City of Portsmouth, New Hampshire Board of Adjustment, 22 Feb 2023

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: 2.22.2023 Board of Adjustment

Description

2.22.2023 Board of Adjustment

A

All right: okay, the first item of business fort dodge um yeah, the first time in business tonight.

A

Is to come out of our non-public session, and so I will need a motion to do that, as well as to.

A

Seal the minutes from that meeting, madam chairman, so moved. Is there a second second? Okay? Thank you.

A

um I will need a roll call vote, mr man. Yes, mr mcdonald, yes, miss miss marjerson. Yes, mr ram.

A

Yes, mr maxson, yes and mr rossi, who is trying to join us by zoom the chair votes? Yes, I vote. Yes,.

A

As well, okay, thank you. So we are now in public session and the meeting can be called to order.

A

A

First, item of business tonight is approval of the minutes of the january 17th 2023 meeting.

A

Is there any corrections.

A

Chair, I'm sorry. Yes, that is a problem. uh Yes, uh thank you, madam chairman, um on page five.

B

Second, paragraph down begins, mr rams said attorney durbin. uh So it says mr ram said attorney german.

B

Included a tax map that indicated the property was unfairly burdened that should read mr rayom.

B

Said attorney, durbin included a tax map and that the uh and um excuse me and that he indicated.

B

That the property was unfairly burdened uh and then my other correction is on page.

B

uh 11. uh second line from the bottom, um he said the public had no outweighing concerns. That would.

B

What the applicant was looking for was unjust, uh it should read. um He said the public had.

B

No outweighing concerns that would have the word make what the applicant was looking for. uh Unjust.

B

So delete the second was and put a make in there. Okay, that's all! I have thank you. Okay, anything.

A

Else all right, madam chair, this is tom rossi. So is there? Oh I'm sorry! I didn't know where that.

C

Just two minor corrections on page 10 third line from the top now criteria- that's plural,.

C

So it should read, she said: the applicant met these criteria, mr rossi, I'm just going to.

A

Interrupt you we're having a hard time hearing you is it possible that you can speak louder.

C

uh Yes, can you hear me better now better, thank you on page 10 to the third line.

C

From the top uh criteria is plural, so it should read. She said the applicant myth, these criteria.

C

And on page 12 last paragraph first line mr rossi asked if the addition, rather than is the addition.

C

And the first word in the third line should be g said not d said.

A

Okay, thank you. Do anything else. It's not as their motion to accept the minutes. With those amendments.

D

So moved. Thank you. I can thank you. Okay, all those in favor say hi hi opposed aye. Okay, thank you.

B

um Point of order: yes, because we have somebody on zoom, do we have to do all roll call votes.

A

Yes excellent point, so let's make that a wrong call. Sorry, no! No! No, never happened.

A

Okay, so this is a real cool vote for acceptance of the minutes with the.

A

Amendments so mr mantle, yes, mr mcdonald, yes, miss marjerson! Yes, mr rayon, yes, mr matson, yes, mr rossi,.

A

Yes, okay and the chair votes. Yes, so again we have approved the minutes. Okay,.

A

The next item of business is a request for a re-hearing for 32 boss, avenue.

A

Is there anyone to speak to? This is just a requester. I'm sorry you're right, you're.

A

Right, you're right, my fault, sorry request for a re-hearing. Is there anyone to speak to this.

E

I I would move that we deny the request for the rehearing. The zba did not make many any errors.

E

Of fact or law and deciding not to uh give the applicant the variance decided uh applied for.

B

uh Was that a motion? It wasn't yet emotion: no, no! Okay! Okay! I believe you said that you just I can.

E

Say it again, um I'll move that we deny the request for re-hearing in that the zba did not make any.

E

Errors, misapprehend any law or fact in denying the variance I'll. Second, that, okay, is there discussion.

B

I'm sorry manager. Do you want discussion on our motion by the by the motion makers? Please well.

E

I will say that um this for use variance for a use, art studio that is not permitted in the.

E

Zoning ordinance um and therefore the the zba is unable to give a use, variance for something that.

E

Is not allowed in the zoning ordinance? Do you have anything to add mr ram yeah for my second.

B

um So on reviewing this, the applicant um really didn't make any arguments uh that I saw that.

B

Indicated that the board made uh an error in order to indicate that there was information that was.

B

um You know not presented at the time the application the applicant did add some additional.

B

Information in on changes that the applicant is proposing to their application. However, that's not.

B

A re-hearing that would be a new application that then the board could take under under review and.

B

Determine if fisher v dover would apply to that new application. So um you know the app can also.

B

Made some some arguments about, um you know the fairness and whether or not our zoning ordinance.

B

um Should should better reflect on the type of use that they're looking for of an art, studio.

B

um You know on that account I, as I indicated during my my discussion question on on the.

B

Motion that I made about it, I I believe that our zoning ordinances were missed in that area and.

B

It is something the city needs to take care of, and there's a process for doing that. That.

B

Said the current zoning is what it is, and um I do believe that the this board correctly carried out.

B

um Without error, making a suitable interpretation of our zoning ordinance as it currently stands,.

A

Mr matson, yes, I would also just add that I agree the uh request for a hearing it made.

F

An interesting interesting points regarding the fact that our ordinance uh should probably.

F

Allow uh art classes and favoring the arts uh in regards to our master plan and uh as much as I.

F

Agree with that, the it doesn't really address the issue of hardship with that individual property.

F

Which was the main concern and that hasn't changed so as much as it would be great to see.

F

um Art, studios and residences, the ordinance currently doesn't allow it and if there's no.

F

Hardship, it can't change our our decision. Thank you. Anybody else, okay, the chair is also going to.

A

uh Support the motion: I had the same thoughts as mr ram and um mr matson had, but in fact we're not.

A

The ones who changed the zoning laws, so we can't respond to it, no matter how much we may think.

A

That that might be a good idea, so I will support the motion not to re-hear the request.

A

Okay, there's no further discussion. The vote on the at the table is to deny a request for rehearing.

A

Mr yeah, I'm sorry, mr mantle. Thank you yeah. uh Yes,.

A

Mr mcdonald, yes, miss margison. Yes, mr brown, yes, mr matson, yes, mr rossi,.

C

Yes, okay and the chair also votes in favor of the motion, so the request for rehearing is tonight.

A

The next item of business is request for reconsideration of rehearing requests.

A

For 67 ridges court lu-22-199.

A

We have a recusal for this.

C

um Yes, we do, we will refuse on this one on the basis of being in a putter.

A

Okay, so mr mcdonald is recused, and what do we say about this board.

G

We are hearing this.

A

Again, just as we heard it last month and so we're starting over with this request,.

E

Yes, I'll make a motion. Madam chair, I move that we um reconsider the request for re-hearing.

E

Based on the arguments raised in attorney phoenix's memo about mr mcdonald's recusal.

B

I I will second that, although um I want to make sure I'll, let you explain your emotion a little.

B

Bit better, but okay, okay, so the the motion is for us to reconsider our request for re-hearing based.

E

On mr mcdonald, not recusing himself as in a butter, so the uh I move that we reconsider.

E

Our request for rehearing, mr mcdonald, has recused himself and we can take a new vote on the matter.

A

Is there any further, but do you have anything uh nothing to add for the for the second? I.

B

Agree with that, that is the correct approach that we should take: okay, okay, um the further.

A

Discussion on this motion, the motion now is to have a re-hairing for 67 ridges court next month.

D

It's to reconsider a request for a rehire.

A

The motion was to have a reheat, I'm sorry, you want to make a motion again. It is to reconsider.

E

Our motion for re-hearing, based on attorney phoenix's arguments uh and mr mcdonald's recusal.

E

As in a butter, and so as I understand the motion that I'm making, we have to vote on the motion for.

E

The reconsideration and then get to a motion for rehearing correct okay, so this is to reconsider.

A

The motion request for rehearing is there further discussion.

A

Okay, mr mantle, yes, ms margeson, yes, mr bean, yes, mr matson, yes, mr rossi, yes and the chair votes. Yes, so.

A

We will take this up next month. Now we have to do this. Okay, sorry was I not at that meeting? Okay, so.

A

Is there a motion for.

A

B

um Who's keeping I'm sure if I can maybe just make some comment first and just say: please.

B

um So when the board considered this the last time you know there there is a um basically.

B

To re-summarize the history as the applicant came before, the board was denied the applicant reworked.

B

It um and was denied based off of a decision that the statute of fisher v dover applies. Bishop eat.

B

Over is basically the court case that is referred to by the zoning board to recognize that unless.

B

The facts of the case uh changed substantially or, if there's a substantial change in new.

B

Information that applies to the case that um it's essentially the you get a one bite at the apple.

B

um And unless there you made major changes, or you can prove that there was something that was really.

B

Not understood by the board or or information that wasn't wasn't taken into consideration for.

B

The board, then um then it should not apply. So, as I indicated last time, I I did think that there was.

B

That was a very close vote of a of a undersized board. They were meeting with fewer than the total.

B

Number of board members that could be voting on it. There was some some potential that there.

B

Was a it was brought up that um that fisherved over um should not apply, was the motion that was.

B

Made which is opposite of the normal motion that would be made to invoke fisher v dover is that a.

B

Fail flying itself, perhaps not, but it was further compounded by sort of just some of the nature of.

B

The discussions surrounding um that that motion, I don't think that the applicant ever really got.

B

A full explanation and understanding of the the boards thinking regarding the the invocation of.

B

Fisher v, dover. So with that my recommendation, the last time was that the board rehear that that may.

B

Very well be in the end that the board once again decides that fischer v. Dover is, in fact.

B

um Properly considered for the request, but I just think it would give an opportunity to provide.

B

Further information to the applicant, so they could understand the board's intent uh better.

B

um So I I think, that's in my mind the main reason why it should be reheard.

B

um You know perhaps some some of the further um information that was provided in some of the.

B

um And the why we're reconsidering it tonight could also be another another factor to really.

B

Just give this whole uh matter a clean slate and say yep. We will look at it again and and.

B

Really decide uh definitively and with great explanation uh what our thinking was as a board.

A

H

Okay, I'm good.

F

You need a second that well yeah. That's a technical question. I can make a motion.

A

There's not emotion on the floor and yes, but I I towards that end uh manchester. I will.

B

Make a motion uh that we grant the request for re-hearing of this application, which would occur.

B

At our our next meeting next month meeting now is there a second to this motion? My second okay.

A

Is there discussion? Yes, yes, I um I voted against this. The first time, uh the the meeting that this.

E

Was held was uh a day in which I had to not come at the last minute, because I was very ill.

E

I did prepare for the meeting um and I did go back and watch the video of the meeting.

E

um I am going to vote for this motion in this instance in order to remove any.

E

Kind of procedural errors um uh for purposes of this application.

E

Okay, and if there were any, I I do think the substance. I don't agree with the request for.

E

Hearing rehearing on the substance, but I think in order to remove any kind of.

E

Procedural defects, if there are any it's better to vote it up- okay, um mr rossi, anything to add.

A

uh No, I I would be supporting a motion to read here. Okay, um if there's no further discussion.

A

The chair is also going to support the motion for um basically the reasons that miss martinson spoke.

A

Of I think we need to give this a clean hearing and um that's it so. The motion, a yes vote, says.

A

We will rehear this request next month: okay, jimena, yes, miss marjerson! Yes, mr raymond, yes.

A

Mr matson, yes, mr rossi, yes and the chair votes. Yes, so we will be discussing this debt again.

A

Okay, the next item of business is.

A

The request of nissley, I believe, is how it's pronounced llc owner for property.

A

Located at 915 sagamore avenue, whereas relief is needed to demolish the existing building.

A

And construct new mixed use buildings where residential and office uses are not permitted.

A

To a variance from section 10.11 3.20 to allow parking to be located in the front.

A

Yard and in front of the principal building three, a variance from section 10.1114.31 to.

A

Allow two driveways on a lot where only one is allowed said: property is located on assessor map.

A

223 lot 3-1 and lies within the waterfront business wb district lu22 dash two two: nine.

A

Is there anyone to speak to this tonight? um This is not just old business yeah, not a public.

I

Hearing, it's still just a continued sorry, I see how it? Yes, I'm sorry, that's not habitat.

A

Excuse me all right so further discussion to decide among our choices. Madam chair, I just.

C

Wanted to say for the record that I'm accusing myself for this book. Okay, mr rossi, is recused.

A

Mr ms march, since you want to open the discussion, uh yes, so I uh I note and it's in our packet and.

E

Actually, with stephanie that did it for us sorry, stephanie um the three options that.

E

We have as a board in figuring out how to deal with this. This application for 915 sagamore road.

E

um The application was heard at our last meeting. We had a public hearing, it was tabled or postponed.

E

For purposes of allowing the applicant to come back um and so the as I understand it, um we have.

E

Three options to choose as to which way that we would want this application to be heard.

E

um I think it's probably no surprise at the the meeting. I did object to the uh the.

E

Application being postponed or tabled, because I didn't feel that it met the criteria for that.

E

um We had an application a few months ago, islington street, where we actually did postpone.

E

The application continued it because, during the after, the public hearing was determined that the.

E

Drawings and plans were not complete and then peter, who was our aide at that time? Who was the.

E

Code official indicated that it did not meet the minimum qualifications for hearing the application.

