Good evening, everybody, and welcome to the February 10th meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.

My name is Jay Mankara, ZBA Chair.

To my right is Josh Neely, ZBA Vice Chair.

And then across the stage, we have Robert Shaw, member, Steve Lionel, member, and Joseph Potri Alternate.

We are down one full member, so if Mr.

Potri is willing, we'd ask that you participate this evening as a voting member.

I can do that.

So just by way of an overall introduction, the Zoning Board of Adjustment is empowered to do a couple a few different things, but this evening we have applications for special exceptions and for variance.

A special exception is a use that is allowed under the zoning ordinance so long as certain criteria is met.

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

And the zoning board can only grant variance if it finds that five criteria are met.

That granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest, that granting the variance would be within the spirit of the ordinance, that granting the variance would do substantial justice to the applicant seeking it, that there be no diminution of surrounding property values, and that owing to a special condition of the property, uh denying the variance would be uh an undue hardship on the applicant.

Um, just in terms of order of business, um we will start off by giving each applicant up to 15 minutes to present their case.

Uh, and of course, we'll ask that the applicant step forward, uh, speak into the microphone and uh give your name and address.

Following that, we will open the floor up to anybody in the audience who wishes to speak in favor of the application.

Once again, uh each person would be asked to come forward to the podium, speak into the mic and give your name and address, and then address the board, and you would have up to five minutes to do so.

Of course, you don't have to use your five minutes, but you can.

Following that, we'll ask if there's anybody in the audience with any questions, concerns, or opposition.

And once again, you uh have the opportunity to come forward, uh, give your name and address, and address the board, and you would have up to five minutes.

Following that, we give the applicant an opportunity for rebuttal if they wish.

Uh applicants would have five minutes to provide any rebuttal or additional comments if they wish to address to the board.

Following that, uh we'll provide an opportunity for one person uh who spoke with uh questions, concerns, or opposition to the project, to come forward and have the last say.

And that individual would also have up to five minutes.

Given that it's only one person, if there are multiple people who spoke, we'd give you the opportunity to discuss amongst yourselves who that person might be.

Um following that, we will close the public hearing and open the deliberations of the board.

The board may choose to uh act on the applications this evening, or if necessary, we may choose to continue it to a future date, uh, typically because there's additional information that's needed.

Um with that, I'm going to read the first case into the record, but I am going to note that the first case, which is the application of the city of Nashua, the chief uh Steve Buxton, Nashua Fire Rescue.

I'm sorry.

I am sorry, I forgot roll call.

Um I will call roll call.

Uh Mr.

Neely.

Present.

Mr.

Shaw.

Present.

Mr.

Lionell.

Present.

Mr.

Potri.

President.

And Jay McCara, I am present.

And I should have also noted that to my left is Deputy Planning Manager Carter Falk.

Um, with that, uh again, I'll start with reading the first case into the record.

This is the City of Nashua, uh, the owner of the property, uh, through Chief Steve Buxton, Nashua Fire Rescue, the applicant for 25 Teak Drive and 840 West Hollow Street.

And um actually I'm going to skip on down because we have already made a determination, uh, the Dover v.

Fisher determination.

So this is requesting a special exception from land use code section 190-112 to work in a 40-foot other wetland and wetland buffer to construct a waterline service from Teak Drive to the Four Hills Landfill property for the proposed training uh for the proposed fire training facility.

Uh this is in the R9 and R30 zones in Ward 5.

So I'm going to note this was tabled from the January 13 meeting.

Uh so the public hearing had already been open.

I know many people have the opportunity to speak.

We had asked um you know the applicate applicant to really address a couple of pretty specific technical issues on the water line, including looking at the possibility of boring the water line, uh which had uh been raised in some of the input that we had received.

So uh we are going to provide the applicant the opportunity uh to address uh really primarily what is changed in the application and um you know how the concerns that were raised have been addressed.

I don't think there's a need unless you wish to go back through the entire uh presentation.

We will then open it up to the uh audience once again to provide input.

Just note that the input that you previously provided um is a part of the record.

Uh so ideally we just ask that you try not to repeat yourselves and kind of address the new information that we've received.

Uh so with that, uh I assume you are here speaking on behalf of the applicant.

Mr.

Chairman, members of the board, good evening.

Andy Prolman, Premier and Pearlman here in Nashua here on behalf of the uh City of Nashua and National Fire Rescue.

Uh with me tonight is Brendan Quigley, our wetland soil scientist, Dan Hudson, city engineer.

Both Brendan and Dan will speak a little bit on the on the new plan.

Uh Chief Buxton is here if the board has any questions uh for uh the fire department.

A couple preliminary matters.

Did you get the CONCOM letter?

We did.

Okay.

I have a handout uh for the board.

Um Mr.

Chairman members, the handout that's coming your way provides a copy of the new plan.

I'm sure you've got it, but uh, you have it in paper in front of you.

Um since we were here last time, um, Mr.

Chairman, we have uh also received DES approval for the wetland um impact um and uh the temporary wetland impact, I should say, and also in your packet is a letter from uh Penichuck Water um explaining um the uh eight-inch water line is going to be sufficient um for the uh two hydrants that will serve the fire training facility.

Um the CONCOM letter that you have received is the third time conservation commission has taken a look at this site, and it's the third time the Conservation Commission has given a favorable favorable recommendation.

There are conditions of approval with which we agree we have no issues with the conditions of approval.

Um this is going to be an abbreviated um presentation, Mr.

Chair, as you suggested, uh, because the new plan, uh which we are calling the um honorary Robert Shaw waterline plan because it it works.

Um you can see that the new plan uh comes off of Teak and does a quick turn and heads over to where the original uh one of the crossings were, and then it uh has the wetland impact and then continues um into the um uh into the woods, into the uh fire toward the fire training facility.

The uh previous plan that was a straight shot coming off of Teak had a temporary wetland impact of 400 square feet.

The new plan that you see before you tonight has a temporary wetland impact of 195 square feet.

So the temporary wetland impact went down.

The trade-off, however, is that the temporary buffer impact went up.

The prior plan, the straight shot um had um a uh temporary buffer impact of um 2,075 square feet.

Today's plan has a temporary buffer impact um of 4,727 square feet.

And I say temporary because this is proposed to be a uh trench install the pipe and then backfill, and then with um uh the backfill there'll be native um seating according to CONCOM, and then uh everything will grow back over time.

The um the trench itself, it's a it's roughly roughly a 20-foot cut.

Uh CONCOM wanted us to minimize the tree cutting itself, which which we agreed to do.

Um the trench itself was roughly four to five feet wide, five to six feet deep to get below the uh free frost line, and then a uh the eight-inch line will be installed and then backfilled.

Um the plan uh works.

Um there was a question, or actually I kind of raised the point.

I was I was a little concerned about this route because uh we're a little bit closer to the vernal pools.

Uh Mr.

Quigley will speak to that.

Um there was a lot of discussion, you'll hear it again tonight, that this horizontal directional drilling is um a possible answer.

It's a non-starter for the city.

The city has looked at it, taking a good hard look.

Dan Hudson can um is uh we'll speak to that uh point.

Um then and I'll I'll follow up with any additional uh response or questions from the board.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, you had our full um presentation last time.

I'm not gonna uh recite the uh criteria for the special exception.

Um we have the criteria in the application, we have the criteria for in general for under 1901 34F the criteria, then you have the special exception criteria, which we believe that we have um addressed and we have compromised a couple times now with the neighborhood.

We believe this is a good um a good response.

Uh that what I particularly like about this um this plan is that um that the that the cut itself takes a quick turn.

It cuts in off a teak.

You can see where it comes in right by the intersection, and then it makes a quick turn, and the effect of that is that you won't you won't see the actual uh most of the cutting that you see on this plan because the visual effect will be you'll get a little bit of a cut in front of you and then it turns and then you really goes away.

You won't see it.

Um the um trench itself as it as it proceeds toward the fire training facility um is uh going is is going to be dugout and it's gonna be Jack Hammer anywhere with this um uh some ledge.

It's deep uh Mr.

Hudson believes the ledge is deep enough so there will be no blasting.

Um and it really as it moves up the hill, um it'll it'll just be the trench cut uh all the way to the fire training facility.

Um unless the board had any questions for me, that's my brief presentation.

I was gonna turn it over to Mr.

Quigley to speak to the um the wetland and vernal pool issues and the uh Mr.

Hudson for the um directional boring.

So thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Problem.

Mr.

Quick Speaker, uh good evening.

Uh Brendan Quigley, wetland scientist with Gove Environmental Services here at Exeter, New Hampshire.

Um I'll try to keep uh my comments uh brief and focused on what um I believe is the the wetland aspect of this, specifically the trade-off between those impacts that that was just discussed.

Um I do believe that this is a good compromise uh to address some of the other concerns that are not specifically wetland related.

Um as far as the trade-off uh for having greater impact to buffer um and also within the vernal pool buffer, uh there's a couple of things that I think um mitigate that uh potential effect of those those impacts.

Uh one is that the the initial proposal of the driveway that represented a uh a permanent structure that was a potential barrier in the vernal pool buffer to the movement of wildlife.

Um those impacts, those vernal pool concerns uh were uh this is much more of more of a concern in that context than these temporary impacts that are proposed now.

Um these are areas that will be uh essentially after the work is completed be returned to a natural condition, and it won't represent uh any kind of barrier to movement or endanger, you know, vernal pool species that might be in that area uh any more than what's there now.

Uh the the second thing is that this buffer area uh while it you know still still does have uh value to the wetland and to the vernal pool, uh it's much less so than much less quality habitat than would be uh present in the forested area on the other side of the vernal pool opposite teak drive.

So these areas essentially next to the road, these are already kind of disturbed forested areas.

They don't have a lot of um habitat for vernal pool species that utilize the forested areas around pools.

Um it's it's a disturbed, essentially a disturbed area.

There's a uh sort of a berm feature between uh what would have been that's the impact that the wetland impact is being avoided, was to a drainage feature.

Uh and this is sort of the berm that forms the other side of that, and the the other side being uh against teak uh drive.

So uh this is what we discussed with the conservation commission, and I think uh the correspondence reflects that they agreed with that.

Um essentially that uh a slightly greater impact uh is a in given these uh other considerations is is a reasonable proposal um in this case questions from the board, Mr.

Neely.

The um the application to the DES.

Were you were you working on that application or who Yes, yep.

So really my question is um when you sent in the application at DES, was that a quick process?

Did they kick it back at you with a bunch of questions?

Because I I've worked with DES in the past, they're not easy to get them to give it one of these applications uh one of these permits.

So I want to know if they kind of heard what you said tonight and they and they approved it pretty quickly.

Was it a back and forth for months?

There was some back and forth.

Of course, we started with uh a driveway, which um a lot of their questions I think it's fair to say were uh related to the fact that that was uh a much different impact.

Um we once that was revised to the initial waterline only, so to speak, proposal.

Uh a lot of the questions uh went away.

Um I you you're correct that they are uh they can be very difficult and I'd say thorough in what their reviews are are looking to get at.

Um but this case I'd put it maybe on the medium scale.

Um so right now the the approval is for the waterline coming straight off the road.

We'll we'll have to probably address that uh you know an amendment with them for it if if this were to be approved here.

Other questions from the board.

Mr.

Potter.

