City of Portsmouth, New Hampshire Board of Adjustment, 15 Nov 2022

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: 11.15.2022 Board of Adjustment

Description

11.15.2022 Board of Adjustment

A

This meeting of the portsmouth zoning board of adjustment is called to order.

A

Welcome, let me see if we can get jim jim. Can you hear us? I hear you fine? Yes, oh okay,.

B

We couldn't hear you so phyllis went ahead and called welcome to everybody.

A

Zooming in he's the vice chair, but because he is zooming in he won't be able to see the room so.

A

He asked if I would run the meeting tonight to endeavor to do that. um Applicants will have 15.

A

Minutes to present their to present, if they need more time, they should speak to the board ahead of.

A

Time and we will allow it or not allow we will decide if that happens, people who are speaking.

A

Too far against will be given five minutes to state their opinion. Okay, a little bit minutes.

A

The first time with business is approval of the minutes of the october 18th meeting.

A

Does anyone have anything to say about that? Sorry? Yes, uh I have a comment on page 12.

C

uh The paragraph ending with the sentence, therefore does not provide provision for the.

C

Increased building block coverage, size square footage and height there shouldn't be two.

C

Provide provision it should just be provide, so please strike the word provision. Okay, thank you.

A

Other than that is there a move to approve the minutes. With this amendment nope, I don't know.

A

So moved is there a second second? Okay, all in favor all right. Thank you. Thank you. um 10 25.

C

um And the go ahead, yeah. The second item of business is to.

A

Approve the minutes of the 10 25 meeting, so anyone to speak to that.

A

No changes, no improvements make a motion to approve okay. Second,.

A

Thank you all in favor, aye, hey thanks.

A

um We are currently without a chair. We have jim lee as our vice chair.

A

And, as you know, arthur has resigned um so.

A

Would someone like to make a motion to elect officers yeah? Yes, I would. I would like to make.

C

A motion to elect uh jim so what I'm sorry point of order? Yes, since it wasn't on the agenda, I think.

B

Someone needs to move to add it to the agenda and then you will vote to put it on the agenda and.

B

Then we'll take it up, I moved to add election of officers to the agenda. Is there a second.

C

Second, thank you. Thank you and I'll tell all this time, um all in favor all right all right, bye, okay,.

A

Well, I just like to comment that uh jim has been a long-serving member of the board and.

C

Has a very thorough working knowledge of the zoning ordinance and our practices.

C

And how to apply the ordinance- and I would say the same of beth morgan, who.

C

Has also been serving for a period of time is quite knowledgeable, very thorough, very.

C

Diligent in her analysis of applications and objections thereof, or there too, and therefore.

C

I would like to move to nominate jim lee as chair and beth markison, as vice chair.

A

Beth is not here to speak for herself. That is correct. That's the best time to nominate somebody.

A

Any comments, I think it's a wonderful motion, was that a second that's. My second.

A

Is there any discussion? I think it's a good idea. Okay, so um all in favor, aye, aye, aye, okay, good good.

A

um All right so the first item of business is 67 ridges court and um is there anyone here.

A

Now we're down to five yeah who's here to speak. Okay! Is there anyone to speak to this.

A

Yep, thank you attorney phoenix. You should know that we are now down to five voting members.

D

I do, and I asked my client about it and he wants.

D

To proceed, I want to proceed. Okay, I don't know what to do with this.

D

um Okay, sorry, um the request of jeffrey m and melissa foy owners for property located at 67 bridges.

A

Court, whereas relief is needed for construction of a 518 square foot garage edition, which requires.

A

The following one: a variance from section 10.521 to allow a 15.5 foot front yard where 19 feet is.

A

Required for section 10.516.10, two, a variance from section 10.321 to allow a non-conforming.

A

Building or structure to be extended, reconstructed or enlarged without conforming to the requirements.

A

Of the ordinance said, property is located on assessor map, 207 lot 59 and lies within the.

A

Single residence b, district, lu, 22199, first outing, okay, thank you, madam acting chair.

D

For mr lee who's acting as chair for mr paris, etc, members of the board, I'm tim phoenix from hopeful.

D

Phoenix normally and roberts I'm here tonight with and on behalf of jeff and melissa foy, who.

D

Are behind me also with us is uh john, I'm sorry. Could you speak louder if someone in the audience.

A

Is having trouble hearing you, uh I'm with jeff and melissa foy john shagnon from ambit engineering? I.

D

Think I was too far from the mind: who's done. The technical work and josh butkus of the stefano mago.

D

Who's done the design work, as I think all of you know. I think all of you were here in august when.

D

We were here before with a a larger project, a larger edition based upon the board's decision.

D

Denying that I had actually recommended to jeff and melissa that you know, we should appeal that.

D

Because I thought, with due respect, that the board made a mistake and got it wrong. They insisted upon.

D

Going with a smaller project in order to try to find some compromise and try to listen to the.

D

Concerns of the neighbors and it'll come up with something that they can live with, but it would.

D

Also, if you will open up the view that people were concerned about so that's what's before you today,.

D

And the first hurdle, as you know, and I may need a little more than 15 minutes because we've got to.

D

Go through the fisher. If you go over analysis, it is in our papers, but that's the first hoop.

D

We have to jump through so I'd like to start with that and the the law is I've briefed it.

D

um Darcy um attorney pfizer has briefed it on behalf of the the abutting neighbors. Excuse me.

A

We're going to discuss whether or not to give you that extra time you might need okay, okay, we.

A

Have to do that before the presentation story. What what say, I think it's a reasonable request, as do I.

A

Know? Okay, thank you, um so um the hurdle, uh the fish of e dover uh doctrine, there's other cases.

D

As well says that if you come before a zoning board and you're denied on an application and.

D

You come back with another application. The board has to find that that uh decision, that change is.

D

Materially different and that's a judgment call by the board, there's also case law that says that.

D

If the change is implicitly or explicitly invited by the board, that is also enough, and we've cited.

D

Case law that says it's not a it's, not a strict standard. You have to look at all the circumstances.

D

So on the numbers, what we had previously was a 718 square foot edition. Basically it was. It was.

D

A walk through door, then two garage bays one of the garage bays had living space over it to.

D

Connect to the rest of the house, the other had a a deck and trellis over it. So, in response to.

