All right, folks, good evening and welcome to the June 23rd meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.

Uh just a few quick notes before we get going here.

Uh minutes and the audio visual recordings will be available on Nashua New Hampshire.gov.

Uh tonight, up at the table here, I'm uh Josh Neely.

I am the vice chair.

The chair could not join us tonight.

Uh to my left is Carter Falk, who represents the city.

Um, some of you I'm sure have already worked with Carter as you went through your application process.

Uh to my right is uh member JP Boucher.

Uh across the ways uh member Stephen Lionel and uh member Joseph Petrie.

Congratulations, Mr.

Petrie, who's now a full member.

Um as everybody can see, we have four members up here.

Normal size of the board is five.

Um so that is gonna put us in a little bit of a different um uh light here tonight.

So because we have four people, if there is a tie vote of two to two, that is a failure of vote.

Normally you have to have uh you know you get three, three to two or whatever.

So tonight you need to have three affirmative votes for us to vote in favor of an application.

We'll take official uh roll call here in just a minute, but a few more pieces of information before we get going.

So tonight we are hearing just variances.

Uh to approve a variance, or for the board to approve a variance, as most of you know from your applications, there are five criteria.

Uh the criteria of a variance is that it will not be contrary to public interest.

The spirit of the ordinance is observed, substantial justice is done, the value of surrounding property is not diminished, and literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship.

In order for our variance to pass, all five of those criteria must be met.

As we get into the applications, and I'll read the order of the applications here in just a moment.

Uh the applicant is invited for up to 15 minutes at the microphone.

As this is recorded, we ask that you do speak into the microphone, and please speak to us.

Um if there's any noise in the uh audience, uh, please try to ignore it.

Uh don't answer any direct questions.

Everything should be addressed to the board up here, please.

Uh when you come up, please state your name and address, and then tell us what you'd like to do in your own words.

Um please understand that we have thoroughly read all of your applications, so you do not need to read them to us or go point by point.

You certainly have that option if you'd like to, and you do not need to use the full 15 minutes.

Just tell us what you want to do in your own words, and then we'll have some questions for you.

Um after the applicant is completed with their presentation, we will ask if there's anybody in favor.

They have up to five minutes of stand up at the microphone.

Once again, state your name and address and tell us why you're in favor of the application.

After that, I will ask if anybody is opposed or has any questions.

Those folks individually also have five minutes to uh to speak to the board.

If we do have folks that are opposed, uh once that their presentations are complete, the applicant then has the ability to come back up for five minutes and respond to questions that were brought up by the folks who were opposed.

Uh in the event that we get to that point, if there are multiple people that were opposed, then one and only one person of the opposed groups can come back up and make more statements for five minutes.

We let you kind of figure out in the audience who that person is going to be as your spokesperson.

Once we hear from everybody who wants to speak tonight, we will close the public hearing and we will go to the public meeting.

At that point, we'll discuss back and forth what our thought processes are on what we heard from the applicant and what we saw in the application package.

Uh as I noted earlier, you must have at least three votes in favor for a motion to be passed.

And in addition to uh the attendance roll call, did I miss anything else up here?

All right.

And Mr.

Falk, do we have any changes to the agenda tonight?

Yes, Mr.

Chair.

There's one change.

The case for 19 VISTA way will not be heard tonight, and it'll be heard on the July 28th, 2026 meeting.

All right, thank you.

So 19 Vista Way uh will not be heard tonight.

That was the special exception for some work to be done in a critical wetland by VISTA way.

Uh the agenda tonight, or the order of cases that we're going to cover tonight will be uh in this order.

Uh three March Street, eight Parker Drive, 55 Conant Road.

6-8 Mulberry Street, 53 Langholm, and 6 Arlington Street.

And I'm now going to do an official attendance roll call.

Uh I, the Vice Chair Josh Neely am here.

Mr.

Boucher.

Present.

Mr.

Lionel.

Present.

Mr.

Patrick.

Present.

All right.

Once again, did I miss anything before we get going?

Excellent.

Okay.

So I'm going to call the first case up.

So the applicant for 3 March Street, please come forward.

Uh state your name and address and tell us in your own words what you'd like to do.

Hello, everyone.

I'm Peter Breen of 3 March Street.

I'm before you today in search of a variance to construct a front porch/slash portico at my residence.

The purpose of this structure is to enhance the safety, comfort, and aesthetics of my home.

This past winter was my first at this home.

I quickly realized that the snow melting off my roof continually dripped onto my front stairs, creating a sheet of ice.

This resulted in daily salt applications, along with doing my best to chip away at the ice with my metal tipped shovel.

I did my best to keep the stairs clear of ice, but the structure would solve that issue.

Additionally, the current stairs are not code compliant, safe, or comfortable.

They pitch slightly toward the house and have great variance between the risers.

The first two steps are seven inches and the last is 11.

This actually resulted in multiple people tripping on the way into the house, including my dad when we were attending the open house last summer.

This structure would also solve that problem.

Lastly, this project is part of a greater effort to improve the aesthetics of my home.

As you can see, the house is not the prettiest.

I included a before and after image in my application.

So I'm doing my best to improve the curb appeal as much as I can, which should also help the neighboring property values.

You can see a concept of what that looks like.

Please note that's AI generated, but gives you a good idea of what we're trying to do.

Now for the details of the variance.

My house was constructed directly on the RA zone front setback of 25 feet, which you can see in the plot plan that I submitted.

The city land use code does allow for a roof intrusion of up to three feet into the setback, but the plan I submitted to the building department was for a four-foot overhang.

Which sets out to needing a variance for the additional foot.

