Still having a problem.

Okay.

Sam?

Yes.

Is the control book still having a problem?

Because he just came in on the phone and went like this.

The gentleman that's inside there.

Okay.

He just came in here with talking on the phone and he went like this.

So do you know?

Do we know if there's an issue there?

I'm not sure.

Okay.

I can check.

I'm ready.

I downloaded all my documents because they have the hardest time pulling them up.

Alright, Joe, Joe, we're gonna test out your knocking skills.

Just give him one second to get back there.

That's it.

One and done.

You could be fired, yes.

Enough of your fire.

All right.

So yeah, if you just want to give him the knock.

Very good.

Yes.

Well done.

Okay.

Good evening.

I'd like to call to order the June 6, June 4th, 2026 meeting of the City of Nashua Planning Board.

Uh first item on the agenda, roll call.

Mr.

Green, please.

Yes, Mayor Doncas.

Joseph McIntyre?

Here.

Robert Bollinger?

Here.

Adam Barley?

Here.

Maggie Harper.

Alderman Patricia Cleve.

Here.

Dan Hudson.

Here.

Benjamin Zoller.

Here.

Larry Hirsch.

Cameron Green here.

All right.

Thank you.

We have a quorum.

Uh next item on the agenda, approval minutes of the May 21st, 2026 meeting.

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

Uh Mr.

Zoller, please.

Yes, Mr.

Chairman.

I'd like to make a motion to approve those minutes as written.

All right, thank you.

Motion by Mr.

Zoller.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Varley.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any abstentions?

No.

Motion passes.

Next item on the agenda.

Communications.

Uh Scott, Connor, anything come in since the packets were published?

Yes.

Chair, we had just updated engineering comment letter.

Um additional revised waiver letters for 55A Middle East World Roads of Division.

Okay.

And uh as other folks may know that the uh RB Farms uh 11 terrible bar case has been postponed to June 25th.

Okay.

Thank you, Connor.

Uh just in case folks in the audience didn't hear that.

If anybody was here for the uh RB Farms cases at 11 Tara, that has been continued at the request of the applicant to June 25th, 2026 meeting.

Uh next item.

Uh reported chair committee and liaison.

Um nothing for me this evening.

And Mr.

Hirsch is out.

So move along.

Um before we head into our cases, I do just want to stipulate the planning board procedure for the record.

The procedure of the meeting and the hearing are 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 the 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 their time to present an overview and description of their project.

They shall speak to whether or not they agree with the stipulations recommended by staff.

The board will have an opportunity to ask relevant follow-up questions of the applicant or staff.

The chair will then ask for testimony from the audience.

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

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

This will be time to express your concerns or ask questions you may have regarding the plan.

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

The board may then ask relevant follow-up questions of the applicant.

The applicant will be then will be given a rebuttal period at which time they shall respond to any concerns raised by prior public testimony.

After this is completed, the public hearing will end and the board will begin the public meeting.

At which time the board will deliberate and vote on the application before us.

We ask that both sides keep their remarks to the subject at hand and to not re what not repeat what has already been stated.

We want to be fair to everyone and make the best possible decision based on the testimony presented, considering all applicable city ordinances.

Thank you for your interest and Curdy's attention, and I kindly ask that you turn off your cell phones or set them to silent mode at this time.

Lastly, I do want to indicate that at discretion of the chair, the board may switch up the agenda a little bit uh as we proceed through the evening.

All right.

Moving along, um, under old business, uh conditional use applications.

Uh we have none.

Under old business site plans, we have none.

Under new business, umdivision plans.

Um the first case I'd like to call this evening is case 826-0071.

Property located at 24 Simon Street.

Has any member of the board had an opportunity to review the application and is willing to make a motion regarding its completeness and whether the board should accept jurisdiction.

Uh Mr.

Green, please.

Thanks, Chair.

I'd like to make a motion for 826-0071.

Uh to the application is complete and to take jurisdiction.

All right, thank you.

Motion by Mr.

Green.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Zoller.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

All right.

Motion passes.

Board has jurisdiction.

Um Jim.

Jim.

This is 24 Simon.

We call it first.

Oh is anyone here to speak on 24 Simon Street?

Oh.

Yeah.

Please come right up, sir.

I don't know.

We don't want to speak.

Sorry, sorry.

Who's that?

Michael?

Yes.

How are you doing?

I'm doing well, Jim.

Go right ahead, Michael.

My wife just had paper placement surgery, and the chairman so kindly let me know.

I didn't know what he called.

I'm sorry, Jim.

I uh everybody's everybody's good now.

All right.

Awesome.

Thank you, sir.

So right ahead.

Board members.

Uh my name is Mike Dalver.

I'm a land surveyor with T.F.

Moran in Bedford.

And I prepare this plan.

Uh the main property is addressed 24 Simon Street.

Uh she be lot 401.

It's in the park industrial zone.

And the owners wish to subdivide uh 2.6 acres of their surplus land at the north end at the intersection of Whipple Street and Simon Street.

We are asking for one waiver of uh to show existing conditions within the thousand fee of property boundaries.

Um we have no issues with the subsequent conditions in the staff report.

All right.

Well, thank you.

