Okay, then feel free to take a seat.

Okay.

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

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

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

Thoughts from the board.

Mr.

Neely.

I'm in favor.

This is uh pretty straightforward.

This is exactly the same footprint uh as what is there.

Um there's no way with the proximity to the creek that he could build anything different than what he's trying to do.

Conservation commission, and we don't see this very often.

Had no recommendations uh besides the fact that a favorable recommendation, but there was no additional requests.

Uh he did sign the uh wetland uh buffer encroachment affidavit, so pretty simple, straightforward.

Any other thoughts?

Yeah, I would agree it's about as straightforward as that comes.

Anybody like to make a motion?

Mr.

Boucher.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the special uh exception for Barack and Barbara Putney owners of three Creek Place, Unit 113, sheet F La 32, requesting a special exception from land use code section 190-12 to work in a 40-foot wetland buffer greater than 9,000 square feet to remove and replace an existing 10 by 10 deck with a new deck, same size as we are 18 zone ward one.

Um the requested use is listed as a special exception in the use of matrix uh 190-112.

Uh the requested use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impaired pedestrian safety.

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 area or any other area of the city will be unduly subjected to the hazards affecting health, safety, or the general welfare.

Um the uh wetlands special um excuse me.

The wetlands uh buffer of course went after David uh for land use code section 1990.

119, sorry from 190-115 uh has been fulfilled.

Um also the requested use will not impair the integrity or beyond the character with the district or immediate neighborhood in which it is located, nor be detrimental to health morals or welfare of the residents of the city.

And also we'll note that um this application received a favorable recommendation from the conservation commission on June 3rd of 2026.

Would that make a motion to approve the special exception?

Is there a second?

Oh second by Mr.

Lionel.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor.

Your request is granted.

One thing I I should have noted earlier, uh that all um decisions of the board are uh subject to a 30-day window of appeal.

So seems unlikely there's no opposition, and you are free to proceed.

Thank you.

That's a very good point.

Um just brought uh brought to my attention that we did have a few folks come in um after I made my prior announcement.

So just in case you were here for one of those cases, um it uh the case at 34 Buck Meadow Road for a request uh for that was a request for a variance at special exception, has been postponed until the meeting of the 28th of July.

So if you did come in for that meeting, it has been postponed.

And um the application for the parking lot at 247 Main Duncilville Road has been withdrawn.

So if you did come in for those, you have the rest of the night off.

All right, so I'm now gonna read the next case that we'll be hearing.

This is the application of James and Brenda Stewart, 10 Ohio Avenue, requesting a variance from land use code section 190-264 to exceed the maximum accessory use area, 48 percent uh 40 percent permitted, 60 percent proposed to construct a new 12 by 22 shed and garage.

And you look like you must be the applicant.

That's me.

Uh, if you wouldn't mind coming forward to the microphone and just give your name and address for the record.

This is James and my wife Brenda Stewart at 10 Ohio Avenue.

Please you please speak up and and make sure you're talking into the microphone.

Okay, you can you can take it off off the stand or raise it up, however it was.

That's okay.

Um requested a variance for a 10 by 12 by 14 shed.

Um what is it?

It's right here.

It's a uh 14 by 22.

I'm sorry.

But um at the at this time I have a 10 by 14 little rubber-made shed in my yard, and we've certainly outgrown it.

Um but I did want to buy, I did buy a new um 14 by 24 shed from Reed's Ferry.

And what I want to do is put a cement pad down and put that uh shed on top of that and put my new toy in it.

Um there's going to be no electricity to it, no plumbing, um, no, no heat, no nothing.

I just want to put it at the end of my driveway.

And um when I get done driving my car around the city, I just want to go and park it in the shed and pull the door down shut, and that's it.

Um everybody in the neighborhood seems to approve of it, and it's going to um it's going to match this house that I live in.

Anything else you'd like to add?

No.

That's no, that's about it.

Questions from the board.

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

Thank you.

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

I do note that we do have one letter.

Uh this is from Mr.

and Mrs.

Hardy at 11 Hio Avenue, saying they confirm knowledge of the variants being sought and have absolutely no concerns with the change.

Second one.

Oh, there's a second one.

Uh we so this we have a second letter.

Uh, this is from Mary Levine at 27 Indiana Drive.

I have no objection to James and Brenda Stewart at 10 Ohio Avenue requesting a variance for construction of a shed and garage.

I think that is the only one.

Thank you.

Okay.

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

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

Thoughts from the board.

Ms.

Nealing.

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

So when you look at um what they currently have there for a driveway, it's not like they're gonna have to widen the driveway.

It almost looks like there should be something there.

Um we hear about Reeds Ferry all the time.

Uh so we certainly know the quality uh the of what's going in there.

Um they're going to eliminate the small plastic shed that they have.

Um and we do have the letters uh in support from some neighbors, so those reasons I support the application.

I agree, and I I would just add kind of you know, looking around the neighborhood.

Obviously, a lot of people have sheds, other accessory uh buildings, pools, uh, and these are relatively small lots, so it's it's tough to um meet the accessory use requirement.

Uh in this case, I don't think it would be out of character.

Other thoughts.

Would anybody like to make a motion on this one?

I'll do it.

Mr.

Lanel.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the uh variance application from James and Brenda Stewart.

10 Ohio Avenue, sheet H lot 36, requesting variants from land use code section 190-264 to exceed maximum accessory use area, 40 percent permitted, 60 percent proposed, to construct a new 14 foot by 22 foot shed or garage.

This is in the R9 zone ward seven.

The board finds that granting the variance would not be contrary to public interest uh because this uh first of all it replaces an existing smaller shed uh at the end of their driveway.

Um we have comments from one of the neighbors saying that they don't object.

We believe the spirit of the ordinance would be observed.

Uh the uh accessory use limit is there to prevent uh lots from being cluttered, but uh if this uh shed or garage was attached to the house, then then there would not be an issue.

But uh, because it's a a separate structure um a small lot, then uh that's when the accessory use limit comes into uh into effect.

Granting the variants would do substantial justice because it would allow the homeowner to uh use the the new shed slash garage to park their car.

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

Uh we did have one uh letter in favor from a neighbor.

And uh owing to special conditions of the property, uh again a small lot with with a larger house.

Uh there is not a fair substantial relationship between the general public purpose of the ordinance and the specific application of the provision.

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

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Petrie.

Any discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor.

Good luck with the project.

Good night.

Thank you.

Next is the application of Joshua and Elizabeth Zellers at 38 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 a new one that's 20 square feet larger than the previous one.

And I'm guessing you're the applicant.

I am thank you.

Joshua Zellers, 38 Roy Street.

We are replacing the original deck from 1986 that has completely fallen apart and was poorly constructed in the first place.

I'm surprised it lasted this long.

Basically, almost the same exact footprint, a total increase of 20 square feet over what's already existing.

Basically moving it a little bit so that the downstairs window is not blocked by the deck anymore.

And that's that's about it.

Questions we did have the conservation committee come into a site visit as well as two meetings with them, which they approved at the last meeting.

Questions from the board.

Anything else you'd like to add?

No.

And then feel free to take a seat.

All right, thank you.

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

We do have a couple of letters that I will note.

First is uh from Janet Veluouk at 41 Royce Street.

I'd like to submit my letter of support for Elizabeth and Joshua Zellers to remove their old deck and build a new one at 38 Roy Street.

And uh we have a letter from the Percivelis.

And this is we at 36 Roy Street want to express our full support uh in the Zellers at 38 Royce Streets project for constructing a new larger deck on their property.

Unless I'm missing one, those are the ones we have.

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

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

Thoughts from the board, Mr.

Boucher.

Uh I'm in favor of the application.

I think it's pretty straightforward.

Um again, the request is just really to rebuild a deck and add very little swift footage to the deck, uh, which is reasonable.

Um, and again, he explained exactly why he needed to do that.

Um, and again, this about some um conservation land in the back, and the difference in size deck would not you not be able to see it, no one's gonna be affected by it.

So uh I'm going to support the application as as requested.

Other thoughts, Commissioner Neely.

Due to the close proximity of the wetlands behind, we've seen multiple projects on the street.

Nobody can do any projects in that corner unless they come for a special exception.

So uh I'm not aware that we've denied any of them, and um, and certainly the conservation commission did a good job and gave the five points that they're asking for as well when they uh gave a favorable favorable recommendation.

So I'm in favor.

And I would just add that even with the increase, the size of the deck is certainly very reasonable.

Would anybody like to make a motion?

Mr.

Boucher like to make a motion to approve the special exception for Joshua and Elizabeth Zellers, owners of 38 Roy Street sheet 107 Lot 16 requesting a special exception from land use code section 190-11 to work in the 75-foot prime wetland buffer of Samu Brook to remove an existing deck.

We'll construct a new one that is 20 square feet larger than the previous ones in the IRA zone, ward six.

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

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

Um there is no um there is no uh special regulations to be fulfilled in this in this case.

Uh the requested use will not impair the integrity of the out of character with the district or the neighborhood in which it's located, nor be detrimental to health morals or welfare of the residents of the city or Nashua.

And again, uh with that we are with this application we're for we're going to um it was a rose right here.

I'm always fumbling for it.

Um we're going to um uh stipulate that the approval of the conservation commission, a favorable recommendation had five stipulations, and we are noting that those will be uh part of this approval.

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

Zero second.

Second by Mr.

Petrie.

Any discussion on the motion.

Seeing none.

All those in favor.

Good luck.

Next is a request from the Humane Society uh for Greater Nashua Corporation.

Uh Harvey Construction is the applicant at 24 Fevery Road, requesting the following variances from land use code section 190-108 C8 colon one.

Um sorry.

