I don't think any of them are here from the good.

Good evening, everybody, and welcome to the January 12th meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.

My name is Jamin Cara, ZBA chair.

To my right is ZBA Vice Chair Josh Neely, followed by member JP Boucher.

And then across the stage, Member Robert Shaw and Member Steve Lynell.

We also have Joseph Potri, alternate.

We do have a full complement of board members this evening.

So unless a member recuses himself, Mr.

Potcher will not be voting but will be participating or is free to participate, I should say, in all the discussions.

So this evening we have our requests for a special exception and for variances.

And the zoning board can only grant a variance if it finds that five criteria are met.

That granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest, that it would be uh consistent with the spirit of the ordinance, that granting the variance would do substantial justice to the applicant seeking it, uh, that there'd be no diminution of surrounding property values, and that owing to a special condition of property, denying the variance would result in an unnecessary hardship to the owner seeking it.

Just in terms of the uh order of business, uh I will read the case into the record, and then uh the applicant uh will be requested to come forward, and uh you would have 15 minutes that you address the board.

Uh first you state your name and address, then you have up to 15 minutes to address the board to explain the reasons uh behind your application and what you're seeking and how you meet the criteria.

Uh you don't have to use the full 15 minutes, but it is available to you.

Uh afterward, we will ask if there's anybody in the audience who wishes to speak in favor of the application.

Anyone wishing to do so is will again come up to the microphone, uh, state your name and address, and you have up to five minutes to address the board.

Following that, uh, we'll ask if there's anybody in the audience who has any questions, concerns, or opposition to the application.

Similarly, uh each person will come up to the microphone, state his or her uh name and address, and we'll have up to five minutes to address the board.

Following that, um the applicant will have the opportunity to come forward and we'll have up to five minutes to provide any rebuttal or final uh comments they wish to make.

And then following that, we will ask uh if there is anybody in the audience who spoke with questions, concerns, or opposition, um, who wants to have the final word.

That would only be one person.

Uh so sometimes I don't think that's going to be the case tonight, but sometimes we do allow for a few minutes for people to confer amongst themselves.

So that is the um general order of the business.

Uh are there any changes to the and I did neglect to say that to my left is Deputy Cleaning Manager Carter Falk.

Uh Mr.

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

Yes, Mr.

Chairman.

The case for Teak Drive, it was the first case on tonight for a water line for the DPW and fire department.

That will not be held tonight.

That will be on February 10th, 2026.

And we do have a request uh for that recusal, so that will be a motion or to continue that.

So that'll be a motion of the board, and uh we'll we'll take that up in just a moment for um so uh unless there's any other changes I'll call the role.

Mr.

Neely, present, Mr.

Boucher, present, Mr.

Shaw.

Present.

Mr.

Lynnal.

Present.

Mr.

Potri.

Present.

Okay, so with that, the first case on the agenda um this evening was uh this or I should say is the city of Nashua through Chief Buxton, Nashua Fire Rescue for 25 Teak Drive, and as noted, uh the applicant is seeking a continuance.

I am going to uh read the request into the record so we can all uh understand the rationale behind the request.

Um this is addressed to Mr.

Falk on behalf of the City of Nashua and National Fire Rescue.

We respectfully request that the Board of Adjustment continue our pending wetland special exception application until the board's February 10th, 2026 hearing.

We are mindful of the attention this application is receiving, but we make this request to allow us time to update the waterline plan, very similar to what was suggested by board member Shaw at the last meeting or at our last hearing.

Please see attached sketch.

We expect this new approach will reduce the temporary wetland impact and minimize the visual impact for the neighbors.

Also, we want the opportunity to update the conservation commission, which next meets on February 3rd, 2026.

Please call with any questions.

Thanks, Andy.

So that we do have the request for the continuance.

Any comments, thoughts, concerns from the board?

If not, does anybody want to make a motion?

February 103.

Okay.

So I'd like to make a motion.

Uh City of Nashua owner Chief Steve M.

Buxton, Nashville Fire Rescue Applicant, 25 Teak Drive and 840 West Hollow Street, Sheet C, lot 1320, and sheet D is in Delta, lot 54, requesting the following.

One, a determination whether a material change of circumstances affecting the merits of the application has occurred, or that the application is for a use that materially differs in nature and degree from the special exception for an access driveway that was denied by the ZBA on 101425.

