Good evening.

Seven o'clock.

I'd like to call to order the July 9th, 2026, City of Nashua Planning Board meeting.

Before we get to the uh roll call and other items, I do just want to announce um the case RB Farms uh 11 Tara Boulevard, uh both cases related to that project that has been continued or uh postponed rather to August 6th at the applicant's request.

So we will not be hearing any testimony this evening on the uh proposed charitable gaming facility with any members of the audience or we have anyone on Zoom tonight.

So did just want to stipulate that for the record.

So thank you.

Uh first item on the agenda, uh roll call, Mr.

Green.

Yes, Mayor Doncas.

Joseph McIntyre?

Present.

Bob Bollinger here.

Adam Barley, here.

Maggie Harper.

Dan Hudson here.

Benjamin Zoller here.

Larry Hirsch.

Cameron Green here.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Green.

We have a quorum.

Uh next item on the agenda, approval minutes from our June 4th, 2026 meeting.

Uh has any member of the board had an opportunity to review those meeting uh minutes and willing make a recommendation regarding their acceptance?

Mr.

Zoller.

Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to accept those minutes as written.

All right, thank you.

Motion by Mr.

Zoller, is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Green.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Next item on the agenda, communications.

Uh Connor or Sam, any come in late?

Oh, we just received a uh updated engineering comment letter for 63 Arlington Street subdivision, and so that was reflected in the staff report, as all.

All right, very good.

Thank you.

All right.

Next item on the agenda, uh report of chair, committee, and liaison.

Uh chair has nothing tonight.

Uh Mr.

McIntyre.

Anything on your mind you wanted to bring up or yes, is this the appropriate time?

We can do it now, certainly.

Thank you.

Yeah, um, so uh being new, I like to uh use that um uh it's not uh excuse, it's kind of a reason why I'm asking the questions is a big difference.

Um I I want to uh ask in in general to uh either the planning department or to the chair, a couple of things that uh I've thought about over the recent time, especially when we start getting into sites that can be fairly complicated issues.

Okay.

Um that is uh two things.

The first one is I am a visual guy, especially, and uh I like being able to see the sites that are being discussed if they're of significance or prominence, and that's a relative term, I guess.

Um but to me, uh every now and then this board will get something, and I think there are a few that could possibly be that way sometime soon.

But um so uh I I'm concerned about one, either wanting to do a site visit on my own as a member, uh not as a citizen, but I mean being clear, hey, I'm on the planning board and I want to see this site.

Uh is that an acceptable behavior to do?

And then secondarily, if that isn't, is it uh uh acceptable behavior for the board to schedule a site visit if the board in in uh uh in MAS agrees that it's a significant uh task to do.

So that's the first question.

So I'd like to ask that one and then I'll ask the second one after this one's finished.

Sam, do you want to or I can give I can give my two cents and then you can correct everything that I've that I mistake.

So uh I I think uh as board members um from from from afar, so so long as we're not trespassing, you're always able to go and drive past the site on your own.

Um I've never taken it upon myself.

Uh you don't want to trespass, right?

You don't want to be there without permission from a property owner.

So um I I certainly wouldn't wouldn't want to do that in terms so so in most cases for what we deal with on a day-to-day basis, you're probably only gonna get the the windshield type type view.

Um in terms of uh a more organized site visit, um that would constitute uh uh a formal gathering uh of the board, uh assuming we we have a quorum, so it would be noticed publicly, members of the public would be able to join us on the site walk.

Um there's been a a couple of notable ones, Sam, in the in the time I've been on the board, um, but we typically don't do it for for every single case.

Um sometimes it could be because of unique topographical issues um or the the size of a development.

Um but I I think in the past staff's done pretty good about giving us a recommendation about when they they thought it might be beneficial, and again, that never precludes you or any member of the board from sort of checking things out on your own, I guess within within the confines of of the law.

Um and again, we none of us I don't think want to be somewhere where we're we're we're not um legally allowed to be.

So uh that'll be my quick spiel.

And then now, Sam, tell me tell me everywhere I went astray.

So only on one point.

Um I'm gonna read something from our application for planning board action.

I slash we hereby authorize the Nashua City Planning Board, its staff andor agents to enter on and inspect the property proposed for action by this application.

You can enter the site, you won't be trespassing.

That is a something they sign when they submit an application.

Um makes sense, they're proposing development.

You know, if it's a big site, it's deep into the site, we would need the ability to go and inspect the the site or the portion of the site slated for development.

Um so that was my only correction.

Um I think generally it's it's good if we organize, we go as a group, we we notice it, you know, because so it can be open to the public, but there is nothing precluding you as individuals.

Uh hopefully there's just not an instance where out of total coincidence a quorum of the board just happens to go visit the site at the same time, that would constitute a violation of uh 91A, we would need to notice that.

Um so if there's interest of the board to organize a site visit, I think that's the way we should generally approach things.

And of course, uh, I think also viable and and valuable would be to bring staff along, subject matter experts to talk about the application to talk about the improvements, um, so that the board as a whole gains that that detailed information uh at the same time.

Mr.

Hudson?

Uh maybe it's a technical question, but if a site walk was scheduled, is it required to have a quorum of the board there?

Like if we schedule one and not another not a quorum didn't show up.

Can we still host a site walk or is a site walk over at that point?

That's a really good question.

Um I will confer with our legal counsel on that.

Uh, but I believe it would not be a meeting of the board and therefore we wouldn't take minutes.

I wouldn't say it is canceled because then it's just it's just not a meeting and you were there outside of uh a formal public meeting capacity.

Thank you.

Go ahead, Joe.

Thank you, sir.

Uh so to just expand with Sam uh just as an aside before I get into it again.

I agree, you know, if if there was a schedule one, we didn't have a quorum, it's it's just a site walk of some people, okay?

And that's that's what it is.

Um but uh just to drill down one more question about this.

I got it if if the board wants to do a site visit and we did it as a board quorum, then it there's you know there's responsibilities that go with it, and I understand all that kind of stuff.

But the secondary part of that question was if I as one planning board member wanted to go, sure, I can go.

But if I wanted or re would like to get staff assistance of somebody who's a subject matter expert to come along with me, would the staff support that uh I will tentatively say yes.

I would just then ask that you share with the board your observations so that you're not you know the sole owner of the information and knowledge you gained through that solo sitewalk or accompanied by subject matter experts.

And when it comes to subject matter experts, I would limit that to either staff who's involved or uh agents of the applicant, you know.

