Good evening, everyone.

Uh, I'd like to call to order the February 5th, 2026 meeting of the City of Nashua Planning Board.

Um first item on the agenda is roll call.

Um right, uh Mr.

Bollinger.

Here uh Adam Barley.

Here Maggie Harper Dan Hudson here, Larry Hirsch, here Cameron Green here, Alderman Patricia Clee.

Here, Benjamin Zoller.

We have six people and that would be a quorum.

All right, thank you, Scott.

Uh next item on the agenda, approval minutes from the January 8th, 2026 uh planning board meeting.

Is any member of the board had an opportunity to review those minutes and is willing to make a recommendation regarding their acceptance or acceptance with amendment?

Alderman Clee.

Uh yes, I'd like to make that recommendation for acceptance of the minutes.

All right, thank you.

Uh motion by Alderman Clee.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Green.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

I uh and chair would like to abstain, please.

But uh motion passes.

Uh next item on the agenda communications.

Um we had any um late late communications come in since the uh packets were were sent out.

Yes, Mr.

Chair, we had uh updated uh landscape plan to the uh 60 crown tree project, and we also had an updated staff report uh as of today for the uh Glenwood cases.

East Glenwood and Linton Street case.

All right.

Thank you, Connor.

If uh any members of the board had uh already downloaded materials, um the uh latest hyperlinks uh on the agenda should be should be current.

So all right.

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

Uh see Ms.

Harper's not here this evening.

Um I do not have anything to add at the moment.

Um before we head into our regular cases, um would just like to read the plating board procedure um for the record.

The procedure of the meeting is as follows.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your interest and courteous attention, and if I could kindly request that you turn off your cell phones or put them on silent mode.

All right, moving along.

Um, and if the board saw fit, we could also hear that in conjunction with new business subdivision plan case 825-0185.

Uh at this time, I would ask if any member of the board has reviewed those applications uh for completeness and is willing to make a motion regarding the board accepting jurisdiction over those cases.

Uh Mr.

Barley, please.

Mr.

Chair, as two cases A twenty five-020 and A25-0185, I would make a motion that the applications are complete and ready for the board to accept jurisdiction.

All right, thank you.

Uh motion by Mr.

Varley.

Is there a second?

Uh second by Mr.

Hirsch.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

All right.

The board has jurisdiction.

Uh, Mr.

Beals, the floor is yours.

Go right ahead.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman, uh, members of the board for the record.

My name is Ethan Beals.

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

Um, here tonight representing silver lining development for proposed subdivision.

Also with me tonight is the project's attorney, attorney Andy Krollman.

Uh with the chair's permission, I'd like to go ahead and present the facts of the case and then be happy to answer any questions that the board or public may have.

The existing site is located at 16 East Glenwood Street, which is located in the southeast quadrant of the city.

It is known to the City of Nashville Assessor's Office as Map 129, lot 187, and is located in the RA Urban Residence Zoning District.

Overall, the subject site measures 0.5 to 4 acres in size.

It's abutted by residential uses in all directions.

Linton Street to the north and East Glenwood Street to the south.

Subject property is currently partially developed and contains a single family residence, which we will admit is fallen into a state of disrepair.

Topography on the site can generally be classified as mild to moderate and generally slopes in a western direction towards a delineated wetland along the western property boundary.

An existing cross-country sewer main bisects the western portion of the property, running from Osgood Road slash the Sunset Heights Elementary School, which exists to the north, running in a southerly direction towards East Glenwood Street.

Access to the site is currently provided via driveway curb cut onto East Glenwood Street.

Don't mind scrolling to the proposed plan, Connor.

Thank you.

Our client purchased the property a little bit over a year ago and given the area of the oversized law, I thought it would be a good candidate for some infill development.

Therefore, it's being proposed to subdivide the existing lot 187 into three total lots.

The existing dwelling on lot 187 will remain and will fortunately be renovated.

And the two new dwellings will be constructed on new lots 191 and 195.

Access to the dwellings will be provided via two new driveway curb cuts onto East Glenwood and one new driveway on Linton, but I'll give you a little bit more on that shortly.

To support the proposed development, the zoning board of adjustment actually granted a total of 12 variances, which I thought might have been the record in the city, but the majority of which are really due to the fact that the existing block is set up in general non-conformance with the lot depth requirements in the RA zone.

So in other words, the RA zone has a lot depth requirement that the existing block does not actually currently meet.

The ZBA also granted a special exception permitting us to impact about 6,050 square feet of wetland buffer, the majority of which is currently disturbed and or exists within that previously mentioned cross-country sewer easement.

Importantly, we are not disturbing any actual wetland as part of this project.

I'll also mention that while a majority of the project is focused on the previously mentioned lot 187.

Just to the north of it, there's an existing buildable lot of record, lot 259, that's also owned by our client.

And it's also proposed to construct a single family dwelling on this lot as well.

All the dwellings proposed are relatively modest in size and are intended to fit the character of the overall existing neighborhood.

Terms of utilities, a portion of the existing cross-country sewer run and the associated easement will be relocated to allow for better development planning.

The proposed dwellings will all be serviced by city sewer, water by penetruct waterworks, gas, and overhead electric and telecommunication utilities.

Terms of stormwater management, the project actually proposes significant improvements to the existing condition.

Currently, in addition to the subject site, a portion of the adjacent Linton Street block generally flows in a western direction across the subject property and into the wetland along the westerly property boundary.

This drainage area measures about 2.9 acres in size and doesn't contain any formal treatment practices.

Um you would notice that the runoff leaving Linton Street actually channelizes at the end of Linton and is was causing some active erosion on that slope towards the wetland.

By using porous pavement and some other small infiltration practices, we're actually able to capture about 2.2 acres of that original 2.9 acre drainage area, provide formal quantitative and qualitative treatment of runoff and get that runoff back into the ground, really for an area that again currently does not contain any formal treatment practices.

Therefore, our professional opinion is that in terms of stormwater, the proposed project improves existing conditions relatively substantially compared to that existing condition today.

As I previously mentioned, both lot 159 and the existing lot 259 will gain access, what is really from a paper street, a paper street portion of Linton Street.

Given this kind of unique and nuanced scenario, I'm gonna just turn it over to Attorney Prollman for a minute to try to explain that a little bit better than I can.

Um and then I'll come back and finish up with my presentation.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chairman, members of the board, good evening.

Andy Prollman with Prunier and Pearlman here in Nashua.

Um the undeveloped portion of Linton Street is what we call a paper street, and it currently exists as a private private way.

Um road law in New Hampshire is uh tricky to figure out, doesn't come up uh that often and the team being the city's uh team and our team.

We've been going back and forth on this uh over the past uh few weeks, um, but we what we've come down to is that in 1924, this whole uh neighborhood, um Linton, Glenwood Hobart uh was uh all uh laid out with over roughly 200 lots and a plan was approved, and then over time uh Linton got built in sections in the city accepted portions of Linton over time.

I want to say I I don't have the date exactly, um, but the law at the time in 1924 was that um when a street is dedicated as shown on a plan, um the municipality has rights to that for a period of 20 years, and if if the city doesn't accept that dedicated street within a period of 20 years, then this the municipality's rights to that lapse.

But that doesn't mean the paper street goes away, the paper street's still there, and it's subject to private rights to access that street, and that's what we have today.

Um so we have um lot 259 and lot 190, what is that?

1905.

Um 59, it was an existing lot of record, um, and that clearly has under uh New Hampshire case law that has implied right of access from the end of Linton Street.

Uh the question that we're still going back and forth on a little bit, you see uh it was there's a question um in the uh staff memo, the the updated staff memo is whether lot 195 has those same uh rights because lot 195 didn't exist back in 1924.

It exists hopefully as of uh tonight.

Um so the question is do we have those same implied access rights to 195?

Uh I believe we do.

There's some discussions back and forth.

Um, if we do, then we're gonna be all set with an implied right of access to that lot.

If we don't, we'll be obtaining um easements to access that our our our developer team, um they've already been in touch with the neighbors, and we'll provide that to uh to the staff.

Um along the way, um that statute was amended.

Um so now if we were to do this today, we would have a uh under the current law, we would have to do a petition to discontinuous street.

That didn't exist uh when this um 1924 subdivision was was laid out.

Um just an interesting note.

If you look at that subdivision plan, what is now South Main is was Lowell Road.

There was the no that was that was the access way to take your horses down to Lowell.

Um so that's um uh that's about it.

We we we will we will have a trip to the Board of Aldman under statutory uh section uh 41 or 674 41 to build uh for a building permit on a private way like this.

Uh we will have to get approval from the Board of Alderman.

Again, that's a condition shown in the staff report, and that's fine.

We do that early on with our team, so I'm happy to answer any questions.

Uh but uh so we're working off a paper street um that you know we we'll have a host of easements uh or excuse me, a host of agreements for this.

For example, when we were at the conservation commission, we prepared a porous pavement um easement agreement.

There's gonna be um a shared uh maintenance, the shared driveway, shared infrastructure type of agreement uh between the lots, so there's there's a lot more work to do on this, uh but all of that would be submitted to to staff.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh question uh Mr.

Barley, yeah.

Just a quick question.

So this the intent then is that whatever's constructed where the the paper street currently exists that that would that would remain private, there would be no 100%, yeah.

Um Mr.

Hudson is quoted saying I don't care what you do as long as not it's not ours.

Roughly paraphrase.

Thank you.

Uh other questions for attorney prolman?

Okay.

Uh Alder McClee.

Yes.

I'm sorry.

Um I apologize.

Um I'm looking at it and I see where the paper street is on Linton and and so on.

So is the idea of these two lots to be able to put them together to create a um a larger development type of is that I I guess I'm a little confused and I apologize for my No, that's okay.

If you look at uh Ethan's plans, you'll see a driveway coming uh a it looks like a continuation of Winston Street, but that's really going to be a private drive.

Okay.

Continuing off of Linden Street.

And then from that, it will be two separate driveways.

Got it.

Okay.

Yeah.

I the I had looked at the plan and I I'm sorry, right now I'm looking at the GIS, so I didn't have that in my head, but thank you.

I appreciate the clarification.

Actually, attorney Prolman, um does lot 256 have any interest in this, or or I guess lot 198, would they have to relinquish any rights or does the prior documentation of the acceptance or non-acceptance diminish or extinguish their their rights?

Um representatives.

And then I I think the fellow house.

They um they you they do not have to participate in this at all.

They can.

Okay.

Um well that's a good question.

For example, my shared driveway agreement is going to have to anticipate that that lock could be subdivided in the future.

Because it could be.

So if that happens, they will be they will have the right to join our driveway agreement.

Okay, yeah, I obviously they they have uh existing access on the built-out or accepted portion of Linton Street.