When the building department informed me I would need a variance, I did carefully consider if I could alter the design to fit city code.

Comfort and future code compliance.

If you take a look at the plans I submitted, you'll notice that the roof structure protrudes beyond the main platform.

The proposed roof structure measures 48 inches from the house, and the main platform is about 42 inches from the building.

When designing this, I base my plan off of real life examples that I saw in my neighborhood.

These can be seen on one of the pages I submitted with my application.

As you can see, it is tender practice for the roof to protrude slightly beyond the main platform.

The purpose of this is to keep the main platform as protected from the elements as possible.

The reason I bring this up is because for my roof to only extend 36 inches into the setback, that would make my main platform 30 inches.

A 30-inch platform would not allow for 36-inch outswing storm door by standard code.

Well, there is an exception in the code for storm doors.

I would prefer I would prefer the design be code compliant rather than fitting into an exception for comfort and safety reasons.

Additionally, I believe the ask for an additional foot is reasonable and within the spirit of the ordinance.

That's all I have for you.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board?

You are free to sit down.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak uh in support of this?

Okay.

We did receive one letter.

I have a uh from Michael Sheehan at 4 March Street.

My wife and I live directly across the street from 3 March Street and have no issues with the Breens variance request.

Please consider approval.

Thank you.

Is there anybody who would like to speak in opposition to this case?

Okay.

If that is the case, uh if that is uh the uh where we're at, we're gonna close the um public hearing and move to the public meeting.

Does anybody have any thoughts on this case?

Mr.

Lionel.

I I'm in support.

Um it's uh absolutely reasonable and in keeping with the neighborhood.

Um so and and the uh applicant expressed very clearly uh the reasons why he he did not he he did not feel it was appropriate to uh stay within the three-foot protrusion.

So I accept that and uh and would vote in favor.

Excellent, thank you.

Anybody else?

Any comments?

So I agree with Mr.

Lionel's comments.

Uh I think it is pretty standard for a four-foot landing.

I think three foot would be too small.

Um as somebody uh I have a gambrel, and so I also have that same issue in the front of my house where everything just comes straight down and you get a sheet ice on the um on the stairs.

So I do sympathize sympathize with that.

That was a very good presentation.

I also noted uh when you look at the plot plan, this this house sits just a little bit further forward on the lot than most other houses uh in the the direct surrounding.

Uh so you really had no place to go uh without seeking a variant, so I'm also in support.

Does anybody want to make a motion?

Mr.

Petrie.

Sure.

Um I move that we approve the request of uh Peter Breen and John Thomas Green of 3 March Street for a variance from land use code section uh 190-16E to a four to accroach to encroach an additional one foot into the 25-foot setback of required front-yard setback for protective overhang roof over the front door where a three-foot extension is permitted.

We find that granting the variants would not be contrary to the public interest because this would be a minor uh encroachment in the setback and would improve the uh owner's um use and the safety of his property, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because it would be again a minor encroachment that would not impact the the neighborhood.

Granting the variance would do substantial justice because the encroachment would allow the uh owner to more fully and more safely use his property.

Uh we find that um the values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished by granting the variants.

And we find that owing to special conditions of the property that distinguished from other properties in the area, denial of the variance would result in unnecessary harp trip because there is no fair and substantial relationship between the general public purpose of the ordinance and the specific application of that provision of the property because of the unique placement of the property on the lot and the minor encroachment that the variance would cause.

And we find that the proposed use is reasonable as it um fits in with other properties in the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Do we have a second?

Second, Mr.

Lionel.

Any additional conversation?

All those in favor.

Excellent.

Your application does pass, four to nothing.

Um, one thing I did not mention earlier is there is a 30-day window of appeal.

Uh you are free to to proceed with your project.

Um if an appeal does uh pop up, Mr.

Fox office will reach out to you.

I would not anticipate that's gonna be the problem.

So thank you and have a great night.

Thank you.

Okay, we're gonna call the next case up here, and that would be uh the applicant is Pedro Filiguerra and Carla Shamoon, owners eight Parker Drive, Sheet C lot 346, requesting a variance from land use code section 190-16, table 16-3 to encroach six feet into the 40-foot required front yard setback to construct a six foot by eight foot front entryway edition.

This is in the R40 zone in Ward 5.

And it looks like you are the applicant.

Uh please tell us what you'd like to do.

Hi, my name's Carla.

Uh I live behind drive.

My house of which was construction 1967, I believe so.

And I sorry, I so nervous.

I didn't prepare anything for that.

Totally okay.

Take your time and just tell us in your own words what you'd like to do.

I'd like to do an entrow away to my home uh for the proposed.

It's gonna be a safe to my son because he always used it at that entrow, and then I was happy in the winter again at um ice, black ice over there, and my son have to go to the path and gather the driveway together the bus uh from school and always his people over that is that um I don't know, his spell for that.

And for the introway is gonna be good for him because they're first uh gonna provide uh shelter, better shelter for him waiting for the school bus.

Um winter uh also safe energy because it would I don't even keep it my door open and keeping my eye on him because it did in the winter and come in and then the energy.

So and then I'm gonna have two doors in the front uh in the entryway, then it's gonna save you energy.

I'm gonna open one, and my son's gonna wait in and then keep being right there in the entryway, then the other one is gonna be closed the other door.

Uh also it's gonna keep more organized in my home because we leave everything like shoes, uh jackets, everything in my dining room and kitchen because you we always go through the deck, and the first thing we see is the kitchen, and we drop and leave everything over there.

It's gonna keep it more organized, my home.

Um I think that's it, but uh the main reason for better uh shelter, my son, because he's 12 years old, and kids like to run and the bus stop and over there, then he run and I was fell on their eyes.

