January 27th 2026 meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustments.

Just a really quick statement that the minutes and audio visual recordings will be available at Nashua Newhampshire.gov.

My name is Josh Neely.

I am the vice chair.

Unfortunately, the chair could not be with us tonight.

Up here on the stage with me to my left is Carter Fawkes, City Staff, who some of you probably have worked with uh to get your applications where they needed to be.

To my right is member JP Boucher, uh member Stephen Lionel, and member assistant, associate alternate.

There we go.

I was gonna get the right A word eventually.

Uh Joseph Patrick.

Uh Mr.

Patrick will be voting on all of the um at you know his discretion will be voting on all of the cases tonight as we only have four members.

Uh normally this is a five-person board uh vote tonight because there's only four of us.

Um any votes that end in a two to two tie will be considered uh the the um case will not go forward.

That would that'll be considered um declined.

Uh any any questions on that at all?

Everybody's okay with a smaller board.

Okay.

All right.

Uh in just a few moments, I'm gonna do an official roll call, but before we get to that, I want to talk about how this um this night is going to flow.

Um we have applications for two different variances tonight.

And if you remember from your application, there are five points of law that need to be met for a variance.

In order for the variance to pass, all five uh points of law must be met.

Uh the first one is that a variance will not be contrary to the public interest.

The spirit of the ordinances is observed, substantial justice is done, the value of surrounding property is not diminished, and literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to the applicant.

Um tonight, we will call you up uh one by one on each case.

When you come up to the microphone, you have up to 15 minutes to present your case.

Um please rest assured know that we have read all of your applications, uh, every piece of it.

So you do not need to restate everything in that's in there.

That is your right to do so.

Um, however, please be aware that um we had definitely have looked at every one of your packets.

Uh when you come up to the microphone, please state your full name and address.

And uh after your allotted 15 minutes and you do not need to take the full 15 minutes, we are going to ask if there's anybody in favor.

If anybody in favor of the application wants to speak, they have up to five minutes.

Once again, um state your full name and address, and you have up to five minutes to discuss the application.

Uh after that, we will ask if anybody is opposed to the application, and those folks once again have to state their name and address, and then have up to five minutes to uh declare why they are against an application.

In the event that someone is against the application, the applicant will have uh five minutes to respond.

And if in the unlikely event that happens, one and only one person in opposition may then respond five minutes after that.

Uh based on the number of folks in this room, I don't think that's gonna be an issue tonight, uh, but that is the way the flow is going to happen.

Um after we hear from the applicants and anybody in favor and opposed, we do close the public hearing and we go to a public meeting.

Uh at that point, all the members up here on the stage will discuss your case and make a decision.

Um tonight, you must have three votes in favor.

So, as uh just a reminder, a to two to two vote um will be a failure of the application.

And at this point, I'd like to call an official roll call.

Uh so I'm gonna start to my right.

Mr.

Boucher.

Present.

Mr.

Lionel.

Present.

Mr.

Patrick.

Present.

Q and I, Josh Neely, I'm also present.

And Mr.

Falk, do we have any changes to the agenda?

Um no, we do not.

Okay.

So for tonight's flow, uh the first case is gonna be 45 Nagel Street.

Uh that will be followed by the 55 Lake Street Unit 1 through 8 application.

And at the end of the night, uh towards the end, we're gonna have a rehearing request for 36 Granite Street.

Um do we have any questions from the audience?

Excellent.

Okay.

Well, in that case, we are going to get going, and I'm gonna read the first case uh into the hearing.

And uh the first case is, and I do apologize if I mess up the names here.

Uh Jira and Alfredo Gutierrez, owners, 45 Nagel Street, sheet 102, lot 60, requesting a variance from land use code section 190-17, subsection E, subsection one to exceed maximum driveway width, 24 feet permitted, 32 feet existing, requesting to add an additional 19 feet of drive driveway width on the right side of the existing driveway for a total width of 51 feet.

This is in the RB zone in ward six.

If the applicant is here, you can step up to the microphone and tell us what you'd like to do.

Uh good evening.

Uh my name is Alfredo, my wife Heider.

Uh we're at 45 Negle Street.

Um requesting a variance to extend the asphalt driveway.

Um it's a two unit uh dwelling, and I think that we wanted to extend it so we have more space for more cars.

Um first time uh home buyers, so we weren't familiar with the rules, and guy came up and said, Hey, we can do this job for you, and we went with it before we're doing the variance, so we're here now trying to request it.

Um I don't see it harming any neighbors or creating any unsafe um conditions for the public.

Uh before we had uh we had gravel there and uh it was used as a parking lot anyway, so we decided to do the asphalt.

We thought it would be better than having gravel there.

It was gravel all over the road and wanted to make that upgrade and can see.

And we have photos and a sketch of the property that I wanted to get done, uh get the variance approved.

And well, it's easier for us for like snow cleaning, like this snowstorm that went by, it's a lot easier than throwing up gravel with the snow blower.

Um if we will accept this variance, um we're still gonna use it as a two-unit dwelling, it's not gonna change, it's still gonna be the same.

Same use.

Uh thank you.

That's what that's all I got.

Okay, that's fine.

Uh does anybody on the board have any questions?

Mr.

Bruchet.

Can you tell me how long you've been there?

You said you're a new homeowners, how long?

Uh I think it's been about approximately seven years.

Seven years, okay.

Um so it's a it's a two it's there's two two different units there.

And how many vehicles are there total of amongst I don't know how many people are living there, but how many vehicles are are there owned by the owners that you need to park?

Um just by the owners.

Well, the pe the people that live there, right?

Yeah.

Yeah.

So you got you got there's two units.

How many vehicles uh belong to that to that to that property?

Oh, need to park there.

It's buttons be closed, like those quite quite a minute.

Cells do any thing.

So even the five.

Five.

Okay.

And then when you bought the property, um what was it already being used for parking on the side?

It was already that that's what it was being used.

Right, and it was already two units then, right?

Yeah.

Okay.

I bought it as a two-unit.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Mr.

Lionel.

Yeah, just uh maybe just some iPhone information.

It got converted into a two-unit, I think in 2015, uh, according to the assessor's record, if I remember that correctly.

And I know that that gravel uh extension was there in 2019.

Because uh Google Street View, that's what it shows.

Um when did you have it extended with with asphalt?

When this was last summer or last year.

Yeah, I think it was around June or July.

Yeah.

And when did you become aware that uh a variance was needed?

Uh no, farm the custom.

From the date that we did the as far, uh maybe maybe like two weeks later.

I'm just curious how you how you learned of that.

Uh I guess there was a complaint.

And I I got a knock on the door and I was asked to do a variant.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Patrick, do you have any questions?

I do not.

I think I just have one or two questions as well.

Um that was one of my main questions is how did we get here?

Um so thank you for asking that.

So are the is the garage usable for vehicles?

Um it's full, we're using uh storage, so is no vehicles in the garage.

So um here's here's what I'm getting at.

51 feet wide.

