Everyone and welcome to the November 12th meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.

I'm Jay Mankara, ZBA Chair.

To my right is Vice Chair Josh Neely, and then across the stage, Member JP Boucher, Member Robert Shaw, and alternate Joseph Potri.

We have four regular members of the board today, so if Mr.

Potri is willing, he will be participating as a voting member this evening.

So tonight we have applications for both special exceptions for a special exception as well as variances.

A variance application is a request to deviate from the requirements of the ordinance.

In order for the zoning board to um grant variants, we have to find that five criteria are met.

We have to find that granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest, that the spirit of the ordinance would be observed, that granting the variants would do substantial justice, and that's to the owner seeking it, that the value of surrounding properties uh wouldn't be diminished, and that owing to a special condition of the property, um uh a fair and substantial relationship doesn't exist uh between the application of the zoning ordinance to the property uh and uh uh and the requirement.

So um given that I I think uh hopefully everybody understands the criteria.

In terms of the order of business this evening, uh each applicant, I'll read the case into the record.

Each applicant will be invited to come up to the podium, uh state his or her name and address, and then you have up to 15 minutes to address the board.

You don't have to use all 15 minutes, but you can if you wish.

Following that, uh, we'll ask if there is anybody in the audience who wishes to speak in favor of the application.

And each person can again come forward, come up to the mic, state uh his or her name and address, and we'll have up to five minutes to address the board.

Uh following that, I'll ask if there's anybody who wishes to speak with any questions, concerns, or opposition.

Uh and once again, each person would be asked to come forward, uh, give his or her name and address, and would have up to five minutes.

I don't sense that there are too many people here to speak one way or the other, but uh in the event that there were, um, then uh one person at the end could come.

Oh, I should back up.

Um we will then allow the applicant to come forward uh to uh has the opportunity to rebut any comments that are made.

Uh and also the applicant would have up to five minutes.

And then finally, somebody who spoke with questions, concerns or opposition, uh just one person would be allowed to come forward uh and have the last word.

Uh so that's the general um order of business.

And um, Mr.

Falk, is there any changes to the agenda this evening?

Oh Mr.

Chairman, there are not.

Uh then given that, uh unless there's something I missed, uh we'll call the roll on Mr.

Neely Present.

Mr.

Boucher.

Present.

Mr.

Shaw, present.

Mr.

Patrick.

Present.

All right.

With that, then I will read the first case into the record.

Uh this is the application of Yu Feng Sun, 61 Amherst Street, requesting the following.

One, a use variance from land use code section 190-15, table 15-1, number 90, to allow mixed uh commercial and residential use, where commercial use is primarily on the first floor with the dwelling um with the dwellings occupying the second floor.

This is in the RB zone.

And a special exception from land use code section 190-16 E3A, table 16-2 for a minor encroachment of four feet uh into the seven-foot required side yard setback to construct an exterior staircase to provide access to the proposed second-story dwelling unit.

Again, this is in the RB zone in board three.

Just to note that this application, a similar application was approved by the ZBA on August 10th, 2021.

However, that approval has expired.

And I'm guessing you are here to speak on behalf of the applicant.

That is correct, Mr.

Chair.

Well, hang on a second.

Feels very close.

Good evening.

My name is Elizabeth Hardigan.

I'm an attorney at Goddessman and Hollis, and I am here on behalf of our client, Yu Fen Soon, LLC.

And as Mr.

Chair had said, my partner, Morgan Hollis previously presented before the board with essentially this exact not essentially the exact same application for this property in 2021.

That was during the COVID era, and as you would assume or guess, things were a little bit questionable.

They weren't entirely sure when or if they would construct.

The time is now and they're ready to construct, so we are back.

There's a couple of you that were on the board at the time, but I'm going to go through the whole thing, if you will, if you'll allow me, and we'll go from there.

As Mr.

Chair had said, we're here for two reasons.

The first is a variance, which is to allow a mixed use, commercial and residential use in the RB zone, which is to allow the existing commercial on the first floor and add a residential on the second floor.

And the second is for a special exception to allow a minor instruction in the side minor encroachment in the side yard setback where for four feet where seven feet is required.

And that is simply for an exterior stairwell to access the proposed second story single family unit.

As I said, this property was previously granted the exact same variance and special exception on August 10th, 2021.