Uh Mr.

Quigley, do you have a sense of where on the plan the so assuming we were to approve this and assuming we adopt the um the uh requirement for the 12,000 foot uh conservation easement?

Do you have a sense of where on the plan that would be um basically everything get my compass directions right uh on the other side of the wetland and vernal pool specifically?

Uh that is forested right now.

Uh so towards Teak Drive, am I reading the map right?

Oh away from Teak Drive.

Okay.

I mean, there's not much towards Teak Drive.

The that the body of the wetland and the vernal pool that we're discussing here, it goes right up to to the edge of um the uh the uh an embankment essentially that that forms Teak Drive.

Um so that yeah, the the forested area to away from that.

Okay, thank you.

Other questions from the board.

I I I do have one.

Uh so if I understand correctly, uh the prior uh plan had more of a wetland impact and less of a buffer impact.

This plan has less of a wetland impact and more of a buffer impact.

Would you say that this plan has less of an overall impact, or is it about the same, or is it a greater overall impact?

I I'd say it's about the same.

Um that's trying sort of what I was trying to um get across in my comments to both the con you and the conservation commission was that we you know clearly we do have more buffer impact here.

Um we also have less wetland impact.

Uh but the nature of the wetland in uh in this case it's being avoided while valuable uh and and and good avoidance is always good.

Um it's not particularly um it's not a particularly valuable wetland.

Right.

Uh nor is the buffer area.

So uh given the other concerns, I mean these questions of avoidance and minimization and practicability uh always come down to what what is what is possible and given the other concerns that you know relate to the project in this case it's the concerns of the neighborhood, um which we're trying to address by mitigating the the potential view point impacts.

So all those things considered, yes, I think it's about equal.

Thank you.

Uh good evening.

Uh again for the record.

Um Dan Hudson, the city engineer.

Um, and my my task here is to speak about horizontal directional drilling or HDD.

Uh there's a lot of discussion uh at the CONCOM meeting about that, and I'm sure the board has questions about as well.

City has is familiar with HDD, we've used it before in cases where we couldn't directly trench to install something.

Most recently we did that under the Nashville River between Campton Street and Shore Drive.

Obviously, you can't trench.

There we were going to have to dig through the roadway, you know, 15 feet deep through a busy busy traveled corridor that doesn't make any sense.

We were able to drill through the embankment fairly easily in that case to install some electrical conduit that we need to install.

So we do have experience with it.

But I do submit that the cost for it is highly dependent on what the conditions are, and specifically the subsurface conditions.

Obviously, drilling through rock is much more expensive than drilling through uh sandy soils, that sort of thing.

I'll speak more of that in a minute.

But in order to contract a driller properly, uh you would need to characterize what those underground conditions are.

You do that by using a drill rig, usually on off-pavement areas as a track drill rig.

Um you trim trees, clear trees, whatever you gotta do to get the drill rig in, drill some probes, find out where the surface of the ledge is, drill down into the rock to determine what the character of the rock is in case you have to drill through rock.

Um so that activity or that uh exploration activity in and of itself uh can be impactful.

Um then uh and uh we'll say that H HDD contracts uh they they put all the risk on the person contracting the work.

So every contract I've seen says if they try to drill two times and they can't get through, then um then they're gonna renegotiate the contract.

So unless you really know what you're dealing with on the ground, you're you're you're submit submitting yourself to a lot of risk uh by entertaining those activities.

Um in cases where you need to control the grade really well, it's not a good tool for that.

In this case, it's a water line that's less important.

You know, the pipe can come up and down a little bit, and it's not a major issue like it would be with uh a sewer line or something like that.

Um there's more complex inspection testing requirements for HDD because you're you're drilling uh a hole and then you're pulling a pipe back through it.

Um so you need to typically that's done by fusing up uh uh HDPE pipe.

So um those fuse joints, you gotta inspect that as you go, as you pull it back, you've got to be careful about not pulling it uh too quickly and that sort of thing because you induce stress on the pipe.

So you you know it requires additional testing, additional expertise to oversee that whole process, which adds to the cost.

Um specific to teak drive, and we we we uh we did look at it and we've considered it.

Um we're not aware of any case.

Uh I mean we we know the neighborhood is very uh opposed to any tree cutting.

I'm not aware of any case anywhere where anybody has uh required HDD HDD to avoid some tree cutting.

I've just I've never heard of that, I've never seen that.

Um again, primarily because of the cost users issues I spoke to.

Um the city can self-perform the trench and installation of the water line.

We have the expertise in-house, we have the equipment, we might need to rent a hammer like uh was spoken to if we need to uh hammer a little bit of ledge if it's in the way.

Um but we can do that work ourselves.

We're not we're not going out and contracting somebody to do it at hundreds of thousands.

We can do it in-house.

Um so the HDD is is you know an added cost that we wouldn't incur otherwise.

Umstalling it uh via trench method is predictable, lower cost, we can control the quality better.

Um, we can put the pipe in the ground, we can locate exactly where we put the pipe, we can make sure it's bedded in good material.

Uh, and then that makes future uh emergency repairs or maintenance easier.

If we drew directionally drill a pipe, we know about where it is.

But if we you know, if the pipe blows and we got a gusher, we gotta dig, we gotta find where the pipe is and that sort of thing.

And uh it's not as well controlled as as basically uh doing the trenching method.

Um again, just back to uh back to the cost exposure.

Um that can be significant.

We did we did reach out to a driller uh to get some planning level cost estimates, and our our from what we can see it would be anywhere from 150,000 to 550,000.

The 150,000 would be if we're drilling in sandy soils.

Uh 550,000 would be if we're drilling through rock.

Having said that, uh we did some test pitting on the landflow side.

We didn't we didn't do any test getting down in the uh buffer areas, but on the landfill side, and ledge was running about five and a half to seven and a half feet um from the surface.

We can excavate down, find the ledge, lay the pipe almost on that ledge, backfill, we get five and a half feet of cover or so, which is typical for water line, and we're good to go.

Trying to set up and drill though would be problematic because we can't really drill right along that ledge interface.

Um I I believe we would need to drill through rock just to make sure that we were deep enough and the the drill wasn't bouncing around, it doesn't you know wasn't going somewhere we didn't want it to go.

So for all those reasons I submit that we don't think uh HDD is a good option in this case.

I would I would go even further to say uh uh you know I think it qualifies under the undue hardship.

Uh why why should the city spend that money, taxpayer money?

Um, you know, two it's average through two numbers, 250, 300,000 dollars, whatever, somewhere in there.

Why should the city incur that expense so that we don't have to um you know cut uh a temporary cut there to install a water line?

Um we just don't think it makes sense in this case.

I'd be happy to address any questions.

Questions from the board.

Mr.

Shaw, it is the one thing I wanted to clarify, and it almost seems like there's a bit of a catch 22 here from what you said as far as the prep uh evaluation would require tree cutting and working in the wetland.

So there'd be like it would almost be another whole application to address that, but ultimately if part of the HDD would be to not have to work in the in the wetlands, but especially not take trees down, then it seems like this doesn't even necessarily help that that possibility if we're yeah, I would I would in response.

I would just say I I I'm not gonna submit that it would be equivalent tree cutting, maybe less, you know, uh maybe there's some trimming versus some tree removals because uh if the tree is right over the water line, we can't we can't have that there, but maybe we can get around it with a drill rig.

So I don't want to say that that those efforts will be uh um equivalent, but I do want to make it known that there would need to be some exploration.

I I couldn't I certainly wouldn't support doing an HD job without doing the geotech work because you're just rolling the dice, you don't know what you're into, and you're exposing the city to tremendous risk.

Thank you.

Other questions from the board, Mr.

Neely.

Uh two two questions, Mr.

Hudson.

So it sounds to me like best case scenario is if we went with HDD, it's an extra 150,000 dollars to the bottom line of this project, right?

You that's case scenario.

That's my current estimate.

I mean, uh, but but yes, based upon the quote we got and some general uh costing, uh, my assumptions about some costing about what engineering and geo some engineering support and some uh testing support and some uh geotechnical investigation, I believe it would be uh best case 150,000.

Okay, and a last question the 20-foot wide tree clearing, that's worst case scenario, right?

That's just enough.

That's basically enough room so the the tractors can spin and do what they gotta do.

But I mean we're not talking like it's 20 feet, maybe it's 25, maybe 30.

I mean 20 is like worst case scenario, right?

Yeah, that is the intent.

I mean, those uh excavators, they're they're good size.

You gotta get in, you gotta maneuver, get where you need, you dig along your alignment in this case or basically remove the material setting over to the side, so you know you need some room to do that, and then uh put the pipe in and bed it and all that and put the material back, re kind of back to existing condition, right?

So uh so yeah, you need a little room to work, and we're trying to be honest and open about what we think we need for work for for room to work.

Um, and I think that's a reasonable uh request.

I wouldn't want to go less.

I you know, I'd be I I would love to go more, but uh we're willing to commit to the 20 feet.

Thank you.

Other questions from the board?

Mr.

Patrick.

Mr.

Edson, uh approximately how long do you think it would take to dig the trench by by normal, you know, for the city to do it?

Uh well, that's a fair question.

Um I think we could of course the trench goes all the way into the landfill site, you know, but I'm presuming we're talking about the area, you know, in of subject here, which is the uh uh within the buffer area.

But you know, I believe we could uh do the clearing and you know a couple a couple few days, um, come back and uh do the excavation water line install through that area um probably uh you know within a couple weeks.

Um I don't want to commit our forces to uh a timeline per se, but that's my estimation of it.

Thank you.

And just for the record, I I read the uh I looked through the packet.

There's a lot of discussion about a road.

There is no road here, there's no proposed road.

Um we had that, we step back, we're just doing a water line.

We're we're following the existing ground, restoring the existing ground.

We're not we're not building a gravel road, we're not doing anything like that.

We have no plans for access here.

Just trying to dispel all those uh rumors or or confusion that I've seen uh in the public testimony.

Any other questions from the board?

Any other questions from the board?

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, I believe that ends the testimony from the applicants.

So I am now going to open it up to anybody in the audience who wishes to speak in favor of the application.

Can I speak again?

Yes, you may.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

Thank you very much.

My name is Paula Johnson.

I'm Alderman for Ward 5, and I appreciate your accommodating me.

Um first of all, I hear what's um Mr.

Hudson said, and I didn't hear everything because I was downstairs we had to do pictures tonight for pictures.

Um I still have a lot of concerns here.

I did take a walkthrough and a drive-through the landfill today.

Um I s and the only way you really can see it is by you know visually doing a walk through a drive-through.

I know where the training is now, and I see where the training is going to be.

It's going to get closer to the neighborhood.

And I do wonder, you know, when they do the burn and when they do the fire training, if any smoke or anything is going to get into the neighborhood, and I think we have to take a look at that and think about that.

There's nothing that we're saying that we don't want to do anything for our fire department because they're the best out there.

We have the best fire and rescue.

But I think we have to take a look at the neighborhood.

We can't do HDD drilling because of the cost factor.

I understand the cost factor.

But you're going in, you're going to be taking down trees.

And yes, right now there isn't a lot to see, but you know, in in the spring and the fall, there's a lot to see.

Will that piece of roadway, that 20-foot trench, and then you're gonna so supposedly fill it in, is that really going to conform to the neighborhood at this point in time?