E

um I I believe that we should be voting the application up or.

E

Down based upon the information that was presented to us, that it did not.

E

um It did not lack sufficient information to take action, which would be the third option.

E

Deny without prejudice, so I would. I believe that we should make the decision, which is the number.

E

Two option on the information presented at the january 17 2023 meeting um and we should have vote.

E

To approve approve with stipulations or deny the application, I'm not making a motion. This is just a.

A

Ram yeah, I'm sure I guess I'm still confused. I read through the memo and um I I guess I'm at.

B

A someone will ask to understand what the defect was in the motion that was made. My experience and.

B

Similar previous circumstances was that when the board reconsidered it, they voted at that point.

B

In time it wasn't noticed item on the um on the agenda and they would vote at that point in time.

B

Whether or not they felt that based off of the additional information provided by the applicant.

B

Whether or not to reopen the public hearing at that point in time, so I'm I'm at a loss as to.

B

Why we're discussing this right now and then the second part is, is you have a question for city.

B

Staff, which is the applicant, has not resubmitted anything at this point in time. Is that correct.

I

So yes, and no the applicant when they left, was under the impression.

I

That we were looked that the board was looking for um a resubmission. They resubmitted to city staff, after consulting with the legal department.

I

um It was advised that we do not provide the board with that submission until a decision has been.

I

Made if they want to see that new information, okay um I'll just add some thoughts, uh I guess so.

F

I'm inclined to not reopen the public hearing. I don't see the benefit to that.

F

um I I personally would lean towards the third option of the night, without prejudice which would.

F

Get at the same thing that procedurally, we were trying to achieve with tabling or postponing it.

F

um But I am open to the discussion with the board uh or number two to actually make a decision on it.

F

Tonight, um with the application at hand to approve or deny it, uh but uh I, uh as the memo is written.

F

um Option number three of denying without prejudice is more in line. What was the.

F

Intention with the tabling of the vote, I'm just gonna put the question before you that.

A

If you feel confident about the three choices, that's terrific, if you would.

A

Like more explanations, we could have get some legal advice this evening.

B

Madam chair, I would I would appreciate the legal department explaining especially what.

B

The perceived defect was in the in the motion. Okay, we would appreciate your help. Thank you.

J

Of course, thank you, uh madam chair, and members of the board.

J

To provide a little bit of a little more explanation on why.

J

We're here why we got here is the vote that was taken to table the application uh that occurred.

J

After the public hearing had closed so that is why we interpreted that staff interpreted that vote to.

J

Mean that it was going to be postponed, which would preclude a public hearing or acceptance.

J

Of any new information on the application now the applicant did submit more information as.

J

uh Stephanie said the applicant did submit more information thinking that it would be helpful.

J

To the board, but the board can't accept that new information unless there is a public hearing so.

J

If the board would like to review any of the new information submitted by the applicant, they would.

J

Have to have a public hearing which would need to be noticed so that all interested parties will.

J

Know in advance that this is happening, that they have the opportunity to come and speak as well.

J

um In regards to the the motion, another option, provided here is option three, which is uh someone.

J

New option: uh this was just enacted last august by the state legislature and that.

J

Provides the board with the option to deny without prejudice, which means that this kind.

J

Of gets you around the fisher v dover issue that you you all had mentioned earlier, meaning that.

J

The applicant can resubmit a substantially substantially similar application, uh but.

J

There there's a requirement that there's a finding effect by the board that there.

J

Is some other additional information that the board needs in order to reach its conclusion?.

J

Be happy to answer any questions that the board might have on any of that or anything else.

B

I guess just what would have been a better motion in the legal department's eyes that.

B

Could have avoided this situation or or was there none? uh You could have at.

J

That time reopened the public hearing and then continued the public hearing to a date. Certain.

J

uh That would that would avoid the need to re-notice the um the public hearing, but.

J

Given that you had closed the public hearing uh already you couldn't, then you know people would.

J

Would leave could leave presumably and not know that they will have another opportunity to speak.

A

Okay and I'm sorry and to and to reopen the public hearing, that would require a.

J

Suspension of the rules, a suspension of the rules to reopen the public hearing. Thank you.

A

Any further questions.

A

Thank you. Thank you.

A

Thank you so, in order to go by number three.

A

We would need to decide that we needed new info. Does anybody feel that's the situation.

A

Okay, then I get it I'm sorry. I interpret that that at the time that we had the public hearing.

E

We would have denied without prejudice so that the we lack sufficient, because.

E

We lacked made the finding that we lack sufficient information to take action.

E

Okay, I thought it was that we wanted new information for number three, but all right.

E

And I I mean my objection to this- was that I didn't think that we lacked sufficient information.

E

I felt that the applicant was encouraged to revise the application, based on the comments that we made.

E

While we were deliberating- and I thought that was improper- that we just needed to vote it up or down.

A

Okay, so where would you like to go with this.

B

I'm chair, I do, I will say, and unfortunately I believe mr matson is trying to get us.

B

Around this by looking at the number three, but I I don't think the issue was a lack of sufficient.

B

Information, as ms margins has pointed out, that to me, would imply that they had not met all the.

B

Requirements of the um the zoning boards uh requirements for information to be submitted.

B

For us to have a full and proper understanding of a particular case, I do believe the applicant.

B

Had provided us with sufficient information, I think the concern was at least in in my mind,.

B

And as voted on by the board was that there was a recognition that there was some merit.

B

To the case uh that to the applicants um case, however, that there were elements of it that.

B

Were uh were likely unsatisfactory, but they could be remedied potentially by the applicant.

B

Or perhaps not, but another opportunity could have could have given them a chance to to make.

B

Those changes such that it could in fact pass would those changes constitute something that.

B

Wouldn't invoke fish of eat over if we denied it uh unclear, but it seems an opportunity to.

B

Get to the right answer, my experience is that this board has done that in the past and that.

B

um That the next time that it would be noticed and the expect in general that the board would.

B

If the applicant is providing new information, certainly give the public an opportunity to.

B

Provide amplifying or countervailing information, essentially rehearing it. I don't see where I know.

B

We cite our own rules uh here: the procedure for public hearing still confused as to what.

B

That paragraph is telling us and how we we fail, but that's that's just my thought.

A

Would anybody like to make emotion.

A

Just suggesting okay.

A

I would move that we make a decision on the information presented at the january 17 2023.

E

Meeting um and uh that we should vote to approve, approve of stipulations or deny the application.

A

Is there a second second okay, would you like to speak to your motion, uh everything that I've said before I.

E

um You can use my my previous comments. I I feel like.

E

um This was not a situation where we lack sufficient information. um I think it's.

E

The most appropriate thing for us to uh pre to vote on the application as it was presented.

A

Seconds yeah I mean the applicant came. He gave us a full packet.

D

We had the information to make a vote, yay or nay.

D

When people, when the applicants come to the board of adjustment, it's not a work session.

D

They're not here to take the temperature of the board.

D

um And giving one applicant the opportunity to make adjustments, so they can get an approval.

D

It's unfair to every other applicant and that's just not how this board should.

D

Operate, I've never seen it operate that way in the past, so I mean yeah I mean I would go.

D

With number two make a decision as we should, we should have done that day uh last month,.

A

Any discussion.

B

I'll just say I I don't think it's as black and white as as all that um I agree, this board does.

B

Not want to become, as I had indicated, that night the htc and have multiple meetings where we go.

B

Through and and parse out, every little detail of a application. That said, I think there was.

B

In this particular case, because of some of the sensitivities associated with the waterfront.

B

Business district and some of the questions that the applicant was trying to bring forward in terms.

B

Of the its appropriate applicability to their specific application, I thought that there was.

B

Enough concern in that that it was worth having the giving the applicant on some additional.

B

Opportunity that yes, shouldn't shouldn't happen in every single case, but you know what that's.

B

Why we're here is because, if it was just simply black and white, we wouldn't need to exist right.

B

But we're here to work with and deal with, the shades of gray that are involved with each and.

B

Every one of these applications that come before us and to treat each and every one of them in its.

B

Own individual manner, so those are my thoughts. hmm That's good! Do you know if this is for this.

I

Yes, but in this case I don't think it would be wise right, we haven't heard.

A

A

It doesn't suggest which one of those choices. So if the board wants to go.

I

Ahead and vote on that, then we would need a right vote right, exception, okay, so the motion.

A

Tonight is to go with the number two choice on your paper: okay, and once that vote is taken, then.

A

We need another motion to decide where we go next. Okay, so this vote is just to consider our.

A

Other options, actually, I can't wait to get to a various application. All of a sudden, it.

A

Seems like fun: okay, does everyone understand the motion, though mr metal option two? Yes,.

A

Mr mcdonald, yes, miss marjerson, yes, mr rayo, no, mr matson, yes, no, mr rossi, and the chair votes. Yes, so.

A

We, it is now up to us to decide to vote, to approve, approve of stipulations or deny.

A

Application, those are our choices. Can I I'm sorry, can I just ask if we can do this at the.

E

Next meeting, so that we have an opportunity to go back, reread the materials and watch.

E

The presentation again certainly think that I think, in all fairness to the applicant is that.

B

A motion, no I'm just wondering if, if one can, if we can yeah so I would move it would be. Okay, okay,.

E

um I would move that we vote on this application and our next regular scheduled meeting so that all.

E

The members of the zba can reread the applicant's materials re-watch the deliberations and make a.

E

Informed decision based on their presentation and our discussions, that was a long motion.

B

But I will second it with the idea that we are postponing further consideration for a month right.

A

Further discussion motion is a request to postpone, until march it's to make our decision in march.

E

Correct yeah: yes, yes, and um no, it's been a second to die. I just have a quick question of discussion.

F

Yes, please, um I guess it could be dealt with at any point, but I'll ask it now is uh for the nature.

F

Of adding stipulations, could it be something as specific as uh requiring one of the offices uh to.

F

Be waterfront business, or is that uh too specific? That's yeah, I suppose, or also like limiting the.

F

Number of units that, like we could add those stipulations or that, I would say all of those.

A

Things are possible during the discussion. Okay, so we can uh at the next meeting but as I understand.

A

It this is really for us to re-familiarize ourselves with the application, since it has been.

A

A while, okay, so okay, so a vote for this will be at our march meeting to do gain a stipulations.

A

Have the discussion? Okay, mr mantle? Yes, mr mcdonald,.

A

Yes, ms marjerson, yes, mr rayon, yes and mr matson, yes and the chair votes. Yes,.

A

So am I gonna be here? Okay, I actually think we're in new business now I can just run a regular.

E

Music from this application, just wondering if I'll be away, don't even think like that.

A

The request of valway living trust and william payne elizabeth valley trustees, owners for.

A

Property located at 51 spinney road, whereas relief is needed to construct a new detached garage which.

A

Requires the following one variants: from section 10.573.20: to allow a four foot side yard set book.

A

Setback where 10 feet is required and b, four foot rear yard setback, where 10 is required. Two.

A

Variants from section 10.521 to allow 27 building coverage where 20 is required, said property.

A

Is located on assessor map 171 lot 9 and lies within the single residence district lu-22-235.

A

Is there anyone to speak to this petition.

K

Good evening everybody, my name is william valley. I live 51 spinney road. I submitted this petition.

K

um So I'm here to answer any questions that you might have for me. um I know I do need a.

K

Variance for the setback, I think it's required. 10 foot four feet is what I'm hoping to get and.

K

um The um what was it the percentage of building coverage uh from 20 to 27.

K

um So I was hoping if any questions for me, I could answer those.

A

In order for us to approve move a variance, there are five criteria that it has to meet. Are you.

A

Familiar with those, yes, yes, would you like to speak to them? um Yes, I do have those right here.

K

um The variances and contrary to the public's interests, um the garage is replacing a smaller.

K

Shed, which is already located at the at the uh on the property in the lot where, on the corner of the.

K

Lot, where I hope to put the garage, uh the existing shed is only 48 square feet, which is barely enough.

K

Space to put on basic yard supplies, so a garage would be ideal. um uh The spirit of the audience.

K

Will be observed um adequate light air space between the properties would be observed in the.

K

Garage garage, it's got a shallow roof line, it only stands 13 feet tall, so um I don't feel would be.

K

An eyesore um very low profile- next is a sustainable. Justice will be done.

K

The probably like I said, the probably already has a shed at the location, um and it's just too.

K

Small for for a yard, my size- um and I see a lot of lots- you know- puts with lots of pretty small.

K

um And um so putting a garage on them, I know was pretty difficult.

K

That's this is probably the reason I need um this garage at the residence.

K

The next one is the values the surrounding properties won't be diminished. My butters to the south and the west have natural bushes trees in this area.

K

So I feel that um there's already a privacy barrier there already.

K

And um there won't be any windows on this garage, basically just the one door on the um east side.

K

Facing my house, so I think there's plenty of privacy for the butters um and the literal.

K

Enforcement of the provisions of the audience would be resolved in unnecessary hardship.

K

Let's see here.

K

Just because of the small lot size and the existing coverages and required setbacks.

K

um I realize it creates um some special conditions.

K

um Which is why I need the variance, um uh fair and substantial relationship exists between the public.

K

uh It's a single story garage um with a simple slab. It covers a minimal coverage.

K

um In the yard, so there'll be plenty of access to sight lines. Er space between the neighbors.

K

um It's very small structure and.