And I think uh it's gonna be a nice yeah.

I can have a bench, it'll be banked over there.

He can sit down waiting for the and they can see in the window and the door and waiting for the uh the bus coming.

Uh I think uh it's not uh gonna be bad for the community or for the neighbor.

It's gonna be good because it's gonna look good.

And I think that's it.

Sorry.

No, that's okay.

I don't prepare anything.

Totally fine, great job.

I'm just gonna ask if the board has any questions for you before we let you go.

Do we have any questions?

Okay.

So you are free to sit down.

Thank you so much.

And is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak in support of this application?

Is there anybody in opposition to this application?

And we did not receive any correspondent on this application either.

So I am going to close the public hearing and open the public meeting.

Uh what kind of thoughts do we have on this case?

Yes, Mr.

Boucher.

Um I'm in support of the application.

Um the the proposed use again is similar to the first case.

Again, uh looking for some some uh more permanent cover um and trying to release some issues that they're having with um you know the the normal things that we do, you know, jackets and shoes and all that.

Um the unique part of this is that this is a 40, this house is back.

There's a you know again a 40-foot um setback, but again, these houses, if you look on the street, a lot of them are set back.

Um, and I don't think adding uh six foot by eight foot um uh front entry rate addition um you would really notice from the street that it's uh coming into this front setback.

So I think it's a reasonable use um for for this uh property.

Any other discussion on this?

So I agree with your assessment.

Um it's certainly not out of character with the neighborhood.

Once again, I have a gambrel, same thing.

We we get the the sheets ice on the front all the time.

Uh this this house is also the way it's located on the lot.

It's kind of on a kiddie corner.

If it was straightened to the street, they would they wouldn't even be here for the application.

So I'm also in favor of this application.

Would anybody like to make a motion?

Mr.

Boucher.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the variance for Pedro Vierrier, sorry about that.

Carla Shamun, owners of eight pocket drive, sheep C lot 346, requesting a variance for lamb use code section 190-16, table 16-3 to encroach six feet into the 40-foot required front yard set back to construct a six by eight front entryway edition.

So in the R40 zone, what five.

We find that granting the variance would not be contrary to public interest.

Again, uh the uh the the ask is for I consider as a minor encroachment of six feet into a forty-foot uh front setback.

Uh find that the spirit of the ordinance would be observed.

Again, um it is uh a minor encroachment and the um character of the neighborhood uh this would fit within the character of the neighborhood.

Uh we find that granting the variants uh would do substantial justice because again the homeowner would be able to use their property in more meaningful way that they are they're looking to do so.

Um we find that the values of the surrounding properties uh would not be diminished as far as unnecessary hardship uh owing to special conditions of the property that this could distinguish it from other properties in the area.

Denial of the variance would result in necessary hardship.

Um again, the home sits back uh 40 40 plus feet.

Uh it is at an angle.

Um we find that that the proposal is again reasonable again because of the size lot and the placement of the home.

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

Second, Mr.

Lyon.

I know with a second.

Any additional discussion?

All those in favor.

All right.

That motion passes four to nothing.

So congratulations.

Your motion did pass.

Um as mentioned before, there is a 30-day window of appeal.

I don't anticipate that's gonna happen, so you're free to start your project.

If something comes up, Mr.

Fox office will give you a call.

Have a great night.

Thank you.

Yes.

We are the uh 19th Vista is postponed to July.

That's the case you're here for.

Yes.

Oh, sorry, uh 19 Vista is postponed to uh July.

Oh, on 19 Vista.

Yes.

Oh, okay.

Thank you.

Welcome.

July 28th, actually.

Have a great night.

All right, we will call up the next case, which is going to be 55 Conant Road.

So the applicant is Andrew Rissler and Lori Ann Dion, owners.

55 Conant Road, Sheet C lot 2980, requesting a variance of land use code section 190-16, table 16-3 to encroach six feet into the 30-foot required rear yard setback to remove an existing 10-foot by 12-foot deck and replace it with a 14 by 20 foot deck.

This is in the R9 zone in Ward 5.

You must be the applicant.

Uh please tell us what you'd like to do in your own words, and the floor is yours.

Good evening, everyone.

Uh, my name is Lorianne Rissler.

The paperwork in front of you says Laurean Dion.

Haven't changed my married name with the city or mortgage.

So same same person.

Uh so thanks for hearing our request tonight.

Uh, I'm here with my husband, Andrew, who I think actually signed the application.

Uh, and we're here because we'd like to replace our old deck, 10 by 12, with a new deck of 14 by 20.

Uh the current deck's original to the house, it's about 14 years old.

It's made from wood, it's worn out, it's rotting, it's uh frankly a safety hazard at this point.

It needs to be replaced.

Uh, we'd like to rebuild it as a slightly larger open balcony off the back of the house.

Um, rear property line is not parallel to the rear of the house, it's at an angle.

So as we extend the balcony, one corner is closer to the property line than the other.

So the setback variants that we're requesting is no less than 24 feet at that one corner and diminishes towards the other side of the balcony, requiring only about a foot into that required 30-foot setback.

I think the drawings that you have will illustrate that pretty well.

Uh so the balcony we'd like to build is also open and elevated above a walkout basement, just like the existing balcony.

Nothing's being enclosed, and there's no new footprint on the ground.

Uh we've spoken with all of our abutting neighbors.

They all support this.

Uh, you have letters from all but one of them.

Uh the one that is missing, they were out of town.

I have it, I can bring it up for you.

Uh, and an additional neighbor, technically not a budding, but just nearby also reached out when they received the notice uh writing in support of this as well.

