the site in the post-development condition.

A new stormwater trunk line, if you will, will be constructed to replace the stormwater ditches mentioned earlier that will be filled.

This trunk line will tie into the existing stormwater outlet to the site.

The combination of these stormwater practices will provide formal qualitative and quantitative treatment of stormwater runoff for a portion of the site that previously did not have any.

A site lighting plan was included as part of the site plan.

Lighting includes wall packs and light poles throughout the project area.

All lighting will be downcast, full cutoff fixtures in order to minimize light spillover onto a butting lots.

Site landscaping plan was provided as well.

In general, the proposed plantings were really focused on three main areas.

First, evergreen trees are proposed along the western limits of the project area to help bolster the existing wooded buffer.

Second, several plantings are proposed adjacent to the existing wetland in the southern portion of the site.

These plantings will help create a vegetated buffer from the project area to this wetland area.

And finally, many plantings are proposed in and around the front of the building and employee parking areas to help make that portion of the project visually appealing.

I can move into the conditional use permit.

A city equipment garage is permitted in the R30 zone by conditional use permit.

A CUP criteria letter was submitted to the board dated December 31st with revisions on January 6th, 2026.

I'll briefly go through those criteria.

First, the building will not materially endanger the public health or safety.

We pose that the consolidation of DPW operations to this site will actually allow them to help better serve the res city's residents.

The building will not substantially devalue abutting properties.

The project is located on about 14 acres of a much larger 300 plus or minus acres landfill, which is currently active.

The landfill and some DPW operations have existed on this site for over 55 years.

Furthermore, the majority of the project properties buffers will not be impacted as part of this proposed project.

The use will be compatible with the adjoining uses in the area as mentioned.

The site has existed as a landfill for over 55 years.

The building will be minimally visible from West Hollis Street and is consistent with the historic municipal uses on this site.

The use will not have substantial adverse impact on roadway safety.

As you just heard from Steve, the updated traffic memo demonstrates that the additional trips generated by this proposed project are not anticipated to significantly impact the capacity or operations of the studied roadways.

Furthermore, we note that the DPW staff were relocating, are doing so from their stadium drive location, which is about a mile and a half away from the subject property, showing much of this traffic already exists within this corridor of the city.

The use will not have a substantial adverse impact on the natural environment.

The majority of the project area is currently disturbed and utilized for various landfill or DPW operations currently.

The proposed project will result in an improvement in stormwater management on the site when compared with the existing condition.

Adequate utilities exist and the use will not require excessive public expenditures.

We can confirm that adequate utilities exist on the on the site and within the area.

Given that this is a public project, it is our opinion that the public expenditure section does not really apply to this project.

In fact, that the proposed project, once completed, will consolidate DPW operations, enabling the city to more efficiently provide services out to the general public.

And finally, the site does not fall within the downtown zoning district.

Mr.

Chairman, we are uh requesting six waivers from the National Land Use Code.

Um I'm happy to read my letter in detail, but out of respect for the time of the board, um, perhaps I could briefly summarize it and ask that the letter be incorporated by reference.

Um the first waiver request is of 190 279 B, which requires bearings and distances on all property lines.

The proposed project takes place on about 14 acres of a 300 acre site, providing detailed boundary survey when the nearest boundary line to the project is in excess of 100 feet away from the proposed development, would add significant cost to the project at no real benefit to the overall public.

Waiver request two is of 1902 seventy-nine EE requesting existing conditions on the entirety of the subject lot and on a butting lots.

This is a common waiver request that the board hears.

Providing a detailed survey on the full subject lot and abutting lots is cost prohibitive and is also provides no real benefit to the public.

The third waiver request is of 190, 184D, which requires median islands and parking aisles greater than 10 parking spaces.

We currently have two internal rows of parking each, which contain 12 parking spaces.

We are looking for these internal parking spaces and internal parking rows to not contain any median islands.

This is primarily to assist the ease in which the parking area can be plowed.

Not having islands will help DPW staff be able to plow this parking area with larger equipment, which will result in faster plowing and them being able to spend more time going back out and working on the city roads.

Wave request four is of 190 184 B, which requires NCAP islands on internal parking rows.

We're currently proposing two painted islands instead of NCAP islands on on the end of both of those internal parking rows.

For similar reasons, for waiver request three, we believe not having NCAP islands will help assist in plowing efficiencies.

Waiver request five is of 190 172, which is the non-residential building design standards of the National Land Use Code.

Janet spoke at length about some of the design of the building.

That said, there are some sections of this specific portion of the regulation that the building does not appear to strictly comply with.

The building will employ industry standard building elements that are cost effective and are consistent with the DPW garage with a DPW garage building and the existing DPW administration building that currently sits on the site.

Importantly, the building is minimally visible from the public on West Hollow Street.

And finally, the last one is waiver request six of 190 272, which requires plan sheets to be 24 by 38, 36 inch at a maximum plan sheet size.

Our plan set is currently 30 by 42 inches in size.

A larger sheet size allows us to include more site area and detail in our plans without needing a far greater number of sheets.

In summary, we believe our site plan conforms with the City of Nashville land use code.

It is our goal to finalize the design and permitting effort later this spring, with potentially, if approved, a potential construction start at some point later this summer.

In total, we anticipate about a 20-month construction schedule, although that is still up in the air as portion of the project, may be phased out over time.

We have reviewed the staff report and are in agreement with staff's recommended conditions of approval.

We feel excited by this proposed project and will help um usher in the new era into the future of the DPW in the city of Nashua.

This time myself and anyone on the team would be happy to answer any questions that the board may have.

Thank you, Mr.

Beals.

Um questions from the board at this time, uh either for for Ethan, project architect, uh attorney Prollman, um, anyone who presented testimony this evening.

Alderman Clee, please.

Thank you.

Um, Mr.

Chairman, I thought I have two questions actually, and I'm not sure if it would be necessary for this or um for our city engineer, but when I was looking at the technical comments, uh 5.3 that talks about um the there shall not exceed 50 decibels between 7 a.m.

and 8 p.m.

and 45 decibels between 8 p.m.

and 7 a.m.

It may sound like a silly question, but is there much significance between the the 50 and the uh 45 decibels?

So I'll I'll answer your some uh question somewhat.

That is a city requirement on every single project, not not just a commercial, that's a city requirement, and it really speaks specifically, I believe, to HVAC and other mechanical appurtenances.

It is standard on every project that that my firm has prepared in the last however many years that is a standard note on all projects and is a standard requirement for all projects in the city of Nashville.

Okay, thank you.

Um and then just one other comment.

Um, not necessarily something that was presented, but um I know that I've heard from the public in the past about um city equipment being stored over at the YMCA parking across from where they start, the street department um buildings are and so on.

Will that equipment also be housed and moved over to this new location?

Do you know if that's the intent?

Yeah, so I I can't speak to every single piece of equipment that the city owns very clearly in what you've heard tonight, the city's goal is to get as much of the equipment that they have inside, especially in the winter months as possible.

Um of course we we've heard um from Alderman Dow that really equipment stored inside will helping dramatically increase the longevity of this equipment, and so the goal is to get as much of it inside the building and consolidate it onto this site as possible.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alderman Clee.

Uh other members of the board.

All right.

Seeing none at this time, um, thank you for the presentation.

Um at this time, I would like to open it up to the public.

Um there are any members of the public that would like to speak with concern or opposition, um, please come right up and just identify yourself for the record.

Good evening.

My name is Paula Johnson.

I'm the new alderman for Ward 5.

And I have some concerns about this project, and I've been very clear about it for a long time.

When they talked about Wellesley Road, I happen to live there.

I know the traffic and now how bad it is there all the time.

And I see how the trucks go up and down West Holler Street.

It is a total nightmare.

And I need to be convinced that this project is going to be good for West Holler Street because we can't even get the West Holler Street corridor up and running to try to live eliminate some of this traffic.

Right now, the majority of the trucks go to the barn on Riverside, and they're repaired there.

A lot of the other trucks, you know, for the landfill go up West Holler Street.

But there's a stopping point on all where all the trucks are going.

They don't all go up to the landfill right now when they're because the barn is down at Riverside.

When you look at the amount of traffic on West Holler Street, and I listened to my two colleagues, Ward 2 and Ward 7.

They don't live in that area.

So I cannot be an expert in ward two or ward seven on what's going on.

I've tried to obtain information over the last several days so I could be more prepared tonight.

And seeing all this, considering I'm the new Alderman and I'm trying to take over, I mean it's gonna be hard for me to step in my former Alderman's shoes.

But this is my concern, and people have to understand that this is a very big intense project.

It is a big roadway over there.

And how much information does the public really have?

We're gonna build this big landfill there.

And so I'm listening about the abutters.

No, no one can see people can see the administration building from West Holler Street.

You can't really see the landfill.

It's not so much West Holler Street.

What about the other abutters that about 500 feet and 700 feet away?

If you take down all the trees that separate, then they're going to be able to see the landfill.

So what is going to be the plan for the abutters on that side?

I'd like to see that.

And I think the people who live over there have that right to know what is it going to look like as that landfill, those buildings for the new garage is going to be built.

Because if you have a home there and they take away all your buffer zone, how would you feel?

And now you have a big landfill.

I know it happened with the McCarthy school.

They were the residents weren't supposed to see it, and they see the big school there.

My other concern is like, no offense to everybody here on the planning board, but you know, we've got that, we have the charter school, which is a great school, but nobody planned for that charter school because when they drop off the kids in the morning, they pick them up, there's no light there.

And I even said to the board, why don't we put let the school control the flow of traffic at the beginning in the morning at the end of the morning?

That's a hazarded area right over there at that school.

Nobody listens.

And so we're going to propose this.

I don't really see, I hear the traffic plans.

I hear what they're talking about, but you know what?

I live there.

And there's a lot of people that live on West Holler Street that complained at the West Holler Street corridor meeting, and nothing has been done at this point in time because the city doesn't have any money.

And so you know what?

I think Ward 5 has been neglected long enough.

And now you're putting another, you're moving one big area to the landfill, which is crowded all the time on the weekend and during the week.

And you don't realize the big trucks that come in there from different companies to dump their load over there.

So it's not just, well, it's the morning.

It's not going to bother anything in the morning.

It is a very busy street all the time.

And I'll be more than happy to be out there counting the traffic every day.

So I hope you're going to consider that if this plan is going to go through, that you're going to have some contingency plans, and we're going to do something about the traffic on West Holler Street because this can't go unless we start fixing what's wrong with West Holler Street, because this is going to be a nightmare as we go along.

So I'm not concerned about the spaces for the parking.

We may have a medical.

Okay.

See okay?

Okay.

Thank you, Dan.

Thank you.

Very prominent.

My apologies for cutting.

Oh, that's okay.

No, no.

If we have a medical, then we need to take care of that's more important than my speaking here.

I know that you talked about that this has nothing to do with Trive, but it kind of circles around to Teak Drive with everything here with the fire department.

Um because you're moving one thing, you're adding one thing, and then you're moving something else over.

So, you know, I'm hoping that I will be more I will be kept more involved and abreast of this situation.

And I hope that before anything is really voted on, because the board hasn't even gotten the information.

Well, I believe we're getting it on Tuesday.

I kind of feel we're putting the cart before the horse here.

Before we get I at least get all the information so I can be brought up to speed on what exactly is gonna this is going to entail and what I can do to represent my constituents in more at five.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there any other member of the public that would like to speak with concern or opposition?

Please identify yourself for the record, sir.

Yes, I am Rodi Arontis from Three Jalori Lane.

