Good evening, everybody.

Welcome to December 9th meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.

My name is J.

Mankara, ZVA chair.

To my right is Vice Chair Josh Neely.

To his right is Member JP Boucher.

And then across the stage, Member Steve Lynel and alternate Joseph Potri.

Because we only have four regular members this evening, Mr.

Potri will be participating in voting on all the cases, of course, unless he needs to recuse himself for any reason.

So tonight we have applications for both variances and special exceptions.

A special exception is a use that's allowed under the zoning ordinance so long as certain conditions are met.

A variance is a request to deviate from the conditions of the ordinance and or the requirements of the ordinance.

And for the board to grant variance, 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 it would be consistent with the spirit of the ordinance, that by granting the variance, substantial justice would be done to the owner seeking it, that there be no diminution of surrounding property values, and that owing to a special condition of the property, denying the variance would result in an undue hardship to the applicant seeking it.

So in terms of the order of the business, uh I will read the case into the record, and then the applicant is requested to come forward up to the podium.

You'll be asked to state your name and address, and then you have up to 15 minutes to present your case to the board.

You don't have to use the 15 minutes, but you do have the option.

And then following that, I'll ask if there's anybody in the audience who wishes to speak in favor of the application.

And uh each person will also come forward to the microphone and state his or her name or address, and I will have up to five minutes to address the board.

Again, you don't have to use five minutes, but you have the option.

And then following that, I'll ask if there's anybody in the audience who has any questions, concerns, or opposition.

And again, each person will have the opportunity to come up to the microphone.

Uh we'll have five minutes to uh address the board.

Then following that, the uh applicant will have the opportunity to come forward uh and we'll have uh up to five minutes to provide any rebuttal.

Then following that, uh, we would allow one person who spoke in opposition uh with questions, concerns to the application to come forward and have the last say.

And again, that would be for up to five minutes.

That is only one person.

Uh so if there are a few people who wish to comment at that point, we'll give you the opportunity to deliberate amongst yourselves.

Uh so hopefully um that is clear, but we'll we'll provide reminders as we go along the way.

Uh and I should have noted that to my left is Deputy Planning Manager Carter Falk.

Uh Mr.

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

Uh no, there are not.

Right.

So given that, then I will call the roll on Mr.

Neely.

Present.

Mr.

Boucher.

Present.

Mr.

Lynnell.

Present.

Mr.

Patrick.

Present.

And I J.

Mankara and present as well.

Uh so I'm going to read the first case into the record.

Uh the application of the City of Nashua, Division of Public Works at 848 West Holler Street, requesting a special exception from the land use code section 190-112 to impact two other wetland areas, man-made drainage swells, totaling approximately 3,992 square feet to facilitate the construction of the proposed Department of Public Works garage and maintenance facility project.

That's in the R9 and R30 slash GMZ zones in board five.

Looks like attorney Prolman is here for the applicant.

Mr.

Chairman, members of the board, good evening.

Uh, I am Andy Prollman, attorney with Pruny and Pullman here in Nashua.

Here on behalf of the city's Department of Public Works to do our presentation along with me of Ethan Beals will be presenting as well.

But Mr.

Chairman, if the if you if the board will indulge me, um there are a few aldermen I would like to call up as as uh testimony in support because they have a meeting at seven o'clock downstairs, if that's okay.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Um I'm Alderman Patricia Klee, and I live at 9 Maywood Drive here in Nashua.

Um I'm here to speak on behalf of it.

Um not one of these people that believe in in um harming any kind of west wetlands in any way, shape, or form.

Um, but after having looked into this, spoken to a number of people, the conservation commission has um, you know, kind of given its blessing, and I feel that that is the body that we use in the city to um kind of keep us on the straight and narrow.

Um in addition, um I I'd ask questions about whether or not there were um creatures there that could only survive there.

Um they very unique to it, or are they endangered or so on?

And I was reassured that that was not the case.

It's also a um, I believe a springtime wetland.

So it's not throughout the summer and so on.

So it's it's just I guess I guess would be considered towards the breeding period of of these of these creatures that that kind of tend to live there.

So um, you know, I hope that you will give it a favorable um uh view and and vote and so on, because as I as I feel that we need the building, we need this to to continue on course and so on, and without this approval, we're kind of stopped.

Um so it's you have to weigh it, but I I do think it would be uh beneficial on all, and I don't think it's that harmful to the wetlands.

There are other wetlands within that area further down.

So thank you so much for your time.

Thank you.

Hi, good evening, everyone.

Um, I'm just gonna apparently take the mic.

I'm Alicia Greg, Alderman at large for the city, and I'm also the state representative for Ward 7.

I live at Four Eastbrook Drive.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of the wetland special exception for the DPW garage project.

I'm here tonight to express my strong support for this project, and I want to share why this is so critical for our city.

This maintenance garage represents phase two of our DPW uh facilities project.

We successfully completed phase one, the new administration administrative building on West Hollis Street, which opened in the spring of 23.

Now we need to finish what we started by building the garage and fleet service base that our DPW desperately needs.

In my first week as Alderman at large, I made it a priority to tour our city departments and facilities.

When I visited the current DPW garage, the streets department, I was frankly alarmed by what I saw.

The conditions are sorely outdated to the point where I have serious concerns about potential health impacts on our DPW workers who report there every day.

These are the people who keep our city running, who plow our roads and snowstorms, who manage tens of millions of dollars in annual paving projects, and who maintain our infrastructure.

They deserve a safe, adequate workspace.

Beyond the health and safety concerns, the current facility simply cannot accommodate our equipment needs.

The Board of Public Works just approved this plan last night, recognizing the urgency of moving forward.

It isn't just about approving a special exception.

This is about ensuring our city can continue to provide essential services safely and effectively.

And uh it's very hard to uh follow that.

I think uh Alderman Greg covered most of this.

Um as a former chairman of this committee, zoning board, um, I recognize that uh this is a very important project for the city of Nashua.

It has the capability of increasing our um work capability for the DPW and also uh saving us hundreds of thousands of dollars in equipment that we have.

We have millions of dollars worth of equipment, and keeping it exposed outside to the heat and cold does not do us any good as far as our surf requirements.

We can keep equipment longer, and uh it's that's critically important because this will allow us to have a wash bay that can not only do DPW of equipment but other divisions' equipments as well.

So there's a potential for saving hundreds of thousands of dollars for the city, and that's critically important.

So I ask for your favorable consideration in this matter.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Alderman at Lodge, Michael O'Brien for Woodfield Street, National New Hampshire, and I'm also the chairman of the Committee of Infrastructure.

Uh I arise today to support this project and hope that you will give us a favorable recommendation.

This will go a very long way to making city services efficient.

If you look, the administration building is there.

Why not put the public works mechanical division there too?

It's easy.

They'll walk across a short parking lot and able to make executive decisions on the vehicles that are going to be tendered.

You've got to look at what the public works asks of our vehicles.

I don't think any of you are going to go out and buy a dump truck.

I know I'm not.

But we in the city invest an awful lot of money into these, and they have a short lifespan.

Why?

Because they carry salt.

They travel on roads with the salt.

To have them into a parked infrastructure building will help keep the longevity of these vehicles and make them more efficient in what they do.

So I usually would arise in supporting wetlands.

But to me, when you have to make a decision which is best for the people when I say the taxpayers of a city, if you look at the current infrastructure that they're working out of, it's deplorable.

It's not worth sinking too much money in.

The building will still remain efficient.

It also has pits, which have been OSHA deregulated, so mechanics can't go down in them.

So to have a modern facility with lifts and stuff like that.

So when you weigh the balance to uh the wetlands versus granting this and increasing a brand new infrastructure that I hope could last 50 plus years.

I think you see the cost benefit analysis that I do.

And uh I hope you take that into your consideration.

It was in consideration with the uh infrastructure committee and the infrastructure committee fully support this.

I thank you for listening.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, members again, Andy Prollman, uh attorney with Prunium Prolman here on behalf of the uh City of National Public Work Department.

With me tonight is Ethan Beals from Hainer Swanson.

Um, Director Photo uh from the division, uh Dan Hudson, our city engineer, um, and Brendan Quigley uh sitting right here.

Brendan is our wetland soil scientists from Gove Environmental Services.

Uh and Dan and Brendan can answer any questions the board will have.

Uh we are here tonight for a special exception, uh, wetland special exception under Section 190-115B, uh, as well as the special exception general criteria of 1901 34F.

Uh, we are here to seek your permission to fill two man-made ditches in between uh a couple of the buildings um at the land use uh facility behind the uh behind the new administrative building.

Uh we do so um we make this request because in order to um build out the proposed DPW garage, we need one large flat site, and there are two uh thin man-made ditch wetlands uh right in the middle of the site.

Um you have um uh the plan set from both Ethan and Brendan.

Uh that you can see the two, they've been labeled uh wetlands B, according to Mr.

Quigley.

Um you can see that they're two thin little wetlands that are in between uh the couple of um of existing buildings, they're right in the middle of where the proposed building is going to go.

So we are seeking to uh fill just under 4,000 square feet of um really frankly low quality wetlands.

Um we are not here for having to do anything with Teak Drive.

I saw an email, I saw maybe some comments, people may be confused that this may be somehow related to Teak Drive, the water wine for the fire training facility.

It's not.

Uh we're just here for the uh DPW garage, the two uh thin wetlands on the uh uh on the proposed site.

Um the you've heard uh some of the reasons from the Alderman uh why this DPW garage is is needed.

I won't uh belay that point other than say this has been kicked around for some time uh with the uh folks at the city uh they believe this is the best uh path forward for uh the servicing the uh the entire city DPW fleet um and maintaining uh the investment that the city makes um into the DVD DPW operations.

Um we are at 848 West Hall Street, we are in the R 30 um district, a portion of 848 and 840 West Hall Street, the four hills landfill is in the R9, uh but we have a vast majority of the site was in the R 30 district, all public utilities, water, sewer, electricity will service the site today.

Um again, we have a positive recommendation for the Conservation Commission.

Um Mr.

Chairman, what we want to do is I want to have um Ethan Beals kind of walk you through uh the wetlands and how we're gonna address moving water uh from one pond to the other.

Um, and then I'll come back and speak to the uh the criteria uh for the um two portions of the uh special exception.