I'm gonna say no, because there's nothing there right now.

You got the verno pool and you do have endangered species there, which I'm trying to go through my notes to to see where they are.

Um and um you do you have the Eastern Box Turtle and you have the eastern hognosed snake, which is endangered.

And I talked about that the first time when I came in here.

And so now you're going to you have this neighborhood, you're gonna go in there, you're gonna take trees down.

We're gonna put some, plant some trees and make it better looking, but it's never going to be the same.

We all know it's never going to be the same.

So the question is going to be can you do HDD drilling up until you get the ledge, and that when you're getting higher up, then go in there and maybe do the other type of trenching, which is further away from the neighborhood as you hit the ledge.

Now I was listening to this, and you know, could there be a compromise?

Yes, there could be, but I don't think it's right to go in there and just start bulldozing that neighborhood because you have to make enough room 20 feet for an excavator to go in there.

So I think there has to be some kind of a decision that is not gonna do any harm to this neighborhood.

And also the verno pool with those endangered species.

So uh so I'm just been I've been doing this and working with them since I before I wasn't even an alderman, and now I see all the plans in front, and I don't see where it's really getting better, other than you're not putting the roadway in, which is great, but you're still going to go in there, and it's not gonna conform with the neighborhood what they have right now.

And these residents are scared because I think it's always, and it's sad to say, that the city has to hire a lawyer, and then the lawyer comes before the board to fight against the residents who pay the taxes to pay the lawyers and to pay the city this the workers in the city.

That's all it comes down to all the time.

We're always fighting to save something and preserve our neighborhoods.

And it shouldn't be this way.

And maybe if the fire department sat down with the with the residents and made a round table and they all work together, maybe there wouldn't be so much confrontation that it always winds up coming to the zoning board and the planning board.

And I really think it's sad what's going on here.

And I do not believe that by putting the pipe, once you go in there and you start excavating and removing trees, and you know there's gonna be quite a few trees coming down, and I did a drive-through today in the winter time.

There's gonna be quite a few coming down, and it's definitely not gonna conform with that neighborhood anymore.

But I thank you for allowing me to come and talk at the beginning.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So now I'll ask once again if there's anybody in the audience who wishes to speak in favor of the application.

Seeing none.

Uh is there anybody in the audience who wishes to speak with questions, concerns, or opposition to the application.

Um I'm Rodi Avontas from Three Jewelry Lane.

And I just wanted to touch on a key a few key points from the um applicant.

The once again we're back to the favor of recommendation, you know, on on not really facts, but uh at this point by being there a couple times, I can tell you that if the fire department came in and said that they no longer need to put a road, they're gonna put a walkway and they can put a parking lot on top of the vernal pool, they would still approve it because the city needs something, and they would just do it for the fire department.

They have no regard for the uh the environment at all there.

So it really does not matter what we say and what we propose there.

Um if you look at my uh the quote that I got for the HDD, I submitted that uh a while back.

Um you can see that it was actually for 250 feet, my original request.

I sent that in because we wanted to make a compromise and say, hey, do the first 250 feet using the HDD because it's gonna be really expensive according to you.

When he came back, he was actually cheaper than what they're proposing to do the the the cost of their the city can do for the actual trenching.

So that's why I have been saying, why don't we just do the whole thing?

It's gonna cost less, they do it in less time because they don't have to open the trench, and they don't have to repair anything before and after.

They don't have to destroy the wetlands, they don't have to cut trees, they don't have to do anything.

They literally come in, they do the the they they bore and they put the pipe through.

There is literally in my mind, I don't even know why we keep having these discussions over and over.

This is clearly a worse plan.

The plan that they propose is a worse plan than the original one that kept the road away from the verno pool.

We took out the road, the pipe was there.

That was actually what was approved by the uh NHDS, as you heard him say before.

It wasn't this plan right now by going next to the verno pool.

Um the second here.

The um they're talking about how they took a hard look at the proposal to do the HDD.

When we were at the Conservation Commission, the lawyer literally said that he walked by Dan Um Den Hudson that day and just asked him if it would be possible.

And he just said, nope, it's gonna be between 200 and 600,000.

They're just spitting up spinning up prices and costs, and they have no idea.

Everything that you heard tonight literally started with could and would and maybe.

There was no fact.

They're just making up I mean, one of the last points that he made was that it requires expertise.

Yes, of course it requires expertise.

Anything that you're gonna do requires expertise, and that's what we hope.

And another point that he brought up was that um HDD has never been used in protected areas.

Yes, it has, and and I have talked with a couple of companies because I have been calling around to see.

But it was is never being used in Ashra because we live in the 80s in an era where you know the environment didn't matter, right?

And and now it does matter, and that's what we should be thinking about is how we can protect whatever is left of our conservative areas in the city, the conservation area that we have left uh that is so little.

We have that buffer that is now gonna be damaged and taken out.

We have to deal constantly with sounds from gunshots from the the the uh inside of the the landfill.

We have to deal with various smells during the summer when they do their mulching.

We deal with that lasts a whole week there.

We know that the air that is coming from that site stays in our area because the smells from the mulch stay there.

Um another thing that I would like to mention is you know, how can we trust um uh Den Hudson, right?

And when he came here last time and he told you that a fire truck driving by our neighborhood would be just the same as driving a um uh uh the garbage collection truck, right?

And um I have done some research on that, and it's actually about 10,000 times the damage to the road um of a pass from a fire truck versus a car.

So the roads have to really be built to support that consistent traffic if you're gonna be doing that on a regular day.

And he came here and told you guys that this was a fact.

Um another thing is uh the the um Mr.

Quigley here um came here and said that this the habitat quality, and I'm quoting him, the highest rank habitat in the region.

That was the rating, and this was in the ZBA of October twenty uh twenty twenty-five.

Right now, he said it's a marginal habitat, it's low quality, it's damaged.

It's and what we're looking at here is we're gonna have them come in, damage it five years from now, they're gonna come back and say, Oh, it's damaged.

We can just open the road now.

We can do this because it has changed enough, right?

There was enough of a change, enough of an impact in the environment that now it's no longer pristine, right?

And last time I stayed here after, and there was a whole meeting after talking about how not pristine the wetlands were, and that you could approve putting some uh um doing the project and building that house which was after um our our hearing, right?

You are just about out of time, so you might want to wrap up.

And the word that the lawyer used was it doesn't matter.

The the he didn't say that it doesn't matter, but he literally said the the wetlands are not pristine, so it's okay to do that job there, right?

And this is what we're looking at because in a few years, two, three years, we're gonna move on to the next project.

The city will come in and come back and say, Oh, it's damaged, it's no longer pristine.

We can now proceed with what we wanted originally.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else who wishes to speak?

Hi, I'm Nancy Kringburns.

I live at uh Five Brayburn Drive.

So I'm not directly impacted by this, but what bothers me is the intrusion into an existing neighborhood that's been there for so long.

And if you do it to this neighborhood, you could do it to any neighborhood, some kind of project that doesn't serve the neighbors.

Um, and apparently there's property that the city owns on Ridge Road that wouldn't impact neighbors, and might be better suited to this type of project because there's more land, there's room for expansion of whatever the fire department would need for training purposes, and the fire department should be commended for the wonderful work that happened at that explosion last week.

I'm so sorry you had to even deal with it.

That was horrible.

But um, so my the environment, yes.

Um the impact on the neighborhood, you know, we all put our heart and soul into our neighborhood, and having a disruption like this that isn't critical, isn't essential, is just wrong.

And where there's an alternative site, and maybe that's been looked at.

I haven't seen anything that it has been totally looked at.

I I would prefer then it not be in a neighborhood because you could be putting, I don't know, some kind of training field in my backyard.

Um, so that's all.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else who wishes to speak?

As you know, directly across from the proposed entrance to this, although uh based on uh respectfully, Mr.

Shaw's idea of let's see if we can move it down here and I'd be okay with that at the last meeting.

Um it would be just down the street.

How can you deny uh what they're saying?

How could you possibly think about going forward with this exception when you've just heard those arguments?

Same plan with more detrimental factors.

Just wanted to recap.

You're all taking a look at the website.

Did you go through that was put together?

Good.

Five-o' is denied in the past.

What could have changed to get three of you or four of you to vote in the furniture tonight?

I just don't see it.

But the plan is the same with more detrimental facts.

A lot of congestion in the neighborhood, doesn't think it meets the criteria.

Board doesn't feel it, two of the criteria met.

It's always a tough decision when we have a full neighborhood show up to make a decision like this.

The number of trucks that are gonna be using that area for the fire training facility with an open border like that through a buffer.

What do you do?

You open your window when you want to hear things, see things, smell things.

Now we're just gonna have a gateway right down to our neighborhood.

Unused, but it's a road, 20 foot wide.

It's a road.

He said there was some confusion about being a road.

It's like doing a construction project and leaving your materials behind.

That road's gonna be there, people are gonna want to use it.

They'll be in there checking the condition of the pipes, they'll be in there checking the conditions of any growth.

So, in your own words, people, there's no reason that you should be able to have any idea of something to a positive thought to override.

They talked about, you know, maybe not the HDD solution, people don't want the road.

So, what makes it right for the neighborhood then?

Somewhere else, especially given the fact that the NFD has already admitted in their own words that we could get along where we are currently.

We'll work it out.

In your sense of urgency, perhaps on the DPW side to get that construction project done.

That shouldn't have to do with us.

But I don't want any preordained decision tonight to move that project along to move the NFD fire training facility over to this area, which impacts us.

It was said in the past that the uh city of Nashville had its landfill problems and they've had them for years, and you've always tried to contain it and assure people that the entrance will be from the West Hollow Street side.

This isn't the West Hall of Street side.

You're not talking about the traffic that was originally proposed, and we appreciate that.

But a road is a road, and people are gonna want to use it.

Whether it's motorcyclists, bikers, hikers, or a public service truck, natural utilities, somebody will be using that road.

So, with all the criteria that you denied this for based on the first meeting, I just don't think there's anything over here tonight that we've heard as far as an updated plan.

And the point was well taken that what was a high impact vernal pool, the CONCOM commission can't be near that at all.

You've got to go up the street.

Now they're saying it's not an issue.

Let's go right through it.

The word intent was used when you asked about is it gonna be a 20-foot road or is it gonna be 25 and 30?

His words were our intent is 20 feet wide.

What if it is 25?

What if it happens to need to be 30?

Nothing's been assured in this, and it cannot be any guarantees if you've seen my previous memos to you guys that tells us what's not gonna happen tomorrow, the next day, the next day.

You can't assure us anything.

You've had concerns about valuations of property.

Will it happen?

Could happen.

I moved in there because there wasn't all those obtrusions.

Will somebody else want to move in there if there's a road right there?

You can't tell us, you can guarantee that that it wouldn't be.

That's pretty much all I got to say.

I just want you to again have your faith, do your job, say this isn't right for this neighborhood.

Because five out of all of you last time said this isn't right for the neighborhood.

Nothing makes it right for the neighborhood, even so now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else who wishes to provide comment?

Hi all.

Um I'm Hannah Nedzbala.

I'm in Westgate Village.

Years ago, the DPW had not covered over some of the garbage dumping they did close to us.

Every morning, we would smell the fumes from that DPW site, and the garbage that's smelled, and the uh seagulls that would fly around.