Um there are a couple of concerns that I have uh mainly about the bringing of all the different departments from the Department of Public Works into that same site.

And it seems like they are always focusing on bringing everything to the same site because they want to make things more efficient, but at the same time, they are just clogging up that whole area, which was actually defined as an area for use for the landfill.

It's now being filled in by uh lots of buildings, or we're gonna be using quite a bit of the land space there for new buildings.

Um that's that's my one concern, the first concern.

Um I was also wondering because of the uh other proposal which was for the TIK side, um the road was not approved, which means that the fire department is also gonna be using this entrance.

What are the plans for the road uh the building of the road to support that?

Is that part of this project?

Because that's part of the landfill um infrastructure.

Um the they're adding about 150 parking spots, right?

So let's say a few of those are gonna be oversized, you lose a few spots here and there.

Half of those spots are used for, so let's say you lose about 30 spots, leaving you with about 120.

Let's say 60 of those are used for summer, 60 for winter.

That's about 60 uh heavy trucks uh going in and out of that location on a daily basis, uh servicing the area.

Um we see I live right next to it on the same uh the same ward, maybe about five minutes away from there, um, whenever I need to go to the dump to throw my trash away, there's always a line of cars waiting already there.

So adding all that additional traffic.

And as you are back uh into West Holler Street, the traffic line gets so long that it blocks the actual one-way road that is there.

So even having an additional entrance specific for the trucks, if the trucks can't get there, that already eliminates the actual benefit of having that separate entrance for the trucks because they can't even get to it.

Uh so you know that is that is definitely a huge uh issue there.

There's just not enough space to widen the road to make more room for a second um uh lane there for trucks to be able to drive through next to the cars that are waiting to make it to the uh landfill.

Um I just wanted to make a quick uh comment about the 50 decibels.

Uh that is about the sound of a quiet refrigerator running, which we are all aware that you know that is not a truck is not gonna make that sound.

It's a it's louder.

And if they were you know actually putting the proper numbers rather than using just templates and putting that in every single project, they should actually put proper numbers there so that you can have proper information to make your decisions on.

Um Pacific Boulevard, which is on the bottom left, south east, uh southwest of that location.

Um if you drive down Pacific Boulevard, it's a small road, um, it's next to the entrance where the proposed entrance for the trucks are gonna be.

Uh that is very close to it.

You can actually see the site where they're gonna be building.

Um that is probably I would say less than a hundred feet away from the from the actual place where they're gonna be building.

You can actually see through the road.

Uh I was there a couple days ago because of one of the signs that they put for Tribe there.

And I saw the site, and it's very close.

So they're gonna be seeing that right right across their their point of view from any of the houses of the abutters that are on the road in the Pacific Boulevard.

And um, I think that's all I have.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

Other members of the public that would like to speak with opposition or with concern.

Okay.

Uh seeing none at this time.

I just want to check in real quick.

Does not appear that anyone at Zoom is looking to speak.

Okay.

Thank you for checking Connor.

Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak uh in support of this project?

C none.

All right.

One less chance for the board.

Questions of the uh applicants team.

For rebuttal or yeah.

All right.

Um Attorney Proman or uh Ethan, if you'd like to respond to um anything that was raised, please go right ahead.

Yeah, I'll I'll respond to a couple of quick ones and then and then have attorney Prollman um perhaps respond to a couple of the other ones.

Um I did try to take notes as we're going through what we'll respond to some of the traffic ones in a second.

Um sorry, I'm just reading through my notes.

Um specifically um with locating the project, uh locating all the departments on one site.

Uh I don't think there's any question in some operational efficiencies.

Um really there's some cost effectiveness to to building one large garage compared to several garages scattered through the city.

Um in terms of the number of parking spaces being added, um, I do want to be clear.

Employee parking, so people driving their own personal vehicles to the site for employees.

Um, we're adding about 80 parking spaces to the site.

Um that is non-inclusive of the of course the equipment and oversized parking spaces that are in the building.

Um, all of portions of that traffic and portions of those vehicles are currently stored on the site.

Um, but I it was unclear to me if the 150 parking spaces was in reference to employee parking, um, some of that employee parking already exists on the site um or some of the equipment pieces.

Um in terms of the noise, um, just just to be clear in in my previous response to Alderman Cleese um question.

Um we're not claiming that that the um the site produces 50 decibels.

That is a standard requirement in the city of Nashua that you must abide by for HVAC and other mechanical appurtenances on the site.

And so it is simply putting that number in all of the plans because that is a requirement for every single site.

We're not claiming that we had a noise study done and where we're um that's the number that we're claiming we're producing.

That is the city requirement for the site.

Um, in terms of Pacific Boulevard, um, yes, that it is a dead end road that basically abuts into the property boundary.

Um that is located really on the southern side of the development.

Um you heard me reference a couple of um distances from the building to the nearest abutters, um the nearest dwellings.

It wasn't specific to the overall site, as I also had mentioned.

We're we're about holding give or take about a hundred foot vegetated buffer on our portion of the site to the nearest property boundary, so not necessarily to the nearest um dwelling.

Um, and that the numbers presented in my presentation were from the building to the nearest dwelling as well.

Um at this point in time, I think I'll have some of the other team members respond to some of the other concerns.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um Dan Hudson City Engineer.

Uh it's my birthday.

I'm just kidding.

Uh I just wanted to speak uh get up and address some of the traffic issues that were raised.

Uh uh Steve Haas did a good job of describing the study has been done, kind of the basis for uh the additional traffic uh um that will be coming to the site.

Um however, there's some prevailing background traffic issues which all the men Johnson spoke to that we're well aware of, and the city is working towards addressing.

Um the West Hollow Street is a you know reasonably busy corridor.

The challenge is turning left out of lots of drivers along the corridor, and that's not different than a lot of corridors.

Uh just the number of number of cars going through and being spaced out.

Um it's hard to turn left out of driveways, and uh that's that's that's a reality.

Um, but it's not something that's necessarily easy fit easily fixed without some uh um more substantive changes.

Um we've been engaged in a corridor study um uh studying that whole corridor and what things we could do.

Um we've had public meetings as part of that corridor study process.

We heard a lot of public testimony with frustration about left cell, but mostly about concerns about safety along the corridor.

Um from what we've seen, we view that largely due to vehicle speeds, which has become a problem in lots of corridors and roadways throughout the city and state.

People seem to be driving too fast, not paying attention, those sorts of things.

Um so we've been working on plans for traffic calming and things like that that we could do along the corridor.

Uh, but to do those in a comprehensive way, uh it's a bigger project.

It it uh not something that can be addressed by this project or or uh within the city's prevailing funding.

Um excuse me.

We have done a few things on the corridor.

We have uh we've installed camera detection at the West Hollis Riverside uh intersection, very busy intersection due to the school uh down the street.

Um that uh will prove to process traffic better.

We've seen that everywhere.

We've installed those cameras.

Uh we've installed installed uh school zone signs with radar feed speed back uh at the charter school.

Um again, that was that was uh an area of focus because uh the charter school and their traffic and uh wanted to calm traffic through there.

So those are recently installed.

Um although the charter school didn't install a signal um when they came through with their site, we did work with them and they completely reconfigured their whole site, setting it up so that it will be suitable to put a signal there in the future.

Um that was at our request.

They did a study uh of that area in conjunction with the Wellesley uh uh West Halls intersection.

Um we kind of envision a combined signal there so those two intersections which in close proximity of each other can work together seamlessly.

So we do envision uh uh uh expansion of that uh Wellesley signal to include that charter school driveway.

Um but again that requires uh funding.

That's that's a future project that just uh we we haven't been successful in uh budgeting yet.

Um we have been seeking funding, we've been applying for grants.

We submitted a grant application to the 10-year plan as part of the 10-year plan process with DOT.

Um working with DOT, those projects are favorable for the city.

Usually the there's 80% federal funding and the city uh kicks in 20%, and uh so those are successful programs.

Um but the 10-year plan this year is fairly confined.

The city's in a bit of a budget crunch, and so um the scale of the project that we like to do out here on West Hall Street just didn't fit into their plans.

Um we also applied for a direct uh federal grant through the Safe Streets for All program.

And uh unfortunately we're not successful in getting selected for that.

In fact, uh no implementation grants uh were selected in uh in New England other than a couple in Rhode Island.

Um there's some planning grants that got awarded in New Hampshire and other places, but nothing uh no implementation or actual construction projects.

Um I uh long story short, the city is aware of the problems out there.

We're working towards them, they're not quick fixes, uh, but we're we're certainly not ignoring them, and we are listening to people and we are doing what we can.

Um relative to queuing that was raised at the driveway.

Um again the the uh arrivals and departures of staff.

I mean, everybody comes, punches in at the same time, punches out at the same time uh at the end of the day.

Uh those times don't align with the peak uh peak times for the the landfill.

In fact, um the morning arrival is before the landfill even opens.

So in terms of queuing getting into the landfill and that combining with this traffic, that just uh isn't isn't gonna happen that way.

Um there is some queuing on the corridor, everybody, you know, wish people would say home to landfills open, some people don't.

They come out and they stack up in the left turn lane on West Hollow Street waiting uh to get into the landfill favorably.

West Hollow Street is wide enough there that uh there is an ability for that stacking to occur.

Usually eight o'clock comms landfill opens and that clears out in reasonably short time.

Um and then in the landfill itself itself, uh we've got a new scale.

We we're continually trying to keep people moving and uh process traffic uh to keep everything flowing.

Um I think those are the uh the highlights that I wanted to address.

Uh the fire training was brought up again, it's a separate project.

We are uh working, we're gonna be going uh back to zoning board to talk more about it.

Um we had proposed a driveway over there, but it was only for fire training, it wasn't anything to do with landfill.

Um, but that uh in in the discussions there that was rejected, so now we're back.

We're only talking about installing a water line off the teak.

Um so it's it's just a water line, no driveway, uh no access to even that uh through the site, fire training facilities already on site, so in terms of traffic, there's no change.

They're moving from one portion of the site to another portion of the site, there's no change uh related to uh uh moving them from their current location to a different location on site.

Um so with that I'd be happy to address any questions, but I figured I would offer those things for the um the board's information.

Okay.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Hudson.

Um questions from the board?

Alderman Clee.

Thank you.

Um and I'm not sure if uh Mr.

Hudson could answer this.

Um in the previous presentation, it talked about the potential for a signal um there uh by the landfill or so on.

Um it said that it didn't warrant it, and and I understand warranting and so on.

Um question I have is if for some reason it would they would put something in that, would that create more issues of more backups and so on?

Um the potential of other lights that put it in the middle.

No, it's a good question.

Uh as uh uh Steve Haas explained, um the majority of turns to the site, it's about 85%, or left turns into the site and right turns out.

The hard part is to make left turns on the corridor.

So turning right out, which the majority of traffic does that happens, you know, uh currently under a stop sign control, putting a signal there wouldn't help, they still would turn right on red, it's really no benefit, right?

Um the the idea of the signal there would be to platoon traffic, so you would periodically stop West Hall Street flow, um, and then that would create more gaps on the traffic stream on West Hall Street.

Um but I don't know that the landfill is the maybe the best location for that just because like I said, because of the the way the traffic turns.

I mean, the only time traffic would be stopping in West Hollis is when the left turn will be going into the landfill.

Uh currently that operation functions at like a little service A.

So again, it really really a signal's not gonna benefit or is not really gonna be needed for that.

So I think it would it would provide a kind of limited uh platooning effect, which would be the desired effect, I guess, to improve operations at other intersections along the corridor.