I I have I have not seen a driveway that wide that we've approved.

And so I've got to figure out, and thank you forever asking questions about how many cars there were.

So there's five cars, we're not using the garage.

Um looks like you got work vehicles.

I get it, we all have them.

I'm I'm also one of those families where we're shuffling vehicles in and out of the driveway.

I I get it.

Um I mean, is is the garage usable for vehicles?

It is a smaller garage where it can't fit vehicles, like what talk to me about the garage a little bit.

Yeah, I have one garage that I can fit a vehicle in, but the other one, it's set up where you can't really use it as a federal vehicle in there.

Because of the stairs inside or something?

Uh yeah, it's got like uh a little room where they I got the boiler in the furnace.

Okay.

Okay, that makes sense.

Um if nobody else has any questions, you are all set to sit down.

Thank you very much.

And does anybody in the audience have any or want to speak in support?

All right, fair enough.

And has anybody opposed?

Okay.

So that being said, I'm going to uh close the public hearing and open the public meeting.

Uh does anybody have any thoughts on this case?

Mr.

Lino?

Yeah, I I agree that 51 feet is really really wide.

But I drive down Nagel Street and I see at least one, if not more, uh houses that seem to have very similar driveways.

But of course, there are also a whole bunch that are they're very narrow, they're narrower within the 24 feet.

And normally I'm not in favor of really big driveways, you know, they sometimes they they look look like almost it's a convenience store or something like that.

Um but and I'm also not in favor of uh asking for forgiveness instead of permission.

Um but given that the driveway has been extended with at least with gravel for um eight at least eight years, and there are other houses on the street that have similar uh driveways.

I'm not going to I'm gonna hold my nose and not object to this.

Okay.

Any other uh comments, Mr.

Boucher?

Uh similarly, um, like Mr.

Lionel spoke to um uh you know 51 feet is a lot, but there's a couple of things I noticed.

Um the I uh driving by I saw some trucks back there, and and and again, um you know they're not small cars, so going too deep is is uh not gonna happen with a with a truck in the driveway.

Um but with all that said, um, as I was driving to the neighborhood, I went down the back street just to get a look at back property, and there's those new um newer two families that were built on the backside with narrow lots, those all have two car parking spots on the same lot for each unit.

So it's not would not be untypical to have um this driveway with though the one on Hunts Street in the back is kind of split up, and um but uh again uh I think um again we don't have anybody here saying that they needed it.

Um and uh I I guess I don't see enough reason to for me to deny the application, so I'm gonna support the application.

Any other comments, Mr.

Patrick?

Uh did it okay?

Fair enough.

Um so uh I will be honest when uh when I looked at the uh at the paperwork application and uh I kind of cringed at 51 feet because we we haven't we have never seen one that we approved that was that large.

There was another one in that neighborhood, same general neighborhood we had we had denied a few years ago because it looked like a convenience store.

Um so I didn't actually get a chance to do a drive-by till today.

Um and so I haven't seen it with no snow on it, um, although I did watch somebody outside pushing a lot of snow in that driveway.

Um so I'm sorry about that person.

But when I when I look at the pictures of the house, um I do think the house is set forward a little bit on the lot.

And so I was comparing that to I don't know if it's 43 or 41, but as you drove down the lower numbers on Nagel Street.

There was another house that was able to fit six cars in the driveway.

Uh uh nose to tail, but you can't do that at 45 because this house is just a little bit too far forward.

Um I do appreciate that appreciate the applicant letting us know that one of those garage bays is unusable.

Um obviously we don't know what's going inside there, so that kind of takes away a little more of their parking and the fact that it is a two-family.

I mean, realistically, you're probably gonna have three cars per unit.

I mean, that'd be my that's kind of my guess.

And so we definitely see there's some work trucks here, and good for them.

Um so I am also not gonna oppose this.

Um I think the applicant's uh testimony as well as a little bit of the drive around of the yard uh of the neighborhood uh changed my opinion as well as the opinion of this board um who uh did a much better drive around in the neighborhood than I did.

So long way of saying that I'm gonna support this.

So does anybody want to make a motion?

Mr.

Pett, uh Mr.

Mr.

Boucher.

Nah, you got them.

You want to make the motion?

Yeah, go ahead.

No, thank you.

All right.

Uh yeah.

I'd like to make like make a motion to approve uh the uh variance for uh higher and Alfredo Guterre Gutierrez, owners of 45 Nagel Street, sheet 102 lot 60, requesting a variance when land use code section 190-17, section section E subsection one to exceed a maximum driveway width, 24 feet permitted, 32 feet existing, uh requesting to add an additional 19 feet of driveway width to the right side of the existing driveway for a total width of 51 feet in the IB zone ward six.

Um we find that the granting the variance would be would not be contrary to public uh interest um because again um the uh the we feel that the even though this is exceeds the the driver width, uh we feel that uh because of the uh you you uh the situation with the two family that uh it is warranted uh to have the extra driveway width, and that it would not uh be out of character with the neighborhood, as uh there is evidence of other uh homes in the neighborhood with uh wider than uh allowed driveways per the ordinance.

Uh we find that the pro that the spirit the ordinance would be uh observed.

Um again um it uh would be in character with uh the neighborhood and again be not detrimental to uh any of the surrounding properties as we again have no um testimony to to that.

Uh we find a substantial justice uh granted the variance would uh do substantial dust because again it would allow the homeowner to keep the uh paved driveway that's that was that used to be gravel or crushed stone and uh be able to use that in the manner that's been used for for the last 10 plus years or so.

Um as far as um the uh values of surrounding properties, um we don't have any testimony one way or another, but it is our opinion that again by improving the the the um the lot itself with the new payment that um it would most likely uh not uh it would most likely help in uh raising the value of the property.

Um as far as unnecessary hardship, um we find that the proposed use is a reasonable one again because it allows the homeowner to use the property and park the cars off the street.

Um and um with that I'll make a motion to approve the area of variance.

Thank you.

Do we have a second?

We have a second, Mr.

Patrick.

Do we have any additional discussion on this application?

If not, all those in favor.

Okay.

The motion does pass tonight four to nothing.

Congratulations.

Um just so you know, and I forgot to mention this earlier.

There is a 30-day window of appeal.

Um that being said, your project is already done.

Uh, and so if any appeal did come up, it would go through uh Mr.

Fox office and I'll let you know.

But uh once again, congratulations tonight and enjoy the weather and stay warm.

You're welcome.

You're welcome to leave at this point if you wish.

Stay in watching.

You're welcome.

Good night.

All right, I'll call the next case into order.

Uh applicant Waverson Arajo, owner, 55 Lake Street, unit one through eight, sheet 99, lot 30, requesting a use variance from land use code section 190-15, table 15-1, numbers 97, 102, 108, and 149 to allow an event planning office, including apparel renting, photograph studio, aesthetic spa, church place of assembly, and contractor shop.

This is located in the RC zone in Ward 6.

If you're the applicant, step on up, give us your full name and address, and uh tell us in your words what you'd like to do.

