2026-09-22 - Zoning Board of Adjustment

00:45All right. Good evening everybody. Sorry

00:48for talking so closely to the mic and

00:50welcome to the September 22nd meeting of

00:52the zoning board of adjustment. Uh my

00:54name is Jay Marcara, ZBA chair. To my

00:57right is ZBA vice chair Josh Neely.

01:00Across the stage is member Bucher

01:03and member Joseph Patri Petri. Um so we

01:08only have four tonight. Uh we do need uh

01:11you know there are normally five members

01:13but uh enough for us to move forward. Um

01:16so just a few items of business. So uh

01:19we have this evening requests for

01:21variances and special exceptions. Um, a

01:24special exception is a request to

01:26deviate from the terms of the ordinance,

01:28but I should say uh is a use that's

01:30allowed under the ordinance so long as

01:32certain criteria are met. Uh, a variant

01:36is a request to deviate from the terms

01:37of the ordinance. And in order for the

01:39zoning board to grant a variance, we

01:41have to find that five criteria are met.

01:44We have to find that uh granting the

01:46variance would not be contrary to the

01:47public interest, that the spirit of the

01:49ordinance would be observed, that

01:51substantial justice would be done, uh

01:54that there would be no demunition of

01:56surrounding property values, and that

01:58owing to a special condition of the

02:00property, uh denying the variance would

02:02result in an unnecessary hardship. Uh so

02:06uh in terms of order of business uh I'll

02:09read each case into the record and then

02:11the applicant will be invited to come up

02:13to the podium. Uh applicants have up to

02:1615 minutes to address the board. You

02:18don't have to use all 15 minutes but you

02:20do have it available to you. And um then

02:24following that I will ask if there's

02:27anybody in the audience who wishes to

02:28speak in favor of the application. Um,

02:31anybody wishing to speak in favor will

02:33have the opportunity again come up to

02:35the podium. Uh, state your name and

02:36address for the record and you have up

02:38to five minutes to address the board.

02:40Uh, following that, I'll ask if there's

02:42anybody in the audience who has

02:44questions, concerns, or opposition to

02:46the application. Once again, you would

02:49uh be invited to come up to the podium

02:51and you'd have up to five minutes to

02:53address the board. Following that, if

02:56necessary, um the applicant will have

02:58the opportunity uh to have up to five

03:00minutes to provide a rebuttal or answer

03:03any questions that might have been

03:05raised uh during public comments. And

03:08then following that, if there's any

03:10interest uh or need, we do provide the

03:12opportunity for one person who spoke

03:14with questions, concerns, or opposition

03:16to speak on behalf of anybody else. If

03:18there is anybody to speak on behalf of

03:20uh to uh address the board and really

03:23have the last say. And again, that

03:24individual would had up to five minutes.

03:27Um, so with that, I am going to ask I I

03:31should have um of course also noted Sam

03:34Dery uh planning manager is to my left.

03:37Uh Mr. Dery, are there any changes to

03:38the agenda this evening?

03:40>> There are not.

03:41>> Thank you. So with that, I'm going to

03:42call roll. Uh Mr. Priy,

03:44>> uh present.

03:45>> Mr. Buchet,

03:46>> present.

03:46>> Mr. Neely,

03:47>> present.

03:47>> And I, Jara, am present. Uh so I'm going

03:51to start with the first case. So, the

03:53first case is the application of Clint

03:55and Mary Licorice um at 19 Vista Way

03:59requesting a special exception from land

04:01use code section 190-112

04:04to work in a 40ft critical wetland

04:06buffer to remove 21 trees identified as

04:09a danger to the house. This case was had

04:12been postponed until July 28th, has been

04:15continued uh to this evening.

04:19>> Feel free to address the board.

04:20>> Yes. Good evening. We've seen you again

04:23too 19 vista way.

04:25>> One second. Um I think are we postponing

04:27three air road?

04:29>> If so I was not aware of that. Are we

04:30postponing three air road?

04:32>> Oh my goodness. That is a change to the

04:34agenda. I apologize. I did not catch

04:37that. Um if you are here this evening

04:40for the air road three air road case

04:43that is being postponed until um

04:46November 10th. So again sorry I missed

04:49that. November 10th. I apologize for

04:51missing that. Thank you.

04:55>> Yes, good evening and thank you for your

04:57time and due consideration. Um,

04:59obviously we spoke uh a few weeks ago. I

05:03don't plan on repeating or reiterating

05:05anything that I said at that time. I'm

05:07assuming unless you've got any questions

05:08on what I said previously, but I do have

05:11one clarification. Um I think I stated

05:14that the wetland buffer where the trees

05:17reside are but other conservation areas

05:20and I think they said like over 50

05:22acres. Well to clarify you know there's

05:2587 acres in Terrell Homestead and

05:28there's another 231 acres of UDI Ude all

05:33kind of a contiguous conservation area

05:36if you will. So amounting to 318 acres.

05:41I I think that's significant because

05:43you've got a largely forested area that

05:45bit above the couple of acres of

05:48interest here in the wetland buffer

05:51where the trees that I've requested to

05:53be removed reside. So even within the

05:56wetland buffer, you know, there are many

05:58many trees that will remain. But in the

06:00broader perspective, there are tens of

06:02thousands of trees, maybe more uh in

06:05those adjoining conservation areas. So

06:07proportionally, you know, perspective

06:09wise, you know, I know 20 trees sounds

06:12like a lot, but from a broader

06:14perspective of a contiguous woodland

06:16area, a relatively small proportion.

06:20Now, since the previous meeting, I did

06:23contact Nasha, sorry, New Hampshire

06:25Fishing Game as requested. Um and as

06:28you're aware, they were unable to

06:30provide a third opinion uh on the state

06:32of the trees of interest here. However,

06:35they did have three recommendations that

06:38if any trees are approved for removal,

06:41they wanted to specify between November

06:431st and April 1st for their removal

06:47and unless of course those trees are are

06:50identified as having an immediate

06:51hazard. Um and per the deed language,

06:54they would need to be removed uh at the

06:55earliest convenience.

06:58Second condition was to leave all stumps

07:00in place and to leave some downwood on

07:03the forest floor within the deed

07:05restricted area to provide woodland

07:07habitat for the wildlife. And then the

07:10third condition was avoid the operation

07:13of any vehicles within the deed

07:15restricted area and absolutely happy to

07:18comply with those three recommendations

07:21that fishing game made. Okay.

07:25Now, as I touched on before, you know,

07:28this request is from my perspective all

07:30about managing risk. Okay? I requested a

07:34professional arborist, Mr. Fredet, to do

07:37an assessment of the trees that I felt

07:39were of concern or were of concern in

07:42posing a risk to my home. Okay? And Mr.

07:46Fredet conducted his assessment last

07:50year and towards the end of last year.

07:53Okay? And now if he had said there were

07:55no trees that pose a risk, no, I

07:58wouldn't have filed the request. But

07:59that's not what he found. Okay? He found

08:01a number of trees that he considered

08:03posed a risk. And also, you know, it's

08:06not as if he identified every single

08:09tree that was tall enough to hit the

08:11house. Okay, I think that's an important

08:14point. He was considered and judicious

08:16in selecting the trees that he did for

08:18removal.

08:21You know, and that risk is real and that

08:23is acknowledged by the way by the second

08:25opinion that the conservation commission

08:28obtained as well, right? You know, and

08:32not to put a darker spin on it, there

08:33are around 30 deaths a year from falling

08:35trees. There were two this past year uh

08:39uh in Massachusetts this this past

08:41summer.

08:43Okay. And that the risk is real was

08:46brought home more closely just last week

08:50when there was a 60 to 70 foot tree that

08:53fell in the neighborhood in the terrible

08:55farm development. Okay. Luckily no one

08:59was injured and uh no property was

09:02damaged but you know the trees are

09:04falling if you were the risk is real.

09:09So I ask that the zoning board, you

09:11know, from a from a perspective of risk

09:14management, you know, give due

09:16consideration uh to the request to

09:18remove the trees and uh hopefully

09:21approve uh approve that to avoid

09:24property damage, injury or worse from

09:27from the danger that those trees

09:29present.

09:31Thank you.

09:32>> Thank you. Questions from the board.

09:36>> Mr. Neely,

09:37>> Mr. the licorice. I think I'm going to

09:39make more of a statement than than a

09:40question. So, I know this has been

09:42dragging out for many months and I want

09:44to apologize personally because I I'm a

09:46time guy. So, so to have you coming back

09:47in like this, I think we all learned a

09:49valuable lesson um about the what the

09:52New Hampshire state offers as a as a

09:54resource, which we all thought was a

09:55resource. It was not. You had to go back

09:57just to let us know that it's not a

09:58resource. So, I do appreciate your

10:00patience in this whole whole process.

10:02>> You're welcome.

10:05>> Anything else you'd like to add? Uh, not

10:07at this point.

10:07>> Any other questions from the board?

10:10>> See none. You're free to take a seat.

10:12>> Thank you.

10:13>> Is there anybody in the audience who'd

10:14like to speak in favor of this

10:15application?

10:18>> Sir,

10:27my name is Kevin Fet. I own Gate City

10:29Tree Service and I represent Miss

10:31Lquish. Uh

10:34this started a long time ago like the

10:35gentleman right there said. I got an

10:37initial call from this gentleman and uh

10:42uh very concerned about his condition of

10:45the trees around his house. So, I met

10:49with him several times and we dis we dis

10:54we discovered and discussed 21 trees

10:58that I thought

11:01uh needed to be removed. I am a

11:03certified licensed arborist with this

11:06New Hampshire association in Nashville

11:09and I've been practicing that for 45

11:11years.

11:13That's my

11:16business that I do. There is plenty of

11:19trees besides behind

11:23front

11:25of these particular trees that lean

11:27towards his house or in the event that a

11:31wind did come like he just got done

11:34saying a minute ago, there was a tree in

11:36that neighborhood 70t tall that fell

11:40just like that. So

11:44his his concern is not going out and

11:47cutting every tree out behind his house.

11:49And I wouldn't do that anyway. Okay. His

11:53concern is his wife is not happy. She is

11:57not comfortable living in that house

12:01until something is done. Something needs

12:03to be done. Like I said, not all the

12:06trees need to come. The ones that I

12:08painted, the ones that we reviewed

12:10through the conservation commission were

12:12all looked at and all within striking

12:15distance of this gentleman's house.

12:18So, in respect to, you know, uh the

12:23third party review from the forestry

12:27division, gayorn division,

12:30uh speaks a little bit for itself.

12:33It isn't about this, it isn't about

12:35that. This is about safety,

12:38okay? And 318 acres of property behind

12:42this gentleman's house is probably about

12:444 million trees back there.

12:47When this guy, gentleman

12:51bought this piece of property,

12:54there was no stakes in the ground.

12:57There was no posts in the ground from

12:59the conservation commission. him come a

13:01year later after this gentleman bought

13:03the house. His house had to be put

13:06underneath this canopy of trees in order

13:09to be conforming lot with the city of

13:11Nashville which was approved.

13:15Kevin Slatterie owned that property.

13:19Anyway, it got approved and the only

13:21place to put that foundation where it

13:23needed to be with the guideline setbacks

13:24and this and that was right where it is.

13:27Well, lo and behold, a year later, they

13:29come by and they put the post in the

13:31ground. And obviously, most of these

13:35trees are within 8 to 10 feet from those

13:37posts. It isn't 40t out in the back one.

13:40It's 8 to 10 ft, which is only about 35

13:44to 40t from his house. They're 80 feet

13:47tall, the ones that I picked. So, this

13:51this case is about safety.

13:55Okay. Okay. The city approved this house

13:57lot to be built. City did that.

14:01The only way to get it in where they

14:02did, where they put it, where it was,

14:04now there's a safety factor with the

14:06trees. That lady does not sleep with her

14:08husband when there's a windstorm. She

14:10sleeps in the basement of the house.

14:14Okay? That's not That's not living. As

14:17far as I'm concerned, that's not that's

14:19not Nashville. That's not living. When

14:22you got a windstorm, you got to get down

14:23in the basement because somebody won't

14:25authorize taking down a danger that will

14:28a strike the house, b cut the house in

14:31half. It has happened and it happened a

14:33month ago right down in Massachusetts.

14:38Are you aware of that? If you're not,

14:41there was a boy that got killed a month

14:43ago with a falling tree.

14:46And since then, I've been contacted by

14:49the Beaver Brook Associ. They ain't got

14:51nothing to do with this, but I just went

14:52through I can't tell you how many acres

14:55of property out Hollis with the Beaver

14:57Brook Association removing dead limbs

15:01in that development. They spent a lot of

15:03money doing that right just like that

15:05after that happened

15:08because

15:10the right phone call was made. I stayed

15:13there a whole week cleaning up trees so

15:17that those kids out there

15:20wouldn't be at danger. So, this is a

15:23safety thing. I have more work than I

15:26need to do before I retire. I got I got

15:29I got 450 500 customers. I don't need

15:33Mr. Clint's work, but I am going to help

15:35him. Okay. I made that obligation to him

15:39when he asked me to help him. The word

15:40was help. So, that's what I did. I

15:44probably will be involved with tree

15:47removal if it does happen. If it

15:49doesn't,

15:51so be it. Okay. Like I said, this this

15:55is all boiled down to a safety factor.

15:59And I I think the town, the city hall,

16:02excuse me, the city of Nshawa should

16:04grant this guy permission to do what he

16:07thinks that he needs to do so that him

16:10and his wife can enjoy life. As it is

16:13right now, they don't. And it's because

16:17somebody

16:19doesn't think that it's appropriate to

16:21remove 21 trees

16:24behind this gentleman's house and on the

16:26side of his house. Okay? That needs to

16:29happen. And if it doesn't happen and

16:31something does happen,

16:33I don't know what to tell you folks.

16:36I call it common sense.

16:39Let's agree to give this guy what he

16:42wants so he can enjoy himself, pay his

16:44taxes, and live in New Hampshire.

16:48He just moved from Canada

16:52and he loves it here, but he has a

16:54problem and I think you folks need to

16:57get together and help him solve it.

16:59Thank you.

17:01>> Thank you. Is there anybody else who

17:04wishes to speak in favor of the

17:05application?

17:07Seeing none, is there anybody who wishes

17:09to speak with questions, concerns, or

17:10opposition to the application?

