2026-10-07 - Zoning Board

07:58So for the um

08:03all right let's get started.

08:06Good evening ladies and gentlemen.

08:07Welcome to the regular October meeting

08:10of the conquered zoning board of

08:12adjustment. We will follow our usual

08:14procedure this evening which is to say

08:16we will take up the cases uh with one

08:19exception in the order in which they

08:20appear in the agenda. We will ask the

08:23appellant to come forward and provide us

08:26be sworn in and provide us with whatever

08:28testimony they would like us to hear. We

08:30ask them to confine their presentation

08:32to 10 minutes. We will then ask the

08:34appellent to step down and we will

08:35solicit testimony from anyone in the

08:38audience who is in favor of the appeal

08:41followed by anyone in the audience who

08:42is in opposition to the appeal. We also

08:44request that those people confine

08:46themselves to a five-minute interval.

08:48Following all of that, we will check in

08:50with code enforcement, excuse me,

08:51planning

08:53to discover whether or not they have

08:55anything new to offer to uh the case.

08:58And in the event that information has

09:00come up that appears to ver factual

09:02clarification, the appellant will have

09:04the opportunity to offer that not new

09:07evidence prior to our closing the public

09:09testimony portion of the hearing. And in

09:13most cases, the board will consider each

09:15case before moving on to the next. We

09:18have a couple of cases this evening or

09:21one case anyway which is a request for a

09:23rehearing which uh we treat a little bit

09:26differently than we do the case the

09:28description that I just gave you because

09:31we do not take testimony in request for

09:33rehearing. We consider the written

09:35submission of the appellant and act

09:39accordingly. And the criteria for that

09:41rather than the criteria for a variance

09:43or a special exception are that we need

09:46to find that we have committed an error

09:48in procedure or in law or that new facts

09:51that were not previously available in

09:54our gerine have come to light since the

09:56hearing. Uh we have the first case this

10:00evening is a request for a rehearing.

10:03I'm going to ask that uh let's see Mr.

10:07Walker and

10:12Brenda, Miss Perkins. Yeah. Okay. I

10:15couldn't see you around.

10:17Uh stand in as alternates on this.

10:19>> Yes.

10:19>> Okay. Thank you very much. Uh the the

10:23request for rehearing was we had denied

10:26a variance. We didn't actually deny it.

10:28In this case, the um

10:32uh fee had not been paid and we denied

10:36it without prejudice as opposed to the

10:39usual kind of denial. Uh did all of you,

10:43I'm sure, have had a chance to read the

10:44submission. Did any of you have any

10:46reason to believe that we committed an

10:49error in procedure law or that new

10:52evidence is available that we ought to

10:54consider?

10:54>> No. Um, clearly if the fees weren't

10:57paid, the board has no jurisdiction to

11:00or ability to hear the case. Uh, it's my

11:02understanding on it. And you, from what

11:04I read and saw, it looks like you

11:06proceeded as would be appropriate. They

11:09can come back and file a new

11:10application, start all over again, I

11:13believe, if they wanted to, and pay the

11:14fees. So, they aren't being deprived of

11:17their ability to appear before the

11:19board. So, I don't see that there's

11:21[clears throat] anything wrong with what

11:22you did.

11:23>> Very good. Miss Perkins, how do you see

11:24it?

11:25>> Um, I I do have a question. Do we have a

11:28financial hardship? Like, is there

11:31anything that that allows for that?

11:34>> We did not open the case because of the

11:35fact that the fees weren't paid.

11:37>> So, the fees needed

11:40we denied the case.

11:42>> Oh, okay.

11:43>> But without prejudice. So, they can go

11:45back and reapply.

11:46>> And reapply. Mr.

11:48>> The rest of it isn't anything we have

11:49any jurisdiction over at all.

11:51>> Yeah. I don't see anything, [snorts]

11:52>> Mr. winners.

11:54>> Yeah. Does this it it continues to be

11:56unusual,

11:57>> right? Like well that's why I wanted

11:58>> and I can't recall a request for

12:00rehearing when we didn't deny it.

12:03They could just you know they like Craig

12:06said they can just refile in this case.

12:08So

12:11I don't know if they are trying to ask

12:13us to rule on it without them paying the

12:15fee, but obviously we're not going to do

12:16that. So I I agree.

12:18>> All right,

12:20>> Mr. Waller. How do you see I didn't see

12:21any errors that we committed, nor did I

12:24see any new information. So, I'm

12:25inclined uh not to uh request a rehering

12:28on that.

12:29>> I agree with my colleagues. Would anyone

12:31care to make a motion?

12:33>> I move to deny the request for a

12:35reharing.

12:36>> Is there a second?

12:37>> Second.

12:38>> Is there any discussion? All in favor,

12:41please say I.

12:42>> I. Anyone opposed? The vote is

12:44unanimous. The rehearing is denied.

12:48Request for reharing is denied. Now, we

12:50are going to make one adjustment in the

12:51order of the agenda tonight in order to

12:54>> There's one other

12:55>> Oh.

12:56>> Oh, that one's been withdrawn.

12:57>> Oh, that one was withdrawn.

12:59>> Street number, uh, administrative appeal

13:01number, uh, four has been withdrawn.

13:05For that,

13:07>> um, very good. Now, uh, on the public

13:10hearings, do I hear a motion to

13:12determine that none of these cases is of

13:16regional impact?

13:19I'll make a motion.

13:21>> Anyone care to make a second?

13:22>> Second.

13:24>> Any discussion? All in favor?

13:26>> I. Anyone opposed?

13:29>> The vote is unanimous. We now have um

13:33for this particular case, I'll I'll

13:36stick with uh the same two alternates if

13:39that's quite all right with you. Uh we

13:42have a case 4.1 Sarah Ginther on behalf

13:45of Harold Extramm etc. Again, the fee

13:48has not been paid on this case. So, we

13:51uh do not, as I understand it, have uh

13:54authority to hear it. And so, do I hear

13:57a motion to uh deny without prejudice?

14:02>> So, moved.

14:02>> Is there a second?

14:04>> Second.

14:05>> It's been moved and seconded. Any

14:07discussion?

14:07>> I just have I just have a I support the

14:10motion. I just have a quick comment or

14:12or even a question is my only concern

14:14would be if people are are filing these

14:18not paying the fee and still able to get

14:20to the public hearing. My only concern

14:22is if any interested people in the

14:24community like a Butters or you know

14:26anyone who happens to take their time to

14:29come out you know is it it's a little

14:32unfair to them to then they take the

14:35time to come out um and nothing is heard

14:38and then it could still be refiled

14:39later. So I I support the motion, but I

14:41just do wonder about that they should

14:44even be able to get to a public hearing

14:46without paying the fee.

14:47>> Wouldn't public notice be sent out?

14:49>> We have to notice 10 days prior per the

14:51city ordinance. So, we do not go off the

14:53state statute.

14:55>> But I mean, why how do they even if they

14:58haven't paid the fee, how do they even

14:59get on the docket?

15:01>> They they submit the file and then we

15:03have the the deadline date and then from

15:05there I have to send out by a drop dead

15:08date. So, if they haven't paid the fee

15:09yet, they can pay up until the day of

15:11the meeting.

15:14>> Up until the day of

15:14>> Is that a change in law or something?

15:16>> I don't know if it was in our law.

15:19>> I don't know that we have like a

15:20deadline date to pay the fees. I'll have

15:22to

15:22>> You don't have to answer that, but I

15:23would look into that because I that

15:25seems wrong that they can pay until

15:28>> we've given people the opportunity. I

15:29was having the same question because

15:31traditionally the payment was due at the

15:34time of submission and if we didn't get

15:36it at that deadline then

15:38>> Okay. Well,

15:38>> that's when you have to start doing

15:39work.

15:40>> That's not the board's worry.

15:41>> That's not the board's work.

15:43>> Uh that's for people who know what

15:45they're doing to deal with.

15:47>> Okay. Uh so that takes care of that

15:50case. Now we're going to make an

15:52>> You need to do a final vote. You had a

15:53first.

15:53>> Oh, that's right. We we we're having

15:55discussion. Uh I'll call a vote then.

15:58All in favor of the motion, please say

16:00I. I. Anyone opposed. The vote is

16:03unanimous. The case is dismissed without

16:06or rather denied without prejudice. Uh

16:10we're going to make an adjustment here

16:12in the uh

16:16order of the cases in order to

16:20for the convenience of of one of our

16:23alternates so he doesn't have to stay

16:24for the entire night when he isn't

16:27needed. and miss uh so I'll ask on this

16:30case that Miss Rice you also

16:34>> yes

16:34>> will serve on this one and I'm going to

16:36recuse myself in the case is number 4.12

16:40Mark Sergeant on behalf of Paul Mris and

16:43Mr. Warner, will you take the helm,

16:45please?

16:46>> Sure.

16:48All right, here we go.

16:52Mark Sergeant on behalf of Paul Mris

16:54request the following variance for a lot

16:56line adjustment between 106 school

16:58street tax map and lot 731

17:01uh/Z24 and 110 school street tax map and

17:05lot 7321Z23

17:07[snorts]

17:09in the single family residential RS

17:11district ZBA 0493 and 04942026

17:16a section 2841H table of dimensional

17:19requirements in 28 841C minimum frontage

17:22to allow for a frontage of 93.42

17:26ft of frontage where 100 ft is required

17:28at a 110 school street NB section 2841H

17:32table of dimensional requirements and

17:342841B lot size to allow for an 11,79

17:38ft lot where 12,500 ft is required at

17:42110 school street.

17:45Anyone here from this appeal

17:48come forward please.

17:55Chris, are you here for the

17:56>> uh Yeah, I'm sort of but not really.

18:00Chris Neto with no

18:01>> just tell truth, whole truth, nothing

18:03but the truth.

18:03>> I will.

18:04>> Very good.

18:04>> Before we proceed, I was just speaking

18:06with Mr. Mus back there and he has to

18:10delay. So

18:11>> yeah. Uh uh unfortunately Mark Sergeant

18:13is just pulling in outside so he will be

18:16here in 30 seconds or less. So [snorts]

18:20I'm just

18:22explaining.

18:22>> So [laughter] you're going to do the

18:23song and dance for 30 seconds.

18:25>> He was surprised by the move of the uh

18:28>> moving it up in the schedule

18:29>> the application. Yeah.

18:30>> Uh they'll take care of

18:32>> I'm not I'm not in charge here.

18:33>> It got Well, we just we just moved it

18:35up. So they weren't expecting to be the

18:36first

18:38>> first case to be had.

18:40Please be seated [clears throat] and I'm

18:41going to swear you in.

18:46>> We swear to tell the truth, the whole

18:47truth and nothing but the truth.

18:48>> I do.

18:49>> Quick state your name for the record.

18:52>> And tell us what you like what you like

18:54to do. Well,

18:56for the submission from what we're

18:59attempting to do, what we'd like to do

19:01is in essence

19:05move the uh adjust the adjacent property

19:09line or the common border of 106 and 110

19:13school street to meet the side variance

19:18uh zoning requirement of 15 feet. Right

19:22now the border is 4 feet from 106 School

19:26Street and about 45 feet from uh 110

19:32School Street. So by moving it roughly

19:3511 ft then uh we will be compliant with

19:40the side setback. I'll be able to put a

19:43ladder up to the side of my house

19:45without uh uh needing to get permission

19:48or

19:50you know from from the other property

19:53and um start

19:56>> and um and vice versa they uh who the

20:01the owners in this case I own both

20:04properties but you know I I'm thinking

20:06more long term beyond me there will for

20:09the neighborhood there will never be a a

20:12[snorts] need to um

20:15get permission to uh for access to

20:20another neighbor's property in order to

20:22perform maintenance on the on the house.

20:25And [snorts] um Mark has anything to

20:28add.

20:29>> Sorry I'm late. I expect it to be last.

20:35>> So before you say anything, I need to

20:36also [snorts] swear you in. Do you

20:37swear, tell nothing but the truth?

20:39>> I do.

20:39>> Great. Tell us who you are, please for

20:41the record.

20:41>> Uh, my name is Mark Sergeant. I am with

20:43Richard Bartlett and Associates, a

20:45division of the Novas Group.

20:47And again, I apologize for being late,

20:51but uh I'm not quite sure what Paul

20:53said, but I'm sure you're all familiar

20:55with the the properties involved here,

20:57but I'll just give you some of the facts

20:59on it. Uh 106 School Street has an area

21:02of 13,220 ft, just over 105 ft of

21:06frontage, has an existing single family

21:08home.

21:10Uh 110 School Street has an area of

21:1213,120

21:13ft with 105 ft of frontage, also with an

21:17existing single family home. [snorts]

21:19The home on 106 is only 3 and 1/2 ft

21:22from the lot line, whereas 110 has over

21:2640 feet for sideyard.

21:29So what Paul would like to do is a lot

21:32adjustment between the two properties.

21:34So he would annex 1400 square feet of

21:38110 to 106

21:40which includes 11 1/2 ft of frontage. So

21:43that increases the area of 106 to 14,600

21:47square feet [snorts] and the the

21:48frontage to 117.38 ft. Increases the

21:53distance from the house to the lot line

21:55from 3 and 1/2 ft to 15 ft thereby

21:58bringing into compliance. It reduces the

22:01lot area of 110 to 11,79 square ft and

22:06the frontage to 93.42 ft but leaves a

22:10sideyard of over 30 ft.

22:14So we're seeking the variances for the

22:17frontage requirement [snorts]

22:19reducing it from 100 to the 93.42

22:24and the area

22:27which the requirement is 12500 and we're

22:29looking at uh 11

22:33uh 11,79.

22:35[snorts]

22:36So by granting the variance, this will

22:37permit uh a sideyard for 106 which is in

22:41compliance, still provide the sufficient

22:44sideyard for the 110 school street and

22:48allow for a nice straight line through

22:50there. So um I looked through the plans

22:53here. I could have sworn I submitted a

22:55concessional site plan [snorts]

22:59>> on the map the wrong one. I have

23:03>> one on the um

23:05>> it was under the uh

23:07>> it

23:08>> what's it under

23:09>> submission material submission

23:12>> u application materials

23:14>> there you go sorry

23:16>> there it is okay

23:19[snorts]

23:20>> so the uh you can see with the lot line

23:22currently 10 uh 106 being at the kind of

23:26the top of the page to the east 10 to

23:29the west the current lot line you you

23:30see is that dash line? It's only three

23:32and a half ft off. Um what we'd like to

23:35do is move it over about uh well not

23:39even quite 15 ft. So it's 15 ft off the

23:41the building and uh give that that uh

23:46home on 106 enough room to to do some

23:49maintenance and and what have you.

23:51[snorts] And rather than having kind of

23:52a gked line out there, just have a nice

23:54straight line.

23:56So if you have any questions, I'd be

23:58happy to answer them.

24:01you referenced [snorts] um either

24:03maintenance or improvement. Is that is

24:05there any actual work being done now or

24:07that's just sort of the theoretical

24:09reason that this would be nice to get

24:11this done just to get better access?

24:13>> No. Well, there's nothing pending now.

24:16>> Yeah,

24:16>> if that's what you're asking. However,

24:19um regular painting, roofing,

24:24just periodic maintenance as well as um

24:28because of pitch of the property and the

24:32slope. There's a stone wall on the

24:35driveway side which is the east side of

24:37the house and uh we can't get any

24:42equipment even lawn mowing big big

24:45mowers. We can't get them from the

24:47driveway to the front yard u because

24:52it's it's too tight for their equipment.

24:54And we I've come across this with not

24:57only

24:59But [snorts] uh when we took a tree

25:00down, they could they couldn't remove

25:01the stump because the stump grinder was

25:04uh too wide, too large to access. And so

25:08it's it's it's been an ongoing challenge

25:11and uh and something that uh we hope we

25:17can uh we can solve.

25:19>> Did you say you currently own [snorts]

25:21the two properties?

25:22>> Yes.

25:22>> So you want to solve that issue. So

25:24let's say you sold one now that property

25:27no longer has that concern.

25:28>> Yeah. And I would I would say long after

25:31I'm gone

25:32>> in the future there was [snorts] you

25:35know whether I stay forever or

25:37>> slightly shorter um that uh whoever is

25:41there just to eliminate that same issue

25:44that I've had to deal with and that and

25:47I say I've had to deal with and the

25:49owner of 110 before I bought that. I

25:52mean, we both dealt with it because it

25:54was it was both our our, you know,

25:57common border.

25:58>> Yeah.

25:59>> Bit overgrown there these days. It' be

26:01cool growing up.

26:04>> Any other questions?

26:06>> Thank you very much.

26:07>> Thank you.

26:10>> Is there anyone in the audience who

26:11would like to be uh who would like to be

26:13recognized to speak in favor of this

26:15appeal

26:16or is there anyone who'd like to be

26:18heard speak against this appeal?

26:20Seeing none code from city.

26:23Seeing none. Great. I'll declare the

26:25meeting closed and ask uh our board

26:28members what they think. Miss Rice.

26:33>> Um

26:34I I think that this would uh I would

26:38vote to um allow the variance. I don't

26:40think that it's contrary to public

26:42interest. I think there's substantial

26:43justice in that. Clearly the the uh the

26:47difference in in um frontage and the u

26:52the frontage and the and the number of

26:55square feet for the for the lot are

26:58really negligible.

27:00So I think that it's appropriate.

27:03>> Thank you, Mr. Walker.

27:04>> Yeah, I again with zoning there's a bit

27:07of a balanced balancing act here and

27:10what we're balancing here is maybe

27:12they're losing a little bit of their

27:14conformity,

27:16but the other side is gaining some for

27:18very practical reasons. So, you know,

27:20for this reason, I'd just be a little

27:22supportive of it.

27:23>> Mr. Perkins,

27:24>> um I agree. I think the the

27:26nonconformity of the new law is minor

27:29compared to the nonconformity that

27:30they're currently dealing with,

27:32especially if there were two different

27:33owners to the property. So, I think it's

27:35more helpful to both units to correct

27:38this.

27:38>> Mr. Winters,

27:40>> I agree 100%.

27:41>> Yeah. And I agree with my colleagues

27:42also. Anyone would like to make a

27:44motion?

27:44>> I'll make a motion.

27:45>> Please do.

27:46>> I move to grant the variance from

27:48sections 28-4-1

27:50and 28-4-1

27:52HNC uh to allow for a frontage of 93.42

27:56ft of frontage where 100 ft is required

27:59at 110 School Street at tax map and lot

28:027321Z23

28:04located in the single family residential

28:06district because of all the criteria

28:08under RSA 67433 have been met based on

28:11the record before us. And I move to

28:13adopt the applicant's proposed findings

28:14as the board's finding of facts. Do you

28:16want me to read the second one as well

28:18or wait?

28:20>> Finish that motion.

28:20>> Finish this one. Okay.

28:22>> Is there a second?

28:23>> I'll second.

28:24>> Any discussion? Seeing none, all in

28:25favor say I.

28:27>> I.

28:27>> Any oppose?

28:29>> Oh, sorry.

28:30>> Motion carries. Go ahead on the second

28:32one.

28:32>> All right. I move to grant the variance

28:34from section 28-4-1H

28:36and 28-4-1B

28:38to allow for an 117

28:41111,79T

28:42lot where 12,500 ft is required at 110

28:46school street at tax map and lot 7321-

28:51uh Z23 located in the single family

28:53residential district because of all the

28:55criteria under RSA 67433 have been met

28:58based on the record before us and I move

29:00to adopt the applicant's proposed

29:01findings as the board's finding of

29:03facts.

29:04>> Is there a second?

29:05>> Second.

29:06>> Any discussion? Seeing none, all in

29:08favor say I.

29:09>> I.

29:10>> Anyone oppose? It's unanimous.

29:13>> Thank you.

29:14>> You're welcome.

29:26>> Yeah, I think we're good. Thank you very

29:28much.

29:29>> Great to see you.

29:30>> Pleasure.

29:32And Mr. Chair, I relinquished my

29:34temporary role.

29:36>> Thank you so much.

29:38>> It was an honor and a privilege.

29:40[laughter]

29:40>> Look way better on you than it does on

29:42me.

29:43>> We need to get you at least a clip on

29:45bow tie when you take [laughter]

29:48>> Oh, can I get bow tie for you?

29:49>> Yeah. Yeah.

29:51>> We'll do a special on it. M. Rice, would

29:53you join us for the balance of

29:54>> your face on?

29:56>> Thank you.

29:59>> Okay.

29:59>> Only if Nick gets a bow tie.

30:01Yeah, that would be a minimum

30:02requirement, wouldn't it?

30:05>> All right, that brings us to item 4.2.

30:10Ari Pollock with Gallagher Callahan and

30:12Gartrell PC requests a variance on

30:14behalf of Steven McAuliffe, trustee of

30:16the Carolyn Mclliff Trust to allow a

30:18three-foot uh sideyard setback where 15t

30:22is required in the single family

30:24residential RS district at 21 Valley

30:27Street. We I believe are uh required to

30:32take this back up again because we

30:34recessed this case before. Do I hear a

30:35motion to do so?

30:36>> So do so moved.

30:37>> Is there a second?

30:38>> Second.

30:39>> All in favor?

30:40>> I. Anyone opposed? The floor is yours,

30:43Mr. Pollock. Oh, would you Oh,

30:45>> I'll introduce myself.

30:46>> You don't look a bit like Mr. Pollock.

30:47>> I was having [laughter] you took the

30:50joke right out of my mouth. So

30:51>> would you identify yourselves? Oh, first

30:53time I'll swear you would. Would you

30:54both uh swear to tell the truth and

30:56nothing but

30:57>> we do.

30:58>> All right. And would you identify

31:00yourselves for the record?

31:01>> Certainly. So, as you aptly noticed, I'm

31:02not Ari Pollock. I'm attorney Emily

31:04Garing. I'm an attorney with Gallagher

31:06Callahan and Gartell who represents the

31:08applicant.

31:09>> Ellen Garing was it

31:10>> Emily Garing. Emily. Okay.

31:12>> Um I am filling in for Ari this evening.

31:14Um accompanying me is Paul Gibbons who's

31:16the project manager from our design

31:18team. Um this was an an application that

31:21was continued from the September

31:23meeting. I'm hoping tonight's largely a

31:25matter of housekeeping with the board.

31:27Um, back in September, you requested a

31:29few materials from the applicant. Um,

31:32most notably was a plan that better

31:34depicted the retaining wall. Um, in your

31:37materials, you should see that we've um,

31:39submitted an updated plan where you can

31:40clearly see the location and width of

31:42the retaining wall. Um, one of the

31:44members also requested some renderings

31:47to be able to visualize what the

31:48retaining wall looks like and a couple

31:50of um, AI generated renderings have been

31:52included in the materials. And then most

31:56notably when we were here in September,

31:58there was an AB butter um, represented

32:00by council that had concerns about the

32:02project. In the last month since we have

32:04reached a private settlement between the

32:06applicant and that abuter um in your

32:08materials you should have a withdrawal a

32:11formal withdrawal of the abut suggested

32:13good.

32:13>> Okay. So if you don't I have copies.

32:16>> Um so ultimately the you know the

32:18biggest hurdle that we had was an abuter

32:20who was concerned we've reached an

32:21agreement that everyone is happy with.

32:24Um my understanding is that when AI was

32:28here, attorney Pollock when he was here

32:30in September walked through all of the

32:32variance criteria um and why each of

32:35those criteria are met. I'm certainly

32:37happy to walk through them, but I don't

32:38want to belabor the points if the board

32:40feels comfortable with the evidence that

32:41it received back in September.

32:43>> How does the board feel about that?

32:45>> I just want to make it clear I wasn't

32:47present for the September meeting.

32:49>> All right. Um

32:51>> why don't you give us a brief precy so

32:54that uh we're all at the same point

32:56>> certainly our understanding

32:58>> certainly we're seeking a variance from

32:59section 28-4-1HD3

33:02which are the dimensional standards

33:04there's a 15 foot required setback we're

33:07proposing to build a retaining wall that

33:09is approximately 4 feet off of the the

33:11shared boundary line with the abutter um

33:14the reason that we need the retaining

33:16wall is that the residence itself is

33:18going to be um developed with an

33:20addition, a garage and a breezeway. In

33:23order to accommodate those improvements,

33:25which will be entirely outside of the

33:27setbacks and compliant with the

33:28setbacks, we need to have this retaining

33:30wall to stabilize um the property.

33:32There's a very significant grade between

33:34the otter's property and the subject

33:36parcel.

33:38>> I can quickly run through the variance

33:41criteria for you. um for the public

33:43interest. The reason we have these

33:45setback requirements is to make sure

33:46that there's not overdevelopment or

33:47crowding right up on the boundary line.

33:49Again, we've now reached an agreement

33:50with the Abutter um to you know broker a

33:53deal that everyone's quite comfortable

33:54with. Also, this house was constructed

33:57around 1925 on a 0.25 acre lot. So, it

34:00predates zoning considerably. So, the

34:02the location of the structure was there

34:04before we had these setback

34:06requirements. Um therefore the the

34:09retaining wall is entirely within the

34:10public interest because it's not

34:11creating overcrowding. It's not um

34:13introducing new buildings or

34:14overdevelopment on the property line.

34:17The spirit of the ordinance is quite

34:19related to the public interest. Again,

34:21the reason that we have these setback

34:23requirements is to make sure there's not

34:24overdevelopment over intensification. Um

34:27the spirit of the ordinance also allows

34:28for flexible zoning. Um this is a

34:31residential improvement to support the

34:32existing residential use. So it's

34:34consistent with the spirit of the

34:35ordinance.

34:38for the substantial justice prong. Um,

34:40our guiding factor there is that if

34:42there is any detriment to the applicant,

34:44it must be outweighed by a public

34:45benefit. If there is not this relief to

34:47have a retaining wall, there isn't a

34:50sufficient building envelope to be able

34:51to put these improvements. And so, these

34:53residential um improvements would not be

34:55able to be affectuated without some sort

34:57of relief for the retaining wall. Um, to

35:00the contrary, the public has not

35:01benefited in any way by denying this

35:03variance. It's a typical residential

35:05improvement in a typical residential

35:07neighborhood.

35:09As to surrounding property values, we

35:11have no evidence to suggest that this is

35:13going to diminish surrounding property

35:15values. Again, it's already developed as

35:16a single family residence. It will

35:18remain a single family residence, just a

35:20single family residence with a nice

35:21looking retaining wall in the backyard.

35:24And then the last is the hardship prong.

35:26So, as I mentioned a minute ago, this um

35:29this lot and the development predate

35:31zoning. It's a 0.25 25 acre lot um with

35:35there's significant slopes and grades

35:37along the side of this lot without the

35:39retaining wall. We don't have the

35:40ability to get a developable building

35:42envelope um because the purpose of

35:45setbacks is to make sure that we don't

35:46have overdevelopment and there's proper

35:48separation between the neighbors and

35:50here that the neighbor who would be most

35:51impacted has agreed to this work.

35:53There's no substantial relationship

35:55between a strict application of the

35:56ordinance and this particular project.

35:59And then lastly, the use is reasonable.

36:01As I said, it's it's a um residential

36:04use. It's a retaining wall to support

36:06the backyard of a residential use and to

36:08support further additions to the

36:10residents.

36:11>> Could we call up the drawings that with

36:13the new information?

36:14>> Certainly.

36:14>> It'll be under supplemental.

36:17>> Thank you.

36:20>> Certainly. So, this first exhibit

36:24>> if you see right here is where the

36:26location of the retaining wall is.

