So I can leave now.

Yes.

Actually, no, we we technically need you.

So please please stand.

I got value.

Yes, thank you.

Thank God.

Good evening.

I'd like to call to order the March 19th, 2026, uh meeting of the City of Nashua Planning Board.

Um staff, could we please get a roll call?

Sure.

Uh Mayor Donchus.

Bob Bollinger.

Here.

Adam Barley.

Here.

Maggie Harper.

Scott LeClair.

Dan Hudson.

Larry Hirsch.

Here.

Cameron Green.

Patricia Glee.

Uh Amber Morgan in Lou of Tresh Clee.

Amber Morgan.

Here.

All right.

We have a quorum.

Next item on the agenda, approval of minutes from the March 5th, 2026 meeting.

Has any member of the board had an opportunity to review the minutes and is willing to make a recommendation for uh their acceptance or acceptance with modifications.

Mr.

Hirsch, please.

Move to accept a minutes as written.

All right, thank you.

Motion by Mr.

Hirsch.

Is there a second?

I'll second that motion.

Second by Mr.

Zoller.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Umstentions?

Abstain.

Thank you.

Uh motion passes.

Uh next item on the agenda.

Uh communications.

Um Scott or Connor, have we had any supplemental um uh communications come in since we received our packets?

Yes, so since the packet came out Friday, we received uh comment letters for both cases from engineering as well as a revised uh site plan or or parking demonstration for the 264 Main Street.

I'm sorry, 264 main death road case.

All right, thank you.

And were those materials current as of uh say five o'clock this afternoon?

Yes.

On the website.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Uh next item on the agenda report of Chair Committee and liaison.

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

Um one administrative item perhaps directed to Sam.

I I know Larry had expressed uh earlier this year um joining the historic commission as a liaison.

I I don't know administratively what needs to happen there, but Larry, if you're still it's it is done, okay.

Perfect.

So all right then easy.

Asked and answered, thank you.

And Larry, thank you for volunteering for that supplemental duty.

I know it's already a big commitment here, but um, we appreciate you going the extra mile.

It's a pain color.

Well, thank you again.

I appreciate it.

Um regular cases, that is, um I'm gonna briefly try to go through the planning board procedure.

Um the procedure of the meeting is as follows.

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

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

The public hearing will begin at which time the applicant or 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 any 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 its the public meeting.

Excuse me, the board will deliberate and vote on the application before us.

The board asks both sides to 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 provided and all applicable approval criteria.

Thank you for your interest and courteous attention.

And if I could kindly request that you uh turn off or silence your cell phones at this time.

Thank you so much.

All right.

Moving along in the agenda, uh, if anyone here is uh for case located L Shakespeare Road, uh that has been continued to April 2nd.

Uh that would lead us to our next case under new business conditional use applications, property located at 14A Broad Street, a case A26-0015.

Has any member of the board had an opportunity to review that application and is willing to uh make a motion regarding the board accepting jurisdiction of the application?

Mr.

Varley, please.

Yeah, Mr.

Chair.

Um, as to um case number 826-015.

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

All right, thank you.

Uh motion by Mr.

Barley.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Zoller.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All right, motion passes.

Board has jurisdiction.

Um is there is the applicant here?

Anyone on behalf of the applicant?

Certainly, sir.

Uh, if you wouldn't mind just coming right up, uh just introduce yourself, uh name and address for the record, and uh tell us a little bit about your your proposal this evening.

It's uh William Bradford, 160 Lawrence Road, South New Hampshire.

And uh looking for a conditional approval of a driving school at 148 Broad Street.

All right.

Uh and this is this is an existing building.

Is that is that correct?

Okay.

Um briefly, and I guess to the to the best of your ability, would you be able to speak a little bit about the uh conditional use permit approval criteria?

Whether you think you comport with those, um, and maybe talk a little bit about uh operation hours of operation, things of that sort and staff on site, things like that.

So uh I'm not changing anything exterior, interior, basically just a classroom tables and chairs.

Um we constrict it to a lot of new hampshire laws which are our education.

Um so uh typically my hours are operation are 6 30, 8 30 p.m.

Uh, we can only have two hours of class per day and no more than six hours per week.

So this location we're gonna be there no more than six hours per week.

Uh we're allowed to have 30 students per class.

Typically, parents don't stay, they drop their uh son or daughter and take off and come back.

Occasionally you get some that hang out.

Any other questions?

Uh will you be having uh any stored vehicles on site or is it just classroom instruction?

Uh just classroom instruction.

The instructors are able to take their vehicles home, so it'd be very rare that a vehicle would be sitting there for extended period of time.

Okay.

Um just going through your your application here on the uh conditional use permit criteria.

Um I guess without going into any great detail.

Um, would it be your testimony that that you feel you comply with all the applicable conditional use permit criteria?

Okay.

Um questions from the board.

Okay.

All right, seeing none.

Um in the public here to speak on this case.

Are there four or against?

Okay.

And Connor and Scott, I'm guessing we don't have anyone on Zoom.

No.

Okay.

All right.

All right.

One last chance for the board.

No.

All right.

I'll close the public hearing.

Thank you for your testimony.

And um, you're please feel free to have a seat again.

You're good.

We're gonna deliberate now.

And um I just had one question about the traffic report.

Um, I kind of reviewed uh what the requirements were, and I believe that we're under the 70 vehicles per day per trip.

Is it still required to do a traffic report?

I would imagine my my guess would be you probably are below that threshold.

Uh typically the TIR threshold uh worksheet is required, and I'm not aware of it's just a two-page uh document at the end.

You would not, for example, the the the neither the board nor nor the engineering department is requesting that you do some comprehensive broad street corridor study.

Uh it's it's basically um sort of a declarative statement.

I would think in this case more than more than anything else.

Um and if you need assistance with that, I would imagine you can reach out to to staff, either planning or engineering.

Um I I would go so far as to say in this particular case it may be more of a formality, um, but yet still still a required item um for this particular case.

But uh I would imagine it it should not be uh perceived as a laborious uh effort in any way, and and again for a use I think is relatively benign from a traffic perspective, as this particular application would not be responsible for any other pre-existing conditions along Broad Street or anything like that.

It's it's sort of to I guess get to the lowest common denied or denominator, it's sort of a checklist item for completeness.

Okay.

It's also just to um for the engineering department to have current, I guess, data on all uses in the in the area and and how they contribute to the to the volume of uh the corridors that they serve.

So uh it's just kind of making sure that that their numbers are up to date with with new years.

And again, it's you're you're not being singled out specifically individually or because of this type of use, uh, but it is something that is required of all applications, and again, if you were to need assistance with clarification or exactly what's required, uh I'm sure staff would be very helpful in in that regard.

All right, thank you for the clarification.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Um, I will close uh the public hearing.

We'll go into our public meeting.

Um this one I I think seems to me anyway, seems fairly straightforward.

Um there's quite a wide array of businesses within that that plaza and along that corridor.

Um I don't see this as being very impactful from uh a traffic perspective.

Um but uh uh obviously uh it seems like otherwise um engineering reports uh or recommendations were pretty straightforward.

Um we have seen uh the permit uh for the SOAR request uh uh that's pretty typical, and again, as we spoke to the uh the TIR worksheet is pretty pretty typical for these types of applications.

Um but uh obviously like to hear from the board um see what other additional thoughts you may have on this one I would just add that having had two kids go through drivers ed in the last few years, I can say that there's just very high demand for this, and and so to the to have another provider, particularly one in Nashville, I think is is valuable.

Thank you, Mr.

Varley.

Um any further comments or discussion amongst the board at this time?

No, all right.

Um if that's the case, um is anybody willing to make a motion regarding this application?

Um Mr.

Varley, yes, Mr.

Chair, I would um be willing and I'm just double checking to confirm yeah, we don't have any uh yeah, I didn't see any no readers.

Yeah, yeah.

So Mr.

Chair, I would make a motion um to approve new business A26-0015 finding um that it does meet the requirements um or the approval criteria in section 190-133F, and that would be subject to uh one condition as stated in the staff report.

All right, thank you.

Uh motion by Mr.

Varley.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Hirsch.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Uh motion passes.

Thank you.

You're you're all set.

Have a great evening.

All right.

Um moving along.

Next item on the agenda, also under new business conditional use applications.

Uh case 826-0017, property located at 264 main dunstable road.

Um, has any of the member of the board had an opportunity to review this application and is willing to make a motion regarding the board accepting jurisdiction over this case?

Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to make that motion regarding uh case A26-007.

Uh claiming that it is uh a complete application ready for the board to take jurisdiction.

All right, thank you.

Uh motion by Mr.

Zoller, is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Varley.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

I aye.

Aye.

Motion passes.

The board has jurisdiction.

Um is anyone here on behalf of the applicant tonight that would like to present briefly and tell us a little bit?

Certainly.

Uh come right up to the microphone.

Um if you would please, sir, just uh introduce your uh yourself, name and address for the record and tell us everybody a little bit about Victor Chavari.

I live in Najma, 85 Lingholm Drive.

All right, and can you tell us uh a little bit uh about your proposed restaurant, uh hours of operation, number of staff, things like that?

We're looking to operate from um 11 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

So it's basically uh depends in winter we will change the hours, you know, because it's a little bit tough.

Understood.

Uh out of curiosity, what what type of food did you expect to serve?

Is it Mexica?

Mexican food.

Mexican food, yeah.

We have uh restaurant right now in um 494 M Street.

Yeah, the name is Bajatacos of Ritos.

Okay.

Yes, so we're looking for something to move closer.

All right, you know, to my house.

Yeah.

Understood.

Um and uh having having briefly read through um your your application, um specifically with regard to meeting the um conditional use permit requirements.

Um would it be your testimony that that you comply with all the applicable all the applicable conditional use permit requirements in terms of uh property devaluation traffic and pedestrian safety?

Do you feel this would be contrary to those or in in alignment with with those?

So for traffic, I think you know I live in the area, but you know, I I don't see a lot of traffic, you know.

Most of the traffic goes more to the donkey donuts area, you know, but in the lero section, you know it's basically is normal.

What I see right now.

Okay.

Um appreciate that.

Um just in terms of uh conditions that were offered by the city.

Have you had an opportunity to review the letter from the engineering department?

Um I can I can try to briefly just read it back to you.

Um they're looking for a modification of the SOAR permit, which is a pretty pretty standard condition, very analogous to the application we just saw, actually.

Uh and if you have any questions or or need further guidance on what's required, um I'm sure staff either planning and engineering could could assist with that.

Um again, similar to the um the prior application uh engineering has asked for uh a brief traffic letter uh to be provided, and again, I'm sure staff can provide some guidance on exactly what uh would be needed there.

Um I think the last note here, I just want to read it verbatim so I don't get it wrong.

Uh we note that clients for this and abutting property locations have been parking in the public right-of-way uh for more than 20 years.

However, we have not found recorded agreements or easements permitted uh permitting this parking.

So I think that's that's more of uh a note for awareness.

Um Connor, did you have any other insight on that?

That's that's is that a restrictive element of this, or is it just something to note for the record?

It was a note for the record and in interviewing this application.

Um we I guess we're reintroduced to to you know the situation on site where there is a public or there's parking and public right-of-way, um, but there is no uh formal uh arrangement with the city and property owners or businesses to use that for their required parking.

So we just need to make sure that there was adequate parking on their property uh and and uh in my staff report I I detailed as such.

Okay.

Oh, go ahead, Adam.

Just a follow up.

I I see that there's the diagram that's attached to this to I guess it's technically attached to the letter from Joe Mondola.

What what is the where are we saying is the part is you're saying everything within that red box that's designated as a parking spot is in the right of way or or where is it?

I guess I I'm not clear.

So the could be um the parking along Maine Duncil Road.

If you're looking at the screen, um the TV screen with my mouse.

This is public park.

This is uh parking and public right-of-way.

Okay, yeah.

So I think you just highlighted the parcel.

Got it.

Okay, I was just confused with that the red box and yeah, and I'm I can only guess um that that might be a legacy of when Maine Dunstable used to run across what is now the Everett Turnpike, and that was never quite discontinued.

Yeah, so it's it it's it's not a fault of yours, sir.

There there's some legacy uh parking quirks associated with that site.

Um again, but I I think otherwise, if I'm reading the materials correctly, otherwise the parking requirements are met, and this would be compatible otherwise based on that.

So it would be interesting to know.

Um again, it's not on you to demonstrate this, but um perhaps perhaps a little bit of legwork in the future is perhaps resolving that or trying to get some recorded documentation as to just if the property were to sell or there were to be some other you know major sort of redevelopment exactly what would be entailed there.

But again, sir, it's a it's coincidental um to your application, but not something that you're expected to rectify if you otherwise meet all the parking requirements.

So all right.

Um while you're here, um other questions from the board at this time.

Um let's see.

Is anyone in the audience here to speak on this application?

Either for or against no okay.

All right, well, one last chance for the board.

No, seeing none.

All right.

Well, thank you very much for your testimony.

I appreciate it.

Feel free to take a seat.

Um, I'm gonna close the public hearing.

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

Okay.

Oh, thank you.

All right.

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

I I think folks that have been around for a while know there was previously a Dunkin' Donuts on that site, not in this exact unit, but um uh I've had a number of uses over the year that end unit, uh, the dry cleaner and uh main dunstable video way back before that for when you used to have to go to a store to rent your videos.

Um but um I I think it would otherwise be a good a good compliment to that plaza personally.

Um but uh obviously again I'd love to hear back from the board uh here additional thoughts on the matter.

Mr.

Zoller, please.

Mr.

Chairman, just looking at that diagram.

I I don't think you can really fault anyone for parking at that area that is you know in the right-of-way, you know, it's striped as such for parking.

It's got the same access that you know the rest of the businesses have there.

I mean, it's it's not necessarily anyone's at fault for that.

It's set up for parking currently.

Um just something to know.

Uh I've been going to or familiar with that plaza for several decades and not once on me.

Did I ever know that that that was actually public right of way?

But again, to your point, Mr.

Zole, I would agree.

It's it I don't think it's incumbent essentially on this particular applicant to try to rectify that.

Um but no, I appreciate appreciate your thoughts on that.

Um other comments or thoughts from the board with Sir Barley.

Yeah, Mr.

Chair, and it not necessarily particularly this application, but just it just struck me in reviewing this that we're you know considering a conditional use uh permit for a restaurant in this is in the local business zone.