I wouldn't necessarily say, hey, my buddy is a hydrologist and I want him to come look at you know some drainage infrastructure, you know, then you're bringing in a third party that could get a little muddy.

Understood.

This is not again, I'm sorry for the public to uh keep you waiting for your stuff, but you know, it's important for me to understand how far I can go and not go, right?

So that's what I'm trying to do.

Thank you, Sam, on that.

And I I would only ask for planning department assistance and give sufficient and give sufficient lead time if I even did it.

Okay.

The second question, Mr.

Chairman, was um uh somewhat uh related in a sense, and that is that again, being uh relatively newbie on this, but not on city boards and and and stuff.

Um I found it in my previous life to be beneficial to have um board uh annual or semi-annual work sessionslash updates that would address things, and in this case, maybe things like on recode and how you know how is it now that if it gets to the point where it's adopted, you know, that how would we now need to be you know acting, um things like population disbursement or trends in the city or or any particular um changes that are being um um considered for the master plan, which I'm a big fan of, right?

To follow.

So does the board do that type of stuff?

And if they haven't done it in the past, does it have an appetite to do it in the past in the future?

I I think that the way in the one thing that's different about this board, perhaps a little bit, it's a volunteer board primarily, not an elected board.

Obviously, Dan as a city staff would be an exception.

Um our aldermanic representative would would be an exception to that.

So we we try to schedule our events within the confines of our regularly scheduled business.

That that said specifically on the recode.

Um Sam has kept us in the loop, I think, pretty pretty regularly uh and consistently throughout that process.

Um we've kind of reverted to informational type type presentations from staff, uh say on a night where we didn't have a heavy agenda.

Uh obviously tonight we thought we were gonna have a heavier agenda than we we did, so if we might have missed an opportunity here to um set something up formally.

Um but generally speaking, uh we we do try to set the schedule uh for the entire calendar year uh at the beginning of the year.

Uh and again, just just because members of this board is are largely volunteers.

We do try to stick to those regular uh those regular dates.

That said, there are some other workshop and training opportunities that that staff will make us aware of uh throughout the year, whether it's uh New Hampshire Municipal Association uh events or or other.

So I'll I'll probably stop there.

And again, Sam, tell me if uh I've missed anything in terms of scheduling separate items or no, I think that's fine.

I would just add um I think Mr.

McIntyre, you raise an important point, you know, both with trends and the coming new code.

Um the new code is a new slate.

I think there's going to be things that we see we experience and challenges that we face that we haven't anticipated yet that would be healthy to reflect on after you know a year or something like that.

Um where we also then through the new code, we have the ability uh a more robust ability to influence ordinance amendments.

Um so we can actually be the tip of the spear when it comes to responding to changes in market conditions, things that affect development things that we see through our exercise of our duties here at the board.

Um and I think having time setting aside a time or saying, hey, look, I think that we really need to, we've been seeing these things, we should talk about this, can be something that we can add on to agenda items.

We have a you know discussion item section of the agenda.

We could talk about that, and then we could kind of you could direct staff to explore something, bring it back to the board for discussion.

Uh I think that would be healthy as we enter a new phase of of development and and and land regulation in the city.

I think that could be healthy.

All right.

One last thing.

Oh, sorry.

So so again, the you know, the intention of these two questions was uh uh again me trying to look at what I've seen before and what I see now.

And what I'm what I'm trying to say is I think the planning board rightfully so is driven significantly by ordinance and and um regulation and things like that.

What I hope to get out of this, especially as the May is designated kind of like the people's rep in a sense, uh, is to encourage interaction at the board level on things as opposed to basic black and white technical questions all the time.

So that's not a criticism, it's just an observation, and uh um that's really where I'm coming from.

I'm trying to get us to, and I'm not the chairman, and I'm not the vice chairman.

I'm just saying I'm trying to get us to be a little more interactive, if that's the right word, and in sharing ideas and understandings, both from at the staff level and at the peer level on the board.

That's all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Excuse me.

All right.

Moving along in the agenda, um, before we move into our regular cases, I do just want to go through the planning board procedure.

The procedure of the meeting and hearing are as follows.

After the legal notice of each conditional use, 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 representative will be given 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, and the chair shall have the ability to limit the length of public testimony in the interest of time.

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

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

After this has 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 applications before us.

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

We want to be fair to everyone and make the best possible decision based on the testimony presented and considering all applicable approval criteria established in the national revised ordinances.

Thank you for your courteous attention.

And I ask at this time if you please turn off or silence your cell phones.

Thank you so much.

All right.

Uh as we mentioned under old business conditional use application.

Um 11 Tower Boulevard has been postponed to August 6th.

Under Old Business Site Plan.

Uh similarly, 11 Tara Boulevard postponed to August 6th.

First item on the agenda, new business subdivision plan, case A26-0104, property located at 63 Arlington Street.

Is any member of the board ready to make a motion that this application is complete and board is ready to take jurisdiction.

Mr.

Green.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, I'd like to make a motion for new business A26-0104.

Subdivision approval that it is complete and ready 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.

Motion passes.

Board has jurisdiction.

The floor is yours.

Go right ahead.

Good evening, everyone.

Uh my name is Alex Trafrida.

I'm a civil engineer with IMEG, formerly Hainer Swanson.

Here on behalf of the Arlington Street Methodist Church.

Mr.

Chair, I'd just like to provide a brief presentation and open the floor for any further discussion.

So the existing site is at 63 Arlington Street.

Tax map 21 lot 67.

Measures approximately 0.52 acres located in zone RB, Nashville's urban residence.

Subject property is at the corner of Hain Street and Arlington Street.

It's abutted by residential properties from all sides.

The site currently contains an existing church and associated parsonage.

Parking for the church is provided by street parking, and the parsonage has a driveway and detached garage that I said earlier.

Site is serviced by public sewer and water and overhead electric and telephone utilities.

And some just some background on the Arlington Street Church itself.

They're a local church providing the community with various or religious, a home for various religious and non-groeligious groups to gather serving the area for the past 127 years.

Church wishes to subdivide the property, create a separate law containing the parsonage for sale as the parsonage is no longer needed for the church.

Now about the product itself.

This law will measure approximately 0.378 acres.

New lot 671 or lot 53 will contain the existing parsonage and measure approximately 0.144 acres.

There are no additional site improvements as part of the subdivision.

Both laws should apply with the dimensional requirements of the RB zone.

And we're requesting one waiver tonight, uh section 190-281 D10, which requires the existing conditions of adjacent parcels.