17:17>> Good evening. Um, my name is Sheri

17:20Dudsy. I live at 18 Terrace and I chair

17:24the NSHA Conservation Commission. Um,

17:27I'd like to make several points. First

17:30of all, I will concede that trees do

17:34fall down. I will concede that people

17:38can get killed by a tree, but the

17:42chances of that happening are

17:44infantestimably small. I have lived in

17:47Nshawa for over 56 years, and I have

17:50weathered many storms and a few

17:53hurricanes.

17:54During that time, I've had three,

17:57actually two very large limbs um come

18:01down around my house. And I've had a

18:04very large tree, if you know a kalba

18:07tree, very large that sat on the um

18:11property line between uh my neighbor and

18:14myself. That tree came down during

18:17either the no-name storm or the or

18:20hurricane Bob. Uh it was situated their

18:24shed was on the property line. Our um

18:28garage was at a 10- ft setback and that

18:32tree fell between the shed and our

18:36garage and did absolutely no damage. Uh

18:40in the storm of 1996, which was the

18:43early heavy snowstorm, uh we had a very

18:47large branch of a locust tree come down.

18:50It came down parallel to our sun room.

18:53Again, there was no damage. I agree that

18:56damage can happen, but I would assume

18:59two things. Sorry, I'm getting dry. Um,

19:03one is that if it damages the house, the

19:06homeowner has homeowner insurance. And

19:10secondly, if you are afraid in a storm

19:13that the h that a tree is going to come

19:15down in a bedroom where you're living,

19:17most of us have at least three bedrooms

19:20in our home with one of the bedrooms not

19:23facing a tree or a treed area. Um, so I

19:27think we need to to think about can

19:30something happen? Absolutely. What are

19:32the chances of it happening? Like I say,

19:35I think I've heard of three deaths uh by

19:38falling trees in New Hampshire in the 56

19:41years I've lived here. None of those

19:43people lived in a house. Two of them

19:46were walking down a street and one of

19:47them was driving in their car. So, I

19:50mean, the question is, if that can

19:51happen, should we cut down all trees? Um

19:55secondly, uh when Mr. and Mrs. Licorice

19:57bought this house. The a the uh

20:00beginning prices of those houses were

20:02$600,000 and up. At that time,

20:05approximately, I would say 90 to 95% of

20:09the houses on the market in NSHA is a

20:11house that they could purchase. I have

20:14to ask you why they chose to purchase a

20:17condominium. not only a condominium but

20:20in a conservation subdivision and one of

20:23the properties that abudded a wetland

20:25and was was part of a wetland buffer.

20:28They did not have to do that. There were

20:30other homes available where they would

20:32have been the property owners and they

20:34could have cut down every single tree or

20:36shrub on that property and we would not

20:38have been able to do it. I think they

20:40need to take some responsibility for the

20:42choices that they made. Um the third

20:46thing is recently research has indicated

20:49in Boston for example for all the work

20:51that conservation

20:53um commissions and conservation uh

20:57nonprofits try to do in terms of

20:59reducing the heat zones by planting

21:02trees in urban areas. All of that is

21:04negated by by uh property owners who cut

21:08down trees. So, here we are on the one

21:11hand trying to mitigate the effects of

21:13climate change, trying to plant more

21:16trees, and we have homeowners that

21:18decide that they want to cut the tree

21:20down because maybe they want to plant

21:22more grass. Um, I mean, we have to take

21:24these things into consideration.

21:27Um the one of the last things I'd like

21:29to say I'd like to correct a

21:31misconception that I have heard here on

21:34a number of occasions and that is when

21:36an applicant comes and says um we will

21:40replace a a tree tree for tree. That's

21:43not what the ordinance says. What the

21:46ordinance says is that for every inch of

21:49tree at DBH which is diameter at breast

21:54height which is considered to be 4 and

21:561/2 ft there will be a one for one

21:59replacement. So if you have a tree that

22:02has a diameter of 10 in for example, you

22:06don't the ordinance doesn't say you

22:08plant one tree at a one oneinch tree.

22:12You have to plant 10 one-inch trees f or

22:16five 2inch trees or whatever. We are

22:19talking in this situation we are talking

22:22I'm going to say 80 to 100 inches at at

22:27uh DBH and I may be way off. I mean that

22:30may that may be low. So when you think

22:33about it, think about this property. How

22:36are you going to replace those trees?

22:39It's impossible. Re a few years back, I

22:42purchased a uh service berry tree that

22:45had several stems. I would imagine that

22:48that one service berry tree might equal

22:52I'm going to say 20 dBH. Okay, just 20

22:56DBH. The ball on that tree was was this

23:00big. It must have weighed I mean I

23:02couldn't move it. It was must have

23:03weighed about 350 pounds. If you think

23:06about the fact that when you plant a

23:08tree you have to do twice as wide and

23:11twice as deep. And then you think about

23:14the fact that we're looking at probably

23:1680 to 100 in minimum of replacement

23:20trees. I don't see any way how we can do

23:24that on this particular property without

23:27totally destroying the wetland buffer.

23:29Um, so that's basically what I would

23:32like to have the uh zoning board

23:34consider. Thank you.

23:35>> Thank you.

23:36>> Questions.

23:39Is there anybody else who'd like to

23:40speak with questions, concerns, or

23:41opposition?

23:45Seeing none, Mr. Lish, are you welcome

23:46to come back if you wish?

23:53>> [clears throat]

23:59>> So, so

24:01with regards to replacement trees, I

24:03mean early on in the process in

24:05conversations with the conservation

24:07commission um did express a willingness

24:10to to replace but that did not make it

24:14into the conservation commission

24:16recommendations. Right. So to have that

24:19revisited tonight is a bit of a surprise

24:22to me. Just to put that there. Obviously

24:25that if there is a desire to replace the

24:28trees that you expressed be willing to

24:30entertain that, right? Um expressed that

24:33desire previously, happy to reconsider

24:35that. And it's the first time that I've

24:37heard the idea that actually planting

24:39trees, planting plants will actually

24:42destroy a conservation area. That's

24:43that's a new one for me as well. Now

24:46with regards to responsibility, yes, we

24:48did look at multiple homes when we were

24:50looking to buy in in in Nshwa four years

24:54ago. Um, we liked the Terrell Farm

24:58development both in terms of its

24:59implications of conservation,

25:01the housing association and what came

25:05with that. But as I noted previously and

25:07I'll restate it here again, um, when we

25:11signed the purchases and sales, you

25:13know, the lot hadn't been fully cleared.

25:15you know, the the conservation area, the

25:17wetland buffer hadn't been demarcated

25:19and the house location wasn't explicitly

25:21noted. Okay. So, when we actually moved

25:24in, we discovered where the sat house

25:26sat relative to the uh cleared lot.

25:30Okay. Um and living there, we know we've

25:33seen those trees move in the wind. We've

25:36seen uh that some of them are actually

25:38dead. Okay. Uh some of them are in worse

25:41shape than others. you know that for me

25:44poses a risk

25:46and obviously that's been reiterated by

25:49uh Mr. Fredet as well as a licensed

25:52arborist.

25:54Okay.

25:56>> Thank you.

25:56>> Okay. Questions Mr. Neely?

25:59>> Mr. Mr. Licorice. Um

26:03is 21 trees a firm number? All those can

26:06reach the house. All those can damage

26:07the house or or are we able to back off

26:09that number at all? And if you need to

26:10talk to Mr. Fredette, that's fine.

26:13>> Yep. So, so as Mr. Fredette reiterated,

26:16you know, those trees, uh, you know, he

26:18selected out of the ones that he felt

26:21were were posing a risk to the home, uh,

26:24because of their height, because of

26:25their health, uh, and, you know, in the

26:27proximity to the house. Obviously, the

26:30Yeah. And but again, it was a judicious

26:32and considered opinion. Not not every

26:34tree that's tall enough to hit the house

26:36was identified for removal. Okay. Um,

26:41you know, I I without walking the lot

26:44for yourselves, it would be difficult to

26:46say, you know, well, how about this tree

26:48versus that tree? I was actually hoping

26:50that uh the second opinion uh that was

26:54obtained by the conservation commission

26:56uh would provide a a I think it was

27:00classed as a level two assessment. You

27:02know, they the the arborist that they

27:04retained did examine every tree.

27:07However, his report did not explicitly

27:10state uh a tree by tree, if you will,

27:13health, right? That would have been

27:15helpful that that I would have liked to

27:17have used that to support an answer to

27:20your question.

27:21I don't know if Mr. Fred had anything

27:23else to add or whether he has an

27:25opportunity to add any further comments

27:26on that, but that would be my view.

27:31>> Any other questions?

27:34>> Thank you.

27:35>> Okay. Thank you.

27:37And Miss Dutsy, if if you wish, you um

27:41have the opportunity to give some final

27:42thoughts to the board if you wish.

27:46>> Thank you. All right. With that, then

27:48I'm going to close the public hearing

27:49and open up the deliberations of the

27:50board. Thoughts from the board,

27:55>> Mr. Nei. I'll start this one. Um

27:58so, so this um this case was very

28:02interesting that we've been looking at

28:03for for several months now. um when I

28:06first got the packet, paper packet, the

28:08application, definitely taken aback

28:09[clears throat] by the number of trees.

28:11I know this area very well. Live out on

28:12the street, spent a lot of time in the

28:13woods there, watch this whole

28:15development get put together. And uh in

28:18my opinion, 21 trees um is a large

28:21number. However, um I I do sympathize

28:27for anybody who is concerned about a

28:30large tree hitting the house. I've

28:31certainly sat on my porch. I've watched

28:32some of these pines um shaking in the

28:34wind. Um you know, there's nights on

28:37really windy nights. I used to have a

28:39pool, you know, but that would keep me

28:40awake all night. Is it a tree coming

28:41down? Am I going to have some massive

28:42damage in the morning? And and it's one

28:44thing to worry about damage. Um

28:46obviously loss of life or anything

28:48safety related. Uh really changed the

28:49the the thought process for me tonight.

28:52Um for anybody who's paid attention to

28:53my votes, I almost all the time vote um

28:57when there's a safety issue, vote in

28:59that um in that direction. So, with the

29:02safety card uh being thrown tonight

29:04definitely gave me a much different

29:05perspective on this, my uh my ask about

29:09the are we really stuck on the 21 trees

29:11is that it'd be much more palatable to

29:13me if that number came down. And I and

29:15and I can't speak for anybody else, but

29:17I I would almost think that would be the

29:18thought process. So, I am still

29:20undecided at this moment. Um I I am

29:24concerned about the safety of those

29:26trees coming down and you know to listen

29:28to the testimony of Mr. for that that

29:29that there's a a resident of the house

29:31who has to sleep in the basement on a

29:32windy night. Um, nobody should have to

29:34live like that. So, that really um is

29:37deep into my thought process, but I'd

29:38like to hear what the rest of the board

29:39has to has to say. I guess I I I don't

29:42mind weighing in. I for me, I can't get

29:45there. I the the yes the request is

29:48large and and I also have a concern that

29:51we're in a conservation comm you know

29:53subdivision where uh there are likely

29:56many similarly situated homes and so so

30:00that's a concern to me too if if you if

30:0221 trees get cut on this lot do 21 trees

30:04get cut or something thereabouts on

30:07every lot thereby diminishing the buffer

30:10overall but but I think most significant

30:13to me is uh the Gilman report when I'm

30:16looking at specific trees identified

30:20uh you know with with the comment um you

30:24know that this tree has no chance of

30:26hitting the house uh you know image

30:28number five uh dead and partially fallen

30:32tree with no chance of hitting the house

30:33marked with a red dot. Um

30:39you know again other other ones in this

30:41category as well this particular another

30:43tree noted is approximately one half the

30:46height of of you know the tallest tree

30:48distance to the house. So perhaps all of

30:52these trees were identified as being

30:56dangerous but it appears to me at least

30:58that several of these do are not in

31:01danger of hitting the house. So, so

31:03that's a concern. Um,

31:07but I I and I'm also concerned uh that

31:10we did have a negative vote from the

31:12conservation commission. In the past, we

31:14have had multiple instances of

31:17applicants coming to us um with

31:20dangerous trees and um generally it's

31:25been my experience that the conservation

31:26commission has gone out. we've received

31:28a favorable letter from the conservation

31:31commission usually with the stipulation

31:33that uh limits the height of the stump

31:35that that that has to remain. So, um I I

31:40to me the just the combination of the

31:42Gilman report and the negative um

31:45recommendation from the conservation

31:47commission makes me hard to find that

31:51the special conditions

31:53uh have been met. Particular

31:58that that I would struggle with, but I'm

32:00happy to hear what other thoughts the

32:02board members have.

32:08if they wish to weigh in.

32:13>> Um

32:15originally again uh the same same

32:17feeling. It was felt like a lot of

32:19trees. Um

32:24obviously that report that we got um was

32:27interesting in itself. Um and so I I

32:31take that information

32:33and and just it's just an observation

32:35right so um again in that report it says

32:39hey only an aberist can refute another

32:42operist's opinion right um so so I I

32:48think that that both operists are are a

32:51very credible operist um Mr. Fet was

32:55here tonight and I think that you know

32:58my observation is is that that he's

33:01sincere saying that whether I have this

33:03business or not it doesn't really matter

33:05to me. Okay. And so there is no

33:08financial gain to be had by by Mr. Fet

33:12by taking down these trees. So,

33:16um, and I think that,

33:19um, yes, there there are a lot of homes

33:22that are in conservation areas that that

33:24that could have potential trees to fall

33:26down.

33:28I also believe that

33:32everybody has a different tolerance for

33:34that that fear, right? So, so a lot of

33:37us can sleep fine with the cracking

33:40trees. um uh you know I'm just making an

33:43observation right so so there's and and

33:45I'm sure there is definitely a real fear

33:49in in some degree that some of us may

33:52may deal with fine and some of us may

33:54not but but then I I same thing I I fall

33:57down I fall on the side of

34:00I think what was testified correct me if

34:03I'm wrong uh that these 21 trees that

34:05were selected according to Mr. for that

34:09uh trees that pose a hazard to the

34:12house. Um so that's the about the

34:16mitigation for the fear. So um again 21

34:19trees I'm not just I'm not in no way

34:24saying that it doesn't matter that

34:25there's 21 trees that be taken down. I

34:28think that I'm just looking at the again

34:33the health of the trees and the fact

34:34that the Mr. for that stated as as the

34:38professional arborist that there are

34:40other trees and I think what also stated

34:42by uh the the applicant that there are

34:44other trees that are that are taller or

34:47closer that could hit the house. So it's

34:49not again removing a removing every tree

34:53that can reach the house. So, um,

34:58so this one is a little different from

35:00me than some of the other applications

35:02that we've had, um, because

35:05then again, they were they were in the

35:08they were singular type trees that were

35:10requested where this is 21 trees. Um,

35:14and I think they're all, you know,

35:16they're all different

35:19diameters and and and and things, but

35:22um, so

35:25so you know, again, those just

35:27observations of the things that I that I

35:28that I'm that I'm looking at

35:31that.