Good evening.

My name is Weaver Santa Rogue.

Uh, I'm owner of a 55 Lake Switch, and I'm here to ask if a variance for uh the uses that I uh gonna use on my future company.

So it's request variants for event planning offside, include apparel, rented, photography studio, uh aesthetic spark, uh church, a church uh and a place of uh assembly.

Uh I'm a contractor, so if my office will be there as well.

And that's it.

Okay, thank you.

Uh any questions from the board?

Yeah, uh, just one more question.

Yeah, should open up uh the building is already a commercial building.

Uh it's plenty over a hundred uh space for parking lot, and it's not closer to the public, like it's right in the corner, and we have a giant parking lot, like it's far away from any neighbors around, and as well with already a shop book uh over there uh working as well, and it's a transportation company as well that has like a big truck loading and unloading uh you know uh stuff.

I don't own that part of the building.

The building is a giant building, and I just bought uh three of the unit uh in that place.

So and my units will be used by us uh a hall, it's like a uh party hall or that was used for I don't know if you guys remember sky scan.

It's a planetary uh type of school system.

Uh they have like a big global uh and people usually go in so you can feel like how the planets are made, like how how like how you feel out of the space.

So people usually come in to check and go and pay for use or whatever, and they also teach the teacher like other colleges how the 3ED planetary works.

So that is where gonna be the church.

The church is supposed to be in a uh building below, but uh the file marshal asked it to uh not be using that area, so we could use the upstairs uh floor.

So and then I it's a lot of I know we've uh staying like a lot of business.

We're not using those that yet, but they asked that it will be easy if I kind of bring everything in case in the future when I need to come in with my business.

You you guys already know how it's gonna be.

Okay, that's it.

Any questions from the board, or do you want me to start?

Go ahead.

All right.

Um, so I will say thank you.

If you you know if these businesses are all gonna come together in the future, we hate seeing the same application come by time after time, so thank you for bundling it all together.

But I I think I want to get a better feel for what exactly is going on there.

We're very aware of this building.

We've had uh multiple variances come through.

It's a it's a fascinating building uh with all kinds of nooks and crannies and all kinds of businesses in there, ton of parking outside.

That's not that's not any of the concerns here.

Um so in your application, uh you had stated I think there's seven or eight businesses on here.

So it sounds like you're gonna start out with the contractor offices because you're a contractor.

No, uh well, first I uh got these three separate units, and I asked for the church.

Uh for some reason the fire department asked to bring everything together and say, No, I don't I'm not gonna bring my business here yet.

I'm just wanna do one of the units for the church.

Well, I give I bought the whole building and I give the space for the church.

So the church could use don't steers.

And then because I was not used, I'm just gonna use the top floor, and then they say they couldn't do it, and then they ask me to uh have a uh engineering design a plant for them with uh like fire codes and fire summary and all that kind of stuff.

So then they decide for me to use it for the church downstairs, I'm gonna have to install uh a sprinkler system.

And I say, Well, I just bought the building, I don't have a hundred K right now to install a sprinkler system.

And they say, Well, you have to allow the church to use upstairs if you want to.

And then to where when I move out to the downstairs to the upstairs, and then the church is gonna be upstairs now.

But it's like a giant building, is it's hard to explain how it's gonna work.

But now at the moment, what I want is the church.

And then, well, like five years ago, I have a variance for the spa that is sitting over there.

Now it's in six to seven Gilmore Street, uh, where I own the property as well.

And then not now, but we're gonna move that spa.

It's like across the street from uh Lake Street.

Then I'm gonna move that spa over there.

It's when they told me that I might need a variance because of this bar.

You know what I mean?

Because the building is already commercial, like it's already yeah, no, I've got we're very familiar with that building, so so I get that.

Um so when I when I first read your application, so that this is all new to me.

When I read your application, it came across to me like you were gonna be doing like one business with all kinds of small sub businesses inside.

And and so it sounds like that's not the case.

What it what the case is we're still you you got a church, you're trying to get a church in there, and then at some point, and uh an apparel rental company is gonna come in, a photograph, like at some point they're gonna move into your space as well, right?

Well, I already doing this work, but I usually do by home.

Like I have storage that everything stays, I usually pay storage to stay in the storage.

Of course.

Because I do decoration, I do events and all this kind of stuff.

And then I have storage, and then I bring my stuff to the store so I don't have to pay free storage.

And then they told me that I have to open us because I have the all this linkage of uh business, you know what I mean.

Like I do, I have the I have a storage that I do.

Let's say you wanna go in to an event in New York, you wanna dress up nice with something different.

So I have all this clothes that you can use, or let's say you want to get married, and then I have the clothes that you can use, but then they say it's better you set up as a office where like a plan a plan shop, a plan is place, you know what I mean.

That's when I decide, well, if they want to do that, it's fine because I'm gonna use the building for my business anyway.

So I get what you're saying, but who's the then?

You keep saying they, who's the because the the the fire marshal and the and uh the city hall, because I was not pretending to bring any of this right now.

Yeah, okay.

Because it was not making any sense for me to do right now, because I was I couldn't afford to do all the you know plan everything how how I want.

Sure.

But then they told me that that was easy if I do everything right now, and I agree with them, that's why I bring everything.

And I just should explain that we have a bunch of parking space, it's a commercial area already, you know, in case we use the hall, if you know we're not gonna bother anybody, we're not gonna make a noise, we're not gonna have people parking the streets that kind of bothers other neighbors.

So, and pretty much this is it.

It's because I do planning events, and that's where it catches the attention.

So you have to kind of open lack with more information.

And I told them what I do.

You know, I have a need a place that people can go and see it.

Let's say a showroom, I can have a uh uh office or a room that people can see the clothes that I have, you know what I mean?

And then they can rent and stuff like that.

It's kind of linked, but not.

It's because I have so many business in my name.

I have the spa, and I have I do a uh renovation, and then I have this business for like 12 years that planning uh party planning, and that that's why I thought that I pretend in the future to bring everything together so I don't have to pay rentals around if I have a big building with no use, you know.

I I understand that.

Small business owner myself, so I get it.

I get what you're trying to do.

But but I do have a couple more questions for you.

We're almost there, thank you.

Um I assume, and and please tell me if I'm wrong, that the um the letter that the fire marshal sent out in opposition to this.

Did you see a copy of that?

Yeah, they did.

Okay.

So I am gonna read that into the record in just a few seconds when when your testimony is done.

But this sounds like a little bit of difference between what I'm seeing in the letter and what you're saying.

So the fire marshal's office, and we'll get to that in a second here, is basically saying, I mean, they've come out and said they're against this application because of of NFPA fire and life safety code, and I get it's the sprinklers, I I know how expensive they are, I understand.

But it sounds like you you've already figured out a way to move the church to a different unit.

Is that is that unit also?

Yeah, the fire marshal and the city agree with that.

Like the only way that they let me have the church and my business in there, yeah, if I don't use the bottle park until I have the sprinkler system in there.

