2026-10-13 - Zoning Board of Adjustment

00:33Great.

00:39>> Good evening everybody and welcome to

00:41the October 13th meeting of the zoning

00:43board of adjustment. My name is Jay

00:45Marcara, ZBA chair. Uh to my left is

00:48vice chair Josh Neely. Uh going across

00:51um the to my left to my right.

00:54>> You're on the left on the left. Across

00:56the stage is member JP Bucher. Uh Steven

01:00Lionel and Joseph Patri. And then also

01:03to my left this time actually is deputy

01:06planning manager Sam Dery. Uh so this

01:09evening we have uh three applications

01:12for variances and we also have a request

01:14uh for an appeal of administrative

01:16decision. Um a variance is a request to

01:19deviate from the terms of the ordinance

01:21and in order to grant the variance

01:24zoning board of adjustment must find

01:25that five criteria are met. We must find

01:28that granting the variance would not be

01:30contrary to the public interest. That

01:32the spirit of the ordinance would be

01:34observed. That substantial justice would

01:36be done. that there'd be no demunition

01:39of surrounding property values and that

01:42owing to a special condition of the

01:43property, denying the variance would

01:45result in an unnecessary hardship. An

01:48appeal of an administrative decision is

01:49just that it it's an appeal of a

01:51decision made by an administrative

01:53officer uh of the city in this case uh

01:57the planning manager. Um, so just in

02:00terms of order of business, uh, I'm

02:02going to call, uh, you know, read each

02:05case into the record and then the

02:06applicants will be invited to come

02:08forward up to the podium. Uh, you'll be

02:10asked to state your name and address and

02:12then you'll have up to 15 minutes to

02:14address the board. Uh, you don't have to

02:16use all 15 minutes, but it's available

02:18to you. Then we will ask or I will ask

02:21if there's anybody in the audience who

02:23wishes to speak in favor of the

02:24application. Uh and once again, uh each

02:27individual is invited to come forward.

02:29Uh state your name and address and you

02:31have up to five minutes to address the

02:33board. I'll then ask if there's anybody

02:36wishing to speak with questions,

02:38concerns or opposition to the case.

02:40Similarly, uh you'll be invited up to

02:42the podium and you have to state your

02:44name and address and have up to five

02:46minutes to address the board. Finally um

02:49after Washington day finally after that

02:51uh the applicant has the opportunity to

02:53come back up to the podium and has five

02:56minutes to provide any rebuttal or to

02:58address any questions that might have

03:00been raised. Uh and then if necessary we

03:04do offer the opportunity for one person

03:06who spoke with questions, concerns or

03:08opposition to have the last five minutes

03:11to address the board. Um, so, uh,

03:14otherwise I think that's really it for

03:16the terms of business. Um, I'm gonna ask

03:19Mr. Dury, are there any changes to the

03:21agenda?

03:22>> No changes to the agenda. Just an

03:23additional letter of testimony for our

03:26last case, 382 Main Street.

03:28>> Very good. Thank you. So, with that,

03:30I'll call the role. Jay Marc, I'm here.

03:32Uh, Mr. Neely,

03:33>> present.

03:33>> Mr. Bush,

03:34>> present. [clears throat]

03:35>> Mr. Lell,

03:36>> present.

03:36>> Mr. Petri,

03:37>> present.

03:38So the first case is the application of

03:40Timothy Dion 19 Shadic Street requesting

03:44a variance from land use code section

03:46190-17E2

03:49to exceed maximum driveway width 24T

03:52permitted 34 feet proposed for a paved

03:55driveway expansion within the front

03:57setback that's in the RV zone in W three

04:00is the applicant present.

04:08Timothy Dion, 19 Shadic Street.

04:12So, uh, pretty much just looking to

04:14expand a driveway, uh, in that

04:16neighborhood. It's pretty tight quarters

04:18on the westward side of my house. I have

04:21a retaining wall directly followed by my

04:24house is where my driveway is right now.

04:26It's very tight. Tough to get two cars

04:28in and out of there at the same time.

04:30proposing to put a driveway on the east

04:32side of the house. 10 feet by 25 feet.

04:36Very simple.

04:38Plain and just the driveway.

04:41That's pretty much it.

04:45>> Anything else you'd like to add?

04:46>> Uh, I did get the email about the

04:50one objection for it. Uh, he is my

04:53neighbor behind me. Um, honestly, I

04:56think it's just more or less he's not

04:58happy with me right now. From another

05:00instance that just occurred. Um, I

05:03really don't think anything would affect

05:06uh his property. No big thing for him

05:08was the uh property line. I am having a

05:11surveyor come out to make sure because I

05:13would like to put a fence there to, you

05:16know, protect my driveway. Um, he was

05:19worried about watershed. I don't know if

05:21you drove by, but that is a he has a

05:24funny shaped lot that attaches both uh

05:27Jefferson Street and Shadic Street. Uh

05:30it's like 33 feet wide. He's worried

05:33about the runoff going on there. It is a

05:35complete overgrown mess of a spot that

05:37he doesn't take care of. I don't see it

05:39being an issue. The water has a place to

05:42go. There's plenty of plants there to

05:43absorb everything. Uh, other than that,

05:48I am, like I said, do planning on having

05:50the surveyor come out to make sure I'm

05:52on the the right area. I do have one

05:55post that I did have surveyed a neighbor

05:59down the street, had a fence put in, and

06:01I guess they use all the post to make

06:04sure that they're in the right area. So,

06:06I kept that post. So, I'm kind of going

06:07off that for now and then finalizing

06:11everything when we get the surveyor out

06:13there.

06:15questions for the board. Mr. Patri,

06:17>> um when do you think you'll have this

06:19through? Uh

06:20>> uh within the I just contacted him

06:22today. He should be getting back to me

06:24as soon as tomorrow for a quote and and

06:26get me put onto the schedule.

06:28>> Okay. Thank you.

06:30>> Mr. Neely,

06:31>> is yours a multif family house?

06:33>> No, single family.

06:34>> So So um

06:38how many vehicles are we talking about

06:40here? it. We So, I have a larger truck

06:42uh 3/4 ton. My wife has a minivan. To

06:46get them both in the driveway that we

06:47have now, it's very tight. Like I said,

06:50with the retaining wall to the westward

06:51side of the driveway, it's

06:53[clears throat] I mean, I can't open

06:55both car doors at the same time when I'm

06:57parked in there. It's just a tight lot.

06:59I mean, 67 feet by 111 under a fifth of

07:03an acre. So, just looking for a little

07:05bit more room. So, so what it sounds

07:07like is every time you guys are probably

07:08shuffling cars quite a bit then, right?

07:10>> She's able to get the car next to the

07:13stairs and I can sneak by, but I have

07:17two kids, you know, soon to be getting

07:19another car in the next six, seven

07:20years. So, we're going to need more

07:22space eventually. This is just planning

07:25ahead essentially.

07:28>> Other questions from the board? I have

07:30one.

07:32Um during staff's research of this

07:34project, we observed the retaining wall

07:36uh that appears to be over four feet in

07:38height and walls of that height do

07:41require a building permit. We did not

07:43have any permits on file.

07:44>> It's uh two two walls directly,

07:48>> right? They're tiered. Uh that still

07:51accumulatively is over four feet. Uh

07:53please do contact the building

07:55department safety uh just so that you

07:57can file a permit retroactively and have

07:59them inspected.

08:00>> Okay. Thank you.

08:02>> So, I I do have a question. Uh looks as

08:04though you you that you're proposing the

08:05second driveway right up to the property

08:07line. Is

08:08>> it's like a foot a foot off of it. Yeah.

08:10>> Is it? Yeah.

08:11>> Okay. I was wondering why it have did

08:14you consider taking it closer to your

08:16house

08:16>> with that retaining wall there? I mean,

08:18I I didn't have much space to begin

08:20with. There's only maybe about 30

08:22[snorts] feet on that side anyways.

08:24>> Okay.

08:26Other questions for the board?

08:28>> You're free to take a seat. Thank you.

08:31>> Is there anybody in the audience who'd

08:33like to speak in favor of the

08:34application?

08:36Is there anybody in the audience with

08:37questions, concerns, or opposition to

08:39the application?

08:41We do have one letter as was noted which

08:44I will read. Um this is

08:48from Steven Duchain who is at 19 well

08:51regarding the case at 19 Chhattic

08:53Street. [clears throat]

08:53Uh to the zoning board of adjustment.

08:56Uh, my name is Steve Duchaine, owner of

08:58the property located at 6 to8 Jefferson

09:01Street, which directly abuts a subject

09:03property. As a neighboring property

09:05owner most significantly impacted by

09:07this proposal, I have several concerns

09:08regarding the request. First, and most

09:11importantly, there's no professional

09:13survey accompanying this application.

09:15The request appears to be based solely

09:17on a handdrawn sketch, which is clearly

09:19labeled not to scale. Without an

09:21accurate survey, I have no way of

09:23knowing the true location of the

09:24proposed driveway expansion in relation

09:26to my property line. Nor can the board

09:28accurately assess the impact of the

09:29proposal. Second, I'm concerned about

09:32drainage. Due to the topography of the

09:33area, storm water and runoff from the

09:36proposed driveway area currently drained

09:38towards my property. Before any

09:40expansion is approved, I believe there

09:41should be a clear plan demonstrating how

09:43storm water will be managed to ensure

09:45that runoff is not increased and does

09:47not adversely affect neighboring

09:48properties.

09:50Third, there is an unresolved question

09:52regarding the property boundary. The

09:53applicant has suggested to me that the

09:55property line runs through my garage and

09:58that a portion of my garage may be

09:59located on his property. I strongly

10:01dispute um dispute this assertion. Uh

10:05given the uncertainty of the location of

10:06the property line, I believe a

10:08professional survey is essential before

10:10any further action is taken. Because of

10:12the lack of survey and the unresolved

10:14drainage concerns and the uncertainty

10:16regarding the property boundary, I

10:18respectfully request that the board

10:19continue this hearing and refrain from

10:21voting on the requested variance until

10:23these matters have been properly

10:24addressed and documented. Alternatively,

10:27if the board chooses to proceed, please

10:29accept this letter as my formal

10:30opposition to the requested variance and

10:32respectfully ask that the application be

10:34denied. Thank you for your time and

10:36consideration. Um, so that is the only

10:39letter we have that I'm aware of. Um but

10:41as I mentioned earlier, you are free if

10:43you wish to provide any rebuttal um or

10:46answer any of the questions that are

10:48raised if you wish.

10:58So, in my light digging of the survey of

11:02the property lines, I did find out or it

11:06looks like I found the rear

11:09would be the west side of my property.

