Planning Board

NASHUA CITY PLANNING BOARD May 21, 2026 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Nashua City Planning Board was held on May 21, 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 Dan Hudson, City Engineer Cameron Green, Clerk 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 May 7, 2026 MOTION by Mr. Zoller to approve the minutes, as written SECONDED by Ald. Klee MOTION CARRIED 7-0-1 (Varley abstained) COMMUNICATIONS - A26-0012 & A26-0013, 11 Tara Blvd o Request to postpone to the June 4, 2026 meeting - A26-0010, L Shakespeare Innovative Way Ext o Updated plan o Updated staff report o Updated supplemental documentation - A26-0062, 60 Lake St o Updated staff report - A26-0028, 194-196 Lund Rd o Updated public correspondence o Updated Engineering comments REPORT OF CHAIR, COMMITTEE, & LIAISON None PROCEDURES OF THE MEETING NCPB May 21, 2026 Page 2 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 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. OLD BUSINESS – CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATIONS A26-0013 ARBI Farms, LLC (Owner & Applicant) requesting conditional use and site plan approval for a 41,000 SF charitable gaming facility, five-story parking garage, and associated site improvements. The property is located at 11 Tara Boulevard. Map A. Lot 333. Zoned Park Industrial (PI). Ward 8. (Postponed to the May 21, 2026 meeting by applicant request) NCPB May 21, 2026 Page 3 OLD BUSINESS – SITE PLANS A26-0012 ARBI Farms, LLC (Owner & Applicant) requesting conditional use and site plan approval for a 41,000 SF charitable gaming facility, five-story parking garage, and associated site improvements. The property is located at 11 Tara Boulevard. Map A. Lot 333. Zoned Park Industrial (PI). Ward 8. (Postponed to June 4, 2026 by Applicant request) NEW BUSINESS – SITE PLANS A26-0062 Marsh Road, LLC (Owner & Applicant) requesting a 5-unit condominium subdivision conversion of an existing 5-unit multi-family residence. The property is located at 60 Lake Street. Map 60 – Lot 61. Zoned C Urban Residence (R-C). Ward 6. MOTION by Mr. Varley that the application is complete and the Planning Board is ready to take jurisdiction SECONDED by Mr. Hirsch MOTION CARRIED 8-0 Chad Branon, Civil Engineer, Fieldstone Land Consultants, 206 Elm St, Milford NH Mr. Branon introduced himself on behalf of the applicant and owner. He said this is simply a five-unit condominium conversion of a multifamily building. He briefly described the subject lot, which was redeveloped from a single family in 2005. He said there are no proposed modifications, and there are no known existing nonconformities. We have reviewed the staff report and have no objections to its recommendations. Mr. Bollinger asked for an explanation of the waiver request. Mr. Branon said they are asking for a waiver to not show all existing features within 1,000-ft. We are showing all applicable details near the project. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR CONCERN None NCPB May 21, 2026 Page 4 SPEAKING IN FAVOR None Mr. Varley asked staff if they would require submission of the condo documents as part of the subdivisions. Mr. Muise said condo documents were submitted with the application. PUBLIC MEETING Mr. Bollinger closed the public hearing and opened the public meeting. He said this seems fairly straightforward. He sees no issues with moving this forward. Mr. Green said the engineering letter requested a modification of the plan. Mr. Hudson said we would like the plan to reflect the current conditions onsite, specifically with the sewer permit. MOTION by Mr. Green to approve the following waivers for New Business – Subdivision Plan A26-0062: a. §190-282 (B)(9): to waive the requirement to show all existing features within 1,000’ on the subdivision boundaries. 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 Ald. Klee MOTION CARRIED 6-0 MOTION by Mr. Green to approve A26-0062 – Subdivision Plan. The Board finds that the application meets the Approval Criteria under §190-138(G) with the following conditions: a. 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. NCPB May 21, 2026 Page 5 b. Prior to the signing of the plan, all outstanding comments from the Engineering Department, shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Division of Public Works. c. Prior to the signing of the plan, all technical comments of Section 5 of the Staff Report shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. Mr. Durfee asked to add a condition d: Prior to the recording of the plan at the Hillsborough County Registry of Deeds, the applicant shall submit recording fees as required. Mr. Green agreed to add it to his motion. SECONDED by Mr. Varley MOTION CARRIED 8-0 Mr. Bollinger said he would take A26-0010 and A26-0026 together. NEW BUSINESS – CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS A26-0026 John J. Flatley (Owner & Applicant) requesting conditional use approval for a flex space (office and warehouse building) with no outside storage. The property is located at L Shakespeare Rd. Map A – Lot 986. Zoned Park Industrial (PI). Ward 8. (Postponed to the May 21, 2026 meeting by Applicant request) NEW BUSINESS – SITE PLANS A26-0010 John J. Flatley (Owner & Applicant) requesting approval of a site plan amendment to move a proposed building forward 40’ and update associated grading and site improvements. The property is located at L Shakespeare Rd. Map A – Lot 986. Zoned Park Industrial (PI). Ward 8. (Postponed to the May 21, 2026 meeting by applicant request) MOTION by Mr. Varley that A26-0010 and A26-0026 are complete and the Planning Board is ready to take jurisdiction SECONDED by Mr. Green MOTION CARRIED 8-0 NCPB May 21, 2026 Page 6 Chad Branon, Civil Engineer, Fieldstone Land Consultants, 206 Elm St, Milford NH Mr. Branon introduced himself on behalf of the owner. With him is Kevin Walker from the John Flatley Company. Mr. Branon said they are here to discuss the construction of a 48,000-sqft flex building within Gateway Hills. A similar project was presented and previously approved in January 2024, but it failed to acquire the building permit within a 12-month period and is now void. This plan contemplates some additional modifications to allow future development on the property. Mr. Branon said this is part of Gateway Hills, formerly known as the Nashua Technology Park. This is 400 acres of mixed-use development, offices, research and development, retail, hotel, and residential uses throughout. There is one public road, Tara Blvd, and three private streets, Innovative Way, Research Way, and Digital Dr. This project involves five lots, A-45, A-47, A-48, A- 92, and A-986, which will be merged. The new A-45 will be 110- acres in size. The development is situated to the north of Tara Heights. The lot sits east of Shakespeare and Lilly Road, south of vacant residentially zoned land, and west of the Everett Turnpike. Mr. Branon said the proposed building is a 1-story building with up to ten 4800-sqft units. Each unit has a restroom and office, with a warehouse space to the rear. Office parking will be located in the front, with truck parking and loading to the rear. Access to the buildings will be provided by Innovative Way, which will be extended 1,200-ft, with a loop road to service future development in the area. Mr. Branon briefly described additional site improvements such as landscaping, lighting, utilities, drainage, and traffic. He said this project will require an Alteration of Terrain permit and sewer discharge permit from NH Dept of Environmental Services. We have reviewed the staff report and we do not have any issues with the recommended stipulations. We are requesting two waivers, as detailed in the packet. We are requesting a 3-year approval for active and substantial completion so we can apply for the state permits needed for the project. Mr. Bollinger asked staff if an impact fee was already assessed