City of Portsmouth, New Hampshire Board of Adjustment, 27 Sep 2022

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: 9.27.2022 Board of Adjustment

Description

9.27.2022 Board of Adjustment

A

Good evening, everyone and welcome to the second and final meeting of the board of.

B

Adjustment for the month, uh we have a full agenda as as usual, so we'll dive right into.

B

It after I just explained briefly the uh order of business that we, which we typically follow.

B

And that is that the uh each article each item on the agenda is presented by the applicant.

B

As many speakers as they want 15-minute uh uh excuse me, 15 a minute is requested if they want.

B

More than another, five minutes that can be voted by the board, provided it's asked for before the.

B

Presentation starts so that would be a total of 20 minutes max that's followed by questions from.

B

The board, if there are any following that, we ask for speakers to come up who are in favor and to.

B

Limit their comments to five minutes, followed by all the speakers, if any who are opposed, if any.

B

Again limited to five minutes, and then the last call is 2-4 are against speakers. There's no time.

B

Limit at that point, but we asked you know just out of the courtesy and for the sake of moving.

B

Business along that the comments be kept. You know right to the point and not not drift off.

B

Into side issues, so that's that's the method that we've used quite a while. It seems to work fine, so.

B

Having said all that I'll uh go right to new business, there are no items withdrawn.

B

To announce tonight and no postponements requested right, good and and we have no items holding over.

B

As old business, so it's pretty straightforward so under new business item, a reads as follows:.

B

The request of emily morgan replica trust for 2021 owner for property located at 127, willard avenue.

B

Where his relief is needed to replace the existing front porch with a new covered landing with steps.

B

Which require the following one: it varies from section 10.5 to 1 to allow a landing with steps.

B

Which requires a six foot secondary front yard with 15 feet is required to a variance from.

B

Section to 10.321 to allow non-conforming, building or structure to be expanded, reconstructed or.

B

Enlarged without conforming to the requirements of the ordinance said, property is located on.

B

A sessomap 149 as lot 37 and lies within the general residence. A gra district who presents.

B

This to the board, please, please come forward and each each speaker, we ask please whether you've.

B

Been up before or not say your name and address so we'll get the of recording and the record accurate.

C

Certainly doe and I live at 127 willard ave in portsmouth, new hampshire.

B

Welcome, yes, yes, go right ahead and present you so uh and please and please before you show you touch.

B

On the five, I should have said that before you touched on the five criteria through the five- yes.

B

Please that's at some point in your presentation. Yes, I actually don't have much of a presentation.

C

I submitted the pictures, I'm looking to just expand. What is there for those stairs currently.

C

To go just to the width of the house to the right, um yep picture there. Thank you and the.

C

Intention is to cover create a covered porch, so the weather doesn't come in as well as I'm able.

C

To get my mail without walking out um and just give some dimension to the house um and the only.

C

Difference would be, is that currently, this, in the sense of the other part, is the stairs are.

C

Not to code with the intention of making them to code and safer they're rotting and really.

C

Steep, so that's the secondary intention to this. So if we walk through 10 two three three two one.

C

There's nothing that would be contrary to public interest. Only improvement in the neighborhood for.

C

10 22322, yes, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed because the steps on the porch will.

C

Not be encroaching beyond the existing house towards the secondary front yard, it's just.

C

Going to stay within that line, um ten two three three, two three there's no benefit to the public.

C

To deny this permit, since it'll only increase the look and safety of entering into the house.

C

uh Ten two three three, two four there'll be no diminishing of value surrounding properties.

C

Improving the look and the safety of the house and then the final one is the ten two three three two.

C

Five and just speaking about the fact that this house is a unique property which is a corner lot.

C

On will airdav and ash, which means that I have a front yard as well as a secondary front yard. The.

C

Current home already encroaches on the setbacks and I'm not asking to go beyond that. I'm just.

C

Looking to increase the width of the current stairs in the porch, I'm also opening to add a.

C

Covered over the porch to prevent weather coming into the house and the current stairs are not.

C

Code, as I said, which um so with this project, the sales will be safer and brought to code.

C

And I'm requesting a setback of six feet onto my secondary yard, where 15 feet is currently required.

B

Thank you any questions on the board at this point. Nothing, no.

B

Apparently, not anything else, anything further right now for me, no, no! Okay! Thank you.

B

Is anyone president who'd like to speak in favor of this proposal? Anyone in favor.

B

Anyone on the zoom, mr stiff, uh no, no, nobody on zoom, either. Okay, anyone president who'd.

B

Like to speak in opposition to this proposal, anyone opposition apparently not therefore,.

B

Last call is too far or against anybody at all, apparently not okay, that was simple. The.

B

Public hearing is closed board. What's we've heard the proposal? What's your pleasure.

D

Mr mantle, uh I make a motion to grant approval to the variance request as presented. Thank you.

B

Is there a second miss, mr rossi, I think by by a hair, scooch yeah, mr mail, your motion.

D

um Going through the criteria, are you ready, peter here, okay um 10.233.21 granting the variance would.

D

Not be contrary to the public interest, it would not be it's a small request. um Granting the dot.

D

Two two granting the variants would observe the spirit of the ordinance. uh I believe it would.

D

The proposed there's no difference in the existing or the proposed as far as all the variants, all.

D

The varying variances or zoning uh dot, two three granting the variants would do substantial justice.

D

uh I believe it would, uh it would definitely make the house better and therefore the surrounding.