35:34So, um, I I'm kind of tending to agree

35:37with Mr. Neely. Um, I'm not an arborist.

35:40Um but we have an arborist who, you

35:42know, has had decades of professional

35:44experience and says that these 21 trees

35:47pose a risk to the house. Um

35:51may I share the concern that it's a

35:53conservation easement and and it's sort

35:55of on some level it's kind of buyer

35:56beware, but um I also understand the the

36:00concerns of the homeowners when they p

36:03there wasn't a house there when when

36:04they purchased the property. Um

36:07but

36:09ultimately because because we have the

36:11testimony of the arborist um that these

36:13are these are clear significant dangers

36:16I'm I'm inclined to support the

36:18application.

36:20>> Would anybody like to make a motion?

36:25>> Mr. nearly

36:36bear with me. I lost uh connectivity

36:38here.

36:40For the audience's benefit, if we seem a

36:42little out of sorts, it's because we're

36:43trying to go electronic today. So, this

36:45is our first all electronic meetings.

36:55I'm not getting it. Can I Can I pull up

36:56your

36:57>> Yes, you can. Your your title page

36:59there.

37:00>> Every time I do, I've got to click into

37:01it again.

37:08Now, I'm gonna have to check.

37:16Great.

37:17Not mine. Let me see if I can scoot

37:19down.

37:22No. Let me try again.

37:25Josh,

37:26I may have just got it. Yeah, I got it.

37:30Okay.

37:33Like to make a motion to approve the

37:35special exception for Clint and Mary S.

37:37Licorice owners 19 Vista Way sheet D lot

37:4023 requesting a special exception from

37:43land use code section 190-112 to work in

37:46a 40ft critical wetland buffer to remove

37:4921 trees identified as a danger to the

37:50house. This is in the R40 zone in ward

37:545. The requested use is listed as a

37:57special exception in the use matrix

37:59190-15 table 15-1 and is permitted as as

38:03a special exception by another provision

38:05of this chapter. The requested use will

38:07not create undue traffic congestion or

38:10unduly impair pedestrian safety. The

38:12requested use will not overload any

38:15public water, drainage or sewer system

38:18or any other municipal system to such an

38:20extent that the requested use or any

38:23developed use in the immediate area or

38:25in any of the any other area of the city

38:27will be unduly subjected to hazards

38:29affecting health, safety, and the

38:30general welfare.

38:32Any special regulations for the use set

38:35forth in this article are fulfilled. The

38:37requested use will not impair the

38:40integrity or be out of character with

38:41the district or immediate neighborhood

38:43in which is located nor be detrimental

38:45to the health, morals or welfare of the

38:47residents of the city. As discussed by

38:49the board, there were concerns that uh

38:52there were uh up to 21 trees located in

38:56a uh u in a wetlands area uh

39:00conservation area. the uh discussion

39:04and the reason I'm bringing forth the um

39:07the motion to pass this is basically

39:09based on safety. We have an arborist in

39:11the room who um testified that his 45

39:15years of experience told him that those

39:1721

39:18um trees could be a danger to the house.

39:21There was further testimony that the

39:23family in the house is concerned about

39:24their safety and uh there was uh a a

39:28number thrown out there earlier of how

39:30many trees are actually in that wooded

39:31area. Uh and when we look at the number

39:3321 in reference to the 4 million trees

39:35that they threw out there, uh it is

39:37minuscule. Uh the the board was

39:39concerned uh that we did have a negative

39:43um negative from the conservation

39:45commission and the board does um is

39:50concerned about that. However, we do

39:52believe that the safety concern as put

39:54forth by the homeowner um does supersede

39:58the requests of the conservation

40:00commission. Um

40:04I would like to put forth that there is

40:06to be uh special um consideration not to

40:09take any more than 21 trees. Um and as

40:12noted by the applicant earlier, there

40:14were some uh three criteria that he was

40:16willing to have stipulated as well. The

40:19work has to be done between uh November

40:201st and April 1st. Uh the logs need to

40:24stay down in that area when cut and no

40:26vehicles are allowed in that area.

40:29>> Is it?

40:29>> Yes. Is there a second? Second by Mr.

40:32Petri. Any discussion?

40:35Seeing none, all those in favor? All

40:38those opposed?

40:41Your request passes. Good luck. I I

40:44should note and I should have noted this

40:46earlier that uh there is a 30-day window

40:48of appeal for any uh case that uh we act

40:51on this evening. So, just be advised,

40:53but you are free to proceed.

41:08Yes.

41:10>> Thank you.

41:11>> Um I I did announce this earlier, but I

41:13do think we had at least one person come

41:14in the room. Uh but uh the case number

41:19two, Three Air Road, is being postponed

41:22until November 10th. So if you are here

41:25for that case, we will not be hearing it

41:27this evening. Uh so the next case is the

41:30application of Carlith to Carliff Torres

41:3430 Edward Street uh requesting a

41:37variance from land use code section

41:39190-17E2

41:41to exceed maximum driveway width 24 feet

41:44permitted up to 40 up to 43 feet

41:48proposed for a paved driveway expansion

41:50within the front setback in the RA zone.

41:53Ward 6 is the application applicant

41:54present.

42:00>> Good evening. My name is Carllette and

42:02I'm the homeowner at 30 Edward Street in

42:04Ashawa and I'm requesting a variance to

42:06keep the existing paved driveway area on

42:09my property. I understand that when um

42:12so it's basically like a they they

42:15included the pathway and we did a paved

42:18area and then it's a pathway and then

42:20like another small section. So I believe

42:23that's what makes it the 40 ft, but I

42:25wasn't fully sure, but I know someone

42:27went out and measured. But one of my

42:29main reasons for wanting to keep the

42:31existing configuration is safety as

42:33well. Um, since I'm on a corner lot,

42:35being able to park my cars completely on

42:38my property keeps them off the street

42:39and leaves a roadway clear for traffic

42:41and emergency vehicles. It's off of

42:44Kinsley Street, so there's constantly

42:46firefight um fire trucks going by. And

42:49then it's a one-way street that doesn't

42:51really have well parking. Um, there's

42:53constantly vehicles getting stried and

42:56lots of accidents in that corner. So, I

42:58feel like having my cars and being able

43:00to walk away from the road um would be

43:04um beneficial and the street can already

43:07be difficult for parking. And I'm simply

43:10just asking to maintain the existing

43:12paved driveway. I tried to go I met with

43:14the city engineers and I thought I was

43:16going about it the right way, but it

43:18seems like it was a misunderstanding. um

43:21part of that driveway is 4T back from

43:23the main road, but um so my

43:26understanding was that they wouldn't

43:27[clears throat] have included that, but

43:29it was. So now I'm just trying to keep

43:31what's already there.

43:35>> Anything else you'd like to add?

43:37>> Um no questions from the board,

43:41>> Mr. Buchche.

43:42>> So is there every any intention to use a

43:45garage as a for a vehicle or is it just

43:47for storage? The garage is being ju used

43:49just as storage. All

43:52>> right. Thank you.

43:52>> You're welcome.

43:54>> So, when I went by, I I saw the gap

43:56between a portion of the I guess I'd

43:59call it new driveway and the street. Are

44:01you intending to connect that?

44:03>> Um, once I talked to someone from the

44:05city of Nasha, they suggested that doing

44:07this variance, I'd be able to complete

44:09that patch. So, I feel like I might as

44:11well try it, but it's not like

44:13definitive.

44:15>> Okay. Any other questions from the

44:18board?

44:20Seeing none, you're free to take a seat

44:22unless you have something else you'd

44:23like to add.

44:26>> Uh is there anybody in the audience

44:28who'd like to speak in favor of the

44:29application?

44:32>> We do have uh one letter. Uh this is

44:35from Leonardo Agillian um who is writing

44:40in favor just briefly. I'm writing to

44:42express my full support for the variance

44:44request. Um, and he notes he as an

44:47immediate neighbor, he supports this

44:48application for the following reasons.

44:50Improve safety and accessibility. Um,

44:53allowing the expansion would provide

44:55off- streetet parking, reducing

44:56congestion on the street. He notes it

44:58would be a neighborhood improvement

45:00resulting in something that would be

45:01clean and functional and

45:03well-maintained. That there'd be no

45:04adverse impact. Um, that it doesn't the

45:08driveway does not obstruct sight lines,

45:10and that he strongly encourages its

45:13approval. Of course, I am not reading it

45:15word for word. And uh he is a resident

45:17at 16 Edwards Street. Um that is all the

45:23only letter we have. Is there anybody in

45:25the audience who'd like to speak with

45:26questions, concerns, or opposition to

45:28the application?

45:31Seeing none, I'm going to close the

45:32public hearing and open up the

45:33deliberations of the board. Thoughts

45:35from the board?

45:40>> Mr. Patriot.

45:41>> Uh, this seems like a pretty standard

45:43request. It does it doesn't seem to

45:45cause any problems. Um Um, so um I I'm

45:49in favor.

45:51>> Any other thoughts?

45:53>> Mr. Buché? I

45:54>> I would also support the application. A

45:56couple of things that I know of because

45:58I saw it once. The phone pole on the

46:00corner of our house has got hit I think

46:02more than once. Um and um also driving

46:07through the neighborhood in a couple you

46:08know in the immediate neighborhood um

46:12the challenge that they have is is a

46:14similar challenge in other properties.

46:16So there are some drivers that even the

46:19footage is even more. So again, I think

46:22it's it's case by case, but I think

46:25there is uh I think that it it's not

46:28going to it's it's part of that

46:30neighborhood. Uh and some of these homes

46:33have these driveways for specific

46:35reasons. And I think that the safety

46:37issue is is is a genuine one.

46:41>> I I would agree. uh you know just

46:43looking around the neighborhood uh one

46:45clearly parking is a challenge and I

46:47noticed across the street somebody has

46:49kind of put two parallel parking spaces

46:52you know kind of onto what was their

46:54lawn um and with this house given its

46:58distance from the street and the garage

47:01the distance from the garage and street

47:03you can hardly fit one car I'm not even

47:05sure if you can fit it entirely off of

47:07the rightway uh so you know for those

47:09reasons I I would support

47:11>> [clears throat]

47:12>> Any other thoughts?

47:15Anybody wish to make a motion?

47:19Mr. Mr. Bcher

47:23like to make a motion

47:26to approve the variance for Kith Torres,

47:29owner and applicant of 30 Edward Street,

47:32sheet 122,

47:34lot 594, requesting a variance for land

47:37use code section 190-17,

47:40section E, subsection 2, to exceed the

47:43maximum driveway width of 24 feet

47:46permitted up to 43 feet proposed for a

47:49paved driveway expansion within the

47:52front setbacks in the RA zone W six and

47:54this was postponed

47:56uh per the applicant to the to this um

47:59meeting tonight. Uh we find that

48:02granting the variance would not be

48:04contrary to p uh public interest because

48:07again um the owner owner will be allowed

48:11to uh safely use uh their property and

48:14their um parking be able to park safely

48:17on their property. Um the spirit of the

48:20ordin ordinance would be observed. Um

48:22again, um the wide the wider driveway uh

48:27allows for safely safely parking and um

48:32that uh that this is not an uncommon

48:36um uh situation in in that uh

48:39neighborhood. Um, granting the variance

48:43uh would do substantial justice uh to

48:46again because it allows the homeowner to

48:49uh park cars off the street and to

48:51safely enter and exit their property. Um

48:55we find that the um the values of

48:59surrounding properties would not be uh

49:01would not be diminished

49:04owing to special conditions of property

49:05that dist distinguish it from other

49:07properties in an area. Denial of the

49:09variance would result in unnecessary

49:11hardship. Um again because uh denying

49:15this variance in our estimation again

49:18would uh propose some issues with

49:20parking on a narrow street and we find

49:22that the proposed use is reasonable

49:24again because it allows the homeowner to

49:27uh safely park uh the vehicles off the

49:29street. So with that I make a motion to

49:31approve the variance. Do

49:32>> you have a second? Seconded by Mr.

49:34Petri. Any discussion?

49:37All those in favor

49:40grant request is granted. Good luck.

49:50>> Uh based on this variance. Yes. So you

49:52have variance approval. You just need to

49:53coordinate with DPW.

49:56>> Sure.

49:58>> All right. Next is the uh application of

50:01DTH tool and machine uh Inc. the owner

50:05uh Bullduck Enterprises LLC applicant

50:08181 East Hollis Street requesting a

50:11variance from section 190-261H2

50:1615 foot maximum front setback required

50:19104 foot front setback proposed to

50:22construct a 48 unit five-story multif

50:24family building and associated site

50:26improvements in the GI to zone in W

50:35Good evening. My name is Laura Gandandy.

50:37I'm an attorney with Divine Milton and

50:38branch in Manchester, New Hampshire. I'm

50:40here representing the applicant. Also

50:43here with me is Paul Chisum from Keech

50:45Nordstrom, the project engineer and

50:48Thomas Bulldock who is from Bulldog

50:50Enterprises LLC. Um so we're here in

50:53front of you with an exciting project

50:55located in your transport transit

50:58orientated development district. The

51:00project consists of a fivestory

51:02apartment building with 48 units in

51:04associated parking located at 181 East

51:08Hollis Street right next door to the

51:10Riverfront Landings apartment buildings.