D

This board's early decision and the concerns expressed by the neighbors they have reduced.

D

This by removing one of the garage bays, this will give them two garage bays. Oddly, one on.

D

Either side of the house, so they can keep their cars most of their cars off the road, but also.

D

Reduces the length of the building which, as I'll get to when we get to the merits, further, opens.

D

Up the view, not all the views from the closest neighbor presently, but a significant portion of.

D

It so this the reduction from 718 to 528 square feet is about a 28 reduction and we think that.

D

Is significant enough to let us proceed to the merits. The other thing that changed significantly.

D

Is that when we were here in august, we're asking for a setback for the addition of.

D

15.5 feet where the main house is about 13.5 feet and we believe we were required to have 30 feet.

D

um After that, in meeting with peter, we discovered that there is a provision that I should have known.

D

About that says that um if, if you, you can measure the setbacks of homes within 200 feet and use the.

D

Average of those homes and when john shagnan did that it turned out that the setback requirement.

D

That we really needed to begin with was 19 feet. So now we're asking for a 15.5 percent of the foot.

D

Setback where 19 feet is required, whereas before we are asking for 15.5 feet and applying the 30.

D

Foot and the difference is before our our relief, which would have been asking for a 14 feet. 14.5.

D

Feet would have been only 48 percent of the of the required setback at 30 feet, whereas at um at.

D

19 foot we're providing 81.58 so less than a 28 20 deviation of the requirement looked at another way.

D

um At 14 5 14.5 foot request for variance compared to 3.2 feet, which we're now asking.

D

For that's a 77.91 change, that's how much better our ask is getting in terms of the setback itself.

D

um The other, a couple of other things that were, I believe mistaken before, is that our existing.

D

Lot coverage today is 26.6 percent, when we, um when we did the previous project with.

D

The larger edition we were at 25.1 percent, so we were improving that and the reason.

D

For that is that there's an existing paved driveway where that addition was going to go.

D

um And and now that we've reduced it we're down to 23 percent about an eight percent.

D

Betterment uh to what we did before, and all of that is important because.

D

um There was some talk about whether or not we should should be able to be required to move the.

D

Building back to the 30 feet of the of the or the 19, um the 19 feet in this instance. Well, the.

D

The water edge runs kind of at a slant behind the house, so moving the building back actually.

D

Puts more of the home of the new addition in the wetland buffer and starts increasing the.

D

Percentage of coverage, because the pavement to get to that front you you have to continue.

D

With it now we're covering it, so for all of those reasons, we believe that we meet the requirements.

D

For fisher feed over to be heard on the merits of the new proposal, with the smaller edition.

A

um Now we're going to discuss this? Yes, where you go any further. Yes,.

A

um Is the board concerned about fisher v dover this evening? With this case, I I.

C

Just have one point for clarification, because I didn't quite follow on the.

C

Front yard setback was it always 15.5 feet, and the thing that has changed is the reference point.

C

Of 19 feet versus 30 feet so that really hasn't changed. The location of the front of the building.

D

Has not changed that was 15.5 last time it was 15.5 this time, but the the degree of the ask is.

D

Is markedly different because we only quote need 19.. The problem with 19 is that it's twofold one.

D

As I mentioned, you've pushed the building back 19 now you're pushing the back of it more into.

D

The wetland buffer there were concerns expressed about that and your coverage goes up, whereas we're.

D

Reducing it now and the building new building has to line up architecturally and flow-wise with the.

D

Building and it starts to to be problematic with having the new edition flow into the existing home.

C

So the question I have for my fellow board members really does fisher v. Dover require.

C

That the substantive change be directly the you know, impactful on the variance.

C

Itself or kind of major change in the project without changing the variance be considered.

C

You notice, do you understand what I'm saying? I think the variance can be the same is, is this.

B

Is the is the material change in the application, so I mean reducing the size of the addition from.

B

A two-car garage to a one car garage is that materially different. Well, no, I think there is a.

C

Material change in the application- I don't know- maybe dover requires that he must be directly.

C

The you know the uh the specific variants right. I don't think the setback has to change for it to be.

E

Different so they're asking for the same variance. But if we think that a two card.

E

To one car or a garage is sufficiently different, even though it's the same.

E

Variance, that's a that's that would meet uh that would allow us to move past bishop reversed over.

A

Mr mantle, do you happen.

F

Looking at the new application, I see all the reasons we denied it are still in place.

F

So to me, the application as material has not materially changed, granted.

F

It's a smaller building and the setbacks have changed a little bit.

F

But at the same time, I don't think the application has materially changed. Other.

F

Than the square footage of the addition, um mr lee, do you have anything to add.

G

Yes, can you hear me? Yes, I think I tend to agree with mr mantle on this one. I think.

G

This is kind of basically the same horse pulling the different buggy.

G

The only thing we have is a one-car garage where there's a two before and some kind of you know.

G

Redrawing of the of the thing I I believe this actually does trigger official lead over and.

G

If that, if the board agree with zapping, we would not be able to hear this application.

C

I'd like to make a counterpoint to that, because I actually think that this does.

C

Pass the standard for fisher v, dover, uh and that is because the main to I mean I would.

C

First of all stipulate I was not at the august meeting, so um that's a part of the.

C

Record but I my understanding is that the main concern of the neighborhood had to do.

C

With the sight line to the waterfront and the views that were impaired or impinged upon by.

C

The previous proposal and I think that the new proposal represents a very good, very diligent.

C

Good faith effort to address that concern and therefore I do believe that it is substantially.

C

Different in a material way that affects you know it's fitting into the neighborhood.

E

I'll also add that I wasn't at the the previous meeting.

E

um And uh I guess my initial thoughts are that um I understand mr mandel's point.

E

But uh I guess if I had to think about how to categorize things the most broad.

E

Definition, we're talking about is a garage, so garage is a garage that wouldn't be different, but.

E

um If you are applying it, that broadly uh it's almost like no matter what edition was proposed.

E

We would be saying it was the same, so the fact that a two-car garage versus a one-car garage.

E

um That is a difference, uh even if it's still a garage. So I'm just thinking that through.

E

um I guess that's that's my thought. As of this point.

A

Mr lee anything further.

C

If jim's talking.

B

You saying he was on the, I think, you're still on mute.

G

Nothing bad there, madam chair, okay,.