So I was just surprised that this you know this wouldn't be a use that's by right in the local business zone, and given that we're you know anticipating having a discussion presentation on the the code update um later in the meeting.

Um I was just wondering if this is some this is the type of thing that could potentially be considered in that process.

Yes.

Good question, Adam.

Thank you.

Um, there's no further discussion.

Um is any uh any member of the board at a point where they might be willing to uh make a motion regarding this application Mr.

Varley, please.

Mr.

Chair, I would make a motion to approve new business A26-0017.

Um, and that would be a finding that it meets the approval criteria in Section 190-133 F.

And um that includes three subsequent conditions, all as noted in the staff report.

All right, thank you.

Um motion by Mr.

Barley.

Is there second?

Second, second by Mr.

Zoller.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Thank you for your time this evening.

Have a great night.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh moving along.

Um business subdivision plans.

We have none.

New business site plans.

Uh, all cases have been postponed to April 2.

So our next item would be review of the tentative agenda.

Um is any member of the board in an opportunity.

Mr.

Varley, please.

Go ahead.

Mr.

Chairman, having reviewed the tentative agenda, um, I would make a motion that there are no proposals of regional impact.

All right.

Thank you.

Uh motion by Mr.

Varley.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Hirsch.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor.

Aye.

Motion passes.

All right.

Um next item on the agenda, discussion items.

The the moment we've all been waiting for.

Um recode presentation updates.

Uh Sam, I imagine you're gonna run the show here.

Yes.

All right.

The the floor is yours.

Take a moment to get set up and we're all ears.

So yeah.

All right.

Well, thank you for uh granting me the opportunity to provide an update.

Um it has been some time uh since we've done a a code presentation before the planning board.

My apologies for for such a delay.

Uh we we went back with principal and we wrote code for quite some time.

We had a lot of feedback to ponder.

And uh this presentation is going to serve kind of as a refresher of the general structure, some of the big changes, uh, what's different about this code compared to our current code.

Uh, and then we're gonna talk a little bit about some policy questions.

Um, as I was saying, we did a lot of writing, and the code is basically there, right?

We we have basically everything we need in it, uh, but now we are looking to this board, we're looking to PEDC on where to draw some of the lines, uh, how to uh treat some of the thresholds and where to define those.

Uh, and uh while we can take our best guess and make recommendations where those lines should be drawn, uh we want to confirm that with you know representatives of the community and people who are very uh in the know in terms of local land use decisions and and going on in the community that uh they reflect trends that you're seeing and uh the general community uh aspirations for for the city.

Uh so with that we can uh jump right in.

Um so not easy to read uh from your perspective, so I'll kind of read through these.

Um this is just listing some major major changes um in the current code.

Um we'll start with um what's going on in in RE code.

We're introducing form standards.

So basically um standards around building form, massing architectural standards.

Uh we do have some in our current code, uh pretty limited to downtown.

Um they're somewhat vague.

Uh these are very explicit, but they're also representative of the patterns on the ground.

Our consultant went out, they they measured buildings, there was a lot of uh windshield surveys, but also Google Earth, Google Street View surveys, and actually measuring window widths.

Um so calibrated standards.

Um those calibrated standards are also represented in our districts.

Um the you will see a snippet of the zoning map shortly, uh, and we will see how granular that is.

Uh but this is to reflect patterns on the ground again, but at a more macro scale.

Uh we have currently mass nonconformity throughout the city.

Uh you could not build many of the neighborhoods today in their current form under current regulations, and it's not a reflective of the neighborhoods being wrong or poorly designed, it's just the code was written in a way that did not honor the existing patterns on the ground.

It's just the code was written in a way that did not honor the existing patterns on the ground.

We also have targeted redevelopment areas.

These were articulated in the Imagine Nashua Master Plan.

So now we are turning that into regulation to really try and manifest that vision.

We also talk about some more calibrated IZ inclusionary zoning standards and incentives.

So right now we we do have those.

They're a little stale.

The market has changed significantly.

We also have some issues with density.

We have a lot of districts where we are allowing multifamily, but we have no density standards.

So what good is a density bonus when you have no standards for it?

We also talked a little bit about public realm standards, so where that relationship between public and private, you know, right around the property line begins to blend.

We're providing guidance.

We do have those a little bit right now, but again limited to downtown.

And also we talk about parking.

We see parking a lot here.

We do get some parking waivers on occasion, but now we actually want to make sure that any relief being granted is really earned.

And this is a conversation we're we're having with our parking department about what meaningful steps can a developer take in terms of their design, amenities that they provide on site for either the residences or the businesses and the customers to make real strides towards reducing the parking demand of that apartment or that business.

And then we have a far more robust method of approaching landscaping, and that's the green score.

And we can have we'll keep these in mind if we go through the presentation and we talk about you know potential things that we can talk about at a later date.

These are all things that we could expand on.

So moving on, just this is a helpful visual in terms of kind of a nesting doll approach.

Um up at the top there, uh, you know, just a square within a square that represents buildable area.

Uh this is really kind of setting that box for how a building can relate to the street, uh relate to the lot.

This is what begins to establish a pattern within the neighborhood.

And then the the next box down, uh, if you can see my cursor, this is just uh building standards, basic massing standards, height, width, length of buildings, uh and then as we get a little bit more detailed, um, we talk about component standards.

So these are attachments to buildings, they can be side wings, rear wings, porches, dormers, all sorts of things that begin to give a building character.

Uh and then we get into architectural standards, so that's you know, glazing percentages, you know, the amount of windows you have to have on a building, uh, roof types, uh, and the pitch of those roofs.

All different roof styles have very characteristic dimensions, and we're just writing what those dimensions are, and there's usually ranges, and those are incorporated as well, again, based on existing patterns.

And then we also do talk about accessory standards, so location of accessory buildings and form standards to go along with those.

Uh so to kind of illustrate that a bit further.

Uh, this is just a sheet from uh the code.

This is our small apartment building.

You will see a lot of standards on here.

Uh the highlighted standards, those are basically their the building standards.

So these are again what regulates the massing of the building on the lot.

Uh the next little bit highlighted there, those would be the uh architectural standards.

So you can see you know, percentage of first floor fetestration, upper floor fenestration, uh, limitations on blank walls, um, but then we also have standards for massing components, uh, so details around how large and how the attachments, these side wings, these rear wings should be relative to the main massing of the structure.

And those also get even more detailed with some of the more architectural standards around how to do a cross gable correctly.

Again, all of these standards are calibrated based on surveys that were done in the existing housing stock in Nashua.

And then to go a little bit more uh high level, this is a cut sheet from our urban residential district.

So these are the standards that govern kind of the more district standards that you'd be typically seeing in our current code, uh specifically uh lot dimensions, um, you know, that begins to set up that pattern at the block scale.

And then also a table of permitted building types.

So that's that relationship with that previous slide.

We have building types, we have almost 30 different building types, and then there are appropriate building types for each district, and so that helps to further define the character within the district based on what building types are there presently.

Um we had mentioned that we have some target redevelopment areas.

This is actually a sheet from the master plan, so those areas in yellow were identified at areas that should be either redeveloped or you know, kind of doubled down on in terms of growth and character development.

So we took those and we kind of drew slightly larger blocks around them to kind of serve as the base focus area of the code and expanded that so that that darker teal is really where you'll see changes in the code.

Everywhere outside of that, so North Nashua, the Southwest uh quadrant, those areas are very stable.

Um there's a really set character there.

We don't see these areas of the city as real opportunities for growth, and and quite frankly, if we really tried to force a lot of change through regulations, I think we would see a lot of pushbacks.

So we chose to focus on the areas we took our direction from uh the master plan is where to focus our efforts.

Uh and so this is a shot of our current zone map, and you can see based on the colors, you know, fairly large blocks of color.

And when you look at the proposed map, it's far more granular.

And this is a reflection of the very dynamic neighborhoods we have in Nashville where character changes pretty frequently, and we wanted to make sure that we were writing our districts in a way that captured that character and really made sure that the districts were representative of patterns, and when those patterns change, you see a new district line.

This is all to say that you know we want to continue to perpetuate the character that's there.

We want to bring that character into conformity so that it literally can be perpetuated.

Uh, but then when we get into those targeted areas for growth, we have a mechanism for that.

And those are our redevelopment overlays.

So in these districts, this is a pretty dynamic tool, and I think one of the really exciting pieces of the code that will allow us to really unlock growth in these areas.

Um key thing here is that opting into the overlay is totally voluntary.

You do not have to do it, uh, but if you do it, uh it unlocks some pretty powerful tools.

Um, specifically, um, it allows access to higher intensity districts.

So basically, rather than going through a rezoning process, uh, an applicant with a fair amount of land, think of a large uh box retail store that may have anywhere from eight to twenty acres of land, that turns over, it's a redevelopment opportunity.

With that amount of land, you know, there's some master planning that goes on.

Uh, and rather than just saying, well, this is your district, we say, hey, look, we understand that there's a lot of land here, we want to see some dynamism between different buildings on the site.

It's not appropriate to zone it as a single district.

There's an opportunity to do uh multiple districts and create a new regulating plan for that for that single lot.

Um so in exchange for that though, um, there's an ask for um affordable housing, you know, a certain uh percentage of affordable units at different AMI tiers.

Uh, there's again that that master planning component of understanding how the whole site is going to build out, phasing associated with that, uh, and certain site and building performance standards as well.

Uh, and it applies to those areas that you see uh in different colors in that aerial map.

And do feel free to interrupt me at any time with questions.

I know I'm throwing a lot pretty fast.

So just like a broad conceptual question.

I know when you talked about the form standards, you know, you mentioned a couple times that it's it's based sort of on the what's on the ground now and you know the the reality of a lot of non-conforming uses.

So I gather that part of the objective is to say we're gonna basically align the new standards with what's on the ground, so that if you wanted to propose something sort of consistent with what's there, um the the zoning would then align with that, right?

I guess you know, appreciating that it's some inconsistencies between what's on the ground and the code are probably things we can say, hey, you know, we don't necessarily want to you know maintain that non-conformity going forward.

So just like big picture, what what would you say is the balance between preserving the on the ground but also recognizing that there are adaptations that we want to have in the code that are improvements over what's there.

So, like what is the I and I know that's a kind of a vague question, but like can can you speak to like what that balance is?

Sure.

So the regulations they're not prescribing something very specific.

It may sound that way where we talk about form standards is you know, this is how you do your windows.

I mean, yes, it has those standards, but the intent isn't to be that granular.

Everything has a range, right?

Right now, everything has a range.

You walk through a neighborhood, not everything is the same, especially in the older neighborhoods that have grown organically over time.

And that represents some of the most interesting places to walk simply because the streetscape, the block phase, everything around you is varied, right?

So the idea with bringing forward form standards that are reflective of that dynamic streetscape is to recognize those patterns and make sure that they're conforming so that those lots can add a deck or you know, add an addition in a way that you know would not kick them to the zoning board for some crazy variants because they're already non-conforming.

Um but then also as other neighborhoods mature and thicken up over time, it's recognizing you know what is that next reasonable increment of growth that we want to allow in using the form standards that we've observed to help guide that so that property owners they have reasonable expectations and it's a predictable process, but also abutters and people who see development going on or concerned, they can have a reasonable expectation of the the bounds of what that would be.

Um, without you know, once you go to the zoning board and you're asking for something that's outside of the norm, um it's a very common thing right now.

In fact, I think that if anyone keeps their IOV zoning board agendas, the zoning board agendas are longer than our planning board agendas.

There's more people trying to change or or break the rules, if you will, simply because the rules are just not reflective of what's going on right now.

Um is it fair to see say like it's a it's a greater degree of flexibility within a broader standard?

It is in that flexibility and that standard, it's I'm hesitant to say the word narrowed, but it's more focused on the patterns that are there.

So rather than being silent on it, um, whereas you know, you go to the extreme, you say here's the historic district, and we're very, very um cognizant of what is going on, and rightfully so, because that has its own value, right?

Um, you know, we again it goes back to the predictability for for everyone involved in the process.

Yeah, and I think the the core you sort of touched on is it's not the intent here is not to create conformity in the sense that everything looks the same.

Right.

It's it's to provide degree of greater flexibility and and and sort of create more certainty, sort of like with the bounds within which you're permitted to operate.

When something redevelops, we don't want people to say, wow, that's way out of character in the area.

Yeah, that's what we're trying to avoid.

Yep.

Thank you.

All right.

So that was my general refresher.

Um lot in there.

Um, but I'm happy to jump into some policy questions uh that will likely kind of drum up some other elements of the code that you may have further questions on.

So getting into that, um, our first one uh relates to the commercial industry district.

Um so the the master plan, the imagined natural plan.

Um, I'm gonna I'm gonna focus this really on Northeastern Boulevard.

Uh because the master plan talked about Northeastern Boulevard as a as a commercial and industrial center, and it's a double down on that.

You know, we we need to maintain commercial and industrial areas in the city.

Uh we don't want to see all of those areas redeveloped into housing or mixed use.

We we need true commercial and industrial areas in the city.

Uh that said, it also said that we need to make Northeastern Boulevard in that neighborhood more walkable.

Uh and at PEC on Tuesday night, we we heard that from some of the aldermen who said, yes, please please do that.

So it's almost seems like we have competing interests where you know we're gonna have loading days, we're gonna have you know larger trucks, but we also want to make it more more walkable.

And and how do you do that?

You do it through form standards and building placement and you know how we we talk about that streetscape.

Um we currently do that already a little bit.

Um right now, we require that all loading is done at the side or the rear of a building rather than the front, uh, and that uh it's that loading is not facing a public street.

Uh, we also talk about linkage of sidewalk networks to ensure that buildings are linked to sidewalks and that that sidewalk is continued, um, but also a little bit about like citing the parking uh behind buildings is is encouraged while not a formal standard.

We we prefer to see that as you know, lot geometry is allowed.

So the question is um do is that something that we want to try to bring forward, which means that we would need to see stronger form standards in the commercial industrial district.

So this slide kind of begins to talk about what is that, what are stronger form standards?

So the first box on the top left, these would be primary building placement.

In compared comparison to our current code, you know, these setbacks are very favorable, right?

You know, zero front setback, zero um secondary front setback, so primary street and secondary street, and the secondary street being um like the lower order street, you know.