K

And I don't really think it's much to ask for a small garage with um a single parking for.

K

One vehicle you know in portsmouth, okay and that's it are there any questions.

A

Yes, instagram. uh Thank you, madam chair, uh so um if city staff could to uh go to the tax map.

B

um It's page 88 of our package. Yeah. Thank you. So you have this. I guess I'm trying to understand.

B

The the what this is telling me you've added on uh this sort of rhomboid shape.

B

Onto the property line, and then you put or 80 feet inside of it, what what does? What.

B

Does that mean? What is that trying to tell us? That is um what the website um did, that.

K

Itself, okay, nap geo- does that I think it's 80 feet is the circumference around the building.

K

That's what that is okay. Is that intended to show your proposed garage yeah. That's.

K

Where it would be on the lot right in the southwest corner, it's 16 by 24 feet.

K

It's in a location where a shed is already foreign yeah, so.

B

I guess toward that I mean your picture, so your next picture up above uh page 87 of our packet.

B

um I guess my impression was that this shed appears actually more towards the other side.

B

Of your lot, but perhaps I'm I'm confused about what this picture was trying to tell me yeah.

K

That shed is located in the southwest corner, which is, if you go back to the other one. um That's far.

K

Corner to your lower left, that's the southwest corner, that's exactly where the shed is now.

B

B

Okay, I I guess it didn't so that view of the shed and.

K

You have previous pictures from where the house is.

B

um Okay, all right, I'm understanding, I'm understanding it a little bit better. Now, yeah, okay,.

B

um So you're proposing- I guess I'm so you're proposing on the next page, page 89 or a couple.

B

Pages down you're proposing your garage has an opening to the right hand side. I guess I.

B

Don't understand what is your driveway going to look like that? That would be where you want.

B

Your oak garage door opening there's nothing really illustrating how you plan to get back.

B

And forth to your to your garage, um can you go back to the other picture showing a lot.

K

I know the other one before that.

A

Oh, mr valway, will you please take the microphone with you? Oh sure this one here? Yes, please.

K

um So yeah, so the garage would be right here. The opening to the garage.

K

Door would be here, there would actually be crushed stone that would go down to it.

K

I don't have that there now, because I don't need it because I don't have a garage. Is this working.

K

So it would be tucked in right in this corner here. The garage um opening door would be right. There.

K

That makes sense yeah. I guess why why wouldn't there be more like a straight.

B

Shot into your because there's a beautiful maple tree right there and it'd be ashamed to.

K

Cut it down, I wondered about it. Okay, so just going off to the right makes the most sense.

B

All right and then for your additional square footage. I I mean.

B

So I what I'm trying to understand is this was just a garage so to the back property line. Why.

B

Can't you meet the 10 foot requirement like couldn't you push this forward away from your.

B

Back property line, I know you're asking for four feet, trying to understand yeah. If I move it too,.

K

Close, it's going to be too close to the tree and I don't want to impose on the tree at all. I don't.

K

Want to have to cut any branches off the tree so having it back as far as possible is really ideal.

K

Okay um and then I guess similarly, if you flip the garage opening and put the garage opening to.

B

The left and then sort of did your extension out to the right. Could you get 10 feet off the side.

B

Property line which to me would seem to also give more a wider birth to the to the maple overall.

K

uh There's a big garden area off to the right here: it's the only spot in the whole yard that gets.

K

Sunlight, so I want to maintain that as a garden so tucking it underneath these trees is really ideal.

K

B

um And then I mean I, I guess that's pretty substantial storage area that you're asking for.

B

Is is there um what? What is it that you have for storage needs that that's driving the size of that.

B

Storage area, I mean it's essentially another bait of the garage right that doesn't have an opening.

B

To it right yeah, um most of it would be just for storage. um um My house is a new englander and it.

K

Has a um a fieldstone foundation, it's kind of a damp staller and you really can't store anything.

K

And it's not ideal for storage, so having something like a garage for basic storage is just ideal.

K

um And you can see that sheds pretty tiny. You can't really put much in that shed.

K

um And also, hopefully, a storage for one car.

B

Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions? Yes, it's not right um again. I I think I share.

E

Mr williams, confusion the when you go into the garage you have to well the the depth of.

E

The garage accommodate the guard, yeah yeah, it's 16 feet deep, so you can just drive right in okay, yeah.

K

You know you wouldn't be going in and turning just like a garage should be yeah. Okay, she doesn't have.

A

A car, well I do, I just can't use it, um I'm kind of envious, um so I I see the the sign on your go.

E

Your shed there so you're I mean: are you going to be using this extra space as like? A part of.

E

Your antiques business, or is this no, that's a family, an old family, uh heirloom. Okay, all.

L

Right and that's just decorative okay, that's not a business um and just a quick question.

E

Does does a shed um count towards the amount of space that's being used on a property? It counts.

I

Towards building coverage open space, okay, all right, thank you and thank you anything else.

A

Thank you great. Thank you.

A

All right is there anyone to speak to this petition.

A

Anyone just speak in favor. Is there anyone to speak in opposition to the petition.

A

Is there anyone to speak to for or against the petition.

A

Okay, public hearing is closed. What would the board like to do.

A

I've talked a lot mr m yeah man jeff. I just give some some of my thoughts. um I am kind of torn on this.

B

Application, um I you know new construction if there's nothing existing in general, this board.

B

We want to try and hold to the requirements for the setbacks. Unless there's some, you know.

B

Pretty compelling reasons that again, through the hardship criteria that there's something.

B

Unique here so what the applicant has indicated, there are some of the unique factors for his.

B

Property are the existence of uh this. uh You know premature maple tree and also a desired garden.

B

um I can kind of understand that those that yeah, those are our hardship aspects to it. At the same.

B

Point in time you know the applicant is asking for both a garage and a storage area to replace.

B

What is, admittedly, probably a an overly small storage area um based on on his needs. um You.

B

Know one of the applicant's arguments is, is that I own a small lot and therefore that's a hardship.

B

For me: well, okay, there's all kinds of small lots um in portsmouth and most of the folks on those.

B

Small lots don't have garages because they simply don't have the room to go and put uh put a garage.

B

um So you know to grant relief here. um I I I'm kind of torn on at the same point in time. It.

B

Doesn't appear that the neighboring budding properties, although the tax map, I don't think.

B

Is entirely accurate? A lot 171-18 does have structures on it, which aren't really shown.

B

On this map um there is, you know in terms of light and air relative debutters, the applicant.

B

Has made a good argument that you know what he's looking for is just a single story garage with a.

B

Relatively shallow pitch roof so from a light and air standpoint would be a little less impactful.

B

Even if it was only four feet off the off the property, that said you know, we all also usually.

B

Yeah, we can also make an argument that you know what they're asking for is pretty small.

B

From a footprint standpoint- and this is this- is essentially a two-car garage middle of the.

B

Applicant is only really using one half of it for for a car, the other half for.

B

Some more generalized storage, so this is just some of my initial thoughts. I'm kind of torn.

B

um If we, if we can grant it or if, um if really it, should be reflective of something smaller.

B

Perhaps you know getting one of the two things that the applicant is looking to: try.

B

And achieve with this building but being more respectful for the setbacks, with with doing so.

B

That's all oh yeah, I'll just add my thoughts at this point as well. um It is yeah, so the law is.

F

Actually, less than a third of the size of the required uh minimum lot size for single family.

F

Residents, uh so it is definitely uh smaller than was intended uh for this zone and I think.

F

uh The issues in the request for relief arise because of that um it would be great if uh the.

F

If the structure being proposed could could just be placed uh to meet at least one of the two.

F

um Or even both uh setback requirements, uh I do see the challenges involved with that.

F

um uh I guess also there. The neighbors did uh express some support, um but.

F

I I agree with the point about with new construction. You would hope that it could.

F

Be achieved without needing relief, um so yeah. Those are my thoughts at this point.

E

You had concerns about this application. I think the applicant has substantially addressed them.

E

I you know I I do note that this property is smaller than the adjoining properties in.

E

Addition to being less than a third of the size needed for the minimum lot in the in the zone, so.

E

um I think I am inclined to um so granted. I do wish the.

E

Structure were smaller. I'll be honest, I mean I think it could be smaller, but.

A

Okay, mr rossi, yeah.

C

I do think this is a kind of a close call, but it's a large variance, that's being requested.

C

With regard to building coverage, a percent and also with regards a lot of clearance.

C

I think uh when it all nets out to me, I'm sorry could you speak up again. Please.

C

Sure uh do you want me to repeat what I said.

C

So I I think on net, I feel that this uh proposal just overburdens the property.

C

For what it is, I don't think it has the capacity to take on this size of.

C

The structure in this location, so I would not be supporting the variants.

B

uh Some further clarification, if I can, I I really was speaking primarily to the.

B

Setbacks primarily because I do believe that the applicant probably has a better.

B

um Argument for hardship for the building coverage I mean 20 allowed building coverage does envision.

B

A much larger lot, as mr matson has pointed out in this zone, um so I'm willing to give more relief.

B

um Based off of that fact, it's really the setbacks that are bothering me more.

B

um As I did indicating I am kind of torn I um with it I mean there's, there's some things going.

B

Forward as well, so um I'm I'm going to support this notion. I think the change in coverage is.

A

From 20 to 27 is not that significant, and even though the garage is built bigger than the shed.

A

It's far away enough from the buildings behind it beside it, it isn't going to you.

A

Know the light the air- I don't think it's going to affect any of his neighbors and.

A

um Will be a big benefit for him and will take from nobody else. So I'm going to.

A

No, she can't she's a chair. I can't I'm saved.

B

All right uh would you I'm sure if I may, I will make a motion to uh grant.

B

The applicant's request as presented and advertised okay, is there a second.

A

Thank you. Would you like to speak to that yeah I've worn myself down um uh this? Is uh you had a.

B

Good talk, yeah yeah now this this is a. This is a tricky one, um but I do think that ultimately, you.

B

Know we talk about substantial justice as one of our criteria and at the end of the day, I do.

B

Think that this, that that test, in particular, also really does weigh towards uh the applicant here.

B

And I and I think, the main reason being that it is not, and this just in this particular instance.

B

There's enough separation and enough cover and the old trees and etc that um the neighbors would not.

B

Find any more imposition on their their light and air than they would if the if the structure.

B

Wasn't there and I- and I think that to me is the the ultimate tipping. So let me just go through.

B

um The criterion a little bit more um a little bit more detail so grant the variants would not.

B

Be contrary to the to uh the the public interest, um this is situated at the rear side of the.

B

Property from a general public standpoint, um the it's it being situated up near a property line.

B

um Is is not um detrimental uh the overall coverage, uh while somewhat higher than.

B

Is allowed by the ordinance again, this is a a sub, much smaller lot than what the ordinance.

B

Was really envisioning, I think overall, compared to even some of the neighboring properties.

B

Which you know have a have: a fair amount of street frontage. That's taken up by building with attached.

B

Garages on the side from some of the neighbors across the street, they you know a passerby from.

B

The public standpoint would not perceive let this lot to be overburdened with too much structure.

B

um And then you know in terms of the the butters I mean we have received positive.

B

um Reinforcement from from some of the butters- and there is you know some old growth, trees.

B

And some other things that that further make it such that there is not as much impact to.

B

Them from a public interest standpoint, grand these variants would observe the spirit of the ordinance.

B

um I think again, the spirit of the ordinances is to not have overbuilt properties, especially in a.

B

Single residence, a district, but in this case I think the undersized property, if you you take.

B

It proportionally the applicants, you know, total building coverage even at 27 would be perceived.

B

As being much much less than what could be allowed with a much bigger lot, so um I I think that that.

B

It succeeds in that respect and again, some of the other factors we talked about with in terms.

B

Of the the setbacks, what we're truly trying to accomplish with our our zoning ordinances, to not.

B

Impact light and air of neighbors- and I I think that that is not happening here- uh no detriment to.

B

The property values in the vicinity are changed and the essential characteristics of any area.

B

um Sorry, I'm reading the wrong criteria here.

B

Grant the brands produce substantial justice, as I've already talked about. I do think that kind of.

B

Weighs in favor of the applicant, I just think that there's not enough, uh you know weight to saying.

B

That you can't go and build this somewhat large square footage, but not terribly high um garage.

B

Storage area that um that, so that the applicant, what what he's asking for is is reasonable from.

B

That standpoint uh grant and the variants were not diminished. The values of surrounding properties.

B

Again, this garage would probably overall increase the value of of the property here. A garage is a.

B

Highly sought, after amenity onto onto a house um and uh and so with that, I think it would increase.

B

Values overall or neutral at the very worst and then uh the hardship. So what are the hardships.

B

Associated with this property, so that is what are the characteristics of this property relative to.

B

Others around it and relative to those in the in the zone, that is, that is zoned in again, smaller.

B

Lot than what is expected by the zone, the 20 requirement for for coverage really envisions.

B

A much larger lot, so I think that is a hardship and then some of the other hardship factors are.

B

Some existing trees, which is sort of forcing the garage desired garage backwards so probably.

B

No matter what even the applicant were submit a smaller plan from a footprint standpoint, it.

B

Probably would still be shoved back towards the back property line and then, in terms of um you.

B

Know, as the applicants indicated as like the only lit space in the backyard that makes for useful.