51:13The subject parcel is 0.7 acres and it

51:17is in a regular shaped lot. There is 40

51:20ft of frontage on East Hollis Street and

51:23a significantly larger frontage on Crown

51:25Street. The TOD district provides for a

51:29maximum front setback of 15 ft. The lot

51:32has two frontages and the lot is not a

51:35corner lot. Um, city staff determined

51:38that the project meets the 15 foot

51:40setback on Crown Street but not the 15

51:44foot setback on East Hollis Street and

51:46that is why we are here before you. If

51:48you look at the plan provided in tab

51:51three of the application, you will see

51:53the 40 foot frontage on East Holler

51:55Street and notice that there is parking

51:58in that area and the building is set

52:00back from 100 is set back 104 ft from

52:03the property line. The applicant

52:05believes that the current configuration

52:07of the building and site design results

52:10in the most efficient, productive, and

52:13safe use of the site for a multifamily

52:15use. Given the site design and layout, a

52:19variance from section 1 190-26.1.H2

52:26which requires a maximum 15 foot front

52:28setback for both Crown and East Hollis

52:32cannot be met and a variance is

52:33therefore needed. So for the five

52:36criteria,

52:37granting the variance will not be

52:39contrary to the public interest. It will

52:42not alter the character of the

52:43neighborhood or threaten the health,

52:45safety, and welfare of the general

52:47public. The proposed use is compatible

52:50with the character of the neighborhood.

52:52Next door is Riverfront Landing, and the

52:55project is undergoing planning board

52:57review and no threats to the public,

53:00health, safety, or welfare were

53:02identified. The spirit of the ordinance

53:05is observed. Um, as this board is well

53:07aware, everything that was just said for

53:09criteria one flows over into criteria

53:12two. And the TOD district purpose is to

53:16promote the specific objectives and

53:19recommendations of the 2004

53:22East Hollis Street Area Plan. And that

53:25provides in appendix C that housing is a

53:29primary goal. And this project observes

53:31that spirit by proposing additional

53:34housing opportunities for the city of

53:36Nasha. Uh criteria number three,

53:39substantial justice is done. The loss to

53:42the applicant is not outweighed by any

53:45gain to the public. If the variance is

53:47not granted, in fact, there'll be a loss

53:50both to the applicant and to the city.

53:53The site design as it is currently

53:55presented allows for adequate parking

53:58and safe traffic flow and movement. The

54:01loss to the applicant is significant as

54:04development would be significantly

54:06altered and hindered and cause

54:08overcrowding and safety concerns if the

54:10variance was not granted. The next

54:13criteria is values of surrounding

54:15properties would be diminished. Um

54:17currently this lot is uh consists of an

54:20abandoned structure. um a little bit of

54:23an eyesaw for what's happening in that

54:25area. So providing a new apartment

54:28building um for with 48 units would

54:32increase the value of surrounding

54:33properties in the area. Criteria five,

54:37special conditions exist such that

54:40literal enforcement of the ordinance

54:42results in an unnecessary hardship. The

54:45special conditions of this property is

54:47that it has two frontages of varying

54:50lengths. It is oddly shaped in these

54:53special conditions resulted in

54:55unnecessary hardship if the literal

54:58enforcement of the provisions of the

55:00zoning ordinance were applied which

55:02would be two 15 ft maximum setback on

55:06both East Hollis and Crown Street that

55:10would result in a very odd configuration

55:12of the building the site traffic parking

55:15and the overall design.

55:18with that there is no fair and

55:20substantial relationship between the

55:22general public purpose of the zoning

55:24ordinance and the specific application

55:27of it to the property. The project is in

55:30compliance with the city's zoning

55:31ordinance on Crown Street and to enforce

55:34the same maximum setback on each

55:36frontage creates an unnecessary

55:39hardship. The multifamily use is a

55:42reasonable one as it is one that is

55:44envisioned by the TOD district and the

55:472004 East Hollis area plan which is part

55:51of the city master plan.

55:53>> Thank you.

55:55>> Any questions from the board? Seeing

55:58none. Thank you.

55:59>> Thank you.

56:02>> Is there anybody in the audience who'd

56:04like to speak in favor of the

56:05application?

56:07Is there anybody in the audience who'd

56:09like to speak with questions, concerns,

56:10or opposition to the application?

56:14Seeing none, and I'm not aware of any

56:16correspondents, uh, we will close the

56:19public hearing and open up the

56:20deliberations to the board. Thoughts

56:21from the board,

56:24>> Mr. Neely?

56:26>> I mean, there's a this is a pretty um

56:29indepth application, but it's pretty

56:31straightforward. Um, you know, it's in

56:33an abandoned building. It's kind of

56:35wrapped around another building here.

56:37There's no way they can build this with

56:38the two, you know, it's it's a double

56:40frontage as the counselor spoke to. Um,

56:44irregular shape.

56:47I mean, basically, we're taking the

56:48apartment buildings next door and

56:50replicating on on this spot while

56:51cleaning up uh cleaning up an abandoned

56:53lot. Um, so for those reasons, I'm in

56:56favor.

56:58Any other thoughts?

57:00I mean, I I I would agree. It it's

57:03certainly consistent with the character

57:04of the neighborhood for the uh buildings

57:06immediately next door in Avery as well

57:08as uh Riverfront Landing. Uh and you

57:12know, again, for all all the reasons you

57:14just stated, it certainly is an oddly

57:15shaped lot. Uh and it's not just that

57:17it's got frontage on two sides. The

57:19frontage is very strangely configured. I

57:21have to say, first time I have ever

57:22walked back there. Uh so it's most

57:26certainly an unusual lot. Uh and I don't

57:28think you can realistically develop an

57:31apartment building. uh you know

57:33certainly by today's standards on that

57:35property and meet the 15 foot from both.

57:37So I I I support the application for

57:39those reasons as well. Any other

57:41thoughts?

57:43Anybody want to make a motion?

57:47>> Mr. Pedri.

57:48>> Sure. Uh I move that we approve the uh

57:50application of um

57:53where did my agenda go? of um

57:58Data Tech Tool and Machine Inc. owner

58:01uh Baldic Boulder Baldick Enterprises

58:04LLC applicant of 181 181 East Holl

58:08Street for variance from section

58:10190-26.1H

58:13uh2

58:17uh for uh 15 foot maximum front setback

58:21required 104 104 uh foot front setback

58:25proposed to construct a 48 unit fivetory

58:27multifamily building and associated site

58:29improvements.

58:31We find that granting the variance would

58:33not be contrary to the public interest

58:35because uh the

58:38building would be keeping in the

58:39character of the neighborhood uh would

58:42not um would not alter the c character

58:44of the neighborhood and the unique shape

58:47and placement of the building on the law

58:48requires the variance uh for um any

58:52residential housing to be built.

58:55We find that the spirit of the ordinance

58:57would be observed because again the the

59:00building would not negatively impact the

59:02character of the neighborhood. And um

59:06we find that granting the variance would

59:08do substantial justice because the

59:10character of the neighborhood would not

59:12be impacted. The

59:15owner would would be able to create more

59:17housing for the city. Um and we find

59:20that there is no other way to put

59:24housing on this lot without uh without

59:26granting a variance. We find that um the

59:29values of the surrounding properties

59:31would be improved by having an

59:33additional residential building in this

59:36location. We find that owing to special

59:39conditions of the property that

59:40distinguish from other properties in the

59:41area, denial of the variance would

59:42result in initial hardship because

59:46there is no fair and substantial

59:47relationship between the general public

59:49purpose of the ordinance provision and

59:51the specific application of that

59:52provision to this property because of

59:53the unique shape of the property and the

59:56unique placement of the building. And we

59:58find that the proposed use is reasonable

1:00:00because it would be in character to the

1:00:01neighborhood and would uh allow the

1:00:03owner to more fully utilize the property

1:00:05and for additional residential housing

1:00:07to be built. So for all those reasons, I

1:00:08move that we approve the variance. Is

1:00:10>> there a second? Seconded by Mr. Boucher.

1:00:12Any discussion?

1:00:14All those in favor?

1:00:17Application passes. Good luck.

1:00:24Next we have the application of Michelle

1:00:26Mancini and Stephanie Sherburn for

1:00:29Norwich Road requesting a variance from

1:00:31land use code section 190-16

1:00:34table 16-3 for 5- foot rear setback

1:00:38encroachment 25 ft proposed 30 ft

1:00:40required to construct a 16x 36 home

1:00:44addition in the R9 zone and do we have

1:00:47the applicant present?

1:00:52Hello gentlemen. Um so my name is Justin

1:00:55Mancini. Uh I'm instead for um my

1:00:59brother Mitchell. Uh he's currently at

1:01:01the hospital uh having his third child.

1:01:03So I'm here.

1:01:04>> Congratulations. Would you mind stating

1:01:06your address?

1:01:08>> Um for Norwich Road. [clears throat] Um,

1:01:11so, uh, very simple, just as you've

1:01:14stated, uh, a, uh, uh, 36x 16 edition

1:01:20off the rear, uh, of the house. It's

1:01:23just one bedroom, uh, one bathroom, uh,

1:01:26and extending the kitchen.

1:01:28Um, and right underneath that, uh, it'll

1:01:31be a, uh, enclosed patio. Um, and that's

1:01:36about it. A very simple cut and dry.

1:01:41questions from the board.

1:01:45>> Did Did you look at any alternatives to

1:01:47maybe reduce the impact or um was this

1:01:50kind of I'm assuming this is necessary

1:01:52for reasonable use of the home?

1:01:55>> Yes.

1:01:56>> Uh is it a two-bedroom home now?

1:01:57>> Uh yes it is. Yes. Yep. So that'll be

1:02:00the third bedroom.

1:02:02>> That is correct.

1:02:03>> Three kids, three bedrooms.

1:02:04>> Yep.

1:02:06>> Any any questions?

1:02:09You're free to take a seat.

1:02:10>> Thank you very much, gentlemen.

1:02:13>> Is there anybody in the audience who'd

1:02:14like to speak in favor of the

1:02:15application?

1:02:17Is there anybody in the audience who'd

1:02:19like to speak with questions, concerns,

1:02:20or opposition to the application?

1:02:23Seeing none, I'm going to close the

1:02:25public hearing and open up the

1:02:26deliberations to the board. Thoughts

1:02:28from the board?

1:02:31>> Mr. Bush.

1:02:32>> Um,

1:02:34for me, it's straightforward. It's it's

1:02:36it's an expansion of the house. Um,

1:02:39what's a little unique is just the it's

1:02:42not a typical

1:02:44shaped lot, right? So, we have that one

1:02:46corner that we're that we're discussing,

1:02:48but I think as we get away from that

1:02:50corner, from the left left rear corner,

1:02:53we we come out of that um that issue

1:02:55there. So, so I think it's reasonable. I

1:02:57don't think that anybody would know the

1:02:59difference from the street. Um, and um

1:03:04that's about it. But I I think again

1:03:05straightforward application uh for this

1:03:08for this uh addition.

1:03:11>> The thoughts

1:03:14I I I would just add that that I agree

1:03:16and it's a it's a relatively small home

1:03:19and um you know adding the additional

1:03:21space seems reasonable and it's

1:03:23certainly not an oversized addition. Uh

1:03:25the rooms are fairly modest so it's

1:03:27certainly a reasonable application.

1:03:30Anybody want to make a motion? Mr. Bish

1:03:33>> like to make a motion to approve the uh

1:03:36variance for M uh Mitchell Mancini owner

1:03:40Stephanie Sherburn applicant for Norwich

1:03:43Road sheet C law 620 requesting a

1:03:46variance from land use code section

1:03:48190-16 table 16-3 for a 5- foot rear

1:03:52setback encroachment 25 ft proposed 30

1:03:56feet required to construct a 16 by 36T

1:03:59home addition to the R9 zone W 9. Um we

1:04:03find that granting the variance would

1:04:05not be contrary to public interest.

1:04:08Again, um the uh the the proposed

1:04:14addition is to add space to to to a

1:04:17smaller size home and that the uh this

1:04:21would not uh not change the character of

1:04:24of the neighborhood. the spirit of the

1:04:27ordinance would be observed again

1:04:29because um it would keep in the the

1:04:34addition would keep in uh keep the same

1:04:37as the rest of the neighborhood. So keep

1:04:39in character with the neighborhood. Uh

1:04:41granting the variance would do

1:04:42substantial justice uh because it allows

1:04:45the homeowner to uh have the extra space

1:04:49in in in addition uh without u having

1:04:53any major impact on the character of the

1:04:55neighborhood. Uh the the val we find

1:04:58that the values of surrounding

1:05:00properties would uh not be uh diminished

1:05:03uh owing to special conditions of the

1:05:05property that distinguish it from other

1:05:06properties in the area. Denial advance

1:05:09would result in necessary hardship um

1:05:11because uh again proposed use is

1:05:14reasonable one because it allows

1:05:16homeowners to uh add some space to their

1:05:19their their home and also noted that uh

1:05:23it is slightly uh an irregular shaped

1:05:26lot. So the position of the current

1:05:28house on the left rear corner creates

1:05:30this um this this incursion into the

1:05:34setback. So with that I make a motion to

1:05:36approve the variance. Is there a second?

1:05:38Seconded by Mr. Petri. Any discussion?

1:05:42Seeing none, all those in favor?

1:05:46The request is granted. Good luck to the

1:05:48family.

1:05:51Next, we have the application of Rishi

1:05:53and Namita Yadav of two Adella Drive

1:05:57requesting a variance from table 16-3

1:06:00for a 15t front setback encroachment. 25

1:06:04feet proposed, 40 feet required for a 26

1:06:07by 36 attached garage. It's in the R40

1:06:10zone in W two. I presume you are the

1:06:13applicants.

1:06:14>> Mr. Applicant, I'm the contractor.

1:06:16>> Excellent. How you doing? Good.

1:06:18>> I'm Peter Montasanti of Complete Home

1:06:20Improvements. We're trying to put a

1:06:21threecar garage addition on the side of

1:06:23the property. We want to turn the

1:06:25existing threecar garage that's in the

1:06:28house now into an um in-law apartment

1:06:31for the elderly parents. and doing so,

1:06:34we're going to lose a three-car garage.

1:06:35So, we want to put a three-car garage

1:06:36back on on the side of the property. Um

1:06:39the the garage that we're going to put

1:06:41on does not go outside the footprint of

1:06:44the existing driveway that's already

1:06:45there, but I know there's a 40ft setback

1:06:48on the side. Uh the time we're done

1:06:50constructing it, we're around 32 feet

1:06:52left. So, I believe we're coming for a

1:06:53variance for that ext. We're going to be

1:06:55approaching on to Tinker Road.

1:06:59Anything

1:07:02else that you'd like to add?

1:07:04>> Nope.

1:07:05>> You

1:07:07>> questions from the board

1:07:10measure.