Um you know, we've talked about other ideas, we talked about roundabouts again, those process traffic well, but they don't really create the platooning.

Um so I don't know.

Yeah, at this time we don't we don't think a signal uh well it's not warranted, and and also we just don't think it would have provide uh enough benefit at this point in time to warrant uh the expense of it or anything else.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh other questions from the board.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dan.

All right.

Um Mr.

Chairman members of Andy Prolman again, you'll be happy to know that we're done.

We uh took that was a long presentation.

We apologize for the time.

We believe uh we meet the CUP criteria of 133F.

We believe we meet the site plan criteria of 146D, and we ask for your approval tonight.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Um this point I'm gonna close the public hearing, go into our public meeting.

Um I personally think there's been a lot of due diligence that's been put into this.

Um in terms of the traffic, I I think both me Mr.

Haas and Mr.

Hudson um have have addressed it to the extent possible.

Uh obviously I think there's larger issues with West Hollow Street.

Um I think everybody on this board is aware, and I'm I'm sure the residents of that area are aware.

In terms of concentrating everything in a central facility, I guess is uh as a Nashua High Alaman, somebody who had kids go through there.

Uh I think moving large um, you know, um commercial vehicles uh away from a school is is better, and I don't think that's redistributing a problem, but I think there's a lot going on in the riverside area right now, and if there's an opportunity here to have uh a modern facility um that is able to service other um you know commercial fleet vehicles for the city.

Um I'm I'm I would personally be in favor of it, but uh I'd love to hear feedback um from other members of the board um if you have any other strong thoughts one way or the other.

Um Mr.

Barley.

Mr.

Chair, thank you.

Yeah, I mean I I would largely echo your thoughts.

First of all, thank you to all the representatives for for a very thorough presentation.

I mean, didn't see a whole lot of questions, and um I think it's because you you really addressed a lot of those questions up front in the presentation.

Um you know the plan seems very well designed.

Um the justification for the benefits to the city from it, you know, it it makes a lot of sense to me.

I do think you know the one sort of overriding concern that we heard as you suggested chairman was the traffic concern.

Um, you know, this is something we see in other areas of city too, you know, Spitbrook Road, DW Highway, right where we've got incremental additions to traffic.

Um, you know, I mean, I heard the traffic engineer indicated you know that the trips generated here are you know approximately three or four percent of the total volume on West Hollis Street, so that gives you a sense this is truly incremental.

And I also think it's you know helpful to understand that these are you know these aren't truly new trips.

We're kind of moving the the trips at a different place along this corridor.

Um, and I think some of the other factors here in terms of the sort of off-peak nature of this, you know, help um alleviate some you know the residual traffic concerns you might otherwise have.

So from my perspective, um it seems to be that you know the the benefits of this project outweigh what I see as sort of you know maybe the marginal uh concerns around traffic and similar issues, and and I think the the project's been you know well designed to really minimize the impact on the mutters as well.

Thank you, Mr.

Barley.

Uh Alderman Clee.

Uh thank you.

Um maybe technically I first off I I want to say that I I think the benefits to this plan are extremely important.

And um, but we also have to look at the impact on those that live right there.

Um there is gonna be an impact on it.

We we can't uh hide that.

Um technically, maybe there's no what we call new trips that are in the area, but they're new trips to that specific area because they're coming from that and so on.

But having said that, um I I still believe that the benefits uh having everybody in one location is important.

Um like one of um my colleagues actually had spoken about visiting the um the street department and and so on.

It um we really do need to get those personnel out of there.

I said the same thing when we were changing um the landfill when they were in those trailers.

I've said the same thing about other things.

So when I look at the different aspects of it, I look at putting everybody together where we can be more efficient and uh work better together.

Um and communication becomes so much so much better.

And I think it was even stated by some of the speakers out there that had basically said that other DPWs have done similar things.

So I I am for this project, but I don't want to minimize what um the residents have spoken.

Um again, one of my colleagues uh who lives in that area and is gonna know that area better than we are.

She experiences this on a on a day-to-day basis, so we can't minimize that.

And I'm glad that um Engineer uh Hudson had had talked about the the West Hollis project.

And uh I've been in Alderman now for eight years, and I think probably three or four of those years.

We've been speaking about this project.

I know things take a long time.

I can say firsthand because of the Lock Street Lock and Whitney Street project that is that was when I first started, and it's still not quite off the ground yet.

So I know it takes a long time and it takes a lot of money, but I think the conversation needs to happen.

That is really kind of outside in some respects of this because the it's not just this one area, it's the entire length of um of West Hollis, and and I want that conversation to continue going.

I want public hearings to continue to happen, but I do believe that in um as a whole, this does outweigh um, you know, the the concerns.

I still hope that if necessary, maybe um a street light or or a traffic light, I should say, uh, could be put there that only gets triggered when there's someone that's going to be taking a lock.

I personally have sat there in queue for a long time.

I feel like I live at the landfill these days.

Um since my husband passed and cleaning out more things than I knew I had.

Anyways, um I am for this, but I don't want to minimize the concerns that these residents have had, whether it be one or whether it be 20, they are real, and I have driven on that road quite often as I do go to landfill.

So thank you so much.

Thank you.

Um other members of the board, Cam, please.

Yeah, I just like to say the SIL team did a great job of minimizing the impact of this building of the type of operations they're doing in size and getting the height down to something that's much more manageable.

So um and keeping the tree line around a lot of the major residential areas uh from IC it's uh really good design.

Okay, thank you.

Um other members of the board well appreciate everybody's feedback.

Um I guess from uh from a procedural spec perspective, um I I personally didn't have any major issues with the waiver requests.

Um I think particularly um the ones related to parking in the context of uh this type of facility.

I I wouldn't have an issue supporting that.

Um so I think the way is this is sort of written up in the staff report.

Um we would probably want to grant the waivers first, and if those were favorable, then move upon to the CUP approval, and then the site plan approval would be the last step.

Um with that said, are we at a point where a member of the board would be willing to make a motion with respect to the one two three four six waivers that are requested?

Can Mr.

Barley?

Oh, yes, Mr.

Chair.

Just I wanted to ask just to in the sequence you described.

Um staff agree that we should waivers before CUP.

Okay.

Uh and I I'd then be happy to pop our motion.

No, it was it was a good question.

They thank you for joking.

Um yes, Mr.

Varley, please go right ahead.

All right.

Uh so Mr.

Chairman, I would like to make a motion um to approve the six waivers that the applicant has requested and that are described in the staff report, uh, namely a waiver from 190-279B with respect to uh bearings and distances on the plan 1902 79 EE regarding showing existing conditions on adjacent parcels, 190-184D, um with respect to requirement that parking aisles uh not contain 10 spaces without a meeting or island, 190-184B with respect to uh parking lots uh requiring raised islands, 190-272, um seeking a waiver of the uh to produce a site plan uh in the 22 by 34 format and finally 190-172 to waive certain architectural design standards for non-residential buildings.

Um the motion to uh approve or or grant those waivers uh would be a finding that in with a finding that in each case um strict conformity would pose an unnecessary hardship um and that based on the specific circumstances and conditions here um granting the waivers would not be contrary to the spirit and intent of the regulations.

All right, thank you.

Um motion by Mr.

Barley.

Um is there a second?

Second by Alderman Clee.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Um Mr.

Varley, would you like to continue with the conditional use permit?

Sure, it'd be happy to do that.

Um so as to new business 825-0164, which is the conditional use permit.

Um I would like to make a motion to uh approve that application.

Um finding that the application does meet the approval uh excuse the approval criteria outlined in NRO section 190 133.

Thank you.

Uh motion by Mr.

Barley.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Green.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Mr.

Barley, if you would.

Yes, and then finally to wrap it up.

Um I would like to make a motion as to new business eight twenty-five-0165.

Site plan.

Um again, that motion being to approve or to grant final approval of the site plan.

Um that being with the finding that the application does meet the requirements in section one ninety-one forty-six D and that approval will include the subsequent conditions described in the staff report A through G.

Thank you.

Um motion by Mr.

Barley.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Hirsch.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Would anyone care to take a quick five-10 minutes?

Yes.

Very good.

We uh we are gonna take a brief uh recess here, uh eight thirty-six.

We'll try to meet back in about five, ten minutes or so.

So we thank you.

Hey, it's his birthday.

So I got to uh giving him special treatment because it's I guess so.

Yeah, we can take a look at the same thing.

And then the baby came along and uh help from the family in the absolute.

But it's not I mean it's it's nice out of here, especially when we use it.

Yeah.

Yeah, so we do uh three days a day care and then you know help out from one day.

So, yeah, I'm really gonna have to happen before we land it.

You know, it's uh it's like really great state, it's really well run in my opinion.

So really high.

Yeah, family upbringing stuff.

So yeah, no, I mean I was happy with my wife raised in National, so yeah.

So it's it's it's fairly similar, but I would like you know, we should be getting something.

Yeah, I agree.

Yeah, since we got I don't think that's like something we might need to say.

We got everybody back.

Thank you.

All right.

Um we are back uh at eight forty-two.

I don't know if that needs another knock, but better safe than sorry, Larry.

Thank you.

All right, next item on the agenda.

Um new business conditional use permit, um case eight twenty-five-zero two one three, property located at thirty-six through thirty-eight Courtland Street.

Uh if the board were so inclined, we could also hear at the same time uh case eight twenty-five-zero two one two, uh same property.

Um that would be under um new business subdivision plans.

Um has any member of the board an opportunity to review those applications, is willing to make a motion regarding their completeness and whether or not the board should accept jurisdiction.

Okay, I I saw Larry first.

Motion by Mr.

Hirsch.

Um is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Green.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

And uh I would like to uh state Mr.

Hudson has uh has rejoined the board as uh as a voting member.

So if there's a representative here for that application, sir come right up, identify yourself for the record, and uh give us a little overview, please.

Hi everybody, thanks for all see us.

This is my partner.

Toby Capella.

Um we buy this property a year and a half ago, roughly.

Uh a year ago, we go to the town fourteen months ago, we go to the town, we tell him what we plan to do.

The town, every department that we took planning, they they told us that uh if we go in for five family, because it was a five family uh to four condo, we don't need to get your approval.

This is why we come to you when everything is done and ready to go to the state to register, and we have already one unit under agreement need to close next week.

So it's kind of uh catch us not ready to do it, but we did it.

And the story behind it.

This is a five-family that was vacant most of it for a long time standing with uh plywood, no siding.

Uh there was one tenant when we buy it.

It was moving uh like a month after we close.

We we know it's moving.

The place was uh in bad, there was fire.

That's the guy the whole owner was try to fix it.

And when we start working with a town, we find that we have to reap up everything and do it from the everything.

So the two unit in the back is brand new construction.

We have to take everything and rebuild it, and then we decide to change the whole layup of the existing building of the other two unit in a building.

We never we don't change any footprint of the building.

We left it as is.

We have a four-car garage, so everything was walking to be perfect for a four-unit.

And the location in the north end, just we have single family next to us, so it's and some multi.

So it was look like uh, and the town told us it's not gonna be a problem.

So we spend much more money and we plan, like we do, but because we find we I think we did it in really good for the neighborhood.

We update, we put new water line, we do new driveway, all the all the outside got new landscaping.

The um I think it's benefit the town now because now you're gonna get four new owners that go and pay taxes instead of one multi-family that pay one tax.

So I think the town is going to be benefit.

It's gonna be less maybe crowded because it goes from five to four.