So in conclusion, we believe the application is reasonable and conforms to the intent of the National Land Use Code.

We are we accept the staff conditions and our client does as well.

So we respectfully seek your approval tonight.

Thank you for your time.

Happy to answer any questions that the board may have.

All right, thank you.

Um nothing from me at this time.

I'll open it up to the board.

Um questions.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Alex, I just wanted to ask about the existing detach garage.

Um it's an encroachment onto the side yard and the rear yard setback.

Is that correct?

But uh it's an existing non-conformity.

Yeah, okay.

I was just wondering why you listed NA for the rear yard setback, but not NA for the side yard.

And then I think we were looking at 7.9 feet.

Is that 7.9 feet from the property line?

I was just a little I believe so.

Okay.

Was just a little confused when reading your table, but that's yeah, there could have just been some point nine from the side.

I believe that's 7.9 on the left side of the parsonage to the house.

Oh, I see.

Yeah, so I guess it could have been NA for that detached garage, but yeah.

Okay, but existing non-conformity overall.

Okay, okay, great.

That's all I have, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Zoller.

Uh other questions from the board?

Mr.

Hudson.

Please.

Um, I would just, in addition to uh Joe Mandolo's comments, I would just ask that uh on the plan, subdivision plan that under contacts for engineering department have it say Nashua Division of Public Works instead of Department of Public Works.

Um then I have a question uh probably for staff.

So this is a church property, churches have special disposition on the law in terms of what things criteria they are required to meet and that sort of thing.

Um this is subdivided unless it's the parsonage is sold to another church.

I'm assuming that that special disposition uh passes, right?

And it just becomes a regular lot of record following all the rules and regulations of the city national and and processes for applying for permits and all that sort of thing, right?

Correct, and it would pay tax.

Thank you.

That's all I have to do.

All right.

Thank you, Dan.

All right.

Uh further questions from the board.

Um thank you.

Thank you.

Uh open it up to the public.

Any member of the public here speak in opposition or with concern to this application.

Anyone wish to speak in favor of this application?

You're certainly welcome.

Good evening.

I'm Reverend Sharon Sargent.

I am here this evening representing the board of church and buildings for the granite district of the New England Conference of the United Methodist Church.

And to let you know, this has been brought before our board, and it has been agreed upon that the Arlington Street Church may proceed with requesting the subdivision.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

Are there other members of the public here to speak in favor of this application?

See none.

Throw it back to the board one more time.

All right.

Nothing else from the board.

So at this time, um, I'm gonna close the public hearing.

Uh we'll go into our public meeting.

Um this one seems pretty straightforward.

Um if Mr.

Giafrida is aware how strict we are with the waiver request on the uh budding properties, but may have been informed by some of his colleagues.

Um we see that was said in Jess, but um beyond beyond that.

I I like I stated, I think this one seems pretty pretty straightforward.

So I'd be inclined to be seeking um other board members uh agree um the motion in the in the affirmative on this one.

Um just I only pointed out the waiver more to speak.

We we should address the waiver item first before we get to the um actual subdivision approval.

Um so I don't know if anyone wants to discuss this one further, but Mr.

Green thought it.

I do, Dan.

Um did you want how do you want that modified in the subsequent conditions to note that or with it just meeting outstanding engineering comments?

Um I'm I'm fine with just the current reference to engineering comments.

Okay, Mr.

Green, go right ahead.

I would like to make a motion for new business A26-0104 subdivision approval to grant the following waiver uh 190-281 D 10 to waive the requirement to show existing conditions within 1,000 feet of the property.

Um finding that strict conformity would pose unnecessary hardship and the specific circumstances of the land indicate that the waiver will properly carry out this the spirit and intend of the regulations considering the rationale letter provided by the applicant.

Um thank you.

Motion by Mr.

Green.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Zola.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Would you like to carry through Mr.

Green?

Yes, I would.

I'd like to also uh make a motion to grant final subdivision plan approval for the proposed two lot subdivision of the property located at 63 Arlington Street.

Finding that the application meets the approval criteria outloaned uh outlined in subdivision NRO 190-13G following the subsequent conditions in the staff report A through F.

All right, thank you.

Motion by Mr.

Green is there a second.

Second by Mr.

Hudson.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor.

Aye.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Have a good evening.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Moving along uh under new business subdivision plan.

Uh if anyone is here for the property 28 Lincoln Ave, that has been postponed to August 6th at the applicant's request.

Next case on the agenda under new business site plan, case A26-0132 property located at 103 Temple Street.

Any member of the board and application had an opportunity to review this application and is willing to make a motion that the board that it's complete and that the board is ready to accept jurisdiction.

Mr.

Green, please.

I'd like to make a motion for new business A26-0132 site plan approval extension and amendment.

Finding that the uh case is complete and ready 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.

Motion passes.

Board has jurisdiction.

Nice to see you again.

Floor is yours, Ethan.

Go right ahead.

Morning, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board for the record, Ethan Beals and the project manager at Heiner Swanson doing business at three Congress Street here in Nashville, New Hampshire.

Also with me tonight is Matt Lavery of uh Property Possible Incorporated, who is the owner and developer for this project.

Um admittedly I'm here tonight filling in for a colleague who we actually had to convince not to come back from his vacation and present this case tonight.

Um but with Alex presenting before me, I like to think of it more as out with the old engineers and with the new young engineers at Hainer Swanson.

Um as a quick refresher for the board, the project we're discussing tonight is located at 103 Temple Street, which currently and kind of historically contains several larger buildings.

Historically has been the site, the location of the JF MacAlle and Shoe Manufacturing Company dating all the way back to the 1920s.

More recently, the site has been used as a contractor's yard, a kitchen store, tire repair, and sales, church, a shelter, and a bingo hall.

We're here tonight seeking approval of an extension and an amendment of the site plan, which was originally approved by this board in July 2023 and then extended and amended in 2024 and 2025.

So we're here for the clean sweep.

The large scale redevelopment projects like this one really do take a lot of time, especially in the case with NHDES environmental remediation and the New Hampshire housing financing processes.

Since receipt of our previous approvals, our client continues to make progress, including starting some of the building demolition work last fall, and is actually scheduled to hopefully start construction of the redevelopment next month.

Subdivision plan has also been recorded in November of 2025, which has a reminder that subdivision created three lots, really one lot for each of the buildings, which was primarily a financing function.

Our application tonight seeks another year extension of the previously approved plan, but it also more importantly introduces a phasing plan.