and collected. Mr. McPhie said yes. NCPB May 21, 2026 Page 7 Mr. Bollinger asked if the applicant is amenable to those funds still being held or expended. Mr. Branon said yes. Mr. Bollinger asked if staff has any concerns over the 3-year approval timeline. Mr. Durfee said the authority to extend beyond the 12-month window is within city ordinance. The Board does have the authority to extend it. Given the unique needs of the project and build schedule it is reasonable to assume they would not be able to obtain a building permit with all the site prep that needs to be done before the building site itself is ready for the permit. We would be supportive of the extension request. Ald. Klee asked how close the road is to the residences on Shakespeare Rd. Mr. Branon said the closest limit of disturbance is 505-ft. We have a substantial buffer between the disturbance and residences. Ald. Klee said there was a letter about trees that were accidentally removed during the last project, have those been put back? Mr. Branon said there is a 300-ft natural zoning buffer that will exist. Our proposed limit is 505-ft from the nearest residence, substantial forest will remain. Ald. Klee asked what the distance is for Masefield Rd. Mr. Branon said it’s even further in the corner. We show the 300-ft buffer line and the future proposed solar array, it’s about 500- ft to the corner of the property and additional distance to the residences. Mr. MacIntyre asked what the connection is to the future million- sqft project. Mr. Branon said we would have to come back to the Board for every building proposed to be constructed on this site. This project contemplates future development onsite. City staff has been asking his client for a long time to contemplate a master plan approach, NCPB May 21, 2026 Page 8 that’s what this plan does. We’re looking tonight for the approval for one building, we will be back for the others. Mr. MacIntyre said his question is, this is a flex and warehouse building. Is it a standalone project? If the larger development isn’t needed, will this be required? Mr. Branon said his client has been developing Gateway Hills over many years, they have built flex buildings out there currently. The marketing division has determined a need for this in order to market the future developments. This is the first phase of that larger build-out. Mr. MacIntyre said he was trying to get to the larger functionality of this facility. Does it stand alone on its merits, or support a future development? If we’re making this first step, are we preparing ourselves for the next one? Mr. Branon said none of the master plans they’ve worked on have had the buildings connect. This will be an independent. Mr. MacIntyre said he didn’t mean physical connection, he meant functional connection. Mr. Zoller said there’s a loop road proposed, eventually there will be other buildings that feed off that loop road. Mr. Branon said that is correct. Mr. Zoller asked if there would be a large amount of infrastructure put in now for later work. Mr. Branon said yes. Mr. Varley said he appreciates the time and effort that goes into master plans. In terms of expectations and timing, does he have a sense of what the pacing would be for future development? Or is all they know tonight is that we’re asking for an approval for one self-sustaining building, and there is no prediction of when the next project will come through? Kevin Walker, John Flatley Company Mr. Walker said the plan right now is just to do this one building. There’s a deed restriction from the 1990s on this property for a 1-story, 40-ft maximum building height. That is still in effect. NCPB May 21, 2026 Page 9 There will be no sky scrapers, this is generally the game plan. The way the land is will allow for a 48,000-sqft building, we have no other plans. He thinks anything proposed will be relatively similar to this. Mr. Hudson said he sees some locations where they have cuts up to 30-ft deep. Have they done any geotechnical work? For cut and fill balancing and issues they might run into during construction? Mr. Branon said yes, they have cuts of up to 30-ft. We’ve done a number of test pits and have encountered ledge. There will be some ledge removal, and an export off of the project. It has been contemplated with the state permitting and stormwater management design. Mr. Hudson asked if this establishes the road, but there will be additional grading for each site. Mr. Branon said we have contemplated grading for future pad sites. The areas immediately adjacent to the loop road and outside of wetlands has been graded. We’ve located stormwater appropriately so that when they build, we have developed buildable areas. This project contemplates the majority of the earthwork required to develop this property. Mr. Zoller said he wanted to follow up on the design of the road. Is it being constructed to city standards? Mr. Branon said yes. It is the same as all other roads we have constructed. This is not proposed to be a public road. Mr. Zoller asked if there was a subdivision application in the future and you wanted this road to be accepted by the city as a public road, would it meet the standards? Mr. Branon said we are using slightly different materials. There is no plan to subdivide the property in this fashion. It’s more likely that they would do a condominium type subdivision. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR CONCERN Letter from Kevin & Donna Collins, 19 Masefield Rd, Nashua NH SPEAKING IN FAVOR None NCPB May 21, 2026 Page 10 PUBLIC MEETING Mr. Bollinger closed the public hearing and opened the public meeting. He said this is a little different, he appreciates the questions regarding future development. If they are laying the foundation with infrastructure, we can’t preclude the possibility of it. This case has to be judged on its own merits, but he would regard this as not substantially different than what they had seen previously. In terms of the three-year approval criteria, there is some fairly complicated topography up there. He wouldn’t have a problem with granting that extended approval. The waiver requests seem fairly benign. As long as engineering is satisfied he wouldn’t concern himself overly with drafting standards and scale. Ald. Klee said the only concern she had was in regards to the buffer and removal of trees. Is there an agreement between the applicant and the city? Mr. Durfee said the city is not a party to the height restriction, that is a private covenant between the abutting landowners and applicant. It is a 300-ft no cut and 500-ft no build buffer. Ald. Klee said the buffer was her only real concern. She has no problem with a three-year approval time. Mr. Bollinger said each project is unique and he wouldn’t want to get in the situation where we are granting three-year approvals. But this case stands on its merit and there are some logistical challenges out there. Mr. Varley said he appreciates the work they put into to prepare a master plan, which is something we wanted to see. He is comfortable with what the future plans look like, and that we will have time to evaluate future impact. He agrees with the three-year approval, it is reasonable to do that now rather than incrementally. Mr. Hudson thanked the applicant for referencing a future development, we have been asking for a master plan for years. Mr. Zoller said he sees a few wetlands onsite, and by and large they have avoided wetland impacts. They are set up for success in that instance. Mr. Hirsch said he thinks it’s a great project. NCPB May 21, 2026 Page 11 The Board held a discussion with staff regarding motion language. MOTION by Mr. Varley to approve the following waivers for New Business – Site Plan A26-0010: a. §190-279 (EE): to waive the requirement to show all existing conditions on the site plan and on ‘adjacent parcels as appropriate’; b. §190-279 B: to waive the requirement that certain drafting standards be