D

Properties.24, granting the variance would not diminish the values surrounding properties.

D

It would not, in fact it would make the surrounding properties better. uh Two five literal enforcement.

D

Of the provisions of the audience would result in an unnecessary hardship. I believe it would.

D

um As the applicant stated, she has a corner lot uh so for that re. For those reasons um I made the.

D

Motion, thank you, mr rossi. uh The only thing I have to add is that, with regard to two three and dot.

E

Two four: there were no public comments submitted in opposition, nor any better objections. Therefore,.

E

I think those are supporting facts for those uh requirements. Thank you. Thank you all right.

B

Anybody anything further from the board at this point before we call a vault.

B

Which will be roll call, apparently not okay, we'll start down with mr mantle? Yes,.

B

Thank you, mr mcdonald. Yes, mr lee, yes, miss margison, yes, miss eldridge and mr rossi, yes, and.

B

I and I vote yes as well, so you're all you're all approved. Thank you guys, you're welcome. Thank you.

B

B

Moving to item b, the request of ann arlando, the loud please correct, my pronunciation for.

B

Property located at 55 aldridge road, where his relief is needed to remove an existing.

B

Front steps and construct a new deck and steps which requires the following one.

B

A variance from section 10.5 to 1 to allow a two and a half foot front yard where 15 feet.

B

Is required, two, a variance from section 10.321 to allow a non-conforming, building or structured.

B

To be expanded, reconstructed or enlarged, without conforming to the requirements of.

B

The ordinance said property is located on assessor map 153 as lot 44 and lies within.

B

The general residence, a gra district, who presents this to the board, please.

F

Good evening, mr chairman, in the board, my name is ann lando, bello, five aldrich road. Thank you.

F

Thank you for hearing my request for relief. We've been under renovation for over two years and we're.

F

At the point where we need to um replace the front stairs in order to also put in the new driveway.

F

Which was approved, um I'm proposing to replace the front steps and deck with a safe structure.

F

Fitting in with the look of the improvements of the home, as well as the neighborhood.

F

As you can see, it's kind of a nice store, we are asking to bring down the height of the structure.

F

Extend the deck along the house to accommodate a smallest heating space, pull the structure further.

F

Away from the sidewalk and pull the bottom of the steps away from the approved new driveway.

F

And my five criteria that I'll go through for ten two, three, three, two one, the request: it will.

F

Not be contrary to the public interest, as the current structure is poorly constructed, very.

F

Tall making it an eyesore in the neighborhood, the new structure will be more in line with.

F

The improved look of the home as well as safe and further away from the sidewalk.

F

um The spirit of the ordinance will be observed as the front steps are already non-conforming.

F

Improving the front steps will not oppose the ordinance for my neighbors, but instead improve.

F

As well as bring the front yard step back further away from the sidewalk.

F

Most homes surrounding me in that area have uh their their steps exit into the sidewalk.

F

Or very close to the sidewalk, so it's similar, um substantial justice will be done as no harm will.

F

Be done with the improvement of the front steps, but it would be harmful to me without approval.

F

As the current steps are of poor quality pitching forward and beginning to fall apart,.

F

um The values of surrounding properties will not be diminished diminished as replacing the front.

F

Steps and making them in line with improvement of the home will only improve the property values.

F

Of my neighbor's properties and lastly, literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance.

F

Would result in an unnecessary hardship as the front steps are already non-conforming denying.

F

What I feel is a reasonable request to replace and improve the steps would result in a continued use.

F

Of a poorly constructed structure, instead of stairs the request will ensure the steps are.

F

Safe to use further away from the sidewalk, and unless of an eyesore for my neighbors.

F

I thank you for your consideration. Okay, any questions from the board at this point.

B

Oh apparently not thank you. Are there any people, president who would like to speak in favor of.

B

This anyone president like to speak in favor, mr stith. We have anybody on the book. No uh anyone.

B

President, who would like to speak in opposition anyone in opposition last call? No any speakers too.

B

For are against too far against no, oh, okay, seeing nobody! Nobody, okay, we'll close this public hearing.

B

Okay, but what's uh your thought what's the thought on this particular application here.

B

Miss miss eldridge of that we approve this application. Thank you. Is there a second to that.

B

A second second, mr lee, thank you, ms ellwood. Your motion, please: okay, 10.233.21 granting the variance.

A

Would not be contrary to the public interest; it would not be contrary to the public interest. This.

A

Is improving the safety of the building and improving the look of the house same for 0.22.

A

Granting the variance would observe the spirit of the ordinance granting the variance 0.23 would do.

A

Substantial justice, the benefit to the homeowner, is not outweighed by any harm to the public.

A

It would not diminish the values of surrounding weight. 0.24 would not diminish the values of.

A

Surrounding properties, if anything improved entrance would increase the values of surrounding.

A

Properties and as far as 0.25 unnecessary hardship. If this applicant wants to go out her front.

A

Door, she cannot help but be in the setback. So I think there is a oh hardship here and there's no.

A

Difference it's even further back from the setback than it was before. So, for all those reasons.

A

I think we should approve this application. Thank you, mr lee. I concur and I have nothing to add. Okay,.

B

Thank you. Any comment last call for comments from the board. Anybody at all, okay, apparently not we'll.

B

We'll take a roll call vote again, starting down at the right. My left this time, mr mr rossi, yes, miss.

B

Eldridge, yes, mr marcus, excuse me miss mojison, yes, mr mr lee, yes, mr mcdonald, yes and mr mantle.