Uh so this won't change the character of the neighborhood.

It won't affect anyone's view or property values either.

We'd simply like to safely replace something that we already have with a modest increase in size on a lot whose shape isn't parallel to the the balcony or the house itself.

Uh so we'd be very grateful for your approval and we're uh happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board?

And if you have that extra letter, could you hand it to Mr.

Petrie, please?

And is it okay if we keep that letter for the record?

Absolutely.

All right, thank you.

I know you have to read them to the record, but they're all the same.

Yeah, no, I got it.

Thank you.

Um there's no question, so you're free to sit down.

Thank you.

Is there anybody in the audience who would like to talk in support of this application?

Let me just read it.

Okay.

Um is there anybody excuse me?

I'm gonna read some letters that we received uh also in support of the application.

So uh there is primarily a form letter that was signed by quite a few groups.

I'm gonna read this really quick.

Dear members of the zoning board of adjustment, I'm writing in support of the special exception application submitted by the residents of 55 Conant Road for a rear balcony at their property.

I am the owner and resident of, and I'll read the addresses in just a moment.

And my property abuts 55 Conant Road.

I am aware that the proposed balcony is an open air structure with an open guardrail located off the rear of the home, and that it will encroach into the rear yard setback as illustrated in the drawing on page two of this letter.

I have reviewed the proposal and have no objection to the requested encroachment.

In my view, the balcony is consistent with the character of our neighborhood, will not impair my use or enjoyment of my own property and will not be detrimental to the integrity of the district.

Every one of these letters has a drawing on the back as well for page two.

And so we have uh Patricia Shaughnessy from 57 Conant Road, Nashua.

Uh Leah Gibbons from 3 Cherokee Av.

Uh John Mack from 53 Conan.

Uh Cynthia Thompson from 5 Cherokee.

And uh 54 Conant Road.

This is Victor Seussy Jr.

And we also received an email uh from John Larson.

I received the attached notice of public hearing.

Our property at 7 Cherokee Ave doesn't directly abut by just a few feet the property at 55 Conant Road.

However, however, we have full view into the backyard at 55 Conant Road.

I have looked at the plan online and noticed that all the direct debuters have approved the plan.

Just for completeness, I also want to make it known that I approve the plan.

John Larson's 7 Cherokee Avenue.

Do we have anybody in the audience who would like to speak in opposition or has questions about this application?

Okay.

I'm going to close the public hearing and open up the public meeting.

I actually would like to start with the comments myself.

This is my neighborhood.

I drive by this house every day.

These folks have done a great job increasing the size of this house, really cleaning up the property itself.

The house is larger now, so this larger deck will fit very nicely on the back.

It will not look out of place.

In fact, their current deck now looks a little bit small because they've made such a big addition.

We have no opposition.

And once again, it's it's barely over that line of demarcation there.

Um so I'm for those reasons.

I'm supportive of this application.

Does anybody else have any comments they'd like to make on this?

Pretty simple, straightforward.

Okay.

Do we have anybody who wants to make a motion?

I'll do it.

All right, Mr.

Lionel, please.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the variance of uh.

Oh, Andrew Ristler and Laura Dion, uh also RISLR.

Uh 55 Conant Road, sheet C lot 2980.

Requesting variants from land use code section.

Section 190-16.

Table 16-3 to encroach six feet into the 30-foot required rear yard setback to remove an existing 10-foot by 12-foot deck and replace it with a 14-foot by 20-foot deck.

This is in the R9 zone ward 5.

Uh the board believes the granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because the uh many of the neighbors have uh expressed approval.

In fact, all of the neighbors that we've heard from have expressed approval.

Um the uh this will not interfere with anybody else's uh house.

The size of the new deck would be consistent with the size, the current size of the house.

The spirit of the ordinance would be observed because uh again the the new deck would not uh be out of character for the size of the house and for the neighborhood.

Granting the variance would do substantial justice to the applicant uh because it would allow them to provide to have a reasonable size uh deck on the back of their house.

Uh the board believes that the values of surrounding properties would not be diminished.

We again we have uh letters of approval from many of the neighbors.

Uh there has been no uh no subject uh suggestion that there would be a diminishment.

Uh unnecessary hardship uh owing to the special conditions of the property uh that distinguish it from other properties.

Um there is not a fair substantial relationship between the general public purpose of the ordinance uh provision and the specific application of that provision because the increase in the size of the deck will not uh be out of character for the neighborhood or cause any uh issue.

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

Thank you, Mr.

Boucher with a second.

Any additional conversation?

All those in favor.

Your application has passed four to nothing.

Congratulations.

Uh as I'm sure you've heard there's a 30-day uh window of appeal.

Please feel free to start your project.

If something comes up, Mr.

Fox office will give you a call.

Otherwise, uh have a great night.

You're welcome.

All right.

The next case is Myra E.

and Jorge Gomez, owners 6-8 Mulberry Street, sheet 82 lot 2, requesting a variance from land use code section 190-16, table 16-3 to encroach six feet into the 20-foot required rear yard setback to construct an attached 11-foot by 20-foot home addition.

This is in the RC and D1 slash MU zones in ward four.

You must be the applicant.

I just need you to say your name and address for the record.

Sorry, uh Jorge Gomez.

Thank you.

Uh Sigmund Berry Street.

Thank you.

So we come in for we want to do the addition for my daughter.

Ecta room for her.

Because she's starting a band.

And we went to make you something more.

You only spay for her.

No, that's okay.

Um does anybody up here have any questions for the applicant?

Hold on, one second.

Just giving us a couple seconds here.

I I I do have a question.

Mr.

Lionel, yeah.

Um, so this addition you're you're creating.