11:11Measured from that property stake over

11:1467 feet and it comes right in contact

11:17with this garage that I'm guessing was

11:20built before he bought the house. Um,

11:22shame on me for not having surveyed

11:24property lines when I bought the house,

11:26but thought it was okay. Older

11:28neighborhood. Anyways, um, that's why

11:31I'm having it surveyed so we can get

11:32this cleared up. Like I said, this

11:35gentleman is upset with me. My kid hit

11:37the ball over the fence. Um, practicing

11:41backyard hitting it into a net, got

11:43underneath it, hit one of his cars. We

11:45resolved that issue.

11:47But I think that's why he's very upset

11:49with how everything's going right now.

11:50And now I told him that the property

11:52land is through his garage from what I

11:55could tell from the simple stakes that

11:57are there already. The iron pipes are in

12:00the ground. Pretty simple from the GIS

12:02and those things. That's what I've got

12:05for that. Other than that, any other

12:08questions?

12:09>> Questions from the board. Mr. Neing. So

12:11>> So [clears throat] I've got the the

12:13drawing up in front of me that you put

12:15together for the proposed driveway. How

12:19far can you get it away from his

12:20property line or for your your

12:22>> That's about as far. I mean,

12:24>> like a foot.

12:25>> I Yeah, I've got maybe another foot or

12:27two to the westward side with the

12:29retaining wall there. It's just too

12:32tight.

12:35>> Okay.

12:37>> And I'll follow up. Um, in that 1 ft uh

12:42or so that you've got between the

12:43proposed driveway and the property line,

12:46>> um, what do you propose to put there? Is

12:48that going to be, you know, lman seed?

12:51Is that going to be gravel?

12:52>> Probably grass and plants.

12:54>> Okay.

12:56Did you consider any um type of

12:58drainage? Um,

13:01>> I I have been thinking about it. I mean,

13:04it is on the hill there, so that's kind

13:06of an issue to begin with,

13:07>> right? I've never seen any problems.

13:10Most of the water, obviously, there's

13:11the curb there. Most of the water stays

13:14on the street and goes into the storm

13:16drains. There's very limited water from

13:18even from the roof makes it up to the

13:21sidewalk into the street before it gets

13:22into that area. I haven't had a problem

13:24with it being swampy or anything like

13:26that over there. Been there for 13 years

13:30now.

13:32>> I know.

13:32>> Yeah. So you, as you said, you have this

13:35uh retaining wall on the side that

13:37you're planning on on installing the

13:39driveway. Y

13:40>> So the driveway would be what? Up to the

13:43retaining wall.

13:44>> Yeah. There's like a again just place

13:48space for plants there. Just a little

13:50buffer zone again. So I can have the

13:52ability to open the car doors all the

13:54way.

13:54>> So and this driveway would be sloped.

13:57You you know it's currently a hill up to

13:58your house there. Would the driveway

14:00>> relative? It is sloped backwards. But it

14:03would I would like to try to make it as

14:04flat as possible.

14:09[clears throat]

14:10>> Other questions for the board?

14:14Seeing none, you're free to take a seat.

14:18Uh and since there is no further

14:19testimony, we're going to close the

14:20public hearing and open up the

14:22deliberations to the board. Uh thoughts

14:24from the board.

14:26Mr. Bashet?

14:28>> Um I'm I'm generally in favor of the

14:31application. So, we're talking about a

14:32difference of 4 ft. Um, I think it's a

14:35reasonable request uh on its face. Um,

14:39the the parking um as he suggested um

14:43because I did observe it that um when I

14:45was driving through the neighborhood a

14:46few times um that they park right up to

14:48the front stairs. I don't think that was

14:50ever intended to be the driveway, but as

14:52we know um in certain sections of the

14:54city where there's challenges of

14:56parking, we see all kinds of creative

14:57type parking. Um and and also um you

15:03know, if there was a larger vehicle

15:04there, obviously we stick it onto the

15:05sidewalk. So So again, on the face of

15:08it, I think it's a reasonable request.

15:11Um

15:13we obviously would never get involved in

15:16a dispute over a property line. Um, but

15:19I believe that there is plenty of room

15:21to put the 12- foot wide driveway and be

15:23on his property. I also believe that the

15:27homeowner can have the driveway pitched

15:30in such a manner that it doesn't dump uh

15:32lots of water onto a neighboring

15:33property. So, I think that's all

15:35achievable um with with the driveway

15:38construction. I think it can be done uh

15:41where there's not runoff being sent

15:44purposely onto our neighbor's property.

15:46uh you know that was a concern uh but on

15:49the face of it the request itself I find

15:51it to be a reasonable request given the

15:54challenges on the right side so I did

15:55observe again uh vehicle parked in the

15:57driveway and he's right I mean you can't

15:59you can get into one side but it you

16:01know is hugging the you know was hugging

16:03to one side to be able to get in out of

16:05the vehicle so so again I think it's a

16:08reasonable request

16:10>> other thoughts

16:13Mr.

16:14Yeah, I I'm I'm on record as not being a

16:17fan of of driveway expansion. This this

16:20one really gave me a bit of trouble

16:22because first of all, it's not a

16:23driveway expansion. It's actually a

16:25second driveway being put in. Um and

16:28essentially obliterating the front yard

16:30of this of this house. Um,

16:35I understand it. I agree that the uh the

16:39current driveway is really non uh

16:43nonoptimal, shall we say, uh especially

16:46if you have larger vehicles. And uh

16:50I I was initially inclined to to to say

16:54to object and to say no, but I I think

16:57that based [clears throat] on everything

16:59I've been hearing and you know looking

17:02at the property again and uh

17:06I I I'm shrug my shoulders and vote to

17:11approve.

17:14>> Mr. Neely. So, [clears throat] um I I

17:18agree he has a tough current driveway

17:21with the vehicles they have and and what

17:22they're trying to do and something needs

17:24to be done. Um the property at 6/8

17:29Jefferson is very unique in that it, you

17:31know, it does this L and comes up, you

17:33know, 30 ft to his side. Um I think that

17:37the that that owner of that property has

17:39made it clear that he is in opposition.

17:41And so and so um I reread the case

17:45tonight after receiving this letter um

17:47and definitely listened to the testimony

17:50and my concern is

17:52I I do think they need additional

17:54driveway space, but there's got to be a

17:57way that the runoff from his driveway is

17:59not going to his neighbor's yard. Uh, I

18:01put myself in the neighbor's um foot

18:04footsteps uh shoes and I would not want

18:07one of my neighbors having all of their

18:09runoff on a new driveway into my yard

18:11regardless of whether I was, you know,

18:13we were we were um on speaking terms or

18:15not. It just is not conducive to

18:19long-term uh neighborly relations. So,

18:23um I I think something needs to be done

18:27and I would love to hear what what the

18:28rest of the board has to say or to hear

18:31um some some uh stipulations put into a

18:35uh into a motion here. But as it is

18:38right now, I would not be in support

18:41unless there's some type of stipulations

18:42of a a retaining wall or something has

18:45to go over there to stop the runoff

18:46going into the neighbor's yard.

18:48>> Should I now? Yeah, I just to comment

18:50that we know, you know, as we heard many

18:52many times, the city does not allow

18:55construction, new construction to

18:58increase runoff onto neighbor

18:59neighboring lot. So, um, clearly there

19:03would that needs to be taken care of.

19:05And it just it feels to me as if the

19:09driveway where the applicant is

19:11proposing to put it, the water would run

19:13off into the street and not sideways

19:16into uh the adjoining lot. Um you know,

19:21I suppose it could have it could be

19:22constructed in a different way, but um

19:26it seems unlikely that there would be

19:28runoff anywhere except into the street

19:30if that there was any slope at all to

19:32that driveway.

19:34I'm assuming there's going to be a

19:36second curb cut there also.

19:39So, I don't think that I I don't think

19:41any [clears throat] significant water is

19:42going to enter the neighbor's property

19:46from this.

19:49>> I think I'm having some of the same

19:50struggles that Mr. Nei is having. Um I I

19:53don't want to put you on the spot, but

19:54you have thoughts, Mr. Pedro.

19:56>> Uh yes, I'm tending to agree with Mr.

19:59Buchet that just looking at the request

20:00in and of itself, I think it's

20:02reasonable. Um, you know, like you said,

20:05Mr. something has to be done. Um, and

20:09you know, that it

20:12given kind of the size of the lot, I

20:14don't know that he can put the driveway

20:15in too many other different or the

20:17second driveway in too many other

20:18different places. Um, and and like Mr.

20:21Bush said, like we can't get involved in

20:23property line disputes. Um, and I mean,

20:25whatever we say about the property line

20:26doesn't matter. I mean, it's it's the

20:28property line. I mean we you know um so

20:31um

20:32um I'm I'm I'm gonna go with Mr. Buchet

20:34on this one.

20:36>> Mr. Buchet,

20:37>> could we ask the opinion of the new for

20:40staff of new driveway construction and

20:43and whether and and uh their opinion

20:45that the driveway can be constructed or

20:48would be has to be constructed so that

20:50there's no runoff. So [clears throat]

20:51mean to say is do we have to put

20:53stipulations or is it going to be a

20:55requirement that

20:57or the ability that that when they put

21:00that driveway in that they will know to

21:01pitch that driveway in a certain way

21:02that it's not running off. I'm just

21:04trying to get some clarity on that.

21:07>> Uh without any conditions there'd be no

21:10way of necessarily guaranteeing that

21:13runoff will go in one direction or

21:14another. You know, I would assume that a

21:17paving contractor would come in and

21:18create a a flat surface and then, you

21:21know, there might be a crown in it and

21:22then it goes off to either side. Um, you

21:25could also stipulate that there's some

21:27sort of um, you know, like a drip edge

21:28around the end where it's just gravel,

21:30you know, an opportunity for that water

21:32to infiltrate rather than running over

21:35grass and soil. So is there a way to

21:39is it uh to do a motion right to to

21:42um have this is there a way to say that

21:45the uh in this case this particular case

21:48that the driveway would be so pitched as

21:51to not uh not deliver any water to the

21:54neighbor's property on the left would

21:56there be just is that enough of a

21:58sipation or do we need to put more more

22:00def definition in because we're not

22:02we're not we're not road construction

22:03people or driver construction people so

22:05I'm just trying to find a to satisfy the

22:08concerns of some of the members and if

22:11that would be amendable, you know, just

22:13trying to get somewhere.

22:14>> I think the intention of that condition

22:16is is clear enough um because this will

22:18also then trigger a driveway permit from

22:21uh Department of Public Works. And so

22:23when the engineer who's reviewing that

22:25uh application sees that stipulation,

22:28you know, clearly that's intended to

22:30pitch a driveway in a certain way so

22:31that water is not conveyed uh to uh to

22:34the east. Uh I think that would be

22:36sufficient to show the intent of of that

22:39uh condition. And while we're talking

22:41about conditions, I would ask that the

22:42board also uh consider a condition

22:44requiring uh the applicant to file uh

22:47retroactively uh a building permit for

22:49that retaining wall as that is a a large

22:51wall. And I did converse with uh our

22:53building official about that. And that

22:55is a wall of concern. Not that it's

22:58necessarily built poorly, um but it did

23:00not go through the permitting process

23:01and did not receive review.