It has since expired.

The property is currently developed with a 28 by 60 or 1680 square foot single story dental office located at 61 Amherst Street.

If you drive by, it's sort of it, it's the smallest building probably on all of Amherst Street, but definitely in that area.

Previously, in 1970, the property was granted the variants to allow a dental office, and that is why we are here in the RB zone with an existing commercial use.

The proposal is to add simply a second story on top of the building for a one single family unit with a private external staircase on the side of the building.

The side of the building is, if you're looking at the building on the right hand side is where the proposed staircase is, and that's largely due to the design of the property.

The property has a the entrance and the driveway is on the left hand side, so adding a staircase wouldn't work there.

And the back is where the dental office currently enters from the parking lot.

So this last sort of the last spot to put a staircase is on the right hand side of the building.

Granting the requested variants will not be contrary to the public interest.

The property has been occupied as a dentist office since the granted variants in 1970.

This will not affect adding a single story on top, essentially, for a single family unit will not affect the character of the neighborhood.

The neighborhood already includes many other multifamily buildings with similar density calculations.

This is, as I said, the only single-story building in the area.

And neighbor neighboring properties also have external story external staircases.

There's adequate parking for the park for the dentist office as well as a single family unit.

There are seven spaces available, and based on the calculation of one spot per 400 square feet for an office, there will be four spaces needed and two spaces for a single family, and we are providing seven.

So we have one extra parking space.

Granting the variants will not threaten public health safety or welfare as a second-story dwelling unit will be surfaced by separate stairway, physically separated from the downstairs dentist office, similar to neighboring properties, and will also be serviced by public sewer and penetrat water.

Creating a dwelling unit above a commercial use to allow a mixed use of a lawfully existing non-conforming use where other multifamily dwellings exist will not be contrary to the public interest.

For the second tier criteria, the proposed use will observe the spirit of the ordinance.

The purpose of the zone is residential use, and what we're proposing is residential.

We just actually have a commercial use on the bottom, which is rare.

While the mixed use is not permitted, the dentist office has been established in the neighborhood for 50 years.

And adding a single family unit will have minimal impact of traffic or density in the neighborhood.

The character of the neighborhood will not be changed, and there'll be no threat to public health, safety, or welfare.

Substantial justice would be done to the property owner by granting the variants.

This lot is currently underutilized based on what could be if you raise the whole thing, what you could put there for density and use.

It's a small building.

If the variance is granted, there'll be no harm to the public.

As the public is accommodating accustomed to having dwelling units in the neighborhood.

And denial of the variance would create harm to the owner for an underutilized yacht.

Underutilized lot.

The special conditions that exist on this property that result in unnecessary hardship are as I've discussed.

This is a unique property in that it has received a variance in 1970 to have a dentist office, and that is all it's had since then.

It's a small single-story commercial building that sits between two single family homes and has multifamily across the street and behind it.

It makes no sense to apply the ordinance against a mixed use for this property when there's no fair and substantial relationship by preventing a residential use in a residential zone.

This is a reasonable use of the property.

And finally, I believe I touched on most of the criteria for the special exception, but that is specifically just for the staircase that would be encroaching in the side yard setback to allow primary access to the proposed unit.

The physical encroachment will be approximately four feet in the seven-yard seven foot side yard setback requirement.

There would be a minimal and minimal increase to traffic and pedestrian safety by adding a single family dwelling above a commercial use.

The staircase will be set back from the road and will be similar to construction and color as the surrounding properties.

This will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impaired pedestrian safety, will not overload any public water drainage or sewer system by having one additional unit.

And there will be no impairment to the integrity or the character of the area, as the immediate neighborhood is residential as well.

Good.

Any questions?

Questions for the I know that was fast.

Mr.

Shaw.

I don't know if I saw this directly addressed, and your testimony seemed to generally allude to it, but would the property simply by its dimensions allow for at least a two-family multi-unit uh building right now without any variances?

I think it would maybe have to be raised, but I I the size of it would have been a good idea.

So I mean just as far as like not just the like ignoring the existing building.

Does the lot itself dimensionally allow for the whole lot?

Let me look.

The two family multi-unit building.

I don't know, Mr.

Falk, maybe you know that or the calculator.

I think it would be close.