I I I couldn't presuppose that they would or would not have an interest um in that um mystery section, I I guess for lack of a better term, but um I just didn't know if they needed to be participants directly in this process for no, but no, but we but you know we are anticipating that that lot one day could be subdivided.

Um and so our uh our driveway agreement will likewise anticipate that it could have another lot built into it.

Okay, but the but the Moreaux that are on that property, they don't have to participate.

We've talked to them, they don't have to present participate in this at all.

Okay, thank you.

I I apologize.

Certainly.

I am sorry, I feel so bad for you then up and down.

Um so just to to help me understand, I understand the paper street, I understand it's not belonging to the city.

I are you contending that this particular paper stream property is going to belong to the two properties that you're talking to, and um be because I I know how paper streets work with the the division, it goes to each side of it.

So if this becomes a null and void, part of that would belong to the Moreau's and part of it would belong to 37 Linton as well.

Well it it does today.

Okay.

Um the parties um the the um I don't know the lot number, but the felt catch to the south, the Moreau's to the north, right?

Um, and Silver Line and Development all own that paper street to the center line.

Right.

Right.

But they own it subject to our right of access, private implied right of access.

May I certainly alder McClee?

So when I when I look at it, um that paper street where you're where the properties that you're speaking of border, they don't go all the way to the city street.

So that portion that's not part of the city street technically belongs to those other two properties.

Am I correct?

And you have to negotiate with them a right away.

Is that the way this works or maybe I'm not understanding?

No, no, you you you are understanding it uh very well.

Um so if let me if I understand your question, the um I I look at it as a big long kind of triangle uh rectangle and this first portion of it where Linden Street truly ends.

Yeah.

And I'm looking at their property lines.

There's like this say it's this big half of it belongs to the other two properties.

Uh we sketch if you can see the what's up on the screen now.

Right.

That's that's the underlying ownership as it stands today.

Okay.

So and subject to the access rights.

Okay, and the access rights would come from the other two properties or if we'll see um the and this this is this is where we're not subtle, all right?

But we will be.

So um law 259 um has because it was an existing lot, the original lot from the 1924 plan, that has implied right of access um such that we don't necessarily have to go get um easements from the neighbors.

Okay.

The question becomes new lot one fifth one ninety-five that we're creating today.

All right, does that have that implied right of access?

It's a it's a fair question.

It's a good question.

And so if it if it doesn't, then yes, we're gonna have to go to the neighbors and get an easement.

Okay.

If it if it does, then we're also at you're waiting for that interpretation.

Okay.

Thank you.

I apologize for Mr.

V.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Certainly.

Um other questions for attorney Pearlman.

Uh none at this time.

Ethan come right back.

Thank you.

I won't interrupt you again.

Oh, very, very complicated and very, very nuanced.

It goes back into very ancient road law that pre-exists way before I was ever on this earth.

Um I I appreciate the chairs calling it a mystery portion of Linton Road, because it took us about three weeks working back and forth with staff, which I'm grateful for to try to come up with what do we call this strip of land.

That wasn't proper or a judgment.

I think we might give anything about a mystery section of it, and I like that term.

I I've just been learning more and more about paper streets and who has what in access, so thank you.

So given everything that we just talked about, um uh under land use code 190-8.

Um, a special use permit is really required in order to get access to these two lots via a paper street.

A special use permit is really a pretty rare section of the code, and there's essentially six criteria which I'll briefly mention, um, which are as follows.

One adequate access for the for a proper water sewer and other utility connections, two pro uh provision for snow and trash removal, three proper drainage from driveway, four adequate access for emergency vehicles, five safe site distance for driveway, and six, no other substantial adverse impact to public health and safety based on the plans that were submitted here tonight, and again I will caveat it by saying we still have some stuff to work out with staff, um but based on the plans and our testimony here tonight.

We believe we have fulfilled all of the criteria involved that are required for this special use permit.

Um switching over to waivers um here tonight we are seeking three waivers from the National Land Use Code out of respects for the board's time.

I'll briefly summarize them, but ask that my waiver letter that I had previously submitted be incorporated into the record by reference.

Waiver request one is of 190 282 B9, which is a common one that the board hears requiring existing conditions within a thousand feet of a proposed subdivision, again a common waiver request providing detailed survey within a thousand feet of the subdivision boundary is cost prohibitive to just about every project and also provides no real benefit to our plans or to the public.

Second waiver requests is of 1902 twelve A1, which requires sidewalks to be constructed along the properties frontage on public streets.

Again, a a pretty still a fairly common uh waiver request.

Currently, there's no sidewalks in the vicinity of the proposed project in lieu of constructing sidewalks that really wouldn't connect to any other sidewalks.

Um we are proposing an in lieu of contribution of $7,000, which is in accordance with the city's calculation and procedures for uh sidewalk in lieu of funds.

Finally, waiver request three is of 1902 21, which requires the proposed project to be serviced by underground electric and telecommunication utilities.

Currently the existing dwelling off of East Glenwood Street and the entirety of the surrounding neighborhood are all serviced by overhead electric and telecommunication utility lines.

Therefore, we're it's not out of character with the neighborhood, and so we would like to also utilize overhead electric and telecommunication lines to service the three new dwellings.

In summary, we believe our site plan conforms to the city of National Land Use Code.

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

Again, I'll note that we still have some work to do to provide some additional follow-up, both to planning staff but also to work with Mr.

Hudson's team to satisfactorily address their comments, which were in the letter in your board packets today.

At this time, I'd be happy to answer any questions that Andy has not already answered.

Thank you.

I I actually have a question for for staff, if I if I may.

Um do you believe that the conditions uh as as written in the staff report accurately describe the the prescriptive, I guess, next steps, particularly aldermanic action and things of that sort.

Um, and obviously, if for any of those were not to happen, um what would be the situation?

Would they come back?

Does that nullify the approval or if this board were to decide were to decide favorably in both of these matters, and for some reason there was not alter manic concurrence, what would what would then happen?

So it's it's our understanding that is this uh case does need the elder manic uh action for the R74 what was it?

674 41 uh due to the lots not having direct frontage uh to the streets.

So we're we're fairly confident in that.

Um then for the second condition that was I guess written in a way that was if required because we're we're still going back and forth with the applicant on the exact criteria to consider what is proof of access.

And so that could be what by way of formal easement, by way of um demonstration of implied easement, and so that is why we wrote it as if if needed.

Okay.

Uh and thank you for the clarification.

But but in essence, you think that the language in the conditions is sufficient to cover the subsequent actions that would be required.

I do.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

Um other questions for Mr.

Beals or staff, Adam?

Go ahead.

This is also for staff.

I just I in the technical comments, there's a reference to comment from the fire department units taking access in the undeveloped portion of Linton Street are to be sprinkled.

Is that captured in the in the subsequent conditions somewhere?

Is that in the I don't know if that was in the uh fire marshal's office did not provide me a um formal comment letter, and uh this was just from my conversation with them.

So I I felt it would be best put in the technical comments.

It's captured.

Oh, yes, oh yeah.

Oh, that was your question.

Yes.

Okay.

Um thank you.

Um other questions from the board at this time?

Either for the applicant or for staff.

All right.

Um seeing none, thank you, Mr.

Beals.

Uh, I'm gonna open this up to the public.

Is there any member of the public here this evening that would like to speak in opposition or with concern regarding these two applications?

Uh certainly, sir.

Uh just please come right up to the microphone.

Just state your name and address for the record, please.

Good evening.

Uh Joseph Patrol 45 East Glenwood Street.

I just had a question more than a concern.

That's okay.

No, it's just pull back up the supplemental.

Where the exhibit was.

I'm just not understanding where exactly these additional dwellings go.

Are they going that 259 lot?

One is there, yes.

So that's on the opposite side of East Linton Street of Linton Street, excuse me, not right on.

So what what exactly are we doing with the 16 East Glenwood piece of property?

Uh one residence.

That's already the will be turning into three lots with eventually three residences.

So, how many?

All right, so three total.

Uh, three total on that residence and that would be one behind.

Yes.

All right.

Uh I apologize, sir.

I didn't get your name.

Um it's okay just just for the record, so the microphone picks it up.

If you just want to address your question to the board, and then if we need to be the caveat, um I apologize.

I'm not doing it with the no, that's okay.

No, um he spoke about the drainage at the top of uh Linton Street.

The drainage in front of that particular home is very, very poor.

And melting season and heavy rains, it's oftentimes impassable.

So I was wondering what impact this new construction would have on that on East Glenwood Street itself.

Okay.

What we'll do um the applicant, uh, they're allowed to come up and and and basically answer your question.

Um so if you have other questions, just put them out there, and I'm sure they're taking good notes and they'll try to come up here and address any questions that you have to okay.

Okay, thank you.

Other members of the public like to speak?

Certainly.

If you just want to identify yourself for the record, sir.

My name is Mock Connolly.

I'm at 36 East Glenwood.

So I'd like to second what Joe had said about the drainage is very, very bad, and it doesn't seem to have been addressed so far.

This came up at the zoning meeting, and they said they were gonna go to address it.

Some of the other things that still concerning to me, and it doesn't directly impact me, even though I share a property line.

Up on Linden Street, there was the talk of the common driveway coming down, and that based on what you had mentioned, it has to be applying for a waiver when it comes to trash and snow and a few other things based on the common driveway.

Well, I don't understand how, and you know, I'm not an expert.

I don't know how a common driveway you're gonna be able to get trash pickup.

Uh you know, that's just one thing.

And where is all that snow from Linden Street gonna go?

Because it's quite the drop-off.

I mean, I have walked that back, and I'm sure you folks have too.

Um, so I I need just I I don't need I would love to have some more clarification about that.

Um, and that's pretty much it.

You know, the rest is just kind of just the concern about not knowing exactly how everything's gonna turn out.

But the other thing was mentioned was I think somebody mentioned something about talking to some of the neighbors.

This is the only time that I've ever actually seen any of these folks say this.

So uh, and I'm not directly, but I do share the left hand, um sorry, the right-hand property line because I'm a 36.

Thank you for your time.

Thanks for your questions.

Appreciate it.

Um other members of the public that would like to speak uh in opposition or with concern or just with general questions.

See none.

Uh any members of the public that would like to speak uh in favor of this application.

See none.

Um Mr.

Beals, would you like to come back up?

And sure, I'm sure you were taking notes.

Yeah, I love any opportunity to talk about drainage.

It's really my bread and butter and what I spend 95% of my time thinking about.

Um, of course, any project really in the city, any project overall, um, you need to do a stormwater management analysis for the project.

Um, as the board knows you need to compare essentially peak development, uh, excuse me, pre-development peak flows that leave your project area, and then you have to reduce those peak flows in the post-development condition, even with the amount of additional impervious surfaces, so additional pavement, additional roof, etc.