1:07:10>> Well, 40 ft for that's to the road. The

1:07:12town owns certain.

1:07:17>> Any questions from the board?

1:07:21>> Uh could you just maybe uh speak to the

1:07:23need for the three-car garage versus say

1:07:25a twocar garage?

1:07:26>> I'm sorry, one more time. Uh could you

1:07:27maybe just speak to the need for the

1:07:29threec car garage versus the two-car

1:07:30garage?

1:07:31>> Oh, so the uh one be for her, one be for

1:07:33her husband, and one be for the elderly

1:07:35parents.

1:07:36>> Okay. So, you're replacing what you have

1:07:38now, obviously.

1:07:39>> I'm sorry.

1:07:39>> You're replacing what you have now,

1:07:41clearly.

1:07:41>> Yes. Yes, sir.

1:07:43>> Right. Thank you.

1:07:44>> Thank you.

1:07:46>> Is there anybody in the audience who'd

1:07:47like to speak in favor of the

1:07:49application?

1:07:51Is there anybody in the audience who'd

1:07:52like to speak with questions, concerns,

1:07:54or opposition to the application?

1:07:57Seeing none, I'm going to close the

1:07:58public hearing and open up the

1:07:59deliberations of the board. Thoughts

1:08:01from the board, Mr. Neely?

1:08:03>> So, I'm in favor. Uh, this is a double

1:08:04frontage here. Um, and this is uh going

1:08:07to fit completely into what's the what's

1:08:09the driveway. Um, I don't think anybody

1:08:11driving by Tinker Road is going to

1:08:12realize there's an 8ft difference. Um,

1:08:14and so, uh, this has given this family

1:08:17the ability from multigenerations to age

1:08:19in place as well. Um, it's not going to

1:08:22look out of character of the

1:08:23neighborhood. is many people in that

1:08:24same development have very large garages

1:08:26as well. So, for those reasons, I'm in

1:08:28favor.

1:08:30>> Mr. Buchche,

1:08:31>> um, one of the things that that I

1:08:33noticed, you know, it's it's it's a

1:08:35goodiz piece of property. Uh, but again,

1:08:37the way the house was situated, and that

1:08:39was with the development of Adela Drive

1:08:42and and again, they they they were

1:08:44looking to do that and not have a

1:08:45driveway off of Tinker Road. Um,

1:08:47obviously,

1:08:49you know, I looked at it and said,

1:08:51"Well, why can't we put the garage flip

1:08:53it and put it kind of on the side?" But

1:08:54then now you you would they would still

1:08:56be here because there will probably have

1:08:58to be driveway in in the uh in the in

1:09:00the side setback. Um, and also Tinker

1:09:03Road, as we know, is is not a slow going

1:09:07road. So, I I would I I wouldn't want to

1:09:10have to pull out and, you know, on that

1:09:12road all all the time. So, I think that

1:09:15uh it's reasonable and um again, I think

1:09:18that because of the size law uh and what

1:09:21it is, I I don't think this is going to

1:09:22be um you know, I don't think it's going

1:09:25to stick out like a sore thumb. I think

1:09:27uh it it'll look like it was built that

1:09:29way. So, I'll support the application.

1:09:33Any other thoughts? Anybody want to make

1:09:36a motion? Mr. Neely?

1:09:45I'd like to make a motion to approve the

1:09:47variance request for Rishi and Namita

1:09:50Yadav owners to Adella Drive sheet G lot

1:09:54676 requesting a variance from table

1:09:5616-3 for a 15 ft front setback

1:10:00encroachment 25 ft proposed 40T required

1:10:04for a 26 foot by 36 ft attached garage

1:10:07this is in the R40 zone in Ward to uh

1:10:11granting the variance would not be

1:10:13contrary to the public interest um in

1:10:16that because this is a uh has has is

1:10:20infringing on Tinker Road. One of the

1:10:23ways around this would be put the

1:10:24driveway on Tinker Road. We do not feel

1:10:25like that's in the public interest due

1:10:27to the speed of traffic on Tinker Road.

1:10:30The spirit of the ordinance would be

1:10:32observed uh in that many houses in this

1:10:35development have large garages and this

1:10:38is replacing a threecar garage that the

1:10:40folks have now and they're trying to

1:10:42allow somebody to age in place. Granting

1:10:45the variance would do substantial

1:10:47justice in that it allows the family to

1:10:49grow uh within the current footprint of

1:10:51the house. However, they do lose to the

1:10:54garage for the three vehicles. This is a

1:10:55large lot. Uh adding on to the side by

1:10:59adding a garage uh would look in

1:11:01character with the neighborhood. Um we

1:11:04do not believe the values of the

1:11:05surrounding properties would be

1:11:06diminished. And as to unnecessary

1:11:08hardship, uh this is a double front,

1:11:10excuse me, a double frontage on this

1:11:12house. The house is set very far forward

1:11:15on the lot. It is a large lot and these

1:11:19folks do need to have parking to replace

1:11:21what they are losing by allowing a

1:11:24family member to age in place. So for

1:11:26those reasons, I make a motion to

1:11:28approve the variance. Is there a second?

1:11:31Second by Mr. Petri. Uh any discussion?

1:11:35Seeing none, all those in favor?

1:11:38Your application is granted. Good luck.

1:11:43And finally, we have the application of

1:11:45Bisono 413 South Main Street LLC, 413

1:11:50South Main Street, uh requesting a

1:11:52variance from land use code section

1:11:54190-15,

1:11:56table 15-1, number 102, to allow a

1:12:00personal service use. This is in the RA

1:12:02zone in W 6. Is the applicant present?

1:12:20Good evening. Excuse me. Good evening,

1:12:22Mr. Chairman and members of the board.

1:12:24My name is Brad Westgate. I'm a lawyer

1:12:26with Waltz White and Fontaine, 29

1:12:29Factory Street here in Nasha,

1:12:30representing the owner and applicant.

1:12:33With me is Miguel Basano, who's uh

1:12:36seated just behind me in the second row

1:12:38behind. Before I begin, Mr. Chairman, I

1:12:42was just hopeful if I could hand out a

1:12:44little packet of information, some of

1:12:46which you you already have from your

1:12:48packets, but a couple documents you

1:12:50don't, and which I may like to refer to

1:12:52a little bit during the presentation or

1:12:54for you to consider during

1:12:55deliberations,

1:12:56>> of course.

1:13:02Thanks.

1:13:14Thank you.

1:13:24>> So, Mr. Chairman, the applicant is the

1:13:26owner uh property at 413 South Main

1:13:29Street. Uh the board's aware we're

1:13:30seeking a variance to allow a personal

1:13:33services use in an existing portion of

1:13:35an approved office facility located in

1:13:37the RA zone.

1:13:39The personal service use is focused on

1:13:42beauty treatments or aesthetics and

1:13:44these include um items such as facials,

1:13:47skin care treatments, superficial facial

1:13:49peels, waxing, hair removal, um un other

1:13:53skin care treatments, uh lash

1:13:56operations, extensions, and Botox and

1:13:58similar injections. Of course, all done

1:14:00by licensed professionals.

1:14:03This service would not include what you

1:14:05would find in typical pedicure,

1:14:07manicures, and nail salons.

1:14:10Personal service uses are allowed in

1:14:12certain zones in the city, but not in

1:14:14the RA district.

1:14:19The property service by public water and

1:14:21sewer, of course, as well as other

1:14:22customary utilities. It's a bit over

1:14:25half an acre in size, that is the land,

1:14:27about three times or more larger than

1:14:29the RA district minimum requirement.

1:14:32The building is only about 1,620 square

1:14:35ft. It's a split level approach. On the

1:14:37lower level is a apartment unit and the

1:14:40upper level [clears throat] is the

1:14:41office space.

1:14:45There's significant frontage on both

1:14:47South Main Street of course and setbacks

1:14:49and all are relatively uh

1:14:51straightforward. One time this property

1:14:53was owned by Rivier University and the

1:14:55applicant purchased the property from

1:14:57Rivier after in 2020 this board granted

1:15:00a variance to allow the office use. It

1:15:03had been a residential property

1:15:07after the variance was granted Mr.

1:15:09Misano bought the property, undertook to

1:15:12go through the planning board process,

1:15:13got site plan approval. That led to a

1:15:16significant and extensive renovations

1:15:18both on site uh interior and exterior

1:15:22included uh cutting down a number of uh

1:15:25deadened diseased trees and other trees

1:15:27because of the need to install storm

1:15:29water management facilities, retaining

1:15:31wall, new parking areas, driveway

1:15:33turnaround and the like. In addition, he

1:15:36fully renovated the upper level to

1:15:38become the office space. He operates a

1:15:40State Farm insurance agency at the

1:15:42property.

1:15:45It turns out that the full complement of

1:15:47office space is simply not needed for

1:15:50the insurance agency. And the the board

1:15:52is well aware there's been, you know,

1:15:54evolution, if you will, in office uses,

1:15:57remote work, video conferencing. Uh,

1:16:00frankly, the lack of uh sort of

1:16:03in-person uh walk-ins just doesn't

1:16:06render the need for such space uh

1:16:09necessary to operate the insurance

1:16:11agency.

1:16:13So the idea is to use a small amount of

1:16:16the space, effectively three rooms if

1:16:18you will, plus a waiting area hallway

1:16:21about 415 square ft for the personal

1:16:24services use in the application. And I

1:16:28also just reprinted it here. If you take

1:16:30a look at the second sheet in that

1:16:33little packet that I handed out,

1:16:37this was part of our application. And

1:16:39it's a floor plan of the first floor of

1:16:41the upper floor of this building which

1:16:43shows the office layout and this sort of

1:16:45light green area is the square footage

1:16:48that is not needed right now unnecessary

1:16:51for office use uh but which we would be

1:16:54used for the personal services uh

1:16:56operation [clears throat] has its own

1:16:58entrance waiting area as you can see its

1:17:01own um um bathroom as well.

1:17:07little bit of focus on Main Street as

1:17:10you head south into South Main Street at

1:17:12this intersection. Of course, as as you

1:17:14all are well aware, there are a number

1:17:16of non-residential uses heading south on

1:17:18Main Street. I've counted at least four

1:17:20law firms, three or more insurance

1:17:23agencies, uh one spa, salone, um

1:17:26obviously single family homes, and Auto

1:17:29Parts is their funeral home. Uh

1:17:32Hayward's Ice Cream of course is just

1:17:33just beyond us to the south. All of

1:17:36these properties are in the RA district.

1:17:39Rivier University of course campus

1:17:42starts across the street and runs

1:17:44throughout South Main Street.

1:17:46South Main Street and Main Street of

1:17:48course generally is a heavily traveled

1:17:50road. So what we're looking at is an

1:17:52area of town on this section of Main

1:17:55Street into South Main Street that just

1:17:57simply isn't an isolated residential

1:17:59product uh uh pocket if you will.

1:18:05And it's the context of the neighborhood

1:18:07that's very important in this kind of

1:18:08variance application. And I'm sure was

1:18:10important in 2020 when this board

1:18:13granted the office uh use variance

1:18:15itself. The board's pretty I think the

1:18:18board's well aware of the notion that

1:18:20zoning districts of course are to

1:18:22reflect the reality of the districts.

1:18:24What is actually happening in them?

1:18:27There are sections in the RA district,

1:18:29of course, that are almost purely

1:18:30residential, but Main Street South into

1:18:33South Main Street simply isn't that type

1:18:35of section. And again, the office

1:18:38variance use was granted, logically

1:18:41granted because of the nature of South

1:18:43Main Street as you head in that

1:18:44direction.

1:18:47So, getting back to the operation, so

1:18:49the concept would be there'd be up to

1:18:50three personnel doing um aesthetics

1:18:53treatments. Um they would see customers

1:18:56clients on an appointment onlyly basis

1:18:58operate from about 9 to5 Monday excuse

1:19:00me 9 to6 Monday through Friday um there

1:19:04would be up to and it's probably a high

1:19:06number five uh visits if you will

1:19:09clients per provider on a daily basis.

1:19:12Um but that's probably more than would

1:19:14be typical. Uh the

1:19:18treatment some treatments that you get

1:19:20in in the aesthetics take a fair amount

1:19:22of time. Um, it's a fair amount of work

1:19:25as well for the for the for the licensed

1:19:28clinician. Uh, it's not something you uh

1:19:31uh grind out, if you will. Uh, so that's

1:19:34a really modest number of people who

1:19:36would come into the uh facility on a

1:19:39daily basis.

1:19:41Vendor trips would be minimal as well.

1:19:44In effect, what would happen is the uh

1:19:47these office these little sections in

1:19:51this office would really function no

1:19:54differently than if it was an office

1:19:55use. So someone would drive to the

1:19:58property, could park either in the upper

1:20:00level where there's two spaces plus a

1:20:02third handicap space or the lower level

1:20:05which is accessed off Eastman Street

1:20:08would come to the property and you

1:20:10wouldn't know if that person was coming

1:20:12to see the insurance agent or see the

1:20:15person providing the personal services.

1:20:18So if you had more office use there, you

1:20:22would have the same functionality as you

1:20:24would if you had the aesthetics use. In

1:20:27fact, there are some office uses that if

1:20:29um if this was not a if we weren't

1:20:33allowed to undertake the personal

1:20:35services use um by way of not getting

1:20:38this variance. There are other office

1:20:40uses I suppose not Mr. Basano's uh

1:20:44preference that probably would generate

1:20:47even more traffic than this would do

1:20:49because if you had say counselors, tax

1:20:52preparers, accountants, they see

1:20:54customers more face-toface and more of

1:20:57them than you would in this type of

1:20:59appointmentonly based operation.

1:21:02I know the board has received, I

1:21:04believe, um correspondence from four

1:21:06neighbors. Um there's sort of two themes

1:21:10fundamentally in their concerns. I'd

1:21:13like to give a little context to that.

1:21:16If you [clears throat] take a look at

1:21:17the last handout that I last page in the

1:21:21handout that I presented,

1:21:26I annotated a portion of the GIS map. I

1:21:29just wanted to give you obviously the uh

1:21:33location of the property which you see

1:21:35blocked out in red 413 South Main

1:21:37Street. There are

1:21:40uh four properties right off Eastman

1:21:42Street for Learned Street, 31 Eastman

1:21:45and 33 Eastman. You receive letters from

1:21:47those three and also received a letter

1:21:51uh to the northwest up on 15 Eastman

1:21:54Street.