It's like 11,000 square feet.

It looks like it's about 208 by 35, so oh eight by 55.

55.

So it's um that's 11,845 square feet, and you need what, 4,000 per unit.

I'm not sure in the RB zone.

Or B, you'd need 6,222 square feet per unit, so you'd need 12,445 of the city.

It would be close to be close, but very, very close.

Right.

Okay.

But it's a long standing existing lot.

Right, right.

I just wanted to just wanted to understand that you know it's it helps sometimes, just uh you know, since part of the request is to have essentially two units, obviously, one commercial, one residential.

So the the below unit won't be residential, it's grandfathered as a dentist office, and there's no no plans to change that.

And there are, I just add there are many two or three unit buildings in this immediate area that are on smaller lots.

Okay, yeah, most of the lots there are non-government.

The uses are also non-government.

Yeah.

So it's actually in it's compatible with the surroundings.

Other questions for the board.

Anything else you'd like to add?

Not this time.

Go free to take a seat.

Thank you.

Is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak in favor of this application?

Is there anybody in the audience with questions, concerns, or opposition to the application?

Seeing none, we'll close a public hearing and open the deliberations in the board.

Thoughts from the board.

Mr.

Neely.

So I'm in favor of this application.

On the variant side, as we know, actually, for both the variance and special exception, they both were approved by the CBA in 2021 in the same format.

And so I'm in favor for the same reasons as noted then.

You know, at the end of the day, these are all very long, thin lots in that area.

This is just going to make it look more like the buildings around it.

We have this dentist office from the 1970s.

That's like unprecedented to have the same business in this, you know, same type of business in the same building for so long, unless it's you know a barber shop in my opinion.

But you know, for those reasons, that there's no reason not to move this forward.

And as to the special exception for the stairway, uh, my question coming in was why not put it in the back since it's a long thin lot.

That was um that question was answered during the testimony.

And it makes sense to me.

You don't want to have the upstairs uh stairway right next to where we're paying customers that come in through the door to the dentist office.

So we didn't hear anything from the neighbor to the right of the property, and there is a fence there as well.

So uh quite frankly, building the the stairway is probably not even gonna be noticed in the short term by the the neighbors next door.

So uh for those reasons I'm in favor.

Other thoughts?

Mr.

Shaw.

I'm in support also.

I don't really think I have anything else to add, though.

Yeah, I just added, yeah, I'm also in support, and uh just to note you know, the additional uh of one unit isn't gonna significantly increase traffic.

They've noted that there's adequate parking, and actually um it's making the lot more conforming because the residential use is permitted, and it's also making the structure itself more in keeping with the neighborhood, which are mostly two two and a half story buildings.

So supported for all those reasons.

Does anybody want to make a motion?

Mr.

Neely.

Would you prefer the special exception first or the variance?

I'd go with the variance.

Okay.

Requesting the following a used variance from land use code section 190-15.

Table 15-1 section number 90 to allow a mixed commercial and residential use where commercial use is primarily on the first floor with dwellings, uh dwellings occupancy on second floor in the RB zone.

Um granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest, in that most of the properties in that area uh already are two floors.

Uh this would just make it uh conform more to the to the other buildings that are in that area.

Um the spirit of the ordinance would be observed in that uh we are taking a uh a facility that has been a dentist office uh since the the 70s, perhaps 1970 itself, adding in some um some additional housing residential, which is what the RB zone is all about, so that would make the spirit of the ordinance observed.

Uh granting the variants would do substantial justice uh in that the applicant does have the uh right uh to add on to the property as necessary.

Uh in this case, they're they're adding on residential, which I think is in the right financial reason to make this adjustment to the to the facility.

Uh we have no uh testimony that the values of the surrounding property would or would not be affected.

However, in my opinion, the value of the surrounding property would not be affected.

Um there are special conditions of the property that distinguish it from the other properties as we noted.

Um this building is one of the few single-story buildings in that area.

Uh it has a long-standing business that has been in there.

However, uh, they are looking to add some housing to the second floor, which is uh normal, uh especially along Amherst Street, the RB zone, to have multiple floors of residential.

Um so these uh folks should be allowed to add on to the property uh as is to make that um second floor a reality.

So for those reasons I make a motion to approve the variants.

It's your second, second by Mr.

