Good evening, everybody.

Um welcome to the April 14th meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.

Uh my name is Jamon Kara, ZBA Chair.

To my right is ZBA Vice Chair Josh Neely.

Uh and then next, or I should say to his right, uh JP Boucher.

Uh across the stage, we have member Robert Shaw, membered Steve Lionel, and alternate Joseph Potri.

Uh so we do have a full complement of five members here this evening.

So unless one of the members who recuses himself, um, which I think may be the case, in that case, Mr.

Potri will be voting.

Otherwise, though, um, alternates do participate in all of our discussions.

Um, so and I should also just add to my left is Deputy Planning Manager Carter Falk.

Uh so this evening we have applications before us for special exceptions and for variances.

So uh a special exception is a use that is allowed under the zoning ordinance so long as certain criteria is met.

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

And in order to grant a variance, the zoning board has to find that five criteria are met.

We have to find that the spirit of the zoning ordinance would be maintained or observed, um, that by granting the variance we would do substantial justice, that the granting the variance would be in the public interest, that there would be no diminution of surrounding property values, and that owing to a special condition of the property, um, denying the variance would result in an unnecessary hardship to the applicant seeking it.

So, in terms of the order of business, um, and and we do have a number of items on the agenda today.

Actually, I'd be remiss in not noting that if anybody is here for 19 VISTA way, um, that is being postponed until the June 9th meeting.

Um, so if you are here for that case, we will not be hearing it this evening.

I should have said that sooner.

Um so going back to the order of business, uh, each applicant.

Uh well, I'll read the case into the record, and then each applicant will be invited to come up to the podium, and uh you have 15 minutes uh to present your case.

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

Uh following that, I'll ask if there's anybody in the audience who has any question, I'm sorry, who wishes to speak in favor of the application.

And each person would then be invited to come up to the podium, and you would have up to five minutes to address the board.

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

And similarly, uh each person will come forward up to the podium, state his or her name and address, and would have up to five minutes to address the board.

Finally, uh after I shouldn't say finally, after that, uh the applicant will have the opportunity to come up and provide any rebuttal uh or additional comments or answer questions that might have been asked uh by uh the public.

Uh and again, you would have up to five minutes to do that.

Following that, um, I would open it up to the floor to anybody who spoke, one person who spoke with questions, concerns, or opposition, would have the opportunity to come forward and have the last word.

Uh and again, that would be for up to five minutes.

Um I don't know if that that doesn't always happen, but if it does, uh, we would provide uh those individuals an opportunity to decide who that individual is.

Um with that, I ask uh Mr.

Falk, are there any other changes to the agenda?

Uh no, there are not.

Uh so I'm going to read the roll.

Mr.

Neely.

Present.

Mr.

Boucher.

Present.

Mr.

Shaw.

Present.

Mr.

Lionel.

Present.

Mr.

Petrie.

Present.

So we're all here, so I'm going to start with the first case.

Uh so the first case is the application of Edward and Hannah Persivali at 36 Roy Street, requesting a special exception from land use code section 190-112 to work in the 75-foot prime wetland buffer of Salmon Brook to remove an existing deck and construct an attached 8x12 mudroom addition.

It's in the RA zone in Mord 6.

And you must be the applicants.

Yes, sir.

Uh good evening.

I'm uh Edward.

This is my wife Hannah.

Um both of the 36th Roy Street, and uh we essentially are applying to build a only enclosed one-story 8 by 12 mud room uh attached to the side of our home on top of our driveway.

Um we already we have a deck, a piece of decking there that already exists.

It's an 8 by 12.

Um we essentially just want to enclose that into a mud room.

Um we've already been to the uh conservation commission and we had a meeting with them, and uh there was no um no one had any oppositions towards our plans.

Um we plan to meet all requirements that they set forth as far as foundation requirements and such.

Um pretty much it.

Questions from the board?

Mr.

Neely.

So uh when I did a drive-by, it looks like you guys already started, right?

Is that is that the area we're talking about?

364 street, correct?

Yeah, but uh on the side where the deck was.

It looks like you guys already started the mud room.

Is that okay?

So I'm gonna guess that just means most of your houses, excuse me, is already in that 75-foot buffer, so you wouldn't be able to do any work without without getting this special exception, right?

Yeah, okay.

Yeah, we've seen that in this neighborhood before, so no surprises.

And uh the conservation commission had a couple of uh asks you guys are good with with their two points that they asked for.

Yes, great.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

And you got both of them, so thank you.

All right, so you're free to take your seat.

Unless there's something else you'd like to add.

I'll set it.

All right.

Thank you.

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

We do have one uh letter uh we received via email, so I'll read this in to three additionals.

There's any three altogether.

I'll I'll read all three letters into the record.

Uh so the first is from Diane Fontas, and uh it just says, uh gentlemen, I received notification of the public hearing with regard to a special exception that Edward M.

Hama and um Edward M.

and Hannah Persibali, uh 36 Roy Street are requesting.

Um I I'll paraphrase uh to build a mud room.

Please note that my husband, John Fontus, and I, Gwendolyn Fontes of Ninebogs Circle, uh do not have any concerns pertaining to the request, and we fully support said request for the special exception.

Uh second, we have a letter from Janet Veluc and um to whom it may concern.

My name is Janet Veluc, I live at 41 Roy Street.

I'd like to vote in favor of Robert and Hannah Percivalli to work in 75 uh prime wetland buffer for Sam and Brooke to remove the existing deck and construct a new 8x12 mudroom.

And then finally, uh from Elizabeth and Joshua Zellers of 38 Roy Street, also expressing uh their support for the application.

And so with that, is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak with any questions, concerns, or opposition to the application?

Possibly seeing none.

Uh ma'am, any chance you are here to speak to 36 Roy Street We were here to speak to 36 Roy Street.

Oh no, we're not going to be able to do that.

Okay, very good.

Just in case.

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

Discussion from the board.

Mr.

Boucher.

Uh yes.

Um I think that this is uh straightforward as in respect to the fact that again as stated by uh the applicant and as we know uh to some degree that a lot of the homes in this area are in the 75 foot for the land buffer.

Um again, the mud the mud room is not something that is uncommon or something that would like to have that.

Uh I think it's reasonable to have this addition.

And again, um, as testified and through our documentation, we know that um they will be built constructing this addition uh in respect of conservation commission um uh suggestions uh that they've placed forth.

So uh with that I don't see any reason to deny the application, so I'm gonna support other thoughts from the board.

I I just add I I I agree.

I think it's it's very straightforward.

They're proposing to build it in an area that's already disturbed, and and there is no other alternative on their property, but if they're not an additional would anybody like to make a motion, Mr.

Boucher.

I'd like to make a motion for Edward M.

and Hannah M.

Persobali, uh owners of 30 Roy Street, sheet 107 lot 17 requesting a special exception from land use code section 190-112 to work in the 75-foot prime wetland buffer of Salmon Brook to remove an existing deck and construct an attached 8 by 12 mudroom additions in the IRA zone ward six.

Uh we find that the requested use is listed as a special exception.