I can use it for other business, like uh offs or whatever.

Sure.

Yeah, but I cannot use it for the church because the church usually be downstairs.

And upstairs is like a hall, like a party hall or dance or whatever.

It's like a big bigger than this, like three times this, like open.

That's how uh sky scan usually had the business over there.

And it's a giant place.

And then they told me that I couldn't have the church downstairs because otherwise I have to install a sprinkler, and then I can't still sprinkle at this moment.

And then we have a meeting, they ask me to have an engineer replant for like fire code, they were all this.

And then we already had the meeting, they approved that.

They fine, they find it with the church up to see it.

So that was okay uh with them.

I just don't get a why he sent this letter because if he's okay, he say, oh, if you want to read, I can respond after.

Yeah, so what what we'll do is uh if it works for you, if you're done with your testimony.

Any other questions from anybody else on the on the Mr.

Bush?

So the the you're talking about the church on the upper level.

Is is that floor got sprinkler system in it?

No, no, this because it should be downstairs.

If I want to use the church downstairs, I have to put it in.

But you're saying you want to use the hall.

Yeah, the then I gonna have to use I gonna have to allow the church use the hall that was that was my thing.

Right.

So does that have a sprinkler system?

No, but doesn't need it because they have like I'll exit and uh have like three three exits, it's like a giant place, but have enough exits for uh people coming in and go as that's why they kind of okay doesn't need to have a sprinkler there.

Okay, thank you.

I'm also you just answered my question.

Okay.

Mr.

Lionel, do you have a question?

No.

Okay.

So just just for my own, so I can clear my brain up here a little bit.

When you talk about the hall upstairs where the church is now, that is also part of units one through eight, right?

Because your applications for units one through eight.

Is that is that considered part of units one through eight, or is that unit nine or ten?

That is one through eight.

That is kind of tricky because I have the same question with them.

It is even for me because I couldn't give it, I couldn't get answered because if three buildings, and I bought a one, second and third.

So I could, if I want to do uh if I want to rent one of those those buildings, so why I have to do a separate uh business for that.

I can rent for somebody else, and they're gonna be their problem if they want to do a variance for the business, is they problem.

But then they ask, because I'm the owner, I'm gonna have to ask for variance for the whole building, even if it's three lots because in if you see in one respond a separate I I pay tax for separate units.

So this amount of people could go in here, and it's not gonna doesn't have to be bothered with this one because it's a different unit.

But then they kind of calculate the whole building as one, because uh in the law it say if you have over 300 people in a building, then requires uh to have a sprinkler system.

But I don't I can never can fit 300 people in there because it's all offices, you know what I mean.

But then they ask, well, but you own the building.

See, but it doesn't make any sense.

If I want to use this, you have to count this as many people.

You cannot count this because I'm not asking to put the church in the whole building.

The church is gonna be in one unit, not in a whole unit.

But I just I just was tired of this, and I just said, Well, you guys want our variants, take the variance, and uh and that we end.

Okay.

I want I want to recognize uh Mr.

Falk.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um please.

The well religious uses are permitted in every zoning district, right?

It's the other uses that he needs the variance for like a the contractor shop, the photo studio, the aesthetic shop.

They're the ones that need the use variance.

We just added the church use into the ad just to be inclusive of all the uses that he has.

So the church is permitted, you know, he'll have to work out the issues with the fire marshal and the building department for occupancy of that space or wherever that church space is, but I'd see other uses.

Okay.

It's really why he's here for the most part.

Now he says he doesn't want to use those right now.

Like if this if the board supports this, he would have two years in which to get those uses in.

So thank you for that.

I think that maybe clarifies things a little bit.

Any questions for Mr.

Falk on that?

Mr.

Wilson.

So just to clarify, the letter from the fire marshal um was strictly related to the church assembly, right?

And no concern with the rest of the application.

I believe so.

I don't know if I don't know if any of those other uses are in there right now.

Yeah, it's gonna be using right now, the you know, the offices and all that is gonna be used right now.

The whole place kind of because it's a hall with a lot of office in the side, so the whole thing is gonna be used right now.

But he's concerned, like if you answer your question, his concern was about the church.

It's the it's yeah, that's the main concern from the fire department because they have you know, you have to have a certain amount of ingress and egress stores and the exit signs and the panic doors per that square footage for people to get out safely in a matter of X amount of seconds or something.

So that's what the fire marshal is more concerned about is safety of that that use for the church.

Okay.

Was there any other questions from anybody to Mr.

Falk on that one?

Okay.

Um I'm gonna let you sit down at this point, and we're gonna ask if anybody here is in support, and then I'm gonna read it.

I like you to read the the letter for the No, I certainly will.

So the way I need to do this is I'm gonna have you take a seat, and then I'm gonna ask if anybody's in support, nobody's here, so nobody will speak to it, and then I will put the letter into into record, bring you back up again, and we can kind of talk to it again one last time before before the the board discusses again.

Sounds like a plan.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Uh and just to be uh to keep everything fair, is anybody here in support?

There's nobody else in the audience here.

Uh is there anybody here who wants to support uh speak in opposition?

And then once again, there's nobody else in the audience, but I do have a letter that I'm gonna read into the record uh received from uh looks like uh Michael DuVarnay, the fire marshal, uh based out of 70 East Hollow Street in Nashua.

Um his email as of uh Friday, January.

His email, I'm gonna start kind of out of order here.

Carter, thank you for your for your email.

Attaches a letter outlining my concerns.

If you have any questions, feel free to reach out.

Thanks, Mike.

Um Mr.

Falk had emailed Mike uh Michael DuVarna and copied in uh Chief Steve Buxton.

Uh good morning, Mike.

On January 27, 2026, the zoning board of adjustment will be considering a use variance for several uses at 55 Lake Street, all for one application with several different uses, an event planning office, apparel renting, photograph studio, aesthetic spa, and a church place of assembly.

So with several uses going on in the space, like a condo.

Do you have any issues or comments before this goes to the zoning board?

Thanks for any input.

The letter received from Michael DuVarnay, the fire marshal, uh goes as follows.

Uh address to Carter Falk, Deck Deputy Planning Manager of the City of Nashua, dear Mr.

Falk.

This letter is to document the position of a Nashua Fire Marshal's office regarding the property located at 55 Lake Street and the variance request associated associated with Mr.

Weberson Arajo.

The Nashua Fire Marshal's office has records dating back to March 7th, 2025, indicating that Mr.

Arajo was performing work within the space.

On that date, he was advised to cease all work activities and was directed to contact the building department to obtain the appropriate approvals and permits.

On October 31, 2025, the fire marshal's office obtained information indicating that a church was being operated at this location without the required place of assembly permits as mandated by the NFPA fire and life safety code.

At that time, excuse me, Mr.

Raho was advised that the space was not permitted for occupancy and that use of the building was prohibited until all proper permits were issued and required inspections were conducted and approved.

Subsequently, on November 2nd, 2025, I personally observed occupants inside the building.

