Tonight, uh welcome to the March 10th zoning board of adjustment.

I'm Josh Neely.

Uh Vice Chair.

Unfortunately, the chair could not be with us tonight.

Uh with me tonight is uh member JP Boucher, Member Robert Shaw, Member Steve Lionel, and uh assistant.

Uh I get that wrong every time.

Alternate Joseph Patrick.

Uh we do only have five running members tonight, including Mr.

Patrick, so he will be voting on all uh cases tonight unless he recuses himself.

Um just to get things going here and go to the rules here.

Um quick uh bit of housekeeping, the minutes and the audio visual recordings will be available on Nashville New Hampshire.gov.

Um tonight we are hearing uh it looks like uh three cases, all of which are variances.

Um as you know from your applications, the variances must meet uh five criteria to be approved by the board.

Uh the five criteria for a variance are that the variance will not be contrary to public interest.

The spirit of the ordinance is uh is observed.

Substantial justice is done, the value of surrounding property is not diminished, and literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship.

Um tonight uh what we're gonna do is take the three cases in order.

We will ask for the applicant to step up to the microphone over here, which is adjustable, or you can pull it off.

Please speak into the microphone as this is being recorded.

Uh please state your name and address and tell us in your words what you're trying to do.

Uh we have read all of the applications and any any accompanying documentation, so uh you don't have to go point by point through the application, but we really just want to hear in your words what you're trying to do.

Um after we have heard from the applicant, uh we will ask if anybody is in favor.

Anybody who is in favor has up to five minutes to speak of why they are in favor.

And after that, I will ask if anybody has any questions or they're opposed.

Once again, each person stepping up, please state your name and address when you come up and you have up to five minutes to tell us uh why you're opposed or to ask questions.

Um at the conclusion of anybody who's in opposition, we will ask the applicant to come back up.

They have five minutes to respond to any of the opposition or any questions that were were asked.

And in the event we get to this point where there's more than one person that has uh spoken up in opposition, uh that person or one person agreed to by anybody in opposition uh has up to five minutes to come up and make final remarks or uh ask any more questions.

Uh after that, we will close the public hearing and we will have a public meeting up here where the board will discuss the points of the case.

Uh in order for us to move forward and approve one of the applications, uh, three people must vote uh in favor of the application.

Uh is there any questions from anybody in the audience on how this flows here?

All right.

And uh we are gonna go through a brief attendance here.

Uh I also forgot to mention uh Mr.

Carter Falk from the city is uh to our left.

We do use him as a um as a great source of information if we have any questions as a board.

Uh we will call attendance now.

I am Josh Neely.

I am in uh I am the Vice Chair and I am here.

Uh Mr.

Boucher?

Present.

Mr.

Shaw?

Present.

Mr.

Lionel?

Present.

And Mr.

Patrick.

Present.

And Mr.

Falk, is there any changes to the agenda?

No, there are not.

All right, thank you.

And tonight the order of the cases will be 39 Simon Street, 57 Palm Street, and the 15 and 19 Atherton Avenue.

And we'll cover them in that order.

Uh and that being said, we will start off the process.

Is the applicant for 39 Simon Street in the building?

Step on up and tell us in your words what you'd like to do, please.

Mr.

Newman.

Yes.

Yep, I'm sorry.

Uh one other point here is I do need to officially read the case into the uh into the record.

Uh so the applicant is the Elizabeth Ryder Trust owner, Kayla Jerry, LCO, Holdings LLC applicant, 39 Simon Street, Unit 15, Sheet E lot 824, requesting a use variance from land use code section 190-15, table 15-1, number 102, to allow a massage therapist and est petition office in a multi-tenant office park.

This is in a PI zone in Ward 4.

And the floor is yours.

Hi.

Um my name is Kayla Jerry.

I am looking to get a variance for 39 Simon Street.

Um my address is 54 Aaron Drive.

And I have been operating my business in Nashua for the past five years.

Um our coal clientele is here.

The only reason for us leaving is um I couldn't um keep the place that we were at.

Um we couldn't stay there.

So looking around, trying to find a place to be.

Every place I found is in an industrial zone.

So no matter what building I'm looking at, it looks like I'm gonna be here.

Um so we're appointment only.

Um we have about five to six girls there.

They all work different schedules, so we're never there at the same time.

Um normal business hours with all the businesses that are already in that complex.

Um all the people who I went and met with, they're all think that we would be great and fit really well and be able to all coincide together and um that it's good for the community and everywhere around there.

It's minimal for traffic, parking.

Again, it's not every day.

Some days we work, some days we don't.

Um that's pretty much sums it up.

So we're aestheticians, and then we have one massage therapist.

Okay.

And we're already all established and all have our clientele and just want to keep resuming business as usual.

Okay, great.

Anything in addition you want to add?

Um.

Okay.

Uh, do we have any questions from the board?

Okay, you are free to sit down.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And do we have anybody in the audience who would like to speak uh in favor of this application?

Yes.

I totally um so the owner um and one person that's on the board for the building.

She couldn't make it.

She had a family emergency.

Um but she did send me a letter and I printed out for you guys.

I know that's the same.

Yeah.

We just received one.

She did.

Kelly?

Yeah, she was like, I'm so sorry.

It's okay it's okay.

When you sit down, we're gonna read it into um.

Yeah, of course.

Is anybody else in the room in favor of this application who'd like to speak?

Okay.

If that be if that's the case, then I'd like to read this uh email into the record.

Um letter of support uh for the change of use application for the proper uh property owner of 39 Simon Street Unit 15.

This was received from Kelly uh Carran, uh to whom it may concern.

I am writing as a trustee owner of 39 Simon Street Unit 15 to express my support for the proposed change of use application for the space.

Based on my understanding of the proposed operation, I do not believe that the use, I do not believe that the use will not create any negative impact on neighboring units or surrounding properties.

The business intends to operate during normal business hours, consistent with other businesses located at North Crest.

The prospective tenant has taken the initiative to introduce themselves to other businesses within the complex.

To the best of my knowledge, no concerns or opposition have been raised by the neighboring occupants.

Additionally, I serve as a member of the board of directors for the association, and based on my familiarity with the property and the existing mix of businesses.

Importantly, the proposed use is expected to be a low-impact operation with minimal traffic, no unusual noise or nuisance conditions, and parking demand that is consistent with the capacity and typical usage patterns within the North Crest.

For these reasons, I am pleased to offer my support for the applicant's request.

Please feel free to contact me if any additional information would be helpful.

Sincerely, Kelly Carone Trustee, the Elizabeth Ryder Trust, owner, Unit 1539 Simon Street, Ashwin, New Hampshire.

That being said, is there anybody in opposition to this application?

All right.

If that's the case, then we are gonna close this up and have a discussion up here on the on the diaspora.