First, to allow two wall signs where one is permitted in lieu of a ground sign.

One ground sign exists.

And two, to exceed the maximum wall sign area, six square feet permitted, sixty-eight point seven square feet proposed.

This is in the R18 zone in ward two.

Okay.

And you are here for the applicants.

Hello, I'm uh Kim Pishka from Harvey Construction, and this is Doug Barry from the Humane Society.

Um so our proposal is to uh provide two signs on our construction project.

Um one is the Humane Society Animal logo that will hang over the timber framing that is going to be added to the project, and the other is the words Humane Society for Greater Nashua on the uh building.

So I think that's pretty clear.

Yeah.

Uh we're not touching the existing sign that's out by the road that will remain as is.

Um we are adding a large uh addition to the existing Humane Society right now.

Um and with the larger building and uh projects, the humane society is going to be able to have uh more people attend, so having some additional signage that states the logo and the name of the business will just make it a little bit easier to see.

Um it is pretty set back from the road, so it's not in your face, but um just makes it a little bit easier to see as you're driving up the driveway.

Anything else you'd like to add?

We've been in uh in New Hampshire in Nashville since 1900, and there's still like a lot of people who don't know who we are.

So I want to make sure that uh our our building is visually apparent uh apparent and that people know that that's that's a humane society questions from the board, Mr.

Pouchet.

Uh it appears from your uh technical drawings that this is not an internally lit sign, it's just block letters on a wall.

Is there any lighting on that sign or is it um the animal head logos that are in the timber framing?

Uh we're planning to have like a light above shining down on the logos.

Right.

Um so it also really lights underneath the canopy as well.

Sure, but the the humane site of Greater Nashua that won't have any lighting.

Non-eliminated.

Okay, thank you very much.

Mr.

Lynnell.

And and just to confirm um I believe what's said in here, there is no change to the ground sign that's on actually on Ferry Road.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Neely.

And so I know it's a 10,000 square foot addition.

What's the size of the original building?

It's about 9500 square feet.

Sorry, double in it.

Yeah.

Okay.

And then the clinic.

Is that are you guys opening the clinic like 24-7 or is that just during the same business hours?

Okay.

Thank you.

Other questions.

Anything else you'd like to add?

I don't think so.

Thank you.

Feel free to take a seat.

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

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

We do have one letter.

Um which is in opposition, which I will read.

This is from Julie Blackwell at 9 Heidi Way Um Hideaway Road.

Dear Planning Department.

I object to the Humane Society's proposal to drastically increase the size of the permitted sign.

Their organization is surrounded by residents.

Thus, I believe a sign of the proposed sign would not conform well to the surrounding neighborhood.

If they were building on Amherst Street, for example, I could understand a large prominent sign to compete with other commercial businesses.

In a residential neighborhood, they are not competing for attention.

Additionally, a shelter is not a spontaneous visit because someone is attracted to a sign.

As someone who has adopted a pet from their facility, you only visit such a facility if you are actively seeking a pet or donating to one.

Unfortunately, I'm unable to attend tomorrow's hearing.

Please accept my comments.

Would you like to respond to any of those comments?

This woman is actually been complaining about the entire project.

I was cutting down too many trees, not very happy with that happening.

But also the sign faces ferry road, and she's over on hideout, she's not even going to see the sign.

So I really think that that's you know it's unreasonable.

Some some of the comments were just related to why do you need to sign if it isn't spontaneous?

You know, these aren't spontaneous visits, they're planned.

Could you maybe just speak to that?

Sure.

Um there are people that drive by that see our sign and and actually come in and say they've never been here.

Uh many people do that.

And I think, as I said to you, we've been here since 1900, and so many people still don't know that the Humane Society is on Ferry Road.

That uh I think it's it's a way of showing it's a way of showing people that we're here, we're providing low-cost services to them, um, and they should come in.

Any other questions from the board?

Seeing none, all right.

You're unless you have something else to add, you're free to take a seat.

No, January, thank you.

All right, given that I'm going to close the public hearing and open the debris of the board.

Uh thoughts from the board.

Mr.

Leno.

Yeah, I I'm very familiar with the Humane Society location.

I've been there several times.

There is a really small, fairly small sign right on Ferry Road.

It's actually easy to miss.

So, but what they're talking about is not a wayfinding sign as we often uh deal with, but simply uh once somebody enters the complex uh of the humane society being able to figure out where to go because they're adding services and there'll be more than you know, perhaps more than one entrance.

Um it's very similar to what I've seen at other shelter locations.

Um I'm I'm in favor.

Mr.

Boucher.

Also, uh I'm in favor also.

And this is you know, on paper, it's a large ask.

But again, as Mr.

Neil Lee spoke about an ask question, it's a double size of the building.

Um, the humane site of Nash or is not lit, so I think it it fits in with the scope and the size of the building.

Um, so this is not like it's true on Amherst Street we have signs and stuff, but they're usually lit, and there's usually a reason this pylon of signs is all kinds of reasons why they need site more sight line uh to see the the business ahead of time.

Um again, I think they have a right to be able to uh identify their business, and I think this is being done very respectfully to them to the neighborhood that it's in.

So I'm going to uh support the application.

The thoughts from the board.

I just add that I that I agree that although the ask uh does seem large uh given the scale of the building and this overall size of the site and how far it's set back, it really seems reasonable.

It's a long-established use.

I I also think about kind of what else is in the area, you know.

I know you know Peninchuk Middle School and their sign, which is pretty large, and you're in front of the building for obvious reasons, right?

You need to identify the use.

So I'm in favor.

Other thoughts.

Would anybody like to make a motion?

Mr.

Nealing.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the variance for the Humane Society of Greater Nashua Corporation owner, Kim Pieska, Harvey Construction Applicant, 24 Ferry Road, Sheet G lot 39, requesting the following variances from land use code section 190-108 subsection C, subsection eight, number one, to allow two wall signs where one is permitted in lieu of a ground sign, one ground sign exists, and number two to exceed a maximum wall sign area, six square feet permitted, 68.7 square feet proposed.

This is in the R 18 zone in Ward 2.

Granted, the variants would not be contrary to the public interest in that they are going through a large doubling of their facility, uh, taking it from a about 10,000 square foot facility to about 20,000 square foot facility.

Um it is very normal in Nashua for a facility of that size to have that amount of signage or more.

68.7 square feet is not uh not a large number.

Uh the spirit of the ordinance would be observed as noted uh by the by the members of the board.

This is being tastefully done with primarily a lit symbol for the Humane Society with a couple of the signs going on there to really mark the correct doors for folks to go into.

It is in the humane society's best interest to have the public going into the proper doors rather than wandering their facility.

And when you double it, they're obviously adding a few extra doors, and it makes sense to have those doors properly marked.

Granting the variants would do substantial justice in that as noted, the sign there at the street is not lit.

It is relatively small for this type of facility.

And having the signage, lit signage on the walls on a building that is set way uh way back uh from the curb side in a in a relatively dark area is good for wayfinding.

Um what we didn't talk about, but should be part of this, especially in the winter months.

These folks will be open in dark winter months, and I think it is critical that these signs be lit up on the board so that customers uh can find it, as well as folks who need to go to the clinic, which looks like that's a new entrance.

Um we have no reason to believe that the values of the surrounding properties would be diminished as to unnecessary hardship.

Um the as I noted earlier, the building is doubling in size, and it is not out of character to have this amount of signage on a 20,000 square foot building.

In fact, we often see quite uh quite a more amount of signage square footage as well as a number of signs requested.

Um it was noted by the applicant that they do have folks that miss their facility when they're trying to visit because it is a small sign at the curbside and it is not in a well-traveled area.

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

Zero second.

Second by Mr.

Petrie.

Uh any discussion.

Seeing none, all those in favor.

Application is approved.

Good luck.

Next is the application of John A.

Coostas uh revocable trust, Johnny Cusis trustee at three Dunstable three East Dunstable Road, requesting a variance from land use code section 190-264 to exceed the maximum accessory use area, 40 uh percent permitted, 49 percent proposed to construct a 993 square foot addition to an existing carriage house.

It's in the RA zone in Ward 6.

And I presume you are here to speak on behalf of the applicant.

Mr.

Chairman, members of the board, good evening.

Andy Prolman, attorney with Pruning and Pearlman here in Nashua.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, members have a very straightforward case for you tonight.

Um you've seen these um requests before where we exceed the 40 percent accessory structure accessory structure threshold with um.

I'm here on behalf of the uh's revocable trust.

John Kutzas is with us tonight.

Um, should you have any questions for the owner?

Um we have uh in addition to the existing carriage house, the addition is 993 square feet, uh, with the existing carriage house plus the shed, um, and then the addition where it puts us over the 40% allowance by 384 square feet.

Um we you have you have our application, um just to touch on the criteria uh very briefly.

Um we don't believe this application is contrary to the public interest.

We're not gonna be changing the character of the neighborhood with the addition of the carriage house.

Um folks, I know you folks like to take drive-bys.

Um the carriage house itself is is you can see it from the street, but just barely, plus if you're going down these east uh uh dunstable, you tend to be moving along, so you you barely even notice that the carriage house is even there.

Uh it's well hidden behind the um trees uh and the uh shrubs out front.

Um we believe uh we will observe the spirit of the ordinance uh because the carriage house with will um continue to be uh secondary and accessory use um to the uh property.

We uh believe that substantial justice um is here for the um for the applicant.

Uh we don't see any adverse impact to the uh city or the neighborhood.

We don't believe we have any impact property values.

Um we have two letters of support uh from the two neighbors most impacted on Catherine Street.

Um we don't believe we're gonna have any uh adverse impact on uh surrounding property values, and finally we have um a larger uh than usual lot in the neighborhood.