As part of that investigation, we also uncovered or not uncovered, it's not a secret, um, but a large portion of that Linton Street block really is flowing across our subject property and into a low point, kind of a low-lying wetland that really exists along our westerly property boundary.

A portion of that, yes, flows directly into the wetland, a portion of that flows more of in a southwesterly direction and kind of out onto East Glenwood Street.

Um the analysis showed, which um again, I believe out of the the comments from um city engineering staff, there was not any significant comments regarding questions about the stormwater management analysis.

Um we showed significant reductions, even though it's a small piece of property.

We showed significant reductions and peak flows leaving the site.

Um there's a combination of treatment practices that are available.

Um, there's a combination of leach and catch basins, so capture the runoff, store it, infiltrate it back into the ground.

But almost the entirety of the proposed shared driveway is going to be porous pavement.

Porous pavement is a commonly recognized best management stormwater practice, which really allows runoff, runoff flows across the porous pavement.

It captures it, it gets it into a filter layer below.

There's also a crushed stone storage layer that allows some of that runoff to be stored and then infiltrated back into the ground.

I believe every single one of the proposed dwellings, including the existing dwelling, contains what I would call what I think what the plans identify as a roof infiltration unit.

So there will be gutters constructed along the roof line along the eve of all of the dwellings.

Downspout will capture the runoff, it will go into a small little infiltration piece back into the ground.

Of course, we we've in a number of the original going back to the original zoning uh approval, um, several neighbors identified hey, this low-lying wetland commonly fills up in any even small storm events, and there's some existing kind of flooding issues.

Um, kind of the numbers I would agree showed that, but my testimony tonight is that the proposed development, even though we are adding some impervious surfaces, the combination of treatment practices is a significant improvement compared to what exists today.

Again, I will reiterate the point.

If you were to have gone out there before the snow was on the ground, you would see some active erosion at the very end as it does slope down at the end of Linton Street.

A couple of the other pieces in terms of trash and snow removal, absolutely.

Um Mr.

Hudson's team identified those pieces.

Both of those are pieces that we will have to work out with City DPW to their satisfaction.

Um we are not asking for a waiver on on either of those two items.

Um it would be my presumption that um the two the two dwelling units off of Linton essentially have what's the equivalent of a long driveway, and so they're going to have to bring their trash barrels up to the top of the paved and accepted portion of Linton Street, um, which is also what what uh Mr.

Hudson's team identified in their comments as being a potential option.

If they choose not to do that, it will have to be serviced by private trash pickup.

But I would anticipate that they will just have a long walk with their trash barrels up to the paved and accepted portion of Linton.

Um then in terms of snow, same thing goes.

Um we're gonna have to work out with with City DPW where some of that snow goes.

Um the existing or the proposed shared driveway, as as attorney Prolman mentioned, um, we will need to have a shared maintenance agreement where those two dwelling units um have some type of uh pavement um restoration, pavement maintenance, because with porous pavement it has to be actively maintained, so it has to be swept, sometimes even vacuumed and included as part of that is the plowing of that.

It will be treated as any other shared or private driveway, so such that um city DPW doesn't need to drive down would be the goal.

Um I think I have answered um all of the the questions that were previously mentioned, but if there are any others, I'm happy to do so as well.

Actually, Ethan, just a quick one.

Uh real roughly, it looks like now that elevation drop under existing conditions is about 20 plus feet, maybe even a little bit more.

So uh in addition to the porous pavement, you're you're leveling that a little bit.

Yes, yes, and you're supplying some some drainage structures as well.

So you're not inherently, again, if I was looking at the plan correctly, you're just not gonna have that deep drop off that would encourage that that more rapid flow that yielded some of the erosion that that you spoke of earlier.

Yeah, so that's that's correct.

Uh yeah, I I apologize for not mentioning, yeah.

Part of the grading that goes involved, and it's if you visited the end of Linton today, it's it's a little hard to kind of conceptualize and uh I recognize that you know on the screen it's really lines on a plan, but those relate to real contours and real topography that we're proposing.

But uh, Mr.

Chairman, I think you kind of summarized it well where our goal is to basically take that existing slope and try to pick it up a little bit, and we do that with a number of yes, there's still going to be, there's no question there's going to be some existing steeper slopes at the very end, but we're able to try to kind of make up grade by picking up that driveway, so the driveway is not too steep.

Um we're gonna have some kind of uh similar to a walk-out basement where the the back side of a yard you might be able to walk out of the basement on the low side, it's going to be the opposite.

So some of these units will have a drive-under garage in the front side, and then the grade on the back side of the house will be higher than on the front side.

So it's kind of the opposite idea of a walkout basement, it's a drive-under garage.

If you've seen some of those where backyards are higher in elevation than front yards.

So we're able to make up grade in a number of kind of creative ways, but the goal is to kind of pick the site up, if you will, in order to be able to create a development pad to construct the dwellings.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you for the clarification.

Uh other questions of the applicant?

Alderman Clee.

Yeah.

Uh thank you.

And um one of the um the speakers had brought up this snow, and you said that that something I um I have um properties in my ward, um, 110 A, B and C, which is this long road that actually cut through a private property of a church and so on, and and that's all private, and they have to bring their trash out to the street.

It's like about a quarter of a mile, literally, that they have to bring their trash out.

But my question for this particular one is now where Linden technically ends as far as the city street, I'm sure that the plows just plow it.

Maybe this is more for Mr.

Hudson, they just plow the snow up to that area.

Once those driveways are there, that's not going to be able to happen.

So maybe again this might be for Mr.

Hudson whether or not this is going to become something, an issue for the city of trying to.

It's not a real turnaround there.

It's a dead end.

And how with snow be taken from that area?

The driveways are going to get plowed in.

There's no if, ands or buts about it, but we can't leave a wall of snow there.

Um has that been discussed on this discussion?

Yeah, Mr.

Chair.

Or we or we can, and they have to deal with a wall of snow.

Okay.

Um, right now you're right, it's a dead end street.

We did raise the snow uh storage as an issue, you know.

Um we were waiting to definitely find out the status of the street.

Um had that been public street, maybe there was an area in as we head past the public portion, you know, we could pile snow on uh one side or the other.

They kind of have drainage features on one side and the other, but now that now that it appears that that's uh been defined as the neighbor's lot, then I'm not sure that they can grant us that right to store snow in the neighbor's property.

Um so it is an issue.

We uh on one side of the road we have uh a retaining wall that is in the right-of-way that you know kind of restricts where we can put snow there.

Uh I don't know the status that wall history of it, permanent status, any of that stuff.

Um so I don't I don't have the answers here for you today.

I just I'm comfortable with the condition that we have that we need to continue to work on that and see what we can come up with to do the best we can.

But uh again, worst case we'll push it to the end of the street and they'll have to clean it up from there, you know, to suit their access.

I I'm fine with that as long as everybody understands that when they buy this property, because I can tell you from the 110 A, B, and C as each new owner has bought it.

It's like really I have to bring my trash all the way out to here, and it becomes a there's other issues with those three properties, but it becomes quite the and I can tell you as an alderman I'm the one who gets the calls.

So that's why I'm saying is I really want this to be defined.

Um and I'm fine with it being a you know um a condition and and so on, but I really do think it needs to be defined and and the neighbors have the right to to understand how this is gonna happen.

Absolutely, and if I may just provide a little bit of more commentary, uh I I think fortunately though at the longest, if you're to walk all the way down Linton, it's maybe 600 feet.

So fortunately it's nowhere near a quarter mile long walk.

So I'm sure they enjoy their exercise with their trash cans.

Um I I think I've been uh I'll call it fortunate to represent I think three projects in about the last year that are at the very end of dead end streets.

Um the the reality is in in a in an older city like Nashua, there's a lot of oversized lots at the very end of dead end streets and they become good candidates for infill development, albeit it takes a little bit more work than uh a typical one into three subdivision.

Um on past projects, I've been fortunate enough to go and meet with Mr.

Hudson and his team, and we work collaboratively to try to come up with a solution that both works for the applicant and and the people who actually are out plowing the streets.

So I look forward to doing that again on this one and we'll go from there.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate your time.

It it seems like there's a willingness um for for to to have those discussions uh and and given I think some of the um extraneous conditions particular to this application.

I I think there's gonna be continued discussions on a number of topics.

So I trust our staff, so yeah, I I do as well.

So um other questions for the applicant seeing none at this time.

Um like to close the public hearing.

Um to our deliberation.

Um I agree it's there's some challenges there.

Um I I think to the extent that they they can, they've they've tried to address particularly the drainage matter.

Uh obviously there's there's some aldermanic action and some other extraneous things that we we we don't often see, but but it wouldn't be the first time that we've had those type of conditions.

Um I would feel comfortable moving forward with with this application alderman clean.

May I ask you to clarify the aldermanic actions that need to be taken um for my edification also so that when it does go to the board of aldermen, I'm sure that Mr.

Durfee will be there to explain it, but I'd like to be able to so I don't misstate it.

Um I'm I'm I'm gonna I'm gonna lean on staff uh if Sam or Connor wanted to take that one.

Um so uh Board of Alderman Action is necessary to allow the uh issuance of building permits or construction of uh buildings on lots that are served by private streets, and so with you know the applicants um kind of synopsis on the status of the undeveloped portion of the street, the city is in agreement that this would classify as such private right-of-way, and which is why Board of Ultimate Action is necessary.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

And may I certainly um I I think I've aired all of my my concerns and I I do have faith in Mr.

Hudson and the rest of the staff, and it does sound like everybody is trying to work.

State that especially when it comes to snow and drainage.

I I do feel that the conversations are happening, but that we also consider um the neighbors that are in you know in that in that passage as well as so that we don't um offload to any of their properties and and so on.

I feel confident that that will happen, but I just want to make sure we put it on the record as well.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alderman.

Mr.

Hudson.

Uh just further to the all the manic actions.

I just want to be clear in my own mind, but I think you said the ZBA granted the zero frontage.

So the law will be created.

The subdivision will happen.

It's just a matter of whether or not somebody can build on that lot.

Is that true?

That's okay.

Thank you.

Other questions or comments from the board.

Um I suppose the only other thing I would want to comment on.

Um the waiver requests, these are fairly standard ones.

Um I wouldn't have an issue just given the character of the neighborhood, particularly with the the under uh not providing underground utilities.

Um we've seen the sidewalk in lieu of contribution before.

So I I didn't see anything you know really unusual with with those requests.

Um so I guess with with with that, I don't know if we're we're at the point where um any member of the board be willing to make a uh a motion.

Um I think order of operations here.

I think we'd we'd want to take the waivers first, um, then take up the special use permit, um, and then take up the final subdivision approval.

Um so if any members so inclined um to perhaps make a motion regarding the waivers.

Um not all oh, Mr.

Green, please.

Yeah, I would like to make a motion for new business A 25-0185 and A25-020 to grant the following waivers.