It's a two-bedroom, two-unit, and three bedroom, the other two units.

They're not they like 1500, the the two-bedroom, and then one is a thousand, and the other two is the 1200 square feet each.

So they're not going to be a big uh bring more than what was a tenant to see before.

Um this why we're here after we have everything done and not before.

Nobody told us that we okay.

Um have you reviewed the the engineering letter from the city?

We everything got correct on uh the map, the miler is there, and everything got correct.

We did even the uh scope for the for the sew line to the engineering, everything that was asked, we did.

Okay.

All right.

Um sorry, I lost my pH here.

Um questions from the board at this time.

Alderman Clee, please.

Not so much um questions as um just kind of comment um and to some expect.

I do have one question, I apologize.

Um, how long had most of the been um vacated before you purchased it?

I mean vacant before you purchased it.

Do you are you aware of it?

Based on what I know, the two back unit was probably vacant.

There was like the I think probably like from 2015 or 14.

Yeah, a very long time, yeah.

Yeah, and then the tenant that was living in the downstairs was there for a couple of years.

It was and then the upstairs.

I think the lady died like two years before we buy it.

So technically it's been a vacant five um five.

Yeah, he was yeah, it was no meter, no heat, no nothing, you know, it was only one walking.

In in May?

Oh, please.

So you're plan is not to your plan is to go with the four kind of minions, but to not change the current footprint.

We don't change.

We done, we we keep everything the same.

There's also a building, if I'm not mistaken, behind your shaped one.

Is it like um storage unit?

Is that what it is?

The garage, yeah.

Garage.

And that will we that will remain as well?

Yeah, we put brand new roofing, siding, new doors, electric, everything got new for I I did drive by and it looks much better than it had.

So thank thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Certainly.

Um Mr.

Green, please.

I was like my comment.

I used to drive away to work every single day, and it looks much much better than I think everybody come and tell us this.

Um we just finished one in 70 corncairs, so I know it was single family, so I know a lot of people see this one.

So I know it was single family, so I know a lot of people see this one what we did.

So we like this area, we want to make it a bit of a quick quick question for Sam.

Sam, did you care to provide a reader's digest version of just the context?

This one's a little bit.

Personally, I don't have any issues, but uh again, it's just a little a little unique from what we normally see with respect to the condo ownership.

And um, and I understand we'd still have to make the determination on regional impact, so that's not forgotten.

So certainly um so most condo projects that this board has seen have been in the context of of site development as well.

Um we have not seen, at least in my time here, any conversions of existing structures in economy form of ownership under state statute, and our ordinance pays quite a bit of deference to the state statute as to how to treat this sort of an application.

Uh it is a subdivision under state statute.

The conveyance of condominium is is explicitly stated in in the subdivision statute.

So this application is effectively operating as a subdivision.

It's creating new interest in land just as a traditional subdivision would.

Um unfortunately our ordinance is it lacks some clarity on process and and stringing a couple of important pieces of ordinance together in terms of governing process around this.

Um that's something that we are going to endeavor to fix, likely before the new code is adopted, but it's also being written into the new code.

Um and I think this is not the last of these that we will see going forward.

Okay.

Very good.

Thank thank you for the clarification.

Um there questions, Alderman Clee.

Uh thank you.

And and I don't know if this is the the time for this question, but um where this is going to become a subdivision um being separate, it's no longer a one unit, it's multi-units.

Will there be like a homeowners association?

Are is it still gonna be public trash pickup as it's because it's all on Courtland Street?

Um, or do we have dump stations?

The association going to pay the water, the Sioux, they have some electric doing the plow landscaping and everything that they include in uh in the homeowners' trash pickup will be the same as it was before.

Um it's like your house.

You they're going to take the trash out, but the plow going to do the landscaping, everything else going to be.

And then if I may certainly continue relative to um I know we are we always we took the the numberings of the buildings.

Um they get unique addresses.

Um we could look towards the we keep it 3638.

The fire department told us to change it to be one, so it's gonna be 36A, B, C, D.

Okay.

So it's gonna be one address now, not two, like so.

It won't be 3638, it's just gonna be 36.

This one, they put the 911.

So we change it already on uh condo ducts and everything and uh new plan.

Okay, that that was what my question was, the 911.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Um other questions from the board.

All right.

See none.

Thank you for your testimony.

Open it up to the public.

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

Any members of the public that would like to speak in favor or support of this application.

Seeing none.

One last chance for the board.

All right.

Uh looks like a no.

So we will close the public hearing.

Um our public meeting.

Um I I think other than again um the conversion, the condo conversion.

Um I I don't think we would have otherwise seen this.

Um I think the applicants serve themselves well.

Um that they're amenable uh to all the city conditions.

Um so I don't know.

This one to me seems pretty pretty straightforward.

Um I didn't have any issues.

Uh obviously the waiver request um is the one we see fairly commonly.

Um and again, having having read through the uh the CUP criteria prepared by their engineer, I I think I think they've checked all the boxes with with this one.

So um I think procedurally um we're we're gonna more or less follow uh if if a board member were so inclined.

So um I think procedurally um we're we're gonna more or less follow uh if if a board member were so inclined um same process as the last application uh grant the waiver, grant the CUP, um, and then grant the final subdivision approval.

Uh but before we do that, um collectively uh we would probably need a motion to determine um if this is a project of regional impact.

Um so that might be the the first order of business here.

Um so I don't know if uh any member of the board is comfortable at this point, Mr.

Hudson.

Mr.

Chair, I would make I would move that uh the board uh have a finding that this is not a project or regional impact.

All right, thank you.

Motion by Mr.

Hudson.

Is there a second?

Second, Mr.

Green.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Mr.

Hudson, since it's your birthday, would you would you like to follow through with with the waiver um motion or should we move on to the no?

I I know you you generally don't make motions.

I don't just joking.

I'd like to like to stay quiet, but that's hard.

Um you don't have it's not my general nature, but uh I would uh move that the uh the board grant favorably grant uh a waiver of 1902 eighty two B9 regarding the requirement to show all existing features within a thousand feet um of the subdivision boundaries.

Uh finding that uh in finding this that the board is utilizing the criteria um as specified in the staff report all right um is there a second second by alderman clee.

Uh any further discussion?

Um I might just add Mr.

Hudson just just for me go further just for check check checking the box.

Um I think we should explicitly state finding um strict conformity would pose an unnecessary hardship.

Perfect.

Uh and the waiver would not be contrary to the spirit and intent of the regulation.

Thank you.

I incorporate the that in the motion.

All right.

Thank you.

Um second on the revised motion.

Alderman Clee.

All right.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Dan, we've put you on the spot uh enough.

Uh thank you.

You're you're welcome to continue if you'd like, but you're under no obligation if you'd like to take on the C UP or I'm sure we have other willing members that would be uh Yeah, I would defer to others uh I returned from a vacation last night at about midnight.

So uh appreciate the assistance.

All right, well thank thank you.

Um Mr.

Green, yes.

Yeah, I'd like to make a motion to grant the conditional use uh permit of 190-7 to allow the establishment of forward unit condominium uh 363 Courtland Street.

Um finding that they provided sufficient rationale in the C UP narrative submitted December 9th, 2025, and it meets the approval criteria detailed in 190-133-F.

All right, thank you.

Motion by Mr.

Green, is there a second?

Second by Alderman Clee.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Mr.

Green, would you like to continue?

I will keep going and grant the uh make a motion to grant the final subdivision approval uh for this residential conversion uh at 3638 Corland Street, finding the application needs requirements outlined in 190-146d.

Uh subject of following the subsequent conditions in the staff report E through D are sufficiently incorporated.

All right, thank you.

Uh motion by Mr.

Green, is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Hirsch.

Any further discussion?

Unfortunately, I have a small discussion.

Oh yes.

Please.

Uh the engineering comments largely speak to the uh sewer service and the fact that we want that inspected.

Uh I'm pleased to hear that they've done the video.

I don't know if we've had an opportunity to review it, that sort of thing.

Uh having said that, and I don't think we need to amend the proposed condition, but uh I understand one unit is up for sale.

I don't want to hang that up, you know, uh while while we're looking at the details.

So you know uh we'll work with uh planning staff and the applicant kind of work through that.

Maybe this first one we allow uh without having completed our review and all that sort of thing, but um make sure we do that before all the units are uh all the condominium units are sold.

So I just want to clarify with the board that that's what we uh we'll use a little latitude there to hopefully keep this thing moving.

Okay, um thank you, Mr.

Hudson.

Uh maybe quickly uh I'll throw it to staff.

Is planning staff comfortable with that?

Okay.

All right.

All right.

Um so there was a motion by Mr.

Green.

Uh Mr.

Com Mr.

Hudson's comments are noted for the record.

Um, but uh we do not need to amend um your motion.

Um so we have a motion, we have a seconded motion.

Um so I think if we're ready to vote, I would say uh all those in favor.

Aye, aye.

Motion passes.

All right.

Thank you.

Yes.

Okay.

You still got three more hours.

All right.

Um next item on the agenda.

Case number 825-0203.

Um property located at 114 perimeter road.

Um is any member of the board had an opportunity to review this application and is willing to make a motion regarding its completeness and whether or not the board should accept jurisdiction.

Alderman Cleek, please.

Um, I I think this uh meets um jurisdiction and we should accept.

Very good.

Thank you.

Uh motion by Alderman Clee.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Varley.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

Uh there's anyone here to speak on this application, sir.

Certainly come right up.

And just uh identify yourself for the record and tell us a little bit about your project.

How's it going, everyone?

My name is Rick Lindolf.

Um, so I currently rent some office space near the Nashua Airport, and one of the rooms in there, I'm looking to make a small single chair barber shop.

So I've been doing that for three decades now.

Um I've owned businesses in the area, barbershops, and I'm in the process of selling those.

So my goal is just simplify my life.

Single chair.

I'm gonna cut two days a week.

That's about it.

All right.

Um physical changes to the space, just the existing uh paint on the wall and chair inside.

That's it.

Gotcha.

All right.

Um I saw there's there's no there's no similar comments on the CUP uh with respect to engineering.

So um taking a look through your your CUP criteria form.

Um I don't think there's anything out of the ordinary there.

Um yeah, I guess I'll toss it to the board.

I I don't have too much to to add on this, but are there questions for the applicant at this time?

No.

No.

Okay.

Um thank you.

Uh thank you.

Um you can probably grab a seat for for a moment.

Uh I'll just open it up quickly.

Are there any members of the public here with opposition speak with concern or opposition?

No.

Any members of the public uh here to speak in favor of this application?

All right, seeing none, board one last chance.

We're good.

All right.

Um thank you.

Sorry.

Uh close the public hearing, go into our public meeting.

Um we got the heavy one out of the way first.

Last couple of things.

Uh I I I sounds like the gentleman has a good plan.

He knows what he's doing, Mr.

Green.

Yeah, the airport area is like mishmash and other things as fits.

Totally totally agree.

So Alderman Clee.

I yeah, um, any time we talk about hairstylines and things like that.

I I have a tendency to get a little anxious about chemicals and so on, but where this is just a one-seat barbershop, I have no issues at all.

I think it's not gonna add any extra traffic.

The area itself has um traffic, so I see no no issues with this.

All right, um, I appreciate appreciate everybody's thoughts and comments.

Um again, I I think this one's fairly straightforward.

So if any member of the board was willing to um make a motion regarding uh granting the conditional use permit.

Um Mr.

Green.