Um questions from the board.

Mr.

McIntyre.

This is just simply a lot subdivision.

Yes, I believe, and perhaps the the applicant's representative can expand.

I think they showed a hypothetical building on there.

Um but technically this is just the subdivision plan.

So if they were to come back with an actual you know true true building, it would still be subject to all applicable site plan criteria as well.

Um again, um the applicant wishes to elaborate on that further.

You're certainly welcome to.

Uh point of clarification.

The uh the applicant put uh setback lines for the zone on the site, but uh not uh building placement uh that wouldn't be found.

But uh oh, I'm sorry, I but you know I was my bad con I was thinking of something else, but yes, saying thank you.

So yes, there's like so but yes, Mr.

Macner, they would have to come back for specific site-specific uh use.

Mr.

Hudson, uh just for the record, Mr.

Chair, there's a proposed subsequent condition D regarding engineering comments that should just be stricken.

Engineering didn't issue any comments on this uh application given the nature of it just being a simple subdivision with no design uh elements that we would normally review.

Okay, great.

Thank you, Dan.

Other questions?

Alderman Clee.

Um, this may be premature.

Um and probably not done at this time, but is there an address change?

Um obviously it's 20.

If we have two lots, are they still both fall under 24 Simon Street?

Or I are we I'm always thinking of six Simon Street 36 Simon.

Okay, I was missing that.

Thank you so much.

That's what the plan is.

Okay, is that accurate?

36 Simon will be the yes, that was assigned by the fire department.

Okay, that's why I was making sure that the fire department had thank you.

Other questions for the applicant?

Thank you.

Mr.

Solar.

Mr.

Dahlborg, minimum lot sizes adhere too.

No issue with lot in too small for that zone.

Any questions?

No issues with that at all.

Okay, excellent.

That's all I have.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Other questions from the board?

Are you okay?

Kim, oh fixing glasses.

Okay.

All right.

Just wanted to make sure I didn't miss.

Um, thank you for your testimony.

I guess I will open up to the public.

Umbers of the public here uh to speak in opposition or with concern regarding the subdivision.

Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application?

Anyone on Zoom for this one?

No, Chair.

Okay, thank you.

Alright, throw it back to the board.

One more chance.

Okay.

Alrighty.

Well, I guess we can um close this one out.

Um we'll open the um the public the public hearing.

Uh this seems pretty straightforward.

Um they did ask one waiver.

I didn't ask them to speak on it only because it's it's a fairly common one that we'll see.

Um I didn't think there was a lot to be gained by further discussion on that.

Um but um if any if any board member feels strongly uh regarding that waiver, we can certainly discuss it amongst ourselves.

Um but uh again this one seems pretty straightforward.

Uh like usual procedurally.

If if a member of the board were so inclined, we would want to take up the uh waiver request first, uh, and depending on that outcome vote on the uh final subdivision approval.

Um Mr.

Green, go right ahead.

Yes, Mr.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion for numbers A26-0071 to grant the waiver 190-282B9 to waive the request to show existing conditions within a thousand feet of the property.

Uh finding that their letter was adequate in adequate in finding that strict information would pose unnecessary hardship and the specific circumstances of the land would will indicate that the waiver will probably be off this movement or start line.

And that letter was dated May 28th, 2026.

All right, thank you.

Uh motion by Mr.

Green on to grant the waiver.

Is there a second?

Second by Alderman Clee.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Motion passes unanimously.

Oh, Mr.

Green, abstention?

Or oh, you want to follow through on the thought?

Okay.

I guess you'd like to continue with the second one if I may.

Yes, please.

Uh I'd like to make a motion to grant the final subdivision approval for the proposed two lot subdivision property locally at 24 Simon Street.

Putting the application meets the approval criteria outlined in subdivision in a row 190-138G, subject to the subsequent conditions in the staff report.

Striking um condition D on the list of uh board earlier tonight.

All right, thank you.

Um motion by Mr.

Green to grant final subdivision approval.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Barley.

Any further discussion?

Alderman Clee.

Um just to technicality.

Do we have to renumber E and F to be D and E?

Yes.

Um strike uh so it would be strike D and re-letter accordingly.

Would that be an appropriate morph?

Okay, yeah.

Thank you, Alderman Clee.

Mr.

Green, would you like to restate?

Yeah, I'd like to amend a motion after striking uh the subsequent condition D in the staff report and re-lettering E and F to D and Okay uh amended motion by Mr.

Green.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Hudson.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Motion passes unanimously.

Um subdivision is approved.

Have a good evening.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh moving along in the agenda, uh, continuing under new business umdivisions.

Case 826-077, property located at 55A Middle Dunstable Road.

Is any member of the board had an opportunity to review this application for completeness and is willing to make a motion regarding the board accepting jurisdiction?

Uh Mr.

Green, please.

Yes, I'd like to make Mr.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion for new business 826-0077.

Uh, that the application is complete and we are ready to take the jurisdiction.

All right, thank you.

Motion by Mr.

Green.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Zoller.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Board has jurisdiction.

We're ready, Jim.

We're ready.

I'm just so jacked for this case.

Thank you.

Uh good evening, uh, Mr.