23:05And just to follow up on that, I I think

23:06uh with the driveway, it could be

23:08pitched. Uh you could also curb it um or

23:11you could put in some other drainage

23:12structure.

23:14>> So So would would a um uh a stipulation

23:18based saying that basically that there

23:21the driveway to be constructed in such a

23:22way that it does not deliver any

23:25significant amount of water to the

23:26neighbor's property.

23:27>> I'd say no. None. There'd be no runoff.

23:29No runoff. Okay.

23:32>> Okay.

23:34Would would that satisfy um

23:37would that give a a

23:40would that satisfy your you know the

23:43members who are concerned? Um

23:46>> I I I could probably get there. Um you

23:50know with with that condition um I I I I

23:54I would always prefer to see the

23:58applicant come in with a design um that

24:01actually accomplishes it. so that we're

24:03not struggling to try to find a way to

24:06phrase it. Um it's so to me that's

24:08optimal. Um

24:11you know I think if the inclination of

24:12the board is to approve it tonight then

24:15I I think that stipulation would be such

24:18>> and I guess I was where you were coming

24:20from because um I know that some

24:21applicants are not well verssed on this.

24:24They're not thinking of this, right? So

24:26it's either uh we put a stipulation in

24:28tonight or we have to have the applicant

24:30come back. So um and in in the end does

24:35does both scenarios achieve what we what

24:38we want. So, um, so that's best my

24:41point, but I do I do agree with you. Um,

24:43but I also know some applicants are not

24:46first in the in those fine points of

24:49being prepared to offer those things.

24:51>> And I do I also agree that we're we

24:53don't get involved in boundary disputes.

24:56Typically, the the one area there where

24:58I had some pauses that um where that

25:02driveway is, you know, is relevant. Um

25:06and we actually don't really know uh in

25:09relation to the boundary but hearing

25:11that um there will be a surveyor uh

25:14that's you know definitely comforting as

25:16far as that's concerned.

25:18>> Mr. Ney.

25:19>> So so we do have a little bit of

25:20precedent. I remember on Lake Street

25:22somebody had paved their whole backyard

25:23right up to their neighbors um basically

25:27their property line and and the the

25:28neighbor was negatively affected by

25:30runoff from that

25:32um and I learned a lot from that case

25:34certainly. So that's that's really the

25:36case that gives me pause when it comes

25:37to this and and I really want to see no

25:40runoff going into the the neighbor's

25:41yard. So I can get behind um a motion as

25:45long as it's pretty firm about there

25:47will be no runoff

25:49>> going to the neighbor's yard. No

25:50intention

25:51>> not to specify how that happens. We

25:53should say constructed such that

25:55>> Yes.

25:56>> Yeah. Not not try talking about pitch or

25:59whatever because there could be other

26:01solutions,

26:02>> right? I think that's right.

26:06Anybody want to take a stab at a motion?

26:08>> I'll take a stair.

26:12like to make a motion to approve the

26:15variance for Timothy Dion, owner and

26:18applicant of 19 Shadic Street, sheet 45,

26:21lot 129, requesting a variance for land

26:24use code section 190-17 subsection E

26:28subsection 2 to exceed maximum driveway

26:31width 24 ft per minute, 34 ft proposed

26:34for a paved driveway expansion within

26:35the front setback.

26:38It's an RB zone W3.

26:40uh we find that the grant that granting

26:42the variance would be would not be

26:43contrary to public interest. Uh again um

26:46it is um

26:49it would be in character uh with the

26:53neighborhood and um uh and would achieve

26:58um the ability for the applicant to u

27:01gain some needed parking. We find that

27:03it is in the spirit of of the own. We

27:05find that the spirit of the ordinance

27:07would be observed again because uh we

27:09find that it would um be in the

27:13character of of the neighborhood uh and

27:15uh especially in these neighborhoods

27:17where things are are relatively tight.

27:20Uh granting the variance would do

27:21substantial justice to the owner because

27:23then it would allow the homeowner to uh

27:26gain the additional parking that is

27:28needed. again explain that um that the

27:31current driveway is narrow and that uh

27:34currently a second vehicle has to be

27:36parked in front of the front steps. Um

27:39we find that the the we find that the

27:42values of the surrounding properties

27:43would not be diminished. Um as far as

27:46owing to special conditions of property

27:48are distinguished from other properties

27:50in the area. Um we found that the

27:52proposed use is a reasonable one again

27:55because um again having more than a

27:59couple of vehicles to park um is

28:01somewhat common in most uh households

28:04and that again gives the c the homer the

28:07ability to gain the extra parking that's

28:09needed and for future uh family

28:12expansion. Um there there's going to be

28:14two stipulations to this um to this

28:17motion. The first stipulation is that

28:19there will be no runoff whatsoever to

28:22occur onto any neighbors property. And

28:26the second uh stipulation is that the uh

28:29the applicant is to um file a building

28:33permit uh for the uh retaining walls

28:36that were built. Is that correct, Mr.

28:39Dery?

28:39>> Yes.

28:40>> Is that okay? So with that, I make a

28:42motion to approve the variance.

28:44>> Is there a sec? Second by I think Mr.

28:46Petri Beach. Yeah, that's fine.

28:49>> Uh, any discussion?

28:50>> We need a buzzer.

28:51>> All those in Oh, I'm sorry.

28:53>> I I I would maybe add a third

28:54stipulation that the the work not uh

28:56start until the survey has been

28:57completed to confirm the um the the

29:00driveway is on Mr. Dian's property.

29:02>> Is that amendment acceptable to you, Mr.

29:04Buchet?

29:04>> Of course it is. Yes.

29:05>> Were you a second or were you just

29:07making that point?

29:07>> Uh both.

29:08>> Okay, [laughter] there we go. All right.

29:10So, [snorts] it's okay with the second

29:11fine.

29:11>> Um any discussion?

29:14>> All those in favor?

29:16your application is approved. I I should

29:18have mentioned this earlier um but uh

29:21all decisions of the board are subject

29:23to a you know 30-day window of appeal.

29:25So it is possible somebody could request

29:27a reconsideration. So just um be mindful

29:30of that. But you are free to proceed

29:31with your project.

29:37So, next we have the application of

29:39Lindseay Goodyikun uh 13 Dorchester

29:42Drive requesting a variance from land

29:44use code section 190-17E2

29:47to exceed maximum driveway width 24 ft

29:50permitted 34 ft proposed for a paved

29:53driveway expansion within the front

29:55setback. It's in the R9 zone in ward

29:58five is the outcome present.

30:02Just come into the mic and give us your

30:03name and address for the record. Okay.

30:06Um I've recently completed a name

30:08change. My name is Lindsay Lima now. Uh

30:11formerly known as Lindsay Hoody Coops

30:12and I am at 13 Doncaster Drive in

30:15Ashawa. Um so uh so I have a retaining

30:20walls on both sides of my driveway. I

30:22hope it's okay that I read from my phone

30:23by the way. Is that okay? Okay.

30:25>> Of course.

30:26>> Um my husband, he has a painting

30:28business and handyman business. And so

30:30he has uh two work vans. Uh one of which

30:33he will be for my dream business that

30:34I'm going to be launching pretty soon.

30:36Um but he frequently moves a lot of

30:38materials uh like flooring equipment and

30:40trash uh paint between the garage and

30:43the van. And many instances we are

30:45forced to uh move the other vehicles in

30:47our driveways in order to make uh space

30:49for us to move this stuff. Uh we also

30:52have two personal work cars. I mean two

30:54personal cars and one pop-up camper. Uh

30:56one of the work vans is currently uh

30:58parked on the grass. Uh due to the space

31:01limitations from our rock walls, we are

31:03unable to store uh also our trash and

31:05recycling bins in our driveway. Um for

31:08or a garage, preferably where I would

31:09like them. Um it's impossible to fit the

31:11trash bins uh between the spaces uh

31:14between the vehicles to the street uh

31:15for trash pickup. So I currently store

31:17them on the grass. Uh this is even

31:20harder in the winter when I have to

31:21transport the bin through the snow. I've

31:23avoided upgrading to the upgrade to the

31:25um rolling recycling bins for this

31:27reason so I don't have to store two bins

31:29on my grass and have to do additional

31:31like weed whacking or lawnmowing around

31:32them. Um but it is not possible to store

31:35it at the bottom of my driveway in the

31:36front of my garage because it would push

31:38the cars back uh into the street or very

31:41close to the street which I would find

31:43or I would consider be very dangerous in

31:45the winter time especially for the

31:46plows. Um, but parking the vehicles in

31:49the the two parking spaces closer to the

31:51home, uh, one side is always going to be

31:54the movable space is always going to be

31:55compromised, whether it's the driver or

31:57the passenger. I would like to have, um,

32:00a family one day in the in the near

32:01future. And if I was to get pregnant, I

32:03know this uh, movable space, it would be

32:06severely uncomfortable for me to get in

32:07and out of the car, let alone the

32:09subsequent needs as well for uh, having

32:11a child. Um, but also like my neighbors,

32:14they have a driveway kind of like the

32:16one that I proposed. um in the pictures

32:19and so we admire like the way that that

32:21looks so we were hoping that we could do

32:22something similar.

32:25>> Okay. Anything else you'd like to add?

32:27>> No, that's it.

32:29>> Questions from the board?

32:32>> Seeing none, you're free to take a seat.

32:34>> Okay. Um is there anybody in the

32:36audience who would like to speak in

32:38favor of the application?

32:40Is there anybody in the audience who'd

32:42like to speak with questions, concerns,

32:44or opposition to the application?

32:54>> [laughter]

32:57>> unfortunate timing. [laughter]

33:01Um, seeing none and I do not believe we

33:04have any uh letters that I I've seen.

33:08Uh, so given that I'm going to close the

33:10public hearing and open up the

33:11deliberations of the board. Thoughts

33:13from the board.

33:16Mr. Ney.

33:16>> So, we can see uh from the pictures and

33:19certainly from a driveby I did there

33:20there's a lot going on in this driveway.

33:22Um you know, they they've got the three

33:25vehicles that I can see parked in the

33:26driveway. There's a trailer. There's

33:28another one on the grass. Uh basically,

33:30this drawing that they've given us is

33:32what we ask many of applicants who come

33:35before us saying, "Can you wrap it

33:36around the house a little bit?" Which is

33:38what they've done. So, so really the

33:40curb cut is doesn't look like it's going

33:41to be affected. It's really just opening

33:43it up and they're just close enough to

33:45the to the property to excuse me to the

33:47to the street line that is why they are

33:49here. Um so I I think it is re a

33:52reasonable request. Uh I I certainly uh

33:56sympathize with having the the two walls

33:58on either side. It must be tough getting

34:00through there and getting the trash cans

34:02in and out and all that that happy

34:03stuff. Um so I am in favor of this

34:05application because this is definitely

34:07unique having the two retaining walls

34:10there.