1:21:56board also received a letter from the

1:21:59owner of 411 South Main Street

1:22:02immediately adjacent in support of the

1:22:04application.

1:22:07The couple of concerns again basically

1:22:12were one was well the property uh number

1:22:16of trees had to be cut down. Uh a lot of

1:22:19activity occurred when site development

1:22:21was undertaken. That of course is true.

1:22:23did, but it was fundamentally necessary

1:22:25given the planning board approval and

1:22:27the need to follow the planning board

1:22:28approval. Uh the other question and

1:22:31concern basically pertains to traffic uh

1:22:35safety on East on Eastman Street. Again,

1:22:40if you take a look at that GIS map,

1:22:42you'll see that

1:22:44the lower level parking area for this

1:22:47property is accessed off that sort of

1:22:49small remaining section of Eastman

1:22:52Street that dead ends. It dead ends

1:22:54right north of Haywood's property in

1:22:56effect.

1:22:58There's a four-way stop sign at Learner

1:23:00Street and Eastman Street. So, anyone

1:23:03who's approaching the property who's

1:23:05going to park uh in the rear parking lot

1:23:08is going to enter that four-way uh sign

1:23:12uh sway section, if you will, and we'll

1:23:14have to stop to properly follow the stop

1:23:16sign order and then proceed a fairly

1:23:18short way into the property.

1:23:21Same way to exit.

1:23:24Mr. Basano put in a speed bump on the um

1:23:28lower part of his property in that lower

1:23:30driveway. uh unnecessary per the

1:23:34planning board approval but desirous to

1:23:36just further indicate the u

1:23:40point of being cautious and appropriate

1:23:43when entering and exiting that property.

1:23:46And Mr. Basano of course is uh cognizant

1:23:49of uh the desire for people to be safe

1:23:52in that area. Uh he tells me he's had no

1:23:56experiences of any reports of a traffic

1:23:59incident that or accident that occurred

1:24:01involving his employees or customers.

1:24:05Uh he he uh also has indicated to me

1:24:09that he's perfectly happy to and in

1:24:12plans to put a fence along the common

1:24:15boundary line between his property and

1:24:17for Learned Street on that lower end of

1:24:20the driveway, if you will. uh just for a

1:24:23sort of additional precaution.

1:24:26But again, irrespective of whether this

1:24:29use is permitted or not, this property

1:24:32was permitted for office use for that

1:24:34entire first floor and it has those

1:24:37builtout offices. Nothing's necessary to

1:24:40be done in the building to accommodate

1:24:42the personal services use. So obviously

1:24:45the the notion of traffic which I don't

1:24:48think is really actually germanine

1:24:50directly to the five criteria in this

1:24:53case anyway but the the notion of access

1:24:56to this property is really already been

1:24:58dealt with by way of the first variance

1:25:00application having been approved and the

1:25:03going through the planning board

1:25:04process. All we're really simply doing

1:25:07is saying, would it be appropriate and

1:25:10possible to have this type of use, the

1:25:12personal services use rather than the

1:25:14office use in a facility already built,

1:25:17already accommodating from a development

1:25:20perspective and from a uh planned and

1:25:24site plan approved perspective uh this

1:25:27built out facility.

1:25:30Just to get to the five criteria

1:25:32briefly, if I may, Mr. chairman. Uh

1:25:34because the first is that the variance

1:25:36not be contrary to the public interest

1:25:38and we would respectfully submit it's

1:25:40not contrary to the public interest to

1:25:42allow this variance when we have a

1:25:44situation where the um ex facility

1:25:48already exists. The offices are already

1:25:50there. No work is necessary to upgrade

1:25:53the property or to change it in any way

1:25:55to accommodate the particular use. Um,

1:25:59we've already [clears throat] got, as

1:26:00noted and as the board well knows, a

1:26:02number of uh, non-residential uses

1:26:04heading on south on Main Street into the

1:26:06South Main Street area. Again, all of

1:26:08these being in the RA district.

1:26:12We're very close to Haywood's Ice Cream,

1:26:14which is a significantly different level

1:26:16of traffic generation than this property

1:26:18would be, and adjacent to the Rotary,

1:26:21too. So, you're just not in a classic

1:26:24residential pocket at this point of uh,

1:26:26South Main Street.

1:26:31And finally would respectfully submit

1:26:33that it's in the public interest to

1:26:36allow utilization of a developed office

1:26:38space that's got approvals already for a

1:26:41use that functions from the public

1:26:43perspective no differently.

1:26:46Second criteria is a proposed use absorb

1:26:48excuse me observe the spirit of the

1:26:50ordinance. Again, uh the uses in this

1:26:53district uh vary significantly from

1:26:57traditional residential uses. The spirit

1:26:59of the ordinance is derived from these

1:27:01purposes.

1:27:03One of the purposes of an or zoning

1:27:05ordinance is to reflect the reality of

1:27:07the district as the Banger v city of

1:27:09Nashville case which ironically involved

1:27:12a property on Main Street about

1:27:1540 years ago I think Mr. Chairman but

1:27:18you may remember the citation better

1:27:19than I. Uh, and the lesson of that case,

1:27:23the Banger City of Nasha case, is that

1:27:25zoning ordinances must also have, and

1:27:28I'm quoting

1:27:30their uh, excuse me, municipalities must

1:27:33also have their zoning ordinances

1:27:35reflect the current character of

1:27:36neighborhoods. And in that case, the

1:27:38court said the record is replete with

1:27:40evidence that the area in question has

1:27:42indeed gone through substantial changes

1:27:45from the time it was zoned for single

1:27:46family residential use. And clearly Main

1:27:50Street as you head south into South Main

1:27:52Street has these differences. It does

1:27:54not have uniformity and residential use.

1:27:57And really that's the core question

1:27:59before us. Um the traffic type

1:28:02questions, the site development issues,

1:28:04they're really dealt with already

1:28:05because no changes are contemplated.

1:28:07It's the nature of the use that's before

1:28:09you. Third criteria is substantial

1:28:12justice be done because it's that

1:28:13balance between whether the general

1:28:16public realizes any appreciable gain

1:28:18from the denial but is the applicant

1:28:21materially and adversely affected if it

1:28:23is denied. We would respectfully submit

1:28:25he is material adversely affected if

1:28:27denied because essentially you make

1:28:29somewhat inert uh this particular part

1:28:32of the building lead you to other uses

1:28:35which frankly would be of perhaps

1:28:38greater uh coming and going if you will

1:28:41than this one on a appointmentbased

1:28:43limited uh scope approach. Fourth

1:28:46criteria is that the use wouldn't

1:28:48diminish the value of surrounding

1:28:49properties. Again, no change in what's

1:28:52happening in the exterior, no change in

1:28:54how the public perceives why someone

1:28:56comes to the property or not. Can't see

1:28:58how that inert nature would conceivably

1:29:02adversely affect property values. Fifth

1:29:04criteria is of course the hardship

1:29:06criteria. We identify special conditions

1:29:08and then measure hardship on a two-prong

1:29:11approach.

1:29:13The special [clears throat] conditions,

1:29:14I've noted them already. its location,

1:29:16the nature of uses along Main Street

1:29:19heading south into South Main Street,

1:29:21the fact that this is a developed

1:29:22property, no changes are necessary to

1:29:25accommodate the use. um the the 2020

1:29:29variance granted contemplated had to

1:29:32take into account the nature and

1:29:33character of the area and effectively

1:29:36we're sort of now fundamentally

1:29:38different than a sort of typical

1:29:40residential property that would be

1:29:42seeking in more core IRA district

1:29:46sectors uh a business use that's not

1:29:49what we have here we have a use already

1:29:51permitted planning board approved um

1:29:54built out and merely changing what

1:29:56happens inside with no perception to the

1:29:59public from the outside.

1:30:02So, we see those special conditions, we

1:30:04measure the hardship test against them.

1:30:07Um, and again, when you take a look at

1:30:09the RA district, we've got to note what

1:30:12is in existence and what isn't in this

1:30:14sector of the RA district. And as you

1:30:16head in Main Street South into South

1:30:18Main, you see the variety of

1:30:20non-residential uses uh accompanying it.

1:30:25and keeping in mind the Balancher case

1:30:27and its lesson.

1:30:29So it really boils down to two core

1:30:31points as I close, Mr. Chairman. One is

1:30:34from the perspective of this use, we've

1:30:36got people coming into the building for

1:30:38a service that's not insurance, but it's

1:30:41no different than coming in for any

1:30:43other use that is privately provided in

1:30:45the building. And secondly, we keep in

1:30:48mind the car the nature of the area of

1:30:51South Main Street, the uses, how it's

1:30:53evolved over time and zoning is to stay

1:30:55consistent with that. Finally,

1:30:58respectfully submit it is a reasonable

1:31:00use given that the way it's perceived

1:31:03from the exterior is no different than

1:31:05the office use is perceived. Um I did

1:31:08include um um a little summary on the

1:31:11very top of this packet that sort of

1:31:14tried to

1:31:16my chart form sort of indicate uh these

1:31:19basic concepts that I've stated. Um I

1:31:22leave it for you if it's of any value in

1:31:24your deliberations to sort of remember

1:31:26some of these comparisons and thank you

1:31:28very much Mr. Chairman. We're happy to

1:31:30answer any questions.

1:31:30>> Thank you. Questions from the board. Mr.

1:31:32Neely.

1:31:33>> Mr. Chair, I've got a a few questions if

1:31:34you don't mind. Um, so counselor, um, on

1:31:38the on the lower level, is that

1:31:41currently still an apartment?

1:31:42>> Yes.

1:31:43>> An occupied apartment? I assume

1:31:45somebody's living there?

1:31:46>> Yes. I believe three people live there.

1:31:48And I'll look for Mr. Yes.

1:31:50>> On the upper level, how many parking

1:31:53spaces are there?

1:31:54>> There are three total. One is

1:31:55handicapped.

1:31:57>> So, when I did my driveby, it seemed to

1:31:59me like that was actually a pretty good

1:32:00size parking lot. Is it just striped for

1:32:02three or it can only legally fit three?

1:32:05I think it was only approved for three

1:32:07and I think dimensionally it could

1:32:09probably only fit three.

1:32:10>> Okay. So, so the crux of the opposition

1:32:15is your back parking lot. Yes.

1:32:17>> And and quite frankly, as somebody

1:32:19driving by, and I've driven by for many,

1:32:21many years, I didn't even know there's a

1:32:22back parking lot. So, if you have a

1:32:24customer coming there, they're not going

1:32:26to know there's a back parking lot

1:32:27unless somebody's telling to park in the

1:32:28back parking lot. Why not just mandate

1:32:30that the employees park in the back

1:32:33parking lot and all customers park in

1:32:34the top parking lot? Your deliveries are

1:32:36going to go to the top parking lot and

1:32:38quite frankly that's going to minimize

1:32:40the amount of cars going in and out if

1:32:42it's just the employees which is maybe

1:32:45maybe 10 10 car trips in a day if

1:32:48there's five people in the building one

1:32:49in one out and I think most of your

1:32:51opposition goes away. Is that is that

1:32:53doable?

1:32:54>> Uh your point is well taken in with

1:32:56respect to employees and I should have

1:32:57mentioned it. employees do and shall and

1:33:01always must park in the rear parking lot

1:33:04in the lower park. There's no question

1:33:05about that. That point is of course

1:33:08excellent. Um there just may well Mr.

1:33:11Basano tells me that in his experience

1:33:14and observation more than half of the

1:33:17customers do park in the upper lot. But

1:33:20of course there may be occasions where

1:33:22the three spaces are occupied and a

1:33:25customer may have to go into the lower

1:33:26lot. the uh when the site plan approval

1:33:31process went through, you wouldn't have

1:33:32noticed it, but there's a sign on the

1:33:34upper lot that has a little emblem to

1:33:38the effect additional parking and rear.

1:33:41Apparently, when you go on Google,

1:33:43Google Maps, they direct you to the

1:33:46upper parking lot. he will encourage his

1:33:50uh customers of course to go to the

1:33:52upper parking lot if the space is

1:33:54available but there just may be

1:33:56occasions where it's full. Um so it's

1:33:59probably impossible to state that every

1:34:02customer must always park in the upper

1:34:03lot because there may be between the you

1:34:06know the office use and the um personal

1:34:10service use more than three people there

1:34:12at a particular time.

1:34:14>> So that's understandable. Um, that being

1:34:17said, if there's three people living

1:34:18downstairs and we're going to assume

1:34:20five people, probably worst case

1:34:21scenario working in the building, that's

1:34:24maybe 16 total trips a day. Does that

1:34:27sound reasonable? Car trips.

1:34:28>> Yeah.

1:34:29>> One in, one out for everybody.

1:34:30>> Yeah. Although, of course, with with

1:34:32residential, I think the the standard of

1:34:35residential typically is more than one

1:34:37in, one out. It's kind of more like two

1:34:38in, two out.

1:34:40>> That's at least what the traffic

1:34:41engineers tell me.

1:34:43>> Nevertheless, it's okay. But I but I do

1:34:46think it's important to remember that

1:34:47this the the lo this just sort of the

1:34:50physical dynamic to go into the rear

1:34:53parking lot. You have to go through the

1:34:54four-way stop sign and you don't go very

1:34:57far. Um so and you know there are

1:35:02clearly several houses as well on

1:35:04Eastman.

1:35:08It's it's a street that's got its

1:35:10intended public use, but I don't think

1:35:12what we're proposing is significantly

1:35:17impacting that use. And again, we should

1:35:20remember that this was a site plan that

1:35:23was approved after a variance was

1:35:24granted for this full office to be used

1:35:28u fully built out. And all we're doing

1:35:31is proposing that a different use be

1:35:33made than a fold out a full used out

1:35:37office use would be really what it boils

1:35:39down to.

1:35:40>> Thank you. But I I do understand your

1:35:42point.

1:35:45Other questions?

1:35:48See none. You're free to take a seat.

1:35:50>> Thank you very much.

1:35:53Is there anybody in the audience who'd

1:35:55like to speak in favor of the

1:35:56application?

1:36:04Good evening everyone. U my name is

1:36:06Kayla Gutierrez. I'm actually one of his

1:36:09employees. Um and I felt the need to be

1:36:12here today.

1:36:13>> Would you just mind stating your address

1:36:15for the record?