The first 190-282B9 to waive the requirement to show physical features on site and a thousand feet, uh, as well as uh the second being 190-212A1 to weigh the requirement that a sidewalk be located at least one side of the street and provide a payment in lieu of 7,000.

Well, the pay and provide payment in lieu of $7,000.

Uh, and the third being 190-221 to waive the requirement to provide utilities underground, considering the criteria uh from RSA 674 uh 362N RSA 674 443E and 190-148D finding that strict conformity would pose unnecessary hardship to the applicant and the waivers not be contrary to spirit of intent of the regulations and the specific circumstances of the land uh will probably carry out the spirit of intent.

Um rationale provided by the applicant attached to the rave waiver requests letter data January 26, 2026.

All right, thank you.

Um motion by Mr.

Green.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Barley.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

I can motion passes.

Uh Mr.

Green, would you like to continue?

Yes, I would.

I'd also like to uh make a motion to grant the special use permit for the development of Watts uh 259 and 195 with access from paper streets as part of the motion to approve the SUP the board finds that the application does fill the conditions of 190-8D and delegate the formalization of the plan for snow and trash removal to the staff as it currently is unsatisfactory.

Thank you.

Uh motion by Mr.

Green.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Hirsch.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Mr.

Green, please, if you if you don't mind.

I would also like to make a motion to grant the final subdivision approval for the three lot subdivision for the property located at 16 East Glenwood Street, finding that the application meets the approval criteria outlined in subdivision NRO 190-138G, subject to the following conditions in the staff report A through P.

All right, thank you.

Um motion by Mr.

Green.

Is there a second?

Um second by Mr.

Varley.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

I motion passes.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right.

Moving along.

Next business.

Next item on the agenda under new business site plan.

Case A25-0215.

Property located at 60 Crown Street.

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

And is willing to make a motion regarding its completeness and the board accepting jurisdiction?

Mr.

Harley.

Mr.

Chair, yes, as to case 825-0215.

I would make a motion if the application is complete and ready for the board to accept jurisdiction.

Thank you.

Motion by Mr.

Varley.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Hirsch.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

I've all right.

Motion passes.

Board has jurisdiction.

Is there anyone here this evening to speak on behalf of the applicant?

All right, good evening, folks.

My name is Nick Golan.

I'm a licensed engineer and principal with the firm TF Moran here this evening on behalf of ARC Source Nichols Realty LLC as owners as well as Tamposey Brothers Holdings LLC as the developers.

I am Joe joined by Mr.

Joe Tamposi, who is in the audience.

If there's any specific uh questions about AMI or the funding sources otherwise for this affordable housing project, we might have them come up here and say hi and tell you a little bit about it.

What are we doing and where are we?

So this is tax map 24 lot 49, located in the general industrial and transit oriented development or TOD overlay district.

The subject lot is just under an acre, approximately 0.9.

And has some interesting characteristics.

It has multiple frontages along Crown Street, some some interesting geometry, both the lot itself with some various jogs, as well as the adjacent roadway network.

So this was a little bit of a puzzle trying to figure out how can we maximize the redevelopment of this site and provide smooth access points in and around this building.

Taking a step back and a little bit of a look at what's around us.

One of the things that's always hard to do is explain what this project, uh what a given project may look like.

I don't have that issue here.

Um we actually developed the immediately adjacent site that is for Avery Lane with a very similar building with a very similar use.

So if you've happened through the area, what you see there is essentially what we're trying to create on this lot here.

Um so at Avery Lane, there we were looking at 95 units spread across two buildings.

Um other abutters that we have when we look to the north is Day Tech Tool in Machine Inc.

at 181 East Hall Street, currently operating as Brazilian family auto repair.

Um to the east, we have Crown Street and the Merrimack River, and to the south again Crown Street and undeveloped land that is further beyond.

As we transition from our existing conditions plan into our proposal, we're proposing a five-story affordable multifamily housing project.

It will be comprised of 54 parking spaces, which provides a parking ratio just over one, which is fairly consistent with projects that have been recently approved by this board, as well as the adjacent property that I mentioned with Avery Lane.

As we look at the overall site, access is uh in two locations.

We have a full service driveway off of Crown Street, uh, immediately to the south side of the property that provides access into the parking lot.

You can see where the transformer is immediately located to the right with good access to our utility room and the 10,000 plus or minus square foot footprint of our multifamily residential resides.

Uh ADA parking uh immediately dead center as far as access into the building.

And as you work your way northerly through the parking lot, you can see where there are two dumpster areas that have been located to provide suitable refuge area for uh trash associated with this facility.

Believe it or not, there is some math when it comes to designing dumpsters, and we want to make sure that it's suitable.

Um in this case, we have two 12-yard dumpsters, which will be more than adequate for the 50 units that we're proposing.

Um we look at those units, it's an evaluation of their types.

So in this case, we're looking at 25 um one bedroom units and 25 two bedroom units.

Um the aggregate storage that we would need is certainly provided across those two dumpster locations.

So we work our way east across the property.

There's a secondary egress point out to Crown Street.

It is to a one-way location, which then loops around the building to the south, back out to Crown Street, where you would uh enter back into the area that you entered into the building.

Utilities.

What we need is there.

It's great to have that existing utility infrastructure already in place.

Water, sewer, electric, and gas are already essentially at the property.

There is a small waterline extension that's required to upsize the line to provide for appropriate fire protection for our building.

Landscaping, which is one item we're still working on with staff, but we think we have a solution.

Is provided in and around this property.

The idea is to provide a little bit of year-round interest, different colors, different textures and varying heights of our plantings that'll ideally meet their surroundings.

We're providing red maple, London Plaintree, Pin Oak, and we're providing these very specific types of trees for a reason.

These are your urban hardy type trees.

They do well with pollution, snow melt, various things that we were dealing with with salt or otherwise.

And then for other added interests and have our landscaping plan before us, we can see there's varying levels of shrubs, again, different colors.

We have service berry, hydrangea, junipers, ewes, inkberry, again, a balance of different colors, different textures, which currently this lot is missing.

So the landscaping that exists now is really some some overgrown areas.

There is some invasive species that will need to be removed and managed as part of this.

The DPW did specifically a request that we clear the area in front of the building as far as the existing landscaping that's out there, which will dramatically improve our site lines, and then we'll work with staff on how we best replant that area.

Given our location, we do have some nice river views, so we'll want to make sure we don't overly impair those.

The species we have selected since they'll be new, they are fast growing natives.

Um again, very very durable plantings.

Pivoting a little bit, talk about some other elements we usually do with the project traffic.

Um traffic is fairly minimal when we think about uh a development of this project.

We have a total of 50 units, so we look to IT land use code 223 for affordable housing income limits, where we end up with a total of 28 a.m.

and 23 p.m.

peak hour trips.

Um those are split across trips coming in, trips exiting.

So it is a fairly balanced amount of traffic.

Um and although Crown Street is we'll say on the smaller side as far as its width or otherwise, uh, we do have the ability for that for Crown Street to be able to manage this type of traffic.

As requested by traffic, we there is a traffic fee that would be associated with this that would go towards off-site improvements, which I believe was in the neighborhood of about $7,000.

All right.

Uh talking about traffic, let's talk about our building.

Uh again, about 10,000 square foot.

Uh it's 50,000 plus or minus square feet total across its five stories.

Uh, as far as the materials, we can look to our neighbor as to what we're proposing.

These are vinyl shake uh shingle siding on our lower stories, and then we transition to a vinyl horizontal siding at our upper stories.

Um, because this is funded in part through the New Hampshire Housing Authority, this is a premium vinyl that is required.

Now, as far as our color color palette, we can thank our friends at Bernal Johnson Architects, Mr.

David Johnson, where we have a lovely cream, seaweed, deep forests, and tuscan olives.

So some nice neutral tones that again will complement the buildings that were recently constructed next door, and then a charcoal gray asphalt shingle.

So we got very similar to our next door.

As far as just our unit sizes to give some perspective, our one beds are in the neighborhood of above 665 square feet.

Uh, our two beds at 920 square feet.

Uh last item I'll make mention of before I turn it back to the chair is there's one waiver that's requested as part of this project, as was mentioned as part of a prior application.

It is a typical one you see regarding existing conditions where we're asking for a partial waiver to just show the survey on our lot in portions of the immediate vicinity.

Uh we didn't go to the full extent of distance required by the regulation.

Try and be short, sweet and stop there.

All right, thank you.

Um just one quick question.

Um, I'm sure it's gonna come up at some point.

Uh just the the landscaping plan.

It looks like some of those plantings, some if not all, are in the right-of-way on Crown Street.

Is there been any discussion regarding maintenance or the expectations will likely put notation on the plan that states that we'll be the responsible party for the maintenance of those.

Um, and as with any uh right-of-way planting, if it's determined that it is not in the city's best interest for them to be there, then they would have to be removed.

Okay.

Understood.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Um other questions from the board at this time.

Alderman Clee, please.

Uh thank you.

And maybe I should wait till the the public speaks.

But um, we did have uh a letter from a um Anna Butter who was concerned about the additional traffic.

I heard what you said about the traffic flow would come in at different times and so on, but when I think of that there's 95 units on Avery, which for lack of a better turn dumps on to Crown Street, as well as this 50 units.

I know you're talking about 54 parking space and so on.

In my mind, that's you know um what 145 units that have suddenly come on the online and so on.

I'm all for affordable housing.

I really love this, but I don't want to create a nightmare for those that are living there.

They're already with the 95, and now we are adding 50 to it.

Um can you just at least talk to it a little bit?

I certainly can.

No, it's a it's a valid question.

Um some of this just goes to the master planning that the city of Nashua is undertaken.

Uh the Transient Orient uh Overlay District is uh purposely targets the ability to build residential in this area.

Um we work very hard with staff to make sure that not only the use but the density is consistent with what the city has approved in the past and to make sure that this is an appropriate location.

Um we mentioned the the neighboring project um which has access to Crown Street but also has access to East Hollis.

So it really does provide the opportunity for people to avoid Crown Street entirely, should they so choose.

Um Avery Lane, which is a private way that really is a cut through that connects the two would provide that opportunity for access through that development and avoiding Crown Street.

So yes, are we adding traffic?

Any development will add traffic.

That's it, that's a given.

It's can the existing roadway uh sustain that traffic, which our report states that it can, which is consistent with the requirements of the city of Nashua.

And the fact that there is alternative uh roads available, I think also is a benefit.

May I?

Uh certainly Alder McLean, yeah.

Thank you.

I I had had not noticed that Avery went out to East Hollis as well.

So I appreciate that clarification.

Um just so that I I have this in my mind, and what you're saying is that if this does become the those that are on 90 those 95 units, they don't have to go to Crown Street.

So if there does seem to be a traffic issue, they have an alternative, and maybe they'll go the other way.