34:11Mr. Buchet,

34:12>> I'm also in support of the application

34:14and I think if you looked across the

34:16street, they're going to do something

34:18similar to what they did across the

34:19street which is the same idea. So it is,

34:22you know, in character and then I when I

34:24was driving around the airport, I always

34:25like to go over the back streets to take

34:27another look and I noticed something

34:29similar on Night and Gale like pretty

34:30much right nearby. So it's not something

34:33that's really out of character, but I

34:34think it achieves what they need to do

34:36uh without

34:39making the opening wider.

34:41you know, it keeps that opening uh to

34:44under the 24 ft,

34:45>> right?

34:45>> So,

34:47>> other thoughts?

34:50>> Yeah, I do always struggle with these,

34:52but I I think in this case, I I can get

34:53behind this one. Uh mainly because the

34:55curb cut isn't increasing. Uh the house

34:58is fairly close pretty at least to me it

35:02looks pretty clearly that the backs of

35:04the vehicles, the second, you know, the

35:06last vehicles that are parked there are

35:08in the rightway. Um so there probably

35:11does not appear to be enough depth to

35:12put uh two cars back to back and not be

35:15in the rightway

35:16[clears throat] and the sides of the

35:18driveway the elevation the rock walls

35:20also propose a challenge or pose a

35:22challenge I should say. Anybody want to

35:25make a motion on this one?

35:29>> Mr. Neely

35:35too much paperwork here. Uh, I would

35:37like to make a motion to approve the

35:39variance request for Lindsay on here as

35:42Goody Coun, but change name to Lindsay

35:44Lima. Uh, per the applicant's uh,

35:46testimony. owner and applicant for 13

35:48Doncaster Drive, sheet B, lot uh 1760,

35:52requesting a variance from land use code

35:54section 190-17 subsection E subsection 2

35:58to exceed maximum driveway width 24 ft

36:01permitted 34 ft proposed for a paved

36:04driveway expansion within the front

36:06front setback. This is in the R9 zone in

36:10ward five. uh granting the variance

36:13would not be contrary to the public

36:14interest in that the applicant uh has

36:18specifically noted that the curb cut is

36:20not going to change. Uh that this is

36:22just basically meant to uh increase the

36:25width of the driveway further into the

36:26property. Uh that also applies to the

36:28spirit of the ordinance in that we noted

36:31that um many of the other surrounding

36:35properties have something similar where

36:36they've blown out their driveways. Uh in

36:39the spirit of the ordinance, uh we noted

36:42that uh an applicant should be able to

36:45park all of their vehicles off the

36:47street. Uh in addition, they need room

36:49to move with trash cans and dealing with

36:52the winter conditions in New Hampshire.

36:54Uh granting the variance would do

36:56substantial justice and that the

36:58applicant uh has said not only do they

37:00need to fit their vehicles, but they

37:01need enough room to move to their

37:03vehicles uh as a family unit, need to be

37:05able to open up the doors. uh right now

37:07they are hindered by the uh retaining

37:10walls on either side. Uh we do not have

37:13any reason to believe the value of the

37:14surrounding property would be uh

37:16diminished. And as to unnecessary

37:18hardship, uh this property was designed

37:21with a house that's um set down just a

37:23little bit further towards the front of

37:25the property and was built with two

37:27retaining walls uh not giving the

37:29applicant any ability to uh really have

37:32the ability to move properly uh in

37:34between their cars. Uh, as uh, noted by

37:37the board, there are several properties,

37:39including the one right across the

37:40street, that have a similar driveway

37:43setup as what is proposed here. Uh, in

37:45addition, I did note that many times we

37:48ask applicants to wrap a driveway around

37:50the side of their house to give them

37:51more uh, room so as not to increase the

37:53curb cut, and that is exactly what this

37:55applicant is doing. So, for those

37:57reasons, I make a motion to uh, approve

37:59the variance. Second, second. Second by

38:02M. Mr. Nel. Is there any discussion?

38:06Seeing none, all those in favor?

38:09The application is granted. Good luck

38:11with your project.

38:16Next is the application of Suzanne

38:18Raisin, trustee at at 9 Lamb Road,

38:22requesting variances from land use code

38:24section 190-16,

38:26table 16-31.

38:29allow a new lot with substandard

38:31frontage 120 feet required, 35 ft

38:34proposed. And two, allow a lot with

38:37substandard width, 150 ft required, 35

38:41ft proposed. This is in the R40 zone in

38:44Ward 9

38:48>> and I assume you're here for the

38:50>> good excuse [clears throat] me, good

38:51evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the

38:53board. My name is Brad Westgate. I'm a

38:55lawyer with Walt Swit and Fontaine, 29

38:57Factory Street here in Nshawa.

38:59representing Suzanne Ryzen. Suzanne

39:02Ryzen's with me as is her husband

39:04Richard Ryzen in the audience. Um, Mrs.

39:07[clears throat] Ryzen's the owner of

39:08Nine Lamb row in the applicant in this

39:10case.

39:12Before I uh just describe the

39:14application a little bit, Mr. Chairman,

39:16I have a couple minor handouts if I may.

39:46I'll describe the handouts in a moment,

39:47Mr. chairman, but as the board's aware,

39:49we're here tonight seeking a variance

39:51from two elements of the dimensional

39:54table of one pertaining to frontage and

39:56the other pertaining to lot width to

39:58enable nine lamb road to be subdivided

40:01into two lots. One of which would be a

40:03flag pole lot, reduced frontage lot,

40:06pork chip, pork chop lot there, all

40:09those terms have been used over the

40:10years. That lot would have 35 ft of

40:12frontage on Lamb Road and 35 ft of lot

40:15width. The other lot would be a

40:17conforming lot with appropriate frontage

40:19lot width. Both lots would have proper

40:22acreage that is they meet the 40,000 or

40:25plus uh square foot dimensional

40:26requirements.

40:28So as noted the properties in the R40

40:31district.

40:33Just to take a minor brief look at the

40:36first of the handouts, the colored

40:38extract from the GIS plan. The

40:42property in question is the one that's

40:43circled in or outlined in red.

40:47The reason I put in the zoning districts

40:49was I need to correct an incorrect

40:52reference I made in the application.

40:54We're in the R40 district, which is the

40:56sort of darker green, if you will, the

40:59uh the uh bluish kind of green color

41:01above it is the uh R18 district. I noted

41:05that in the application, but in the

41:07application I incorrectly stated the

41:10frontage requirements and lot

41:12requirements. I used the urban the B

41:14urban district references, not the B

41:16suburban R18 references. And I wanted to

41:19clarify that for the record. The the

41:22only point I was making in the

41:23application in referencing the two

41:25different zoning districts was one

41:27obviously to indicate how we're on the

41:29edge of the R40 district, but also to

41:31note that the R40 district has a

41:34different larger frontage and lot with

41:37requirement than the R18 district does.

41:40Uh both that was the the point was

41:42simply to note that there are smaller

41:44requirements for frontage and lot within

41:46the R18 district straightly straight

41:48across the street.

41:52The property is served by um city water

41:55and natural gas sewer, electric power,

41:57telephone, telecommunications. Of

41:59course, it's about 2.06 acres. That's

42:02about 89,672

42:04square feet. And there's an existing

42:06single family home with driveway and

42:08related improvements with about 180 ft

42:11of frontage on Lamb Road.

42:15The R40 district requires 120 ft of

42:18frontage and 150 ft of lot width.

42:20[snorts]

42:21So again, we're able to create a

42:23compliant lot with 120 ft of frontage

42:25and 150 ft of lot width, but the

42:28flagpole lot would of course have the

42:29reduced frontage and lot width. If you

42:32take a look at the second handout,

42:35uh this is a plan prepared by Fieldstone

42:38Land Consultants

42:40proposed subdivision of the property. Of

42:42course, if we are fortunate enough

42:44tonight to be successful, we still would

42:46have to go to the planning board to

42:48process a subdivision application.

42:51Lot one would be the compliant lot of

42:5340,000 square feet with the appropriate

42:56frontage and lot width. And lot two, the

42:58flag pole lot. You can see that the

43:01obvious building envelope for the flag

43:04pole lot is in the rear. And that's kind

43:06of a fundamental element of any flagpole

43:09lot is you've got one lot where the

43:11house in the front near Lamb Road and

43:14the other house on the other lot have

43:16created would be in the rear. So you

43:18keep a separation. You're not creating

43:20you're not seeking frontage requirements

43:23uh relief to put houses next to each

43:26other along the road but one set back

43:28from the other. a reasonably common uh

43:31land planning approach.

43:40We of course sought an administrative

43:43decisions from Mr. Dery. He determined

43:45that these variances were necessary

43:47obviously required given the re

43:50reduction in frontage and lot width

43:52naturally.

43:54A few more characteristics about this

43:56property. So on and it's sort of similar

44:00to other properties along this side of

44:02Lamb Road, the south side of Lamb Road.

44:04This property has again requisite

44:06frontage overall, but it's significantly

44:09deep. It's around 500 ft or so deep as

44:11you can see from the fieldstone plan.

44:14And when you take a look at the GIS

44:17component, the one with the green

44:19colors, you'll see there were similar

44:21lots along that side of Lamb Road

44:24historically.

44:25And five flag pole lots have been

44:28created over the years along [snorts]

44:31this side of Lamb Road. So every lot

44:33that I put a little F in is a flag pole

44:36lot. And from the best I can determine

44:39from about 199293

44:42to 2012. Um

44:45these lots these flag pole lots were

44:47created by variances granted over that

44:50period of time. I found four cases um in

44:54the prior records of the zoning board

44:56and clearly [clears throat] they all had

44:58would have had to have gotten variances

45:00because none of those flagpole lots are

45:02uh have requisite frontage under the

45:05zoning ordinance under the R40

45:06requirements which I don't believe have

45:08changed fundamentally in that whole

45:10period of time.

45:13So what's sort of happened here is

45:14you've kind of got this little pocket of

45:17the R40 district that's developed in

45:19this fashion. As you're well aware, the

45:23Sky Meadow is right behind this area

45:25off, you know, beyond into Lamb Road and

45:29more off East Unstable Road, of course,

45:32as is Meadow View Estates. Um to the

45:36east a little bit is the assisted living

45:38facility that's not very far away from

45:40these lots either.

45:42And you can see the R18 district sort of

45:45otherwise surrounds it. So again, it's

45:47it's a very unique little pocket of land

45:49where these lots are located.