If I may just make a comment in this letter that you read from uh Miss Caroline.

I I think that she did not mean to have two knots in that sentence.

Versus I do not believe the use will not create a negative impact.

I I concur with your assessment, which is why I kind of stumbled over that.

Yes.

Uh I I definitely think there's a typo there, but uh it definitely came across that she is in support.

So this is definitely a letter in support.

All right.

So we're gonna uh close a public hearing, open the public meeting.

Would anybody like to comment or discuss Mr.

Shaw?

Um I see no issues with this.

It feels like it's uh being well accepted by the existing businesses, the ownership there.

Uh there's uh as noted, especially in that that letter, there's no evidence that there'll be anything about the operation of this business that will cause any undue um traffic or busyness or excessive use or any of those kinds of things.

So uh I feel like it's uh reasonable and I will be supporting it.

Excellent.

Would anybody else like to make any comments?

All right.

Well, I also am in support of this application.

Uh I did a drive-by, I think on Friday.

That parking lot was was pretty empty, so I'm not worried about the parking concerns.

Uh this reminds me of a recent case we had on Northeast Boulevard uh with that that condo complex back there, the business condos, and it's just quite a huge mixture of stuff.

I took a quick look around around North Port here, uh uh if that's the name of it.

And it is once again a mixture of of businesses in there.

This is gonna fit really really well in there.

Uh we have a letter of support from the uh trustee.

Um so for those reasons I I support this application.

Mr.

Further comment, and and as applicant noted, and we have seen many similar cases, not just the one you referenced, but you know, there's the ones that are over there by the airport.

Um, and she noted how it seems that everywhere she was looking, she was finding herself in basically one of these kind of park industrial locations.

So it just seems to be what a lot of those properties have ended up becoming and supporting these kind of businesses.

So yeah, I agree with that.

I think we've seen uh businesses have changed over the last 20 years about what's you know, what's in the storefront and what's you know the zoning regulations needed will change with it.

Um it just you know it just is what it is.

So for those reasons I'm in favor.

Um would somebody like to make a motion on this variance?

Mr.

Boucher.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the uh variance for the Elizabeth Ryder Trust, owner Kayla Jerry, LCO Holdings, LLC, applicant 39 Simon Street, you unit 15, sheet E, lot 824 requesting use variants will use code section 190-15.

Table 15-1, number 102 to allow a massage therapist and acidition office in a multi-tenant office pockets in the PI zone ward four.

Uh we find that granting the variants would not be contrary to public interest.

Again, uh, as we discussed uh and in mainly uh was also um testify to that that again the character of the neighborhood would not be altered for for this use.

Uh we find that the sphere of the audience would be observed again uh mainly because um it's in concert with what's going on there, so again the character of the neighborhood following again with the several other businesses uh that have been identified that are there is similar in nature to this to this request.

Um granting the variants uh would do substantial justice because again um it would allow the property owner to um uh use a space for the intended for the requested use and uh again we have uh approved similar um request before this location.

Um we find that the um we we we find that um that the values of the surrounding properties uh would not be diminished uh because of this uh request.

Um so again, uh and then lastly uh on under the unnecessary hardship um finding that owing to special conditions of property this that distinguished from other properties in the area.

Um we find that the proposed use is a reasonable one again uh because um this property has uh changed uh uh over the years uh and uh into more of these uh businesses that provide services and these the business that's going in there is not a high traffic type business, so it's in concert with what is uh happening there right now.

So with that I make a motion to approve the area of variance.

Thank you.

Who have second, Mr.

Lionel?

Thank you.

Any additional discussion on this application?

Okay.

All those in favor?

Okay.

That motion does pass five to nothing.

Congratulations.

Uh one thing, yeah, of course.

One thing I did not uh mention earlier is there is a 30-day window of appeal.

Um I would not expect that's gonna happen, so please proceed with your project.

Uh, if an appeal is made, uh Mr.

Uh Fox office will reach out to you.

But you're all set.

Congratulations.

And you're yeah, you're welcome.

All right, we will read the next uh case into the record here.

Palm School LLC owner 57 Palm Street, sheet 83 lot 67, requesting a variance from land use code section 190-16, table 16-3 to exceed maximum density for elderly housing to allow a total of 151 residential units within an existing building, where 140 units with a restaurant space was permitted by the zoning board on 1024, 2006.

92 units are permitted, converting former restaurant space to 11 new residential units.

This is located in the RC and GB zones in ward four.

Counselor, you have the floor.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, members of the board.

My name is Morgan Hollis.

I'm an attorney at Gottesman and Hollis, 39 East Pearl Street in Nashua, and I'm representing the owner as well as the applicant, Palm Square, LLC.

Uh the property is as identified, located at 57 Palm Street.

Uh, for those of you who have been around a long time in Nashwood, you know it probably is the former Batesville Casket Company.

Back in 2006, I came before the board on behalf of the owner of the property to convert the mill building, got it essentially, and to allow it for elderly housing.

At the time, only 92 units were allowed by density.

We requested relief from the ordinance because of the vast size of the building and the fact that elderly units are small.

And if you put only 92 in there, you're you have a lot of open space.

And the variance was granted, 140 elderly units were allowed.

The front portion, that is the portion of the building closest to West Hollis Street, was designed and lay out as a restaurant facility.

And it's operated for approximately 20 years for different owners, including multiple subsidies by the property owner to those restaurant owners, and yet no restaurant has survived there.

And there are a lot of reasons why I think there's access, there's parking right in front, it is limited.

There's a lot of parking to the rear for the residents, but no parking really in the front where the restaurant is.

In any event, my client has asked me to come before the board to ask for relief to convert the restaurant to 11 additional units.

And that would mean we would need a variance to increase the density from the 92 up to the 140 as permitted, but now asking for 11 more units.

Essentially, the first one is will not alter the character of the neighborhood.

The character of neighborhood is dense, multifamily, and mixed-use commercial along West Hollis Street.

What we're proposing to do won't be noticeable from the exterior.

The building will remain exactly the same.

The parking will remain the same.

We would need, of course, to go for a change of use, partial change of use.

And we think we can get administrative approval of the site plan for that, but there'll be no change in the exterior, and the use will be in accord with what's in the neighborhood.

Fairly heavy, heavy density mixed use.

The proposed use is less than 10% increase.

Also there would be no threat to health safety or welfare, as there is parking on the site, parking, plenty of parking for the restaurant, number spaces, and the parking spaces to the rear, which were dedicated to the restaurant will now be available for the residents who enter the building from the rear for the most part.

There's also, as I say, sewer and water service available, so there's no threat to the public health safety or welfare.

Number two is the proposed increase in density is really just a replacement for a fairly general business type of use of a restaurant, and it is much more in keeping with the neighborhood.