Chairman.

Members of the board.

Uh my name is Jim Petropolis.

I'm a professional engineer at IMAG Corp 3 Congress Street, Nashua, representing Marathon Building and Development.

Bob Pace is with me this evening.

And it's just read into the record seeking uh a simple one into two subdivision.

As usual, I'll present the info on the case and answer any questions you might have.

Let's get located.

55A Middle Dunstable is located really at the corner of Mid-Dunstable Road and in Ridge Road in the southwest portion of Nashua.

Currently it's a 0.9 acre property located in the R18 zoning district.

To the east, I believe it's the Georgetown townhouse development.

And then across the street is Meadow View Phase 3.

The property currently contains a single family home upon it, as you can see on the drawing.

And that water course is a mapped wetland.

Our company recently became involved with the project.

With that, they entered into an agreement with Mr.

Pace for this subdivision.

They hired us and we did our thing.

We resurveyed the property and reprepared the plans in accordance with your regulations.

To date, Mr.

Chairman, the project has received the following approvals from the City of Nashua.

The proposed lot, which is represented as 1614A on the drawing, received the variance from the zoning board of adjustment for lot width.

120 feet required, or 100.2 feet provided.

Special exception approved.

And that had the support of the National Conservation Commission in advance of the zoning board special exception.

The details of this plan against the subdivide map B lot 1614 into two lots.

New 1614 will contain the house and its driveway, and that's located on the northern half of the property.

New lot 16A will measure just under half an acre, and will have its driveway off of Middle Dunstable Road, which is one of the two conditions of approval from the zoning board of adjustment.

As you can see on the screen, our client proposes a narrow home upon this property, 28 feet wide by 50 feet deep.

The back of the building will be over 70 feet to the property line to the west.

And the bring is the reason I bring that up is that was the second zoning board of adopt uh adjustment condition of approval.

As I mentioned, 1290 square feet of wetland buffer are impacted, as shown in yellow on the drawing.

But that is mowed lawn area today, uh, and it will remain after construction, uh re-vegetated with lawn and plant materials.

Uh I think only one tree was impacted uh within the buffer area.

And uh again, I just want to reinforce there are no wetlands being impacted by this proposal.

Uh the new lot will be serviced by municipal sewer and public water.

And other than the relief on the lot with uh the new lot conforms to all of the other dimensional standards here in Nashua.

Uh two waivers, Mr.

Chairman, requested.

The normal survey within a thousand feet of the site, uh 19281, I believe is the section.

Uh staff asked us to request a waiver for the submittal of a photometric lighting plan, which in my years coming here.

We've never really had to do for a one into two.

It's usually for site plans and for new subdivision streets.

Uh so in summary, we believe the application is reasonable.

Uh it conforms to the intent of the land use code.

Uh the staff conditions as outlined are acceptable to our client.

Uh we do have engineering comments.

We received them earlier in the week.

Uh, I think they were fair, and uh my testimony this evening is that I believe we will be able to uh readily address those comments.

So with that, you we seek your approval this evening and be happy to answer any questions you might have.

All right, uh thank you.

Um questions from me at this time.

Um put it out to the board.

Um questions for Mr.

Petrabolos.

All right.

Seeing none.

Quickly open it up to the public.

Well, not quickly.

I will open it to the public.

Thank you, Jim.

Any members of the public here this evening to speak in opposition or with concern to this application?

Seeing none.

Any members of the public here to speak in support of this application?

Seeing none.

Scott?

Connor, anyone on Zoom?

No.

All right.

Throw it back to the board one last time.

Any questions or concerns?

Mr.

Zoller.

Yeah.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Jim, I'm seeing a proposed 15-foot-wide sewer easement.

Could you speak to that?

Um is that for servicing the new building?

Uh it is.

It's a sanitary service running in a northwesterly direction through lot 1614 to get to the gravity sewer in Ridge Road.

So we're able to service this new lot with gravity.

If not, it would have required a lift up into the sewer in Middle Dunstable.

That sewer and ridge is off the shoulder.

And the middle dunstable is currently under a moratorium for penetration of new trenching.

So it's a little bit longer run, but it's not a pump, and we stayed out of the moratorium road.

So okay, great.

Thanks.

Makes a lot of sense.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Ben.

Other questions from the board.

Mr.

McIntyre.

It's not a question and comment.

Um, and not to be facetious, but uh I wanted to uh say thank you to Mr.

McPhee for the way he wrote the project descriptive background with all the historical stuff that he put in.

The chairman gives us a lot of stuff to read, and uh that was very readable, very nice.

You will learn, Mr.

McIntyre.

That is that is the that is the norm, yes.

I know I understand it, but very very elaborate site histories, but thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling that out specifically.

That was that was deserved other questions or comments from the board.

Okay.

Um seeing none, um close the public hearing and begin our deliberation.

Um similar to the first one.

Um this this seems fairly straightforward.

Um no issues personally with with the waiver requests, particularly the first one.

Um on the second one, I again uh a lighting plan for for one residential lot into two.

Um I don't see as necessary.

Um furthermore, um I'm certain that the house uh the second parcel will have some sort of illumination.

Um so again, no no issues with with either of those.

