Good evening.

Seven o'clock.

I'd like to call to order the March 5th meeting of the City of Nashua Planning Board.

First item on the agenda.

Mr.

Green, could we please get a roll call?

Yes, we can.

Mayor Donis.

Bob Bollinger?

Here.

Adam Barley.

Maggie Harper.

Alderman Patricia Clee.

Here.

Amber Morgan.

Cameron Green here.

Dan Hudson.

Here.

Scott LeClair.

Larry Hirsch.

Benjamin Zoller.

Here.

All right.

We have quorum.

Thank you, Mr.

Green.

Next item on the agenda, approval of minutes from February 5th, 2025.

Has any member of the board had an opportunity to review those minutes and is willing to make a motion regarding their acceptance?

Alderman Clee, yes.

I'll make that motion.

All right, thank you.

Motion by Alderman Clee.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Hudson.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Next item on the agenda.

Communications.

Scott, uh anything come in late afternoon.

No.

No, you're all set.

All right.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Okay.

Next item on the agenda.

Report of chair, committee liaison.

I have nothing.

And either Larry or Ms.

Harper are here, so we'll move along.

Before we get into our cases, I do just want to read the planning board procedure for the record.

Procedure of the meeting is as follows after the legal notice of each conditional special use permit, site plan or subdivision plan is read by the chair.

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

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

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

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

The chair will then ask for testimony from the audience.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your interest and courteous attention.

And at this time, if you could please uh silence or turn off your cell phones, that would be greatly appreciated.

That goes for me to there we go.

All right.

Uh first item on the agenda.

Uh if anyone is here for under conditional use applications, uh case 826-0026.

Uh L Shakespeare Road, that has been postponed till April 2nd.

Next item on the agenda under new business subdivision plans.

Uh case 826-0006, property located at 164 Tinker Road.

Has any member of the board had an opportunity to review this application uh for completeness and is willing to make a motion uh with respect to the board taking jurisdiction.

Mr.

Green?

I'd like to make a motion for new business 826-0006 that it is complete and ready for us to take jurisdiction.

All right, thank you.

Uh motion by Mr.

Green.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Zoller.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

All right.

Um Mr.

Chisholm, uh, go right ahead.

The floor is yours.

Absolutely.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, and good evening, everybody.

Uh for the record, my name is Paul Chisholm.

I'm with Keach Nordstrom Associates.

We're the engineers and surveyors of record for the project, representing the owner and applicant Conney LLC.

Plan before you tonight is a seven lot subdivision located at 164 Tinker Road.

The existing parcel contains just over seven acres and is located in the R40 zoning district.

Currently, the property is developed with an existing single family home.

There's a number of outbuildings that kind of exist around the property.

It's got utilities, a driveway to Tinker Road.

There's a good chunk of the property that's currently wooded, another good chunk of the property that's also kind of lawn, you know, meadow area type thing.

In terms of topography, the site slopes moderately from south to north.

The high side of the property is kind of to the left hand of the plan that you're looking at now, adjacent to the Adela Drive neighborhood.

The low side is to the right, the Tinker Tinker Road frontage is the low point.

And all of the existing, you know, houses, building structures, utilities, all that stuff will be coming out to make way for the new development.

As I mentioned, this is a seven-lot uh residential subdivision.

Each lot will be a new single-family home, uh serviced by a new short cul-de-sac that's about 550 feet as you kind of go down the street and wrap around the cul-de-sac.

Uh, that cul-de-sac will align with fireside circle over on the other end.

Um, each of the lots will be serviced by all of the city utilities, so that would be underground sewer, water, gas, electric cable, all that stuff.

Um, this project also includes a compliance stormwater management plan uh for the long term to offset the mitigate and mitigate the impacts of development from the additional impervious areas.

Um, and then of course a sedimentation and erosion control plan will be implemented during the construction period as well.

Uh in order to provide adequate site distance and safe intersection, uh, there's a little bit of grading work that will need to happen and some vegetation that will need to be removed to either side of that new connection to Tinker Road.

Uh there's a site distance plan in the plan set that you can review to take a look at that.

But basically, um what we're doing is creating easements on the two lots to the right and left of that road.