I would like to make a motion for new business A25-0203 to grant the conditional use permit pursuant to 190-15, table 15 TAC one uh use number 35 to allow establishment of a barbershop at 114 perimeter road unit D in the industrial the airport industrial zone.

Um finding of the applicant is provided sufficient rationale for the C UP narrative submitted November 25th, 2025, and it meets the approval criteria detailed in 190-1 regarding dash F.

All right.

Thank you.

Motion by Mr.

Green.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Varley.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

All right.

Moving along.

Under new business site plans.

Next item on the agenda, uh, case A25-0205.

Property located at 170 Main Dunstable 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.

Alderman Clee.

I also will on this say that there were no exceptions, no issues, and I think we should accept.

All right, thank you.

Uh motion by Alderman Clee.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Hirsch.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Hi.

All right.

Come on up, Jim.

Good evening, uh, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board.

Happy New Year and happy birthday, Dan.

Was there another birthday today?

Sam.

Sam.

Sam, really.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh, good evening.

Um tonight I'm representing New England performance cars for the record.

Jim Petropolis Professional Engineer.

Uh, I make uh three Congress Street Nashua, New Hampshire.

And we're here this evening seeking a site plan approval for a couple small building additions to the Audi dealership site, formerly the Audi Nashua uh Porsche dealership at Exit 5 here in Nashua.

Uh I'll be presenting the facts of the project, and of course, answer any questions you might have.

It's just read into the record 170 Main Dunstable Road.

This property is 6.581 acres in size, zoned highway business.

And uh per the plan, you can see we're abutted by the Everett to the west, uh, Main Dunstable Road to the north, uh, veterinary facility to the east, and a single family condo project uh to the south.

Uh some of you may recall the Howard Johnson's Motorin and Restaurant, right, Larry?

Absolutely.

Fried clamps strips, right?

Uh on this site for many, many years.

Uh in 2001, we appeared before this board uh to redevelop that site into the Porsche Audi dealership, and it's operated in that manner for about 24 years.

Um, as everybody I think knows, in 24 and 25, uh Porsche portion of the dealership moved over to the former Holiday Insight on Northeastern Boulevard and built a magnificent facility there.

And what it did is really freed up room for Audi to kind of um spread its wings a little bit, get a little bit more site room, uh, and allow for some of these additions that I'm gonna go over in just a second.

Currently on the property right now, uh you see the various buildings, two buildings, um total about 62,000 feet, 264 car spaces on the site.

As we know, auto dealerships have a unique form of counting cars and parking space.

It's a combination of display, employee parking, customer parking, uh service vehicles, things of that nature.

Um what's being proposed this evening are really four building additions that enables Audi to uh transfer from a dual brand dealership into one dealership.

Uh on the south end of the site, next slide, please.

Thanks, Connor.

Next one, I guess.

On the south end of the property, two very small building additions, one for a building entry, and the others on the underside uh of a current um underpass to an above building for a photo booth, uh, about a thousand square feet on the south side.

Larger addition in the middle of the site, kind of infilling the gap in between the former Audi dealership and the Porsche dealership.

Uh that's a partial two-story addition, totals about 6800 square feet.

And then the addition on the north side is really to the service end of Audi.

Audi has, I think, 25 service bays on this campus right now.

We're adding five new service bays to the site.

Minimal impact to parking, as I said, with Porsche moving, all their display, all their customers, all their employees.

Umdi now feels like they have plenty of room to operate this uh this dealership.

255 spaces, about nine less than what's currently there, but well in conformance with national regulations.

Only minor site improvements, a little bit of sidewalk here, and some utility service connections.

We did do a traffic impact letter report worksheet.

Did not meet thresholds, very minor impacts in the AM, the PM peak, less than 30, and about 336 new trips over a 24 hour period.

Did not meet the threshold of any further study.

Architecturally, there is a graphic, I think, Connor, at the end of the scroll.

Really simply stated, gonna match the branding and the current architecture that's on campus right now.

Flat roof, fixed glass windows, architectural metal panels, uh really kind of audi branded uh signage on the property.

Uh and the pylon sign that exists is uh is to remain.

Uh Mr.

Chair, we've asked for two waivers, uh 1902 79 survey of adjacent parcels within a thousand feet.

Uh can't wait till that gets out of the land use code.

Um next one is the architectural standards, as you know, your current regs seek for pitch roofs and uh and entry features, just not applicable when we have additions such as this.

We're really trying to match the architecture of the existing building.

So two waivers in a letter dated 1225.

Uh, if successful, uh hope to start in the spring of 26, about a six-month project to complete.

Uh in summary, we believe the application conforms to the code.

Conditions of approval as identified by staff are acceptable to us.

One item I would like to mention I goofed on this application, didn't put in a landscape plan.

We owe that to staff, subject to their uh review and approval, and our client is fine with that.

So uh we respectfully seek your approval this evening and happy to answer any questions you might have.

All right, uh thank you.

Uh questions from the board.

All right.

Last go around.

Uh all right.

Um Jim, thank you.

Um quickly, is anyone in the public here to speak in opposition or with concern to this application?

Anyone in the public here to speak in favor of this application.

All right, Connor, no one on Zoom.

All right.

All right.

Last chance.

No.

All right.

Thank you, Jim.

Um, all right.

Close the public hearing, go into our public meeting.

Um this seems fairly benign to me.

Um with the the well, the two were waiver requests, obviously.

Uh the first we see quite a bit.

Uh the second one I think makes sense.

Um, this wouldn't be the first time.

I understand also sometimes with with national or international branding.

I think we had some similar requests uh for the Ford dealership on Amherst Street.

It just uh plus it's it's fitting what's already there, so I I wouldn't really have any issues with um with what they're asking there.

Um seems like we're gonna get a subsequent landscaping plan.

Um but beyond that um I I think this is really gonna remain largely what it already is.

So um but I obviously love to hear from the the board uh Alderman Clee.

I think it's just more on on process.

Um he commented that he didn't hadn't submitted a landscape plan and that they would work.

Do we need to put that when we make the motion?

Do we need to add that?

Um that will be coming forward.

I think is uh in condition D okay.

That's I was just looking at to see what's there.

So that just make sure technical comments five are addressed.

D says all conditions from the planning board decision letter will be added to the plan.

Am I looking at something uh listed in section five above?

So in section five point one, it talks about that landscaping plan.

Right.

It's necessary to determine whether the remaining landscaping on site is sufficient.

Okay.

Sam, is that how that reads?

Okay, yeah.

I see it.

I'm sorry, I I had the wrong one pulled up.

I apologize.

You're all good.

Yeah, thank you.

All right.

No, good good question, Alderman Clean.

Thank you.

Um six.

Uh any any further discussion from the board.

All right.

No, all right.

All righty.

Um, I guess what we should do if a member of the board were so inclined.

Um, we'd want to deal with the uh waiver requests uh first.

Um the board feel comfortable.

Uh Mr.

Green, go right ahead.

Yeah, I'll make a motion for new business A25-0205 to grant the following waivers.

Uh 190-279B to weigh the requirements showing existing conditions on adjacent park parcels as appropriate, and 190-172 to waive certain architectural requirements for non-residential buildings, finding that strict conformity would oppose unnecessary hardship to the applicant, and the waivers would not be contrary to the spirit and intent of the regulations for this specific uh parcel and carry out the proper spirit intent of the regulations.

Uh we're also considering the rationale provided by the applicant and the waiver request letter dated November 26, 2025.

All right, thank you.

Uh motion by Mr.

Green.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Hirsch.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

I motion passes.

Thank you.

Oh, wait.

Oh, we got more.

We didn't we didn't vote on your site plan yet, Jim.

Oh, that's late.

Maybe we won't.

He didn't really want it.

No.

I'm gonna miss Mr.

Green.

If you'd like to continue, uh shall I'll also make a motion to grant the final site to plan approval on the expansion of the auto dealership located on 170 May Decimal Road and Associated Site Improvements finding the application meets the requirements outlined in 1901 46D.

Uh subject to the following subsequent conditions listed in the staff staff report A through K.

All right.

Thank you.

Motion by Mr.

Green.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Varley.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Now you can go.

Thank you.

Great.

Next item on the agenda uh under new business site plans, case A25-0206.

Uh applicant city of Nashua, property located at 107 Amherst Street.

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

Mr.

Varley.

Mr.

Chair, um, as to A25-0206.

Uh I would uh make a motion that the 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 Alderman Clee.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Hi.

Thank you.

All right, board has jurisdiction.

Mr.

Beals, you're up again.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, members of the board.

I'll do my best to shave maybe a couple minutes off my last presentation.

Try to get out of here before midnight.

Um, for the record, Ethan Beals, project manager at Hainer Swanson doing business at three Congress Street here in Ashford, New Hampshire.

Here tonight representing uh Edgewood Cemetery.

Also with me tonight is Ken Lennox, Edgewood Cemetery Superintendent, Caroline Morell with Randall Paulson Architects, the project's architect, and Tom Affey, prep president of the board of trustees for Edrid Cemetery.

The chair's permission, I'd like to present the facts of the case and then would be happy to answer any question that the board may have.

Go right ahead.

The existing site is one of the several cemeteries located here in the city of Nashville and is located at 107 Amherst Street.

It is known to the City of Nashua Assessor's Office as map 60, lot 14.

Sites located in the RA, A urban residence zoning district.

The site measures about 32.2 acres in size, is abutted by Forest Street and Forest Street, Ashland Street, and Edgewood Ave to the north, Adams Street to the east, Cushing Ave to the south, and ultimately Amherst Street to the west.

Accordingly, the site is primarily abutted by residential uses to all sides, with some additional commercial office and restaurant uses along Amherst Street.

As previously mentioned, the subject site is currently developed as an active cemetery.

It contains a chapel, two garage buildings, two greenhouses, an office, shed, and other associated site features.

Topography in the site can generally be classified as moderate, generally soaping from a high point in the northeast corner of the property along Ashland Street, generally in a southern direction towards Cushing Ave.

Access to the sites, several internal roadways are provided via four curb cuts, one onto Ashland Street, one onto Amherst Street, and two onto Cushing Avenue.

The existing building is serviced by a private septic system, water by Penetruk Waterworks, private propane, and underground electric and telecommunication utilities.

Currently, cemetery operations are spread across the two garages, shed and office building, all of which have reached the end of their usable life, and it's not really viable or cost effective to try to renovate the existing structures.

As such, it is proposed to demolish the existing buildings and construct a new one-story building and detached greenhouse.

The proposed building will have a footprint of about 4,583 square feet.

The rear portion of the building will contain a large garage for the storage and maintenance of the cemeteries, trucks, and equipment, much smaller than my last garage.

The front of the building will contain a break room, waiting area, and vestibule, and office space for cemetery operations.

Additionally, a new 2500 square foot greenhouse will be constructed adjacent to the garage and office building.

A small eight space parking area will be constructed in the front of the proposed building, primarily to service any visitors to the site.

Employees will continue to park in the back in the back of the building.

The existing internal roadways will all be maintained in their current location, and the proposed parking areas and rear truck court area will tie into these existing roadways.

In terms of traffic, the project is really a replacement in kind of the existing structures in the site.

As a result, this new building will not create an increase in staffing levels beyond the five full-time employees and the five summer seasonal employees that work out of Edward Cemetery today.

Therefore, the proposed project will not generate any additional traffic to the site.

We also have some physical copies that we'll hand out to the board if that's okay.

Good evening, happy new year, happy birthday.

Caroline Morel with Randall Hudson Architect.

And I'm gonna talk a little bit about the building in its massing and materials.