shown to a certain scale on certain pages of the 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 8-0 MOTION by Mr. Varley to approve A26-0026 – Conditional Use Permit. The Board finds that the application meets the Approval Criteria under §190-133(F) with no conditions. SECONDED by Mr. Hirsch MOTION CARRIED 8-0 MOTION by Mr. Varley to approve A26-0010 – Site Plan. The Board grants final site plan approval, and in doing so, extends the 12- month period in which a building permit must be issued to 36 months in accordance with 190-146(E)(1). The Board finds that the application meets the Approval Criteria under §190-146(D) with the following conditions: a. All conditions from the Planning Board decision letter shall be added to 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. NCPB May 21, 2026 Page 12 c. Prior to the Chair signing the plan, all comments in a letter from Joe Mendola, dated April 24, 2026, will be addressed to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. d. Prior to the Chair signing the plan, all comments in emails from Jeffrey Labrie, Fire Inspector/Investigator, dated February 12 & 18, 2026, will be addressed to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. e. Prior to the Chair signing the plan, all technical review comments listed in Section 5 of the Staff Report shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. f. Prior to the Chair signing the plan, all addresses approved by the Fire Department shall be shown on the site plan. g. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a lot merger form will be completed, fees paid, and placed on file. h. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, stormwater documents will be submitted to the Planning Department for review and will be recorded at the Registry of Deeds at the applicant’s own expense. i. The plan set shall be sealed and signed by a professional engineer, architect, and wetland scientist on applicable plan set sheets. j. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, an electronic copy of the plan will be submitted to the Planning Department. k. Prior to the commencement of site work, a pre-construction meeting shall be held. l. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all site improvements will be completed. m. Prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy, an as-built plan locating all driveways, buildings, utilities, and site landscaping shall be completed by a professional engineer or a licensed land surveyor and submitted to the Engineering and Planning Departments. The as-built plan shall include a statement that all construction was completed in accordance with the approved site plan and applicable local regulations. NCPB May 21, 2026 Page 13 n. The traffic corridor contribution that the applicant agreed to make January 4, 2024, shall remain in effect and the applicant acknowledges the contribution shall continue to be held and used in accordance with the original condition. SECONDED by Ald. Klee MOTION CARRIED 8-0 NEW BUSINESS – SITE PLANS A26-0028 Bishop Guertin Highschool, Inc. (Owner & Applicant) requesting site plan approval for improved athletic fields and accompanying structures along with associated parking and site improvements. The subject property is located at 194-196 Lund Road. Map 106 – Lot 16. Zoned C Suburban Residence (R-9). Ward 6. (Postponed to May 21, 2026, by Applicant request) (Postponed to the May 21, 2026 meeting by applicant request) MOTION by Mr. Green that the application is complete and the Planning Board is ready to take jurisdiction SECONDED by Mr. Zoller MOTION CARRIED 8-0 Tom Zajac, Civil Engineer, IMEG Corp, 3 Congress St, Nashua NH Mr. Zajac introduced himself on behalf of the owner and applicant. With him is Bishop Guertin Principal Jason Strniste, Atty. Prolman of Pruner & Prolman PA, landscape architect Megan Buczynski of Activitas Inc., and traffic engineer Scott Thornton of Vanasse and Associates. Mr. Zajac said they are here tonight seeking final site plan approval for proposed upgrades to the Elliott Field complex and associated site improvements on the Lund Road campus. We have a brief presentation tonight. Mr. Zajac showed and aerial of the school, which has been here since 1964. It is a 19-acre site with 750-ft of frontage along Lund Road and 1,500-ft on Almont Street. The site is abutted primarily by single family residences and conservation land associated with Salmon Brook. NCPB May 21, 2026 Page 14 Mr. Zajac said the site is fully developed, with a school, gymnasium, and fieldhouse in the southwesterly portion of the site. The last major project was the fieldhouse addition in the early 2000s. Access comes from two points along Lund Rd, one driveway to the senior lot and one to the front pickup/drop-off area. That front loop exits out onto Almont St in a one-way pattern. The fourth point of access is along Almont Street to the junior lot. The site contains about 450 parking spaces. Mr. Zajac said we have some existing tennis courts along Almont St, and as you work your way north you get to the Elliott Field complex. We have a softball field, football field, a baseball field, and a rectangular field in the northeast corner. There is some vegetation to the north and east side. There is an existing run of power lines running along the easterly property line from Fox Meadow, there is a 60-ft wide easement. This transitions to Pennichuck land the further north you go. There is a gravel drive along that route. There is also an existing public sewer interceptor that runs north to south, subject to a 20-ft easement. We also have a 54-inch Hassell Brook drainage pipe that runs west to east in the northeasterly part of the site, that conveys water from Almont Street to Salmon Brook. Mr. Zajac said the site was inspected by certified wetland scientist Brendan Quigley from Gove Environmental, there are no wetlands on the subject site proper but there are some on the easterly side of the gravel drive. We did have those wetlands delineated because the 75-ft prime buffer extends into a small sliver of the existing field area. We also have a small corner of the site within the 200-ft Shoreland Protection buffer. Mr. Zajac said the site topography is relatively flat, generally sloping toward Salmon Brook. There are portions located within the 100-year floodplain, and the majority of the site is located over a capped landfill subject to an activity use restriction that has been in place since the early 2000s. Jason Strniste, Bishop Guertin Principal, 194 Lund Rd, Nashua NH Mr. Strniste said he has been principal for 12 years. The school has operated in the community for the past 60 years and educates 750 students in grades 9-12. 250 of these students reside in the city. The project addresses two needs. We are trying to do two things, support our athletics program, and serve the neighborhood through traffic improvements. NCPB May 21, 2026 Page 15 Mr. Strniste said we are proposing to upgrade the existing football field with a synthetic turf field. We are not expanding the field or campus, we are upgrading the existing grass field. We are looking to convert the informal seating to a constructed bleacher seating area, around 800-1000 capacity. We want to accommodate our entire student body. We are proposing field lighting to extend its useable length of day, it is being engineered to avoid light spillage beyond the field. Our athletic program has grown substantially, the number of sports programs doubled when the school went co-ed in the 1990s. All of our outdoor programs are on the same footprint as when we opened in the 1960s. Mr. Strniste said we have more need than we can meet on campus, at the end of the day many of our students drive to facilities in Bedford or Tyngsboro. This creates rental costs and safety concerns for the students. Last year Stellos Stadium became unavailable and that amplified the fact that we don’t have an appropriate home