This is the 11 foot.

Okay, so this is Alan.

This this drawing that we have here, it's this uh area here, which is basically uh in line with the back of the existing house.

Is that my is that my understanding correct?

Yeah.

Yeah.

So your current house already is within this uh the setback of from the lot line.

And this uh actually this addition would be farther from the lot line than the rest of your the back of your house.

Actually, and when I I'm giving my dimension becoming everything it's becoming all floors.

I want to make an L like this to coming to get it from my back.

Yeah.

I got the levin foods for my got it right now for my fins.

I I'm sorry, I'm I'm having a hard time understanding.

Can somebody help me here?

Yeah, so so just so we're all looking at the picture of your house on on um the picture here.

And it looks like you're just gonna basically fill in an open spot, so almost it'll almost kind of square out your house.

Say something like that.

So it'll be like a real L.

So it'll it'll like right now the sections open like this, it's gonna fill this in, right?

Right.

So it'll be like a a total L.

Uh-huh.

And so I think what what Mr.

Lionel is trying to get to is the size of your lot, no matter where you built, you were gonna be within you were gonna have to come for a variance, right?

There's nothing you can do without without asking for a variance.

Is that correct?

Yeah.

It's because you because your lot is so small, right?

Okay.

Is that does that?

Well, the the lot is small and the lot line is angled, and the existing house is already well with it, is more within the setback than uh than the the proposed addition.

Yeah.

Further back into the setback or on the sides, or just filling in a corner.

Right.

Yeah.

Okay.

That that's fine.

Mr.

Boucher had a question.

Uh same basic question.

Yeah, just you're all set, you can sit down.

Thank you very much.

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

Is there anybody with who would like to speak in opposition or has questions to this application?

Okay, we also do not have any correspondence.

Um so I'm gonna close the public uh public hearing and go to the public meeting.

Um does anybody have any comments on this application?

Mr.

Boucher.

I can I'm gonna support the application.

I think Mr.

Lionel came to the root of it.

It's just really square and off the back of the house.

Uh again, uh, if you drove by the house, you you understand that there's not much you can do.

Um, and so I don't think it's unreasonable to add that addition, and um it could have been just the way the house was built originally with that house and so um and again, like Mr.

Lionel sells is this addition will be less into the setback than the rest of the houses.

Um again, time small lot.

We see a lot of this in the inner city, um, and it's kind of typical of what we see.

So again, I don't think it's unreasonable, uh, and I'm gonna support the application.

Thank you.

Any other comments on this?

So I'm also gonna support it.

When you look at all the neighbors, everybody's pretty much up to their lot line with the way that that area is built out in the in the recent years.

Uh we don't have any opposition from any any neighbors on Mulberry or behind them on Kinsley Street.

Um so I'll take that as a as a tacit admission that this is a good plan.

Uh as everybody noted, this is still gonna be the furthest almost the furthest away from the plot line as possible.

This is a a non-standard, I guess it's a trapezoid.

Um so it's a non-standard uh design of this lot.

Once again, it's an older section of the city, so there's really uh nothing they could do, so I'm also in support.

Do we have anybody that wants to make a motion?

Mr.

Petrie, you got it.

All right.

Um I move that we approve the application of Maria and Jorge Gomez, the owners of 6 uh-8 Mulberry Street for a variance from land use code section 190-16 table 16-3 to encroach six feet into the 20-foot required gear yard setback to construct an attached 11 foot by 20 foot home addition.

We find that granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because this would be a minor encroachment.

And given the size of the lot and the placement of the house on the lot, this is the only uh essential area, this is the only place where the owners could add on to their property.

The spirit of the ordinance would be observed because it again is a minor encroachment that uh would not otherwise fit in the lot.

Uh granting the variance would do substantial justice because it would allow the owners to more fully utilize their property in a way that is not going to impact any of the neighbors.

We find that the values of the surrounding properties uh would not be diminished by granting the variance, and we find that owing to special conditions, the property that distinguished from other properties in the area, denial of the variance would result in a necessary hardship because there is no fair and substantial relationship between the general public purpose of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to this property because of the unique uh placement of the property on the lot and the size of the lot and the minor encroachment, and the proposed use is reasonable because it will fit in with other properties in the area and again would allow the owners to more fully utilize their property.

So for all those reasons, I move we approve the variance.

Do we have a second?

Mr.

Lionel.

Thank you.

Any additional discussion?

All those in favor.

Okay, your motion has passed.

Uh, as noted before, there's a 30-day window of appeal, but please feel free to start your app start your project.

If there is an appeal, Mr.

Falk will let you know.

Uh but other than that, have a great night.

You're welcome.

All right.

And the next case is going to be Brian and Don Morotech, owners 53 Langholm Drive, Sheet C, lot 482, requesting a variance from land use code section 190-264 to exceed maximum accessory use area.

40% is permitted, 31% is existing, 55% is proposed to construct a 10-foot by 20-foot shed and a 10-foot by 16-foot shed.

This is in the R9 zone in Ward 7.

You must be the applicant.

So please tell us what you'd like to do in your own words.

My name is Dom Moro Tech, 53 Lane Home Drive.

We're looking to put a 10 by 20 foot shed in adjacent to our driveway.

Um so that we can put um ATVs in there.

And we live in a split level home which doesn't have a lot of storage.

We would not be here for a variance if my garage was attached to my home.

But my garage is not attached to my home, and it is cheaper to build two sheds than it is to attach my garage to the home, which would then make me have a whole lot of extra space and not necessarily need a variance.

I do have an email thread from all of my neighbors if you're interested in that.

That they're very pleased.

They're very happy with me doing this.