And if so, requesting special exception from land use code section 190-112 to work in a 40-foot other wetland and wetland buffer to construct a water line service from Teak Drive to the Four Hills landfill property for the proposed fire training facility.

This is located in the R9 and R30 slash GMZ zones in War 5.

I'd like to make a motion that we table this at date certain of February 10th, 2026.

Uh the request of the applicant.

Second.

Seconded by Mr.

Lionell.

Any discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor.

And the application is continued to February 10th.

Next is the application of Christopher Delucia, owner.

If I mispronounce it, I'm sorry.

12 Waltham Drive, requesting a variance from land use code section 190-31 to encroach 4 feet 8 inches into the six-foot required rear yard setback to construct an 8x10 shed.

So the RA zone in Ward 7.

And I'm assuming you must be the applicant.

Yes.

Good evening.

Christopher Delusha, 12 Waltham Drive, Nashua.

So I'm just looking to put a shed up.

I moved to Nashville about three years ago, a couple years ago, and my family and I bought a house there.

Really no storage outside.

There was nothing.

So looking to put up a shed, eight by ten shed.

Look around.

I abut the town, there's a park there.

Greenwood Park, I believe is the name of it.

You walk around that park, and it was like 18 houses that abutt that park, and 11 of them have sheds within the six feet of that fence line all around.

So I'm really just looking to have a variance so that I can be, you know, the same uh opportunity that you've allowed my neighbors.

Uh I have allowed to me so that I can have the storage for my property as well.

I have a small lot.

It's not a big lot or anything else.

It's not like I can hide it anywhere else, to be honest with you.

Um, if not, other than that, it's really gonna have to go right pretty much in the middle of my yard.

Um that really wouldn't be that great for my family and stuff as well.

Well, I have any questions from the board.

You're free to take a seat.

Thank you.

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

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

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

Thoughts from the board?

Mr.

Shaw.

Uh very straightforward.

I think the applicant noted, you know, the key things about this, you know, not only it's very consistent with the neighborhood, and it only abuts actually the park, so there's very little reason to feel that that'll have any impact directly on anybody.

And the lot is not very big, and to meet the setback as noted, you would end up probably having to put that shed in the middle of that relatively you know, modest amount of backyard that he's got, which seems very impractical and unreasonable to um in this case.

So and and the you know the shed, it's not even a large shed, is uh is also uh as we've noted many times in other applications, is a very common and normal use.

So it's uh it's I think it's very consistent.

Um I'm in support.

Any other thoughts from the board?

Mr.

Lionel.

Yeah, I'm also in favor um you know, because also the backyard is fenced.

Um that would uh further diminish any problems uh potentially caused by the shed, so I'm in favor.

All right.

Any other thoughts or does anybody want to make a motion?

Hold on.

Mr.

Lanell.

Sheet A lot 614 requesting variants from land use code section 190-31 to encroach four feet eight inches into the six-foot required rear yard setback to construct an eight foot by ten foot shed.

This is in the RA zone ward seven.

Uh the board finds that granting the variance uh would not be contrary to the public interest because it is similar to other sheds in the neighborhood.

There's a fence uh backing the property, and the other side of the fence is a public park.

Uh the board believes that the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because uh this uh the purpose of the ordinance is to prevent encroachment of outbuildings on neighbors, and we believe that there will be uh none, and we have had no testimony uh uh opposing the request.

Uh granting the variants would be would do substantial justice to the applicant because it gives him uh storage that is similar to his neighbors.

Uh we have no evidence that surrounding values of surrounding properties would be diminished uh in general uh had adding a shed increases uh property values.

Um as far as unnecessary hardship, um special conditions of the property, it's a small lot uh with a small backyard, and uh you know that this is really the about the only place that they could do that.

So we believe that uh I make a motion to approve this variance.

It's your second I think we're reaction.

Second by Mr.

Boucher.

Any discussion?

All those in favor.

And your request is granted.

I I I will note I doubt that it'll be an issue because I don't see any opposition, but there is a 30-day window of appeal, so just keep that in mind.

But you are free to proceed with your project.

Next is the application of 106 West Holloway Street LLC, the owner, um Gage Armand is the applicant, and again, obviously at 106 West Hollis Street, requesting uh a use variance from land use code section 190-15, table 15-1, to allow a single residential unit in basement for a lot a live work unit in conjunction with the first floor barbershop.

