Um further comments or a motion on this item.

So I I I guess I'm I'm just trying to identify the hardship for the you know reducing the setback requirements.

I was also trying to look back to to see the reference.

Um I see that they're saying that you know they looked at putting it on the side, uh, but it would require you know a revision to the existing HVAC compressor uh and their cooling system in greenery, but I I don't see that as a hardship per se.

And if you look at the plot plan, it does appear that there is room on either side um within buildable area.

Um I do wonder by mature greenery if they're specifically referring to trees.

There's one evergreen tree from the pictures of the existing exterior.

Right.

Um yeah, so there is not there's not exactly a hardship of the land.

Um I and I can see just I mean, from a the impracticality of moving the HVAC is not exactly a hardship.

I will say that I I think that if the net effect of uh building in an area that would not require a variance is taking out a tree um and uh you know having to relocate um a uh a complicated system.

I'm not really um yeah, I and I'm not sure if the net benefit there.

Um the so I'm ready to make a motion unless there's more discussion, but I'll make a motion for denial.

A second on the motion for denial uh um element regardless of how you intend to vote, I do need a second just to be able to move the motion.

Sorry the motion to deny because the I the hardship cannot be identified.

It's not a thing.

So I'm just wondering if nobody is willing to second it, does it mean that a motion is defeated?

Or some what does it mean?

I think that it means that there needs more discussion to be had.

So if folks don't agree that it should be denied, maybe why not?

Um if folks think it should be approved, um why not?

My view is maybe it's it's uh you know small extension of the deck and how do we going to be so you know uh it's a single single property zone.

Uh you know, I'm not sure this is a release.

Yeah, my my statement to that would be that that then sets a precedent, right?

That we're just blatantly allowing that to happen.

You know, there are zoning regulations for for a reason, right?

Yeah, but we always allow some level of deviation, either because of pre-existing condition or because of correct circumstances, right?

And but there's no pre-existing condition here.

Well I'm looking at the photos, and it does look like the proposed addition is kind of in the same footprint as the existing deck, it's not going to extend that much farther into the rear yard.

And if they were to move it to the side yard, it would actually probably be closer to the neighbors than putting it in the back.

Okay, so I'll draw I'll withdraw my my my motion.

If it's sounding like we're having a you know a reproval.

All right.

Um I do want to I I think I wanna I I am I'm sensitive to the the note on precedent.

Um it seems that really it's just that the alternatives are both kind of impractical and actually sort of have more potential for um encroachment, um, even if within the existing regulations.

Is that I'm just trying to figure out how we um note this.

Yeah, I mean, I would say it's would look more um visible to the neighbors, it'd be closer to the neighbors if it were to be moved to the side of the building.

It's a subs, a good chunk of the proposed addition is within an existing footprint of an existing deck and patio.

So there's some practical reasons for why this makes more sense.

I mean, I don't I don't know if there's a timeline on this, but if it would be worth it to have the applicant come in and talk about why they made these choices so that we had more justification for the record.

Otherwise, I'm fine moving forward with it.

Yeah.

Um I I'm I'm fine with moving forward and allowing for that elaboration to happen at ZBA.

Uh Chat.

Yeah.

Um I I would ask the fundamental question.

Um, you know, since we are the planning board, is there any part of this uh encroachment into this uh yard rear yard that would then become at odds with our comprehensive master plan?

That's it's zonings per view, what to deal with the variants, not ours.

Ours is you know, is would approving such a variance now put it um in contradiction to our comprehensive master plan.

And I I don't see that it does.

No, it doesn't necessarily um if if it's approved, it's not in contradiction to to the comprehensive plan.

Um so it doesn't increase the intensity of the use in such a way that contradicts the comprehensive plan category.

Um and really we're kind of leaving to the ZBA to uh determine kind of whether this um feel like it's kind of an edge case edge case, like whether whether sufficient hardship exists.

Yeah, exactly.

So I I would make a motion to recommend a you know that that approval based on the fact that it is not a contradiction.

You know, ultimate approval by ZBA is does not represent a contradiction to the the city's planning.

Okay.

Uh do I have a second?

Second from Ashley.

All in favor.