It will allow consistent use of the property and therefore not alter the character of the neighborhood or threaten health safety or welfare of the public.

It's likely to reduce traffic in the neighborhood because again it is elderly smart units.

The uh on your number three, the substantial justice will be granted if you grant the variance.

The owner has attempted a number of versions of the restaurant and commercial space in that area.

Various iterations have failed.

There are is still some commercial space that the residents are able to use and utilize, but uh this space is essentially unusable.

And granting the variance to allow single family elderly units will not harm the public in any way.

As I say, there'll be no exterior changes in the area.

Number four, allow uh there'll be no adverse impact on values of the surrounding property as allowing 11 residential units instead of a large restaurant, will not have an adverse impact as it is a permitted use in the RC zone.

It is listed as being RC and H uh and HB, but it is only the initial strip along the West Hollis Street.

Almost all of the building and all of these units will be in the RC.

So it is a permitted use within that district.

It's just the density.

As I say, there's no exterior changes, parking is adequate, and they meet the numbers.

Number five, the property is there's a hardship on the property, and from that hardship we need relief.

The property is a very large former casket manufacturing facility, rehabilitated into housing restaurant and existing commercial space.

There's no other property in the neighborhood like it, and that's what makes it unique.

The building itself.

Hardship was found in 2006 where 140 units were allowed because of the size of the units and the nature of the units elderly.

It fit within the building properly, and the density has not created a problem in the neighborhood.

The special condition of the property is not changed.

However, the viability of the restaurant as proposed has increased the hardship on the property, necessitating further relief.

The general public purpose of limiting density of units per acre is to prevent overcrowding.

And generally, when you think of acreage, you think of land, not just a building.

Obviously, this building occupies nearly all of the acreage of this lot.

So we're talking about a kind of a unique situation here.

And converting interior space to additional housing from restaurant and prohibiting that conversion and restricting the density has no fair and substantial relationship to the purpose of why density is established in the first place.

We believe that application of that regulation to this property, therefore bears no fair and substantial relationship to the purpose of density restrictions.

Allowing an identical permitted usage for elderly housing as to what exists, with only a slight increase in density of units per square foot or per acreage is a reasonable use.

Furthermore, if the variance isn't granted, we really, under B of the number five criteria, if variance isn't granted because of its uniqueness, there really isn't any reasonable use of that area.

We've tried over the last 20 years, and here we are.

With that, I think we've met all five points.

Thank you.

Thank you, Counselor.

Does anybody have any questions?

Mr.

Boucher.

Yes, uh, the proposed units is that typical of the rest of the building, small or larger, or is that typical?

It's typical, they're almost identical to what's out there.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

I do have one question just for my own curiosity.

Did I read this right?

That there's a police substation in there.

I don't know if there is now.

At one point there was one.

I don't know if there is a substation.

Interesting.

Okay.

I I know that uh there's commercial space and it's varied uses, but um I don't know.

My client was unable to make tonight, so I can't answer that.

No, no problem.

And no additional questions from the board.

You are free to sit down.

Thank you.

Is there anybody here who'd like to speak in favor of this application?

Is there anybody here who would like to speak in opposition or have questions about this application?

All right.

If that's the case, then we are going to close the public hearing and open the public meeting.

Does anybody want to start, Mr.

Lionel?

Yeah, I I'm in support of this application.

Um restaurants, I didn't even know there was a restaurant at that location, and I've lived in the city for many, many, many years.

Um I can and I and I know that restaurants come and go very can go very quickly.

So it does not astonish me at all that they had difficulty uh making a restaurant survive in that location.

The given that there are no exterior changes to the building, uh, this is converting the existing uh restaurant space to uh additional units that are similar to what's already exists.

Um I'm in full support.

Thank you.

Does anybody else have any comments?

So, Mr.

Boucher?

Oh, sorry.

Yeah.

Again, I'm in support of the application.

Um I have visited the different restaurants, and I know over time.

Last time I went to it, uh I don't remember the name of it, but there was just myself and my wife in there.

So it was kind of kind of eerie, but uh so I understand that.

And I think again it's good use of the property.

Um again, if they haven't planned a restaurant, I I think you know, maybe maybe back then they would have also asked for some units on there, so it kind of makes sense to use that space for that.

And um, I know that at one time, as I remember years ago, there was always these questions about parking, but I think they've adequately addressed the the parking uh for that facility.

So I'll be supporting the application.

Thank you.

So I'm also in favor.

I ironically had a very similar experience at the last restaurant.

I think there was four of us in there total.

So I do think that that with the housing stock issues and the fact that it's going to look exactly the same inside with with what they have already set up in there, no external changes.

And once again, I think there's a ton of parking there, but you know, they've actually got the stuff on the side as well, as well as behind and in front, so I'm in favor.

Uh, does anybody want to make a motion?

Mr.

Lionel, please.

I'd like to make a motion on behalf of Holmes Real LLC owner.

57 Palm Street, sheet 83 Law 67, requesting variants from land use code section 190-16, table 16-3 to exceed maximum density for elderly housing to allow a total of 151 residential units with an existing building, where 140 units with a restaurant space was permitted by the zoning board on October 24th, 2006.

92 units would be permitted of according to the density requirements of the ordinances.

The board finds that granting the variance would not be contrary to public interest because there are basically no disturbance to uh outside the unit.

There's no exterior changes to the building, and uh additional housing is is always a benefit.

The spirit of the ordinance would be observed because the uh density requirement of the ordinance is uh ref reflects the crowding of the lot, and there are there's no changes to the exterior, so there's the this is a large building that fill pretty much fills the lot, um, and so there'd be no changes there.

Granting the variance would do substantial justice because it allows the owner to uh make use of this part of the property that has not been successful over many years, and uh we have no uh evidence that values of surrounding properties would be diminished, and applicant uh make uh owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties, given that it's a very large building in the downtown area, there's nothing else quite like it.

Um denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship because there is not a fair and substantial relationship between the general public purpose of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to this property uh again because the density requirement uh there's no external effect to this additional density, therefore uh be not visible.

So, for all those reasons I make a motion to grant the variance.

Thank you.

Do we have a second?

Mr.

Patrick.

Do we have any additional discussion about this application?

Okay, all those in favor.

Congratulations.

This did pass.

Uh, as you know, there's a 30-day window of appeal.

I don't think that's gonna happen, but if uh something comes up, Mr.

Fox Office will let you know.

Have a great night.

Okay, you're welcome.

Thank you.

All right, and we're gonna call the final case into uh being here.

Uh Vernon C.

Shelby and estate of Samuela Shelby and Phillip Samard owners, 15 and 19 Atherton Avenue, sheet 46, lots 22 and 23, requesting the following.