So we can start with the floor plan.

And the main goal here is to reconcile the two different uses that Ethan explained in a single cohesive building.

So in the back, we are um hosting equipment maintenance.

So the goal is to be utilitarian, practical, durable, efficient, and uh it requires a high bed.

In the front, on the other hand, we have the office and the staff quarters, and that leads us to provide something that is more welcoming, warm, and also very respectful of the grieving families who come and visit.

So then when we go to the second page and we look at the response we're proposing in terms of massing material and color scheme, you can see that in the front, we are proposing a more human scale, kind of a residential type of scale approach with two-wing framing the entrance, kind of you know, open arms welcoming the visitors.

Um in the back, however, um you can fairly easily identify a garage, and this uh helps to have no confusion for a visitor who may um uh access the building from you know one of the several roads.

In terms of material, uh the guiding principle for um the trustees here is durability, low maintenance.

So the main materials are CMUs and metal sidings.

Um but again, we want to anchor back to the uses.

And so it means that in the front, we're um tampering the metal panels as to actually look like um bowden battons.

We're offering a masonry base that is very reminiscent also of something that is a little bit more residential, and also typical uh resident um uh standing seam roofing, also fairly typical of residential.

In the back, however, because we want to be um efficient and and durable, we're raising the base of the CMU higher, and these are insulated CMUs, and um they're uh then above that we have insulated metal panels and insulated um metal panels for the roof as well.

Um then, in terms of color scheme, um we want to remain um in a natural type of color scheme, very neutral.

Um the idea is to be very much in dialogue with the granite um chapel that Ethan mentioned, and also uh just the general use of granite around the tombstones in the cemetery.

Um in addition, it is our intent to remain very um attached to typical um uh buildings in New England.

Um and to be in rapport with whatever is happening around in terms of the uh neighborhoods and a residential.

In terms of sustainability, um you will see that we're offering, especially in the back, and you heard the architect for the previous uh DBW talk about that as well.

Translucent panels uh both at the walls and at the skylights to help with the light, and all the materials and insulation are there to provide um an energy and efficient building and pretty tight building.

Thank you.

In terms of utilities, um Cushing Ave was slated to be paved in this past summer in 2025, and as such, we are actually able to stub new water and gas service utilities into the site to avoid the pavement moratorium.

Both water and gas services will then be extended about 500 feet down the internal roadway known as border AV to service the new building.

Additionally, the proposed building will be serviced by underground electric and telecommunication utilities in a new private individual sewage disposal or septic system.

And finally, the ex the existing well will remain in place and be used for irrigation both for the greenhouse and in the larger cemetery.

In terms of stormwater, a surface infiltration practice is proposed adjacent to the proposed building.

This practice looks to take advantage of the deep sandy soils on the site to promote infiltration of stormwater runoff back into the ground.

This practice provides both formal quantitative and qualitative treatment of runoff on a site that really does not have any today.

Light includes wall packs around the exterior of the building.

All the wall packs will be full fully cut off, downcast fixtures to minimize light spillover onto a budding lots and onto the rest of the cemetery.

A site landscaping plan was included in the site plan.

An effort was made to protect as many of the large existing mature trees that currently exist on the site.

Additionally, there are there are several plantings proposed to buffer the building from the adjacent cemetery areas and some planted beds in front of the building.

We are seeking three waivers from the National Land Use Code.

Um I'll ask the letter be incorporated in the record by reference and I'll briefly summarize.

Proposed project takes place on a about 1.2 acres of a site that is about 33.2 acres in size, providing a detailed boundary survey when the nearest boundary line is in excess of 275 feet away from the development, would add significant cost to this project at no real benefit to the public.

Second wave request is of 1902 79 EE, requiring existing conditions on the entirety of the subject lot and on abutting lots.

Again, a common waiver request that the board hears.

And finally, waiver request three is of what 1901 seventy-two, which is the non-residential building design standard.

As Caroline just mentioned, great care has gone, great care and thought has gone into making this proposed building architecturally pleasing, tasteful, and visually appealing really to any of the grieving families that visit the site, unfortunately.

Um that said, while we well, I we do believe that we meet a lot of the sections of this regulation.

There are maybe a couple that we do not strictly comply with given the um the rear maintenance garage portion of the building.

It's our opinion that we actually meet the spirit intent of this regulation by providing a visually appealing building while still being cost effective and using industry standard building techniques and materials.

Um the Edgewood Cemetery um trustees are paying for the entirety of this project, and so tax dollars will not be used as part of the project.

In summary, we believe our site plan conforms to the City of National Land Use Code.

We have reviewed the staff report and are in agreement with staff's recommended conditions of approval.

Behalf of myself, Ken, Caroline, or Tom, we're happy to answer any questions that you may have.

All right.

Thank you.

Uh Alderman Clee, please.

Uh thank you.

Um truthfully, my my only real concern, and um I probably should wait to hear from the public are the uh the back of the uh the building where the garages are.

Is that facing Adam Street?

Uh it would be, yeah.

Um so as they would drive uh is there a buffer?

I I remember a number of years ago when all those trees were accidentally taken down and there were some replantings and so on, but is there a buffer or uh the neighbors gonna just see this garage?

Um couple things.

Um I have heard about the the trees being removed from the property.

I think a lot of those trees were much closer to the surrounding abutting properties.

They were this project.

Well, I I can't say it's in the dead center of the 33-acre site, it's relatively centralized.

We're over 270 feet away from Adam Street.

So again, there's still a pretty good just distance-wise there, and again, Adam Street, there is no properties on our side of Adam Street, we really abut right to Adam Street.

That said, um there is uh a um a wooded hill behind the building, additionally behind the proposed building.

There's um a kind of their their exterior storage area where the cemetery stores um earth materials and other pieces that they may use.

Um all that to say I would I would submit that there is a good buffer and that there will be minimally viewed, you know, if a truck is pulling out of the garage with his headlights on, it would be very difficult for those headlights to really reach one of the abutting properties.

Just one more question.

Yes, please.

Okay, thank you.

Um this is basically going in where the current building is, is correct.

Exactly.

But it's gonna be a larger building.

Um pushing more towards Adam Street, is that correct?

No, I I would say it it it's uh the overall footprint is almost identical to what we have today.

We're we're constrained on several sides by the existing internal roadways and driveways, and we're not changing any of that traffic movement.

So those internal roadways are staying exactly where they are as basically the outer perimeter of our subject property, uh subject project area, excuse me.

Okay, thank you.

Other members of the board?

Please.

Yeah.

Mr.

Chairman, I just wanted to note that I think the visitor parking uh addition is uh gonna be a big improvement.

Um usually when visitors come to the cemetery, I walk through the cemetery pretty frequently.

Um cars just parking on the uh on the avenues throughout the um cemetery, it can create you know obstructions with people trying to walk around.

So I I think that's a fantastic addition, providing a central visitor parking space area.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Hudson?

Uh yeah, I just heard a question about the greenhouse.

Is that gonna be like a pre-manufactured building or what will the nature of that be?

I don't think the uh elevation speak much to it, so I was just curious what that is.

Yeah, I'll have Caroline speak a little bit to it.

So the greenhouse is um very much a type of greenhouse you might found in your own garden.

Uh it has no slab, no footings.

The archies are just tube arches, and it's a equivalent of a plastic sheet that's over that.

Right.

So it's it's just longer because of the needs of the cemetery, but the construction of it is on soil, and will just bring electricity, water, and gas so that it can stay heated.

But the construction of it is not uh building pressing.

Okay, yeah.

I mean, there's is there lighting proposed inside that or is it?

So this is a um uh design build type of it's it's uh gonna be installed and um uh by this the manufacturer.

So yes, there will be lighting.

I guess so.

I'm getting as you're not gonna have a plastic structure with like grow lights going all night or anything like that.

Their light won't be on during the room.

Yeah, there's a I ask because on 106 and uh loud and area, there's like a lettuce farm, and that it was a major controversy because it's huge and lit up at night and that sort of thing, but isn't nothing like that.

I understand.

I just wanted to understand better what the nature of it was.

And this is very similar to what is currently it the current structure I'll just order, so we're replacing that and adjusting so that it fits on the site with the new bit.

Thank you.

Sure.

All right.

Thank you.

Um other questions from the board.

All right.

Um seeing none at this time.

Um are there any members of the public that wish to speak in opposition or with concern to this project?

Any members of the public that would like to speak um in support of this project.

Right, seeing none, one last chance for the board.

All right.

Um seeing none, I'm gonna close the public hearing, go into our public meeting.

Um I guess I I don't have too much to to add on this one.

Um don't really have an issue with the waiver requests.

Um refreshing, I guess, to hear um in some manner that the trustees are paying for this.

Um but um really really beyond that.

Um it it seems like kind of uh a uh uh a needed upgrade.

Uh again, I do appreciate the fact that the footprint is very similar to to what's there now.

Um so I I would I would personally be in support of this project, but um I don't know if other board members would would like to chime in or add their thoughts.

All right.

No one that's all right, that's not a bad thing.

This means they did a good job.

Um if you think so as well.

If there were a board member who is so inclined, uh first matter we should take up uh are the three waivers that were requested.

Um Mr.

Green, I uh you looked eager, so if you don't mind, I certainly go right ahead.

Yeah, I'd like to make a motion for new business A25-0206 um to grant the following waivers 190-279E to show all bearing and distances of all property lines.

One uh there's three waivers under that statue.

Um they all supposed to be the same numbers 190-279E.

Oh, good good catch.

Um they should be three different numbers.

Yeah.

Uh is it in your waiver letter?

Yeah, I think they're referred to above correctly.

They are B E E and E.

I will read from there and I'm going to restart that waiver.

Um make the motion to grant the the following waiver of 190-279B to not include all bearings and distances of all property lines.

Uh the second one ninety uh-279E to not show existing conditions on adjacent parcels as appropriate, and uh 190-170 E to not meet all requirements for non-residential building standards.

Uh finding that strict conformity would pose an unnecessary hardship to the applicant, and the waivers would not be in would not be contrary to the speed of intent of the regulations for this specific conditions of the land, and we'll properly carry out spirit intent.

Uh all right, thank you.

Motion by Mr.

Green, is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Hirsch.

Any further discussion?

I I had one minor one.

I think on the in the staff report, the third waiver is still 190-170 EE in the applicant's um waiver uh request letter.

It's just it's listed as 190-170 without the EE, is that correct?

Yeah, 170 is correct, yes.

Okay, so no.

No EE.

Just like that got uh stuck in there.

Oh, that's okay.

So just wanted to check.

No, one seven zero.

Gotcha.

All right, thank you.

Uh amended motion by by Mr.

Green.

Uh 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?

Try to get this one right the first time.

Uh motion to grant the final site plan approval for the proposed development of the um site and associated site improvements at 190107.

Amherst Street finding that application meets approval criteria outlined in the site plan, NRO 190-146D.

Uh subject to the following conditions, noted in the staff report A through H.

Alright, thank you.

Motion by Mr.

Green.

Is there a second?

Second by Alderman Clee.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Okay.

Yeah, we're we're cruising now, huh?

All right.

All right.

Next item on the agenda uh under new business site plan.

Uh case A25-0201.

Property located at 90 Northwest Boulevard.

Uh YMCA of Nashua owner and applicant.

Uh has any member of the board had an opportunity to review this application for completeness, is willing to make a motion um for board ex board acceptance.

Mr.

Barley?

Yes, Mr.

Chad.

Sorry.

Didn't mean to be hesitant.

No, it's okay.