B

Use for gardening and other activities that take advantage of the sunlight would be negatively.

B

Impacted if the garage was pushed the full 10 feet away, making it smaller could maybe help.

B

With that one, but again, there's really not enough to say that pushing it away from that proper line.

B

Especially when there's some some shrubbery and mature trees in that area really accomplishes.

B

Anything uh further than allowing the applicant this relief. So with that, I recommend approval.

A

Does the second have anything to add? um Yes, I mean to me I'm very familiar with your lot.

D

um I've been driving by it for 30 years uh yeah, given the size of the lot and what it's zoned for.

D

Yeah in itself, it's a hardship, it's a third of the size of what it should be, so the building coverage.

D

Doesn't bother me at all uh simply because, if you put a 10 by 10 shed in his backyard.

D

He'd still require a variance uh forget about the set box, but you know all the setbacks are.

D

You know four instead of ten, um I don't see that as a big problem, um given the nature of.

D

The lot and the uh support of a director butter, so I will support the the motion to grant okay.

A

Any discussion on the motion, so a motion, a yes vote will allow the garage to be built.

A

Yes, mr mcdonald, yes, miss marjerson! Yes, mr mayor, yes, mr matson, yes, mr rossi,.

C

My colleagues to convince me yes and the chair's voting yes.

A

You are approved, that's why we have the discussion. Yes, exactly yeah,.

A

The next item of business is the request of paulson family revocable trust, 2017. christian.

A

Paulson and anya paulson trustees owners for property located at 55 thornton street.

A

Whereas relief is needed to construct a second story edition over the existing first floor.

A

Which requires the following one: variance from section 10.521 to allow an 8.5 foot front yard.

A

Setback where 15 feet is required, two variants from section 10.321 to allow the extension and.

A

Enlargement of a non-conforming structure said: property is located on assessor map 143 lot, 19 and.

A

Lies within the general residence district lu-23-2. Is there anyone to speak to this? Please come up.

M

Good evening, um you guys have any questions with what I submitted.

A

We won't know that until you tell us more about it all right well,.

M

I'm christian and uh you know so we have this old house from 1863. That's.

M

You know doesn't meet the existing uh zoning characteristics and we're looking to add two.

M

Small bedrooms uh for our family, above that uh you know right side of the uh of the structure there.

A

Okay, would you like to speak to the criteria that we're going to be sure, so um you know it won't.

M

Be contrary to public interest and the spirit of the ordinance is observed, uh like I said you know,.

M

This is uh currently it's non-conforming structure. You know built in the 1800s.

M

um We're not looking to further encroach um you know on on the variances uh or the setbacks.

M

um We're gonna work to make sure that second story is in fact less than the existing uh footprint.

M

um Substantial justice will be done. I don't think there's any harm done to the public by granting.

M

This variance uh the value of the surrounding properties, certainly won't be diminished. The.

M

House will remain in the character of other houses and will be cleaned up and made to look even nicer.

M

um Literal enforcement of this would be, um you know, a hardship. We uh we're a growing family and.

M

uh You know we need extra room for our family further more, you know we're not changing the.

M

Existing footprint of the house we're just we're just going up above part of the house.

M

um I think that's all I had as it relates to the criteria. Okay, are there questions.

B

uh Thank you, madam chair. um If these I've got a page 106 of our packet.

B

There's want to validate um so in this image right here, really, the only thing.

B

That is encroaching into the step backs is sort of that dark, shaded area of what you're proposing.

B

To construct on the right hand, side basically of your your current home is that correct yeah. If I.

M

May I'll point out on on this drawing here, so this is existing. This is existing. This is new.

M

Right this is existing. This is existing part of that's existing. This part is new.

M

All right right in the dark, shaded areas, the only part that's within the the front side.

M

Oh, I understand yeah, I guess the guy that did the drawings did that yeah yeah. I think that's correct.

M

Okay, so it's it's even further setback from the existing non-conformity, great and and that's the.

B

Extent of what what you're before this board to get, I believe so I think it was the front setback.

B

Nothing further any other questions.

A

Thank you, we'll open it to the public.

A

Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this petition? Is there anyone here to speak.

A

Against this petition, is there anyone here to speak to four or against this petition.

A

Thing no one rise. I will close the public hearing and open it to the board.

A

A

Trying to get the newbies to do something: okay, okay, mr mantle um I'll, make a motion.

D

To grant the petition as presented okay, is there a second, oh I'll? Second, thank you.

D

Okay, that's not me, I guess it is.

D

um Considering what we're seeing here, I don't believe this is a big ask.

D

Given the uh criteria that exists and what they're asking for.

D

It's going to make the second floor. Less non-conforming it'll still be non-conforming.

D

D

Any application that makes a non-conforming lot less non-conforming is a good idea for me. Speaking to the.

D

Criteria 10.233.21.

D

Granting the variance would not put be contrary to the public interests. I do not believe it would be.

D

um I don't believe the public would be affected. um We have three letters.

D

Of support from the directive butters, who are all in favor of what they've been shown.

D

10.233.22, granting the variance would observe the spirit of the ordinance. Yes, it would.

D

Has the applicant set they've been here they've already redone some of the house they're a growing family.

D

10.233.23 granting the variance would do substantial justice. I believe that it would.

D

As I said, it would make the second floor. Addition is less non-conforming.

D

A 10.233.24 granting the variants would not diminish the values of the surrounding properties.

D

um Any addition could, or it could improve.

D

In this case, it would be an improvement if you have a bigger house, a brand new structure.

D

Well, I think it would enhance the surrounding properties, definitely not detract from them.

D

10.233.25 literal enforcement of these provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary.

D

Hardship, a the property has a special condition that distinguishes it from the other properties in.

D

The area and owing to these special conditions, a fair and substantial relationship, does not.

D

Exist between the general public purposes of the ordinance provisions and the specific application.

D

Of that property to provision to that property and the proposed use is a reasonable one or owing.

D

To the special conditions, the property cannot be reasonably used in the strict conformance of the.

D

Ordinance and a variance is therefore necessary to enable reasonable use, as they've stated.

D

um They're growing expanding family, they just want to increase the size of their house.

D

So the only thing that's holding them back is the fact that they.

D

We have setback rules and the house is the lot's already non-conforming.

D

So, for these reasons I have made the motion to support. Thank you with the second like to add.

A

Something yeah so I'll just add, um so it seems like the uh reason for the variants is uh because.

F

This is an existing uh home that was built before the zoning existed. It's non-conforming uh anything.

F

It's not realistic to pick up and move the whole house makes it conforming. So anything that would.

F

Have been done to this house uh uh would require variance, and in this case, what is being asked for.

F

uh Is would make it less non-conforming, so it's in the spirit of the ordinance uh and the hardship is.

F

The uh the existing property or the existing home was built before zoning in this location.

F

uh So to me it makes a lot of sense uh to approve this application.

E

I will be supporting, but I do note that the um second floor is actually more non-conforming than.

E

The first floor: it's um it is 8.5 feet as opposed to five feet. It's actually goes out over the the.

E

Five foot- um I I no it sets if I could just verify uh my my intention of what I was stating is that.

F

The second floor is set back further from the front property line and the first floor further.

E

So, even though it's still thinking it's the right, I'm sorry back, yeah, yeah, okay, just forget what I.

E

Just said, I thought it was a left right side; okay, it's late, any further discussion: okay, the chair.

A

Is going to support this, I think it's a fairly minor request. That's going to give this family a.

A

Lot more room and um I think that works for us, so the motion is to support the petition. A yes allows.

A

This new edition, mr mantle? Yes, mr mcdonald, yes, miss margison! Yes, mr bale, yes, mr matson.

A

Yes, mr rossi, yes good and the chair votes I you're approved. Thank you. Okay,.

L

Yes is one eye.

A

um Okay, the next request is the request of forgive me for mispronouncing michio.

A

Bardung and sean bardung owners for property located at 39 dearborn street, whereas relief.

A

Is needed to construct a second story over the existing one and a half story building.

A

Remove and expand the front porch and remove and expand the existing mudroom on the eastern side.

A

Of the structure, which requires the following one variants from section 10.521 to allow a.

A

Two foot rear yard, where 20 is required and b 9 foot side yard, where 10 feet is required.

A

Variants from section 10.321 to allow the extension and enlargement of a non-conforming.

A

Structure said, property is located on assessor map, 140 lot 3 and lies within.

A

The general residence and historic district is there someone to speak to this petition.

N

Good evening, there's.

N

Amy dutton, I am representing misho and sean bardung. I work.

N

Out of kittery and I'm a portsmouth resident so.

N

um Just as a brief overview, the um the drawings aren't up yet the basically. What we'll be doing is.

N

Taking off the second floor of an antique cape and we are proposing to build a dutch colonial.

N

Roof line and then taking off an existing falling down mud room at the front of the.

N

House and making a family room that will connect to an existing.

N

Barn slash garage shed and, lastly, to bump forward a small section for a mud room.

N

um Just for clarification, we are in front of hdc, we've been through one work session and um the.

N

Homeowners understand that, should this not pass tonight and we're still in front of htc, we would.

N

Have to come back so we do understand that the feedback from the first htc work session was that.

N

I actually had the the family room pulled away from the shed and they seem to not like that and.

N

So we revised the drawings quickly and connected it to the the existing shed. That does mean that we.

N

Have to raise the roof up, but I don't believe that that impacted anything here. Correct yeah.

N

um So with um I won't go through and read this because you already have it, but the.

N

um Just I'm reviewing the five criteria, what we are presenting with the variants not being.

N

Contrary to public interest, the house, the reason why I included all the pictures from the from all.

N

The various roads is that it's tucked back it's at the end of dearborn, uh I'm assuming you guys.

N

Have all driven by it it's hard to see you'll see more of it because we're raising the roof line, but.

N

um You wouldn't see what we're proposing in front of you tonight.

N

um The spirit of the ordinance would be observed. um This is what what has passed in the past was a.

N

Garden um the the granite steps through the htc- I don't believe they ever made it.

N

They must have come here in order to build the shed. Yes, um the intention was always to build a.

N

Patio on a courtyard- and this will allow us to actually finish what has already been approved.

N

um Substantials justice will be done. The existing home, as you can see, is tucked back in the. I guess.

N

I have a hard time with the front. You know, because it's right on the water, so I think.

N

Of the water as the front, but I think the front is actually from dearborn extension.

N

um It's tucked back in the corner and there's not a whole lot that we can do about that.

N

um It sits two feet: two inches on the back setback and two feet: six inches from the right set back.

N

um We won't be encroaching any closer to any of the property lines.

N

And um so I think ultimately, no harm will be done to the neighborhood.

N

The values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished. um Some of the houses haven't been.

N

Renovated and some have it's kind of a mix and match down that street. So, ultimately, we are seeing.

N

This as an improvement to all the butters, there are a lot of the butters, um as I'm sure the city.

N

Putting together the letters was, you know it's, it goes down done it maplewood and then dearborn.

N

um That being said, there's only there's. There are two direct butters one of them.

N

Actually does have a visual variance of viewing easement, so we can't we couldn't go any closer.

N

To that neighborhood neighbor anyway, because we would be asking for that setback relief.

N

um And then, lastly, the hardship um piece of this- um I just want to point out a few items.

N

The we cannot go, we cannot comply to code and replace that roof line and just fix.

N

It right now you walk up the stairs. There's a bedroom on the right bedroom on the left.

N

That's it, and so the only way for us to get any there's literally, not a bed wall. We can't.

N

You know china has a hard time. You can basically just walk around three feet of the second floor.

N

um So once we start thinking about how to expand that square footage, we really have to take the.

N

Roof system off um they are family of five and their their children are in their late teens.

N

20S so, and they plan on retiring here, so this is a house that will potentially have grandchildren and.

N

It's just simply not big enough um so and lastly, the mud room. um I think everybody wants a mud, room.

N

It's new england right. I think we all kind of get that one um so with sean and michio, both working.

N

From home and growing family, that's the addition parts of it. So can I guess, answer any questions.

L

Yeah, madam chair, yes, it's time can you hear I can, but thankfully.

C

Okay uh in the april, 21st 2015 uh variance for the shed uh there's, the stipulation for.

C

The view easement area, could you go to the uh the map on page? Let's see, where is it.

C

All right, could you scroll to the one uh the map that shows the property, so I'm going to get a.

C

Better understanding of where the view easement is how this is not impacting it. It might be cheap, too.

I

Which sheet it's the next sheet down.

G

C

Yep, can you describe to me what the the view easement is about.

C

And how this is not not obstructing of you, the property is this property, michael.

N

I can't pronounce his name um right here is the corner of his property, and this.

N

Line here is the view easement and it it does actually say on it. It's dashed yeah.

N

So that doesn't allow us to go anywhere over here.

C

Okay, thank you sure.

A

Is that it tom? Yes, that was my only question. Thank you.

B

Okay, let's fire somebody next.

B

um All right, um my first question is the existing foundation, so this is a pretty.

B

Substantial increase in vertical height on this uh on this proposal.

B

um The existing foundation can handle it and will mean completely intact. There's no plan to.

B

Change any of that out, yeah yeah um mike branzell was the previous homeowner and believe it or not.

N

I've already talked to um paul durand about this, and you know both of us were just like yeah, that.

N

Foundation can hold anything he by hand rebuilt that whole foundation and then report a slab.