Um but then also side setbacks range from zero uh to ten feet based on say you're abutting a residential district, there actually is a setback.

The idea being there is that we're we're giving more land on a lot to be developed, but bring the building forward, bring it towards the sidewalk so that as a pedestrian, you're walking next to a building in landscaping rather than an open parking lot.

Uh so that's that's the idea there.

There's a little bit of a trade-off.

You can develop more of your land, but just bring the building forward so again that you can cite the the loading and the parking behind the building.

Um you can see another cut sheet from a uh the building standard, and this being uh our box building, very flexible building type, one that you would typically see uh in commercial development.

It could be a Walmart, a home depot, it could be a logistics center, very flexible building type.

Um, but we have form standards around that.

Um this talks about a building width of 400 feet.

That seems small if you do need to do a large facility.

However, it talks about attachments.

Attachments being you could put two of these, three of these together.

You can stream them along and get a much larger building.

The ask is though, when you look at the building, make it look like two or three different buildings rather than one giant facade.

Again, that benefits the pedestrian, the neighbors.

Um is that something that we would want to impose on these building types?

This is an important building because of its flexibility, it becomes uh a ubiquitous tool in these districts.

Um it's just a question of do we want to ask for more for the benefit of a public in a district that is very focused on commercial and industry, but also a nod towards what the master plan was talking about.

Sam, in regards to the zero-foot front yard setbacks, is there anything in regards to a landscape buffer, any consideration there?

Um, you know, how do those two jog with each other if the the aim is to have more of a landscape frontage um with a zero yard zero foot setback?

Yeah, so that gets into some of our our site standards and public realm standards.

So typically when we see full redevelopment of a site, you know, there's often the question around sidewalks and the general frontage and how that's treated.

Um we typically see sidewalk rehabilitation.

If there's a new curb cut, they're gonna be touching that to a degree.

Um, in all likelihood, that zero foot setback may turn into a five-foot setback just because of we're we're mixing that public and private sphere of balancing sidewalk and balancing landscaping.

Um yes, it that zero provides as much flexibility as we possibly can.

Uh but yes, there are landscaping standards.

So the aim would be more landscaping in the public right-of-way as opposed to on-private property.

Is that kind of the aim with with a district like this?

Not necessarily.

Um, but let's see where you're going.

And like, yes, there is a landscaping component, uh, but then we get into maintenance obligations and responsibility and all of this.

And this is a conversation that we're having currently with DPW.

In fact, we just sat down last week about this, and in the intent, and especially in the fact that the majority of National Street Network is part of what we call easement streets, where actually the property owners own the land to the center of the right-of-way.

Uh, there's just a viadic easement for public use.

Um, so any landscaping that's actually within the right-of-way is probably actually the the responsibility and the own is owned by the property butter.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Go ahead.

Free forum, please.

Yes.

Just quickly, I don't know if you all know.

I was the chair of Imaginashra and the Master Plan, so and we've been working um through this and with this for the last five years, six years?

Six years.

Um a quick question on this.

Um, I know there's been some some back and forth in conversation around being able to attract the development, um, new development, redevelopment, um, while maintaining the citizen needs on that side.

Um with flipping the parking lot and everything to the back to me, quickly doesn't sound like it's too drastic of a of a change.

Um, however, would that still pencil for developers?

I'm looking at Mr.

Hirsch, who may have some thoughts on that.

I I'm I have a lot of issues with what you're talking about, Northeastern Boulevard, for example.

I don't see the scale ever attracting residential or walking, walking location.

Size of the lots, the size of the buildings, the nature of the tenancies there, you're not gonna have uh, you know, I I I don't I don't see the value of what you're talking about at all.

Okay, basically.

I think it's it's gonna hurt.

Uh and also putting a parking to the rear of the property, I don't see any benefit to that.

I see you're gonna have some buildings with frontage, other buildings will never be redeveloped and they're gonna stay in their current condition.

So why I I just would almost rather see it as it is right now.

And I don't see much uh pedestrian activity on that street regardless.

Because you look at the take in the nature of the tenants who were there, the people who were there right now.

You're not gonna engender a whole lot of uh resident uh of you know pedestrian traffic.

Sure, and I think that the standards around encouraging walkability, it's not about necessarily bringing people from the abutting neighborhoods into the district to walk there, but perhaps it's an amenity for the people who work there.

Yeah, and I'm sorry, I just don't see the benefit there because of the size of the lots and all that and the uh the nature of the users in that area.

I mean, you've got a whole range, and I just can't imagine uh much pedestrian activity.

Yeah, okay.

If I could comment on on that on the on the flip side, in a previous life and how we first met, um I toured every single industrial warehouse that was within Nashua, and one of the things that we had trouble with was it needed to be on a bus route in order for us to be able to attract um and maintain the talent that we did need uh and the the workforce that we did need.

So and with that comes being able to walk on the sidewalk to a bus station or stay at a bus station and not just on the edge of a road next to a telephone pole.

Um so I don't I'm not completely familiar with all of the buildings on the street off the top of my head without seeing it on Google Maps, but um, is that currently on the bus route?

I could not tell you off without my head.

Okay, because that would then make sense for a sidewalk walkability for safety reasons.

Think specifically winter your employees are trying to get there or when it's raining and you're walking through puddles and everything to get there.

So I think that that's something to run parallel together, that would make sense.

Adam, you had some thoughts as well.

Yeah, and I you know, so I was one of the planning board reps um for the master plan too, so I'm admittedly probably a bit biased.

But yes, and and I would say this is not, you know, this is one of the areas um the focus areas you know, another one that's maybe more illustrative of some of these concepts because it's just a larger area and it's more diverse, you know, Amherst Street 2.

And we've we've had a couple of recent examples of redevelopments on Hammer Street where you know we were trying to encourage, for example, you know, moving the building as close to the street as possible, but at the time we didn't have the tools within the zoning code to be able to compel that.

Um, personally, uh I think you you know, Larry's your point.

I mean, yeah, right now Northeastern Boulevard is not a place that's gonna attract a lot of walkers, but that's in part because of the existing footprint you have there, um, where it's just it's not really a nice place to walk.

So you know, I I think it's it's a little bit of a chicken and egg, and and I agree with you in terms of you know, this is not something that's gonna happen overnight, yeah.

Right, even if you impose these standards, it requires you know, redevelopment over potentially a fairly long term before you're gonna see real change.

But you know, I I still would be of the view that we should try to build standards that encourage that change, even if it doesn't happen immediately.

Um, even if it's if we're not gonna see the benefit, you know, tomorrow or next year.

I I foresee that you know, over a longer term, you know, you could really change the dynamics of you know, uh some of these corridors and you know make them into places where you people would say, yes, this is this is a walkable area where I would not have you know had that experience um or perspective before bus routes five and six do go on northeastern boulevard.

Thank you.

You know, the other concerns we're gonna try to have retail in that area that's that's one of the uses that's in there is got some small restaurants and small other retail type things.

If you don't have the parking in front of their doors, I think you're gonna really significantly affect the viability of those developments.

We've seen over the years that without you know, like it or not, where a car uh you know, it's an automobile economy.

People are gonna drive.

If they drive down the street and can't see an easy way to get into something, it's not gonna, it's not gonna fly from a retail point of view.

I don't see retailers uh going in that case.

I see these small restaurants, for example, uh being very difficult to uh to tend in areas like that.

If if you don't have if you don't have any parking at the front door.

I mean, uh yeah, I mean obviously you have to have the parking.

Um, you know, again, I mean it's there's clearly, I mean, there's there's plenty of places in the country where they've been able to make this work, um, and you can have successful businesses that you know don't have front door parking.

Um you know, yeah, and where is the yeah, I mean, and and obviously you can you can address that part with having you know multiple entry exit points too.

So you know, I'm not saying it, you know, it wouldn't require people to sort of adjust their expectations to some degree.

Um you know, but I I I think that I I think that there, like I said, there are there, you know, this is just plain of precedent for this.

Um you know, and even if you think about like the you know, main street corridor, right?

I mean you're that's the sort of the the probably greatest use intensity of people you know traveling to an area of the city to go out to eat and that and that sort of thing, and and you know, most of the time if you're doing that, you're not you're not parking at the door and walking in, right?

You're and you might have to you know park several blocks away, and and that doesn't at least my anecdotal experience deter people from you know from going down there to um you know patronize those those businesses and those restaurants.

So I I understand you know what you're saying in terms of you know it does require some sort of recalibration of people's expectations, but I but I like I said I I think there's just precedents to suggest that you know it can work in businesses can be successful at that model.

I I just don't see it being viable.

I just have dealt with enough national retailers and my other other life uh and all that, they really have to have the visibility, the access, the convenience, the parking ability.

I mean, it's it's it's just so critical.

We could all day, and what'll happen is we'll basically chill, I think development doing that.

Uh we'll go in the other direction.

We're not gonna have the kind of small users or whatever else you want to see without that parking uh front and center.

It's just it's so critical.

I can't begin to tell you from my what I've dealt with over the years.

Uh a lot of towns have uh put in walking streets, Laconia, Salem, Massachusetts, places like that are familiar with, and they've been a disaster for all the retailers because they don't have to drive by traffic and look on street park.

Um and I, you know, I I just don't see us having enough population density to make what you're talking about work.

Downtown's a different story, I think.

And but what do you so what do you see that would make downtown different uh you got tremendous density, you've got uh cross streets everywhere, traffic is slow.

It's it's a test, you know, you've got the the uh the synergy of the downtown area.

You don't have in Amherst Street, for example.

You know, we don't have that level of activity on the street that you have in downtown.

Right.

But I mean, isn't part of that, I mean, again, I seem to be it's the chicken and egg thing, right?

I mean, you right, it always is, yeah.

Yeah, you don't have that that level of activity on the street because Amherst Street is a terrible place to be a pedestrian.

So right.

And I just don't see the uh the interest in pedestrian traffic along Amherst Street.

Yeah, there are no question there are people that are walking, but it's not a tremendous amount.

Most of it's by Lobby.

Right, not right now, but I mean also think about how many, I mean, we've had a fair number of residential projects that we've approved along Amherst Street in the last couple of years.

I mean, so you you you could see uh I mean again you I will grant you I am not the expert on commercial real estate and you are so I there are always opinions.

Yeah, yeah, but I mean I so I I don't you know uh I I don't mean to suggest in any way that you know um that I have you know uh a better opinion or or or or you know it's any more valid.

you know um did i have you know uh a better opinion or or or or you know it's any more valid uh but i i i do think that there's there's an element of of this that it's like you you you have to the the only way to see if it works is to try you know to put the standards in place and you could be right it could be it could be a failure but but I don't know how you know that you know um and I don't know how you you attempt to create the change unless you unless you compel because the again I look at Amherst Street just because we've had some recent projects there is a good example where if you can't tell the developer hey this is the standard and so this is what you have to do and and no we're not gonna ranch away with that they're just gonna say well well no we'll we'll we'll do what what we think is best and and you know we're not gonna accommodate this vision because it's not built into the code we approved a project a while back uh up I think was it where there were Buckley's restaurant is now I forget uh it never got constructed it was um and I mean anecdotally for example and basically they had all the parking in the back of the property towards the that little up that pond back there I don't remember the details of this please correct me but basically that project never got off the ground because of the problems of people you know and and I I wasn't directly involved with that project I know people were involved with the project and they couldn't lease it basically they couldn't pre-lease it.

Yeah I mean that's it because and because it what you know but the reason were there was that it was at the backs of the store doors are basically on the street the fronts were an interior parking lot it just it wasn't viable uh we we found we've had tremendous success with a different project involved with which uh has got parking in front parking and back also and the visibility it's made a huge difference yeah I mean you do have um you mentioned buckleys I mean lost cowboy it's a little bit it's kind of a mix but I mean that is I think we're tearing that down at that point weren't they weren't they gonna tear the building down and put another one in uh we we had approvals because um was this around uh ground pond I think wasn't it yeah I think they were at one point I think they were gonna try to hook in a fourth leg to the signal at Blackstone the but I I don't know it could be mixing and matching I'm not sure if I've got everything straight but I do know that the project was designed in such a way that it that it backed up to Amherst Street and that was you know effectively made it impossible for them to well yeah I was using the example of lost cowboy because that place is jam packed all the time I didn't yeah yeah so in that's and that's on that's on Amherst Street right now it's a little bit different because it's not the parking's not entirely in the back but it's mostly in the back.

I'm not talking about project at all what was conceived and I just it was several years ago.

Right right I'm just yeah I just think that's an example where it it it has not seemed to inhibit the success of that that location you know and there may be other factors that go into why yeah why it's successful you don't want to reuse the the existing building so you know that was a community college or yeah whatever it was a college there's a a development along Amherst that keeps coming up to mind for me it's 350 Amherst Street where the uh the newer Viva Tratoria is and there's a kava there as well and a nail slot I don't yeah I don't know if you guys are familiar um but it seems like that development is kind of an example of what we're talking about an effort to kind of shift the facade closer to the uh to the street and there is parking on you know all four sides essentially and you know the parking in the front is certainly more popular that's one thing that I will say for this was that your development well it's it's funny you actually mentioned that um I I recall sitting in a in a room with with Larry and and Dick Cain and I also believe uh a few others uh in having a conversation about this project and the way the building was originally designed it was it was further back but it was also butting up against a a sewer easement and the back of the building was like a sawtooth to to avoid the easement and you know I tried to convince Dick to to move the building forward and and you know the same question about you know we have to have parking in in front and I we came to kind of a happy compromise where all the parking is is not in the front there is you know uh two rows of parking to provide that that visual cue but then the bulk of the parking is is behind it and it seems to be functioning well and so I think to it seems like we're trying to strike a balance here and um the way that we have it currently written in the code is not too far off from what we we currently have right now.

We're basically you know the bringing the buildings is is encouraged and preferred however we have you know a relief mechanism where you can demonstrate you know um constraints or or other means that you actually do need to have a a row of parking you know I think um and I also think that Northeastern Boulevard and Amherst Street are very different.

Where there's a lot of there's a lot more mix of uses on hamher street um whereas Northeastern it's it's not really a destination except for people who are specifically going there.

And because of that I do believe that the form standards are slightly less critical because it's much more about function than form I think in that location.

I think Amherst is different.

I think the form matters a bit more on Amherst and the form matters greatly in Main Street.