Boucher.

Any discussion?

If not, all those in favor.

Variance passes unanimously.

All right, I'd like to make a motion to approve the special exception for you Fangsoon owner 61 Amherst Street, sheet 63 lot 50, requesting the following a special exception from land use code section 190-16 subsection E, subsection three, subsection A.

Table 16-2 for a minor encroachment of four feet into the seven-foot required right side yard setbag to construct an exterior staircase to provide access to proposed second story dwelling unit.

This is in the RB zone ward three.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Mr.

Potter.

Any discussion?

All those in favor.

And the special exception request has been granted unanimously.

Of course, you are aware there's a 30-day window of appeal, but I think it's rather unlikely.

Anybody will object.

So thank you.

So now for the second case.

To encroach up to five feet into the 25-foot required front yard setback to construct an 8-foot by 38-foot front farmer's porch.

This is in the FUOD zone in ward five.

Is the applicant present?

Please feel free to come forward to the podium and just uh state your name and address for the record.

Yes.

My name is Balaji Aingar, and that's my wife with the hangar.

We are the owners of the property.

And we and feel free, by the way, to pull the microphone a little bit closer.

It does adjust.

So you just put it?

Yeah, just you can just move the arm and it adjusts.

Yeah, there you go.

Oh, I think that's okay.

Great.

Okay.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Yeah, so we are the owners of the property, and currently we have two flower beds on both sides of the property.

And we are trying to replay the flower beds with uh farmer's porch.

The current flower bed is seven feet deep, and we want to put uh eight feet farmers porch on top of the flower bed.

And as far as to just for the areas, we if we're replacing the existing flower bed, so it doesn't affect anyone else.

It's a private property only used by us.

No one else is using the flower bed.

And the farmer's porch generally adds to the carbohill, so increases the property value.

And we have a lot of neighbors already having farmer sporch, similar pharma spotch in the neighborhood.

So I think it I don't think it's going to affect anyone else, is what we think.

Questions from the board.

Mr.

Shaw.

My main question is why eight foot deep versus perhaps six feet?

Because I at least I'll just give you the reason.

Part of the reason.

So you know, because your your home is fairly close to the street, and so the encroachment could be lessened by not quite as deep of a farmer's porch.

And I tend to think that a lot of even the new farmers' porches that have gone on, come in on in the neighborhood, are typically six foot in depth.

And that seems like a reasonable uh dimension.

So is there something that's compelling or driving you to request eight feet uh for the depth of the farmer's porch?

We just like the bigger space so it gets entertained in more people.

And as the farmers, the flower bed is only seven feet deep.

We just thought we'd just cover over the existing lower bed.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

Uh so could you just speak a little bit to the the use of the farmer's porch?

Is it just really aesthetic, or is this something that you think uh is from a you know enhances somehow your use of the home?

Yeah, we actually plan to sit out and not enjoy the outdoors because that our house faces an open space towards the uh I think that's a trail there.

So when you sit out, you you can look at the open space.

So if you just plan sit there, maybe sometimes ward from there, or entertained, and that's what we plan to use it for.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

Anything else you'd like to add?

You're free to take a seat.

Thank you.

Uh is there anybody in the audience who'd like to speak in favor of this application?

Um with the Ingar from Three Cherry Wood Drive uh Nashua.

Um the only thing I would add is we are people who like the outdoors and here being the weather being pretty cool for most of the year.

We would like to utilize the pharmaceutic during summer and a little warmer months and entertain people there, like he said, just adding on to that.

So the USA justice base is to also enjoy the outdoor and the weather a little more during the warm months.

Thank you.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else who'd like to speak in favor of the application?

Is there anybody who'd like to speak with questions, concerns, or opposition to the application?

Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing and open the deliberations of the board.

Thoughts from the board.

Mr.

Neely.

So I'm I'm in favor of this application.

When I look at the Hayner Swanson drawing, they actually wrote on here the front bump out is exactly two feet where the applicant is looking for five feet.

So I actually think that the I would assume Heiner Swanson the drawings are probably just saying this two feet is probably more accurate than the request for the up to five feet.

Irregardless, you know, this we've seen many of these applications in this neighborhood.

I think I can think of three or four in the last two years.

It's becoming pretty common in this in this neighborhood.