facility. An upgrade will address this issue. The discussion about turfing the field goes back at least 30 years. From a community and student standpoint, many students who go through Bishop Guertin will never play a home game on campus. By meeting the existing needs, this is a homecoming and long-term realization of a strategic goal to bring this back to campus. Mr. Strniste said the Board already approved the project on 40 Groton Rd, which is practice facility. There is no seating, and we don’t envision having spectators. The site will complete as they raise the funds. The turf field at BG will be used for practice and low attendance events. The intent behind the lights is to extend the useable hours in the fall and springtime, we are not looking to push games late in the night. We don’t plan to use this for high capacity athletic events. We do intend to continue our partnership with the city in Stellos Stadium, and we believe this will bring new opportunities to our partnership with the city. The proposed upgrades will address needs and high demand for the space. We hope to commence within 2-3 months and complete within the 2026- 2027 school year. Mr. Strniste said this project also gives them the ability to address some longstanding traffic concerns in the neighborhood. In a neighborhood meeting we heard that neighbors are extremely concerned about the traffic around the school, with a great deal of congestion a half hour before the beginning and end of school. Traffic often backs up along Lund Rd. This creates dangerous passing and a dangerous exit from campus. The Lund Almont intersection serves three schools: Bishop Guertin, Fairgrounds NCPB May 21, 2026 Page 16 Elementary, and Fairgrounds Middle School. There is speeding on the side streets. This project gives up an opportunity to identify some solutions. Mr. Strniste said we are proposing to close the existing access on Lund Road to our rear parking lot, the senior lot, and shift the entrance to the east side of the tennis courts. This will create a back loop on campus, which will allow us to absorb a lot of the traffic during peak periods. We will have both a front and back loop to pull cars off of Lund Rd. We don’t expect the new athletic facility to generate high traffic events, our plan will be to add a small number of spots to support that. We are not expanding the existing footprint of the fields or increasing enrollment. Mr. Strniste said the athletic plan will help keep students on campus as a whole, which will improve traffic. Students won’t have the urgency to get off campus, hopefully that will spread out the peak flow. We also anticipate collaborating with the city on some safety improvements for the corridor. Mr. Strniste said related to our traffic flow reconfiguration, neighbors expressed appreciation for being able to walk down the PSNH gravel road to the south. This will become part of the new loop driveway on Lund Rd, but we also intend to maintain walkability for their neighbors. On behalf of the school, he asked the Board to approve this application. Meg Buczynski, Project Architect, Activitas Inc., 70 Milton St, Dedham, MA Ms. Buczynski said the synthetic turf field that is being proposed is very similar to what was recently installed at Stellos. Water will be able to drain through, it’s an all-weather and all-purpose field. Outside of the field is a small 20x40’ structure, a glorified shed for teams to meet during inclement weather and halftime. The field was sited to support the sports that are played within there, but it is important to support the existing baseball and softball fields. Everything has been sized appropriately to maintain those feelings of distances. Ms. Buczynski said to the north we have spectator seating for about 900 seats, plus a press box for game announcements and scoreboard. Lighting is proposed, a full cut-off fixture LED light with limited glare and outreach. She showed a photo of lighting on a field in Lexington MA as an example. The other improvements are mostly related to accessibility of the field and spectator seating and NCPB May 21, 2026 Page 17 perimeter fencing. The bleachers will be elevated to improve the spectator use at the site. Tom Zajac, Project Engineer Mr. Zajac said this is to allow more on campus games for varsity teams that haven’t had the opportunity and are playing at rented facilities. Replacing an overused grass field with turf will improve safety. It is easier to maintain and extend play when weather conditions would otherwise make play not possible. It’s really important to know that this will keep more students on campus during that peak time when school ends. We had a lot of feedback from neighbors about how students are getting in their cars and driving all over the place, racing to get to practice. Paired with the 40 Groton Rd practice facility, we can now use buses and more formal transportation to cut down on traffic. Mr. Zajac said the goal is not to have Friday night lights, those home football games and spectator events will continue to be held at Stellos and other venues. We recognize that the traffic study needed to analyze the absolute worst-case scenario of 1,000 people in those stands. We don’t think that will happen, and that large sporting events will happen off campus. We want those seats for all-school events and graduations. This is something they are already doing on campus. Mr. Zajac said all field lights will be turned off by 10PM or sooner. There will be a PA system controlled by BG staff, and it will be turned off at 10PM or sooner. Mr. Zajac said he wants to talk about the site driveway. We are moving it 200-ft east on the other side of the tennis courts, where the current gravel drive is. It will have better alignment with the Lund Rd/Foxmeadow Drive intersection, improve sight distance compared to the current driveway, create better separation from the Lund Rd driveway loop. We will also have a better internal circulation, sight lines, queuing onsite. The onsite driveway will give more flexibility with buses and parents showing up early. We heard a lot at the neighborhood meeting about parents showing up 45 minutes before school ends and parking on side streets. There will be a new sidewalk connection on the gravel trail to Salmon Brook. We think moving the driveway will significantly decrease queuing along Lund Rd during peak times. Mr. Zajac said the pedestrian improvements are just as important. By relocating the driveway, we can provide crosswalks with better NCPB May 21, 2026 Page 18 sight lines down Lund Rd. We are adding two flashing pedestrian signals and 200-ft of new sidewalk along the Lund Rd frontage to Dora St. Mr. Zajac said we have about 450 parking spaces onsite, we are looking to add about 30. The added parking is not a driver, but because of the configuration of the new driveway there was an opportunity to add spaces to the senior parking lot. Faculty and staff, then seniors, then juniors are assigned spaces. Students are told not to park on-street, and many of the adjacent streets have signage for no parking. This field is an upgrade and accessory to the school, the parking demand for the field will be off peak from the parking demand for the school. If parking capacity is an issue, we have submitted a list of potential mitigation measures to city staff that can be employed. We feel we have sufficient parking, but there are fallback plans if there is a problem in the future. Mr. Zajac said this is an old site and does not have much stormwater management infrastructure, most of it is sheet flow or into the combined sewer pipe. We have some stormwater improvements proposed, including porous pavement, which will result in a qualitative and quantitative improvement in the stormwater leaving the site. We have an Alteration of Terrain permit under review with the NH Dept. of Environmental Services. Scott Thornton, Traffic Engineer, Vanasse & Associates, 35 New England