So I think we have three really good cases of inherently different environments and I think that the form treatment should reflect those as well and the different goals of those areas.

Could could you explain how the form actually the term form actually how that works I'm I'm I don't really work with it.

Sure so it's one the the building placement so how the building relates to the lot um so that's setbacks right but then also um the form of the building itself and you know we can get so granular as saying how how you know maximum floor plate size you know 48,000 square feet 8000 square feet we we can have those I think when we're talking about truly industrial oriented buildings those matter less you know ceiling heights well if we're talking about high bay warehousing like we don't want to tell you how big and how tall the ceilings need to be like build it to the function but also first floor fenestration you know these standards while they matter greatly in a very dense mixed use environment where you do have that pedestrian activity if it's more about let's get the loading bays in an efficient location and design the building to to function the form standards matter less so I think what I'm asking from this group is an understanding of um how like where do we draw the line on the form standards how important are they in this Northeastern Boulevard very much more commercial and industrial focused environment rather than the retail kind of mix of Amherst Street and in the far more mixed Main Street.

And you end up by ignorance um the site plan review so basically this the form is is that going to be the structure on which the site plan will be reviewed and how it co it you know follows this the standards yes effectively yes so then someone to go for a variance to deviate from that you would there is I'm gonna get to another part of our relief where um we're talking about because we're introducing a new concept we want to basically write into the code a temporary relief measure where you can vary these standards within a certain percentage off of what that base number is in the code so that we can know then if if that's being utilized if that waiver that that flexible you know waiver is being used to to modify the standards we'll know how close we got with those standards and if we need to change them great but it's more to your point Larry I think based on what we're seeing come through what has been approved what has been built but then also what's already on the ground and again being sensitive to the different areas of the city the different patterns we're seeing we don't want a chill development we also want good development but good development is very subjective and based on where the development is going.

So we want to craft good standards that are sensitive to the environment those environments and therefore those standards vary greatly depending on where you are and I think you know couching this whole conversation around a a truly dedicated commercial industrial area that is Northeastern Boulevard trying to get a sense from the board if this is in an area that that is appropriate to walk those standards back provide a lot of flexibility and where we may end up is that while we have commercial business and commercial industrial districts both on Amherst Street and in Northeastern Boulevard perhaps those two locations are so different in nature we need a a different kind of commercial industrial district for Northeastern Boulevard because the standards need to be more flexible than what are on Amherst Street Yeah I mean I think to your question Sam I I would tend to agree with what I think you're suggesting which is that you you know again well Northeastern Boulevard very different than Amherst Street so from my perspective I would be much more concerned about interested in kind of more strictly enforcing the form standards on the Amherst Street corridor than on Northeastern Boulevard what do you think Larry I disagree I feel also the the program we went through in 340 350 Amherst Street showed how well the curve system works basically.

I feel also the program we went through in 340, 350 Amherst Street showed how well the current system works, basically.

We negotiated.

You had certain standards that we went back and forth.

And I think everyone's fairly happy with the resulting product.

But I mean, I I would have I would have preferred that we had the standard.

I I would have said no.

It has to be you know we again, you know, I I look I look at it from the perspective of like what was what was the purpose of enacting the master plan if we're just gonna say that's not really what we meant.

You know, you know, it was in particular with the focus on these specific areas of the city, there were you know fairly specific standards and recommendations that were adopted.

And if we just then adopt a code that that basically ignores you know the intent and purpose behind the master plan, then you know, again, I just look at as what what was the what was the point of the master plan and you know, again from my perspective, that particular project is an example of where you know we we didn't do something we didn't hold the developers' restrictive standard because we didn't have the authority to do it under the code, so there's really no basis for us to say no no no, you have to put the building against the street.

Um so yeah, in the context in which the the project came before us, it was a good compromise because we didn't have the code standard to enforce it, but I would like to see the code for standard to enforce it.

So you and I would disagree.

Yeah, I appreciate that.

I mean, we're all agree to disagree.

And just one I just have one last comment on that.

When we were talking about Amherst Street, there is some um really interesting facts and figures that were shared around it being, and maybe it's changed since then, but being um the most unsafe in the city in terms of for cyclists and pedestrians with the most recurrences of incidents on that street.

Um there was a lot of different things that we had looked at in terms of um do we focus on making it more pedestrian friendly, or do we not?

And there was talks about reducing the speed or the lanes or doing a parallel lane and having the center be um so there's a lot of different methods to get there, but you know, when you're have an established city, how do you go from where you're at to that idealized um version?

Um but having it be of course there's not pedestrians because it's not safe.

If anybody has ever had a cross that street before, you know you're playing Frogger, like you you just kind of do one of these before you cross the street.

But um, it's yeah, but there's a there's definitely more of a balance, but on the if we think way outside of that, this is our introduction to the city for met most of that western you know side of the state or west.

Yeah, west west.

Um, and so when they're coming in, they think this is all Nashua is this commercial district without realizing that the majority of Nashville is actually residential.

But the feeling of Nashua is that it's mostly commercial and big box stores because that's the natural progression down the street.

So if it was more um walkable, if it did look a little bit more pedestrian friendly, that could twist that point of view completely.

A couple of quick comments, one of which is the state highway.

Oh, yeah.

Uh and I don't think the state necessarily is going to be uh particularly cooperative uh with with that in that situation.

Uh and uh you know, unfortunately, I went to some of the meetings for the master plan, and finally I just there's no point to it.

Uh I heard people comparing it to all kinds of you know, well, they had all kinds of dreams for a Linfield marketplace, or what a weyland center or whatever.

I mean, you know, it just it didn't make any sense economically.

No one no one was looking at the economics, which I look at obviously.

Uh they were looking at just a you know, gee whiz this would be pretty.

Well, it's it's not gonna make any nobody's gonna be able to do it.

It's not gonna be able to be developed, right?

Because people just can't use you can't finance it, you can't make money doing it, and we're in a business where people want to make money.

So I uh you know, I I saw the master plan.

I I was like I said, I went to three or four sessions, and finally, I just after the one at the library on the commercial stuff, I just said this is insane.

And and you know, didn't bother going because nothing I didn't think it was at all practical.

But that's another issue.

No, and I I value that perspective greatly, Larry.

Ultimate Morgan did get me thinking a little bit more about the traffic on Amherst specifically and looking at you know the plan of you know, comparing two different buildings with parking in the front versus parking in the back.

There would be perhaps some driveway benefits to placing the building further up in the street, and that you know, if you had a corner lot, perhaps you could you know have driveway entrances on side streets and therefore get some of the you know queuing traffic on Amherst Street coming in and out of the driveway as you would move that traffic away from the busy street and you know, ingress and egress would be on a less busy street.

So maybe that's something to think about as well.

And you know, the fact that it's a state highway, usually there's a DOT driveway permit that developers would have to go through as well.

So maybe alleviating some of that pressure, some of the permitting pressure that would go along with driveway permits, you know, maybe that's something to think about as well, is from a traffic perspective, getting some of those entrances and exits off of the main road and migrating them to the side.

Yeah, we put a uh basically a drive across the back of that for the development just for that purpose.

So I can come on an airport road with a traffic signal and cut right across to the uh uh CMC emergency room, for example.

And people can come out the same way and can go west.

That's that wasn't you know, well, we did that as a again as a cooperation.

We we've discussed it just what you guys wanted.

It worked for everybody.

And actually, I was just gonna say, Sam, quick point of clarification.

Uh, even though it's a state route designation, uh, all of that section Amherst Street is compact.

It's basically city city maintenance uh state jurisdiction takes over just at the continental boulevard intersection.

So I think that that far out.

Yeah, right.

The town line, that's the compact line.

So uh Nashua, I think has very little state maintained highway, other than the turnpike and Henry Burke Highway.

Um that's basically it.

Um they would allow them to be able to do that.

Yeah, and the state right away.

This the state doesn't uh basically what happens with the compact process.

There's uh some this it's the state's responsibility to get it up to a good state of repair, and that probably happened at some point after 1971, and basically they did a paving project, they did a widening project, and basically said, City Nashville, we paid for the project, here's the keys, you own it from henceforth.

Yeah, so and and the state, even if it they did have jurisdiction, they would not get into just because of legislatively what they're allowed and not allowed to do, they wouldn't get into the granular level of site plan matters.

Uh they do have a larger permitting uh process, but it it's it's really primarily with respect to highway and traffic matters.

If the effect that we if if the effect Nashua has is to constrict traffic flow so you have backups and all that, the states not gonna get involved at that point.

I mean, it a lot of the people were talking about the fact they could put other lanes into all kinds of other things and reduce the traffic flow and hell with the backups, you know, with one of the comments I heard.

You still can apply, Sam.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

There's been uh Amherst Street corridor improvement project on the books for at least two decades in the 10 year plan, yes.

Yeah, um, so you you can still apply to have state funds improve um a city maintained section of highway that doesn't preclude that, uh, but the city basic or the state rather is more or less going to take a hands-off approach on on the day-to-day.

So I hope I didn't oversimplify that.

No, no, no, I think that was a good summary.

And and I'd like to kind of tie this one up with a comment that reflects both um with Morgan and then Larry, your comments about um the connection behind the buildings, but also you know how we create uh a more walkable street.

One thing that Amherst Street lacks is a parallel street network.

You know, when we talk about getting cars off of Amherst Street, if you need to go from Lost Cowboy to Target, you have to go back out onto Amherst Street with uh 350 Amherst Street and the adjacent properties, those redevelopment projects, there is the beginning of a connected route off of Amherst Street, and that's something we want to do long term.

That's going to require corridor planning and a long-term coordinated effort around individual redevelopment projects and trying to establish that vision.

Um this creates a good segue into the next policy question around the redevelopment overlays.

And so, what's unique about Amherst Street, and again, what sets it apart from Northeastern Boulevard is not only uh is it it's uh a base of commercial business and commercial industrial zoning districts uh in the in the proposed code, uh, but it also has an overlay.

So the overlay it unlocks residential as a use.

Um, but again, we want to see this deployed on larger lots where there is the opportunity for wiping the slate clean and redeveloping, and really those are our opportunities to establish connections with that parallel street network.

And while we recognize the vision that was articulated in the master plan, we do want to create that.

But we recognize the economics of the value of the visibility for retail establishments off of Amherst Street.

There is a need, but we can create that vision step back off of Amherst Street, where we're not competing with the traffic volumes, the speeds, we're just separating the two environments and leveraging the volumes and just the flow and the amount of people on Amherst Street to support redevelopment and using you know maintaining Amherst Street as an artery, but then developing behind that and creating connectivity so that it does not degrade Amherst Street's capacity as a thoroughfare for traffic while also maintaining the value that it brings for those true like front door commercial establishments that rely on that.

And so while we recognize, yes, we we do want to see those buildings right up on the street.

Well, I think there is a compromise to be had where we maybe you do get those couple rows of parking to give that visual cue, but what we really want the buildings fronting right on the street is on that parallel street network where you actually can completely change the environment.

You have a completely different, you know, it's just a two-lane road, it's much more akin to main street, where you have that denser, tighter density that would bring in more people to support the businesses, but also opportunities for a different kind of retail experience, more akin to main street.

Um, but that all is through through the overlay process.

Unless anyone wants to comment, Larry.

I used to see a being practical economically to develop it.

I mean, you're you're talking so many, like Amherst Street, for example, which I'm familiar with.

You have too many buildings where you can't have to such the takings would be impossible.

So it wouldn't be through a taking process.

But as they organically come up, you know, there is this broader plan of like when we're having those conversations around site layout, and there is a role that can be taken at the legislative level, you know, map line a future street, you know, say, hey, look, we we as as an elected body of officials at the aldermatic level say we want to have this parallel street network, and there are actions that can be taken.

It's not a taking of properties, but there is a policy guidance that could then be effectuated through the individual redevelopment of sites to complement some of the work that you've already done long term, but it is it is a site by sight by sight, and that's something that we would that's the pace that we'd see this anyways.

It's not something that the city should be throwing millions and millions of taxpayer dollars at to accomplish this.

The free market will do its thing, but let's just kind of guide it in a way that creates more opportunity from an economic standpoint, more frontage, right?

Along a an already bustling uh network, that being Amherst Street, but also creating and trying to manifest that vision articulated the master plan.

But you're gonna be reducing the ability of people to redevelop the existing sites because they're gonna be restricted by the roadway one.

But I mean, all zoning reduces the ability of people to develop sites.

I mean I I think I'm not disagreeing with that here.

Yeah, I mean, I I think Sam, I I I like that concept.

I like the idea of, and I think it is Larry, to your point, it's more realistic in the sense that I do think that some of the depictions in the master plan are probably you know just not you know you are not gonna come to fruition in terms of like the just the look and feel of Amherst Street.

I I think the idea of creating that secondary network, but at the same time, I I do still think that there's opportunities to create better pedestrian access and and better pedestrian safety on Amherst Street, and you know, some of the look and feel, even if you're never gonna get to exactly what the aspiration of the master plan is.

Thank you.

All right, next policy point.

Uh context being the overlays.

So these overlays exist on top of commercial business, commercial industrial.

So the question is when a developer has control of 20 acres and is changing it into a mixed-use neighborhood with potentially four or five-story apartment buildings, maybe retail on the first floor, maybe structured parking, manufacturing as a conditional use in those overlays.

What are your thoughts?

We would employ restrictions in terms of we we need a real plan of how noise is mitigated.

So some of the the potential noxious side effects that manufacturing can bring, noise, odor, vibration.

Assuming manufacturing is largely contained within a building, we're not talking asphalt.

I was gonna ask on the other.

No, and let's let's be realistic.

You know, we we're should be only at the nature of manufacturing in the new England economy.

It's it's it's fairly narrow, hopefully more of a high-tech uh orientation.

Um, but we want to provide space for that investment, right?

So while we do want to leverage Northeastern Boulevard, can manufacturing with the right conditions live and operate in harmony in a mixed-use mid-rise neighborhood as part of a redevelopment.

And so again, the question is would we be open to permitting manufacturing as a use via CUP in the overlays?

And just to be clear, you are you saying are we talking about creating new overlay districts, or are you talking about in existing in so this is part of the um the the overlay districts that would be deployed on on Amherst Street, uh Damien Webster Highway, uh larger portions around the downtown and out east Hollow Street, those are those are the primary focuses of these overlays uh for significant redevelopment within those.