But not only that, when there's fire facility coming and training, and more, more and more companies come in, that's gonna mean who's gonna police it, who's gonna see what they're burning and what what the environmental issue with the air pollution, a lot of people have uh breathing issues, and that can be pretty much a hard thing to take.

Not only that, but this is residential, it's not uh way out in the open.

People's property values are going to go down, even in Westgate, and we don't want that.

It's not plausible to be at Teak.

Or any place else, but as this other lady mentioned, there is the Ridge Ridge Road site that might be better.

I don't know.

But that's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else?

Again, George Sturgeon 15 Summer on Drive.

Um I'm not gonna repeat a whole bunch of stuff.

Uh I I would point out that I think last meeting, you all were pretty much leaning toward denying that application because they hadn't really looked at other options.

You didn't you tabled it, you gave them a design option and they went and pretty much designed it and presented it tonight.

So I I really feel like you were gonna deny it last time.

A hot mic moment at the break sort of indicated that that was the case, too.

That being said, they took your idea, and so now they've sort of met that criteria.

So there's less of a chance to deny here, except for the neighborhood, and it's clearly gonna be an impact to the neighborhood.

There are also other options.

17 Ridge was mentioned.

For me, that's another discussion for another day when the fire training, a capital improvement thing comes forward.

Because there are other options rather than moving it closer to Teak.

For water, um, two fire hydrants.

The DPW, they're gonna have a car wash there from what I saw.

I mean, there's gonna be, I don't know why they can't tap into the DPWs.

I Googled um some fire training facility, water stuff.

Some of them use water towers to totally support the water needs of their fire training facilities.

I don't know how feasible that is, but you know, there are there might be other are other water options rather than bothering the the neighborhood, the wetland, and that kind of stuff.

Paula had brought up sort of a hybrid HDD approach, which I think is interesting because you can use HCD, so you're not bothering the wetland, you're not dredging, you're not downing trees permanently, all that stuff.

Um that's something that I think is has legs.

So HDD till you hit the uh the ledge or the rock that's over by the dump.

And then if the city wants to dredge there, let them.

But at least stipulate HDD here, because you're not um you're not disturbing wetlands hardly at all.

You're not permanently downing trees or or a whole bunch of trees.

It won't disturb any any wildlife in there.

There was some discussion about cost.

Um I feel it's largely cost neutral.

We came up with an actual quote.

I don't know what the city did.

I think they made a phone call and got some rough water magnitude numbers.

I don't believe that in our quote there was an increased cost to go through rock.

I'm just making that point.

Because the city brought up that it would be much more expensive to do that.

But in that hybrid approach, you could choose to blast and and and lay pipe over on the landfill side if you wanted.

So I think uh HD stipulating HDD, giving the city an option that wants it through the wetland if they choose to do something to dredge and blast and lay pipe over there that way, you know.

That's a uh that's a true compromise.

This isn't a compromise.

It's an idea that somebody came up with that the city implemented, then they went and took a harder look at HDD to counter it, where they could have done it last meeting and they didn't, because they knew that's where we were going.

That's what we preferred if this was gonna be approved.

So I would um I would ask you to still deny it.

Um but if you're not going to um I would ask you to to stipulate HDD drilling at least through the wetlands, that hybrid, I call it a hybrid approach, but uh and then give the city the option to do what they want on the other side.

And you are just about out of time, so when I wrap up is there anybody else who wishes to speak seeing none, I'm gonna give an opportunity for the applicants to provide any rebuttal that they wish.

Uh you have five minutes, Mr.

Chairman members, Andy Prollman.

Excuse me.

Three points, uh, Mr.

Chairman.

Um forget the CONCOM looked at this three times.

Uh they had a site walk, and uh, for each time uh they have their meeting, they have a thorough discussion, and with the with the road and waterline impact, they approved it.

Would the just the waterline but the straight shot they approved it, and then this last week they approved it again, and this last week was actually unanimous.

So it's it's hard to say the CONCOM doesn't take a good look at environmental issues.

Now, the second point um I want to just hammer home is that the impacts that we have temp to the temporary buffer impact and the temporary wetland impact are temporary.

We dig the trench, it's gonna grow back.

But the third point I want to make, and Mr.

Arantis and Mr.

LaRoc really uh said it, and I said their their opposition is uh they have a fear of fear of a future road.

And if the city were to come back years down the road down the line and want to install a road, they would be hit with the Fisher versus Dover Roadblock right off the bat.

It cannot be a road unless there's something, some dramatic change, right?

But uh there is not a road going in here.

Dan Hudson spoke to that.

We've said in the past, um, since it was denied, the road was denied, we can't have a road going in here.

Twenty-foot cut, it's gonna trench in and then fill in over time.

I don't I think it's a reasonable request of the city.

I believe we've met the criteria uh under the uh under the order.

So I thank you very much.

Thank you.

Oh, I'm sorry, we do have a question, Mr.

Paul.

Sorry, counselor.

It's probably more for Mr.

Hudson.

We we've had some folks asking now for the um you know, start as the HDD and then go trenching after you're in you know 100 feet.

Is it is it still cost prohibitive doing that?

Um so yes, and a couple things.

There was uh some there was an assertion that the city hadn't gotten a quote.

We did get a quote, it did have a range, it had 150 dollars per foot for sand or normal soil, six hundred dollars per foot through rock.

And uh, and I think uh Mr.

Pullman spoke to that previously too.

But anyway, I just want to clear that up.

Um question was does it make sense to drill you know a shorter distance?

Um yes, that may could reduce the cost some, but the the the thought process I had was if you're gonna drill, you wanna we we would want to probably come in from the landfill side, be at the top of the hill, and then drill from there.

Um if we try to uh shorten the distance, we probably have to move over and drill from the teak side.

We'd have to set up the drillery in the road, close the road, we have to we'd have to dig a pit um there so that we could launch that uh drill and drill uh the other direction, and then we'd be left, you know, um part way up the hill.

So I just don't think it makes sense.

I think if you're gonna incur that much expense, it doesn't scale down perfectly, right?

Like yes, you drill shorter distances less money, but you still have to bring the jewelry out, you still have to do all the uh preparatory work, you still have to do the uh uh investigation work, the geotech investigation work.

So um so I I just don't think that makes sense.

It we still are talking about if we're gonna do that even when I when I submit the 500,000, that still would be a hybrid approach.

We would drill uh a portion of it and then we would trench on the landfill property where we're outside, you know, any uh any wooded area that anybody can see and things like that.

So um so I just we we tried to obtain uh HDD quote that we thought would be reasonable for what you would do if you're gonna do it that way, but again, we don't recommend that.

Other questions for the applicant?

Seeing none.

So we are gonna uh provide the opportunity for one person who spoke with questions, concerns, or opposition uh to address the board.

Uh if you know who that is, great.

If you want to take a few minutes and deliberate amongst yourselves, that's fine also.

We've got the mic.

Again, road here on this uh three jewelry lane.

Um I wanted to say that the quote is from the company that they used on the sites that they used the HDD.

That's the company that I went to because I wanted to make sure that I matched what they what they used before.

I didn't want to come up with another random um company.

Um again, you know, we're here um discussing a project with a problem that shouldn't exist, right?

We have all talked about this at length with all the extra complications that this um new facility is gonna cause.

The reason we're here today is that we're putting two fire hydrants in the middle of nowhere, because this is what this project is, right?

Because we don't have any idea what the new facility is gonna be.

We are uh rushing this.

The reason the pipe reduced size, it's because the city actually have the size of the actual the amount of water that they needed.

They went for about 3,500 gallons per minute that they wanted to 2,000.

That's why the the engineer from Penny Check reduced the size of the pipe.

Um so it shows just poor planning.

There's no planning, they're just rushing this.

There's no need to rush the pipe if there's no facility.

Why would they need so why not come up with a proper package, put everything together and proper and propose a proper plan?

We're here talking about compromise.

There was no compromise.

Uh uh, as some people have already said, right?

Um the first proposal was not a compromise.

The second proposal of moving the site over was not a compromise.

Nothing has been a compromise.

They hide the plans into l until they come up here and they give you the sheet.

Right.

They don't provide any of the information uh beforehand.

Um I have been doing a lot of research on my own to try to find information about this, to try to put it out there so that other people can be informed.

I created a full website the other day just to give you guys information on everything that has happened in the just the four or five meetings that we have had here.

How much the it's only for the city to it's 12 different other companies that are coming from outside to be able to use on a regular basis that is going to make that site just a constant area of activity.

It was supposed to be maybe once or twice a month.

Now it's every single day there's going to be someone using that site.

And we're gonna be the ones in the neighborhood with all the smoke, all the PFAS in the air, all the contamination on the ground that we haven't even touched today because that was right now the whole uh the whole job there to redo the uh the uh the new facility for the the the garage is on hold.

It has been completely stopped because they cannot continue because there's PFAS on the ground caused by the fire department facil uh uh activity there.

And then we're putting this new facility less than a hundred feet away from some other areas that could be protected areas too.

They're they're right on that zone, and they are wetlands, but they are not uh um vernal pools, and they could be very well vernifies, and that's one of the requests that I'm gonna be making to the NHDS so that they can uh provide us that um additional protection for the future because this is it's not right for it to be there in the first place.

Um so to close this, I would like to bring up the the five criteria, right?

And I want to make sure that uh I I cover that here because we're closing this now, and I'm hoping that you guys um have heard enough and you understand the impact that this is gonna have on the neighborhood on the house prices all over that that whole section of the city because we're gonna be putting this facility there, we're now cutting these trees, that's gonna open the buffer that we had from the landfill, it's open.

Right, we're gonna cut that, it's gonna be open.

Um and that is not a temporary thing, like they keep saying, it is not temporary.

It's 20 feet, they put that.

And also, if you look at the documents that I posted on the website, but I also submit it in.

They are on their funding request.

That is still a road.

That never changed.

That is still a road.

So they might say that it's not now.

I'm telling you, two, three years from now, they have the funds already.

They will be approved because they're part of the funding.

And then we're gonna be back here talking about how this was not supposed to even happen, and now we have a request for a road.

Um, we do have less than a minute, so you might want to wrap up.

I thought you said 15 minutes for closing.

It's five minutes for the closing.

Uh so not contrary to the public interest?

Um it is very contrary to the public interest.

We buy our houses there because we think that we can live in a neighborhood that is quiet, that does not have any kind of disturbances in the wetlands.

Like when I moved there, that was the main thing that I noticed.

It was how close to the neighborhood the environment was.

And I could see um animals, you know.

I the first few times that I uh that I went there to look at the house, I saw animals just crossing the road, deer crossing the road right there.

There's a large activity of animals there.

And you are almost out of time.

A few seconds left.

The I I would just focus on the the house pricing.

Um I think that's gonna cause a lot of damage to the to the people that bought their houses 34 years ago and they have been leaving there for a while, and we're here um destroying the neighborhood and impacting the air quality and the the actual quality of life for everyone in the neighborhood.

And ward five eight and nine will be impacted by the PFAS in the air by 15 times more than what they're producing right now directly into the neighborhoods.

Okay, thank you for your comments.

So we are now gonna close the public hearing and we are gonna open up the deliberations of the board.

Thoughts from the board.

I guess I'll start.

Mr.