Number one, a use variance from land use code section 190-15, table 15-1, number 15, to allow 16 multi-unit, multi-family units in three buildings, and the following variances from land use code section 190-16, table 16-3, number two for land area, 51,619 square feet existing, 116,160 square feet required.

Number three for open space, 50 percent required, 48 percent proposed, and number four for floor area ratio, 50 percent allowed, 61 percent proposed, and number five from maximum building stories, two and a half stories permitted, three stories proposed, all requests to remove two single family houses and construct 16 multifamily units.

This is located in the RA and RC zones in ward three.

That was a mouthful.

Counselor, you have the floor.

Mr.

Chairman, members of the board, good evening.

My name is Andy Prollman, attorney with Colonel Prollman at 28 Factory Square here in Nashua.

Um you'll forgive me.

I went to Florida last week and came on with a cold.

Uh so I'll muscle through.

I do have a handout for the board, but I don't want you to look at it until the end because uh uh I'll explain it.

Thanks, Andy.

Mr.

Chairman, um, good evening.

Um, Andy Proman again.

I'm here on behalf of a favor and company development partners, limited liability company.

With me tonight is Ethan Beals uh from IMEG, our project engineer.

We're here to talk about 15 and 19 Atherton Avenue.

We're seeking five variances, we're seeking a use variance because multifamily homes are not allowed in the RA district, um, and we're seeking four dimensional variances as laid out in the application, and I'll I'll speak to them.

Um we are doing a couple things with this proposal.

Um we are seeking to consolidate 15 and 19 Atherton Av to make it into one lot.

We are seeking to subdivide a very small portion, an eight foot strip on the northern edge, and if successful, we're going to convey that to our neighbor at 21 Atherton to the north.

Because if you look very closely on your plans, you'll see that our neighbor to the north at 21 Atherton, his driveway encroaches onto our property.

And so we're going to take care of that with just a little bit of strip, a small strip along the length of the property in favor of Mr.

Sutton.

Mr.

Sutton has a letter into the board tonight.

And then the third thing we are proposing to do is install knock down the two existing homes and install 16 new condominium units.

And you see the renderings that have been provided by the applicant.

Standard, three-story garage, back room, second floor is den, kitchen, living area, and then the third floor, the two bedrooms and a bathroom.

These are really today's starter homes.

It's what we see townhouse development being built.

We believe this is a good fit for the neighborhood.

If you look at the GIS in your packet, especially the GIS with the aerials, you'll see that these two lots, as is, are some of the larger lots, 15 and 19 are some of the larger lots in the neighborhood.

These lots were established by the Nashville Manufacturing Company in 1936.

And the lots along Atherton Avenue are larger lots, and then as you go north, and then as you spread out along Lock Street, many of the lots are much smaller, typical house sized lots.

Our neighborhood frankly is conducive to what we're proposing.

We have two multifamily properties to the south of us, each of them six units.

We have PSNH and the railroad behind us.

We have Atherton Park in front of us, and we have residential housing to the north.

So we have a split zone lot, you can see that on the plan.

Most of our lot is in the RA district.

The condominium units themselves, the uh the current uh builder, the LaFaver company, these are the same folks who built the Sapphire condominium and the Opal condominium.

That's their nicknames, those 11 Lock Street and 115 Lock Street, and we expect a very similar product, a similar successful um sellout when um when we're all done.

Um the uh carno units will be uh serviced by all public utilities.

We're not gonna be any impact upon the um upon excessive impact upon public utilities.

Um and so, mr Mr.

Chairman, um just to speak to the criteria, um, and again, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Ethan is here to answer any questions on the board may have.

Um, but with respect to the um use variants, the multifamilies in the um RA district, um we have um you know a genuine mix of uses um in this area.

You look at Lock Street, um, you look at the mix of multifamily homes and single-family homes on Atherton.

Um we believe we have a um a reasonable mix of uses in the area, and with that, we don't see that the these additional homes will be um impacting uh the character of the neighborhood or impacting any uh public um rights uh for any um or adversely impact any public rights of others.

Um the spirit of the ordinance is observed in this instance because we could we could come at this the um the use variants differently.

We could come at this under section 1913 B where we could seek a commission conditional use permit through the planning board because of the split zone lot.

Um but that's a little risky because to get to the planning board it takes a lot of um time and expense.

Um, and if there's some hiccup with the planning board on the conditional use permit, then we just spend a lot of time and money.

And so what we're trying to do is just secure the permitting, secure the right to build the multifamily homes at this stage with this um application.

But considering that we could come at this from a conditional use permit, uh, we believe that we're not in violation of the spirit of the ordinance with allowing the multifamily at this site, given the split zone for this property.

Uh we believe substantial justice will be done.

All parties benefit for the city gets a much needed housing stock.

Uh, the current owners get to sell uh their properties, their older properties.

Um wouldn't make sense to really renovate the existing homes.

Uh the applicant gets to build out um the site.

We believe the substantial facts, substantial justice, uh balancing test waves in favor of the applicant in this instance.

We have a letter from Keller Williams, the commercial realty division.

And the broker in this instance went through a lot of detail.

Often when I get these letters are maybe like a one page, one paragraph.

But there's a lot of analysis in detail.

I won't read it to you.

But the conclusion is after reviewing all factors that there'd be no impact and in fact probably be in improvement of property values with the new new construction.

And finally, we have an overly large lot with a split zone and with a mix of uses in the area.

We believe we have a reasonable proposal to the board.

We don't believe there's a fair and substantial reason to deny this application with respect to the multifamily housing.

And we have a we're proposing a residential use in a residential district, which we believe is a reasonable use.

So that, Mr.

Chairman, is my use variance application.

The way I kind of put this together is I then lumped all the um dimensional variances into one set of criteria because they're all very similar.

Because if you look at what we're trying to do, density, open space, floor to area ratio, and building stories, they all serve the same purpose.

They know it's not to not to overcrowd, not to overbuild, not to uh you know mess up the character of the neighborhood.

And I believe that we're okay on this point because with the overly large lot, again, the the two lots as is are larger for the neighborhood.

When you put them together, we believe we have a reasonable proposal to the board.

Um we believe that the um 16 units, the way they're laid out, the way they're facing the park, um, and then the um working with our neighbor um to the north uh who doesn't have an objection to this.

We believe we have a um reasonable proposal on all four of the um variance criteria's requested on for the dimensions.

Um the open space, we're just shy of the open space, um, but just off by approximately two percent.

Uh the floor to area ratio.

We're okay in the RC district, but with the RA district, it's a little more um more um restrictive.

Um, and so we have a little too much uh floor area given the three floors of the buildings, um, but with the layout and the design, um, we believe this is a reasonable proposal.