Uh uh and is as is per is permitted as a special exception.

We find that the requested use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly in the PR 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 in any other area of the city will be unduly subjected to hazards affecting health safety or general uh welfare.

We also find that the wetland and wetland buffer encroachment after David as uh test to answer by the uh homers, the nine um the nine criteria are going to be fulfilled.

Um, and we find that the requested use will not impair the integrity of the character with the district or immediate neighborhood which is located and it would be detrimental to the health, morals, or welfare of the city, well feel the residents of the city.

Also, we'll note that um we are uh referencing or attaching to this the conservation commission um fable recommendation and with two um uh stipulations that we're going to add, and that was from the uh letter dated March 18, 2026.

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

It's your second, second by Mr.

Shaw.

Any discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor.

Special exception requests granted.

So you are free to proceed with your project.

I just know there is uh 30 day window of appeal.

Uh unlikely, I think, given the lack of opposition, but just be mindful.

But you you can't proceed.

So the next uh is the application of Douglas Deschard um at 6 White Avenue, requesting a variance from land use code section 190 16, table 16 3 for minimum land area, 5,834 square feet existing, 6,970 square feet required to remove existing garage and construct a two-family residential building.

This is in the RC zone in ward four.

And just to note, uh, this um variance was approved by the ZBA on uh July 14th uh 2020, uh but the approval has expired.

Hi, my name is Douglas Deschard, owner of Six White Avenue.

Uh went through this uh back in 2020.

Uh COVID affected me like it affected a lot of people.

Uh I was unable to pursue this because of illness and what have you.

And then finally, I'm back to health, and I request uh to do the same thing I did previously.

Um I'm hoping that we have approval uh for that particular parcel.

Anything else you'd like to add?

No.

Questions from the board?

Mr.

Neely.

I'm just curious about the uh it's a very unique building.

What's what's the history of that building?

I mean, it's it's four or five garages.

Was it for the surrounding properties or six garages uh on that property?

Um it was um separate lot as it's on the docket um at with the city, and um basically it was just a garages.

Um obviously I used it for a variety of different things.

Um as a lobsterman as well, and if you saw if you went to the house, you probably saw lobster traps behind the garage, but I haven't done that since I got a bill.

So that's basically what it is, and it's basically full of stuff, as George Carlin would say.

Stuff other questions.

Unless you have something else to add, 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 questions, concerns, or opposition to the application?

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

Thoughts from the board.

Mr.

Leno.

Yeah, I remember this case from 2020, and I have no objections.

Any other thoughts?

Mr.

Neely?

Yeah, very unique building.

Um but it's especially with the need for housing stock in the city.

Uh it's going to be a better use as housing.

Uh certainly the housing that's proposed will fit very well into the neighborhood.

Um, as Mr.

Lionel said, it was approved once before, and no changes here, pretty straightforward.

Yeah, and I'll just add, you know, I did go by again and I uh and I saw, you know.

No measurable changes in the neighborhood that would warrant a different decision.

Would anybody like to make a motion?

Go ahead.

All right, you go for it.

Thanks.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the variance for Douglas J.

Descartes, D shard, owner, six White Avenue, Sheet 35, lot 75.

Requesting a variance from land use code section 190-16, table 116, excuse me, 16-3 for a minimum land area, 5,834 square feet existing, 6,970 square feet required to remove an existing garage and construct a two-family residential building.

This is located in the RC zone, Ward 4.

Uh, as a note, it was approved by the ZBA on July 14th, 2020.

The approval has expired, and this is the same exact request.

Uh granting the variants would not be contrary to the public interest, as there is a need for housing in Nashua and less need for uh this type of uh current facility, which is just uh six garages.

The spirit of the ordinance would be observed in that it would be consistent with what is in the neighborhood for other housing, which is primarily multi-family housing units on smaller lots.

Granting the variants would do substantial justice in that the applicant uh will be able to use this land for a better uh use of this property as consistent with the neighborhood of multi-family housing as uh as compared to the six garages that he has now.

Uh we for the value of the surrounding properties would not be diminished.

Uh we have not received any documentation from any realtors otherwise, but based on our uh experience, uh this would not uh lower the value of the surrounding properties.

And as to unnecessary hardship, uh this building that is currently there is uh not in uh character with the neighborhood as is, that is it primarily is a residential area, and the six garages are kind of a standalone uh building that is not uh fitting in with the other area, and uh therefore those uh should be replaced with uh housing.

As noted before, this was uh also um uh approved by the zoning board in uh July 14th of 2020, so no changes to the application.

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

Mr.

Second, seconded by Mr.

Lionel.

Any discussion?

All those in favor.

And your application is granted once again.

Thank you.

Good luck.

I see you folks again.

Okay.

Come by any time.

I'm now gonna read case number three into the record.

And Mr.

Shaw, uh, is you know, don't let the record note is recusing himself.

Um Mr.

Petrie, uh, would you be willing to stand in and vote in Mr.

Shaw's place?

I am excellent.

Umcher the names on this, but I'm going to give it a shot.

Uh so the next is the application of Nimrit Argawa and Surabi uh Sharma at 10 Williams Circle, requesting a special exception from land use code section 190-47B for a major home occupation for an in-home tutoring educational enrichment activity, a STEM activity, uh in in a residence.

Um this is in ward five in the FUOD zone.

Interesting.

And you must be the applicant.

Yes.

Uh good evening.

My name is Sudisha Emma, and I'm requesting the approval to conduct smaller STEM tutoring sessions from my home.

The sessions are going to be just one hour long and we'll have three to four students at one time.

And um there will be no overlap between any two sessions.

All the activities are quiet indoor study group format and very similar to a play date or study group.

There are no employees, no signage, and no visible commercial activity.

My goal is to provide a meaningful education experience by putting preserving the residential guidance of my neighborhood.

Okay, anything else you'd like to add?

Uh questions from the board.

Mr.

Petrie.

So um in terms of parking, I assume you like people will drop off their kids and then come back and pick them up so it's not like folks are gonna be parked on the street for an hour or two, is that right?

Um the plan is to have drop and pick-ups.

Okay.

But I feel because the students are going to be really young, six, seven, eight years ago.

So if they want, they can park in my driveway.

At the time there will not be more than four students, so I still have space in my driveway.

Okay.

Any other questions from the board?

Uh seeing none, unless there's something you'd like to add, you're free to take a seat.

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

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

Rob Shaw, 14 Sweet Williams Circle.

So I am one of the abutters.

I don't necessarily have opposition.

I just had a couple concerns, and I also just wanted to make sure the applicant was sufficiently aware because I think one of our concerns, uh, both myself and also I know the amigos already sent in a letter and expressed some of these similar concerns, but one was about signage, which I think I did just heard that there is no intention of having signage, so that was one thing I wanted to make sure of.

But the other thing is just that very specific operating hours and that there wouldn't be any scope creep or any further um expansion of this because uh what they've specified is very specific to those days and times, and that's seems like it's a fairly limited use.

Whereas if it was going to expand to be more sessions, more days, I think that would start to be concerned of the scope, kind of a scope creep.

