All towns · nashua

Planning Board Meeting - 20260903 NCPB Minutes

Document

EXPANDED DRAFT MEETING SUMMARY 
THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF TAPE RECORDED PROCEEDINGS 
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED OR APPROVED BY THE NCPB 
 
NASHUA CITY PLANNING BOARD 
September 3, 2026 
 
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Nashua City Planning Board 
was held on September 3, 2026 at 7:00PM in the 3rd floor auditorium 
in City Hall. 
 
Members Present: 
Joe MacIntyre, Mayor’s Representative 
 
Bob Bollinger, Chair 
 
Adam Varley, Vice Chair 
 
Ald. Patricia Klee 
 
Larry Hirsch 
 
Benjamin Zoller  
 
 
Also Present: 
Sam Durfee, Planning Manager 
 
Connor Muise, Deputy Planning Manager 
 
Scott McPhie, Planner I 
 
 
APPROVAL OF MINUTES 
 
August 6, 2026 
 
MOTION by Mr. MacIntyre to approve the minutes, as written 
 
SECONDED by Ald. Klee 
 
MOTION CARRIED 5-0-1 (Hirsch abstained) 
 
COMMUNICATIONS 
 
- A26-0103, 28 Lincoln Ave 
o Updated staff report 
 
REPORT OF CHAIR, COMMITTEE, & LIAISON 
 
Historic District Commission: Mr. Hirsch requested to step down 
from the board appointed role. 
 
PROCEDURES OF THE MEETING 
 
After the legal notice of each conditional, special use permit, 
site plan or subdivision plan is read by the Chair, the Board will 
determine if that 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. The applicant shall 
speak to whether or not they agree with recommended staff 

NCPB 
September 3, 2026 
Page 2 
 
stipulations. The Board will then have an opportunity to ask 
questions of the applicant or staff. 
 
The Chair will then ask for testimony from the audience. First 
anyone wishing to speak in opposition or with concern to the plan 
may speak. Please come forward to the microphone, state their name 
and address for the record. This would be the time to ask questions 
they may have regarding the plan. Next public testimony will come 
from anyone wishing to speak in favor of the plan. The applicant 
will then be allowed a rebuttal period at which time they shall 
speak to any issues or concerns raised by prior public testimony. 
 
One public member will then be granted an opportunity to speak to 
those issues brought by the applicant during their rebuttal period. 
The Board will then ask any relevant follow-up questions of the 
applicant if need be. 
 
After this is completed the public hearing will end and the Board 
will resume the public meeting at which time the Board will 
deliberate and vote on the application before us. The Board asks 
that both sides keep their remarks to the subject at hand and try 
not to repeat what has already been said. 
 
Above all, the Board wants to be fair to everyone and make the 
best possible decision based on the testimony presented and all 
applicable approval criteria established in the Nashua Revised 
Ordinances for conditional, special use permits, site plans and 
subdivisions. Thank you for your interest and courteous attention. 
Please turn off your cell phones and pagers at this time. 
 
Per our legal charter, we have a quorum when five members are 
present. There may be some recusals this evening for certain board 
members, but as long as five members are sitting each case can be 
heard. At the discretion of the chair, the order of the cases can 
be rearranged.  
 
NEW BUSINESS – SUBDIVISION PLANS 
A26-0154  78 
Amherst 
Street, 
LLC 
(Owner), 
Family 
Realty 
Investments, LLC (Owner & Applicant) requesting site 
plan and condominium subdivision approval to merge both 
lots and construct two duplexes, for a total of ten 
condominium units on one lot. Property is located at 
3-13 Putnam Street & 78 Amherst Street. Map 62 – Lots 83 
& 85. Zoned B Urban Residence (R-B). Ward 2. (Postponed 
to the September 17, 2026 meeting) 

NCPB 
September 3, 2026 
Page 3 
 
 
NEW BUSINESS – SITE PLANS 
A26-0153  78 
Amherst 
Street, 
LLC 
(Owner), 
Family 
Realty 
Investments, LLC (Owner & Applicant) requesting site 
plan and condominium subdivision approval to merge both 
lots and construct two duplexes, for a total of ten 
condominium units on one lot. Property is located at 
3-13 Putnam Street & 78 Amherst Street. Map 62 – Lots 83 
& 85. Zoned B Urban Residence (R-B). Ward 2. (Postponed 
to the September 17, 2026 meeting) 
 
NEW BUSINESS – SUBDIVISION PLANS 
A26-0103  Kelly A. McAllister (Owner & Applicant) requesting 
approval for a 2-lot subdivision. Property is located at 
28 Lincoln Avenue. Map 9 – Lot 18. Zoned B-Urban 
Residence (RB). Ward 7. (Postponed to September 3, 2026 
meeting) 
MOTION by Mr. Varley that the application is complete and the 
Planning Board is ready to take jurisdiction 
 
SECONDED by Mr. Zoller 
 
MOTION CARRIED 6-0 
 
Greg Wood, Survey Technician, Meridian Land Services, 31 Old Nashua 
Rd Ste 2, Amherst, NH 
 
Mr. Wood introduced himself on behalf of the owner. He said we are 
proposing a two-lot subdivision. The new lot will be just over 
6,000-sqft, with the remainder lot being about 15,000-sqft. We are 
requesting three waivers, as detailed in the staff report.  
 