Phase one, which is building A, or the larger L-shaped building, which contains 205 units, and the associated site improvements on lot six would be phase one, including the Spruce Street connector along the property's frontage.

Phase two would be buildings B and C, which total 180 units, and that would also include the remaining site improvements on lot 46 and 47, including the Spruce Street connector along that frontage.

Other than that, there has been no other design or plan changes that are proposed.

At this time, all other local, state, and federal permits are in hand.

Um like I said, we're ready to start construction as early as next month, pending the receipt of our New Hampshire housing back financing with a hopefully closing scheduled for the end of July, early August.

We believe the application is complete and conforms with the requirements and the goals and objectives of the city's master plan.

Um of course the conditions outlined in the staff report are acceptable to us.

Um at this time, I'm happy to answer any questions from the board or from the public.

All right, thank you.

Um questions from the board.

Mr.

Zoller, please.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, regarding front yard, side yard setbacks, setbacks all around the building.

Um, the L-shaped building, it seems like we're a bit in front of where that front yard setback would be.

Um, just based on where the line is uh on the plan.

I'm also looking at the um at the table listed on the right hand side in regards to required and proposed uh setbacks for you know minimum side yard, front yard.

Um could we go through that a little bit?

I'm just seeing the dash line go a little through the uh the L-shaped building and then uh in a similar way building Clean.

So when this was originally approved, uh this is in a I believe we're under we're either the under the TOD or the MU where the planning board has authority to modify dimensional requirements, that step was taken.

Uh so that's why you see encroachments into the Zenbax Okay, and then as all subsequent approvals carried over, and and that's why you see what you see today.

Is that a separate action item that we would have to look at tonight?

That was those handled in the original approval.

So by the extending this approval, it's all motions associated with that original approval that get carried over.

Okay, okay, great.

Thank you, Sam.

And then I'm sorry, I could tip you off a little bit.

Um, there's been a couple of instances where the the board has such discretion that I can recall since we've been here.

Um you haven't seen one from I guess from scratch from scratch yet.

Um whatever they're coming back for on the extension uh was all previously and approved and met all other requisite requirements.

Um so that that would explain, but no, otherwise, uh excellent, excellent catch as always.

Uh the fact that your eyes are still good enough to be able to read the small numbers on the table is utterly outstanding.

So thank you for that explanation, Mr.

Chair.

Nothing else from me.

All right, thank you.

Uh Mr.

McIntyre, please.

This question.

So if uh phase one starts as uh early as next month, what would be the estimated time for completion of phase one?

Um phase one tire bill in the LIRGC actually sorry.

I'm sorry, if you'd wish to see J Yeah, just so we pick it up for the record.

Thank you so much.

Uh Matthew Lavery, I'm uh co-owner of property possible, the developer for 103 Temple Street.

Uh for that question, RGC is giving uh for 22 to 24 month process for that lot to be completed.

Thank you.

Would would you expect similar time frames as other buildings came online?

Is that uh though that one would be the longer term uh as far as one building, uh the other ones being 90 units would be a shorter term than a 2005 unit for the lot A.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Um did you have any follow-ups?

No, thank you.

Oh, listen.

Right.

Uh other questions from the board sorry, we've we've got a fly problem.

I don't know what's going on.

Mr.

Hudson.

Uh again, probably question for staff, but uh so phase development, that's that's all well and good.

What what is the timeline for them to commence construction or complete construction on phase two?

Is there any uh deadline in the in our ordinance for progress?

No, there is not.

Um so we are this the application is for a 12-month extension.

Um they may be back, they may break ground on D and C between now and then.

We will see.

So if they basically if they don't, they have to come back for another extension.

I mean or something would have to change, I don't know.

Is yeah, okay, thank you.

Sorry, just to follow on and clarify that point.

So it would not be sufficient to start work on phase one in terms of the extension, or is that oh, in terms of uh they've achieved active and substantial development?

No, it's a fair point.

Um given I would say there's been subdivision of this site, we've established a phasing plan.

Um it's a good it's a good question.

Um if the board felt so inclined, you would have the opportunity to affirmatively state that would apply.

So building permits would for building A would vest the site plan approval for B and C.

If that is the intent, I I think it would be it would behoove the project to state that.

Um because right, it is kind of an open question.

Um so I I would staff would support that.

And I think that would clarify uh for all parties.

Does the applicant have to request that formally or that would be advisable?

But they could do that now.

Mr.

Edson, no, I I'd be a fa I think I'd be in favor of something like that.

I just don't I don't know if it's forever or not, you know, like if this if this say that it goes 10 years and this nothing gets built on phase two, phase two doesn't get built for 10 years, then they want to go build it.

I mean, should they come back then at that point and you know seek a new development in accordance with our regulations at that time?

I I don't know.

That's that's kind of what I was getting at is I didn't know if we were granting an indefinite uh definite indefinite uh approval of a site plan um with no guarantees of it being constructed anytime soon.

I don't want to put it, I don't want to put the applicant in any smart box.

I'm happy to grant the extension.

I just I raised a question in phasing it because that to my knowledge that when it wasn't phase that we weren't doing such a thing, I guess.

Right.

Mr.

Green.

Would it make sense to do like 12 months after CO, give them time to get construction?

I mean 24.

I think September 28 is that that date, and then 12 months would be after that based on their their letter in this.

Yeah, I guess that would be I I kind of prefer not to spin a timeline on the fly like this.

Um I think it's speaking of flies in the ointment.

Right.

Yeah, it it's just again I I not that I think we don't have the ability to do it, just kind of craft something on the spot like this when you're talking about things that may or it may not happen.

Uh go ahead, yeah.

Well, I guess the reverse would be the board could determine that granting you know, phase one doesn't, you know, could initial construction of phase one doesn't count.

We don't consider that substantial advancement or whatever it is, uh, such that that applies to phase two, in which case they have to return within a year to have an extension on the phase two portion of the project.

I don't know if that's even procedurally correct.

I don't know.

Yeah.

Can we restate what's being requested here to tonight?

I I I just want to a 12-month extension of the approval of the approval.

And establishment of the phase.

But in the the addition of phasing, but I think you know, the question at hand is really does the issuance of building permit for building A vest the approvals for B and C so much so that they don't have to come back to continually extend those approvals.

Yeah, I know, and I I see the conundrum.

It's just with that much building space, I guess, that many units, like to Dan's point.

Are they off the hook in perpetuity?

Go ahead, Dan, yeah.

Well, remind me, isn't it?

Wasn't there a recent change in state law where these things were vested for a longer period of time?

That's after building permit.