So for anyone who punches in their directions to Google before they leave the house, yeah.

Um they'll have the opportunity to evaluate what that existing traffic may or may not be, and it does provide alternatives.

Correct.

If I may just one more thank you.

Um I also look at what direction people are coming off East Hollis as to whether or not it's easy to cut the traffic to get into Avery.

So that is also something I I would be keeping in mind is to the alternative route that these people would be taking if they come out and they want to take a left, whether or not they'll be able to break that traffic or coming in and wanting to take a right, whether or not they can break that traffic is very very determine which way they go as well.

So I know there's also off-site improvements that are currently being contemplated by the city um further down on Crown Street.

So we'll help with our uh I guess our partial funding of that will hopefully help realize it that much faster.

Thank you so much.

That that was also one other thing, Alderman Clay one.

Yeah, yes, I did see that.

It seemed like there was no site specific mitigation requested of uh DPW, but they they are making the the voluntary contribution towards the court.

So the 7000, so thank you.

Yeah, I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Um other questions from the board?

All right.

Um Nick, thank you.

Uh seeing none at this time, uh open it up to the public.

Uh are there any members of the public that will like to speak in opposition or with concern?

Come right up.

We did this before.

My name is Carl Swanson.

I live at 42 Crown Street.

I'm the one that sent the letter in.

So I have the 94 apartments 15 feet from my backyard, and now they want to put a five-story building, two doors down.

And on Crown Street, you have to go out, you can go out through Avery Lane, which you can only go right over the bridge.

You can't go down towards Main Square.

So everybody's gonna have to go through right in front of my house if they want to get up Crown Street.

And there's days that I have to wait 15 to 20 minutes because the train's going for a ride.

So what are you gonna do when you have 50 to 75 cars backed up behind the train trying to get out?

Or trying to come down to go back to home.

Um the applicant will have an opportunity to respond to your question.

So if you have you certainly if you have any other quite uh questions or concerns, too many to ask.

Too many to understood, but appreciate it.

Thank you for your testimony.

Um there other members of the public that wish to speak in opposition or with concern.

Seeing none.

Any members of the public that wish to speak in favor of this application?

Okay.

Seeing none.

Nick, did you want to come up and try to address traffic question that was raised?

All right.

So I think uh the question I'm I'm being asked is to maybe expand a little bit more on the on the traffic element that we have uh on a butter who's expressed some concern.

Um and maybe some of this is uh I don't have to tell you about but just relative to how we evaluate traffic and that we're evaluating peak hours.

Um this isn't 50 cars coming out all at once.

Um these cars are spaced out when we talk about the traffic coming in during the peak AM hour, it's it's eight eight vehicles uh with 20 exiting, and during that PM hour it's 14 in and nine out.

So if we were to compare this to uh commercial use um where you would see turnover in your parking lot on a consistent basis, and then you start to be a little bit more concerned.

Is is it a restaurant?

Uh is it a fast food?

Those types of uses really drive up the amount of traffic that's in a given area.

Um this will be people's homes.

Um so I liken this to a to a subdivision where we're building new homes.

Um these homes are just vertical.

So it's we can say with certainty that ground street is suitable for that number of trips.

Um, and we are providing our contribution to try and provide a better room as well.

All right.

Um thank you.

Um I I might lean on uh Mr.

Hudson just briefly.

Are you able to elaborate on on some of the public efforts, whether state or municipal that might be able to improve traffic in the area um just in general, even if they're long-term ten-year plan type projects or there anything specifically identified?

So uh yeah, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I'll mention a couple things.

So the first was discussion about work on Crown Street.

We actually can completed that work.

Um at the intersection of Crown Arlington, that used to be a yield condition.

It was a wide sweeping right turn.

Um and the previous development, we one of the one of the things we asked them to do was design a modification of the intersection, tighten it up such that we can make that a stop condition, make it safer because it's a binal location of uh some unfortunate uh crashes.

So um so the applicant did design that and we constructed uh changes.

And I don't know, I haven't heard positives or negatives from anybody, but usually no news is good news from my perspective.

Um so that that was done.

Uh we do have a future project at the intersection of um Bridge Street and East Hall Street.

It's not gonna dramatically change that location.

The configuration is gonna stay largely the same.

Uh, but everything will be uh updated.

Um we're gonna make it more pedestrian accommodating by you know, improving that network and uh bike friendly, more bike friendly as well by uh widening some shoulders there.

Uh signal equipment will be replaced, the intersection at uh Bridge Street and D Street, where that's a temporary signal, which was put in as part of a previous development, that will become a permanent signal.

So those are things that are complicated contemplated.

Uh we do also have a future 10-year plan project for the corridor of East Hollow Street, and that hasn't started yet.

That's the ways out, but that that also provides opportunities to make changes along the corridor.

So it's fair to say, independent of the proposed project, um overall operational enhancements along East Hollow Strait, along East Hollow Street have been contemplated by the city, and there's certain projects either under study or in the motions for construction that will hopefully address some some other concerns.

Is that is that a fair statement?

That's fair statement and the traffic contribution requested, you know, can be used for more immediate needs as well, or as matching funding towards those future projects, uh which are uh LPA projects through DOT where they fund a large portion of those.

So we welcome the contribution.

If there was any other low-hanging, you know, immediate fruit that we could uh pick and solve, help solve traffic issues in the area, we would but but we welcome the contribution towards future improvements on the quarter.

Okay.

Thank thank you, Dan.

Um other questions for the applicant while he's here or Mr.

Varley, please.

Yeah.

Yeah, I just just wanted to clarify, and I apologize.

I've missed it in the materials, but um, I understand there was a uh a traffic impact worksheet done.

I'm assuming you didn't trigger the level requiring a study.

Is that just one confirm that?

Yep, that was included within our truck generation memo was the standard TIR worksheet.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um other questions at this time.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um with no other questions from the board, um, I'm gonna go ahead and um close the public hearing.

We'll we'll go into our public meeting.

Um I think they're uh trying to work within the space that that they have here.

Um I I think it's consistent with the master plan in terms of providing that additional housing element.

Um I know it is a unique area, particularly that the Crown Street area in terms of traffic, but it does seem like this particular project will have sort of a de minimis impact uh overall.

Um Mr.

Hudson has alluded to other long-term um you know hopeful fixes uh and the applicant is amenable to to making uh a voluntary contribution.

Um I I could see myself supporting this.

Um but again I I obviously want to hear back from the board um see if there's there's other questions or or concerns.

Uh Alderman Clee, please.

Thank you.

Um first I think putting in 50 new units is is always a shock to the to the neighborhood.

And and if I heard correctly that um during peak hours there could be about 20 uh cars coming either either in or out in 19 the other direction.

Um to me that's still significant as as a person who lives on a street as a residential street.

Um and it but I do understand that the master plan does call for us to um increase our our housing units and um I I should have asked this question.

These are also going to be partially affordable because they're HUD I have that correct, right?

I just wanted to make sure I wasn't hearing it from another project.

But um that being said, I think this is a good thing.

The concern that I have um, which I think um one of the speakers um who who spoke against this project mentioned the um the railroad that goes through that.

Um having lived at a at a place when I lived in uh North Chelmsford, there were times that we were stuck inside the area because you couldn't get by the the train going through.

Um the I guess the question I should have asked again is where Avery Lane is a private road, does it allow um the staff know does it allow for um the public to cut through it or do we don't know that off the top of my head actually?

Okay, okay.

Um Mr.

Bullinger, I think the the applicant is willing to answer that if we can.

I know we've closed it.

That's okay if we we we could entertain a motion to reopen the public hearing uh to address that question if you'd like to make that motion.

I would like to make that motion because I would just like to hear from the the applicant about that.

I apologize.

Is there is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Green.

All any further discussion?

All those in favor?

I am thank you for coordinating the committee.

Thank you again.

Uh Nick Gold and TF Moran.

Um, although Avery Lane is a private lane, it is not signed to restrict through traffic.

So it is open to the public.

Okay.

Um thank you.

Um I I am inclined to to support this.

Um sorry before we do it.

We just want to pre-closed the question.

I'm jumping all over the state.

No, no, no.

That was my last question, I promise.

All right, no, it's okay.

Yes.

I'm joking, but are you sure?

Because we're gonna we're gonna close the public hearing.

Close it, I promise.

All right, all right.

I've been making everybody jump up and down.

I apologize.

All right, so we're we're back into our our deliberation.

Uh, thank you for the question, Alderin Clee.

Yeah, um, I just want to make one comment.

I I am inclined to support this, but as I always say, um, I think we do have to keep in consideration of the neighborhood there, and um the speaker who came up and spoke.

I think he made a compelling argument of having to be stuck behind that.

However, I think with or without these um additional traffic, um, he's still going to be stuck behind the rail.

This does not affect that.

Um, but I do realize that there's more cars in front of you.

Um so having said that, um, as I said, I am inclined unless I hear differently to support this.

Thank you.

No, and you're you're your your question concern is well founded.

It's just um I I think um outside of the purview of this board is is the scheduling of of the training.

I I know and I'm not being flippant when I say that, but anybody who's also driven in downtown Manchester on the canal street area, like you're very certainly it can happen here as well.

So it is it is it is unfortunate.

Um so I I don't think there's much we can do about that.

But again, I I think I would stand by the testimony um provided uh as well as the written documentation with regard to a relatively minor peak hour increase.

Um so again that that may not solve all the issues, but I I think to the extent possible for a development of the size, this size and type, um, I I think they've they've provided sufficient traffic documentation.

They have thank you.

Okay.

Um other questions, concerns, things to bet.

Mr.

Varley, please.

Mr.

Chair, just echoing I think the the points on the traffic and just I I guess just in reference to sort of a broader scope of our review.

I mean, we see this issue come up quite frequently in terms of you know incremental traffic impacts and all include you to your point.

It it's it's not to say that there's that there isn't impact.

There is, but the question I think that we have to ask, you know, under I was just referencing the state plan approval criteria is you know, is it excessive?

Is it substantial?

Is it is it significant enough that would cause us to say you know this really demands you know that that certain improvements be made by the applicant before we could grant approval because it's it's that's significant.

And I think based on that standard, I would say no, you know, it's it's not it's not substantial enough and and consistent with many many decisions this board has made over time.

We've recognized that you know incremental trafficking packs don't have zero impact, but they don't have substantial enough impact to justify you know requiring an applicant to to do you know much more significant improvements to the site, and and you know, I think again we've heard the testimony from the applicant.

Um they've they've done the you know required traffic impact report.

Um we've heard you know testimony as to the number of peak hour trips, and I think we can say objectively that yes, that there is going to be some impact, but it's not not so substantial, but at least in my mind that it would cause us to say you know that we have to add some more significant additional or certainly that we wouldn't be in a position to approve this application.

Alderman Clee, yes.