Neely.

Right, right, process of elimination.

Um so there's a lot going on as you as you know.

There's been uh um we received a ton of information from the neighbors.

We've had uh quite a bit of testimony from members of the city, from the council, uh I know we've all done drive-by's.

Um so I want to attack this from a couple different directions here.

Um I am very sensitive to uh when a neighborhood is locked together uh against against uh a project.

And um, you know, I was one of those folks that voted in five to nothing to deny the road.

Road's not coming back.

There's no road, can't be a road, it's it's a Fisher v.

Dover, it'd have to come by us again.

Um and the criteria to get by us on Fisher v.

Dover is is relatively high.

And the reason for that, and just for folks in the audience, is the point of Fisher v.

Dover is not to allow it to come up every time there's a change on the board, or if somebody's out sick, the the point of Fisher v.

Dover is it has to be a significant difference to the application.

So the road's not coming.

So so any any discussion about a road is is not is not valid here.

Um while it is going to be cut the width of a road, as we know from the Conservation Commission letter, it will be replanted.

And it is it gonna take a while for the for for trees to come back, shrubs will come back a lot quicker, obviously.

Yes, they will, but it'll take some time.

But I do believe that was the point that Mr.

Shaw had brought up last time was by putting on a zigzag pattern, folks are not standing in front of, I think it's 22 and looking straight into the landfill.

Now, that being said, I thought it was very interesting when I did another drive-by the other day.

That straight shot in, you're looking at a hill.

So even if it was straight, you're still not looking at the area where this this um uh training facility is going to be.

Um we we as a board have many times over the years that I've been here um suggested some changes to plans because sometimes we have a little bit macro view that other folks don't don't see and say, hey, we've seen some of these plans before.

Would it make sense to take a look at at something a little bit different?

Um so what Mr.

Shaw did last time um I actually agreed with because we have dealt with some some cuttings in the past, and just a small tweak can make a big difference to to an application.

Um I I was thinking the other day about my own neighborhood.

I live in an R9 neighborhood, not not far from this, and there's at least three pipelines in my in my neighborhood.

You know, you got sewer, you got water, and natural gas uh coming to my house.

So it is normal for a pipeline to be in a neighborhood.

That's normal.

We live in Nashua, most of Nashua has those same three three pipelines.

Um we have received all the documentation from Penichuk that them they're putting in a water line in this area is appropriate for what the plan is to do with the fire facility, but but we're not here to talk about the fire facility.

The reason we're here, the special exception, is the wetlands, crossing the wetlands with the trench, and whether it's HDD or whether whether it's not.

Um it's not a road, it's a trench we're really talking about, and it's it's about 200 square feet.

That's less than the size of the stage.

So for 20 by 10, 200 square feet.

So that being said, um, my my history is always been to hold folks to a higher level of accountability when it comes to wetlands.

I detest anybody going into wetlands.

If you're gonna go into wetlands, you better get in, get out, get gone, and get it back the way it was.

The plan, everything we see is for a temporary disturbance of wetlands.

The DES is agreeing that there's a temporary disturbance of the wetlands.

In addition, um, two two other points I want to make.

My first home that I owned in in Nashua was in Trusselbrook, which as I like to tell folks is on the working end of the dump.

It's it's at the front, it's West Hallis.

When the leaves come down, I'm looking right into the dump, I'm looking right where everybody's dropping off the leaves.

I could see the fire facility over there, I could see them when they were burning stuff.

Um honestly is no property value impact.

Uh the property values at Trestlebrook are probably double what they were when I lived there.

Um five months of the year, you're looking right into the dump.

The smells, I I get it.

We all had it on certain days.

Um so I I do believe these folks fear that their lives are gonna change completely with this um this pipeline going in, but I don't think that's the case.

Um so for those reasons and and some more, and I'll let the rest of the board talk.

I am in favor of this application as is uh with for the special exception.

Other thoughts from the board.

I don't I don't mind weighing in.

Um I I agree, I I am in support of the application.

I you know, I I don't think it's our place to question whether or not uh fire training facility is needed, whether or not this is the best site.

What's that's not before us?

What's before us is uh a water line that's being proposed to impact a small wetland area of a wetland of not considered to be of high value, uh likely man-made drainage area, and a wetland impact to a buffer, both of which are temporary.

Uh so the impact itself is minor in nature.

What's being requested is a water line, and a water line, I think can't be said to be out of character with a neighborhood that is in fact on public water and served by water lines.

So I don't see a water line itself as being out of the character of a neighborhood.

I do appreciate the concerns of the neighbors.

There is going to be a temporary disturbance for construction activity.

That's always the nature of construction activity.

The street next to mine is being torn up right now.

And it's an inconvenience.

There's noise, there's traffic diversions, but I also understand it's temporary.

That will be, you know, there'll be a few days of significant activity, it will be gone.

So that is true.

There will be a disruption.

There will be trees that will be removed.

Yeah, but I don't think that the removal of those trees is an undue impact.

The area will be re-vegetated.

It won't look the same.

It will be different.

But that difference I don't think would be adverse.

I I do think that efforts have been made to minimize the impact.

We did request that they look at a change, as Mr.

Shaw had suggested to minimize the visual impact.

I think that was done.

But it does appear to me that the water line is necessary and that there really isn't a reasonable alternative.

Granted, you could shift it back to the location that was previously proposed, there'd still be an impact.

So a water line, I think in this area is necessary.

I've not seen any evidence that there would be an adverse impact to wildlife.

It does not, or endangered species, it does not appear that the Conservation Commission felt that there would be, or that the New Hampshire DES felt that there would be.

So what for those reasons uh I do believe it meets the criteria, and I do support the application.

Mr.

Shaw.

I I feel like I'm very well might echo and even restate some of the things that you both have said, but I I am in support.

I I understand, I mean, I think part of the problem is this application came before us very differently.

In fact, the whole, you know, we denied it because I think we all felt the whole thing with the road, the amount of traffic, the impact on the neighborhood was just beyond anything that should be supported.

When it came back, the question was first thing, and that's we didn't deal with it tonight, as you noted in reading, was a Fisher v.

Dover.

Did this substantially change?

Yes, it's substantially.

There is no road, there won't be a road, it's not allowed to be a road, and I also fully agree that if that came, if some sort of road proposal came back, it would get judged that criteria, and I'm hard pressed to figure out how anybody could propose a road there now and say it's substantially different because conceptually, I don't know, but you know, that that's a that's a whole different thing, and we're not here for that tonight.

But clearly it became just the impact to the wetlands.

So last time when I kind of started questioning, I was motivated by two things to reduce the visual impact, uh, because you know when it looked like, well, maybe we've talked about this intersection, maybe some sort of angular thing.

I also was originally thinking, and I guess in a way I was mostly focused on uh wetland, direct wetland impact versus the wetland buffers, and at first I was thinking, and even part of my question was can it be done in a less you know impactful way, which is really part of the criteria that we we look at for the the subpart of wetland uh special exceptions.

As it's turned out, I think it seems that that balance between the amount that trade-off of less wetland impact versus more wetland buffer, it's really hard to say exactly where that falls, but it's it's clearly you know relatively similar, and I'm sure people can make the argument one's a little worse than the other.

I don't know, but I think that's that's into some pretty fine granularity.

So I think the fact that okay, the at least in the end, it seems there's no greater impact for the wetland, and there could be less visual impact.

I think that is hopefully a win for the neighborhood.

And I also agree that as far as a water line going in is a very normal request.

This is unique, it's special, it's just service something proposed in the landfill, but it's not uh unusual thing to happen as you as you guys have both kind of commented on.

Um I also just want to I want to touch on a couple other things, or maybe not so much about um specifically the approval, but things that came up in testimony.

I mean, there's been this talk about the Ridge Road thing.

All I could say is there very well could just be even more impact on on a neighborhood with a fire training facility that might be right on top of homes and everything else.

And I think that's the kind of thing we just betrayed one concern for another.

Um, and I'm not sure that there's probably reasons why that hasn't been considered.

Um there was also concern about the what's being burnt and all.

I'm pretty sure last time uh Chief Buckson talked about that there's very specific requirements for what can be burnt, it has to be very clean material and all that.

So I think that is limited.

There's also comments about um that the scope of the training facility.

Um that's always we were always told, and it's always been that we support multiple other fire departments coming to use that facility.

So I don't think anything changed there.

So I didn't see those things changing as far as anything that's happened through the course of the discussion.

So I think that's everything I yeah, that's everything I want to comment on right now.

But I am in support, and I think ultimately this is a fairly small scale thing.

I understand there's a lot of a lot of angst in the in the community, but and I just uh I don't know how I could we could be any clearer.

I think we see there's no way this is a road.

There won't even be the ability to drive through there because stuff's gonna get replanted and it's not going to be accessible.

That's not the intent.

There's no reason a buried water line, there should be no reason for that to be accessible.

So Mr.

Alano.

Yeah.

Um so I remember when the the road uh application came through, and I recall saying that if it had just been the wetlands crossing, that I probably would have voted to approve it.

But um as we all know, there were other issues involved, and the board denied the road.

This is not a road, as has been said, and it won't be a road.

Um there were the various things mentioned during the the public testimony that puzzled me because they didn't agree with my memory of things.

One was uh discussion about the Ridge Road property.

Uh I do recall that coming up and being discussed by the city.

There are some legal issues that uh the city could not develop that uh to be a fighter fire training facility.

It was something about uh conservation land uh run owned by LCP or something like that.

I don't remember exactly the details, but that had been considered and it was just not available.

Um I'm not I I don't like the idea of of people trying to keep uh one plusing uh the city's uh work on on how they want to do things.

Um and as uh Mr.

Shaw and Mr.

Neely and Mr.

Mankara have said, you know, this is putting in a water line, there is going to be some temporary disruption.

There's construction projects and uh and disturbance of woodlands all over the city as uh infill happens.

I mean there's a there was a large section of woodland near my house when I moved in that's gone.

It's got it's got a uh proper a development there with houses.

Um I regret that, but uh I didn't have a you know there was no really valid reason to uh to stop it.

So here we've got this water line going in after a few years, you're gonna be hard pressed to see where it was because of the zigzag plan.

There won't be any direct uh corridor of view to the landfill property.

Um assuming the the trees are in bloom and things like that.

So I'm I'm in support of this application.

Mr.

Padre.

So um I in my view, that this is not a road.

Um it will be at you know, it'll be a trench, um, and the impacts will be temporary.

Granted, it will be a long temporary, um, but um I think as long as we require the city to abide by the the CONCOM stipulations, um, it will have to be within that 20-foot uh swath.

Um there'll be a conservation need to a number of the forested land will remain forested in perpetuity.

So I I think that these stipulations can resolve at least some of the concerns.

Thank you.

Mr.

Shaw.

Well, the other thing that none of us spoke to, but it was brought up in quite a bit of testimony was the HDD.

And I appreciate that there's a lot of feelings about that and all, but from I guess this maybe it's a little bit, maybe you kind of maybe your indirect reference to that.

But it seems like it's an exceptionally costly way of going about taking care of what is a relatively small impact for this area.

And I know the neighbors don't feel this way right now, but this is not a large scale removal of trees or a large change in what ultimately it will look like.

And I think you know, the the long temporary you referred to.

I think that's true.