I provided the GIS uh maps.

You can see three east Dunstable is the largest lot in the neighborhood, and then there are two other landlock uh empty parcels directly behind uh into the side of the Cootsis property, also owned by uh John and his wife Diane under different and under different entities, but um all together we have a very unusual large lot in this um in this section of Nashua.

So, Mr.

Chairman may be the fastest um variance case I've uh presented.

So I'm happy to answer any questions.

Questions from the board.

Seeing none.

Anything else you'd like to add?

Thank you.

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

I as noted, we do have uh two letters, uh, which I'll read into the record.

The first is from Ruthie Lyons at uh 6th Catherine Street.

I've been a neighborhood, a neighbor of John and Diane Coustas at 3 Stunsible Road for 43 years with the back of my property um abutting the side of theirs.

I've seen the architectural plans for the proposed addition to the carriage uh to the Grass House carriage house, and believe your approving this request will allow the property to be improved while still respecting the surrounding neighborhood.

I'd like to go on record that I'm 100% in favor of the application.

Uh the Cousasoma property are aesthetically pleasing, etc.

And um I believe for us project is reasonable and fits in well with the character of our neighborhood.

I feel it only enhance nearby homes and property values.

The second letter is from Cynthia Gale at 4 Catherine Street.

I've been a neighbor of John and Diane Coastis at 3 East Duncil Road for 22 years.

The back of my property butting up to the side of theirs.

John has shown me the architectural plans for the proposed addition to his garage slash carriage house.

And I believe you're approving this a crust will allow the property to be improved while still respecting the surrounding neighborhood.

I'd like to go on record that I'm 100% in favor of the addition because this is a wonderful neighborhoods.

Their property is accepted pleasing.

Um similar thoughts.

I believe the post project is reasonable and fits in well with the character of our neighborhood.

It will improve the property and will not have any negative impact on my views or sunlight or create any safety concerns.

I feel it only enhance nearby homes and property values.

Asking on the board to approve the variance.

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 a public hearing and open up the deliberations to the board.

Thoughts from the board.

Mr.

Petrie.

This seems pretty reasonable.

Um it's a pretty minor uh addition.

Um I don't see a reason to oppose it.

Any other thoughts?

Mr.

Neely.

Yes, so as uh attorney Prolman noted, it it's really hard to see that building from the road.

I mean, unless you know you're looking for, you can't see it is hidden behind a row of trees there.

Oversized lot.

Um we have letters from the neighbors who who actually can see the building from their direction from Catherine.

And it just reminds me that we approved on the corner of East Dunstable and Burnett number one not too long ago.

We put a much larger building in a much smaller space.

Um so I you know I think fair is fair when it comes to this.

Um, so that I have no reason to not support the application.

And I agree, and I just also add that um, you know, having looked at the architecturals, and it was also noted by um both of the people putting letters of support in, but that they're really a very consistent uh with the architecture, uh making it even more compatible with the character of the neighborhood.

Any other thoughts?

Would anybody like to make a motion?

Mr.

Patrick.

Sure.

I move that we approve the application of the Johnny Kutsis revocable trust, Johnny Kutzas trustee for variants from land use code section 190-264 to exceed maximum accessory use area of 40 percent permitted, 90 49% proposed to construct a 993 square foot addition to the existing carriage house.

We find that granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because the addition would be a minor encroachment and would not uh disturb the neighborhood.

We find that the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because the uh this would be an unobtrusive addition and would maintain the use of the carriage houses as a secondary use.

We find that granting the variance would do substantial justice because it will allow the applicant to more fully utilize the property while respecting the character of the neighborhood.

We find that the values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished as the uh addition is likely to add to the value of the Kutsis property.

We find that owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it 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 here because this is uh a large uh lot um and is in uh larger than other lots in the area, and there's no uh relationship between uh strictly applying the the requirement here and uh and the um the fair use of the property.

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

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Lynnell.

Any discussion on the motion?

Seeing none, all those in favor.

Application is granted.

Good luck with the project.

Next is the application of David Bertrand owner at 203 Kinsley Street, requesting a variance from land use code section 190-16 E1 to exceed maximum driveway width, 22 feet existing, 24 feet permitted, an additional 12 foot by six inch uh feet proposed off of new Dunstable Road for a total width of 34 feet six inches.

Um you are the applicant.

Yeah, David Bertrand, 203 Kinsley Street.

And I'm put a variance in for a driveway in the back of my house of to uh main dunstable as opposed to continually going out on Kinsley Street, and going out main dunstable is going to be a lot safer than ingress.

I'm pretty sure it's pretty straightforward.

I mean it's self-evident.

I in 19.

I moved in in 1995.

I bought I put a variance in a 97 for the garage, and I put a garage door there with that very intent to go out to the main dunstable.

And I have used it a few times, and but I just haven't paved it or cemented it yet.

So I'm looking to do that.

Anything else you'd like to add?

No, it's pretty pretty straightforward.

I hope questions from the board.

Seeing none.

So you're free to take a seat.

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

Oh, you're sorry, go ahead.

I I'm I'm thinking paving.

I got some quotes for paving, but I might do cement.

Would that change anything for this?

No.

No.

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?

I do not believe we received any letters on this one.

So unless I'm mistaken, I'm going to close the public hearing and open up the deliberations of the board.

Thoughts from the board?

Mr.

Boucher.

Um I live in the District Garden neighborhood, so I travel up on road and I go that way if I'm going downtown a lot.

So I'm very familiar with this area.

Um of the things, obviously, uh the homeowner didn't talk about, but speeds are more than what the speed limit is there.

Um most of your traffic is going down Kingsley Street, some of it's appearing off to the to the back side of the street there.

Um so obviously, anybody living on Kingsley Street, especially when they're near close to the highway where the hill comes down a little bit and they're sweeping around the corner.

Um the speeds are much faster.

So I think definitely having a second uh driveway on the backside is reasonable uh to have.

Um definitely reasonable to have.

So I I look at it mostly safety and um I think that's basically it for me.

Um and again, it's reasonable.

Uh it properly significant because it has frontage on two streets.

Um, and and again, it's the second house from the point.

So uh again, I think it's reasonable, and I'll split the application.

Other thoughts.

I I I just echo your comments and just note that you know just rode my bike there uh by that corner recently, and uh I think it's definitely a safety concern.

To your point, cars really do come flying down Kinsley there, and I I could certainly see nervousness in wanting to especially back out of that driveway.

Nothing I would want to do.

No, I support the application as well.

Unless there's any other discussion, maybe I'll take this one since I think I'm the only one who hasn't yet.

So I'd like to make a motion that the application of David Bertrand at 203 Kinsley Street requesting a variance from land use code section 190-16 E1 to exceed maximum driveway width, 22 feet existing, 24 feet permitted, an additional 20 feet six inches proposed off of New Dunstable Road for total width of 34 feet six inches be approved.

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

It would not pose any threats to public health safety or welfare.

In fact, it would enhance public safety for both of the owner and uh the area.

Um and it would not be inconsistent with the character of the area since you have the two um you know about uh you had frontage on two different streets.

It would be consistent with the neighborhood.

Again, we've noted uh or sorry with the sphere of the ordinance, noting that it would be consistent with the character of the neighborhood, and uh again, no entry to public health safety or welfare.

Uh and also I think the sphere of the ordinance is really to avoid overly large driveway entrances that appear more like parking lots.

In this case, the second the additional driveway uh width is actually on a different street.

Uh granted the variance would result in substantial justice.

Uh uh, you know, clearly it would be a safety benefit uh to the owner.

Uh we have no evidence that it would be any negative impact to surrounding property values, and uh there is an unnecessary hardship.

Uh the special conditions of the property being uh the that it is a double frontage lot.

Um, and you know, given the fact that the additional driveway width is proposed on a different street, on the street to the rear, there is no fair and substantial relationship between the general purpose of the ordinance and its application to this property, uh, and it is a reasonable use.

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

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Boucher.

Any discussion?

All those in favor.

And your request is granted.

Next we have the application of Robert uh Speciferi.

I hope I said that correctly at 2 Candia Street, requesting a variance from land use code section 190-16 E2 to exceed maximum driveway width, 19 feet existing through seven feet 10 inches proposed, with the proposed extra driveway width located 10 feet away from the front property line while maintaining the existing curb cut opening.

And you must be the applicant.

I am.

I'm Robert Speziferry at 2 Candia Street.

And as it says, um I wanted to um widen my driveway.

I have two kids at home that shouldn't be at home, but they're at home, and there's four cars and a truck, uh, my work truck that got assigned to me.

So I park on the side a lot, and then I gotta come out and I move the cars a lot.

Um, there's no on-street parking.

So I was gonna I think I have to be 20 feet up.

I was looking to see if I could come 10 feet up on that record and and and pave it from there over.

And you say um I I think the reasons are obvious, but could you uh speak to kind of why you can't go 20 feet back?

Could you agree that?

I guess I wouldn't even ask you to, because it's pretty obvious from the location of the house.

But you can't you can't go 20 feet back as required because of the position of your house, correct?

Correct.

Yeah.

Any other questions from the board?

Anything else you'd like to add?

I think it no, sir.

I think it's free.

You can feel free to take a seat.

Thank you.

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

We do have one letter.

Um I'm Stephen Tardiff and my wife Elaine, and we live at one Candia Street across from two Candia Street.

We have no issues with the homeowner's improvement.

I think what they have done is great so far, uh, is a great improvement compared to the previous owners.

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.

Thoughts from the board.

Mr.

Lynnell.

Yeah, I mean normally I'm I'm not a big fan of of super wide driveways, but I do appreciate the applicant.