That's okay.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chairman, members of the board for the record, Ethan Beals, project manager at Hainer Swanson doing business at three Congress Street here in Nashville, New Hampshire.

As attorney Prollman had just mentioned, it is proposed to impact two small wetlands totaling about 3,992 square feet of wetland impact.

These two wetlands are really located in the northeastern portion of the project area, so not the overall 300 acre site, but of the project area.

Um they're located really adjacent to the existing what we call a hoop style storage building where some of the larger equipment on the site is stored.

Both of the wetlands are man-made drainage ditches, and their primary function is really to serve as an outlet to an existing stormwater pond located in the southern portion of the project area.

The stormwater pond, which is identified in the wetlands report that was submitted as wetland A, treats stormwater runoff from a portion of the landfill.

A driveway culvert serves as the outlet to the pond, conveying water in a northerly direction and into the first segment of wetland B, which I'll call B1 in my presentation.

B1 is a little under 300 feet in length and varies between five to eight feet in width, totaling about 2,043 square feet.

Water continues to flow in a northerly direction and into a second driveway culvert, which ultimately breaks up wetland B into the two parts, the previously mentioned B1 and wetland portion B2.

B2 is about 230 feet in length and also varies in width between five and eight feet.

And this wetland totals 1,949 total, um, bringing the ultimate cumulative total to the previously mentioned 3,992 square feet of wetland impact.

Finally, this water course enters a larger driveway culvert, which serves as one of the outlets to the site.

This culvert continues to convey runoff in a northerly direction under the main landfill access driveway, and outlets runoff into a larger wetland along the northerly property boundary of this area of the site.

I'd like to note a few important things that as it pertains to this wetland and this water course.

First, this is an existing water course and drainage pattern, meaning that this is how stormwater runoff is collected and conveyed from this portion of the site today.

Included in this drainage pattern is a portion of our project area that largely flows off the site without receiving any formal treatment of stormwater runoff.

Second, as mentioned in the wetland report, these wetland ditches really exist in a highly disturbed and actively used portion of the site and really don't serve any other wetland function other than stormwater conveyance.

And out of the wetlands flagged in the project area, they are the least valuable wetlands delineated.

Finally, given that both of these wetland areas are man-made and in function as stormwater features, we confirmed with staff that they don't actually carry a wetland buffer here in the city of Nashville.

Once the project is constructed, in order to maintain the same drainage pattern and continue to provide an outlet to the large stormwater pond, a new 30-inch drainage trunk line will be constructed which connects the pond outlet to the previously mentioned larger driveway outlet.

Um, the proposed project will contain several stormwater best management practices or BMPs that will provide both formal qualitative and quantitative treatment of runoff leaving the site, leaving the project area that largely is untreated today.

And finally, I'll just also point out again that we did meet with the Conservation Commission three times, two meetings, including a site walk, and we did receive their favorable recommendation.

Turn it back over to attorney Prolman.

Uh before you leave, any questions from the board.

I just have one question.

Um how would the um treatment of the water compare to the current system?

So currently these are, I guess, open treatment swales.

Um would it be enhanced to stay the same?

And it's it's not there's not, I would not call them active stormwater treatment.

The quality of stormwater entering and exiting them is largely likely the same.

In the proposed condition, um we're contemplating several larger subsurface um stormwater practices that will provide be a fully designed and permitting permitted in accordance with uh New Hampshire DES alteration of terrain permit requirements, um, but they'll provide formal qualitative and quantitative treatment of runoff.

So um that's in addition to a large portion of the project area really just flows off the site untreated.

So that the proposed project will have the ability to capture larger volumes of stormwater runoff from the project area, get it below the ground, treat it before discharging some of it in larger storm events.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, again, uh Andy Prolman, again, if um the board had questions uh for engineering uh for Mr.

Hudson uh for more environmental um issues, you have um uh Brendan uh Quigley um at your disposal.

Um the um just you know a picture is worth a thousand words.

One of the um plans provided with Mr.

Quigley's report, um it looks like this shows uh the two thin um uh wetlands B, two thin um stretches of the uh man-made ditches um and uh that's largely where uh the garage um is being proposed to be built, so we're looking to fill those so we can have a large pad uh for the garage.

But what what's happening is um you can see it for the large pond wetland B wetland A, that's not going to be um touched.

And what uh Ethan was just talking about is we're gonna run a pipe, 30-inch pipe from wetland B across the site over toward where the whole area drains toward the trestle brook area.

That's that's the gist of what how we're going to uh compensate the um movement of the water following the filling of a wetland B.

Um and with that, Mr.

Chairman, um, you have our application, so I'm not gonna um read word for word.

Um I will just touch on the criteria unless any uh board members had a question at this time.

Questions from the board proceed.

190 uh 134 F, um the requested use, uh the way the requested use is the wetland impact um is permitted uh pursuant to uh the wetlands um section of the ordinance 190 uh 112 and 1911, and specifically with the criteria.

Uh so that meets uh section A.

The requested use again, filling the wetlands, not going to impact any traffic on the unduly impaired pedestrian safety.

Um the requested use is not going to impact any public water or drainage or sewer systems, uh, municipal systems, uh, or harm the general welfare of the city.

Uh the special regulations will be addressed and are being addressed uh with section 190B.

Um we're not going to impact the character of the neighborhood.

We are a landfill, we are behind the DPW administrative building.

We don't see any impact to the um to the neighborhood as to the criteria under uh 115B.

Um you have the um we have the uh special exception in the criteria as laid out uh from uh Hainer Swanson.

Um and again, we believe we meet all of the criteria.

Um we've we believe that we are um uh the proposed uh wetland filling cannot be um reasonably avoided uh with respect to the garage.

We believe we have the least damaging route uh with respect to the uh these low quality wetlands.

Um if you ask Mr.

Quigley, he will tell you these air wetland B barely qualify as a wetland.

They just meet the threshold to qualify, but they're really really serve no wetland purposes as we know.

So we believe we can meet their criteria.

Um the mitigation member uh measures being used.

You just heard Ethan talk about uh the improved um water quality treatment.

Um that's going to be a part of this project.

Um the overall impact of the encroaching um wetland of buffers.

First, we have no buffers uh because just the nature of these wetlands.

Um and secondly um the wetland A and the other wetland uh as labeled uh with Mr.

Quigley's uh report are not being um affected by this.

Um we have minimal impacts to um rare endangered species.

The reports of the rare and dangerous species are on this particular lot, but they're far away, they're at the top of the hills, um, and they're not near this particular area where we're building.

Um temporary and permanent erosion controls will be implemented during the construction of the project.

Um we're not gonna impair wetland capacity.

There's really very little wetland capacity um involved here other than moving water from wetland A across the site over toward Trussell Brook.

We have no impact on the stability of any water body at the banks of any water bodies.

That's section eight.

And finally, we have really no impact of the hydraulic absorption capacity because we have the two very low quality wetlands that really just move channel water from one point to another.

So, Mr.

Chairman, we believe the that we have uh address the criteria, and again, uh this is one step in the process to move the project forward.

This obviously has to go to the planning board, um, AOT permitting with DES.

Um, and finally, there was a condition uh coming from CONCOM, and we're okay with that condition.

And that's what I have, unless uh you had questions from me or Dan or Brendan.

Questions from the board uh for either attorney prolemen or the engineers.

Thank you.

See none.

All right, so uh Mr.

Quickley, were you coming forward?

Oh, I you were making a motion, there's I thought perhaps you were uh so is there anybody in the audience who'd like to speak in favor of this application?

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

We do have one letter uh that we received, uh, which I will read into the record.

This is from Janice Archon at 33 Teak Drive.

Dear sir is please be aware that the residents of Teak Drive, Hazel Avenue, and Westgate Village, to name a few, are strongly against building, digging, roads, or any construction that will impact the area wetlands or community that have been protected since the area was first developed over 40 years ago.

Um at the Teak Drive Fire Road Board meeting, many residents spoke of the impact to this area.

And again, I'm not gonna read it all, but um it goes on to note that the new public works facility does not need to be placed off Teak Drive, and uh, I think as alluded to earlier, um, there might be some confusion that this project is not accessing Teak Drive, but nevertheless, this was one letter of opposition that we did receive.

Um else who wants to speak with questions, concerns, or opposition.

If not, attorney Prollman or anybody else on the applicant scene wish to speak uh with a rebuttal.

No, other than to say happy holidays, no.

All right.

Uh seeing that there's no more public input.

I'm gonna close a public hearing and open up the deliberations of the board.

Thoughts from the board.

Mr.

Lennell.

Yeah, this is uh uh very uh well put together presentation.

Um what convinces me is you know, first of all, the con the CONCOM approved it uh with a stipulation.

These wetlands were actually constructed um years ago to move water from one place to the other.

They are uh deemed to be low quality wetlands, and uh my understanding is that the water uh carrying dispersal uh will be improved by this uh construction uh over what it is now.

So I am in favor of the application.

Other thoughts, Mr.

Neely.

So I'm I'm also in favor of the application.

Uh as Mr.

Lionel said, I was actually really uh impressed with the quality of this application uh between the maps and and all of the narrative.

Um, wetland A was obviously our biggest concern.

That's the largest wetland there, and they're not coming anywhere near A.

Honestly, I think these these two wetlands we're talking about are in wetlands in name only.

They're swales.

Um I do think the quality of water that's gonna go to Trestelbrook is gonna be significantly better.

At the end of the day, this is a landfill.

So I guarantee stuff is getting into this into these swales now and to bury these.

Um it's just the water is gonna be better going over to Trestlebrook.

We have the conservation commission who's actually added is asking to add some more wetlands into the uh teak drive side, net uh a net positive, I believe, for everybody.

Uh no wildlife was noted in the two swales.

Uh, once again, a great uh great report from these folks, so uh I'm in favor.

Yeah, I uh I I would agree, and I just also know that I I think the applicants um made the case for why the facility is necessary and why it makes sense to locate it in this location, and just given the size of the building uh and the surrounding uh support area, then it really is unavoidable.

Any other thoughts from the board?

Anyone wish to make a motion?

Mr.

Boucher.

Like to make a motion to approve the special exception for the City of Nashville on a division of public works applicant 848 West Holler Street, sheet D Lot 54 requesting a special exception from land use code section 190-112 to unpack two other wetland areas, man-made drainage swales totaling approximately 3,992 square feet to facilitate the construction of the proposed Department of Public Works Garage and Maintenance Facility Project.