That's after building permit.

Okay.

So until you have a building.

Okay, until you're which is interesting because obviously we're going through a comprehensive land use code update.

So it would be it would be the requirement under that change in state law, which extended from five to seven years.

It would be the issuance of a building permit for B and C that would lock in the code as it is today and as it applies to those buildings.

So we're talking about before that happens, and it's simply the approval, the 12-month window of approval of the site plan prior to the issuance of the building permit.

That's that's the issue.

I I I don't want to create problems basically.

I it was just more of a technical question, but I don't know the nature of the agreements and sales and subdivision and financing uh mechanisms that are under at play here.

So I certainly don't want to create any kind of wrinkle that would cause a problem for this development.

So I like like you, Mr.

Chair, I'm reluctant to do something on the fly like that, but um I would just in the future, maybe if we have a development that's going to be phased, is something that we should probably talk about or consider or have proposed to us uh as part of the the phasing proposal.

Yeah, and and and that would be my opinion on it again.

I I think our role as a board is not necessarily to try to craft how these long-term agreements should be structured, it's just not our role.

Um so uh I on its service, I wouldn't have an issue with with the one year as as proposed.

Um but to Dan's point, if there is a way that that perhaps this board sees if if there are other cases like this, um maybe something that's a little bit more structured prior to seeing it, Mr.

Harley.

Yeah, and I guess maybe I'm just struggling with what what is the legal significance of adding the phasing.

Um good question.

I mean that presumably is is being requested by the applicant in part because they are trying to establish different tracks for you know the first billing versus the other two.

So right, and so with um you know, generally that we have a kind of a universal condition, all site improvements shown in the plan will be completed prior to the issuance of CO.

Well, if an element of those site improvements are buildings B and C without a phasing plan, you know, an argument could be made that those need to be completed before before the CO can be.

Exactly, right.

So by phasing it, it very clearly separates building A from building C, it really goes create two projects.

And and given you know the conversations around timing of financing and there was a rational nexus in applying this phasing line to this plan so that you know building A can move forward as fast a pace as it can and not be tied or or slowed down by anything that's or that is or is not happening with buildings B and C.

And sorry, one more question.

Just for purposes of sort of analogizing here.

If we had say, you know, a 70 lot subdivision, um and you know, to Mr.

Huss's point about like what so what would happen in that case if you know X number of houses were built and then there was you know several years of delay for some reason in the construction of the remaining contemplated lots.

Like is there what is the what would be the results in that case?

I'm just right into I guess this related question of like what is this you know level of significance that needs to occur before it's vested in that in that situation.

Right, yeah.

So subdivision is slightly different because you know that creates the lots of record, right?

So that's the key thing, and then at any point a building permit can be pulled for those.

Now there are instant there's there's an assumption there that those that subdivision say it's a big cul de sac, right?

There would be uh bonding requirements for for the road, right?

And um, you know, a building permit couldn't be pulled for a lot that's way, way down the road line if the road hasn't been built.

So there's an element there that's unique to that scenario, right?

Um, but I think there's there's a through line there to this um with the phasing line separating you know utilities and the parking that serves each building.

There's there's still a relationship there.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Uh for I just wanted to note too um that we have set an outside limit on the construction of the offside elements, right?

Um which I'm very I'm appreciative of and happy that we've done that.

Um so again, that the applicant's been willing to lock that in, so to speak.

So that's in my mind anyway, that's further justification to not try to hamper this by making other changes, but uh but I I think it was important to at least lock that part in as as uh you know extension of uh phase one phase one.

Yeah, I I again I'm I'm I'm trying not to get twisted into a pretzel over this.

Um I I'd like to see it move forward, and I don't want this board to take any action that unintentionally unravel something that has been in the works for so long.

So I guess I would stand by my position that I I can accept this the phasing as is.

Um I I don't think anyone's gonna walk away from an approved site plan, um, even if there was perhaps some delay with B and C.

Um I just someone else I'm sure might be able to come along and snatch it.

I don't know, and again, I'm not I don't care to know, or I don't want to get involved in the financing elements of this.

It's not it's not my purview or concern.

So but I I think the the one year extension on what is now called uh phase one, I I think passes the SNP test.

So Mr.

McIntyre.

Thank you.

So I've listed to the hypotheticals and stuff, and you know, it was the um applicant who brought up the idea of the phasing, right?

Not us.

So I just want to know from a planning department perspective, do you have any issues with us moving forward um as they request with a 12-month extension?

Right.

No, we're supportive of that.

And then the follow-on to that again, when I if I'm following this correctly, on the B and C, if there's no time limit on B and C, um, you don't have a concern for that right now.

I think we're operating under the assumption that something will happen with B and C in the near term.

Um however, to protect ourselves, right?

I I see the the issue potentially um with allowing this the building permit issuance for building A under this approval extension, um, kind of locking in that approval, and then you know, the fear is that it just it languishes now.

If it languishes, it's a it's a reflection of market forces and all the things that all the things that could kill development.

Now that means may mean that the they just come back to the board with a different plan for a a product that is buildable under whatever the market conditions are at that time.

It doesn't preclude them from changing the plan and exercising or executing a different development plan.

I'm not sure I understand completely.

I and again try not to get wrapped around the axle.

I I understand about phase uh one for the um 12-month extension, right?

And then after that's done, they would do B and C.

And I thought I heard the concern was that if we didn't have a restriction or a concern from the board level on B and C at for a length of time, when would they have to come back or not to the board for approval or no approval?

So I'm just trying to uh uh clearly understand, you know, I don't want to put a a shackle on these guys.

I want to just make sure that you know, if things changed, because you listed to all kinds of hypotheticals, right?

If things change, is it are we as a city protected if we want to go back to them and say, hey, things have changed, you've got to do some things differently now to continue with B and C.

And all I'm doing is asking these questions because I want to be make it clear.

This is an area that this particular development is is beautiful to have for the city of Nashville.

I got it.

That whole area, getting that fixed.

So I'm all for the at least conceptually the idea.

I just want to make sure that we're not you know putting ourselves in a compromising position if we ever get in one.

And I don't know what the answer is.

I I guess I my response would be correct, my opinion would be the applicant's taking all the risk here.

Um they've purchased the land, they've paid for the engineering.

Um Mr.

Chairman, if I if I may, real quick and it may or may not answer your question, Mr.

McIntyre.

Um look, we you know, this is really the if if we're successful tonight, this is really the fourth year of approvals that we have been here.

There is very clearly a good amount of money, time, and effort that our client has put into this project.