1:36:15>> My address is uh 73 Burke Street in

1:36:19Nashville, New Hampshire. Um, I'm just

1:36:23here to say simply that, you know, um, m

1:36:27talk a little bit about Miguel's

1:36:28character. Um, I've known Miguel since

1:36:31he was a little boy. I've been employed

1:36:34by him for three years. Um, but I have

1:36:38seen nothing but responsibility from

1:36:41him. Concerned about his community. He

1:36:44loves the community that he works, he

1:36:47lives, and he serves. because a lot of

1:36:49our customers, believe it or not, are

1:36:51actually in the area. And he's always

1:36:54shown concern about that. I just found

1:36:58out today why the bump is at the lower.

1:37:02I just found out why there's a speed

1:37:05bump in our driveway. And I don't see um

1:37:10I can't see why he wouldn't do that. If

1:37:14I'm if I can get that if I got that

1:37:17across right the right way.

1:37:18>> Yes,

1:37:19>> I I can see why he did that. You know,

1:37:22it he does tell us all the time, you

1:37:25know, um the children are there. We see

1:37:28the children. Um but you know, he has

1:37:31always been a very responsible

1:37:34individual. Um and he is concerned about

1:37:38the um community and the neighborhood

1:37:41that we serve, you know. So that's all I

1:37:44wanted to share with you guys tonight.

1:37:47>> Thank you.

1:37:50>> And I think as noted, we did receive uh

1:37:52a letter of support. Uh this is from

1:37:56Hong High Gardener, who is at 411 Main

1:38:00Street, and he just notes that uh since

1:38:03the applicant purchased the property,

1:38:05he's seen major improvement, that it's

1:38:07wellmaintained, more so than as

1:38:09previously. He he notes that he lives

1:38:11next door, spends a lot of time at the

1:38:13home, etc. He notes that he does

1:38:16understand that there's concerns about

1:38:18allowing personal service um because of

1:38:20the potential for different uh

1:38:22additional traffic, how it might might

1:38:23affect the neighborhood. Uh but notes

1:38:26that he doesn't share those concerns and

1:38:28uh overall again notes that there's

1:38:31offices there already that no

1:38:33construction or expansion is proposed.

1:38:36And you know again notes that this

1:38:38spaces were intended for additional

1:38:40insurance team u members which is not

1:38:44needed and again just goes on to say

1:38:46that there's a you know the owner has

1:38:48made a positive difference and he

1:38:50requests that the board support the

1:38:52application.

1:38:53Is there anybody else who'd like to

1:38:55speak in favor?

1:38:58Uh seeing none, is there anybody who

1:38:59would like to speak with questions,

1:39:01concerns or opposition to the

1:39:02application?

1:39:04Please feel free to come forward.

1:39:11Hello. Thank you. My name is Cynthia

1:39:13Nolles. I live at 15 Eastman Street and

1:39:17did submit a letter. Um, I'm just

1:39:20finding that in listening to the

1:39:23presentation,

1:39:25there's a lot made about the character

1:39:28of Main Street, and I'm concerned with

1:39:31the character of Eastman Street, which

1:39:33is very much a close residential

1:39:37neighborhood

1:39:38with not only children right next to the

1:39:42driveway, but right across from the

1:39:44driveway. and also two more new families

1:39:48have just moved in with very young

1:39:50children.

1:39:52Um I've lived in the neighborhood for 23

1:39:55years. In addition to the families who

1:39:59often walk there, there are a lot of

1:40:01people right in the immediate

1:40:03neighborhood who walk their dogs who

1:40:06little children on bicycles going to

1:40:09Haywards. Um so it's just it's known as

1:40:13a friendly street. So, there's a lot of

1:40:15traffic. Unfortunately, there are many

1:40:18people who run the stop signs. Yes,

1:40:21there are four-way stop signs there, but

1:40:24I've often seen um them run. I could

1:40:29understand the um consideration if it's

1:40:34employees only in the lot even though

1:40:37that already increases traffic

1:40:41that um that back area before the

1:40:46building was sold from RI Rivier. Um

1:40:50there wasn't any traffic back there and

1:40:55uh it's been disruptive

1:40:58um in times past, but now things have

1:41:02settled down there. But I'm very

1:41:05concerned about the traffic and people

1:41:08if if non employees were there, they're

1:41:12not familiar with the area. Um, I'm not

1:41:15sure why it seems so easy to run those

1:41:18stop signs, but I am concerned about it.

1:41:22And there's also been a lot of um

1:41:25crashes at the corner of Eastman Street

1:41:29and East Dunstable.

1:41:31And with more traffic coming in and out

1:41:35of there, that could also be a concern.

1:41:39So, if if all of the activity was going

1:41:43to be on South Main Street, um which is

1:41:48a commercial area with Hayward's right

1:41:52there, that would be fine. What I'm

1:41:54really concerned about is the impact on

1:41:58Eastman Street itself.

1:42:00Um, and I will mention too that there's

1:42:03a disabled man who uses our street all

1:42:06the time, Danny, who rides up and down,

1:42:10who's a little harder to see. So, again,

1:42:14people in the neighborhood know to be

1:42:16careful of him, but um, strangers might

1:42:20not. Thank you very much.

1:42:22>> Thank you.

1:42:24No questions from Is there anybody else

1:42:26who'd like to speak with questions,

1:42:28concerns, or opposition?

1:42:33Hi and good evening. Um, my name is

1:42:35Colleen Valente. I live at 33 Eastman

1:42:38Street. I sent in a letter as well. Our

1:42:40main concern is the traffic on Eastman

1:42:42Street. Um, I live, if you notice, right

1:42:46at the end of their driveway. Um, that

1:42:49is my property. Um, so I see everything

1:42:52that goes on. Um, they do blow by the

1:42:55stop signs. They speed down the street.

1:42:57They slave on their brakes, put the car

1:43:00in reverse, go up the hill without

1:43:01looking. We've had uh problems in the

1:43:05past. We've had the police called. Um we

1:43:09have problems with them during the

1:43:10snowstorms. They put all their snow on

1:43:12my personal property. We've called the

1:43:15police on them in regards to that. Uh we

1:43:18don't want this activity. It's a family

1:43:20residential street. Um we've lived here

1:43:23for over eight years and it's always

1:43:25been that way. We don't like the

1:43:28traffic. They don't stop. They speed.

1:43:31They don't have any consideration for

1:43:33anybody on East Main Street.

1:43:35>> May I May I ask you when you're saying

1:43:37they put the snow on your property and

1:43:39they

1:43:40>> people coming in and out on the

1:43:42property. Um people using um Eastman

1:43:45Street to go up to use their property.

1:43:47They're not abiding by any rules. They

1:43:49come flying down the hill. They don't

1:43:52stop. It's we have problems with their

1:43:54landscaping company on Mondays when they

1:43:56do it as well. They block our driveway

1:43:59when our when our driveway is blocked.

1:44:01We can't get out. My husband is 100%

1:44:04disabled. V. We shouldn't have to live

1:44:06like this. I'm disabled as well. I

1:44:09should not have to be able to live like

1:44:10that. We should be able to walk our

1:44:12street freely. We shouldn't have to wait

1:44:14for that. They have parking on the South

1:44:17Main Street, like he said, three spots.

1:44:20Nobody ever parks there.

1:44:23We drive by there all the time. I don't

1:44:25see anybody parked there. I see one

1:44:27purple car there parked. Everybody else

1:44:29parks on Eastman Street. Now, you're

1:44:32going to put in a business there. And

1:44:34you're going to have it there from the

1:44:35hours of 9 to 6, Monday through Friday.

1:44:38We have school buses.

1:44:41We have children that walk these

1:44:42streets. They go to Hayward. Like they

1:44:45were saying, it's a family residential

1:44:47area. We don't want a business. Where

1:44:50are they going to put their trash? What

1:44:52about the needles? Where are the needles

1:44:55going to go?

1:44:57What trash? Where are they going to put

1:44:58the trash? Because right now, waste

1:45:00management picks up their trash. No,

1:45:03don't doesn't needles and chemicals have

1:45:05to go in a different area. Where where

1:45:07is that going to go? What about the

1:45:09smells? What about everything else in

1:45:11the community? Why don't don't you take

1:45:14that into consideration for us? I'm

1:45:16deaf. The only way I know what goes on

1:45:19is through my dog. I have cameras. I

1:45:21know what goes on in my neighborhood. I

1:45:23see what goes on. And I know what when

1:45:26they go into their neighborhood, what

1:45:28goes on. They don't abide by the rules.

1:45:31And we don't want this in our

1:45:32neighborhood. We want to keep it a

1:45:34family safe neighborhood. Yes, Haywoods

1:45:37is there. They've been there for years.

1:45:39Chris Haywood

1:45:41lived. I don't know if he still does

1:45:42though, but he did live at the end of

1:45:44Eastman Street. And as you know, he

1:45:47does. And as you know, Haywoods gives

1:45:51back to the community every year. As we

1:45:53know, Haywoods does cone with the cop.

1:45:56So, they give back to the community.

1:45:58They help us. What are they going to do?

1:46:01And how are they going to help us?

1:46:02They're going to hurt us more than

1:46:04they're going to help us. We're not

1:46:05going to have a street. I'm not going to

1:46:07be able to walk out and walk my dog on

1:46:09the street. Danny like you know like I'm

1:46:12neighbor was saying he's you know can't

1:46:16hear

1:46:18so if somebody comes flying down the

1:46:20street are they going to see him? No

1:46:22there is a stop signs there as the

1:46:24gentleman was saying there's a little

1:46:25sign about this big

1:46:28on 413 South Main Street saying to park

1:46:31on Eastman Street.

1:46:34We don't want that. We want our

1:46:35community back. We don't want the

1:46:37traffic and we don't want our kids to

1:46:40feel like they can't play on the street.

1:46:42I grew up on a dead-end street. I lived

1:46:45on a dead end street my entire life. I

1:46:48traveled with the military. I lived

1:46:50everywhere. I have never had such a

1:46:52problem with my street as I do right

1:46:54now. And it's only going to get worse if

1:46:56you put in that business. Thank you.

1:46:59>> Thank you.

1:47:00>> Question. Uh, excuse me, ma'am. We do

1:47:02have a question from a board member.

1:47:03>> Sorry. So, I I just want to go back. Um,

1:47:07who who is the they? Is it the folks

1:47:09living there? Is it the folks that were

1:47:11there for Rivier? Is it the insurance

1:47:12folks? Like, who who's the they?

1:47:14>> Uh, well, the um people, you know, the

1:47:16the residents that live there. We've had

1:47:18a problem with one of the residents

1:47:20that's lived there. Um, I don't know if

1:47:22she still lives there or not. Uh, she

1:47:24used to park right in front of our

1:47:26driveway and she wouldn't leave. We were

1:47:29to ask her to leave. We would say, "Why

1:47:31are you parked in front of our

1:47:32driveway?" And she would look at us and

1:47:34I'd say, "Can you please leave our

1:47:36driveway?" And she wouldn't. And I'd

1:47:37say, "Can you leave?" And she'd say,

1:47:38"No, inaccia." She would tell us she

1:47:41didn't speak English.

1:47:43So, we're dealing with people coming

1:47:45down there. I don't know if he's in

1:47:48business or not or what all that

1:47:50activity is, but if he's not in business

1:47:52anymore, why are all these cars coming

1:47:53into Eastman Street now?

1:47:58>> Okay. Thank you.

1:47:59>> Thank you.

1:48:03A as noted, we um did receive uh some

1:48:06letters uh of either opposition or

1:48:09expressing concerns. We received a

1:48:12letter from Elise Lucas of For Learned

1:48:15Street and um she just basically

1:48:18expressed similar concerns to what we've

1:48:20heard, concerns about young children

1:48:22playing outside, concerns about traffic

1:48:24and how that might be impacted. As

1:48:26noted, we did receive a letter from

1:48:29Cynthia Nolles who spoke. We um received

1:48:32a letter again expressing concerns uh

1:48:35from Isabelle uh Bonafant.

1:48:38Uh we noted Colleen Valente sent a

1:48:41letter as well.

1:48:44And uh we also received a letter with

1:48:46concerns opposition. Again, we read

1:48:48actually two uh from Colleen Valente.

1:48:51And that is it. Um

1:48:55applicant does have an opportunity to

1:48:57come back. you have up to five minutes

1:48:58to address any of the concerns expressed

1:49:01um or or answer any of the questions

1:49:03that might have been raised.

1:49:05>> Thank you, [clears throat] Mr. Chairman.

1:49:06Just a few thoughts. Um

1:49:09I refer you again to the letter from um

1:49:14Ms. Gardinia, the owner of 411 South

1:49:18Main Street, and her comment uh comments

1:49:21on the operations at 413 South Main

1:49:24Street. She's lived there the entire

1:49:25time pre-development, during

1:49:28development, post-development, and

1:49:30operations. Uh, I won't get into a tit

1:49:33fortat discussion, but simply refer you

1:49:36to that letter and her observations

1:49:38regarding those operations.

1:49:41It's a traffic issue, if you will.

1:49:46Again, come context in perspective.

1:49:49This facility obtained a use variance in

1:49:522020 for office use for this entire uh

1:49:56first floor. The site plan approval was

1:49:59processed. The site plan approval

1:50:01contemplates all aspects of site

1:50:03development and use.

1:50:06We're not changing that arrangement.

1:50:09We're simply substituting in a different

1:50:12user in those same spaces, those same

1:50:15office areas that were used and

1:50:17permitted for use already. So, it's not

1:50:20a change in traffic quantum, if you

1:50:23will. It's merely the users inside the

1:50:26building are not office personnel.

1:50:28They're uh aesthetic uh personal service

1:50:32providers.

1:50:35the character of the area. We have to

1:50:37reflect on the character of South Main

1:50:39Street. This property being on South

1:50:42Main Street obviously wasn't uh

1:50:45appropriate to stay as a residential use

1:50:47given what's nearby Haywoods, the Rotary

1:50:50having been developed. Uh Rivier across

1:50:53the street, the nature of other

1:50:55properties on South Main Street.

1:50:58The board obviously took that into

1:51:00account in 2020 when granting the office

1:51:02use variance. So we're not making any

1:51:04great leap here from what goes inside

1:51:07the building whether it be an office

1:51:09user or the personal service user.

1:51:11That's the character that we have to

1:51:13look at. So you couple that with the

1:51:16fact that it's been a site plan that's

1:51:17already been approved which takes into

1:51:19account all these operational aspects.