Business Ctr Dr, Andover, MA Mr. Thornton said he prepared the traffic assessment for this project, which was intended to review the impacts of the upgrade to Elliott field. He showed a map of the study area intersections, which included either end of Lund Rd, East Dunstable Rd, Lake St, and Main Dunstable Rd. We also looked at either end of Almont St and the intersection at Fox Meadow. Mr. Thornton said we looked at the incremental impact of the ability to hold more practices and the major event condition identified previously. In terms of the incremental impact, we identified relatively small increases in peak hour impacts, 69 peak hour trips. Adding that into the intersections and capacity analysis, the increases in delays were fairly minor. When we looked at the traffic from the major events, which are not expected to happen frequently, we looked at the worst-case condition. Based on statistics for event planning, we expect that traffic to be 418 peak hour trips. But that is not a frequent event. NCPB May 21, 2026 Page 19 Mr. Thorton said when we add that traffic into intersections, the Almont St southbound approach onto Lund Rd and the Lund Rd eastbound approach to East Dunstable Rd, we found level of service dropped to F. Those are signalized intersections. We think that can be addressed through signal timing. We have not done that analysis because we thought that for the plans that BG has for police details during these events that are already occurring, we didn’t think that mitigation wouldn’t be necessary. But that said, that’s something we plan to work with the city to address. We have received a peer review from the city’s consultant, we provided responses and have reached out to NH Dept of Transportation as recommended. Tom Zajac, Civil Engineer Mr. Zajac said he believes the application is complete and conforms with the site plan criteria outlined in the land use code. The project team spent considerable time and effort engaging with the property owners abutting the school to seek feedback and answer questions. We contacted about 200 neighbors and held two meetings over the winter, which really informed our design. Our goals are to ensure safer conditions for the athletes, create opportunities for athletes to participate in home game and practices, create an outdoor space for school gatherings and community events. This project is an opportunity to improve traffic flow and pedestrian safety to the benefit of the school and neighbors. We hope to break ground in summer and take 6-9 months to complete. We have reviewed the staff report and are amenable to the conditions written, including the four traffic mitigation items. We have one waiver request, as detailed in the application materials. Mr. Bollinger asked if Engineering had anything additional to offer in regards to traffic. Mr. Hudson said he thinks they have reached a good place in the drafting of the additional mitigation items. He appreciates the applicant working with them. We don’t expect large changes too existing traffic conditions, but we do recognize there are some existing issues. We have collectively moved in the direction to identify some things that will help. We have the city’s traffic engineer and our peer review consultant if we want to do a deep dive tonight. He thinks we are in a place where city staff is willing to support the application. NCPB May 21, 2026 Page 20 Ald. Klee asked how many more games or practices will be on the field compared to current numbers, and what the hours of operation will be. Mr. Zajac said they worked closely with the athletic director to create the worst possible scenario. The lights will extend playing time in the fall and spring. Right now, practices are condensed to the 3PM-7PM window, the lights would extend that possibly. We are committed to turning things off at 10PM but it would most likely be closer to 9PM. Mr. Strniste said these are school nights, our goal is to shift as many of the school events as early in the day as possible. If we have three games, this lets us get the first one off the ground immediately. Different seasons will have a different load, mostly during the fall and the spring. Single digits for each sport during any given week would be a safe bet in terms of what would be adding. A lot of the junior varsity games already happen onsite. Ald. Klee said she is not against this project. Her concern is how many more games or practices are on campus. Just an estimate. Mr. Strniste said there is a reasonable expectation of use during the weeknights. You could to expect to see a couple of games on a given night, or a game or two on a Saturday. We don’t hold practices on Sunday mornings, generally it would be a Sunday night practice. Ald. Klee said rather than decreasing the traffic we are increasing the compact of activity, it’s a tradeoff. Mr. Bollinger said these events are effectively sanctioned on a pre-master schedule. Ald. Klee said she appreciates getting rid of the extra traffic from students driving to other facilities but we are increasing the activity that the neighbors aren’t used to. They won’t have more traffic but they will have more noise level. Mr. Zajac said they may be holding the varsity games there and switching the JV games to 40 Groton Rd. Mr. MacIntyre said he has three questions. He is impressed by the school’s diligence and it seems to be a good thing for the community. The usage of these fields will increase, we can expect significantly more activity. But within the context of the plan he thinks it will be manageable. How does this impact the extended NCPB May 21, 2026 Page 21 community? Is there any plan or intention to extend the use of these fields to non-Bishop Guertin or non-catholic diocese operations? Mr. Zajac said yes. Mr. Strniste said a condition of their financing agreement is that we will be working with nonprofit organizations that need field space. Our understanding is that some of these groups are competing for space, we will be doing it on a limited basis. We won’t be renting out the field at 9PM, this isn’t going to be a major rental income center. This is going to be something we can offer out on a need basis to organizations like us. Mr. MacIntyre said he will take that as a yes for an intention to offer it to other entities under the right conditions. Mr. Strniste said yes, on a limited basis. Mr. MacIntyre asked why the softball field will not have synthetic turf as well, since they’re already there. Do they intend to do it as a future development? Mr. Strniste said it’s not intended at this time. Before the Groton Road development, we did an analysis of what it would be like to turf the entire property. It did not appear feasible, cost is a driver of that. If you look at the Groton Road plan there is a softball field, which will absorb some of the practice. That softball field also isn’t getting five uses a day, it’s one set of teams, it doesn’t get the same level of use. Mr. MacIntyre said the question was to find out if they had an intention of coming back in the future. Mr. Strniste said not at this time. Mr. MacIntyre asked who the turf manufacturer is. Mr. Strniste said that hasn’t been selected yet. Mr. MacIntyre said they received correspondence on the environmental impact of turf, that’s why he asked about it. It matters what quality of turf they put on there. NCPB May 21, 2026 Page 22 Mr. Strniste said part of their catholic institution’s mission calls them to be stewards to the environment. Part of their process will be environmental responsibility. Mr. MacIntyre said at first, he thought he was going to say that Catholics are in favor of artificial turf. Mr. Strniste said no, he doesn’t believe that’s in the catechism. Mr. Bollinger said he doesn’t believe this Board has the purview to mandate what the service will be. Ms. Buczynski said they studied the implications of synthetic turf and its components. We encourage people to look at the peer