Um there is a significant DES approval, both for the remediation and all of the other permits that go along with it.

The phasing tonight was simply we're hopefully ready to start the big building, building A next month, as early as next month.

The other two buildings, again, can I predict what's going to happen in the next 10 months?

I can't.

I think at this time we're hopeful that we're looking eight to ten months that we would maybe start in on B and C.

Um, but that is likely there's likely going to be maybe a different owner for those two buildings than building A, um, different financing pieces, all of that.

So that was really it was if there's going to be different owners, if there's going to be different builders, we need to separate this somehow so that it's not one builder, one owner pointing the finger at another builder, another owner, and then it becomes a much larger mess.

So not wanting to I agree earlier, Mr.

Chairman, with your statement on not wanting to try to do things on the fly and perhaps add some additional confusion.

We're comfortable with a 12-month extension.

We're hopeful that all three of the buildings start to get out of the ground or start work in the next year.

Um, but there is a chance in all transparency that we're back here in a year talking about building C, and we're you know, two stories up on building A, hopefully, and just asking for a little bit more time on building C and B.

Yes.

Thank you for thank you for that context.

Um I guess I I stand by the position.

I I'm okay with this as is, and I'm not trying to sway any other board members.

It just uh I I don't want to keep swirling around the bowl here.

Um like for a one-year extension, and again, all points understood.

Um yeah, I I'll just say I I I apologize because I feel like I I opened this pandemic's box here.

No, I started it.

Um but yeah, I I think I'm I'm gonna in agreement with you and and the applicant is not advocating to say no no, we we really need to have this clarified in the approval that it's applicable to you know, once we start it's you know, so I it seems to me it's it's easy enough to say let's let's just move forward with what's being requested tonight, and if they need to come back an additional extension, you know, it seems like everyone's okay with that.

Okay.

Other other thoughts.

Okay.

Any other questions for for Mr.

Beals?

All right, all right, seeing none.

Uh are there any members of the audience that wish to speak uh in opposition or with concern to this application?

I think that was it.

So all right.

Uh at this point, uh I'm gonna close the public hearing.

Um I do appreciate everyone's thoughts on that.

I I think that was a worthwhile discussion.

Uh and and I think um I think Sam, maybe if there's other things down that come down the pike that are similar, I just so it doesn't have to be deliberated by this board.

Again, I we don't want to be in a position where we're twisting things that don't need to be twisted or untwisting things that no, it's it's it's really just a reflection of how diligent this board is in asking incredibly thoughtful questions and making me think on the fly.

So I continue to thank you for that.

And uh I'll I'll be sure to anticipate every single question that you can possibly ask for future.

Yeah, yeah.

Um I again I kind of stand by what I stated earlier.

I'd be willing to support this as presented this evening.

Uh obviously um open to to further discussion or um contrary opinions uh on that.

Uh Mr.

Zoller, go right ahead.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I I'm hoping that you can bring me up to speed on the history of the project or someone else on the board perhaps or staff.

Um all of the buildings they were essentially because there's phasing, they can function on their own standalone in terms of utility connections in terms of uh parking requirements.

You know, if phase one goes through and it's constructed and they're ready to begin occupancy, but building two and three are you know, maybe falling behind, or maybe more in question, building A could function by itself, you know, as as a compliance site.

Is that correct?

Is that correct, in terms of not having to you know siphon off any water or you know a sewage connection from the other buildings that are coming in from the south?

Are they all kind of independent is what I'm asking?

Could they all function independently if need be in terms of the phasing?

I'll defer to staff.

Uh my understanding is that building A is its own independent site.

There are, I believe, shared infrastructure shared parking arrangements between B and C.

The idea is that the two phases are independent of each other.

Okay.

Thank you, Sam.

So I I mean, I think that would lend itself to the granting of the extension and that you know one piece of the puzzle could function by itself, and if they need to, you know, get another extension further down the line, then they can do so.

But you know, and in the meantime, start you know, occupying that first building, uh, you know, chase the CO, all that kind of stuff.

So that's what I wanted to say, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Appreciate the question.

Sam, thank you for the clarification.

Um other thoughts or questions.

Um I guess we're I guess we're down to the uh the moment of truth.

Um I guess we have two items here for us.

Uh Sam, would it be best to take these up separately?

The extent and then the approval.

Uh yes.

Yes, okay.

Yes.

All right.

So uh in the order, they're the written in the staff report.

Um if a member of the board were so willing to make a motion, um, first motion should be related to granting the site plan approval extension uh for the 12-month period.

Um potentially take that up first.

Um Mr.

Green.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I'd like to make a motion for new business A26-0132 site plan approval extension to uh or at least uh a motion to grant the site plan approval extension for the three building 385 unit redevelopment of 103 Temple Street for the period of 12 months.

All right, thank you.

Motion by Mr.

Green, is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Zoller.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

I motion passes unanimously.

Uh Mr.

Green, would you like to continue?

Yes, I would.

I'd like to make a motion to grant uh site plan amendment approval to depict a phasing line on the site plan to include building A and associated on and off-site improvements in phase one and include B and C and associated on-site improvements in phase two.

Uh under the understanding that the subsequent conditions in the staff report one through eleven are followed.

Okay, thank you.

Uh motion by Mr.

Green.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Barley.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you, Gentleman.

Thank you.

Yeah, all right.

I'm driven by next item on the agenda.

Uh store on the other business.

Uh review of tentative agenda to determine developments of regional impact.

50 Cost.

Any member of the board, Mr.

Varley, go ahead and chair, yes.

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

All right, thank you.

Motion by Mr.

Varle's.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Hudson.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Uh it's five eyes.

I'm actually going to abstain on that one.

Uh thank you.

All right.

Uh, next item on the agenda.

Uh board of alderman referral.

Oh-26-019 incorporating the environmental health department subdivision review fee with other subdivision plan review fees.

Uh Sam or Connor, would you like to speak to this one for a moment or two?

Sure.

Um, this ordinance just enshrines uh in ordinance uh a fee that the environmental health department levies on subdivision applications.

So it's adding a $50 fee uh for their review uh and just puts that into our uh subdivision uh fees that we collect as as we are the administers of the subdivision process, um, we would collect that fee for them, or they would collect it.

At least it's it's now in ordinance and gives them the right to collect it.

Housekeeping item.

If you were collecting it before this passes, do you have to return the money?

No.

Why do you have to ask that question?

I will defer to legal counsel on how we will proceed with that.

Understood.

So this is this is codifying something which has already been in practice as the intent.