Um I think they've done uh by as is evidenced by going to the conservation commission.

They're obviously uh aware of the the wetland area and have done what they can to try to offset that that impact to the extent possible.

Um so that that being said, um I would be in favor of this, but but obviously always love to hear back from the the board to see if there's any other um comments, concerns, questions.

Mr.

Zoller, please.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Just noting that there is a cobra head immediately in front of the two uh lots, the existing lot and the proposed lot.

So I don't I don't really don't think the lighting in the area would be of an issue at all.

Understood.

Good point.

Thank you, then questions or or comments.

Oh Mr.

Barnley, we're you so inclined to make a motion.

Oh cams is gonna uh we would want to take up the waiver first, obviously, and we'll see how things go after that.

Sure.

Okay.

So uh with respect to business A26-007.

Um, I would first make a motion to grant the following two waivers.

Um waiver one from 190-282 B9 to waive requirement to show existing conditions within a thousand feet and waiver number two of section 190-275 uh to provide a lighting plan with respect sorry with respect to both of these waiver requests um that the motion to approve be with the finding that um uh that strict conformity with the standards would pose an unnecessary hardship based on the um based on the nature of the the property and that uh granting waiver requests will um still allow for carrying out the spirit intent of the regulations.

All right, thank you.

Uh motion by Mr.

Barley.

Is there a second?

Second by Alderman Clee.

waiver requests um that the motion to approve be with the finding that um that strict conformity with the standards would pose an unnecessary hardship based on the um based on the nature of the the property and that uh granting wave requests will um still allow for carrying out the spirit intent of the regulations all right thank you uh motion by mr barley is there a second second by alderman clean any further discussion all those in favor aye aye motion passes unanimously mr barley would you like to continue sure would uh so with respect to new business a twenty six zero zero seven seven um i would make a motion to grant final subdivision approval and that would be with the finding that the application does meet the criteria outlined in our old section 190-138g and that uh approval motion will be subject to the subsequent conditions a through m as indicated in the staff report all right thank you um motion by mr barley um for subdivision approval any is there a second second by mr green any further discussion all those in favor aye motion passes unanimously thank you thank you jim have a good night thank you have a good night thank you all right moving on under new business site plans case 826-0070 property located at 24 east otterson street has any member of the board had an opportunity to review this application um and is willing make a motion regarding its completeness and whether the board should accept jurisdiction mr green please yes mr chair i would like to make a motion for new business 826 007 zero uh to that the application is complete and we are ready to take jurisdiction all right thank you motion by mr green is there a second second by mr varley any further discussion all those in favor aye aye all right motion passes the board has jurisdiction is there a representative of the applicant that would like to speak no well no one no one for 24 east otterson no key all right well we've accepted jurisdiction um procedurally what do we need to do we table it yeah oh no uh the board can act there isn't a requirement that oh okay a applicant show um staff can provide an update um but we have a complete application fees are paid uh you you do have to act on the application okay thank you for uh it that that's rare I don't think we've had one in ever maybe since since I've been here all right um so um probably pull up what I was looking for so this is obviously just an extension which I didn't think would be a Herculean effort here um but I guess uh Mr.

Green go for it yourself through chair staff has there been any updates from them started construction there has been uh the property is sold um which is indicative of a a buyer who probably wants to execute the development plan as is um hence the request for the extension um so I suppose positive movement in that direction in terms of the development being executed okay alderman clean yes uh thank you uh this one year extension um um forces them to stay within all of the previous approvals and denials and so on correct they're not requesting any changes no changes everything as is okay Mr.

Backintire just again point of clarification only so mostly for the staff um this was originally approved in May of 25 right and then um uh it got extended once already or this is the only extension so far this is the first extension okay yes so um just again as a newbie question only uh clearly understand what what you meant by extension and stuff like that but is this typical it's it's not unusual at all um especially with multifamily development um I think there are just natural challenges with the market right now and um some property owners they their goal is to simply uh sell a property with the entitlements in place uh there's very much a business around that and there are developers who want to buy entitled properties and don't want to go through the entitlement process themselves um so this is not rare by by any means and and just Mr.

Conversely, though, there's been some applications where we we've granted um a longer period upon initial uh approval.

Um some sites have you know unique unique site characteristics.

Um there's also been a uh a little bit of latitude and Sam correct me.

Um if if the the nature of the housing was was not for profit.

We I think we've had that discussion as well.

So um, but no uh excellent question, Mr.

McIntyre.

Um, but but as it stands now, they're basically just asking um for continuance with uh no change to the terms that were were approved uh about a year ago.

So if I could also add um you're correct that they were approved uh in May of last year.

However, we received the application for extension uh in April this year, and so we we would honor that uh request until the appropriate planning board meeting, which is why I was kind of that um overlap you see thank you, Connor.

All right.

Um so again, the the action before the board would be um if a member of the board was so inclined and had no issues, would be to grant a 12-month extension with just the one condition that uh all approval, all prior approval criteria are are still applicable.

Uh Mr.

Chair, if I may, I think extending the option for public testimony.

Oh, you're right, Sam.

I'm sorry.

Um I was thrown off by the fact there was no representative to see is there uh any member of the public that would like to speak in opposition or with concern to this application?