A

Okay, so is there.

A

Is there a motion.

C

Oh trying to think about how to word emotion, I would like to make a motion that we hear this.

C

uh And that, even in light of fisher v, dover that this passes the criteria of uh substantive change.

C

That would allow us to to hear it again but to hear it this time the new proposal, so I I guess.

C

I make how do I, how do I word that I move that we hear that it does not that we wonder. Okay, I move.

C

That we determined that it does not fall under fisher v, dover and that we hear the application.

E

All second, okay, um I'm going slowly, because I'm still thinking.

F

Take a roll call, no okay. um A vote, yes, is that we do hear the case that it does not.

A

Fall under fisher v, dover, mr mano. No, mr ross! Yes, that's true! Yes, thank you. This is really.

A

Terrible, mr bassett, yes, um mr lee, no and I vote no, so it is so the motion to um hear it failed.

D

Two to three, so I guess I don't need my extra.

D

Minutes no, not tonight all right, we'll be back. I know. Thank you.

A

All right so moving to new business. The next item is item. A um the request of emily ann boone.

A

Applicant and gene w westcott, revocable trust owner for property located at 118 maplewood.

A

Avenue unit c4, whereas relief is needed to allow a medical office which requires the following.

A

One a special exception from section 10.440 use number 6.20 to allow a medical office where the.

A

Use is permitted by special exception, said: property is located on assessor map 124 lot.

A

C-5-C4 and lies within the character district 4-l1, also cd4-0 in the historic district.

A

So is there anyone to speak to this petition hi there hi? I am dr emily ann boone.

H

And I am here to request relief for the special exception from the board of adjustments. For my.

H

Business live medical aesthetics. I am currently a family practice physician in portsmouth and.

H

I am looking to expand, but I can offer patients through this medical office. uh The purpose of this.

H

Office is to see patients by appointment only for minimally invasive medically aesthetic procedures.

I

Evening my name is drew I'm dr boone's husband and realtor who helped her solidify.

I

The commercial space, so I'm here to help review why this business fits the criteria for special.

I

Exception for the ordinances governing the cd4-1 zoning, first of all, based on.

I

The current and past use of this property. We feel that this business is consistent with.

I

Other businesses within the lot some of the adjacent businesses currently are as follows.

I

An accountant insurance agency, dental office medical office for an md in mortgage broker.

I

Next, to quickly just go through each criteria that we need to meet per section section: 10.23, 2.20,.

I

um First of all, we believe this request complies with the requirements of the zoning ordinance.

I

As provided by article two, this will be a buy appointment, only establishment for one patient.

I

At a time, all medical services will be outpatient in nature, no exterior construction, additional.

I

Parking or changes are needed to begin running the business. In addition, the business meets the.

I

Standards, like I said, with an article 2 section 10.23.20 in its subsections, to review those.

I

Subsections quickly, uh 0.21 standards, as provided by this ordinance for the particular use, are.

I

Permitted by special exception, so a medical office would fall under that expectation, subsection, 0.22.

I

No hash to the public or adjacent property on account of potential fire explosion or release.

I

Of toxic materials based on this business practice, we don't feel it poses any hazard to the public or.

I

Adjacent properties dealing with any materials that will cause fire explosion or toxic waste.

I

Subsection 0.23 no detriment to the specific property values in the vicinity or change the.

I

Essential characteristics of any area, including residential neighborhoods or businesses in.

I

Industrial districts on account of the location or scale of buildings and other structures, parking.

I

Areas access ways, odor smoke, gas dust or other pollutant, noise, glare heat vibration or unsightly.

I

Odor, storage of equipment, vehicles or other materials, like I said previously, this business.

I

Will not require any exterior, exterior structural changes or upgrades being a medical office. It.

I

Will be private and quiet nature and will not cause any disturbances due to excess noise foot.

I

Traffic gas dust heat or other environmental disturbances, subsection 0.24, no creation of.

I

Traffic safety, hazard or substantial increase in the level of traffic congestion in the vicinity.

I

This location serves the business perfectly in our opinion, as it will not need any additional.

I

Parking or acquire new traffic patterns there typically will only be one patient present at.

I

The business at one time and dr boone will only be seeing patients one to two days per week.

I

Seeing a maximum of eight patients per day, dr boone may on occasion have an administrative.

I

Assistant present at the business degree and process these patients and the businesses within.

I

Walking distance dr boone's current residence. So, if worse comes to worse, you can walk on down.

I

Section point where I'll drop her off: I'm glad to do that too point to section 0.25, no excessive.

I

Demand on municipal services, including, but not limited to water, sewer waste water disposal, police.

I

And fire protection in schools, um we just don't feel like the volume of patients is going to cause.

I

um Any excess demand on the municipal services and to wrap up 0.26 subsection.

I

0.26 no significant increase in storm water runoff onto adjacent properties, given the.

I

Lack of any exterior structural changes, we don't feel like that's going to be an issue so.

A

Okay, thank you. Does anybody have any questions.

C

Is there any expectation of emergency vehicles coming in and out sirens and lights flashing.

H

um I don't think that there is an elevated risk of that. I mean we're going to take.

H

Safety precautions, given that you know I am a physician and I am offering low risk.

H

Minimally invasive procedures, but I can, I don't think, there's going to be an elevated.

H

Risk, given the procedures that we're doing as a matter of routine patients won't be coming.

C

To you through that kind of? Oh! No! No sorry, I misunderstood yeah. Thank you any other questions.

A

Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone to speak in favor of this petition.

A

Is there anyone to speak against this petition.

A

Is there anyone who'd like to speak to the petition.

A

Okay, nobody's been hearing is closed. I know.

A

um What would you like to do boys.

F

um I make the motion that we grant the special exception as presented seconded uh going through.

F

The criteria section 10.232.21 standards, as provided by these ordinance for the particular.

F

Use special exception. I agree. Yes, um .22 no hazard to the public or adjacent property.

F

On account of potential fire explosion, release of toxic materials, that would be a yes as well.

F

You with me peter I'm with you, okay, dot, two three, no detriment to property values in the vicinity.

F

Or change in the essential characteristics of any area, including residential or business, and.

F

Industrial districts, on account of the location, scale, the buildings and other structures parking.