Okay.

So I don't have too much to add on this one.

I don't know.

Any other thoughts?

Discussion.

All right.

So as always, with a referral, uh, we looking for a motion either for a favorable or unfavorable recommendation with respect to O-26-016.

Um the board so inclined a strong opinion on the matter.

Mr.

Varley, go right ahead.

Um just with one, I think it's zero one.

I think mine's a 019, so it's gonna mention that.

Oh, did I misread it?

I'm sorry.

I just want to make sure it was something different.

Oh, no, no, that was my my error.

I'm sorry.

Um so yes, with with that in mind, I would make uh uh a motion uh to make a favorable recommendation with respect to referral uh O 26-019.

All right, thank you.

Uh motion by Mr.

Barley.

Is there a second?

Uh second by Mr.

Zollard.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor.

Aye.

Motion passed.

Oh, Mrs.

McIntyre for the motion passes unanimously.

All right.

Next next item on the agenda uh board of alderman referral R-26-047.

Uh authorizing amended and restated master development agreement and fourth amendment related to the NIMCO site.

Um would you like to give us a couple minutes?

I would like to defer to attorney Krollman.

Well from you know the Gina, the drill.

I know the drill, Mr.

Chairman.

Um thank you.

Um page four.

This is chairman members of the board.

Good evening.

Uh Andy Proheman, attorney with pruning improllment here at Nashua.

Uh I am here on behalf of the Lansing Melbourne group.

Oh, perfect.

There you go.

Um we uh are seeking your positive recommendation back to the board of Alderman uh with respect to um resolution uh 2647.

And what this resolution does is it approves um a change in the plan uh for the NIMCO site that Lansing Melbourne is going to uh build out.

Uh and the change is twofold.

The plan originally was contemplated um as a one building uh 250 unit um apartment uh building, uh roughly 250 units.

Um and we are changing the plan to have a two-phase approach for a total of 242 um units.

Um the reason we're doing that is twofold.

Is when the uh purchase sale agreement was originally signed and the master development agreement was originally approved and signed with the city uh back in 2024.

Umsequent to that, like my client purchased the bag shop building next door immediately to the south on this uh plan.

Uh and that changed the dynamic of the future bill.

And what that does is it creates the opportunity to have a grid system in the middle, a grid road system in the mill yard.

Instead of just accessing these buildings using that kind of snaking spine road that comes in from the traffic signal, uh, we're gonna have a straight shot in in between the two buildings uh with a road public roadway in between the two buildings, and that roadway would continue south with the development of the bag shop building.

We believe it's a much better uh approach, a much better um way to uh build out these properties.

That was the first thing.

The second thing is uh just a true genuine factor was that uh when Lansing Melbourne built the flats on high street, that apartment building, that apartment building leased up much slower than they anticipated.

Uh so they're being a little cautious with this uh project in downtown Nashua by breaking up into two phases.

Um so that's the the the two-phase project is the big change.

The pricing with the two-phase project actually increases by about 1.8 million dollars to the city.

Because the city staff did a good job trying to create the incentive in Lansing Melbourne to get building two built out as quickly as possible.

To maintain the right to build phase two, we will be making non-refundable option payments to the city not to be credited to the purchase price.

I'm not sure if you receive my memo, but the my the option period has 12 months of 10,000 a month payment, and the next 12 months is 20,000.

The final uh final 12 months of the three three year option period is $30,000 a month option payments that will be made by Lancing Melbourne to the city.

So all in all, um uh it it's a better project for Lancing Melbourne, it's more money to the city.

Uh we think we think it's a good balance uh and we are hoping for positive recommendation.

I was with the finance committee uh last week, and we got their positive recommendation.

I was with BIDA uh yesterday morning.

I got their positive recommendation, and I uh go back schedule to go back to the board of all of the next uh Tuesday, the 14th.

Um, and hopefully we have your um recommendation from uh from this board.

So, Mr.

Chairman, that's my brief uh overview.

Uh happy to answer any questions.

Okay, uh thank you, attorney prohibit.

Um no questions from from me at the moment.

Um there questions from the board, either for attorney prolman or staff.

Uh Mr.

Zoller, please.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, so currently there's uh an access to the eastern side of Mine Falls Park through Spine Road.

Is there, I guess, any intention to preserve public access through there?

Um I know that it effectively this would become private property.

Is there any uh no no no spine road um will remain a public uh road down to Vines Falls?

Uh and in fact, it's gonna be a public road that's going to access parking for the uh dog parks that are proposed as part of this.

Okay, so someone that would want to get into the park from from Pine Street, say or from the Veterans Memorial Parkway, they would go through the dog park, is that correct?

Well, they would go um down Spine Road, down the Hillsbine Road, and onto the dirt uh trail that's there now.

Um and the dog parks themselves are going to be kind of shifted off to the side.

They they won't block access into the park.

Okay, okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's it.

Other questions from the board.

All right.

Thank you, attorney.

Thank you very much.

Um this is one, I mean, my my big picture thought uh obviously for our collective radar.

That discussion you just had with Ethan about phasing and active and substantial development, when this comes before you for uh subdivision and site plan approval, make sure we have that on the table because this will need that type of massaging, that type of uh attention.

Sam Sam, make a note and make sure it's make sure it's massaged before it comes to the board.

As you were having that discussion with Ian, I thought about this project, like what this project is was ideal for active and substantial discussion.

So I I I can I can see I can see the analogy there.

So I appreciate appreciate the tip.

Thank you.

If if I may I just want to build on that both for the for the board and for attorney foreman as well.

Um, as we were debating this, I went back to the Mohawk project, which was a phased development.

And I also pulled up uh the definition in our ordinance of active and substantial development, and it does say footings of all proposed buildings.

So that would mean for 103 temple, that would be foundations for A, B, and C.

So for the purpose of our what we just approved, they would have to come back to extend the approval for buildings B and C.

Uh, with Mohawk, we were very explicit in how we defined active and substantial conclusion.

I was reading through the report, there's about 10 different bullet points identifying everything that has to be done for the specific phases.

We should do a very similar exercise with this project, you know, projects of large scale, long build-out horizons, um, but also this will be going before the planning board under the new code.

Um, so we'll have a new regulatory environment which we will want you know applied to its fullest extent to this development.

So I think uh that is something that we'll be thinking about early and potentially far too often with this coming project.

Sam, we're just giving you a hard time.

We we appreciate though.

Thank you.

Thank you for the additional context on that.