Can we specify manufacturing with very broad range?

Um with the example of the asphalt being heavy industrial manufacturing versus light manufacturing.

There are those nuances in the code.

So when you're thinking about manufacturing, think about enclosed um buildings, like manufacturing is occurring in a building, not an open um outdoor yard.

The only concern I have is if you start pushing to multi-story manufacturing, I don't think it's gonna be viable in New Hampshire.

It doesn't have and it doesn't have to be.

I don't understand looking at you know what you're talking about.

I have no problem at all with the idea of a 20-acre site being master plan for you know good quality residential, whatever makes perfect sense to me.

Yeah, and I think uh to your to your uh height point, right?

We're right next to the airport, and you do have height limitations.

In fact, we've we have this really incredible, very detailed map that we have from the airport that basically has like the the planes, and I don't mean wings planes, but the planes of of no vertical penetrations uh to the approach path from the FAA?

That's what I meant to say.

Um exactly.

Uh have you encountered that in your side job?

I have.

I mean, uh that's actually one thing I was just gonna bring up with mid-rise and high-rise zones.

You know, is there any, you know, has there been any strategy with that?

It's like exactly how high should a high-rise uh development be, and you know, downtown is on the flight path for the Nashua Airport.

So I mean, are they are we jiving with FAA in regards to their requirements?

So we're actually taking that map and we're we're adding it into our collection of zoning maps that will be the zoning atlas for the city, and that will be an overlay and regulating heights.

So if you have a you know 20 foot-tall, maybe it goes even a little bit higher, but really single-story manufacturing, maybe you have some you know, high racks for storage or what have you, that can be that first step from the runway, right?

Like you step up as you get towards main street because you need that clearance, if you will.

Um a smaller building closer to the airport, which in itself is going to have noise and you know all those sorts of things.

You you you buffer from that with you know, airport, industrial, other business, and then as you get closer to the Amherst Street, you would you would have you would introduce the the mid-rise character.

Just a general thought, Sam, it's just it seems like there's already some element of that.

I don't know if I would exactly classify it as manufacturing, but there's some businesses you could at least argue or maybe analogous to that right now, already on uh Northeastern Boulevard and Amherst Street.

I don't know if I'd call Amazon operations manufacturing, but it it's sure something like that.

You have large buildings with a lot of you know heavy vehicle traffic, things like that.

Um so that doesn't to me that does not seem out of character per personally.

Um and I I think you've identified the right thing, right?

So the overlay, while it applies to the Amherst Street corridor as a whole, you know, it's it's one property that's gonna redevelop.

Maybe maybe there's an assembly of a couple parcels, but it's only a portion of the corridor, and the character of the corridor is you know defined by you know the townhouses we've been seeing developed, um, but also you know uh the stag building, you know, 300,000 square feet of warehouse, right?

So there's a whole bunch of stuff.

So no manufacturing building would be in character in the base zoning of commercial business and commercial industry, but when you come in with an overlay, the question is does that overlay now change the character and it's setting a new pattern, or does it are we through this process being the C UP, are we nodding to what's already there and saying, oh yeah, no, no, we we do want to make space for manufacturing, even in the overlay as things we develop because we recognize what's there and frankly what's not going anywhere in large parts of Ampers Street, and that's a good thing.

So manufacturing as a conditional use in the overlay.

If we don't have to vote on it tonight, yes.

That's uh in in theory, in theory, I I think so.

I think, yeah, the I get the right limits on the type of manufacturing, but yeah, I mean that seems it seems reasonable.

Very good.

And there's there's just a uh a visual, uh, the dark blue on the left, that is commercial business, the light blue is commercial industrial.

Um so as we were just saying with the airport, the the heavier theoretically, the heavier the permitted uses are closer to the airport, that more uh retail uh experience is closer to the corridor, that jives with what Larry's been saying about you know the the uses that need that traffic and that visibility are closer to the corridor, it'd be zoned as such, but then on the right you see the overlays where that that um the red is is a higher intensity, uh and then as you step back off the corridor, slightly lower intensity.

Uh and these are district groups, that's a whole different thing, but basically you can think of height and analogous to the level of intensity, more height closer to the artery being in hers route.

So just that base versus overlay uh comparison for the exact same location.

All right, so coming into uh another piece here, this does play in the overlays, but it's also more downtown focused because we have different overlays in different parts of the city.

Uh so in the downtown overlays, we have this language, and we just want to, you know, uh to hear if this is is good and the intent is here, right?

So when someone comes in and does a building in the downtown overlay, uh, should the should we have this and keep this language saying that the building facade should be complementary to the historic structure, uh architecture.

Um currently uh we we kind of have this.

We have to maintain unique aesthetic architectural visual amenities of individual buildings or clusters of buildings, so there's that does exist right now in the code.

Uh that's also reiterated in some of our site plan approval criteria to highlight this as a stark contrast.

These are opposing buildings right at the same spot on Main Street.

Uh, you have modern architecture and a very historic building as well.

So the question is is this good?

Or if you're in the downtown overlay, should it always be historic and nodding to that historic character?

How flexible do we want to be with the styles?

Now, when we talk about form-based codes, we talk about windows and roofs.

Both of these would be permitted.

You know, you're still hitting your glazing requirements, you're still hitting your general floor plates and your heights, the massing is all okay.

The general uh componentry and attachments, all okay under form standards.

But the architectural style, that's that next step in form standards.

And in certain areas of the city, that next step may be worth taking, but that's where we need some guidance.

Oh, and we have a member of the public here who wants to comment as well.

Um the only comment I would have is that sometimes imitation of historical buildings doesn't come off very well.

It doesn't work.

And to require that, I think would be a problem.

That's a that's a very good point.

Um if it is important, then what I would like to see is a master plan from our historical commission to say here is what we would like to see happen within the historic district, um, with that the likeness of what they would like to see and the form and the colors and all of that.

Otherwise, um if it's not important for them to create that and do that as the body representing that, then why is it important?

Let me just say to to contextualize this a little bit.

We're very intentionally not putting an overlay on top of the historic district because these overlays are redevelopment overlays.

We don't want to say through this policy that we want to redevelop the historic district.

That is not at all the intent.

So while I understand the point of the question, and there's certainly elements of Main Street that are currently outside of the district, very well could be a part of the district.

Um the question is when we get out of that, and there is total redevelopment, say a building on Main Street is level, there's there's a vacant spot, maybe maybe 300 Main Street, right?

You're further down, it's a big plaza, might redevelop in the future.

Uh it is a little further away from that real core Nashwood downtown character.

Yeah.

Do we tell it you need to mimic the building on the right, and you're you're precluded from doing any modern architecture.

I would sorry you finish.

Um and maybe Larry would be able to add some context to this.

But the unless we're doing what is it, the 86B, 86.

79E?

That one, 79E, then I don't see how that would be affordable in some cases, like I don't know the address, but the garden.

Um at this point, that building in reality just needs to be brought down and then rebuilt.

So it is within all of our proper current code enforcements.

Um I don't even know if it it to your point, if it makes sense, um, dollars and cents to be able to sustain that.

They don't make them like that anymore for many reasons.

I think the problem is economic.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, no, no, you please.

No, it's economically.

I don't know how uh with the cost of construction today, you can possibly be leased out in any way that makes any sense.

I mean it's it's it's it does wouldn't justify the uh the cost by a long shot.

Sorry, you're saying building it to align with the historical standard.

I'm assuming we'll rebuilding it, yeah.

But as between rehab of existing structure, right?

I'm saying we have that's the affordable that's the economic way to that would make sense.

Re utilizing it basically for a new garden.

Unfortunately, I'm not saying it's a desirable thing, but well, no, it makes sense.

Sorry, Mr.

Chairman.

May I I know I'm a guest and I appreciate you allowing me to speak like anybody could stop me, right?

Pat, I think we're going a little bit free form at this point.

So uh we can dispense with the formalities.

Thank you.

Um I I agree and I disagree.

Um I the problem, so for instance, and this particular building you're showing.

I was on that committee as was um Alderman Morgan.

Um I didn't want to see the building to be like this because I kept feeling like it didn't fit in with it, but a lot of good points had been brought up.

When you go down Main Street, we have 1960s buildings, we have 1970s building.

The building that was taken down, I think was a uh 1930, 1950 or 70 kind of build that you're Scott, do you want to put a year on that for us?

Yeah, yeah, I would say the Miller's department store that came down uh was probably from the from the 70s and things along those lines but uh so I think we we could we should also maybe talk about facade restoration as well.

Exactly, and and that was the point that I was going to make.

Um from I'm just speaking like in the historic district type thing, we have no colors that you know people can choose whatever colors they want.

They have to keep in character of the neighborhood if they're taking an old home and re rehabbing it and so on.

So to have taken maybe this building that they knocked down that 1980s portion of that building, we really didn't want to see them put up a 1980s building, but if they were to put up with the care, they were put up with the characters.

I mean, I I'm gonna bring up a the the building that Ja Jabells is in.

That is not within the character of it.

So the point that I was making is as you drive down Main Street, we see the odd fellows building, we see the old telegraph building, we see all these beautifully, but they're all different ages, they're all different type of things.

So which architect do we have to keep them in?

So we have to be practical at it.

I would love to see all the historical architecture keep with it because you know you go to any old downtown and you just kind of I I go to Chicago and and I just look at all the different architects that's there I love it.

It's just that we have just different kinds of architect there I'm not necessarily happy with the performing arts center but you know what when people go by it's a building that kind of stands out and people go oh there's where the art center is because it's a more modern style of building it's not the the palace or something like that.

But anyways my 10 cents I've seen other uh you know examples that you know certain towns and cities put forward they're like styling guidelines or architecture guidelines um and they speak to things like you know masa uh materials in the facade you know maybe a certain town really likes red brick you know I see a lot of red brick in downtown Nashua you know maybe there would be certain guidelines that we could put out that would specify certain colors that we would like to see downtown um you know different materials um you know that way you could get away with doing a modern building if you want it or if you know a developer wanted to do that but you'd still have a little bit of that character maybe you'd incorporate some red brick maybe there'd be you know a granite facade or a stone facade as well that could be incorporated in and you know the colors could speak to that as well so maybe you know certain guidelines along those lines not necessarily specifying the type of architecture or the form just you know some of the colors and some of the materials that we'd like to see.

Literally I could not have asked for a better segment didn't you should we share this with us material standards for certain districts call it let's keep it focused in the downtown overlay so when there is a significant redevelopment do we have a list of materials that we'd like to see and is it is it the red brick is it materials that we don't want to see and I'm gonna keep going because this is all topical EFIS is a divisive building material.

It's cost effective it's energy efficient uh it goes up well there can be major issues with installation uh if water gets behind it it can be a major problem uh it does not weather particularly well and sometimes it's not very durable it all comes down to the installation right now in our code uh in the downtown district and I'm talking about current code that we're under right now it's a permitted material um we see it deployed a lot um planet fitness is covered in it uh so is Hannah for I mean a lot of the big box stores everywhere uh have it and I think it might be one of those materials that is contextually appropriate um and maybe not so contextually appropriate in the downtown maybe maybe not um but out on Amherst Street DW it's you know you have you have national chains it is part of their portfolio it's it's how they do it you know we're not Sedona we're not gonna get turquoise arches for um McDonald's but eFIS it's a question of of you know is this a material that we want to exclude from certain districts or prohibit entirely or say how about it what does this situation where it's very qualitative depending on the quality of the job I've seen really good ethos jobs a few terrible ones you're right they don't last but economically sometimes it's cheaper after 15 years to replace it for tax reasons and everything else so it's you know who are we who are we to say is what I'm asking you can't use ethos but you're gonna use brick right I mean I I just don't think it's it's a realistic thing for us to do the question is how do we how do you legislate how do you determine quality of a of a project and I don't know how you can do that.

Larry do you think that the economics change or or the the feelings towards where it matters more differs where you are in the city.

I think you know the juxposition of downtown versus Amherst Street.

Well I'm saying EFIS is done well really well and there are people do it really well really great.

Yeah it could look almost as good as brick I think in a lot of situations or close 350 Amherst Street has as Ephis and it looks pretty darn good it's also a brand new building I would add stucco to that.

Well they're all they're almost interchangeable basically saying I was like it's just not like that spray paint like you see out west stucco style.

Basically say I was like it's just not like that spray paint like you see out west stucco style.

Right.

Yeah.

Yeah.

We have 400 Amherst 400 Amherst Street or just basically.

Yeah.

I mean I I like Ben's suggestion about you know creating some style guide so not requiring strict adherence to a particular architectural standard but but you know keeping elements because it seems to me like going back to the sort of the I don't know if it's the Oddfellows buildings is across from the the um art center.

But I mean I think there's room for modern and historical um but the idea of like preserving some level of you know feature from um some of the historical buildings is uh you know I I I think that's a good idea.

If if I could just add something uh the uh downtown you you probably have maybe 18 to 20 buildings or so that uh already have facades that have been covered up.

I mean Martha's exchange was one of the first facades that was restored in the downtown.

Uh if you saw pictures of that from the 70s or the late 60s there was plastic yellow and orange all the way on the side all that was taken down and they kind of brought it back.

There's cast iron columns in the front and there's also cast uh you know with a different material but looks they look exactly the same so there's plenty of other materials that you can use and interchange on facades.

You don't have to necessarily do that but many of these buildings we already have old pictures of what they look like and they look pretty attractive at that time.

And if those were to be brought back and you could have I think we have eFUS downtown anyways I believe I mean right uh I think they redid the buildings from Water Street yeah right right on the Water Street Main Street.

That's EFUS there.

So yeah and that's kind of improved the look of that corner because it used to be bright yellow you know all kinds of yeah yeah it was very different.

Yeah so just a thought just to throw it up but just I just want to can um reiterate what I said is that when you drive even to the heart of Main Street the number of different types of architect that's there and I think the historic district technically ends at the um the main street bridge doesn't it it doesn't it doesn't go over the bridge there.

So um so peddlers and um the hidden pig and so on they fall within the historic district but not beyond that.

But if you go past that bridge and you look at you know um on the corner as you said of of Water Street and and so on versus what's across the street from a the old telegraph building and um and and you you move down that way and you start looking at the left and the right the architect on all of those are from different time zones.

And I guess in some respects that is what downtown is it's different time zones.