It's in the R9 and R 30 GMZ zones, Ward 5.

We find that the requested use is listed in the special exception, is listed as a special exception.

We find that the request of use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly appeared pedestrian safety.

We find that the requested use will not overload any public water drainage or sewer system or any other municipal system to such an extent that the requested use or any developed use in the immediate year or any in any other area of the city will be unduly subjected to hazards affecting the health, safety, or general welfare.

We find that the um the special regulations the special exception um the um uh what we call it the um condition excuse me uh that was sorry.

That's what the wetland special conditions uh have been uh fulfilled.

Uh we find that the requested use will not appear the integrity or be out of character with the district or immediate neighborhood, which is located, nor do me nor be detrimental to the health morals or welfare of the cities of the residents of the city of Nashua.

Uh also we know that on October 9th, there was a favorable recommendation from the conservation commission.

So we'll we're going to adopt that with the one stipulation that they've added.

So with that, I make a motion to approve the special exception.

Sir Second.

Seconded by Mr.

Lionel.

Any discussion?

If not, all those in favor.

Passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Next is the application of Progress Reality Trust, 84 Lake Street, requesting the following variances from land use code section 190-16.

Table 16-3.

One, to exceed maximum number of stories, two and a half permitted, pre-proposed, and two, for a minimum land area, 40,000 square feet, uh 40,004 square feet, existing 261,360 square feet required to construct a 30-unit multifamily building.

Note that the zoning board did approve uh this application for a three-story 24-unit building uh in 2022, and um we approved this application on 20 in 2024, and it's about to expire, so you're requesting an extension.

Mr.

Chairman, members of the order, good evening.

Uh Andy Prollman and Prunier and Prolman uh here in Nashua.

Uh here on behalf of the Progress Reality Trust.

And Mr.

Chairman, you're absolutely right.

Uh, no changes to the plan, no changes of the presentation.

We're simply seeking an extension of the um application as we're about to expire.

Uh my client has had a lot on his plate and is just managing you know projects, and we are coming back to this project, but we didn't want to lose the permit that we have, so we're just seeking an ex uh an extension of what we had uh approved back in um January 9th, 2024.

So I could do a presentation again for you, but that's you I think you get it.

Questions from the board.

Mr.

Member of the audience you'd like to speak in favor of this application.

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

If not, then I'll close the public hearing and open up the deliberations of the board.

Thoughts from the board.

Mr.

New York, so excuse me.

I am in favor of this application.

Uh I do remember when it came the first time, and it's gonna be the same same rationale for me.

Um that is an outdated building with uh with um some outbuildings that are are may or may not be used, but but at the end of the day, this property uh what is being suggested with the residential uh building is a better fit for that area.

That area has had a lot more residential grow in that area, that buildings are getting a little bit taller in that area uh than the two and a half stories.

Um right across the street is a two and a half story building, uh, right up the street on the corner of Lake, and I I'm gonna guess that's pine is a five-story uh that's grown in the last couple of years.

Uh once again, the building that's there now, which is an office building.

Office buildings are uh folks who own office buildings having a really hard time filling in those buildings with with tenants.

CNBC this morning now the report uh that the uh office uh vacant uh vacancy rate is continuing to rise.

So uh I do believe the applicant needs uh to make this adjustment.

Uh it is in the best uh interest of the city, as well as the fact that we are uh trying to add housing stock in that area.

So for those reasons I'm in favor.

Other thoughts from the board.

Yeah, I would say uh I'm also in favor uh you know, absent any significant changes in the area or the zoning.

Uh I see no reason not to grant the two-year extension.

Uh you know, for the same findings that we made on January 9, 2024.

Anyone want to make a motion?

I'll make a motion to that effect.

Uh I I would move that the application of progress really trust 84 Lake Street requesting the following variances from section 190-16, table 16-3, and I've read them previously.

I won't read through them all again.

Um for a uh extension for a two-year extension for the variance that was granted on January 9, 2024 be approved with the same findings that we found at that time.

Sir Second, seconded by Mr.

Boucher.

Any discussion?

All those in favor.

We don't want to see you again in two years.

Well, uh, for this case.

Yeah, that's true.

Uh next is the application of Southern Hampshire Regional Medical Center.

Uh the owner at Justin Parker, Classic Signs is the applicant at 8 Prospect Street, requesting a bear requesting variance from land use code section 190-108 C6 to exceed maximum wall signing area per city right-of-way for the following three right-of-ways.

100 square feet allowed, 143.87 square feet proposed for prospect street, two 100 uh square feet allowed, 255.8 square feet for Dearborn Street, and three, 100 square feet allowed, 211.8 square feet proposed for medical center drive.

That's in the D1 MU zone in Ward 7.

And I presume you are the applicant.

Yes, I am.

Uh for the record.

Uh, my name is Justin Parker, uh representing uh Southern New Hampshire University by way of classic signs at 13 Columbia Drive.

And I think you meant Medical Center.

Oh, yep, medical center.

Uh 13 Columbia Drive, Amherst, New Hampshire.

Um, first off, I'd like to start out with a little bit of a correction on the right up.

Um the numbers listed for Prospect Street and Dearborn Street are the new signs.

Um there are existing signs there.

That's the square footage for the new signs.

The total proposed for Prospect Street will be uh 238.32 square feet.

Um there's already 94.45 existing.

And for Dearborn Street, um the uh total square footage proposed uh allowance would be 271.55 square feet.

Uh there's already 15.75 uh square feet of signage on that road.

All right, you can continue.

All right.

Um so basically the main goal of this project is just to increase the visibility of the hospital signage and just to aid in um uh emergency vehicles finding their way.

Um one of them is an emergency sign on medical center drive, um, basically where the emergency center is on Dearborn Street.

Uh that just signifies that you're in the right area, the um Southern New Hampshire uh medical center.

Um and then we have the main entrance uh as well as another Southern New Hampshire Medical Center sign uh right where the ambulances and those sort of vehicles pull up.

Um and now I'll go through the five points of flaw.

Um granting the granting of the requested variants will not be contrary to the public interest because the tenant that these signs advertised for is a hospital with an emergency room and other medical offices.

The increased visibility that the signs would provide would help emergency services find the hospital and the emergency room faster.

The proposed use will observe the spirit of the ordinance.

Uh while the tenant is a business, is not the typical commercial business that the sign that the uh is not the typical commercial business that the ordinance is mainly written for.

This is a hospital with an emergency room and is more public institution that provides essential services to the community.

I believe that the granting of these signs will benefit the public health and safety and welfare of it's the um substantial justice would be done to the property owner by granting the variants.

Um the benefit to the public of having the hospital and emergency room easier to find by emergency vehicles will far outweigh whatever harm that the increased amount of signings would cause.

The proposed use will not diminish the values of the surrounding properties.

The signs proposed are attached to the building.

It would not block any views or sight lines from the surrounding properties, and there are no competing businesses of the same type that are within eyesight of the signs.

Special conditions exist, so it's the literal literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship.

Owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area.

Denial of variance would result in unnecessary hardship because these signs are for a hospital and emergency room, which needs easily identifiable sign for the building itself.

And it's multiple entrances.

The hundred square foot per frontage limits the hospital's ability to adequately provide effective signage on the building as well as facing the street to better direct emergency vehicles and non-emergency health care services.

There is not a fair and substantial relationship between the general purpose of the ordinance provisions and the specific application that provision to the property because this business provides essential health health care and emergency services.

Rather than being a primary commer rather than being a primarily commercial business, these signs are more for identification more than advertising.

Proposed use is reasonable.

These signs advertise a hospital with an emergency room, which is a necessary service provided to the community.

These signs are mainly to help people identify the building rather than to eat increase sales or commerce for this business.

Anything else you'd like to ask?

Um at this point.

Okay.

Questions from the board.

You're free to take a seat.

Okay.

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

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board.

Uh Carter, nice to see you.

My name is Scott Cody.

I'm the Vice President of Facilities for the Southern Hampshire Health System.

Uh it's uh really been over about 10 years since the last time we were here looking to update our signage for uh the main campus.

Uh organizationally, we've recognized the need to uh update our image number one, but more importantly, to improve the uh external wayfinding for patients.

It's a busy campus.

People need to be able to find their way around.

But I'm not sure if you're familiar with a law that was recently passed uh in the state to the south of us uh concerning Laura's law where an individual had trouble finding an emergency room.

Uh and there was a mandate that was actually out there to improve that.

That gave us pause and a chance to step back and look to make sure that our facilities were well identified.

And that is really driving a lot of what it is that we're trying to do here.

Um one of the things I think that's very interesting in pointing out, because I've mentioned this several times when I've been before this board.

When you look at the Southern New Hampshire Medical Center campus that's encompassing now about eight city blocks downtown, we are surrounded by several different zoning districts.

Just to give you an example of that, we have D1 MU, we have RC, we have D3MU and GI all around us, all of which have different signing limitations and requirements associated with that.

So I have often raised before this board and through my friends within the planning department that we should consider a medical district to allow us the ability to be able to do this a little bit easier in terms of being able to put things together.

So again, uh the signage proposal that's been presented to you tonight, I think has been well thought out from an operational point of view, and we also believe it will be bring pride to uh uh to the community for the work that we do.

Uh and it's hard to believe that we've been part of this community really since 1893, and uh certainly very proud of what we do and look to continue that service for centuries moving forward.

Happy to take any questions if you have any.

Questions from the board.

Thank you.

Good to see you.

Thank you.

Anybody else you'd like to speak in favor of the application?

Anyone who'd like to speak with questions, concerns, or opposition to the application.

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

Uh thoughts from the board.

Mr.

Leno.

Um I just have a question for Mr.

Fogg.

Is there a problem with the discrepancy in the square footage between what there is in the proposal and what was advertised?

No.

We what we excuse me, what we advertised was the new signage of uh that was proposed on some of these right-aways.

We have it in the drawings exactly what Mr.

Parker said 271255 and the 238.

So I mean, if ten people wrote this down, you'd probably get 10 different ways of writing it.

We just wrote it for what we thought was the additional signage that they proposed.

Okay, I think just ask him.

Yeah, I think it's okay.