Um first of all, applying for the variance, uh such an unusual thing nowadays.

Um, and the the design where you know there is that swoop, which a lot of people do, so they don't uh uh widen the curb entrance, but they're gonna landscape it and it'll look pretty nice.

I I am in favor of the application.

Other thoughts?

Mr.

Mealy.

So so this house is kitty cornered.

And so if you look at it and they'd moved it and it was facing straight towards Candia, he would have the room to do what he's trying to do.

You know, he's just he was set up for failure here with the with the direction of the house.

So uh I mean we talk all the time about about not widening driveways, and one of the things we always ask them for is well, what if you wrap it around the side of the garage?

I mean, this guy's doing everything he possibly can to you know to to comply with that.

So I'm fully in favor of this.

I don't think he has another option.

You can see on the grass where he's parking already.

This is actually going to beautify that whole area, so uh I think it's a win-win for everybody.

Yes, uh you know, I I would agree.

You look at it there, really, there really isn't another option.

Also, it's the fact that it's a corner lot and the way the house is skewed.

Any other thoughts?

Would anybody like to make a motion?

Mr.

Boucher.

Sheet H lot 282 requesting variants we use Code Section 190-16, subsection E, subsection two to exceed maximum driveway width, 19 feet existing, 37 feet 10 inches proposed with the proposed extra driveway width located 10 feet away from the front property line while maintaining existing proof cut opening zone or two.

Um we find that granting the variance uh would not be public, uh, contrary to public interest uh uh again because uh believe that the character of the neighborhood would be maintained and there are other um large driveways in the neighborhood.

Uh we find that the spirit of the ordinance um would be uh observed um again um it would uh in essence maintain um the sphere of the ordinance for the uh crook out opening uh without winding it, um, even though he's looking to come in a little bit on the side.

Um granting the variants would do substantial justice again uh because the the homeowner now will be able to park the vehicles he needs to park without having to widen the existing curve cut and accommodate all the cars for his family.

Um we find that the uh values of the uh surrounding properties uh finds would not be diminished.

Um we find that only the structural conditions of the property, that the signal properties that the areas would result in this househip because again, uh as noted the house is kind of at a kitty corner.

Um kind of the position of the garage and where the exits and driveways would be kind of a little difficult to achieve anything but what he's proposing.

Um we find that again the proposed use is reasonable again because it maintains the crowd cut um and maintains that that visual crook cut uh so with that I make a motion to approve the variance.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Mr.

Lanel.

Any discussion on the motion?

Seeing none, all those in favor.

Your request is granted.

Good luck.

Next is the application of Matthew and Tessa Feehan at 121 Lilly Road, um, requesting the following variances from land use code section 190-16, table 16-3.

One for the existing lot B-969 to allow the existing house to encroach five feet into a 20-foot required um right side yard setback for proposed lot B-9691.

Uh minimum from two from minimum lot size, 18,000 square feet required, 10,807 square feet proposed.

And three, minimum lot size frontage, I'm sorry, minimum lot frontage, 100 feet required, 71 feet proposed, four minimum lot width, 120 feet required, 71.3 feet proposed, and five for minimum right and left side yard.

All right, moving on to the next page.

Setbacks, 20 feet required, 10 feet proposed for both.

All requests to subdivide one lot into two lots and construct a new single family home.

This is in the R18 zone in Ward 8.

And I presume you're here for the applicants or are the applicants.

We are would you mind just stating your names uh and address for the record?

Yeah, so good evening, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board.

My name is Matt Fien.

This is my wife Tessa.

Uh we live at 121 Lily Road here in Nashua.

We live there for seven years.

And want to thank you for you know, reviewing our application tonight.

So we're requesting obviously to approve uh our subdivide our property into two residential lots so we can build a modest single family home for our growing family, which we plan to reside in indefinitely.

Uh from the beginning of this process, we tried to design a proposal that fits naturally with the neighborhood while keeping as much open space as possible between sides.

Our property sits at the edge of two zoning districts, so R18 and R9, and is surrounded by mixed lots, small and large along Lilly Road.

There's actually two lots on Lilly Road, six houses down that would be equivalent to the same size as the one that we're proposing.

Um and we designed this lot to closely reflect the development pattern of that adjacent neighborhood.

Our current home no longer meets the needs of our growing family.

We've gone to numerous open houses in Nashua and surrounding towns.

We've met with contractors about adding a second story onto our house.

We've searched for available residential land within Nashua.

But there's only right now, as of this morning, uh land available in industrial areas or commercial areas.

And we believe that this proposal gives our family the opportunity to remain in the neighborhood where I grew up, and we would love to continue raising our family.

One point we'd also like to emphasize is that while the submitted buildable area that you see is 50 by 90.

Uh, we don't intend to build anywhere near that size in terms of width.

So the current concepts that we're looking at right now are a max of 36 feet wide and roughly 50 feet in depth to maximize that side yard space and reduce the visual impact on neighboring properties.

We believe this proposal presents a reasonable use of the property, respects the character of the surrounding neighborhood, and satisfies the intent behind the variance criteria.

Thank you so much for hearing us tonight, and we'd be happy to answer any questions that you guys might have.

Questions from the board.

Mr.

Lanel.

I I admit I'm confused about this about your saying that the current house no longer meets your needs, and you're going to build what a smaller house.

We have a two-bedroom right now with a three-year-old and a two-year-old.

Um, so they share a bedroom.

So we plan on having one or two more kids, so we just need more space.

And so we met with contractors about you know adding a second story on, but it wasn't practical for a long-term solution for us.

And could you not expand the house horizontally you if you since you have the space?

Uh we certainly could, that's definitely on the table.

But the proposal that we have here today is certainly option A for us.

I I'm I'm concerned because I mean one of the you know we need to find that the five points of law are are to be met, and one of them is uh in inconsistent with the ordinances, and but it plainly you you have you're in the R18 zone and you want to build an R9, you want uh have an R9 lot.

Uh yes, it's at the edge of the boundary between the two, but I I'm I struggling with this, so I'm being interested to hear what uh other members of the board have to say.

Other questions from the board.

One of the things that you noted in your application was that uh what you're proposing, I don't want to paraphrase you incorrectly, is not dissimilar from some of the other lots in the area.

Could you just elaborate a little more on that point and maybe to what degree the uh the it these lots would be consistent after subdivision?

Absolutely.

So 108 and 110 Lily Road, so 108 is 0.248 lot size uh acres, and this would be the same size lot as our proposed lot.

So it's six houses down, it's on the same road, and there's two houses, so 108 and 11.

So 11 is about 0.25 acres, which is roughly you know what our proposed lot will be as well.

So although our new lot is going to be a little bit narrower, uh, we want to build a narrower house because we want to minimize impact, obviously, maximize yard space, um, and just be you know as close to compliance as possible.

Thank you.

Sure.

Other questions from the board.

Anything else you'd like to add.

I think the only other thing that I would add is um if there's concern between the distance between houses in the neighborhood, are the current house.

Um there are other houses within the neighborhood that would be the same distance between houses as our proposed new house, so it wouldn't be uncharacteristic.

And we are absolutely open to the idea of additional landscaping needs, fencing to preserve privacy and overlook with neighboring properties.

Any other questions from the board?

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

You're free to take a seat.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Please come forward.

Good evening.

My name is Kieran Dapkis.

I live at 11 Lily Road with my husband, five doors down from Matt and Tessa.

And I've been there since 1986.

Sounds really old, huh?

But 40 years, and it's crazy.

My kids grew up on Lily Road, and many times they still call it home.

It's that kind of neighborhood.

They roamed bicentennial elementary school with Matt and his siblings, and Lord knows what they did over there, but whatever.

My son wanted to stay in the district so bad.

He looked for three years to buy his house, and he bought a house on Monica Drive.

I know Matt and Tessa feel the same way.

They love the area, and that's where they want to stay, and that's where that's why I'm here.

So to try and get that.

Our house is five doors down from there.

We're heading into the Cal de Sac.

It was built in 1969, so it's been there for a long time.

I measured last night.

My neighbor's house is 28 feet from my the edge of my garage.

So it's closer than what they're proposing in there in their thing tonight.

So I just want to make sure that everybody knows that's how the neighborhood is.

That's how it's been for more than 40 years.

And I hope that you'll see it that way.

And definitely it fits into the neighborhood.

Thank you very much.

And I apologize for missing it.

Could you just give me your address again?

Yeah, 111 Lily Road.

Thank you.

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

I'm gonna note we did receive some letters in favor.

Uh I I seem to be missing them every once in a while, so hopefully I I have them all.

So the first one is from Bill Dopkus.

Um addressed to the zoning board.

Um, noting that he grew up on Lily Road, was a resident has been a resident here for 25 years.

I currently live a few minutes away and have always appreciated what makes a neighborhood great.

Uh knowing the positive experience, I'll always support thoughtful opportunities to add more housing in the market where it's become increasingly difficult to buy or build.

Uh I know that the opportunity to expand housing options and uh welcome more families in the area is rare and should be given careful consideration.

Um he believes the applicants have taken a thoughtful and responsible approach and that it's consistent with the character of the neighborhood.

Uh next we have a letter from Amy and Mark Dupree at 122 Lily Road.

I'm writing as a neighbor at 122 Lily Road about the variance of Matt and Theresa Fean are asking for.

I am for everything that they would like to do with their land.

I think that a variant should be approved for them.

They're a wonderful neighbors who keep their dwelling in the art top notch.

Please approve what they are asking for.

Have a wonderful day.

And then finally, a letter from the Sheputz at 116 Lilly Road.

Uh, we are writing to express our support for our neighbors' application to subdivide their property and construct a new home.