F

Areas accessory access access ways, odor smoke gas, thus other pollutants, noise, glare heat vibration,.

F

Unsightly outdoor storage of equipment, vehicles or other materials, that would be a yes as well.

F

Um.24, no creation of a traffic safety hazard or substantial increase in the levels of.

F

Traffic concessions in the vicinity as presented, that would be a yes as well.

F

Dot: two: five, no excessive demand on municipal services, including, but not limited to water,.

F

Sewer waste disposal, police fire protection and schools also a yes and dot 26, no significant.

F

Increase in storm stormwater, runoff onto adjacent properties or yes, they're, just reusing a different.

F

Building and the use is not in it's a special exception use, but the building already exists.

F

There's no new construction they're just moving in and that's why I made the motion.

A

Your second, uh I would add, the following facts uh with regard to 10.233.23 that the.

C

Use is similar to existing uses in the surrounding area and therefore.

C

That backpack supports the lack of impact on adjacent properties, uh value and with regard.

C

To 10.233.24, uh since there won't be routine traffic from emergency vehicles, traveling at.

C

High speed in an emergency fashion, they'll have no impact on safety or substantial increase in.

C

Traffic congestion, thank you. Thank you. Are there any further discussion? Okay, then below mr mantle.

F

Yes, this mcdonald, yes, mr rossi, yes, mr matson, yes, mr lee, yes and I vote yes, you are approved.

A

A

The next item of business is the request from optical dermatology, applicant and seacoast.

A

Newspapers, inc owner for property located at 111 new hampshire avenue, whereas relief is needed.

A

To allow a testing laboratory which requires the following, the special exception from part 303-8.03.

A

Of the peas development authority, zoning ordinance said property is located on assessor map 306.

A

Lot 4 and lies within the peas, industrial and airport business, commercial districts.

A

Is there anyone to speak to this petition.

J

J

Good evening, members of the board, my name is john crowley from optima dermatology. I'm here.

J

To seek relief for the special exception to allow laboratory use as a permitted use within 111 new.

J

Hampshire ave in portsmouth so um our case just stating that a testing laboratory is requested.

J

To be operated as a pathology lab, there is no walk-in patients to be seen at this location.

J

As part of our regular technology clinic and is to just receive regular deliveries of pathology,.

J

Specimens to be tested for melanoma other other forms of skin cancers and and pathology there.

J

Will be no increase in hazard to the public or occupants of the building? The functions of the.

J

Lab create no real special hazards or any danger to other members within the building.

J

uh The property values in the vicinity will not change, as there will be no change to the.

J

Building, except in adding a sign on the door and doing interior renovations to.

J

Accommodate our proposed lab use, there will be no increased traffic to the building as.

J

Far as additional patient traffic or additional employees coming to the building, the employee.

J

Traffic will be reduced by the current occupants, given the proposed number of employees to operate.

J

Within this lab space, which is to be converted from general office use- uh and there would be.

J

No greater demand on public safety and municipal services with us, operating as the current tenant.

J

And there will be no increase in stormwater runoff into streets or adjacent properties.

J

In this slot, we've also worked with michael mates and uh got approval for the pda special.

J

Exception application so we're now moving to seek approval and recommendation from you all tonight.

A

Are there any questions, it's my night to ask questions to not make motions.

C

With regard to no increased hazards, the public or the occupants of the building uh generally.

C

Speaking, laboratory space requires special air handling, uh evacuation of fume hoods and things.

C

Of that nature, that would be separate and not feeding into the more general hvac system has.

C

That how are you handling that so we have uh retained a design day as a mechanical contractor.

J

We're going to be improving the hvac system within the building to add our own hvac and.

J

Fan units on the rooftop to operate just within our lab space, to provide necessary venting also.

J

Hvac and then robert cummings and associates has been our fire protection engineer. Who has.

J

Gone through our necessary chemical quantities that are going to be operated to make sure that.

J

Per our allowed square footage will be under that maximum amount allowed and then also to.

J

Make sure that the building capacity for fire protection is is up to code for a lab.

J

Use and will hazardous waste be able to be brought directly to the outside of the building without.

C

Going through other space, yes yep, so our mode for deliveries in and out of.

J

The space doesn't interfere with other members going through main vestibules or.

J

Anything else so we're separating from the other members within the building to create.

J

Minimum path of travel so that for pickups and deliveries, thank you any other questions.

A

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

A

Anyone here to speak against this petition.

A

Is there anyone here to speak to the petition the hearing seeing nobody? The public hearing is closed.

A

People do both I'll make a motion. I'll just mention that at your place, you should have.

B

A finding a fact sheet for peas that should be highlighted. One is for the variances later.

B

And one is for this application special, except between which one is which now.

C

Thank you, [applause], I'm looking at the right one right.

K

Okay, thank you, okay, so I would like to move that um the board uh grants.

C

The request for a special exception uh as presented second, okay, okay, any discussion.

A

How do you vote, mr metal? Sorry, we don't have the money? Okay, I'm not the first one who did.

C

This that's okay, all right, so no adverse factor, diminution and values of surrounding.

C

Properties would be suffered. uh I believe that is supported by the fact that, for one.

C

Thing laboratory at laboratory activities are specifically contemplated and allowed by special.

C

Exception in this area, and so the area already accommodates this type of use that the uses I.

C

Create traffic or other health or safety hazard. I think the applicant has attested that appropriate.

C

Measures are being taken with regard to air handling and the handling of biohazardous waste.

C

At chemical waste, which would be really the only concern uh possible concern for item number, two.

C

The proposite is an appropriate location for the use and provides safe and proper.

C

Access and egress there is direct external access for loading and unloading chemicals.

C

And hazardous waste that is proper for this application and for this use and.

C

There are no additional standards provided in the zoning regulation.

C

For the zone in which it is situated, so the item four is by default. Satisfied.

F

That's my motion. I'd agree. Add in that our approval is just a recommendation. Yes,.

A

Any discussion [applause]. Yes, mr mcdonald, yes, mr rossi, yes, mr matson, yes, mr lee,.

G

Yes- and um I vote yes as well, whoever so you are approved. Thank you.

K

As well as the other ones, it's not correct. Okay, the next item of business.

A

Quest 35 sagamore development, llc owner for property located at 635 sagamore avenue, whereas.