So I understand that the application as is should stand as as such, but I want to make sure the applicant knows that they'd have to come back for another another application if they wanted to expand the scope of the way they're conducting the business.

So that was primarily.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

I I do have a letter that we received, so I will rate it at least in relevant part.

Um this is from Denise Amigo addressed to the boards, referencing uh the certified letter in the case.

I'm writing to express my concern regarding the request for special exception to allow a major home occupation at a residence within our Call of Duty Sack neighborhood.

While I appreciate the value of educational enrichment, and understand the positive intent behind offering STEM tutoring, I strongly believe that a use of this nature and potential scale is not appropriate for residential settings such as ours.

Our neighborhood has remained quiet, uh a quiet low traffic area for over 25 years, which is a primary reason why we chose to make our home here.

Uh the land use code requires that a major home occupation remain clearly incidental to the residential use of the property and must not alter the residential character of the neighborhood or become objectionable to neighbors.

A tutoring operation that draws consistent traffic, multiple students, um, and increased activity risks functioning more like a commercial enterprise than a traditional home occupation.

In the call de SAC, which is not designed to accommodate frequent vehicle turnover or increased congestion, this impact is especially concerning.

In addition to the immediate effects, I'm also concerned that the broader precedent this approval could set.

Granting a special exception for a use of this nature may open the door for similar in-home businesses in our neighborhood.

Gradually shifting its character away from residential towards commercial activity.

This cumulative effect could significantly change the environment that long-term residents have relied on and invested in.

For these reasons, I expectedly urge the board to carefully consider whether this proposal truly meets the intent and requirements of Section 190-47B, particularly with regard to preserving neighborhood character and minimizing the impact on surrounding properties.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Denise and Manuel Amigo.

So that is the only other testimony we received.

Would you like to address any of the concerns that were raised?

Um I understand the concerns which my neighbors have put forward, and I assure you it's a very small-scale tutoring type of an activity.

Uh it won't be like uh RSM or a coupon or something where you have tens or fifteens of students coming at once, picking and picking them up and honking or congestion in traffic.

It's going to be a very low impact enrichment activity where uh students would just come, be there for an hour and then leave after that.

Uh it is not at all similar to any kind of daycare or camp activity, nothing of that sort.

And I also appreciate uh talking about the scope creep.

I do plan to keep it exactly like I said, three days a week and one hour each, not more than that.

Okay.

Any questions from the board?

Thank you.

Thank you.

And um, do you wish to offer any final thoughts?

No, we're good.

All right, so with uh no additional testimony, I'm gonna close a public hearing and open up the deliberations of the board.

Uh thoughts from the board.

Mr.

Lanel.

Yeah.

Um as long as we can maybe put in into the motion what the applicant has said in terms of number of uh sessions per day, per week, and number of students, um, and say that if there is going to be any change in that or increase in that, that the applicant needs to come back to the board.

Um, I'd be okay with that.

I think it would satisfy the concerns that I've heard uh from the neighbors.

I know I'm I'm reminded of uh a neighbor of mine who runs a plumbing business.

He doesn't quite run it out of his house, but his work truck is in and out, in and out, in and out constantly during the day.

You know, but you know, it's not a home occupation, so uh I certainly understand the the concerns of of the neighbors.

Uh they do have a quiet uh street.

I know I'm on a dead end street, so I understand that.

Um but I think that as presented, and if we can make sure that it's limited to that, uh I would be in favor.

Any other thoughts?

Mr.

Neely Yeah, I'm uh so I agree with Mr.

Lionel.

Um so I'm in favor of this application, so I live on a similar type call de sac.

Um and so when we receive this application, I started paying attention to how many delivery vehicles come up and down my street every day.

Um, because I I anticipate these folks are probably gonna have eight cars, eight cars three days a week uh between Amazon FedEx and UPS of above that same number coming up and down my road.

Um and so uh people would still consider my road a very quiet road.

You know, it's a cul-de-sac.

So um also something very unique about about sweet William is the if you're driving up the road, the right side actually has a sidewalk all the way to the top, uh, which is a nice thing to have on a street that ends in a cul de sac.

So um I I didn't hear anything from the applicant that would give me a whole lot of concern here.

Um it sounds like she is definitely uh aware of a neighbor's concerns.

I heard no sign, which which by right they could have a small sign with the the small uh house uh uh exception here.

And um so yeah, for those reasons I'm in favor of the application.

Any other thoughts?

Anyone want to make a motion?

I'll do it.

Mr.

Lionell.

I'd like to make a motion on behalf of applicants Nimrit Avrawala and Sarabi Srama.

10 Suite Williams Circle, sheet C Lot 25 2577, requesting special exception from land use code section 190-47B for major home occupation for in-home tutoring educational enrichment activity stem type in residence.

This is in the FUOD zone ward five.

Uh the board finds that the requested use is listed as a special exception in the use matrix.

Um we have considered uh the amount of traffic that would be presented and believe that the requested use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety.

Uh, there is noted that there's a sidewalk on one side of the street, and it's not a through street.

Um the requested use uh should we have no evidence that it will overload any public water dialogue drainage or sewer system or other municipal system?

Uh and uh this no other area of the city will be unduly subjected to hazards affecting health safety or general welfare.

Um special regulations uh are fulfilled.

This is not a wetland application.

So we won't we'll ignore that.

And uh we believe the requested use will not impair the integrity or be out of character with a district or immediate neighborhood uh nor detrimental to the health morals or welfare of the residents of the city as long as the applicant maintains the uh the I will call it the load level of uh of uh customers to what is specified in the application, and that if that uh level needs to increase, the applicant will need to come back before the board and uh request a new exception.

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

Sir Seconded by Mr.

Petrie.

Any discussion?

All those in favor.

Special exception request is granted.

Okay.

Next case is the application of Joseph Boise and Brianna Mastrioli.

22 Pond Street requesting a use variance from land use code section 190-15, table 15-1 to allow a dog daycare in an existing building.

It's in the D3 slash MU zone in Ward 7.

Yes, hi everybody.

And this is my comments of the pile.

We are looking to add a doggy daycare into that facility already.

We don't have any plans to do any exterior stuff.

We have control drop-off and pickup schedule pickup and drop-off times for everybody.

We do require up-to-date vaccinations for everybody as well.

We have no idea what we're doing, so we're trying to just figure out some of the like the um things that we want to address like dog waste.

Everything is going to be picked up.

We have a dumpster company company coming twice a month to take that waste away.

Like she said, everything is indoor, so there's no plans to add anything exterior-wise, play areas or anything of the sort.

Yeah, just a small sign of a problem.

Behavior stuff, if we have problem dogs, we're going to move them.

Don't have a patients for that type of stuff.

Safety's big for us.

Every dog that does come in has to do a temperament uh meeting beforehand to make sure that they're cool.

Um I think that's it.

All right, anything else you want to add?

Go ahead, Mr.

Nealing.

Is it is this a chain?

Brosco's?

No, I was just the way it was written, it looked like you guys are just taking it right of a playbook.