And it's and the building stories on this is very common, the garage living floor, and then the bedroom floor.

Um, so we believe this, and then these are uh these that we have the same thing on Lock Street that the Favor company built at Opal, same type of thing, garage, first floor, second floor.

Um, so we believe I have again a reasonable proposal on all four of these.

Just touching on the criteria very briefly with the mix of uses in the area.

We don't believe the dimensional variance is being requested will alter the character of the neighborhood or affect anyone's uh public or harm anyone's public rights.

Um we believe the uh we meet the spirit of the ordinance because we will not be overcrowding or overbuilding the property with the due to the oversized lot and the proximity to the RC district.

Uh we don't believe we would be altering the character of the neighborhood.

Um, and again in substantial justice, same criteria.

Uh we believe all parties benefit under substantial justice.

Um you have the Keller Williams letter and the and the hardship here is the oversized lot with a proximity to the RC and portion of our property being the RC district, we believe we have a reasonable use, and there's no fair and substantial reason to prohibit the um the request.

Now, Mr.

Chairman, two things.

Um, I'm sorry.

What was his name?

Power chain.

Who is this?

Uh the a neighbor um was here earlier and he lives in the immediate townhouse um development, multifamily townhouse development to our south.

Um, and if you if you've driven by, you saw that his fence, this old wooden fence, stockade fence is falling apart, beat up and just uh failing.

And he asked for a fence.

He asked for us to put up a fence on along our on our southern border, border, his northern border.

The answer is yes.

We're happy to uh commit to that.

Um he was looking for a vinyl fence.

I can't commit to that.

Probably will be because they're easy to maintain, but I don't know the aesthetic of what my client wants to do here.

Um but um we will commit to a six-foot fence running along that boundary.

Um type of fence is you know to be determined.

And secondly, um two more things.

So you have the letter from uh Mr.

Sutton in your packet, he's our neighbor to the north, um, and we have worked out um with Mr.

Sutton that our what originally were going to be second floor decks along all of the back of the units.

Units one, two, and three that immediately abut Mr.

Sutton's home will be patios at ground level.

They won't be decks.

So those are all agreeable and all acceptable to the applicant.

And finally, Mr.

Chairman, my handout to you, and there was a comment from a neighbor that came in, an email comment that was concerned about traffic.

And that's a fair concern.

We're all concerned about traffic when you take two homes and you know propose to install 16 homes, what's going to happen to my traffic?

So what I provided to the board is a traffic memo that we had prepared by Steve Perna, traffic engineer, for the uh Lock Street project Sapphire Place.

And that project had 18 units.

And the conclusion by Mr.

Pernaw is that the traffic impact is going to be so low that it doesn't require a traffic study according to the National Planning Board regulations.

So I don't I don't mean to have you read that or have that distract you, but the point is with 18 units across the street, we didn't have to do a traffic study because it's such low impact at AM and PM peak hours.

So we believe the same criteria will apply here.

With 16 units, we're not gonna have anywhere near a level of traffic that would require any uh type of uh mitigation or any type of additional street work.

Um again, the point is with the Nashville Planning Board we have to do a traffic memo, and that traffic memo will determine whether or not you do a traffic study, and we didn't come close with 18 units.

We think the same result will happen here.

Um so with that, Mr.

Chairman.

That's my presentation.

If I may try to eat the other chairman, happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Counselor.

Uh Mr.

Shaw.

Um just noting that Mr.

Sutton's letter notes that there was already an agreement to do a white vinyl fence on that northern boundary of the property.

Okay, it only seems like it should be reasonable to do that one on the southern.

Yeah, I skipped over that that piece.

I knew there would be a fence, but yeah, so let's commit to a vinyl fence on the south side.

Okay.

Um the the thing I wanted one of the things I wanted to bring up, um, and this has been kind of a typical concern for me with these kind of proposals, is it gets to this whole essence or question of treating the side yards uh dimensionally actually, even though they're only have the requirement of a typical side yard setback, treating them more like a rear yard setback.

Uh and from the simple, you know, I don't want to go too much into it because I've I've covered this before, but the general point being that you have all these like the rear parts of these structures that are now to the side of whatever the abutter is.

So in the case of that southerly, you know, one, obviously, essentially now both of these properties kind of function because of the way the existing multifamily is there, of you know, that's like the rear yards to each other.

Now it looks like you know the setback that is in kind of an existence with that multifamily is pretty similar to what you're proposing.

Um so it doesn't look like they're they are at a 25-foot, but you know, which would be kind of in my view, kind of the ideal.

But uh so, and then you know, I think it's it's I'm happy that it seems that at least uh there's been an ability with your proposal and Mr.

Sutton to come to an agreement, you know, with things like the accommodations with the the um the patios instead of um decks and and that kind of thing.

Um in one sense, because you're doing this kind of eight-foot you know, swap, um, you know, it's almost like an inherent kind of additional eight feet of setback that's there, even though I get it like it's it's more this all happened because of this existing driveway, but um it seems like there's been you know an attempt to have a reasonable kind of you know accommodation and agreement uh with that abutter.

But I guess I bring all this up to kind of get at uh and I have some concerns when I you know when I you know to look at and see you know if you were to try to start to squeeze those the north and south kind of uh buildings in a little bit to get a better setback, if you will, that you might start to impact the ability to get the parking out there or you know, whether it's the driveway parking or even that visitor parking.

So I I do appreciate that it seems like it could be like kind of other consequences to this proposal.

Um so I guess can you speak to that as far as what was considered what's being done in any of that regard?

Sure.

Um Mr.

Chairman and Mr.

Shaw.

Um we had the same discussion, I don't know, maybe six months ago uh or so when the um there was a uh a a six-unit proposal on Panachuk Street.

Um but those were standalone home, standalone units uh, which I think is a little different from the from the townhouse um type units.

And so what we have here is we yes, we're going for 16 units, and that that seems like a lot.

But if we were to squeeze it tighter, uh remember each um condominium unit has two parking spaces, a garage and then one uh driveway.

If we were to move the um side uh buildings in closer, we would lose that you know the the 20-foot driveway depth that that we need.

Um and so we really tried to um accommodate meeting all the setbacks.

Uh you know, the side yard setbacks at 10 feet, and I hear what you're saying, it's has the effect of a rear yard setback, but um you know we're trying to meet um all the criteria as best we can.

Perhaps we could shift the building, not necessarily move it forward, but perhaps we could shift it back a little bit, um, so it's has less impact on Mr.

Sutton.

But again, we do meet the setback.

He's getting an additional eight feet.

Um our friends to the south, it was similar type of um project, and they're gonna get a fence as well.

So we we we we we're doing the best we can with uh you know the site, even though it's a larger site with um with the two lots.

Um but it it is a good point.