36:30And And if I scroll down, uh this is the

36:33existing condition right now where the

36:35excavation has occurred and this is what

36:36will be remedied with the retaining

36:38wall. So it'll be far more aesthetically

36:40pleasing than than what you see in the

36:42existing condition.

36:44And then these again these are AI

36:45renderings. These these aren't actually

36:47constructed, but to give you an idea of

36:49generally what the retaining wall will

36:50look like.

36:58>> Very good. Can we get back to the plan?

37:06So the retaining wall is on this

37:09property just it's within the setback.

37:11>> Exactly. The retaining wall and the

37:12additions are entirely within um the

37:15subject parcel is just that it's within

37:17the 15t setback but nothing will cross

37:19the boundary.

37:24Any

37:29questions from the board?

37:30>> No.

37:31>> Good.

37:32>> No.

37:34>> Anything else you'd like us to know?

37:36>> No. If you have questions, I'm happy to

37:37answer them. Um, like I said, I don't

37:39want to belabor any point since we're

37:40already on our second.

37:41>> No, but thank you for clarifying because

37:42I wasn't here.

37:43>> Certainly.

37:45>> Very good.

37:47>> Thank you very much.

37:48>> Thank you.

37:58Is there anyone who wishes to be heard

38:00in favor of this appeal

38:02or in opposition to it? Any further

38:05comments from the planning office?

38:07That will declare the public testimony

38:09portion of the hearing closed and I will

38:12begin with Mr. Walner and ask his

38:14thoughts on this matter. Well, I think

38:16the the hardship is evident in just uh

38:19the matter of the topography of the land

38:22that makes it unusual to do some of the

38:25things that most folks would like to be

38:27able to do with their property.

38:31>> Mr. Wters.

38:33>> Yeah, I agree. I think due the to the

38:35extreme uh grade of variation on the

38:40land um you know a retaining wall will

38:43is a reasonable use to allow them to

38:45make you know better use of of the of

38:49the land they do have. You know without

38:51it a lot of the a lot of the property is

38:52basically inaccessible for most types of

38:54uses. And um I I know that the neighbor

38:58withdrew their um their opposition. Um,

39:01my feeling on that was that I thought a

39:03lot of their concerns were probably

39:05valid, but that was more of a civil

39:06issue that it wasn't a zoning issue. So,

39:09I you know, I was prepared to

39:12>> I'm prepared to approve it, you know,

39:14and I'm glad that they worked it out.

39:16[snorts]

39:18>> Yeah, I'm glad they I'm glad they worked

39:19it out, but from what's just been

39:21explained, I have no problem with it.

39:24>> I agree.

39:25>> Very good. I agree with my colleagues as

39:27well. Would anyone care to make a

39:28motion?

39:29>> I'll do it. So I move to grant the

39:31variance from section 2841HD3

39:34to allow a three-foot sideyard setback

39:37whereas 15 ft is required in the single

39:38family residential RS district a tax map

39:41in lot 6531/Z14,

39:4521 at 21 Valley Street because all the

39:47criteria under RSA 67433

39:50have been met based on the record before

39:52us and I move to adopt the applicant's

39:53proposed findings as a board's finding

39:55effect.

39:56>> Is there a second?

39:57>> A second. Any discussion? All in favor,

40:01please say I. I. Anyone opposed? The

40:04vote is unanimous. The motion carries

40:07and the variance is granted. That brings

40:09us to item 4.3. Laura Spectre Morgan and

40:13Julia Morgan request a variance to allow

40:16for a one- foot side setback and 8-oot

40:19side setback for the construction of a

40:21garage at 175 Hoy Road at uh located in

40:25Open Space Residential RORO District.

40:31>> So, tell the truth and nothing but

40:32>> I do.

40:33>> Would you please identify yourself for

40:35the record and fill us in on why you

40:37believe this variance is appropriate

40:39then?

40:39>> Sure. Uh my name is uh Julia Morgan. I

40:41live at 175 White Road. Um we're

40:44requesting uh a variance on the required

40:4740 foot setback uh under section 2852

40:50and 2858

40:522841H.

40:55Um starting with public interest. Um

41:00you know we believe that the you know

41:02the purpose of the setback uh is uh to

41:06prevent overcrowding of lots and to

41:07allow uh you know fire and other

41:10emergency vehicles to be brought into

41:13the property. Um based on where the

41:16structure we're proposing the structure,

41:17we don't feel it as though there's an

41:19issue with that. It's um roughly 80 feet

41:22from uh the structure on the neighbor's

41:24property [snorts] and um is would be

41:28located where an existing shed is

41:30located.

41:32Um regarding the uh substantial justice,

41:36uh the garage is consistent with the

41:38area's present use. There's other

41:39properties in the area with similar uh

41:41structures on or very close to the

41:43property line. Um there's really no gain

41:47to the public from enforcing the side

41:49setback as far as we're concerned. Um

41:52the uh the garage is separated from

41:54structures as I mentioned by at least 80

41:56ft and it'll be uh it'll be located in

41:58the same place as an existing structure.

42:01Um you know there's enough separation

42:03there um between existing structure for

42:06fire and so on and so forth.

42:12Um, regarding property values, uh, we

42:15don't believe, uh, building a garage

42:17would, uh, hurt any property values

42:20around the property. We we believe it

42:22would, uh, at least enhance adding

42:25property value to us, would also help

42:27property values around us. So, we don't

42:28think there would be any issues there.

42:32Um as far as unnecessary hardship is

42:35concerned um in the material that we had

42:38submitted there was a um drawing or

42:40survey where the proposed garage would

42:42would be. Uh as you can see the driveway

42:46itself actually comes up that side

42:47setback. The way the property is

42:49oriented uh it's at a at an angle and

42:52the house is pretty square to Hoy Road

42:54if you're familiar with the area.

42:57um just the orientation of where that

43:00garage would be placed uh naturally

43:03would be placed in that side setback. Uh

43:06there's a a hammerhead on the existing

43:08driveway and the garage would go right

43:10up against that. Um,

43:14as far as um,

43:18you know, mentioned the unique shape,

43:20its topography, I'll also mention that

43:22other parts of the property, the high

43:24point of the property is in the front

43:26and the low point is in the back.

43:28There's a very general slope that goes

43:29into wetlands on the neighbor's

43:31property. That's where the water

43:32drainage is on the property. So, as we

43:34get further and further back into the

43:36property, it does get more and more wet,

43:38particularly in the spring.

43:40Um,

43:47as far as

43:53fair and substantial relationship

43:54between the general public purposes and

43:56the ordinance provision. Uh we've

43:58already stated or I've stated that the

44:00um the purpose of setback requirements

44:03are to prevent overcrowding and uh of

44:05lots and fire uh protection which we

44:07feel are are not relevant in this

44:09particular matter and um a garage as far

44:13as uh reasonleness the garage is a

44:15permitted use in the district. So

44:19>> that's what I have.

44:21>> Any questions for Miss Morgan?

44:23>> So you currently don't have a garage? We

44:26currently have a twocar attached garage.

44:30>> So that would be removed or

44:33>> is it would be existing. So the current

44:35property right now that that purple if

44:37you will uh there's a garage as part of

44:40that uh that front walkway which is

44:42green goes up to the front of the house

44:44and to the left of that there's a a a

44:46jog.

44:47>> Is it more of a garage under?

44:49>> The garage is on the side. So as you go

44:51up that driveway the garage goes into

44:53the side of that that structure. I see

44:55>> right there. Yeah. So, there's a twocar

44:57right there.

44:59>> Did you also say that there is an

45:01existing building where the garage was

45:04to be built?

45:05>> Yeah. So, um on the materials there's an

45:08actual map that was submitted. It's

45:10might be able to be seen on that if you

45:12scroll up

45:14or down.

45:17>> Oh, yeah.

45:19[snorts]

45:26So, you're tearing that down and putting

45:28this in place of it.

45:29>> That's the idea. Yeah.

45:33>> Could So, I think I think you explained

45:36you can't really put it directly behind

45:37the house because it's very wet there

45:40>> and and not on this map. There's a well

45:42right there in between the pool and the

45:44and the proposed structure.

45:45>> What about could you could you attach it

45:49to the side of the house? that would

45:51still require us to go into the setback

45:53and I'm not sure it would change

45:56anything that I've laid out here tonight

45:58as far as um

46:02you know the spirit of the of the

46:03ordinance itself.

46:09>> Yeah. Based on the angle of the house

46:13that creates a very difficult building

46:16area

46:18to add that Any

46:25other questions from the board?

46:30>> Anything else you'd like us to know?

46:31>> No.

46:32>> Thank you very much.

46:32>> Thank you.

46:33>> Is there anyone here who would like to

46:35be heard in favor of this appeal?

46:38Is there anyone here who would like to

46:39be heard in opposition to it?

46:42Any comments from the planning

46:44department? With that, we'll close the

46:46public testimony portion of the hearing

46:48and I will invite the members of the

46:51board to consider the case.

46:57Beginning with Mr. Wers,

46:59>> I think

47:02it's it's a it's a large lot and the the

47:05distance although it's right on the the

47:07setback in this case, if you look on the

47:09map, the distance from the neighbor is

47:11quite far. So,

47:15doesn't

47:17perhaps they could they could put it

47:18somewhere else in the lot, but I mean

47:20they you know I'm sure they thought

47:21about a lot and they they have their

47:23reasons why that it's not really going

47:24to work well somewhere else and then a

47:26lot of the spaces is just not feasible

47:27because of the well or because of the

47:29wetlands. So I I don't think it's

47:31causing any um causing any problem for

47:35the neighbors given how far apart the

47:37neighbor's house is. and it's pretty

47:39consistent with the the character of the

47:41neighborhood because it's a pretty it's

47:43a pretty, you know, open area.

47:46>> Miss [snorts] Perkins,

47:48>> uh, I agree with everything Andrew just

47:50said. I think with the angle of the

47:51house and they'd be in the setback no

47:53matter what. So to try to require them

47:56to move it, um, would wouldn't be

47:59beneficial to anyone.

48:01>> Miss Rice,

48:02>> I agree. I think that uh the spirit of

48:05the ordinance is is it's consistent with

48:07the spirit of the ordinance. Um doesn't

48:10seem to be contrary to public interest.

48:13No diminishment of surrounding values. I

48:16think it meets the criteria.

48:19>> Mr. Waller,

48:20>> I agree and have no additional comments

48:22>> which is my position as well. Would

48:24anyone care to make a motion?

48:27>> I can make the motion.

48:30I think

48:33I move to grant the variance from

48:35section 28-4-1D3

48:39and 28-4-1H

48:43to oh to allow for 1 foot side setback

48:47and 8 foot side setback for the

48:49construction of a garage at 175 Hoy Road

48:52tax map and lot 02-Z

48:572 located in the open based residential

49:00district because all of the criteria

49:02under RSA 67433

49:05have been met based on the record before

49:07us and I move to adopt the applicant's

49:09proposed findings as the board's

49:10findings effect.

49:12>> Is there a second?

49:13>> Second.

49:14>> Any discussion?

49:16All in favor, please say I.

49:18>> I. Anyone opposed? The vote is

49:20unanimous. The motion carries. The

49:21variance is granted. That takes us to

49:24case 4.4. Tyler Sullivan with Good News

49:27Garage on behalf of Haj's Development

49:29Corporation requests a variance to allow

49:32for the sale of or rental of motor

49:34vehicles other than construction

49:36vehicles in the Gateway Performance GWP

49:38district where the use is prohibited at

49:41261 sheep Davis Road. You swear to tell

49:44the truth and nothing but I do. Would

49:46you identify yourselves for the record,

49:48please?

49:49>> Yes. My name is Tyler Sullivan and I am

49:51here representing Good News Garage,

49:53which is a program of a Centria Care

49:55Alliance on behalf of the Hodgees

49:57Corporation.

49:59>> And my name is Brena Schneider. I'm the

50:00chief social innovation officer at

50:02Centria Care Alliance and Good News

50:05Garage is one of our programs.

50:08>> This is an unusual one.

50:10>> It is. It is. But I hope it's

50:12straightforward. I think it will be. Why

50:14don't you why don't you for the benefit

50:15of our uh vast listening audience at

50:18home, why don't you uh why don't you

50:21fill us in on the details?

50:22>> Absolutely. I'm here tonight uh

50:24requesting a variance from section

50:2620-2-4J

50:29table of permitted uses to allow for the

50:31sale or rental of motor vehicles other

50:34than construction vehicles in the

50:35Gateway Performance District where the

50:37use is prohibited. Um this is uh the

50:40request is for 261 sheet Davis Road. um

50:44you know the the spirit of the or

50:46ordinance will be followed because we

50:49are not uh opening up a sales lot. So we

50:52are a social service organization that

50:54takes in donated cars from across New

50:56England and we work with state agencies

50:58and nonprofits to place those vehicles

51:01or award those vehicles with families,

51:04individuals in need, low-income

51:06individuals. Um, so we Entria has rented

51:11from this location for 20 20 some odd

51:13years I think. Um, and currently Good

51:15News Garage is located in Manchester. So

51:18really this is an effort to try to

51:19consolidate some of the offices that

51:21we're already paying space for. Uh, we

51:23would be joining several other social

51:25services at Sheep Davis.

51:28>> So you're not actually selling or

51:32renting the vehicles.

51:34>> We we are not. So, we need uh permission

51:37for this variant so that we can relocate

51:39our dealer's license

51:41>> to 261 sheet Davis here in conquered.

51:43>> Yeah, it's a good question. I missed

51:45that. I'm sorry.

51:46>> So, people donate their vehicles and and

51:49then obviously you you you want to get

51:53cash. So, how do you how do you convert

51:55those vehicles into cash?

51:57>> Yeah. So, uh so we we send them to

52:00auction. Uh we send them to an auction.

52:02>> Oh. Oh. Oh, you send you a wholesaler

52:05buys them from you.

52:06>> Exactly. So,

52:08>> and you have an arrangement with

52:10someone.

52:10>> We do. Yeah. So, uh you know, we get

52:14about a hundred donations, let's say a

52:15month. Um a large majority of those

52:18unfortunately are not going to be

52:19inspectable or safe. Um so, those will

52:22go through a wholesale auction and then

52:24those other vehicles are sent direct

52:26immediately directly to a body shop or

52:28an auto shop and we make repairs there.

52:32Um, at most we would have maybe three to

52:34four cars parked in the parking lot at

52:37Sheep Davis at 261.

52:40>> And how long would those cars be parked

52:42there? [snorts] On average, if they're,

52:44>> you know, two weeks is is a long period

52:46of time for them to be sitting there.

52:48Um, we we get them assigned to

52:50individuals and families pretty quick.

52:52Um, and then award those vehicles.

52:53>> That's amazing.

52:55>> Oh, so so it's you need a temp it's

52:59basically a temporary, but the people

53:00donate it. you have to do something with

53:01it when they when they give it to you.

53:03Yeah. Before you can arrange for

53:06whoever's going to ultimately get it.

53:08>> Yeah. The the variance request is truly

53:11just so that we can relocate our

53:12dealer's license or we have a used car

53:15dealer license here in New Hampshire. Um

53:18and so we need that the DMV directed us

53:21to get that that variance right before

53:24we can do that.

53:25>> Why do they require you to have a

53:26dealer's license if you're not selling?

53:29So, uh, we deal with auto automobile

53:31titles and so in order to, you know,

53:35sign those over, transfer those titles,

53:37request new titles [clears throat] from

53:38the state, we we are a licensed used car

53:41dealership. Yeah.

53:42>> So, that's part of your hardship.

53:44>> And is it my understanding that the

53:46majority of the things that you're going

53:48to be doing are just signing over

53:49titles, correct?

53:50>> At Sheep Davis Road.

53:52>> Correct.

53:54>> Question. You won't be doing any repairs

53:56and maintenance.

53:57>> We will not.

54:00Who who because I think I I think I know

54:02that you're right behind the target.

54:03It's like an office building, right? Who

54:04who

54:06else is in what are what are your um who

54:09else is in that building or the nearby

54:10buildings? Like what other types of

54:11offices?

54:12>> So at our unit at A1, I believe um we

54:15have a program services for new

54:18Americans. We have a program called the

54:20language bank which is interpretation

54:22services.

54:23>> Inhome care.

54:24>> I know

54:25>> we have an inhome care. We have

54:26therapeutic family connections which

54:28offers visitation for foster children

54:30with their their birth families. Um so a

54:33number of social services programs.

54:35>> Oh, but it's all under your So you don't

54:37you don't have any um unrelated

54:40neighbors who are renting space?

54:41>> I believe that the unit next to ours is

54:43empty. Is currently empty?

54:45>> Yeah.

54:45>> Do you own the building or

54:47>> No, Hajes Corporation owns the building.

54:49>> Okay. Which which unit are you?

54:52>> A1. And is hazard development okay with

54:55what you're requesting to do?

54:57>> Yes.

54:58>> Would you be willing to accept

55:00conditions on an approval that the

55:02organization that the use of the place

55:03be what you've described as opposed to a

55:05more conventional auto dealership?

55:07>> Of course. Yes. Absolutely.

55:09>> Yeah. I was thinking about that too for

55:12future use of the building. If it wasn't

55:13you,

55:14>> we could end up legal anomaly. Yeah.

55:17>> Not intending to.

55:18>> So I think with the correct restrictions

55:20would be the best way to

55:22>> Very good. Is there anything else you'd

55:23like us to know? Any other questions

55:25from the board? Nope. Thank you.

55:28>> Is there anyone here who would like to

55:29be heard in favor of this appeal?

55:32>> Anyone here would like to be heard in

55:33opposition to it?

55:36Would uh there be any comment from the

55:38planning office?

55:39>> Um just like Tyler had explained, we

55:42can't we have a paper that we have to

55:43sign off in the zoning office that

55:45basically says that they're permitted

55:46use. I couldn't sign off on the paper

55:49because the variance would be required.

55:52So

55:53again, like you had mentioned, Chair

55:56Carly, that I I do think that a

55:58condition would be applicable for this

56:00because if we do permit it the way that

56:02the motion is suggested here, um you and

56:06if they were to ever move out, we could

56:08then have somebody come directly behind

56:10and try to run a dealership. So if you

56:12would put a condition on that, I think

56:14>> pretty weird place to try and put a

56:15dealership.

56:16>> It would be, but

56:18>> hey, you'd be down the building. Do you

56:20have any specific language you would

56:22like to see us add um to that?

56:24>> Well, did they say I mean a maximum

56:26number of cars at a time would be

56:28logical? What I can we ask them real

56:30quick?

56:31>> Less than six like three three to four

56:33at most.

56:34>> So say say six to be safe is like

56:39>> and we have we have like 12 spaces that

56:43a centri has assigned to us in the back.

56:45>> Oh and you want to park there too?

56:46>> Yeah. [snorts]

56:47>> Okay. So they can't use them all.

56:51>> Okay. Very good. Uh

56:55with that, we'll declare the public

56:56testimony portion of the hearing closed

56:58and I will start with Ms. Rising and

57:01asking her thoughts on this appeal.

57:05[clears throat]

57:05>> Very interesting one. Um but I am in

57:08favor of granting the variance for this.

57:10I I certainly don't think it's contrary

57:12to the public interest. that allows for

57:14the continuation of of a worthy um

57:18social service. Uh spirit of the

57:21ordinance is observed. I think that they

57:24don't want to have car sales and lots of

57:26business. Um this is not what we we

57:29would see. It's paper signing

57:31essentially with a couple of up to six

57:34cars. Uh substantial justice I think is

57:37done.

57:39the or the we will not change the use of

57:42the building in the least. So I I think

57:45it uh meets the criteria for variance.

57:48>> How does it look?

57:50Do you miss Perkins?

57:52>> Um I think we should allow it with the

57:54restrict restriction of no more than six

57:56vehicles.

57:56>> Mr. Wers,

57:58I agree. I think that I mean they they

58:01are they are a used car dealer but

58:05obviously they're not you know what you

58:06would think of when if you look it up in

58:08the dictionary they've they have a

58:11dedicated

58:13contract basically. So they're not

58:15showing the car to any retail users um

58:18or even any any commercial users. It

58:21sounds like they they just have an

58:23automatic contract to to move it along

58:25to the to the person who's actually

58:26gonna going to market it. So, I mean, I

58:29think in addition to the six cars,

58:33we should also

58:35>> no repairs

58:35>> condition on no retail sales. They're

58:39not going to have

58:39>> or can we?

58:41>> So, um, regarding the repairs, that

58:43would fall under a different section of

58:44our zoning ordinance, which would be the

58:46automotive service repair shop.

58:47>> Okay, good. That's what I wanted to do

58:49that with the the retail portion of

58:51that.

58:52>> But we could say no retail, right?

58:54>> You can say no. Yeah, you can put other

58:56restrictions on how you would like to

58:59>> just for clarification

59:01>> for clarification of specifically what

59:03they're asking in their variance request

59:04>> because they could change their model

59:05and say, "Hey, we'll make we'll get more

59:07money out of these by selling them to

59:08people who want to buy them who then

59:10would come look at them." That would

59:11look different and we wouldn't want the

59:12variance to extend to that.

59:14>> Exactly.

59:15>> So, so I would ask for those conditions.

59:18>> Okay,

59:20>> Mr. Wallner,

59:22>> I agree. But we also have testimony that

59:24they weren't going to do that. So I

59:25think that might suffice in itself.

59:27>> Yeah.

59:29>> Um yeah, I don't think it hurts to add a

59:31few words to clarify.

59:33>> Very good. I agree with my colleagues.

59:35Uh I would support a motion to grant

59:38with conditions that preserve the

59:40character of the site.

59:42>> I'll make the motion

59:43>> future. Um, I move to grant the variance

59:45from section 28-2-4j

59:48to allow for the sale or rental of motor

59:50vehicles other than construction

59:51vehicles in the Gateway Performance

59:53District where the use is prohibited at

59:56261 Sheep Davis Road with the

1:00:00understanding it will be no more than

1:00:02six vehicles and no public sales

1:00:06allowed.

1:00:07Does that

1:00:10>> sound like it covers it? Sound I mean

1:00:13>> say uh did you have

1:00:15>> yeah public sales? Yeah, I think that

1:00:17that sounds right.

1:00:18>> In other words, consistent with the

1:00:19testimony we heard from the applicant.

1:00:21>> Consistent with the testimony we have

1:00:22heard from the applicant. Love it. All

1:00:24right. Tax map and lot 61-Z2-

1:00:28U- because of all the criteria under RSA

1:00:3167433

1:00:32have been met based on the record before

1:00:34us and I move to adopt the applicant's

1:00:36proposed findings of the board's finding

1:00:38effect.

1:00:39>> Is there a second?

1:00:40>> Second. Is there any discussion? All in

1:00:43favor, please say I.

1:00:44>> I.

1:00:45>> I.

1:00:45>> Anyone opposed? The vote is unanimous.

1:00:48The motion carries and the variance is

1:00:50granted. That brings us to item 4.5.

1:00:53Brian Beachch on behalf of Gary Silson

1:00:56request the following variances to build

1:00:58a garage at 113 Center Street and it is

1:01:02in a uh single family residential RS

1:01:07district. The variances would allow for

1:01:09a rear setback of 2.7 feet where 25 feet

1:01:12is required and allow for a side setback

1:01:16of 3.1 feet where 15 feet are required.

1:01:21>> You swear to tell the truth and nothing

1:01:22but

1:01:22>> I do.

1:01:23>> Would you identify yourself for the

1:01:24record, please?

1:01:25>> Yes. Brian Beach with Sheep Dog

1:01:26Enterprises representing Gary and Carol

1:01:28Soulson.

1:01:30>> What would you like us to know, Mr.

1:01:31Beach?

1:01:32>> Well, um start with uh Gary and Carol

1:01:35are in the audience. They're here to

1:01:36support this uh variance. Um, a little

1:01:39bit about them real quick. They've just

1:01:40lived in the current residence for over

1:01:4241 years. Carol's retired social worker.

1:01:45They raised three children. They have

1:01:46nine grandchildren. This is a place of

1:01:48gathering for them. Uh, [clears throat]

1:01:50Carol spends their time volunteering and

1:01:53uh Gary is a medical professional

1:01:55practicing uh doctor. So, they are in

1:01:59the community and involved. Um, this

1:02:01property is uh 113 Center Street. uh

1:02:05dates back to 1902. We are requesting

1:02:08the variance because there is an

1:02:10existing structure. I like to call it a

1:02:13carriage house. Uh it's deteriorating

1:02:16dating back to that time period. Wood

1:02:17floor. Uh believe Carol parks in it

1:02:21cautiously.

1:02:23Um the need to replace it exists. Uh it

1:02:26is in its current place. So we're

1:02:28basically looking to remove it and

1:02:31rebuild. Um the new structure would be

1:02:34slightly larger. Um on the back end

1:02:36we're going to be putting uh we're

1:02:38proposing 24 deep which is what it is

1:02:40now. Um and we would be going to the

1:02:43right. So uh not any closer to the left

1:02:46setback that 3.1 but we would be moving

1:02:48to the right approximately 4 feet.

1:02:51Um [clears throat] so uh in in

1:02:55petitioning for the variance uh we

1:02:58believe that it is not contrary to

1:03:00public interest because the current

1:03:01carriage house uh resides in the rear

1:03:04and side setbacks.

1:03:06Um carriage house shows signs of

1:03:08deterioration and needs uh repair and

1:03:10replacement. Like I said the floor

1:03:12covering is wood substructure is

1:03:14unknown. Um,

1:03:17replacing the structure with a modern

1:03:19code compliant garage both structurally

1:03:20and electrically would ensure safety of

1:03:23the homeowners and neighboring

1:03:24properties. Uh, the property dates back

1:03:27to 1902 when lots were very tight. There

1:03:29is no other viable option for placing

1:03:32this garage on the property without

1:03:34being in those setbacks.

1:03:36[clears throat]

1:03:37Uh and in the design process for it, we

1:03:40are staying with the uh historic look,

1:03:44you know, wood siding, you know, minimal

1:03:46windows, uh Koopa even uh trying to keep

1:03:49it with the character of the house in

1:03:51the neighborhood. Um Koopa is not shown

1:03:54in my picture. I have limitations in my

1:03:57rendering and design.

1:03:59>> So,

1:03:59>> no Koopa button in the CAD.

1:04:01>> Yeah. Well, the Koopa kind of came in

1:04:03last minute. Uh somebody had asked about

1:04:06it and I was like sure we can throw a

1:04:07Koopa up there. Um but uh we do believe

1:04:11that the spirit of the ordinance uh

1:04:12would be observed because we believe the

1:04:14spirit of the ordinance uh

1:04:16in that the existing garage as well as

1:04:18the proposed garage conform to the

1:04:20character and the time of the

1:04:21neighborhood. Um many surrounding

1:04:23properties have similar structures

1:04:24within the setbacks and those structures

1:04:26do predate the ordinances as well. The

1:04:29structures like our existing and

1:04:30proposed do not overpower the layout of

1:04:32the property and is in scale with the

1:04:34house.

1:04:35>> Uh garage honors the open space intent

1:04:38of the zoning uh where the proposed

1:04:39garage is replacing the existing

1:04:41sightelines will remain the same when

1:04:43viewed from school street and center

1:04:44street.

1:04:46Uh we believe it would do substantial

1:04:48justice because the current structure is

1:04:50deteriorating and requires replacement

1:04:52uh or substantial rehab. Owners who are

1:04:55elderly would like to be able to park

1:04:56their cars in a covered space during

1:04:58harsh New England winters. Uh the

1:05:00allowed construction would be modern. Uh

1:05:02would grant them that simple relief. And

1:05:04lastly, because the property and

1:05:05neighborhood were established in the

1:05:06early 1900s uh time frame, granting the

1:05:09variance corrects the historical

1:05:10penalties.