Is there any member of the public which who would like to speak in favor of this application?

Anyone on Zoom for this one?

Okay, bless you.

All right.

Um that is the case.

Um we can close the public hearing, go into uh our deliberation.

Um I guess we'll pick up where I left off.

Um 12 month extension is the action by the board.

Mr.

Green, go right ahead.

Yes, Mr.

Chair.

I'd like to make a motion for new business A26-0070 to grant a 12-month extension uh on the final second plan approval approval originally approved at the May 15th, 2025 planning board meeting.

Uh finding that the application meets the requirements outlined in NRO NRO 190-146D subject to the following subsequent condition A in the staff report.

All right, thank you.

Motion by Mr.

Green.

Is there a second?

Second by Alderman Clee.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Motion passes unanimously.

Moving on under new business site plan, case A26-0084, property located at 11-13 Mulberry Street.

And the board accepting jurisdiction.

Mr.

Varley.

Mr.

Chair, I would make a motion that new business A26-0084 is complete and ready for the board to accept jurisdiction.

All right.

Motion by Mr.

Varley, is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Green.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Board has jurisdiction.

Is there anyone to speak uh on behalf of this application tonight?

Now we're back in our rhythm.

But we have uh just go ahead and introduce yourself for the record, please.

Hi, members of the board.

I'm Ravia Johnson.

I'm an attorney at Goddessman Hollis at 39 East Pearl Street, Nashville, New Hampshire.

Um we are representing the applicant Mulberry Street Nashua, LLC.

Uh we originally had a meeting uh with the board on June 5th uh 2025.

Um at that meeting we requested for an extension.

Um and at this meeting we're also requesting for a further 12-month extension for 67,000 square foot five-story um and 64 unit multi-family development at 11 and 13 Mulberry Street in Nashua.

Uh currently we're seeking a 12-month extension due to the complexities of this project.

Uh given the demolition also coupled with the new construction and there being no um staging area or parking on the site.

The applicant needs to further work with lenders and contractors uh prior to construction.

Zoller please thank you Mr.

Chairman more of a question for staff there would be this was something that came up in the last case as well I was thinking about it um would there be a grandfathering essentially I know that we've had some talk about code updates and you know things of that nature if you know the plan was in compliance when it was approved versus if we're looking at code changes and then code changes are implemented that would then throw this application out of compliance is there any issue there procedurally for us or it would not throw it out of compliance it was approved under the current code so say uh the new code is adopted between now and when this applied for extension would expire in June of 27 and they came forward with another extension request at that time they could still be extended under the approval under this code um it does in a sense grandfather the regulatory environment that it was initially approved under thank you alderman clee please uh thank you um Mr Chairman when this was first brought uh to this committee I had some concerns about it I had concerns about the lack of parking because the parking lot that's next to it belongs to the city I also had um ish concerns about where the the trash would be um put out on the street and and so on and I remember talking about the fencing that went around that um and so on um personally I d I don't um think that this is a good project even though I know the city is in dire need of as much as that um so I just it's just I still have those same concerns that I had when it was originally put forward so thank you.

Okay noted thank you Alderman Clee um other questions from the board all right um seeing none at this time um thank you for your testimony I'll open it up quickly to the public uh is anyone here on the Mulberry Street case either to speak in opposition or concern or in support no one in the audience anyone on Zoom all right throw back to the board one more time seeing no questions thank you again I'll close the public hearing we'll go into um our deliberation um I would be in favor of granting the extension um I it's probably the the definition of a blighted property um and if there's another opportunity for for another year gets them a a viable um builder or whether it's a transfer and ownership um I I I would I would be in favor uh of it uh understanding the the site constraints um noted by Alderman Clee um but obviously love to hear back from from other members of the board uh if you'd like to offer anything further on that alderman clee yes uh thank you um and this is probably for staff um when they come forward to actually I mean we've already talked about the building and so on so this is an extension of that once we get them this extension is there any need for them to come forward um or once extensions granted they just can continue with what the original agreement was is that correct so they will not be coming in front of the board again unless they come back for another extension next year or a different plan.

Correct.

Okay thank you thank you um other questions from the board comments Dan Yeah just a comment I mean I there was there was some correspondence in the uh packet from a resident of 249 Main Street complaining about lack of parking which I found ironic because that was another development that had no parking as part of that site.

Just just for the record this isn't a my saying is this isn't a zone is in a zone that doesn't require any parking for development so although the point is taken I don't think that'd be a basis for us to to not approve this um so I just want to know that's reference I correspondence.

The original application.

So yes, again, Dan, thank you for pointing that out.

We did receive that that letter.

So again, I was it's it's duly noted, it's part of the record.

Um, and and should the city wish to um amend current ordinances that would require uh parking in that area.

Obviously, that's that's beyond the jurisdiction of of this board.

So I mean other discussion.

Alderman Clee.

Uh thank you.

And and I I know that the the area that we're talking about is does not require parking.

I remember we having the conversation, and they were hoping maybe they would be able to, and and so on.

Um again, I also remember that there was conversations about where the trash would go and how it would get picked up, and is it city, is it um so on and so forth, and and um you know, for various reasons I really wasn't in favor of it at that time.