Yeah, uh, as to case number 825-0201, I would make a motion it is complete and ready for the board to accept jurisdiction.

All right, thank you.

Uh motion by Mr.

Barley.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Green.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Mr.

Chairman, if you're not sick of me yet, I'll make this the quickest one.

For the record, Ethan Beals, project manager at Hainer Swanson doing business of three Congress Street here tonight, representing the YMCA of Greater Nashua.

Here tonight, simply seeking a one-year extension of the site plan approval that was previously granted in November 2024 for a proposed outdoor recreation center along with associated site improvements at 90 Northwest Boulevard here in Nashua.

There are no plan changes from the original approval last fall.

Final site plan, uh the final site plan was signed by the planning board chair.

A bond was posted, a pre-construction meeting was held in anticipation of the start of construction.

But last fall, unfortunately, that did not happen.

Um construction was delayed due to fundraising slash balancing capital improvements, um, capital improvement project commitments at other YMCA locations here in New Hampshire.

Um now they're really trying to target a um fall of 2026, likely September 2026 start um with the hopes of the new recreation area being open after about a six to nine month uh construction, so that would put us in the springslash summer of 2027 for an opening.

Um be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Okay, thank you.

Um from the board, Mr.

Hudson, question for staff.

Um is it appropriate to do a 12-month extension or should we uh uh should we be considering these for longer?

As much fun as I like bringing these up every year.

Um I know I know some state law recently changed around housing, some of those timelines are extensions are are being invested for longer periods of time.

So this has been noticed as 12 months.

We should carry through for the 12 months.

I guess it's just uh a question.

Should we be perhaps granting some of these for a longer period of time in the future as part of our amended uh you know land use regulations?

Well, it's it's the board's pleasure for this application.

Um, and obviously subject to the applicant actually requesting a longer extension.

Um we would certainly be amenable to that and uh noted.

It's it's possible, in other words, there's nothing preventing us from doing such a thing.

Okay, yes, thank you.

I think that we're pretty cool.

Again, I'm not suggesting it for this, I just in the future.

Would it be beneficial for an applicant to reapply for ETA period than approving today as is?

Well, let me ask Mr.

Beals, uh how how against the clock uh are you?

Would would you be amenable to so two things?

One, I think at this point in time it's my understanding that we're trying to target a fall of 2026.

So either way, at the end of the day, uh the chair the plans have been signed by the chair, a bond has already been posted, pre-construction meeting already held, so we've checked just we got to the very finish line, the edge of the diving board, and we just didn't take that final leap.

Um I would be nervous about submitting a new application because we're past that original one year with that the application for tonight was submitted within that time frame, and so I think at this time we're we're comfortable with a one-year extension.

We thank you for your answer.

We we weren't trying to paint you into a corner, but but it looks like perhaps um if you're involved in other applications that uh staff may be amenable to discussing uh a more or different a different timeline.

So um, but Mr.

Hudson, thank thank you for bringing it up.

Yeah, I mean just if you may.

No, please, yeah.

Uh especially cases where it's uh a nonprofit, we understand they need to raise money, that sort of thing.

I just there's an expense to having them go through this uh process with an extension, and so um just something to consider for future cases.

Yes.

Um I I'm glad that um Mr.

Hudson brought that up because that was my concern too.

I I know having worked with other fundraising, my concern is that I I'm not gonna put anybody on the foot.

Say do you have the money now?

But I know things stall, and this time of year is really hard to get um funding.

Sometimes the end of the year is okay, but um again, my concern is that you'll be here and um the funding won't there, and I'm not asking you to reapply or do anything of that nature, but maybe for staff in the future when we have something like that, maybe suggest to them, especially if the delay is due to fundraising, that we ask just for an 18 months versus that.

Um I I I know even when we were doing the performing art building, you know, we we got we hit our one year, and then it was like um okay, you know, we need to show intent so that the money keeps coming in, but at the same time you don't want anything to be stalled.

So just for future reference.

Thank you.

And again, thank thanks for bringing that up, Dan.

Um aside from that, I I've got um zero issues with granting the the requested extension.

Um so I don't know if you have any more questions for for Mr.

Beatles, but uh if not um sorry, are are you folks here to testify on this case or is there the next case?

Oh, you're the next case.

All right.

I figured that was likely since you're the last, but you know, just wanted to make sure.

Yes, thank you.

All right, we have uh no input from the public on this case.

I'm gonna close the public hearing.

Um I stand by this seems pretty straightforward.

So um Mr.

Green, all right on queue.

Yeah, I'm gonna make a motion for A25-0201 uh to grant final site plan approval for one year extension of the site plan at 190 Northwest Boulevard as outlined in 190-146D, subject to the following subsequent conditions uh or condition A in the staff report.

All right, thank you.

Motion by Mr.

Green, is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Hirsch.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

I think aye.

Motion passes.

You get to go home, Mr.

Beals.

All right.

Next item on the agenda.

Um case 825-0204, property located at 159 Temple Street.

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

Oh Alderman Clee.

Um I I say that we should um accept with no uh implication so on and accept the jurisdiction accept taking his jurisdiction.

All right.

That's okay.

It's all good.

Thank you.

Uh motion by Alderman Clee.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Varley.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

I all right.

Is anyone here to speak on behalf of this application tonight?

Uh yes.

Um my name is Michael Melanowski from Allen of Major Associates.

Wait, uh I'm sorry, Mike.

Can you can you hold one second?

We just gotta pull your audio up.

No.

Okay.

Sam, should we turn anything over here?

Connor might know.

I don't know if I can turn it in.

What about over here?

Uh that one.

Over this way.

Oh, he's in the touchy.

Try again.

Uh translation now.

Uh Michael, go ahead.

Thank you.

Um first of all, uh, happy birthday to Mr.

Hudson.

Um thank the board and the town for letting me promote.

I can't hear.

Yeah, Mike, I'm I'm sorry uh to interrupt you.

I think we're still having audio issues on our end.

He might have to do something in his end.

Um must be the acoustics in the room because we're not getting it up here.

I think you're getting it from the speaker.

It's not coming through here, yeah.

It is just very I can't really hear anything.

Is that any better?

No.

We can all go sit there.

I'm gonna go uh knocking.

If you can give a little knock there, yeah, I think there's a microphone or put against the speaker.

Yeah.

Mike, I'm sorry, just just bear with us here.

Okay, thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

I hear no people answered our question.

So don't touch the that's what he said.

Don't touch it.

I did touch it.

Maybe you can call it a smartphone.

Mr.

Chair?

Yes, Mr.

Hudson.

Is it what we should we briefly uh pause this and move on to uh the other items on the agenda or yeah?

So there's some knob that we don't know where it is exactly is it just feels like nothing's coming through the speakers here.

I think it's only from this one, and it's no I can hear like a little bit, but those speakers are not working.

They're not very almost nothing.

No those speakers may be working, but these just are not maybe if you call back in not connected.

Yeah, I'm not sure.

Mike, is there any chance you might want to try logging out and logging back in?

I can do that.

Oh, oh wait, wait, wait, wait.

Don't that's better.

That whatever go away.

Yeah.

Just maybe speak up into the microphone.

Sorry.

All right.

I I I think we we might have this as good as we can get it right now.

Okay.

So uh appreciate your uh your your patience.

Uh understanding this is just a request for an extension.

Uh and the fact that the audio may or may not leave us at any moment.

I would ask for uh brevity in your presentation, please.

Thank you.

And I will do my best.

I am unfortunately under the weather right now, so that's why I'm trying to do it remote.

Um we are here for you for a an extension request for a property located at uh 159 Templar Street that had been approved last March.

Um hundred and sixty-eight uh residential units um located in the general industrial district in the transit oriented development.

Plans have not changed.

Um the current owner has been working with um SMC management.

Um they had done the riverfront landing phase one face two wouldn't act down the creek.

Um they're currently in negotiations to uh purchase the property.

Um is just grant them a little more time to uh split to buy that um so that they can take home project and our construction.

Um I know there had been a discussion relative to the last um application about possibly allowing for a greater extension if that um is something that is amenable for the board.

Um we might be able to request that uh possibly going up an 18 month.

No, Mike, I I think you you sorry to cut you off.

You may have missed some of the context.

That was for a nonprofit.

There were some other things.

Gotcha.

So I sorry, you're you're you're stuck with the regular 12-month uh that I'm sorry, please please continue.

Sorry for the interruption.

No, no worries.

Um we are requesting a 12-month extension um for the project.

The plans have not changed.

Um simply allow us to uh file hopefully the range that we're between one entity and another.

All right.

Well thank you.

Uh we might have a couple of questions here for you.

It looks like uh Alderman Clee, go right ahead.

I I know it's it's the volume and so on, but the the request for the extension is the reason for it is that they're trying to buy another parcel, and that's a negotiations.

Did I get that correct?

I no, it let me click the the current property owner who um is the JBC um properties, um, is currently in negotiations to sell the project to SFC management corp.

Uh that's the state proof that built uh rubber front landing phase one and phase two in the city.

Um they are currently in the negotiations by this project.

Um the extension would allow them to finalize that paperwork and then take over the project and construct it.

Is that how ultimately I did?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Other questions from the board?

Yeah, Dave.

Uh not well, not so much a question, more of a statement, I guess.

This one was uh originally approved in 2019.

So this one's been is that correct?

I think there's a resubmittal March 7, 2025.

Oh, okay, which a new case.

Okay, thanks for clarifying that because I know we've heard about this for many many years.

I think that resubmital wasn't wasn't large changes to the previous proposal.

Correct.

It was it was a total reapplication, new fees, same project.

Same project, though.

Yeah, we just ran out of their extension.

Yeah.

So I just I just want to make it.

Yeah, I guess uh well good.

I'm glad we uh timed it out, made them reapply because there is a reasonable limit to the amount of extensions.

Um I will say uh there's engineering comments.

Uh there's some there was the plan C know it hadn't changed, but there were still some remaining comments to address.

Uh in looking at this again, we modified a couple of conditions, added a couple more things in.

So we don't normally do that, but it's like the long of these things sit around the you see things that you uh think should have been addressed.

So we did add we did add a couple of uh minor engineering uh conditions.

I characterized minor uh conditions here um with this one where we hadn't done that before, but again, this one's largely been the same since 2019.

Um so I think that was reasonable to do.

So uh statements, I guess, not questions, but I just want to make the board aware of the.

No, you actually why there was engineering comments.

You you answered my question.

I was gonna ask what led to the additional comment letter.

So um no, I'm um here, Alderman Clee.

Yep.

Okay.

Um so when we do or don't grant the extension, whatever, however it comes out.

Do we need to incorporate these comments and say that they need to be addressed or yeah, and that's it's listed as a subsequent condition.

So condition A would be all prior conditions um or carry forward and condition B would be resolving conditions.

In the email from Joe Mandela.

Yeah, okay, thank you.

Yeah, yeah.

And we have reviewed those and and I agree with um summary of those.

They're relatively minor in nature.

Uh there was some sort of regulatory changes that the city of Nashua has.

Um I'm working with Joe Mandola to at least get those updated and noted correctly on the plans.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Um other questions from the board.

No.

All right.

I'll uh Mike, thank you.

Um looks like we're no one else here you're you're good, right?

All right, and Connor, there's no one else on on Zoom.

No, sir.

All right.

All right.

I'm gonna close the public hearing.

I'm going to our public meeting.

Um I I sort of have the same sentiments Dan Dan has.

It'd be nice um for it to get going.