45:52And I think over time when this board

45:55considered these [clears throat] other

45:56properties, it kind of noted the

45:58uniqueness of these properties. They're

46:00deep off Lamb Road. They're obviously

46:03significantly uh larger than the lots

46:06across Lamb Road in the R18 district. um

46:11but they're capable of development with

46:13a back parcel. And that's effectively

46:15what happened with these other um other

46:17variances that were granted.

46:25This property is similar as well. This

46:28property again, as you can see, is is

46:31relatively deep off Lamb Road. Can

46:33accommodate a second lot, a back lot,

46:36have appropriate acreage, and have

46:38decent separation between the existing

46:40house and whatever house could be built

46:42in the rear part of the flagpole lot.

46:47So with this idea in mind of this the

46:50nature of what's developed over here

46:51over time the the fact that these number

46:54of flag pole lots have been built have

46:56been approved have have succeeded um and

46:59this sort of isolated pocket of the our

47:02[clears throat] 40 district has existed.

47:04Um we sort of come before you with a

47:06similar request. One other fundamental

47:09point to note of course is that again as

47:11I mentioned water and sewer is available

47:14at these properties. The R40 district's

47:17uh purpose in some part is to have

47:19larger lots because much of the city

47:22that is zoned R40 in the southwest uh

47:25quadrant mostly. uh not all those

47:28properties are serviceable by uh city

47:30water and sewer and the notion of having

47:32the 40,000 foot lot was so you could

47:34accommodate onsite well and septic you

47:37don't have that circumstance here along

47:39Lamb Road. So you've got a bit of a um

47:43situation where you've got larger lot

47:44requirements but you don't have part of

47:46the fundamental need for them because of

47:48the city services.

47:51So if I may address the five criteria of

47:53the variance application Mr. chairman.

47:55Uh so the first criteria of course is

47:57that the granting of the variance won't

47:59be contrary to the public interest and

48:01we would respectfully submit it's not

48:03contrary to the public interest to grant

48:05these variances from the frontage and

48:08lot width requirements to enable this

48:10property be subdivided into two lots

48:12which will have adequate uh and

48:14compliant acreage can accommodate all

48:16the other dimensional requirements that

48:18would be applicable to the flagpole lot

48:21where the property is situated in this

48:23unique isolated pocket. pocket of the

48:25R40 district. It has these five adjacent

48:28or nearby flagpole lots with it as well.

48:31And also the uh this kind of development

48:34would allow infill uh um an infill

48:37development if you will on an existing

48:39lot and therefore not require the

48:42extension of public elements of the city

48:44infrastructure.

48:47Second criteria is that the proposed use

48:49observe the spirit of the ordinance. So

48:51we take a look at the ordinance's

48:53purposes. I mentioned them to some

48:55degree already. The notion of of having

48:58adequate building envelopes, for

48:59example, the R40 district accommodating

49:03properties that don't have city water

49:05and sewer, but in this case, we do. So,

49:07we would submit that creating a lot that

49:10would allow a second home. We wouldn't

49:12have overall breaching the density

49:15requirements of the ordinance at all. We

49:18would have appropriate building

49:19envelopes and we would have city

49:21services. I think the spirit of the

49:23ordinance is maintained if the variance

49:24is granted to allow this back lot, this

49:27reduced frontage lot.

49:31The third criteria is that the um

49:34substantial justice be done if the

49:36variance uh is uh granted and that's

49:40that typical balancing test you've heard

49:42many times. The notion is that

49:44substantial justice is done if the

49:46general public realizes no appreciable

49:49gain from variance denial. But if the

49:52applicant's adversely affected in a

49:54material manner if it's denied, so

49:57substantial justice is done when there's

49:58no material impact on the general

50:01public. But there is a significant

50:03impact from denial on the applicant. And

50:06we would submit that substantial justice

50:08is done here to divide permit the

50:11division of this property into two lots.

50:13One being the [clears throat] lot with

50:14the reduced frontage in the R40 district

50:17since we would have adequate acreage,

50:20adequate building envelopes for both.

50:22There are five other flag pole lots in

50:24the immediate area and we've got this

50:26unique little section of our 40 district

50:29serviceable by city services.

50:33Fourth criteria is that the proposed use

50:35won't diminish the value of surrounding

50:36properties. Uh again, similar analysis.

50:41Um we have a re reasonably

50:43wellestablished neighborhood. It's got a

50:45character already by the nature of the

50:48lots that are in it. Um it's quite

50:50compact given the significant

50:52development around it.

50:56Property values are typically not

50:57adversely affected when new construction

50:59occurs because in this case it would be

51:01back off Lamb Road to begin with. So you

51:04you're not putting something right on

51:07Lamb Road that uh could have an adverse

51:10impact because the nature of the houses

51:13out there are have been additive to uh

51:15the city's tax base and the uh type of

51:18homes that have been built in these back

51:20lots. And again, as noted, the new house

51:23would be, if built on this back lot,

51:25would be set back from Lamb Road. And

51:28lastly, as the board's aware, the zoning

51:30uh is supposed to make uh reference to

51:34and be acknowledging of the nature of

51:36its of the neighborhood that's involved.

51:39And we've got a very interestingly

51:42developed area here with the other flag

51:44pole arts that have been created.

51:47The last criteria is that special

51:49conditions exist such that literal

51:51enforcement of the ordinance results in

51:53unnecessary hardship.

51:55And there's a two-prong test to that as

51:57the board's well aware. The first prong

51:59of course is you analyze these special

52:01conditions and you look to see whether

52:03there's a fair and substantial

52:05relationship between the general public

52:07purposes of the ordinance provision and

52:09its application in this case. So again,

52:12I've noted the special conditions. I

52:14won't uh drone on about them any

52:16further. You can tell from looking very

52:19easily at the GIS map the nature of this

52:21property, the nature of the lots around

52:23it, the nature of the R40 area, we're

52:26talking about the fact we have city

52:28utilities availability.

52:30So if we put those special conditions on

52:32the table and then now try to analyze

52:35how the whether there's a substantial

52:37relationship between the purposes of the

52:39ordinance and the application here, we

52:41would submit that there is um there's

52:44not a substantial relationship between

52:47the purposes of the ordinance and their

52:49application here given these special

52:51conditions because the purposes of the

52:53ordinance aren't thwarted. They're not

52:55frustrated.

52:56appropriate home can be built in the

52:58back. Uh proper setback, proper um lot

53:03area,

53:05access is readily available. You city

53:07utilities are also ready readily

53:09available. The ordinance wants to enable

53:13development that permits uh infill

53:16capability, but also wants it to have

53:19appropriate uh recog recognition of the

53:22purposes of the ordinance. These

53:24purposes are attained still because of

53:26the way in which the backlog can be

53:28developed without impacting Lamb Road

53:31generally without impacting the

53:32neighborhood significantly uh and with

53:34having appropriate separation with the

53:36home in the front.

53:41Lastly, of course, is that the use

53:43proposed be reasonable, and we would

53:45submit that uh the use which would

53:47ultimately be occurring would be a

53:49single family home. And it's reasonable

53:51uh to do so given the characteristics of

53:54this property with the back lot and the

53:56of the flag pole lot, if you will, being

53:58created.

54:00>> Happy to answer any questions, and we

54:02appreciate your time, Mr. Chairman.

54:04>> Questions from the board?

54:07Seeing none, you're free to take a seat.

54:09>> Thank you.

54:11>> Is there anybody in the audience who'd

54:12like to speak in favor of the

54:13application?

54:16>> We do have one letter um which I will

54:18read. This is from Dennis and Cindy

54:20Stevens of Five Lamb Road addressed to

54:23the zoning board. Uh we are the owners

54:25of Five Lamb Road uh lot 3125 which has

54:29a 216 ft adjoining property line along

54:33the southeast side of the subject lot.

54:35In September 2026,

54:38um we met with Suzanne and Richard um

54:40Raisin and they showed us the plans to

54:42subdivide the property uh into two lots,

54:45each with 40,000 square feet or more. We

54:47agreed that this was an appropriate use

54:49of land provided that a 30- foot wide do

54:52not disturb landscape buffer is provided

54:54on the subject lot along our common 216

54:57ft property line. This buffer shall be

54:59recorded in the registry of deeds.

55:01Subject to the above conditions, we have

55:03no objections to creating the new lot

55:06and granting the variances for the

55:07substandard frontage and lot width.

55:11And I do not believe we have any other

55:13letters. Um, is there anybody in the

55:15audience who would like to speak with

55:16questions, concerns, or opposition to

55:18the application?

55:21Seeing none, I'm going to close the

55:23public hearing and open up the

55:24deliberations to the board. Thoughts

55:25from the board.

55:26>> Mr. Chair, do we want to uh There wasn't

55:28a letter from 12 Lamb Road that went

55:31back and forth with uh council.

55:33>> I missed that.

55:36>> It's in the packet.

55:41>> Is it Oh, it's

55:44I apologize for missing that letter.

56:04to the front. So, this is from SM Gusto

56:08at 12 Lamb Road. Good day, zoning board

56:11adjudicator. I'm writing in regard to

56:13the certified notice of the public

56:15hearing referencing this case,

56:16specifically this agenda item. Suzanne

56:19P. Raisen, etc. for us. So, this is the

56:21case that we know. I'm looking for more

56:23details as to what is planned to be

56:25built on the proposed lot uh that will

56:27occupy the substandard side. Um again,

56:31please advise uh questions that were

56:33raised were will the unknown structure

56:35disturb the line of sight for the

56:37already terribly busy road? Would the

56:39structure be temporary um or permanent

56:42requiring upkeep? Will the structure

56:44require an additional access driveway

56:46cut to the road? I'm visually

56:48handicapped and cannot attend the

56:50meeting in person. Can you please

56:51address my questions such that I have a

56:53better understanding of what for and why

56:55this variance is needed as a property uh

56:58lot has is a large piece of land to work

57:00with and this proposed structure would

57:02just be placed somewhere could be placed

57:04somewhere else on the large lot

57:07and Mr. Westgate did reply

57:12and

57:14so there was a back and forth. I'm going

57:15to um go back on what I said and uh

57:18reopen the public hearing if there's no

57:20objection from the board for the purpose

57:22of allowing Mr. Westgate to address the

57:25questions that were raised. Uh again,

57:27those are will the unknown structure to

57:30serve the line of sight for this already

57:31terribly busy road. Will the structure

57:34be temporary or permanent requiring

57:35upkeep? Will the structure require an

57:38additional access driveway cut to the

57:39road? Is there any objection to

57:40reopening public hearing for that

57:42purpose? Mr. West.

57:48>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, I responded

57:51uh to um um Miss Gusto. I hope I said

57:56that right.

57:57>> Yes. And I I I do see your letter in

57:59here, but rather than me reading your

58:00back and forth, I put it on.

58:02>> I'll paraphrase that if I may, Mr.