I go by this property all the time.

So it is a little bit of a of a turn there on cherry wood, so it's not it's not straight in front of the property.

Um quite frankly, it's gonna it's gonna look conforming to several of the other properties around the distance around that that area that all have the farmers' porches.

Um it definitely won't look out of out of place.

And I and I think that this you know, just being two feet within the 25 foot is is uh very palatable.

So I'm in I'm in favor of this application.

Other thoughts I was just thinking to your comment here, Mr.

Shaw about six versus eight.

Um I'm less familiar with farmers' porches.

Is six a viable depth?

I think so.

I think so, and I think that's actually what we've seen lately.

But what I hadn't thought about, and it kind of goes a little bit to Mr.

Neely's comment, is with the bump out and that extra two feet of encroachment, then an eight-foot farmer's porch only is six feet where the bump out is, and that's actually where the entrance is.

So that suddenly actually compels me to actually more that in this case now that the dimensions make more sense to me, actually.

So that because that's what I had been struggling with, because it's just uh you know, I felt like six foot would be a reasonable, you know, much like we talk about garage dimensions.

This has that similar feel, but obviously very different in a way.

But now thinking about the bump out, that actually now I feel like that kind of was would be the thing that kind of changes that.

Yeah.

Any other thoughts?

Anyone want to make a motion?

Mr.

Potter.

Sure.

I move that we approve the variance request for Balaji and Vidya uh Anagar for three Cherrywood Drive from land use code section 190-25 D1 to encroach up to five feet into the 25-foot required front yard setback to construct an eight-foot by 38-foot uh uh farmer's porch.

We find that granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because this is a minor encroachment into the setback and the character of them of the neighborhood would be maintained.

The spirit of the ordinance would be observed again because this is a minor encroachment encroachment that would not uh in uh impact the neighbors or otherwise impact the character of the neighborhood.

We find that granting the variants would do substantial justice because this would allow the owners to more fully utilize and enjoy their property.

We find that the values of the surrounding properties would not be impacted given the minor encroachment.

And we find that owing to the special conditions, the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area denying denial of the variance would result in an in unnecessary hardship because there is no fair and substantial relationship between the general public purpose of the ordinance and the specific application of that provision to this property because of the minor encroachment in the setback and the general character of the neighborhood.

And again, because of the minor encroachment and the character of the neighborhood, we find this is a uh a reasonable use.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Mr.

Shaw.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor.

Your variance requests has been granted.

Good luck.

Next we have the uh application of Andrew and Jennifer Piper for four Don Coster Drive, requesting a variance from land use code section 190-31 to encroach four feet into the six-foot required uh left side yard setback to construct an eight by ten shed.

This is in the R9 zone in ward nine.

Is the applicant present?

Hi, I'm Andrew Piper from Ford Doncaster Drive.

Um I'm looking to build a small shed uh in my backyard because I am one of the only houses in the neighborhood that has a just a small single car garage.

Um in the backyard is is really the only place I have to put it that is um that is is well secluded, so it won't be seen from the street.

Um in the backyard, however, it forms kind of a bowl where on the right side it the elevation drops almost eight feet in the from the front of the backyard to the back of the backyard.

On the left side where I'm looking to put it, uh that elevation drop is only about four feet.

Um and that bowl does form kind of a uh I'll call it a flood zone for in some of the heavy rains where it it allows water to collect so it doesn't flood the neighbor behind me.

Uh and this is one of the only areas in the backyard that is both level and does not flood at that time.

The elevation is already above that flood area.

Um so in terms of um, you know, it uh the effect on the neighborhood.

This is a very short shed, it only has six foot walls with a uh fairly shallow roof.

Um and so with the elevation changes, I don't even think you'll really be able to see it above the fence that is currently around my backyard.

Uh so I don't expect it to have an effect on the neighbors.

In addition, this is next to another shed of my neighbors that already encroaches on that six-foot barrier, so it kind of puts them back to back with each other.

Um let's see.

Is is really within that six-foot boundary, even if I were to go into the front yard or within the 25-foot setback.

Um, and again, it would it would allow me to actually utilize my garage to store my my car or one of my cars.

Um so that's what I'm looking for.

Questions from the board?

Mr.

Shaw.

I just I wasn't sure how to quite interpret you know this image because I wasn't sure about the 15-foot by 18 foot is referenced.