As neighbors at 116 Lily Road, we've had the pleasure of meeting and becoming friends with Matt and Tessa and have always found them to be thoughtful, respectful, responsible members of our community of the community.

They take pride in their property and are considered for those around them and welcoming to uh all those in the neighborhood.

Though variances are required, we believe their proposal is reasonable and appropriate use of their property and will be a positive addition to our neighborhood.

Based on what we know of the project and of the family, we're confident that they'll complete it with the same care and consideration they've always shown.

We appreciate the zoning board's careful uh review of this application and requestfully uh respectfully asked that you give it favorable consideration.

I believe those are all the ones that we have in support.

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

Sir, please feel free to come forward.

Come up to the micro.

Oh, my name's Mary Joe Tetter.

I live across the street from the uh proposed land, and uh I'd like to say as much as it's uh it's been stressful decision for me, but it can concerns me because all the properties up on that area, which used to be called Brown uh Poets Hill, was one half acre.

And this proposed situation will take these property across the street on to a quarter of an acre.

And that concerns me because I'd like to know how this will change my property values.

Uh could you give us your address?

Pardon me?

Uh would you mind giving us your address?

118 road.

Thank you.

Is there anything else you'd like to add?

Pardon me?

Is there anything else that you would like to add?

No, I I would not object to an addition to a home or two of second story, but to put a home between the two buildings.

Very good.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Good evening.

My name's Kevin Morrissey.

I'm at 119 Lily Road, right next door.

Uh thanks for the opportunity to speak tonight.

We respectfully oppose the variance request at 121.

This isn't just a small setback.

Sorry.

This isn't just a small setback request or minor change.

The request is asking for several variances to split one conforming R 18 lot into two lots that would be non-conforming.

We bought our home with the expectations that it would remain within the proper zoning requirements, and we're expecting another house to be put in between.

Purpose of the R 18 district is to maintain larger lots and preserve open spaces between homes and prevent overcrowding.

Approving these variances would create two lots that don't meet either either zoning.

We also don't believe that there is an unnecessary hardship.

Finally, we are concerned about the impact on the surrounding neighborhood.

Well, people may have different opinions about the property values.

Repurchase our home expecting that these zoning standards would be maintained.

Thanks.

And you did submit a letter, and we have received that as well.

Yeah, we did.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Is there anybody else who uh wishes to speak?

Sir.

Thank you, gentlemen.

All right.

I am Fred Goforth.

I live at 123 Lilly Road.

My family and I have been there for over 20 years.

And the proposal for 121.

Excuse me.

Should be not denied because it goes, it does not satisfy the legal standard required for a variance.

Approval would result in an undersized, narrow and overcrowded crowded lot that is inconsistent with the intent of the R 18 zoning district.

And incompatible with the established character of the neighborhood.

Well almost 22 years ago.

And here someone that's all I'm going to say.

Thank you for your consideration.

And I did submit this.

Yes.

Yes, we have.

We we did receive your letter.

Thank you.

Good evening, members of the board.

My name is William Barry.

I'm a practicing attorney with Barry and Honoro at 161 Kinsey Street, National New Hampshire.

I represent the direct abutter, Kevin and Kelly Morrissey of 119 Lilly Road.

I agree well.

Everything that's said by the opposition in further ad that the owner's requesting five variances for a simple potential lot subdivision.

I often eat lunch and watch Channel 16 and watch your programs to educate myself to find out what's going on in the city.

The first variance for the subdivision is this lot into two lots with a remaining lot being 10,800 square feet.

The purpose of dimensional standards and zoning code is to maintain a cohesive uniform neighborhood that people can rely upon when buying and building a home.

The proposed variance request completely undermines the purpose of the lot size requirements in R 18.

The proposed lot B 9691 is out of character with the R 18 neighborhood lot size requirements.

That it is close to the R9 zone is irrelevant.

For the lot, the owner has not identified one special condition which must come from the property itself to grant the variance.

The only condition is that they need relief from the zoning map requirement of R 18.

And that is not a special condition.

A special condition would be a steep slope.

If it was a corner lot, if there was an odd road frontage, there was wetlands, there was a large easement, it was an overly large lot for the neighborhood.

Not one special condition for this lot exists or has been identified.

Nothing from the application would give you cause to find any special conditions.

In fact, the owner's special supplement says that this lot is a large flat side yard, rectangular and completely square.

Purely because it would be profitable to the owner.

There are no special conditions of the property.

Now there are four other variances.

R 18, 18,000 square feet, 20-yard setback, 100 100-foot frontage, 125 back frontage.

They're all in violation.

The proposed use of not being conflict, explicit or implicit with the purpose of the ordinance.

The purpose of the side of the dimensional requirements of a lot in this zone is clear and unambiguous.

This is an economic request.

The applicant is at 121.

If we drop a house in there, where's 911 going to respond to?

What's the number?

Because the R 18 zone had its requirements, and R19 zone had its requirements.

You folks have read enough plans.

The Bird Implant is quite cute.

They didn't place a driveway on this lot, they didn't place a house on this lot to show you just how crowded and out of character of the neighborhood when you drop that plan into this.

Attorney Bear, you are coming up against your time.

If you could just wrap up.

I will, thank you.

Our 108 Lilly Road and 110 Lilly Road is in our nine neighborhood, and what their side yard setbacks and the likes is irrelevant to the R 18.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

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

Seeing none, uh, you have the opportunity to come back and uh rebut um any of the comments that were made.

You have up to five minutes.

There's one more letter.

Oh, there was one letter.

I apologize.

Hold on one second.

I missed a letter.

So sorry, um, I'll just read this one into the record.

Uh this is from Richard Jackson at three Shakespeare Road.

I'm writing to inform you that I strongly object to this proposal.

The bison channel neighborhood is considered by many to be the most desirable neighborhood in Nashua.

There is um more than one reason for that.

The the writer did speak.

Jackson.

Jackson did.

Uh I don't think Dr.

D.

I don't believe he did.

No.

No, okay.

No, sorry, never mind.

So I I'll continue uh noting that one of the reasons is the relatively wide spacing between the housing uh houses giving it a very open feel.

Trying to cram a second house into this lot does not fit um uh at all with that.

Uh this is evidenced uh not only by the fact that the new lot size is sixty is only sixty percent of the required lot size for this zone, but the left and right setbacks are also cut in half, and the right setback for the existing house will be reduced to only 15 yards.

I think it means feet.

Uh the two houses are only 25 yards apart.

Again, I think we means feet.

Um so he goes on to note that the existing setbacks are are not met.

Uh this would also say very precedent.

If you permit this, how would you refuse the next applicant that wanted to do the same thing?

Uh and again, he believes others will coming, etc.

So uh generally uh he opposes this type of housing densification.

And I'm paraphrasing.

So now you're free to come forward, and you have up to five minutes to provide uh any responses that you wish.

Sure.

Um so as far as a money grab, this is far from it.

Uh this wasn't our first uh thing in mind.

Like I said, we had met with contractors, we've got three quotes for a second story edition.

Was not practical for our family at the time.

We've looked at numerous open houses, we've tried to find land for sale within Nashua, um, and none are available in our neighborhood that we'd like to stay in.

As far as cramming and overcrowding, you know, we intentionally reduced the size of our proposed house plan.

It's not on your plan, but for the record, we'd like to say that the max width is going to be 36 feet wide, which will be a 20-foot setback on the 119 Lily Road side.

So it will be in compliance with R 18.

Um, and our existing house will nearly be compliant with R 18 minus the encroachment of five feet, but it meets all of the other, you know, width frontage, etc.

Um as far as devaluing property, you know, we certainly understand that that is a concern of our neighbors.

Um this proposal is for a single family home in a neighborhood that's already full of single family homes.

We don't believe it's gonna negatively affect surrounding property values, and there's no evidence that I could find at least that has been presented or on the internet that says so as well, or within the city of Nashua.

Um we understand that we're short on the R18 requirements, um, and that's exactly why we're here today, you know, presenting to you guys.

Um rather than trying to maximize the site, we're intentionally designing this proposal to closely resemble the surrounding neighborhood.

And like we said before, 108 and 110 Lilly Road, which are five houses down, would be the exact same lot size.

And we're not trying to build a wide house, we're just trying to sort of go at the landscape of the proposed lot.

As far as the character concerns that our neighbors have, you know, we respectfully believe this proposal does fit the neighborhood.

Like I said, it remains a single family home that we would like to live in indefinitely for the rest of our lives, so our kids can go to bicentennial just as I did.

We're not changing the use of the property, we're only requesting relief to create one additional residential lot.

I think that's all I have.

Do you want to add anything?

This is far from a money grab.

I just want to put that out there.

You know, that we're thinking of our family first.

You know, we've explored all other options, and this is you know option A for us, and it's the most practical right now for our family.

Thank you.

Uh now, as I I mentioned earlier in the hearing, we uh do provide the opportunity for someone who spoke with questions, concerns, or opposition to the applicant uh to the application to come forward and essentially have the last word.

Um we it is only one person who spoke with questions, concerns or opposition.

So if you'd like, we would give you a moment to deliberate amongst yourselves to decide who that may be.

If you already have a good idea who that may be, then that person can certainly step forward.

Of course, you don't have to, it's a choice.

Thank you.

All right, uh, with that then I'm gonna close the public hearing and we'll open up the deliberations of the board.

Thoughts from the board.

Mr.

Neely.

So uh a case like this where you have uh uh folks uh in opposition and in support from the same neighborhood is one of the worst case scenarios that that in my opinion we end up with to have gotten to this point it is very tough.

Um I will tell you uh when I did a drive-by of this neighborhood, um first of all, I love the view.