1:51:22We're not changing those operational

1:51:24aspects.

1:51:25I I I always have to note that um we

1:51:29have to take as givens that people will

1:51:31obey stop signs, traffic lights, traffic

1:51:34ordinances, that sort of thing. We can't

1:51:37regulate and make determinations on

1:51:39variance applications on the theory that

1:51:41people disobey the law. Um that's simply

1:51:44an untenable and sort of non-objective

1:51:47analysis that we just can't uh uh

1:51:50function off.

1:51:52So, I just again respectfully ask that

1:51:55the board remember what was approved and

1:51:58what we're simply trying to do is change

1:52:00who works inside the building and not

1:52:02its operational nature.

1:52:04>> Thank you.

1:52:05>> Questions?

1:52:05>> Happy to answer questions of course.

1:52:08>> Thank you.

1:52:08>> Thank you.

1:52:10>> We do have the opportunity for one of

1:52:12you to come forward. Um and so it's just

1:52:15one of you. You can discuss amongst

1:52:16yourselves who that might be to have the

1:52:18last word. [snorts]

1:52:30Thank you, Cynthia Nolles.

1:52:32Um

1:52:33the the emphasis has been on the use

1:52:38around South Main Street and I

1:52:40understand that and I know the neighbor

1:52:42who is next door to them and they are

1:52:47oriented towards South Main Street, not

1:52:49aware of what happens on Eastman Street.

1:52:52And I do feel badly for um someone who

1:52:57has bought a building expecting their

1:53:00business to be there and then finds that

1:53:03gee I have extra space.

1:53:07But I

1:53:09don't feel that this um added use is

1:53:14going to be at all appropriate for the

1:53:18Eastman Street area. So, um,

1:53:24that's all. Thank you.

1:53:25>> Thank you.

1:53:27All right. With that, I'm going to close

1:53:29the public hearing and open up the

1:53:30deliberations of the board. Uh, thoughts

1:53:32from the board.

1:53:34Mr. Neely.

1:53:36>> You know, when we first uh got this

1:53:38packet, I thought this was going to be

1:53:39one of the easier cases of the night.

1:53:41And then as the letters trickled in um

1:53:43and and doing a site visit, I realized

1:53:45there's definitely a lot more going on

1:53:46with that building uh than you expect

1:53:48driving by. I'll I'll be honest. I think

1:53:51I've noticed a car in that front parking

1:53:52lot a handful of times in the last six

1:53:54months now I think about it. Definitely

1:53:56an underused parking lot. Underutilized

1:53:58parking lot on the upper side. It is

1:54:01interesting that we got letters and

1:54:02support from from the neighbor on the

1:54:05South Main Street side, but it's the

1:54:07folks from Eastman who are here. Uh so

1:54:08we've got a kind of a tale of two cities

1:54:10here and and I I do think the applicant

1:54:12has a lot of work to do to improve

1:54:14neighbor relations on the back side of

1:54:15the building. Um, I think that's quite

1:54:17evident here tonight that that we need

1:54:19to do some work on on that. And I don't

1:54:22I don't know whether it's emanating from

1:54:23your your um the folks in the apartment

1:54:26downstairs or the folks who are

1:54:28currently working at State Farm. Um, but

1:54:30somebody or a few folks have definitely

1:54:32caused the neighbors to have some um

1:54:35some concerns and as we heard tonight

1:54:36from from the testimony, nobody should

1:54:39have to deal with uh a bad neighbor

1:54:41who's dumping snow, locking the

1:54:43driveway, u etc. uh all that type of

1:54:46stuff. So, you've got some work to do

1:54:47there to to clean up your neighbor

1:54:49relations. Um but I do look at this

1:54:52building and this building is and every

1:54:54time I've driven by it, whether it was

1:54:55Rivier or other, I consider it a

1:54:57commercial building. I had no idea there

1:54:59was an apartment in the back of the

1:55:00building. Quite frankly, had no idea

1:55:01that there was a a parking lot in the

1:55:04back. This is a very uh unique property

1:55:06because it has just that little cutout

1:55:09um to allow the access to the back

1:55:10parking lot.

1:55:12Um, I I do think a lot of the issues

1:55:15would go away if the front parking lot

1:55:16was used as it should be. That should be

1:55:18the primary parking lot for customers

1:55:20and any type of overflow slash employee

1:55:23group should be in the back and that

1:55:25should minimize the amount of traffic. I

1:55:27think that if there is a sign up at the

1:55:28top that says use the back parking lot,

1:55:30that sign should disappear. Every time I

1:55:32drive by Monday through Friday, I should

1:55:33see three cars up in that parking lot up

1:55:35up on the on the South Main Street. Um

1:55:38we have had many cases come before us in

1:55:41the last couple years with folks looking

1:55:43to change the the uses of the buildings

1:55:45um as they're zoned similar to what

1:55:47we're seeing here tonight. And in my um

1:55:50my memory, we haven't denied any of them

1:55:53because it's not changing the exterior

1:55:54of the building. Um it's still basically

1:55:56the same number of people coming through

1:55:58the building. When I say number, I mean

1:56:00the c the number of customers. Um it's

1:56:02not like you're going to have a line of

1:56:03folks walking outside. Um, I almost look

1:56:06at this as as um, you know, if you have

1:56:08an appointment at one o'clock, one

1:56:09person, you know, if you're going to

1:56:10show up at 51, be there for an hour. If

1:56:12there's an appointment at two,

1:56:13appointment at two, somebody shows up

1:56:14five minutes before two, they kind of

1:56:15wander and so those cars will kind of

1:56:17keep replacing each other.

1:56:18[clears throat] So, I am uh in favor of

1:56:22this application, but I do think there's

1:56:24a lot of work that needs to be done. And

1:56:25um and I'd like to hear what the rest of

1:56:27the board says, but I'm I'm a little

1:56:28disappointed we're having this

1:56:30discussion because I I do think most of

1:56:31these most of these issues on the back

1:56:34side of the building um could easily be

1:56:36addressed and they haven't been yet.

1:56:40>> Well, I I I don't mind weighing in. Um

1:56:43and I agree with um your your comments,

1:56:46Mr. Neely. Clearly there is work to be

1:56:48done. Whether um some of the issues and

1:56:50the concerns that were raised are um

1:56:53issues that uh have occurred during the

1:56:55current ownership or prior ownership,

1:56:57I'm I'm not sure. Um prior tenencies, I

1:57:01I'm not sure, but you are correct. There

1:57:03there's work to be done and certainly

1:57:05use of the upper parking lot should be

1:57:07encouraged. Um that said, um we have

1:57:11existing spaces within this building. um

1:57:15three very small offices in a waiting

1:57:17room. And from my perspective, whether

1:57:20they're used by an esthetician to see

1:57:23clients uh on an appointment basis or

1:57:26whether there were an attorney there um

1:57:29or an accountant in there, I don't see

1:57:32there being a difference in terms of the

1:57:34traffic that flow that we would

1:57:36experience. Uh I don't see any change to

1:57:40the exterior of the building. So I don't

1:57:42see any adverse impact um you know any

1:57:45change really at all to the surrounding

1:57:47area. It's simply a difference of um

1:57:50what would the traffic flow be and what

1:57:53would the customer flow be uh if the

1:57:55building were fully occupied versus not.

1:57:58Um the approval contemplated a building

1:58:01that's fully occupied. So yeah I mean I

1:58:04think for those reasons uh I do support

1:58:06the application. I would note I I would

1:58:08certainly hope that the applicant um

1:58:11follow uh the site plan that's approved.

1:58:13So I I heard the comment about snow

1:58:15plowing. There is a snow storage area

1:58:17shown on the plan. That's the area that

1:58:19should be used. Uh if not, that's a

1:58:21violation of the approved site plan. Um

1:58:24but you know, for those reasons stated,

1:58:26I I do support the application. Other

1:58:28thoughts,

1:58:31Mr. Petri? Yeah, I I I would think that

1:58:34that an aesthetician would have less

1:58:36clients than a lawyer or um an

1:58:39accountant. Um you know, folks that you

1:58:41know like meet with your accountant for

1:58:43maybe half an hour and people can be

1:58:44coming in all day whereas an

1:58:46aesthetician it's going to take a while

1:58:48uh most likely. So I I think that the

1:58:50potential uses because

1:58:53this is a commercial building. I mean

1:58:55they could put I mean they could have

1:58:56law offices, they could have um

1:58:58accountants in there. um I think of the

1:58:59potential uses this is probably lower

1:59:02impact but I but as Mr. Nei said there

1:59:05definitely be definitely needs to be

1:59:07some work done to make sure that um the

1:59:09Eastman Street folks are that their

1:59:12properties are are respected

1:59:14and safety is respected

1:59:17>> correct

1:59:17>> Mr. Mr. Bchet,

1:59:18>> I'm also going to support the

1:59:19application. Um, I do use Eastman

1:59:23Street. I mean, I do use um the other

1:59:26street um especially on coming from

1:59:31South Maine, you know, from the from the

1:59:33golf course area. I think that is a

1:59:35common street to cut through instead of

1:59:37going to the light to East Dunable,

1:59:38taking left on East Dunable. So, I do

1:59:41know because I've witnessed people

1:59:43running the stop signs there. So, I know

1:59:45that that exists. Um but I also know

1:59:47that that

1:59:49is also a a street um going across you

1:59:53know cutting going across at the boy

1:59:56stop. It's also used kind of as a cut

1:59:57through to to eliminate some of of the

2:00:00traffic. So, so I think there's other

2:00:02issues there and and as I went and

2:00:03looked at this again I I I live near

2:00:06Bish so I'm familiar with Eastman Street

2:00:08and and I've walked there to Haywards

2:00:11and you know I've walked uh so I know

2:00:13the back way in you know kind of the the

2:00:15back way into to to the uh to the ice

2:00:17cream shop. Um,

2:00:21but when I come down that hill again, I

2:00:24I recognize that there's a stop there

2:00:26stop signs there, but for some reason it

2:00:29doesn't stick out. And I always wondered

2:00:30like if if they painted stop or

2:00:33something on the street, would it be

2:00:34more obvious? I mean, that's something

2:00:36that the neighborhood could propose to

2:00:38the alderman or somebody. But but uh I

2:00:41do understand because you tend, you

2:00:43know, people will speed down the hill.

2:00:45Um, and then when you're coming the

2:00:47other way, there's no stop signs until

2:00:50you get to to that intersection. So, so

2:00:52I do understand that, but like I said,

2:00:55this is an approved site plan. Um, and

2:00:58like you and I agree whether whether or

2:01:00not it was uh lawyers, accountants, or

2:01:02whatever, I think that you could have

2:01:04the same amount of it could be the same

2:01:07amount of um traffic. There would be a

2:01:09set amount of traffic. So, I'm going to

2:01:11support the application.

2:01:15Well, maybe I'll take this one. I

2:01:16haven't done one yet yet this evening.

2:01:18Um, so I'd like to make a motion that

2:01:20the application of Bisano 413 South Main

2:01:23Street LLC

2:01:25um for uh for 413 South Main Street

2:01:29requesting a variance from land use code

2:01:31section 190-15

2:01:33table 15-1 number 102 to allow a

2:01:37personal service use uh in the RA zone

2:01:40be approved. uh we find that granting

2:01:43the variance would not be contrary to

2:01:44the public interest uh because there

2:01:47really it is an existing building uh an

2:01:50existing commercial building. There is

2:01:52no change proposed to the exterior of

2:01:54the building or to the site in any way.

2:01:57So there would be no change to the

2:01:59character of the neighborhood. we find

2:02:01that the spirit of the ordinance would

2:02:03be observed um because again there is no

2:02:06uh change to the character of the

2:02:08neighborhood and although there have

2:02:10been concerns expressed about uh parking

2:02:13on on Eastman Street, we don't find that

2:02:15there would be any injury to the public

2:02:17health safety or welfare primarily

2:02:19because um we don't see that there would

2:02:22be an increase in overall parking by the

2:02:25use of these vacant offices for personal

2:02:28service use versus a uh office use. Um

2:02:32we find that granting the variance would

2:02:34do substantial justice uh because the

2:02:37burden uh to the applicant of not being

2:02:39able to utilize that space um you know

2:02:42does outweigh any benefit to the public

2:02:45of not allowing a personal service use

2:02:47on the property. Uh we have no evidence

2:02:49that there would be a demunition of

2:02:51surrounding property values. Uh and we

2:02:54do find uh that there are special

2:02:56conditions of the property. Namely, this

2:02:57is an existing commercial office

2:02:59building in a residential zone uh that

2:03:02does have access uh from two streets. Um

2:03:07and that uh you know applying strictly

2:03:11applying the uh criteria that does not

2:03:14allow um or the zoning restriction that

2:03:16does not allow personal service uh in

2:03:19this case is not reasonable. there would

2:03:21be no fair and substantial relationship

2:03:23between uh the prohibition and the

2:03:25ordinance and its application to this

2:03:26property and we do find that a personal

2:03:29service use in a commercial office

2:03:31building is is a reasonable use in this

2:03:34location. So for those reasons uh I make

2:03:37a motion that the application be granted

2:03:38seconded by Mr. Neely. Uh discussion on

2:03:41the motion all those in favor

2:03:45your application is approved. Thank you

2:03:47for your testimony.

2:03:53All right. Next, we have a review of the

2:03:56agenda for the upcoming meeting.

2:03:59I have very few papers and yet still

2:04:02[laughter] search my papers to find it.

2:04:04Good job. Thank you. Uh does anybody see

2:04:08uh any regional impact?

2:04:11>> No.

2:04:12>> No,

2:04:12>> I do not either.

2:04:14Have a good night.

2:04:16So, moving on to the minutes of the

2:04:19September 9th meeting. Have folks had a

2:04:21chance to take a look at the minutes?

2:04:22>> Yes.

2:04:23>> Yes.

2:04:24>> Any suggestions, changes? Excellent.

2:04:26>> No.

2:04:26>> Anybody make a motion on

2:04:28>> I move we approve as drafted?

2:04:31>> Seconded by Mr. Neely? Any discussion?

2:04:34All those in favor?

2:04:36>> Minutes approved.

2:04:38>> Anything else that we need to chat about

2:04:39this evening?

2:04:41Excellent.

2:04:43Move we adjourn.

2:04:46We are adjourned

2:04:49>> at 8:34.

2:04:51>> Okay.

```*