1:05:13Uh variants were granted the values of

1:05:16surrounding properties. We don't believe

1:05:17that surrounding properties values would

1:05:19be diminished. Um, I actually think the

1:05:22current structures maybe hurting

1:05:24property values. So, uh, that's kind of

1:05:27our official stance there. Um, a larger

1:05:30[snorts] garage, uh, wood siding fitting

1:05:33to the neighborhood should increase the

1:05:35property values.

1:05:38Uh, and then lastly, we believe

1:05:39unnecessary hardship. So, the

1:05:41unnecessary hardship would exist because

1:05:42the ordinance punishes the property and

1:05:44its boundaries dating back to 1902. At

1:05:46the time, twocar families and the need

1:05:48for covered parking really didn't exist.

1:05:50the ordinance establishing the setbacks.

1:05:52This lot is among the smaller lots in

1:05:54the area. Um hardship would be

1:05:56unnecessary because denying the variance

1:05:58does not provide real benefit to the

1:06:00community and does not improve

1:06:01sightelines or fix setback issues that

1:06:03have peacefully existed for decades. Uh

1:06:06homeowners are seeking a simply to

1:06:08simply remove the old structure that is

1:06:10failing, replace it with a modern

1:06:12structure that would allow uh the

1:06:13two-car parking. And we believe that the

1:06:15proposed use is reasonable.

1:06:19questions from the board.

1:06:21>> None.

1:06:22>> Is 28 by 24. Is that a pretty typical

1:06:25twocar garage these days?

1:06:27>> It gives you a little bit more room on

1:06:29the side. Uh they are requesting

1:06:31basically stair access for uh storage

1:06:34area above.

1:06:35>> So 24x 24 is sort of associated with

1:06:37being the most typical, but I feel like

1:06:39they've edged inched up a little in

1:06:41recent years.

1:06:42>> Correct. Yes. So 24x 24 is your standard

1:06:44detached garage. Um, again, when

1:06:46[clears throat] you park two cars in

1:06:47there, you have very limited room sides.

1:06:50Uh, 28 wide gives you that ability to

1:06:52have side storage, snowblower, trash

1:06:54cans, whatever, uh, and not feel

1:06:57crammed.

1:07:02Other questions from the board?

1:07:05>> Is there anything else you'd like us to

1:07:06know?

1:07:07>> No, sir.

1:07:08>> Thank you very much.

1:07:09>> Thank you.

1:07:11>> Is there anyone here who'd like to

1:07:12testify in favor of this appeal?

1:07:16Is there anyone who would like to

1:07:17testify in opposition to it?

1:07:20We do have a letter that was submitted

1:07:24and I should

1:07:26it it is from Paul Mris at 106 1110

1:07:31School Street who is in a butter I

1:07:33believe. Mr. Beach, have you seen this

1:07:35letter?

1:07:36>> I have not.

1:07:37>> All right. Why don't you take

1:07:42a minute to read it? It's not

1:07:50email. Did you get an email?

1:07:55>> You I think you saw it, but

1:07:57>> trying to pull it up now.

1:08:00>> Do you want We have an extra copy.

1:08:02>> Yeah. Do you mind passing around?

1:08:03>> We can share just a peek. I've read one.

1:08:05>> I read it. I've read the letter. Yeah.

1:08:08>> Uh yes, I did. That was

1:08:11>> I read it. Yeah, that was this one.

1:08:14>> Oh, right. Not to keep you all in

1:08:16suspense, uh, Mr. Mress had some

1:08:19concerns about impingement on his

1:08:22property during maintenance of the new

1:08:24building

1:08:25because of how close it is.

1:08:28I like to speak to that. I I noticed in

1:08:30the letter that he was concerned about a

1:08:32ladder accessing the roof, but yet in

1:08:34the picture, I noticed that there was a

1:08:35fence, which would not allow you to put

1:08:38a ladder where he was alluding to. What

1:08:41I what I'd like to do is is uh after the

1:08:44uh appellent has had a chance to look at

1:08:46this, if they want to offer any factual

1:08:48clarification and response, they they

1:08:51can do so and certainly ask questions

1:08:53about that.

1:09:04>> You bet.

1:09:05>> You ready to do so? Come on up, please.

1:09:08>> Answer Mr. Wall's question. Sir, tell

1:09:11the truth and nothing but the truth.

1:09:12>> I do.

1:09:13>> And identify yourself for the record.

1:09:14>> My name is Gary Soblesson. I'm the

1:09:16homeowner at 113 Center. First of all,

1:09:18this the fence that you're talking about

1:09:20is not the line that Paul Mris is

1:09:22concerned about. There's a fence on the

1:09:24>> other on one side towards a different

1:09:26butter. Um the Mr. Mress's property is

1:09:30just separated by shrubs. But the the

1:09:34only clarification I can make is it's

1:09:35it's the exact same line as the garage

1:09:37is on now. So the we're not the the

1:09:42current structure is 2.7 ft from his

1:09:44property line and we're building it at

1:09:46the exact same spot. We are we are

1:09:48wishing to extend it as is mentioned so

1:09:50we can fit two cars that don't currently

1:09:53fit in the garage at the current space.

1:09:54So we're asking to extend the the garage

1:09:56a little further out

1:09:58>> but to the side not to the back

1:09:59>> to the side not to the back. It's ex

1:10:01it'll be b it will be at the exact same

1:10:02distance from his property line. In his

1:10:05letter, he suggested a ch relocating the

1:10:09garage. Could you fill us in on why you

1:10:11feel that's that's not desirable,

1:10:13assuming you do that?

1:10:15>> Well, I I've been parking in that garage

1:10:16for 41 years, and I would tell you that

1:10:18it's a pretty tight fit from Center

1:10:20Street to come up a narrow driveway and

1:10:22make a turn into the garage and losing

1:10:25space going toward the house, if you

1:10:28will. Um, it would really be very

1:10:31challenging to park, more challenging

1:10:33than it is now. In fact, we cannot

1:10:35currently get two cars in into the

1:10:37garage because of the turn radius of

1:10:39cars and the fact that the cars are a

1:10:40little bit wider than than smaller cars

1:10:42and charges were

1:10:46photo up here.

1:10:47>> Did you have any comments?

1:10:49>> No, other than I just pulled up that

1:10:50this is the current 2026 area of the

1:10:53property.

1:10:53>> Any questions for Dr. Senson?

1:10:55>> No.

1:10:56>> Thank you very much.

1:11:02Well, that will declare the public

1:11:04testimony portion of the hearing closed.

1:11:06>> Wait, did

1:11:07>> Oh, was there someone else?

1:11:09>> He gave the letter to read.

1:11:12>> He didn't stand when he was

1:11:14>> He gave

1:11:17Pardon.

1:11:17>> I thought Mr. M.

1:11:21>> Did you have Did you have some comment

1:11:22on the letter?

1:11:23>> Um, no. I just I briefly kind of read I

1:11:26get the gist of what Mr. Mris was trying

1:11:28to stipulate. you know, he has concerns

1:11:30about obviously the garage being so

1:11:31close to the boundary and needing to

1:11:33paint it for maintenance and stuff, but

1:11:35the existing garage is in the same

1:11:37location. So, like that's been going on

1:11:39since the 1900s when it was being

1:11:41painted. Um, but also he voices some

1:11:44concerns over root systems of maybe a

1:11:46tree that's either on his property or

1:11:48something with us digging for the

1:11:49footing. There may not be a footing

1:11:51existing currently, but I guess my to my

1:11:55point, it's possible. I don't know what

1:11:56the root system looks like, but those

1:11:59root systems would be on Mr. Soulson's

1:12:02property. So, I I don't know how the

1:12:04board views that whenever someone's

1:12:06vegetation may encroach on your

1:12:08property, like what your obligations as

1:12:10a homeowner may be. You know, does that

1:12:12limit your ability to use it because you

1:12:14have to respect some of the neighboring

1:12:15property?

1:12:16>> It's not a zoning issue. I would they

1:12:18probably definitely would want to talk

1:12:19to a lawyer if you find some roots that

1:12:21would affect his tree. It's [laughter]

1:12:22>> possible. I I don't know. Um but again I

1:12:24don't know what I can't see either in

1:12:26the ground there may be nothing maybe

1:12:27something

1:12:28>> right

1:12:29>> but I don't

1:12:30>> do do you know a specialist in aroreal

1:12:32law

1:12:32>> no [laughter]

1:12:34>> there might be one in the audience

1:12:37>> very good thank you with that we'll

1:12:38declare the public testimony portion of

1:12:40the hearing in the back

1:12:41>> oh there is someone still

1:12:42>> I think Mr. Mus wants to

1:12:44>> oh Mr. Mers, I didn't realize you wanted

1:12:46to be here. I do apologize. Please come

1:12:47forward.

1:12:49>> Raise his hand first.

1:12:50>> I think he was.

1:12:52>> This is more of a question when I built

1:12:55I did the same I went through the same

1:12:57>> The record will show that it's the same

1:12:58Paul Mackers who was before the board

1:13:00earlier this is so um I went through the

1:13:05same process that Gary and Carol are

1:13:07going through and and they're right that

1:13:09that uh garage needs help. So, um I'm

1:13:14not opposed to them building the garage

1:13:16by any stretch. Um the issue is that

1:13:21with the 2.7

1:13:24foot setback as well as a larger garage,

1:13:29if it's wider than the existing garage,

1:13:32that'll push the peak taller, which will

1:13:34require if you [snorts] I mean, if you

1:13:36if you look at the OSHA recommended

1:13:39safety standard for a ladder, it's foot

1:13:44horizontal

1:13:46pitch I guess it would be to every four

1:13:49feet [snorts] in vertical height. So the

1:13:51higher the the wider it is with the same

1:13:53roof pitch as Gary has explained to me

1:13:57the u

1:14:00higher the building will be therefore

1:14:01require greater access

1:14:05than it has in the past. Number one,

1:14:08have they considered that? And number

1:14:10two, um, when I went through this

1:14:13process, I had to make concessions. And

1:14:15I did this 26 years ago, so it was a

1:14:18different board, but we had to make

1:14:20concessions.

1:14:21>> Some members, [laughter]

1:14:23>> we were on it.

1:14:24>> And

1:14:25>> you remember that case?

1:14:27>> So that we couldn't build the garage as

1:14:30close as it was prior when it was

1:14:33originally built in 1905 in my case. Um

1:14:37and in addition to that, so we had to

1:14:39move it away from the um rear common

1:14:44boundary to a point where we wouldn't

1:14:47need to access neighbors yard on any

1:14:50side. And we achieved that. One of the

1:14:53compromises that we have to make, and

1:14:54this is what I'm getting at, is have

1:14:56they considered

1:14:58making a compromise to 22 foot depth of

1:15:02the garage, which is what I ended up

1:15:05with, a 22x 24,

1:15:08and

1:15:10I've got a couple of big cars, and they

1:15:12fit. And I still have bikes hanging and

1:15:16uh lawnmowers and trash cans, even the

1:15:18big ones that the city's using now in

1:15:21the uh in the garage. So, um by maybe

1:15:26going to a 22 foot depth, maybe that can

1:15:30give a little relief on the back

1:15:32boundary on the setback.

1:15:36>> Very good. Thank you.

1:15:38It's extremely irregular for me to allow

1:15:41two bites of the apple for the

1:15:42appellent, but we did have new

1:15:44information offered. So, if uh you have

1:15:48anything, Mr. Beach or Dr. Silson, that

1:15:50you would like to say in response to

1:15:52that, we can we'll be willing to listen.

1:15:55It I'm hearing I'm seeing shaking heads.

1:15:58>> I'll add to it.

1:15:59>> Okay.

1:15:59>> I just want to address a couple things

1:16:01really quick um from a build standpoint.

1:16:05So, [clears throat] uh, Mr. Mus isn't

1:16:08wrong about, uh, pitch issues when it

1:16:10comes to the roof, right? Depending on

1:16:12the width of the structure, your pitch

1:16:14can increase, but pitch can also

1:16:16decrease. I could be at a four pitch

1:16:18roof. I could be at a 12 pitch. What

1:16:20that means is at a four pitch, my roof

1:16:22is much shallower. Right? At a 12 pitch,

1:16:24I've got a whole lot more headroom. So,

1:16:28I'm not going to say that necessarily

1:16:30that we're 28 wide means that we're

1:16:32going to be 20 feet off the ground of

1:16:33the ridge. we might be less and I

1:16:36apologize I can't crank the numbers real

1:16:38quick but you can alter the pitch. You

1:16:41could have a six pitch, eight pitch, 10

1:16:43pitch as far as the ladder goes. Um, and

1:16:47Mr. Macros may know this. I know this.

1:16:49Um, but painters use ladders.

1:16:52Painters use pump jacks. Anyone that's

1:16:55ever seen a vinyl sided house has seen

1:16:57pump jacks that are literally set a foot

1:16:59off the house and you go straight up

1:17:01vertically. they're anchored to the

1:17:03structure. So to that extent, you could

1:17:07use pump jacks to paint, which would

1:17:09alleviate the concern for safety. I

1:17:11don't know if we're here really to talk

1:17:12about the OSHA rules and things like

1:17:14that so much.

1:17:15>> It's not really part of what we have

1:17:17purview over

1:17:19>> certainly, but I just felt the need to

1:17:20add that about the pitch and potentially

1:17:22using pump jacks as an alternative means

1:17:24to painting the structure if you had to.

1:17:26It's unusual for a painter to use pump

1:17:29jacks, but it's possible. Um so just for

1:17:32consideration

1:17:33>> appropo of nothing I think it's about an

1:17:348 and 12 pitch in that drawing

1:17:40>> with that I'll declare the public

1:17:42testimony portion of the hearing closed

1:17:44and invite discussion starting with Ms.

1:17:48Perkins.

1:17:49>> Oh fun. Okay. So while I respect what

1:17:54Mr. Democracies come up with as an

1:17:56option and what he was willing to do at

1:17:58the time 26 years ago. The um appel the

1:18:02applicant actually, you know, made us

1:18:05aware of the difficulty of getting a

1:18:07vehicle around into the garage as it is

1:18:09to to have them shorten it. I think

1:18:11would just add to that difficulty. The

1:18:13garage is being rebuilt exactly where

1:18:16the current one is. And in looking at

1:18:18the surrounding properties, there's

1:18:20several garages um that are having that

1:18:24same exact issue um including the School

1:18:28Street property that abuts this property

1:18:31has a building that's right up against

1:18:33the property line. There's even one two

1:18:35houses down that's over the property

1:18:37line based on the tax map of course. So,

1:18:40I personally can understand the need to

1:18:43upgrade the garage with a new garage

1:18:45without trying to save enough of it that

1:18:47he doesn't have to be in front of us for

1:18:49a variance. And I would say we should

1:18:51allow it.

1:18:52>> Mr. Wers, how do you see it?

1:18:55>> I agree with that. And also, um, on the

1:18:58issues that Mr. Mack, a couple of the

1:19:01other issues he raised, which I think

1:19:02are valid potentially,

1:19:04he doesn't have to let them use his

1:19:06property. Now, it seems like maybe he

1:19:08has in the past or he would. So, he's

1:19:10kind of thinking in advance. But, I

1:19:11mean, if they, you know, if you build a

1:19:13garage, you have to have forecast the

1:19:16ability to maintain it. That's your

1:19:19responsibility.

1:19:20And if you dig up roots that kill your

1:19:24neighbor's tree, you know, they could

1:19:25sue you. So, I don't I don't think, you

1:19:28know, the the applicant I'm sure they're

1:19:30thinking about that. And if they come

1:19:31across roots, they're going to have to

1:19:33deal with it before they tear them up.

1:19:35That's that's not really a zoning issue.

1:19:38On the zoning issue, I I think the new

1:19:42rules,

1:19:43they wouldn't quite cover this, but they

1:19:45would almost cover this because I I

1:19:46think the new rules, if they ever pass,

1:19:48are going to say that you can rebuild on

1:19:50the same footprint, right? It's just

1:19:52this is

1:19:53>> Good Lord. I hope so.

1:19:54>> Yeah, that's what [laughter] that's what

1:19:55I would call not that not that we're

1:19:57following the new rules, but

1:19:59historically, if someone's rebuilding

1:20:00the exact same footprint, we we're

1:20:02pretty inclined

1:20:03>> to approve it. because otherwise you're

1:20:06just disincentivizing people improving

1:20:08their properties which is bad for the

1:20:09whole city. Now they're going a little

1:20:11bit over but I'd say it's pretty it's

1:20:14pretty trivial and for a pretty

1:20:16legitimate reason. I mean yeah he made

1:20:19concessions before that concessions

1:20:21usually aren't part of a negotiation

1:20:23with the board directly. He you know he

1:20:25probably had those discussions either

1:20:27with the city when he was making the

1:20:29application or either internally and

1:20:32maybe he made a wise choice. There's no

1:20:34way to know. But as far as this

1:20:35applicant goes, I mean, we only can rule

1:20:37on the application we have. And I think

1:20:39that this fund print is reasonable for

1:20:41this lot.

1:20:44>> Mr. Waller, [clears throat] I pretty

1:20:46much agree and I think uh what persuades

1:20:49me is the fact that uh in terms of the

1:20:51sideyard setback and the rear setback,

1:20:53we're using the exact same one on the

1:20:55rebuild. And also, I think the character

1:20:57of the neighborhood uh and the size of

1:21:00the lot lends to very limited potential

1:21:02of trying to move this this garage. And

1:21:04I think uh the applicant is entitled to

1:21:07a twocar garage as most of his neighbors

1:21:09have the same thing. M R

1:21:11>> I have nothing to add. I agree.

1:21:13>> As do I. Would anyone care to make a

1:21:15motion?

1:21:18>> I can do that.

1:21:20Um,

1:21:22I move to grant the the variance from

1:21:24section 28-4-1H

1:21:27and 28-4-1D2

1:21:30to allow for a rear setback of 2.7 ft

1:21:33where 25 is required at 113 Center

1:21:36Street Tax Map and lot 7321Z30

1:21:42located in the single family residential

1:21:44district because all of the criteria

1:21:46under RSA 67433 three have been met

1:21:49based on the record before us and I move

1:21:51to adopt the applicant's proposed

1:21:53findings as the board's finding of fact.

1:21:56>> Is there a second?

1:21:58>> I second.

1:22:00>> Someone second it.

1:22:02>> Second and third, but I'll take the

1:22:04second.

1:22:05>> Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Any

1:22:06discussion? All in favor, please say I.

1:22:09I. Anyone opposed? The vote is

1:22:11unanimous.

1:22:12>> The variance is granted.

1:22:14>> Another one. Oh,

1:22:17>> that's two variances.

1:22:20>> How about another motion?

1:22:22>> If it makes it easier, you can say

1:22:24>> the the proposed

1:22:26>> like you guys had did with Tim.

1:22:29>> Oh, we can lump. Oh, we

1:22:31>> got

1:22:32>> meaning you can adopt Well,

1:22:33>> so we could amend the motion to subsume

1:22:36>> include. Oh, you're saying we don't have

1:22:38to read all the the preset language in

1:22:41the memo. Yeah, I just remember Tim said

1:22:44that last time.

1:22:45>> He did and he was right.

1:22:47>> Can't [laughter] go with that.

1:22:48>> Yes.

1:22:49>> So,

1:22:49>> I missed that one.

1:22:50>> So, do we want uh does does the uh

1:22:53person making the motion wish to amend

1:22:55the motion?

1:22:56>> I would like to amend the motion to also

1:22:59um grant

1:23:02the uh side setback of 3.1 ft where 15

1:23:07ft is required at the same property.

1:23:10And the seconder is good with that.

1:23:13>> I am good with that. I am the secondary.

1:23:16>> All right. So, we we got a we got an

1:23:18amended motion and a good seconder.

1:23:22>> Is that like a football term?

1:23:23>> I guess it could be. Sounds like it. All

1:23:26right. U any discussion?

1:23:28>> Anybody got coffee or any discussion?

1:23:32>> No.

1:23:32>> All in favor, please say I. I. Anyone

1:23:35opposed? The vote is unanimous. The

1:23:38motion is granted and before you finish

1:23:41your car.

1:23:41>> Yeah. Anyone else want to take a break?

1:23:44>> You guys keep going. I'll be back.

1:23:48>> You should have a speaker in the room.

1:23:51>> We should have sounded.

1:23:53>> I thought of that.

1:23:53>> Well, yeah. And a mic.

1:23:55>> Yeah.

1:23:55>> Yeah.

1:23:56>> Like the common man except for it's not

1:23:58the comedian. It's just us. [laughter]

1:24:03>> Well, what we can do is uh announce the

1:24:05case in any case. And uh when Mr.

1:24:08winners comes back, we will get down to

1:24:10business. This is 4.6 Rachel Teague on

1:24:13behalf of Care Women's Center FKA Careet

1:24:16Pregnancy Center of Greater Conquered

1:24:18and they request a variance to allow a

1:24:21setback of 11 feet where 15 feet is

1:24:23required within the urban transitional

1:24:25UT district for the construction of an

1:24:27ADA ADA accessible ramp at 13 West

1:24:32Street. You swear to tell the truth and

1:24:34nothing but

1:24:35>> I do. Would you give us your name for

1:24:38the record?

1:24:38>> Rachel Teague.

1:24:40>> Would you wait a moment before you make

1:24:43your presentation?

1:24:44>> Sure.

1:24:45>> Thank you. [laughter]

1:24:54>> No worries.

1:24:58>> See, with your chair, you get to recess

1:25:01the meeting if you That's right. That's

1:25:03right.

1:25:03>> It's one of the perks.

1:25:04>> That's right. feel your devil.

1:25:05[laughter]

1:25:07[sighs]

1:25:07>> All right, Miss Teague, please let us

1:25:09know why you feel a variance is

1:25:10appropriate here.

1:25:12>> Um, I feel it's appropriate because

1:25:14we're trying to make handicap

1:25:16accessibility to our building. So, um,

1:25:22it would just change the set back um to

1:25:25about 9 ft instead of the required 15

1:25:29between the building and the sidewalk.

1:25:31Um but because of where our parking is,

1:25:33we have to and the grade of the ramp. It

1:25:36has to go around the front of the

1:25:38building. So um

1:25:41it won't change the existing use or

1:25:43intensity of the property or create any

1:25:46additional traffic to the area or noise

1:25:48or congestion. And it's just intended to

1:25:51provide safer, more accessible entry for

1:25:54individuals with mobility limitations.

1:25:58and we don't believe it will alter the

1:26:00essential character of the neighborhood

1:26:02or threaten public health or safety or

1:26:04welfare.

1:26:07So, um let's see. If the variance were

1:26:11granted, the spirit would be observed

1:26:13because the spirit and intent of the

1:26:15ordinance would continue to be observed

1:26:17because the request of relief um limited

1:26:20to the six foot reduction required in

1:26:23the front yard. Um it would improve

1:26:25accessibility to our building. Um

1:26:31the proposed ramp, it doesn't expand the

1:26:33principal building itself. It's just the

1:26:36ramp um so that people can get in and

1:26:38out.

1:26:44All right. Substantial justice. Granting

1:26:46the variance would do substantial

1:26:48justice because the benefit of allowing

1:26:50safe and accessible entry to the

1:26:52existing building substantially

1:26:54outweighs any minimal impact. resulting

1:26:57from reducing the front yard setback.

1:27:01It would allow construction of the

1:27:02wheelchair accessible ramp without

1:27:04changing the property's use or

1:27:06materially increasing development on the

1:27:09site. Um, if the variance is denied, we

1:27:12wouldn't it would significantly restrict

1:27:15the ability to provide practical

1:27:17accessible entry.

1:27:22>> Questions from the board?

1:27:25Anybody? Is there a sidewalk on West

1:27:27Street?

1:27:28>> Yes.

1:27:28>> And you're going to be 11 ft from the

1:27:30edge of the sidewalk. Is that correct?

1:27:32>> I believe so. Close enough.

1:27:34>> Yes. Um, yes, that's what the drawing is

1:27:37showing.

1:27:40>> Okay. So yeah, we provide free services

1:27:46to the community and um just trying to

1:27:49upgrade our building so it is more

1:27:50accessible

1:27:52and we have one ramp to one area but we

1:27:54have two separate um areas that we

1:27:57service people and this entrance

1:28:01the steps themselves need to be adjusted

1:28:03so that they're in compliance too. But

1:28:05we'll end up putting in the ramp if if

1:28:07we can, which will increase

1:28:09accessibility.

1:28:11>> Thank you. Other questions from the

1:28:12board?

1:28:14>> Is there anything else you'd like us to

1:28:15know?

1:28:17>> I think that's it.

1:28:18>> Thank you very much.

1:28:19>> Thank you.

1:28:20>> Is there anyone who'd like to be heard

1:28:21in favor of this appeal?

1:28:24Is there anyone who'd like to be heard

1:28:25in opposition to it?

1:28:27>> Any comments from the planning office?

1:28:30Um just as stated in the in the staff

1:28:32report that there is the RSA that would

1:28:35allow for the the board if in finding

1:28:38that in the variance that the variant

1:28:40shall survive only as long as the

1:28:41particular person um has the continuing

1:28:45need um of the use of the premises for

1:28:47the the ADA. So if you guys felt so

1:28:49inclined to condition it as such you

1:28:52could do do that as well which is staff

1:28:55report.

1:28:55>> Very good. Thank you. But wait, wait,

1:28:57I'm sorry. But this isn't for a specific

1:28:59person, right? This is for the general

1:29:01public.

1:29:01>> It's for the uses of the premises.

1:29:03>> But you meant for the for the appellent.

1:29:05>> Yes.

1:29:06>> Yeah. Okay.

1:29:07>> So, we limit it to the current

1:29:09appellent.

1:29:09>> If you if you so choose to needed to

1:29:12find Yeah. We need to do that.

1:29:13>> Yeah. Okay. Very good. Thank you.

1:29:15>> Which which would mean that if someone

1:29:17else bought that property, they would

1:29:18need to take the ramp down

1:29:20>> if you conditioned it as such. Yes.

1:29:22>> Or they didn't need it.

1:29:24>> And they didn't need it.

1:29:28which

1:29:29>> yeah, I don't think I'd want to put that

1:29:30restrict.

1:29:31>> Yeah, I Yeah, I mean I can't see

1:29:33anything

1:29:35appreciate that.

1:29:36>> But I appreciate knowing there's so few

1:29:39things I know that it's just really

1:29:41important to have a new one now and

1:29:42again.

1:29:43>> Uh with that, we'll declare the public

1:29:45testimony portion of the hearing closed

1:29:48and I'm going to invite Mr. Walner to

1:29:52dive into this one at the shallow end.

1:29:54Yeah, I see no reason not to grant it.

1:29:57Um certainly um 11 ft uh up to a

1:30:01sidewalk is more than ample room I think

1:30:04uh for pedestrian traffic won't be

1:30:06encumbered. Um and I think it's a

1:30:08reasonable request.

1:30:10>> Mr. Wers.

1:30:11>> Yeah. And then this is um this is not my

1:30:14expertise, but I believe that there's

1:30:17law there is laws that potentially could

1:30:21exempt somebody from needing a variance

1:30:23if the primary purpose is to accommodate

1:30:25disabled people.

1:30:26>> That's what I was just explaining.