Uh, not only to you know, obviously maintain good site lines during construction and in the short term, but also for the long term as well.

Um you'll notice on the uh plan here that we have uh proposed landscaping, kind of uh lining the new street with the proposed street trees.

Obviously, the goal in this case is to kind of keep some of the shrubbery away from Tinker Road to the extent practicable just to kind of keep those site lines open, like I just mentioned.

Uh additionally, each of the units will have uh uh basically like a shrub plan with a certain number of shrubs associated with each lot just to maintain compliance.

Uh on this conceptual plan, you'll notice obviously we we just took a 60 by 40 box, it's a pretty substantial footprint, put it on really kind of more as a proof of concept, but also one to give a parameter and framework for landscapers at the end of the day to kind of give them a sense for how many and what type of shrubs they they might want to use as they get into construction.

Um there are three waivers associated with this project.

The first is your typical um waiver for locating all the existing features within a thousand feet of the site.

I'm sure you guys have seen this one quite a bit.

Um obviously, you know, we pick up and locate anything off-site that's really pertinent to the project that we would need for any safety reason, code compliance reason, anything of that sort.

Uh, in this case, there's really not a lot, it's all pretty much right there.

Uh, there's a waiver I can get into the jerk um excuse me, the justification of that a little bit more if you'd like, but I'll keep it short and sweet for now.

Uh the second waiver is uh pay it is to pay a fee in lieu of constructing the sidewalk.

Uh basically Tinker Road itself actually has a sidewalk all along the frontage on the opposite side.

That's a pretty extensive network that connects to um north and south.

Uh this sidewalk fee would basically be for the new neighborhood road.

Um, you know, certainly with a road uh of this size and of this scale, it's a 28-foot wide road.

Um, small cul-de-sac like this.

Uh certainly we feel that there would be a bigger impact paying the fee and putting that into a different place in the city rather than putting a sidewalk on this particular development.

You know, a lot of times I know um the city doesn't actually maintain them in the long term, so we wouldn't want to install something that looks nice for a few years, and then obviously kind of you know goes the other way with that, and I think it would be tough to get all the homeowners on board in the long term to kind of replace that and figure that all out.

So that's that's the reason for that waiver.

The third is for uh street lighting.

We aren't proposing any new street lights.

There's an existing utility pole with a light right at the end of Chimney Sackway, which is the new road where it meets Tinker.

This also kind of lights the existing intersection where fireside and tinker meet.

Um, so that kind of covers the entranceway, which I think is kind of the key part of that.

Um, but additionally, you know, this is a small neighborhood.

Um, in these newer neighborhoods with underground electric, it's not as easy as just putting a light on a utility pole that's already going to be there.

You know, it's uh the construction and and maintenance in the future is a little bit more intentional than that.

Um you know, it's a small cul-de-sac, there's limited traffic volume.

Uh certainly I don't think a lot of people are going to be going through this neighborhood with great speed uh or anything along those lines.

Uh you know, we don't feel super strongly one way or the other about this waiver, but uh it just seems like you know, the future of maintenance and cost associated with this, there might not be that much benefit, you know, kind of received if we added another light or two kind of midway or at the end of the cul-de-sac road.

Um so happy to talk about it if anybody has any questions, but uh that that would be the third waiver that's requested.

Uh lastly, we did have a chance to review the staff report.

Um there's a couple uh conditions in there, which I think are pretty standard conditions.

The applicant doesn't take any exception to any of them.

Uh and at this point, I'd be happy to turn it back over to you and the public if there's any questions you'd like me to answer.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh thank you.

Um with respect to the site line easements, are those going to be granted to the city, or are there are those effectively just no build zones, keep clear zones?

What are what is the mechanics with respect to that?

Yeah, I mean, we're happy to work through the actual language of it with DPW engineering and planning, but um basically I think the idea would be any, you know, I think it would be wise to have the city be able to do what they need to do in there for certainly, but um, I would like to think that it really puts the onus on the actual homeowner to kind of keep that clear so that there's a mechanism for the city to you know nudge the homeowner to do something about it first.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um after taking a look at the plan, I think the the the grading is probably the best benefit out there.

There's quite a bit of build-up out there.