This is in the RC zone in Ward 4.

Hi, my name is Gage Armand.

I'm the owner of 106 Wissala Street.

I already have an approved variance for the barbershop tonight.

I'm requesting a separate variant solely for a single basement apartment.

Um this request is not contrary to public interest.

The commercial use is already approved and unchanged.

The basement apartment will not increase traffic noise or demand on public services beyond what already exists.

The spirit of the ordinance is observed.

RC zoning district uh intended to allow compatible residential and small scale commercial uses.

Uh single residential unit within an existing commercial building reflects a traditional mixed use character of West Island Street.

Uh the next door property also at 110 West Island Street, also in the RC zoning district, already functions as a mixed-use building with a residential unit and commercial shop.

Uh substantial justice justice is being done by granting this variance without the parman.

The uh part of the building remains underutilized, allowing the basement unit enables reasonable use of existing structure and treats the property consistently with other in the same zoning district.

Surrounding properties will not be values, will we not be diminished?

I will be the occupant and have direct interest in maintaining the building.

I have proven track record of reinvesting improving this building at 106 West Holly Street as well as another nearby property at 17 Love Well Street.

Not approving it, not approving the variants creates unnecessary hardship.

The building was designed for mixed use.

Only prevents a reasonable use of existing space.

Is already approved for mixed uses with residential unit and commercial shop.

For these reasons, I believe the request meets all five variants criteria and respectfully ask for the board approval.

Okay, anything you'd like to add?

Oh, that was that was it?

Questions from the board?

Mr.

Nealing.

The um this apartment would take up the whole basement.

Um yeah, excluding like the boiler room and the electrical room.

Yeah, and then is there a um how would you get in and out?

Is there a stairway going right to the back backyard or yeah?

So there's a stairway that goes to my back door.

Um to align with uh you know permitting and stuff, but uh my intended use is to have the um residential part not interact with the barbershop, and then the barbershop has a front and then back uh second to eagress as well.

Okay, thank you.

Other questions from the board.

No, you're free to take a seat.

Thanks.

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?

Seeing none, I'm gonna close the public hearing and open the deliberations at the board.

Thoughts from the board.

Mr.

Langout.

Uh I think this is straightforward and a reasonable use, and I'm in favor.

Mr.

Shaw.

Yeah, I I concur.

I think it is reasonable.

I think you know, this is one of those cases, especially when it is this.

I forget the the term without checking again, but this idea of the owner occupied is you know what keeps it different to me than if it were um a unit that was being rented out to somebody independent of the business owner.

So right.

Yeah, given that it was an RC zone, I had to kind of walk through it.

But um, yes.

Other thoughts?

Mr.

Nealing.

In the same vein as Mr.

Shaw.

I mean, I'm I am a big fan of a business owner putting down roots, you know, basically living where they work.

Uh, I think it gives them more ownership of the neighborhood.

So I'm fully in favor of it.

I think it's a great idea.

And once again, it's not out of character with the neighborhood.

I mean, there's so many uh different uses of the buildings all around there uh that I really think uh nobody will even know it exists, and it really will fit in well with the neighborhood.

Agreed.

Anyone want to make a motion?

Mr.

Nealing.

All right, I would like to make a motion to approve the variance for 106 West Hall of Street, LLC owner, Gage Armand applicant 106 West Hall of Street, sheet 86 lot 33, requesting use variants from land use code section 190-15, table 15-1, number 84, to allow a single residential unit in basement for a live work unit in conjunction with first floor barbershop.

This is located in the RC zone in ward four.

Uh granting the variance uh would not be contrary to the public interest in that uh, we need uh more housing stock in the neighborhood, and B as we discussed there are quite a few other residential units around this building, so literally surrounded by residential units.

Uh the spirit of the ordinance would be observed in that this is a unique building with an underused basement.

Uh once again, uh lack of housing stock in the area.

Uh this would be a just a net addition to that.

Uh granting the variants would do substantial justice to the applicant in that the applicant is looking to um live in the unit owned by himself.

Um it would be uh it would not do substantial justice for the applicant if we were to arbitrarily not allow a an apartment in the bottom when there is other uh buildings in close proximity that also have uh additional apartments in those buildings with the same live work setup.