1:30:27>> Oh, okay. Okay. So, I'm not I'm not if

1:30:30they had asked

1:30:31>> or [snorts] argued that they don't need

1:30:33a variance, I that may be persuasive,

1:30:35but they didn't even try that route.

1:30:37They just played it completely straight.

1:30:38And so I certainly agree that this is

1:30:42more than a reasonable use to try to

1:30:44retrofit a building to allow

1:30:47disabled access. In the past, the board

1:30:50has I cannot remember a time when it

1:30:52didn't consider handicapped

1:30:53accessibility to be de facto hard.

1:30:55>> Absolutely.

1:30:56>> Justifying a variance. That's what it

1:30:58was needed.

1:30:59>> Miss Perkins,

1:31:00>> I'll ditto that.

1:31:02[snorts]

1:31:03>> Ditto the ditto.

1:31:04>> Okay. [laughter]

1:31:05And the chair dittos them all.

1:31:08Did would anyone care to make a motion?

1:31:09>> I guess I will since I made uh I was the

1:31:12first one to speak on it. So I moved to

1:31:14the uh Oops. No, that's the wrong one.

1:31:17[laughter]

1:31:17>> Wow.

1:31:19>> That's what happens when you follow the

1:31:21script.

1:31:21>> Too close.

1:31:23>> Go up a paragraph here. I move to grant

1:31:25the variance from section 2841H and

1:31:272841D1 to allow a setback of 11 ft where

1:31:3115 ft is required within the urban

1:31:33transitional district for the

1:31:34construction of an ADA accessible ramp

1:31:36at 13 West Street tax map and lot

1:31:387442/Z43

1:31:41because all the criteria under RSA 67433

1:31:45have been met based on the record before

1:31:46us and I move to adopt the applicant's

1:31:48proposed findings as a board's finding

1:31:51of fact.

1:31:51>> Would anyone care to second that?

1:31:53>> Second. It's been moved and seconded.

1:31:55Any discussion? All in favor, please say

1:31:57I. I. Anyone opposed? The vote is

1:32:00unanimous. The motion carries and the

1:32:04variance is granted. And that brings us

1:32:06to 4.7.

1:32:08Nick Barth Bartholomeo on behalf of 32

1:32:12Federal Street Conquered LLC requests

1:32:14the following variances to construct a

1:32:16single family home at 32 Federal Street

1:32:19to allow a 5-ft front setback where 15

1:32:22ft is required. to allow a 4-foot rear

1:32:24setback where 15 feet is required. To

1:32:27allow a 4-foot side setback where 15

1:32:30feet is required to construct a single

1:32:32family dwelling on a non-conforming lot

1:32:35that cannot meet all yard requirements.

1:32:38Uh before we get into the Well, let me

1:32:40swear you all in. Is everyone going to

1:32:43testify?

1:32:44Swear to tell the truth and nothing but

1:32:47>> All right. And we'll get you to identify

1:32:49yourselves in a moment. But when I

1:32:51looked at the paperwork, I saw a two

1:32:53family house

1:32:55>> that was pre the previous which was

1:32:57denied. Now they're proposing a single

1:33:00family. So you're thinking back.

1:33:02>> So is there a drawing showing a single

1:33:05family house?

1:33:05>> There should have been a single family.

1:33:08>> Did I just miss it? Is it there?

1:33:10>> What's that?

1:33:11>> Single family house.

1:33:12>> It's the It's the same footprint just

1:33:16>> you're playing the same footprint.

1:33:17>> Yes.

1:33:18>> All right. Well, very good. Would you uh

1:33:21identify yourselves, please, as you

1:33:23testify?

1:33:24>> Uh, Robert Previty. On behalf of the

1:33:25applicant, I'm here with my business

1:33:27partner, Ben Stevens, and our project

1:33:29engineer, Nick Deo.

1:33:33Yeah, it's a long one. [laughter]

1:33:37>> So, I

1:33:40um we're the owners of 32 Federal

1:33:42Street. It's in the Civic Performance

1:33:44District. There are 15 foot setbacks on

1:33:47every

1:33:48on every side, uh, front, rear, and on

1:33:52the sides. Um, the lot's approximately

1:33:552600 square feet, so it's very small.

1:33:58It's pre-existing the zoning code. Um,

1:34:03if can we put up the plan, the existing

1:34:07conditions right now? It's currently

1:34:08improved with a with a a lot that or

1:34:11with a building that is already within

1:34:13the encroachments. I think a picture

1:34:16really um

1:34:19you know speaks a thousand words so to

1:34:21speak.

1:34:22>> Yeah.

1:34:23>> On what we're dealing with here. Uh so

1:34:25so that little box right in the middle

1:34:27of the lot which again the lot's only

1:34:292600 ft. That's the building envelope if

1:34:32you apply the 15 uh foot setbacks on all

1:34:35sides. So really it it's not buildable

1:34:39within the within the setbacks which

1:34:41were imposed after most of this

1:34:43neighborhood was built out. If you look

1:34:45at this part of the tax map and I think

1:34:47Nick has the tax map up also most of the

1:34:51lots are also like in the Australian

1:34:54neighborhood are also you know at odds

1:34:56with the current setbacks. So they're

1:34:57not you know the setbacks are largely

1:34:59aspirational uh as applied in the

1:35:01district right now. Um,

1:35:11as I think as was mentioned at the

1:35:12beginning of the the meeting, we

1:35:13previously tried sought approval for a

1:35:15duplex that was denied. So, our last

1:35:19permitted use on this lot is a single

1:35:22family lot, single family use. Without

1:35:25that, we have nothing. The lot is

1:35:27completely [snorts] worthless. So uh we

1:35:30are here today seeking variances from

1:35:32the setbacks uh six feet in the front

1:35:37and five on the sides and in the rear.

1:35:40Um so that's that's kind of the

1:35:41overview. Just going to the the

1:35:44conditions for the variance on the

1:35:46public interest as I mentioned all the

1:35:50uh or many of the the residential

1:35:52buildings in the district are similarly

1:35:54non-conforming and and this proposed

1:35:57single family home would uh fit within

1:36:00the character of the district. Most of

1:36:01the other homes are single family or

1:36:04small multif family.

1:36:07>> Can you go back to the map?

1:36:13Looking at that building where you've

1:36:15proposed it, I don't Where's the five

1:36:17yard setback that you're looking for in

1:36:18the front? It looks to me like you've

1:36:20>> Oh, so that's not that's that's that's

1:36:21where the I'm sorry. That's where the

1:36:23the actual setbacks are. Like if you if

1:36:26you push 15 feet back, that's

1:36:29>> a building that's currently there. Is

1:36:31that

1:36:32>> that's a building that's currently

1:36:33there? Yes.

1:36:35>> So that's not necessarily where you're

1:36:37putting the building. That's just what's

1:36:39currently what is currently there.

1:36:41>> And then this is the proposed, right?

1:36:43This is the proposed

1:36:43>> stand. Thank you.

1:36:45>> So what is what what is the current

1:36:47building that's there?

1:36:48>> The current building is an old garage.

1:36:50It's dilapidated and we're looking to uh

1:36:53replace that with something that's more

1:36:55beneficial to the neighborhood

1:36:57>> because is it in use or it's not usable?

1:37:00The current garage

1:37:02>> uh there's some like refrigerators in

1:37:04there and some storage. U but but people

1:37:06parking. No, there's no parking inside

1:37:08of it.

1:37:08>> No.

1:37:10>> Okay, good. Very good.

1:37:12>> Please continue.

1:37:13>> So, so with regard to the public

1:37:15interest, as we as we just mentioned,

1:37:17right now, this is this is a kind of a

1:37:20unusable structure, kind of a vacant lot

1:37:22effectively. Uh the surrounding

1:37:24neighborhood is is largely single family

1:37:26and small multif family. Um and we we

1:37:30you know, we're proposing something

1:37:31that's context appropriate here. So we

1:37:33think that not only is it not contrary

1:37:35to the public interest but it's

1:37:36consistent with the public interest and

1:37:38advance advances the public interest.

1:37:41[snorts] Um similarly the spirit of the

1:37:43ordinance would be observed the

1:37:45ordinance uh for the zoning district

1:37:47specifically calls out highdensity

1:37:48residential as a as a use that's trying

1:37:51to foster which is right in line with

1:37:54what we're proposing as well. Um

1:37:59and of course like yeah the substantial

1:38:01justice problem is obvious that this lot

1:38:03we we can't do anything else with it

1:38:05other than to put a single family home

1:38:08on it. So without it we have uh we have

1:38:11no use for the for the land that's

1:38:13basically been stripped of any

1:38:15productive purpose.

1:38:16>> Where's the parking

1:38:18>> the park? It's there's garage. Um you

1:38:21can scroll down. There's still a garage.

1:38:23>> Yeah, it's underneath.

1:38:24>> So there's still

1:38:25>> But this showing us that multi

1:38:26>> Yeah. So that wall is going away and

1:38:28we're redesigning the interior a little

1:38:29bit just to a single family house.

1:38:32Okay. Um, but there will still be a two

1:38:35guard garage within it.

1:38:37>> I I recall that the neighbors weren't

1:38:40too happy about the prior proposal. Have

1:38:43Have you got feed Have you tried to get

1:38:45feedback from the neighbors on this one?

1:38:47>> No. And I I don't think anything was

1:38:49submitted with this application that we

1:38:51haven't heard from any of the neighbors.

1:38:52>> We didn't have renderings of the actual

1:38:54house.

1:38:55>> They were concerned about having two

1:38:57units and only two parking spaces. I

1:39:00think was one of the concerns and now

1:39:02it's two parking spaces for a single

1:39:04family home. Um, which

1:39:06>> you you know should be less impact on

1:39:09parking

1:39:10>> or no impact on parking.

1:39:11>> Yeah.

1:39:14>> What's the square footage of the

1:39:15footprint?

1:39:23>> Yeah. You zoom in there.

1:39:31We have a

1:39:52about,550

1:39:53square feet.

1:39:56I'm sorry.

1:39:58>> 1500.

1:39:58>> 1500.

1:39:59>> 1500.

1:39:59>> Yeah.

1:40:00>> And would it be a two-story or three

1:40:01story building?

1:40:03>> It is. Right now it's proposed. So, uh,

1:40:06it would be two and a half stories. Um,

1:40:09so it'd be within the

1:40:11>> 45T.

1:40:12>> 45 foot elevation. Um, just so we can

1:40:15put the parking garage, the garage on

1:40:18the first floor and then second floor

1:40:19would be kind of your kitchen, living

1:40:20room. And then the third floor would

1:40:22have slope ceilings, but there would be

1:40:23the bedrooms up there as well.

1:40:30We interrupted you. Please proceed.

1:40:32>> Happy to answer your questions.

1:40:34>> Um

1:40:37I think we're so substantial justice we

1:40:39touched on just basically without some

1:40:41sort of relief on these setbacks. We

1:40:42don't really have a usable lot and um

1:40:45there isn't I don't think like a a

1:40:47counter countervailing public interest

1:40:49in preventing single family housing

1:40:51certainly in the state which needs

1:40:52housing. Um

1:40:55on property values in the surrounding

1:40:58neighborhood

1:40:59right now you've got kind of a a vacant

1:41:01lot. Those are typically not viewed as

1:41:04accretive to property values in the

1:41:05surrounding neighborhood. So I think

1:41:07improving this with a a single family

1:41:08home would would improve the values for

1:41:10the surrounding neighborhood properties

1:41:12as well.

1:41:14Um and then you know l literal

1:41:17enforcement of the ordinance would be an

1:41:18unnecessary hardship like I just like we

1:41:21discussed and showed uh just on the

1:41:23existing conditions that trying to

1:41:26comply with that the existing setback

1:41:28requirements for the actual lot like

1:41:31that building envelope it's not it's not

1:41:33even the building envelope you couldn't

1:41:35build there so that alone I think um

1:41:39shows the hardship uh that that that

1:41:41we'd be seeking relief from um and again

1:41:46just in terms of the relationship

1:41:47between the the purposes of the setback

1:41:49requirements you know kind of light air

1:41:51and and safety they're all you know

1:41:54adequately addressed by our proposed

1:41:56setbacks I don't think there's a real

1:41:58risk of overcrowding or or you know fire

1:42:00safety or anything like that with the

1:42:02setbacks that were proposing

1:42:04um and then finally just uh the proposed

1:42:07use is reasonable uh like I said in the

1:42:09CVB CVP district um this use is

1:42:14encouraged, right? It's promoted as a as

1:42:17a high density multi a multif or excuse

1:42:19me, a high density residential um use.

1:42:23And then in the alternative you just

1:42:25added in as well, um we can't use the

1:42:27property for conformance with the

1:42:29ordinance. So, uh we do need some relief

1:42:32if if we're expected to do anything with

1:42:34the line.

1:42:36>> I think that's everything unless you

1:42:37have any other questions for us. One

1:42:39other thing I'd just like to mention is

1:42:41currently um it's 79% impervious and

1:42:45we're actually shrinking the impervious

1:42:47there and there is a lot of water issues

1:42:50along Federal Street that go it all

1:42:52slopes down and goes into the back

1:42:54between Federal and Spring. Um so this

1:42:58it's not helping much but you know it's

1:43:00it's a it is a reduction in impervious

1:43:03um soil right there.

1:43:06I also want to add the dimensions on

1:43:08that um plan show four feet but that's

1:43:11to the eaves and if I'm and to my

1:43:14knowledge the setbacks are to the

1:43:15building face of the wall.

1:43:17>> So under the ordinance um eaves are

1:43:20permitted as uh projections into the

1:43:22setbacks as long as they're under two

1:43:23feet and

1:43:25>> ours are about one.

1:43:27>> So

1:43:28>> um what are the dimensions of the house

1:43:30you're looking to put on? They are.

1:43:36So the sorry printed in the smallest

1:43:41possible thing I could scroll.

1:43:44>> I think perhaps we could also bring them

1:43:46up on the floor plans on the screen.

1:43:51>> If we could just

1:43:52>> Sorry, which one?

1:43:53>> Uh if you could scroll down to the

1:43:55architectural plans.

1:43:56>> Yeah, the original architectural

1:44:00zoom. So [snorts] that's still the two

1:44:02family design.

1:44:03>> Yeah. So that that's we haven't had our

1:44:05architect update the design. We're going

1:44:07to stay in the same footprint. Um but we

1:44:09wanted to leave the same width so we can

1:44:11get enough um for a real true twocar

1:44:14garage in there. Um

1:44:17>> and storage and HVAC down in the

1:44:19basement as well.

1:44:20>> So I have a question for staff. Does it

1:44:22matter that we don't have a rendering of

1:44:25what they're saying they're building

1:44:27compared to what is up there? Um,

1:44:33>> they put the proposed footprint down

1:44:35here.

1:44:36>> Okay.

1:44:36>> So,

1:44:37>> so it doesn't matter that we can't see

1:44:39what they're looking.

1:44:40>> I think for you guys to make a judgment,

1:44:42that's your call whether or not you

1:44:43would like to

1:44:45>> It's I think in some cases we we think

1:44:47it's highly relevant. Others

1:44:49>> it doesn't. So, it's up to us.

1:44:51>> I just want to be sure. And um

1:44:55>> and the impervious coverage of the lot

1:44:59>> is Is that not something they would need

1:45:01a variance for with this much coverage

1:45:03or

1:45:03>> we're still under the requirements

1:45:04though it's it's 80%

1:45:07>> is it 80%

1:45:08>> I thought it was 60.

1:45:10>> No

1:45:12this particular district it's it's four.

1:45:15Okay.

1:45:16>> And just to address the uh four plans

1:45:18also we're happy to stipulate or accept

1:45:21a condition on approval that it will be

1:45:23for single family only. Well, right.

1:45:27Obviously, [laughter]

1:45:28>> just wanted to clarify it. Yeah, we're

1:45:30just

1:45:30>> Is it So, is it that is it roughly going

1:45:32to be the same square footage as what

1:45:33the two family was?

1:45:34>> Yep. So, same same footprint in just

1:45:36different kitchen instead of two.

1:45:38>> Exactly.

1:45:39>> Exactly.

1:45:41>> And did you consider making anything a

1:45:43little bit smaller so there's a little

1:45:45more setback to it?

1:45:47>> Seems like you really

1:45:50tuck that in there as big as you could.

1:45:53Some some of it's if you if you could

1:45:55bring up the footprint again. I mean,

1:45:57some of it is driven by just trying to

1:45:59fit the garage under the house because

1:46:02that provide that kind of requires a

1:46:04certain width.

1:46:05>> So, at 1500 square ft of finish space,

1:46:08you're really looking at only 750 per

1:46:10floor

1:46:11>> at that point.

1:46:12>> Yeah. Especially with we're not doing a

1:46:14basement obviously, so all mechanical

1:46:16has to be

1:46:18>> on that garage floor. the garage floor.

1:46:21You're

1:46:21>> also not digging a basement. So that's

1:46:23it's a 1500 foot total square footage.

1:46:25>> Oh no, no, that it's a footprint.

1:46:27>> Footprint.

1:46:28>> Yeah. So it's square foot bill.

1:46:30>> And that's me trying to read these

1:46:31numbers off of this.

1:46:33>> Okay. That's a much different image than

1:46:35what I had in my head. That's why not

1:46:36seeing the house. I'm

1:46:38>> I am a little curious about the

1:46:39rationale. I think for the same reason

1:46:41that

1:46:41>> what's that?

1:46:42>> The the rationale for the size of it.

1:46:44Because you could you you could make

1:46:46this thing 24 28t wide and still have

1:46:49room for a two-car garage there and

1:46:50other storage in front of the cars and

1:46:53take up a lot less space. I'm just you

1:46:56going to wind up with a 3,000 foot house

1:46:59with a 1500 foot basement

1:47:03and no exterior space for yards or

1:47:06anything.

1:47:07>> I mean my house sits on an acre and it's

1:47:09exactly 1500 square feet of floor.

1:47:13>> Yeah. Well, this is not an acre.

1:47:15>> No, exactly.

1:47:16>> Well, I'm just saying it's it's a

1:47:18>> it's a big it's a big house for a single

1:47:21family house and

1:47:22>> right such a small

1:47:24>> a multi but and I'm wondering if what

1:47:27we're looking at is is not the

1:47:32>> Do you remember this case?

1:47:34>> Well, I got to come I'll wait till we

1:47:35discuss it. Yeah.

1:47:36>> Yeah. Okay. I don't remember why it was

1:47:38rejected before.

1:47:39>> Well, this was the three

1:47:41>> there was it was a card. There was three

1:47:42variances required for um a duplex.

1:47:46>> This was the case where it was only we

1:47:48had a three member panel. It was me,

1:47:50you, and Jim. Remember that?

1:47:52>> I didn't sit.

1:47:52>> But the issue was the cars.

1:47:54>> Okay.

1:47:54>> The issue then was the part. Yeah.

1:47:56Sorry. We're going

1:47:57>> Well, we're we're wandering.

1:48:00>> Yeah.

1:48:00>> Yeah. Sorry.

1:48:01>> Which we shouldn't be doing. So, please

1:48:04uh did you have more that you want?

1:48:05>> No, I think that's the end of unless you

1:48:06have any questions.

1:48:07>> Okay. Well, then would would you address

1:48:09the question of uh why not build a

1:48:12smaller house since it's only a single

1:48:13family house? You don't need 35

1:48:17ft wide garage unless you're going to

1:48:20have you could almost fit three cars.

1:48:24How how much?

1:48:25>> So, so I I think we'd be comfortable

1:48:28going down um about four feet. So, who's

1:48:31in one of the old hallways? Say the big

1:48:35thing is getting all the utility

1:48:36equipment within that first floor and

1:48:39also making it um in the back so you can

1:48:42walk out just into the back if they have

1:48:44a dog and just want to walk in the back

1:48:46little area around. Um

1:48:47>> better be a pretty small dog. There's

1:48:49>> I know [laughter] be cats too.

1:48:54>> Um no, but I think we could take take

1:48:58comfortably uh four feet off the width.

1:49:00I wouldn't want to touch the depth at

1:49:02all.

1:49:03>> What was the depth? Uh the depth is 40

1:49:0945T 4 and a/4 in.

1:49:12>> So it's it's two different depths. One

1:49:14is half of it's 40t deep and the other

1:49:17half is um

1:49:21>> doesn't say

1:49:22>> 40T.

1:49:25>> So this is just or I can talk about this

1:49:28after but

1:49:28>> yeah. Okay. We will

1:49:29>> talk about this after.

1:49:30>> Um any other questions from the board?

1:49:33Anything else you'd like us to know?

1:49:36>> No, not at this time.

1:49:37>> Thank you, gentlemen. Appreciate it.

1:49:38Thank you. Is there anyone here who

1:49:41would like to be heard in favor of this

1:49:42appeal?

1:49:46>> Is there anyone here who would like to

1:49:47be heard in opposition to please come

1:49:49forward?

1:50:01>> Good evening.

1:50:02>> Good evening. Do you swear to tell the

1:50:03truth and nothing but the truth?

1:50:05>> I do indeed.

1:50:05>> May we have your name, please?

1:50:07>> My name is Andrea Garno. I am a neighbor

1:50:10on Federal Street. Um, I've lived on

1:50:12Federal Street since 2003.

1:50:15>> What's What's your number?

1:50:17>> 19.

1:50:19[clears throat]

1:50:20I have a lot of concerns about this

1:50:23proposal. I've come to speak about them

1:50:25this evening. Um, the first uh thing I

1:50:29want you to know about Federal Street is

1:50:31that it's one of the most narrow streets

1:50:33in the city. I think we're just about 16

1:50:36feet wide. Um, on a good day in the

1:50:39winter, it gets even narrower because

1:50:42the city cannot fit a regular size snow

1:50:45plow down our street. So, we have to

1:50:47wait for the smaller truck. And

1:50:49>> but is it it's Is it a two-way or is it

1:50:50a oneway?

1:50:51>> It is a oneway.

1:50:52>> Okay. Um, and I there's also no parking

1:50:56on the street now. I believe they just

1:50:58put up a bunch of signs. Um,

1:51:01the

1:51:03lot currently um I do um want to say

1:51:08that it's being used for parking right

1:51:11now. Um it was formerly owned by Deetsz

1:51:14Hines um who was a longtime property

1:51:17owner owned about four properties

1:51:20apartment buildings um in the area on

1:51:23Spring Street and on Federal Street. And

1:51:26that um area in front of the garage um

1:51:30is used for parking by the residents of

1:51:32those multi- family apartment buildings.

1:51:37Federal Street has about 14 structures

1:51:40on a 14 houses. Um, and it's evenly

1:51:43split between single family and

1:51:46multi-unit housing. Um, and since

1:51:50there's no parking on the street,

1:51:52parking tends to be a bit of a concern

1:51:55on the street. So the right now there's

1:51:59about four cars that park in front of

1:52:02that garage belonging I believe to the

1:52:04unit across the street. Whether or not

1:52:07that's owned by 32 LLC, I don't know,

1:52:11but um it is being used um for those

1:52:15units. And also the house across from

1:52:20there um the tenants park like right in

1:52:24front of it. So in order to make it turn

1:52:28into an underground garage, you're going

1:52:30to be very close to the the parking for

1:52:33the house across the street. Um, all of

1:52:37the houses are very old on Federal

1:52:40Street. My house was built in 1880.

1:52:42[snorts] Um, so the there is a fire

1:52:45safety concern just inherent in the

1:52:49street because it's so dense with so

1:52:51many houses. It's a very short street

1:52:54and narrow. Um, and the houses are all

1:52:57very old wooden structures. Um, the city

1:53:01fire department actually makes a point

1:53:04to practice on our street because it's

1:53:06so challenging. They were just um two

1:53:09weeks ago on the street. They come and

1:53:12they uh practice getting their ladder up

1:53:15between the um overhead wires and the

1:53:18different houses. And I think it's going

1:53:20to make it that much more challenging if

1:53:23you put another house in on an already

1:53:27overcrowded federal street. It's true we

1:53:30don't have 15 foot setbacks because of

1:53:33the age of the neighborhood, but that's

1:53:35no reason to exacerbate the problem.

1:53:38>> Do you object to having any house there?

1:53:40>> I do. I think that um it's important to

1:53:45have the parking for the multifamily

1:53:48houses. um that are on there because

1:53:51there's no parking on Federal Street. So

1:53:55um and also the placement of it right on

1:53:58the bend of the road I think is

1:54:00particularly unsafe. If you build a

1:54:04structure, it's going to block as you're

1:54:06coming around there and just make it a

1:54:09little bit more sketchy and dangerous

1:54:11and we definitely don't need that. So

1:54:14right now it's it's an open area and the

1:54:16garage is set back and that

1:54:18invisibility.

1:54:21>> Quick question. When you say it's

1:54:22important to have the parking for the

1:54:24multifamily properties, but they're

1:54:27that's not by permission, right?

1:54:29>> I think it was part of the Well, when

1:54:33Deetsz owned the properties, my

1:54:35understanding was that those spots went

1:54:37with the apartments, so it was

1:54:39>> Oh, because one owner at the time had

1:54:41owned both.

1:54:43>> Yes, that's right. Um the refrigerators

1:54:45and whatnot in there. Uh Deetsz used

1:54:47that as a maintenance shed. So he had

1:54:49you know snow removal equipment. He had

1:54:52um the refrigerators and things. He

1:54:54owned four or five properties. So he

1:54:56would

1:54:57>> um you know use that as storage for

1:55:01different things for the properties. He

1:55:02was a very good

1:55:03>> Thank you very much.

1:55:05>> Thank you. Appreciate it. You bet.

1:55:07>> Is there anyone else who'd like to be

1:55:08heard in opposition? Please come

1:55:09forward.

1:55:17Tell the truth and nothing but

1:55:19>> Yes.

1:55:20>> May we have your name, please?

1:55:21>> Jason Banger.

1:55:24>> What would you like us to know, Mr.

1:55:25Banger?

1:55:26>> Um, so I would like to note my

1:55:29objections to having uh to clarify, that

1:55:32was the last question you asked. Uh,

1:55:34Andrea, I do object to having any sort

1:55:37of

1:55:38housing unit on that lot. Um, and I just

1:55:43want to address some points that the the

1:55:47the

1:55:49people asking for these these uh

1:55:52variances brought up earlier. Um,

1:55:57forgive me if I'm a little bit

1:55:58disjointed. Uh, I was taking notes on

1:56:02the fly, so I'm not super prepared. I'm

1:56:06about as prepared as they were with

1:56:08their architectural plans.

1:56:11Obviously, none at this time, which I

1:56:13would think would be an important

1:56:18uh item to have when you're building on

1:56:20such a small restricted lot to begin

1:56:22with.

1:56:23And

1:56:25you know they admitted themselves that

1:56:29these variances are required because it

1:56:33is a small lot and because the statutes

1:56:37uh restricting uh builds the uh

1:56:42requiring these

1:56:44easements

1:56:46were were written um

1:56:50after the neighborhood was built. I know

1:56:53my house 36 Federal Street was built in

1:56:571890.

1:56:59I would think conquered has changed a

1:57:03lot in the last 136 years. Uh if my math

1:57:07is correct, um

1:57:11the challenges presented today

1:57:15might not have been even thought of at

1:57:18the time of this neighborhood being

1:57:20built. So,

1:57:23I don't see

1:57:25that's what everybody else did

1:57:27beforehand as a as a valid reason to

1:57:30say, "Hey, let's do it." [snorts]

1:57:34Um, with that being said, uh, note note

1:57:38in that they said the garage is

1:57:40unusable. I don't go in the garage. I

1:57:43don't own that lot. I don't have access

1:57:45to that lot. Um, so I can't speak for

1:57:48the interior of the garage, but

1:57:52exterior from the exterior it does look

1:57:54like it's

1:57:56in working condition. I

1:57:58>> that that's not really something that is

1:58:00within our purview.