Um it it's I'll I'll leave this up to to engineering um ultimately, but um e even during the construction phase, I I would think that um it's just coming from the west, I guess, or the north the north more precisely.

Um it is kind of on a blind curve.

You got a little bit of a horizontal and a vertical issue along with some additional uh earth materials and vegetation.

So even if you're having heavy construction activity, um it might be better to clear that sooner rather than later just to draw attention to it.

But um I I think that was really my my primary concern.

I've reviewed the plan.

I I can see that you you can meet the city's requisite distance.

Um but um I think I'll I'll stop it there and uh open it up to the rest of the board.

But thank you.

Um other questions from the board this time.

Alderman Clee, please.

Uh thank you.

Um just a couple questions.

First is um when I look at um like the GIS mapping, and which isn't always completely accurate.

Um your property line looks fairly close to 150, I think it's 158 Tinker Road.

Um and I apologize because I do not know my north and south and east and west, but um heading more towards the downtown area or beyond that side of it.

Uh looking at the house would be the left.

Um will you be building any homes close to that?

Or when I'm looking at I'm just having a difficult time seeing how close to the property lines the could you describe which which lot it is that you think would be.

So it would be the the lots that are on the bottom, I believe.

Okay, gotcha.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So I think though, you know, in my opinion, I actually think that these are probably gonna sit somewhere in the middle of the lots about like what we have shown here.

If the further back you go, there is a grade change.

And you know, certainly um this concept plan with the grading that we have, we have all sorts of units.

We have Akrate, these couple happen to be drive-under garages, we have walkouts on the other side.

So I think there's a balance there in terms of the earthwork and things like that.

I think the natural place to put it is right about where we show it.

Um I think it would there would also be a natural benefit for the developer and the future landowner just to leave some vegetation and things like that there.

So it is you know fairly thick down on that side compared to the other.

Um that being said, obviously, anyone can come in and you know, it'll be built to suit whoever the future landowner is.

But okay, so these are gonna be you you're not you're not designing, you're just looking for the subdivision on it.

You haven't determined exactly how to do it.

Yes, exactly, that's right.

Um this is probably uh not a quite quite a question for the subdivision portion of this, then.

But I guess my next question um is going to be how much vegetation do you think would be left there?

But you don't really know because that's gonna be based on the uh I I yeah um what I would say and and I'm looking towards that that side of the property.

Yeah, kind of along that southerly property line where those two properties are.

Um, you know, that's about 25 feet up from where the road's gonna be.

So it's gonna be really, really hard to get all the way back there.

Okay.

Realistically, I just don't see it happening to be completely honest with you.

So I do see um that first lot probably has a little bit more potential to do it, but realistically, I you know, I think obviously being close to Tinker Road, the the key with that lot's gonna be to keep as much of that existing vegetation up, just as far as a buffer for the the new lot landowner there.

Exactly.

So I think it kind of serves to protect everybody's interest to do that.

You know, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I guess maybe just a quick follow-up on that, Paul.

Um the vegetation aside, you meet all requisite setback requirements as as shown.

Uh is that is that a correct one?

Yeah, correct, yeah.

And certainly we're not um I don't anticipate any variances or anything like that on any of these.

There's certainly enough room on each of these properties to fit a very substantial building, uh new building, new house, you know, whatever it is.

That being said, anybody can propose anything they want at the end of the day when they're own their property, but um realistically, I just there's too many challenges there.

I think to realistically overcome, you're just gonna be paying money for really no reason when you don't have to do it to do this expensive construction method that you're talking about.

Mr.

Chairman, I did have one more question.

Yes, all the story.

This may be too to staff.

Um it's been a little while since I've been walking in that area.

I used to live in Cantigate, so I used to walk down that way a lot.

But um, aren't there sidewalks already across the street from that?

So why did they need to have a waiver for sidewalks?

Or no payment.

Right, so it would be waiver for the construction of sidewalk on the new uh cul-de-sac that they're building.

Oh, I thought I I guess maybe I was mistaken.

I oh on the cul-de-sac, okay, not on the Tinker Road.

Correct.

Great.

Okay, thank you.

I I misunderstood.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate that, sir.

Other questions from the board at this time.