Um I understand this is just granting them something that this board has already given them permission to, so I will probably say yes, but one of those hold your nose and vote yes.

I still don't believe in the project, sorry.

Well, they thank you for your comments.

Um other members of the board.

Um, if there are none, uh if a member of the board were so inclined to make a motion uh regarding the 12-month extension, Mr.

Green, go right ahead.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I would like to make a motion for new business 8026-0084 uh to grant a 12-month extension on the final site plan approval of the originally approved that was originally approved June 5th, 2025.

Um the applicant meets the remark outlined in 190-146D, subject to the following subsequent conditions in the staff report.

A all right, thank you.

Motion by Mr.

Green.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

McIntyre.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Motion passes unanimously.

All right.

Moving along, uh review of thank you, have a good evening.

Uh review of tentative agenda.

Has any member of the board had an opportunity to review the uh upcoming cases?

Well, they make a motion on regional impact.

Mr.

Chair.

Two two lot subdivisions.

Mr.

Hudson.

Having reviewed the tenant agenda, which is uh very very sparse.

I make the motion of the board fine.

No uh projects of regional significance.

All right, thank you.

Motion by Mr.

Hudson.

Is there a second?

Second, I think.

Second by Mr.

Varley.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Motion passes.

All right, moving along.

Referral from the Board of Aldermen uh O 26-013 amending the zoning map by rezoning land along Northeastern Boulevard and Industrial Park Drive to highway business.

Um, I don't know if you wanted to tee this one up.

If there was anyone member of the public or go for it.

I can speak to this.

Um, this rezoning is essentially extends the highway business district kind of northeasterly along Northeastern Boulevard.

Um converting a portion of the park industrial district to highway business.

Um essentially bounding that new additional uh highway business area by Northeastern Boulevard, Industrial Park Drive, and uh the turnpike uh following a existing lot line between eight and twenty uh industrial park drive.

All right.

Um Sam, just just for for context, um since question was brought up about um recode essentially.

Um would this otherwise be permitted under the re-code?

Um so the the impetus is the change of 20 north or 20 industrial park drive to a restaurant use, right?

Um in the new code, uh all of the property um basically between Northeastern Boulevard and the Turnbike would be zoned commercial industrial restaurants would be a permitted use within that district.

Um so this proposal would be legal under recode.

They're they're ahead of the curve, if you will.

Okay.

Yes.

All right.

Alderman Klee, please.

Uh thank you.

Um so in essence, if we for some reason said no to this, it's going to happen anyways, correct?

That is a way of the thing.

This is just yeah.

So it's gonna it's kind of futile to to fight it.

Um not that I would.

Um I don't have a problem with it.

But I just just for the public to hear, you know, a yes here is a no here would just be a delay of a yes that's coming.

So thank you.

Yeah, and and uh even without the the recode, my my thought is folks that are familiar with the area.

Yeah, you you have the McDonald's um for the longest time, you have the restaurant within the holiday end and and again realize that was within you know was permitted by by zoning.

Um to me it doesn't seem wholly out of character.

Um uh honestly, if somebody wishes to cite uh an eating establishment in that general area and they wanted to give it a go, I good on them.

Um but yeah, I don't think it's it's just I don't think it's completely out of out of character.

Um Alderman Clee, yeah.

Yeah, and I a hundred percent agree with it.

I mean, if you just continue up the road, um you have a a pizza place, you have uh a a variety of other type of things.

I um I think for the people who live in the area, they would not have a problem.

I don't foresee it as being too much of a traffic area, depending upon how large the the restaurant is.

But um right now they've got a casino up in that area.

Um they had a gym, I think that's closed now.

But so there's been so many other things.

I don't think this is gonna impact traffic or anything.

And thank you.

Uh Mr.

Hudson.

Um I'm just curious.

W would there be no other way to uh do this other than a zoning change?

Could they have a could they have gone to the zoning board for relief from the zoning or some other method?

I I just I always get concerned when we're uh going to Aldermanic action to rezone an individual property for an individual thing.

So I get uh maybe that's a question for staff, I guess.

I'm just curious if this is just a route they elected to take or if there could have been another option to accomplish the same thing.

No, it's a fair question.

Um yes, they could have gone to the zoning board for a use variance.

Um perhaps this appeared to be an easier route.

Um what's the hardship to to cite a restaurant here?

Um might be a hard case to prove.

I don't know if there'd be too much opposition to it.

Uh but no, this this was the route they chose.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dan.

Uh Joe, yes.

Thank you, sir.

Um just to take a uh step back for a second about all of it.

Um I'm very familiar with this area, right?

Very close to where I live.

Uh the uh the uh rezoning is now you said because they want to put in a restaurant, right?

Okay, so I'll probably make a reference to this at the end of the night on something else, but again, I always talk about going back to the strategic plan and the essence of the strategic plan.

And the strategic plan does have commentary about this section in Nashville.

Okay.

And um, I mean this is doesn't seem like it's a big stress or whatever, but what's the connective tissue here on the strategic plan to another restaurant?

That's an excellent question.

Right.