N

There's a ton of steel in there. He was planning on doing this, so it's actually um kind of a beautiful.

N

Thing I agree with you: normally we were really scared to do a project put that kind of weight on.

N

The second floor, when the first floor is already done, but the basement is solid, literally rock.

N

um So, okay, so the intent is to reuse the existing foundation. That sort of is fixing you in this.

B

Location of the current current setbacks- yes, okay, um the so you know with the height I I.

B

Guess you chose, and you know some of this is um really the province of the htc basket anyway. Is.

B

um What! What led you to a dutch colonial as opposed to just adding, adding something.

B

Else, do you do you feel that provides an advantage in terms of the overall height.

N

I do we're still living within the roof line, quite a bit, so we're still living within that.

N

um Front dormer back dormer, but it doesn't look like a cape. What we were trying to do was not.

N

Have it look like an expanded cape which I think would look a little bit too modern.

N

um So the attic space is only from the ceiling height of eight feet.

N

We only go go up like another four four feet in the attic, so there's.

N

um I mean we'll probably stick build it, but um it wouldn't be a usable attic. Okay and you did.

B

You say something about the current roof system is failing or yeah. You can tell right now it's a.

N

Rolled roof on the main house, the kitchen edition was done. I believe in 15. is that right, yeah, so.

N

That roof 17., that roof is beautiful and it's done, the kitchen is beautiful and it's done.

N

The um the it is kind of hard to see here there might you can, but you can see it is a rolled roof.

N

Also, but that's just the material we're down to like maybe six inches of rafters. It's.

N

We're gonna preserve them and use them in the new um the renovation, but we don't. We can't, even if.

N

We spray foamed it, we wouldn't get an r value we and it, and it just sits right on top of the plate.

N

So we can't do a whole lot with it right, but it could be repaired and left as it currently is that.

B

Would be one of the options? Potentially, we can't hit code, so we would still have to if we wanted.

N

To look exactly like that, that would pretty much be impossible um because we need deeper rafters.

N

Does that make sense yeah, I guess so I guess you would completely rebuild it. You could.

B

Raise the cable- I don't want to go too too far down this rabbit hole, but you could raise the.

B

Gable um with like a knee wall or something along those lines, instead, to give yourself.

B

The rafter room, yes, which we are, the the um the the we are raising at three feet,.

N

To give ourselves to give ourselves a bit of a new wall, okay, so uh and for the record 17.

B

I'm presuming it's 2017 because the age of this house it could be 18, 17 or 1917. good point. Okay,.

B

um And you have a some information that you talk about here about this being barged over in roughly.

B

1800, what's the what's the background that you've discovered on this, this cape.

B

That's on uh page 116 of our package. That is basically the information that we have unless.

N

You want to expand on it anymore; um they have the old pictures which are also included on this.

N

um It was it, it was almost like a shed uh like a cottage, um and that's really all we know. Okay,.

B

I mean imagine in 1800 was probably actually a fairly respectable house, but I didn't know if.

B

You knew if it was barged over from from gosport if it was one of the uh the homes that was taken.

B

Off the house of shoals- or not so um I don't know, okay and maybe that's on the htc package. Only.

B

uh That's that's fine, okay, um so uh the other question I had was if we could go to page 125.

B

The packet, um so the tax map- that's over on the left hand side in here, so the the property that.

B

We're looking at tonight is outlined. um I can't read it currently because it takes.

B

Takes a little while on our ipads, this is so high resolution that our up there we go common came in.

B

um So the dearborn lane uh is here on the tax map. There's another reference to a dearborn lane.

B

Behind your property, um having visited the neighborhood, there is absolutely positively.

B

No evidence of that being a city uh street. Is there anything that you're aware of in terms of.

B

Easements or anything else on lots, 140-5 and watts 140-7. That would indicate that that's something.

B

That the city retains rights to in any way or that it can't be built in it's not on the deed right.

O

uh Hi I'm sean bardon resident at 39 dearborn street yeah, so I mentioned it to the town. I.

O

Picked up on it when, um when I first looked at this um and there's no street actually.

O

Goes right into the backyard of um the fellows who own planet fitness they live in.

O

The river this address is here a tax lot, uh 147. yeah, so they they own. That.

O

Whole that that's their property- this was erroneously put in here. I think.

O

What it was is that our address is actually dearborn street. This dearborn lane thing I.

O

Don't I don't doesn't exist, but it's not a real street and I think when they went to go drop it.

O

In on the on the map, they dropped, two of them and even though there's only one because the original.

O

Street was like this, and then this was added later on, as it was explained to me by the previous owner.

O

Okay yeah, I will also say the google maps gets very confused by your property as well. Foreign.

O

At the upstairs they recognize there's an issue and said they were going to fix.

O

It, but I don't know it hasn't been fixed yet, okay, thank you. Thank you.

A

Yes, so going back to page 117 in our packet, so I just want to make sure I understand this this. How.

E

Everything is being changed because we're not the htc and I'm not good at this stuff, but the um the.

E

Areas of the house that are being taken off are that little front the the front and then the side.

E

The this, this is the side where the bulwark is that being currently um yeah.

N

So convenient right.

A

That's right- and this is that going to be attached to the garage. So this is what was done in 2017.

N

This section here- and this is the section that we're going to take off it's you can say it's just.

N

On concrete blocks, and then this is the existing shed barn. So what comes off? Is this roof system.

N

And then and a new roof and then there would be a connector here right and that's the family room.

N

And then this section here bumps out to about just past that window. Sorry, I didn't know it was smart.

N

So the the connector does that go into the shed or no. The connector does touch the shed, but we cannot.

E

Access it okay, so um the shed is really more like a garage right. The shed is like a garage. It's not.

N

You it's not used as a garage, it has, um it doesn't have a garage door, it has open hinged doors.

N

um They use it as a shed. That's why I'm using the word shed, but it could be, can have a car parked.

N

In it, okay and that's their intention, so it has a completely poured foundation. It goes down below.

O

The frost line, so it was constructed as a garage. It actually can fit. A small car we haven't used.

O

It like that previous owner used it as his uh he's a big fisherman, so he had all his fishing gear in.

O

There and he had a workshop in there, so um it can easily fit a small car. You know like everything up.

O

You know like any four-door sedan would fit in there and it and, like I said, the footing goes down.

O

um Below the frost line he built he he excavated his though it was a proper structure. So.

O

um So it's poured foundation underneath it and it has electricity that goes into it, that he tunneled.

O

From the house, it's okay, there's no plumbing and when the variance was granted for that, that's.

E

When the easement was one of the stipulations was yeah, so there was a long history of the previous.

O

Owner and what and the property owner to the that um that amy pointed out um previous owner.

O

Mike brunzell had had a business that had a lot of equipment had a lot of storage needs and he had a.

O

Shed that sat in that easement and obstructed our neighbors mike's uh view from his yard, so.

O

There was some contention as I understand it for a number of years, and while mr brenzell.

O

Was trying to get his kitchen and other and the shed built? um I think someone from the town, as I.

O

Understand it came in and intermediated and came up with this arbitrage right and arbitered. This.

O

Easement that would allow our neighbor and we're able to maintain his garden view of the pond and.

O

uh And then mr brazil pulled agreed to not park any trucks and and to move his shed and any other.

O

Equipment away from the water or front like you could obviously see from our parking area where.

O

We have uh parking, um it's quite extensive, so in the past I guess mr prinzel had a lot of.

O

Rob to come out and help us sorry, uh trucks and stuff. So that was that's how it was.

O

um Brokered, I think I went back and I read the uh all the the file upstairs from 2009.

O

From 2009 to 2015 that this whole thing went on a number of different proposals and that.

O

Broker deal was this uh view easement that was uh was granted and then with that was.

O

The approval to build the uh fill the the shed as it as it is today. I don't know why.

O

They called it a [, __ ]. I would call it a small garage. It's not really a um not really a shed.

A

Okay, thank you now I just get to see me. It's terrible. I just have a quick question.

D

Are you collecting stone [laughter], so mr brenzell, uh as amy had mentioned hand dug out the entire.

O

Foundation underneath the house so the way that they've built foundations back then was build.

O

The foundation walls and then layer underneath the before we had cement all that granite and then put.

O

Clay on, I guess clay on top of that, so you hand dug and removed every one of those stones. So these.

D

Are all the debris yeah, and so I'm gonna remove all that away out of that space, I'm going to.

O

Pull it out of there. Okay, I was just curious, yeah yeah. I don't know why he chose, I think he chose.

O

To throw it back there because of the property uh behind us, the 140-7 is about. I think three.

O

To four feet above our property and so to cut down an erosion you just tossed it all there for.

O

Whatever reason, okay and uh and the neighbors had no issue with it, yeah, but that's the reason for it.

D

So this is just all debris and they're going to get rid of it yeah. I want to clear it out.

O

Of there, because once we put the family room, I won't understand it: yeah, okay, okay,.

A

Miss martinson, so I I think, picking up what mr rossi said.

E

I am a little confused about the fact that the right yard is two feet when the stiffy.

E

When the variance that was granted for the shed was that it would be five feet.

N

The two feet: two inches is the rear.

A

I don't know what sides of the property I know, but I'm when I say the front I actually mean.

N

The um front door: okay, okay, not not the water view the front door.

N

So I'm going to say the rear. I mean the straight the one straight side: okay, yeah.

O

That's that's. That's considered the back of the lot, uh as it was explained to me by.

O

um Peter stiff yeah.

A

Further question.

A

If we put a picture of the actual house up there and ask them to tell us the rear of the front.

A

The side, because I'm not sure we are all on the same page, even though we all read the same words.

A

If you don't mind.

A

N

Okay, so this is the left side. Okay,.

N

Right this is the front. This is the rear. Okay, and then that would be the right. Oh, okay and.

E

That's why you needed the accessory structure variants, because that is actually the front yard.

E

We're for the shed back in 2015, yes, um okay, all right page 126 shows the setbacks.

B

So the shed is in the in the setbacks.

B

The wobble building area is that dashed line.

L

What's his ipad slow, it takes they're very high res, so it takes a long time for the.

B

Ipad to sort it all out, we found the plot plans. The top uh of the page is the right.

F

Property line and the house is two feet from it, but the shed is five feet from it left right.

A

Hold on we're getting there I've now this besides, the top of the page, is the right yeah.

A

I'm just trying yeah to the left property line.

F

um No! No because, if you're looking at it from the front that way he's interesting, yeah right right.

B

Perfect one yes correct outdoor speaker: okay, are there further questions for the applicant.

A

Do you have anything else? You would like us to know.

L

um Okay, thank you. Thank you for your time,.

A

Is there anyone to speak in favor of this petition.

A

Is there anyone opposed to this petition who would like to speak.

P

Foreign, I'm michael stasek, I'm the um a budding neighbor with the contentious shed issues in the.

P

um You setback, I I feel um a little late to the party because I actually haven't talked to.

P

These guys at all about their plants- and this is the first time that we're doing it um so.

P

I have close neighbors on three sides of my house: they're, actually, five houses. I can count that are.

P

Pretty much in narrow streets distance away, um I have a tiny backyard that is a sacred space to.

P

Me, which faces 39 dearborn. The pro proposed plan describes that there's no encroachment.

P

On neighbors, but the mud room that is designed to be an addition is actually built towards my house.

P

And um for the confusion about where the front of the house is, the mud room is over the front door.

P

That, in the old days, the roads circled between the houses, which is why it's a cape facing my.

P

House, if that helps okay, um so the proposal also said that um the changes could not be seen.

P

By neighbors and yet the roof line is going to be seven feet higher um than the existing.

P

Roof line which pretty much blocks most of the sky, that I look up at from my kitchen window,.

P

um And it is by the way where the sun sets in the summer, so it would cut into sunlight, which is also.

P

um Something that um variances talk about attaching the shed, because that's the front of.

P

The house, the the setback for the front of a house, is 20 feet. So if they build towards the shed and.

P

Connect to it they've crossed into what's actually a 20-foot setback, and um since the shed has.

P

Already been talked about as a contentious topic, I guess the cat's out of that bag, but um it it was.

P

A compromise that was sort of mediated by nick cracknell and everybody came out satisfied with.

P

What happened, but I was very firm about the shed as a storage space. It's not an active space and.

P

um I email attached to an email, stephanie got it and I know it's part of the packet, but it um it.

P

Was really important to me that I was not agreeing to a shed five feet. My prop from my property line.

P

That was going to have table saws and fluorescent lights, flooding my backyard and whatnot, and I also.

P

Was concerned about it being considered footprint to the house when it was really just labeled as.

P

A storage set so that connecting the house to the shed gives me kind of a red flag of now. The house.

P

Is a giant footprint that includes the shed and that it's really you know one step away from an.

P

Insulated addition to the house, if that proposal was like were to come later, so I I sort of.

P

I get a big feeling about connecting to the shed um in terms of the overall footprint, um so.

P

The seven foot height increase also includes windows that right now um there's a sense of.

P

Privacy there's a sense of the mill pond that I get from my house. I mean the 39 dearborn house.

P

Has much more sense of the mill pond, but that was why the view easement came about.

P

um Was to be able to appreciate, what's still a natural space on dearborn street and if, if.

P

The house next door is built towards me and it's seven feet higher. I'm basically.