Please.

In regards to your proposed drainage design, um, did you just assume a maximum footprint for the houses themselves or um when it comes time to do you know determining your impervious coverage?

Is that how you you went about it?

Yeah, so uh we we did a pretty standard practice in terms of like you know, we don't know exactly what's going to be on those properties.

Again, this is a 60 by 40 box, that's a 2400 square foot footprint for just the house structure itself.

You know, you have to assume these are going to be two-story homes here.

So I mean that's essentially a 5,000 square foot home can fit in that.

That's very healthy.

On top of that, we assumed obviously the garages.

We didn't put these things right up to the front setback.

Um, so there's a pretty healthy margin in there.

There's no code requirement or anything like that for us to update that after the fact.

You have to make assumptions, yeah.

Yeah, exactly.

This is a very realistic assumption, I believe.

Um I think there's factors of safety somewhat built into it in that regard.

And um, so I'm fairly comfortable with what we've got here.

Okay, thank you.

Other questions in the board.

We're good.

Okay.

All right, seeing none at this time.

Um quick question in the audience is everybody here in support of this project, or is anyone here to speak against it?

I'm not here to speak against it, but I have a couple of questions.

Uh if you'd like I sir, if you just for the record, I would ask that you come up and identify yourself, please.

Sure.

You just want to state your name and address for the record, and if you could uh just uh pose your questions to the board directly, and then uh the applicant's team will have an opportunity to respond.

So uh hi, my name is Ben Workinger.

I'm one of the abutters on Adela.

Um at 12 Adela, I don't know if you can see it on there, but um it's right in the middle, right behind the call de sac.

Um I emailed last week or maybe two weeks ago, one of the questions was that I think that was to you, Cameron.

You're just just for the record, um, sir, your your uh your email or your letter was part of our our package tonight, so we have it, and I think that we'll we'll provide Paul will be given an opportunity to respond directly, but if you wanted to repeat what you stated there, you're certainly welcome to.

Oh, okay, all right.

Um I I but I was gonna say, I believe I already got the answer to the the easement uh that passes through 12 and 14 at NOAA down into the subdivision, and I was told that it would not be used.

Uh yeah, no, uh again, I I don't want to answer on behalf of the applicant, he'll be given an opportunity.

So again, if if you want to reiterate your questions or concerns, that's okay, and then they'll have a chance to respond.

Okay.

And my only other question was um regarding vegetation tree lines.

Um, will there be any other buffer other than the tree line towards the back towards Adela from the uh last house that's built?

Will there be any more trees taken down?

I'm sure I'm sure they're taking adequate notes.

So again, once we're part of the process, he'll be allowed to answer those questions.

I hopefully, but I am not against the project.

Um I'm assuming um I just heard that they could be 5,000 square foot houses.

The houses are gonna be somewhat similar to the other houses in the surrounding neighborhoods.

Are the custom homes or those are my questions?

Okay, all right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um there other members of the audience that like to speak in opposition or with concern or have questions.

Oh, no?

Okay, okay.

Uh anyone in the audience that wants to speak in favor of the application.

And Paul, before you go, do we have anyone on Zoom, Matt or Scott?

Ah, jeez, Sam.

Sorry.

That's all right.

What do we need?

Nope.

No, we do not.

No one on Zoom.

No one on Zoom.

All right.

All right.

Paul again, the floor is yours.

I think you heard a couple questions asked there.

So yeah, absolutely.

In terms of the utility easement, that's actually not an easement, it's an actual right-of-way.

So when Adela Drive was created, there was a 50-foot right-of-way that actually you can almost see it.

It aligns up perfectly with where chimney stacks coming through.

It doesn't make any sense to use it.

You end up building a lot more road for really no benefit.

Disrupt an existing neighborhood.

We have really good access to utilities.

Everything's downhill from there in terms of sewer and things like that.

So there's no benefit from going through it.

We have no need to access that part of it.

So no, that's that's not plans uh for this project at this point in time.

Um in terms of the buffer, yes, I would imagine that there certainly will be some additional trees taken down, especially the one at the end of the cul-de-sac.

Um, you know, we show an option here.

That doesn't mean it's necessarily gonna look like that.