A

Relief is needed to remove existing structures and construct for single-family dwellings, which.

A

Require the following one: a variance from section 10.513 to allow four freestanding dwellings where.

A

One is permitted two, a variance from section 10.521 to allow a lot area per dwelling of 21 198.

A

Square feet per dwelling, wear 43, 560 square feet is required, set property is located on assessor.

A

Map to 222 lot 19 and lies within the single residence district, where you start, I'm recusing.

C

Myself from this matter, okay, that makes my speech even easier. No, we didn't. Oh, I don't know how to.

C

Take that one that no that's that's a good thing um tim phoenix on behalf of the applicant I'm here.

D

With the applicants representative mike garape and peter advised us that there would be only five.

D

Members, oh, there are only five. I was thinking he that he left four um and what did we want to do.

D

So we've been trying to reach the actual property owner since then and have not been able to so I.

D

Don't feel comfortable taking a chance with five without his approval. I think it's safer for us to.

D

Get try to get seven next month. Therefore, we ask to continue to the december meeting completely.

A

Understood. Okay, thank you. Do you need a motion to make a motion to continue to the december.

F

Meeting is there a second second? Is there any discussion all in favor all right? Thank you. Bye.

L

Yes, a number of us that.

L

um Is there opportunity, while we are here to speak.

L

I'm afraid not I'm afraid you would have to come back foreign.

L

We did not know, one of our members would be sick tonight and oh, I can appreciate that.

L

That is is that, as as mr rossi and mr matson said, they weren't in the meeting.

L

Back in august on some item that they just you just voted on, but we're here with voices.

L

Right now- and that means that we have to come back for that purpose- I'm afraid that it does.

A

Because there's no the opportunity, there's no petition to discuss tonight.

A

F

Your audience is leaving, I have given you give me the fastest meeting. You're gonna have.

A

Okay, um the next is request the request from donald and rasa. Forgive me stone, revocable,.

A

Trust for property located at 55 gates street, whereas relief is needed for the.

A

Addition of two heat pumps, which requires the following one: a variance from section 10.515.14.

A

To allows 3.5 foot setback where 10 is required, map 103 as lot 90 and lies within the general.

A

Residence b and historic districts good evening and whitney I'm architect for the project.

M

um We are upgrading mechanical systems and doing some renovations on this property and.

M

It's been before you a lot, you know, how do you deal with heat pump locations.

M

um Actually, if you go to the tax map that I included, um will give a sense of.

M

What we're dealing with on this property? That's the sheet here! Yeah! That's up on.

M

There, basically, it's a corner lot um very tight, very asymmetrical lot.

M

uh The you know, property lines are, you know really tight to the.

M

Where the house is and the only place, I could see we're currently on that back lot.

M

Line where you see I'm locating these two heat pumps, there's a six foot high fence.

M

That runs along and then dug legs back into the building. What we're proposing.

M

To do is to extend that fence drop it down a little bit and return it and then tuck those.

M

um He pumps in there and if we go back to my drawing page.

M

When the stones bought this property, one of the first things they did was the neighbor.

M

um The butter who's most affected by this requested the fence, the fence at that time was not.

M

On the property line, it was overlapping into his property line. So one of the first things they did.

M

Was get that surveyed and actually hollis did the survey, and um so I know that that fence is on the.

M

Property line, since I don't have a survey plan I did. I knew that the fence was on the property line.

M

There's a stone wall that kind of runs towards uh washington street and I just did some field.

M

Measurements from that to um to locate so we have enough room here to fit these two heat pumps and.

M

Have room to get around to service them and we're just gonna tuck them away? I didn't see anywhere.

M

Else, if you look at that right side, rear elevation, we've got a bulkhead there's going to be a triple.

M

Door there there's really no place on that side of the building to to locate these heat pumps.

M

And we feel that this is most out of the way place that we can put them.

M

um And that's right is that, where that basement, entry thing is that we is that we're talking about.

C

um What's on that side of the building, again, oh the right side elevation um and then you.

M

Can see the fence um where it dog legs back on the right hand, side of the photo so we're.

M

We did not put it on this right side elevation, the rear elevation of the photo down below you.

M

Can see um you can't really see it anywhere from the street, but that that elevation that's facing.

M

Hancock street is that corner is where the heat pumps will be and we're gonna right now the the.

M

Six foot fence dogs legs back into the corner of the building, we're just going to extend that fence.

M

And then turn it once we're past the heat pumps so there'll be some shielding with a solid fence.

M

A

Yes, excuse me, did you um I I my recollection tells me that a six foot.

N

Fence is a non-conforming. Well, the existing fence was there as it's. It's just under six.

M

Feet but I'm calling it a six foot fence it's closer to six than five, but where were.

M

um I want to drop it down mainly because you can see there's a kitchen window that we're adding a.

M

New window there- and I don't want the fence to block the window so where, where the heat pumps.

M

Are the new part of the fence will drop down and it might be a little bit more than five feet, but.

M

You know it looks right now, with the measurements I've taken, we can have a five foot fence or five.

M

Foot three fence will shield these units and, uh and that will return back into the house.

N

My recollection and I don't have my copy of the ordinance with me right here to read it, but my.

N

Recollection is that the ordinance limits fences to four feet, so I got to clarify that that's.

B

That's in the front yard, in the front yard and then on the side and rear you can have.

B

A six foot fence anything over that would have to it's come through the street. Okay yep thank.

N

You I'm sorry, I did misinterpreted your question. In that case I have no question, but I mean okay.

A

Any other questions. Okay, then, the uh anybody here to speak in favor of this petition.

A

Anyone to speak against the petition.

A

Is there anyone to speak to the petition.

A

The public hearing is closed. Is there a emotion, discussion.

A

Anybody I move that we grant the. I really don't want to be the one to do this, but anyway.

C

um I move that we grant the uh request for uh variance as submitted.

A

Okay, second, a second, oh.

A

Thank you, okay, mr rossi, your motion.

C

uh They're, the spirit of the ordinance was not intended to prevent the modernization of older.

C

Homes for the comfort of the occupants- this is not in addition to the house, it is simply modernizing.

C

In a energy efficient way, the hvac cooling system for the home- and I believe that is consistent with.

C

The spirit of the ordinance granting the variance would do substantial justice because denying it.