P

Surrounded by houses on all four sides, and so even though it's a an improvement to the house.

P

It's it translates into kind of a hardship for me. I think um so that really you know sort of answers.

P

The question of you know: is this an upgrade to the neighborhood or is it a devaluation of my property.

P

And possibly the neighborhood and the the living in a historic district creates a cachet of a.

P

Neighborhood that still stands as it was after 25 years ago, and if, if this was the south end or.

P

Gate street we were talking about, I don't think a a cape from the 1700s would be turned into.

P

um A taller house with a gambriel roof. So um I I was a little shocked by what happened at the hd.

P

Work hdc work session that the that, when michael branzell and helen long put in a proposal in 2017.

P

um The historic district was pretty fast to say, this is a cape, we don't want it to be changed, and so what what was passed was.

P

um An expansion of the kitchen because they said traditionally a cape can be made longer and still.

P

Be a cape, there was a second dormer window to be added and a shed dormer facing dennett street and.

P

When that was the plan, everybody was happy. I was happy. I stood up and supported it and.

P

um So I guess you know, there's a question there of what is durable in um you know. The planning.

P

Department and the historic districts when um work goes into a decision that satisfies everybody and.

P

Then the house gets sold and- and we start over again and um and all of that evaporates so.

P

um But in the 38 years that I've lived on dearborn street, this is the most significant architectural.

P

Change anybody has ever requested and when, when michael branzell and helen put in for for um a.

P

Second story on 39 dearborn: they put in a sort of clean rectangle that looked like one of these new.

P

Shingled houses on on on newcastle, and that was not satisfactory to the um historic district.

P

Because it it erased a cape and um by not erasing the cape, it also means that it doesn't get taller.

P

And so um that the height change is something that I think um has impact for me that that um so.

P

um I've seen two I've seen two plans proposed that were rejected. There was one also for 41 dearborn.

P

um At one point in the last um five years- and it was the massing of the.

P

Building that was the objection, and um so I I look at this proposal and.

P

um How tight all the houses are on dearborn street and the fact that the space between.

P

My house and 39 is the one sort of airspace relief that you get when you come down that.

P

Street, that's so crowded and I I feel like it. It's going to continue the crowdedness um and.

P

That I'm the one that will experience that so um and then the other thing is when we, um when.

P

I'm getting confused now between the 2015 and the 2017, but the 2015 was when the shed.

P

um Proposal happened, it was charlie griffin who was my lawyer, who drafted that um agreement, and I.

P

um Spoke to him today um and he sent me an email this afternoon, and this is just a piece of his.

P

Email, it's it's. These are his words. He said. I do not feel that it has been established that.

P

Denial of this proposal will result in unnecessary hardship. I think the hardship is self-created. They.

P

Bought the property aware of its limitations, also the definition of unnecessary hardship.

P

Is that the house cannot be reasonably used reasonably, does not mean maximum or ideal.

P

So anyway, I guess I'm the most negative person. That's come to the podium tonight, but well.

A

Maybe tonight, but not I've been I've been in my house for 38 years, I'm very sentimental about.

P

The historical aspects of all of it, you know I've I've. um um My house is from 1800 and I.

P

Haven't you know there are no granite countertops, there's no open concept. I've really! You know I've.

P

Appreciated the the inconvenience that the house forces me to live with, because it's.

P

A house that tells a story, and um anyway, I'm sorry you guys with the thought yeah. Thank you.

A

Is there anyone else to speak? Let me go through it first to see if anybody else.

A

Wants to come up before you get a second. Is there anyone else to speak in opposition.

A

Some of our neighbors, but I didn't get a chance to speak to mike okay.

O

So is there anyone else who would like to speak to for or against.

A

Welcome back now you can yeah, so so the property right now. Our lock coverage is at 12.3 for 12.5.

O

Percent of the of the of a lot right, the other houses in our area are built to a hundred percent.

O

Of their property lines, um so everyone has to deal with hardship. I know in the morning I'm.

O

Not able to see the sun rise from my kitchen and I'm up at 5 30 a.m. Every morning I can't.

O

See it because there's other houses around there, because it is a tight neighborhood.

O

um So I think in purchasing the property we understood that there were a lot of people around.

O

Us previous decisions or other you know, the only thing that we did know was that there was there.

O

Was a discrepancy or a disagreement around the the property and how it was being used and how.

O

It impinged on on mike's view out to the pond, as it was explained to us. That's why the view.

O

Easement was agreed and and and allowed for the shed to be built there right. We have no intention.

O

Of using the shed as a livable space insulating it, if you want to put that restriction on it, I.

O

Don't really care uh we don't plan on using it. We're the only reason to attach the attached to.

O

It is for structural integrity uh of that family, room and um yeah. So it's you know the increases.

O

uh Is somewhat you know somewhat slight mike's uh property is sits above our property. It's actually.

O

um It's about waist high to maybe four feet, maybe chest high at points. I think the area.

O

Of his, as was explained to me, I've never been on this property, but as mike brenzell.

O

Explained to me, his garden area sits probably like shoulder height to me right, I'm six foot two! So.

O

um You know four feet above that he's already above above our uh above our um uh halfway above.

O

Our shed- um and um you know, and all we're doing, is we're bringing this the shed up in line with with.

O

The uh with the kitchen, which is how many feet is that three: is it yes, they're going up three feet.

O

um Yeah and so the intent there was to was feedback from the hp hdc.

O

um With regard to the cape, the you know, the cape uh was brought whenever whatever.

O

The history of it is the thing over. The last hundred years has gone through a number of.

O

Different renovations, that's why the roof is so wobbly. The house is twisted because it's.

O

Been hacked hacked six ways from sunday prior to the you know, to the you know more discipline, you.

O

Know, discipline hdc that we we have today. uh People just did what they want with it right.

O

So we're not even some of the roof timbers are are not even the originals. Some of them are so.

O

um Yeah, you know the the intent and why we went with the dutch colony. It wasn't just a slap at.

O

Dutch colony, it was like every intent to try to get more waste uh use of the second floor.

O

um Whether it was a weight, you know you brought up a um hip wall or whatever.

O

You want to refer to on the second floor, that all um all those approaches really.

O

um Made it wind up looking like something that was made you know built, uh I don't know, I think mike.

O

Used to referenced another, a modern home, a home that was recently built, that was what mr brinzel.

O

Had presented some gable, what we were trying to do is what we did with the htc is we went around, we.

O

Looked at what it, what does a dutch colonial look like in you know book in the 1700s 1800s, and so.

O

The way that we structured the roof was consistent with those older older homes so that it looks more.

O

Like a colonial, not a modern, dutch colonial and also to the point of the detail along the trim.

O

Line uh of between the first pitch of the roof and the falling pitch of the dutch colonial. So that.

O

Was that was the intent there and um yeah so so yeah and also to return? You know the stuff we took.

O

Went through the htc was also to return a chimney to the roof, because the chimney was that one fell.

O

Down and it was taken down while it was falling in disrepair and the other one was removed, so.

O

You know our intent is to to have a a traditional looking dutch colonial, not something that isn't.

O

uh And that's been that's the whole reason for increasing the ridge line and all that stuff.

E

Clarification, foreign, the shed. Yes, I thought that ms dutton said that the family room would.

E

Be attached to it and would be opened into it. No! It's just attached. It's attached to.

O

It okay, so in terms of the roof line on the existing structure, I mean certainly.

E

You don't need to build a second floor, you could just re, you could just fix the roof.

O

Can you repeat that question so you say the roof is failing on the the on the structure.

E

um Because it just wasn't built properly, you certainly can just rebuild the the roof, though.

E

Well, the root the roof is miss dutton explained is not to code, and so the pitch of the roof is.

O

Not in order to do that, you'd actually lose more interior space to actually bring it up to code.

O

Okay, this is um my name, is michio badon. um So the reason for the second floor is because we are.

Q

Family of five, and currently we only have like two bedroom with one bathroom, so we need a little more.

Q

Space on top of being able to fix the roof, that's why we are raising the roof line. I understand and.

E

But you haven't been the owners of the property for very long. When did you buy the property.

A

Any more questions for the applicant okay. Anyone else from the public want to talk.

A

Then I'll close, the public hearing.

A

Anybody want to get started manager could um could we take a 10-minute.

B

Recess absolutely yes, it is that time. Okay, 10 minutes, thank you. We will be back.

A

B

B

B

There's a fire exit, I would have.

B

B

A

A

A

Last time now we're back in session.

A

So [music] in the public hearing school and the public, yes.

A

The applicants aren't back in, shall we wait. We should no we'll we'll start. Okay start trying to.

B

Operate yes, okay! uh Thank you, madam chair all right, so I guess I'd like to you know.

B

Break this down into pieces and um looking at page 132 on our packet sheet, a9 um yeah, the.

B

Applicant's asking for for three pieces to what they want to do to their home here. One is to.

B

Make this family room connector to the shed, so uh that's kind of shown in the in the middle of this.

B

um I don't know if everyone can see it on your tablets or, if you, if you want to see it up there.

B

But so there's the sort of the center connection here between the shed and the existing home.

B

um That is really just barely. If, uh if we're, we can look at page 126 later, but that just.

B

Barely crosses over the and I do believe it's the left-hand property side, because it's the.

B

Viewpoint of the property relative to the street, I'm pretty sure, but anyway, right or left-hand side.

B

um It just barely goes over the that setback and certainly far less than the main home, which.

B

Is represented by the structure? That's off on the right here. uh The roof line of that is much lower.

B

Than the existing you know somewhat lower than the existing shed about the same we're so much.

B

Lower than the addition that is uh was added on in either 2015 or 2017 somewhere in that time frame.

B

um So I really think from the for the purposes of this board, that edition is.

B

Doesn't add very much in terms of of concerns, it has almost no impact on setbacks and its.

B

Height uh relative to to any neighbors is really no greater than anything. That's.

B

Currently existing the second piece is this mudroom slash, entryway, that's sort of shown.

B

um If you look at the where there's a number 14 uh and a number six and a number seven.

B

That little area right there again relatively low. What page are you on I'm on page uh 132.

L

um Okay, so that's yeah, yep uh or 132, or what that's 132 showed up on the screen. Yeah there you go.

B

um So you see the numbers 14, 6 and 7s that I think are referencing various components of the.

B

Of the of the of the house again, that's a one-story structure.

B

um It's slightly non-conforming in that the sort of the back end of it is actually in the setback.

B

But by and large that's actually fully within the the zone um that is is buildable by the.

B

Applicant and yes, it does approach the nearest neighbor towards uh dearborn street, but it is.

B

um Really moving in a direction that is is conforming, then the last major element that the.

B

Applicant is asking for is to take the original cape section and expand it up vertically by.

B

um Based off of the information provided by the planning staff, seven and a half feet taller than.

B

It was before, and you know instead of this gable, uh traditional gable, that it had we're doing this.

B

Sort of dutch colonial gable uh instead for for this arrangement here and I'm always cautious,.

B

About roof heights, because our ordinance is so bizarre that, where exactly the height of.

B

A roof is is involves, I think, multi-dimensional calculus or something on those lines to go and.

B

Figure it out, but roughly speaking, it's about seven and a half feet higher than than what we.

B

Would have with with the gable roof based off of the information provided with the uh with.

B

The application, so this is in my mind the most encroaching portion of our pro of the what the.

B

Applicant is asking for because, um if we do go up to page 126, which is the plan view, we.

B

Can see all those elements sort of laid out once uh once our ipad's managed to uh focus themselves.

B

Very high res so again we can see that that two, so the the family room just barely encroaching again.

B

The dash line is the 10 foot mark off the side, property line so just barely encroaching into it.

B

The mud room again the dash line representing the um the back property line, uh which is, I believe, 20.

B

Feet for this zone, so that does slightly encroach into that, but certainly the main house at two feet.

B

Essentially, at its closest point on realistically, both it says 2.2 feet, but the planning staff we.

B

Do round off to two two feet: do the round down. So that's why the um what's being asked for here is.

B

Is two feet for that? So that's really! The vertical expansion is closest to uh the property lines.

B

um It is also the farthest away from those properties that are on uh dearborn street.

B

um So really, in my mind, it's more affecting the other property owners, one of which is this. What.

B

um Tax map 140 watt, 8 and then up above it as you can see on the page before 125 140-7, are.

B

Really the two properties that are most closely associated with the with the two foot. So one of.

B

My questions to the applicant was: are you reusing the foundation? The answer is yes. If they had to.

B

Start over with the foundation, in my mind, two feet is, is, is a non-starter. uh Let's, let's work on on.

B

Something different: um I mean not seriously that that's a pretty significant encroachment, as we can.

B

Well see based off of where the dashed lines are. This is a pretty significant encroachment.

B

Particularly on the on the rear property line, um dimension uh requirement, um so so with that.

B

Those are the two effective properties, some of the other things I took a look at when thinking.

B

About this was that both of the dearborn street properties, uh basically the tax map um 140 lot 2.

B

And uh lot four which the gentleman spoke before us tonight: those are actually two-story structures.

B

um So you know they already have some of that height associated with them.

B

So what is the relative impact relative to the cape next door?.

B

um You know of them increasing their height and especially since it's on the opposite end of the.

B

Property from it, um I think you know somewhat lessens some of the impact to those properties.

B

um Some of the other things I was thinking about is you know how buildable one of the.