So just my my general thoughts on this leave it to people with far better insight in into the technicalities than myself.

Um but this has been a project that's been around for for a while.

Um you know, obviously the there's there's things in the folks that are sort of running it.

There's some benefit to the city, there's some benefit to the the applicant.

Um more concerned about the benefit to the city, uh honestly, uh then uh I would I would have no issues supporting this.

Um obviously um similar to the last one, the the alderman get the get the final vote.

Um but this this seems consistent.

Um I I don't see anything here personally that I find objectionable to Mr.

McIntyre, please.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

You know, I think this is referenced in the master plan as a uh emphasis um point.

So I'm as you can say, uh again assume clearly in favor of supporting the master plan.

So what I'd like to do is take a shot at my first motion.

Okay, please.

Thank you.

So I would like to I I move, not would like I move that the planning board give a positive approval to the board of Alderman for referring our 26-047.

All right, thank you.

Motion by Mr.

McIntyre with conviction, by the way.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Thank you.

Is there is there a second?

Uh second by Mr.

Green.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Motion passes unanimously.

As a matter of fact, put it on my refrigerator.

Have a good night, attorney prolonged.

All right.

We're getting there.

Uh last item on the agenda, uh, Board of Alderman referral R-26-046 authorizing the sale of surplus property.

Uh Sam, would you like to take a couple minutes?

Sure.

I'll try to keep it to one.

Uh parcel A as uh detailed in this plan.

So this is uh surplus right-of-way associated with the Veterans Memorial Parkway.

Uh the sale of which would facilitate development of this area.

Uh, this is after thorough review of any need we would we may have for this, and it's been determined that there is a need for a mixed-use path along the parkway uh and through some preliminary design uh with uh the Mohawk team, they've identified an alignment on the north side of the parkway in between the parkway and the railroad for a mixed-use path that would connect uh Broad Street down to the Nashua River for the full extent, and that is a pathway that's anticipated to be constructed with the Mohawk build-out.

Uh so we have come to the conclusion that this uh parcel is indeed surplus right-of-way and uh and can be sold uh for development purposes, but please note that uh any revenue from the sale of this uh parcel must be returned to New Hampshire DOT or federal highways as this was uh we received money to acquire this land during the uh the construction of the parkway.

So the monies have to go back to uh the people who gave us the money in the first place.

All right.

Well, it would have been nice to turn a profit, but you know, this passing federal aid funds.

The so um the tax revenue of the ensuing development.

That's right.

Um I trust um that this is fully vetted by staff and Dan.

Do you have any general thoughts on this or um no?

I mean, the parcel currently is I guess I do.

I say no and then I start talking about that.

Um the parcel is currently uh you know, slope supporting the roadway, and there's some drainage features and things like that.

Uh um constructed as part of the parkway project.

Um similar to a parcel uh to the to the west of the parkway.

Though whatever features of that current parcel uh has it supports the parkway um will would need to be retained or modified uh in such a way that the same things are provided in and and by the new owner of the parcel um in whatever you know abiding development at this might um help facilitate um so no I mean I uh we we there's precedent for this we kind of did this to a similar parcel to the west as I noted uh process seemed to go fairly well um made some things feasible that wouldn't otherwise have been feasible um taking what was uh say unproductive property so to speak and and turning into uh something productive uh for the city.

So um for from those aspects I I would support this.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um questions or discussion?

Uh Mr.

Zoller, go right ahead.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Just to to ask the question.

Um I know that we were uh asked to give an opinion uh a couple of months ago regarding the uh the Victorian style building that the city was looking at for transitional housing, warming area.

Uh Sam, it's safe to say that this parcel couldn't be used for a function like that.

Transitional housing, warming area.

I I'm sure that that's been vetted.

Um I know that the city was looking for a parcel or you know, something for that type of use, but I agree that you know the this is a side of the road, it's you know the grading might not be conducive to a development like that.

So that has not been floated as a concept for development of this site.

I see based on what Dan just said in regards to the the grading of the drainage aspects of you know the site and what's going on there.

I I would be inclined to say that it's not ideal for transitional housing or for a warming center or any kind of uh you know capacity uh for the city's use that way.

Um just wanted to ask the question, you know, if that had been looked at previously.

I know the city's looking for a site for that, you know, but we're getting rid of land.

Is that you know those two things?

Uh fair point.

Uh if I can offer some, I think some rationale from my own perspective um given the site work and the expense associated with that uh would would be required to render this and the adjacent parcels to the south developable um and end use like a civic use like that um probably does not justify the cost associated with making this land developable and and it would be better suited in the hands of a market rate developer as the end user um to again to justify the cost of making this land viable for development.

Yeah, yeah, the geometry is not very conducive to that use either.

You know, like we're just thinking about it conceptually, where would you have enough space for a parking lot or an actual building in an event in and of itself?

I mean I would imagine uh think of it less as parcel A on its own, but merging it with the larger parcels to the south.

I see.

Oh, okay.

And and that creates more via those parcels uh with this added parcel A.

Okay.

Just to follow on that thought.

I mean, giving given the slopes, given the wetland constraints, if if a private entity wanted to take a shot at it, good on them.

Um they could make they could make it work, but um just on its on its surface, I can see given given the topo and just kind of the long rectangular irregularity of the parcel that not very of a deal.

I think on its own, yes, but but to Sam's point, perhaps folding that in to uh lot 131 or lot 100 subtly again.

If somebody wants to have a go at that, that they might have the the resources by which to better accomplish that.

So um I I can certainly see the rationale for for this.

Uh again, it's if it was accessed right away, it was purchased for the parkway project.

Uh it's no longer needed.

I wouldn't have any issue seeing it go.

Um is the uh put it out to the board again.

Uh other questions of staff uh not anybody willing to make a motion uh regarding a favorable or unfavorable recommendation on this referral.

Uh Mr.

Green, please.

Mr.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion for a favorable uh referral to or favorable um yeah, favorable referral for R-26046.

All right, thank you.

Uh motion by Mr.

Green.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

McIntyre.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh I think we're we're at the end here.

Ums, I'm sorry.

Did you have something you wish to speak to or just observing tonight?

Okay.

Well well, thank you.

Thank you for being here.

All right.

Well it's 8 20.

Uh it's pretty pretty pretty good.

So uh I don't know.

Wanna talk anything else through?

Uh or ready to move on to August.

Um anyone?

Mr.

Zoller.

Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to adjourn.

All right, motion by Mr.

Zoller.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

We are adjourned at 820 p.m.

Thank you, everybody.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Okay.