Um but it is uh is a really neat neighborhood as these folks everybody up here, everybody who has spoken and written a letter has great pride in this neighborhood.

Um and what we have heard tonight from folks is that a big part of why they're in opposition is because of the size of the lot.

This is an R 18, they all have this you know the same amount of setback, uh same same basic um lot sizes, you know, they're they're relatively oversized compared to some of their neighbors as you go further up the road, as we heard.

My thought process when I did the um when I did the drive-by was uh because it's right in the line of the R9 and R 18, like I could get on board with this if there was no neighbor opposition.

And boy, did that change tonight.

Uh, you know, I I think we got that one letter earlier today um in opposition and then came into some more letters as well as um folks who came in to to um to speak in opposition.

Um the the fact that it's both neighbors as well as a person right across the street in opposition.

I I I probably cannot support this application um because they're the ones most affected.

And while we don't have any specific data on real estate value, I I know that's certainly their concern.

We heard it from one of the the folks who who spoke.

Um but to fill in that yard with another house is gonna change that view specifically from across the street, and I and I get it, the folks at 119, like there's a house a lot closer.

I know we just heard from the applicant that they're willing to move it the 20 feet away, but that's not what we have in front of us for the application.

So I'd like to hear what the rest of the board has to say, but I I don't think I can be in support at this time.

Mr.

Lynnell.

Yeah, I well I drove by and it is indeed a beautiful area.

Um the I think one of my the my first thought when I was reading the application is why does it not fit their long-term needs?

Okay, uh it's a two-bedroom house, which I'm I admit I did not look at the uh assessor's card to see if that if that's actually the case.

It seems a bit odd to me, but uh expanding the house horizontally into that space that they want to build into is uh is a viable option.

It may not be the one they want.

Uh sometimes we have an application where uh there is a reasonable alternate approach that would not require a variance, and we've insisted that that be uh be done.

I can't support this just because it's more convenient to them to build another uh house on a on a small non-conforming lot in their in their neighborhood.

And I understand and sympathize with the neighbors in opposition that it does change the character of the neighborhood to have denser housing where there wasn't before.

Um and you know, if you look at at my past voting record, I've generally been uh against splitting lots, especially in in the more uh in even especially in the denser neighborhoods, but uh we would typically approve a a split lot with minor setback uh in and or a lot line encroachments uh variances if it's an oversized lot for the area, and it is not.

It's the same size lot as as the surrounding ones in the R18 district, so I can't support this.

Other thoughts, Mr.

Petra.

I'd say that I am I really appreciate what the homeowners are are trying to do and certainly understand um you know they want to stay in the neighborhood.

Ultimately for me, I'm opposed because I I just can't find something unique about this property that would justify us granting the variants.

I I just I can't see that there's a legal reason that would allow that justification.

So I'm I'm opposed.

Mr.

Boucher.

Uh I also um in the same position as my my uh members, uh co-members here.

Um I I think the only thing for me is uh again I would I could only get there if the appearance of the street width was there, and it maybe was a death issue because of something unique about the property, it would be that depth issue.

But I I think again um what was said uh for me it really hits home uh tonight with this application, and I do appreciate again the homework is trying to stay in the neighborhood, and I we all know how how housing is so tight and I appreciate that.

Um but I think and and again in this area in this neighborhood, I think this is um nothing unique is standing out to me, like the lot depth is not there, and but everything else is okay.

And I'm just giving as an example, right?

Um, because sometimes um visual visually something will look will look like it fits.

Um but I think in this case here, this is just uh a little too much here.

So for me to uh to get on board with with the applicant.

So again, I I appreciate the applicants uh work on this and and uh what they did to try to get here, um, but I don't see anything unique about the property at this point.

And just to throw in my comments, I I I I do sympathize with what the owners are are trying to do.

It is a difficult housing market, and I am confident as we saw from letters that in support that they uh keep their property well, they're good neighbors, and I'm sure that what they would propose you know would be uh a quality home and a and a good project.

Um but I I think I'm with really the the rest of the members of the board.

Uh for me the issues are that I don't find anything um that that is distinct about this property.

Um generally in the cases where we have granted relief um for creating a new lot in the past, it's very often a scenario where what's proposed doesn't meet zoning, but it is consistent with the overall character and density of the the neighborhood.

We will find that at times.

Uh or as noted, the deviation is relatively small, and it's still within the character of the area in this case.

Um I I I you know the lot that's proposed is really fairly consistent with the lot that has exists is consistent with that and the surrounding area.

Um so I don't see anything that distinguishes this lot from others.

Um and I don't think what's proposed is consistent with the character of the area.

So really those are the two areas where I come down.

Property values, um, I I doubt would be negatively impacted, quite honestly.

I do think substantial justice would be done, but I can't get to the other three criteria.

Any other thoughts?

Would anybody like to make a motion?

Well, Mr.

Lano.

Make a motion on behalf of Matthew and Tessa Feen, owners.

121 Lily Road, sheet B lot 969 requesting the following variances from land use code section 190-16, table 16-3.

One for existing lot B 969 to allow existing house to encroach five foot, five feet into the 20-foot required right side yard setback for proposed lot B 961-1.

Yes.

Uh two, minimum lot size, 18,000 square foot required, 10,807 square feet proposed.

Three, minimum lot frontage, 100 feet required, 71 feet proposed, four minimum lot width, 120 feet required, 71.3 feet proposed, and five minimum right and left side yard setback, 20 feet required, 10 feet proposed for both.

All requests to subdivide one lot into two lots and construct a new single family home.

This is in the R18 zone ward 8.

Uh the board believes that granting the variance would be contrary to the public interest because it changes the character of the R 18 zone.

Um there is was substantial objection to name from neighbors, uh direct neighbors.

Uh and that so clearly there is uh public interest in not granting the request.

We believe the spirit of the ordinance would not be observed because it is so many uh requests to uh exempt from the R18 zoning.

Um there's uh granting the variants might would do substantial justice to the the owners uh because they want to uh build a larger house, um, but they can do it another way.

Um as far as values of surrounding properties would be diminished.

We have uh testimony from some of the property owners that some of the neighbors that they believe it would.

Um there's some disagreement among the board as to whether that's the case, but um, it does seem to be a possibility.

And the thing is there is no unnecessary hardship because there's no special conditions of the property uh that make it amenable to uh subdividing in this way and requiring so many variances.

Um there there is a um there is a fair and substantial relationship between the general public purpose of the ordinance and the specific application of that of that provision to the property uh because the R eighteen zone is for wider spacing of houses, larger lot sizes.

And uh the that the uh homeowners say, well, this is a transition because it borders uh a different zone.

That doesn't change the property uh the properties of the R eighteen zone.

So with all of that said, I make a motion to deny the variances.

Second by Mr.

Neely.

Any discussion on the motion?

All those in favor of the motion to deny Sorry, say your application uh has been denied, as we did note, there is a thirty-day uh window of appeal.

So if you do wish to avail yourself of that, please feel free to reach out to uh deputy manager claim for uh Mr.

Fox.

Would anybody like to take a break before we plow on to the next two cases?

We're gonna take a five-minute break before we resume for the last two cases.

That means the killer.

This is from land use code section one ninety-thirty one.

One to encroach ten feet one inch into the twenty-foot required front yard setback, and two to encroach five feet into the six-foot required side yard setback to construct an eighteen by twenty car park that's in the RB zone in War 3.

And I'm I'm assuming you are the applicant.

Excellent.

He is Gary.

I am the contractor that built it.

So if you wouldn't mind just stating your uh name and address for the record.

And do you want to just move that mic over a little bit so that you're speaking into it?

Perfect.

Alright.

Um, let's see here.

All right, so can I do I have any questions from you guys as far as what we're looking to do, or do we have what do you guys currently have or have you looked at as far as uh the I mean I can it's it's a car port that we're looking the purpose of the car port I assuming it sounds like you guys look into this ahead of time and have a very good idea of what's going on.

Um it's our car his his car has his truck as a basically special gulling door um from that driver's side.

Yeah, driver's side.

It's just a it's a veteran.

It's uh like combat situations that have led to that he needs this and it's does not open inside his current garage.

So demoing the garage in the just a few years old house versus building a carport.

It makes a lot more sense to build the carport.

Um it's there's many, many houses inside that neighborhood in the general vicinity.

Um that are not like they're not feeding.

But it's uh I it's uh I could pull up the GIS map if as as required, but it's uh there's there is quite a few that are within the setbacks.

Um but yeah, I mean it's uh as far as what you guys what you guys need.

Um public interest, and I'm just gonna breeze through this in case if there's anything that I'm happy for you guys to interrupt me if you have any questions whatsoever.

Um but not contrary to the public interest.

The neighborhood has several homes essentially against the property line, including one of the abutters.

Uh proposed use will absorb the spirit of the ordinance and a quote protecting the character of existing neighborhoods through zoning regulation and enforcement.

It will support this.

Umstantial justice would be done to the property owner by granting this parent variants.

Um I mean that's uh that's a most definitely uh I think the high qualification as you can be.

Um this is the least invasive way to make this work.

Yeah.

Uh inclement weather happens.

We live in New Hampshire.

Uh post use for not to diminish values of surrounding properties.

It is common for structures to be closer than the currently what's currently allowed in this neighborhood.

I mean, it's the I'm not sure when the specific in Nashua the zoning regulations were most recently changed, but much of these houses little Floridas down the street, all those houses are 50 years old.

It's not, you know, these there's uh very little houses in that neighborhood that are as new as his or as you know that are actually to that regulation.

Um we get owing to special conditions that distinguish it from other properties in the area, denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship because I mean to access the garage and also build the structure, it's the only location that works.

I mean, it's not possible to build it anywhere else.