Um we have uh no uh testimony that the values of the surrounding property would be diminished.

However, according to testimony in the past, we have no reason to think that the surrounding property values would be diminished.

Um as far as unnecessary hardship, this is a very unique building.

Uh actually there's two buildings uh right there that are very unique, have gone through many different changes over the years.

Um we and so therefore to have uh an apartment in the basement where the owner can live in to properly run his business on the first floor is a net positive for the neighborhood.

Um that property, because it's gone through so many changes over the years.

Um I do believe there was some housing in it at some point as well.

So uh really that's a special condition of the property that we we would to not allow this would be to take away uh the ability for the applicant to create an apartment for him to live in and work in in the same building.

So we're second seconded by Mr.

Shaw.

Any discussion?

Seeing none.

All those in favor and your grants requests is passed.

Thank you.

Uh well, variant sign right here.

That's fine.

That's fine.

That's fine.

Mr.

Chair.

I'm gonna reacuse myself from this case.

So Mr.

Padre, if it's okay with you to sit in and vote on this case.

I can do that.

So the next application is uh law reality company, LLC, uh, the owners, 350 Amherst Street, uh uh requesting the following variances.

One, from land use code section 190-101E2, to exceed 100 square feet for ground sign for a corner lot.

123.5 square feet exists.

Two from land use code section 190-101E3 to maintain an existing ground sign within 75 feet of an intersection.

And three from land use code section 190-103A1 to place a ground sign for the benefit of 340 Amherst Street on 350 Amherst Street's property, resulting in 350 Amher Street having two ground signs for a corner lot.

This is in the GD zone in Ward 1.

I assume you're here on behalf of the applicant.

Yes, I am.

Good evening, Mr.

Chair, 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 am here on behalf of the owner and the applicant, Law Realty Co Inc.

With the with me this evening is the president, Brian Law.

His two children are here to observe and see what goes on at the zoning board and provide support to me.

And also have Mr.

Kane, who is a consultant on this project, this rather extensive renovation project on the corner of Airport and Amherst Street, which I'm sure you've all driven by and seen.

And I also have a representative of the sign company to answer any questions about the details of the sign.

I believe you all received a copy of the plan, which is really important to be able to understand why we're here and what's going on.

I'm gonna take a little bit of time to explain how we get how we got here, why we're asking for relief, because it is a little bit of a difficult application, as I think uh Carter would explain.

He and I went round and round several times trying to get the application in the right format.

Um but essentially this property uh on which we're asking for the zoning ordinance is a corner lot of Airport Road and Amherst Street.

It was a recently redeveloped property on which there are two corner restaurants on this redevelopment uh Eva and Casa.

Uh so if you if you go by, you know it, you've seen it.

It used to be a uh a buffet uh and several other buildings, but there was a redevelopment.

Simultaneously with that, the law family uh owned three 40 Amherst and 338 Amherst, which were formerly known as Lita Lanes and the Global portion of Lita lanes, each on separate lots.

Um none of the structures on those lots were really uh working or uh available and readily occupiable.

So uh they began to market and uh come up with designs, and they have essentially come up with three approved plans for each of the three lots.

They moved forward with development on two of the three, and then most recently received a approval of a site plan for the third lot, which is 340 Amherst Street.

Along the way, uh and you may be familiar or may not be, but as I say, 350 is uh sort of a retail center, and 338, which was the former Global building now being revital vitalized into an emergency hospital setup.

Along the way, of course, the access points became a critical issue both for the developer and for uh the property owner and um and frankly for the planning board.

So there was a lot of thought given as to access, how you're gonna access the various properties, and there is a current uh single access on 338, which previously supplied access to 340.

Um that the one that was on 340 is closed, and they were share now sharing access with 350.

Uh also parking spaces, parking areas, access driveways, again, for purposes of redevelopment, both from the owner's perspective, uh, tenants' perspective, and most importantly, from the city planning's perspective.

Uh they wanted to have all cross access and limited to two driveway cuts on Amherst Street, which makes a lot of sense.

So you have these three lots, all of which are separate but intertwined.

Uh 338 has a sign, it exists, it's gonna be modified slightly, but it exists, it's on 338 near the access driveway.

But that sign is for 330A, that's gonna be the emergency.

340 has no sign, no driveway.