So are you taking that whole building or just a piece of that building?

About a third.

Third.

Okay.

Thank you.

The owner is currently has medical things going on.

So he is occupying the other two thirds.

It's 27 years of car parts and stuff.

So he's not in any rush to get those items out of there.

He's not going to be able to do so.

Um so for now it would just be that third of the building.

All right, thank you.

Will you be doing any boarding?

Um the questions from the board.

Mr.

Lionel.

What is your experience in this line of work?

So we've both been working for dogs with dogs for about 10 years now.

Brianna and I started apprenticing at a local dog school 10, 11 years ago.

We've been working with dogs ever since.

Other questions from the board.

Seeing none, uh, you're 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 in the audience who'd like to speak with questions, concerns, or opposition to the application?

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

Thoughts from the board?

Mr.

Nealing.

So I'm in favor of this application.

So I actually had done a drive-by before I actually read the application, and I was like, I don't see any place these dogs gonna be able to go outside.

And then once I read the application, it's on it's gonna be completely enclosed.

Nobody's even gonna know it's there except for the small sign.

Uh I definitely love what I heard from the folks about about how they uh do uh in dog, you know, in the uh allow the dogs in with the the you know, sit down to see what kind of breeds they are, etc.

etc.

So quite frankly, I think it's a good use of that building.

Um, and so for those reasons I am in favor of this application.

Other thoughts from the board.

I I I would agree, and you know, just note it's uh it's a really mixed area, a variety of different you know, uses going on there.

It seems to me that this would be compatible with that uh general mix.

Anyone want to make a motion on this one?

Seeing oh well, go ahead.

I'll take it.

Do it.

Uh like to make a motion to approve the variance for uh Joseph A.

Boise, owner of Brianna Mastrioli, applicant 22 Pond Street.

Sheet 18 lot 76 requesting a use variance from land use code section 190-15.

Table 15-1 number 27 to allow a dog daycare in an existing building.

This is in the D3 slash MU zone in Ward 7.

Uh, granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest in that as the board just noted.

This is a very diverse area with quite a few different uh and uh very very uh very different businesses in this area.

Um this would be a good addition of this area.

It certainly would not be out of character.

The spirit of the ordinance would uh would be observed.

Uh once again, this is a uh a growing area with quite a bit of different uh commercial uses.

Um so this quite frankly will fit very good into that neighborhood.

Uh granting the variants would do substantial justice in that as they noted, the owner of the building is actually given these folks a third of the building and is is keeping two-thirds.

There's some uh health issues there, and uh as we probably know, and also what was in the application, um the dog care uh daycare business is uh is growing.

Uh there is no reason to think that the value of the surrounding property would be negatively affected.

And as to unnecessary hardship, once again, this is a very diverse area.

Um it would be uh contrary to public interest to not allow the owner to have this type of business in this building, uh, as this whole street has a bunch of different types of businesses on it.

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

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Boucher.

Any discussion on the motion?

Uh seeing none, all those in favor.

And I've lost my applicants there.

Um there you are, all the way in the back.

So your request has been granted.

Uh as I did note before I've said it a couple times, but there is a 30-day window of appeal.

No opposition that we've heard, so unlikely, but you are free to proceed.

Thank you, Governor.

Good luck.

Uh next is the application of Abdel Aziz and uh to buy or to be Hadoosh uh for Kingston Drive, requesting a variance from land use code section 190-16, table 16-3 to encroach five feet into the 10-foot required right side yard setback to construct an attached 20 by 20 garage.

This is in the RA zone in ward six.

And you are the opposite.

Yeah, unfortunately, my wife couldn't make it today.

Um yeah, my name is Hadouche of Kingston Drive.

I'm Mark Westin and Variants uh to build a uh garage with uh five feet setback instead of ten feet requested by the zoning uh department.

So uh my project would not affect the uh would not contrary public interest in any way, and this would not affect a um negatively my uh neighborhoods proper and um yeah it's not gonna uh it's not affect anything negative in my public or okay.

Anything else you'd like to add?

All right, uh questions from the board.

Mr.

Neely.

So uh I assume that shed is gonna get moved.

I'm sorry.

Is the shed gonna be moved?

Oh, yeah, I'm gonna remove the shed.

Okay.

Definitely, yeah.

All right, thank you.

Yeah, no, right.

Yeah.

Then you're free to take a seat.

Okay.

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

Is there anybody in the audience who um actually I should read this before I say that?

So so we do have um one letter.

Um, and this is uh from Peter Lucier at 6 Kingston Avenue.

Um, and he wrote in um he notes that the applicant is requesting a variance to construct a garage with a setback of approximately five feet.

I'm writing to formally state that I have no objection to this request.

I understand the location and nature of the proposed garage, and I fully support the variance.

I believe the reduced setback will not negatively impact my property, its use or enjoyment of it.

This letter is provided voluntarily to just demonstrate my consent and support of the variance request.

Et cetera.

Is there anybody in the audience 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 of the board.

Thoughts from the board.

Mr.

Shaw.

I'm generally in support.

I think you know, to me, absolute key is the is the immediately most affected abutter, who you know, we'd have the letter of support from.

Um so that's the that again would be the property I had would have the greatest concerns about, uh, seeing that they they don't have any.

And I think it's also basically kind of like garage to the garage, so those situations are also usually just less impactful when something like this is going on as well.

So other thoughts.

Yeah, I I I would agree, and I I would just note that there are you know other homes in immediately around it that appear to be the same design but also have a garage added.

Of course, there's some that don't, but it looks like this is pretty common in the neighborhood.

Would anybody like to make a motion?

Mr.

Couchet like to make a motion to approve the uh make a motion to approve the variance for uh I do your best.

I apologize.

Abenolise and Twabi Hadouche for Kingston Drive, sheet 104, lot 37 requesting variants from land use closed section 190-16, table 16-3 to encroach five feet into the 10-foot uh required, right?

Yeah, it's yeah, set back to construct an attached 20 by 20 garage in the IRA zone ward six.

Um we find that the granting of the variants would not be contrary to public interests because again the request for the garage is um something that's um uh normal and uh it already exists in this neighborhood.

Um this name what the spirit ordinance would be observed because again uh the construction of the garage would not be out of character for the neighborhood.

In fact, there are several homes that have garages in the neighborhood and uh encroach just as much or more into the side yet, right?

The side yard setbacks as this home would.

Um the granting of the variance would do substantial justice because again it will allow the homeowner to uh able to uh build a garage, use it for for intended use.

Default the um the values of surrounding properties.

We have no new uh indication or any documentation that that the surrounding properties uh would be diminished.

Um but in our estimation, the addition of the garage normally should uh increase the value uh if anything in the neighborhood.

Um we find that the um uh owing to special conditions of the property that's gonna show up from other properties again.

Um the home is situated in in a such a way that adding a normal size garage uh again would uh would um create the incursion and that the proposed uh use is uh reasonable one because again um it is uh normal and customary to have a garage.

Uh so with that I make a motion to prove the uh variance.

And second, Mr.

Shaw.