So the Northeastern Boulevard corridor in that area, it really has been identified in the master plan as uh an area that should remain industrial uh commercial in nature.

Um so the question is you know, does does a restaurant meet that intent?

Um well on its face, no, it's clearly not an industrial or a you know uh it is a commercial use, but in the sense that the the master plan was kind of coloring this area, you know, perhaps not.

However, I don't think it's necessarily uh uncomplementary to those uses.

Um people who work are also people who need to eat.

Um so it's it's not exactly like a use that would be inherently in conflict with the surrounding uses and then in the character of the district.

Um so I don't think it necessarily violates the the intent of the master plan.

Um but obviously the the code is is the manifestation of the vision in regulatory form, and they are changing that.

Um but again to go back to the master plan, I don't think it is entirely out of step with the vision for this area.

Okay.

And just the last piece of this is where this is actually located is at the cusp of where residents uh residencies end.

Really?

If you go farther down towards uh that you know um northeastern boulevard, then on that side the houses are no longer there, right?

So the Saxon Lane is actually almost like the end point of where all these houses are.

So again, um this was an ordinance approach.

I think the mayor is also one of the endorses of it.

Is that true?

Yes.

So uh that ends my uh uh you know, not in favor of it, but I wanted to hear, and you'll hear me again.

I'm gonna ask a question later about and make a comment about strategic planning.

Yeah, okay.

Very good, thank you.

Alderman Clee.

Uh thank you.

Um, I I agree with um Mr.

Hudson.

I I don't like to see us whether this is gonna be uh a reality or not.

I don't like to see a single property coming here, and um, yes, the the mayor and um Alderman Sullivan are the two sponsors of this particular thing, but I just want to remind this board um that regardless of what we say, there will be a public hearing also.

Um and that's by state statute that we have to have that public hearing.

Am I correct?

Correct.

And that's scheduled for the planning and economic development committee.

Right.

So when we have the PEDC, we'll have the the uh public hearing prior to that, and then we'll have the PEDC to also make a recommendation to the full board.

Um so um I think if this did go to zoning or wherever, it would have had a one and done kind of hearing.

Um doing it this way, it's technically having almost three conversations because then when it gets to the board of Alderman, um at that time the public can come forward and speak again.

So while I I agree with Mr.

Hudson, in in some respects, doing it this way actually gives the public three chances to speak out.

So it it's just kind of a different avenue.

I uh I think everything should go through the right process, but yes, so for that, I I like the fact that more chances for people to to talk about themselves and it will hit social media if there's an issue.

We all know that.

Alderman Clee, thank thank you for your comments on the mechanics of of that.

Um other questions of staff or discussion, the end go right ahead.

Well, one more question.

I don't know if the uh map that was attached is just a sketch, but it it it definitely cuts across, at least has sketched cuts across proper existing property lines in the recode.

Um will will the boundaries of zones be drawn along lot lines, existing lot lines.

Yes, yes, so that was it seem to be a more traditional way of doing it, just so you don't have something that's split, but uh I'm sure there's uh an idea or a plan for this one which kind of drives the layout.

You are uncovering some of the back and forth I had with our legal counsel as to how to define the bounds of this new district.

Um please rely on the written legal description if you're looking for exact uh location of these new boundaries.

Um in many cases we have lots that are split zone, clearly not by any real intent, but just uh drawing error and uh one rezoning and not being able to snap a line to uh roadway center line or a lot line.

We simply have to rely on where the adjacent zoning line is and using that as the reference.

So that's how we ended up with that.

But yes, the the visual in there is for visual representation only.

Thank you.

Thanks, Dan.

Um there questions or discussion?

Mr.

Zoller, please.

Sam, you use the word new district, and I I'm gonna understand that this would be uh highway business and highway businesses immediately adjacent.

Would it not just be an extension of highway business like just that that is just growing that district rather than creating something new?

Yes.

So okay, thank you.

I was a little unclear.

But it's a new district for the property that has only existed under park industrial.

I see.

Thank you.

We're drilling down into the semantics of it.

It's good.

Words matter.

Okay, no, understood.

Understood, good question.

Other questions of staff or further discussion.

Um, if there are none, our usual function would be to either grant a favorable or unfavorable recommendation.

Um recording regarding the ordinance.

Um I again to Dan's point, um, this might not be the preferred way of doing this.

Um, but seeing as though it's if the recode goes through, it's probably be permitted anyway.

Um I wouldn't have a problem supporting this.

Um so I don't know if a member was a member of the boards at the uh point yet whether they'd be willing to to to make such a motion, but Alderman Clee, please.

Um I'd like to make a motion that the uh planning board makes a favorable um recommendation to the board of Alderman.

All right.

Uh thank you.

Motion by Alderman Clee for a favorable recommendation of uh 0-26-013.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

McIntyre.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you, everyone.

Good conversation on that.

Um nothing else officially on the agenda.

Uh uh, Mr.

McIntyre, you'd mentioned you had some questions.

Okay, certainly to ask if I could uh have your discretion to say something about uh a meeting I had with the mayor.

Certainly.

Yeah, um so um as you know, um I'm the um mayor's designate ex officio, and um I had a uh little over an hour meeting with the mayor uh this past week, and uh went through a wide-ranging uh uh set of um uh uh things.