As a result of this non-compliance, a fine was issued and a formal code violation was documented and served.

While a building permit has been applied for, it has not been approved due to the inability to meet required design criteria.

Based on the ongoing deficiencies and the failure to meet applicable life safety requirements, the fire marshal's office must formally state its opposition to the requested variants.

At this time, the life safety needs of the building have not been adequately addressed, and approval would present an unacceptable risk to occupants.

Since you require any uh should you require any additional documentation or wish to discuss this matter further, please feel free to contact our office respectfully.

Nashua Fire Marshal's office, City of Nashua, Michael DuVarna, Fire Marshal.

Uh and it is signed at the bottom.

It is a one-page letter.

Would you like to come back up to the podium and we can talk through that letter of opposition a little more now that we've all seen it and heard it?

Um would you like to respond to the letter officially?

Well, first of all, I'd like to understand the hold on one second, let me just find out if we don't share when did he say in uh when did he say in the in the last paragraph for uh why would the building permit has uh things being applied for?

When he saying uh when he saying in the last uh paragraph, uh why would the building permit has uh things being applied for, because we already had an apply like after on uh let me see what the date here this was implied on the 10, 27, 2025.

Okay.

So when he responded to this, this is uh was already applied for the in the city hall on uh on the 10th or 27.

And then uh he didn't when we had our meetings, he didn't state uh anything or if any safe issues for that.

The only state that he has done is the sprinkler system that we could use don't stay with our sprinkler if you always start with sprinkler system.

Then we have another meeting, he asked me to have uh I engineer it write down like a plans, like if that was safe for have people over, and that's what I did.

So I hired uh architect to hire a planning one, and then they in the meeting, they already talked to him.

Like if he if they already agree to change the church for the up to the upstairs, why he sent this explain his concern about safety.

Uh he should be addressed with this with the engineering at the time at the time in the meeting when we had.

So I don't know why he's come with this after the meeting.

If that was a gridable, that was all good.

The only thing that I have to do is to be able to use the church is go upstairs and it's gonna be required, it's not gonna be past the 300 capacity that he wants, even that ban three units.

So it should be business should be separate.

If I want to rent this unit for one type of business, that should be for that business.

This unit should suppose be for the other business, this unit should suppose before the other business.

And he tried put everything together.

It's all fine.

But he's already agreed, we already have agreed that the church could be used upstairs.

I just don't understand why he sent uh this right now complain uh against the zony here today.

Uh that's my only question, and I have the same question.

Okay.

Anything else you want to say before I ask a couple of questions?

Uh no.

If you um during the if you guys have a question, then I can respond to that.

Yeah, yeah, we're gonna we're gonna ask you a few questions here.

So um so as of today, you do you have a building permit that's been applied for?

Yeah.

So so it's in in process and just kind of floating around.

That was supposed to be approved already.

So the church, I did church separate on uh on the 10th of last year.

But Mike, the the this guy that sent the letter, he he didn't allow the city, it's not required to have a variance for the church.

I'm letting this clear.

I don't know why they I don't know why he wanna hold me until this today.

You know what I mean?

It's not I don't I just don't get a why and why he sent this concern.

This concern is supposed to be when we have the architect, the the guy over there, so he oh I don't think this is safe because they proved the fire.

You probably guys already have the plant that I did.

So is all the safe things over here, the place is brand new, is all safe.

The corner taking care of the maintenance and everything for the you know the the fire system and everything.

All the fire system is connected directly with the fire marshal.

So anything happening there, the alarm is gonna sound in the in the fire department.

I just don't get why he sent the letter afterwards, but that was all great.

So he's agreed to that, like the city agreed to let the church do it upstairs and everything.

I just we just really come here to discuss about the the spa.

Because I remember I did the spa when I did on six to self-income search where my spy is now.

I remember I did a variance in case people complain, and then that was approved, and then I'm changing for that new location.

Well, no, no, but I'll be changing it.

Okay.

Um does any other board member have any questions?

Okay, you're free to sit down.

We're gonna discuss it up here now.

Thank you very much.

I know there was a lot to discuss there.

Yeah.

All right.

So I am going to uh to close the public hearing and open the public meeting.

Uh would anybody like to start us off.

Mr.

Lionel?

Yeah.

I think we need to separate um what's been applied for and what the uh objections of fire marshal and perhaps the the building department are um again, you know, the church doesn't need a variance, so we that's not something we're going to be voting on.

If we just you know uh imagine that the building was up to fire code and uh for whatever these other uses are required, and I don't know.

Um it seems a bit odd to me that um there would not be uh a comment about the uh you know the the photography studio, etc.

Um, whether sprinklers or whatever are needed for that, but I I get get that it's you it's the number of people in there necessarily.

Um if it's just a we have this commercial building and we're looking and the applicant's looking for use variances for these other businesses, um what would be the reason to say no?

And I can't think of one.

Um so just based on what we're here for, which is the use variants, I would be in favor of the use variants.

Now, obviously the applicant's got other hurdles to crop to jump over before he can make full use of the building, but um I I don't see a good reason to deny the use variants based on uh objections to use of the building as a church, which is not what we're uh here to discuss.

So thank you.

Any other thoughts?

Maybe I'll maybe I'll jump in for a couple seconds.

So this has been excuse me, an enlightening conversation because I think when we first got the packet, we ended up in the weeds here a little bit.

Uh you know, we first of all at the end of the day, we want to make sure that that the people, if there's a problem, can get out of the building.

I mean, that's the fire marshal is doing his job.

They're the folks there are doing their job.

And and we always say we want to support them in whatever way possible.

I I mean I've been doing this for a few years.

I've never gotten a letter from a fire marshal's office for any of our cases, so so I definitely uh found that very interesting and very very different for what we were doing.

I appreciate Mr.

Falk, you know, once again reminding us we're not here to talk about the the church, which is what Mosa's letter uh is talking about, but we're talking about the other business uses that could be going on in there.

I think we're all aware of this building.

This is a big rambling building, very similar to many other buildings in this city.

I have a warehouse in one of them.

They're just you know, there's so many uses going on in there.

And as and as I think what Mr.

Lionel was getting to is if we had seven different people come in front of us tonight and say, I want to do a photography studio, I'd probably say yes.

I want to do an aesthetic thing.

I'd probably say yes, because that building has a ton of commercial activity going on inside of it.

So that being said, I think I am going to be in in favor of this application, and and I think a lot of it came to the discussion we had to be able to kind of pull out of the weeds a little bit and suss through some stuff here.

Uh question to staff.

Um obviously I am very concerned about the letter from the fire marshal's office, but my my assumption is every time that the zoning board approves something, it's with the assumption that the person is either has to go to the planning board next or they got to pull all proper permits.

So it doesn't make any sense in my mind to say we have to have a contingency based on pollen permits and blah blah blah, because I think that's just assumed, right?

It's a given.

Yeah.

Well, you know, I don't want to understand Mr.