You know, there's not any other places on the property that this could happen.

There's not, it's a very reasonable need.

Um questions whatsoever.

But we can add a thing.

Yes, um, and if you yeah, you can step up to the mic or we could hand it down as well.

Emily DeVall, um, Gary's wife, and I live at 54 Baldwin Street.

Um, as you see, my husband's in a wheelchair.

He's he was in combat in Vietnam and uh his legs were somewhat destroyed.

He can walk a little bit, but not much.

So he has a special vehicle.

Um for him to access that vehicle, he cannot even go through the garage because there are steps.

And for us to put in a ramp in there would actually reduce the size of the garage.

So that was one thing, you know, and plus that there's the whole ceiling part uh when the wing lifts up.

And you also have to have room for the special chair that goes in and out of the vehicle.

Right now, the he can access his vehicle from our front door because we have a ramp coming down, and he can go rain and snow and hail um and really bad heat, he can access his vehicle.

But that means also he he's out in the elements when he is accessing that vehicle.

We also have three vehicles always.

Um his truck, my car, and our son, who's uh in his 20s, also has his vehicle there.

He lives with us.

So it would honestly, I'll just tell you, it would be really nice not to have to plow on top of stones and things to get some of the vehicles out.

So it's not a big massive garage.

One side of it, our neighbor has a wall, like a fence.

The other side, we have a neighbor who has the exact same house as us, and we're really good friends.

He's fine with it.

Um, all the neighbors are fine.

And the folks across the street, their driveway is right across from us.

And we didn't go through the process of of getting letters, maybe we should have, but um, they're just all we're all kind of getting along pretty well there.

Both houses, ours and our one neighbors have only been there for four years.

So it's not like we've been like working on this situation for a long time, but it's just at that point where we're ready to move forward.

Anything else you'd like to add?

I think we got the uh might as well through it last one for him.

I mean the proposed is not a is not or is a reasonable one.

The purpose of the structure is to make it easier on the combat better difficult.

That sounds like a pretty reasonable request that my house.

But uh, yeah, you guys got everything you need.

I yes.

Any questions from the board?

All right, unless there's something else you'd like to add, you're free to sit down.

Thank you.

Anyone in the audience who'd like to speak in favor of the application?

Anybody in the audience who'd like to speak with questions, concerns, or opposition?

I will note we actually did receive one letter.

Um, and uh support.

This is from Dan and Julie of 55 Baldwin Street.

Uh this is Dan Van Calkin and uh Julie Chafey at 55 Baldwin Street.

We are neighbors of Gary and Emily, and we would absolutely love for them to have their variances approved.

They take great care of their property, and all requested variances are for a good use case.

So you did get a letter.

Um I think there's nothing else to add, so I'm gonna close the public hearing and open up the deliberations of the board.

Thoughts from the board.

Mr.

Petrie.

Yeah, this is very reasonable.

Um I completely support this.

Any other thoughts?

Mr.

Nealing.

Yeah, so uh when I did a drive-by, my concern was if the neighbor from 33 Fairmont was going to show up because this really goes up right again against their fence.

Um it is interesting when you look at the overhead pictures.

33 Fairmont has quite a bit going on on that lot, but it's forward on their lot, so it's away from this fence.

54 is a little bit negatively affected by the curvature of Baldwin Street.

I and their houses forward on the lot.

They literally have no other place they can put any place that his vehicle be able to be covered where the the gull wing can can open up.

Every person should have a right to um access their house.

They every person should have the right to access their vehicles.

Uh we live in New Hampshire.

Uh it rains, it snows, it's hot, it's cold, um, and it you know, when it rains, it rains sideways.

So I do believe that this gentleman um should be granted the ability to um have something that covers his vehicle.

Um as we know it is not quick and easy to get in and out of a vehicle when you're also putting a chair in and out.

So he has an extended amount of time outside.

This is going to uh reduce the um possibility of any type of of incident.

Um so I'm fully in favor of this.

Honestly, there's no other place you could put it besides the place they're requesting.

Other thoughts.

I I just note that for all the reasons stated, I I agree.

Anybody like to make a motion?

Mr.

Neely.

All right, I'd like to make a motion to approve the variance.

The variance for Gary and Emily Duvall, owners 54 Baldwin Street, sheet 62 lot 229, requesting the following variances from land use code section 190-31.

Number one to encroach 10 feet one inch into the 20-foot required front yard setback, and number two to encroach five feet into the six-foot required right side yard setback to construct an 18-foot by 20 foot car port.

This is in the RB zone in ward three.

Uh, granting the variance uh would not be contrary to public interest, and that as discussed, um every uh person should have the ability to uh easily enter and exit their home as well as their vehicles, and in this case, the lot is set up in a way that there is only uh one place that a car port could be set up.

The spirit of the ordinance uh would be observed in that the home as noted is set forward on the property while the direct abutter at 33 Fairmont, their house is set uh quite far away from the fence line uh that this car port is going to be set up against.

There is a fence there as well, uh, so that we do believe that the neighbors at 33 Fairmont would not be negatively impacted.

Uh granting the variants would do substantial justice in that the applicant does need to use a special vehicle with a gull wing.

He cannot use his garage, relatively new house, uh, so he does need some place that covers his uh entrance and egress to the to the uh vehicle.

And as noted with a um with an electric chair, it does take longer.

So it is natural for folks in New Hampshire specifically because of the weather to have some type of way to cover their entrance and exit to the car in inclement weather.

Uh there is no reason to believe that the values of the surrounding properties would be diminished.

In fact, uh we had uh uh testimony from the applicant that their uh direct neighbor at 50 excuse me at 52 uh was in favor.

They have a very similar house, and we did receive a letter from the uh neighbor directly across the street at 55.

And as to unnecessary hardship, um this property is unique in that is relatively new and it is on a curve of Baldwin Street, which minimizes their front yard.

They do have a very short driveway.

It is normal uh to have three vehicles.

They do have three vehicles, it's not like they have an excessive amount of vehicles, but this one vehicle does need to have uh extra space, uh both uh uh distance around it as well as height, and there is only one place on the property that this could uh fit.

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

Second by Mr.

Boucher.

Uh any discussion on the motion?

Seeing none, all those in favor.

Your application passes.

Good luck with your project.

Thank you.

Thank you for your service, Mr.

Del.

And finally, the application of the Zacharoo Blue Less uh family revocable trust, uh Sale Al Harvey applicant uh 94 to 94 and a half Kinsley Street.

Uh requesting a use variance from land use code section 190-15, table 15-1 to allow convenience stores slash smoke shop in the LB zone.

Um I'm sending your name uh and address for the record.

You could just hold it if you wish.

Oh, that's fine.

Oh, you might want to pull it up a little bit of the arm.

There you go.

All right, good evening, everyone.

Uh my name is Hassan, and that's uh Al Harvey, that's my partner.

Uh first I appreciate the opportunity to uh be able to speak.

Uh I'm uh requesting your approval for opening you know convenience smoke shop in 94 Kinsley Street.

Uh basically my goal is to create you know clean, professional, well managed business that serves the daily needs of the community.

Uh in additional to tobacco products, the store will offer everyday convenience items such as beverages, drinks, snacks, and other essential stuff.

Also uh, you know, as uh I understand as you know, as a business owner, uh I understand the importance of being responsible and I'll strictly follow the local state uh federal laws and try you know make it as you know safe, uh respectful, welcoming uh environment to the customers and community.

Uh sorry.

Uh I believe the business will provide uh convenience for local residents, uh maybe in future create jobs, contribute to the local economy, and just overall improve you know the you know I believe it's gonna be positive impact on the community on the property of stuff, and pretty much that's it.

Okay, questions from the board, Mr.

Nealing.

So I believe we wouldn't be here if you guys were just doing a convenience store.

So convenience and a smoke shop.

So I get that.

That's why we're here because it's a smoke shop, but a smoke shop is not allowed in the LB zone at all.

So why not just do the convenience store and not do the smoke shop and then you guys could open tomorrow?

Honestly, I've I've thought about it about when I you know stuck with uh that's a landlord.

Uh I'll talk to him.

He uh usually these it used to be a convenience store before.

And he told me the whatever the business owner, he only like less it you know the couple of months, like five, six months, and then they close.

I don't know, like they didn't do well or anything.

Plus, this space like the students has like very big space.

So I thought why not to add something and just instead of opening a convenience that somebody had done beef wood and left.

Maybe I should like add something and you know add to it.

So question for staff.

So we have a couple things going on here, and maybe I'm a little confused by what's going on in the application, what what's written up here?

So are we here just because a tobacco shop is not allowed in the LB zone?

This has nothing to do with a thousand feet ordinance that's attached to this.

Are we here for that as well?

I don't believe there's any of the other uses within a thousand feet that are against the ordinance.

We just put that in there just so you know that um there are certain uses that you can't have within a thousand meters.

Another vape shop, uh, even though honestly, all convenience stores, pretty much well, not all, but gas stations, 7 Elevens, they all sell these products.

Right.

So the it's the vape shop is not allowed in this zone, is what it is.

Well, really, what it is.

The convenience store would be allowed.

They they had one there in the past for many years, and like the applicant said, they they shut down for a while, open up, and um I used to go to the laundromat across the street or the drive cleaners across the street, so I used to see it being closed, but so it's really the vape shop, is what they're really here for.

So I'm sorry, if I can do one more question because I think we're gonna ask the same thing.

So I get it, every convenience store sells it, and that's fine.

I'm in favor of that.

Are we just here because they're calling it a smoke shop?

So if they just said convenience store but sold what every other convenience store is selling, we just wouldn't be here, right?

Well, I mean they're because we call it.

Which you know, is appreciated by us because they're they're telling us the the truth of what they want.