Yeah.

Okay, we can defend it.

That's fine.

And I'm I'm in favor of the application.

Yeah.

Mr.

Neely.

Yeah, I'm also in favor of the application.

So this is a rambling campus.

When you think about it, there's there's all kinds of nooks and crannies and signs in quite a few places.

But at the end of the day, it's a safety matter.

Um and many times in my votes, I I default to uh whatever the safest method is.

I'll I'll make that vote.

Um the fact that that you it's it's not super easy to find the emergency room exit is a concern, I think as a community, uh which makes it kind of a no-brainer for me.

Um at the end of the day, there's just it's a good application and great points raised by the applicant that probably we should be looking at this as its own district because it's such a rambling uh uh building complex, but anything to increase the uh visibility of uh customers who are driving in and out, and you know, let's be honest, this is New Hampshire.

These people may be coming on a on an inclement weather day trying to find the right place to go, and there are multiple doors in this building.

You know, it makes sense for these these larger uh signs to be where they need to be.

So uh fully in favor of this application.

Other thoughts.

Yeah, I I agree, and I would I would just add that you know, certainly um the the parcel is distinct just in the fact that it's shape, but also most particularly that it has uh road front on four sides, including some heavily traffic roads, particularly table seven drive and main street and Kinsey Street coming in.

So I think the the need for the signage is pretty critical.

Anyone want to make a motion?

Mr.

Leno?

I'd like to make a motion to approve the variants uh requested by Southern New Hampshire Regional Medical Center, owner Justin Parker, Classic Signs Applicant, 8 Prospect Street, sheet 31 lot 22, requesting variants from land use code section 190-108 C6 to exceed maximum wall sign area per city right-of-way for the following three right-of-way.

Um hundred square feet allowed, 143.87 square feet proposed for prospect street.

This is the additional uh footage, square footage as I understand for Mr.

Falk.

Um 100 square feet allowed, 255.8 square feet for Dearborn Street, and three 100 square feet allowed, 211.08 square feet proposed for medical center drive.

Uh this is in the D1 MU zone board 7.

Uh the board believes finds that granting the variance would not be contrary to public interest because this is uh wayfinding for a the medical center uh to help uh emergency vehicles and and clients uh and patients find the appropriate entrance to this very large campus.

Uh the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because um these signs do not detract uh from uh the public and uh enhance safety.

Granting the variants would do substantial justice because uh it would improve wayfinding to this again large business.

Uh there have been uh as noted issues in in other areas where signs were inadequate uh causing uh loss of life and and other serious problems.

So uh this would be uh substantial justice.

Um we have no evidence that values of surrounding properties would be diminished, and uh unnecessary hardship, uh the special conditions of the property.

This is a large and complex uh or it is a complex uh sprawling over many city blocks with many uh entrances and uh needing to find the correct entrance uh in an emergency uh is very useful.

So there is uh a fair and substantial relationship between the general public purpose of the ordinance and the specific application uh of that pro of that provision.

Um I get this right now.

Uh the proposed use is a reasonable one uh because uh it improves the signage, the wayfinding signage.

So I make a uh motion to approve the variance.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Potter.

Any discussion seeing none, all in favor.

All right.

Next is the application of Joshua Naughton, trustee of 169 Daniel Webster Revocable Trust, Optima Dermatology is applicant, 169 Daniel Webster Highway, requesting following variances.

One from land use code section 190-108 C8 to allow a second wall sign of 32 square feet where no wall sign is permitted, but one wall sign exists of 32 square feet, approved by variance on September 27th, 2025.

And the following variance is from land use code section 190-101, table 101-7.

To exceed maximum ground sign size, 10 square feet permitted, 64 square feet exists from the previously mentioned variants, 93.25 square feet proposed, and three to exceed the maximum ground sign height, eight feet permitted, 12 feet six inches existing from the previously granted variants, 15 feet and 9 inches proposed.

This is in the RC zone in board 8.

Excuse me.

Good evening, Mr.

Chair and members of the board.

My name is Morgan Hollis.

I'm an attorney at Godisman and Hollis, 39 East Pearl Street in Nashua.

And I'm here representing the owner, 169 Daniel Webster Highway Revocable Trust, and also the applicant Optima dermatology.

With me this evening is John Crowley of Optima to answer any questions.

The property is 169 Daniel Webster Highway.

The location is if you're getting off at exit two, if you're headed southbound, and you go off as if you're going to head south on Daniel Webster.

As soon as you hit Daniel Webster, you take a ride, it's immediately on your right.

Excuse me, if you're coming the other way and you go off for the exit and you get off on the opposite side of Daniel Webster, we are this location is immediately opposite that.

So it is right at that corner of the sort of intersection between Danny Webster Highway and the access road that goes over to Hudson off of exit two from the Everett Turnpike.

The zone is RC, and that is the conundrum here.

And then there's this office building.

And it's RC because immediately behind it are multifamily and immediately to the southwest along Daniel Abstract Highway, there is a also multifamily housing apartments.

But this is probably miszoned.

It was recognized to be an unusual situation when a variance was granted to allow this building and also to allow the building next to it to be constructed a great number of years ago.

And then after this buildings were up, it was recognized that allowing the signage in an RC zone is pretty limiting in that you can only have a certain limited size of ground sign and depending on the amount of setback from the frontage, you're allowed no wall sign.

When you have commercial buildings, particularly at a busy intersection, you need some relief.

The zoning board found that relief should be granted in 1999 when a ground sign was also allowed in addition to a wall sign, and the ground sign uh was allowed to be 32 feet instead of the 12 feet.

And then in uh 2005, there were variances allowing the ground sign uh to be higher, that is eight feet, uh is the maximum height, and they allowed a variance of 12 feet six inches, and they also allowed it to be increased up to 32 square feet.

Uh so you had this uh uh sort of increasing incremental increase in size, and the last variance in 2005 gave 64 square feet.

So that's how you came to have what you have for signage out there today.

Uh my client uh just recently received a conditional use permit to uh occupy this building for medical office purposes, where patients will come from uh fairly good distance for this type of medical practice for the medical procedures that might take place therein.

And a lot of those people are not as familiar as we all are with that little corner of Daniel Webster Highway, which as you probably know, uh even on the best of days is quite busy and on the worst of days is a nightmare.

Um but it's important to have as much signage as possible.

You have in your pamphlet a number of pictures, which I think is attorney prolumin and as the city who said a picture speak a thousand words and some difficult analysis, and this is one of those, because normally I think a zoning board would be inclined to say would be given you relief.

What more?

Why do you need more relief just because you're putting a different tenant in there?

But I think if you look at the signage, you can see why variance was granted in the past, and now we have uh want to occupy the third floor of that building, and the proposal is to move the existing sign for the real estate business down on the floor that is located and put the same size sign up above.

And now we want to occupy the third floor of that building, and the proposal is to move the existing sign for the real estate business down on the floor that is located and put the same size sign up above.

So that's the wall sign.

On the ground sign, you see the pictures of the existing ground sign.

And you could try to remove all the panels and subdivide them into three, but none of the tenants are particularly happy about that because they've worked hard to get that recognition.

So the best proposal is either to lower to put a new panel under the existing sign, which may interfere with some limited visibility as you look to the north as you're exiting that site, or put it up above where it won't bother anybody.

And that's the proposal is to add another panel up above of the same size.

So that's essentially what we're looking for.

I think the pictures in your pamphlet also locate the property, locate the signage, and show that the distance of the building is about 200 feet back from the road.

So you do need a sign of of good size, and that's what was approved back in 2005 for the real estate business sign that's there, and we're asking for the same size.

The arguments on the criteria, although we're asking for three variances, the arguments are essentially the same.

And so, with the chair's permission, I'm just going to cover all three in one argument situation.

And I know you have to deliberate separately on the signs as you did for the hospital signage.

First of all, the proposal if the variance is granted will not be contrary to the public interest.

The criteria is pretty clear.

You cannot alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and you cannot threaten health safety or welfare if you grant a variance.

So in this instance, there's no real change.

We're ask asking for an increase in the signage, but not substantial increase.

The signage themselves will still be all be under the hundred feet mark, which we heard about from the hospital.

And so we think that there will be no change, no substantial change or alteration of the character of the neighborhood.

It's a real uh across the street are signs, which if you drove out there you saw are quite a bit larger than this and quite a bit uh more demanding of attention.

So we're just trying to uh compete in a fair way so people who are driving north and south on Daniel Webster in that area will know where it is and not go up and have to make a turn U-turn at Tully or go south and go quite a distance in order to make a U-turn.

So it will not threaten health safety or welfare, and that the signs don't block anything.

They simply uh show a better location and a better uh wayfinding method.

In fact, it's arguable that by allowing the increase in size because of the St.

Joe's signs, which are right next door, a lot of people will be turning in looking for a medical center.

If the signage is not clear and unambiguous, they'll make that left turn into the St.

Joe's and won't know where they go.

The traffic will get a little more congested.

Whereas if the sign is right on the building, you'll know what you're looking for.

Optima.

Number two, um, granting is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.

The same arguments as contrary to public interest, not alter the essential character, nor will it threaten health safety or welfare.

It's important to provide direction with signage, and in this instance, it will improve.

Um we want to make sure everyone is able to locate where they're headed to and not uh spend too much time on the highways or creating congestion, slowing down at that intersection where if you're in the wrong lane, getting into the correct lane will be difficult.

Um, it will not have versely impact values of the surrounding neighborhood.

There are two office buildings, the next door neighbor office building, as I said, is occupied by a series of medical offices operated under the St.

Joe's name.

And adding additional signage will not adversely affect their value.

In fact, it will probably uh maintain or or even enhance their value, and that fewer people will get lost going in that direction.

Um, substantial justice will be done.

Uh in a commercial or highway business, the signage that's proposed would be generally allowed for this size of this building based upon the frontage, front area of the building.

But because it's not in that zone, um, we have to come before you.

Is there any harm to the public if these larger signs are granted?

No, there'll be no harm.

So you have no real balance there of the injustice being uh against the private interest versus harm to the public.

In this case, it would be in the public's interest to have additional signage.

And number five, the hardship requirement is have to first demonstrate that the property is unique.

I think the zoning board has found that this property is unique on four separate occasions.

First for the use and then following up from signage uh requests.