1:58:02>> Okay.

1:58:03Um

1:58:06uh I would like to also note that

1:58:08building u a unit there would take away

1:58:14four I I think Andrea mentioned four

1:58:16existence spots. I think sometimes I

1:58:18count five or six cars there and it can

1:58:20get really really crowded. So, you would

1:58:24take away those parking spots, which I

1:58:26also understand were part of a lease

1:58:29agreement. And I'm not sure how the

1:58:32apartment got split from this lot. But

1:58:35again, they were owned by the same owner

1:58:36and the owner would use that for parking

1:58:39for the apartments, which I understand

1:58:42was ongoing when he he passed as well.

1:58:47Um, as for the parking situation,

1:58:52as Andrea noted,

1:58:54this would be built on a a left-hand

1:58:57kind of curve to the road and

1:59:01particularly

1:59:04on the left hand side there are two

1:59:07apartment buildings. Um,

1:59:11and this may not be

1:59:14100% relevant, I would say, but the

1:59:17neighbors own two Chevy Suburbans, which

1:59:20I don't know if you guys are familiar

1:59:21with that make model is a very large

1:59:25vehicle, and they have two of them, and

1:59:28they will park. Uh, is it okay if I

1:59:31approach the projector?

1:59:32>> Yeah, but keep in mind, you got five

1:59:34minutes

1:59:36>> and you're you're down to two.

1:59:37>> Okay.

1:59:40I I I know you really don't care what we

1:59:43have to say. I was at the

1:59:45>> No, we we do care. We just We want

1:59:47everyone to have a chance to speak.

1:59:48>> So, these suburbans will park right

1:59:51here.

1:59:52Right here. And now [snorts] they're on

1:59:54the street. So, imagine them how narrow

1:59:57the street is.

1:59:59They're

2:00:01they'll come out about this far.

2:00:03>> So, the

2:00:04>> Uber and I know you you can't control

2:00:07that. So, is that what you were about to

2:00:08ask me?

2:00:09>> No. Um, the other neighbor had mentioned

2:00:12that there's no parking on the street

2:00:14now.

2:00:14>> That That's correct. They'll get tickets

2:00:16out, but does that really stop people

2:00:18from parking there?

2:00:20>> Fair.

2:00:24>> Now, I guess since my time is running

2:00:26low, I'll leave you with a question. And

2:00:32the question is, I'm failing to

2:00:33understand what the hardship actually

2:00:36is.

2:00:37Is that just Is that just profit? Is

2:00:39that just money? Um because to me that

2:00:44sounds like it because that lot is

2:00:46useful and it's always been used as

2:00:49parking or a stable beforehand

2:00:52for horses.

2:00:54So

2:00:56I would disagree that that lot is

2:00:58useless without a house there. and

2:01:02I'm sorry that you can't make money off

2:01:06of making an already bad situation

2:01:09worse. Thank you.

2:01:11>> So, what's your address again? Is it 36?

2:01:13>> 36.

2:01:13>> Are you right next door?

2:01:14>> Yes.

2:01:15>> Okay.

2:01:16>> Is there anyone else who would like to

2:01:17be heard? Please come forward.

2:01:21>> Yes.

2:01:25>> Swear to tell the whole truth and

2:01:26nothing but the truth.

2:01:28>> I do. May we have your name, please?

2:01:30>> Sean McDuffy, 36 Federal Street.

2:01:33>> What would you like us to know?

2:01:35>> Uh, I am also in opposition uh to a home

2:01:40being built on the lot of 32 Federal

2:01:42Street. Um, historically, that lot has

2:01:47never had a home on it. Uh, I

2:01:52a while ago went just got into a

2:01:55historical binge and wanted to look up

2:01:58uh, you know, what conquered looked

2:02:00like. I'm not a New Hampshire or

2:02:01conquered native, so just curious what

2:02:03you know, New England looked like back

2:02:05in the day. And, uh, I was able to find,

2:02:08um, my house, my street uh, with the

2:02:12plan of land belonging to Enoch D.

2:02:14Cummings, uh, Concrete, New Hampshire.

2:02:17uh it says October 1914

2:02:20and I see my house uh lot number 22 and

2:02:23right next door to it would be the

2:02:26garage that is there and parking that is

2:02:27there today as a stable. Um as my

2:02:31husband and Andrea um has stated

2:02:34previously the the lot and the

2:02:37apartments uh across the street that I

2:02:40believe uh uh the developers who

2:02:44testified today uh own uh was uh owned

2:02:47by Dines and the parking that is there

2:02:51right now, the tenants who live in the

2:02:53units that I believe that they do own

2:02:56park there. And from my understanding of

2:02:59talking with my neighbors, uh since we

2:03:01are already so close, um as you can see,

2:03:04my house is right next door to it. We

2:03:06have a very tiny [snorts] small fence

2:03:08and I get out of my car and I'm right

2:03:11next to them when they're getting in and

2:03:12out of their car. So, we talk. Um, I

2:03:15believe that is a part of their uh their

2:03:18leasing agreement which would displace

2:03:20them. And again, as my husband said,

2:03:22there's no parking on the left side of

2:03:24the street. There's no parking on any of

2:03:26the street unless you have a garage, but

2:03:28that doesn't stop people from doing so.

2:03:30Um, people have guests, people have uh,

2:03:33you know, deliveries that happen. Uh,

2:03:35whether that's Amazon, I had a couch

2:03:37delivered a couple weeks ago. It took

2:03:39them about 30 minutes to do it. If a car

2:03:41is in the middle of that street, it is

2:03:44almost impossible to get past it. Having

2:03:46another unit, as much as housing is

2:03:49desperately needed in the state, um I do

2:03:52not think that this is really going to

2:03:53help or put a dent in that. Um and I ask

2:03:57as well if they're saying that the law

2:04:00is completely worthless, I I object to

2:04:03that. Their tenants parked there.

2:04:04they're they have ease of access to to

2:04:07their home to be able to get in and out

2:04:09of their home to load up, you know,

2:04:11groceries or laundry, whatever they may

2:04:13be. Um, so that I I I I know this is not

2:04:18within your purview, but as a citizen

2:04:20and as a property owner, is this the

2:04:23type of relationship with a developer

2:04:25that you would want to to have in the

2:04:27city of conquered to have tenants who

2:04:29are already using the land that is

2:04:32already there and deeming it worthless

2:04:34to get more dollars out of it. Um, and

2:04:37then, uh, environmentally,

2:04:40we have knotweed on my property, and we

2:04:43brought this up.

2:04:44>> What did you say? You have what?

2:04:45>> Japanese knotweed. Uh, it's an invasive,

2:04:48uh, species. We brought this up last

2:04:50time, um, when this was, uh, supposed to

2:04:52be a duplex. Um, it's on my property.

2:04:55It's on the two apartments that are

2:04:57behind there. Um, and the parking, which

2:05:01is kind of just like dirt behind uh

2:05:03behind uh all of our homes, which would

2:05:06be their home and the garage is right

2:05:07there. Uh my husband and I and the

2:05:11previous owners and now the current

2:05:13owners, we're doing our best to try to

2:05:15combat it, but that's a long-term issue

2:05:17that can severely

2:05:20um destroy my property, the property of

2:05:23the apartments there, and any new

2:05:25properties that get built there with

2:05:27disturbing the land there. Um, so if you

2:05:32build if if a a home is built there, um,

2:05:35it is it'll be a a huge detriment to the

2:05:38property owners who are already there

2:05:40and a danger to our homes. And see if I

2:05:44have any other points.

2:05:47And they also had made no effort

2:05:50whatsoever um during their testimony.

2:05:52They said that oh they haven't heard

2:05:54anything from any neighbors. They made

2:05:56no effort whatsoever to talk to either

2:05:59their tenants or the property owners on

2:06:01the street.

2:06:02The we didn't speak to them after they

2:06:06had the duplex um with the duplex was

2:06:08denied and in the year since I believe

2:06:10it's been almost a year uh they have not

2:06:12reached out via mail knocking on the

2:06:14door um seeing us in the neighborhood at

2:06:18all. So there's been no effort

2:06:19whatsoever to talk to any residents on

2:06:22the street. Um, I know there's not a lot

2:06:25of us here where it was a lot of people

2:06:26here last time, but no one on the street

2:06:29or the condos uh is enthused or wants

2:06:33this. Not because we do not want or

2:06:35believe that there's housing needed in

2:06:37the state, but because it just is not

2:06:39the right footprint for it. Not every

2:06:41piece of land should have u a home,

2:06:45unfortunately.

2:06:46>> Thank you.

2:06:47>> Thank you.

2:06:48>> Thank you. Thanks.

2:06:49>> Is there anyone else who'd like to be

2:06:50heard? Any

2:06:54comments from planning?

2:06:56>> Um, just for that section of one of the

2:06:59sections that's mentioned. Pull the

2:07:01agenda back up. Sorry, hold on one

2:07:03second. Um,

2:07:06they

2:07:08are allowed to build on that footprint

2:07:10as long as which is the section

2:07:1328-

2:07:158-3 C2B. um because they can't meet all

2:07:19the yard requirements is why they can't

2:07:21just go and build if they could have met

2:07:23all the side setbacks. Um a they

2:07:27wouldn't be

2:07:27>> they would still be living and yes, we

2:07:29wouldn't be that's why they're not

2:07:30requesting any frontage variances or

2:07:32things like that because they have at

2:07:33least 22 feet of frontage on that

2:07:35property. So there's that explanation of

2:07:37that section. Um,

2:07:40and then

2:07:42I think if you guys are wanting um to

2:07:46see

2:07:48the actual Yeah, you could request that

2:07:51from them and continue to a date certain

2:07:53of um November or December, which

2:07:56whichever you choose.

2:07:58>> Thank you.

2:07:59>> Can I ask you a quick question? So

2:08:01there's there's three very the A, B, and

2:08:04C all are, you know, with regard to

2:08:06setbacks and on different sides of the

2:08:08property then, but what maybe you said

2:08:09this, I didn't quite get it. What's the

2:08:11deed to just

2:08:13>> to construct a single family dwelling on

2:08:15a non-conforming lot that cannot meet

2:08:16all the yard requirements? Is that

2:08:19>> is that just a catchall

2:08:21>> for the setbacks or is that something

2:08:23different than the setbacks?

2:08:24>> I see-3.

2:08:27>> No, that's different from setbacks.

2:08:28What? So what are these yard

2:08:30requirements?

2:08:30>> There are requirements here.

2:08:32>> So it's conditions of development of a

2:08:34non-conforming lot. This is a

2:08:35non-conforming lot. Um so they the lot

2:08:38needs to have 22 ft.

2:08:40>> Yeah. And then it needs to meet all

2:08:42setback requirements. Obviously it can't

2:08:45because it's you know.

2:08:46>> Oh, so the yard requirements in this

2:08:48case are the setback variation.

2:08:51>> Yeah. They kind of kept running into

2:08:54each other, but they're not exactly the

2:08:55same.

2:08:56>> Right.

2:08:57>> Okay. All right.

2:08:58>> Makes it confusing.

2:08:59>> Yeah. Well, we like we like confusing.

2:09:01It gives us something to think about.

2:09:03>> Gentlemen, would you like to offer

2:09:05factual clarification in response to

2:09:06anything you've heard?

2:09:13>> Just in response to the parking

2:09:16concerns,

2:09:17I think a lot of what was mentioned was

2:09:20community based like other properties

2:09:22that aren't the subject of an

2:09:24application here tonight. we're meeting

2:09:26our parking requirements on our parcel

2:09:28and I think that that's the relevant

2:09:30consideration as to parking. We're not

2:09:33looking for any relief on parking or

2:09:35anything else.

2:09:37>> Very good. The um one other concern I I

2:09:39heard um is the worry about turning in.

2:09:43Um as everyone mentioned, cars parked

2:09:46there already and turn in. So there's

2:09:49it's already cars turning into that. If

2:09:52if there's worry about the corner,

2:09:54>> would there be

2:09:56>> a requirement for a variance for backing

2:09:59into the street in this case?

2:10:00>> No. For a single family home?

2:10:02>> No.

2:10:02>> Not for a single. And just as a reminder

2:10:05too for you guys as well, the parking

2:10:07requirements have changed. So, uh, even

2:10:10if it Let's just go back to the duplex

2:10:12per se. They only need one parking space

2:10:13per unit.

2:10:14>> Um, and I don't know if that was the

2:10:16case when they came to the board last

2:10:18year. I don't remember. Um, but now even

2:10:21with a single family home,

2:10:23>> yeah, even with the single family home,

2:10:25they only need one parking space,

2:10:27>> right?

2:10:28>> Very good.

2:10:28>> So,

2:10:29>> oh, I just looked this up. So, right,

2:10:31the yard

2:10:33they this is a non-conforming lot,

2:10:35>> correct?

2:10:36>> But they don't need a variance to build

2:10:37in a non-conforming lot as long as all

2:10:39the yard the se the yard and setback

2:10:41requirements are met, but they're not.

2:10:43So, that's why I got it. Okay. So, it is

2:10:45a setback issue in this case.

2:10:47>> Yes.

2:10:47>> Thank you.

2:10:48>> Thank you, gentlemen. Absolutely. Thank

2:10:50you.

2:10:51>> With that, we'll declare the public

2:10:52testimony portion of the hearing closed.

2:10:55And I'd like to start this one with Miss

2:10:59Perkins. How do you see it?

2:11:01>> Um

2:11:03I Okay. So, based on my knowledge of the

2:11:08area in downtown, um I I don't have a

2:11:12problem with seeing a single family

2:11:14dwelling go up with some exceptions to

2:11:16the setbacks. I have a problem with a

2:11:181500 square foot level

2:11:22fitting next to nothing left on this

2:11:25lot. Um I own a three family. That's the

2:11:28dimension of my building. So I have very

2:11:31clear knowledge of what 1500 square feet

2:11:33on one floor looks like and that's going

2:11:36to be the garage and then two stories

2:11:38above it. I have a first floor, I have a

2:11:41second floor, I have an attic. So I have

2:11:43very clear image of the size of this

2:11:45building. It's also 28t wide, right?

2:11:48This is 30 something they're proposing,

2:11:50but saying they could cut it down by

2:11:52>> Yeah. 35, I think it was.

2:11:54>> Yeah. So, my my building is 28 28 feet

2:12:00wide and like 44 45 feet deep. I know

2:12:03exactly what these dimensions look like.

2:12:05That is monstrosity [snorts]

2:12:08on a lot this size in a neighborhood

2:12:11that tiny. That's

2:12:14direct absolute knowledge. And I'm in

2:12:16real estate for over 30 years. So I

2:12:19respect their right to take this lot and

2:12:21make it a single family home and try to

2:12:24create a housing opportunity. But I

2:12:27would not want to approve this much

2:12:32uh what do I want to call encroachment

2:12:34into the setbacks for this neighborhood.

2:12:37and and I and I understand all the other

2:12:39lots are the same, you know, similar

2:12:41sizes, small lots, and some of the

2:12:43houses take up that much space, but I

2:12:46just I think that's a humongous house. I

2:12:50mean, and personally, even just as a

2:12:52realtor with a knowledge of the market,

2:12:54a 3,000 square foot home with a first

2:12:57floor that's garage and utilities,

2:13:02I I think you'd have a hard time selling

2:13:04that on that tiny little street with the

2:13:06neighborhood that it's in. That's just

2:13:08my opinion. But

2:13:10yeah, I would I would want to see a

2:13:12rendering and I would want to see it

2:13:15much smaller. I mean, when I I thought

2:13:17they were talking about 750 square feet

2:13:20per floor,

2:13:22totally understood why they would need

2:13:24to cover the amount of ground that they

2:13:26were looking to cover to provide a 1500

2:13:28foot home. I'm not okay with a 1500

2:13:31square foot level,

2:13:33three stories tall.

2:13:35>> M. Rice, how do you see it?

2:13:37>> I have I have similar concerns about the

2:13:40the amount of encroachment on the

2:13:42setbacks. Um,

2:13:45it does seem to me that

2:13:48given the neighborhood and and the size

2:13:51of the home that that that may be

2:13:53excessive. I do want to address, you

2:13:56know, I want to recognize the the

2:13:59people's concerns about, you know, they

2:14:02don't want a house there and they don't

2:14:04want the other people to lose parking.

2:14:06Um

2:14:08this is this is land that these folks

2:14:11own and and they have a right to do

2:14:14something with it. Um if they don't want

2:14:16to have the the use that's there. So I

2:14:20think that that's not in our purview is

2:14:22to say no, you can't ever build,

2:14:24>> right?

2:14:24>> But and as for the parking, um

2:14:29I don't know if if they don't want to

2:14:31have their their land used for parking,

2:14:35it may some other people

2:14:38out of parking. I don't know what the

2:14:39situation is, whether there's been an

2:14:41agreement or whatever, but that's really

2:14:43not within our purview as well. So, I

2:14:46appreciate your concerns on that,

2:14:48>> but um I don't think that

2:14:50[clears throat] we can take those

2:14:52concerns to heart,

2:14:53>> Mr. Waller.

2:14:55>> Well, certainly the character of the

2:14:56neighborhood is such that nobody meets

2:14:58setback requirements, period. I think

2:15:00these folks are entitled to build

2:15:02something. Um, but I don't think it

2:15:05needs to be that big.

2:15:07Um,

2:15:09Mr. Wers,

2:15:12I I don't think so.

2:15:16You know, like is like has been said, if

2:15:19you if you look at the other um

2:15:22structures on on this street, almost all

2:15:24of them are way into the setback. Um, I

2:15:28it's a it's it's a an extremely densely

2:15:31packed street. I mean it, you know, I

2:15:35don't drive on that often, but in the

2:15:36occasional times I've I've driven there,

2:15:38I've immediately regretted it. You know,

2:15:40it's [laughter] because it's it, you

2:15:42know,

2:15:42>> especially if you try and park.

2:15:44>> Yeah. I mean, it's it's a very time I

2:15:45mean, so I I don't I I don't in any way

2:15:48belittle or minimize the concerns of the

2:15:50neighbors. And I mean, I think they're

2:15:52pretty candid. People have been parking

2:15:54on this lot. Well,

2:15:57that yes, that's that's useful.

2:16:00That's useful in the sense that it's

2:16:02useful to other people, but I think I

2:16:03think we have to interpret the the

2:16:05zoning rules is is you know what is does

2:16:09what's reasonable for the applicant to

2:16:10do with their property. Um, and I don't

2:16:14I don't

2:16:17now in full disclosure, I looked at the

2:16:18minutes. I I had actually voted to

2:16:20approve the two family which was on the

2:16:22same foot footprint at least for the

2:16:24setback requirements. Um but we had

2:16:26denied that at that time there was a lot

2:16:28coverage issue which is now no longer

2:16:30being requested. So

2:16:32>> but we haven't seen a rendering.

2:16:35>> We haven't seen a rendering but I don't

2:16:37I mean this this has come up. This is

2:16:39somewhat similar to the the the Stone

2:16:42Street case.

2:16:44I think it was Stone Street, Stone A,

2:16:46maybe in the South End. Um, if I'm

2:16:50thinking the right

2:16:50>> you're talking about Spruce Street.

2:16:51>> Spruce Street. Thank you. Spruce Street.

2:16:53>> Oh. Oh, yes.

2:16:54>> Right. We're We're just looking at use.

2:16:56>> Yeah.

2:16:56>> I mean, I I we're not the architectural

2:16:58design committee. I don't

2:17:01I shouldn't say I don't care what it

2:17:03looks like. Obviously, I don't want it

2:17:04to look bad, but I don't I don't think

2:17:06ultimately they It's a setback issue.

2:17:08And no, none of the none of the

2:17:12none of the um Butters are really

2:17:15talking directly about the setback

2:17:16issue. They really I mean they were

2:17:17honest. I appreciate them being honest,

2:17:19but they don't and I don't blame them.

2:17:20They don't want another structure there.

2:17:22Period. That's, you know, so I don't I

2:17:25don't think the setback issue is is is a

2:17:28concern for me. So I I I'm okay with it.

2:17:31I I kind of agree it's big, but I think

2:17:33that's my that's just my opinion. I'm

2:17:35not that's not for me. They're it's

2:17:37their property.

2:17:39The size of it is my decision.

2:17:42I think in this case I'm going to

2:17:43disagree with you on that one. Uh I

2:17:47think it is part of our concern because

2:17:49the size of it is what dictates the

2:17:51impingement on the setbacks

2:17:54and one of the requirements is that the

2:17:57use be reasonable.

2:17:59And we know from our own experience as

2:18:04people who live in houses that you could

2:18:05build a reasonable single family house

2:18:07on a smaller footprint. And this one

2:18:10looks to me like it's they simply

2:18:13decided to cover as much ground as they

2:18:16possibly could and then decide later

2:18:18what they were going to do about it.

2:18:20Which

2:18:21more power to them, but that doesn't

2:18:23mean that we should grant a variance in

2:18:26order for them to do it. So my feeling

2:18:29is that I would vote for I would support

2:18:31a motion to deny based on the fact that

2:18:34it does not appear to be a reasonable

2:18:35use. I'm not necessarily asking for

2:18:40plans

2:18:41for the building that they do want to

2:18:43build, but I want to see a footprint

2:18:45that represents

2:18:48something closer to a single family home

2:18:50than this does to me on a piece of

2:18:52property so tiny.

2:18:55>> Denying that based on this wouldn't

2:18:58would still allow them to come back

2:19:00because like I said, I'm all for

2:19:02>> if it's a material

2:19:04change. Yeah. So, if they change the

2:19:07design

2:19:08>> of the house to cover less or use less

2:19:11of this the setbacks, then that's a

2:19:13substantial change. They'd be able to

2:19:15come back because again, I'm not against

2:19:16a house going on that lot. I'm

2:19:18>> nor am I

2:19:19>> against this the size of this one

2:19:23requiring these big of setback changes.

2:19:26>> This is one of those situations where we

2:19:28really do have a job to do.

2:19:30>> Yeah.

2:19:30>> And

2:19:31>> and I for clarification purposes just

2:19:33because it we started getting into a use

2:19:36category. A duplex is permitted in that

2:19:38district and same with a single family

2:19:40home. So, we're not

2:19:41>> rightrictly looking at the setback.

2:19:44Yeah, we're strictly looking.

2:19:45>> So, I just want to make sure we're

2:19:46staying on that setbacks

2:19:47>> that Yeah. I don't The parking issue

2:19:50that's between them and their tenants. I

2:19:52mean, if they don't have it already

2:19:54arranged, they're going to deal with

2:19:55that.

2:19:55>> It meets the city requirements. It's not

2:19:57our

2:19:57>> Right. Exactly.

2:19:58>> It's not our place to say anything about

2:20:00it.

2:20:00>> Yeah.

2:20:01>> Okay. Uh would anyone care to make a

2:20:04motion on either side of the question?

2:20:06We actually have one, two, three, four

2:20:10uh variances here and we should consider

2:20:12them separately I think because I think

2:20:14we might take a little different

2:20:15approach to D than we do the A through C

2:20:21although perhaps not.

2:20:22>> I think it's it's part and parcel. Okay.

2:20:24I think I think fair enough.

2:20:26>> Um it was a brilliant thought but it

2:20:28just fizzled out. Do we have to read all

2:20:31of that?

2:20:32>> She's saying we don't [sighs]

2:20:35>> you can

2:20:35>> we used to

2:20:37>> like I said you can lump them together

2:20:40um like Tim suggested and say that you

2:20:42would you would

2:20:44>> adopt the staff's recommended motion.

2:20:48>> All we have to do is find the fact

2:20:51find as a fact that they don't meet a

2:20:54specific criteria.

2:20:55>> Oh, sorry. I for deni reason for denial

2:20:58is what you were asking for. I thought

2:20:59you were asking me about reading.

2:21:00>> Have you seen the the four or five

2:21:02paragraphs that we you need to you need

2:21:04to decide on the reason as to why you

2:21:07are denying the variance?

2:21:08>> Yeah, just make everyone's life easier.

2:21:11Is there a way we could do a continuance

2:21:13and come back?

2:21:14>> No.

2:21:15>> No. It's it's a new project

2:21:17>> if you come back. I understand why

2:21:19you're asking, but

2:21:21>> that's that's outside of our control.

2:21:24>> I They could withdraw the application

2:21:27too if they they so choose and and then

2:21:30>> they could do that at this time.

2:21:33>> Oh, I think we should that doesn't

2:21:35really change.

2:21:36>> I think we should finish we have

2:21:38ouration.

2:21:39>> Okay.

2:21:39>> Uh and as I I don't see any reason why

2:21:43you simply couldn't make a motion saying

2:21:45there are here are the specific criteria

2:21:48that they don't meet and this is why I

2:21:49think so. We're not adopting their

2:21:51findings of fact.

2:21:52>> Okay. We're saying that we we will

2:21:54disagree with at least one or two.

2:21:55>> So So I'm just going to try to

2:21:58abbreviate this and Kirsten just tell me

2:22:00if you need me to not be so abbreviated,

2:22:03but I'm just going to say that we're

2:22:05going to deny uh I move to deny the

2:22:08variances to allow for a 5- foot setback

2:22:11where 15 feet are required within the

2:22:13CVP district.

2:22:16Um

2:22:19because they have not uh specifically

2:22:23the following criteria has not been met

2:22:25as a reason as stated below. And this

2:22:32this doesn't spell out um which side of

2:22:36the property it was.

2:22:39>> I guess that doesn't matter

2:22:41>> which side of the property.

2:22:42>> Yeah, because one's five and the other

2:22:44two the other is four.

2:22:48Two of them. One's five foot. What's

2:22:50which one's the five foot setback

2:22:52>> front?

2:22:54>> No, it was Was it the rear?

2:22:56>> Why can't you just lump them all

2:22:58together? All of

2:22:58>> them. The other two are four foot

2:23:00setback.

2:23:00>> All of them are are not uh grantable.

2:23:04>> All right. I just want to read it that

2:23:05it's done the right way.

2:23:07>> But this is massive.

2:23:08>> Yeah, you can go with staff's

2:23:10recommendation for the staff report to

2:23:13deny the variances for the reason.

2:23:15>> Perfect. I move to deny the variances

2:23:17requested one two three and four uh

2:23:20based on what staff's recommendation was

2:23:23for the wording

2:23:26um and that the evidence was not

2:23:28provided showing that all the criteria

2:23:30have been met under RSA 67433 have been

2:23:34met. Is that

2:23:35>> and I think we ought to say which

2:23:36criteria we don't think they met

2:23:39>> which is the

2:23:41>> reason

2:23:42>> the re reasonable use for requesting a

2:23:465-ft or 4 foot setback in a 15t

2:23:49requirement

2:23:50>> right

2:23:52some I mean normally we we consider

2:23:55reasonable to apply to the type of use

2:24:00but it could also apply to the way the

2:24:01use is

2:24:03>> configured [clears throat] in my mind.

2:24:04Anyway,

2:24:05>> does that sound like we've repeated

2:24:07enough of what's needed?

2:24:09>> I mean, at this point, I could have just

2:24:11read the book. [laughter]

2:24:14>> We just cut

2:24:14>> I just want I just want clarification.

2:24:16The use is permitted,

2:24:18>> right?