So which one would you say to them that they have to meet the requirement is it they have to meet the requirement of the one across the street from them the one next to them the one behind them.

I think it would be extraordinarily difficult.

I like the idea of material I like the idea of you know putting some aspects when we we talk about you know meeting the a certain requirement I I think in people's minds at least in my mind I I only speak for myself I immediately thought about things like the Oddfellow building but I know where jah bells is and that's a completely different and that's right there as well you know where gentle dental is obviously right within all that you know um where the bank is um next to it and then you know of course you look at um I'm union whatever it's called now but with Via Banca because it was a bank at one time you know so that has a completely different architectural you know that that's the Mason's building or something like that.

So there's just too much historical architect in there to say that we would be picking one or even saying picking next door because you could live next to three different types of so which one do they adopt?

I I think somewhat analogous in in Alderman Clee I think you weren't here for this part of the discussion.

Thank you.

I I think it it's partly like I don't think this is going to happen overnight like some of the examples you were talking about on Amherst Street but if there is some sort of preferred style guide and again I'm not an expert I couldn't dictate building materials.

But um I think that's the thing if if you do have um a redevelopment or something going forward uh just Ben you may have run into this in your in your day job you have a lot of communities Sam that very vaguely state they they they want Cape Cod standards but but or architecture but they have no definition of what that means.

There's no stylistic guidelines that are associated with it.

Or often there's not.

So your interpretation of Cape God architectures could be different than mine.

So I I I guess I again I'm I'm not trying to be overly prescriptive with this, but I I think with a if there's any place you could you could attempt to be a little bit more prescriptive, I think it would be the downtown area.

Um personally, I I opinion only.

Um I like the older buildings.

It's nothing against the new ones.

Uh I'm not saying you should tear down everything that's there now.

That's not that's not practical and rebuild it that way.

But if there's that opportunity, I this is probably one area, you know, you're talking a couple of blocks that if you could target some intended design.

I I personally wouldn't be opposed to that.

Do they have the qualifications to say what that should be?

No, I do not, but um, I I I I think if we were to be a little bit more strict in certain areas, I think it would have to be confined, you know, very tightly geographically.

Um and again, I I think the intent here is not to have everybody, you know, you you you you don't have to take out what's there now, but if there is an opportunity for redevelopment that again if you could put some bumpers on that, but again, that's just my two cents on that one.

So to summarize, I'm hearing style guide, because it offers guidance but also flexibility.

And the application of that would be in the downtown overlay.

So informed by Main Street, but applicable, you know, a few blocks around it.

So we we extend that character as it as that area thickens up, matures, redevelops.

Do you go?

You know, thinking about a developer that would come forward and you know present a new development that you know would have these styling guides in mind.

I think that's a really powerful point on their point on their side to say, oh yeah, you know, we we did look at the lookbook or you know, the style guidelines.

We we did want to you know blend in to the you know the fabric of downtown.

We wanted to blend into what was already there.

I think that's a really good selling point that a developer can come forward with and not say, oh, we want to shove our architecture into the into the city or whatever, you know.

It's a good selling point, I think.

And it kind of hits that point again of predictability, right?

You know, a style guide assures predictability in the process for a developer saying we we hear all the time developer comes in, well, what do you want to see?

Right here, style guide, do this.

But also for the the public, you know, they're not gonna be shocked by something that's way out of character.

You know, where we have some guidelines, there's a lot of flexibility within the guidelines, but it's not gonna result in something crazy.

And so if you know you take the performing arts center as as one end of the spectrum, you know, I think that there's a lot of ways that you could do modern architecture, but also incorporates materials from the style guide that do nod towards the more historic character of Main Street, and then I think there can be a happy blending of the two.

And you know, I think that that sets the the parameters, if you will, and and the flexibility, but material guidance, I think is a great place to start.

I I think Sam, just just to add another thought on that.

I I think if if you were able to do it in an area, I think Main Street makes the most sense only because the they're they're typically smaller, and not everyone, but but mom and top, mom and pop type shops, um, at least more on that side, unlike Amherst Street, where uh the most recent one recently I think was the uh the the Ford uh repairs.

You get these national brands, Ford says the building has to look like this, and completely agree that that's gonna happen.

I think that's less likely to happen in this area.

Um again, I'm I'm certainly not in a position to dictate what's stylish or not, but uh again, I think maybe some special dispensation for for Main Street wouldn't be out of character.

So funny you mentioned that, Bob.

The uh one of the ideas many years ago was uh there were many auto dealerships along Main Street, and they were kind of taking away from the character of Main Street, and they built a New England automotive village so that people could move down there and make it more convenient.

And I think the last Main Street major auto dealership was the Lincoln dealership on East Hollow Street, and they eventually moved out and more retail filled in.

The the overlay in the in the downtown area, how far out does it go from Main Street?

Because I'm thinking of like all the little side streets, um, you know, of the little shops again, where Alderman um Morgan's, you know, Floris is you know, looking at at that and so on, and going up temple and and I see different small businesses there.

When we're looking at the performing arts center, right next to it, we have the surf, and now right next to we have all those other shops, the Yero, the Joann's and all that, and these tiny little shops.

And on the other side of the performing arts center, we've got that bank, you know, um, across the street from there.

We have um the um, and I'm so sorry that I keep forgetting the name.

I keep wanting to go back to Via Banca, which I'm very upset with them.

But uh Union Public House.

Union Public House, thank you so much.

It's it's a great place to go.

But um, anyway, so the um how far out would we be extending this requirement?

Because I'm I'm seeing these really small shops, and so my concern is that and I know there's some vacancies right around where you know the um the florist is and so on.

So I just I guess I have some concerns there.

The applicability of design guidelines that's in the spatial applicability on the map, that's another policy question.

The the overlays in the downtown um they function a little differently than the Amherst ones, where that's a district group and there's a lot of flexibility because you're creating something new, we want to see variability in in the main street downtown area, um the overlays is an immediate just upzoning.

We prescribed like the next level of intensity that's appropriate that's contact sensitive.

Um so I think where those lines are will much more easily inform where the district or sorry the design guidelines apply.

Um but looking kind of at the map, I could see this stretching along some of the corridors, so it could go down East Hollow Street the ways, it could go down temple a ways into the mill yard, a little further south down Main Street.

I think capturing 300 mains, should that ever redevelop is a good idea.

Um, but I think there's some natural cutoffs where like even as you get into the tree streets, those have very standard, you know, that's where you see the triple deckers, you know.

Maybe the brick doesn't work on that.

So there's the line there.

Maybe it's at Elm Street, right?

But you still capture West Pearl because there's character there, right?

Um so that that is a separate layer, if you will, on top of the overlay as to say where those design standards would be applicable.

Just one more other comment.

Um to um Mr.

Bollinger's comment about the Ford dealership.

Um I remember when Dunkin Donuts um in the historic district, um, they came to us and said, you know, I've got to change our sign, we've got to change our lighting, this the sign on the building and so on, because the corporation of Dunkin' Donuts had mandated it, you know, changing their name, doing all this stuff, and and we had to struggle with that.

So I guess my question would be would we build in that they could come to planning or zoning or whichever board would be the appropriate board to call for a hardship for an exemption of that type of style.

Would that still be applicable to them?

And if so, that might be the the avenue of them being able to come in and saying cost is just too extraordinary, this is a hardship.

We want to help the city, we want to build and not leave it vacant.

But would they have an avenue to come in for exception of variants, whatever?

Certainly they always will, whether it's all the way at the end of a variance or if it's somewhere of a slightly lower bar, that's part of the discussion to be had.

Okay, thank you.

That's what's talking.

All right.

Um to uses a little bit.

Um this is in regards to residential use classification.

This is um this is a fun little slide I've been working on for quite some time because there's a lot in here in the sense that um we right now in our current code, we talk about single family, we talk about duplex, we talk about triplex, multifamily, elderly housing, halfway house, room renting, all of these different types of residential, some of which are handled by form standards.

If you look at like large house as a building type, well, that's that could be single family.

It has a density factor, so maybe in districts where duplex, triplex, multiple units is appropriate, you could still have a large house, but maybe it maybe it's three units.

What are we calling that as a use?

Well, it's residential.

Single family kind of falls away when you are regulating density based on the building types.

So to simplify this, much as we're following the the simplification of our use categories where we're taking individual uses, all 300 some odd uses, and we're trying to consolidate them into more broader categories so that when something comes in that we've never seen before, but we can say, well, oh, this is clearly you know, retail sales, very broadly speaking, you don't need to go get a variance because you don't exist as a use in the code.

Gives us a lot more interpretive flexibility while also being more friendly to businesses that want to come in and then maybe nuanced, right?

So sticking with that vein of consolidation into use categories, these are all of the uses for residential, like any sort of like where you lay your head at night sort of use.

These are all of them that are in our current code.

So the idea would be to separate uh into residential, or we could call it household living.

That would all be the things in the yellow, so that's AD use, conservation subdivisions.

That's more of a design thing, but condominiums, duplexes, um, manufactured housing.

A lot of these deal with form standards, but the use is all residential, it's all household living, a person or a group of people living as a household in a in a household keeping unit functioning as a household, right?

But then we also have more interesting living arrangements like co-living or group living, and we talk about uh room renting, you know, where you you have shared facilities, um, which would be you know, you've got to you're renting a room, but you have access to the kitchen, versus you know, you're in a you're in a triplex, everyone has separate facilities.

There may be two rooms, you know, you may have a roommate, but you renting the unit, you have your separate facility, then the unit upstairs.

So the separation of facilities is a key element between residential and co-living or group living.

The next level would be co-living with services.

So this is really important.

And we've been burned before with FHA, or sorry, Fair Housing Act, um, you know, as a regulation of like sober homes, right?

So those are individuals living together as a household under fair housing, right?

So this is a federally protected class of individuals.

Where the question comes in, is there care involved?

Are people coming there and administering services?

Um if they are, that moves from a sober home, which is just residential, into a halfway house.

Uh there's there's very there's clear it protected differences under federal law that we need to be aware of, but also in that same vein of co-living, group living with assistance or with with um health, could also be nursing homes, assisted living facilities, where there is clear, like some people live here, but there's programming, there's services, there's assistance, uh, and that can take many forms, but we want to make sure that we capture that because that is very different from co-living or group living, but it's also very different from residential.

Um, and then the final piece, which isn't really residential at all, uh, this is just commercial lodging.

So, like hotels, bed and breakfasts, um, things like that.

So, we're talking about some just simplifying this into residential, group living, and group living with services.

With the co-living also um apply to those um recent homes that have been popping up that have people that have special needs that at one point were group living services.

Right, sent out of the the state.

Sometimes there's only one person living in the house.

Slightly different because that is a state agent and they are not subject to local land use regulations.

It's the the those that administer, they're contracted by the state.

They're not the state per se.

Still subject to RSA 6745.

So we have no say over none of this would apply to any of those.

We would still classify them as uh group living with services because that's what they are, but that doesn't matter to them because they're exempt from local land use register.

Right.

So that again, the reason why they didn't come to planning or zoning or any of those things like that.

So they this does not change that.

Nope.

It only changes um a what we would once call the sober living home, but that had staff that was there all the time administering medications and so on.

Group living with services.

Thank you.

Can I just looks like there's two remaining types that are not highlighted in any of the four?

Yep, I apologize.

So the second one on the right side of the table that's multifamily dwelling, that would be uh residential.

And the one below that is overnight camping trailers.

This is a whole other topic.

Um wasn't really looking to dig into this.

This is basically uh an RV, if you will, Brighton Hour current code allows it to be occupied on a lot for 30 days.

There's whole bunch of other things that we can go down.

Um, I didn't mean to go down that rabbit hole.

I'm just curious, is it like are these was that an intentional expensive?

No, that is that is my formatting and highlighting error.

Yes.

Thank you for pointing that out, Mr.

Wilson.

Sorry.

Fair question, though.

Um other comments on this residential simplification we are taking the code.

All right.

They all get easier for me.

Um, yeah, I even cited some new state laws.

Oh, yes.

Standalone self-storage as a use.

Do we want to continue to allow it as a principal use?

Yes, in it's the only thing on a lot, self-storage.

Or do we want it to be paired with something?

Do we talk about form, right?

So we think about self-storage in most cases, you just see those rows and rows of buildings, you know, metal fab, very cheap build.

It's cheap for construction, it's cheap to rent space, it absolutely serves a function.

Um we want something more visually pleasing, multi-story, like um U-Hall and Bluebird, they they have facilities that are multi-story, so self-service, but just it's not the same rows and rows of buildings.

This is a use we get called on fairly regularly, people looking to develop these.

Um right now, we permit them in our industrial districts.

Um we also permit them by conditional use in the general business and the highway business.

However, as part of the CUP, the facilities, the buildings, they have to be at least 200 feet from public right-of-way, which is quite a setback.

Um everything has to be screened from view uh plus a 40-foot landscape buffer from that use in any abutting residential uses.

So that's already quite a standard there, um, which kind of indicates a feeling about that use in any sort of you know, adjacent to residential contexts.

Um there's the storage unit that's over by the Marriott.

That's a large facility, it's not like the orange buildings or anything like that.

It's uh you have to walk into the place and it's got all this sorts, but from the outside, it doesn't look like what you were talking about.

Are you talking about putting a standard more like that to it or just maintaining the current standard that we have that says it's gonna be set back off?

Because I'm thinking of the U-Haul ones that are over.

Actually, I don't know if that's still Nashua, but the one that's over by market basket off of 101A.

It is still Nashua, yeah.

That's still Nashville.

You know, and and while those are still off the road, the minute you turn down that road, you see these kind of buildings and so on.

I personally would prefer the other ones, but I don't I know they put them up cheap so that um, you know, but it's a lot of land use.

There's an economics thing, but but you're getting to the key form differences of the two styles.

Um and I think that if it is in that more vertical form, the setbacks we we don't have to worry as much, right?

Because it's it's it's more neighborly, if you will.

You know, it's a much more pleasant experience to walk past.

We're gonna say one chestnut.

Exactly.

That's another good example, yeah.

One chestnut.

Yeah.

You wouldn't know it, but it's exactly so.

I mean, I guess the question, you know, in certain districts with with the you know, single rise prefabricated metal building, that's sort of a traditional uh storage use, would mean that we still want to permit that in certain districts.

Um do we want to allow it at all?

Do we want to prohibit it?