That's probably um the house that I think would impact that tree line the most, but I think there's also creative ways to do it differently.

This was just kind of a quick proof of concept plan that we pulled together.

Um if you look at the existing conditions plan, which is sheet two in the set, you'll see um the existing tree line, and really that kind of area of the site is really kind of opened up the most.

So you can see that that part of the tree line really um abutting.

I think 12 is the one just north of that right-of-way there.

Um yeah, I think it's that property.

So you can kind of see that's the narrowest part of it.

I do envision a little bit more cutting over there, but certainly I don't envision cutting to the property line or anything like that.

So but again, once someone's in there and owns the property or the house, who knows what might happen 10, 20 years down the road.

Paul, and it just remind me I'm just having a hard time seeing it.

But from from Tinker, if you were to go westerly to the back of your site, there's what a 40 foot or so elevation change.

Yeah, I think it's from Tinker, yeah.

So back to uh there's about 240 and tinker modes at 210, so that's about 30 feet right there.

Yeah, okay.

You got it.

And then the the southwest corner's that highest point.

And that's another uh twenty feet up, yeah.

Maybe another 10, 10, 15 feet.

Okay.

Again, um the intent is the intent to try to work with with that within the extent that you can.

In other words, you're not coming in and completely leveling it with a job.

Or retaining wall in the back.

Uh yeah, that's not the plan.

Um again, someone could want that, but that comes with money, uh, that comes with all these things that I don't know that someone would need to spend the time and the and the resources to put that in.

But okay, no, certainly not the intent at this point.

Got it.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Green, please.

Yeah, and I think that you had one more question about the size of the footprint in the home is 2500 square feet and then two stories to make that 5,000.

Was that the assumption?

Yeah, yeah, basically.

Yeah, and and that's to say again, this is this was just we pick a relatively large footprint like that for stormwater purposes and estimating future impervious um conditions.

That could be a ranch too, you know, that that could have that, and it could be a you know 2400 square foot ranch uh house.

So it may not necessarily be an exact rectangle like that, but the the key with that is just getting the correct amount of impervious.

And so um, you know, we'll see what goes up there, but that's that's on the bigger side for footprints for sure.

Yeah, and and again, just to reiterate, thank you, Mr.

Green, for bringing that up that point.

I think at this point we're at the subdivision level, so the the homes have not it's speculative at this point.

The the actual footprint is that a true statement, the true footprints will not be known until builder comes forward and reveals that okay.

You got it.

Obviously, that you know, any future um landowner here is gonna have to comply with all the zoning regulations, open space, and so on and so forth, but all the building regulations and everything like that.

But we really believe this is a good estimate based on what exists out there today and kind of where the market is.

Thank you.

Yep.

Um other questions from the board, Mr.

Hudson.

Can you just confirm that all the proposed infrastructure and the pub what will be the public right away that that'll all be constructed?

But you you'll do this, you'll build the sewer line, you'll oh, and so assuming to stub out.

Yeah, I would imagine the stub you will step out the utilities out of the road so that that can all be in.

Um yes, absolutely.

Yep.

And obviously that'd be that'd be necessary before the city would uh you know accept the street as a public street.

Um correct.

Um the other thing I just wanted to know, I know I appreciate you developing the uh conceptual grading that you've said in a lot of places, you know, that that that's not uh um we can't be held to that basically, you know, which I understand what you're saying, but I would just I would just say that if there are changes that change the drainage patterns and things like that, so that the the plan system doesn't work the way it was is intended to and laid out, and that that that that would be grading that we would require some changes too.

But I would just I would just say that if there are changes that change the drainage patterns and things like that, so that the plan system doesn't work the way it was is intended to and laid out, and that that would be grading that we would require some changes too.

So that I just want to make that note noted.

Thank you.

Uh Alderman Clee?

Uh thank you.

Um relative to the right of way that you mentioned um between uh 12 and 14 Adelaide.

Um because this is just a subdivision, those that bought that property where the right of way is, nothing stops them from building from um putting a road through to make it if they wanted to come in from Adela instead of coming in from Tinker, correct?

Uh you well, you you mean anybody on Adela or anybody city would like to see?