Weaverson to think that we're singling him out by contacting the fire department.

We don't we contact the the fire department all the time.

Every use that comes in has to get a building permit, no matter what you're doing anywhere.

So they're always involved with all of all of you know staff decisions, so they're aware of this anyway.

It's you know anything you get an occupancy permit for has to be safe.

The CO means it's a safe building to occupy, certificate of occupancy.

So you know, they just happen to write this letter because they had some concerns about the place of assembly with the church.

Now the church is a permitted use, they churches can go anywhere in any zoning district throughout the city, you know, as long as you get your proper building permits and CO and things like that.

So that's what their concern is with the church.

The other uses that he's that he has on his application, like you said, the photography studio, the contractor shop.

You know, the fire marshal will still look at those as well, but they're probably not gonna have the same concerns as the church.

The church is gonna be a lot of people in a in a room, and if there's an emergency, they all those people have to get out immediately, where it may not have that type of an issue with a photography studio, which may only have one or two people, and they can easily get out to one door.

So the real crux of this application is really the other uses, the photography studio, the aesthetic shop, the contractor shop.

That's really why he's here.

It's just the church was listed in the application, and we happen to have this correspondence from the fire marshal that we added into the package that they asked us to.

So it's all combined, like you know, like he says, he has three different, or he's has three different tenant spaces in there, and all these spaces are kind of combined.

So that's why we've listed them all in the application.

We didn't want to leave something out, you know, whatever he listed on his application for uses we put in there, even though we knew the church was a permitted use.

Okay, uh, thank you.

So based on that, just to kind of wrap it around, I am in favor of this application because I do think that these business uses are consistent with the other things going on in this building.

I think there's a ton of different businesses in there.

There's nothing uh, you know, he's not coming here asking for chemical storage and that type of stuff.

That's just not here.

So I do feel this is consistent with what's going on in the building.

Um, so I will be in favor of this application, Mr.

Patrick.

Yeah, I um I I can't see a reason to deny this based on the uses.

Um I mean, these are all fitting in a commercial building.

I think they're all buying commercial businesses.

I I keep I don't see a reason for denying that.

Thank you.

I'm also going to support the application.

And again, just get back to this.

I I think uh again, uh I think the five marshal has you know rightfully concerned from what he knew.

Um but again, uh a business could come in and um be using chemicals that would change, but that doesn't stop us from approving a business.

It's again up to the um owner and to you know work that out with permitting, and then the fire marshal at that point would say yes or no, it's what you've got to do.

So I again I don't think that the business types are an issue.

Um again, that down the road, right?

It's it's about what what they do in those businesses where I think that's where they get involved by marshal's office.

So I'll I'll be supporting the application also.

Okay, great.

Any additional before we make a motion?

Does anybody want to make a motion?

Sure.

Mr.

Patrick, thank you for volunteering.

Sure.

Um I move that we approve the request from uh Weberson Arrio, owner of 55 Lake Street, Unit 1 through 8.

Requesting use variances from land use code sections uh 190-15, table 15-1, um, numbers 97, 102, 108, and uh 149 to allow an event planning space, including apparel renting, photograph studio, aesthetic spa, and and uh contractor shop in the RC zone ward six.

We find that uh granting the variants would not be contrary to the public interest because these are all uses that would be consistent with a um a commercial building in this uh commercial zone.

The spirit of the ordinance would be observed because again, these would be commercial uses consistent with the commercial zone.

Uh granting the variants would do substantial justice because we allow it would allow for a number of distant different businesses uh to be used in this space.

We uh find that the values of the surrounding properties would be increased because of the additional commercial use of the building, it would increase the value and uh of the building.

We find that um to the special conditions of the property that distinguished from other properties in the area, denial of the variance would result in a necessary hardship because there is no fair and substantial relationship between the general public purpose purpose of the ordinance provision and the specific provision, the specific application of that provision of the property because this is a large commercial building and a large commercial zone that would uh be able to accommodate different uses, and the we find that the proposed use is reasonable because uh it again it fits with a commercial use in the commercial zone.

Um we note that the um the church which is requested in the application um is uh is not before us that that request is not uh for a variance up of course because that is allowed in all zones.

Excellent.

Do I have a second?

Mr.

Lionel, thank you.

Any additional discussion before we vote?

Okay, all those in favor?

All right, that is a four to nothing votes.

Congratulations, your application was approved.

Um, as I mentioned earlier to the other folks, there was a 30-day window of appeal.

Uh but that being said, I would continue on the path you've been working with the the engineers and the and uh the folks from the city uh so you can get your business up and run into that building, and uh I wish you a great night.

You're welcome.

You guys love by Jobs.

I knew my clothes.

All right, thank you.

Have a great night.

All right, next up on the agenda uh is we're gonna look for proposals of regional impact for the upcoming agenda.

Has everybody had a chance to take a quick look at that upcoming agenda, which as a reminder does include the landfill that we have seen a few times.

Any regional impact anybody can see?

All right.

I've got uh a bunch of folks saying no, so we'll move on from that.

Uh minutes.

So we did receive the minutes uh electronically, and we now have hard copies sitting here.

Does anybody have any uh issues or items that they would like to note from the minutes?

Yep.

Okay, excellent.

Can I get a uh a um motion to accept the minutes?

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

And seconded, thank you very much.

English became my second language there all of a sudden.

I don't know why.

Second by Mr.

Boucher, Mr.

Boucher.

Thank you.

All right, and we do have a rehearing request for 36 Granite Street.

So as we so uh so that being said, um 36 granite street.

Um we have a very sp two very specific uh re-hearing items that were brought up by uh attorney Swinny Arski from Divine Millimet.

Um so I think what I would like to do, because it's it's a relatively short letter, is I would like to read that into the record, um, and then we can discuss the two specific items that he is uh requesting a rehearing based on.

So we have a letter from Devine Millet.

Uh does everybody agree with that?

That flow there?

Yes.

Okay, excellent.

So we have a letter from Devine Millimet uh addressed uh dated December 11, 2024.

I assume that's a typo.

Uh it was sent uh via email to Nicole Wilkins and Carter Falk at Nashua and addressed to us.

Nashua zoning board of uh adjustment, the board 229 Main Street regarding motion for rehearing, twice reversed and remanded variance application, the application of Sam N.

Katz, the applicant, to allow more than one principal structure on a residential lot for property located at 36 Granite Street, Nashua, New Hampshire, which is known as the property.

Hello, board members.

By this correspondent, applicant hereby request and moves for a rehearing by the Zoning Board of Adjustment, otherwise known as the Board, of its decision rendered on or about December 6th, 2025.

The appellant hereby requests and moves for a rehearing on the decision and alleges that the board made factual and legal errors in issuing the decision as more particularly set forth below.

Count number one, the board has for the fourth time failed to issue a written decision in compliance with RSA 676 number three, subsection one, and count two, the board has for the fourth time failed to issue a written decision in compliance with RSA 676 subsection three subsection two.