There's I mean, uh I saw, you know, I have a lot of feelings about like where the McCarthy Middle School went in and and putting in like even larger trees and stuff to replace you know 80-foot pines that were there blocking and providing buffer, that just doesn't happen.

It's going to take a long time.

That's what happens with with projects like this.

That but this is way smaller scale than something like that.

So but ultimately I don't see that it really is so much in our purview or that there's anything that pushes me even to feeling like we should be contemplating any stipulations regarding this HDD, I think with the information that we've heard tonight.

Yeah, I I do agree, and thank you for bringing that up, uh, Mr.

Shaw.

Um, and just in general, I I'm reluctant to uh you know encourage or require an applicant to pursue a different technology that's perhaps beyond our area of expertise, but we do have testimony that it would be potentially quite expensive or significant uh addition.

We have testimony that it would be less so.

Um but also um I I I I'd also note the testimony, and I agree, it would be irresponsible to propose um going that route uh or even you know, I I think proposing a reasonable estimate for the cost without doing geotechnical work and that geotechnical work itself would have an impact necessarily, and it may be an impact that would ultimately um you know prove to be futile.

So I don't think it's a reasonable alternative to pursue, or is it would it gain any significant advantage in this particular case?

Any other discussion?

Would anybody like to make a motion?

I'll do it.

Just get my bearings.

So I have so many papers.

So let me just go back to find my application.

Now I'm looking for I'm looking for my application.

Okay, my checklist um agenda.

Um I can just read it correctly into the record.

I've been shifting uh I'm good.

I'd like to make a motion that the application for the city of Nashua uh owner through Chief uh Steve Buxton, National Fire Rescue, the applicant for 25 Teak Drive, um requesting a special exception from land use code section 190-112 to work in a 40-foot other wetland and wetland buffer to construct a waterline service from Teak Drive to the Four Hills landfill property for the proposed fire training facility be approved.

I'm gonna start with the well-on criteria.

We find that the use or activity proposed and its attended impacts cannot be reasonably avoided.

Uh and we do believe that efforts have been made on the applicant to seek alternative routes, but the route that has been proposed uh seems to be the least impactful, and uh we are convinced that providing water service to the proposed facility is necessary.

Uh similarly, we find that the least damaging route and methodology have been selected based on the evidence uh provided, and it is the most practical alternative available.

Once again, the impact is minimal.

It's going in the uh it's proposed at a route that has the least impact, and um you know it's been designed to minimize the visual impact to the extent possible.

We find that a reasonable uh and acceptable mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to minimize wetland loss for degradation, as noted, and I'm gonna reference it again more than one time, I'm sure, but also in particular with the stipulations that have been proposed by the Conservation Commission, which I do intend to make a part of this motion.

The overall impact of encroaching into the wetlander buffer area is necessary for the deductive use of the uh adjoining buildable land, and the impact of non-encroachment is outweighed by the benefits derived.

And the impact of non-encroachment is outweighed by the benefits derived.

And again, we are convinced that the extending a water line to the proposed facility is necessary and is necessary for the reasonable use of the property for a fire training facility.

And we would note that no such finding was made by the Conservation Commission or the New Hampshire DES.

The best available adequate erosion and sedimentation control methods are incorporated.

That appears to be the case in the plan, and that will also be a stipulation of the wetlands approval from New Hampshire DES.

The prose uh activity will not significantly impair wetland capacity to provide important wildlife and fishery functions, including habitat, food, shelter, breeding, migratory, and overwintering.

Once again, the impact that it is proposed is a temporary impact.

There will be no enduring impact as we understand it to wildlife.

That the project will not uh impair the stability of the water bodies bank.

There in this case is again a temporary uh impact to a minor wetland and uh will not impact.

In fact, we asked specifically that question at a prior hearing whether there would be any uh permanent impact to the functioning of the wetland, and the answer was no.

That the wetland and buffer function of the hydraulic uh absorption capacity and storage shall not be impaired.

And once again, for the same reasons that I previously mentioned, uh we do not find that there would be an adverse impact.

To regard to the overall criteria, um the requested use is listed as a special exception use in the matrix table or is permitted as a special exception by another provision of this chapter.

That's referring to the zoning ordinance, and a water line is of course an approved use in the zoning ordinance.

The requested use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety.

Once again, this is a water line, it's not a road, and while there would be temporary um hindrances potentially to traffic through the construction activity, that's temporary, minor, and um is you know typical of what all residents of the city endure during construction projects.

The requested use will not overload any public water, drainage, or sewer system or any other municipal assistance to the extent that the requested use in the developed area or the immediate area of the city uh will be unduly subject to hazards affecting health, safety, or general welfare.

Once again, there are temporary impacts as always for the construction, but the water line that's proposed itself will not uh unduly uh overload or burden public water systems, and we do have a letter uh from Penichuck Waterworks to that effect.

Special regulations set forth in this article are fulfilled, and those were the special regulations that I just went through.

And the requested use will not impair the integrity or be out of character with the district or immediate neighborhood within which is located, nor be detrimental to the health, morals or welfare of the residents of the city.

Once again, as noted, what's proposed is a water line, and a water line is a normal part of the functioning of every neighborhood or almost every neighborhood in the city.

Therefore, it can't be found to be out of character.

So for those reasons, I move that the application be granted with the stipulations that were provided by the Conservation Commission in their letter to the board of February 6th.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Mr.

Neely.

Any discussion of the motion?

All those in favor.

Your application is granted.

We're gonna give folks a moment to clear out of the room, and then unless anybody wants a break, I think we'll just move on to the second application.

Just give one sec for everybody to clear their room.

Should we take a brief recess, maybe?

I think they must recycle these.

Yeah.

Sorry, do you want a replacement?

No, I'm good.

It's going right in the trash.

Yeah, I know I just got to keep straight when I'm pitching.

Redom recycling.

Recycling, I think.

That's what I meant to say.

I'm gonna save these clips.

Okay, we are we are gonna move on to the second case, if I may.

Um everyone's free to continue conversations in the hallway if you wish.

The next application is a request from Perult Revocable Trust, the owner.

56 Lynn Street, requesting a variance from land use code section 190-264 for an accessory use area.

40% allowed, 48% proposed to construct a 30 by 40 detached garage that's in the R9 zone in board 7.

And you must be the applicant.

I am Dave Brawl, 56 Link Street.

Uh so feel free to address the board and explain your application and why it is you'd like to pursue this.

I'm new at this, so bear with me.

We absolutely will.

And I have to follow that.

Sorry about that.

That's good about that.

Um yeah, so I'm looking at putting up a detached garage in my backyard.

Um the way my house, I sent the I put a clot plan on there.

Um, and you can see my current garage would require a variance encroaching on my neighbor on the side if I was to put this size, if I was to remove the garage I have now and put the proposed size garage, I would be right up against the property lines.

Um, and I have so much land in the back, I was just figuring I put the building out back.

I don't plan on um being uh in any setbacks for the R9 zone for that building, it'll be at least 14 feet away from my fence line, which is six inches in from the property line.

Um it's just a detached garage.

Uh there's quite a few, at least four in my immediate neighborhood of detached garages that are this size or even larger than this.

Um I'm requesting to see if I could.

I'm not gonna make it two stories, it's only gonna be a single story.

It is fairly large, 1200 square feet.

Um when I talked to Nicole, she she told me because of my pool that I'm going over the allowed square footage of an accessory building, which I don't understand what a pool has to do with an accessory building, but I do have a pool and I'm not able to take it down according to my wife.

Um so I originally I put up a drawing of a Morton building because that's what I was really looking at originally, which is a steel building.

Um, but the cost came in considerably higher than I thought it would.

Um, and now I'm looking at um quotes for stick building um with a prefab building being regular shingles, vinyl siding to match the house.

So I think it'll blend in even more than the Morton building would in the backyard.

Um the price of the Morton building was way expensive, the more than I thought.

Um so um that's what I'm asking for.

And if there's any questions, uh like I said, I'm new at this.

I we were all new at this one point.

I don't plan on doing it a lot.

Questions from the board.

Mr.

Schott, it's more just a little bit of a just feedback for you.

The the thing is um that's an accessory use, not accessory buildings.

So the pool is considered an accessory use, so that's why it gets calculated in.

So just I was just surprised.

So that right now I have a 12 by 20 canvas shelter at garage back there, and the cover is due to be replaced like the fourth time.

So I would be removing that building out of there.

That I understand it's not a building because it's just a covered garage, but that'll be going away, and I'd be using this building, plus I'd be able to put a table saw and little hobby stuff out there as well as storage, and I don't have to change the cover again for a long time.

So you've probably spoken to this, but um did you consider a smaller building?

I did, but for what that 12 by 20 is is full.

Um what I'd be allowed, I believe, was like a 28 by 30 building.

It's not worth the cost of putting it up for what I'd have for storage and in there.

When I get all my prices together, it might be 28 by 36, but I didn't want to go through the whole process and have to come back before you again to add four feet to a building, you know, if I could go 40 feet.

So even for that size building, would it be very close to the 40% calculation?

Any other questions from the board?

Mr.

Sha.

Is have you had any conversation with your neighbor at 58 who would be the most affected by this?

Uh or have yeah, so the neighbors on both sides of me.

Um there's only one that I haven't asked because I don't see him as often, but the other ones are like, yeah, we don't care.

Thank you.

Mr.

Patrick.

It looks like your neighbor on uh 58.

This actually your current shed is closer to his line than the proposed shed would be.

Correct.

So it actually is a little bit more.

It's actually, yeah, it is 58, yes.

Um, it's I'm actually moving that always because I I don't want it.

If I'm gonna put a permanent structure there, I'm gonna leave a decent size swath behind it and on the side of it.

So any other questions from the board.

You're free to take a seat.

Thank you.

I'm guessing there's no one in the audience who wants to speak in favor of so given that we're gonna close the public hearing and open up the deliberations of the board.

Thoughts from the board.

Mr.

Shah.

I'm in support.

I think this is reasonable.

Uh the other it didn't come up directly in any testimony, but I also note that this lot is one of the biggest lots in this neighborhood.

And as far as like we we see this a lot, I I would say, where you know, a bit even a relatively big additional freestanding structure still doesn't really use up that much space of the lot itself.

So there will still be obviously lots of yards, lots of space.

I appreciate that that uh the applicant's intending to keep this further away from the uh side uh uh property line, uh which is I think just overall helpful uh for any, you know, just aesthetics and just impact for that neighbor.

So uh but it it's a reasonable use.

Uh yes, it's a large structure, but I think uh I don't see any problems with it.

There's obviously no concern expressed from the neighbors, so I am I'm in support.

Mr.

Lano.

Yeah, I'm also in support uh and I I additionally notice note that there is uh uh basically uh a park or conservation land in back of this property, so there's no neighbor there uh to be concerned.

I mean the the size of the building is is a bit large, but where it's being placed, the size of the lot, um, I think is reasonable.

Yeah, the thoughts.

Yeah, I I I would agree, uh, and I did note that the property is you know pretty is distinct in its size, and yes, that it's it's it's about in conservation land.

Um and also that there are other properties in this immediate area with pretty large accessory structures, so I don't think it would be out of character.

Also glad to hear that it'd be stick built.

I think that will fit in better.

Anyone want to make a motion?

Mr.

Nealing.