B

Yes- and I and I vote yes as well- okay, you're you're all approved. Thank you. You're welcome.

B

B

Item c is up for discussion and that reads as follows: the request of seth wonkowitz applicant.

B

For and betty and frazier owner for property located at 42 harvard street, where his relief is.

B

Needed for the upward expansion of existing garage and mud room to create an attached adu, which.

B

Requires the following one: a variance from section 10.521 to allow a 22 foot front yard with 30 feet.

B

Is required, two, a variance from section 10.521 three, two one excuse me to allow a non-conforming.

B

Structure or building to be expanded, reconstructed or enlarged without conforming to the requirements.

B

Of the ordinance said, property is located on assessor map 259 as lot 30 and lies.

B

Within the single residence b, srb district, who presents this application to the board, please.

G

B

Good evening, yes go right ahead, please right um so.

G

Just for the record, your name and address please oh seth, monkowitz and 42 harvard street. Thank you.

B

Okay, welcome um so we're asking for the variants, because we are trying to build up on the property.

G

To accommodate for an accessory dwelling unit for a daughter, that's trying to move in.

G

um Because her mother's getting older and she's looking to take care of her in the future, so.

G

We are, as you stated, 22 feet from the front where we need to be 30.

G

um And what we'd like to go up a second story um in order to accommodate this all the other.

G

Sides of the property line are within the setbacks, um with with great clearances and then.

G

The um the uh section 1023321, uh the variance- will not be contrary to the public interest.

G

In the neighborhood characteristics of the neighborhood, in that the unit will be constructed.

G

Fully attached to the existing dwelling, in addition, they have proposed exterior finish.

G

Will make the new unit appear to be camouflaged into the existing structure and neighborhood.

G

10.233.22, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed.

G

Because the variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance and that the unit.

G

Will be camouflaged and constructed in the least invasive way, 10.233.23.

G

Substantial justice will be done because the unit will enhance the dwelling of the.

G

Property owner at 42 harvard street, with no impact to nearby residents of harvard street.

G

10.233.24, the values of the surrounding properties will not be diminished because.

G

The unit will be built attached and fully blended into the existing dwelling. There would.

G

Be no visual impact to any other properties on the street; instead, the increase value of.

G

42 harvard street may help increase the value to other properties on the street and nearby.

G

Streets also, there are three existing houses that have adu units that directly surround 42.

G

Harvard street so fit in with the neighborhood um 10 point two three three point: two five.

G

uh The enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary.

G

Unnecessary hardships, the property owner is aging in place and she is a longtime resident.

G

And doesn't want to move from this lovely town to help her as she ages. Her daughter.

G

Will need a living space to be able to not only accommodate her needs, but her mom's as well.

G

B

Okay, any questions from the board no.

B

Okay, apparently not thank you. Is there anyone president who'd like to speak in.

B

Support of this proposal, anyone present in support anyone on zoom, mr stuff, no.

B

Maybe, oh, they haven't raised their hand, no okay. Anyone present who wishes to speak in opposition.

B

Please come forward. Anybody at all no apparently not same sit clear on that. Okay, all right good.

B

Okay last call two for or against speakers too far are against anybody at all. No okay, we're all.

B

We're all closed on the public hearing aspect of it.

B

What's your what's your pleasure on this one board.

D

Then he went mr lee. This seems pretty innocuous. I'd make a motion to approve this application.

D

That's presented and advertised. Thank you. Is there a second, mr rossi? Thank you, mr lee. Your.

B

Motion please so I'll. Take the the first two criteria together: 10.23321 and 2 2 graining.

D

The variance would not be contrary to the public interest and granting the variance.

D

Would observe the spirit of the ordinance this proposed use doesn't conflict with any explicit.

D

Or implicit purposes of the ordinance and does an alter the essential care of the neighborhood.

D

Threaten proton public health, safety or welfare or otherwise injury, any public public rights.

D

uh 10.23323 granting the very introduced substantial justice in this case the benefit.

D

To the applicant is not outweighed the harm to the general public or other individuals, so that.

D

That element is satisfied. Number four, the value of the surrounding property.

D

Is not diminished, this proposed project will blend in the neighborhood and.

D

In my opinion, would not diminish the value of the surrounding properties in any manner.

D

And moving on number five liberal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship.

D

Because of the special conditions of the property, if you tried to build the adu on grade, it would.

D

Actually increase the lock coverage more than it is now and for that reason.

D

I think this proposed use is a reasonable one, and I mean for those reasons I moved we approved.

D

Experience, thank you exactly, mr rossi. Nothing to add thank you. I could make it just clarification.

H

um Add a stipulation well yeah. I want to acknowledge something that wasn't.

H

Advertised and that's the lot area um when someone's seeking an attached, adu.

H

um The lot must be conforming, and so it's it's kind of a formality, because it's not.

H

Like a dimensional, it's just acknowledging, so I would ask the board to consider adding that.

H

As a as a conditioner, just recognizing that okay you're granting the lot area, that is less.

H

Than the fifteen thousand acquired, and which is what specifically uh 13 039 yep, thank you.

B

Mr lee agree I I agree. Okay, mr rossi agreed yeah. Thank you peter all, right, good. Anything further.

B

Apparent yeah miss eldridge. I have a question while um looking through the accessory drilling.

A

Unit requirements, one of the things that said, that is, that an attached dwelling unit must.

A

Have an interior door between the units, I'm pretty sure that's what it said under.