58:04Chairman, I did copy Miss Wilkins on it.

58:06Um, so I indic I I indicated to her just

58:10first what we what I indicated tonight

58:12that the purpose of the application was

58:14to permit subdivision of the two lots to

58:16create the flag pole lot in the back. Um

58:19[clears throat]

58:20noted that there was not going to be any

58:21structure built close to third to Lamb

58:23Road. If a home is ever to be built on

58:26the flag pole lot, it would be built in

58:27the rear of the property. Of course, um

58:31I'd indicated that u Mrs. rise in its

58:33present plan. If we were successful and

58:35of course have to go through the

58:36planning board, but if we're able to get

58:38a approved subdivision, her present plan

58:40would be to market the house existing

58:42house on N Lamb Road with the 40,000

58:45foot uh compliant lot. Um if it's

58:49conceivable that they would build a new

58:51house there in place of that existing

58:53house. Um so those two alternatives do

58:56exist. I I noted that the reference to

59:0035 ft, which I think might have uh

59:02confused the butter, was not that

59:06something was going to happen within 35

59:08ft of lamb road, but that 35 ft was the

59:11required frontage was the requested

59:12frontage uh amount on the variance

59:15application, not something occurring in

59:17there. Therefore, no structure to be

59:19built there and therefore no line of

59:20sight issue that would derive from the

59:22variance. In a in a nutshell, that's

59:24what I responded to. Thank you.

59:27>> Thank you, Chair Morris. These are

59:28questions from the board. Um, Mr. Lel,

59:30>> um, not directly related to this

59:33particular letter, but the other letter

59:35from Dennis Stevens, I wanted to know

59:37whether the applicant was, uh, in

59:39agreement with uh, adding a condition of

59:43a 30 foot by 2216 ft landscape no

59:47disturb buffer between uh, this lot and

59:51the adjacent lot.

59:53>> Yes, we are. Um the plan that I handed

59:55out shows the proposed location of the

59:5730-foot buffer. We would it would be

59:59part of the subdivision application with

1:00:01planning board and ultimately I would

1:00:03create an instrument for recording at

1:00:05the registry of deans that I would have

1:00:06to find you know mutually come to mutual

1:00:10um uh agreeable text of that of that

1:00:14document to record. But yes, the ris

1:00:17have committed to that arrangement.

1:00:23Thank you. The questions from the board.

1:00:25Thank you.

1:00:26>> Thank you

1:00:28again. Sorry for missing that. So now

1:00:30going to close the public hearing once

1:00:32again. Um thoughts from the board.

1:00:37>> Mr. Patri,

1:00:38>> I I support the application. I mean,

1:00:39this is an unusually large lot. It's

1:00:41unusually shaped. Um I think this is a

1:00:44reasonable uh use of the property

1:00:48>> and I I I do agree. Any other thoughts

1:00:51from the board?

1:00:54>> Well, if there's objection, maybe I'll

1:00:55I'll I'll take a stab at this one. Also,

1:00:58I I'd like to make a motion that the

1:01:01application of Suzanne Raisin and uh for

1:01:04Nine Lamb Road requesting variances from

1:01:06land use code section 190-16

1:01:09table 16-3 to one allow a new lot with

1:01:13substandard frontage 120 ft required 35

1:01:17ft proposed. And two, to allow a lot

1:01:19with substandard width 150 ft required,

1:01:2235 ft um be proposed or 35 ft proposed.

1:01:27um be granted. Uh we find that the

1:01:30variance would not be contrary to the

1:01:31public interest because it would be

1:01:33consistent with the character of the

1:01:35area in that there are already multiple

1:01:38other flag lots in the immediate

1:01:40vicinity surrounding it. Um and there

1:01:44would be no injury to public health,

1:01:46safety or welfare. Um the spirit of the

1:01:49ordinance would be observed because the

1:01:52the spirit of the ordinance when it

1:01:53comes to what the ordinance requirements

1:01:55are uh when it comes to the frontage

1:01:58requirement and lot width requirement is

1:02:01one to control uh density and in this

1:02:04case uh the underlying density of the

1:02:07zone would be net. Both lots have 40 uh

1:02:1040,000 square feet or more uh to control

1:02:14the spacing of you know buildings and

1:02:16structures. And again in this case the

1:02:19uh new home would be built far to the

1:02:21rear so there would be no visual impact.

1:02:23The kind of rural character of the area

1:02:26would be maintained and arguably to uh

1:02:29control um curb cuts driveway access the

1:02:32spacing between driveways and I think in

1:02:34this case the um spacing between the

1:02:36driveways would not exceed what's

1:02:38typical in the area particularly

1:02:40immediately um across the street. uh

1:02:44granting the variance would do

1:02:45substantial justice because the benefit

1:02:46to the owner uh far outweighs any uh

1:02:50potential injury to the public. In fact,

1:02:52I don't think we could really find uh

1:02:53any injury to the public uh in in this

1:02:56instant. Uh we have no uh evidence that

1:02:58there be any dimmunition to surrounding

1:03:00property values. Uh we have testimony

1:03:02that they would likely increase through

1:03:05uh new investment. Uh and we do find

1:03:09that special conditions of the property

1:03:11uh you know include its uh large size

1:03:14and depth. Uh again the uh character of

1:03:18the surrounding area and that um you

1:03:20have all these flag lots surrounding it

1:03:22which is what is typical for that area.

1:03:25And um that given those conditions and

1:03:28given the purposes of the ordinance that

1:03:31uh I've already stated uh or these

1:03:33requirements of the ordinance that have

1:03:35already been stated uh there is no fair

1:03:37and substantial relationship to the

1:03:38application of those requirements to the

1:03:41specific lot. Uh and the proposed use is

1:03:43a reasonable use. It's a single family

1:03:45home in a single family zoning district.

1:03:48So therefore it's inherently reasonable.

1:03:50So for those reasons a proposal variance

1:03:52be granted. Is there a second? Second by

1:03:55Mr. Petri. Uh any discussion,

1:03:59>> Mr. Neely?

1:03:59>> Yeah. Do we need to um put in a caveat

1:04:02about the um the buffer zone?

1:04:04>> I I we could we could certainly clarify

1:04:06that. I I I'd be happy to add at the

1:04:08buffer zone um as shown on the plan

1:04:11submitted.

1:04:15Other thoughts? Is that okay with the

1:04:16seconder?

1:04:17>> Yes.

1:04:18>> Uh all those in favor?

1:04:22The request is granted. Good luck.

1:04:32>> Folks a moment. And so finally, we have

1:04:35the uh application of Wallace Han and

1:04:39Kathleen Feltus at 384 Main Street

1:04:43requesting an appeal of an

1:04:44administrative decision regarding an on

1:04:46street regarding on street parking by a

1:04:49business with an approved site plan

1:04:51located at 382 Main Street. This is in

1:04:54the RA zone in Ward 7. And I'm assuming

1:04:58you are the petitioner. [clears throat]

1:05:00>> Good evening, members of the board. My

1:05:02name is Wallace Hollahan. I live at 384

1:05:05Main Street. Kathleen Feltus and I both

1:05:09filed this petition together.

1:05:10Unfortunately, she had grandparent duty

1:05:13tonight, so couldn't attend with me, but

1:05:16she stands uh firmly committed to our

1:05:19appeal. I'd like to just verify that the

1:05:22board members have uh received my

1:05:25written submission or our written

1:05:27submission in the appeal.

1:05:29>> Yes, we have.

1:05:31Given [clears throat] that, I'm not

1:05:32going to waste your time uh

1:05:34regurgitating what we already put in

1:05:36that appeal. What I'd rather like to do

1:05:39tonight is look have you look at two big

1:05:42issues. The first issue is that 8 to 10

1:05:46employees from the chiropractor's

1:05:48business park in at the very end of uh

1:05:53Montgomery have facing Main Street

1:05:57from 7 a.m. to 700 p.m. Monday through

1:06:00Thursday when they're open for business.

1:06:02This is done despite the fact that they

1:06:05have a large parking uh facility or

1:06:08parking lot in the back of their uh

1:06:11business, which I take was part of the

1:06:14site plan for them to uh conform to the

1:06:19off streetet parking uh regulation or

1:06:22ordinance.

1:06:24As you may know, if you've ever been by

1:06:26there, uh, Montgomery Hab is an old

1:06:29two-lane street, very narrow, and

1:06:32particularly on the main street end of

1:06:34it. Uh,

1:06:36as a result of uh these employees

1:06:41parking on both sides of Montgomery A,

1:06:44the travel lanes are significantly

1:06:47reduced. So if you're trying to get out

1:06:52down Montgomery A, I live right on the

1:06:54corner. So when I pull out on my

1:06:56driveway and I try to get out of there,

1:06:58there's very little room for air. Cars

1:07:02coming the other way. And I stress cars,

1:07:05not trucks, right? Pass very close

1:07:08together in opposite directions. I doubt

1:07:12whether

1:07:14uh a fire truck or an ambulance, right,

1:07:17could get into Montgomery a if there was

1:07:20a car parked uh uh

1:07:25car in the opposite lane trying to get

1:07:27on the main street. I can honestly say

1:07:29I've never seen that done. But as you

1:07:32may uh well have figured out by this

1:07:34point in time, I'm a senior citizen,

1:07:37advanced senior citizen with heart

1:07:40problems and other medical problems,

1:07:43[clears throat] excuse me. So even a

1:07:45delay of a couple minutes if I were to

1:07:48experience a stroke because an ambulance

1:07:51couldn't get in the end of my street or

1:07:53a fire truck because they usually go in

1:07:56tandem.

1:07:57the the outcome may not be as good as if

1:08:01they could get in to to my street.

1:08:05Excuse [clears throat] me. It's the

1:08:06disease I have. Uh

1:08:10during snowstorms

1:08:12that those travel lanes are

1:08:14significantly reduced further because of

1:08:17snow banks, making it very difficult for

1:08:20even two cars going in opposite

1:08:23directions to pass one another.

1:08:27last winter. Often when that happened to

1:08:30me, I would back up to my driveway to

1:08:33let the other car in from Main Street

1:08:35because otherwise two cars won't fit

1:08:38there and certainly not trucks and or so

1:08:41forth.

1:08:43The other point I'd like to make is

1:08:45article 28 governs

1:08:49off street parking for businesses in

1:08:52Nashville. This provision requires all

1:08:55businesses in Nashville to establish

1:08:58sufficient off- streetet parking for

1:09:00their employees and their patrons.

1:09:04The stated purpose of this is to prevent

1:09:07spillover of business parking into

1:09:10residential areas, protect emergency

1:09:13access and public safety.

1:09:17>> [clears throat]

1:09:19>> The use of the mandatory language

1:09:21throughout article 28 makes compliance

1:09:25mandatory not discretionary.