We we've encountered it before.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any additional questions from the board?

Mr.

Patrick.

The the trip uh generation analysis, um, and maybe you said this, and maybe I missed it.

I I guess this is sort of by analogy, since this is for 113 Lock Street and from 2019.

Was that was it actually built?

I can't the the wool Oh yeah, okay.

Okay.

Oh, yeah, it's sold out.

Okay, yeah.

18 units.

Okay.

It's it's actually on the is that is it so it's this.

There's there's two different ones that are which one that is.

Okay, just wanted to make sure.

Okay.

Yep.

That's all.

Thanks.

Any additional questions from the board?

Um yes, sir.

I guess I uh I was gonna see if anybody else asked this, but I I guess I'm still I'm not sure that I've heard sufficient justification or what's really behind going from and I can't remember now if it was if it was if if we assume that that you know the the multi-family would be allowed on this lot because that's uh that you almost have to stipulate that for this question.

But I think then going with the calculations and all, was it seven or maybe eight would units would be allowed by right with kind of just the dimensional part of things?

With with the two lots combined, seven units would be permitted by right, and we're seeking the variance up to sixteen units.

Yeah.

So I guess uh the what I'm want to hear more about is you know what what drove the 16, why isn't seven you know sufficient.

Can you speak to that?

So it's just there's the the layout of the lot really called for um the the number of units uh and the and the layout of the unit, the the six units, four units, six units.

We we think uh symmetrically it works.

We think the site uh is uh large enough to handle 16 units.

Um we believe that the um six units won't you know overly impact um the the neighborhood uh with the the way the kind of the open area in the middle, we think it accommodates 16 units.

Um you could certainly do seven units, you could do two units, right?

But that's not what developers do.

Um and so they're looking to do um what we believe to be a reasonable request to the board uh at 16 units, um, given the um the large the lot as combined, um we we think that is a reasonable proposal, we think that makes sense.

Um and and again, you know we we could seek out a conditional use permit with with the uh planning board.

Uh but again we wanted to uh nail down the permitting at this stage before you know spending uh boatload of money and time going forward with the planning board.

But so we believe we have a reasonable proposal at 16 units, uh not more.

Um and you know, anything less.

Um you certainly certainly could do less fewer units, but we believe this is a reasonable proposal.

Um and given the you know the demand for housing stock, we need it.

Thank you.

Mr.

Shah, are you good with that?

Yeah, okay.

Any uh any additional questions from the board?

Thank you, counselor.

Thank you.

All right.

Is there anybody who would like to speak in favor of this motion?

This application.

All right.

I am gonna read uh the majority of one letter that we received uh that was alluded to by the counselor.

Uh this is in uh from Stanley Robert Sutton, dated February 25th, 2026, who lives at 21 Atherton Avenue in Nashua 03064.

Dear members of the zoning board of adjustment, I am the owner and resident of the property at 21 Atherton Avenue, Nashua, New Hampshire, which direct directly abuts the proposed development site at 15 and 19 Atherton Avenue.

I have reviewed the plans for the proposed combination of the two lots into a single parcel for a 16-unit multifamily residential development, including necessary variances for density setbacks, open space, and other dimensional requirements under Nashua's RA zoning district as the closest abutter and the primary single family resident on the street.

Other properties are rentals or multifamily.

I am familiar with the neighborhood and the potential impacts of the project.

The developer has addressed my primary concerns regarding privacy, visual impact, and neighborhood character by agreeing to it looks like uh six conditions.

These measures minimize any intrusion on my backyard view, privacy, and daily use of my property.

The project's design, including the proposed height, density, and open space, is acceptable to me and will not create undue adverse impact on my property or the surrounding community.

Accordingly, I do not object to the granting of the requested variances and approvals for this project sincerely.

Stanley Stanley Robert Sutton from 21 Atherton Avenue.

Uh this is the letter that was alluded to uh by the counselor uh when we had the uh earlier uh presentation.

And is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak in opposition or has questions about the application?

Excellent.

Okay.

Well, if that is the case, then we will I have one thing.

Yeah.

Well, actually, we have a we do have the one letter, so that would actually be essentially it is an opportunity.

I was gonna say that and then I have a comment as well.

Yeah, all right.

Uh so sorry about that, everybody.

We do have an email that was received from Sonia Trapp.

Uh hello, my name is Sonia, and I live at six Sapphire Lane in Nashua near the complex that will be built.

I I am writing to let you know that I would be opposed to this multifamily unit.

The traffic and congestion of people in this area is out of control.

I often almost get hit by cars walking my dog because there are too many people in one area.

Please don't allow the building of these multifamily units to happen.

There are too many people in this area already.

Uh Sonia.

Thank you.

And Mr.

Chairman, that's why I provided that um memo uh uh the traffic memo because empirically sometimes we feel traffic uh is out of control, you know, statistically, it's a very low um traffic generator.

Um but I do have just one additional comment and thank you to Ethan Beals with respect to Mr.

Shaw's question.

Had this been an uh an all RC district, um, we would have been allowed 14 units by right.

Um but because we have the um split zone RA RC and again we're putting together a larger lot, we we believe the 16 is a is reasonable request.

So thank you again.

Any additional questions?

Mr.

Shaw, were you winding up?

Actually, but that's that's helpful.

Uh I think I was ready to ask that and then forgot to.

So thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um speak.

I already asked if there was any opposition.

Okay.

So uh so we're going to uh close the public hearing, open the public meeting.

Would anybody like to lead us in discussion?

Mr.

Shaw.

I mean I think people could tell I had some concerns.

I mean, I do think that the setback issue that that is kind of like one of my kind of hot buttons.

Um I'm not as concerned on this project for kind of what part as and part of even what I talked about in in the in the questioning of the applicant, in that you know, the southern most affected property is one that already um is has a similar setback.

In that, you know, the southern most affected property is one that already is has a similar setback.

And we're not aware of any any opposition from them.

So and then the northernmost neighbor, the you know, the primary single family resident, uh, Mr.

Sutton, you know, already basically worked through uh with the applicant his concerns, and if it seems to me that if the setback was a bigger concern um, like you know, that I've advoiced, um, that he would have probably pursued that more so uh with the applicant.

And he's come to a point of comfort with this.

So that gives me a fairly good amount of kind of comfort with that.

Um the density, um I am I mean I you know one thing I was already looking at, it wasn't specifically cited by the applicant, but that again that property, the the multi-family that's just to the south of the applicant, um is is much more densely packed onto that lot than what is being proposed here.

And now with that uh understanding that you know the this this lot being mixed between RA and RC and the fact that it's right on the basically that you know boundary of the RC zone.

Uh having more units that you know, okay it's seven only allowed for RA, but 14 would be allowed for RC, the 16 proposed is much more reasonable also in that sense.