Any discussion.

Mr.

Shaw.

I just thought of one more comment I probably should have made earlier.

But the other thing is they're only asking for a 20-foot wide garage in the lot.

I mean, it's almost more typical as a 24-foot.

Obviously, 24 would only leave one foot left in the setback.

So I think they're already kind of doing us essentially a smaller garage addition than one might normally request in these kind of situations.

And uh whether it was explicitly or not to do with the amount of incrosion incursion, I do think it's at least helpful to me.

I feel like it's um it's kind of a balanced uh approach.

So uh even a 20-foot wide garage is probably still gonna maybe be able to do two cars, I think, but that's that's pretty tight with a maybe one large door.

Maybe they're able to do that, but but nonetheless, I mean I do think that's uh important to note that they kind of seem to be balancing this, and and also there's there's really no other place the garage can go on the property as well.

So this is pretty much it.

We're nowhere.

So yeah, good point.

Yeah.

Any other discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor.

Your request is granted.

Mark are you keep losing people.

Next application is the application of the Colleen Brady Revocable Trust.

Uh Colleen Brady trustee, it greatscrapes by R and R landscaping inc as the applicant at 149 Shore Drive, requesting a variance from land use code section 190-16.

Table 16-3 to encroach approximately 12 feet into the 30-foot required rear yard setback to construct an attached 12 by 21 foot deck.

It's in the R9 zone in ward five.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, and good evening, everyone.

My name is Paul Chisholm with Keach Nordstrom Associates.

We're the engineers and surveyors of record for the project.

I am joined by both the owner and the applicant tonight.

The plan before you, as you mentioned, is a small dining room expansion in addition of about 230 square feet on the existing house where there's currently a deck, and then the other part of that proposal is to construct a deck 12 feet back off that back edge of the house into 12 feet into that 30-foot setback.

This property is located at 149 Shore Drive, and it was originally developed as part of a conservation subdivision back in 2018.

The house itself was also built in 18 along with many of those homes in that neighborhood.

The existing topography, well it's pretty flat along shore drive if you drive through that neighborhood.

There's a few homes, including this one that basically drop off about 10 feet from the front of the house to the back of the house, creating a big grade difference there.

Um kind of a typical like walkout situation for a basement.

It's basically a first-floor living situation, uh a single floor living situation.

Um they're proposing this modest expansion uh to just kind of create a little bit more uh livable space on that single floor and then bumping up the deck to provide an accessible uh component of outdoor living to the house as well.

Uh obviously, you know, looking for single floor living, they have the ability to kind of build into the basement, but in their case it just doesn't make any sense.

Um this basement's currently unfinished.

There's no foreseeable plans in the future here to finish any part of it.

Uh the backyard itself is basically a big lawn area up to their rear setback, and then from beyond there, it's it's a pretty thickly vegetated buffer with with lots of trees in that about a 50-foot section of that open space area between them and the assisted living facility.

Uh also in your packet, you'll see that uh we took a picture from the assisted uh living facility looking back at the house uh and it's you know uh it's there, right?

You can see it, but this was taken in the winter time.

Obviously, that's from vegetation's kind of at least and still pretty well uh pretty well covered in that area.

Um so this is the part where I would typically turn it over to our attorney Andy Prolman, who um wrote the legal uh arguments for us, but and he is busy gallivanting around Europe at the moment, so uh you're stuck with me.

Um so I'll take a stab at it.

Uh the first criteria is that the variance will not be contrary to public interest.

Uh in this case, it's a modest expansion, which will not overcrowd or encroach upon uh abundant neighbors.

Uh both neighbors to each side of this house did uh are supportive and provided letters of support uh for the proposal.

Uh and that there will be a thickly vegetated buffer maintained to the rear adjacent to the assisted living facility.

Uh number two, the proposed use will observe the spirit and intent because uh the proposed deck will be about 96 feet from the back corner of that assisted living facility to uh you know where this deck will go.

Uh again, that's not property line to property land, that's building to you know, structure to build in there, and that was a relative measurement from GIS.

Uh no additional clearing or tree removal or shrub removal or anything like that is going to occur, so that vegetation is going to remain as is.

Uh, this deck will not alter the health, safety, welfare, or otherwise injure public rights.

Uh substantial justice would be done to the property owner because the older property owner is looking to age in place on the single floor.

Uh they want to enjoy an accessible outdoor space, which is obviously a key component that I think many of us enjoy about our own homes.

Uh and the applicant believes that there will be no adverse impacts to the abutters.

Uh number four, the proposed use will not diminish values of the surrounding properties because a newly constructed deck facing a large open space area will not diminish values of surrounding properties.

Uh literal enforcement and cause a hardship owing to special conditions of that distinguish it from others in the area.

Uh as I mentioned a little bit earlier, the photography does drop off there.

There are a few homes that are affected in a similar way, but the majority of them within that development are really kind of at level.

Um, what's interesting about the code is is this deck would actually be allowed if it was only four feet or less from the ground.

But because it's you know about 10 feet up because of that grade change, it's actually not allowed, and that's why we're seeing the bearing.

So it's conceivable that many of these homes could do the same thing, but not this particular applicant.

Um denial would obviously cause the applicant to construct, you know, something either on the lower level or just something that really wouldn't work for the situation that they're in there, uh, or potentially just not construct anything at all, which would be a little atypical.

Uh there's no fair and substantial relationship between the general public purposes of the ordinance and the specific uh specific application because uh obviously this application is not going to encroach on abutters or cause overcrowding.

I think this is a pretty modest uh uh expansion into that buffer there, and obviously there's a little bit more space than you would typically have if it wasn't part of an open space conservation subdivision.

Uh and then lastly, this proposed use is reasonable because decks are obviously a common feature found on many homes, not just in that area, but really pretty much everywhere.

So uh with that, I'll answer whatever questions you have.

Thank you.

Questions from the board.

Mr.

Shaw.

Uh also thank you for clarifying that picture because that was something I wanted to ask about because I just couldn't quite figure out what that was trying to tell me.

So in the in the kind of in the criteria and also looking at especially the GIS map, but um that there's a lot of reference to quote open space like capital capitalized.

Is that basically essentially referring to the lot or the piece of property that's is that that long strip that runs between is that conservation land that was part of the conservation subdivision?

Absolutely.

That the city basically now is was vetoed to the city, or is this part of the the like on HLA type of thing?

Yeah, I believe the city technically owns it, but it was part of that parent parcel that was developed, and basically the idea was they they kind of did it on both sides, and I think every lot has to touch it.

There's certain rules that go with it.

It doesn't necessarily have to be 50 feet wide, that was just kind of the number that they settled on.

But um, yeah, I believe it was turned over to the city, and the city now kind of has control of that.

Okay.

I think that's all I had.

Thanks.

Any other questions from the board?

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

Thank you.

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

We do have a couple of letters.

Um is from uh Douglas Kutchen from 151 Shore Drive.

And um should this is looking like the other letter.

So uh speaking in favor, basically saying he has no objection uh to the proposed deck, and also from um a uh Marie, that's what we have Marie Cutcheon and Douglas Cutchen, and then we also have the other neighbor.