Is self-storage now uh in a more vertical form?

I think there's contexts in the city where both could be appropriate.

Um but Nashua is land values are rising.

This is uh um not a particularly value add sort of use.

Um do we want to see higher and more productive uses out of the the remaining land we have in the city.

I I with our vision and goal of housing and lack of um I would much rather see undeveloped land be used for that purpose.

Um because we're on housing, I just want to put a thought in um people have stuff, right?

And maybe some of the power apartments that are going up are small where people can put their stuff.

That's good opportunity for people to get rid of stuff.

And the minimal ones, but it's big.

But yeah, more than that.

Personally, when I was when I was selling my house, that's where most of my stuff went, so that the house didn't look quite as crowded.

And we we rented one for and we rented that particular one.

We rented that particular one that I mentioned that was by the Marriott and so on, because it was um climate controlled, it was indoor, it was just so much versus I didn't have to deal with any flooding or anything else like that.

And I wanted my stuff in a nice safe place.

Far more expensive of a facility.

Actually, it really wasn't.

No, it was it was actually was not.

Uh I was shocked.

Um and they had the same opportunities of different sizes.

So I don't think that maybe maybe cost will be.

We already have some that are here and that people can go to if necessary because we can't force them to do anything.

Um I would rather see, and this is just my opinion, I would rather see the more high-rise um style of building that can be closer.

That would give the opportunity, they would need less land, and that would give the opportunity perhaps of land for other usages.

I would not say stop building them within the city because I think cities need them.

I think if they're within eyesight, they should definitely be the verticals.

Those I I'm when I go to market basket, if I go down that way and I go to that market basket, I just see those and it just looks like a a wasteland there.

It just you're coming off of that little strip mall that you know it it it's nicely taste and and so on, and then you just see this, and you go down the you go down the street more and there's manufacturing companies and the I think the hospital thing might still be there and so on, but um I used to walk down there with the dogs into the woods, but um I you know I I my personal I would like to see the the uprights, especially within any kind of vision of of the street.

Larry, were you gonna make an economic case for us?

Yeah, what one thing somebody somebody's got to the um uh project uh right behind Frederick's pastries there, which has got a lot of uh contractors renting units there, a lot of commercial people renting units, interestingly.

So if a funny kind of a thing is happening, uh a guy has uh a project, you need storage space for six months.

Uh his industrial space can't handle it, need something to run to very quickly.

He's a uh an electrician, I don't want electric in bentry because he keeps his uh crap out there.

So I'm not quite sure how to fit to the whole matrix.

It's just kind of interesting.

I've seen a lot of that happen.

It would seem also like you could have basically go both ways, have the current zoning standards for what you have in an obviously much more dense for a smaller lot on multi-story.

Yeah, context based.

I think you'd be able to work both ways.

And some people do store things like motorcycles and equipment that'll an outdoor storage right there.

Right, so that needs the outdoor storage, but some of these high-rise can still have the outdoor storage on the bottom.

They still can do that.

The rest of it's indoor, you just don't realize it just looks like garages that they can have.

And I've seen that design for people who want to.

There's some people who want to put their boats in it, smaller boats.

They want to put motorcycles, and you can't really bring them to building and get it on an elevator up to whatever floors just doesn't work through the doors.

But um, so I think certain things can be done, and and obviously we're not gonna hurt the ones that are already here.

Just speak on uh you know the benefits of a self-storage facility from a city's perspective as well.

Um, you know, I it I've always thought that they were a very low maintenance type of development for city.

It's you know, a reliable tax uh base, you know, it it's the city collects taxes from it, but there really isn't much uh you know, emergency services that that facility will require.

You know, there's really not that much utility demand aside from electricity, not much water use or sewer generation.

So, you know, I always thought that they were very low maintenance developments and not really a headache for the city.

You know, the police department generally doesn't worry about uh a self-storage facility, um you know, things like that.

So I I always thought that from a city's perspective, they were more of a low maintenance development, and therefore maybe we should encourage them.

I remember the revenue to cost a service case to be made.

That's it's very it's one thing I've heard.

Yeah, that the I have a question on that, because that's really an interesting thought.

If you took one of the brown sites, that in theory, any spot that you can only have a park or a parking lot.

Um many of those units don't have lights inside.

And so, in theory, if there's a parking lot, you would be able to just put that on top of it.

Right, right, they're fairly easy to construct, and you know, you don't have to worry like with all I guess a big talking point with like you know, the new data storage facilities.

It's like the the the utility demand, the electricity demand, it's so insane.

It's like, well, with a development like this, it's just turning the lights on.

Nobody's using a toilet in there, no one's you know cooking, you know, and there's no faucets in there.

You know, it's not a residential use where you have those generation demands.

It's not a bar, you know, you don't no one's no one's getting rowdy at two in the morning, you know.

Hopefully at a self-storage facility.

You know, there's storing drugs in the problem.

There is a risk there.

But yeah, that's one thing I always thought.

From the city's perspective.

All right, after party advanced storage units.

Um, well, I think I got some good guidance on that.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

Um concept, uh, a landscaping payment in lieu, uh eligible by CUP.

Uh good example would be a the development of a car dealership.

They don't love to have trees in the middle of their parking lots dropping leaves or acorns or anything else that trees drop on their brand new shiny cars, right?

So, okay, fine, we get that.

That's that's a reasonable hardship.

So rather than instead of coming to the board and getting a blanket waiver, you know, you don't you don't have to plant any trees.

You apply for a conditional use permit, and then you do a payment in lieu, so you don't have to plant any trees, but you you pay that cost of acquisition of trees and the labor to install it in general maintenance into a fund that the city maintains, and then we'd work with DPW to deploy those funds uh to re-green areas of the city that are devoid of trees.

Ironically, the tree streets would be a good example of that.

Uh but basically, you know, you don't get to get off scotch-free.

Everyone's subject to landscaping requirements, but instead of just you know saying, all right, fine, here's your waiver, don't worry about it.

We want to do we actually want those trees, we're just gonna put them somewhere else that's more appropriate.

Yeah, the I guess the only question I have about that is is the concept if you like you use the auto dealership as an example.

Like I understand like they don't want to have the landscape medians right, but I I would want to say, well, there's zero landscaping on the site.

So is this would be targeted to specific types of landscaping?

Is that the idea?

It would be constrained.

Um you'd have to, you know, so there'd be CUP criteria, just as we have general C UP criteria, there'd be specialized criteria around this.

Um they would need to you know demonstrate a real need and a rationale for why uh you wouldn't be able to be able to waive everything, even at auto dealerships, there are appropriate places for trees.

Uh we just saw uh 170 main dunstable the the Audi dealership, uh there's trees going in there in in reasonable areas.

Um so no, it's it's not a vehicle to get rid of all of your landscaping, but there would be some difficulty to hit our standards for a use like that.

And so this gives them an opportunity to you know still get approval while not meeting full standard.

Right.

Would would this mean they wouldn't have to come in front of the board to request a waiver?

They would get a C UP.

So a slightly higher threshold but with clearer standards around it, uh, that would be easy to articulate rationale.

I I would 100% agree with a car dealership having some exemption, but my concern would be like if a market basket plaza went in and they would say, hey, we can get more parking in if I don't have to have this median with trees in it, and and and so on.

And so I I I guess I I like the idea of them having to come forward because then we can determine are you different if your criteria were very specific to types of businesses, obviously auto dealerships, as long as we're not completely getting rid of all, you know, that that's what I would have a concern is if we just kind of left it up and um while I I think like present staff and so on would interpret it a particular way.

I fear that in 20 years or 15 years, if staff changes come around, what is there gonna be their interpretation?

I mean, I just look at our legislator here in the city, the Board of Alderman, or in the state, um, looking at at past laws and rules and coming up with their own interpretation of it because it fits the need of this particular business.

So I I would just suggest I mean we we fairly routinely waive some of these standards now and get zero in return for it.

Right.

So it seems to me this is an opportunity to say, okay, we're we're already granting this accommodation pretty frequently, but now there's a mechanism where we get something in return for it.

Exactly.

You know, we can do something with that, those funds.

Yeah, similar similar to what we do with the sidewalks and and so on.

And there's sometimes there's just it's inappropriate to force them to put a sidewalk where it's a sidewalk that goes nowhere in both directions.

Let's use that money so we can possibly put sidewalks on Maine Dunstable or some other, you know, no cirrils or or some place that really needs it for safety and so on.

So I I don't have a problem with that fund.

I think it's a great idea.

Um as long as it they still have to come in front of a board and all be handled as part of the site line process.

Yeah, the C UP, yeah.

Okay, thank you.

See you might not have gone this far with it, but it would it be similar to sidewalk and then it's it's sectionalized by quadrant, or would it there be a greater city pot, I guess.

Um that's a good question.

Um we we haven't developed the policy that far.

Uh and I think that's a conversation to be had.

Um so stay tuned.

Yeah, I I could I can almost understand the sidewalk being um sectionalized.

Um, but landscaping, I you could plant plant a tree anywhere if you're collecting the funds, I would think that would make more.

And I I think there are clear areas of the city where you just you you're lacking in vegetation and where you have a lot in others, so you know, if it needs to be an even distribution of of trees in all four quadrants, well, maybe quadrant two like really needs the trees and quadrant one doesn't.

So I think yeah, we'll we'll we'll take that, we'll we'll play with it.

Yeah, uh other than that big picture, I I wouldn't have any issues with that to Adam's point.

If we're already granting the waiver, we might as well get something for it.

Yeah.

So I I I agree, and I and I would like to see it be citywide, and I would like it to also, again, we're not here to dictate that, but in the conversation, the city already has a program that um residents can get certain trees and so on from the city.

Sometimes it's trees that they picked up and they'll they'll move them because they're it's just not appropriate in that area, and so on.

So I would love to see this become part of the residential program too, because there are a lot of residents that they move into a new place and they can get these trees at a very low cost and so on.

And this could be a source of money for that.

So rather than the residents having to pay for the tree and installation costs.

This could help with the installation, yeah.

But the resident is saying, yes, plant it here on on my frontage, you know.

So we're we're getting there's a public benefit, it's not just a tree that's going in someone's backyard, it's it's adding to the public realm.

And and sometimes, such as like on Toll Street, they did though that that kind of tree bend where the the residents got together, worked with the city, and they put in those low root, low type trees to help with um traffic calming and so on.

So, and that was in not on anybody's particular property, but right in front there.

So I I think I'd like to see it all.

This is great money that could come in and help those type of things.

So thank you.

Can I have one thing, Sam?

In my day job today, I was dealing with some tree transplanting, and that was something that was requested uh on a site, and you know, I don't know if that's a piece of the policy that you could incorporate as well.

Maybe there are you know some really great mature trees that are on one part of the site, but that's right where the building's gonna go.

You know, could there be anything written out to where you know a developer could you know put those trees on another part of the site where they're not touching?

Already in there.

Already in there, okay.

Preservation of trees and then the relocation though.

I would be very happy to see someone preserve and transplant a nice tree line.

It's not always won't hold my breath for it though.

It's not always feasible, it's kind of a difficult thing to do, especially if the tree is really really big.

And sometimes they don't survive, so it's not it's not a one-size-fits-all deal.

Yeah, but you know, but we we do in our green score, which is like kind of how we're doing landscaping now, we do actually have a multiplier or a bonus, you know, for preserved trees, you know, existing instead of like think of any time we see like a modern subdivision, the site is clear-cut, right?

But if you can actually save, I walk around a subdivision of my house that was done in the 80s, and there are hundred-year-old trees through.

It's like wow, they didn't actually clear cut this subdivision.

It looks really nice rather than you know, we walk through a normal one and it's like oh the tree is like this tall, and the houses have been here for a few years, and it's just too barren.

So we want to we want to incentivize that.

Two more.

Only two more.

Um this one gets right to planning board.

Technical review committee.

We have one right now, it really only serves as an advisory capacity to planning board.

Um, but under statute, the planning board has the authority to delegate some site plan review to the TRC.

So uh this gets into a threshold conversation, uh, which is actually what the next slide is.

Uh but the idea that site plans of a certain size could be reviewed and approved by a collection of planning staff, engineering staff, fire, environmental health, all the departments that typically review development plans would then have approval authority if delegate that authority by by the planning board.

This is enshrined in statute, RSA 674 36 to be precise, if you want to go look it up.

Uh cannot delegate subdivision authority.

That is not in statute, so just be site plans.

Um so if that is of interest, we can have a conversation about thresholds and review authority of you know, at what level does uh development need to come to planning board for site plan right now in terms of residential, it's it's four units or more.

Um we have general admin review and approval authority for up to 10% change on site.

So if you know a building addition that's 10% increase to the existing building footprint doesn't have to go to site plan, it can be done administratively.

Same if the unit count in a building increases by 10%.

Uh really only happens when we have a hundred units and they want to add 10.

But if we've got a five-unit building and you want to add a unit, site plan.

So some context, something to think about.

Um in some municipalities, Sam.

At least one specifically comes to mind.

They regularly utilize the TRC process.

However, they that that body does not have approval authority.

It's basically here's all the department heads.

You we're gonna make you come back every two weeks until we're all happy, and then and then it goes to planning board with the premise that it's already been so thoroughly vetted internally that obviously it doesn't preclude the board from you know you're still under no obligation to approve, or you can certainly ask questions, but it's what we do now.

If you're thinking not as structured as like you know, come back every two weeks, but we're in constant contact with our applicants in making sure that we're bringing fully vetted plan sets to this board for review and approval.

So the question is do you want to give us any approval authority at a certain threshold?

Yeah, I I'd have to look at that a little bit more.

I I wasn't I'm not aware of the specific provisions and in law.

Um I don't know, what's the tenor of the board on this one?

Just to be clear, but there are some instances now where you can approve things for administrative review, right?

So there it's this is not unprecedented in terms of what you're talking about.

It's just a question of basically do we expand that?

Correct, yeah.

Exactly.

What's the threshold now, Sam, for what would be considered an administrative review versus what needs to go to full site plan or to a technical review?

Sure.

So basically, 10% is the general admin.

We get tons of admins, like changes of use, admin.

Um it's a restaurant, it wants to be a different restaurant or a retail use.

That's usually an admin.

We typically just check parking counts, uh, if there's any major traffic impacts, and we conversate uh we talk with engineering about that, but that's an admin approval.