The sheds will be built by Reeds Ferry, so they'll be aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood.

The 10 by 16 shed that we're looking to put is going to replace the shed behind the garage, which is was there when we bought the house and was there when the house shortly after was built.

So therefore it definitely needs to be replaced.

Um and it we're just making it a little bit larger.

Um it would add value to the neighborhood.

It would it would not look poorly.

It will definitely everything that I've seen.

If I had to do something different, I would have to get one of those lean to things that look horrible.

And we have the capabilities to spend the money on a Reeds Ferry shed, and we'd like to do that.

Excellent.

Any questions from any members of the board?

You are free to sit down.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And is there anybody in opposition who'd like to speak?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Um I'll read them afterwards just because I just received them.

I haven't had a chance to absorb.

My name's Patrick Hogan.

I live at 10 Shetland Road, which abuts the city right away that abut 53.

My concern is two structures this size is definitely going to take away from the neighborhood.

When people in the neighborhood were approached, I didn't hear a peek.

I don't know where the other people would were talked to or when they were talking to, but I've heard nothing.

I do not believe two structures of that size will not devalue a neighborhood housing prices.

Um I would strongly suggest not to approve this variance.

Thank you.

Before before you sit down, we're gonna ask if there's any questions for you.

We're just trying to you said you're a 10 Shetland?

Yes.

Oh, it's the corner.

It's right there.

Okay, so you so you're in a director butter.

Okay.

Does anybody have a questions for this gentleman?

Mr.

Lana?

I I'm sorry, Mr.

Mr.

Boucher.

We look a lot.

I got excited.

Thanks for coming.

I appreciate you uh you coming.

Um I I I think again, um sometimes as homeowners we don't understand sometimes what can or can't be done.

I think one of the things that was brought up is that if the garage had been attached, um they could have put up the two sheds pretty much with as long as they were under the percentage rate, and they could have put the two sheds up if that's so if the if the garage was attached to the house.

So it's the way the calculations are done because the garage now uh isn't considered like a part of the house.

It's considered as a uh uh auxiliary structure, but if it was connected to the house, if you could picture that, then two sheds would have been they could have put two sheds there.

I just want you to understand that it doesn't mean that we all agree with that.

We just just want you to understand kind of how some of the nuances are when we're when we're looking at these cases, and sometimes people don't understand um what can and can't be done depending on one or how the lot's set up or how the home is set up.

And again, it's just something I just want to bring up, just so you understand and get a better picture of kind of what why we're here and what we're looking at.

Okay, okay.

Appreciate it.

You're also does anybody else have any questions for them?

I do.

Um actually have a couple of questions.

I I um having a hard time remembering when I did the drive-by of the property.

Is there between your property and theirs?

Is there a fence?

Is there a tree line?

Is there any type of separation?

Are you looking right in the yard?

You can just uh keep draining blanking on it for the whole area that goes through between their property and us.

That's why I believe the city has a right of way so they can clean out their drainage.

Okay.

And um if we go out the side of our house, we're looking directly into the property.

Was there a bunch of trees there?

I think there was some trees.

Some trees big trees.

Okay.

That's it for my questions.

Anybody else have any questions for this?

This gentleman.

You are free to sit down.

Thank you.

So I went a little out of order there.

Um so as noted earlier, the applicant has provided us with some text messages uh in support.

Um, so I am just gonna identify the people that I can.

There are a few with just phone numbers, and I'm not gonna read those phone numbers into the record.

Uh so I don't think we need that floating around.

Uh, the original text message was sent on June 9th.

Hello, it's Don and Brian.

We have requested to put a shed in the front area where we normally park the boat.

We have to go before a zoning board for approval.

So I am asking my neighbor to let me know if you do or do not have an issue with it.

I will take the responses to the hearing.

Thanks, Don.

I had a response from Dale, no last name, no issues here, go for it.

A response from a Donnie White, no issues here, we encourage it.

Joe Clemente, the bigger the better, have at it.

Melanie McVay, no issues here.

Good luck.

There is a message from just a phone number.

I'm not going to read that one in, but it's also in support.

And Adam and Tacky, no issues from 52 Langholm.

Looking forward to seeing it.

So those will be entered into the record.

And is there anybody else who'd like to speak in opposition or have any questions?

Okay.

If that's the case, the applicant has five minutes for rebuttal.

Just when you do the rebuttal, I'd like to kind of have you uh answer to what this gentleman was talking about.

We don't need to kind of rehash the stuff you already talked about, but maybe if we can just get right to the crux of that.

So his house is a fair distance.

There is a stream or or water, and then there's city property in between his property and our property.

There is a tree line that's there.

Um the shed that he would be looking at is our old shed.

So putting up a new shed would be far more aesthetically pleasing for someone to look at.

Um the sheds in the front, the shed that will go in the front would not be in visual sight of his home.

Um, but it's in visual sight of every single person in which the emails are from.

From directly across the street to next door to Katie Corner, both ways.

So they would have a far more direct impact.

He would be looking at a shed that already currently exists, but just a little bit bigger and far better looking.

Any questions for the applicant?

Okay, thank you.

You can sit down.

Thank you.

And sir, you also have five minutes to come back up and and speak to that if you'd like.

That was part of the application they were going to replace it, correct?

So the shed behind the garage and the new shed that was just built in the past year, will be will be gone.

That that was their testimony, correct?

Yes.

So it'll be just be the one one shed to our to our understanding, which should be the one shed that you'd be able to see.

Two sheds.

Numbers two.

One towards six.

Yeah, one towards the front, one towards the back.

All right.

Mr.

Boucher, did you want to say something?

Okay.

All right.