So I feel like I've gotten to a point of being okay with this based on those aspects.

I think the dimensional things uh uh in general, you know, which which is you know, some of what I brought up as concerned isn't even you know part of the direct part of what's being asked for.

Uh but I think that uh there you know this lot will not actually be that crowded uh even with uh the number of units.

And they're not large units, so I think that's helpful.

The fact that they go up the three stories, you know, there is a bit of you know trade-off there, but I think that actually helps reduce the overall footprint of the of the usage of the lot itself.

So uh I think it's it's reasonable, and I I think um I'm okay with with that also.

Um so and the conditional use I'm okay with also.

So I guess ultimately I am in support uh for those reasons.

Thank you.

Anybody else like to state how they feel on this?

Mr.

Lino?

Yeah, I I'm in support.

I mean, when I went to take a look and I saw the adjoining property that was you know similarly uh built out and a large lot with basically you know nothing behind it, nothing in front of it, um, and we have uh excuse me, the neighbors on on both sides seeming uh to have not a problem with it.

Um I think the only thing the question I had uh in my mind was the the three stories because we've often not approved the more than two and a half stories for residential, but I think that three stories is appropriate here, and so I don't have an objection to that.

And and generally I'm in favor.

Thank you.

Any other comments, Mr.

Boucher?

Uh I also support the application from the reasons spoken to.

Um again, I did recognize when I took my ride over there, you know, remembered the density on the lot over there.

So when I initially looked at it, um I didn't have as many concerns as you did, uh, but I was really looking at uh the neighbor to the north.

Um and uh but after looking at what being proposed there, I think again it says a lot when the neighbor is actually quote unquote happy with what's going to happen.

So I put a lot uh of um you know uh I put a lot into that.

So uh with that.

Uh also um the three stories, I I think my my opinion is that that you uh that I think it's more common now.

Uh um, you know, the two and a half stories that I remember years ago seeing is that there's no garages, there's been just the parking in front and living space.

And I think I think part of what's happening is I think um the the industry and and the selling houses, I think it's garages are is like the common thing now.

So I I'm okay with that because I know that you know what the what the what the home is being reused for.

It's not like the garages are going to be removed and turned into living space, that type of thing.

So uh so I'm gonna support the application.

So I'm also in support.

Um I thought this was an interesting case coming in.

I am always interested to see if the neighbors are opposed.

I really wanted to see who showed up tonight.

I know we had the letter coming into this from the neighbor to the north at 21.

Um when I did my drive-by, I think I went on Friday.

Um, I had to look twice.

I didn't realize that's another townhouse complex.

But both the lots to the south of this are are townhouse complexes, and I didn't realize that.

It almost looked to me like it was two single family houses, and it, you know, I kind of had to look back there.

Um, you know, I I've been around long enough that I was here for the discussion about Sapphire when they were talking about putting those up.

We've had multiple discussions in this corner of the town about the the you know the RARC uh areas, you know, the line is here, and if we were 20 feet this way, you know, it makes some of big adjustments.

Um the interesting thing about this complex is we basically can see what it's gonna look like by looking at Sapphire.

It's the same exact uh build out.

And I know our concerns at that point were you know uh the decks gonna hang over, you know, hang over these people, and will there be enough separation between the buildings?

Uh I'm quite sure those facilities are all full.

Um so obviously they got snapped up.

Um I do believe that these are a good uh gateway type uh house for for folks that use a starter homes or or to downsize too.

Um the backside, obviously nothing's gonna be built back there because it's it's PSNH and it's it's railroad, so it's not like they're gonna get encroached on in the back.

You've got the park across the street.

Um I I get the concern about people walking around.

You know, when I was there on Friday, we still had a ton of snow drifts.

Uh people were walking in the road with their dogs.

I get it.

We all just survived this winter.

You know, it's we we're starting to see the sidewalks again, uh, and I'm always very concerned about that.

However, we have had other cases on Atherton in that area as well, and nobody's really ever concerned uh really expressed any concerns about traffic in there.

Um, once you get in there a little bit, it it kind of dies down because you can kind of disseminate when you go a couple different ways in there.

So I do like the plan.

I do appreciate the fact that that we did get the traffic survey, which you know, having just taken a really quick look at it, is not even anywhere close to to triggering any type of concerns with the city having been down this road a couple of times.

Um I also did appreciate the very in-depth analysis from Keller Williams.

Um, you know, as the applicant noted, usually it's a one-page, yep, I've looked at it, home home values won't go down.

But this was uh this person really went into it uh and I think put four or five different places as comparison.

So long-winded way for me to say that I'm I'm in favor of this, but I do think that when we get to the point when we are uh making a um a motion, we do need to make sure that we have stipulations in there of what was agreed to uh to both the neighbor to the north and the neighbor to the south.

Um we certainly have in writing uh that that 21 Atherton uh was in favor because of the six criteria, but it was kind of on the fly tonight.

The the the um owner to the south came up with the agreement uh with the counselor.

Um so as the counselor spoke to, we should make that a stipulation as well.

Um Mr.

Zhao.

This is I think more of a question for for Mr.

Falk, and I probably should have just brought it up during the testimony, you know.

But with the floor area ratio and that all that calculation part of things, I'm assuming that there's no like removal of like the garage um from the calculation or anything like that, right?

So whether it was just all living space or garage, it's still just counted the same way.

Uh or is that rose floor area, but we don't I don't think we count attics and mechanical rooms.

The floor area ratio, I think I've been here a long time.

I think we've had maybe three in 28 years out of probably five thousand requests that I've seen here.

Three, and most of them are just barely over the limit.

And not one human being would ever walk on this property and study this property for a week straight and determine what the floor area ratio is just by looking at it.

Same thing with the open space.

The floor area ratio is just barely above the limit.

Same thing with the open space.

So allowed you're supposed to have 50, it's 48 and a half or something.

No one could even tell that one and a half percent at all.

So the variance that they're requesting are in our staff's opinion, very minimal.

Even the the third the third story, two and a half stories are allowed.

But even on a two and a half story building, that upper story can still have bedrooms, bathroom, a living room.

It's just that walls on two opposite ends of the elevation can't be more than four feet high.

So that's what makes it a half a story.

There's less of a overall cubic volume of space, whatever the term is up in that third floor.

So even a two and a half story building is going to have almost the same height as the three-story building.

Because instead of a peak like this at two and a half, the peak is going to be more like more like this, possibly with the third floor.

So you know, in staff's view of this, you know, we looked at this pretty carefully, and we thought all the variances were the evening.

Attorney Pullman and I emailed back and forth, and we said, come on, these are so close.

Yeah, but you know, we understand why they asked for them.

And even the setbacks, Mr.