So that I the easiest way I had to mark where I was going to put the shed was to measure from the back corner of my garage.

Um, and so that that's the 15 feet back or 18 feet back and 15 feet over, I believe.

Okay.

Um thank you.

Because I was trying to, I was like, I don't think there's any sort of structure there.

So that's what it kind of looked like.

Yeah, that that's the from the back of the current garage.

It was the easiest way for me to explain where where it would end up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Other questions from the board.

Yeah, you're free to take a seat.

All right.

Uh is there anybody in the audience who'd like to speak in favor of this application?

Is there anybody in the audience you'd like to speak with questions, concerns, or opposition to the application?

Seeing none, we're gonna close the public hearing and open the deliberations of the board.

Thoughts from the board, Mr.

Boucher.

I'm in favor of uh this application.

Um again, a shed is not an uncommon thing to have.

Um and having driven uh through the neighborhood and and recognizing uh a little bit of what um the applicant spoke about the the property and there are other properties with some similar challenges.

Um I also noticed I won't get into the numbers, but there are on just Doncaster, there are six other homes that have sheds that are pretty much situated on property lines for for whatever reason, but I can understand why um they're like that, and in fact is a neighborhood number two, which would this would be most effective closest, also has a structure pretty much on the on a property line.

So I think that there is uh definitely uh a reasonable uh character uh that that these are uh done and I think because of again some of the challenges that prop the properties have on that on that on that in that neighborhood.

So and again in the rear of the property.

Um obviously no there's nobody here to uh claim that there was any really issues with that.

So I'll be in favor of the application.

Any other thoughts from the board?

Mr.

Shaw.

Yeah, I'm pretty much similarly in support.

And I think, you know, especially notable, I think, does you know there's the fence as well as that large structure from the immediate most affected neighbor?

And you know, also I think just the topographical part of the property.

Um, you know, we figure was well explained why this is one of the few spots that really makes sense to put the sheds.

So for all those reasons, I'm in support.

Any other thoughts?

Anybody wish to make a motion?

Mr.

Boucher.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the variance for Andrew M and Jennifer L.

Piper, owners of Ford Doncaster Drive, sheet B, lot 767 requesting a variance for many use code section one nine-31 to encroach four feet with a six foot required left side yard setback to construct an eight by ten shed CR9 zone one.

We find that the gravity variance would not be contrary to public interest because it's it's allowing uh the homeowners to place a shed uh because of uh issues with uh the property itself, uh topographical issues and the fact that that having a shed um in this neighborhood near parking line uh actually is in character of with the neighborhood.

The spirit and ordinance uh would be observed again because uh this does not uh fall outside the character of what is uh predominantly done in the neighborhood with uh the auxiliary shed structures.

Uh granting the variance would do substantial justice because it would allow again the homeowner to have a shed on his property that and have use of that shed for storage, and again um for other reasons uh based on the size of his home and and the the um just the one car garage that he has um for limited space for storage.

Um the uh we find that there is no testimony of the the values in the restoring properties um would be diminished.

So, in my estimation, making this motion, I find that there is no um uh diminution of uh property values by uh approving this variance.

Um find that uh for unnecessary hardship that that special conditions to the property uh that distinguish it from other properties in the neighborhood.

Again, there are some lots in this neighborhood that have some topographical um uh issues with um the uh drop off and elevation changes, um, and that we find that this is uh reasonable um proposed use is reasonable again because it allows the homeowner to place a shed on his property um in a manner which can which is uh he's able to use uh and not uh be affected by any conditions that exist on the property.

So with that, again, I make a motion to approve the variance.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Shaw.

Any discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor.

Good luck.

Thank you.

Um you could just leave it there.

We'll get it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

That's great, thank you.

And finally, uh the application of Jisman Jacob and Deepa Raju Kunaf, owners at 27 Clearview Drive, requesting a variance from land use code section 190-16 E1 to exceed maximum driveway width, 24 feet permitted, 30 feet existing.

It's in the R9 zone in Ward 8.

And you must be the applicants.

Um Jacob, and this is Diva Rajikunat.

Uh we have a on it of 27 K Drive.

So um we are actually requesting um relief from um exceeding the 24 feet um within the 20 20 foot um uh frontset that area for our driveway.