All right, I would like to make uh make a motion to approve the variance for the Peralt revocable trust owner of 56 Lynn Street, sheet five lot 30 requesting a variance for land use code section 190-264 for accessory use area 40 percent allowed, 48 percent proposed to construct a 30 foot by 40 foot detached garage.

This is in the R9 zone in ward 7.

Uh granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest, and in that uh many of the other houses in this neighborhood all have uh garages, uh so there is normal in this area to have a garage of a certain size.

The spirit of the ordinance uh would be observed in that this is a large lot uh and is irregular shaped.

Um and the fact that it is going to 48% from 40.

Uh the applicant said his lot is just a little bit bigger, he needs the extra space as he's already filled his uh his other garage.

Uh granting the variants would do substantial justice to him.

Uh once again, for the same basic reasoning is that this garage is normal for this area, and he does need the extra space.

Uh he did note that this uh new uh building will actually be further away from his neighbor's property line, uh which of course the board uh looks favorable on.

Uh we have no uh reason to think that the value of the surrounding property would be negatively uh affected.

And as to unnecessary hardship, uh as noted by the applicant, uh he did take a look at putting the garage on the other side of the house, um, and he would have to get a variance for that as well because of the shape of this lot, which is basically a trapezoid.

It makes sense for this to go further back on the property.

As noted, he is moving it away from the property of 58 uh so as to be in full compliance.

In addition, this uh property looks like it has a uh uh growth behind it, uh, probably protected by the Salmon Brook uh sanctuary.

Um so there'll be nobody who will be affected on the back side of the property as well.

Uh so for those reasons I make a motion to approve.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Mr.

Lanell.

Any discussion?

All those in favor.

Is granted.

Thank you.

Finally, the application of Ross Common Investments LLC, the owners at 147 Daniel Webster Highway, requesting a special exception from Lee Jose Code Section 190-112 to work in a 40-foot wetland and wetland buffer to allow for a 140-space parking lot expansion that's in the GB zone in Ward 7.

And you are here to speak.

Yes, uh, good evening, everyone.

Uh, my name is Paul Chisholm.

I'm with Keach Nordstrom Associates.

We are the engineers and surveyors of record for the project.

Tonight I'm representing Ross Common Investment LSEs as the owner, and the Tully Automotive Group is the operator of not only this property, but the direct abutting property to the right or north, which is the uh Tully dealership.

Um, you know, on the surface, this is actually a relatively straightforward project in the sense that it's a parking expansion, you know, there's no buildings, there's nothing like that.

Uh what complicates it is obviously kind of the larger impact.

Uh it's a little over uh half an acre in total direct wetland impact and a little over 30,000 square feet in wetland buffer impact.

Um I'll get into all of that a little bit more, but I kind of want to take you back a little bit through the history of the property and the project in general.

Um so what's not in your packet, obviously we did provide you a lot of paperwork, enough to dive into for sure.

But um, this all started back in 2019.

Uh back in 2019, uh the the dealership was uh just experiencing an economic boom of sorts.

Uh they were running out of space where to put cars on the property.

Uh they had made some runs at some other properties trying to you know develop nearby, not even adjacent to the site, uh, and really nothing came to fruition.

So what we did is we actually had initial talks with DES, we had initial talks with the DOT, um, just to try and get a sense of you know, hey, is this project even really feasible?

Uh we had a pretty good warm feeling coming out of those meetings, and by the time we got around to actually turning it into a project on the local level, 2020 came around, the pandemic hit.

Supply chain issues were obviously very disruptive to not just this dealership but the industry in general.

Uh, and that really changed the course of a lot of things.

Since 2020, uh they have been able to kind of get their hands on some other alternatives, they've explored some other things, um, including uh a property on West Glenwood Street that um they purchased and developed uh which is uh you know if you're driving along Route 3 North between exits two and three, uh it's on the right hand side, they have a white building with red lettering, and it's like almost 400 you know spaces uh for vehicles up there.

Um in addition, you know, the Tullies have a second dealership, a satellite uh dealership up in Manchester.

Um I think it was in 2022 they purchased an additional property adjacent to that.

They developed that.

Uh we've expanded it twice since uh just to get them incremental kind of uh areas to store cars and kind of help their operations.

Um currently they're also leasing um a property owned by I think it's the Toyota of Nash dealership on the other side of West Glenwood.

It's just another car storage lot, if you will.

Um it's just not enough to keep up.

Obviously, there's an interest for the business that um they want to be able to store everything on their property.

Uh and so we kind of came back into this uh talk again once they realized that there's really, you know, although they've been looking at potentially you know acquiring other properties and expanding elsewhere, there's really nowhere else to go.

Um so this is kind of where we're at at this point in time.

Um before diving in and submitting an application here, we again re-engaged with the DOT with DES and kind of dove in a little bit more into design elements that uh were kind of talked about during those initial discussions back in 2019.

Uh and the main nuts and bolts of this are that um, you know, we actually believe stormwater can be enhanced greatly uh by allowing this impact and allowing the stormwater improvements uh to actually be constructed.

And what I mean by that is right now uh this wetland is completely fed by uh I think it's four different drainage pipes in three locations that are all coming off of the highway.

Um you know, there's no stormwater treatment, there's no detention, there's none of those things that really occur here.

So this is highway drainage that basically uh dumps just outside the Tully property, runs through the Tully property, it's then collected and hard piped across DW Highway.

Um the uh uh you know uh FBA return pipe was constructed in the 90s.

Uh the DOT also built a very large um stormwater uh system on the property directly, I guess to the east of this that's um you know the ramp that you have there, you can see it's standing from the you know, obviously on the facility you can look across and see it.

Uh that property is about the same size as the property that uh Ross Common is you know planting this on here.

So it's a very substantial stormwater treatment system.

Obviously, there's kind of a gap in a lot of things are hard piped directly to that stormwater system.

This is kind of an area where where the DOT didn't do that.

Um so there's uh not only a net benefit from just basically kind of creating more of a direct link from the stormwater in this case by uh adding additional pipes and and having that untreated water not directly run through a wetland.

Obviously, that's not an ideal situation environmentally speaking.

Having a direct link more so again to this the treatment system where it's all intended to go is one benefit.

Um the second benefit is uh obviously any on site drainage that's gonna be created because there's about an acre of area that's gonna change the drainage pattern from following where that DOT drainage is going to now getting collected on site.

That's all going to be uh put through a compliant treatment system on this property now.

Um so that's all the new pavement that we're talking about with this addition here.

Um and then obviously where that all goes is the same location.

It's it's almost double treated in the sense where it'll be treated on site just to meet uh the current you know New Hampshire DES alteration of train bureau standards, obviously the city standards, uh, and then it's gonna be treated again as it goes across the street.

So it adds a whole second layer of treatment just for these new impervious areas.

Um you know the main drivers, there's really two main drivers for why this wetland needs to be impacted.

Um just obviously uh the business is growing, it's been around for a very long time.

It's a very successful business.

Um, if you if you drive by, I don't know if you've kind of taken a closer look knowing that this application's coming uh before you, but I mean they're just really out of space there.

You have cars kind of line up, not in paved areas, kind of off to the side, you know, where they uh have grass areas, landscape islands, things of that nature.

Um the other part of it is the wetland has become a little bit of a nuisance.

Um, the trees that exist in there, a lot of them are dying or dead.

Um they've had issues in the past where um branches have fallen on vehicles and stuff like that, and uh it's just been a little bit of an issue like that.

In addition, um, just with uh, you know, in the rainier seasons they've had uh obviously we've had a couple years of drought in there recently, but in the rainier seasons they've also had issues with like uh pavement adjacent to the wetland areas uh really getting kind of destroyed just with frost heaves and and and other things like that, just because of the um water kind of underneath of that uh being fed from these drainage pipes.

Um for those are the two main drivers for this.

Um we had uh Cindy Balsius uh from Stony Ridge Environmental basically do everything wetland related on this.

She's filed the permits with DES.

She was with us when we attended the Conservation Commission for our two hearings on our site walk.

Um her classification of this wetland is basically that it is incredibly low function.

It's very isolated.

Um, you know, it's very likely that this has either it may not have been formed initially from these drainage pipes, but it certainly has been expanded as a result of them.

Um and our talks with DES, I think everyone acknowledges that uh, you know, this impact, you know, there's a very large mitigation fee that's paid with that, um, that the benefit that comes with the fee, the benefit uh that will be applied to another area uh that isn't a fragmented wetland that really has no value is going to be a better situation.

Uh I would say that um, you know, there certainly isn't any habitat or anything like that associated with this.

There is a slight, you know, detention benefit from a stormwater management perspective just because it takes a little time for that water to find its way from the end of those pipes on the DOT property, you know, to and through the Tully property here.

Uh to make up for that, uh, we have put in a little underground system just to kind of you know detain the water on site a little bit more.

Um and so that's really the nuts and bolts of the application.

Um, I'm certainly happy to jump in and talk about you know some of the criteria, if there's any specific questions or anything like that.

Um I don't know if you want me to read them into the record, but uh you know I'm happy to just kind of talk it out with whatever whatever you think you want to focus on.

I I I think we have it in writing.

I don't know that we need you to read through it.

Perfect, thank you.

Questions from the board.

Mr Nealing.

So do I do I read this right or hear you right that basically the four pipes coming off of the the highway you're just gonna basically put something on the end of it so it's not dumping on the ground it's gonna go right into this underground system before it goes across the road.

More or less yes.

So the answer is technically no there's actually a small gap there we have rip wrap designed the DOT actually wanted to keep those separate.

The tollys are going to be responsible for maintenance from the new pipes into their system.

The DOT didn't want any you know responsibility and they they wanted a very clear line of delineation.

So we do have a small gap there.

Basically the other component of that is those pipes actually they're they're actually a few feet uphill so if you're standing at the bottom of where they filled up for the ramp it's probably at my eye level you know you're probably five six feet up and so it basically there's gonna be ripper up there that just kind of prevents erosion from occurring and things like that and then there's gonna be collected right at the bottom of the hill uh which kind of is what the DOT was looking for there.

And this this underground system was it just like a bunch of baffles or something or like a dumbed down oil water separator basically to kind of just things mix up a little bit.

Yeah I think um on that end I believe what we did over there was 48 inch pipe and there's several sticks of that and basically it was just kind of a volume equation of how much you know we have a we have kind of like an outlet control structure on the end of it and it's just a way of like all right how big does it need to be to slow it down enough to make up the function that that will and currently provides.

And and last question I don't have it in front of me here.

So conservation commission was there no criteria on their letter I don't remember seeing any criteria on that no they actually I've never seen that so yeah I uh they actually I was expecting honestly more questions coming out of them on that I think they understood what the application is and they understood that this you know we went out we looked at it though this is a wetland sure but you know this isn't like other wetlands that you see this isn't like there's you know animals running around and things this is like very much just a almost like a drainage area in a way and uh yeah they had no specific criteria that they wanted no stipulations it was just a favorable recommendation if I may relate it to some of Mr.

Neely's comments uh do I understand that that the treatment component to be putting in would improve the water quality coming out of the end of the pipe before it goes into the detention basin across the street no so there's actually there's basically think about it like there's two ways of this being handled.

There's the DOT drainage and there's the on-site drainage.

The on-site drainage is the drainage that we're responsible for and will be treated.