A

10.814.41- and I don't think this does so- that whole section will be reviewed for the planning.

H

Board and if if they don't meet certain sections, they can request waivers from the plan board and.

H

Work that out with the playing board. So okay, that's good good point. Thank you. Okay, anything.

B

Anything for ella, okay, we'll start down we'll start down the right here where the the motion.

B

Is to approve as as presented and will the additional information just just provided.

B

Mr mano, yes, mr mcdonald, yes, mr lee, yes, miss mogeson, yes, miss eldridge, mr mr rossi. Yes,.

B

And I vote yes as well you're all approved. Thank you. Kids, yeah you're welcome foreign.

B

Second page already wow.

B

Item d under new business reads as follows:.

B

The request of brian and charlene huston bonus for property located at 44 harding road, where his.

B

Relief is needed to remove the existing deck and construct a new deck with stairs, which requires.

B

The following one at bearings, from section 10.521, to allow 25 building coverage where 20 percent is.

B

The maximum allowed two, a variance from section 10.321 to allow a non-conforming structure or.

B

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

B

Ordinance said, property is located on assessor map. 250 has lot 75 and lies within the single.

B

Residence b srb district, who presents this proposal for the board to the board. Please.

B

Yeah, I know you got anybody on. You got anybody in the zoom not for presenting okay, yes, good.

B

Evening yeah your name and address please ryan, houston and my address is 44 harding.

I

Road portsmouth, thank you for listening to our request. Oh you're welcome, um so we bought this.

I

Home back about a year ago, and when we bought it, we knew that we had to do a number of repairs and.

I

uh Updating and things like that throughout the house, so we've done a lot of that stuff. So far,.

I

um Including uh roof siding interior floors and kitchen things like that, and uh now we've gotten.

I

To the deck and um found out that, uh in fact, that it's, we have a non-conforming lot and uh we we.

I

Really don't have much square footage left with our current uh percentage that we will be allowed.

I

To build that loud on, but we think that that we would still be within the spirit of the ordinance.

I

um With that and under the five criteria, building coverage, our current lot is non-conforming for us.

I

Herpes zone, which requires a 15, 000 square foot lot. Our lot is 10 000 19 square feet, making it.

I

Difficult for our our hardship to meet the 20, make it difficult in hardship to meet the.

I

20 structure requirement um and for a lot was conforming at fifteen thousand. We would uh be.

I

Able to easily build the square footage lot that we're requesting at 500 square 170 square feet.

I

With uh with a conforming lot, the proposed new deck, conclusive.

I

Of the dwelling would meet the 20 total structure allowance at roughly 17 percent.

I

um Using existing lot size, we would only be able to build a 9.8 foot square deck. We currently have.

I

A 200 square foot deck so when we purchased a home that was put in there, I'm guessing many.

I

Many years ago, functionality absent deterioration issues. The current deck allows for efficient and.

I

Safe access outside of our dwelling structure deterioration that the current deck is rotted.

I

With both decking and structural issues that make it unsafe replacement of the current deck.

I

Will make that deck, safe and usable uh design and appearance? The current deck is not not like kind.

I

Of quality, of the other exterior improvements that we've made um in the home, specifically new, siding.

I

We're replacing the deck with flight kind of quality materials will significantly.

I

Improve the dwelling and appearance and last uh larger deck is needed to provide a large enough.

I

Area to allow for usable space for chairs and tables and safe passage in that area.

B

Okay, any anybody else, any questions at this point from the board, apparently not thank you.

B

Is there anyone president who'd like to speak in favor of this.

B

Proposal, anybody in favor anybody opposed anybody opposed last call.

B

Too far against any speakers at all, mr smith, anybody on the machine! No, oh, okay,.

B

Apparently not well, we have a speaker. We have a speaker. There sounds like he's in favor yeah. Take that as a yes, okay,.

B

Okay, well, the public hearings closed.

B

Does someone have a motion with respect to this uh proposal? Mr chair, for that I would just note that.

H

In uh speaking with the applicant that proposed deck at 14, feet would encroach.

H

Him to the rear yard, so they've agreed to move it back two feet: okay, so that.

H

Will be 12 feet deep and that would remove, uh I think, 56 square feet, so the coverage.

H

Would be lowered to 24 and a half percent as opposed to the requested 25? Okay, so, okay.

H

Just consider that as stipulations, if, okay- yes, all right, okay, thank you. Do we have a.

B

Someone with have a motion, mr rossi. Yes, I'd like to move to approve the variance with.

E

The following stipulation that the deck shall be 12 feet in depth and the allowed.

E

Building coverage shall be 24.5. Thank you. Is there a second to that motion? Second, anybody.

B

Second, mr lee yep. Thank you all right, mr ross. The emotion I believe this uh application satisfies.

E

The requirements of 10.233.21 and 0.22 together, uh the purpose of the ordinance will not be.

E

Contravened at all by this deck, particularly as the additional space is kind of a wrap around.

E

Into an interior uh corner of the building and won't be visible from the front of the property.

E

It would do substantial justice because of the same fact it has no impact on the surrounding.

E

Properties and therefore, there's no loss to the public for doing this. uh The variants would not.

E

Diminishing would not diminish surrounding properties. I believe this improvement will.

E

Just raise the property value of this property and the adjacent ones as well by by proximity.

E

In terms of hardship, the small lot size is a factor in taking what is a reasonable, modest deck.

E

And putting it slightly outside of the percentage building coverage specifications of the ordinance.