So we're going to close the public public hearing, uh, open the public meeting, or vice versa.

And um, does anybody have any comments on this case?

Mr.

Petrie had his hand up first.

Sure.

Uh seems to me because they'd be able to do this if the garage was attached, that we're kind of here on a technicality.

So I I think this is kind of a reasonable request.

So I'm in support.

Okay.

I'm going to pass.

Mr.

Boucher.

Uh I'm going to support the application.

Um again, I I appreciate and understand uh the abiding neighbor.

Um I think that this is having gone by the property.

I think the brand new shed from it's a Reeds Ferry shed.

This is very specific what they're saying they're putting up.

So we we we we are familiar with that.

You've seen them, they're pretty nice.

Uh my mother-in-law has one really nice.

I wish I had one.

Um, but again, it's a refinery shed, so I know it's gonna look you know aesthetically pleasing.

Um they're both gonna be uh reads value sheds.

So um I again it's not something that they're requesting to build an addition or you know, put something up.

So it's it's you know, we know what they're putting up.

So I think again, it's gonna be aesthetically better than what's there now.

Um I think it's gonna it'll definitely to me would be an improvement uh to what you're looking at.

Um and again, like Mr.

Pagres said, uh, you know, if it was not for the garage being detached, um, you know, we wouldn't be here.

So uh I'm gonna support the application.

Thank you.

Um so I'm also in support of this application.

Um I mean we hear we hear folks um quite a bit come up here and talk about Reeds Ferry.

We all know how the Reeds ferry sheds are.

Um the fact that this is gonna be exactly in the same spot um it gives me kind of peace of mind.

Um so really the extra addition is towards the front of the house where it is a little bit busier.

Um you know, I would say to the applicant, you know, let's let's make sure when you put it in.

Uh you know you have neighbors that can that are a line of sight, so you're gonna want to make sure everything looks looks good.

Um that being said, I always put myself in in a situation where our thought process of what do I want to see in my neighborhood?

And I I would not be opposed to the to these two sheds.

Um, as the applicant spoke to, um, you know, it it is is a house with that doesn't have a ton of storage, but this is also a very oddly shaped lot.

Uh and so if it was a square, there'd be a lot of other places to put another shed if necessary.

I mean, there's really only a couple places you can put it without you know having it right on the corner of Shetland and Langholm, which obviously you do not.

So I believe they've where their shed is now uh is is as much uh in back of the house and away from it as can be.

This newer one's going towards the front.

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

Does anybody want to make a Mr.

Falk has just gonna make a note that there they'd be they would be allowed 616 square feet of accessory structure, and they're really only at 840, so they're barely over the limit anyway, and 55 percent.

Okay.

The house is not that big, it's only 1540.

Right, right.

Thank you.

Anyone want to make a motion?

Mr.

Boucher.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the variance for Brian and Don Rotec from 53 Lang Home Drive Sheet C 482, requesting a variance of land use code section 190-264 to exceed maximum accessory use area 40 percent permitted, 31 percent existing, 55 percent proposed, to construct a 10 by 20 shed, and and and a 10 by 16 sheds in our nine zone ward seven.

We find that the granting the variance would be would not be contrary to public interest.

Um again um because the uh because of the um because of all that that sheds are uh customary uh accessory uh uh uh accessory use uh on in backyards and properties.

Um we find uh also that the spare note of the ordinance uh would be observed, uh observed because again um having sheds is is customary, and again, this property is unique because of the uh detached garage.

Um we find that the granting the variants uh would uh do substantial justice because it would allow the homeowner to uh store items uh uh that they need to be because of the lack of storage space that they currently have in their home and be able to use that space accordingly.

Um we find that the values of surrounding properties would not be diminished for unnecessary hardship owing to special conditions of property that's distinguish it from other properties in the area, denial of the variance would result in necessary hardship because there is uh no there is uh not if there is substantial relationship between the general public purpose and the ordinance of provision and the specific application of the provision to the property because again the property is uh oddly shaped.

Um, the placement of the house, the fact that the garage is detached, and we find that the proposal is a reasonable one again because it allows the homeowner to use uh to to gain some storage uh space in on the property.

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

We have a second, Mr.

Petrie.

Thank you.

Any additional discussion on this application?

All those in favor, four to nothing.

As you've heard, your application did pass.

Uh the 30-day window of appeal, you can start your project if there is an appeal.

Mr.

Falk's office will let you know, but thank you very much.

Have a great night.

Can I ask one question?

Yeah.

Um to get the permit before you might have to do it now.

You need to submit an actual building permit to the building department.

It's called a building and land use permit.

Um just come to our office and we can get that process going for you.

Okay, another three or four weeks.

Um it may take a little bit of time because the building department is a little bit behind now, only because it's summertime and they're doing several hundred permits a week.

So they're very busy right now, so they try to do them in order.

They don't take people out of order just because someone wants to go first, because everybody wants to go first, so they'll get to them as as soon as they possibly can.

But it may take maybe 15 working days or so to get it to get.

What is your projected seven?

I would get the permits in as soon as you can.

I will come down tomorrow.

That'd be great.

Good luck.

You're welcome.

Have a great night.

All right, we'll call up the final case of the evening.

EJR Homes Incorporated Owner, 6 Arlington Street, Sheet 26, Lot 21, requesting a variance from land use code section 190-16, table 16-3 from minimum land area.

4,825 square foot feet exists.

6,970 square feet are required to convert a single family home into a two-family home.

This is in the RC zone in Ward 7.

Looks like the applicant is here, so the floor is yours.

Just uh provide us your name and address for the record and tell us what you'd like to do.

Absolutely.

So my name is Sali Amrani.