350 has an existing sign at the corner within the allowed area and with an existing permit, and it's about 123.5 square feet, it's located on the corner of Airport and Amherst Street.

When a closer look was taken at 340 as to where to put a sign, you have a choice of either on the easterly side near the soon to be emergency hospital entry drive, or on the westerly side.

Of course, parking's a premium, so as you can see on the layout, on the westerly side, the parking goes right up to the corner.

We could lose a parking space, jam a sign in.

The parking is valuable.

You have an issue with access around the building, which the city codes require.

You have access with the design.

You don't want a sign down near the end where it would seemingly fit on the easterly end of 340 because you already have a sign there for the emergency.

So you'd have back to back ground signs which would not serve anyone's purpose and be contrary to the public interest in a great degree.

So in looking at it, the proposed location is shown on this plan and marked in red, is uh the result of a lot of thought, but it comes about because 340 is the last person in.

And uh had there been some further thought, maybe the lot line would have been drawn differently, but this is where the lot line is, it's an existing lot line.

And it makes most sense to put a sign in this location because traffic is really traveling west of the eastly, they're looking for a sign as to what uh whatever's gonna be in that development.

How do I get there?

How do I get to this location, whatever the use is?

And the closer you can get it to the driveway that's gonna service it, the better you are.

And this is it.

It's really 10 feet off the boundary line.

Moving the boundary line is rather extensive.

Those of you not familiar with planning process, you have to go through a subdivision.

It's called a lot line relocation, but it's a subdivision, has to go through all the reviews, all the engineering design, all to move it for you know a few feet to cram a sign in there.

And this was determined to be the most reasonable process.

Uh we also think we have a unique situation, and and relief should be granted because the enforcement in this particular instance doesn't have a fair and substantial relationship to the purpose.

So that's why we're before you.

Um as a result, we're asking for essentially a second sign on a corner lot, which is allowed.

A second sign is allowed on a corner lot.

Unfortunately, the first sign which exists is slightly too big.

So we either cut the sign down, modify it completely, and not have a variance for that, or we ask for relief.

So that's the first variance.

We're asking for relief to allow the existing sign to remain at 125, which would be in excess of the 100 limited.

The second sign we're asking for is located okay, um, and it's the right size, and it would be set back properly.

Um, but because of that second sign, your first sign is now located too close to the intersection.

So we need relief.

That sign is there, it's allowed to be there, it's permitted there, it doesn't hurt anybody there, but we need relief from that requirement.

So that's variance number two.

The third variance is a little more complicated in that uh there is an ordinance which allows off-premises sign.

That's commonly known as billboards, but there are a few other off-premises signs in this city.

We don't want a billboard there.

We don't want a larger sign, that's what's allowed.

We want a second sign on the corner lot, but it's going to advertise for off-premises.

So, Carter's determination, my concurrence is you're asking for relief from the definition to say this is not going to be an off-premises sign.

There's gonna be an on-premises, but it's advertising for off-premises people.

So you need relief from the definition of off-premises sign.

And that's the three variances we're requesting.

All three have similar arguments but slightly different on the criteria, and I'm gonna run through them.

I refer to them as locate uh size, location, and off-premises.

Uh on the criteria.

Where are the three sign?

Looking at the three criteria.

The first one is if you grant the variance, it can't be contrary to the public interest, which is historically defined as you won't alter the character of the neighborhood.

On the first one, in terms of size of the existing sign, it's already existing.

Allowing it to be bigger than what's permitted, the extra 23 feet isn't going to affect the character of the neighborhood because that sign already exists.

On the location, that is, can't be within 75 feet.

Again, you have the same issue in terms of will it alter the character of the neighborhood if you grant relief?

No, that sign's there, it doesn't affect the character of the neighborhood.

You have Amher Street sign, sign.

This is gonna be the perfect spacing of signs on Amherst Street.

And third, you have uh the second sign location, that is modifying the definition.

Two are allowed on that lot.

Frankly, if you modified the signs, you could put this off-premises sign, it could be a bigger off-premises sign on this lot, and you could put one on 340.

That doesn't make sense here.

We don't want all these signs.

So we just want two signs and we want permission to have a regular sign of meets the second size, second sign requirement of 100 feet, not the billboard size, which could be bigger, 150.

We want it to meet the second size sign size requirement of 100.