Thank you.

Um I I agree with everything you said.

Um my initial concern was I think something that the speaker had brought up.

Um this is incremental, and when I look at it on its own, I agree a hundred percent.

It's something that I brought up before.

Each time we do a build, it it kind of adds to it.

And now we're doing a second build.

Not that there is even space for a third one, but I I brought this up at what point does the the person on the bottom of the line who has been adding traffic to it, do we say your 20 is just too much?

That that was more my comment.

So um I do agree with everything that you said, but uh I do look at it as this is on top of the 95 units that were just put in there.

So that was what I was um alluding to.

So thank you though.

Yeah, and and and Alderman Clee, just to align with your your point, um a similar discussion came up with the with the uh new public works facility along West Hollow Street.

Like uh obviously West Hollow Street, there's other concerns, uh and and again I think Mr.

Hudson always does a very good job of informing us of of what else you know uh the city is doing either independently or trying to do in conjunction with DOT.

Um so understanding that those projects are not going to come to fruition immediately.

Um it's it's I think it's it's it's reassuring to know that that our staff is working on those things and and and trying to make them happen um you know for the betterment of everybody, not just the the first person and um but the first person who was there as well.

So um it's just some sometimes some of those larger infrastructure projects um do take a considerable amount of time, but um you know so again all your points are are well taken um and and well constructed.

Um but I I I think I would sort of lean back to at least the individual matter at hand that um I I'm again would be comfortable um you know based on the level of traffic, you know, moving forward with with the in-loop or the rather voluntary contribution in this case.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Um other discussion or comments from the board at this time.

Um if not um I think uh again order order of operations here.

If a member of the the board was so inclined, uh first item we would want to take up is the uh one waiver request.

Um and depending on that outcome, um obviously we could move on to uh final site plan approval.

Um obviously we could move on to uh final site plan approval.

Um the waiver request uh just pertains to showing the existing conditions uh again um something we see pretty pretty frequently um but uh I guess I'll I'll I'll leave it up to the um to the choice of the board Mr.

Varley Yes Mr.

Chair Um I would like to make a motion as to the waiver requests um that specifically being request for waiver from 190-279 EE with respect to showing existing conditions and um that motion would be to grant the waiver finding that strict conformity would pose an unnecessary hardship uh and the waivers would not be contrary to the spirit intent of the regulations uh based on the specific conditions of the land.

All right, uh thank you.

Um motion by Mr.

Varley, is there a second second by Mr.

Hirsch?

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Um Mr.

Barley, would you like to continue?

Uh sure.

So I would like to continue and make a motion to grant final site plan approval for eight for A25-0215.

Um finding that the application does meet the approval approval criteria uh of section 190-23F and 1914 six D and that that approval be subject to the subsequent conditions A through P described in the staff report.

All right, thank you.

Uh motion by Mr.

Varley, is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Green.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

I motion passes.

Thank you.

All right, moving on.

Uh next item on the agenda under new business site plans is case A twenty six-000 five.

Property located at 44 Franklin Street.

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

Mr.

Hudson.

Uh Mr.

Chair, I I uh move that we find uh uh case A twenty-six zero zero five site plan amendment complete and take jurisdiction.

All right, thank you.

Uh motion by Mr.

Hudson.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Green.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

Board has jurisdiction.

Uh go right ahead, introduce yourself and the floor is yours.

Thank you.

Um good evening, Mr.

Chair, members of the board.

My name is Bianca Carlson, and I'm here tonight on behalf of Brady Sullivan Properties located at 670 North Commercial Street in Manchester, New Hampshire.

Uh Brady Sullivan is the parent company of Lops 34 LLC, the owner of 44 Franklin Street here in Nashua.

Um tonight I would like to present to you our proposal to convert the first floor of 44 Franklin Street from a vacant commercial space to nine residential apartments.

Uh the first floor was formally used as an ABA center, and the second floor is currently used as a public defender's office.

As noted in the staff report, the change of use from a commercial use to multifamily residential apartments is an allowed alternative use in the mixed use overlay district where the use would otherwise not be permitted in the underlying general industrial district.

On Franklin Street, you'll find uh triangle federal credit union loss 34, which is a 168-unit apartment building previously converted by Brady Sullivan.

Uh Franklin Street School in a church along L.

Charles Street and Locus Streets, it's mostly residential uses.

44 Franklin Street is essentially a zero lot line site.

We're not proposing to make any changes to the facade, not proposing to add any signage, and not proposing to make any other changes to the site itself, other than necessary modifications within the interior of the building only.

Currently the second floor public defenders use the triangle shaped lot, uh triangle-shaped parking lot located on L.

Charles Street, as in the ABA Center, uh on the first floor when they occupy the space.

We would continue to have the first floor utilize the parking spaces at L Charles Street.

In speaking with staff, they have requested we come before you tonight to request your approval for us to continue to use the parking lot at L Charles Street for this use because the parking lot is technically off-site.

Loss 34 owns the parking lot on L Charles Street, and we have included a draft parking easement for your review.

This would ensure that if for some reason that the parking lot was ever sold separately from 44 Franklin Street in the future, that the residents at 44 Franklin Street would continue to be able to utilize those spaces.

Modifications we were proposed for the parking lot itself per the request of staff would be to create one handicapped parking space in the lot.

Um add a fog line between the parking lot and the building to help vehicles turn around that road and to reserve nine parking spaces in a lot for residential use for the residential units outside of normal business hours.

More often than not, the lot has a handful of vehicles in it.

We don't foresee the nine residential units causing a parking lot to become burdensome in any way.

We feel as though the development will be able to easily coexist with the other uses in the neighborhood.

It wouldn't have any impact on the natural architectural visual or aesthetic qualities of the neighborhood.

It wouldn't have any impact on customers, residents, employees of the general downtown and inner center inner city population.

It wouldn't have any negative economic impact or reduction in neighborhood property values.

Engineering has proposed a condition for us to obtain a sewer permit prior to a building permit, which we have no issue with.

Engineering had also made a request that we repair or replace the emergency access gate for the railroad because it's currently in disrepair.

However, our understanding is that the gate is not the property of Brady Sullivan.

It would be the property of the railroad.

So in speaking with Mr.

Mandola, he had stated that he would confirm that with the railroad.

But provided that our understanding is correct, he had no issue with removing that as a condition.

I don't believe that he was sent a copy of the floor plan, the first floor plan, prior to making his comment.

But we're our the unit numbering is noted on the first floor plan, and we're not making any modifications to the second floor, so the numbering would stay the same.

Again, the purpose of tonight's presentation is to request your blessing for us to use the L Charles Street parking lot for off-site parking for the nine residential units at 44 Franklin Street.

I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

All right.

Alderman Cleve, go right ahead.

Thank you.

I this is my ward, so I'm very familiar with the area and the traffic that's created by the school and the more recent changes in the traffic pattern and so on.

You did comment that the L Charles Street parking lot is in the evening because it is used mostly by the lawyers and so on within that within that area.

However, during the daytime, it's completely filled.

Okay.

When you're talking about those nine parking spaces, will they be labeled and so on and say only for use of this particular address?

Yeah, so our our intent would be to label those nine dedicated parking spaces, which we have notated on the plan right along Charles Street.

Um if you zoom in.

You can see them on the right-hand side there.

Um those parking spaces would be, you know, they have signs on them that say reserved from uh 6 p.m.

to 8 a.m.

Um Monday through Friday for the residential uses so that you can ensure that the residents have parking spaces there at least at night, and then uh during the day, you know, if they park elsewhere, then so be it within the lot.

Um but it mostly the residential uses aren't there during the day, at least generally speaking.

Well, continue Halderman.

Thank you, please.

Um I understand that the feeling that they're not necessary during the day, but we don't really know that because if there's um people that don't work during the daytime and and so on.

Um if they left that parking space.

The reason I I know this parking lot to be quite crowded is one of the complaints that I get from people is that there's no place to park in that area.

Um Brady Sullivan does have a parking space for Loft 34.

Yeah.

Um, will these um residents be able to use that parking?

Um I know they're not going to be able to use the one that's right behind them, which belongs to the um uh the other property, but um will they will they also be able to access that or is that going to be a separate?

I imagine so.

Um I mean we're not necessarily dedicating like in uh easement or any sort of like shared parking agreement, but Bray Sullivan has a number of parking lots within the neighborhood, so if it really became that much of an issue, I imagine that we can tell the residents to go park in those faces.

Mr.

Chairman, if I if I may, I I just want to air um parking is a premium during the daytime there.

Sure.

Because we've we moved a lot of parking spaces because of the Franklin Street school.

That there's no a lot of on-street parking has been removed during the school time on Winter Street and Terrace, I think, and and Charles.

Um we're having a little issue with Locus Street.

But um so a lot of the parking space have been removed.

It will be difficult if there isn't an agreement, and that's my concern.

You're talking about them being able to use that parking lot, but only dedicated in the evening from 6 p.m.

to something.

Yeah, I mean we obviously they don't have to move if they're there at the end.

Yeah, I mean, we we certainly could you know reserve them around the clock for the residential use.

Um but uh again I wouldn't want to leave those parking spaces open during the day if the resident if the residents aren't there, right?

Like that that doesn't serve anyone any good.

Um so that's why the intent would be at night so that the residents know that they're going to have parking um at least at night for certain.

Um but the thing is is like the the first floor use when it was an ABA center, I imagine had much more uh of a parking demand than these nine residential units would.

Um you know people who are coming and going throughout the day, they have staff, etc.

So I I hear you that the Franklin Street School would certainly have a need for parking, but the first floor use already needed parking, and this is a lesser intensive use.

May I just clarify?

Yes, thank you.

Uh no, I'm not asking for the Franklin Street School to have access to that parking lot.

That that would be something that they would have to do that.

I know my concern was that having put the Franklin Street school school there, yeah, it created other parking issues for the residents.

And I'm just concerned that these new residents could become affected by it.

But I also agree with 100% with what you're saying.

Don't make them a 24-hour dedicated because that parking lot is full during the daytime.

And maybe it's been used by this particular building.

And so maybe it won't be that.

I just wanted to air that concern.

So no, I appreciate your your comments and so on.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Alderman Clee.

And and just anecdotally, I I would imagine.

I I personally don't have an issue with just having them be reserved during the overnight period.

Um I imagine if there's a larger issue, you'll you'll hear directly from your prospective tenants and I imagine so.

I I'm I'm not I'm not gonna get into trying to dictate policy on how they want to regulate their parking, but I I do feel confident um just by virtue of the fact you have a place to park overnight, I think is is helpful.

Um other questions from the board at this time.

Going once, going twice.

Okay.

Uh quickly open it to the public.

Gentlemen, are you here to speak to this case or no?

Okay.

So it looks like we have no one to speak either in uh opposition uh or in favor of this application.