E

And that is a hardship that would prevent a reasonable use of the property. So I believe.

E

That's the property that aspect is satisfied as well. Thank you, mr lee. I'm nothing to edna. Okay,.

B

All right anything further any before we take a vote on this on this motion to approve with with.

B

Stipulation as discussed okay, we'll start down on the left here with mr rossi. Yes, miss margison.

B

Miss upskar miss eldridge; yes, yes, mr lee, yes, mr mcdonald, yes and mr mantle, yes and I vote yes,.

B

As well, thank you you're all you're all approved. Thank you. You're welcome very much you're welcome.

J

D

Are we missing six of the staff sheets? What do you mean? You know where we have the block sheet.

D

That says existing and proposed: no, it's in there yeah! No, it's not in my package.

H

It should be before each. If you go to the bookmarks, uh you should be able to find it.

A

For this next, one.

D

One through three had them: six through nine. Don't in the morning.

E

At least in my package, in my packet too,.

B

I think stuff's working all together.

B

Still still not working paul go to the bookmarks and just press on. uh What's next thaxter, no, you.

E

Have 38th extra 38th bastards press on that? Don't press on the right arrow, just press on 38th axtor.

E

B

B

Okay, uh let's move to item e, which is the request of madison tidwell and brendan barker owners for.

B

Property located at 38 thaxter road, whereas relief is needed to construct a 14 foot by.

B

25 foot rear second story over an existing structure, which requires the following one.

B

And variance from section 10.521 to allow a 23 foot, rear yard with 30 feet is required.

B

Two: a variance from section 10.321 to allow a non-conforming, building or structure to.

B

Be expanded, reconstructed or enlarged without conforming to the requirements of the ordinance.

B

Said property is located on a cecil map 166 as lot 36 and lies within the single.

B

Residence b srb district, who presents this uh project to the board, please.

B

Welcome. Thank you. Thank you for hearing our our requests. I my wife and I we moved to daxter road.

K

A few years ago, with the intention of uh being a part of the community and growing a family, uh we.

K

Are, as you can see, growing our family with our uh with our son here and uh excuse me just just.

B

For the record, joe, I'm sorry, my name is brendan barker and I live at 38th next. Thank you. Okay,.

B

Sorry to interrupt go ahead, yes, uh so we seek to build a master bedroom and a second full bathroom.

K

In the home uh to accommodate our growing family, uh we believe that the variants, uh the addition.

K

Of the master bedroom over the existing edition uh will not have any effect on public interest.

K

That the addition will be more in keeping with the surrounding properties. uh We believe that.

K

The spirit of the ordinance will be observed and that it will be implemented for this purpose and.

K

To give relief to this type of use, uh substantial justice will be done and we believe that that will.

K

Be done by granting variants and is in line with other variances issued uh the value of.

K

The surrounding properties will not be diminished. The addition will be more architecturally, pleasing.

K

Than the existing roof on the structure uh and it will not diminish surrounding values, uh literal.

K

Enforcement of the provision of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship. uh We like.

K

I said we have a growing family and this would allow them to us to stay at our home and have a.

K

Second, bathroom in the house. uh Thank you. Okay, thanks bud, anyway, any anybody on the board have.

B

Questions at this point anything else anything you need covered, no, all right. Okay, thank you.

B

Is there anyone president who'd like to speak in support of this proposal? Anyone.

B

President, I do have a letter of support from him. Yes, yes, please! Yes, if you would, if you.

B

Just started just hand it over there and it becomes part of our package. Thank you.

D

Give me this: okay, while we're doing that. Is there anyone anyone present in the room who'd like to.

B

Speak in opposition. Anyone president who'd like to speak too far against last call for.

B

Speakers any speakers at all, apparently not just anything on the zoom, no okay, all right.

D

Okay, she's raising his hand he's in favor.

D

They can't have their own bedroom.

B

Okay, everybody have a glance at the ladder anyway, okay,.

B

That that being the case, uh nothing further, we'll close the public hearing and.

B

We await emotion.

B

Anybody feel inclined.

E

I think paul was raising his hand. I don't think so. We've got a move to approve the.

E

Variances, thank you, mr rossi. Is there a that's that's to approve, as presented all right. Mr is.

B

There, a second to that motion for approval, miss elooch. Thank you, okay, mr rossi. Your motion, please.

E

uh Regard to taking uh 10.233 and 2.21 sorry 10.233.21 and.22, together uh granting the.

E

Variance would observe the spirit of the ordinance uh sr. Srb is meant to uh provide.

E

uh Family uh dwellings, uh this is a family uh that is proposing to make better use of.

E

The space and accommodate their family needs granting the variants would do substantial.

E

Justice, because, by raising uh the addition on the second floor to the second floor, uh they're not.

E

Encroaching on any of the setbacks and therefore there's no loss to the public for their edition.

E

I would not diminish the values of the surrounding properties. I submit as a as a fact for that is the.

E

Supporting letter from a butters and literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance.

E

uh Would result in an unnecessarily unnecessary hardship, expanding the footprint of the property.

E

In other ways would create problems in terms of encroachment and um area usage, so by the nature.

E

Of the lot, this is the best way to accommodate the family's needs. Thank you, mrs eldridge. Nothing.

B

To ask you, you concurring nothing dead, okay, very good. Any final comments before we take before we.

B

Take the vote, no all right, we'll we'll start down with mr rossi on the vote. The vote is to approve.