B

Things that I think this the applicants do have going for them is that this little sort of pie.

B

Shaped piece of property that is attached to um lot 140. uh Excuse me that map 140 watt 8.

B

Is probably not realistically a very buildable lot, the actual home, um especially if you take a.

B

Look uh well, it's really not shown very well in the tax map, but um the actual home is is quite.

B

A ways further, some at higher elevation and it's up on uh on dennett street and then the.

B

um The planet, fitness club or whatever you call it on the corner again, there's an elevation.

B

Difference between it and uh the subject, property, not an enormous elevation difference, but some of.

B

The difference and the area behind it why I had asked about this this you know supposed road that.

B

Goes back, there was just curious if there was any actual easements associated with, which would make.

B

That portion, not buildable, I think realistically, is probably not buildable uh anyway, but.

B

um But you know I was just trying to see if that was. That was a rationale for saying you know.

B

Realistically, from a latent air standpoint, you couldn't have anything structured there anyway,.

B

Which um which you potentially could, but again it really doesn't make sense that you want to add.

B

Off of that existing structure, especially with uh some of the grade changes that are involved there.

B

um So you know those are the considerations I think we have before us as a board.

B

What's my opinion of this project overall, is that um you know I don't want to I, I don't want.

B

To we're not the htc, um I know there's all kinds of volunteers on the htc who work hard like we.

B

Do put their put their best into a project, um you know personally, I I would agree with some of the.

B

Butter's concerns regarding uh the nature of of the design changes associated with this uh going.

B

From a very traditional cake to a dutch colonial, which I don't know of any you know, circus 1800,.

B

Dutch colonials in the city, most of them all, going to revivals from the early 20th century.

B

um And then also just the loss of what is probably one of the homes that was barged over from another.

B

Location quite likely at this time frame when there are a lot of them, were taken over from.

B

The aldo shoals when uh gospel gosport got raided for all of his homes and brought over to uh onto.

B

Land, so you know those historical aspects I do think are important. Are they the purview of this.

B

Board other than maybe saying that they apply in our criteria of substantial justice, where you can.

B

Maybe make an argument that there is an injustice in what the applicant is proposing. I just don't.

B

Think that we we don't have that kind of purview over it. That's why we trust the hdc. That's why.

B

We have the members we have on the htc to try and look at all of those factors interpret them.

B

And make the right decisions for this historic district neighborhood. So with that I mean I I.

B

You know this is a pretty substantial. It feels much more massive than what there is there.

B

um Do I like the look of it? No, you know oftentimes. We do kind of have this where people come in.

B

They buy a property, they say: oh hey, I'm just gonna go and expand it and make it. What I want.

B

um You know, I think, that's why we put the htc in place, was to try and go and restrain some of.

B

That massing in size is one of their. You know one of the things that you're really taking a look at.

B

um But so you know he had to expect that maybe you weren't going to get that expansion.

B

When you, when you bought this property, it's certainly far from guaranteed but in my mind.

B

For the purposes of this board, after thinking about this for a long time, even though those.

B

Are very small dimensions and very tight to the property line because they've been that way for.

B

A long long time, and because of some of the unique characteristics of the surrounding properties and.

B

The fact that really the impact to realistic light and air in terms of actual structures.

B

And and usefulness of those two property areas, I I don't think there's enough there to say that.

B

um We shouldn't shouldn't, allow it, so those are my thoughts.

B

um Yes, miss martinson. um I would actually respectfully disagree with mr ram because.

E

um One of the uh general purpose and intents of the zoning ordinance under 10.1216 is the.

E

Preservation of historic districts and buildings and structures of historic or architectural.

E

Interest, so I think if anybody watches me closely on this board, which you probably don't.

E

um I do apply these criteria to variance requests for structures within the historic district and.

E

um This is a 1700 structure, which is being I I, I think, raising it, putting a dutch colonial top to.

E

It um absolutely violates the spirit and intent of the ordinance um in terms of the aesthetics of.

E

It that is the htc, but this is something that I apply and that we are supposed to apply to.

E

Variance requests within the historic district um I've I find that the extension of the family room.

E

To the shed makes the shed not an accessory structure, I recognize that they're saying.

E

That they're not going to use it or extend from the family room into the shed, but that makes it.

E

Not an accessory structure in my mind and also violates the 2015 variance application on this.

E

um I you know respectfully, I understand you know uh I I you've moved here, welcome to portsmouth.

E

um However, you knew what kind of uh property or the needs that you wanted.

E

When you moved here and you've only, you know closed on this structure in october of 2022.

E

I don't understand how all the other houses public hearing is closed.

E

So I I believe that you know I think, there's some that does weigh in my mind in terms of hardship.

E

Frankly, and necessary or reasonable use of property.

E

I will not be supporting the variance application.

A

Anybody else, I'll just add some comments. um I think uh I actually agree with both of the.

F

Previous uh lots of comments, despite them uh drawing different conclusions, uh but something.

F

Else, I guess I'm uh I'm not really struggling with, but I guess something that's on my mind is.

F

uh What we're at, what's actually being applied for the variance is relative to the setbacks.

F

um And those are not becoming any more non-conforming, uh so.

F

um I guess internally, this bureau of the ordinance does apply to the whole ordinance, uh but.

F

Also, maybe we could get extra weight to the uh what the variance is actually.

F

For not that that simplifies our decision here, because it's a tough one for sure, but.

F

um uh I guess I I appreciate the concerns of the butter um uh and those are all valid points, um but.

F

Similarly, the uh they're not there's no needed uh variants for height, um even if uh I don't find the.

F

I mean I, I appreciate the historic aspect and and not wanting to change it from a cape.

F

um So yeah, I guess that's I'm struggling with. That is it's that uh that does relate.

F

To the part of the ordinance about preserving the uh historic character, um so that really.

F

There's pros and cons to each uh of these scenarios, so it is a difficult decision.

A

Thank you anybody else, and as long as everybody's weighing in.

D

Well, I appreciate the concerns of the butters and the historic nature of the property.

D

I'm looking at the variance requests and I don't see them being a large ask.

D

Just by the numbers, I do appreciate the historic aspect of it, but.

D

um As I said, it's a 17 18th century house um does that fit in 2023. Without you know, reconstruction.

D

Or renovation, especially for a growing family, and as they said that the roof is failing.

D

Design is a whole other aspect. That's for the htc, uh whether it's a dutch colonial and I.

D

Grew up in a dutch colonial, so I don't want to hear any bad words about dutch colonials, but I.

D

Mean if they proposed a 34 foot, square, glass and steel tower with the same setbacks. Okay,.

D

There's still variance requests; okay with setbacks, the design that's up to the htc. Now.

D

I can understand the historic structure of it, but if historic structure is no longer useful.

D

You know, I don't see, I don't see the downside to renovating it.

D

Or even building a second story, especially if that second story is still below what they would.

D

What they could go to as far as the max, so that's where I'm at right now.

A

Would anybody like to make a motion and then we can discuss.

E

Well again, I would, I would say that um you can repair the roof without.

E

Actually, adding the second floor, I think that probably there was a home inspection done on this.

E

This home prior to their purchase and that would have been flagged, um and I would remind us that.

E

You know the general purpose in the tent is the preservation of historic districts and buildings.

E

And structures of historic or architectural interests, I'm not talking about the design so much.

E

But the um the impact to this historic house uh by this by this edition and also I really.

E

I think, by extending that family room, that's no longer an accessory structure that should so.

B

If I could just add a little more comment and and don't get me wrong, I have strong reservations.

B

About this project, I am trying to just take a look at it through the lens that I think we have.

B

um Understand that our zoning ordinance in general talks to preservation of historic districts, I'm.

B

Not sure it necessarily parses out um where those responsibilities lie, um you know I would say from.

B

A generic neighborhood viewpoint, um if we, if we saw something that truly was you know negatively.

B

Impacting things from uh from a whole neighborhood perspective, and that's certainly that's part of.

B

Our criteria, right is, is it in keeping with the character of the neighborhood? I would say that.

B

um That this board would have more of a say on that aspect to it.

B

um We, for instance, a number of years ago, we had one a project on richards avenue, where somebody.

B

Was proposing to build an enclosed porch, this board told them. No, you had to build.

B

It as an open porch, which they ultimately did, because the character or the neighborhood, if.

B

There's very much of a rhythm going down that neighborhood. They had open porches and it said.

B

That hey you're, trying to do something that's really out of characteristic with the overall.

B

Character of the neighborhood, I'm not sure if you can go to necessarily have specific property and.

B

Say that I don't like what's being done, because I think it's it's negatively affecting that one.

B

Property, if it's, if it's meeting the other aspects of the criteria that we're judging it by and again.

B

There's a whole, we, the the creation of historic district historic districts, was accompanied by.

B

The idea that this historic district commission would be created would be you know, with volunteer.

B

People of interest to go and try and preserve that history and and I'd like to think that they're.

B

That they're really the ones that are looking out for for the best interests um there, and I guess I.

B

Would like to at least give a framework that that they can work with and and maybe through some.

B

Of the changes that they're asking for um can't guarantee this application might not have to come.

B

Back, if there's some other change, but um if it got if it got accepted at all by this board, thanks.

I

Oh mr awesome, thank you thanks. I would say that to me the prior stipulation about the few easement.

C

There's nothing in this proposal that is encroaching upon the view he's been so I.

C

Think that's good, I think that's you know there may have been a lot of other ancillary kind of.

C

Understandings but they're not they didn't result the restrictions to the property. This.

C

Is the only restriction that's actually been on the property, and as long as this.

C

Project is not you know not infringing upon view easement. I don't see it as in violation of prior.

C

Prior agreements, at least the way they were codified, and I would also say that, from my.

C

Perspective part of preserving historic buildings is to make sure that they are still contemporarily.

C

Useful if they cease to be useful to people who wish to own them and occupy them, then they will.

C

No longer be preserved and they'll fall into disrepair, as perhaps this one already has.

C

Started to do so, I think there's a lot of ways to look at the responsibility for preserving.

C

Historic structures, thank you. Okay, thank you. Can I get a motion from anybody.

A

Otherwise, I'll tell you what I think we should probably have emotions.

L

Well, I would move to deny, but I do not think that I have support for that, but.

L

I would make a motion to deny: is there a second.

A

Would anyone like to make a motion a favor.

B

All right, madam chair, I will make a motion to.

B

um To approve um as presented and advertised is there a second.

A

Thank you, mr mantle okay. Thank you. So we've had a lot of discussion on this.

B

um Again, I I sense some of the frustration.

B

um I I don't always you know, we see a lot of this in in portsmouth where people come in.

B

And you know, buy the property with a pretty view that has the less than fully desirable house on.

B

It and now suddenly it gets turned into something, that's quite different than what was there before.

B

um You know in some ways that's a sign of the the prosperity and the success that our city.

B

Has a lot of the old buildings that we have are around because uh the city was not successful.

B

For many many years and uh the money simply wasn't there to go and rebuild and reconstruct homes and.

B

um And that sort of led to us having um well other than urban renewal, wiping out a bunch of it. But it.

B

Led to a bunch of old homes that ultimately formed the corps through our through the hard work of.

B

The historic district, commission and others to go and create a very historic feel for our city and.

B

And other factors that have have now made it so that uh you know prosperity is and desirability.

B

Is bringing in people and they want to go and put their imprint and and so yeah they find that house.

B

With the with a pretty view- and um you know change it to to meet their needs so does do. I have some.

B

Some regrets about that aspect of this project. I absolutely do I'm just trying to be as fair as I.

B

Can with what I see as our ordinance requirements um with what I see is the as the purview for this.

B

Board, I do think there's others who are looking at other aspects of this and I I hope that they.

B

Are you know um also just like all the members of this board, um using all their talent experience.

B

And and and judgment that they've learned to uh to try and decide what the right answer is here. um So.

B

Go into our our criteria, uh granting the variance would not be uh contrary to the public interests.

B

um The again two two aspects of this have minimal impacts on encroachment in terms of anything that.

B

The public could ever notice it's really the vertical expansion of an existing structure.

B

Using existing foundation that is tight up against one corner of of proposed property.

B

As the applicant has pointed out, the the total percentage of law coverage is is much smaller.

B

Than is required for this zoning uh area, so it's not not a matter of coverage. It's really the.

B

Positioning of the home uh from the the time that it was put there back in the 18th circuit, 1800.

B

um And ultimately, how the property got formed, perhaps it probably got formed around it.

B

um Left these very, very tight setbacks, which I think is the most, uh which is what we're.

B

Really here for in the most egregious aspect to it, but the public, really it's a relatively hidden.

B

Property from the general public, I do believe that the perhaps most most affected abutters.

B

There are some some um aspects to where their you know. Homes are located where the usefulness of the.

B

Property with great changes and other things to them, what would be the negative impact and.

B

It is ultimately a seven foot change, although I do think you know the overall size, because it's.

B

A dutch colonial with the with the gambrell roof feels more imposing than had. They simply raised a.

B

Gable roof up by that seven feet, but nonetheless the the total imposition is is not such that it's.

B

um It's outside of what the public is really has a greater interest in the applicant would.

B

Granted the variants would observe the spirit of the ordinance. This is a very significant.

B

um Change to the required setbacks. That said, it's a very old old home on a property that has been.