2:24:18>> So, so what you're saying is is that the

2:24:21setback

2:24:22>> the setback Yeah. the encroachment on

2:24:24the setbacks is what we're denying the

2:24:26varian.

2:24:26>> It's not reasonable.

2:24:27>> Is it reasonable? Thank you. There we

2:24:29go.

2:24:29>> I just I just didn't want the word use

2:24:30in there. No, not at all. Good point. It

2:24:33is a permitted use.

2:24:34>> It's a permitted use. And I'm more than

2:24:35happy to look at another idea.

2:24:38>> Solve the riddle that I raised just a

2:24:40second ago. Actually,

2:24:41>> sorry.

2:24:41>> Anybody want to second that word salad

2:24:44of mine? [laughter]

2:24:46>> I would second that.

2:24:48>> Did you want to make any remarks about

2:24:50it or

2:24:50>> No,

2:24:52[laughter]

2:24:54you just need a little dressing on the

2:24:55salad.

2:24:56>> There we go.

2:24:57>> Okay. The salad has been mixed, tossed,

2:24:59and dressed.

2:25:01>> Okay. Uh any discussion on the motion?

2:25:05All in favor of the motion to deny all

2:25:07four variances for the reasons stated,

2:25:09please say I.

2:25:10>> I. Anyone opposed? Name.

2:25:13>> The vote is 4 to one with Mr. Winters in

2:25:15the minority. The the motion carries and

2:25:17the variances are denied. That brings us

2:25:20to 4.8. Jean Binist who requests a

2:25:24variance to allow 6-ft front yard

2:25:27setback where 10 ft is required for the

2:25:30construction of a porch uh in the

2:25:33downtown residential RD district at 7

2:25:36Perry Street. You swear to tell the

2:25:38truth and I do

2:25:40>> only the truth. Thank you. Would you

2:25:41please identify yourself with the record

2:25:42as you testify?

2:25:43>> I am Jean Benist

2:25:467 Avenue. No, I'm sure

2:25:50>> or 33 or one.

2:25:52>> Would you fill us in on why you feel a

2:25:54variance is appropriate here?

2:25:56>> Yes, because I bought this house two

2:25:58years ago since I moved in conquer

2:26:11weather when we have to enter into the

2:26:15house. If it's there's snow or rain, you

2:26:20come from the grocery store or come from

2:26:23anywhere, it's difficult to open the

2:26:27door. There's not a platform.

2:26:31I believe if I got this little

2:26:36porch six deep and 15, it will be more

2:26:40stable and more secure for people to

2:26:43enter into the house. Not only that, it

2:26:47will give a little bit different look to

2:26:50the house and I see doing that there's

2:26:53not that much going to the neighborhood.

2:26:55There's no other things and this is the

2:27:00reason I think I am asking

2:27:04you if I can do that.

2:27:09The drawing you gave us shows a front

2:27:12view of the porch, but it does not show

2:27:14a plan with the borch with the porch uh

2:27:19impinging on the setback. Is there such

2:27:22a drawing?

2:27:23>> It's great.

2:27:23>> Yes,

2:27:24>> it's this GIS photo.

2:27:26>> Okay. Did I miss that?

2:27:27>> It's a rough Yeah, you can

2:27:30>> this [snorts] a little tiny one. Yeah,

2:27:31if you I can zoom in more. So, you zoom

2:27:33in, you can see.

2:27:34>> Oh, and there's a there's a black line

2:27:36on there that represents

2:27:37>> There is

2:27:38>> I take it back. [laughter]

2:27:40>> Thank you.

2:27:42>> There it is.

2:27:44>> Okay. So, it doesn't go the full width

2:27:45of the house.

2:27:46>> Yeah, I see.

2:27:48>> It looks like even with that porch

2:27:51addition to make your front steps safer,

2:27:55it actually still sits back further than

2:27:57the front of the house right next door

2:27:59to you.

2:28:01So I believe the one next door to me it

2:28:04is completely a little bit farther. I am

2:28:06the one got more property in front of my

2:28:10house and both all the house.

2:28:11>> That's what I'm saying. Yours sit even

2:28:13with the porch. Yours will sit further

2:28:14back than the house right next to

2:28:16>> number six is almost right on the

2:28:17property line. Yeah.

2:28:18>> Number five is about even with your

2:28:20existing house.

2:28:22>> Yeah.

2:28:22>> Yeah.

2:28:24>> Okay. Questions from the board?

2:28:29Anyone

2:28:31>> anything else you'd like us to know?

2:28:33>> No, just this thing I want to ask if

2:28:37>> Very good. Thank you very much.

2:28:39>> Thank you.

2:28:41>> Is there anyone who'd like to be heard

2:28:42in favor of this appeal? Is there anyone

2:28:45who'd like to be heard in opposition to

2:28:46it?

2:28:48Anything from planning?

2:28:50>> No.

2:28:51>> With that, we'll close the public

2:28:52testimony portion of the hearing. And

2:28:55let me start this one with Andrew

2:28:56Wyinners. You've gotten off easy

2:28:58tonight, have I? [laughter]

2:29:00>> Yeah,

2:29:01>> I'm awfully mouthy today. [snorts]

2:29:04>> What do you think about this, Mr.

2:29:06Winners?

2:29:08>> I I mean, I think we've we've granted

2:29:12several like these in the past. I mean,

2:29:13it's

2:29:15a porch. It's not a it's not a fully

2:29:18enclosed structure, and it's a pretty

2:29:20reasonable use of the the property. Um,

2:29:24so I' I'd be inclined to grant it,

2:29:26>> Mr. Waller.

2:29:27>> Yeah, I agree. And plus, we're dealing

2:29:28with, you know, potential safety issue

2:29:31that we're um we're we're alleviating in

2:29:34terms of winter and snow and so forth.

2:29:37And I think it's a reasonable use. Plus,

2:29:39we have a neighborhood who's got more of

2:29:40an encroachment, an existing

2:29:42encroachment.

2:29:43Um, so I think it's for the character of

2:29:45the neighborhood.

2:29:47>> I agree with Mr. Wall.

2:29:50>> I

2:29:52as do I. Would anyone care to make a

2:29:54motion?

2:29:58Let me find it. I can do it if I can

2:29:59find it.

2:30:00>> I I I can find it if you want.

2:30:03>> I'm just done talking.

2:30:05>> Yeah, I I think it's

2:30:09>> I can you want me to do it?

2:30:10>> Sure.

2:30:15All right. Here we go. Make sure I get

2:30:17the right one this time.

2:30:20>> [laughter]

2:30:21>> I move to grant the variance from

2:30:22section 2841H and 2841D1 to allow six 6

2:30:26foot front yard setback where 10 feet is

2:30:28required for the construction of a porch

2:30:31in the downtown residential district at

2:30:337 Perry Street tax map and lot 6533/Z68

2:30:39because of all the criteria under RSA

2:30:4167433 have been met based on the record

2:30:43before us and I move to adopt the

2:30:45applicant's proposed findings as the

2:30:47board's finding effect of facts. Is

2:30:48there a second?

2:30:49>> Second.

2:30:50>> Moved and seconded. Any discussion? All

2:30:53in favor, please say I. I. Anyone

2:30:55opposed? The vote is unanimous. The

2:30:57motion carries and the variance is

2:30:59granted. That takes us to 4.9, David and

2:31:02Cynthia Karen. And they request the

2:31:04following variances for properties

2:31:06located at 110 and 114 Peaceful Lane.

2:31:10What a great name. [snorts] To allow for

2:31:12zero feet of frontage where 200 feet is

2:31:15required. and to allow for zero feet of

2:31:18frontage where 200 feet is required. I

2:31:20really did read that twice, but it's two

2:31:22different requests. And to allow a lot

2:31:26size of 1.47 acres where two acres are

2:31:29required. All of this would take place,

2:31:32as I said, at 110 and 114 Peaceful Lane.

2:31:35You swear and tell the truth. Nothing

2:31:37but

2:31:37>> May we have your name, please?

2:31:39>> David Karen.

2:31:41>> Mr. Karen, fill us in on uh what you'd

2:31:44like to do and why you feel it's

2:31:45justified for us to grant a variance.

2:31:47>> All right. Listen for me wanting to do a

2:31:50simple a lot adjustment with the

2:31:51planning board

2:31:53>> um just to clean the line between my two

2:31:56properties and balance out the

2:31:58properties.

2:31:59>> Um I bought some property three years

2:32:03ago. Uh we did a lot line adjustment. It

2:32:05was fine. At the time we didn't have to

2:32:06come through the zoning board. Um, now

2:32:08we do because

2:32:11our road, uh,

2:32:14town doesn't recognize it. So, it's a

2:32:16private road, so nobody has road

2:32:17furniture. So, it seems like I'm asking

2:32:19for the world because I have no, you

2:32:20know, I I'm asking, like I said, it

2:32:22sounds like I'm asking for the road

2:32:23because I need 200 feet of road

2:32:25furniture and I have zero. Well, in

2:32:27essence, there's 14 homes on the road

2:32:29who have zero road furniture. Nobody

2:32:31does. So, um, I actually own the road.

2:32:35So I that that section of road in front

2:32:38of my house I own it. So it's there's no

2:32:41>> you're responsible for maintaining it.

2:32:44>> Yes. Yep. So it's

2:32:50>> and you wanted to you wanted to create a

2:32:52new lot or change the size of

2:32:54>> I'm just changing between my two

2:32:56properties. So I own both both lots and

2:32:58the line in the middle of them. One line

2:33:01actually bumps the corner of the house.

2:33:02I think there's a shows up on

2:33:05>> You want to go up there and show us if

2:33:06you want. You're welcome to do that.

2:33:07>> Yeah, that would help.

2:33:10>> It's kind of a confusing plan. So,

2:33:12>> yes. Um I have to

2:33:14>> show us what you show us what you own.

2:33:19>> Okay. Here. Um this is my current

2:33:22property line. So, I own this house and

2:33:24this house and my current property line

2:33:28touches this house and kind of

2:33:33the road. Oh, here's goes up there and

2:33:36cuts across here. I purchased two acres

2:33:38here, which when I I purchased it, it

2:33:41all got attached to this one property.

2:33:44Um, and all I'm looking to do is bring

2:33:47this line here, the new line, come up

2:33:49here and take the line away from the

2:33:50house, kind of balance it out, and just

2:33:52cut it across.

2:33:53>> And where's Peaceful Lane?

2:33:55>> It's uh in off at Elm Street.

2:33:57>> No, I mean,

2:33:59it's behind it.

2:34:00>> Okay. So, it's a private road action.

2:34:02So, there's no

2:34:04>> it's a continuous piece of property

2:34:05>> because you've got a big piece of land

2:34:07on the other side of the road. Okay. The

2:34:10gsi is much clearer. Can we

2:34:13>> Can we pull that up? Um,

2:34:19>> it's a much easier

2:34:21image to

2:34:24So, see that big piece in the back? the

2:34:26green piece

2:34:27>> that's on the opposite side of the

2:34:29street.

2:34:30>> Correct. And so right now the property

2:34:32line here comes up here and touches the

2:34:33garage. I'm just looking to change this

2:34:35line.

2:34:36>> So any change to any of these lines

2:34:38would prompt this.

2:34:39>> Correct.

2:34:39>> Correct. Just because it's no

2:34:41>> because the road is a private road.

2:34:43>> And is that what is that behind you? Is

2:34:45that the river?

2:34:46>> That's the river. Yes.

2:34:48>> Okay.

2:34:49>> The Kuk, right?

2:34:51>> The Kuk. Yes.

2:34:52>> Got it.

2:34:55So, you want to move the property line

2:34:57over how much?

2:34:58>> Um, well, basically this is this was two

2:35:03acres here. So, this

2:35:06>> I'm looking to take

2:35:09the point4 of an acre and put it on this

2:35:11one

2:35:12>> instead of having all all that attached

2:35:14to that one property.

2:35:15>> So, you're going to kind of split it.

2:35:18>> That'll kind of be fair just to like

2:35:19balance the

2:35:19>> and they'll each have property on the

2:35:21opposite side of the road. Yes.

2:35:23>> Okay. So, so the the larger lot um

2:35:28>> yes

2:35:29>> is 2.398 acres currently. He'd be moving

2:35:33it down to two acres to meet the

2:35:35requirements for the RO district which

2:35:36is a minimum of two acres.

2:35:38>> Um

2:35:40thus not needing a variance for the lot

2:35:42size of that one, but would be bringing

2:35:44the other lot into con closer to

2:35:48conformance. um being that the current

2:35:51lot there is 1.07

2:35:55um for and then after the if if the

2:35:58board were to grant the variance and the

2:36:00lot line adjustment were to go through

2:36:01um that lot would be brought up to 1.472

2:36:04acres.

2:36:06>> So more in compliance and it's already

2:36:08out of compliance. Correct.

2:36:11So, but the lot that has the lot that

2:36:14has no frontage. So,

2:36:15>> nobody has

2:36:16>> none. No one has frontage.

2:36:17>> No one no one technically has frontage

2:36:19because

2:36:20>> it triggers zero. I have you, you know,

2:36:21I have zero friends because

2:36:23>> because you have a private road.

2:36:25>> So, because you want to do the lot light

2:36:26adjustment, it triggered this additional

2:36:29variance because no frontage exists.

2:36:32>> So, how were you able to develop it? And

2:36:34did you have a variance or it just it

2:36:36goes predates

2:36:37>> 1907 I think. So, this has been a

2:36:39private road for a long time.

2:36:41>> Yes, it's actually the town the town did

2:36:43adopt it at a point and um when I

2:36:47actually bought the property, it was

2:36:49conveyed to me that the town maintained

2:36:50the road and they actually the people I

2:36:53bought it from gave me a letter from the

2:36:54town. I actually brought them and um so

2:36:57>> turned out not to be the case.

2:36:58>> Still have that letter.

2:36:59>> What's that?

2:36:59>> Still have that letter.

2:37:00>> I still have that letter because

2:37:02>> right next to his will and testament

2:37:05because I was pretty let down after the

2:37:07fact. I can I can see why.

2:37:08>> And so now I've been the road agent. You

2:37:11know, I I grade the road. I bring in

2:37:13dirt. I ditch it. I plow it. I And you

2:37:16know, it's not a long road. It's only

2:37:17six of a mile, but still,

2:37:20>> I don't know. I take care of the trees

2:37:21that fall down. I chip that. I

2:37:24>> you know,

2:37:26>> and in return, they tell you you need a

2:37:28variance in order.

2:37:30>> Okay. Very good. Did you control?

2:37:32>> Did you have anything else you'd like us

2:37:34to know?

2:37:34>> N.

2:37:35>> All right. Any other questions from the

2:37:36board? Thank you very much.

2:37:41Is there anyone here who'd like to be

2:37:42heard in favor of this appeal?

2:37:45>> Yes, you are.

2:37:48>> Is there anyone who'd like to be heard

2:37:49in opposition to it?

2:37:52Anything from the planning office?

2:37:55>> Other than what we've already kind of

2:37:56covered, it's a private road, so it's in

2:37:59order to do the lot line adjustment,

2:38:00he's going to need to do

2:38:03as such. Very good. Thank you. With

2:38:06that, we'll close the te public

2:38:08testimony portion of the hearing, and

2:38:10I'm going to invite Miss Rice to start

2:38:13the uh ball rolling with her thoughts on

2:38:15this one.

2:38:18>> Well, it seems to me that we have to

2:38:21grant

2:38:23since there's no way to have setback or

2:38:26frontage on this. Um I think it's

2:38:29entirely reasonable.

2:38:33>> Yes. I think he's trying to do it. It

2:38:35brings the property that's further out

2:38:37of compliance more into compliance. And

2:38:42unfortunately for him, he's required for

2:38:44two additional setbacks or require

2:38:47variances that he has no control over.

2:38:50So

2:38:53>> Mr. Wyers,

2:38:54>> yeah, I agree. It's it's obviously a

2:38:56quirk of of the history that um that he

2:39:01doesn't have any frontage. you know, if

2:39:03if they were trying to build from

2:39:04scratch, you know, that would be a much

2:39:06more difficult case. But since there's

2:39:07already a whole a whole number of

2:39:10properties there, they should be allowed

2:39:12or he seems like a reasonable adjustment

2:39:14of the lot line.

2:39:17>> Mr. Waller, this is an easy one. Lot

2:39:20line adjustment is the obvious solution.

2:39:23>> I agree. Would anyone care to make a

2:39:25motion?

2:39:27>> I I will make a motion. Um, I move to

2:39:29grant the variance from section 28-4-1H

2:39:34and 28-4-1C

2:39:36to allow for a frontage.

2:39:39>> Oh, I am. Maybe I shouldn't make the

2:39:42motion. I think I'm on the wrong one.

2:39:44[laughter]

2:39:46>> Pardon?

2:39:48>> Been there.

2:39:50>> Okay,

2:39:50>> we're 4.9.

2:39:52>> 49. I apologize.

2:39:55And you got four variances.

2:39:58>> Oh, three.

2:39:59>> Three, excuse me, rolled into one

2:40:01motion.

2:40:02>> Just second them all. So I move that to

2:40:04grant the variance um to allow for zero

2:40:08feet of frontage where 200 feet is

2:40:10required at tax map 183P

2:40:14lot 24 110 peaceful lane

2:40:18and to allow for zero feet of frontage

2:40:20where 200 feet is required at tax map

2:40:23183P

2:40:25lot 23 114 peaceful lane and to

2:40:31um

2:40:33allow a lot size of 1.47 acres where 2

2:40:37acres is required at tax map 183/p

2:40:42lot 23 peaceful lane because uh all of

2:40:46the criteria under RSA 67433 have been

2:40:50met based on the record before us and I

2:40:52move to adopt the applicant's proposed

2:40:54findings as the board's finding of fact.

2:40:56>> I'll second that.

2:40:57>> Been moved and seconded. All in favor,

2:40:59please say I. I

2:41:00>> I anyone opposed? The vote is unanimous.

2:41:04The variance is granted and we will take

2:41:07a brief recess.

2:41:26100 ft is required in the single family

2:41:29residential RS district at 92 Mountain

2:41:32Road.

2:41:34And that's it.

2:41:37It's where I tell the truth and nothing

2:41:38about

2:41:40Will you uh give us your names, please?

2:41:43>> Sure.

2:41:44>> Um Norman Kinsler

2:41:48>> and Alice Kinsler.

2:41:50>> Alice,

2:41:51>> would you wait till

2:41:53>> wait a few moments?

2:42:00>> You know what happened to me after the

2:42:01elections? I got a phone call.

2:42:03>> Well, we enjoyed the background music.

2:42:04>> I got a phone call at midnight from J.

2:42:06>> You used to testify in court, right? Did

2:42:08you used to testify in court?

2:42:09>> You forgot to sign.

2:42:11>> Yeah. I was a public defender a long

2:42:12time ago.

2:42:13>> Yeah. Yeah.

2:42:16>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

2:42:18>> Somebody from the clerk's office called

2:42:20and said, "We need one more form."

2:42:21>> Did you come dry down there?

2:42:23>> No, I did.

2:42:31>> Psychologist in town forensic rings at

2:42:34midnight and you were sleeping.

2:42:37>> Yeah.

2:42:39That's why the name is familiar.

2:42:40>> Yeah. And your brother was al is that

2:42:42your brother who was also in the

2:42:43practice? Yeah.

2:42:44>> Yes.

2:42:47>> Yeah.

2:42:50>> And I think we met a million years ago.

2:42:52You worked at Bank Products.

2:42:55>> Wow.

2:42:56>> Well, that goes way back.

2:42:57>> A million years. A million years. Guy

2:42:58worked for Community Services Council.

2:43:00Okay.

2:43:01>> So, we have a lot of

2:43:02>> Thank you for remembering.

2:43:03>> Sorry.

2:43:03>> Oh, Andy, that that dates you way back,

2:43:06doesn't it? Stop it. [laughter]

2:43:09>> Before you had none of your business.

2:43:12>> Okay, we all good.

2:43:14>> Well, now we have to wait over here.

2:43:15>> Oh, we're not all good. Oh, there you

2:43:17Oh, yeah.

2:43:23[laughter]

2:43:24>> Did you just call him Nikki?

2:43:26>> I always do.

2:43:27>> I love it.

2:43:28>> Oh, Nikki.

2:43:30>> Yeah, but let's not record it that way

2:43:31in the minutes. Okay.

2:43:36I'm gonna get myself smacked if I start

2:43:38calling every

2:43:44[laughter]

2:43:46>> They don't have maps anymore, do they?

2:43:48>> Well, yes, we do.

2:43:49>> Really?

2:43:49>> Well, we got all the maps, city maps,

2:43:50and we still do tickics.

2:43:52>> No kidding.

2:43:52>> Yeah.

2:43:53>> And people buy

2:43:54>> every time tell me we couldn't get maps.

2:43:56>> So, Andy, after the elections,

2:43:58>> I I went over at 10:30, finally get to

2:44:01bed. I got a phone call at 12:30 in the

2:44:03morning.

2:44:05is saying you forgot to sign the one

2:44:07election for

2:44:09>> I thought somebody had died when you get

2:44:11call at midnight

2:44:12>> it's from the primary

2:44:13>> was Janice Monro is somebody on her

2:44:16staff

2:44:19>> couldn't get back to sleep for hours

2:44:20after that

2:44:20>> no I wouldn't think so

2:44:22>> like what else didn't I sign

2:44:25[laughter]

2:44:26>> that my ward got audited by the state so

2:44:29we had special box and locks and

2:44:31everything to turn the ballots in yeah

2:44:34>> I was miserable Please proceed.

2:44:35>> Sorry about that.

2:44:36>> Okay. Um, we have lived at 92 Mountain

2:44:39Road for 34 years. We raised our two

2:44:41daughters there, now adults. Um, our

2:44:43plot stretches from Mountain Road, where

2:44:45our driveway begins, to the back end of

2:44:47our woods facing Shaker Road. Um, the

2:44:50City of Conquered zoning ordinance in

2:44:52articles 24- 28-4-1

2:44:56C, and 28-4-1H

2:45:00requires 100 ft of frontage in this part

2:45:02of the city. When our home was built by

2:45:04its first owner in the mid 1980s, the

2:45:06property, which is about 2.48 acres, had

2:45:09only 53 feet of continuous frontage on

2:45:12Mountain Road with an additional 10 ft

2:45:14of frontage at the northern end, which

2:45:16you can see on the upper leftand corner

2:45:18of the photo. Thus, the legal frontage

2:45:20for our home is on Shaker Road where we

2:45:22own 161 feet of frontage. Um,

2:45:25incidentally, when we purchased the home

2:45:27in 1992, we understood that the builder

2:45:30had hoped to build five houses on the

2:45:32property, but that plan, his plan never

2:45:34came to fruition. Um, so when we bought

2:45:36it, we had the legal frontage was on

2:45:39Shaker Road. We are applying for a

2:45:41variance from the u from the zoning

2:45:43board to accept as legally compliant the

2:45:46currently non-conforming 63 feet of

2:45:48frontage on Mountain Road. If granted,

2:45:50we hope to sell up to an acre of the

2:45:52land fronting Shaker Road to a buyer

2:45:55seeking to build a one uh building one

2:45:58single family residence.

2:46:00We informed our uh Butters in person and

2:46:03in writing about our plans. We asked for

2:46:04input regarding our plans. All supported

2:46:07it though one a butter on Shaker Road

2:46:09expressed that he didn't want the parcel

2:46:11to be clear-cut. Um, and our reply is

2:46:15that our intention is to sell to a buyer

2:46:16who plans to build uh a single family

2:46:19home. In fact, a neighbor has expressed

2:46:21serious interest in buying the parcel in

2:46:23order to build a house for his elderly

2:46:25mother. If the variance is granted,

2:46:27we'll proceed with the land survey and

2:46:29wetland study before we go to the

2:46:30planning board. Um, do you want us to go

2:46:32through the five questions?

2:46:34>> Yeah, take a quick trip.

2:46:35>> Okay.

2:46:35>> Through those.

2:46:36>> All right. Um,

2:46:37>> we we have read your app, but it's

2:46:39>> okay. Great. Um, so we believe that

2:46:41granting the variance would not be

2:46:42contrary to the public interest because

2:46:44the property where we have resided since

2:46:461992 would not change in appearance,

2:46:49character, or usage. We request the

2:46:51variance to allow our parcel to be

2:46:53subdivided so we could sell part of the

2:46:55land on Shaker Road, recognizing that in

2:46:57order to to do so, our non-conforming

2:46:59frontage on Mountain Road must be

2:47:00legally acceptable to the city. Um, the

2:47:03parcel that we hope to sell would meet

2:47:04the requirements of the RS district,

2:47:07allowing one single family residence

2:47:09with at least 100 feet of frontage and

2:47:10adequate buffer on all sides. In keeping

2:47:13with the character and density of the

2:47:14neighborhood, uh, the parcel would not

2:47:16allow for construction of more than one

2:47:17residence. If it's granted, the spirit

2:47:19of the audience ordinance um would be

2:47:22observed because there would be no

2:47:24effect on the mountain road frontage.

2:47:26Neither the location, traffic, driveway,

2:47:27buffer's appearance nor character of the

2:47:30property would change. If it is granted

2:47:32and we proceed with subdividing our

2:47:34property to sell a parcel on Shaker

2:47:36Road, an additional building lot would

2:47:38become available for new residential

2:47:40property.

2:47:41Um, granting the variance would do

2:47:44substantial justice, we believe, because

2:47:46it would allow us to subdivide our um

2:47:49almost 2.5 acre property into two

2:47:52parcels. The smaller of which um would

2:47:55it would be between a half acre and an

2:47:57acre. It's currently wooded and unused

2:48:00and it could be sold for the

2:48:01construction of a single residential

2:48:02home on Shaker Road. Um we believe such

2:48:05an outcome would be in line with the

2:48:07city's desire for additional housing

2:48:09stock. Our home and the land we use

2:48:11around it, including driveway, garage,

2:48:13lawn, and garden would not change. If

2:48:15the variance were granted, the values of

2:48:17the surrounding properties would not be

2:48:19diminished because on Mountain Road,

2:48:21there would be no impact, no change on

2:48:23the surrounding properties. On Shaker

2:48:25Road, if we were to sell the smaller

2:48:27parcel, a newly constructed single

2:48:29family on home on at least a half acre

2:48:32um would likely increase, not decrease,

2:48:34the value of the surrounding properties.

2:48:36And with 161 feet of frontage, a newly

2:48:39constructed home on over a half acre

2:48:41would have considerable setbacks and

2:48:43buffers. Um owing to the special

2:48:46conditions of the property that

2:48:48distinguish from other properties in the

2:48:49area, denial of the variance would

2:48:51result in unnecessary hardship because

2:48:53when our 2.4 acre property was

2:48:56originally carved out of a larger parcel

2:48:58of farmland in the early 1980s, the

2:49:01intention of the buyer of that buyer who

2:49:04was the builder was to build more than

2:49:06one home with access to the property

2:49:08from Shaker Road. Ultimately, ours was

2:49:10the only home built with the address of

2:49:1292 Mountain Road. No access road or

2:49:15driveway was created from Shaker Road,

2:49:17though that was the only frontage that

2:49:19met zoning ordinance, sorry, article

2:49:2328-4-1H.

2:49:25Since we purchased the property in 1992,

2:49:28we have lived in the home with the

2:49:29address of 92 Mountain Road with the 53

2:49:32ft of frontage plus additional 10 ft.