C

Would not create a public benefit that outweighs the detriment to the homeowner if we were to.

C

Deny this application affect the public benefit to be argued. Is that a more efficient cooling.

C

System for the home and modern is preferable to preferable to the public interest granted.

C

The variants would not diminish the values of the surrounding properties, because the units will be.

C

Placed and shielded by a short fence that hides them from view and diminishes the.

C

Noise transmission from that to surrounding properties, it will be basically invisible.

C

To anyone who has a an interest in purchasing these surrounding properties and therefore for.

C

All those reasons, uh literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would really result.

C

In an unnecessary hardship, the hardship of property is the irregular polygon shape of.

C

The property, which provides no room whatsoever for these heat pumps in a compliant fashion.

A

Anything chad, I agree with mr rossi's analysis. We get these all the time.

F

Especially from the south end where I said before, 80 of the house is in portsmouth or.

F

Non-Conforming so in my mind this is a very small ask why I support the motion.

A

Any discussion up, we will go ahead and vote. Yes, mr mcdonald, yes.

A

Yes and mr lee, yes and I vote yes as well,.

A

Okay, thank you. I know we gave the second to jim, I'm sorry, so you have anything today.

C

Does the next matter, I'm also in the butter I just wanted to, let you know that I'm recusing.

B

Myself from that one as well so don't stop down, as is mr lee. Mr lee is as well yes.

C

He is so it is I'll, let the attorney now, let's see well he's gonna come up. I think.

A

So, okay, instead of sarah, so mcafee kaufman, revocable trust for property located at 546.

A

Sagamore avenue, whereas relief is needed to allow a six foot fence in the front yard, which requires.

A

The following one: a variance from section 10.515.13 to allow a six foot fence with.

A

A one foot front yard setback where 30 feet is required, said property is located on assessor map.

A

222 lot 10 and lies within the single residence b district. Is there anyone to speak to this petition.

O

Thank you, madam acting chair members of the board, uh derek durbin on behalf of the.

O

Applicant owner of the property, I know it seems crazy. I'm standing here there's only four voting.

O

Members, but I think we are going to proceed um tonight. I think that was the landowner's desire.

O

We know the odds are not necessarily in our favor, but we feel like we have such a great application.

O

Tonight before you that um go ahead, if we'd like to proceed so the application before you does.

O

It is an after the fact variance request for a interestingly, a six foot high fence within the.

O

Front yard setback at 546, sagamore avenue the section of fence we're talking about is about.

O

I estimated about 40 feet in length across the front boundary it's located about one.

O

Foot set back in from that front boundary. It was installed by my client about three years.

O

Ago, to provide some privacy for their home, which is set back quite a distance from sagamore avenue.

O

Also secondary benefit of sort of keeping debris out of the property from sagamore avenue as well.

O

um It was not known at the time that the fence was installed um uh by my my client, nor the.

O

Fence company brentwood fence that it needed to be four feet in height in order to be put.

O

In a location that it currently is in, um it was an honest mistake, certainly not an attempt to.

O

Circumvent the zoning ordinance, in fact not the surveyors. Nobody picked up on it when we had an.

O

Application before this board last year for an addition in the rear, the fence was shown on the.

O

Plan but nobody realized at the time that that was in violation of the ordinance, so otherwise.

O

We would have brought that request forward at that time, um so turning the variance criteria.

O

Grain, the variances will not be contrary to the public interest will observe the spirit of the.

O

Ordinance it's my belief in in this particular instance that the front yard setback provision.

O

um uh For fences and their height was intended really to not get some really.

O

um High on unreasonably uncharacteristic fences within those front yard setbacks that, for whatever.

O

Reason somebody's upset with somebody they put in a spike fence or something of that nature.

O

um I I think none of those concerns are implicated with the fence that was installed on the property.

O

This is a heavily traveled throughway between portsmouth and rye. As I stated, the fence does.

O

Protect the privacy of their home, which is located upgrade on the property. Quite a distance off of.

O

Sagamore avenue it doesn't obstruct the sight lines associated with the property, so vehicles.

O

Can safely turn in and out it's only a section of the property and there's no safety concerns.

O

Which, I think might be a secondary reason as well, behind the provision in the ordinance.

O

um I think similar fences are are found throughout the city of portsmouth. The fence is a wood fence.

O

Not an uncharacteristic wood fence for portsmouth, so for those reasons, I'd submit that the public.

O

Purpose of the ordinance are preserved by granting the variance, and it will not in any way negatively.

O

Alter the essential character of the locale, the only potentially impacted of butter in this.

O

Instance is the beach stone apartment complex, which is set back at considerable distance off.

O

Of sagamore avenue and from quite a distance away from where the fence itself is substantial, justice.

O

Will be done by grinding the variants if it were denied. My client could build a four foot high.

O

Fence, obviously, in compliance with the ordinance, but that would do very little to protect the.

O

Privacy concerns associated with the house, which is, as I mentioned, sloped up from where the fence.

O

Is located it's because the property is on a sort of a slope down to sagamore avenue. The house sits.

O

Very prominently above the front property boundary, so four foot high fence wouldn't really mitigate.

O

Any type of screening or privacy concerns- I would argue that that lost the applicant and.

O

Landowner is not outweighed by any perceived gain that the public and denying the variance.

O

Values surrounding properties will not be diminished. It's a tastefully designed fence. It's.

O

Pretty common looking fence, actually nothing super fancy, but obviously nothing ugly about it either.

O

Kind of blends, in with other fences throughout portsmouth, certainly doesn't create imposition.

O

On the beach stone complex across sagamore avenue, the which is the nearest impact of butter, literal.

O

Enforcement of the provisions, the ordinance, would result in an unnecessary hardship. The property.

O

Does have special conditions that distinguish it from surrounding properties. It does slope quite.

O

A bit from the back down to sagamore avenue and again, the home is a considerable distance back.

O

From the street as a result, the offense that complies with the ordinance would do little to.

O

um Protect my clients, privacy. So, for these reasons we believe there is no fair and substantial.

O

Relationship between the general purposes of the front yard setback as applied to this particular.

O

Situation, I believe the use is also reasonable. Use of the property will remain the same and.

O

Is consistent with the zoning for the area, so for those reasons I hope that they'll grant the.

O

Application for you happy to answer any questions you have about the fence and its location.