So our driveway is in a special condition where we have a very big slope from the road to our garage.

And also we have a retaining wall on if we look from our garage to the road on the left side is a retaining wall.

So what is happening during the winter time is it's very hard to clean the snow because the one side we cannot push the throat to the other side, so only we can push only to one side.

And now that we have two train edges driving, and we have an additional car.

Um so if we leave the car in the driveway, it's really really hard to get any snow out of the driveway.

And also we cannot park during doing the snow uh storm time, we cannot park the car um on the public road, so uh obstructing other snow cleaning crew and other things.

So um we are requesting um little if you look at our drawing, um our driveway with this currently 19 feet, I think up to 24 is allowed for the driveway.

So if we expand, there is a triangle portion I marked in the diagram that is what is exceeding um the limit.

Um so we are requesting to allow for that area to be uh expanded so that we can pay that portion uh to make an expanded driveway.

Anything else you'd like to add?

No.

Questions from the board?

Mr.

Neely The Um I have a couple questions.

Um the application uh talked about snow and ice, and I get that you've got the the curve uh excuse me, yeah, the curvature going downward.

Yep.

I don't I don't think by adding this extra driveway that's gonna take away the water flow.

Um are you on the sure are you planning on remilling the whole thing?

Or is it just are you just adding in the extra pavement?

So would you rip rip all the driveway out and re you're gonna repave the whole thing?

Yeah, exactly.

So you'll be able to change the grading and kind of exactly.

So what happened was twice so far water because all the water from the road, public road is coming, and twice it came inside our um garage to the basement, so we had a lot of trouble.

Okay.

So we are trying to make it a little better, the drainage going towards that side too.

Okay.

And um one of one of the things that we normally ask, and looks like you guys are already doing it, is to kind of put some driveway around the side of the of the of the um the garage.

You're already doing that.

How many cars are we talking about here?

Is the garage usable for cars?

How many?

Yes, yes, we are talking about three cars, actually.

Three cars.

Okay.

Okay, that's all I have for questions.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

Anything else you'd like to add?

No, only one more thing.

Um, so Monday I got an email saying I got automatically approved, so I need to pay um do a wire transfer to make everything.

So I I know it's a scam, but I just want to bring it to the board.

Wow.

So I can show you the email also.

Several of those.

Yeah, so these don't come from us at all.

Yeah, I know they can.

I know it's in and on the chairman's name, it's it's mentioned.

Really?

Uh I can show the email to you after um, but um I think since all this information is public, somebody is getting those information, scrubbing it and sending just two days before the hearing it happened.

Yeah.

Just funny.

They asked for several thousand dollars in application fees, and our fees are not that much at all.

Yeah.

And also um, other cities have been getting similar.

Other other applicants from other cities are getting similar emails.

So someone is doing this throughout the state.

Yeah.

They're they're all scam, and we we've noticed notified our IT department, and they're trying to find out where they're coming from.

But they're just scams, ignore them.

We deal with the case.

Yeah, we're specifically mentioning only contact us through the email.

Yeah, so the email it is it like disguised to look as if it comes through Mr.

Mankara or No, it's coming from the city of Nashua, but it's saying it um the signature by sincerely roboty bowling or chairman.

That's what he's the he's the chairman of the planning board.

He's not even on the interesting.

But they actually have uh actual signatures from some people on our staff too on these letters.

Yeah, but it has very specific, very very nice letter with all the details and these the the reason for asking for the fee in uh extra fees for covering all the expenses and everything.

It's very genuine kind of email, but yeah, I just want to uh have you forwarded that email to the case.

No, I can forward.

I have it my I I I would ask that you do.

I'd um I mean uh and I don't want to speak for staff, but my understanding is is that the National Police Department does investigate cybercrime.

Okay.

Um and it would maybe worth passing this on to them if you're getting it, other people are getting it.

Yep.

And I'd hate to see somebody fall for something like this.

And you know, the fees that we collect, you know, from you, they're just a few hundred dollars.

370.

That's the notification, the advertisement, all the staff time and paper and everything.

That covers everything.

We're not making any money on these things.

That's not a profit profit.

Someone's looking to obviously.

Someone is looking to ask you to why the why are the money sending for the bigger.

Yeah, of course.