2:49:36The parcel on Shaker Road is in excess

2:49:38of what we need or desire. If sold to a

2:49:41buyer for the purpose of building one

2:49:42single family residence, we would retain

2:49:45sufficient woods to maintain a buffer

2:49:47between our home and the new Shaker Road

2:49:49property.

2:49:51>> Questions from the board.

2:49:54>> Do do you know

2:49:56I think did you say that it was built in

2:49:58the this lot was developed initially in

2:50:0082?

2:50:01>> 85

2:50:02>> 85. What did they need a variance then

2:50:04for the lack of sufficient frontage? Do

2:50:06you know? Or was that not a requirement?

2:50:08>> What the

2:50:10builder was told is that he would need

2:50:13frontage and to build a city road,

2:50:15Petrian Mountain and Shaker roads.

2:50:18>> Oh wow.

2:50:18>> Kind of weird kind.

2:50:20>> He couldn't afford to do that. He

2:50:21couldn't afford to keep it home.

2:50:25>> Wow.

2:50:25>> But it never happened and it and it you

2:50:28never been an issue. Okay.

2:50:29>> Right.

2:50:30>> Interesting. Other questions?

2:50:32>> So the lot you're creating is really

2:50:34accessed from Shaker Road. Is that

2:50:35correct?

2:50:36>> Yes. So where that black line is is an

2:50:39approximate

2:50:40>> and that's only 63 feet.

2:50:42>> No.

2:50:43>> No.

2:50:44>> In width.

2:50:46>> It's 161 ft.

2:50:49>> Their frontage up on Mountain Road is

2:50:50the one that's

2:50:51>> okay with 57.

2:50:53>> Yep.

2:50:56>> So

2:50:58So you can sort of This is our driveway.

2:51:02This is our home. This is the 53 ft. And

2:51:06then there's this little

2:51:08bit. So the total is 63.

2:51:11>> But this is 53 and this is 161 ft. And

2:51:16this is what we would like to sell

2:51:17somewhere.

2:51:19And we would make that decision after

2:51:21the land survey is done. We haven't

2:51:24we haven't specified exactly how much we

2:51:27will sell, but more than a half acre,

2:51:29less than an acre.

2:51:30>> There's certain you have to obviously

2:51:32wind up with a minimum,

2:51:34>> right?

2:51:34>> They the minimum lot size for the RS

2:51:36district, I believe, is um 12,500 square

2:51:40feet, I believe. We're RS, right? I'm

2:51:42not imagining that.

2:51:43>> And this might be RS.

2:51:45>> Nope, this is RS.

2:51:47>> Okay. So, um, yeah, we're at 12,000 and

2:51:51because we walked through this project

2:51:53together, um, when when they initially

2:51:56came asking the question to make sure

2:51:57that they conformed and had all the

2:51:59variances that they were going to need

2:52:00in place. So, the RS district requires

2:52:03the, uh, yeah,

2:52:05>> 12,500.

2:52:07They should have no problem.

2:52:08>> They have no problem meeting any of that

2:52:09regarding the subdivision. The only

2:52:11issue is is once they subdivide, it

2:52:13creates a non-conforming

2:52:15non-conformity with the frontage on

2:52:17their parcel and that's why they're

2:52:19>> getting ahead of the game when they go

2:52:22to go talk to the surveyor.

2:52:25>> Any other questions from the board?

2:52:27>> Is there anything else you'd like us to

2:52:28know?

2:52:29>> Thank you.

2:52:30>> Thank you.

2:52:30>> Thank you.

2:52:31>> Thank you.

2:52:31>> Is there anyone here who'd like to be

2:52:32heard in favor of this appeal?

2:52:35>> Is there anyone here? Oh, please come

2:52:36forward.

2:52:42Good evening.

2:52:42>> Good evening. Swear to tell the truth

2:52:43and nothing but.

2:52:44>> I do.

2:52:44>> May we have your name, please?

2:52:46>> David Yonak, 90 Mountain Road.

2:52:49>> What would you like us to know?

2:52:51>> I'm just wholly in favor of this. Alison

2:52:54and Norm have been great neighbors,

2:52:56great friends, and uh I I think that

2:53:00I agree with their with their position

2:53:02that this will be nothing but help for

2:53:04concrete in the neighborhood.

2:53:06>> Very good. Thank you.

2:53:08>> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

2:53:09>> Is there anyone else who'd like to be

2:53:10heard in favor? Is there anyone who'd

2:53:13like to be heard in opposition?

2:53:16Is there anything further from planning?

2:53:19>> That will close the public testimony

2:53:21portion of the hearing and I'll invite

2:53:25I don't know maybe Mr. Waller to start

2:53:27on this one.

2:53:29>> Sure. Um

2:53:32obviously the hardship lies in the

2:53:35unusual configuration of the the lot.

2:53:38Um uh and I think for me that's enough

2:53:42to to grant a variance because it is

2:53:45such an unusual frontage situation.

2:53:48>> Actually, I haven't seen one like that

2:53:50before.

2:53:51>> Oh, you mean that little skinny bit of

2:53:53>> Yeah, I bet they get a lot of use out of

2:53:54that apartment.

2:53:56>> You would have thought they would have

2:53:57just pushed the front house over 10 ft.

2:53:59>> You could get your bicycle right down

2:54:00the middle of it.

2:54:03>> So, yep. I'm good with

2:54:05>> Mr. Wes.

2:54:07>> Yeah. There's no there's no connect

2:54:09connection between the the the

2:54:12insufficient frontage and what they want

2:54:15to do. It's not going to change any of

2:54:18the ongoing use. It's a little it's a

2:54:20little unclear how the original

2:54:24developer was able to to do this, but

2:54:28they did and nothing has come of it so

2:54:31far. So, this obviously hasn't caused

2:54:32any problems. So I, you know, otherwise

2:54:35it's a perfectly

2:54:38good use of the property and to be able

2:54:39to carve off a lot and not need any

2:54:41other variances is, you know,

2:54:44commendable. So

2:54:45>> yeah,

2:54:46>> that's perfect.

2:54:46>> Um, I agree. And just in reference to

2:54:48the person they admitted had a concern

2:54:51about them clearing the lot, they could

2:54:52clear the lot right now. They don't have

2:54:54to subdivide it in order to do that. So

2:54:56that's an option for them anyway. So I

2:54:59don't see a reason not to allow for this

2:55:01variance and allow that opportunity to

2:55:04build a reasonable size property on the

2:55:07back lot.

2:55:08>> M Rush,

2:55:09>> this has been a continuing frontage

2:55:12issue for 40 something years and it's

2:55:15not going to change anything. So I think

2:55:18it's a reasonable [snorts]

2:55:20>> I agree with my colleagues. Would anyone

2:55:23care to make a motion?

2:55:26>> I can make the motion. I think that was

2:55:28my time. It's your turn. I can find

2:55:30things.

2:55:31>> It is your turn for sure.

2:55:32>> I gotta start preparing it. Yeah. Yeah.

2:55:35Back up for start here. When the motion

2:55:37is made, I need to start clicking. Okay.

2:55:42I

2:55:44I move to grant the variance from

2:55:46sections 28-4-1H

2:55:48and 28 uh-4-1C to allow the creation of

2:55:52a lot with 63 feet of frontage where 100

2:55:55ft is required in the single family

2:55:57residential district at 92 Mountain Road

2:55:59tax map and lot 411Z27

2:56:03because all of the criteria under RSA

2:56:0567433 have been met based on the record

2:56:08before us and I move to adopt the

2:56:10applicant's proposed those findings as

2:56:11the board's findings of fact.

2:56:13>> Is there a second?

2:56:14>> I'll second.

2:56:15>> It's been moved and seconded. Any

2:56:16discussion? All those in favor, please

2:56:18say I. I.

2:56:20>> Anyone opposed? The motion carries. The

2:56:24variance is granted. That takes us to

2:56:28the next case, which is 4.11. John

2:56:31Arnold, attorney with Orin Reno on

2:56:33behalf of Brad Pernau, requests the

2:56:36following variances to for 30 Manchester

2:56:39Street in the Gateway Performance

2:56:40District. They'd like to permit 11

2:56:43building signs where a maximum of three

2:56:45are allowed to permit total building

2:56:47sign of 633.7

2:56:50ft where a maximum of 105 square feet

2:56:53are allowed. and to allow electronic gas

2:56:57price display where electronic message

2:56:59center signs are prohibited. Gentlemen,

2:57:02he's wear nothing but

2:57:05>> Yes.

2:57:05>> Would you identify yourselves for the

2:57:06record, please?

2:57:08>> Uh I'm John Arnold. I represent the

2:57:10applicant BKP Invest uh one LLC. This is

2:57:14Brad Perina. He is one of the owners of

2:57:16the property uh and the common man uh

2:57:18roadside enterprise.

2:57:22fill us in on why you feel a variance is

2:57:24appropriate.

2:57:25>> That one.

2:57:25>> Yeah.

2:57:28>> We will try.

2:57:29>> Great. Um [snorts]

2:57:32so, uh this project's the common man

2:57:34roadside. It's at 30 Manchester Street.

2:57:36I don't know if anyone's driven by it

2:57:37lately. The construction is just about

2:57:39complete. Uh you'll all be relieved to

2:57:42know that we're not here asking for

2:57:43variances for the stuff we've already

2:57:45built. Um we're here [laughter]

2:57:48just for the proposed signage to wrap

2:57:50the um the project up.

2:57:52>> Um

2:57:54I'm going to try to connect my computer

2:57:57here because I just want to show you a

2:57:59couple of things.

2:58:03Um the first thing is something you have

2:58:05in your package already, but I was going

2:58:07to pull it up on the screen.

2:58:09Um

2:58:12>> excellent. Thank you.

2:58:13>> You're welcome.

2:58:14>> It worked. So, just a site plan to get

2:58:17you oriented. Um, Manchester Street runs

2:58:19along the top. Uh, Black Hill Road along

2:58:22the bottom. The outline is the entire

2:58:24property. It's got kind of an odd shape.

2:58:26This rectangle up towards Manchester

2:58:28Street, that's the fuel canopy. Um, and

2:58:31this outline down here below, this is

2:58:33the main um the main building. It has uh

2:58:36the convenience store in it as well as

2:58:38the uh the food service, the market, and

2:58:40the deli.

2:58:42Um,

2:58:43I'm going to scroll down here a little

2:58:45bit. The, um, guess let me go back up.

2:58:49Uh, this is the monument sign. Um, it's

2:58:52going to go out on Manchester Street.

2:58:54This sign, uh, has already been

2:58:56permitted and approved except for the

2:58:59electronic price display. That's what

2:59:00we're here for in the monument sign

2:59:02tonight. This sign in terms of

2:59:03dimensions and location is fully

2:59:05compliant. It's just the electronic

2:59:07message price display that requires a

2:59:10variance. and that's one of our requests

2:59:11tonight.

2:59:13Um, this sheet shows what the uh the

2:59:16building signage is going to look like.

2:59:18Um, so we've got the common man roadside

2:59:21uh logo with the market and deli text

2:59:24below it. Um, that's going to go on

2:59:26three of of the four build main building

2:59:28facades. Um, and then down on the bottom

2:59:31left you see uh it's labeled ad signage

2:59:34A1, two, and three. That's a sign just

2:59:36to identify the food offerings and the

2:59:38hours. Uh, one of those would go on each

2:59:40one of the three facades, too. Um, down

2:59:43on the right side of the page, um, you

2:59:46see B4 and B5. This was, uh, uh, two

2:59:49signs with letterings that identified

2:59:51some of the offerings, hot coffee,

2:59:53sandwiches, lottery, etc. Those were

2:59:55initially part of our application. We've

2:59:58been to ADR, we've been to the planning

2:59:59board. Some of the feedback we received

3:00:01was that we have a lot of signs here.

3:00:04And so, um, we're going to eliminate B4

3:00:07and B5 from the project. They were going

3:00:09to be on the front facade. We're not

3:00:10going to include them anymore. And so,

3:00:12that reduces our total s sign count down

3:00:15uh from 11 signs that we identified in

3:00:17our application down to nine. Uh, it's

3:00:20going to eliminate two of them. And it's

3:00:21also going to eliminate

3:00:23um the square footage associated with

3:00:25those signs. It brings the total square

3:00:27footage down to um 618 square ft. Uh we

3:00:32had said I think 6

3:00:3434 in our application. So, it drops that

3:00:36down a little bit. Um, I would point out

3:00:39if you're trying to check my math that

3:00:41um the area figure in the application

3:00:44was off by a foot and a half. Um, but I

3:00:47think it's irrelevant and moot because

3:00:49we're dropping uh the total area down uh

3:00:52well more than that. I just pointed out

3:00:54in case you're trying to double check

3:00:55me. Um

3:00:59this is the uh the renderings of the uh

3:01:02the building. It shows where those signs

3:01:04that we just looked at are going to go.

3:01:05Um so on the top left is the back of the

3:01:08building. There's no signs right there.

3:01:10Below that uh is the front of the

3:01:12building that faces Manchester Street.

3:01:14So you can see the Common Man uh logo on

3:01:16the top kind of gable end of that

3:01:18portion. And then uh A1 down at the

3:01:21bottom. And that's the food um

3:01:24advertising that we looked at on the

3:01:25prior page. This shows, as I said, B4 on

3:01:28the left and B5 on the right. It's hard

3:01:30to see, but that was the the lettering

3:01:32right under the roof line. And as I

3:01:34said, both of those are being

3:01:35eliminated.

3:01:36And then on the two gable ends, uh same

3:01:40thing, common man logo on the top and uh

3:01:44the food uh sign down below. So, it's

3:01:47essentially the same signage on the

3:01:49front and the two visible sides of the

3:01:51building and nothing on the back.

3:01:52>> This is a so-called back the Black Hill

3:01:54Roadside.

3:01:55>> Yep.

3:01:57Um I'm going to pull up this one because

3:01:59it has a correction on it. Uh that was

3:02:01in your application, but uh this is the

3:02:04canopy. So, the fuel canopy out by the

3:02:06street, it has three Irving logos along,

3:02:10you know, the the top of the canopy

3:02:11above uh the fueling stations. Um again

3:02:15the same three facads facing Manchester

3:02:17Street and then in either direction uh

3:02:19so traffic can see it um coming from

3:02:21either side.

3:02:25Um so we're asking [clears throat] for

3:02:27three variances tonight. One is to allow

3:02:29n uh now nine wall signs uh down from 11

3:02:34uh where a maximum of three are allowed.

3:02:36Two is to allow 618 square feet of wall

3:02:39signage down from the 634 stated in the

3:02:42application, max of 105 square feets

3:02:46allowed. And the third is to allow the

3:02:47electronic price display on the monument

3:02:49sign. I'm going to turn things over to

3:02:52Brad. He wants to just tell you a little

3:02:53bit about the common man roadside and

3:02:55why these signs are important to him and

3:02:57then I'll um address the variance

3:02:59criteria.

3:03:00>> Right. Good evening. Uh Brad Pernell

3:03:01with the common man roadside. This will

3:03:03be our ninth store um that that we're

3:03:05opening. Um and they're all the same um

3:03:09aesthetic and style with the stone up

3:03:10front. And we don't um you here's some

3:03:13photos of of actual projects that we've

3:03:16we have open. And you'll see we don't

3:03:18paper windows with like you know by Bud

3:03:21Light and and all that kind of stuff. We

3:03:24um the the way the logo sign had to be

3:03:27constructed. it's in two separate pieces

3:03:30um just because of how they would have

3:03:32to construct it and adhere it to the

3:03:34building. So each municipality views

3:03:37that a little bit differently. Um and so

3:03:38that you know that is one of the reasons

3:03:41there

3:03:43um the signs below the the logos um that

3:03:47is our only form of advertising that we

3:03:50do. Like I said about the cigarettes and

3:03:52whatever, it's just that one sign there

3:03:53in the middle between the two wreaths um

3:03:56that we uh promote different specials

3:03:59and products and things like that. Um

3:04:02the price changer sign is really a um an

3:04:05interesting one because it's not motion.

3:04:06and it does not change um automatically

3:04:09and it it's really just an advancement

3:04:11in technology that allows us to do it

3:04:12remotely rather than make somebody go

3:04:14out in in the winter in the rain and and

3:04:16be on the side of the street with a

3:04:18suction cup changing um you know these

3:04:21individual price signs. Um, so I think

3:04:26you know that's really a technology

3:04:27thing that's evolved um to replace that

3:04:29the sign looks identical to the old ones

3:04:32with the you know plexiglass on them and

3:04:34this is just a modern way to to change

3:04:37prices and more efficiently and more

3:04:39more safely.

3:04:42Good. All right. Um so we're just going

3:04:45to try and move quickly but interrupt if

3:04:47you have questions. Um before I hop into

3:04:49the criteria, I just want to make kind

3:04:51of a few general comments, observations.

3:04:53The first is that when you look at our

3:04:55requests, I think in the abstract and

3:04:57you see, you know, nine signs and 618

3:05:01square feet, I think that sounds like a

3:05:03lot in the abstract. I would urge you,

3:05:05and while I'm talking, I I won't be

3:05:08offended if you're reading, but I urge

3:05:09you to flip through the renderings in

3:05:11your packet that I showed, you know, a

3:05:13moment ago, because I think when you

3:05:14look at how those signs scale with the

3:05:17building and how they're spread among

3:05:19the facades on the building, the

3:05:21signage, in my opinion, really looks

3:05:23very reasonable and appropriate for the

3:05:25type of use. I don't think it's

3:05:26excessive despite how those numbers look

3:05:28out of the gate. Um, the second thing is

3:05:30that the project has a few different

3:05:32business lines to advertise here. It has

3:05:33gas, has the convenience store, and it

3:05:36has the quick service food. And so even

3:05:38though it's one project and they're all

3:05:40related, it's really, you know, three

3:05:42separate businesses that all need to be

3:05:44identified and advertised.

3:05:46Uh the third thing is that when you have

3:05:48a fuel canopy or when you have fuel as

3:05:50part of a a use as we do here, um the

3:05:54canopy typically needs to be put kind of

3:05:57up towards the the street frontage and

3:05:59that's for access and visibility and

3:06:00making sure that cars pulling in to get

3:06:02fuel, aren't having to drive through a

3:06:03big parking lot where pedestrians are

3:06:05walking in and out of stores and and and

3:06:07so on. But what comes along with that is

3:06:10that the main, you know, convenience

3:06:11store and market building gets pushed

3:06:13back further into the site. And in this

3:06:15case, it gets pushed back about 165 ft

3:06:18from the front lot line. And when you

3:06:20push it back that far, the signs that

3:06:21are on that building necessarily need to

3:06:23get a little bit larger so the motorists

3:06:25can see them from the street uh when

3:06:27they're driving by.

3:06:29I'd also say that the size and and

3:06:31number of sign limits in the ordinance

3:06:33are very challenging. I think you guys

3:06:34know that. I think you see a lot of

3:06:35requests about signage and this isn't

3:06:37much different. Um and so even though

3:06:40here we have um what zoning considers to

3:06:44be two separate structures with the

3:06:45canopy in the main building, uh we have

3:06:48two separate street frontages with Black

3:06:50Hill Road and Manchester Street. Um and

3:06:53we have three separate but related

3:06:55[snorts] kind of lines of business

3:06:57within the project. Um we can only have

3:07:00a total of three building signs and 105

3:07:02square feet. Um, and just for context,

3:07:05the Irving signs on the canopy, just

3:07:07those little logos we looked at, um,

3:07:10just those alone would eat up the

3:07:11allotment of three signs, and it it eats

3:07:14up almost all of the total 105 square

3:07:17ft. Um, just the Irving logos take up

3:07:20about 90 ft of signage. So, it really

3:07:22leaves very little um, otherwise for the

3:07:25rest of the project.

3:07:27Um, and then just generally with respect

3:07:30to the EMC sign, I don't think that the

3:07:32gas displays, and Brad alluded to this,

3:07:34I don't think that the gas displays are

3:07:36really what the EMC van is geared

3:07:38towards. Um, the price displays that

3:07:40we're talking about here are essentially

3:07:42static. They don't scroll, they don't

3:07:43flash, there's no animation. Um, and

3:07:46they don't change more than once a day.

3:07:49Uh, the ban in the ordinance on EMC

3:07:51signs is designed to address exactly

3:07:54those concerns. Um, and that's because

3:07:56the signs that do those things are

3:07:57generally ugly. Uh, and they're

3:07:59generally distracting.

3:08:01Um, I remember, I think it was a couple

3:08:03of years ago, I was here making an

3:08:05argument to you guys for an EMC sign at

3:08:07Christ the King up on Main Street. And

3:08:10that that was a bigger sign that had

3:08:13messages that changed several times a

3:08:16day. And I remember that the board was

3:08:18very focused on what the display would

3:08:19look like. And the board in its typical

3:08:22wisdom uh, granted the variance. Um but

3:08:26it it uh limited the um the frequency of

3:08:30changes. Couldn't change more than once

3:08:32every two hours. And the display had to

3:08:35just be black and white text. No

3:08:37animation, no colors, no graphics. And

3:08:41um I'm not suggesting that that case has

3:08:44presidential value here. That's not why

3:08:45I'm raising it. But I raise it because I

3:08:47agree with the the board's logic in that

3:08:48case. And the logic was essentially that

3:08:50when you have a display of text that's

3:08:53largely static and it's not frequently

3:08:55changing, um,

3:08:59it really doesn't offend the underlying

3:09:01purpose of the EMC band and the EMC

3:09:03prohibition. And as Brad said, the

3:09:05display of these prices is really a lot

3:09:07more like an internally illuminated

3:09:09traditional price sign than it is what

3:09:11the ordinance, you know, contemplates

3:09:12when it's thinking about EMC signs.

3:09:16Uh so briefly on the variance criteria

3:09:19on the public interest and the spirit of

3:09:21the ordinances uh ordinance the

3:09:23variances will not alter the essential

3:09:24character of the locality or threaten

3:09:26public safety, health or welfare. Uh

3:09:28when you look at the renderings in the

3:09:30package and the photos that Brad showed

3:09:31or that I showed while Brad was

3:09:33speaking, I think that you'll see that

3:09:35the sign is proportionate. I think it's

3:09:37tasteful. I think it's modest. I don't

3:09:39think it is excessive in any way. the

3:09:41electronic price display. As I said,

3:09:44visually it really doesn't have a

3:09:45significantly different impact than a

3:09:47traditional internally illuminated

3:09:49price. And this is in an area, you know,

3:09:52it's just off the highway. It's on

3:09:53Manchester Street in a pretty busy area

3:09:55surrounded by other commercial

3:09:56development. I don't think any of this

3:09:58will be out of character uh with the

3:10:00area

3:10:02on substantial justice. Uh so the

3:10:04balancing test, I don't think there's

3:10:05any paused any harm to the the public

3:10:08for the reasons I just stated. Um the

3:10:11benefit to the of the variances to the

3:10:13applicant is really three-fold. Um they

3:10:16allow consistency uh throughout the

3:10:18brand among the different stores. Brad

3:10:20mentions he had this is going to be the

3:10:21ninth store and this as you saw in the

3:10:23photos is consistent with the signage

3:10:24that he has at all the other stores and

3:10:26that's important for a business like

3:10:27this. Um two, the [clears throat] size

3:10:32variance allows the signs to be visible

3:10:35uh to motorists [snorts] on the street.

3:10:36Again, given that long or that large

3:10:38separation uh between the main building

3:10:41and the street and then allowing the

3:10:44fuel prices to be electronic really

3:10:46provides the technological benefit of uh

3:10:49being able to change those prices from

3:10:51inside the store and as Brad said,

3:10:53instead of sending an employee out uh in

3:10:56the elements next to a busy road with a

3:10:58pole um trying to change those prices

3:11:01[snorts] on the property values, there

3:11:02won't be any impact here. If anything, I

3:11:04think the overall project is going to be

3:11:06a dramatic improvement for the area. Um,

3:11:09it's currently an undeveloped,

3:11:11underutilized property. Um, I think this

3:11:13project will be a great thing for the

3:11:16area. And on the hardship, I think

3:11:18there's a few unique characteristics.

3:11:20Um,

3:11:22so this lot is the largest lot in the

3:11:25Gateway Performance District along

3:11:27Manchester Street. Um, you can see a

3:11:29little snippet of the GIS map right

3:11:30there just to get a sense of what's

3:11:31around it. Um, what that means is that

3:11:35the property is uh really well suited

3:11:37for a a project like this that's a

3:11:39little bit bigger in scale. It has

3:11:40multiple uses. As I mentioned, the gas,

3:11:43the convenience store, the food service,

3:11:44those fit on this property very nicely.

3:11:47Um, but as I mentioned before, when you

3:11:50have those multiple uses, what goes

3:11:51along with that is a need to adequately

3:11:54identify and advertise all of them. And

3:11:56so that uh warrants, you know, more more

3:11:59signs, the number of signs. Um it also

3:12:02means that when you have the fuel canopy

3:12:04up front and a larger um you know main

3:12:06building out back, you have that

3:12:08separation I mentioned. So having signs

3:12:12that are visible on that real on that

3:12:14rear building is a challenge unless you

3:12:16make them larger uh and you exceed the

3:12:19very modest 105 uh square feet that

3:12:21would otherwise be allowed here.

3:12:24Um, [clears throat]

3:12:26and I think that the underlying purpose

3:12:28of the sign regulations just generally,

3:12:30you know, number of signs, uh, area of

3:12:32signs and the EMC signs is to have signs

3:12:36that are attractive, that aren't

3:12:38overbearing, that aren't distracting.

3:12:40Um, but at the same time allowing

3:12:42sufficient signage for businesses to

3:12:44adequately identify themselves and

3:12:46advertise um, to be able to succeed in

3:12:48the long term. And so I think that the

3:12:50proposed signage really strikes the

3:12:52balance between those two um somewhat

3:12:54competing interests. And I think that uh

3:12:59I think that the proposal is very

3:13:00reasonable. Um and just I guess briefly

3:13:04to touch on the EMC uh prices briefly.

3:13:07Again, I just want to reiterate that I

3:13:09think that the price display itself is

3:13:11fundamentally different than the EMC's

3:13:14that the ordinance is designed to

3:13:16address. And when you're talking about

3:13:17the static price displays um that don't

3:13:20change more than once a day, it's hard

3:13:22to see how um

3:13:26uh the general public purpose of the

3:13:29ordinance would be served by prohibiting

3:13:31them here. I think it's a very tenuous

3:13:34relationship to say that um

3:13:37preventing EMC signs as a general

3:13:39[clears throat] policy of the ordinance

3:13:41is served by not allowing a static price

3:13:44display here. Uh overall, I think it's a

3:13:47great project. I think it's going to do

3:13:48good things for the area. I think

3:13:50there's a number of folks in the city

3:13:51who are excited about it. And this is

3:13:53just the final piece to get it opened uh

3:13:56next month, right?

3:13:57>> November.

3:13:57>> November. So,

3:13:59>> I think that's it.

3:14:01>> Questions from the board.

3:14:03>> Oh. Um, I have a a question uh on the

3:14:07electronic because I I feel like we've

3:14:10had a similar argument before though

3:14:13it's been a while about the fact that it

3:14:16enables the employees to change the

3:14:17prices remotely which is obviously much

3:14:19more convenient and sometimes safer. But

3:14:23are there other this must come up in the

3:14:26industry I mean there other gas stations

3:14:28in the area that have a variance fac

3:14:30because this that must be true of all

3:14:31gas stations [snorts] right? I think it

3:14:33is true of all gas stations. It's uh I

3:14:37haven't dealt with it in conquered

3:14:38previously, so I can't probably answer

3:14:40the question directly for what you're

3:14:41looking for. I have dealt with it in

3:14:43other municipalities and a number of

3:14:45municipalities say, "Yeah, it's it's an

3:14:48electronic display, but it's static and

3:14:50we don't even consider it an EMC." I

3:14:52think a couple months ago, I had one in

3:14:53Canterbury where they said, "It's not an

3:14:55EMC. You can have electronic price

3:14:56display."