B

As presented mr rossi, yes, miss eldridge, yes, miss margison! Yes, mr lee, yes, mr mcdonald, yes, mr mantle.

B

Yes and I vote yes as well, you're all you're all approved. Thank you so much you're welcome.

B

B

H

B

Okay, we're ready to address item f on the agenda this evening.

B

And it reads the request of adl 325 little harbor road trust owner for property located.

B

At 325 little harbor road, whereas relief is needed to renovate an existing historic barn.

B

Which requires the following one: it variance from section 10.628.30 to permit a bottom slash.

B

Basement finished floor elevation of eight feet where 7.88 feet exists, where nine feet is required.

B

Said properties located on assessor map 205 as lot 2 and lies within the rural. Our district.

B

Who speaks in favor of this proposal? Please. Thank you, mr chairman. Members of the board tim phoenix.

L

From hopeful phoenix, gormley and roberts here tonight on behalf of the applicant, the the actual.

L

Applicant is my business partner, steve roberts, whose trustee of this trust for the benefit of.

L

Anthony delorenzo and his family, who, as he, I think you know, are the beneficial owners of the 12-acre.

L

Parcel that we, anyone who grew up around here in the 60s and 70s calls lady isle with me here.

L

Tonight um is corey caldwell from tf moran they've done the technical work. Aaron sturgis is here from.

L

Preservation, timber framing, who is a preservation timber framer, does his life's work is, is rehabbing.

L

These kinds of structures and saving them to the extent possible we may have jim youngblood.

L

The the builder on zoom he was under the weather as of yesterday, so I don't know if he would make.

L

It the primary difference, I don't think we'll need 20 minutes, but I'm going to have aaron address the.

L

Board as well as myself, so we might, we might go there. Mr chairman um I'll, try to be brief.

L

um The uh the primary difference between this application and most of the others tonight is.

L

If we need a variance because we don't want to expand the building, whereas most of these.

L

Are coming asking for minor expansions of the building? As you know, uh lady isle is 12 acres.

L

There's a house currently under construction on it, and this has to do with the historic barn.

L

Peter has put the site plan up on and you can see the red line through the right hand, one-third of.

L

The property you can see that that line cuts through a very small portion of the barn and.

L

That's the part: that's in zone ae elevation. Eight, the existing elevation is just a couple.

L

Inches lower than eight and by the way eight feet is the fema requirement, so we would meet.

L

Fema regulations, the intent is to pour a couple of inches of concrete to bring it up. The the basement.

L

Floor up to meet meet fetal requirements, but the city requires an additional foot. This building is.

L

Believed to be mid 18th century, so it's somewhere between 150 and possibly pushing 170 years old. The.

L

Owner is take is painstakingly renovating it, as you saw from the comments from from mr sturgis.

L

In his submission for preservation purposes and also his letter explaining the to the board, why.

L

We don't want to lift the building and the reason we would have to lift the building.

L

Is because if we were to make the basement floor at elevation, nine we'd have to pour another foot.

L

The practical impact of that is, it would leave less than the required headroom under the code.

L

For building code, which would require us to to raise the building and the practical problems.

L

With raising the building are several fold, one is the cost, and the other is that we are.

L

Concerned that the timber frame structure would be at some risk, you saw photographs that were.

L

Submitted just after the original submission that showed beautiful, granite pillars or piers.

L

That are holding up all of the timber and if, if we have to lift it, I I don't know how. But they.

L

Wouldn't reach so they'd have to be something done either between them and the timbers or.

L

To take them out and put something on the floor and put the peers over it plus the foundation is.

L

As old pretty much as old as the barn as uh aaron will say, it's it's in very good shape. Considering.

L

Its age, it's been there for a century and a half and has weathered all the storms to date. I just.

L

Learned tonight that, in addition to this project, there has already been a expansive project to to.

L

Greatly increase the sea wall, that's around, so that alone will have a mitigating factor.

L

On any any storms and or any floods, and as I've mentioned only a part of the building is in the.

L

Flood zone, it just doesn't make sense to have to raise it a foot in order to meet code for.

L

Headroom, when the foundation is going to take the brunt of any any storm surge or flooding and.

L

It's done that for 150 years and it's still standing and is in very good condition.

L

So in, in summary, for for the reasons that we don't want to meet the nine foot requirement.

L

It shouldn't be necessary, given the age and and location of the structure. It's all alone out. There.

L

It's affecting no one except the owner who's aware of the risks. It is a basement floor, not.

L

A first floor, there's not mechanicals in it. As I mentioned uh the cost, it would be cheaper for.

L

Them we believe, to tear the tear the barn down and build something new in its place.

L

But mr delorenzo wants to preserve it. He is a preservation of this himself and wants to see.

L

This barn, which is an icon in the city, especially if you're in the water, it's very visible. We might.

L

Lose the historic granite pillars. We might damage the historic structure we might. um We might if we.

L

Lift the barn off as a historic foundation we're going to have to put something above.

L

That foundation, which will then lose the historic character and nature of that foundation, because.

L

Something that doesn't match is going to have to have to be uh placed in put in its place. So.

L

um Turning to the by the way, the percentages of the building that's uh within the flood zone is is.

L

um About 16 447 square feet the barn's about 2 000 square feet. So turning to the variance.

L

Requirements, uh the first two, as always, um the variances, are not contrary to the public interest.

L

And the spirit of the ordinances observed as I always do, I go through the seven requirements of.