So is it the right is it the city right away?

It's a city's right away.

Okay, I'm sorry.

I apologize.

I thought you were trying to tell me that it was it's a city's right away that no one can do anything.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

I I feel better about that.

No, and all Alderman Clea, I think just to clarify, and I think Paul touched on this point.

Um it it's not an easement, it is actually that's why I said I I was using the word right away.

Yeah.

No worries.

Um yeah, but I could see that there's that that land mass that's between the two of them.

So thank you.

Appreciate the clarification.

Um other questions from the board?

Um Paul, thank you.

Um see none at this time.

We're gonna close the public hearing on this matter, go into our public meeting.

Um I think I think overall um the applicants provided pretty good documentation on this.

Um the full disclosure, I I kind of live in that part of town, so I'm pretty familiar with Tinker Road, so I I think they they've laid any concerns I have with respect to the site distance.

Um but uh other than that, um I think they're trying to make the best use of the land that they can.

Um so um it's something that that I would be in favor of, but uh obviously I'd like to hear feedback from from other members of the board.

Anything Mr.

Zoller, please.

Uh just one thing I wanted to mention, Mr.

Chairman.

There is some precedent for lighting at the end of cul-de-sacs.

Um just right across the way on fireside circle, there is a light at the very end of the cul de sac.

So in regards to the waiver that they're asking for, um, you know, that would be something to consider certainly.

There is precedent for lighting at the end of cul de sacs in that neighborhood.

Yeah, that is uh a good point.

That was something I sort of glossed over with respect to the waivers.

Um he he did mention that there was uh a light at the beginning of what would be uh the new cul de sac.

So it's just something to consider.

Yeah, because I think the waiver was respect to a full lighting plan, which I think would differ from maybe a spot lighting at the end of the roadway.

Um is there one at the end there proposed?

I'm sorry.

I was looking uh in the wrong sheet up.

So you're looking across the street.

Uh at the end of fire side circle, I saw it on street view.

There is a it's one on a light on a utility pole.

There's a symbol at the end of the proposed chimney stack called a sack, and it's a hydrant, I believe.

Okay.

Uh I guess well, we we'd have to we'd have to vote to reopen the public.

Which we which we can do.

Uh is there a motion, Mr.

Green, to get clarification on this from the applicant.

Uh already I I can if you would like um I don't think it substantially changes at least my opinion of of the site plan, but if if we want to continue on the case, I I think I think it's a fair question.

If if literally you're you're tying it across the street, I wouldn't have a problem uh opening it up.

But uh I'll make that motion.

I'll motion by all the legally to reopen the public hearing.

Is there a second?

Also second by Mr.

Zoller.

All in favor?

I opposed?

All right.

Motion passes it.

Paul, very briefly on like yeah, absolutely.

We're not proposing anything new.

Um the light that's existing is at the end of chimney stack on Tinker, which lights that current fireside tinker intersection now.

Um there is a light at the end of fire side, it's on a utility pole.

Again, in this case, you know, we don't have any utility poles.

This is all underground utilities.

Um so you have to be very intentional with the construction of any new light where it's a it's its own base, it's its own pole, it's its own light fixture, wiring, all that stuff that the city ultimately owns at the end of the day.

So that's where we were saying we're not sure if that you know if there's really a benefit um uh the cost to benefit ratio really makes sense.

Um but again we kind of pose it for discussion.

Certainly, I don't think there's any heartburn from the applicant if if it's um you know the will of the board to to want to put one in somewhere, but um we just feel like you know these are gonna be obviously it's it's a nicer neighborhood, these are gonna be higher price homes.

But um we just feel like you know, these are gonna be obviously it's it's a nicer neighborhood, these are going to be higher price homes.

That's just what the market is in this area.

Um, you know, we feel like the res you know there's a lot of things, especially on fire side.

There's lanterns at the end of driveways, there's other lights that are kind of exterior that are done up a little bit more than maybe some other neighborhood.

So we kind of feel like that scale is appropriate for this.

Um, but again, we understand that there may be differing opinions on that.

All right.

Does that provide some context or all right?

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Paul.

All right, we're gonna we're gonna close the public hearing again.

Um back in our public meeting.