But if if there if there's a uh active negotiation for the sale of the property and someone might be able to build it, then um I I wouldn't I wouldn't have a problem uh granting uh the extension in this case.

Um I won't I won't speak to to others uh but if we were to get beyond that year again, um well we'll we'll see it uh it's it it washes out how it washes out, but Alderman Clee.

Thank you.

Uh you know, in looking in in this, I I understand that it started in 2019.

They had to reapply.

Is this the first extension since the reapplication?

So the um the 20 September 21st, 2024 is when the first one expired.

They reapplied, and this is just uh because it seems like it's been over a year.

Actually, it's a little little early.

Uh it will extend the March 7th, 2023.

Yeah.

So they're just trying to, as you said, be proactive.

Settle things for the uh sale.

So will the one year extension be from the March 7th, 2025 date?

So it'll give them to March.

It would be from today.

It'll be from today and not from the where would it expire on the 26th?

Yeah.

Okay.

So it'll be it's so it would extend it from uh March 20, 26 to March 2027.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Interesting.

Um thank you for the question, all Rinkley on the clarification on that.

Umst the board.

Great.

Um that case of Mr.

Green.

All right, I'd like to make a motion for a new business A25-0204 to grant the one year extension of the final site plan approval to construct two 84 unit apartment buildings associated with associated site improvements on one uh 59 and 161 Temple Street.

Finding the application meets the requirements outlined in 190-146B.

Uh subject to the following subsequent conditions, a through B noted in the staff report.

All right, thank you.

Uh motion by Mr.

Green.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Varley.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Okay.

Motion passes.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone.

Yep.

Thank you.

All right.

Next item on the agenda.

Review of tentative agenda to determine developments of regional impact.

Meeting.

Mr.

Varley, go right ahead.

Mr.

Chair, uh, have a review of the tenant agenda.

I would make a motion if there are no proposals of regional impact.

Uh thank you.

Motion by Mr.

Varley.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Green.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

All right.

Thank you.

Motion passes.

Sam, I gotta be honest with you.

CIP is not going to be discussed this evening.

So I understand January 22nd is a fairly light agenda.

Is that a true statement?

Middle of the road.

Middle of the road.

Five potential.

Do you does the board think that it needs a lengthy discussion of the CID?

Well, I I guess that's I didn't want to do a deep dive.

I just didn't know what appetite was.

Um, but I mean, if we're we're here, it's 1001.

Um so if there's a quickie version, um and are we expected Sam?

Can we just hear Sam's real quick?

That's what I mean.

Like is is an as an action item expected tonight.

It that would be that would be ideal.

Yeah, my concern is that it's going to be heard in front of the board of aldermen on Tuesday.

Right.

Um if if folks have the uh the readers digest version.

Appetite, yeah.

You want to try to burn through this particular.

I think so, because like I said, I'm concerned.

There's gonna be action taken, I believe, or presentation at least on Wednesday.

I mean on Tuesday.

So it would kind of make any further action from this committee move.

Am I correct on that?

Yes, no.

I wouldn't quite raise it that way, but I will be very quick.

Yes.

Go for it.

Let's stop talking about it.

Let's do it.

The capital improvements committee is a subcommittee of the planning board.

They're tasked with soliciting and scoring and ranking all capital projects.

Uh that is by charter.

So basically, the CIC has done this, they put together this report.

Um, many of the projects you may recognize from past years.

Um basically the CIC then compiles all the projects, puts them together in this document, and then they vote, which we did on Monday, uh, favorable recommendation to the planning board, and then the planning board is then asked to make recommendations to the board of aldermen for adoption of the capital improvements plan.

Happy to answer any questions about the report or individual projects, but I doubt we need to get into that level of detail.

The the only other thing I'll add, uh uh in other duties as assigned on the de facto chair um of the Capitol Improvement Committee.

Um last year we completely sort of revamped the scoring criteria.

We tried to make it um uh honestly more objective and less subjective.

So this is our second year of doing it.

Um presentations from uh all department heads were were I thought very informative and helpful as always.

Um at the end of the day, we we we come up with a one through five scoring system.

So all it's myself, uh Alderman representative, uh we have a public uh member uh as well uh and a few members of city staff.

Uh Sam and Marcia Wilkins and planning do most of the heavy lifting behind the scenes, but um I I feel that it it's it's a quality representation, it's it's it's probably never gonna be a perfect process.

Um but uh again having that that unique composition of um you know a public involvement, uh elected involvement and staff involvement, you know, trying to take a separate look from for ranking city projects, um uh you know, aside from what the aldermen would would normally do on their own.

So uh that said, I I don't want to um go on too long, obviously.

Um, and and I'm sure if you have questions about individual projects, as Sam stated, you you can certainly bring that up.

Um, and and just for for the only other thing I'll add, the ranking here does not necessarily infer or imply uh how projects are ultimately funded.

This is sort of the first run through a project which was ranked in the middle of the pack or low just because of whatever reason.

I won't get into all the matinations.

I'm sure Alderman Clee could provide further clarification.

Um but that this is this is this is sort of um one look at it ultimately.

Uh we let our elected officials determine where our tax dollars go.

Um but that that's it.

So I I won't go on uh unless there's questions.

Alderman Clee.

Yeah, I just want to comment that I I like the new ranking system versus the A through F or whatever it was.

Um and and Mr.

Durfee, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Um what was just said is basically the aldermen have the right to bubble something up to the top if they feel that there's more urgency, or if something throughout the year does in fact happen, but this gives the alderman a better view.

Um you know, it talks about the urgency, the readiness, whether or not it's shovel ready project, um, which you know it may be an urgent project, but if they're not ready, that would kind of push them towards an so the ranking and so on.

My only um question is the um is there anything new or that that stood out?

I mean, when I look through it, I didn't go truthfully didn't go through the previous um CIP, but is there anything that was new?

I mean, I from my own perspective.

I look at my lock in Whitney Street, the sidewalk and bike lane, and I you know I see that um, but that's just something that's always been these don't say where the funds are coming from.

So in other words, that's an 80-20 kind of type of thing.

That's so is there anything in your view that really kind of bubbles up that we should pay a little attention to?

J just for for um for reference, Alderman Clee.

Um our committee did uh the department has had to uh divulge not that it was a secret, but divulge was not the right word, but share with us if there was um already a federal grant in place, so you know, in other words, it would be non-city expenditures, so something may have gotten you know that that does get weighted in a way.

Um Mr.

Hudson uh was very thorough with his presentation about what what projects he had applied for or tried to get into the tenure plan and other other grants of that type.

So I I I think uh that that certainly is is uh uh a part of it.

Um so I think to the extent possible, uh and the extent that a lay person like me can understand it, they do try to present how much is outside of city funding uh and then how much is coming from actual the Nashua tax base.

Okay, okay.

Um but again I will just ask is there anything in particular that you think would kind of bring to our attention that we need to to comment on or uh no, nothing I think that the board needs to comment on.

Um we did differently, we we put the enterprise fund projects in a different table simply because they are funded by their own services through service fees, um, and so that that then increases the ranking.

But again, the rankings really do not matter all that much.

Um, simply because this again is a this document is a vehicle for project solicitation brought to what has been called the ad hoc committee that determines how projects are funded, be it city cash or bonding through the city.

The CIP committee is not concerned with how the city pays for it.

However, we do take into account as Chair Fabinger said, if there are federal dollars being leveraged, say with the airport, lots of FAA money coming in, that is reflected in the weighting of those scores.

Again, may I comment?

Um the reason I had brought up um the the federal dollars or state dollars or whatever coming through is because oftentimes there's an expiration um date on those that you must be shovel ready or you must get started with the project by a certain date or those funds expire.

That was kind of what my is there something that we need to kind of look at so that we in recommending and I know that I know the CIC is more of an advisory.

Um they do the heavy lifting for the aldermen because we wouldn't have the time nor the inclination to go through all these as as that great great committee did, and I know it's a lot of work.

So and all that information relative to expiration of funds is included in the department's presentations and the software which they submit their request is actually going to be utilized during the ad hoc process.

So all the information that was before the CIC will also be before the ad hoc committee, so all the current information will be available to anyone who's involved in the decision making class.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Mr.

Hudson, please.

So uh I just had a question.

I uh maybe clarify, but uh I know that uh I think this is the CIC is supposed to be like $50,000 minimum project.

100 100.

Okay.

So I see some of these like the second rank project is six thousand dollars.

Is that because it has to be on the list to be considered as a capital project?

Six thousand dollars.

Well, that number two, airport authority says runway payment maintenance marking six thousand six hundred and forty-five dollars.

Right, five percent the entire project, right?

So the categorization is the entire project cost needs to be a hundred thousand or more.

Yeah, that's why it's on the list, even though it's a small city match relative to the federal match, I'm assuming.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, um there questions for Sam or discussion amongst the board.

Uh Mr.

Barley?

Not questions or discussions, but I would be medical making motion understanding that we could still discuss on a second, but certainly.

Um yes, trusting in the hard work and good judgment of the CIC.

I uh I would like to make a favorable recommendation on the capital movements plan.

Thank you.

Motion by Mr.

Barley, is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Green.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Mr.

Hudson abstains.

Yes, I do, please.

All right.

Um the only other thing, this is gonna take 30 seconds.

Umicer selection.

Um I think we're doing this a little later than we normally do.

Um spoken with Adam.

Um Adam is content to stay in the uh vice chair role.

Uh I I am content if you will have me in the chair role.

Um I know typically Maggie our secretary sends out sort of solicitations.

Um I think Sam and Connor were or Connor were gonna reach out to her separately.

So you probably see an email from from Maggie, but we sh should still follow through with the normal nomination process and we can collect votes.

Um I think ideally we would have done that tonight.

Um, but it's uh it's okay.

It's we slipped a little bit and um uh we're we're good.

We haven't broken any laws.

Uh so um but yeah, just just be on the lookout if you get uh email from Maggie, she may be looking for um for nominations.

Um you don't have to vote or recommend mere mere adam, which traditionally let folks know that we're we're amenable to continuing.

So um but I think that's it.

Sam, did we miss anything?

Uh I'll just say we have that note on there about a code presentation.

I'd love to do one at some point if you have any um items in the code that you'd really like to focus on, should be an email.

Uh I can incorporate it.

Um we're about like eighty-five, ninety percent done with the code.

We're gonna start uh site plan subdivision regulations with a target adoption date of a unified land use document of July 1 of this year.

Is that something Sam where you would like um we'd I assume you'd like to talk to us is would you like to pick a date at some point?

Um when we'll keep an eye on the agenda so that the most likely we pick a light meeting.

I don't think we'd hold a meeting, say you know we don't have any applications, we probably wouldn't hold a meeting just for a presentation unless the board would like that.

Um but I think you know potentially the the 22nd or maybe a meeting in February soon would be good.

Okay.

Question complete.

Yep, um, with all the changes that are happening up in Concord and all the land use flip-flops that are going on up there.

Um will that have any effect on what your working on?

Um at the time that you do a presentation, will you have any update or idea as to what may have to change?

I know I've been looking at municipal and so on to there seems like there's a lot there.

So I can briefly touch on some of the legislation and what it may entail and what it could mean.

Um relatively minor things in little tweaks, there is one piece of legislation that could be a doozy for us if we're still navigating it.

So yes.

I saw that one.

Okay, thank you.

All right, thank you.

All right.

Any further questions of Sam?

I think we'd be looking for a motion to adjourn.

Mr.

Green.

Motion to adjourn.

All right.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

We are adjourned at 1015.

Thank you, everybody.