So I don't think there's any question it's unique.

Location makes it unique, the intersection makes it unique.

The surrounding in the back of the residential multifamily makes it unique.

A highway down ramp makes it unique.

There's no fair and substantial relationship between the purpose of the small signage allowed in RC and no wall signage and enforcement against this property for smaller and lower standalone ground signs.

Because this is in the wrong zone, it uh doesn't make sense to enforce the wrong zoning ordinance.

So it really comes down to it is clearly unique.

There's no fair and substantial relationship, but is our proposal to add additional square footage reasonable?

And we think is reasonable given the nature of what surrounds it and the type of building and the access difficulties to this site.

Happy to answer any questions.

Um is is my client who's here this evening.

Questions from the board.

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

Thank you.

Is there anybody in the audience you'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, I'm going to close the public hearing and open the deliberations of the board.

Thoughts from the board?

Mr.

Boucher.

Um I'm going to support the application.

I I believe that the applicant has made the case for all the criteria.

Uh again, simply you know there is uh challenge with the zoning on this property.

Um the building itself is almost several hundred feet back from the road.

Um the sign itself is uh is back from the road enough, so I don't believe that that impedes any issues with adding uh signage on that.

I think the uh scale of the building and what they're proposing, uh it's not it's not out of character with anything else that does on the nucleus highway.

Um and again um I I travel down there often enough down that way.

And um it's pretty busy now in this section, so you're paying a lot sometimes you're paying more attention to the traffic around you and everything that's moving around.

So I think more uh, you know, something more to identify what's there would be helpful.

Um I've I've seen some people do some crazy things like take a left-hand turn when they're not supposed to.

Um again, because they've gone past and they're they're they're making some type of a legal U-turn or something.

So I think anything to help out this facility, but again, it's off the road, it's not right on the road, and I think it's uh reasonable request.

Other thoughts from the board.

Yeah, I I I would agree, and you know, I would just note it's a heavily traveled corridor, and I think as probably all of us have experienced, you know, you you miss the driveway and uh DW Highway.

It's it's a thing, you know, to turn around, contributes to more congestion in the corridor.

Uh I support the application as well.

Would anybody like to make a motion?

Mr.

Nealin.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the variance for Joshua Naughton, trustee of the 169 Daniel Webster revocable trust owner, optimal dermatology applicant 169 Daniel Webster Highway, sheet A, Lot 228 requesting the following variances.

Number one from land use code section 190-108, subsection C sub Section 8 to allow a second wall sign of 32 square feet where no wall sign is permitted, but one wall sign exists of 32 square feet, approved by variants on 927, 2005.

And the following variances from land use code section 190-101.

Table 101-7, uh, number two to exceed maximum ground sign size, 10 square feet permitted, 64 square feet exists from a 927 2005 variants, 93.25 square feet proposed, and number three to exceed maximum ground sign height, eight feet permitted, twelve feet six inches existing from a 927 2005 variance, 15 feet nine inches proposed.

So this is in the RC zone in ward 8.

Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest in that as uh discussed by the board, there is quite a bit of traffic in that area.

It's also a very unique area where you have uh not just the Daniel Webster traffic, but also two highway uh inbound uh lanes.

Um and we've all noted that there's been some uh traffic deviations down there.

Um so by adding this signage, this should uh add to the public interest of safety.

The spirit of the ordinance would be observed uh in that once again, due to safety and the design of Danny Webster Highway and the location of the building on their property, it does make sense to have signage on the building as well as a larger sign uh that makes it easily identifiable and sets it up so that folks can see it from a distance and make their uh adjustments uh for lane traffic to turn accordingly.

Uh granting the variants would do substantial justice, and that this is a new business, and they should be allowed to advertise their services to the public.

For the following reasons, uh excuse me, the values of the surrounding properties uh would not be diminished.

We had uh no uh testimony either way, but uh based on our experience, there's no reason uh a sign along Daniel Webster Highway would reduce property value and as to unnecessary hardship.

Uh this uh property several times has been to the uh board for variances due to its location in a zone that may not really uh be indicative of the type of business this is being Danny Webster Highway, it is a very uh unique uh set of traffic and businesses down there.

Uh therefore we believe that there would be a hardship uh to the property if the uh applicant was not allowed to properly advertise the services, uh, and it is critical for the safety of Danny Webster Highway that we allow these um larger and multiple signs down there.

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

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Potri.

Uh, any discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor.

Thank you.

And uh the final application is uh excuse me, uh from Jacob Diamond, 13 Fulton Street, requesting a variance from land use code section 190-32 B1 to exceed the maximum size of an accessory dwelling unit, 750 square feet permitted, 1,000 feet proposed for an accessory dwelling unit on the first floor of an existing house in the RC zone in board six.

And I'm guessing you are the applicant.

That's me.

I'm Jacob Diamond 13 Fulton Street, uh Nashua.

Um, yeah, so you know, a little bit about me and about kind of the purpose of it and what I'm proposing here.

Is uh I've lived in Nashua for most of my life.

Um I've been the owner and occupant of 13th Fulton Street for um almost a decade now.

Um the purpose of it, it uh I know you said a thousand, it's actually 860.55 square feet.

Um but going through some of the items uh granting the variance is not contrary to public interest uh because the accessory dwelling unit doesn't alter the exterior uh appearance or change the character of the neighborhood in any way.

The work is entirely interior, uh, so there's no exterior visual impacts, there's no additional noise, uh, there's no effect on traffic density, as the um the new codes that came out this summer for ADUs allows for me to have it, and the parking that I have supports uh the proposed uh plan.

The design is you know within safety and building regulations, uh it's protecting public safety and health and uh the welfare and preserving the look of the neighborhood.

Um the the intent of the ordinance is to allow for a small accessory dwelling unit in the space of the existing residential setting.

Um since there's no modifications made to the exterior, um, it's still from the curve, it's still gonna look like a residential building.

Um it's also worth noting too that uh it's not like this is a rundown building.

I've been before the board before for this.

Um it's an awkward spot, it's a corner lot, it's a building that's built in 1902.

Um substantial upgrades have already been done in terms of roofing, siding, windows, doors, electrical, and plumbing, they've all been updated.

Um I've been in the trades with my grandfather since I was like 12 years old because I had the wing span.

So I've been in the trades a long time, and that's kind of what I do is I just tinker around.

Uh I work for a roofing and solar company, so as you can imagine, you know, I'm pretty well traversed in this.

It's not something that's uh it's not something that's unusual, but the thing that's unusual is the property itself.

So going through, I don't know if you folks have a copy of the plans.

Um, in terms of like the top section, there's already a kitchen there, there's already a washer dryer, there's already stairs, there's already a bathroom, uh, there's already a small room on the right, there's already a living room there.

Uh the reason for this is because this structure has three entry doors, three chimneys, four staircases.

It's just such an awkward building, too, especially when it was built in 1902.

It looks like it's three different editions that have been stacked on from prior years, so it's just an awkward space to sort of navigate through.

So the the reason is is uh the exterior wall on the right-hand side labeled bedroom two.

If you move that over, it eliminates the staircases to the basement.

I still have a bulkhead.

There's still gonna be staircases to the second floor.

It's just eliminating one of the staircases to have a more open uh just have a more open floor plan.

This way it's a more usable space.

Uh the reason for going for this is uh, you know, I have a grown family, and especially around the holidays.

I don't know about you guys, but having somewhere to put the in-laws is uh that's kind of you know one of the things that sort of struck it, especially with uh what else we get here.

Um especially where it's not gonna have any overcrowding or disruption to the neighborhood.

Um it's not gonna really be impacting much.

The only thing I'm asking for is some additional square footage.

If you consider that there's three entry doors, it's really it's less than a 10 by 10 of kind of what I'm asking for, because it's not like you're gonna be able to use the space around any of the doors, and I've already tried to look if I can move any of the doors between the deck, the front door, and that back door being the shared space.

There's really no way to sort of move the doors or to move staircases or to really do what I'm trying to propose and have it be a functional usable space where I can you know put more roots down and continue to grow my family here in Nashua.

Um see if I have anything else.

Is there any any questions anybody has?

That's all I had.

Questions from the port, Mr.

Boucher.

Uh the second and third floor of the building.

Um I'm assuming that's one unit and you're occupying that.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mr.

Nealing.

So thank you for your testimony that that helped a little bit.

You know, we need we we all do drive-by's.

And so you know, do a drive-by of your of your um property.

Because of the snow, I couldn't tell.

Really, what's the parking situation in your do you do how many spots do you really have in a driveway?

I couldn't really tell.

Um, so the there is concerns in the neighborhood about parking.

Uh I'll typically park cars on the grass.

If I do that, I can squeeze four.

I have the patio in the back where I can squeeze another.

Really, if I really tried to, I could squeeze six cars in there, but just with the curb cut, I can fit about three and a half cars.

So yeah, I don't want you to squeeze things, but you say you can get three cars in with the curb cut as is.

Okay.

Exactly.

And um, yeah, it's definitely unique when you look at your building to, you know, I would have I would have thought the primary was on the first floor, which is where you're trying to put the ADU.

So um, just to confirm, so second and third floor is really one unit.

First floor is gonna be an ADU.

Um thing that kind of threw me a little bit, and maybe you can clear it up for me.

So when I looked at the plans, everything said apartment.

This is really about an ADU, right?

When when I looked at the city, yeah, the architect was a little bit confused on that.

Yeah, yeah.

So sometimes um, and I just wanted to want to make sure we're on the same page.

So really you're talking about an ADU, that it's just the the person putting your plans together, road apartment, da-da-da.

I mean, I if I was good at CAD, I would have done the plans myself, but yeah, I already had to go through a few renditions with this thing since I was trying to move it around.

But yeah, it's really just an ADU, which is I mean, as you guys probably know, the the rules have changed on that uh over the summer, and that's kind of why I jumped on this, and I've been kind of working on this the past three or four months to get to this point.

And then and then my last question is um so I think you mentioned at the beginning we first got up here, so really look up about 860 square feet because you're probably not gonna include that staircase, which I think was probably included in a thousand feet, right?

Uh yeah, if you want to include the staircase or I don't know if it's a speculate, like what's the real living area?

Okay, the port.

So the real living area is gonna be 860 square feet, right?

For the ADF.

Exactly.