1:09:28So, in conclusion,

1:09:30the facts in law in this case clearly

1:09:33indicate that the Main Street Wellness

1:09:38Chiropractor employees should not be

1:09:41packed long-term day after day on

1:09:44Montgomery AB because it undermines all

1:09:48the purposes of that off street parking,

1:09:53excuse me, uh, article 28. Thank you.

1:09:58Thanks for bearing with me, too.

1:10:00>> Of course. Questions from the board.

1:10:04>> You're free to take a seat.

1:10:05>> Okay. Um I am going to and maybe I

1:10:08should have started this way, but but

1:10:10this is an administrative appeal. Oh,

1:10:12no. You're free to take a seat. Um this

1:10:14is an administrative appeal, so it's

1:10:16probably prudent for me to read to

1:10:17[clears throat] the record the

1:10:18administrative decision that's being

1:10:20appealed. Uh so this is uh a letter uh

1:10:24from Mr. Dery addressed to Mr. Holhan.

1:10:27Uh, this email serves as my written

1:10:29administrative determination regarding

1:10:31your complaint concerning employee

1:10:33parking associated with Main Street

1:10:35Wellness Chiropractic located at 382

1:10:39Main Street. After reviewing the matter

1:10:42and your July 16, 2026 letter, I have

1:10:45determined that employees of Main Street

1:10:47Wellness Chiropractic Parking on

1:10:49Montgomery Avenue and otherwise legal on

1:10:53street parking spaces does not

1:10:54constitute a violation of the property's

1:10:56approved site plan. The approved site

1:10:59plan demonstrates that the property

1:11:01provides the required off- streetet

1:11:03parking necessary for zoning compliance.

1:11:06However, neither their approved site

1:11:08plan nor the city's land use code

1:11:10prohibits employees or other individuals

1:11:12associated with the business from

1:11:14parking legally in available on street

1:11:16parking spaces. Public on street parking

1:11:19is available for use by any member of

1:11:21the public unless otherwise restricted

1:11:23by applicable parking or traffic

1:11:25regulations. Accordingly, I find no

1:11:27basis to conclude that the use of legal

1:11:29on street parking by employees

1:11:31constitutes a violation of the approved

1:11:33site plan or warrants zoning enforcement

1:11:36action. If there are concerns regarding

1:11:39whether vehicles are parked legally on a

1:11:41public street, those matters fall under

1:11:43the enforcement of applicable parking

1:11:44and traffic regulations by the city's

1:11:46parking department and where

1:11:48appropriate, the national police

1:11:49department rather than through zoning or

1:11:51site plan enforcement. If you wish to

1:11:54appeal this is administrative decision,

1:11:56you may do so by filing appeal with this

1:11:57zoning board of adjustment. I've

1:11:59attached that application for your

1:12:00convenience. Obviously, that's what

1:12:01brought us here um this evening. Um we

1:12:05do have um I can see other people in the

1:12:08audience. Um,

1:12:11does anybody want to speak uh to this

1:12:14application either in support of the um

1:12:18applicant uh or uh in I suppose in

1:12:21support of upholding the administrative

1:12:23decision? Um, you know, if either of you

1:12:25wish to speak to this issue, you're free

1:12:27to come forward to the microphone.

1:12:31[snorts and clears throat]

1:12:32>> Hello, my name is Dr. Noah Goslin. I'm

1:12:35the lead chiropractor at Main Street

1:12:36Wellness and Chiropractic. Dr. Sullivan

1:12:39received the notice of public hearing

1:12:41concerning Mr. Wallace Hollahand and his

1:12:43wife, Miss Kathy Feltus, who are

1:12:46neighbors on the corner lot of Main

1:12:48Street and Montgomery Street in Ashawa.

1:12:50Our property at 380 Main Street has 14

1:12:53parking spaces plus one handicap

1:12:55accessible space. I currently have 10

1:12:58employees and our wellness center treats

1:13:01approximately 50 to 60 patients per day.

1:13:04Depending on the service that the

1:13:06patient receives, they are in the

1:13:07building from anywhere from 15 minutes

1:13:09to 60 minutes. We are a non-surgical

1:13:12spinal decompression center and many of

1:13:14our patients are in a significant amount

1:13:16of pain and have limited mobility. A

1:13:18substantial number are elderly and use

1:13:20walkers or other walking aids. Provide

1:13:23an adequate on street parking is

1:13:25therefore very important to our patients

1:13:27and to the operation of our business. We

1:13:30cannot reasonably expect patients with

1:13:31limiting limited mobility to park on

1:13:33side streets, particularly during the

1:13:36winter months when sidewalks may not be

1:13:37properly maintained. Our staff generally

1:13:40parks on Montgomery Street and follows

1:13:42the cities of NSHA's uh recommended

1:13:45regarding public street parking. The

1:13:47Strafad Main Street Wellness and

1:13:49Chiropractic has been parking on

1:13:50Montgomery Street for over 30 years.

1:13:52Since 2013, Dr. Sullivan has paid for

1:13:55snow removal on the sidewalk on Main

1:13:57Street in front of the hollow hand felt

1:13:59this property. Dr. Sullivan pays for the

1:14:01snow removal for the safety of her staff

1:14:04so that they do not have to walk

1:14:05physically on Main Street during the

1:14:07winter. My understanding is that the

1:14:09sidewalk maintenance is the

1:14:11responsibility of the property owner,

1:14:13but Mr. Holahan has not been clearing

1:14:15the sidewalk for years. Mr. Hollyan has

1:14:18approached Dr. Sullivan in the past and

1:14:20expressed that he does not like her

1:14:21staff parking on what he considers

1:14:23history. There are also significant

1:14:26traffic and parking issues in that area

1:14:27that are unrelated to my business. For

1:14:30example, the Salvation Army the

1:14:32Salvation Army operates a food pantry

1:14:34directly across the Halahan Health

1:14:37property and my staff has regularly

1:14:39observed people blocking his driveway or

1:14:42blocking the street. My staff has also

1:14:44frequently has difficulty entering Main

1:14:46Street because of the congestion

1:14:47associated with the Salvation Army. Our

1:14:50practice has had a friendly relationship

1:14:52with Mr. Holahan and Miss Feltus for

1:14:54many years. In fact, our staff has

1:14:56actually seen their household cast get

1:14:58out of their house and has helped call

1:15:00them to let them know that their cat is

1:15:02out. I therefore do not want this matter

1:15:04to become unnecessarily adversarial, but

1:15:07I also need to protect my patients,

1:15:09employees, and my business interests.

1:15:11Thank you.

1:15:13questions for the board. We have sir, we

1:15:15have a question from the board. Sorry.

1:15:16Thank you.

1:15:17>> That's okay. So, so um

1:15:21is is there any reason your staff can't

1:15:23just park a little further back on

1:15:24Montgomery Street to get to get away

1:15:26from that corner? I you know, at the end

1:15:27of the day, I think we're all talking

1:15:28about a safety concern on the corner of

1:15:29Maine and Montgomery. So,

1:15:32>> we can we can absolutely do that

1:15:33depending on the time of the day that we

1:15:35get in. Sometimes the Salvation Army's

1:15:37backed up because it's the food pantry.

1:15:40Sometimes we get there and the Salvation

1:15:41Army is not open and we park more in

1:15:43that corner. If that's applicable and

1:15:46you're okay with that, we can park

1:15:48further down the street on Montgomery

1:15:49Street. My biggest concern is having to

1:15:52have patients park on the side street

1:15:53and then use a walker to walk down,

1:15:56especially when we start entering the

1:15:57winter months and the sidewalks aren't

1:15:59cleared out. A year ago, I don't know if

1:16:02you guys were aware of this, but a car

1:16:03came around that bend on South Main

1:16:05Street, completely demolished one of the

1:16:07telephone poles minutes before one of my

1:16:09team members was walking down the

1:16:11street, could have taken her up. I don't

1:16:13want that to happen. That people speed

1:16:15around that bend thinking it's quicker,

1:16:17get in little accidents. I don't want

1:16:20people, 70-year-old woman walking with a

1:16:22walker to go and do decompression

1:16:24because she can't feel her left foot

1:16:26walking on the street because the

1:16:27sidewalk. We could absolutely park

1:16:30further down the street.

1:16:32Any other questions?

1:16:35>> Thank you.

1:16:37>> Uh sir, do you have any comments you

1:16:39wish to make to the board?

1:16:44>> Yes. My name is David Labassier. I

1:16:45represent the Salvation Army, which is

1:16:47obviously u related in the the setup of

1:16:50the street. Uh our food pantry runs

1:16:53every weekday from 9 to noon. Our uh

1:16:56guests are there from anywhere from 10

1:16:58to 20 minutes to an hour if the line is

1:17:00longer. Um I certainly have noticed some

1:17:03very interesting parking decisions um on

1:17:06the street. We want to be good

1:17:08neighbors. Uh we provide what we believe

1:17:10is a very important service to our

1:17:12community. Um but we don't want to do

1:17:16this at the expense of anyone's safety,

1:17:18anyone's well-being. Um, what I would

1:17:20like to suggest uh for our part in just

1:17:24allowing traffic to flow correctly is uh

1:17:27to guide our clients as much as possible

1:17:29to use our parking lots uh when there

1:17:31are spaces available. We do get busy

1:17:34enough to where uh there there needs to

1:17:36be some overflow and in that case we

1:17:38want to make sure that no one is

1:17:39blocking any driveways or trash cans on

1:17:42pickup days or otherwise uh creating an

1:17:45unsafe situation for everybody. Um, we

1:17:48do just want to be good neighbors in our

1:17:50community and not let the good that

1:17:52we're doing um cause any issues.

1:17:57>> Questions from the board.

1:17:59>> Thank you.

1:18:00>> Thank you.

1:18:03So unless there is a any additional

1:18:07testimony specifically really regarding

1:18:09[clears throat] the applicability of the

1:18:12um ordinance to this case uh and the

1:18:15administrative decision that was issued.

1:18:18Um is there

1:18:19>> I'd like a rebuttal.

1:18:21>> Okay.

1:18:23[clears throat]

1:18:24Well, I'd like to correct a few things

1:18:25that the chiropractor just said in in

1:18:29regard to uh parking. They park at the

1:18:32end of that street from 7:00 a.m. to

1:18:357:00 p.m.

1:18:38four nights a week. and they a lot of

1:18:40them including him go out to lunch, come

1:18:44back when there's plenty of room in

1:18:46their parking lot behind their facility

1:18:49and repark on Montgomery Street rather

1:18:52than parking in their facility. With

1:18:55respect, you're probably aware of this,

1:18:57of his comment that I don't clear the

1:19:00front of my sidewalk as required by law.