B

Around for a long time predating our our zoning ordinance, the applicant is not asking to make.

B

That any worse, um because of the nature where the foundation is they, it's not realistic for them to.

B

Without you know, removing the foundation to go and put um this expansion in any other location.

B

um I I do think that um you know light and airs are other aspects to what we're concerned with.

B

With setbacks and again because some you know very fortunate for this applicant, I do think that the.

B

Two most important properties surrounding it that are most affected by the setbacks.

B

um Do have some some characteristics about them that make that light and air concern.

B

uh Less significant grinding the variants reduce substantial justice. um Again, this is a balancing.

B

Test of what the public's interests are, um you know outside of the historic aspects which again.

B

I really do have faith that that other boards will take a close look at that and uh I think.

B

For the terms of this board uh that the there's really no factors that outweigh it, there are.

B

Neighboring properties, I understand that you know we'll now see a tower structure there, but they.

B

Those properties also have and of themselves uh tower structures. It's also not really on.

B

The side of the property closest to where those deer dearborn street uh properties are located.

B

um So with that, I I think that the balancing test is in favor of the applicant.

B

Granting the variance would not diminish the values of the surrounding properties.

B

um Always probably one of our you know the most, almost any improvement really to these properties.

B

Is probably going to be a positive aspect to the overall property values and ultimately uh make a.

B

Positive effect, I don't think there's anything so egregious about what is being proposed here.

B

That, even if it were, if it were built that it would have any kind of negative impact on on the.

B

Surrounding properties um in in terms of their um their value and then the hardship criteria.

B

So again, I do think that some of the hardship is the really the main hardship is that we're.

B

Talking about a foundation that goes back to uh a century or more uh before a zoning even.

B

Existed much less, the current zoning that's been put in place on this, this property. I also think.

B

It is benefited by some of the unique nature of the surrounding properties, their buildability.

B

um Some of the topography considerations around them, um so I think in the sense of the areas that.

B

Are most affected by this vertical expansion? I think there are some things that are in favor.

B

There um that that do make distinguish this property from other surrounding properties and.

B

um That it's a reasonable use for continuing a um a residential use in a residential neighborhood.

B

Not proposing anything different than that, so with those criteria I would recommend approval.

D

I have nothing to add.

A

Is there any further discussion I'm going to support this motion.

A

For almost every reason that mr ray, who mentioned in his motion,.

A

I think in an area where their historic district commission exists, it's their scope of approval for.

A

The nature and design of the building- and I agree that this building it also gets a pass because.

A

It's not on a streetscape; it doesn't have to be compared with anything else in the neighborhood.

A

The building coverage is now only, I believe, 17 percent of the property. It's still.

A

Even though we think it is becoming so much larger, it's still covering a small portion of its lot and.

A

For that and other reasons, I'm going to vote yes on this motion, mr matson. Yes, I would just also add.

F

uh One aspect that uh really served to ease on my concerns is that there is in fact a view easement.

F

In place uh to the mill pond, thank you yes, thank you. Good boy. Is there any further discussion.

A

Okay, a yes vote is about to approve this building. Mr mantle. Yes, mr mcdonald, yes, miss marjerson, no.

A

Mr rahim, yes, mr matson, yes, mr rossi, yes and the chair votes, yes, you're approved.

A

Okay and for our last petition of the evening- and I want to apologize.

A

The crest, the request of sean moran owner for property, located at 67.

A

Madison street, whereas relief is needed to construct a 122 square foot covered front.

A

Porch, which requires the following one: variance from section 10.521 to allow a.

A

Three foot front back: setback where five feet is required and b.

A

Excuse me, could you take that out and yes thank you.

A

um And be 36 building coverage where 35 percent is maximum allowed, two variance from section.

A

10.321 to allow the extension and enlargement of a non-conforming structure said, property is located.

A

On assessor map, 135 flat 36 and lies within the general residency district, is there anyone to.

A

Speak to this petition, yes, I'm sean warren, the homeowner! I'm sorry, sorry, just I just wanted to.

I

Make one clarification: the um second variance was an error in the advertising, so that isn't needed.

H

um Well, the structure is conforming as it currently sits, um so that is not applicable.

I

Go ahead! No! No! Thank you! They just made it half as easy for you. Oh that's good! Well, we were confused.

H

Why I was on there anyway, so we kind of figured for me because there's two houses on what not.

H

um My wife and I moved here- my wife name is stacy. She can't be here she's watching our granddaughter.

H

But um you know we moved here two and a half years ago we're fortunate to get this house and, as you.

H

Know the market is, you know one of the check boxes we had was a front porch it didn't. We weren't. We.

H

Didn't have that ability to get one of them, um so you know my wife and I spent a lot of time on.

H

The front yard we sit on the front steps of our neighbors actually made comments. Oh too bad. You.

H

Get the one to the left you because our sister one actually does have a front porch on there.

H

um And for me growing up, I lost my grandparents when I was very, very young, but the one memory I do.

H

Have um was with my nana is sitting on the front porch and I don't have those same exact memories.

H

From my two granddaughters molly and briar, so if we take a look at the variants as it sits um and.

H

Again, I'm new to this, so please forgive me if I'm overstepping here or miss speaking um the various.

H

Will not be contrary to public interest proposed front. Porch will not alter the essential character.

H

Of the neighborhood, the proposed exterior improvements will actually enhance the character.

H

Of the neighborhood, that's one thing we believe uh spirit of the ordinance will be observed. The front.

H

Porch will improve the look of the property. It'll actually match the sister one to the left of us.

H

um The substantial justice will be done, the front porch encourages you know, interactions.

H

With your neighbors, you know it allow us to spend more time and be part of the community.

H

um The values of surrounding properties, I think, will only increase by us adding more.

H

Value to the new construction- that's already been there that we put there.

H

um And little enforcement will allow us to actually utilize the space more by having the.

H

Front ports, so that's why we're here? Okay, okay, thank you! Any questions. Are there any questions.

A

Yes, okay, uh thank you, madam chair, um so you do currently have a screen porch at.

B

The rear of the property is that correct, that's correct! Okay, um so I guess what advantage would.

B

This front porch offer you that you're, I guess you kind of talked a little bit about it, but.

B

um Just explain what the advantage would be for you versus what you currently have well, one to.

H

Be more part of the community and be part of the neighborhood when we're in the back porch, we don't.

H

Really see anybody, the other reason is we spend a lot of time sitting on our front steps watching.

H

Our granddaughter one who's gonna be five and we have a newborn, so she won't be running around.

H

Yet but where we spend and we interact with our neighbors and we're out back, we don't have the.

H

Ability to do that, okay, um your! What is the width of your proposed porch versus, and I don't know if.

B

You know what the width is of your neighbor's porch and the number 71 in it number two.

H

um Our porch proposed is give me one. Second, please I'm sorry. Actually it's seven feet. Six.

B

Inches, it's on yeah, seven feet six inches and I believe 87.. There is this just about six feet.

H

Ish yeah, I think I'm not 100 sure, okay, and why is it that you would feel that your porch needs.

B

To be deeper uh than your neighbor's porch, well, I'm 6'4 and I'm a big guy and when you actually.

H

Get on that porch when you actually add the partitions that are in there it's a foot so.

H

Even if it's six feet it's five feet and to add a little bit more space to actually get a, maybe.

H

Even get a table up there, you can't really put a table on theirs. Okay, I mean if it was narrower.

B

Could it still meet some of your needs for um for being able to interact with your neighbors.

B

Sure- and you know the reason why I bring this up, is you know you sort of have the opposite.

B

Issue of the last applicant last applicant had a foundation that was in place for some.

B

225 years uh you have one, that's been in place for roughly two years, two two and a half years.

B

um So, um as it's been pointed out by the planning staff, that this is, is a um fully compliant build.

B

However, it was fully compliant like the the builder took up every square inch of allowable.

B

Building space, you know dimensionally maximized everything so now that puts you and subsequent.

B

Owners kind of in a bind where you could do anything you need to come to this board, and so you.

B

Know that's kind of where some of my concerns are coming from just to help. Explain that to you.

B

That's all I have anybody else, have any other questions.

A

Do you have anything else you want to say to us? No, I just appreciate the time. Okay,.

A

Thank you, thank you. So is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of this petition.

A

Anyone to speak to for or against.

A

Anyone to speak in opposition, I'm sorry, I circled. Okay.

A

Then the public hearing is closed.

A

I know it's late. What would you like to do.

G

Oh, I mean I'll just talk some of my points. As I just indicated the applicant, I mean what irritates.

B

Me about this is that this is, you know, two years after this was built by a developer, who um looked.

B

At what all of the zoning requirements were and said, I'm going to maximize them all out right.

B

um So these are good size structures that I, to the best of my understanding, there's two.

B

Previous structures that were smaller on this on two adjoining lots. Somehow the developer got.

B

Both of them merged them together, so that they could then not have the setbacks in between the.

B

Properties that allowed them to sort of do this connection and create the garages so that each has.

B

The advantage of the garage maximize the heights, the overall footprint which this applicant is now.

B

Taking you know full advantage of of a you know, decent sized house that was put on and maximized.

B

Everything that was the capability of that that property and now understand that they came and.

B

Couldn't quite get the unit that they wanted and now for their unit want to come back and get this.

B

Added feature that um you know that they would like to have, but at the same point in time you.

B

Know just two years ago this was sold as hey. Don't worry about it, we're we're building to the maximum.

B

Required, but no further, so don't worry about it now. You know this short time period later we.

B

Get this request that said, the amount of relief is relatively minimal. Although the you know the front.

B

Setback were going in by two feet. This is kind of why I asked if uh a narrower porch, if we at least.

B

Get you know some of the setback on the front back um that could maybe help a little bit. You.

B

Know the coverage ultimately they're up by like one or two percent, something on those lines I mean.

B

Relatively small numbers, if it, if it wasn't for the fact that this is you know so calculated.

B

Just a couple years ago to max everything out and now we're coming back, we had a similar application.

B

On the board, and maybe well seven or eight years ago, where um you know a builder, did the.

B

Exact same thing actually had a had a sliding door that went out to a non-existent deck and.

B

You build a deck there, it was gonna have to be about 18 inches. It was going to need to get to.

B

Get it was going to be counted against the square footage and uh so the app you know the new owners.

B

Came up and said: hey, I want to put a deck on the back and I was like well, even though you have a nice slider there that goes to nowhere um yeah, it doesn't doesn't meet the requirements right.

B

um I think maybe that developer even kind of told them they could build the deck there, but anyway.

B

You know those are the kinds of binds that we're put into with these kinds of requests. Is somebody.

B

Goes and and makes the most value out of something, and now we have to go back, and um perhaps um you.

B

Know compromise on some of the requirements of the zoning ordinance to uh to accommodate.

B

What the ultimate owner of that property um is looking to do [music] hmm anybody else.

A

Any comment any motion, ms margison, and I I I guess I don't have any real problems with this um given.

E

That the variance request is so minimal, it's two feet in the front yard, and only one percent more.

E

Building coverage um the uh it would, you know the other unit has um has a porch. I think it would.

E

Provide some symmetry, but I would say I it. This application doesn't really bother me that much.

A

Emotion, I'll make a motion to approve. Thank you for a second, yes, they're, very proud of you.

A

Thank you, mr mcdonald. Okay, uh so going through the five criteria, uh granting the variance would not.

F

Be contrary to the public interest, uh the front porch is in the character of the neighborhood.

F

And it doesn't conflict with the purpose of the ordinance uh granting the variance.

F

That would observe the spirit of the ordinance uh they're asking for a very small uh relief.

F

For the um for the front yard, setback from five feet to three feet uh and then also from 35 to 36.

F

Coverage, which is very small amount uh granting the variants would do substantial justice. It was.

F

Certainly improve the front of the house uh and the usefulness and it's not harmful to the public.

F

Granting the variants would not diminish the value of the surrounding properties. Doing this.

F

Porch edition uh improvement would not change or it might even increase the value of the home and.

F

The surrounding properties, literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance, would result.

F

In an unnecessary hardship, the uh a the property has special conditions that distinguish it from.

F

Other properties in the area and be owing to these special conditions, a fair and substantial.

F

Relationship does not exist between the general public purposes of the ordinance provision and.

F

The specific application of that provision to the property and the proposed use is a reasonable one.

F

It is a reasonable thing to have a front porch and the front porch is currently not deep enough.

F

And it's not feasible to move the whole house, so the small amount of relief would be necessary to.

F

Make the front porch more useful? Thank you. Do you have anything to add. I think mr madsen has.

M

Covered it perfectly well, and I cannot improve on it. It's nice together. Yes, any further discussion.

A

Cheers going to vote in favor, I think it is a minor ask for something that will benefit the.

A

Family- and there is the symmetry involved with the other, which I noticed as well so.

A

Okay, mr mantle, yes, mr mcdonald, yes, miss markerson, yes,.

A

Mr ray, no I'm grateful. Okay, I wouldn't have guessed that mr matson, yes, mr rossi,.

C

Sorry, I'm muted, uh no, no and the chair votes. Yes, so you are approved. Thank you very much.

A

If there is not any new business.

A

Then we can motion to adjourn second, all in favor all right. Let's do it with mr rossian yeah.

A

Okay, do I really need to do it for agreement? No? Okay, um I think we're adjourned we're adjourned.