If we can find that one from the other side, thank you.

Um, which I think is cargo at 47 um 147.

147 Shore Drive.

And again, we've reviewed the proposed deck expansion with our neighbor residing at 149 Shore Drive.

We have no concerns with the deck going 12 feet over the rear setback and are supportive of the proposal.

And we actually got two letters to that same effect.

Um so with that, is there anybody else in the audience who would like to speak with questions, concerns, or opposition to this application?

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

Thoughts from the board.

Mr.

Shaw.

Seems very straightforward.

Um I don't see any issues.

Uh you know, we see the support from I think the immediately affected abutters.

Um I think any any impact to the to the rear uh uh dwelling for the um assisted living is is not gonna be felt whatsoever.

Um as the applicant noted, this is one of those cases that you know for the you know for the well-intended reasons, but the fact that just the topography of this slide is such that it it falls into this criteria where it's not allowed by right, uh, but I don't see any negative impact with uh allowing them to proceed with this uh usage.

Other thoughts?

Mr.

Neely.

Yeah, so uh I appreciate the applicant giving us the number.

So 96 feet between the buildings is quite significant.

And once again, a conservation area in between.

Uh we I mean we've seen buildings like this in the past with you know with a big drop-off behind them, and and I don't remember us ever saying no to any of them.

Um so I am in favor of this and obviously very cognizant of the need to or desired age in place.

So um yeah, I'm in favor of this application.

Any other thoughts?

Anyone want to make a motion?

I'll take it.

Um I'd like to make a motion that the application of the Colleen Brady revocable trust, Colleen Brady trustee, um, uh greatscapes landscaping by our gradescapes by R and R landscaping ink the applicant at 149 Shore Drive, requesting a variance from land use code section 190-16, table 16-3 to encroach approximately 12 feet into the 30-foot required rear yard setback to construct an attached 12 by 21 foot deck uh in the R9 zone in Ward 5 be approved.

We find that the granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest uh because uh adding in a deck addition would be consistent with the neighborhood, so there would be no alteration to the character of the neighborhood and no injury uh to the public would result.

We find that the spirit of the ordinance would be observed for the same reasons that Bob, it's consistent with the character of the neighborhood, and that the purpose of the rear yard setback is both to avoid overcrowding and to ensure adequate distance between buildings and properties.

And as noted, there's a substantial distance between the building to the rear, I think it was 96 feet, and the structure.

And there's also a significant barrier or buffer due to the existence of the open space to the rear of the lot.

Granting the variants would do substantial justice because it would allow the owner reasonable use of their property as noted.

And we have no evidence that the values of surrounding properties would be diminished.

We do have the support of the two immediate neighbors.

And new investment in the property tends to increase values in our judgment.

And we do find that there are special conditions of the property distinguishing from others, as was testified, there is a significant grade change.

If the just a simple deck that was at a lower level would be allowed by right, but the elevation change requires it to be higher, which is really what drives the need for the variance.

And also the fact that it abuts the common land.

Second MSU law now.

Any discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor.

And finally, we have the application of family reality investments, LLC, and 78 Amherst Street LLC, the owners, family reality investments, LLC, the applicant, 78 Amherst Street, and 3 to 13 Putnam Street, requesting a variance from land use code section 190-16, table 16 3 for minimum land area after lot consolidation of lots 83 and 85 to allow for a total of 10 multifamily units on 29,045 square feet of land, where 62,228 square feet is required.

There are six existing units.

I'm an attorney at Gottesman and Hollis, 39 East Pearl Street in Nashua, and I'm here representing the applicant family realty investments LLC, as well as the applicant and owner of Lot 83, and then as well I'm representing the owner of Lot 85.

This matter was actually before the board two years ago is granted a variance in June, and I'll touch on that in a minute, but just to for those who weren't here and not familiar with it, the property is located on the corner of Putnam Street and Amherst Street.

If you're headed towards town on Amherst Street, it is immediately after on the right hand side, immediately after the fairly large apartment building that you see on the right-hand side following the intersection of Broad Street.

This property, as I say, consists of two lots.

One of the lots, lot 83, currently has three three duplexes built on it.

This property was city-owned property originally.

It was part of the Broad Street Parkway extension plan.

That was where it was going to go, and going where it is today.

Some relief in order to properly use the property.

Well, it might have been more than a single family, but currently it's unoccupied.

And if you've driven by, you can see it's in rather poor condition.

The proposal is that this single building as it exists today would be demolished, and that the two lots would be combined.

And on combined two lots, instead of the original triple, which was approved by this board, the proposal is to have two duplexes.

There are lots of reasons for that, some of them economic being the amount of work that really comes to be required when you demolish an old building that has some materials that need to be taken special care of.

And then the property, of course, 83 has some special characteristics to it.

If you drive by or walk by and look, you can see a significant topographic dip, which is going to require some work.

The proposal would be to, as I say, demolish the one building, consolidate the two lots, and put two duplex units identical to the existing three duplex units that are there currently.

Those two would face Amherst Street, but would have access off of Putnam Street in the same area where the current parking lot and access for the three buildings exist today.

So you would extend the parking area closer to Amher Street, pretty much where the existing building will be demolished.

As I say in 2024, we apply for and receive the variance for the triple.

The problems accommodating the three-unit building, the existing three buildings are subject to a condominium declaration.

As you can imagine, having two units in a building and trying to establish common area fees, etc.

And then you introduce a third building, I mean a fourth building, which is three units within it, and the exterior is a little bit bigger, and how to parse out those fees, but also the cost of development.

So we're essentially asking for one more unit than you granted, but in the form of two buildings rather than one building.

Shows the existing conditions.

You can see the three buildings and the one single family home.

The second plan shows what's proposed, which would be the three buildings existing, removal of the existing single building on the corner, and the installation of two more identical buildings.

If you go to the third page, you will see diagrammatic sketch showing what those buildings currently look like, and so that the board is clear.

The application is presenting the same appearance buildings for the new buildings.

So you're not going to have inconsistency.

And then finally, the last plan simply shows top to bottom what it looks like from the roof edge and how they're situated on the property.

So running through the criteria.

The first criteria is the proposed use will not be contrary to public interest.

The use is allowed in an RP zone.

The neighbors around this property are two-family on-site, three-family adjacent, and then multi-family adjacent on the other side.

The neighborhood is rather densely packed residential area.

This property, as I say, has a building.

We're going to demolish it and put another unit, but three more units, so we'll have two buildings there.

You see it.

And adding two brand new buildings with four units identical to the existing is in the public interest.

Also, the proposal is to remove the current driveway that goes off of Amherst Street from the existing building.

So that's also in the public interest.

We're adding additional housing stock, one more unit from what was approved but not yet built.

So we're adding housing stock, which has, as you probably can note, is excellent housing stock.

We're keeping the building size consistent, and all of this is we will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood of dense residential use.

There'll be no threat to the public health safety or welfare.

There are no driveways off of Amherst Street, which is the busy road here off of Putnam.