L

The purposes of the ordinance I won't hit them all, but number one is the use of land buildings and.

L

Structures for business, industrial, residential and other purposes, as I pointed out, the entire.

L

Barn is going to be renovated at a significant cost. The intent is to save as much of it as.

L

Possible and keep it in its existing location. Elevation 8 complies with fema. The request is.

L

Only for one foot it achieves code compliant headroom in the basement. Avoid is the cost and.

L

Risk of damages to the structure, foundation and those peers. Turning to five and six under the.

L

Purposes the rest of them are self-explanatory. The preservation enhancement of the visual environment.

L

We believe the visual environment will be greatly enhanced by leaving the building at its existing.

L

Height with its existing foundation, the existing internal peers and the like, and the preservation.

L

Of historic districts and buildings and structures of historic architectural interest, this is a very.

L

Important architectural interest and the whole goal here by mr deal renzo and his team is to.

L

Preserve it as closely as possible to its natural heritage. Turning to the underlying requirements.

L

For those first two variance requirements, one is would granting the variance alter the essential.

L

Character of the locality, it maintains the local, the character of the locality or would.

L

It threaten the public, health, safety or welfare. For the reasons I've stated, while there is some.

L

Slight risk of flood water go going over eight into nine. It's it's only the one building the.

L

Owner is aware of it, it affects nobody else, and the foundation is going to take the brunt of any.

L

Flood so the granting the variance will not threaten the public health safety or welfare.

L

um The third requirement is that granting the variance will not diminish surrounding property.

L

Values there is no other buildings other than the ones that are part of this lot. This 12-acre lot an.

L

Island uh they're anywhere close, so granting the variance to leave this building where it is, is not.

L

Going to affect anyone's property value whatsoever, we believe it will enhance the public's value by.

L

Keeping it the way it has been historically for for view purposes. The fourth requirement is the.

L

Denial of the variances results in an unnecessary hardship three-pronged test. The first is that.

L

There are special conditions of the property that distinguish it from others in the area.

L

The lady isle alone, by its nature, is distinguished from any other property.

L

In the area, it's very large, the barns have been there for somewhere between a century and a half.

L

Or more, the renovation will preserve as much as possible. The the foundation is good and strong and.

L

Has withstood whatever weather has come along in the last century and a half all of these factors.

L

Combine to create special conditions that lead to no real need to to raise this building, to be.

L

In compliance with the city's somewhat arbitrary one foot over the fema requirement, second prong is.

L

That there's no fair and substantial relationship between the public purposes of the ordinance and.

L

Its application in this instance would be the reason to raise it. Another foot is to protect.

L

Better against flood, for the reasons I've stated, a very small area of the barn is affected by it, but.

L

The whole the whole barn has to be lifted, as one there's just no reason to apply the requirements.

L

Of the ordinance under these circumstances, as I've explained them. Finally, the proposed use is.

L

Reasonable, it's a re, it's a residential use in a residential zone. So it's reasonable. The fifth.

L

And final standard prong of the hardship of the variance requirements is that substantial justice.

L

Will be done in the test there under the cases, I always cite, there's no benefit to the public that.

L

Would outweigh the hardship to the applicant. This factor is satisfied for the reasons I've.

L

Stated the public will not be harmed in any way by granting the variance, but the owner will be.

L

Harmed by denying the variants both potentially financially and for the public's benefit at the.

L

Risk of harming or losing part of the historic structure, its foundation or those peers, because.

L

Of the location, because this is a variance request for the flood zone requirements, there are three.

L

Additional variance requirements under section 10.629.20 I'll go through them quickly. One is the.

L

Variance will not be in result in increased flood heights, additional threats to the public safety.

L

Or extraordinary public expense, it's an island nobody's going to be affected, except this lot.

L

And this building flood heights to the extent they would be uh increase, it would be you couldn't even.

L

Measure it because any floods are going to hit the foundation walls before they find their way into.

L

The building be the if the required variance is for activity would have been a designated.

L

Regulatory floodway no increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge will result.

L

For the same reasons, it was unclear to me and I couldn't find out whether we are in a designated.

L

Regulatory floodway, but, to the extent we are the effect of any any flood at this site will be.

L

Diminished de minimis, you couldn't even measure it and finally, the variance is the minimum necessary.

L

Considering the flood hazard to afford relief, this is the minimum necessary because if you raise that.

L

Building at all, you're not going to meet your headroom, which means you're going to have to go.

L

Go up at least a foot go up a foot to meet the the headroom requirements of the of the building code.

L

So raising it, a couple of inches to eight feet to meet the fema requirement seems like a fair.

L

Exchange for preserving this barn, I would like to have aaron embellish a little bit, because this.

L

Is such an important structure? If I may have the time yeah yeah five minutes, I promise yeah. I think.

H

You have less than that, but all right, yeah, okay! Well, yes, go ahead! Okay, yeah and you want to just.

M

My name is aaron sturgis, I run preservation, timber framing and that's exactly what I do.

M

I've worked in portsmouth for over 30 years. I've worked on most of the house, museums in town and.

M

I've seen a lot of bad foundations and a lot of good foundations, and I understand the importance.

M

Of the ordinance and this and the flood, we know that flooding is going to be a major issue in.

M

Portsmouth, it already is at strawberry bank, but the difference between something like strawberry.

M

Bank or even the moffatt lad house, which has been chasing water since 1762, is that lady isle is on.

M

Solid ledge and the foundation is in excellent shape. It's a rubble, stone foundation on three.