Um triplexes, three units, we can admin that.

Um, but if it's four units or more, um, I think we could talk about that.

We had a an application on Greeley Street, so kind of down like right by artillery lane off of behind Amherst Street, closer to the main street side of Amper Street, and it was a four-unit building, they wanted to add a unit and parking was constrained, so they never ended up doing it.

But you know, I'm sitting there, just like wow, like we're talking about adding one unit, and it is at the planning board for like two hours.

Now, TRC can be utilized to the extent that they fully meet code.

They don't need any waivers, they don't need any conditional use permits, any of these discretionary approvals have to come back to the board.

So if it's something that's really cut and dry and easy and saves the board a little bit of time, um, that would be an instance, but we have to determine if there's appetite to do that, where's the line?

Speaking of that specific one, uh there was a two-hour conversation and so on, and and the truth was that um he wanted to put in a very a much larger unit, and there was wasn't even adequate parking for what he had.

So taking that as an example, um, under this new criteria, my feeling is that um even with the new state laws of one parking per unit, I don't think he would have even met that.

But um so he wouldn't be able to get approval from TRC.

That's that's the question that I'm asking.

Right.

Because that one was a you know, I mean, he was calling for hardship saying that he had this extra space and so on and wanted to kind of split it and and so on, but that lack of parking was so extreme.

Yes.

Um and the location, there was no way of trying to even figure out parking.

So something like that would have still come to this board, even though you said wow, two hours.

But that particular one would have probably still come to this board, correct?

Correct.

Yeah, I mean, I I think the idea of you know, if if it's you know has to be totally conforming, no way request that that provides some protection in the sense that you know we're we're sort of confining it within a box.

Um I mean, I think it's hard to say just sitting here, like in the abstract, like what is what is the cutoff?

So I mean, I I personally would probably have to think about it and it'd probably be helpful to like have like does staff have you know proposal in terms of like what you guys think is you know based on what you're seeing day in and day out, like what are some metrics that you think we could use to help define what that threshold is?

So I mean I I personally would probably have to think about it and it'd probably be helpful to like have like does staff have you know proposal in terms of like what you guys think is you know based on what you're seeing day in and day out, like what are some metrics that you think we could use to help define what that threshold is because I agree with you you know that that example of like you know is that really something that they should be coming for for a plan if it's an example where it's one unit but it's fully conforming no wave requests, yeah.

That that seems to me like a prime example where you want to be able to use something like that.

What we could do is um we can pull a collection of recently approved site plans, both the residential and the commercial um flavor uh to provide examples of stuff that we think might be on that bubble of like it might be small enough, um but then to give you a real example of say, hey, would you be okay giving staff the authority, or or do you want to retain something here in if the scale is a little less, does that does that tip the scale?

So we can try and identify a few plans like that uh for you to chew on.

But just want to introduce the idea uh and you can think about it a little bit.

One more thought, and and that what that was exactly what I was gonna ask, but one more thought is anytime something doesn't come to the board that the additional conversation is that the butters aren't notified.

And we're taking away their ability to speak about their concerns and so on.

So I don't want to get to the point because I I can think of a number of um uh of things that have come here that we've just kind of I won't never say rubber stamp because we always listen and and discuss and so on, but to potentially gone through what you were talking about, but at the same time, were the residents that had come and spoke on those type of things.

Um so that's my concern.

I'm always always concerned when we we put laws through, and perfect example is the state doing the ADUs.

Um it no longer comes to any board, and none of the abutters are notified, and suddenly there's this new apartment type or more right next door to them, and they never were able to speak about it, they never, you know, and I'm that's the state's authority, not ours.

But I hate taking the voice away from the people.

So that's and that's another thing that of constraint that we would want to put, we wouldn't want to be necessarily reviewing and approving at the staff level.

Things that really could trigger a lot of public concern, like 24 East Autison would not be something that we would any time we can the TRC has the ability to refer to the planning board.

Okay.

Sam, would we still see those items show up on the tentative agendas, even if they're contemplated as administrator reviews?

Okay.

Yes.

All right.

You would be aware of them.

And I can't recall.

Would this also apply to CUPs, or is that that so CEPs are always going to come here?

Cycline only.

Yeah.

All right.

All right.

Um, so just one final thought.

I had mentioned it earlier.

Um, because we're introducing form standards, and this is kind of a new thing.

We are contemplating baking in some sort of temporary, temporary in terms of like we've adopted the code, we want to have this provision effective for a period of time while we have the code out there, it's being tested in the development market, and you know, we're getting real life feedback from real applicants about these standards.

We do want to have some sort of you know, waiver mechanism where any of the form standards can be modified, you know, 10 to 20% off of that number that's in the standard, uh, just so that we can we can keep track and we can see like how close are these standards, and then come back after a period of time if it's six months, a year, and then kind of do a blanket piece of legislation and say, all right, based on all these applications we've had come in, we need to modify our standards accordingly.

Uh but that way we're not sending someone to the ZBA because they want their building footprint a little bit bigger than what's in standard, you know.

So 10, 20 percent, maybe more, I'm not sure.

Just to create a level of flexibility.

We already exercise this right now.

We have the the MU, the TOD that allows full modification of all dimensional regulations, which is totally unbounded.

You know, there's there's no cap, so we lose the predictability for via butters because the planning board now has essentially variance authority and beyond um to regulate dimensional regulations.

Um just of that flavor, just slightly different, and uh around a new thing that we're introducing.

So this would reign in the MUs and the TODs, they would have to follow the.

Well, the USD is going away.

Oh, okay, that is going away.

But I'm just saying that we have I'm just kind of taking that flavor.

As an example, authority of modification, and just we're just boiling it down just a little bit and applying it strictly to the form standards around all of our building types.

Right, but this would be across this would be across the board everywhere.

No, so but not like site standards, like really around the form standards because that's an entirely new concept that we're introducing, and we want to just have a little bit of wiggle room in case we we missed.

Yeah.

And and then beyond that percentage, they would would then have to come to a board and ask for an exception or variance or something to that.

Okay.

But again, all those form standards are based on patterns and and surveys that were conducted in the field on the ground in Nashua.

So we're we're thinking we got pretty close, but we want to have just a little bit of a program.

Within each community, is there a different standard or is it uh just a standard across the board is what was it'd be for all building types.

All building types.

All structures standards.

Regardless of the community, they'd be being built.

Well you say community D and district.

Yeah, um right, exactly like district.

And I uh you know, I always go to my own ward, but thinking of any of the any of the wards.

I mean, for someone to say, okay, well, this standard exists, I'm gonna put it here.

But it doesn't fit within the community or flavor of the Yes.

And I'll and I'll use Concord Street or French Hill or Manchester Street or anything else like that.

So if you have a a building standard, they could just put it anywhere.

Um I conflating things, I'm sorry, if I hear the building types are permitted in certain districts.

Districts, yes.

So the districts kind of are a reflection of the character that's on the ground and organizes those building types.

So um not all building types are permitted everywhere.

I'm kind of like going back to the conversation that we had um at the special board of Alderman meeting where you were showing the flat roof versus the when we were talking about multi type of things.

If you did have those two standards, would they then be able to say we want this big this tall flat roof one point over there?

So it's modifying the standards in those specific building types.

So like say they wanted to build an apartment house uh but it limits you to 34 feet wide and they want to like their their plan was 36 feet.

No problem, you're within 20 percent.

Okay, okay.

So that that's what we're talking about.

And you wouldn't have had that mu uh well, it's called a multi-unit one, right?

The one that had the flagship.

Multiplex, yeah.

Multiplex.

That multiplex might not be allowed within that district.

Got it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That makes sense.

Sam, just long term, should the board of aldermen see fit to adopt this?

Is it gonna be official upon adoption or is it January 1, 2027?

Are you gonna tie it to the fiscal year?

Like I I think to pass this like tomorrow, hypothetically, and then say it's in force on Monday, everybody.

No, good.

Get ready.

Uh I should have included my scheduling slide, uh which I provided to PEDC.

Um we have been targeting July one as effective date.

Um that date is chosen because there are quite a few state laws that were passed in the past session, uh, but also are contemplated now that go into effect July 1, and they're significant.

And we're kind of planning around those in this code.

So to everything kind of just become effective all at the same time.

It's it's clean.

Obviously, it's not that far away.

Um so what that means is I we had a conversation with our consultants today of having to submit as legislation, uh, like literally send it to to Donna Graham and say, hey, put it on the agenda by May first.

Um it's not far away.

Yeah, we're slow moving, so but that that what May first allows is referral to multiple boards and committees.

That begins the formal process.

So we'd be doing a whole lot of this, what we're doing tonight.

And if we get a lot of feedback, we recognize that it's gonna push out the adoption time period and um, do you have to have public hearings on that kind of legislation?

Yeah.

That is gonna push it out.

Just one?

Usually we just have to have one.

Unless we make any changes to it, then we have to have another one.

Exactly.

So every time we have a public hearing and we make even the smallest of change to it, we have to announce two more weeks and then have another public hearing.

And we can't then change it.

Which is why I'm going to PEDC every month and probably going to some special meetings to have these conversations to air any issues and you know, so get it out for us.

When we do bring it to the formal process, you know, it will go through the formal hearings, it will get referred to PEDC, it'll get to referred to planning board.

Maybe others, BPW, I don't know.

But that's that's the the board's uh option to refer it to others, but at least by submitting May 1st, there's a there's two months of time through which to run through that process.

I I know you you've been talking to the planning the PEDC.

Um and and you plan on continuing them, but because this is eventually gonna go to the full board, can I make a strong recommendation that everything gets sent to all board members, all BOA members and not just the PEDC.

Can I make a strong recommendation that everything gets sent to all board members, all BOA members and not just the PEDC?

So ask Donna when she sends it, make sure all the board gets it.

Um because that has been the problem is board members will come to the board of Alderman and saying, well, I'm just because they didn't have the chance.

It's not that they're not doing their homework, they're they're all hard workers, but they didn't get a chance to go to every single committee meeting and so on, because they have to work or something of that nature.

So if they get the heads up of it, at least maybe helps them to ask questions of you and so on.

I'll do you one better, and I'm okay speaking with all of them, uh, trying to set up times you know, one-on-one, let's go through it.

What are your questions?

Um I'm not gonna send them a 300-page document to say, all right, can we vote on this next week?

Does that violate right to know?

Make sure it doesn't.

Because you're technically holding a meeting, no?

No, because uh meeting with them one-on-one, there's no quorum.

No, it does because I just talked to the mayor about wanting to um to see a presentation that had been given to a couple of members, like the chairman, so on, and he called me today and said I can't share it with you because if I share it with you, you're part of that committee, it'll make quorum.

And I'm thinking it's not a public meeting if it's not a quorum.

Well, it is a quorum because he already met with with three other members, and if he met with me, that would make quorum.

That's not right.

Uh trust me, that's the same.

I will consult with our corporation council and make sure we do it.

Please do, yeah.

And I know that we even when we when we do these site walks and things like that, it's got to be announced to the public because you know.

But quorum doesn't necessarily have to meet.

So, like if I were to call Alderman Morgan and speak to her about something, and then I call Alderman Tebow and speak to him and Alderman Clemens and so on.

The minute I hit eight people, I have held a public meeting even if I didn't do it all at once.

And that is right to know.

I learned that up in the Statehouse, and I've learned that here.

So just be really cautious.

Yep.

Thank you.

I will.

Uh, and that is oh, uh, just future stuff that we would hope to talk about.

Um approval criteria for site plan and subdivisions.

Uh do you like them?

Do you wish we included other things?

Um, just something that we could talk about at a future date.

Um we do plan to talk about inclusionary zoning uh in depth, so payment and loo formulas, uh target AMIs, percentages.

Um we've subcontracted with RKG.

They did the housing study, they also did our original and current uh inclusionary zoning ordinance.

They've had some time to reflect on that, update some numbers based on market conditions.

Um so those numbers are still being fleshed out, but that would be a conversation to have.

Um, and then also uh area thresholds.

Um, how many acres do you need to opt into an overlay?

Um, how much of that redevelopment needs to be dedicated civic space, not necessarily dedicated to the city, but you know, open green space that's accessible to the public.

What's that percentage?

Uh and then anything else that you would like to talk about, uh questions, uh shoot me an email and we can uh we can make it happen and I can put some slides together about any any topic you are the AMIs considering dropping the left the low.

We're we're talking we're we are exploring um two tiers.

So um, well, actually three tiers, uh 100% AMI, 80 and 60.

Right.

Those come in at different points and at different percentages if we're different scales of development because we're recognizing the cost of those to the developer side.

We're trying to assume a you know a st industry standard rate of return, uh, and then we're seeing how those numbers all play out.

We're we're doing a lot of pro forma testing on a lot of different styles and seeing where it breaks down because we don't want to stymie development because we're asking for too much.

But we want to meet the community benefits of uh generational affordable housing.

Just what I hear from the public and actually from some of my colleagues too is um the concern about too many people being able to do the in-payment in lieu of, and are we just collecting this money and not creating any kind of housing for this?

So um I know like with the um the NIMCO building, we said at least one has to be um oh and they're they're providing 20 percent.

I know, but but when we talked to them about it, we said you have to have at least one of very low um income and and so on.

And I do know that they're they're doing what they're they're supposed to do, but um, and even the Mohawk tannery, the apartments, yes, the condos no.

Okay, so um I'm happy with that because I I feel like that they did meet a somewhat of a standard, but then we have some others that are just a hundred percent no.

Yeah, we we recognize the the issue that buyout can pose.

Um but the developments and the developers who don't want to do it simply because of their management style or however, um it needs to be an option, but they will have to pay a premium for that option.

Okay.

Thank you.

More on that to come.

That's all I got.

Thank you for the presentation, Sam.

Welcome.

Thank you.

And thank you, uh board members, for for the lively discussion.

Um Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, for allowing me to Sam didn't get to wear his bulletproof vest, so uh he survived.

Um but yes, Sam, again, thank you.

All right.

Um there's no last-minute questions for Sam.

I think we'd be looking for a motion to adjourn.

Anyone?

Anyone?

Mr.

Chairman, I'll make that motion to adjourn.

Motion by Mr.

Zoller.

All those in favor?

Aye.

We are we we are adjourned at 946.

Mr.

Chairman, thank you for letting me guess guest speak.

Certainly.

I was not surprised.