So that's really what uh we're asking for, and that doesn't alter the character of the neighborhood by a lot because it's going to have two signs on the property, but overall, it will have two signs for the two lots.

When you get to the end, if you agree with all my arguments and you do grant a variance, you might want to put a condition granted with the condition there will be no ground sign on 340.

So you don't have somebody coming back if the laws sell and move out, come back and say, aha, I can put a sign there.

Now you're gonna have too many signs.

So I would urge you to consider that.

We would accept that condition.

Uh on second is observe the spirit of the ordinance.

Again, uh, not going to alter the character to have a slightly larger sign, um, not gonna alter the character to have the location as it exists today, and having a second sign which would be in compliance, and C, not gonna alter the character to change the definition, so it's not an off-premises sign.

Number three, substantial justice will be done.

The law family has put a lot of thought and energy into this plan.

Uh that's rare that somebody owns three lots that can be planned so well and with such good detail as to allow cross access, proper entry, and now we're down to the most valuable part, it seems, of the property, which is how do you find what you're looking for?

How are people going to find their use in that building?

Because they'll be by it before they know it.

And you don't want people going in that emergency room.

So you really want the sign where it is.

Um there's no harm to the public if you grant all three variances.

Uh so there's no outweighing of potential harm to the public versus uh gain to the individual.

We think substantial justice would be done if you grant all three.

Uh number four, no adverse impact on the values of surrounding properties.

The immediately surrounding properties are law real to shown on the plan you have.

We've located all of the properties.

The properties across the street, which is a four-lane highway.

Umher street will not be impacted whatsoever.

The sign that's the signs of proposed, they're going to be similar in character.

Uh so what you see out there right now is what you're going to get, only slightly smaller for the new sign.

And it will advertise 340 as the number at the top as shown on the plan.

So people can locate uh wayfinding that driveway as they approach.

They see 350 first, and there's uh coming up on a driveway, and then they see 340, and they'll be able to turn in there and get into that uh property.

Um as I say, all the abutting properties are really owned by the applicant, and obviously there'll be no adverse impact on their values.

Number five is the hardship argument.

Um we have to deal with lot 350, and what is the special condition of lot 350?

It's a corner lot with limited curb cut.

Um, there is a cutoff of airport road for driveway access, and there's driveway access, and there's a light there, of course, and there's driveway access close to 340.

Um, what makes this so unusual?

It's really the cross access, the uh the overall development plan which creates this special condition, which requires some relief for signage here.

So, bearing in mind that special condition, is there any reason, any fair and substantial relationship between the purposes of the three ordinances that we're talking about and their enforcement against this property?

Again, again, A there's really no fair and substantial relationship to say, let's let's reduce the size of the existing sign, because that just doesn't make any sense.

So understand the purpose.

You don't want to have two big a signs on a corner lot, but we're really putting these signs so they're not particularly on a corner lot.

Location.

Again, you have an existing sign.

Does it really make sense to have that be moved 75 feet away just to for the purpose of the ordinance, which is if you're gonna have two signs, we don't want to have them both on the corner.

That's really what it amounts to.

If you get two signs on a corner lot, don't put them on the corner.

We're only gonna put one on the corner.

And it's been there.

And then finally, um, is there any fair and substantial relationship to the argument that this is really a billboard or an off-premises sign, and it should be under that section and shouldn't be under the two uh signs on a corner lot.

Uh there's absolutely no relationship to that.

We don't want a billboard, we want sign.

We want a regular sign and we want two signs on one corner lot, which is allowed.

So at the end, um the question that comes down to is what's proposed a reasonable use.

I think all in all, you can see the plan, you see the location.

It's the most reasonable location for this sign for 340 Amherst Street.

Happy to answer any questions you might have.

Questions from the board.

Mr.

Lennell.

Yeah, I this actually is not about the sign.

I I don't I don't have a problem with the sign, but I'm you know, I'm familiar with the 350 uh property as I've I've been to the Aviva restaurant several times now.

But I'm looking here, and it looks like one would have to turn if one's coming uh east on Amherst Street, you turn in at this entrance, and then you have to make an immediate left into this little other driveway to get to 340.

So the issue is the first principal entrance.

That's correct.

That's the intended principle.

Then the second area is if you go by and you miss it, you're gonna go to the next one, which is the emergency center, and you make an immediate write-off.