And a couple things that I wanted to point out that uh I think you'd you'd find uh interesting and like to hear.

The first one was obviously he's um he said he's very pleased with the the the um membership of the board and the people and the work that's being done by the board.

He thinks it's a very effective group.

That's one.

And number two, um uh he and I both had a good discussion about the staff.

Um and um he literally said everyone's name and how much uh he um appreciates their work.

So it wasn't any prodding.

I mean, he said everyone's name here and um knows how um well prepared they are to uh get things done and also to get the board ready.

So you should know that um uh he he uh he really likes what you're doing, and uh I I do too.

I mean I've only been here for for a short period of time, but I can see the excellence that comes out of that group all the time, so that's good.

Uh and then um the last thing was without trying to be a broken record of uh referencing about the strategic plan.

The reason why I bring that up again, it comes from my background primarily where um you know we were we would do this every year and then uh have reviews on strategic plans every quarter.

And the one of the key things about a strategic plan obviously is that it's um a guidepost, right?

And it's not uh you know uh cast in granite, and that it it should be flowing and and iterable if uh if it's appropriate, but you'll hear me.

I think still uh always pinch every now and then about what we're doing and how it relates to the strategic plan, and is there um an opportunity, especially is there an opportunity to support it, right?

So I'm I'm trying not to be a thorn in it in the board's side when I talk about that, but I think it's good that there is a guiding document there too, not just our um experiences, and so um I'm hoping that uh you take that with uh the intent of where it comes from.

All right.

Well I appreciate your comments, Mr.

McIntyre.

Thank you very much.

Uh appreciated.

Uh Alderman Clee.

Um yeah, this this seems like a an odd thing to say, but um, as Mr.

McIntyre pointed out, he is here representing the the mayor because the position was the mayor or his designee when we're doing roll call.

Should we no longer um do a roll call for the mayor?

And the reason why I'm asking that question is because those that are listening are gonna think that the mayor isn't showing up when in fact he does have his designee.

Um I think procedurally, it's my understanding, and I guess with getting too much into city mechanics, um the mayor could sit himself at any time if he wishes to do so, and that would he he would then replace Mr.

McIntyre.

So I think it's it's an either or Mr.

McIntyre's presence alone, I think would satisfy that.

I wouldn't take that personally as the mayor being a no-show.

I I think just procedurally, I I would still prefer to call everybody because the mayor does have the right to to sit if there was a particular one he vote very passionate about or thought his presence was necessary.

Thank you.

Um the the reason the reason I said it was primarily because of the the comment that I get, you know, the mayor never comes to the planning board and he is a requirement, and I understand that I understand your procedure and so on, but I have a um an alternate as well, and I don't believe that um we call Alderman Morgan's name as well, and if I weren't here, she would be here, or is it just because I'm the primary that we don't call her name?

Uh ex officio.

Yeah, so am I it's a fair question.

Um Mr.

McIntyre is not an alternate to the mayor.

Right.

Uh he is a representative, so I would say that the there's a pardon the term, but a class difference between alternates and the mayor's rep.

Um procedurally, I suppose that we could call role for all of our alternates, but at the same point when we are calling role and we make a quorum with full members, I see no need to call role for alternates who are not physically present.

Okay, thank you.

I like I said, I it's just things that I do here.

You know, there's enough criticism about elected officials, and it just kind of adds to that that conversation.

I I don't disagree with anything that we're doing here.

I'm just pointing out that it does become a no and understood, and I and I think again I'm I'm not the charter expert, that the mayor is a number uh a member of a number of other boards, right?

Um so I uh obviously if if he can't personally attend, hence he has his designee.

So if I may, he he is also a member of the um the board of trustees for the the um National Center for the Arts, and we don't call his name because his designee um is is there.

So that's kind of what brought it up to my mind.

But every committee does things differently, so I'm not being critical.

I'm just my consultation.

Yeah, um thank you.

It's it's really not an important issue, it was just something that I thought about.

Understood um uh Sam, I'm I'm persuadable if there's a larger discussion among city staff as to how to address that.

Um I'm all ears to have that discussion.

Um I'm not gonna throw out a a mandate of any sort to tonight.

Um but um for consistency across boards uh or committees if you wish to have that discussion with staff.

Um I believe this is a matter that can be left to the chair's discretion.

Oh, he just tossed it back to you.

Well, let's let's see how I feel on the 25th.

But um I would uh before we wrap things up tonight, again appreciate everybody's thoughts on that.

Um sir, I I apologize.

You've been sitting there patiently all evening, and I didn't know if you had a a matter you wanted to to speak to, or if you no just need to be able to figure it out live and in person.

Just observing.

Okay, I wanted to make sure if you had some of you all we recognized you so.

All right.

Well, if uh everybody's had a had a good evening, we're we're we're about an hour in, which is pretty good for us.

I know.

Um I think we'd be uh looking for a motion to adjourn.

Alderman Klee.

This is my favorite one.

I'd like to make a motion for adjournment.

Uh motion by Alderman Clee.

All those in favor?

I we are adjourned at 803.

Thank you, everybody.