The applicant reserves its rights to amend this motion for rehearing within 30 days of the board complying with the above reference statutes pursuant to RSA 677 uh-4.

Whenever the board chooses to do so and notifies the applicant of the same summary.

For the reasons discussed above, the appellant respectfully requests that the board number one grant the variance request by the application based upon the findings of fact, evidence by the appropriate and lawful official board as official record as the board was ordered by both the New Hampshire Housing Appeals Board case 2024-022 ZBA and the Superior Court case 226-2025-C is in Charlie V is in Victor 00145.

And number two, compensate the applicant for its damages suffered as a result of the intentional and wanton disregard of New Hampshire law, the evidence of which continues to mount after four unlawful decisions and violations of court orders, which damages have currently accrued in excess of 90,000 plus interest and continue to accrue.

Thank you sincerely, Christopher Swiniarski, attorney for applicant.

We will have a quick little discussion about this, not quick, but we'll have a discussion.

And for those who are not aware, in a packet provided to us by staff, um count one and count two, uh discuss basically what it comes down to is that any of the minutes need to be up within a certain amount of time, and um the applicant has to be uh notified within a certain amount of time.

As you as the board probably knows, the normal flow to what happens with our board meetings is not only are we on uh put on YouTube within a couple days so that anybody can watch the hearing, but uh within five business days, the staff does put a uh written uh set of minutes uh on the Nashua uh Nashville New Hampshire.gov website to be accessed by everybody.

Uh in this case, um staff also provided a letter uh in a packet that was sent as a courtesy to um to uh attorney Swiniarski in addition to what was posted online for him uh or his designees to uh take a look at does anybody have any questions on that or any discussion on that point specifically, which really is the crux of what is being requested here tonight, yeah.

Mr.

Boucher's well, I'm assuming that that staff is verified that all these things happened on time.

Yes, okay.

Well, the minutes I I'm the one who does the minutes, and I had them done that was given to Nicole Wilkins of our staff Monday morning, the 15th, which was within the five business days.

Uh the meeting is Tuesday, the next day is day one, so that's Wednesday, Thursday, Friday.

I actually got them done on Monday, so four business days.

They're posted on our web, and we have hard copies ready for everybody.

They are they also are marked draft because they're not approved until the board approves them.

So they were available.

We also did the uh decision letter in which we went into great detail about the five points of law, which is also included in your package, which why we did why the board did not believe they did not meet the hardship, the spirit and intent, property values, the substantial justice.

Um so that was all done.

That decision letter was done within 30 days, but there is not a statutory time frame for that, like the minutes are.

So they're all done and given to the the uh attorney and also to the landowner before that 30th day.

So they got a copy of what they have in count one and count two delivered to them.

So they have all this information.

And nowhere in this rehearing request does it mention anything about uh findings of fact and other other reasons for denial.

The the counts were basically in the minutes and the decision letter, which are both made available to the applicant in a timely timely manner.

So does that answer all your questions?

Yes, and I might have one more thing after we're done discussing it.

Okay.

Any other questions, comments, or concerns.

So we don't often see rehearing requests, and this is the first time on my time on the board that we've seen a rehearing quest specifically and only about the timing of notification of decisions going back to the applicant.

I do believe this is pretty straightforward that we have the dates and the documentation that everything was provided in a timely manner.

Um and so in just just a few minutes, we will do a vote here.

Um but before we get to that, I just want to put on the record here that under the summary, and once again I will I will uh talk about the summary here.

Um the applicant is asking us to grant the variance requested by the application based upon the findings of fact.

So he's basically saying, I want you guys once again to go back to the September of whenever, and I want you guys to turn this whole thing around, and in addition, is asking for compensation of ninety thousand dollars plus interest and continue to accrue.

Uh, based on on my understanding, um we have followed the proper procedure on what must happen in the hearings, and as you remember, it went to the housing board, housing board then kicked it back to us.

We went through it again.

More detail.

More detail, a full hearing was kicked back at us again, saying we shouldn't have had that extra extra hearing, and we went through it again.

Um so we have done this multiple times.

Um I think I know I will speak for myself.

I feel very comfortable that what we have come up with on the on the last uh rehearing as well as the original case.

Um we found that the five rules of law were not met, and that's why we voted against this this application.

And under no circumstances can the zoning board approve any type of payment, any type of payments from the city must be approved by the board of alderman, obviously go to the city solicitor.

Um and so this is that the summary request number two is something that's outside of the purview of the zoning board and just not something that we can uh that we would have the ability to say yay or nay on.

It is just uh as far as we're concerned, null and void coming to us because we can't do anything with any any type of monetary damages.

Anybody have any questions or comments on those two things?

Yeah, Mr.

Boucher.

Uh uh, well, not exactly, but yeah, but somewhat um again, I just want to make sure we're doing our due diligence now.

This is come back four times.

Um and like you said, it's in your uh in your view, it's pretty straightforward.

Umly because of some things that happened in the past.

Uh I want to make sure, or um that we use all the resources to to uh that we have at hand, and one of that is being able to uh use legal staff.

I don't know if this is a time to do that.

I'm not saying that we have to or we should.

I just want to bring it up that you know, I just want to make sure that we're not uh that not that we're sure what we're doing, but that that we do have that we're we're going down the right path.

And and again, Mr.

Fat, maybe you've had some contact or some more knowledge than we have with that.

Um not to disclose anything specifically, but um you know, again, I just want to make sure that um you know we're not we're not putting the city in any position or that there are some open questions that we're not that we should be considering or something.

Not that not that I would change my mind, but I just want to make sure that we're on good standing.

That's all.

Yeah, I think that's a valid question.

And um, Mr.

Falk, if you want to hopefully answer that question.

Sure.

Well, I personally have not talked to corporation counsel about this.

Um Sam Durfee did, and um gave him a copy of this rehearing request.

And last I knew uh Mr.

Durfee did not agree with what Mr.

Bolton wrote, and I think they talked about it.

Mr.

Bolton.

Okay.

Uh did not really agree with what he had said about it, and I don't think they have communicated after that.

All I know is that he had questions on um what was it?

I wasn't involved with the email chain or the the message that they had.

It was something like the the board didn't do their job, meaning name and address, the request, the zoning district.

A lot of things are obvious in the ad advertisement that we sent out, and um the deliberations and talks that we had here at the zoning board was we're all done, that's why Mr.

Durfee did not agree with his answer.

So we believe our staff believes that we have done everything with this correctly legally, and we don't feel like you know if if we felt there was an error or something that was missed or something, we'd be the first one to say, hey, let's bring this back.

We do not feel that way.

Not sure how much that makes you feel better, but uh, it's not about making feeling it's it's it's um you know from some previous uh issues that we had.

I I just want to make sure that uh that it was made clear to me that that's uh an asset that that uh you know that's a resource that we have to underhand and just to use it when um when it you know to use it.

So I just want to make sure that we do.

I mean, we we routinely contact the legal department and there's other resources that we check as well within the state to ask questions if we have a legal question on something.