The DOT drainage is simply just going to get a little bit closer link to their own treatment system that it already exists in place.

Makes sense other questions from the board Mr Shaw I guess I feel a little bit confused about one thing and that's just will there be actually less total wetland um present after this proposal so there will be a loss of wetlands technically yes there will.

Yes and is that the I mean I is there a an area figure for that yeah um page nine of 14 on the plan set there's actually it's probably the best visual it's the darker area um that we have colored in there is the area that's basically going to be permanently impacted uh and that number is 22,450 square feet.

This one yep it's the wetland impact plan that you're looking for and do you anticipate uh that uh DES will require any mitigation for that uh no medi no mitigation in terms of like actually physically recreating something mitigation in the form of um you know a six meter check yeah yeah I saw that okay yeah and my understanding of that is uh basically that's put into some sort of fund that DES controls but that money is going to be kept in the same watershed that this project is in and that's how that works okay and just to kind of also go back I think maybe this is the part of the tie in to your comments earlier that this is one of these cases where yes it's technically wetland but it's more just like kind of drainage ditch kind of stuff it's not really what anybody would generally look at and go that's um a wetland that's benefiting wildlife or anything it's more in fact if anything it's it's hard to say at this point it very well might be wetlands that basically were from all that highway construction ultimately right yeah that you know we I've seen other places like where the wetland gets created mostly because of uh functioning of a of a property not that there was really ever in any real original wetland there but now that's become a wetland absolutely and that you know you got to keep in mind this is a very very well developed area right there's not a lot of things here so this is a you know incredibly secluded um my guess is honestly that uh obviously with the highway being built and I think it was the mid to early 90s um that's really what you know kind of triggered this to form or at least become super isolated you know whatever the case might be I don't know what it looked like I was only I don't know five maybe at the time

Absolutely.

And that you know, you got to keep in mind this is a very, very well developed area, right?

There's not a lot of things here, so this is you know incredibly secluded.

Um my guess is honestly that uh obviously with the highway being built, and I think it was the mid to early 90s.

Um that's really what you know kind of triggered this to form, or at least become super isolated, you know, whatever the case might be.

I don't know what it looked like.

I was only I don't know, five maybe at the time, but you were you you were not even a thought.

It was the 50s.

It was the white it was the widening was in the 90s.

Sure.

True, yeah.

This is the this is the circumferential highway.

Yeah, one of the only parts that actually ever got built.

Yeah, dream.

I know I have a plan from the DOT from 1995 or six, which I think was their as built plan of kind of this ramp in this area.

Yeah, it sounds about work off of.

So yes, I remember the term pipe wagon.

It was a thing.

Any other questions from the board?

Seeing none, we can obviously close the public hearing.

Uh don't have any testimony one way or the other.

So we'll just open up the deliberations of the board.

Mr.

Neely.

So so uh as I mentioned earlier, I have a very high uh criteria for folks who want to work in wetlands, and when I first got this application said they were going to add in 38,546 square feet of additional impervious surface, and basically put a bunch of asphalt in the wetlands.

I said you've got to be kidding me.

Um so it took a little bit of digging, some deep reading.

I had to get into some conservation commission notes on that because once again the conservation commission letter has nothing on it that was that was usable.

I've never seen that.

Um but this makes more sense to me is that they are taking water that's just coming off the highway.

It's it's not it's not gonna be good water, it's gonna be garbage water.

And and basically they're sending it over to someplace they designed.

When you take a look at the pictures of this this wetlands, it's choked.

Uh the verbiage in the description here is that it's grapevines and just a bunch of of just garbage.

There are no species living in there, nothing is going to be affected.

Um and I do love the fact these folks are working on the underground system to uh uh to to get more water out of their additional 50 or 38,546 square feet of of impervious surface going through for lack of a better term, an oil water separator type thing under underground to get it cleaned up before it gets out of there.

So um, so I do believe this is well thought out.

So that definitely changed my mind.

I am in favor of this.

I think they've met all the criteria on the checklist uh for for both wetland and special exceptions, so um I don't see any reason that we should be denying this.

Other thoughts?

Mr.

Shaw.

Yeah, I'm ultimately in support, and I think Mr.

Murray put a lot of good points there already, but it is it is hard to generally endorse anything that's reducing wetlands.

I mean, I think it's just that's a similar kind of thing, like you just that's not what we're supposed to do, right?

So uh, but in this case, it feels much more like we're dealing with like the technicality of something that's that's identified as wetland, but doesn't really provide any of the benefits that we think of normally when it's like we want to preserve a wetland.

So other thoughts.

Yeah, I would just say I I concur.

This is I I had that same thought.

I hadn't paused when I first saw the application, but but this is essentially a drainage area sandwich between a parking lot and a highway.

Um the most important thing is the hydrological function, and you know, it appears to me that the design that's proposed will uh you know take care of that function, handle the drainage, and that's clearly uh DOT concurs, and they wouldn't if they I don't believe unless they had uh you know assurance that that would be the case.

So I support the application as well.

Anyone want to make a motion?

Nobody wants to make a wetlands motion.

All right.

You want to do it?

You can do it.

You let me do it?

Yeah, if you want to.

I'll take it, that's fine.

Sure.

It's just a lot of reading.

All right.

All right.

I would like to make a motion to approve the variance for Roscom Investments LLC owner 147 Daniel Webster Highway Sheet A, lot 987 requesting a special exception from land use code section 190-112 to work in a 40-foot wetland and wetland buffer to allow for 140 space parking lot expansion.

This is in the GB zone in Ward 7.

Uh, I would like to start with the wetland and wetland buffer encroachment affidavit as this would apply.

Uh the applicant attested to the following criteria for approval that the use or activity proposed and its attendant impacts cannot be reasonably avoided as uh as the applicant noted.

This is really just some drainage swales, and the water is going to be redirected to a properly functioning wetland area that's been designed by the DOT years ago to handle this drainage.

The least damaging route and methodology have been selected, and that which is being proposed is the best practicable alternative available.

Once again, this there's really two systems here.

One is catching the water coming out of the drain pipes very close to where they're coming out, redirecting them across the street to where there's a proper wetland, and for the additional 38,000 square feet of parking, they are adding in a system underground to catch that water and get some more of the potential contaminants out before it enters any legitimate wetland.

The reasonable and acceptable impact mitigation measures have been incorporated where necessary and appropriate to minimize wetland loss or degradation.

Once again, the applicant noted that this is uh has been approved by DOT and they are making a payment in lieu of for I believe it was 171,000 that is state approved.

The overall impact of encroaching in a wetland or buffer area is necessary for the productive use of adjoining buildable land, and as such non-encroachment is outweighed by the benefits thereby derived.

The applicant noted that they uh have received some damage to some of their cars uh due to some of the trees in this small wetland falling apart.

Uh this wetland uh is overgrown by invasive species, and it would be in the benefit of everyone to uh eliminate the invasive species.

Uh there's no significant impact on the habitat of rare or endangered species or exemplary communities as listed by the state of New Hampshire or federal government will result.

It was noted in the study that there are no endangered species noted in the area, and no expectation that an endangered species would be able to make their way to that area due to the gradient.

The best available adequate erosion and sedimentation control methods are incorporated.

Once again, the applicant has noted that they are setting up some piping right outside of the drainage for the four drainage swales coming off of the highway to catch it almost immediately as it comes out, goes right into the piping and goes across to the area where the DOT had created an actual wetland.

The proposed activity or use shall not significantly impair wetland capacity to provide important wildlife and fishery functions, including habitat, food, shelter, breeding, migratory, and overwintering.

It was noted in the application that there was no notices of any type of wildlife, especially endangered species.

Any type of animals expected to be in there would just be uh transiting the area but would not be staying there as it's a very small uh wetland area.

The project shall not impair the stability of a water bank's water bodies bank.

Uh as noted, this project will not affect any type of water body bank.

And the wetland and buffer function of hydrological absorption capacity and storage shall not be impaired.

Uh, as noted with this plan, uh the water is being redirected across the street to the area that was designed by the DOT years ago to properly handle uh the water coming off of the highway.

That's a mouthful.

All right, as to the special exception worksheet.

Uh the requested use is listed as a special exception in the use matrix 190-15, table 15-1, and is permitted as a special exception by another provision of this chapter.

The requested use will not and will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety.

Uh neither cars transiting the area or pedestrians should be expected in this area as is being paid for a as a parking lot, so it'll be a very small amount of pedestrian and uh and vehicle traffic.

The requested use will not overload any public water, drainage, or sewer system or any other municipal system to such such an extent that the requested use or any developed use in the immediate area or in any other area of the city will be unduly subjected to hazards affecting health, safety, or the general welfare.

As noted by the applicant, the water is being redirected immediately when it comes off the highway into piping to go across the street to an area designed by the DOT to properly handle all of the water outflow.

Any special regulations for the use set forth in this article are fulfilled, i.e., the wetlands application, uh, which I just went over a moment ago, the wetland wetland and wetland buffer encroachment affidavit, and the requested use will not impair the integrity or be out of character with a district or immediate neighborhood in which it is located, nor be detrimental to the health, morals, or welfare of the residents of the city.

As noted in this application, this is a very busy highway.

The applicant is a very busy uh car dealership that needs additional spaces uh to properly run their business.

Um state DOT and DES, they have found a way to uh add some additional parking lot by eliminating a uh a wetland which we think is a name only due to uh water coming off of the highway.

They are capturing it, sending it across the street to an area that was properly designed for this.

Uh so quite frankly, the district and immediate neighborhood will not even know the difference, so there are no effects.

So for those reasons, I make a motion to approve the special exception.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Mr.

Patrick.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor.

Motion passes.

All right.

Take care.

Uh so moving along.

Has everybody had a chance to see the next agenda?

I'll be stunned if you found it.

No.

No effect.

That takes us to approval of the January 27th minutes.

We actually have January 13th minutes.

Got two sets of minutes.

Oh, we got two sets of minutes.

That's right.

All right, let me coming up.

So we'll start with uh minutes of the 13th.

Anyone see any issues, any corrections, Mr.

Shaw?

Um the one thing I saw was um at the very end, I think uh the last page, page 11.

Um, after my motion for the slate of officers, we're missing the second and the motion passing.

Oh.

So that's important.

Yeah.

Who was the second?

I think it was JP, but I'm not certain.

I I don't remember.

I'd have to go, we'd have to check.

I'll listen to it again.

Yeah.

Okay.

That's probably right.

Yeah, probably.

Yeah.

Okay.

Anything else?

Wow.

What?

I didn't have any of it.

All right.

Wow.

So can I get a motion?

Approved.

Motion by Mr.

Shah, seconded by Mr.

Patrick.

Yes.

All any discussion?

All those in favor.

All right.

And now that takes us to the next set of minutes, January 27th.

And I was not here for that meeting.

Any changes, comments, thoughts?

Motion to approve as drafted.

Motion by Mr.

Patrick.

Second here by Mr.

Neely.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor?

And I'm going to abstain.

Okay.

Anything else, we need to discuss this evening?

If not, I think we can all just go brush some snow off our first.

Motion to adjourn.

So moved.

By Mr.

Patrick.

Second.

Second by Mr.

Shaw.

We are adjourned.

837.

I won't have to brush snow off because I got had to park in the garage.