The entire footprint of the entire space is the house of it.

It's just an awkward.

I mean, even when you look at the plans itself, there's just so many jogs and bumps, it's such just an awkward layout of property itself.

Other questions from the port, Mr.

Bashek.

Uh I'm sorry, I didn't hear whether or not um test of that you would uh comply with the accessory dwelling unit criteria?

Yep, the only criteria that I don't meet is the 750.

And I'm at uh in that ADU 860.55, which is at the center of the plans.

And then if you subtract kind of the unusable space, it really is less than a 10 by 10 over talking about.

All right, I think I might have missed it out, but thank you very much.

No, no worries at the questions from the board.

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

Perfect, thank you guys.

Happy all of it.

Is there anybody in the audience 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?

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

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

Uh with budding properties, the Mr.

Diamond.

And I sent you folks a letter.

Yes, we did.

And there's a few concerns we have, even though he has good intentions for this add on from the first floor.

Could you be be sure to speak into the microphone, please?

Because we're going to be able to do that.

Okay, I'm sorry.

Yeah, there you go.

Yeah, if you uh if you review my letter, um it seems that uh the second and third floor have been occupied by what we perceive as tenants, maybe not currently.

So uh the way he's used the building over the past few years is not in character with a single family house.

And I'd like you to give that some consideration.

And my neighbors that are here, I mean, we live right next to the house, and I mean we can't document on paper exactly, but all we all we're relating to you folks is what we observe.

And uh if you look at if you read one one portion of my letter suggests that uh he's been absent most of the time, although he may be present now, and I'd say over the last six years, uh he's been uh almost like a la absentee landlord because he's had the second and third floor occupied.

The arrangement, I don't know if they were tenants per se, but he just in his testimony related to you folks that there was bathrooms and kitchens on the second and third floor.

So that's something to think about.

So if you were to grant him this variance, that would, even though it's an accessory unit on the first floor, that would actually create two units on the first floor and two units second and third floor.

That doesn't seem to be in keeping with a single family home.

It's just some and then parking.

He mentioned curb cut.

Uh I grew up knowing the people that own that house from the 1950s, and that curb cut can accommodate two cars, not three and a half.

So over the course of time, we've seen as many as four cars stacked in there.

So how can you have four cars stacked in in there and only maintain a uh single family home profile?

So anyway, I mean uh we try and get along with our neighbors, and uh it's not our intention to be spiteful or mean, but you do have criteria here that needs to be satisfied to uh do this project.

Owner occupancy, the owner must live or either live in or the primary or the ADU.

And it has to be a one house arrangement.

Now, he's maybe residing there now, but we what we fear is he will make these upgrades in a year or two from now, he may sell the property, and we're we're stuck with additional congestion with four units because the new owners won't be concerned about what we're talking about now.

I guess uh I'd wish you would uh review my I I've got an older letter there from back in 2019 when he wanted to put on a third story for extra room for himself.

Well, he put on a put on an extra story for room for other people to occupy it, not just himself as a single family arrangement.

Well, I appreciate the board's consideration, and I think maybe one or two of my neighbors might want to corroborate some of my statements.

Thank you, people questions from the board.

You can take a seat.

Is there anybody else who'd like to speak with questions or concerns?

Gentlemen, my name is Guy Paternal, and um I live at 25 Fulton Street.

And um on that house where you say, I mean, I always thought it was a three family, because at one time, like just like he said, the third floor and the second floor was occupied, and there were two uh two musicians because they'd come out on their decks and play the guitars, and and they were there for I'd say a good year, a good year and a half anyway, and then all of a sudden they were gone, and then there was just uh somebody else in there too, but I didn't see them much at all.

But that's all I know is that they they've been renting them dwelling units out anyway that I know of.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else who'd like to speak?

Questions, concerns, or opposition.

Uh good evening.

Um Michael Patton, I live at 14 Fulton Street.

Um, according to this house across our place is uh the parking.

There's always four cars in the driving parking lot and two on the side.

So there's usually six cars that will occupy that unit.

As far as the owner, he is living there now.

I believe he may have lived in South Carolina, or he uh also has a real estate picture in the window, which we can't understand.

But um there definitely were renters.

We've talked to them quite a few times.

We have yard sales, and they say they like the place and living there, but as him living there, uh I haven't seen him there much except for the last year, let's say.

And that's basically all I have to say.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else who'd like to speak?

I'm sorry.

Oh, I thought you were uh did anybody in the board have a question.

All right, if there's nobody else who'd like to speak, yeah, you do have the opportunity to provide a rebuttal.

How are we doing, folks?

Uh Jacob Diamond, 13 Fulton Street.

I mean, I understand where if you've lived in a neighborhood for multiple generations and you've seen it since you know a hundred years ago, it can definitely can feel you know overwhelming when somebody's coming in and making changes.

Uh it's worth noting that the intent of parking additional cars on the lawn is because parking is tough there, and that's an attempt to try to alleviate any stress from any of my neighbors.

Uh the signs he's talking about in the window are from Trinity Solar from the company that I work for.

I work remotely and I operate offices out of New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, uh, Pennsylvania.

So in terms of like not being there, I'm usually on the road coming and going.

And I don't I don't know about North Carolina and all that, but uh it's also worth noting that I'm not asking for a variance on parking as the curb cut allows for what the ADU regulations are.

Um really I try to be a good neighbor.

I try to stay out of people's way.

I try to, you know, bake folks' bread for my my spouse over there.

Like I try as best I can.

It's just you know, sometimes it's difficult living with neighbors, especially in the situation that we're in.

The purpose of this is mostly for the growing family for when you know relatives need to stay over and folk, things like that.

I have no intentions of moving or selling at any point in the next decade.

So that was all.

Questions from the board.

Uh just two.

Um not so much a question, but can you confirm that you are a resident of property?

Yes.

And can you confirm uh what or whether or not there are it is currently a single family home?

It is currently a single family home.

Yep.

Uh there is an open permit to put a stove on the third floor, which is part of this whole ADU process of making the first floor the ADU.

So there's no kitchen on the third floor as of right now, but there is an open permit for it, so that has been approved.

Any other questions?

Seeing none, you can take a seat.

Thank you, guys.

So you do have the um opportunity for the folks who spoke in opposition.

One of you can come forward and uh give us the last word if you wish.

You don't have to, but if you want to speak amongst yourselves and see whether or not one of you wants to come forward, you can do that.

You'll and you'll have up to five minutes.

Again, I'm Rick Mark Heel uh and um the owner of uh two properties that have but uh 13 Fulton.

And I'm gonna my final analysis is he's trying to satisfy you folks to get approval.

And things have changed after you granted them the first permit back in 2019 for the third uh third story added.

And as uh two of my neighbors have corroborated, there have been uh other people in there that we perceive that were tenants.

Maybe that's not the case now.

So what what we're thinking moving forward, he's trying to make it so that you folks will digest and accept uh and that he is in compliance with the conditions.

But after a few months or another year, uh I believe he'll revert back to more than one other than just his own family.

So in the end, it it's my opinion that it'll it'll turn into uh modified back to at least a three-unit building and not a single family home over time.

So I wish you would take into consideration the content of both my letters, and if you have any doubt, uh is there a provision for you folks to table something like this to look into some of the uh details further.

That's at the discretion of the board.

All righty.

I appreciate your uh consideration, board members.

Um and were there any questions for the board?

All right, seeing none, I'm gonna close the public hearing and open up the deliberations of the board.

Uh I will just note I don't know if other people did, but I did go on to the assessing records to see whether or not it's listed as a single family residence, and it is.

Mr.

Leno.

Whether uh this building in the past was uh used by renters or whether it might be in the future used by renters is not an R purve.

Um we are uh looking at the rules for an ADU, which uh has been noted were dramatically simplified by the state legislature this year.

So um there's a lot less that that we can do, and we're simply being asked to approve a uh rather small overage on the square footage for an ADU, and I don't see any reason to oppose that other thoughts, Mr.

Boucher.

Uh I also agree with Mr.

Lionel.

Um points you he spoke to again on the face of it, uh what they're asking for.

I I don't see any reason why we could uh we would uh deny the application.

Uh again, for for those folks who I don't want to discount uh the folks that have come out.

Uh I think that going forward, I think if they have any concerns, I think that's a uh uh that that is a uh code enforcement issue type of thing, um, and I think that's where it should be addressed if there's additional units being put there.

And as far as the uh application for a stove right here on the third floor, again, there's processes that have to be in place, and again, if that was done without uh going through the pre shamels, again that's a code enforcement issue, which we we do not get involved with.

But for the uh for the application of Ms.

Lionel cell for what they are asking for, I I think it's a very reasonable uh request, uh, again, notwithstanding any of the concerns that the neighbors have any other thoughts, Mr.

Neely.

Yeah, we it's tough for the board when we have you know kind of a he said she said type situation.

Um and we don't like it when neighbors are in opposition.

That doesn't make a comfortable situation for for the folks uh in the living in the neighborhood or us.

Um so that being said, um I appreciate Mr.

Markeel um both his letter, his testimony, his letters, his testimony, and I get the frustration that's coming out of there.

Um I you know, I do believe the applicant knows he probably has some fences to mend with the neighbors, and I do and I do understand that is uh part of what's what's driving the angst in this neighborhood is those are very thin streets.

I know I was down there doing my drive-by and uh I was I was fighting with uh with an Amazon van to have enough room to move around down there.

So I get it, right?

So I I get that it's every time there's a car in the street, it it makes things significantly worse than than some other areas.

But as these other two gentlemen noted, um we have to go with what what the um application says, what the testimony says.

Um he is abiding by everything on the accessory dwelling unit affidavit, and it is significantly easier to get it an ADU than it was even a year ago.

Um I think part of what brings up the angst is that it's not normal for us to see an ADU on the first floor with with the primary residence on the second and third floor.

Like it just it it kind of messes with your senses a little bit when you look at it.

Usually when we hear an ADU or seeing ADU, it's in the basement, or it's the one on the third floor, not not the main area.

So I think that's throwing things off here a little bit.

Um so I am going to be in favor of the application, but once again, I do think the applicant knows he has some some work to do in the neighborhood there to amend some fences.

Yeah, I I would agree.

Uh I struggled with this a bit, but um I I think particularly that it's an 860 square feet and not a thousand makes it easier for me.