3:14:57>> Oh, they said

3:14:58>> it's not they they said it's not even an

3:15:00EMC.

3:15:00>> They said it's not even an Okay. And

3:15:02then my other question was, is there

3:15:04something because you're you're

3:15:05obviously you designed the the

3:15:07construction of the building, right? It

3:15:10so is there something about the the

3:15:13topography of the land why you're

3:15:15setting it back that far?

3:15:18>> Yeah, you have to uh from a safety

3:15:19perspective on the fuel islands, they

3:15:21require 40 feet between the curb and

3:15:24then the the gas island. Then the gas

3:15:26island itself is another 40 to 50 feet.

3:15:29Then you have to have another 40 feet

3:15:31for um car movement around. Do you want

3:15:34to pull up the

3:15:34>> safe?

3:15:35>> And [snorts] then you have the um and

3:15:37then you have the parking spaces. So it

3:15:39we're always at a minimum um in a canopy

3:15:42structure like that where 150 ft back.

3:15:44Um and those are um design engineering

3:15:49specs for turning movements so you don't

3:15:51have cars bumping into each other when

3:15:53somebody's backing out and somebody's

3:15:55trying to pull in. And in terms of the

3:15:57configuration of the site that like you

3:15:59can see we've got this kind of odd

3:16:01shape. The the frontage section along

3:16:04Manchester Street is is relatively short

3:16:06compared to the other dimensions. So

3:16:07there's not room to say squeeze the

3:16:09canopy and the main building next to

3:16:12each other along the frontage. And for

3:16:14those reasons, the canopy needs to be up

3:16:16front because that's the fuel and you

3:16:18don't want, as I said, traffic driving

3:16:19through the pedestrian areas to get to

3:16:21the pumps in the back.

3:16:24Other

3:16:27questions?

3:16:30>> Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you.

3:16:32>> Is there anyone here who would like to

3:16:34be heard in favor of this appeal? Is

3:16:37there anyone who would like to be heard

3:16:38in opposition?

3:16:40Is there any comment from planning?

3:16:42>> No.

3:16:45>> With that, we'll close the public

3:16:46testimony portion of the hearing. And

3:16:48I'm going to cidle over to my left and

3:16:50ask Mr. Waller.

3:16:51>> You guys don't need these pictures

3:16:52anymore, right?

3:16:53>> No, thank you. to uh give us his

3:16:56thoughts on this matter.

3:16:57>> Well, in [clears throat] terms of the

3:16:58number of signs and the size of the

3:17:00signs, I think any I think we've dealt

3:17:03dealt with a lot of box stores that have

3:17:06specific requirements,

3:17:09industry requirements to have larger

3:17:11signs and more signs. And we've tended

3:17:13to to be persuaded by that argument that

3:17:16it's uh uh this is their their marketing

3:17:19part of their marketing scheme to have

3:17:21this kind of a message. uh with these

3:17:24number of sides and the size. So I I'm

3:17:26inclined to

3:17:28to still apply that thinking to to the

3:17:31common man since they've had numerous uh

3:17:34locations that have this

3:17:35[snorts and clears throat] this kind of

3:17:36a signage throughout the state.

3:17:38>> Miss Rice,

3:17:40>> I would agree with that and I think that

3:17:41the the signs that they're proposing, I

3:17:44mean

3:17:45it is set back um so they're not too

3:17:48large. I think that they're appropriate

3:17:51for the for the building. I also want to

3:17:54address the the um gas

3:17:57tower. I I totally agree. I think we've

3:18:00got gas stations all over with prices

3:18:02posted. They're not electronic, but

3:18:04they're there and they're static and

3:18:06they do change. Um it makes no sense to

3:18:09me to say you can't illuminate from

3:18:12within uh versus a, you know, electronic

3:18:15sign. and um there's a safety issue. So,

3:18:19I would I would move [snorts] to grant

3:18:21the variances.

3:18:23>> Um

3:18:24>> M. Perkins,

3:18:24>> I I agree. I look at this kind of like

3:18:26the development up at exit 16. They've

3:18:29got frontage on two sides, three

3:18:30separate businesses in the building.

3:18:32Like you you have to hit from several

3:18:34angles, you know, for people to

3:18:36recognize what's there. And um as far as

3:18:39the gas sign goes, a lot of those ones

3:18:41with the suction numbers that are

3:18:44falling off all the time, those are

3:18:46often backlit anyway. So honestly, I'd

3:18:50rather just see the numbers lit up

3:18:51instead of an entire sign. So I'm that

3:18:55too.

3:18:57I

3:19:01I have some reservations about the

3:19:02number of signs and the I certainly I

3:19:05certainly think relief is appropriate um

3:19:09to an extent

3:19:11but I think for me that it's a little

3:19:13different than say the market basket

3:19:15because the market basket is essentially

3:19:17it's in its own

3:19:20it's almost like its own neighborhood

3:19:23that it created or like when we've seen

3:19:26the Walmart. I mean, not to, you know,

3:19:28compare one sort to another, per se, but

3:19:31that's almost like it's it's it's almost

3:19:32like its own zone in and of itself.

3:19:34Whereas here, my concern would be, well,

3:19:36there's a gas station right across the

3:19:38street,

3:19:40>> I think, or near, you know, I think

3:19:41there's multiple others all within that

3:19:43area that could say, well, wait a

3:19:44minute, you know, we're all selling

3:19:47[snorts] same stuff. It's a bit of a

3:19:50competitive advantage. Now, the common

3:19:52man's, they do a great job. I mean, I

3:19:54think, you know, and they have a very

3:19:56distinctive

3:19:58branding that that works very well. And

3:20:00so I and I think we've been pretty

3:20:02liberal about approving signs.

3:20:06Uh I just I my concern is just that that

3:20:09you know, it's a multiple of about six

3:20:10times. So then this the gas station

3:20:12across the street would be like, wait a

3:20:14minute, you know, and then it just

3:20:15becomes like an attrition war where

3:20:17everybody's like, "Well, I need to have

3:20:18at least as much sign as the other one

3:20:20because we're we're all basically

3:20:22selling a very similar product and, you

3:20:24know, we're kind of competing for the

3:20:26same customers driving down the street."

3:20:28As far as the electronic sign, I totally

3:20:30agree.

3:20:32The technology, I just wonder I'm just

3:20:35I'm trying to rack my brain because we

3:20:36dove this. I I really feel it's

3:20:38something the city should address

3:20:39because by the

3:20:42Oh, the I think the Blazer has a long

3:20:44>> They have an electronic sign says

3:20:46welcome

3:20:46>> electronic sign right up.

3:20:47>> Don't they have some some beef with some

3:20:50ruling? So they make the

3:20:51>> because it was because it was moving

3:20:54>> and they weren't it wasn't supposed to

3:20:56be moving. It was supposed to be static.

3:20:58It was supposed to just show like the

3:21:00time or the date or and it so I don't

3:21:03know if they had a variance but I think

3:21:05>> that was before my time here but I

3:21:07remember the whole

3:21:08>> So I think it should be

3:21:10So, I I think that should be dealt with

3:21:12on a citywide level because it strikes

3:21:15me if they you know, yes, it's they

3:21:17should be able to do it, but then so

3:21:18should every gas station. Have we

3:21:19granted them for every gas station?

3:21:22>> We haven't been asked.

3:21:23>> I [snorts] think we've been asked.

3:21:24>> We have been asked by at least one. I

3:21:26think I can't remember.

3:21:27>> Location also makes a difference just

3:21:29like any other sign variants when they

3:21:32come to us.

3:21:33>> If you had a location where like there

3:21:36was a a downtown church that wanted to

3:21:38put illuminated sign that could change

3:21:41the message. Well,

3:21:42>> we said

3:21:43>> you do that that was facing residential

3:21:45houses.

3:21:45>> Yeah. [snorts]

3:21:48>> Uh, right. Okay.

3:21:50>> Was that?

3:21:50>> Yeah.

3:21:51>> Okay. I I'm inclined to grant all the

3:21:54variances, I think this

3:21:56>> I think the sign package, leaving aside

3:21:58the illuminated sign question for the

3:22:00moment, I think the sign package in the

3:22:02context of the building and in the

3:22:04context of the location, it's a busy

3:22:06street. cars are uh drivers are some

3:22:09distance away from the buildings at the

3:22:12time they're coming by. So they they

3:22:15need a little space and

3:22:18size to see the the signs. The scale

3:22:21seems to be right to me. I don't it

3:22:23doesn't facade does not look overcrowded

3:22:26on this. So I'd say that it's it's a

3:22:29reasonable use and it's not inconsistent

3:22:31with the other activity visual activity

3:22:34that's going on in that neighborhood. So

3:22:36if that's consistent with the var the

3:22:38zoning then this is on the subject of

3:22:40the electronic sign. I I I think this

3:22:44this came from the fact that we actually

3:22:46went to court at one point, the city who

3:22:48conquered many years ago now over

3:22:51electronic signs and the type of

3:22:53electronic sign that they were talking

3:22:56about then were the sort of sign that

3:22:58you see over at NHTI as you come onto

3:23:01the campus which is a very

3:23:04insistent harsh light

3:23:07>> very very bright uh and whether changes

3:23:12or not. It It's

3:23:15kind of jarring to see.

3:23:16>> Yeah. And that's I think what the city

3:23:18council and the planning department and

3:23:20planning board were were opposed to and

3:23:23the court upheld that they as long as

3:23:26they weren't telling them what they

3:23:27could put on the sign, as I recall, the

3:23:30type of sign they could control. In this

3:23:33case, I don't see that as that type of

3:23:35sign at all.

3:23:37Uh I agree with Ms. Rice. It's just

3:23:40information. The fact that it's lit

3:23:42maybe makes it a little easier to see.

3:23:44Why make life difficult for people? Um,

3:23:47so I would I I would support a motion

3:23:50that uh approved all of the variances.

3:23:56Would anyone care to make a motion that

3:23:57does anything?

3:24:00>> Approves, disproves.

3:24:02>> I would move to approve the variances.

3:24:04Could I requested? Could you make a

3:24:06split motion?

3:24:08>> Uh, you want to split it?

3:24:10>> Do the elimination separate.

3:24:11>> Yeah.

3:24:12>> Okay. You want to do that?

3:24:14>> Okay.

3:24:15>> So, I I would make a motion to approve

3:24:16the um the variances with respect to the

3:24:21signage.

3:24:22Um,

3:24:24okay. Wait a minute.

3:24:27>> BA, B, A, and B, I guess, would be

3:24:30>> first one.

3:24:32Sorry, I once again had the wrong thing.

3:24:34But uh Oh, come on.

3:24:39My fingers are obviously not finding the

3:24:41right motions.

3:24:44This is [clears throat]

3:24:47>> They're up on the screen here. If it's

3:24:49easier,

3:24:50>> I can read.

3:24:51>> Oh,

3:24:52>> I move to grant the variance from

3:24:55section 286 28-6-9B1

3:25:01to permit 11 building signs.

3:25:04>> It will be nine.

3:25:05>> It's nine actually.

3:25:07>> I'm sorry.

3:25:07>> They they adjusted their request to

3:25:10nine.

3:25:10>> Thank you.

3:25:11>> To permit uh nine building signs and to

3:25:16permit a total of total building sign

3:25:20area of approximately

3:25:2568

3:25:28>> square feet.

3:25:30um

3:25:33uh

3:25:34at 30 Manchester Street tax map and lot

3:25:38uh 781/Z29

3:25:40in the Gateway Performance District

3:25:43because all of the criteria under those

3:25:45um under 67433 have been met based on

3:25:49the record before us and I move to adopt

3:25:51the applicant's proposed findings of

3:25:53fact

3:25:55uh as the board's finding of fact.

3:25:57>> Is there a second? I'll second it.

3:25:59>> Move to second. Is there any discussion?

3:26:02This is for A and B.

3:26:05>> All in favor, please say I.

3:26:07>> I. Anyone opposed? The vote nay for A

3:26:11and B as well.

3:26:12>> Yeah, this is on the number of signs and

3:26:13the

3:26:14>> Okay.

3:26:14>> Volume of signs, right?

3:26:16>> Uh

3:26:17we have the vote is 4 to1 with Mr.

3:26:19Winters in the minority. The motion

3:26:21carries and the variances are granted.

3:26:23Do we have another motion for D or C,

3:26:25excuse me? I move to grant the variance

3:26:28from section 28-6-7R

3:26:32to allow electronic gas price display

3:26:35where electronic message senators center

3:26:37signs are prohibited at 30 Manchester

3:26:40Street tax map and lot 781Z29

3:26:44in the Gateway Performance District

3:26:46because all of the criteria under RSA

3:26:4867433

3:26:50have been met based on the record before

3:26:52us and I move to adopt the applicant's

3:26:54proposed findings Is the board's

3:26:56findings a fact?

3:26:58>> Is there a second?

3:26:59>> Second.

3:27:00>> It's moved and seconded. Any discussion?

3:27:02All in favor, please say I.

3:27:04>> I. Anyone opposed? The vote is

3:27:07unanimous. The motion carries. The

3:27:10variance is granted. That brings us to

3:27:134.13. Ari Pollock who is not here

3:27:17but his able colleague is

3:27:19>> last but [snorts] not least

3:27:20>> attorney with Gallagher Callahan and

3:27:22Gartrell on behalf of Capitol Region

3:27:25Healthc Care Corporation requests a

3:27:27variance to permit no rooftop mechanical

3:27:30screening adjacent to a residential

3:27:32parcel at 279 Pleasant Street in what

3:27:36are we in here? We're in the IS district

3:27:38institutional district. You all swear to

3:27:41tell truth. Would you identify

3:27:43yourselves for the record as you

3:27:44testify, please?

3:27:45>> Uh Chris Nato from Novous Group.

3:27:48>> Emily Garing from Gallagher Callahan

3:27:50Garri.

3:27:50>> Tim Paris from Parker House.

3:27:53>> So we're cognizant that we're the last

3:27:55thing keeping you guys from your

3:27:56evening, so we'll try to keep it lively.

3:27:58Um but we are talking about rooftop

3:28:00mechanicals, so I don't make any

3:28:01promises there. Um [snorts] we're here

3:28:04this evening to talk about 279 Pleasant

3:28:06Street, um which is in the institutional

3:28:09district. We're seeking a variance from

3:28:11section 28-4-2H,

3:28:14which is the requirement that

3:28:15non-residential uh uses on lots that

3:28:18abut residentially developed lots need

3:28:21to have um screening for their

3:28:23mechanical systems.

3:28:25Uh the reason that we need a variance is

3:28:27to uh grant us some relief from the

3:28:30screening requirement for some of our

3:28:31rooftop mechanicals. We've been able to

3:28:33screen some, but there's five vents that

3:28:35have not been screened. We're seeking

3:28:37relief uh for those vents.

3:28:40The subject property uh is in the the

3:28:43last phases of being renovated for

3:28:45medical offices. The renovations have

3:28:47included new rooftop mechanicals. Um the

3:28:51building is over 50 years old which

3:28:53means there are structural limitations

3:28:55to the structural integrity of the roof

3:28:57that prevents us from adding additional

3:28:59weight onto the roof. Um that has

3:29:02created a concern for us with the

3:29:04screening that's required under the

3:29:05ordinance. The screens themselves have

3:29:08weight, but then also the force of wind

3:29:10hitting those screens on top of a roof

3:29:11creates additional strain onto the

3:29:13structure of the roof. It also creates a

3:29:15situation where you can have um snow

3:29:17drift accumulate against the mechanicals

3:29:19and against those screens that is uh

3:29:22likely to add more weight that would be

3:29:24beyond the structure of the existing

3:29:25roof. Um the reason that this is an

3:29:28issue for us is to the west of the

3:29:30subject parcel is 281 Pleasant Street,

3:29:32which has been residentially developed.

3:29:34Um there is already a vegetative screen

3:29:38between these two pro uh properties. I

3:29:40think you can see them in this photo. So

3:29:42there's a a dense strip of mature trees

3:29:45that's already obscuring the view from

3:29:46the residence to the subject property.

3:29:49There's also a significant distance

3:29:51between the residents and the mechanical

3:29:53systems, meaning things like sound as

3:29:56noise and venting impacts are already

3:29:58negated based on the distance in the

3:30:00vegetative buffer.

3:30:03Um, as I said a minute ago, some of the

3:30:05rooftop mechanicals were able to be

3:30:07screened off. Um, specifically the

3:30:09condenser unit. So, the applicant has

3:30:10tried to do what they can already to

3:30:12screen these items. Um, unfortunately,

3:30:15we we have looked at alternatives to see

3:30:17if we could get screening for that

3:30:19Westerly side. Um, I've got a report

3:30:21that I don't think is already in your

3:30:23materials that I can pass out. Um, thank

3:30:26you to the board. It just indicates

3:30:27we've looked at alternatives. We worked

3:30:29with an engineering company to see if

3:30:30there were alternative screens that we

3:30:32could use. Um, and the consensus was

3:30:34that it was going to put too much uh

3:30:36strain on the existing beams holding up

3:30:38the roof.

3:30:41>> So, I can run through the variance

3:30:43criteria with you. You certainly have

3:30:45our findings of fact that have these in

3:30:47writing, but I'm happy to run through

3:30:48them.

3:30:51>> I can also give you guys a minute to

3:30:53read that memo if you'd like.

3:30:54Understanding you just received it.

3:30:57I just had a quick question about the

3:30:59buffer of trees. Is that on the

3:31:00hospital's property or is that on the

3:31:04land owners the residential property?

3:31:06>> I believe it's on the residential

3:31:07property. I'm only basing that on the

3:31:09fact that there's a fence and then the

3:31:10vegetative buffer, but I I don't know

3:31:12that for a fact of whose property it

3:31:15fences. Something else that I want to

3:31:18quickly point out, actually, if we

3:31:19scroll back down to the photo where you

3:31:21can actually see the rooftop, the

3:31:23ordinance only requires that screening

3:31:25would be placed on the side abudding the

3:31:26residence. So, if you were looking at

3:31:28this building, it would only be on the

3:31:29right hand side. It wouldn't be

3:31:31screening from the public way or from

3:31:32any other location. It would only be on

3:31:34that westerly side of the roof that

3:31:36would require screening.

3:31:41So the rest of it wouldn't require

3:31:42screening that it's only where it abuts

3:31:44the residential per uh the residentially

3:31:47developed lot which is to the west. Um

3:31:49and so what that does is because there

3:31:51would only be screening on that right

3:31:52hand side. It also creates sort of a

3:31:54visual anomaly that it doesn't protect

3:31:56um anybody on the street, it would

3:31:58create sort of an imbalance visually to

3:32:00only have that one screen on the one

3:32:02side.

3:32:03What um if this is relating to the new

3:32:07construction you guys are doing?

3:32:08>> It's renovations on a 50 plus year old

3:32:11building.

3:32:11>> It's renovations. So, you're adding new

3:32:14mechanicals to the existing roof that

3:32:17weren't there previously. Like why why

3:32:19do you need to why do you suddenly need

3:32:21to screen now?

3:32:23>> Well, we were looking for a final

3:32:25certificate of occupancy for inspection.

3:32:27It was brought up by someone who was

3:32:28doing the inspection um that that um

3:32:31questioned whe came out. We We were in

3:32:34compliance.

3:32:34>> Oh, you've you haven't been screening

3:32:36for a long time. And now you found out

3:32:37that you're supposed to

3:32:39>> the the the unit you see that it's on

3:32:41the roof now has screening incorporated

3:32:42in it when we installed that.

3:32:44>> The one that is on the ground was one

3:32:46that was done prior to the renovation.

3:32:48It was in place with mechanicals. You

3:32:50seen with the duct work going up and

3:32:51over the roof that's been there I think

3:32:54almost 10 years. We didn't do the

3:32:56mechanicals on the roof at the time was

3:32:58before my time, but we didn't do it

3:32:59because the roof couldn't support the

3:33:00weight of the new mechanicals and the

3:33:03additional snow load and everything

3:33:04would have happened with that. So that

3:33:05is why that is a groundbased unit that's

3:33:08down there that we have the fencing in

3:33:09front of on the lawn.

3:33:10>> So you had to put the rest of the

3:33:12mechanicals on the ground because the

3:33:13roof

3:33:14>> because the roof structure and the

3:33:15limitations that we have for snow load

3:33:16up there as well. So you're find

3:33:18basically you've it's been like this for

3:33:20a while and you're recently finding out

3:33:22you need to get a variance for this is

3:33:25is that my understanding that

3:33:27>> there were there are some additional

3:33:29vents that so this was an administrative

3:33:31approval through the planning department

3:33:33wasn't required to go to planning board.

3:33:35So, we presented to them an elevation of

3:33:37the building uh that showed the the big

3:33:41mechanical unit on top being screened

3:33:43and and the the taller vents that you

3:33:45can see this one here. There's one back

3:33:47here. You can't Oh, right here. You

3:33:49can't really see. Uh staff was

3:33:51comfortable with the the that we meant

3:33:53the intent of the ordinance and

3:33:55screening that equipment. It's these

3:33:58shorter They're very hard to see.

3:34:01>> Little little.

3:34:03>> Yeah, these little vents. There's I

3:34:05think there's one, two, three, four,

3:34:07five vents that were added uh because of

3:34:11the use of the building as the medical

3:34:13examiner. They were added after the fact

3:34:16and um staff identified that we were not

3:34:19adequately screening those according to

3:34:22the ordinance

3:34:24>> and it would be so adding the screens

3:34:26themselves would carry too much weight

3:34:28>> and and it would look funny quite

3:34:30honestly. So if you

3:34:32>> only face the side That's a technical

3:34:34engineering tool. [laughter]

3:34:36>> Okay.

3:34:37>> And but remember, as we said a moment

3:34:38ago, it's not just the weight of the

3:34:40screens themselves. It's also the wind

3:34:42pressure that that creates and then also

3:34:43the risk for snow drift. So there's a

3:34:45couple of different areas which there's

3:34:46contributing weight. It it's laid out.

3:34:48>> It's a good letter to provide because it

3:34:50makes a lot of sense,

3:34:52>> right? And so, you know, if there were a

3:34:53quick and easy fix to get screening,

3:34:55certainly we've considered that, but the

3:34:56problem is because of the age of the

3:34:58building and the structural integrity of

3:34:59the roof, it's just not an option. And

3:35:02so so if the screens were to be added,

3:35:05they'd be these red lines right here,

3:35:07these short red lines,

3:35:08>> random spots

3:35:09>> to to screen that one or butter from

3:35:12those vets basically.

3:35:14>> Yeah.

3:35:15>> That are going to face trees, right? The

3:35:17one of butter who already has an

3:35:18obscured view or vantage point because

3:35:21of the existing mature trees.

3:35:25[clears throat]

3:35:25>> I'm happy to run through the variance

3:35:27criteria, but I want to make sure if the

3:35:28board has any questions, we get those

3:35:30answered first. I I'm gonna pull the

3:35:32board on the sub. We've all read the

3:35:34application.

3:35:35[cough]

3:35:35>> So I don't think you need to go through

3:35:37the interior for us. There's no one

3:35:40>> here to listen to it anyway.

3:35:44>> That's certainly fair enough.

3:35:45>> I don't mean to slight the person in the

3:35:46>> No. And it's the public has access to it

3:35:48online. So

3:35:49>> So I think you could skip that.

3:35:50>> Okay. Certainly. Um in that case, I just

3:35:52want to make sure that the memo that I

3:35:53passed out does get added into the

3:35:55evidentiary record,

3:35:56>> the engineering report.

3:35:57>> Exactly. just because that is um

3:35:59demonstrative of the hardship with this

3:36:00property.

3:36:01>> Absolutely.

3:36:02>> I've got it covered.

3:36:03>> Perfect. Thank you.

3:36:05>> Very good. Is that it?

3:36:07>> Unless the board has questions.

3:36:09>> Does the board have any more questions?

3:36:11>> Thank you very much.

3:36:12>> Is there anybody here who'd like to be

3:36:14heard in favor of this appeal

3:36:16>> or in opposition to put them together?

3:36:18>> Unless you're

3:36:19>> Any comments from the planning office?

3:36:21>> No. With that, we'll close the public

3:36:23testimony portion of the hearing. And

3:36:25I'll start with Ms. Rice. How do you see

3:36:29this one?

3:36:31>> Uh, it sounds to me like there's a a

3:36:33structural issue that becomes a hardship

3:36:35here that

3:36:38they need the variance. Um,

3:36:41and it's certainly not going to diminish

3:36:43the value of surrounding properties or

3:36:46change the

3:36:48um,

3:36:50it's not contrary to public interest

3:36:53and spirit of the ordinance. There is

3:36:56blockage already from the view and that

3:36:59the purpose of the screening would be to

3:37:00block the view for the butter. Um, but

3:37:03that seems to be taken care of. Um, and

3:37:07they've done what they can to to uh meet

3:37:10the ordinance. So, I would vote to to

3:37:13grant it.

3:37:14>> Miss Perkins,

3:37:15>> I agree. They've obviously done a lot of

3:37:18research and have gotten opinions on it

3:37:20that prove a hardship worth approving

3:37:22the variance.

3:37:23>> Mr. Wyers,

3:37:25>> I agree. And, you know, in addition, the

3:37:28the residency unit is not that close.

3:37:31There's a lot of stuff going on in

3:37:32between.

3:37:34Nothing to add. Nothing to add.

3:37:36>> Nor do I have anything to add. I agree

3:37:37with my colleagues. Would anyone care to

3:37:39make a motion?

3:37:42[clears throat]

3:37:43>> Who has the nerve?

3:37:46[laughter]

3:37:47>> Try and find the motion.

3:37:48>> Okay. And go for I move to grant the

3:37:51variance from section 28-4-2H

3:37:55to permit no screening of rooftop

3:37:57mechanical equipment adjacent to a

3:37:59residential parcel at 279 Pleasant

3:38:02Street [snorts] tax and lot 723Z2

3:38:07in the institutional district because

3:38:10all of the criteria under RSA 7433 have

3:38:14been met based on the record before us

3:38:17conditioned upon obtaining any

3:38:19applicable permitting. We didn't even

3:38:22hear about that.

3:38:25>> Is that

3:38:26>> I think it's kind of surplus.

3:38:28>> Okay.

3:38:29>> And I move to adopt the applicant's

3:38:31proposed findings as the board's

3:38:33findings of fact.

3:38:35>> It's been moved and second. Any

3:38:36discussion? All in favor, please say I.

3:38:39>> I.

3:38:39>> I. Anyone opposed? The motion carries.

3:38:43The variance is granted. Do I hear a

3:38:44motion to accept the minutes? So moved.

3:38:47>> Is there a second? Second.

3:38:49>> All in favor, please say I. I.

3:38:52>> Anyone oppose? Any other business to

3:38:54come before us?

3:38:57>> Do I hear a motion to adjurnn?

3:38:58>> So moved.

3:38:59>> Is there a second?

3:39:00>> Second.

3:39:01>> Everyone say I.

3:39:03>> I.

3:39:05>> Thank you, lad.