Shaw, you brought up with this lot having a front, a dedicated front, two sides, and a rear.

It's true.

Our staff actually had an ordinance proposed in a situation like this, where if you had a building with the back yard or the back of the property facing another property, that should be a rear yard, not sides like this.

And here all the backyards, units seven through ten do face a dedicated rear yard.

But those setbacks are met by far.

They're probably close to 30 feet.

So those are all fine.

The units to the uh north, uh, they're also uh significantly more than the side yard setback in on both sides.

And there's more than 40, if not 50 feet of space between buildings.

The fire department's only gonna require 20.

So they're they're significantly farther than what the code allows for fire safety, air and space, emergency access between the buildings if need be.

So it it with the way this layout is proposed, it looks like it you know from a safety perspective and light and space and air circulating through the property.

You know, we we thought it was a pretty good plan.

Any additional comments?

All right, would anybody like to make a motion?

I'll take it, that's fine.

All right, I would like to make a motion on behalf of the uh Vernon C.

Shelby and Estate of Samuela, Shelby, and Phillips Sonard, owners 15 and 19 Atherton Avenue, sheet 46 lots 22 and 23 requesting the following.

A use variance for land use code section 190-15, table 150 uh 15-1, number 15 to allow 16 multifamily units in three buildings, and the following variances from land use code section 190-16, table 16-3, number two for land area, 51,619 square feet existing, 116, 160 square feet required, number three for open space, 50 percent required, 48% proposed, number four for floor area ratio, 50% allowed, 61% proposed, and number five for maximum building stories, two and a half stories permitted, three stories proposed.

All requests to remove two single family houses and construct 16 multifamily units.

This is in the RA and RC zones in Ward 3.

I would propose that we make a motion to uh approve this based on granting the variants would not be contrary to the public interest, in that A this adds additional housing stock to the uh to the city's housing.

Uh as these are smaller townhouses, they are good entry point homes, which the city has specifically asked for, or good uh facilities to downgrade as well.

Uh the spirit of the ordinance would be observed in several of these areas.

Uh first of all, uh, based on the location of where this is located for the RA and RC zones.

Um, if this had been located slightly different area, they would have been authorized up to 14 by right.

In this case, they're asking for a 16.

Uh, we did take a look after some discussion with uh city staff uh about the uh the way the buildings are separated, the side yard setbacks, uh the agreements made with the um abutters on either side, um, that uh the the ordinance basically is looking for abundant enough open space so that buildings do not tower over each other uh based on the way these are situated on these two oversized lots.

We find that the spirit of the ordinance would be observed.

Uh granting the variants would do substantial justice.

Uh as I just noted a couple seconds ago, these are two oversized lots.

They are butting a right of way for PSNH and the railroad, so nothing can be built behind them.

The two buildings that are currently on the lots have been noted that they're the cost to renovate those and to instead of just getting rid of them and adding in these 16 housing stock really would do greater justice to the group that just bought these two properties and it can is combining them into one property.

Um again, as noted uh earlier, these properties are an oversized uh lots, two oversized lots.

The um neighbor to the north has agreed because it turns out that their uh driveway uh was it was uh improperly uh infringing on the uh 19 Atherton that the northern um uh neighbor is looking to make an adjustment as agreed to by the applicant to clean that up.

Uh in addition, um this is very close to uh two brand new, uh relatively new uh townhouse complexes on Lock Street, which are exactly the same as this one, and um they are adjacent to two older townhouse complexes on Atherton.

So it does make sense that this is a consistent use of the types of properties in this area, and to not allow the applicant to build townhouses would create a hardship.

Um we do have stipulations per the um counselor uh when he made his presentation that they have agreements with the neighbors to the north and the neighbors to the south, uh the neighbor to the north.

There was six points that he agreed to in a letter that's on um on record here, and in the chamber here, the neighbor to the south did make an agreement with the applicant as well.

So for those reasons I make a motion to approve the application and second by Mr.

Shaw, thank you.

Uh any additional comments on this one?

Okay, let's all those in favor.

Okay.

Motion does pass five to nothing.

You're welcome.

Um as you know, there's a 30-day window of appeal.

If anything pops up, Mr.

Falk will let you know.

Um but thank you very much.

That one was a multiple.

Yes.

We've had worse.

We have had worse.

Okay, so next uh next items uh review the upcoming agenda for any regional impact.

Has everybody had a chance to take a look at the uh proposed agenda for in two weeks.

I see no review.

No, I see none.

I concur with that as well.

Okay.

Now we do have two sets of minutes that came through.

Um and so we do need to go through those.

Um and I will say on the minutes, uh let's start with the minutes of February 10th, please.

Um I do want to start by saying I had one adjustment on page eight.

Um the second paragraph down, it says Mr.

Neely agreed, but um everything before that was Mr.

Neely speaking.

So I either approved, I either agreed with myself, which I usually do, or that was somebody else.

So if you can, Mr.

Falk, if you can take a look at that with that would be great.

That's the only adjustment I have.

Does anybody else have an adjustments, Mr.

Patrick?

Yeah, I I had the same, I I had one other one or two other, but I had the same note.

I was that maybe you, Mr.

Boucher.

I didn't think to go back and watch the tape, but I think he I think or were you Mr.

Wasn't here.

Right.

So that was not Mr.

Boucher.

Um then I spoke, then Mr.

Lionel spoke.

I really think it was Mr.

Lionel's.

I think you spoke twice, Mr.

Lionel.

Um I might have.

But Mr.

Falcon, great.

Okay.

Um the other thing, just uh uh page two, um the the paragraph that starts with uh announcing attorney prolman.

Um line nine um that starts with that they've issued a favorable recommendation, and I would add, and the city agrees um to all conditions of approval.

Just to make that a little more clear.

Neely said that the special special regulations are fulfilled and there's a reference to a con com meeting um I think there was a CONCOM meeting dated February 3 2026 because this says 22.

I agree with that.

Um that's all I have okay does anybody else have anything for the February 10th minutes okay can I get a motion to approve the minutes with the so moved in a second okay Mr.

Shaw, thank you.

And on to the minutes of February, yeah.

Oh I'm sorry, yeah, I guess I guess we could have a vote.

All those in favor.

I was all excited about that one.

All right.

So that passes.

And uh February 24th, does anybody have any comments on the minutes of February 24th?

None seen.

Does anybody want to make a motion?

Mr.

Patrick makes a motion to move to approve the minutes as drafted.

Thank you.

Second, Mr.

Lionel.

All those in favor?

All right, that passes five to nothing.

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

Okay.

That being said, uh move to adjourn at eight uh excuse me, seven forty-six.

Motion by Mr.

Mr.

Shaw.

Mr.

Shaw.

Oh Rob.

All those in favor.

Okay.

We are adjourned.

All right.