But uh the the chat we see this challenge any time an ADU is proposed in an existing dwelling.

Uh you you you have the footprint that you have, you have the square footage that you have, and it can be challenging to try to um you know adapt it in any other way.

Whether it was on this floor, the basement, or the second floor, we'd probably be looking at the same issue.

Um I I do appreciate the concerns from the neighbors.

Uh the reality though is is that multiple unrelated people can live in the single family home.

Um, and whatever the relationship is between them financially or otherwise isn't something that's within our purview either.

Um applicant has stated it's a single family home and that he does in fact reside there.

Uh cities assessing records could say it's a single family home.

So I I think that is what we have to go with.

Any other thoughts?

Anybody want to make a motion?

Yeah, I'll take it.

Mr.

Nealing.

Like to make a motion to approve the variance for Jacob Diamond owner 13 Fulton Street, sheet 100 lot 13, requesting a variance from land use code section 190-32, subsection B, subsection one to exceed maximum size of accessory dwelling unit.

Uh 750 square feet permitted, 1,000 square foot proposed, although the testimony did say it would be 860.55 square feet.

And this is proposed for an accessory dwelling unit on the first floor of his existing house.

This is in the RC zone in ward six.

Um granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest, in that this as noted is a single family home per the records of the city.

Um, and that an ADU is permitted under relatively new state rules, and um the extra 110 square feet uh the board does not find egregious as a size over the the allowed 750 750 square feet.

The spirit of the ordinance uh would be observed uh once again, the city has been uh looking for more housing stock, uh specifically ADUs to be built, and while most are under the 750 square feet, uh the board is not find that 110 square feet uh would be egregious.

Uh granting that the variants would do substantial justice as the applicant did note that he does have right under state law to build an ADU and that they are going to be using that for um additional housing for their their own additional housing needs.

Uh we do not have any testimony about the value of the surrounding property being uh diminished, but in the board's opinion, the surrounding property values will not be diminished uh based on what we have seen in the past.

And uh special condition of the property.

There was some uh discussion about um this this ADU being on the first floor.

The applicant did note that there are some uh I think he said three stairwells as well as three chimneys that cause some interesting angles inside of this building.

It does not make sense from the board's uh point of view to put up some type of partition to take away 110 square feet as noted uh special specifically by Mr.

Mankara.

Uh we often see uh properties where it just makes sense to go to a different um amount of square footage due to the footprint of the house, and it would be egregious for us to ask them to put up a wall to take out 110 square feet.

Uh so for those reasons I make a variance to approve uh make a motion to approve the variance.

Sir is second.

Seconded by Mr.

Lanel.

Any discussion?

All those in favor.

Sorry, your uh variance application is granted.

I haven't stated it earlier because we had a lot of kind of frequent flyers, but uh there is a 30-day window of appeal, so you should just be mindful of that.

You are free to proceed, but you know, keep that in mind.

And and of course, for you folks as well.

All right.

So moving on to the rest of our business, I don't think we have an upcoming agenda.

No, we still have we have we don't have a second meeting in general.

I'd like to thank you for your consideration and your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

We do not have a second meeting in December, so we still have plenty of time that we're accepting applications.

So we won't we won't even really be advertising for the next meeting until December 30th.

So we still have a little bit of time, so no new agenda as of yet.

But as soon as we have it, we'll certainly email it to the board members.

I think we all appreciate not having a meeting on the 24th.

So it's 20.

Um, 23rd.

Yeah, 23rd.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Uh okay, because I was looking at it like, huh, it was on my calendar.

Yeah, no.

Um minutes.

They belonged to us.

Mr.

Potts.

Uh the um the first page, um, there's the little block of voting on this case, which that was postponed, so we didn't vote.

I think that was just maybe a copy and paste.

Like on the very first page, Carter.

Okay.

Um also said I was one of the voting members, but I I wouldn't have been because I was uh I was the fixth wheel at that meeting.

Um and then um page 19, the fourth paragraph, um that Mr.

McCara stated that um I think what we want to say, Mr.

Bankara stated that there will be no significant impact on habitat uh or endangered species.

Um strike um strike will result um and then to the last sentence and that there was no testimony on um about that um as it as it is clearly a residential law.

Like that fourth paragraph just I think was missing a little bit, but uh I think that cleans it up.

That's all I had.

Very good.

Anyone else?

See none.

Anybody would make a motion on the minutes to adopt as amended.

So Mr.

Todd.

Second.

Seconded by Mr.

Boucher discussion.

All those in favor.

All right, I don't think we have any reason to review the bylaws.

No regional impact.

Oh no, yeah, we don't we don't have an agenda.

And so that takes us to the public meeting, which is regarding 36th granite street.

Uh, we're being asked to provide meaningful findings of fact from the housing appeals board based uh only on the certified record as it existed before the ZBA hearing on September 26, 2023.

So I think everybody has been provided with a packet of information, which um so we've had an opportunity, I think, to see the order from the court, and um staff has thoughtfully copied uh prior meeting minutes and uh the application materials.

So I think the charge before us is to articulate for the court what our findings are, and I would say specific to each criterion um based solely on that.

I certainly have my thoughts.

I've made some notes, which I'm happy to share, but I'd be interested to hear anybody else has some thoughts they wish to share.

So just to confirm, uh, when we do get to the point where we're so so first of all, we are gonna have a discussion, correct?

Yes.

All right, and then when we do get to the point where we're gonna make a motion, we're gonna go the full five points, right?

Yes, correct.

At least that's what I would suggest.

Understanding as well.

Okay.

Mr.

Lennell.

Yeah.

Um as I understand it, uh, we're supposed to ignore what happened at the at the last meeting.

And from my perspective, nothing that I heard at that last meeting changed my view on any of the criteria.

Um I believe that we made the correct decision multiple times.

Um and I see no I I would be in favor of simply repeating what we said the last time.

Reading the HAB ruling, to me, my interpretation is the that there was this uh uh view that we had somehow uh allowed the additional uh testimony to influence our decision.

Um and I didn't see any evidence of that.

Um I noted that you know in what the the lawyer was saying that the that the zoning board you know i isn't supposed to suggest other ways of doing what the what the applicant wants to do, but that's exactly what we do in many cases.

And I'm thinking just recently uh where somebody wanted to put the solar array in the front yard within the setback, and we had suggested at least two different ways they could accomplish this without violating the ordinances, and we denied that variance.

And to me, this is the same thing.

Um the owner wants to do a particular thing, doesn't want to do it the way that the that the board would suggest that avoids use uh uh violation of the variances.

Well, sorry, uh one of the criteria is there's no other reasonable way to uh to do what he wants, and there is, and we said that.

So am I upset?

Am I thinking this is a waste of our time?

Yes, I thought, but uh this is what we get.

So we get I um I you know I I agree, I don't understand.

I think this is I I would agree that it's a waste of time because I don't understand what it's accomplishing.

Um nevertheless, um it's what we have to do.

Um so I went I at least my approach was I went through primarily the minutes.

And I I I take this very narrowly in the sense of I think that not only did we have to find specific findings for each criterion based on the record that was before us at the time, um, but even if I might have a different thought today, I don't think I can apply it if um it's not actually in the record.

Um so I I I looked at it very much um you know, based on what was in the minutes, what the board said and what the testimony that was made um yeah, what happened where this goes after this, I don't know, but um I guess I can guess.

Mr.

Potrick.

I I wonder if it would be helpful if um of us, maybe you, Mr.

Chairman, came up with sort of a draft, you know, draft proposed findings that could have uh citations that the specific you know language of the specific pages, specific lines in the minutes, um, so that we can ensure you know that we're all that we're meeting all the points of law and that they're all adequately supported in the record.

Good suggestion.

I did.

Um I I I didn't cite lines in the minutes, but I I can I'm happy to tell you with what I came up with if that's helpful for folks.

Absolutely.

Um so the first finding is that granting the variance would not be in the public interest because it would alter the essential.

Should we formally make a motion so that we can have um all of this incorporated into our findings before we start going over them or I think that's fair.

So before we get to that, could if we were gonna make that a motion, maybe we could go a little more discussion before we get to the motion.

Because I do have some points that I would like to throw out there that may add to this.

Um so I do want to put on the record that I am um still flabbergasted that this has come back to us again.

I thought we were very clear multiple times.

I don't know why they have, and the court has come back to us.

Um and I will fully put it on the record that feel like uh they have uh kicked it back at us because they did not want to make a decision, and I do not believe that's what their purpose is is to keep kicking it back at us.

Um that being said, um, as Mr.

Mankara was was talking about, it was critical to go through the original minutes, but I also thought it to be very uh instructive to go through the letter provided by Divine Millimet.

And and I will tell you, I got my marker out, and and we did I I do believe that attorney Swiniarski, and I'm sure I'm killing his name, um, was making statements that we have not um always seen as the rule of law here.

At the end of the day, I do believe he was taking some some um some some licenses to make some assumptions, as Mr.

Lionel was was um uh alluding to.

Um and and just obfuscating the whole thing.

You know, we're talking about breezeways and touch whatever.

That was just that was that was just a bunch of chaff thrown out there.

Um so I I did go through his letter specifically today, and I'd like to just point out a couple things from his letter specifically that I do not believe um was brought forward um properly during the testimony from from him originally, and then we came back the second time.

So if I'm I'm gonna reference his letter here on page four of their letter, uh top paragraph, yes.

This is the letter of November 1, 2024.

This is November 1, 2024, correct.

So page four under the proposed use is a reasonable one.

He had noted in his letter that the property is relatively unique from others in the neighborhood because it has separate access points on two public rights of way, Granite Street and Davis Court.

I would argue that it is it is not unique because there are uh at least three properties that have that same criteria.

And Mr.

Mr.

Falk in his uh statements and had also noted there was a fourth.

And that I'm you know, maybe maybe splitting hairs here, but at the end of the day, this is not a specifically unique property, in my opinion.

Um the applicant stated uh that the they the applicant proposes to better utilize the property in conformity with the urban residential setting in which it lies by providing an additional single family structure.

Um this is in my opinion not consistent with the neighborhood.

We did not find anything in blocks around that where there were multiple uh properties with multiple residences that were not one building, and that's really the crux of the matter here, um, as Mr.

Lionel was alluding to.