Yeah, okay.

So um we're it's really uh sort of design from a planning perspective as a single multi-building development.

And you come in off of a driveway and you go left, you go right, and there you are.

Okay, thank you.

All right, let's just like to add your free to take a seat.

Thank you.

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?

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

Thoughts from the board.

Mr.

Lennell.

Yeah, this is a very uh complex uh traffic situation, and I understand entirely that they need some sort of signage uh for this uh new 340 building.

I mean, previously the Lita Lane sign was was where the uh was on the other side of the property, but um, and then the the driveway for that is where this 338 is, I guess that's the number.

Um so that's not going to work.

Uh so I I don't have a problem with the uh size of the of the existing sign, the location of the existing sign, uh, and I don't see any alternative really reasonable alternative to the location of the proposed sign.

So I'm it's gonna be confusing no matter what you do, but uh I'm in favor of the application.

Other thoughts, Mr.

Nealing.

So uh when we first got the application, there was a lot to it.

Um I thought uh the council did a great job breaking it all down, and I would love just to be able to say what he said.

Um, but that being said, we got to remember they've done a lot of work in this area, you know, just a few years ago.

This is quite a different complex.

I think they've done a great job squeezing some things in here.

Uh I quite frankly, the amount of of thought that they put into this new sign, kudos to them.

Um they it really was a good explanation of why to put it there.

Um so I'm in favor.

Um I agree with the argument.

Anything to keep um extra traffic away from the new emergency center is is a good thing.

Um I do believe this brings enhanced safety by having that sign where they're proposing it.

Uh as we know, Amherst Street is a very unique Amherst Street and Danny Whifter Highway, the two unique um areas with a ton of traffic.

We don't want people slamming on their brakes uh because they missed a turn.

Um I think that the signage that's currently at 350 is a good size for that for that large lot.

Um you know, this one, this new sign is gonna be a little bit smaller.

Um I I think they're proposing a great spot.

Um yeah, overall, I think they've done a great job, and I'll be in favor of this whole application.

Yeah, I I I would agree.

Um happy to take this one unless there's any other comment comments or anybody would prefer to make a motion.

It's all yours.

All right.

Um I've got to go back and read this whole thing.

Uh I'd like to make a motion that the application of law relibie LLC for 350 Amherst Street, requesting the following variances.

One from land use code section 190-101 E2 to exceed 100 square feet for a ground sign for a corner lot or 123.5 square feet exists.

Two, from land use code section 190-101E3 to maintain an existing ground sign within 75 feet of the intersection.

And three, from Land Use Code Section 190-103A1, to place a ground sign for the benefit of 340 Amherst Street on 350 Amherst Street's property, resulting in 350 Amherst Street having two ground signs for a corner lot in the T V zone in board one.

We find that granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because there uh would be no injury to the public health safety or welfare, indeed, public uh safety would be enhanced by having signage that directs people appropriately, especially on a busy road such as 101A uh to the correct entrances for the property.

Uh and it wouldn't be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood, neither in terms of the size or the positioning of the proposed signs, and certainly with regard to the existing sign, which needless to say is already there, uh both in terms of the intersection setback as well as its size.

We find that it would be consistent with the spirit of the ordinance uh for the reasons just stated, and also because the the purpose of the ordinance is to avoid visual clutter uh by having too many signs too large in scope, but I I think as uh already noted uh the size, uh the positioning and the location of the signs uh are consistent with the character of the neighborhood, and with regard to the sign on three uh for 340 that's not on 340, where that property line is really not perceptible you know to anybody off of the property unless you're actually looking at a plan.

Uh we find a substantial justice would be done and allowing adequate signage for the proper use and function of the properties.

Uh there is no uh uh uh testimony or evidence that there would be diminution of surrounding properties values, and again, because the signs would be consistent with the surrounding area, uh highly unlikely to uh have a negative impact on any other property.

And and finally, with regard to uh the hardship um essentially what we have are three adjacent properties that from a traffic flow point of view function as one overall site.

Uh and one of those uh 340 has no direct access for itself.

So the the it's essential that the signage for these properties be positioned in a way that allows for a flow of traffic between these sites given the shared access that they share.

Uh and for that reason, denying the variance would result in unnecessary hardship uh to the property over CD.