So they're they're just being upfront and honest with what they want.

I mean, it's rather we'd rather have them do that, come in and tell you know be open and honest what they want than open up a convenience store, then we find out that half the store is uh a vape shop.

So they're they're doing it the right way.

They're applying you know the the correct way, you know.

That's why they're here.

So vapes are the trigger.

If cigarettes are okay, it's the vapes that trigger that vape diplomatics.

So basically it's that it's the nicotine delivery method.

Yeah, I mean it seems that almost on every corner there's a vape shop.

Yeah.

I I I guess my you know, it's sort of like Dunkin' Donuts.

It's uh you know you you you can't walk two minutes without running into one.

So I don't not quite sure that you think that the uh the the business the uh neighborhood could support another one, but hey, that's that's their problem.

Mr.

Neely.

So so question back to the applicant.

So by by smoke shop, are we saying that folks are sitting in the shop using the nicotine products as a smoke shop?

I I'm sorry, I'm just not familiar with smoke shop.

So are you just selling it to them and they walk away, or is it they're sitting in there with 16 C 16 seats and just smoking away?

Just sudden sounds.

So it's a convenience store.

Okay, yeah, okay.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Okay.

Clearly, there's is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak in favor of this application?

Thank you for New York.

Yeah.

So then I'm the ones.

The building there.

Would you just mind stating your name and your address?

My name is Vasilius Jaroblos.

And I live in a Thuriserian 37 Avenue.

I was there for Thurushevenus in the restaurant.

So I sold it with a pandemia.

Because I haven't had a time to find it.

I you know, I ended it for people at ended for three months, four months, and always empty.

You know, it's you know, that like you guys say nobody's gonna smoke there, and I don't want to any problems in my building.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right, see well, seeing no one else, I'm gonna close the public hearing and open up deliberations of the board.

Mr.

Nealy.

So maybe a question to Mr.

Falk.

Do we have the ability once we get into the depending on what the discussion goes, do we have the ability to make one of the criteria that there's no consuming of products on the property?

You could make that a criteria or a stipulation, but um it's up to them to monitor it and maintain it.

And you know, if someone does vaping inside their store, I I don't know what they could do other than tell them that they have to leave.

Yeah, I think I think okay, okay, thank you.

It would just be you know, for for code enforcement to monitor that and to um check on that, you know, they'd have to pretty much be in there a lot to see that.

I I understand what you're saying.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Petri.

Yeah, I mean, this isn't like Castro's or like this is like every other business that you can't smoke inside.

I think is right.

Like it just smoke shop, I think correct me if I'm wrong, it just means that you're just selling the things and I mean that's only they'll let it be a lot of people.

Okay, thoughts from the board.

I I I I think I I I'm in favor simply because I think this is essentially a convenience store that's selling tobacco products, which is pretty much what they all do.

It's you know, in that sense, I think it's consistent with the neighborhood and all of the other stores that we see kind of doing the same thing.

Granted, they're being more upfront on the smoke shop aspect of it.

Um but beyond that, it it doesn't strike me as inconsistent with the character of the area.

I think it most would probably affect whatever the sign is they put outside.

Right.

Right.

They're not within a thousand feet, apparently, of uh church or a school.

Um, and we don't appear to have any opposition.

Yeah, I think I Mr.

Newton.

You know, we just heard these folks from New York.

Maybe the verbiage is a little different in New York versus what it is here, but I mean this sounds like a convenience store.

Uh I mean uh honestly I didn't realize all these places aren't supposed to be selling cons selling nicotine, so um that's that was eye-opening here tonight.

So I'm in favor of this.

I mean, this is this is kind of no-brainer.

We heard from the the owner, he you know he wants to get his building filled, it needs to be filled.

I get it.

It's it's um yeah, I think it's the pizza shop next door.

I mean, they they will those are businesses that will actually help each other probably, and and um I mean listen, is there a bunch of other convenience stores in the area?

Possibly, but I do think that actually would would do pretty well right there.

So I'm certainly in favor of this as we know as a convenience store.

Right.

Any other thoughts?

Anyone want to make a motion?

I'll do it.

Oh, you want to?

No either way.

I'll take it.

I'll take it.

Thanks.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the variants for the Zacharopoulos family revocable trust owners, uh Salah Al Harby applicant 94 to 94 and a half, Kinsley Street, sheet 94, lot 15 requesting use variants from land use code section 190-15.

Table 15-1, number 137 to allow a convenience store or slash smoke shop in the LB zone.

Uh this is in the LB zone in Ward 6.

Uh granted the variance would not uh excuse me, would not be contrary to the public interest because convenience stores aren't normal in the LB zone as uh stated by the owner of the building.

He's interested in having these folks in the building as well as he's had a hard time renting this building.

We do want to get that um filled as a building owner.

The spirit of the ordinance uh would be observed in that as we had uh more discussion, this very much mirrors what we know as a convenience store, not really a smoke shop.

Um as we know um smoke shops um usually uh as noted by Mr.

Petrie, something like Castro's where they actually smoke on um on premises.

That is not the case here for our understanding.

Um granting the variants would do substantial justice to both both the applicant and the owner of the building, and that they are trying to open a business in an area where they can uh where a convenience store should do pretty well.

The um substantial justice to the owner of the building who supports this as well, is that he'll be filling a space that has been open, and as we uh always want to try to assist uh small business owners to um to have a successful business.

There is no reason to think that the value of the surrounding properties would be diminished.

And as to unnecessary hardship, uh we did uh hear from the owner of the building that he's had some issues in the past um keeping businesses in this space.

He does feel that these folks open in this um convenience store um have a better shot to keep it open.

Um it does come down to the fact we probably would not have been here uh seeking the variance if if it had gone if it had been called a convenience store and not a smoke shop, and I do believe there's just a um uh an understanding issue between all of us about what exactly type of shop they were trying to put in there.

So we do not think that they're um the special condition of the property is actually actually the application is for a convenience store and the fact that we talked about smoke shop um really changed it to a hardship, um which after discussion we have decided is really not really the case that will be no consuming of product on premises.

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

Sir Second, second by Mr.

Petrie.

Uh any discussion?

All those in favor.

Variance request is granted.

Good luck with your business.

All right.

Has everybody had a chance to review the agenda that was emailed out to us for the next meeting.

No, nope.

Nope.

I do not either minutes.

So we have minutes from the June 23rd meeting.

Changes Mr.

Petrie.

Uh so page two, the second line, um, where it says uh first at the home, comma, and realize.

I think between and realize we want to put they and they realize the snow melting off.

Um then the second paragraph on page two, the uh one, two, three, four, five, six, seven.

Seventh line down where it says set back, comma.

I think we want to say they instead decided to apply for the variants and then maybe cross out the instead after.

There was just a little a little uh wordy was a little w wording was a bit off, I think.

Um and I think I have just one or two more minor changes.

Um page 10, the um at the bottom speaking in opposition.

Um the um one, two, three, four, the uh third line down that where he said the end of it where he said he said that he was not approaching that email uh thread.

I think we want to say I think we want to say he was not addressed in that email thread.

Um and then my only other change, um uh page 13.

Um Mr.

Armani said it is correct.

I think we would want to add correct, comma that it would not change.

Um and then my final change is um the uh approval of the June 9th minutes.

I don't think we had any changes to those.

I think those were I think we approved those as uh we did as reacted.

So I get rid of the F or mentioned.

Yeah, because those I think we I think we didn't have any changes.

So I will be approved with those uh second.

Any discussion?

All those in favor?

I'm gonna abstain because it wasn't here.

Any other business?

Yes.

There's a little bit of other business.

Okay.

So on July 31st, I'll be retiring from the city.

Congratulations.

Oh my goodness.

Yeah.

So my my last, the next meeting will be my last one.

Whoa.

Wow.

Oh my goodness.

So I'm not sure who's gonna take my place, but uh I guess we'll we'll all soon find out.

So uh we see Sam sitting here until probably like I'm not sure.

Wow, I can't believe it.

Well, congratulations.

That's exciting.

I should believe it.

28 years here.

Wow.

It's a long time.

Wow.

Can we move to formally thank you for your service, Carter?

And for and to uh appreciate your dedication to the city.

Anybody want to second that?

Thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

I would say that's unanimous, right?

Seriously.

You you are thank you very much.

I appreciate the kind words.

Deeply missed.

Come back.

Oh, I just want to actually go on something.

So come back up to the mic, so we got you on on the record.

Yeah.

Uh so you know, like the laws is here different than the so I don't know.

I'm gonna hear, you know.

I just want to like what's like the next step note?

Like, do I need the permit license or for the business?

Why don't you come come by our office and we can talk to you about that?

Okay.

Um it's gonna either be an admin review.

I don't think you'll have to go to the to the planning board with a site plan.

It's probably gonna be an admin review because nothing's gonna be changing outside.

Yeah.

But if you want to come by our office, I don't know how much longer you're gonna be in town for.

Um back to New York tonight.

Okay.

But it's five cool comb anytime.

Um I'll give you a call.

I I have your I have your email too.

If I'll just six.

Well, we'll communicate by either email or phone.

I'll call you either tomorrow or Thursday.

Oh, that sounds good.

All right.

Appreciate you guys.

So anyway, so yeah, it was a long, long hard decision to make, but it was um congratulations.

Seriously, congratulations.

I'm actually retiring.

Yeah, I um best decision I have.

Yeah.

Does your wife know that yet?

Unfortunately.

My wife is my age, we're both the same age, and she's gonna keep working for another year or two.

And I actually I'll maybe we can turn off our discussion.

Oh yeah.

Should we adjourn?

Yes.

Yes.

Motion to adjourn.

Excellent.