At the end of the day, any of the other multi-family structures in in blocks around this were all one building.

While there were some outbuildings, none of them were were uh habitable for for humans, it was barns, it was you know, whatever.

Um so uh it it it for this to move forward is very much not consistent with the neighborhood in any way, and I think that's that's a key part of why we ruled against it.

Um the this is an older established neighborhood.

Um while it is not specifically in the historic district, they are older houses, they are larger, longer lots.

Um when you take a look at the map, it is it's a fascinating neighborhood in that um specifically that this property and several on either side are long and thin, and uh and the conversation that we had is to stick another residence down in the middle where they're proposing.

That's gonna kill the sight lines for everybody else.

And so I do think that that would that would uh lead to a lack of substantial justice for all the neighbors who by the way came out and and opposed this for one partially for that reason.

And at the end of the day, uh you know, I don't think the first time, too.

Yeah, correct.

Yeah, right.

And so as I read the record again, and and as Mr.

Mankara was talking about, I really tried to get my focus down.

There was a lot of um testimony from Davis court that I think took us in the weeds a little bit, but a couple of members on the board brought us back out.

And at the end of the day, it wasn't so much about the paper street on Davis or the amount of traffic.

We we can't get into people moving snow, you know, where's the snow gonna go?

But I think really it came down to granite street, and it was specifically, in my opinion, it was the neighbors all of all along Granite Street who said, Hey, we're all living in harmony here.

We don't need another building plop down at the end of our um of our yards here.

Um attorney Swiniarski did um state that he thought everybody else was accessing the yards from Davis Court.

We did uh specifically asked one of the neighbors, and she said that's that's not the case at all.

I'm not driving in my backyard.

There's no there's no evidence of doing that.

So uh attorney Swiniarski was uh was mistaken.

Uh and I'm almost almost done here.

Um page two on that letter as well.

One of the statements uh from the attorney Swiniarski is that granting of the variants would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, but instead would make the property more harmonious and compatible with the existing neighborhood.

As I stated a few minutes ago, that's not harmonious at all.

In fact, it it's whatever the opposite of harmonious is really what was going to bring that about.

Yeah, there you go.

So I I do find his statement in here to be uh absolutely one of the reasons that we we cannot move forward with granting this this variance.

Um there were some other things that that I come up with as well from the original testimony, but uh it it really was apparent to me that the um direction he was coming, you know, we couldn't take all this information in his letter as gospel because I do think he was taking some liberties um and making some assumptions that we couldn't jump to that assumption based on what the neighbors were um were discussing.

Once again, a very unique neighborhood.

Uh we gave them a great option to build on.

Once again, we wouldn't even be here, they build onto the back of the house like like many of the other properties in that area.

They have their multifamily house, they move on.

Um I do know that that we were a little upset uh when when attorney Swiniarski uh was was talking about his breezeways and how we are trying to avoid variances.

At the end of the day, the thought process needs to be we don't want folks here to get variances.

Variance means something has gone askew or there's something that that with the property that uh needs to be looked at.

In our opinion, our base opinion, there is nothing um special about this property that necessitated excuse me the need to have a second residence at the end of their property.

Anybody have anything else to add before I make a motion?

So I'll I'll go ahead and I'll I'll put this in the form of the motion, and then when I've gone through it all, you know, feel free to suggest amendments to make sure that we've captured everything.

Um so uh I I'd like to make a motion, and if this is the correct way um to phrase it, to uh clarify the findings of fact made by the zoning board of adjustment uh at its hearing of September 26, 2023.

Um, and to um amend those findings or clarify them as follows.

Granting the variance would not be in the public interest because it would alter the essential character of the neighborhood by adding an additional dwelling unit at the end of a small, narrow dead end street, and by creating two principal uses on a single lot.

Uh granting the variance is not consistent with this very ordinance for the same reasons cited above, in that it would alter the essential character of the neighborhood by adding an additional dwelling at the end of a small, narrow dead end street, and would create two principal uses on a single lot where the ordinance permits only one in this district.

And I would add that the board finds that having two principal uses on a single lot is fundamentally different than one principal use on the lot, even though that one principal you use consists of multiple units.

Substantial justice could be done in the guarantee the variance would allow the applicant to realize a more intensive use of his property.

And I realize we might want to discuss that.

There is no evidence that the value of surrounding properties would be diminished, and we received an opinion from a licensed real letter that it would not diminish surrounding property values.

There are no special conditions distinguishing the property from other properties in the area.

Though the property is relatively large and has frontage on two streets, multiple properties in the area, including in the immediate vicinity of the subject property, are as large or larger, and or have frontage on two streets.

And that the literal enforcement of the ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship because there are alternative alternative ways that the applicant can create an additional unit on the property.

Does that capture it?

I think so.

I mean, I I was wondering I what I notice is you're basically taking out of the motion, the uh discussion about the paper street and and trying to get into a private driveway, basically.

I can add that in.

I wasn't sure how necessarily I don't think you need to.

Because I I thought about that.

I uh by just bringing it up, but I think that kind of blurs things a bit, and it's not necessary to our argument.

That that was my concern because I was also gonna mention that it could impact the private rights of other people to access that street.

Um but yeah, I figured it might blur things as well.

So I I didn't go down that road.

I didn't mention the snow, although I thought about it, um, and the turning around of you know vehicles.

Um that that gets into the weeds.

It gets into the weeds, and so I didn't go there, but I did think about it.

Um Mr.

Potri.

Um yeah, I I I think it's fair to exclude that since I don't um I don't think that m most of the neighbors mentioned that maybe there was one or two um but I don't think that was you know a primary concern.

I I I might just add to the motion that we're making these findings explicitly on the uh record and of the minutes of the September 26th meeting, which I think all I think there's ample support in the um the minutes for all those findings.

I I I would accept that and then Mr.

Nealy.

If if if everybody would like to add this, I would like to make a statement that that we find that the request for this uh second residence is not consistent with the neighborhood.

We could not find other properties in the near area that had the two residences, the two separate and I'm losing the verbiage here.

Um but but and this is an older established neighborhood in which they are larger lots that are designed to have larger lawns, and we do think that this gentleman putting this resonance on the back would potentially affect the enjoyment of the neighbors with their site lines.

We may not want to put that in there, but I do think that's a good idea.

I wouldn't put that in there because we we often bring variances.

I was interested, I was thinking back, and maybe I'm not remembering correctly, but I don't recall ever granting a variance for more than one unit on a lot except for condominium developments in the city.

We we did allow a conversion of a barn once in that case, I believe there was an immediately abutting property that also had a second unit detached.

Um in this case, I I I'd be happy to add to both criterion one and two, and um you know we found no other properties in the neighborhood or in the area that had a second uh principal dwelling.

Could we also put in there that we do not believe that this property is unique from others in the neighborhood?

Yeah, I thought I had that.

Okay.

I maybe you did, I'm sorry.

Yeah, I I just put it in the context of there are no special conditions distinguishing the property from other properties in the area.

Right.

Yeah, I think that's key.

I mean it's really important.

Yeah.

So um now I can't remember.

I made the motion.

Did anybody second it?

Because we wanted to discussing it.

Yes, so is the seconder good with those amendments?

I am yeah.

And and Carter, you'll be able to capture this all, I assume to I will.

I mean, I I couldn't write everything down, but I'll listen to the tape, I'll watch it on YouTube, and I think this discussion I will probably write down almost verbatim.

Okay.

Or as close to verbatim as possible.

We don't do the ums and the ers and you know things like that.

But we we will pretty much write down everything.

Okay, yeah, too.

So it'll be very clear what the board said.

All right.

And it's it's gonna be on YouTube anyway.

Oh, it is right.

If it if it if it comes down to the fact that we need to provide that, you know, they can look on the on the website and find it.

Okay, and I'll I'll have these minutes done within five business days as usual.

Right.

Okay.

So there are other things I thought about putting in there too.

We had discussion on condominiums and the condominium form of ownership, but I decided not to go down the round event.

I think what you've got is the the simpler the better, and it's clear that this does not meet all five points of the law, and that's why we denied it.

Right.

Right.

So hopefully this is a tech.

I I will note um, you know, I I I mentioned it to Carter and Sam, but in the minutes, I think there is an error in who voted.

Um it notes that three there were three people voting on the case.

I know why.

Uh why?

Because you and Epstatia were on Zoom.

And you can only physically vote.

That's why we had that rule that you can only.

Yeah, I remember that.

Now it makes sense.

I forgot about the zoom.

I'm like, why am I participating in this conversation?

You could participate in the case.

That's why you could participate in there, but you can no one could vote.

Okay, that makes sense.

Because if Statia, if you remember, she used to come on Zoom a lot, a lot.

Mostly, yeah.

And there then there was one that I came in on Zoom, and I wasn't aware of this rule, and I was saying, wait a minute, why can't I vote?

But that was the reason why.

Now that makes sense.

I totally forgot about the Zoom rule.

Yeah, Sam picked that up so kudos to Sam for finding Sam for finding that up.

Okay.

So we're ready to vote.

Yes.

Unless there's any further discussion.

All those in favor of the motion.

Motion passes you.

I get the minutes done and letter to the attorney, and whatever else needs to be.

vote but that was the reason why now that makes sense I totally forgot about the zoom rule yeah yeah Sam picked that up so kudos to same for finding for finding that up okay so we're ready to vote yes unless there's any further discussion all those in favor of the motion motion passes unit motion pass it unanimously I get the minutes done and letter to the attorney and whatever else needs to be should should we formally approve the minutes at our next meeting before that goes out or do we not need to worry about that no we don't need to do that now yeah the I mean the draft minutes will be there I don't know if we're on a I don't know if we're in the deadline or not um we can just label them as draft for right now and I don't think we need to call a special meeting to approve the meeting no I don't think we need to I don't think we do that I mean the draft minutes are available they're technically available they'll they'll be available within five days I say so Wednesday tomorrow's day one so by by the end of the day next Tuesday the minutes will be done in draft form but um they can look at them they can look at the they can look at the YouTube video and it's gonna say everything you guys have said so that's how we any case like that that's going to go to court or is going to be contested we do those minutes pretty pretty close to what everybody says for the most part or I do I should say great we I do you or someone's gonna have to motion to adjourn second we are adjourned at 8 31 thanks everybody