reviewed scientific studies and less on the newspaper articles. The State of California put out a study this year that found no significant risk from the components of turf fields. Mr. MacIntyre said one of the concerns is access to the fields by first responders. Can they improve first responder access with this project? Mr. Zajac said absolutely. All projects that appear before the Board are thoroughly reviewed by the Fire Marshall office. We did provide fire truck turning templates, he doesn’t think there are any outstanding comments. By moving the driveway, we are providing cleaner turning movements. Mr. Zoller said one of the engineering comments is in regards to sight distance triangles. Does he see that being a problem on Almont St? Mr. Zajac said no. Their traffic engineer responded to that comment. We will work with the city and the peer reviewer. Mr. Thornton said there should be some additional site distance graphics in response to the peer reviewer. Mr. Bollinger asked that speakers not repeat what has already been stated. We have the right to limit public testimony and not hear comments past 10PM. We are approaching 9PM. Everyone will get a chance to speak, but you do not need to repeat what has already been said. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR CONCERN NCPB May 21, 2026 Page 23 Letters from the following: Dianne Sylvester, 224 Lund Rd, Nashua NH Mary Parker, 2 Dora St, Nashua NH Dianne Sylvester, 224 Lund St/2 Dora Rd, Nashua NH Ms. Sylvester said she is on the immediate corner where the change to traffic would occur. Ms. Sylvester said the correspondence and photos she has submitted support why this means to denied. Relocating hundreds of vehicles next to her house does not guarantee resolution of unsafe passage complaints, nor resolve vehicle encroachment. 220 Lund Rd has served as a recreational pedestrian walkway and buffer zone in this neighborhood for more than 50-years. She asked for a permanent conveyance to the city with an exception for public service vehicles. 7,300 vehicles in the summer and 9,500 vehicles use the Lund/East Dunstable corridor while school is in session, 89 accidents around the school required emergency services over a five-year period. Ms. Sylvester supports decreased traffic volumes, not requests to increase noncurricular events for 1,000 with expanded operation to 10PM. She requests a limit to each grade to 150 students or 650 total, as envisioned by the founders, and a reduction of onsite parking and a second bus loop to support smaller vehicles, not larger, to reduce road deterioration. The stormwater report, page two, paragraph c, asserts larger vehicles. She is also concerned about incidental stormwater runoff into Salmon Brook, nonliability consultant for hazardous exemption for waste and pollutants, and a zoning board comment that is only an opinion, not an interpretation. She asked the Board not to give a greater imbalance to zoning benefits to the host LLC, owners, and administrators, and supersede past mitigated settled issues around more than seven collocated side streets. Denial may preserve collocated residential families expectations for a safer quieter quality of life. Dr. Dominique Bolier, 1 Forest Park Dr, Nashua NH Dr. Bolier said she lives directly across from the baseball field and works from home four days a week. The idea of more noise is really concerning to her. She is not opposed to the project, she is concerned about the noise level. They have a PA system; how NCPB May 21, 2026 Page 24 will the noise be managed? If the space gets rented out, how will you manage that? Sally Grigas, 86 Almont St, Nashua NH Ms. Grigas said one of her big concerns is artificial turf and the deleterious effects to the student body and environment. She hasn’t found any on the internet that she would consider to be safe. She teaches students and none of them have enjoyed dealing with it. Each full field removes 2 acres of ecosystem that sequesters carbon, covers it with plastic, and creates a heat island. Recorded surface temperatures in the Boston area averaged 157-degrees for artificial turf, and 102-degrees for nearby grass. Turf consists largely of a number of undocumented petrochemical plastics, including PFAS, which rainwater and irrigation washes into the soil and stormwater system. This is right next to Salmon Brook. All of these things are concerns to her. It would be far better to use natural grass. We all want the best for our children, the natural world is not arranged our way. She asked the Board to look deeper into turf and the applicant to reconsider its use. Once it reaches the end of its life cycle it has to go to the dump, it can’t be recycled. Natural grass is a better way to go in this plastic world. Joy Wessinger, 4 Dora St, Nashua NH Ms. Wessinger said she is in favor of the field, she is concerned about the paving of the access road. It will be a lot of traffic right in her backyard. SPEAKING IN FAVOR Letters of support from the following: Ald. John Sullivan, Ward 9 Amy McBournie, 109 Lille Rd, Nashua NH Chad and Becky Kosterman, 58 Cathedral Cir, Nashua NH Beth Barba, 38 Tanglewood Dr, Nashua NH Brent Osborn, 7 Lynde St, Nashua NH Chris Millett, 19 Almont St, Nashua NH Loren and Jamie Morse, 27 Chester St, Nashua NH Jen Ebsen, 10 Stanley Ln, Nashua NH Jim Patierno, 8 Montgomery Ave, Nashua NH Lorraine and Ryan Barry, 7 Southfield Dr, Nashua NH Megan & Kevin Haskell, 9 Masefield Rd, Nashua NH Melissa Michels, 107 Ledgewood Hills Dr, Nashua NH NCPB May 21, 2026 Page 25 Mukta Shah, 15 Madera Cir, Nashua NH Nahla El Falaky, 39 Tanglewood Dr, Nashua NH Nanci Miller, 39 Schwinn Dr, Nashua NH Sharon Kostansek, 7 Cathedral Cir, Nashua NH Stephanie Finn, 33 Lutheran Dr, Nashua NH Lucas Arboleda, 1 Knowlton Rd, Nashua NH Brad Poznansky, 32 McKenna Dr, Nashua NH Mr. Poznansky said he is a member of the school board. He said the Bishop Guertin board will take the concerns of the neighbors seriously and act with full consideration of the concerns raised. Will Barbara, No Address Given Mr. Barbara said he is a sophomore at this school and an elected student body representative, as well as a part of the student ambassadors, the robotics team, and ministry program. He plays for the BG varsity soccer team. This field upgrade will be a brilliant addition to the school and for the greater good of Nashua. Field availability is something soccer teams have a hard time with in New Hampshire. We often have to travel to Bedford to train at their sports complex. He believes that this is inconvenient and unsafe. A new turf field at our school ensures a much safer season for athletes. Our home field is Stellos Stadium, which is shared with two other schools. Many of us feel we don’t have a true home field, and aren’t willing or able to travel to support the Cardinals. This field would be a game changer for the Nest, as more students could attend games. Mr. Barbara said on the note of parking improvements, the current state of exiting the school is a nightmare. Students and drivers on Lund Rd experience accidents and congestion due to the difficult timing of the afternoon traffic and the many students leaving after school hours. With this improved parking flow, students will be much safer while leaving the premises. Mr. Barbara said the grass field is inconsistent and suboptimal even when it’s well managed. They are outdated and many athletes prefer turf. Consistently the turf is more reliable and enjoyable to play on. Grass can cause injuries due to bumps and hard patches, many in the area are not well maintained. This will create another quality field for Nashua to use. This can also be used to host youth leagues, camps, clinics, and school events. This benefits more than just Bishop Guertin students, field availability is often a problem. On the behalf of the student body, we feel this will NCPB May 21, 2026 Page 26 instill a greater sense of pride within us and provide a