O

And the request before you does anybody have any questions for attorney durbin? You called.

F

The apartment building across the street, the beach stone apartments that that uh sagamore, I'm sorry.

O

Yeah is it sagamore, yeah, sagamore, sorry yeah, my bad? I may have made the same mistake elsewhere. I.

O

Apologize yeah, okay, but yes, yeah paul you! You know, because you had me going down route. One.

O

Yeah, I I I probably did at least didn't call it a complex in another town by accident. uh No, that was.

O

My only yeah, no sorry about that correction, paul is correct. Are there other questions.

A

No okay, okay! Thank you appreciate it. Is there anyone to speak in favor of this petition.

A

Is there anyone to speak against this petition.

A

Is there anyone to speak to this petition.

A

Seeing no one I'll close the public hearing.

A

What would the board like to do.

A

F

um I'll make a motion to grant the petition as presented. Is there a second a second okay.

F

um I'll go through the criteria. First,.

F

um Dot two one granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest. I believe that to.

F

Be a yes [music] um .22 granting the variance would observe the spirit of the ordinance. Yes,.

F

um Granting the variance would do substantial justice. I also would say yes seeing that the.

F

Fence is already there and, as attorney durbin already explained, it was there.

F

um Mistakenly, inadvertently put up without a variance and they're seeking relief. Now.

F

um 1.24, granting the variance would not diminish the values of surrounding.

F

Properties, I also would have to be say that would be a yes too. It's a single family house.

F

On the single family side of the road and we have apartment complex on the other side,.

F

um Lastly, literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary.

F

Hardship, the property has special conditions that distinguish it from other properties in.

F

The area and owing to the special conditions of ferret's substantial relationship, does not.

F

Exist between the general public purpose, general public purposes of the ordinance provisions and.

F

The specific application of that provision to the property and the proposed use is a reasonable one.

F

Or owed to the special conditions, the property cannot be reasonably used in strict performance.

F

Of the ordinance and a variance is therefore necessary to enable reasonable use now.

F

I drove by this property sunday and today um we all know sagamore is a highway. You know.

F

For the lack of a better word, um it's more akin to lafayette road route, 1.

F

The fence is solid wood on the bottom, with maybe 18 inches on.

F

The top, but it basically gives that home earning use of his front yard so.

F

In my mind, the special condition exists because of sagamore ab.

F

Anything else I need peter.

F

And for that reason I made the motion. Thank you anything to add nope. I'm in agreement.

A

Any discussion, okay,.

A

One question and it's not a burning issue. um I think the fence is far enough set back far.

N

Enough from the street to be out of the danger zone for snow plows, throwing sheets of slush.

N

Up there in the winter yeah there it is yes, it appears to be that way. There are plants and a.

A

Wall in front a stone, so I will set back from it's set back from a stone wall. Yeah it it.

A

It doesn't obstruct any views and um it's still standing so a snowplow has not interfered with.

A

Me to this point, so I will not make any more of an issue out of it. No, no! It's a fair. It certainly.

A

Is a fair question: that's why we're here yeah fair question. So if there's no more discussion, we will.

A

Vote, mr mantle, yes, mr mcdonald, yes, mr matson, yes and I vote yes as well, you are approved wow, good.

P

A

And the last item of business for this evening is the request of aviation avenue. Group llc.

A

And peace development authority owner for property located at 100, new hampshire avenue.

A

80 rochester avenue, whereas relief is needed for the construction of an advanced manufacturing.

A

Facility which requires requires the following one: a variance from part 304.03 c, to allow a.

A

51 foot front yard, where 70 feet is required, said property is located on assessor map 308 lot 1 and.

A

Lies within the p's industrial district welcome good evening, madam chair members of the board, I'm.

Q

Attorney john bosum, I represent the applicant with me tonight from aviation avenue group llc.

Q

Is joe gyogan and john stephens here to answer any questions you may have? We also have with.

Q

Us our site, engineer from time bond, patrick crimmins. The applicant is proposing to build.

Q

A manufacturing facility at 100 new hampshire avenue, which is located in the pda industrial zone,.

Q

Property is a vacant 11.4 acre site and we'll be redeveloped into what's called.

Q

An advanced manufacturing facility that will utilize robotized assembly.

Q

The project went before the pda board on october 20th, where it received a conceptual approval.

Q

Pda staff has said that the use is appropriate for the site and the development can be.

Q

Constructed in conformance with the pda land use controls, with the exception of the fine.

Q

Yard setback, the relief that we see tonight, the variances from section 304.03 c of the peace.

Q

Development zoning ordinance for a front yard setback of 51 feet where 70 feet is required.

Q

The proposal meets all the requirements of the zoning ordinance. What's driving the need for.

Q

The variance of the dimensional requirements of the advanced manufacturing building and the fact.

Q

That the municipal sewer water main and the stormwater management service servicing the.

Q

Surrounding properties and the roadway is located to the rear of the site. In addition to avoiding.

Q

The municipal infrastructure there are wetlands buffers across stratham avenue that need to be.

Q

Avoided, lastly, the site layout and the proposed setback relief is consistent with other developed.

Q

Parcels in the vicinity, including the building across the street at 111 new hampshire avenue.

Q

We've analyzed the five criteria necessary for granting the variances is set forth in article.

Q

317.01 c of the pda zoning ordinance and we believe the criteria are all met here for the.

Q

Following reasons, first, there's no adverse effect or diminutions surrounding properties. All the.

Q

Surrounding properties are industrial commercially in nature and have similar setbacks to what the.

Q

Applicant is proposing second, the granting of the variance would be a benefit to the public interest.

Q

Granting the variance would not substantially alter the characteristics of the neighborhood.

Q

No threatened public health safety or welfare, the property sits in the industrial zone where.

Q

Manufacturing is permitted by right, and this is this. Use is consistent with other uses in this.

Q

Zone so the granting and the variance would not be contrary to the spirit intent of the ordinance and.

Q

It would be a public benefit to allow the property to be used in the manner for which it zoned.

Q

Third, denial of the variance will result in unnecessary hardship to the applicant.

Q

And particularly owing to the special conditions of the property that distinguished there's, some.

Q

Other properties in the area, the sulfur and substantial relationship that exists between.

Q

The general purposes of the ordinance in the specific application to this particular property.