The address is 6 Arlington Street, Nashville, New Hampshire.

I'm not the owner.

I I I work and uh manage properties with him.

He wanted to be here, but a personal matter came up, so he wasn't able to be in attendance.

Um but in short, he the existing uh building is a single family house.

Uh it was built as a single family house.

Uh it's on a street where Arlington History has multiple mixed uh properties.

There's two families, five families, uh three family buildings there.

He is looking to convert this single family into a two-family.

Um the lot size is the reason for the variance, uh, the way the property, the lot exists, it obviously doesn't have the appropriate square footage, but um given that the other surrounding homes are similar scenarios originally single families converted to two families.

He's hoping that variants will be approved for that.

Anything else?

No.

Okay, let me see if there's any questions from anybody up here.

Anybody have any questions for the applicant?

Mr.

Boucher.

So the the we're gonna remodel the existing house.

We're not gonna we're not going to go out of the boundaries of the existing property.

That's correct.

Um so does the does the garage, the back stay?

Or is that correct?

No, that's gonna go to help with parking.

Right.

And then you've got this other addition of that was on the back that's back left, right?

That that's part of your renovation, right?

Correct, that's gonna stay.

Right, okay.

All right, so that makes sense now.

All right, thank you very much.

Any additional questions?

You can have a seat.

Thank you.

And does anybody want to speak in favor of this application?

And does anybody want to speak in opposition to this application?

Okay.

Um, I don't believe we received any correspondence on this one.

Um so no.

Okay.

So I am going to close the public hearing and open the public meeting.

Uh, what kind of thoughts do we have on this application?

All right.

Uh you want me to start?

You want to start?

All right, I can.

So this is a this is a very busy lot.

Um when you drive by uh to to convert this to a two-family is definitely in character with that neighborhood.

Um I actually love the plan of what they came up with here.

It is really just in my opinion, upgrading the property.

Um they are certainly uh, as the applicant said, they're ripping some stuff down to give additional parking as well.

Um so I actually think it's gonna make the lot uh a little less crowded.

Um, when you look at the the the neighboring properties, like they're they're all very busy lots, like there's a lot jammed in there, these houses are older.

Um so I appreciate what the applicant is is trying to do here, making this a two-family.

As we know, there was some discussion in the correspondence about ADUs.

We all know the regulations and ADUs, so they went with a two-family.

Um as we know, we're trying to add more housing stock into neighborhoods.

Um this definitely could, you know, the the second apartment could come across as an entry level, which we're very much looking forward in this fort in the city.

Um so for those the myriad reasons there, I am in uh support of this application.

Any additional comments on this one?

All right, who would like to make the final motion of the evening for the cases?

Anybody yeah, sure.

All right.

Uh I move that we approve the uh request of EJ EJR Homes owner, 6 Arlington Street for a variance from land use code section one ninety-16, table 16-3 for minimum land area 4,825 square foot exists, six thousand nine six thousand nine hundred and seventy square feet required to convert a single family home into a two-family home.

We find that granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because the overall footprint of the property uh will not change, and the uh this is a uh crowded residential neighborhood.

Um so this won't change the character of the neighborhood.

The spirit of the ordinance would be observed because of again it'll be a minor change to an already uh busy and and crowded neighborhood.

Um granting the variants would do substantial justice because it would be a minor encroachment and this would um increase the housing stock in the area.

We find that the values of these surrounding properties would be uh increased because of the um the the plan would allow for more parking on the property and would uh increase the overall value of the property and thus uh of the surrounding properties.

We find that owing to special conditions of the property that distinguished from other properties and area denial of the denial of the variance would result in a necessary hardship because there is no fair instantial relationship between the general public purpose of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property because this uh granting variance would not change the uh footprint of the property and would not negatively impact the neighborhood, and we find that the proposed uh use is reasonable because this is uh uh already in a uh uh a busy neighborhood and would not change the character of the neighborhood.

So for those reasons I move we um accept the variants.

Thank you, Mr.

Lionel, for a second.

All right, any additional conversation on this?

Uh if there is none, all in favor?

All right, your application did uh pass four to nothing.

Not to sound like a broken record, but there is a 30-day window of appeal.

Uh feel free to start your uh project.

If there's any type of appeal, uh Mr.

Falk will let you know.

Uh other than that, have a great night.

Thank you so much.

You're welcome.

All right, and to continue on with the business here, uh, we're gonna review the upcoming agenda to determine proposals of regional impact.

I know there's quite a few cases on here.

I was just perusing this, and it's interesting there are three wetlands affected, which we don't see very often, and multiple driveways, which seem to be cropping up again.

So does anybody see any issues of regional impact?

I do not.

Yeah, I also do not.

Okay.

And we're gonna take a look at the minutes.

Uh has everybody had a chance to look at the minutes.

I know we have the physical copies here, but we did get them via email.

Um almost two weeks ago.

Yeah.

So did anybody have any adjustments they want to make to the minutes?

Does anybody want to make a motion to approve the minutes?

I move we have approved the minutes as drafted.

All right, Mr.

Petrie, seconded.

All in favor?

Okay.

Steve Steve?

Yeah, I do.

Yeah.

All right.

And do we have anything else that we need to discuss tonight?

So once again, congratulations on being a full member.

I am very much looking forward to you.

I mean, you have great great input anyways, and I wouldn't expect that a change, but now you get to get to be a real boy here.

And be involved in every case.

So really excited about that.

So make motions more often.

That's good.

Yeah, you well, you did tonight, so thank you very much.

Um, any additional business?

If not, can I get a motion to adjourn at uh motion to adjourn?

Yes.

732.

Okay.

We are adjourned.