community resource as an additional turf field in Nashua. He asked the Board to support the students of Bishop Guertin. Dave Tencza, 10 Monica Dr, Nashua NH Mr. Tencza said he supports everything Mr. Barbara said. He is here tonight as a parent of a BG student, in support of this project. In his experience of athletics, these fields will expand the opportunities for a lot of students. Ald. Klee made the point earlier that depending on whether schools travel to BG for games, if they can’t get there until 4:30 and start to 5, the sun sets around 6:30 in the fall, they would have to call the game short. His son plays football, sometimes the field is chewed up, flooded, or not in great shape by the end of the season, it’s a safety issue that has always concerned him. Mr. Tencza said there is a need in youth athletics for this type of field. A lot of spring sports start early, and the fields aren’t ready, this type of field allow teams to start on time and get that practice in. He doesn’t foresee that this will add congestion and traffic, he thinks BG will use the fields the majority of the time during the year. This will be a welcome addition. It’s well thought out and well designed. Mr. Tencza said the city is in need and has struggled with the availability of playing fields. This is a project BG has taken on that will alleviate some of the burden for the city. That opens up fields for other leagues to use. He asked the Board to support this project. Chris Millett, 19 Almont St, Nashua NH Mr. Millett said he is speaking on behalf of the girl’s soccer program, he is the girl’s varsity soccer coach. Having our students drive off campus every day is one of the most nerve wracking and stressful parts of the job. It adds a level of unnecessary stress and risk. Having an on-campus field will alleviate that stress and create a safer and more secure environment for our students and young drivers. This will provide a home for our programs and improve our students experience. APPLICANT REBUTTAL Tom Zajac, Civil Engineer NCPB May 21, 2026 Page 27 Mr. Zajac said he will try to hit the highlights. He said he was pleased to see that most of the folks that spoke in opposition came to the neighborhood meeting. We tried to address their concerns as best we could. Mr. Zajac said Mrs. Sylvester spoke of the closer driveway. To him there is a little bit of trade-off in terms of her specific property. She sits right on the corner of Dora and Lund, Lund Rd is a busy road. It’s not just BG, you have two city schools in the area. We think there will be far less queuing concerns right in front of her property with this change as well as a sidewalk for pedestrian safety, that is the tradeoff. Mr. Zajac said in regards to the PSNH easement buffer trail, BG owns the land. There’s an easement to allow Eversource to run their poles and have access. The public has utilized it for many years. BG is not going to stop that, but it is BG’s land, not a formal buffer zone. Mr. Zajac said we think the improvements we are making to traffic volumes are not only going to mitigate the traffic from the field, but we are also making improvements to the operation of the school. Mr. Zajac said in regards to noise management, we are looking to have a formal state of the art system that will be controlled by BG. It will be used in the early afternoon and evening, it won’t be on all day and night. A lot of times the concerns are more about unexpected or uncontrolled noise, like a boombox. BG staff will have full control over that noise. They will continue to be a good neighbor and if there are issues will work to mitigate them. Mr. Zajac said in regards to turf, no turf product as been selected yet. It will go out to bid. The health and safety of the student athletes and the environment is a priority. We’re not going to pick something that harms the environment. Stellos and Rivier have the same turf fields, they wouldn’t be putting those down if there were significant environmental concerns. Mr. Zajac said lastly there were testimony about the access road and proximity. Mr. Strniste has committed to working with the residents on Dora St on selective screening and buffering if something needs to be put in. Some vegetation will remain, and some of the residents already have fencing. We will be happy to bolster the screening if needed. NCPB May 21, 2026 Page 28 Ald. Klee said her biggest concern is the level of increased activity. The time frame of “no later than 10PM” gives her some concern. The lights will be okay, she has seen a lot of the downcast lighting, but noise and lighting until 10PM can have a negative effect on the neighbors. BG is not the only ones using the field. She agrees that the city needs more fields, but she doesn’t want to put that against the neighbors. She didn’t see a neighbor come through and support this, just parents, students, and coaches. When she was a student, athletes were bused. If these students were bused, that would increase safety. Mr. Zajac said we’ve tried to address all those concerns, we got a lot of feedback from the neighborhood meetings. We probably could have brought some more people here to speak tonight, we were trying to be respectful. You’re all volunteers. But we reached out to almost 200 neighbors, some were for and some were against. There was a recognition from the neighborhood that BG has been there for a long time, is a part of the neighborhood, and that this is a critical upgrade. We are going to do our best to work on the concerns she mentioned. We also had a number of letters in support. Ald. Klee said yes, she read them. Mr. Green asked if the design team as particular specs for the turf that the residents could review, or if that is up to the discretion of the contractor. Mr. Zajac said there is a standard performance spec detail sheet. The specific product and vendor goes out to bid. Once that is selected we could share that with staff and the neighbors. Mr. Bollinger said it’s not the same as a public bid. Stellos stadium was a public bid process, the neighbors could look at that to see what it’s like. Mr. Zajac said we would be happy to share. Mr. Zoller asked about the additional buffer on Dora St. Are there any trees onsite that will be removed and how can it be fortified? Mr. Zajac said they are not eliminating any of the trees. There is a little bit of scrub along the power lines, we do have some trees we’re planting throughout the site. There is a grade change along that property line, it’s not entirely flat. We would be happy to look into screening with arborvitae to help. NCPB May 21, 2026 Page 29 Mr. Hirsch said it seems like noise is a concern. Is there any mitigation they can make? Ms. Buczynski said she is not a sound engineer but we do specify the systems. Some sound systems shoot out sound everywhere, what we are proposing here is going to be mounted on the press box and close to the bleachers to focus that sound on the bleachers. It’s announcements for the spectators. It will be focused. Mr. Hirsch asked what is currently there. Is it scattershot? Mr. Strniste said right now there is no system. The system is whatever student wants to bring a speaker and whatever they want to do with that speaker. It’s very inconsistent. We would like to move toward what we have in our gymnasium, a locked cabinet that would have to get permission to access the sound. Secondly, we have the ability to electronically control volumes. The gym speaker can’t be turned up past the point where it becomes dangerously loud. The idea would be a system that the school can control. *Unknown from the audience* said they have some follow-up questions. Mr. Green said they have already had their chance to speak. The applicant’s team will still be around after the meeting if you want to continue asking them questions. PUBLIC MEETING Mr. Bollinger closed the public hearing and opened the public meeting. We heard quite a bit of testimony this evening. He