Q

And those special conditions are the fact that this property is burdened by wetlands. That would.

Q

Be compromised if the building were pushed back further to accommodate the setbacks is also the.

Q

Municipal infrastructure that I mentioned earlier, and also this right away, is 80 feet wide, which is.

Q

20 feet wider than a typical right-of-way, so the combination of these three factors is unique and.

Q

Create special conditions from other properties in the area which result in unnecessary hardship.

Q

Fourth, granting the requested variance would result in substantial justice, because the.

Q

Hardship upon the applicant, where the variance to be denied is not outweighed by some benefit.

Q

To the public in denying the variance and fifth, lastly, the proposed use is not contrary to the.

Q

Spirit of the zoning rule again, the property sits in the industrial zone where manufacturing.

Q

Is permitted it's consistent with other uses in the zone, so granting the variants would not be.

Q

Conjuring to the spirit, intent of the ordinance happy to answer any questions you may have my.

Q

Team is here so fire away david. I I'm just curious. What is it your client is going to manufacture at.

N

This thing, well, the um the the tenant is, is not been disclosed at this time. um There are several.

Q

Parties that are interested in the property, but until we have the variance, we really can't um this.

Q

We can't really go beyond this at this point, but we do know it's going to be some type of advanced.

Q

Manufacturing, which is more of a robotized, use more highly skilled, labor, um less traffic, um so.

Q

We think it'd be a good use for the property which has been vacant for a very long time.

F

Are there any issues with what's below the surface, I would have to defer to perhaps.

Q

Patrick or one of the members of the team, that's beyond the scope of my knowledge.

R

uh To our knowledge, there is none and in fact the pda had previously demolished.

R

This building themselves and cleaned the site up, leaving it for future development at the.

R

Time it was thought to be, it was going to be an office development. The market's since changed.

R

um The intent with the site is it's going to be a balanced site, so we're not looking to export.

R

Import soils will it all stay on site it'll all be capped safely if there is any sort of, but you are.

F

Going to put in a foundation yeah we're going to put a full basement the whole bit well, it will be.

R

A slab with foundation and then you'll, obviously, where you have the parking at all yeah yeah, we're.

F

Not going deeper sub-basement seller, no, the only reason I ask is I'm extremely familiar with the.

F

Area anybody drives by you know so: there's pipes up the ground, those aren't those are vent, pipes or.

F

Whatever's in the ground, yeah yeah and peas has oh 800 of them, yep. Okay, thank you. This is going.

C

Away that big, concrete slab is now right. Yes, well, uh actually, the the building itself used to be set.

R

In the rear and the parking was in the front, we're kind of flipping that a little bit well.

R

The building's going to occupy the center, but it's similar to what the old site was where it.

R

Was all whether it was concrete or pavement? It was all covered, but it's a big rectangular yeah, okay,.

A

Thank you any other questions.

A

Is there anyone to speak in favor of this petition.

A

Is there anyone to speak against this petition.

A

Is there anyone to speak to this petition.

A

Seeing no one the public hearing is closed.

A

Is there is there a motion? Did you want to make a motion or he hasn't done one yet yeah pressure's.

E

On buddy, I'm still hesitant to do it all right. Just remember this will be a recommendation. A.

A

Recommendation but it's still yeah you're applying to do that or yeah so I'll make a motion to.

E

Approve is there a second to mr matson's recommend approval yeah to recommend approval. Yes, sir,.

F

Second, okay, going through the criteria, I'm using the the peas variance one yes yep correct, uh so.

E

For part, uh 317.01 c number, one no adverse effect or diminution of values of surrounding.

E

Properties would be suffered. I agree with that. Granting the variance would be a public.

E

A benefit to the public interest. I agree with that in terms of providing more jobs and.

E

Good good jobs, number three denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship seeking it.

E

uh Yes, I agree number four granting the variance would do substantial justice. I agree.

E

Yes, the proposed use would not be contrary to the spirit of the zoning rule, and that is also true.

A

Anything to add.

F

Nothing at all I mean in town a 19-foot request of a setback would be a huge ask, but this is peace.

F

uh And considering the front of the building is on a street, that's not really well traveled. The back.

F

Of the building is on new hampshire avenue, correct back the building faces, seacoast newspapers.

F

The front of the building faces new hampshire avenue. That's the address.

A

New hampshire, oh okay, okay, again for peas, it's not that big, a desk at all.

C

Are we having a discussion added because I'd like to add just a couple of facts, of course,.

C

Particularly with regard to item three uh and unnecessary hardship, there is a hardship for the.

C

Property- uh and that is the wetlands- uh the presence of wetlands and also the municipal.

C

Infrastructure which prohibits the installation of a building farther away from new hampshire avenue.

C

And I think that is an important uh supporting fact and with regard to the fifth criteria for the.

C

Proposed use not being contrary to the spirit of the zoning rule. The zoning area is specifically an.

C

Industrial zone, this is an industrial application and therefore it is not contrary to the spirit.

C

Of the zoning rule, those are the only facts I would like to add. Is there any other discussion.

A

Before we focus yeah I'll also just add one more thing, I'm noticing uh across the front across new.

E

Hampshire ave so across the frontage that uh property only has a 40-foot setback, uh so this.

E

Is actually it will be very further back than that, so just for the record and consistent.

E

Observation, thank you miss juliani discussion. Thank you, okay. I didn't want to ignore you so.

P

If there's no further discussion, then we will vote on the motion. Mr mantle, yes, mr mcdonald, yes.

A

Mr rossi, yes, yes and mr matson, yes and mr lee, yes and I vote yes, so you are approved. Thank you.

A

A

Good job other business.

F

I'm sorry, mr lee. Yes, sir, if I might just say a couple of things before we adjourn.

G

First of all, I'd like to thank you, miss eldridge, for stepping up to the plate and stepping in.

G

And setting in his acting chair, I think he did a remarkable job and I thank you for that. Thank you.

G

And to the board members I'd like to say thank you for electing me as your chair. I appreciate.

G

The trust and confidence you showed- and I will do my best to continue to deserve that.

G

So with that, I guess, as the new chair I'd like to move, that we adjourn second well, congratulations.

G

Congratulations, thank you, okay and um we are adjourned. Oh yeah, very good. Thank you. Everybody.