Nashua Planning Board Meeting – October 2, 2026

The Nashua Planning Board met to take up a conditional use permit, a two-lot subdivision, and a 44-unit townhouse site plan. The transcript opens with the chair calling the October 1, 2026 meeting to order, while the provided meeting metadata date is October 2, 2026; this summary uses the provided metadata date. After roll call established a quorum, the board approved minutes, received staff communications, and then acted on the three applications, with the townhouse site plan requiring a threshold jurisdictional ruling before its merits were heard.

Minutes and Communications

• The board approved the minutes of the September 17, 2026 meeting on a motion by Mr. McIntyre, seconded by Mr. Hudson, with one abstention.
• Staff reported that the site plan application for 181 East Hall Street had been postponed to the October 15, 2026 meeting at the applicant’s request.
• Staff noted revised reports for 8 Blue Hill Avenue and 66 Concord Street, additional public correspondence for 8 Merritt Parkway, and a revised tentative agenda, all updated as of 4 p.m.
• No committee or liaison reports were given.

Conditional Use Permit – 8 Blue Hill Avenue (A26-0194)

• Applicant Connor Walsh of Paul Francis Development Group sought a conditional use permit to convert an existing two-family duplex into a two-unit condominium.
• The applicant stated there would be no exterior renovations, square footage changes, or added bedrooms or bathrooms; the property had already been renovated and inspected.
• The applicant said selling the property as two condominiums would produce a 10 to 15 percent per-square-foot premium, and that the property is connected to city sewer and water, so no septic system condition applied.
• In response to a board question, the applicant said condo documents would treat the shared sewer service as common area, with each unit owner responsible for 50 percent of maintenance costs.
• No public testimony was offered. The board accepted jurisdiction and approved the conditional use; both votes passed without opposition.

Subdivision – 66 Concord Street (A26-0167)

• Applicant Crimson Properties LLC, represented by engineer Paul Chisholm and attorney Brad Westgate, proposed a two-lot subdivision of the corner property at 66 Concord Street, which is in the RB zoning district and the historic overlay district.
• The existing parcel contains just under 25,000 square feet and includes an 1870 home in need of substantial repair. The plan includes renovation of the existing home, replacement of a carriage house, construction of a new carriage house, and construction of a new single-family home with a detached garage on the newly created lot.
• The applicant said both resulting lots meet all dimensional requirements of the RB district and that no variances are needed. The applicant also discussed prior court cases, Victorian Realty Group from 1987 and Gutterman from 2009, while arguing that this proposal is materially different because of nearby comparable lot sizes, abutter support letters, and existing historic district conditions.
• The applicant requested two waivers: one from the requirement to survey existing conditions within 1,000 feet of the site, and one related to overhead utilities.
• Staff clarified that the staff report was neutral because of the prior case-law history, and that the Historic District Commission would still need to review the new residence before a building permit could be issued.
• No members of the public spoke in opposition or in favor during the hearing.
• Board members discussed the lot’s compatibility with the neighborhood and the limits of the board’s review. The board granted both waivers and approved the two-lot subdivision subject to staff conditions A through M. The votes were unanimous.

Site Plan – 8 Merritt Parkway (A26-0166) – Jurisdictional Determination

• The board first considered a Fisher v. Dover issue because the applicant had previously received approval for the same 44-townhome project in 2024, but that approval was appealed and remained in litigation before the Supreme Court.
• Staff and the applicant argued that recent state law changes, specifically HB 631 from 2025 and HB 1588 from 2026, amended RSA 674:80 and related statutes to require municipalities to allow multifamily dwelling units on commercially zoned land, eliminating the need for the density, story-height, multifamily-use, and age-restriction relief previously required.
• The applicant quoted the earlier Superior Court ruling that the appropriate remedy was legislative in nature, and argued the legislature had since provided that remedy.
• Abutter counsel letters, discussed by staff and a public speaker, disputed that the law removed the age-restriction requirement. State Representative Santosh Salvi also argued that the April 2025 Superior Court order reversing the age-restriction variance remains active and that the applicant still lacks legal relief from the elderly-housing restriction.
• One resident noted that the Supreme Court had heard the case. The chair limited public testimony at this stage to the jurisdictional question.
• The board voted to find that the Fisher v. Dover test was satisfied based on a material change in circumstances, specifically HB 631 and HB 1588, and then voted to accept jurisdiction. Both motions passed.

Site Plan – 8 Merritt Parkway (A26-0166) – Merits and Public Testimony

• On the merits, the applicant presented a 44-unit townhouse development on a 6.2-acre condominium parcel within an overall 20-acre property, located in the R30 zoning district and the flexible-use overlay district.
• The project would consist of 11 buildings with four townhouse units each, a new private roadway, underground utilities, an enhanced landscape buffer, and access through Merritt Parkway from Conant Road or Buckmeadow Road.
• The applicant said the alteration of terrain permit had been approved and that water, sewer, and traffic capacity were adequate.
• On traffic, the applicant said the development was projected to generate approximately 322 weekday daily trips and 358 Saturday daily trips, below the city’s thresholds. The applicant also cited peak-hour figures of 24.6 trips in the PM peak versus a 75-trip threshold, and 30.8 trips at the development peak versus a 100-trip threshold.
• Board questions addressed tree clearing, which the applicant estimated at about 15 percent of the site; avoidance of work in the wetland buffer; the absence of affordable units; the inapplicability of inclusionary zoning because state law preempts density regulation; dark-sky-compliant lighting; and parking at one garage space and one driveway space per unit, supplemented by a shared parking analysis.
• Public opposition included:
  • Gloria McCarthy, a Conservation Commission member and nearby resident, cited wildlife, lighting, chemicals, water quality, traffic, the nearby Wise Owl Academy expansion, and approximately 322 daily trips versus 99 trips from a prior project. She said roughly 250 emails had been sent in opposition and asked the board to deny the application in its current form.
  • Steve Danworth, president of the Houston Drive condominium association, said the proposed density of about seven units per acre was inconsistent with the master plan’s medium-density vision for the area and incompatible with the neighborhood.
  • State Representative Santosh Salvi said the neighborhood has fought the project for eight years, raised traffic and intersection safety concerns, argued that the project does not serve HB 631’s affordable-housing intent, and said it would displace the character of a neighborhood that includes elderly residents.
  • Jessica Taylor of Gilson Road opposed the development due to school traffic, pedestrian safety, loss of nature, and permanent changes to the area.
  • Raymond Johnkis of Houston Drive raised concerns about parking, guest and delivery vehicles, blasting, vegetation removal, and wildlife.
• No one spoke in favor of the site plan.

Board Deliberation and Key Outcomes

• In deliberation, board members said the new state statutes, particularly RSA 674:80, limited the board’s discretion to specific issues such as road infrastructure, water infrastructure, and sewage infrastructure. Staff warned about a new attorney-fee reimbursement provision for improper denials, and Alderman Clee said she would vote for approval because state law tied the board’s hands.
• Some board members noted that a commercial use, including one previously possible on the property, could have generated more traffic and more impact than the proposed townhouses. Mr. Hirsch said he had supported the project in 2024 and considered it a good project, while Mr. Zoller viewed it as consistent with the mixed-use overlay district.
• The board granted the requested waiver from section 190-279 EE on a unanimous vote.
• The board granted final site plan approval for the 11 four-unit townhome buildings and associated improvements, finding that the site plan meets the approval criteria under NRO section 190-146D and is subject to staff conditions A through M. The vote was by roll call and was unanimous.
• The board also determined that no items on the tentative agenda were proposals of regional impact, and then voted to adjourn at 9:44 p.m.