Yeah, they're definitely scams.

And our IT department has been told.

We forward them to them and we delete them.

We don't open up anything in them.

So we're well aware of this scheme.

But thank you for bringing it up.

Yes, indeed.

Okay, we so uh clearly there is no one else here to speak to this application one way or another, so we'll close a public hearing and open the deliberations of the board.

Thoughts from the board.

Mr.

Neely.

So so I came in uh very undecided about this.

Um wondering why, you know, it's a good size driveway, we could probably fit four cars, plus there's the wraparound, you can fit one or two more.

Um I know we've taken a dim view on this in the past.

However, the applicant uh telling us about their flooding issues and that they're going to go rip the whole thing out and replane the whole thing, change my mind and put me in favor of this application.

Um if they were just gonna kind of pave the one side, you're still gonna have the same problem, water's still gonna come down, it's still gonna pull to the right because you can see it's kind of tilted to the right a little bit.

Um so for safety reasons, uh I'm in favor of this application.

Other thoughts from the board?

Mr.

Boucher.

Uh likewise I'm also in favor.

Um again, it's not a full um width of the street, and um obviously, as we know this whole neighborhood, if you go anywhere around this neighborhood, you're gonna find similar situations where um you know that they the the uh the elevation changes can be dramatic on some of the streets, and uh you know I've been in that neighborhood sometimes when it rains, and you just like see sheets of water spawning down.

So I think that for that reason, and exactly like he explained that he's trying to prevent any more flooding on this property, and this is one of the ways to do it.

I I think it's a good plan, and I'm going to uh support the application.

Other thoughts, Mr.

Shaw.

I also agree.

I mean, I I think it also to me, especially the fact that it's not the full width down to the street is also really helps uh a lot in a situation like this.

So I I agree.

Anyone wish to make a motion Mr.

Neely?

I'd like to make a motion to approve the variance for Gizmon Jacob and Deepa Raju Kanaf, owners 27 clear view drive sheet B lot 2372 requesting a variance from land use code section 190-16, subsection E subsection one to exceed maximum driveway width, 24 feet permitted, 30 feet existing.

This is in the R9 zone in Ward 8.

Uh granting the variants would not be contrary to the public interest in that they are as noted in the application packet are many uh driveways in this neighborhood that are larger, um, several of which are due to the uh topographical change, significant topographical change as you go through the neighborhood, and we need to be concerned about the water runoff in this area.

Uh the spirit of the ordinance would be observed in that they do not have a full uh allowed width at this time uh at the the street entrance.

Um however, what they're gonna do is make an adjustment on their dime to uh widen this driveway primarily for safety reasons.

Uh granting the variants would do substantial justice.

The applicant did note that they've had some flooding in their uh driveway, and that this uh whole driveway is gonna be replane to minimize the threat of flooding.

Um the value of the surrounding property.

Uh we had we had no specific testimony that it would be uh adjusted, but in uh my opinion, it would not be diminished and unnecessary hardship.

Uh this uh house has been negatively affected by water runoff, um snow, rain, etc.

Uh causing potential damage to the house.

Uh so the owner is trying to make some adjustments to the driveway to minimize uh potential safety issues, not just with the water runoff, but with the freezing uh of the uh rainwater in the driveway.

So for those reasons, I do make a motion to approve the variance.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Mr.

Potri.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor.

And your brain's request passes unanimously.

Good luck with your project.

And that's all the cases for this evening.

Has everyone had a chance to take a look at the next agenda?

Yeah, and does anybody see any cases of regional information?

No.

No.

I do not either.

So that takes us to the minutes.

Folks had a chance to take a look at the minutes.

I'll note I was not here for this meeting, so I couldn't say one way or the other.

Mr.

Potrick.

I just did one change.

Page four, the third paragraph.

The board determined the value of surrounding properties would not be diminished.

I would add uh B after after would not.

That is my only change.

Anyone else have any changes?

No.

If no, would anybody like to go make a motion in the minutes?

Mr.

Shaw?

Move to approve as amended.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Mr.

Potri.

Any discussion?

No.

All those in favor?

Minutes are approved.

Is there any other business for us this evening?

That's it.

If not, motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Motion by seconded by Mr.

Shaw.

And those in favor?

We are adjourned.

720.

Cool.