And uh a lot of times I don't, Mr.

Durfee will but uh so in this case in the with this case here um uh what you're saying is that basically there's there's there's some thorough knowledge through through through staff and through legal about this that there is some knowledge there that people have knowledge of of yeah, okay.

That's that's what I need to know.

So this is not something that that's blind to them, and they would be surprised to hear.

All rehearing requests, anything that's gonna go to the courts or legal department gets a copy of that all correspondence and everything, so they're definitely well aware of this.

Okay, good.

All right, that's all I know.

Thank you.

This is a rehearing request.

We have a particular protocol we followed for rehearing requests.

Uh one of the questions is there any additional information provided that would cause us to change our mind.

And certainly for me, the answer is no.

Um I think that uh a lot of this that the attorney uh Sponarski sent is just irrelevant to what we're here to do.

And uh I would just prefer to I just go ahead with the rehearing request and and we uh vote according to the questions that were asked.

Yeah, so um so I do I also agree with that.

Uh thank you for saying that.

And once again, I think and I understand the reason for your for your question, and I think it's um I I agree with what's going on.

Yeah, no, I just want to make sure it was out there.

And I think I I would like to enunciate um just so it's on record.

So Mr.

Falk, we we would request um that that city uh that that the solicitor's office know that they made a request of us of ninety thousand dollars plus interest and that we're we're saying we're not the right people to do it, but we want to make sure it doesn't go into a black hole somewhere and they come back and say you know why didn't somebody tell us about this?

So we would like to request the city staff make sure that that number is.

Yeah, we will.

I mean they they got a copy of this request anyway, so they're aware of it.

But they I think they know that the zoning board can't issue that.

We can't really do the number of the number one to simply grant the variance not here, we can't do that.

Correct the only time only way we could possibly grant the variance is if we granted the rehearing request and had a rehearing.

So let's do the rehearing request.

And and just refresh my memory for rehearing requests.

Do we have some questions we have to answer, or would we just make a motion?

Do I have it?

Yes, there's yeah, there are some it's the white piece then the white one.

Maybe I didn't go deep enough.

There it is.

All right, the other way one.

Do we have any other uh discussions we want to have before we get into the the worksheet here?

Yes, Mr.

Patrick.

One one thing to note um the request says that our decision was rendered on or about December 6th, but we met December 9th.

So that time is important, I think, because of when Mr.

Falk the minutes were posted.

Um because if you know perhaps it might not have been timely if we had met the sixth, but we didn't meet the sixth, we met the ninth.

Yeah, that was uh excellent point.

Um thank you for bringing that up.

So I and there's a few miss there is a few misprints in this letter.

I get it, but I do think that's a material um item that needs to be noted.

That's that's critical.

And I assume this letter it's it's like you said, Mr.

Neely, December 11th, 2024, which is you know it was a typo, but I assume this was actually written in January 2025, or 2026.

That December 11th, 2024 date.

I'm guessing that was a cut-and-paste error from another previous letter or something because our staff received this on January 8th.

Right.

And I mean like we didn't have our meeting.

We um we met to go over the we issued our letter on December, or excuse me, January 6th, I think.

Um, whenever we had our meeting.

Um where we approved the minutes.

So I don't know how it just that the December December 11th, 2025 also wouldn't make sense.

That date just doesn't make sense.

That was yeah.

Unless he wrote this well, the meeting the meeting, the meeting was December 9th.

Right.

So maybe he meant to say I'm I'm I don't want to guess what he meant.

But usually rehearing requests, people have 30 days in which to give them in.

We got this on January 8th, which is what time 29th day, yeah.

It was just before the 30-day deadline.

So that's when we got this.

I don't know what he wrote for dates.

I I don't want to speculate on which what he meant.

That's good.

All I all I know is we got it on January 8th.

That was the 29th day before the 30-day deadline.

Well, what once again, I think what you're gonna try to get to, Mr.

Patrick, is is that is a material date.

Um and but I'm not sure that it's going to change uh the material information that we're we're gonna be discussing here.

We believe everything was put out there in a timely manner as uh put forth in the RSA.

Um so unless there's any additional discussion, we can head right into the rehearing worksheet.

What I'd like to do is just go through the four questions, I'll do them one at a time and just go right around the room for a yay or an A from everybody if that works, unless unless there's opposition to that.

And uh Mr.

Patrick, you're gonna be on the hot seat today, being the first one for each one of these.

So uh first question was there a procedural error?

This includes improper notice denying someone the right to be heard, etc.

Mr.

Patrick?

No.

Mr.

Lionel?

No.

Mr.

Boucher?

No.

And I also vote no.

Second question, was it an illegal decision?

Did the board fail to completely address all points of law required for a special exception and or a variance?

Mr.

Patrick?

No.

Mr.

Lionel?

No.

Mr.

Boucher?

No.

And I, Josh Neely also vote no.

Does the request contain any information not presented or available to the board at the original public hearing?

Mr.

Patrick?

No.

Mr.

Lionel?

No.

Mr.

Boucher?

No.

And I Josh Neely vote no.

And fourth and final question is there anything new that could or would cause the board to make a different decision?

Mr.

Patrick?

No.

Mr.

Lynell?

No.

Mr.

Boucher?

No.

And I, Josh Neely also vote no.

So based on the four questions, it was unanimous no for each question.

The board does deny the rehearing request.

We need to have a do we need to have an actual vote?

An actual overall motion.

Overall motion?

Okay.

Would anybody like to make the motion?

Mr.

Lina?

I'd like to make a motion to deny through rehearing request.

From uh same cats, 36th Granite Street.

Um for our uh multiple decisions, most recently on December 9th, uh 2025.

And uh through a hearing request.

Uh the board finds that there was no procedural error, that it was not at least decision, that the uh rehearing request did not contain any uh information uh present not presented or available to the board at the original public hearing, versus the material that was presented here uh was irrelevant to uh the original hearing because it did not actually touch on any of the issues brought up at the hearing.

And uh the board finds there is nothing new that would cause the board to make a different decision.

So I make a motion to deny the rehearing request.

And do we have a second, Mr.

Patrick?

Um I would like to add, just so we have it out there.

I know we had a bunch of discussion that the online posting uh was at was the 15th of December, and a letter was sent to the applicant on the 8th of January 2026, which was in the 30 days, Mr.

Patrick, thank you for that.

And I would further add that um the letter of January 8th, 2026 constituted a written decision of the board, and that as Mr.

Neely noted the minutes were posted or timely posted as required by law.

Yeah, I agree.

Okay, okay.

First and second, excellent.

Any additional conversation?

Okay, all those in favor of the motion to deny.

It is four to nothing, so the motion is for rehearing is denied.

Uh thank you, everybody on that one.

I know there was a lot of reading that had to go with with that one.

And uh do we have any other items that we need to discuss here tonight?

Do we have a motion to adjourn at looks like uh 747 p.m.?

So moved.

So moved, second by Joseph.

And we are adjourned.

Thank you very much, everybody.