This has to go through site plan approval anyway, but there will be adequate parking on site available.

And sewer and water is available to the property.

Consolidation of the undersized lot with the existing duplex development for a use consistent with the existing structures and the neighborhood observes the spirit of the ordinance.

The existing lot 83 has six units already at 4,132 square feet per unit.

The lot 85 has 4,250 square feet of land per the unit.

The variance granted allowed 3,227 square feet per unit, and we are seeking a slight further relief, so it will be 2,905 square feet per unit.

As stated, the character in the neighborhood is densely populated.

The immediate abutters on either side are more dense, 2218 square feet per unit for one and 1949 square feet for the other.

In the application, there is a density chart and a plan, which was provided a density study of the neighborhood and the square footage and a plan showing if you look in the red, those are the properties that are under the current density requirements, including this site, and the green represent those that are meet or exceed the density requirements.

So it's really hard to compare apples to apples, but I wanted to show you the size of the lines.

All of this adds to the same argument as the first criteria.

It will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, which is residential, but not proposing commercial uses here.

And the density will be somewhat similar to what exists in the neighborhood.

Site plan will offer the ability for the planning board to weigh in and determine if there should need to be any landscaping specialties or things like that.

But there will be adequate parking on site.

So number three, substantial justice will be done.

It'll allow a coordinated and cohesive development of difficult property.

Effort was made to try to design and construct and work make those numbers work.

But as I said, there's some unusual issues involved with this property and with the existing condominium.

There will be adequate parking on site.

We're adding housing stock.

Number four will not diminish the values of surrounding properties.

Each of the buildings.

If you look at the pictures in the appraiser's report, if you haven't had a chance to go eye, you can see close up exactly what the building looks like that's there, but the area of the proposed location of two buildings looks like it's a pretty tough lot to build much of anything on.

And because it's on that corner and right up against Amherst Street, this is really clearly an unusual situation given what's around it.

Everything else is built out.

Due to the unique conditions, the zoning board saw fit to allow nine units, and we're asking one more.

It doesn't, there's no fair and substantial relationship to imposing the requirement that it meet the density when nothing around it actually does.

We are meeting the use requirements and it will be consistent with the neighborhood.

Finally, is the proposal of adding two buildings in place of one and adding three additional units above that existing home there, a reasonable use of the property.

We think the picture is reflect what it is.

We think we have demonstrated that it will fit in the neighborhood, it'll be attractive housing compared to those that are there already, exactly the same, and it will provide additional units for the needed housing.

We think it'll clear the corner and allow for a safer situation.

So we think it's reasonable use of the property.

Ask for your approval.

Thank you.

Any questions?

From the board.

Mr.

Sean?

Um you referenced an appraiser's report, which I don't I was looking for at all.

I don't know, Mr.

Falcon.

Um that was in the I thought I saw at least it was in the online um interviews.

I think you came in.

I thought it was in this little link, but that I saw it.

I'm happy to share mine.

The conclusion I read is on page two of the pictures are after that.

Yeah, that was definitely in the um the online yeah, it was on the online package, but maybe not in the paper form.

I just I guess I just from my own understanding is are these proposed four units going to be added to the six-unit condominium agreement, or are they gonna be standalone?

That is the plan.

Yes, okay.

That's the same one.

Oh yeah.

This was the one that Carter had that came around from that location.

Okay, you're okay.

Okay, okay.

Any other questions from the board?

Thank you.

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

Okay.

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

Not necessarily opposition, just concern.

Sure.

Sorry, I'm gonna apologize if they're in your so I'm Gina Jensen.

I live at currently at three Putnam Street, so I live in one of the current duplexes that were built.

So our concerns are that because it's directly impacting our house because it's gonna be built on the side of our house, the fact that they're asking for something, the land requirements supposed to be 60,000 square, 62,000 square feet, that they're putting it on less than they're requesting to put it on less than 30,000.

So some of my concerns are the integrity of our house as they're building it, because obviously they're gonna have to dig and drill and do whatever it is that they built, you know, because the 38 pages of variance is mumbo jumbo to me.

I don't really understand most of it.

So um the other thing is how close is it gonna be?

Because we bought up there and bought an end unit for specific reasons.

We wanted a little bit of space, a little bit of privacy, and we knew going into it that they planned on building, but during our closing, we were told that it was only gonna be three, like a town style row with only three units, and we were told that it was gonna be 20 feet roughly between the side of our house and where that house was, or where they were gonna build the the town houses.

So now they're gonna do the two duplexes, and they're gonna be ex the same as what we live in now.

So I'm reading that at one point when you go down our back stairs, there's kind of a cement kind of um platform that the first deck is gonna be like eight feet away from that platform.

So is the decks for the new house gonna be eight feet away from our house?

So that's a concern.

Um the other concern is asbestos when they start digging everything up, is it gonna be asbestos and how are they gonna deal with that if there is?

Um I I am for the project because right now when we step outside, you have this dilapidated building, and there's construction debris piled high.

We have sorry, can you want to run a little closer to the microphone though?

Oh, sorry, especially with the uh pummeling range.

Yeah, with the ones too.

Um I'm all for the project because we have people that are living there in the home now, or at least on the porch.

No police, there hasn't been any issues, but you know, at least we know our the safety will be fine.

Um the other concern is the parking.

We were told when we bought our units that we have the two spots in front of our units, and if they build four new units with um and they're only thinking about they're only talking about in the proposal to only add six spots with the additional fourteen, so that means somehow our spots get kind of pushed down or pushed aside, however, and that was another selling feature about buying the unit because our spots were directly in front of the house.

And it it is actually in our HOA documents that we get the two driveways.

Um we get the two driveways in front of each other.

So the only thing I'm asking again, I'm for the project.

I'm just asking if they can make it a little bit smaller.

So less brick and mortar, more green, more greenery.

And then if they can make sure that we keep the two unit, the two spaces in front of our unit.

Those are the because the the builder never came and even talked to any of the current owners about what he's proposing and asking for you know, maybe our feedback and how we're feeling about it.

So hopefully that all made sense.

I apologize.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Questions from the board.

You're free to take a seat.

Thank you.

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

See, then does the applicant wish to uh address the concerns?

Um first I just spoke to my client and he's gonna uh meet with them, obviously.

Uh it whether it's approved or not approved, he'll be meeting with them.

Um try to I tried to get some answers uh just so I can explain to the people that are the abutters.

Um this matter goes to a planning board uh if it's approved.

And at the planning board, there can be discussion about the same issues you raised.

So if it's approved tonight, you have a second chance of of addressing those, and obviously my client would address them as well.

Um there's concern about the integrity of the house on their uh side, where it will be the rear of the new house.

There's not going to be a staircase coming off the back of that house.

There's a deck planned, but it will not come off, so there won't be rear access, which would be right into their their side yard backyard.

Um again, more of a site planning issue than it is a variance use issue, but still I wanted to answer that.

Um the parking as shown on the plan submitted, there will be increase in parking spaces, so it'll be 20 spaces.

Uh and their space will not change, according to my client.