Throw it to the board one more time.

All right.

Um thank you very much and for your testimony.

Appreciate it.

We'll close the public hearing at this time.

Um go into our our our meeting.

Uh um this one seems pretty pretty straightforward to to me on honestly.

Um Sam may have other thoughts whether there may be some intimation in the future that something like this might not have to come to this board if the code is updated.

Is that a fair statement or more of an administrative approval than you don't have you don't have to say anything, but um uh it in in any case I I don't really see anything too unusual about this given the character of the neighborhood and and things of that?

This seems like a pretty pretty benign turnover.

So um but uh obviously I'd love to hear from the board if you think differently and uh Alderman Clee, I I do appreciate your your deep dive and into the parking situation.

That's not unappreciated.

So uh is my number one concern.

Um but other other questions or discussion items from the board?

Mr.

Green.

Yeah, quick question about condition A.

Does that leave I assume that leaves the door open if that game is not under ownership of Brady Solden to be addressed?

Yeah, uh proper okay.

I just wanted to confirm that before No, that's that's actually a good question, Kim.

I think uh just staff perspective.

Does it make sense to retain that for now until ownership is secured?

Okay.

Yeah, I know I know Joe would have a discussion.

That's exactly the same.

Okay.

Okay.

Just further, that wasn't the only comment Joe had, so we still didn't want to reference the other comments.

But I'll I'll I will affirm the discussion that was had and we're not going to make them replace a gate if it's not their responsibility.

We just it's something that we like to see addressed, but maybe it's maybe that's something for the railroad side.

Okay.

Understood.

Thank you, Dan, for the clarification.

Um there's there's no other questions.

Um I guess there's there's two potential action items before us.

Uh one is to grant the off-site parking approval, um, and the other would be to ultimately grant site plan amendment approval.

Um is there any member of the board so inclined to um start this off?

Mr.

Green, please.

Yes, I'd like to make a make I'd like to make a motion for a new business A26-005, site plan amendment to grant off-site parking approval for the arrangement between 44 Franklin Street and L Charles Street, finding that the parking within the 300 feet of the closest slot line of Frank Like 44 Franklin Street, and both lots are under common ownership of the applicant has provided the parking and has provided a parking easement as required in 190-192A.

All right.

Uh thank you.

We have a motion by Mr.

Green.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Hirsch.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Mr.

Green, would you like to continue?

I would I'd like to continue to make a motion to grant site plan approval site plan amendment approval for the change of use to allow nine-unit multifamily residential use in the GI MU district where the most recent use was a daycare center.

In granting this approval, the planning board finds that the applicant has provided sufficient rationale.

Uh in the site plan suitability report dated January 13th, 2026.

It meets the criteria detailed in 190-23.

Um within a year prior to the signature of the file of the site plan, um, they must follow the subsequent conditions that are in the staff report A13.

All right, thank you.

Uh motion by Mr.

Green um to approve the site plan amendment.

Uh is there a second?

Second by Alderman Cleeve.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Um would the uh board have any objection if we took a quick five-minute recess before we hear the last case?

All right.

All right, uh we are in recess at 8 37.

Gentlemen,

She has a severe coccyx.

Yeah, I fell and my capital classes.

Oh no.

Yeah, I did it yesterday.

They told me it takes a yeah, they tell me it takes a year or two.

A year slip on ice or something.

No.

Well, I I was in so much pain, it was like I started getting dizzy and okay.

I need to go to the hospital for this one.

And I did want to call number one one.

I'm not sure if if being in our our company makes you feel better or worse.

But we'll we'll try to power through the last little bit.

No, no, I'm I'm fine with it.

It keeps my mind off of my touch.

Alright, well, I think uh if if everyone's ready, do you mind giving one one quick knock there?

Just uh two cases.

All right, thank you, Larry.

All right.

Uh we're out of recess, uh reconvening at 841.

Uh moving along uh with the agenda.

Uh next item up uh under new business subdivision plan, uh case 825-0214, property located at 72 Linwood Street.

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

Um is willing to make a motion regarding determination of completeness um and the board accepting jurisdiction over this matter.

Anyone?

Anyone?

Mr.

Varley, please.

Sorry.

Yes, uh Mr.

Chairman, as to case A twenty-five uh dash zero two one four.

I would make an o uh uh sorry, geez, I'd make a motion to determine if this application is complete and ready for the board to accept jurisdiction.

All right, thank you.

Uh motion by Mr.

Varley.

Is there a second?

Second by Alderman Clee.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Motion passes.

Board has jurisdiction.

Um is there any member of the public that would like to present this case this evening.

Members of the board, Mr.

Chairman.

My name is Greg Wood, representing uh Meridian Land Services on behalf of Friday Town Properties.

Subject parcel is currently located at 72 Linwood Street, formerly kno are also known as Tax Map 103 lot 245.

It is located in the B urban residence, also known as RB district.

Tonight we are proposing a two-lot subdivision.

Um variances required with the slot.

Uh more or less we are splitting the lot down the middle.

The current lot will be downsized to roughly 7200 square feet with the new lot around uh 7,000 square feet, uh where six thousand square feet are only required in this area.

Um we are seeking four waivers tonight, one of them being a pretty standard, as we've seen this evening.

Um looking for waiver uh 190-2829.

Um waive the requirements to show existing conditions to the thousand feet of the property.

We are also um asking for 190-221 to waive the requirement for um overhead utilities, telecommunications to be waived as well, um, for that to be contingent upon the builder's preference and/or the board this evening.

Um we are also seeking one ninety-272 to weigh the requirement for a lighting plan to be submitted for subdivision or site approval.

And the last, um, which has been quite common.

I think I've actually asked for this one every time I've been here.

Um ninety-212 D2 to weigh the requirement for new sidewalk.

Currently there are no sidewalks on Linwood Street.

And we are uh prepared to provide a financial company uh contribution in lieu um of this.

Um like I said at this time it's fairly straightforward.

Um and if you have any questions, I'll be more than happy to answer them this evening.

Um thank you.

Thank you.

Sorry, I'm the eyes aren't what they used to be.

I'm just having a hard time seeing the dimensioning.

These are both otherwise conforming lots in terms of size.

So and to add, we did receive uh comments back from engineering, which were on January 20th.

We did address those comments and we received a letter back on the fourth saying that everything was just uh satisfied satisfactory.

Thank you.

Um other questions from the board?

Okay.

Going once, twice.

Mr.

Hudson.

I'll just uh further pound on that point.

Uh so Joe Mandela did issue is all all set letters, so condition F can be removed from the conditions.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Anything else from the board this time?

No.

And just we'll are you with him, sir?

Okay.

So uh doesn't appear as though we have anyone in the public that wishes to speak uh in opposition or with concern, and we have no one to speak uh in favor of the application.

Um so I think if there's no other questions from the board, um we can close the public hearing on this one.

Thank you for your testimony.

Appreciate it.

Um we saved the best for last.

Uh if we we knew this was gonna be this easy, we could have maybe bumped you guys first, so sorry about that.

Um I I I think this is probably as straightforward as as we're gonna get uh a nice a nice rectangular lot that's literally being split right down the middle with uh with access to an existing public street.

Uh so um I think we need a tragic study.

Yeah, and and they still completed their their TIR worksheet, which is you know, which was nice.

Um I I don't have any issues with with this.

Um the waivers um uh again I not to diminish our our our our our ordinances, but these these are pretty pretty common ones.

Um I think the the new one tonight would be the lighting plan, and and for I think obvious reasons um there wouldn't be much benefit to having a lighting plan for for a you know two-lot subdivision.

Um so I'm I'm I would certainly find myself in in favor of this application, um, but didn't know if there's any other thoughts from the board or further discussion.

Alderman Clee, please.

I never let a time go by that I don't get a comment.

Um so I apologize ahead of time.

But just for the public that that's listening, um as you pointed out, Mr.

Chairman, we often get the underground utilities and the sidewalks and um as waivers, and um the ordinance is a good ordinance to to put through so that when there's a new um new build on it in a new area that we make sure that we address these, but when you're building into an already established area to force someone to to build the sidewalk that I call it the sidewalk to nowhere, um seems counterintuitive that it's got to be maintained and repaved and so on.

It's better to have them pay the in lieu of funds that can be used elsewhere.

Um we could build a sidewalk that doesn't just end in one location.

And the same with the underground utilities, it's it's a nice thing to have when we're building a larger um area, but to force them to have to do underground utilities when there's already overhead.

It seems like it would be futile.

And and I make these comments for for anybody that's listening to the public saying, why do we have it if we're just gonna always um give them the waiver?

I I I think they're they're good to have on the books.

Um, but the waivers are also necessary.

So I think I agree with you.

I think this is straightforward and there's no concerns, traffic studies or parking or anything like that.

So thank you.

And and thank you, Alderman Clee.

I I appreciate you elaborating on that.

I don't think we've ever heard that explained so so concisely.

I think that's important to state, and then I also recognize in the fact that the waiver mechanism gives this board and other planning boards throughout the state the mechanism to recognize it's not always a one-size-fits-all solution.

So um again, I I appreciate your your commentary on that.

So with with with that being said, uh, other comments from the board this time.

Uh and if not, would anyone be willing to entertain a motion?

Um we should start off uh if if a member is so inclined with uh addressing the the four waiver requests uh prior to moving into the um the subdivision approval.

Uh Mr.

Green, please.

I'd like to make a motion for new business A25-0214 to grant the following waivers 190-2829.

Uh weaving requirements show existing conditions within a thousand feet of uh property boundaries.

The second being 190-221 to lay the requirement that all electoral communication line servicing new subdivisions will be provided on the ground.

The third 190-275 to weigh requirements, way of the requirement, the letting plan be submitted for the subdivision, and then the fourth 190-212 D2 to lay the requirement that new sidewalks be constructed along the property frontage and deride to end the contribution of $5,300.

Uh finding a strict conformity would pose unnecessary hardship and this is the specific circumstances of the land.

Um will properly carry the spirit and intent of the regulations considering the rational provided by the applicant, we waive a letter waiver request letter dated December 11th, 2025.

All right.

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.

Uh Mr.

Green, would you like to continue?

Yes, please.

I'd like to make a motion to grant final subdivision plan approval for the proposed two wallet subdivision property located at 32 Linwood Street finding the application meets the approval criteria outlined and subdivision NRO 190-138G, subject to the following substance conditions.

A through M striking F and re numbering or re-lettering those accordingly.

And well, of those noted in the staff report before that.

All right, thank you.

Um motion by Mr.

Green.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Hirsch.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Thank you, gentlemen.

All right.

Moving along.

Uh other business.

Review of tentative agenda to determine developments of regional impact.

Uh is any member of the board had an opportunity to review the uh upcoming projects from our packet.

Um willing to make a motion regarding any or all potential projects of regional impact.