put a lot of weight on what engineering has to offer in regards to traffic. If they have reached a level of comfort, he would be willing to accept that. It seems there are still some discussions to be had with NHDOT, which are a little bit external. As long as the city engineer is satisfied with the process moving forward, that was his biggest concern. There was a lot of testimony about sound and turf, he appreciates it. It’s always commendable when an applicant performs community outreach and take some constructive feedback. In its entirety, this is a well put together package. Ald. Klee said she is excited about the traffic mitigation. She has no problems with artificial turf. In the long run it’s safer for the students. She has some concern with going from no sound to sound as late as 10PM. She wants the students to stay on campus rather than driving, but the mitigation for her would be busing NCPB May 21, 2026 Page 30 the students. She is not too concerned about the lighting, they can do it so it doesn’t affect the neighbors. But as the alderman of Ward 3, where we have Greeley Park, she lives multiple streets away and she can hear the noise inside her home. Games are trying to rile up the crowd. It concerns her that it will be going on until 10PM, people have young children that they are trying to put it to bed. For that reason, she cannot support this. Mr. Varley said from personal experience having gone to a lot of those games, most of those games are starting at 4PM. It’s rare to see a night game, a rare exception that something goes later into the evening. Most wrap up by 7PM. The applicant is being conservative because they want to be transparent about the possibility of that, but he would be surprised if they were regularly doing that. He said the applicant has done an admirable job in terms of working with the neighbors and city to address the concerns raised, presenting what he thinks is a well thought through plan. He appreciates the considerations that the parents have raised about having a reliable and available home field. He feels this plan does a good job of balancing addressing concerns and the needs of the school. He is in support. Ald. Klee said maybe the 10PM time is a rare occasion. If they had come in and said 8PM was their cut-off, especially since they are bringing in non-school athletes, that would be different. She lives near Greeley Park, so she is very attuned to what the neighbors are saying. She would rather it stop at 8PM. She agrees with what Mr. Varley said about the plan. Mr. MacIntyre said he lives in this ward but does not abut the school. He hopes Ald. Klee may reconsider. He can hear the BG activity from the school. He has full trust that if the administration starts impinging on the neighborhood, they will be receptive to mitigation and change. He thinks we should wait and see and let them proceed, and address issues that come up. He doesn’t think this will be like Rivier University. River has a speaker system you can hear a mile away. He can hear Rivier better than Bishop Guertin. He thinks we should give the school a little discretion. Mr. Green said he thinks the project team did a good job of addressing public comments. There are people in the area very willing to speak up and he thinks the school will be receptive to feedback. We can add stipulations for noise and traffic as well. NCPB May 21, 2026 Page 31 Mr. Bollinger said this is a quite involved application, it appears the Board has answered all its questions. We do have one waiver request, this is the third time we have heard that waiver request this evening. He has no issue supporting the request. Mr. Green asked if there was a specific date for the engineering letter. Mr. Hudson said because of the nature of the back and forth we would have to reference a few different dates and letters. His preference would be to leave it as is. He is comfortable with the language under condition “C” as is. MOTION by Mr. Green to approve the following waivers for New Business – Site Plan A26-0028: a. § §190-279 (EE): To waive the requirement to show existing conditions on ‘adjacent parcels as appropriate. 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. Zoller MOTION CARRIED 8-0 MOTION by Mr. Green to approve New Business – Site Plan A26-0028. The Board finds that the application meets the Approval Criteria under §190-146(D) with the following conditions: a. Any waiver(s) granted shall be listed on the plan. Should any waiver(s) be denied, the plan must be revised in order to comply with the applicable site plan regulations. b. Prior to the signing of the plan, all technical review comments listed in Section 5 of the Staff Report shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. c. Prior to the signing of the plan, all outstanding comments from the Engineering Department, shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Division of Public Works. NCPB May 21, 2026 Page 32 d. Prior to any work being done, a pre-construction meeting with the City shall take place. e. Prior to any work being done, a financial guarantee for all off-site improvements shall be approved and submitted to the City. f. All proposed demolition activities require inspections for the presence of asbestos-containing materials prior to Environmental Health’s sign-off on Nashua’s Building Safety Department’s Demolition Permit Approval Form. If any asbestos-containing materials are found, they must be abated and documented according to state and local regulations. g. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, stormwater documents in accordance with §190-217 shall be submitted for review by City staff and recorded at the Applicant’s expense. h. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all site improvements will be completed in accordance with the approved plan. i. Prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy, an as-built plan locating all driveways, buildings, utilities, and site landscaping shall be completed by a professional engineer or a licensed land surveyor and submitted to the Engineering and Planning Departments. The as-built plan shall include a statement that all construction was completed in accordance with the approved site plan and applicable local regulations. j. A parking monitoring study shall be conducted for a one-year period after the construction of the artificial turf field. The monitoring study shall evaluate peak parking demand at Bishop Guertin High School during a major full season athletic field event that occurs concurrently with typical after school or evening activities. If the study demonstrates the proposed 488-on-campus spaces are insufficient, the Applicant shall submit a formal mitigation plan for parking to the Planning Board for review and approval within 60 days of the monitoring study. k. Prior to the completion of the artificial turf field, the Applicant shall fund (for a cost not to exceed $12,000) for the traffic signal timing and adjustments to the East Dunstable Road traffic signal coordination for: NCPB May 21, 2026 Page 33 a. The after school peak period traffic b. The average weekday evening peak hour traffic l. Prior to the completion of the artificial turf field, the Applicant shall purchase an overhead 360-degree “Gridsmart” vehicle detection camera with a traffic count and module at the intersection of Lund Road and Almont Street. m. Prior to the completion of the artificial turf field, any requirements by NHDOT regarding development impacts to the F.E. Everett Turnpike are subject to this approval. SECONDED by Mr. MacIntyre MOTION CARRIED 7-0-1 (Klee opposed) OTHER BUSINESS 1. Review of tentative agenda to determine proposals of regional impact. MOTION by Mr. Green that there are no items of regional impact SECONDED by Mr. Varley MOTION CARRIED 8-0 DISCUSSION ITEMS None MOTION to adjourn by Mr. Zoller at 9:56 PM MOTION CARRIED 8-0 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