Be right in front of their unit.

There's no need to move them down.

The spaces on the corner would go to the new buildings.

Um I think that's that answered all of the questions uh that were posed.

Happy to answer any other questions the board may have.

Oh, I I should also mention uh that the three units uh were uh included in the condominium, so that they're when it was approved, it was uh it's shown in the document.

But uh no site plan had ever been approved, just reserved for future development.

Any other questions?

I'm happy to answer.

So just one.

This and the the this may be tougher to answer, but um for the proposed decks on the new units.

Are those are they how are I guess how do they compare to the decks off of the existing duplex near it?

Are those more at grade?

What's the difference?

You can raise that mic.

Yes, absolutely.

Absolutely.

Um yeah, so basically it's it's about the same size as those existing decks, just obviously with less uh stairs.

Uh I did just have a conversation with the applicant, he's willing to actually make them a little bit smaller, just to get a little bit more clearance away from that existing uh existing you know unit there on the end.

So uh he'd be willing to go down to like a six by six or something along those lines, but it'll have a discussion with them after after this hearing should this be uh viewed favorably.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The questions from the board.

Um is there anything else that you wanted to add?

No, it's anything that they want to talk to us.

I just don't want to open up my window and we're gonna have some understood.

I know.

Uh so it looks as though there's no additional testimony except for what's going on outside.

Uh so I'm going to close the public hearing and open up the deliberations of the board.

Thoughts from the board.

Mr.

Neely.

So that house that is there now and the unimproved lot is an eyesore.

I think we all agree that something needs to change.

I think the three existing condominiums are our beautiful facility.

And so I'm very excited to see that um that they will be similar.

Um I think these folks got very creative with this plot of land.

It's a very challenging plot of land with the with the drop-off there.

Um they got very creative with how they got the parking in there.

We know that this is the housing stock that the uh city desperately needs is the entry level uh housing stocks stock, so to add another one actually is a net positive.

Um I do believe that the applicant in good faith is gonna work with the neighbors to uh address any issues.

Um so for those reasons I'm in favor of this application.

Any thoughts?

Mr.

Shaw.

Yeah, I think uh similar to Mr.

Neely.

Um it'll be a it'll actually make for a consistent look and feel to this overall property once it's combined.

Um so I think you know a lot of times we don't talk about that and realize again there might be skewing a bit into the planning board kind of discussions with designs and whatnot.

But I think just the you know, when something is cohesive like this, I think it still just generally makes more sense rather than something that could be put in there that might not feel like it has any fit to this, could even still have like the shared parking and everything else.

So I appreciate that the intent is to pretty much make it look more like it just was like the second phase of an original plan.

So I think that's uh helpful as well.

But I think in general, I think this is a very positive use of the land.

I I mean I also personally really like the idea of getting any traffic off of Amherst Street, especially entrance thing.

In fact, in fact, when I first looked at things, I was like, I was afraid those those were like garages, like coming off of Amherst Street, and I was like, you know, and then I quickly realized no, no, no, it's just but just any thought of more kind of you know vehicles trying to get in and off of Amherst Street versus in this case being able to come down Putnam and come in that way.

I think is it's also just very helpful from a kind of safety standpoint.

So yeah, I I I agree.

I I think it's actually more consistent with the neighbor with you know with the neighborhood than the triplex just because of the existing duplexes that are developed, so it will fit in better, and I do agree uh you know getting a driveway off Amherst Street is certainly in the public interest, uh, and no doubt we do have the asbestos issue, and it is I I've noticed it for a while since obviously we granted the pre prior variants because nothing seems to be moving, which suggests perhaps that the economics of the triplex is not what was hoped.

Any other thoughts?

Does anyone want to make a motion?

Yeah, I'll take it.

All right, I'd like to make a motion to approve the variance application for family realty investment LLC and 78 Amherst Street LLC owners.

Family realty investments LLC applicant 78 Amherst Street and 3-13 Putnam Street, sheet 62 lot 83 and 85 requesting a variance from land use code section 190-16.

Table 16-3 for minimum land area after lot consolidation of lots 83 and 85 to allow a total of 10 multifamily units on 29,045 square feet of land, where 62,228 square feet is required.

Six units are existing.

This is in the RB zone in ward two.

Uh granting the variants would not be contrary to the public interest in that the um the as noted it's an eyesore of a house sitting there right now that is all ripped apart and is unlivable at this point.

Also, there's a massive drop off, so it's a very unsightly area.

The spirit of the ordinance would be observed because the uh six current uh houses will be very similar to the four that are going there.

So it will be as discussed by the board, it'll be a very consistent look while dealing with a very challenging topography.

Granting the variants would do substantial justice in that uh the applicants or somebody attached to them has been trying to do this for 11 years, and they finally have found a way to make this happen in a uh financially feasible way, as well as um working with the neighbors that are in the six current unit units.

Uh the value of the surrounding properties would not be negatively impacted and as unnecessary hardship as discussed.

Uh, there is currently an unlivable house filled with asbestos there, uh, needs to be demolished, and the topography is extremely challenging.

Uh, they did come up with a creative way to make parking uh on Putnam Street rather than Amherst Street, which we noted is a pot uh eliminates a safety issue as well uh from the potential development.

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

Sir Second Seconded by Mr.

Boucher.

Any discussion?

Mr.

Shaw.

I'd also just like to add this.

I mean, I think it's also important to note that this will have sufficient parking uh because especially in some of these more densely um parts of the city and especially where this density is is pretty heavy versus what's normally allowed.

The fact that there's sufficient parking to have two spaces for every unit, I think is also um a very good thing uh and and helpful.

So excellent.

Any other discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor.

This is granted.

Thank you very much.

All right, moving on.

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

Yes.

Yes, yep.

Anyone see any regional input?

No.

Nope.

I do not either.

Minutes.

There's one case that will not be going for the next agenda.

Going off Shakespeare, those are road.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

I don't know if it made it to that agenda or not.

I don't think it did.

Okay.

It will it didn't okay.

It did not make it good.

We did have it, and then we had to take it off the last minute.

They're um not quite ready yet.

So don't they will be coming in in probably in June.

Okay.

We'll see them then.

All right.

Uh minutes.

Has everyone had a chance to look at the minutes?

Yes.

Yes.

Questions, thoughts?

They were pretty brief and short.

Short short and sweet.

Are you okay?

Yeah, they were but still.

You can watch the shortest morning of all time, actually.

It was it?

It was close.

It was darn close in the road.

Shortest of all time.

Yeah, no, I think like 642 or 3 or something had been the previous record.

Yeah, this is this was short.

Yeah.

Nice.

All right.

Anybody can make a motion on the minutes.

I would like to make a motion to approve the minutes uh as noted for Tuesday, March 24th, 2026.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Mr.

Lynell.

Any discussion?

Seeing none.

All those in favor.

Any other business?

If not.

Move forward.

Motion.

757.

Yes, indeed.

Okay.

Okay.

Probably only one movie.

Only one movie.

Glad that seems like the worst of the rain is already here.

Yes.

I am too, because I'm not sure.