So for those reasons, uh I move that the variance be granted.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Mr.

Potri.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor.

Request is granted.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Carter.

Thank you.

Very welcome.

Everybody had a chance to uh oh all it's Mr.

Shaw joined the table.

I do.

Has everybody had a chance to review the agenda for the upcoming meeting?

Yes.

Yes.

Um I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume nobody found any reach of big limb, but yeah.

Minutes from the previous meeting.

Mr.

Lynell.

Okay, two little things.

Uh first on page seven.

Um let's see.

Uh the first paragraph of the issue, third line.

Um at the end, it should say Dearborn Street, but it says Dearbore Street with an H.

And on page 13, there's this 10803 in the middle of the page.

I have no idea what that's for.

And uh further down on that page, where it's speaking in opposition uh with questions, there's it's blank.

Normally we say no one if there's nothing there.

Good point.

And we did have some opposition.

Did we?

We did.

We had a letter, and then the the folks uh above 13 Fulton came.

Yeah, that's right.

Actually, that's right.

Yeah, I've yeah, I think I made a more revised copy of this, and I don't I think you guys may have gotten the the old one, but I think I did all these corrections already.

But I'll double check just to make sure.

Well, that would explain why it's blank.

Yeah, but I normally look through everything, so I'll make sure all things.

That's all I had.

Mr.

Patrick.

Uh I had uh a couple of other minor things.

Um page three, the uh set the last kind of sentence that starts with Mr.

Montara.

Um I think we want to say Mr.

Mankara asked how the treatment of water comparing the existing systems um would be with the new systems.

Yes.

And then we're taking out the B on the end of it.

Yes.

Okay, yeah.

All right.

And then um page.

Page 19.

In the in the um findings of fact, the first paragraph that says Mr.

Car stated that this that substantial justice.

I I if I remember correctly, and I I didn't watch this portion of the meeting to make sure I had it right, but if I remember correctly, um Mr.

Mankara stated that substantial justice would not be done.

Obviously, one of the one of the um one of the factors for the um uh for 36th granite.

No, I I I think I that wasn't the positive.

I think it could should be wood.

I think it was good should be wood.

Okay.

Then I withdraw that amendment for that change.

Anything else?

Not anybody wanna make a motion to approve this amendment?

Or do we want to see them again?

I don't think so.

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes as amended.

Second.

Seconded by Mr.

Neal.

Sorry.

Discussion.

All those in favor.

All right.

We have the new officers.

Officers.

Who wants to be chair?

I'm looking at Mr.

Nealing, but there might be someone else.

Really good.

We were just here.

We just did this.

The year went by so quickly.

Sure.

Sure.

Does anybody feel strongly anyway?

I know I know last year when we discussed there's a few folks who are like, I'm ready to step back a while and it's that year went like that, didn't it?

Yeah, it did.

It did.

Well, I I I feel like um, you know, you you're kind of in the queue.

You're up if you want it.

I I am uh more than happy in this spot.

Um I would be happy not to be the chair unless unless everybody says they don't want to do it, I'll take it, but I'm I'm happy not to be in the chair.

I I don't I don't mind staying in this position unless, but if you want to switch roles, I'm happy to do that.

Or if anybody else wants this role, I'm open to that as well.

I don't need to I'm not seeing anybody step forward.

If I think status quo seems pretty good.

I'm happy with it.

All right.

I came in here tonight for the goal of not to be the chair.

You might achieve that.

All right.

Um I'll make a motion for the slate of officers to be Mr.

Mankara as chair and Mr.

Neely as vice chair for 2026.

Or second.

Second, second Mr.

Leno Discussion.

Are you good with this?

Yeah, I'll I'm I'm fine.

I wouldn't have I would have been happy to switch.

Yeah.

Fine with it.

See no more discussion.

All those in favor.

All right, done.

One more year.

One more year.

Maybe a little slower this time.

Yeah.

All right.

Yeah.

Right.

All right.

Any other business?

So uh next meeting we'll have Orient Street as well.

No, two meetings.

Two meetings.

Oh, oh no, granite street.

We'll we'll talk about that in a minute.

Okay, that's fine.

All right.

So if there's no other business, motion to adjourn.

Motion.

Second.

Second by Mr.

Shaw.

We are all adjourned.

Thank you.

719.