Uh Mr.

Hudson.

Just to put in discussion first, Mr.

Chair.

Um the charitable gaming facility.

Uh I just want to affirm that my recollection is the same as the boards.

We looked at this and we were looking at a different casino.

Uh we had asked for clarification whether or not regional significance uh cross state lines and who's the term that doesn't.

Um so in my view, anyway, I don't think this triggers a uh development regional significance, but I welcome the board's input on that as well.

Yeah, you're your your point's well taken, Dan.

Um, and I think it it might go beyond that, not just the previous similar application, but I think there was one uh on Groton Road where um Dunstable Land Trust was a uh and a butter as well.

We also didn't declare regional impact there.

So if if there's some affirmation regarding the interpretation that uh regional impact declaration is something specific uh under New Hampshire law, um I think it's a reasonable argument that municipality neighboring municipality and and and another state would not have to be notified.

Um so I I guess I'll I'll leave it there.

I'm not gonna dive much deeper than that, but thank thank you for bringing that up.

Um any other discussion um on the board on that?

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Chair, in light of that discussion, uh I would move that uh the board find there are no projects of regional significance.

Okay.

Uh thank you.

Um motion by Mr.

Hudson.

Um is there a second?

Um second by Mr.

Hirsch.

Um any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Uh I'm actually gonna abstain, if I may, on that one.

Uh motion still passes, so thank you.

All right.

Uh moving along Mr.

Durfee or anyone, any of your scheme colleagues, would you like to give us a quick code update?

Less of an update, but more of a just a plug for a future one.

Um looking at our future agendas.

The meeting on the 19th of this month looks relatively light.

Uh so if you would indulge me, I would like to provide an update.

The links in discussion items, they all link to the YouTube uh recordings of presentations that were before the planning and economic development committee.

These are obviously you know, topic by topic.

We we identified a number of key areas of the code that we wanted to dive into as directed by that committee.

And some of these meetings are an hour, two hours, two and a half hours long, but we really got into the weeds on some of these issues.

Um happy to provide you know a general overview of some of these presentations, but you're you're also encouraged to uh when you find time or need to help fall asleep at night, listen to these.

Um but with that said, uh I'd also welcome any opportunity to speak with you individually outside of a meeting if you have interest in the code or any specific areas.

Um we've made some significant changes to it uh through our public engagement and in meetings with uh developers and people in the industry uh who've given us good food for thought to reflect on.

Um so that will be part of this uh presentation.

But anyone can shoot me an email and say, hey, look, I'd really like to hear more about X, Y, and Z.

I'd I'd love some input to put into the presentation, otherwise uh it'll be a general summary and maybe cover a couple of key areas that I know to be of of general interest and uh also the fact that we are beginning our our site plan and subdivision uh update as part of that the overall code update.

The bulk of the work has been completed in terms of the the land use uh ordinance, the the zoning ordinance, and now tying all of the site plan and subdivision regulations, kind of porting them over.

They're generally in good shape from this current code, but putting them in a format that really meshes with what we've done on the zoning ordinance side of the document.

Uh that's the remaining work that we have.

So I'd like to just give an update.

Mr.

Chairman.

Yes, Alderman Clee, please.

Thank thank you.

Um I want to give a plug to the presentations you gave.

They were phenomenal.

And I know there were a lot of questions that were asked during those those meetings, probably most of them from me, but um sorry.

I can't help myself.

Um but I just have a quick question for you, and and we can address it more when the all of the changes that have been coming in from Concord.

Um, are did they affect any of the um and again I'm I'm not gonna ask you to address this now, but when we go over, are they gonna affect any of the the things that you've already presented to the PEDC and and probably to this board as well?

I'd just be interested in getting an overview of um any of the changes that they've mandated.

Um I know we've we've had a vote on a couple of those things that would affect our thinking and what we were going for.

So yes, I think it's a number of curve balls, yeah, some rather significant, and that were some of which we're still working through.

Um and actually, I just realized that we actually have a conflict.

I have a conflict with planning and economic development, which got bumped because of the state of the city address on the normally scheduled PEC meeting of Tuesday.

It's been bumped to the 19th.

Um so actually I have to be in two places at once.

So we may actually have to push out to the following meeting uh that may be a heavier agenda.

Um or Connor and Scott can give an update.

We we will we'll navigate this, do the scheduling conflicts, but uh all the more reason if you have individual concerns, questions, comments, happy to meet with you outside of a meeting to obviously don't convene as a quorum, but uh we'll uh happy to have a conversation.

Mr.

Chairman, yes, I'll do it.

As as I am a member also of the PEDC, I would probably not be able to be here for that for that particular meeting and so on.

So if it if it were bumped, I would appreciate that.

Um I'm not gonna pigeonhole staff, yes.

Um but I I I think I think Sam, it sounds like everything's under control, so uh obviously it would be beneficial for the whole board to hear it.

Um but but yes, there's obviously other other things going on.

So when it's conducive and when you're able to fit it in, I I think um the you certainly have have an audience.

So thank you.

Mr.

Chair.

So Mr.

Hudson, please.

Uh so I just went to the recode website.

Is the current working draft posted dated May 29th, 2025?

Is that the latest version?

Yes, we will have a new one soon.

Okay, thank you.

Yep.

All right.

Um other questions for Sam.

I think uh if not probably be looking for uh a motion to adjourn the regular meeting.

However, don't go anywhere.

No.

We'll we'll have to reconvene for the business meeting.

So Mr.

Green, you look enthusiastic to make that motion.

Would you like to make a motion to adjourn the regular meeting and to next session?

All right.

So we have uh all those in favor.

I think we adjourn.

Aye.

All right.

Motion passes.

Um so our regular business meeting uh is adjourned at at exactly nine o'clock, nine zero zero.

Um so our next order of business um would be to call to order uh our annual business meeting.

So I will call that to order.

It's still nine zero zero.

Um so first item on the agenda.

Um Scott, we take another roll call, please.

Sure.

Uh Bob Ollinger.

Here.

Adam Barley.

Here.

Maggie Harper.

Scott McLare.

Dan Hudson.

Here.

Larry Hirsch.

Here.

Cameron Green.

Here.

Alderman for Shish Lee?

Here.

Benjamin Zoller.

All right.

Excellent.

Thank you, Scott.

Um things are a little bit different this year.

Um I'm sure m most of you have heard um Maggie, Ms.

Harper will be stepping down.

Um so we we are in need uh somebody to fill the secretary role.

Um if if you will have us both Adam and I are content um it's a to sort of continue serving in our current roles.

Um but um I I think the the big question was trying to to fill the gap um and and and with Maggie exiting um per our bylaws, it does have to be a regular member.

Uh so I keep staring at that side of the table.

Um that that would leave uh Mr.

Green uh and and Mr.

Hirsch as our only two viable candidates.

Uh I'm sure they both want the position.

Uh uh I'm we've been fighting all the time.

All night they've been giving each other dirty looks about um but um I I I think and obviously I'm not gonna force it uh upon anyone and and obviously I I I think the intent was not to have this uh thrust upon somebody last minute.

Um so without without trying to paint anybody into a corner.

Um I guess my first question would be would either of you be interested in serving in that position.

Um Larry, that's so gracious of you to just a quick clarification.

The the typical role is roll call, notes on votes, and then uh what else is pertaining to the role?

Um serving as chair in the absence of the chair and the vice chair.

Which I don't believe I've ever seen that.

I think Maggie did it one time actually.

Yeah, yeah.

That's that's that's once in nearly 15 years.

Um then other than that, um I think Maggie had had previously volunteered, she's on the historic commission, she's our liaison for that.

Um but that's a separate position that in because that's that was a follow-up question I had because um if she is also relinquishing that role, um Mr.

Hirsch had indicated to me that he would be interested in taking that that on if I'm not putting words into your mouth, Larry.

Uh as long as Cameron as long as Cam does the hard work, he has to write things down, but uh they're easy to take a position.

Cameron, that's a good deal, I would take it.

I I would nominate myself for that position.

Yes, we we uh we it's it's greatly appreciated, and then uh uh obviously uh I can't walk in chew gum at the same time, I'm sure you can.

So in addition to scribing, you're obviously you know participating in the discussions and and motions and and whatnot.

So um, but it it it would be tremendously appreciated.

So thank you for stepping into that.

Um I guess before we make all this official the nomination and uh and a vote.

Um Sam, it might need to be uh a later time, but we if we could get Larry also uh at his request into that liaison position.

Um that doesn't have to be tonight.

Um but we've got a meeting coming up.

I didn't I don't want to be dismissive of it if there are actions.

Uh actually it would be uh it'd be through the appointment process through the board of Alderman.

I don't think that they have I think when it's when it's a committee, the committee can determine it doesn't have to go through personnel, I don't believe.

I will review the bylaws to see that this board's empowered to do that because basically you would be placing with Ms.

Harper a voting member?

Yes, she has a voting member.

I believe that is a full appointment then, but I will confirm that.

I don't believe one board has the authority to appoint a voting member of another board if it's not coming from it's not as if it's a subcommittee of the planning board.

Correct, right.

Okay.

Understood.

But uh if if uh procedurally, Sam, you you need an endorsement.

Um I imagine Larry, I don't want to speak for uh everyone, but I imagine Larry has the support of the the board.

Okay, just as a side comment, I know when it came to the Greeley Park Advisory Um committee, we went to the conservation, they have to have someone on that committee, and we said give us a name.

And then we just have them do that.

We didn't go from the board of Alderman.

Okay, but I could be wrong.

Maybe we should be going through the board of alderman, and if that's the case, we will I will let you know what the formal process should be.

I appreciate that.

Well we have a we have a qualified viable candidate, so uh whatever whatever the official mechanics are.

I think and I will be sitting there with you.

Well uh Cam, thank you for for volunteering and Larry, thank you for for volunteering as well.

Um so I I think I think with if there's no other questions or discussion, um if a member of the board was so inclined to um make a nomination um of the three officer positions, um now would be the appropriate time.

Um it's customary that we don't nominate ourselves, I believe.

Uh Alderman Clee.

I'm happy to nominate um Mr.

Green to the position of um secretary, is that what it's called?

Yeah.

And and I think Alderman Clee, if you don't mind, just uh following through for the other two positions as well.

As well as um, I'm sorry, I'm gonna script you in.

Mr.

Mr.

Vollinger for the um uh for the chair person and I'm sorry I want to go.

Mr.

Farley, Mr.

Far, Mr.

Hartley is for the um uh the position of vice chair.

All right, thank you.

Uh there's a motion by Alderman Clee.

Uh is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Hudson.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Um, do we need to take any further action or is that adjournment?

That's adjournment.

All right.

All right, looking for a motion to adjourn.

A motion to adjourn.

All right, uh all those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

We are adjourned from the annual business meeting at 9.08.

Thank you all.