1:19:04New Hampshire law does not require me to

1:19:07clear this front of my sidewalk and I'm

1:19:10well over 80 years old. So, the time for

1:19:13me to do that is well passed. Uh, in

1:19:16terms of a settlement, I'm not opposed

1:19:20to settlements. I've spent my entire

1:19:22career looking to make settlements, but

1:19:25a settlement has to be enforcable. In

1:19:28this case, I'm not sure it's

1:19:29enforceable. And the other thing I think

1:19:32you should keep in mind [clears throat]

1:19:34is a proverbial slippery slope. If you

1:19:37do it for this business and you say that

1:19:40as long as there's uh parking available

1:19:43on side streets, isn't that applicable

1:19:47to all other businesses similarly

1:19:49situated? Do you want that nightmare?

1:19:53uh not only in Main Street but all the

1:19:55other streets of in the city of

1:19:57Nashville where businesses uh parking

1:20:00spill over into side streets and and

1:20:04create these dangerous parking problems.

1:20:08>> Thank you.

1:20:12>> Okay, this really wasn't [clears throat]

1:20:13necessarily a public hearing, but I'm

1:20:15going to close public comment and bring

1:20:17it back to the board. I mean, I don't

1:20:21mind, you know, kind of jumping in and

1:20:24kicking it off, but but I I do support

1:20:26the administrative decision. Um,

1:20:30this board isn't in the in the business

1:20:33of parking regulation. We're not here to

1:20:35come up with a settlement. I think where

1:20:38people are parking, in my view, or how

1:20:40they're parking or who's parking where

1:20:42isn't in our purview. The question is is

1:20:44whether or not article 28 section

1:20:47190-1912

1:20:49that requires businesses within the

1:20:51context of a cyclone regulation to

1:20:53provide off street parking consistent

1:20:55with the um parking requirements of the

1:20:58city um is you know means that people

1:21:04who are either working at or going

1:21:06through that business are prohibited

1:21:08from parking on legal parking spaces on

1:21:11the street. uh if you know and I think

1:21:13what the administrative decision says is

1:21:16um yes you are required to provide off

1:21:18street parking as a part of your site

1:21:19plan review but in my view unless there

1:21:22is a specific condition on the plan

1:21:24prohibiting say employee parking

1:21:27elsewhere anybody has the right to park

1:21:30in a lawful parking space on the street

1:21:33so from for my view I I I support the

1:21:37decision as written Mr. Jul

1:21:40I I echo Mr. Mara's view. I the site

1:21:44plan specifies that there be some

1:21:46particular number of off- streetet uh

1:21:49parking spaces. They're there. Um how

1:21:53they're used and uh how whether

1:21:56employees park on the street uh is not a

1:21:59zoning issue, is not a uh a site plan

1:22:02violation issue. Um that would have to

1:22:05be addressed some other way. I mean it's

1:22:07it's unfortunate that uh you know there

1:22:10are are people who are inconvenienced by

1:22:14uh lots of on street parking. I mean

1:22:16that's true everywhere in the city. Um

1:22:19but that's not our problem to solve

1:22:21here.

1:22:24>> Other thoughts, Mr. Bush? I

1:22:26>> I would also agree with uh both of what

1:22:28you you said. Um I I believe that uh

1:22:32we're not in that in that business of

1:22:34making those decisions. Um if I could

1:22:36just offer something on the side. Um and

1:22:39it's not a solution. It's just because I

1:22:41have personal experience. Um maybe if

1:22:44there is a concern, this is because I've

1:22:46been in that area when everybody's

1:22:47there. So what the applicant is saying

1:22:49is completely true. It gets jammed up on

1:22:51Montgomery and also on the parl street.

1:22:54Um,

1:22:57I had the occasion of having issues in

1:22:58my neighborhood with parking. I

1:23:00approached the way was done is I

1:23:02approached my alderman to sponsor some

1:23:04no parking for specific reasons. So, I

1:23:07would suggest that maybe they could

1:23:09reach out their alderman if there's a

1:23:10safety concern. Um, I had some more

1:23:13parking put up uh between certain hours

1:23:16Monday through Friday. Um, between

1:23:18certain hours between uh 7 and 10. it

1:23:21eliminated most of the issues in my

1:23:23neighborhood and in surrounding the high

1:23:25school. So, um, so there's there may be

1:23:28some other ways from a safety

1:23:29perspective as he's if there's

1:23:31legitimate, but I would suggest that

1:23:33maybe approaching the alderman, his

1:23:35alderman might help or might he might

1:23:38get some other perspective on on the

1:23:40issue that may be going on in Montgomery

1:23:42Street. And again, it's not to punish

1:23:43anybody or the business owner or

1:23:45anything. It's just maybe there's a

1:23:47legitimate issue on that street. Maybe

1:23:49there is some relief, but that's just my

1:23:51opinion and that's just I'm offering

1:23:53that. But other than that, I am going to

1:23:55support the uh holding the

1:23:57administrative decision.

1:24:00>> Mr. P, I I also agree with Mr. Dery's

1:24:03decision from looking at

1:24:05uh title uh article 28 190-

1:24:10191. Those provisions do say that um off

1:24:13street parking has to be provided, but

1:24:15there's nothing in that section saying

1:24:17who has to use those spaces. Um there's

1:24:19no there's no regulations on that. And

1:24:21there's

1:24:24>> at this point it's just the board's

1:24:25deliberation.

1:24:26>> Um so um because I don't think we'd have

1:24:29the authority under the ordinance to

1:24:32give any relief here. I um I would agree

1:24:34that the administrative decision is

1:24:36correct.

1:24:39you know, ju just to um kind of echo

1:24:41though some of the comments that were

1:24:42made. I I I as I've said, I agree with

1:24:45the administrator's decision. I I

1:24:46certainly hope that, you know, all the

1:24:48parties on the street can uh try to come

1:24:51up with, you know, a way to make things

1:24:53work recognizing that there's issues and

1:24:55challenges out there and that there are,

1:24:58you know, multiple users. and you know

1:25:01hopefully people can work together to

1:25:03make sure the safety issues you know are

1:25:06addressed and um if inconveniences are

1:25:09minimized you know and certainly as Mr.

1:25:12Bush said perhaps it's uh almatic

1:25:15involvement or or other city

1:25:17departments. I also you know faced those

1:25:20issues for many many years living across

1:25:22the street from school. Um the solution

1:25:24wasn't to say no one can park but you

1:25:26know there were different solutions in

1:25:27the case in our neighborhood. It was

1:25:30actually changing the one-way street

1:25:31pattern uh and creating one way where

1:25:34there wasn't one way. Um, so sometimes

1:25:37there's different ways that that you can

1:25:38approach things and uh meet parking

1:25:41needs, meet pickup, drop off, short-term

1:25:44parking. So, you know, if it's people

1:25:46coming to a food pantry that has a

1:25:48different need, then maybe somebody uh

1:25:50going I I don't want to get into all

1:25:52those issues, but there's different ways

1:25:53and hopefully everybody can come

1:25:54together and

1:25:56um come up with something that is is

1:25:58workable.

1:26:01Any other discussion?

1:26:03Anybody want to make a motion?

1:26:05>> Mr. Lo,

1:26:07>> I'm not sure how to do this because I

1:26:08don't have a a cheat sheet for it, but

1:26:11uh we'll try this. Um, make a motion uh

1:26:16on behalf of Wallace Holahan and

1:26:19Kathleen Feltus, applicants uh 384 Main

1:26:24Street as is the um requesting appeal of

1:26:28an administrative decision regarding on

1:26:30street parking by business with an

1:26:32approved site plan located at 382 Main

1:26:34Street. This is the RA zone W 7. Um the

1:26:38board finds that the administrative

1:26:40decision uh we believe is the correct

1:26:42one and therefore um

1:26:46I make a motion to deny the appeal.

1:26:53>> That works. Is there a second? Seconded

1:26:55by Mr. Ney. Any discussion?

1:26:59>> All those in favor of the motion to deny

1:27:01the appeal.

1:27:05>> The motion has been denied. Um we we do

1:27:08hope though that everybody can come up

1:27:09with a way you know to make things work

1:27:12on the street. Can

1:27:13>> I ask you a question?

1:27:16You said something about

1:27:18reconsideration.

1:27:20Is that with board or through the board?

1:27:23>> Uh well this was an appeal of

1:27:25administrative decision. It is somewhat

1:27:27different. Um but you know I'm actually

1:27:30going to turn to Mr. Dury. Is there a

1:27:3130-day window of appeal on a motion for

1:27:33I would assume yes. Any decision to the

1:27:36board. So yes, so you could file a

1:27:38motion for reconsideration.

1:27:42I should say anyone can file a motion

1:27:43for reconsideration, including yourself.

1:27:51All right, so that takes us on to

1:27:53reviewing the upcoming agenda.

1:27:59Does anybody see any cases of regional

1:28:02impact?

1:28:03>> No.

1:28:03>> No.

1:28:08I do not either.

1:28:10I do have to say unfortunately I regret

1:28:12to say I will not be here for this.

1:28:16Hopefully [laughter] everybody else will

1:28:18just because it looks interesting. Um

1:28:21hopefully we won't have a quorum issue.

1:28:23I do regret that I can't be here. I'll

1:28:25be here.

1:28:28And all right, we have minutes. So,

1:28:33everybody had a chance to take a look at

1:28:34the ordinance.

1:28:36>> Reviewed them online? Yes,

1:28:38>> I did too. Anybody see any changes,

1:28:41>> Mr. Patri?

1:28:42>> Yes. Uh so um

1:28:45page three um in the um uh in the 19

1:28:50vista way uh way case um where we we're

1:28:55quoting from Miss Dudsy's opposition um

1:28:59she mentioned the uh conservations

1:29:01commission's unfavor unfavorable

1:29:03recommendation was actually 70 not 41.

1:29:07>> That's important. I noticed that. Um and

1:29:11then um my only other thing to know

1:29:13would be that um in my motion approving

1:29:17um or moving that we approve the request

1:29:19for one East Holl Street um

1:29:23I uh Mr. Dury I think added some good

1:29:26points uh to by motion that was was the

1:29:28intent of what I was saying but I didn't

1:29:30actually I I didn't articulate them as

1:29:33um as as eloquently. So, I appreciate

1:29:35that uh that you uh that you've

1:29:38furthered defined what the board was

1:29:40intending to do because I I I would

1:29:41agree with with what's written. So,

1:29:44>> thank you for that affirmation.

1:29:46>> Sure.

1:29:48>> No other changes for me.

1:29:51Any other comments on the minutes? So,

1:29:53you like to make a motion?

1:29:56Mr. Petri, is there a second?

1:29:59Ah, seconded by Mr. Neely.

1:30:02Any discussion? All those in favor?

1:30:07Any other business we need to attend to

1:30:08this evening?

1:30:10>> No. Motion to adjourn.

1:30:12>> 8:00.

1:30:13Seconded by Mr. Lel. And we are ajourned

1:30:16at 8.

```*