Mr. Wood said he feels this is a fairly straightforward request, 
and he is available for questions.  
 
Mr. Bollinger asked if there was a formal request in the staff 
report to provide a landscaping plan.  
 
Mr. Durfee said we have landscaping requirements, and they are 
universally applicable to all cases that come before the Board. It 
may not be a full standalone landscaping plan, even a simple 
planting detail on the plan to show where they will go suffices.  
 

NCPB 
September 3, 2026 
Page 4 
 
Mr. Bollinger asked if that is covered in the Engineering review 
letter.  
 
Mr. Varley indicated where it is covered.  
 
Mr. Bollinger said one of the waivers was to not construct 
underground utilities, he can understand that. The 1,000-ft 
property surveying distance as well. Does staff have an opinion on 
the lighting waiver? 
 
Mr. Durfee said no. This waiver may not be applicable, if there is 
no lighting proposed, then no need for a lighting plan.  
 
Mr. Bollinger asked if they should use the belt and suspenders 
approach.  
 
Mr. Durfee said we can ask the applicant if there is any intention 
for lighting beyond the standard wall scone by the door.  
 
Mr. Bollinger said the last time this came up it was for a similar 
type of situation. Most homes have some form of exterior lighting.  
 
Mr. Durfee said no harm done in granting the waiver.  
 
Mr. Wood said he doesn’t know the intent of the structure being 
built. He’s seen the structure proposed and there is nothing out 
of the ordinary from what he can see.  
 
Mr. Varley asked what would trigger a lighting plan.  
 
Mr. Durfee said it’s a weedy question. Typically you think of the 
obvious cases, like a multifamily development with lighting in the 
parking lot, clearly that needs a lighting plan. But what happens 
when you have a subdivision built years ago in a neighborhood where 
someone now puts up a flood light, and people are complaining about 
it? Obviously that wasn’t caught in any lighting plan for a single 
family subdivision. So where is the line? We don’t have one defined 
in the code, we have to use our judgement within the context of 
what is being requested. This is an infill lot in a residential 
neighborhood, there will probably not be lighting onsite that would 
traditionally necessitate a lighting plan where we’re concerned 
about light trespass.  
 
Mr. MacIntyre said the approach on Fifield Street is unique with 
that wall. That’s a place where kids learn how to drive manual 
transmissions.  

NCPB 
September 3, 2026 
Page 5 
 
 
Mr. Hudson said not anymore.  
 
Mr. MacIntyre said on his driving test years back that was one of 
the things, getting up that hill.  
 
Mr. MacIntyre said this is a small lot, it’s tight in there. What 
is the general guidance for how much leeway the city gives when 
subdividing one lot into two? 
 
Mr. Durfee said we have minimum lot area requirements. This lot 
meets that. It is slightly oddly shaped, that does reduce the 
buildable area footprint for the site. If it meets the minimum 
dimensional requirements, it’s a legal lot that could be created.  
 
Mr. MacIntyre asked what the general guidance is for the smallest 
size of a lot we would allow on a subdivision.  
 
Mr. Durfee said it depends on the zone. In this zone 6,000-sqft is 
required.  
 
Mr. MacIntyre said then they just make it.  
 
Mr. Durfee said that’s pretty small. They make it by 106-sqft. 
 
Ald. Klee asked if the entrance to one of the lots will be off of 
Fifield Street.  
 
Mr. Wood said it will be off of Circle Ave.  
 
Ald. Klee asked if there was a multifamily home to the north of 
the property.  
 
Mr. Wood said he believes that is a 2-family, yes.  
 
Ald. Klee asked if there would be two driveways off of Circle Ave. 
There’s a big wall on Fifield and a small wall on Lincoln. Would 
the two lots have a shared driveway off Circle? 
 
Mr. Wood said there is a preexisting garage off Circle now, with 
its own access off of that. It will continue to be used.  
 
Mr. Bollinger said there is an existing driveway on Lincoln that 
serves the current residence. He believes that will remain in 
place.  
 

NCPB 
September 3, 2026 
Page 6 
 
Ald. Klee said she is glad to hear they are separate driveways.  
 
Mr. Bollinger said the site has some topography, particularly with 
the drop-off to the back at Fifield. Are there any special drainage 
considerations or issues foreseen? 
 
Mr. Wood said there was a letter provided by the site engineer 
proposing a catch basin in the middle of the lot.  
 
Mr. Zoller said the existing garage will be razed. He recommends 
that they follow all soil stabilization requirements.  
 
Mr. Bollinger said there were no specific comments in Engineering’s 
letter with respect to drainage. He assumes that the engineer’s 
letter was reviewed by staff, and any issues would have been 
included in their comments. One of the conditions addresses 
satisfying Public Works.  
 
Mr. Durfee said there is a yard drain proposed between the building 
envelope and the circle, like a leaching catch basin. There is a 
note in the report that the soil is well draining and excessively 
sandy. A leaching catch basin would perform in such an environment.  
 
SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR CONCERN 
 
None 
 
SPEAKING IN FAVOR 
 
None 
 
PUBLIC MEETING 
 
Mr. Bollinger closed the public hearing and opened the public 
meeting. He said the size is a little small, but it meets the 
requirements. It’s not a perfect rectangle, but they tried to do 
what they could to while maintaining the integrity of the current 
structure. It meets the basic spatial requirements. After a review 
of the Engineering letter, there are no deal breakers on the 
technical side. He is in favor of approving this.  
 
No Board members raised objection.  
 
Mr. Bollinger said the waivers for surveying within 1,000-ft and 
above-ground utilities are fairly common and would not be contrary 
to the spirit and intent of the ordinance. In regards to the 

NCPB 
September 3, 2026 
Page 7 
 
lighting waiver, he would follow staff’s determination that it’s 
better to grant it than strike it. Beyond that it seems fairly 
straightforward.   
 
MOTION by Mr. Varley to approve the following waivers for New 
Business – Site Plan A26-0103: 
 
a. §190-282 (B)(9): not to show all existing conditions within 
1000 feet of property line boundaries.  
 
b. §190-221 (A): not to locate all electrical utilities 
underground.  
 
c. §190-275 not to provide a lighting plan. 
 
As per RSA 674:36(II)(N), RSA 674:44(III)(e), and §190-148(D), 
Strict conformity would pose an unnecessary hardship to the 
Applicant and the waiver would not be contrary to the spirit and 
intent of the regulations; and specific circumstances, or 
conditions of the land, and the waiver will properly carry out the 
spirit and intent of the regulations. 
 
SECONDED by Mr. Hirsch 
 
MOTION CARRIED 6-0 
 
Mr. McPhie requested to add a condition to the Subdivision plan 
motion, that the garage shall be demolished before construction 
takes place.  
 
Mr. Durfee said before the recording of the plan.  
 
MOTION by Mr. Varley to approve New Business – Subdivision Plan 
A26-0103. The Board finds that the application meets the Approval 
Criteria under §190-138(G) with the following conditions: 
 
a. All conditions from the approval letter will be added to the 
cover page of the plan.  
 
b. Any waiver(s) granted shall be listed on the plan. Should any 
waiver(s) be denied, the plan must be revised to comply with 
the applicable site plan regulations.  
 
c. The plan set shall be sealed and signed by a New Hampshire 
licensed land surveyor.  
 

NCPB 
September 3, 2026 
Page 8 
 
d. All technical review comments listed in Section 5 of the 
Planning Board staff report shall be addressed to the 
satisfaction of the Planning Department.  
 
e. All comments in a Memo from Joseph Mendola, PE, senior staff 
engineer, will be addressed to the satisfaction of the 
Division of Public Works.  
 
f. All comments in an e-mail from Jeff Labrie, Fire Marshal’s 
Office, dated June 8 & 22, 2026, will be addressed to the 
satisfaction of the Fire Department.  
 
g. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the change in 
addressing of 1-3 Circle shall be approved by the Board of 
Aldermen.  
 
h. The Applicant shall submit the recording fees required by the 
Hillsborough County Registry of Deeds for the plat to be 
recorded.  
 
i. Prior to the recording of the plan, a CAD file depicting the 
new lot line configuration shall be submitted to the Planning 
Department.  
 
j. Prior to the commencement of site work, a pre-construction 
meeting shall be held, and a financial guarantee, to be 
reviewed and approved by City staff, shall be in place.  
 
k. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, driveway plans 
shall 
be 
submitted 
and 
approved 
by 
the 
Engineering 
Department.  
 
l. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all 
relevant stormwater documents shall be recorded at the 
Applicant’s expense.  
 
m. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all site 
improvements will be completed in accordance with the 
approved plan.  
 
n. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, school 
impact fees shall be paid for the newly created residential 
lot, in accordance with Article VIII Impact Fees of the Nashua 
Land Use Code. 
 

NCPB 
September 3, 2026 
Page 9 
 
o. The garage identified on the plan shall be demolished before 
the recording of the plan. 
 
SECONDED by Mr. Hirsch 
 
MOTION CARRIED 6-0 
 
OTHER BUSINESS 
 
1. Review of tentative agenda to determine proposals of regional 
impact. 
 
MOTION by Mr. Varley that there are no items of regional impact 
 
SECONDED by Mr. Zoller   
 
MOTION CARRIED 6-0 
 
2. Re-Code & Site Plan Thresholds Presentation 
 
Mr. Muise gave a presentation regarding the threshold for Planning 
Board site plan review. Discussion ensued.  
 
DISCUSSION ITEMS 
 
None  
 
MOTION to adjourn by Mr. Hudson at 8:53 PM 
 
MOTION CARRIED 5-0 
 
DIGITAL RECORDING OF THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE FOR LISTENING DURING 
REGULAR OFFICE HOURS. DIGITAL COPY OF AUDIO OF THE MEETING MAY BE 
MADE AVAILABLE UPON 48 HOURS ADVANCED NOTICE AND PAYMENT OF THE 
FEE. 
 
Kate Poirier – Taped Hearing