Um so I guess the question would be uh well actually just quickly on the waivers.

Um showing existing conditions within a thousand feet is I agree it's a fairly common one.

I wouldn't have any issues with that.

Um they're offering a payment in lieu with respect to sidewalk.

Um and then uh again, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

That's their their option to do that.

Um and I guess that brings us back to the lighting.

Um again, I think having some familiarity with the the area.

I I think Mr.

Chisholm's point is is well taken.

There is some additional illumination with a lot of the homes in that area.

Um but that that said, uh Mr.

Zoller, there's something that you thought was appropriate, perhaps to consider um I'm all the ears.

So I I think I would be in support of the waiver.

Um I it is a very valid point that there, you know, there would be a lot of lighting, you know, on buildings and on houses, so I think that would be um satisfactory.

Um many residents typically you know might like their street a little darker anyways.

Um you know it's a preference of course, but I think I would be uh in favor of the waiver at this point.

Yeah, the other thing I would consider with that too is is the overall um length of the road.

Um not a substantial difference.

Not that there's going to be you know a lot of light spillage necessarily from from Tinker, but um what for again it I would in this particular case I I wouldn't be overly concerned with that.

That's just my opinion.

Um but um but no, I I appreciate you bringing the question up.

Um brings some light to it.

Is it more?

Yeah, precisely um any further discussion from the board or concerns or comments.

No, well seeing none.

Um we at the point where we would start to consider some action um on this case.

Um firstly we would need to consider uh the granting of the waivers.

So we would need uh first a separate motion for those matters.

Uh any member of the board at a point where they feel comfortable making a motion with respect to the waivers.

Mr.

Green, go right ahead.

Yeah, I would like to make a motion to grant the following waivers 190-282B9 to waive the requirement to show existing conditions within a thousand uh feet of property boundaries 190-275 to waive the requirement that a lighting plan be submitted for subdivision approval, and then 190-212A1 to waive the requirement that the sidewalk be located on at least one side of the street with and provide a payment in lieu of $17,500.

Uh granting these would be considering the criteria that that this would the strict conformity would pose unnecessary hardship to the applicant and would not be contrary to the spirit of the regulations.

All right, thank you.

Motion by Mr.

Green.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Hudson.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Um Mr.

Green Green, would you care to continue the process?

Yes, I would.

I'd like to also make a motion to grant final subdivision approval for the seventh subdivision, seven lot subdivision um at 164 Tinker Road, finding that the application meets the approval criteria outlined in subdivision NRO 190-138G, subject to the subsequent conditions in the staff report, a through.

Right, thank you.

Uh motion by Mr.

Green.

Is there a second?

Second, second by Mr.

Zoller.

Any further discussion?

for the seventh subdivision sub and lot subdivision um at 164 tinker road finding that the application meets the approval criteria outlined in subdivision in a row 190-138g subject to the subsequent conditions in the staff report a through all right thank you uh motion by mr green is there a second second by second by mr zoller any further discussion all those in favor aye aye motion passes thank you gentlemen great thank you thank you very much right yeah uh moving on in the agenda um new business site plans there are none everything was continued to april second go for it next item on the agenda review of tentative agenda uh is any member of the board had an opportunity to review the uh upcoming projects and is willing to make a motion regarding uh declaration or not of regional impact mr hudson uh having reviewed the tentative agenda mr chair i've moved that the board fine there are no proposed projects of regional significance motion by mr hudson is there a second second by alderman clean any further discussion all those in favor aye aye motion passes sam code update uh no update tonight uh we're gonna bump it to next meeting uh just simply to have more uh than just bare quorum to uh benefit from some uh new knowledge and some updates uh relative to the code so okay no appreciate yeah if folks didn't see it sam did send an email to that effect so I was bummed sorry to disappoint everybody I was like it's perfect I know I know everybody has looked at a short night I went oh darn it I wanted to get it well I'm because we had a short night yeah you know weather it's it's probably a good thing yeah so um if nobody has anything else I think we'd be looking for a motion to adjourn Mr.

Chairman I'll make that motion to adjourn motion by Mr.

Zoller to adjourn is there a second second by Mr.

Green all those in favor aye all right we are adjourned at 737