M

Sides, and on the fourth side, it is granite, piers and all the interior piers are granite and they.

M

Are on massive footers on ledge, so there's nothing wrong with the existing foundation that exists.

M

Under the barn- and so that's one of the reasons why we don't want to change it because it's.

M

Working really well well, if there were issues like moffatlab or strawberry bank we'd be talking a.

M

Different conversation here, but it's in excellent shape. The issue before us is the fema regulation.

M

Versus the town regulation there's a foot difference and that foot means a lot to this barn.

M

If we're to make it useful in the first in the at the basement level- and it was always a basement.

M

Open basement, so you always went in under it. It's spectacular when you walk in. It is absolutely.

M

Gorgeous and to change that by elevating it afoot, first of all, we'd have to elevate it a lot more.

M

Than a foot in order to change the granite piers, because we'd have to literally dig down under.

M

Them lift them up somehow and get them back up the extra foot because you're not going to add a foot.

M

On top of a beautiful granite, pier so there's a sequence of work, that's significant and then.

M

The other significant piece is the foundation is highly impacted when you unload it like the timber.

M

Frame, that's sitting on it that I'm going to repair that anthony asked me three years ago to do.

M

um Is a is a means to which that foundation stays together.

M

Okay, loading uniformly is important, so if I have to change, add a foot to that foundation.

M

I have to lift it up, unload it and then add, hopefully close to the stone. That's there, but.

M

I'll tell you what each and every one of you would be able to tell the difference, not only.

M

There, but from the water, if we raise that up a foot you're going to see it from everywhere.

M

So we don't want to do that so, just historically the context with the impact of the additional sea.

M

Well, work, that's been done. This barn is better protected now than it has been for generations.

M

There's no reason to change it, so I hope you go for the variance. Thank you. Thank you.

L

That's all I have, mr chairman, unless our questions any any.

B

Questions for the applicant either speaker, no okay. Thank you. Thank you.

B

All right is there any anyone president who'd like to speak in favor of this proposal. Anyone.

B

President, any anybody present, no anybody uh on left the zoom, no okay. Anyone president who'd.

B

Like to speak in opposition, anyone present no and same okay. Last call too far against any speakers.

B

Who wish to speak in any fashion to this project? No okay, we'll close the public hearing.

B

Okay, but this is the first one of these- that I remember wow,.

B

Miss margison! Oh yes, mr chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve these variances as.

J

Presented and advertised, thank you so who's this who's. This, mr lee, thank you. Miss madison, you're,.

B

Your motion, please I'm just waiting for peter. Thank you. This is going to be a mouthful.

B

Mouthful uh criteria is uh granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest and.

J

Grand the variants would observe the sphere of the ordinance, and I find that this iran's application.

J

Meets both of those and uh the basic objective of the ordinance is it frankly, um this town, the.

J

City did decide to be more protective with flood levels and raise it from eight to nine. However,.

J

um uh The reality is is that this is only for 16 percent of this barn. So therefore, I do not.

J

Find that this violates the basic objective of the city's zoning ordinance, the essential.

J

Character of the neighborhood, the whole island is not going to be altered um and uh the uh there is.

J

No threat to public health and safety and welfare from allowing a portion of this building to be.

J

um Below the city's flood uh level or uh um level, the second, the third criteria is granting the.

J

Variance would do substantial justice. There is no benefit to the public that outweighs the hardship.

J

To the applicant, this island has noah butters. There is no no member of the public that will.

J

Be benefited by us not granting this variance uh granting the variants would not diminish the.

J

Values of surrounding properties. Again, this land is an island. There are no surrounding properties.

J

Therefore, it meets that criteria and little literal enforcement of the provisions of the.

J

Ordinance will result in an unnecessary hardship, and I find that it also meets this criteria in.

J

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

J

Area and that it's the only property in the area, and so therefore it doesn't really have it. It has.

J

Special conditions, and because of these special conditions, a fair, substantial relationship, does.

J

Not exist between the general public purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific.

J

Application of the provision to that property, and in this again the city of portsmouth, has decided.

J

To be more protective with flood zone levels, however, there is only four 16 percent of this.

J

Barn, that is in the flood zone and um therefore it it has special conditions, and it basically.

J

um Meets that condition and the proposed use is reasonable one. This is the rural district.

J

um And this is an appropriate accessory dwelling to the house within the rural.

J

District, so the proposed use for this barn is reasonable and now on to the other three.

J

You ready, okay, so um the additional variance requirements are also met in that the variants.

J

Will not really result in increased flood heights additional threats to public safety.

J

Or extraordinary public expense, putting a portion of this born barn within this flood.

J

Zone will not increase flood heights, there are no threats to public safety and it will.

J

Not incur any kind of extraordinary public expense on the account of the municipality.

J

The required variance is for activity within a designated regulatory floodway. There is no.

J

Increase in flow levels during the base flood discharge, I find that the um the discharge there.

J

Is no increase in discharges from the barn in this in this flood zone, it has been there.

J

Since the barn has been there, the variance is the minimum necessary considering the hazard.

J

To afford relief and again this brings it up to eight feet and that it meets that criteria as well.

J

It was hard to do very well, very good. Thank you. Thank you, mr lee. Well, I'm in full compliance.

D

With everything miss martinson said, and I would just add that I was able to make a site visit to.

D

This property earlier in the mythic construction superintendent, who showed me around and showed me.

D

The barn and everything- and I think the only thing I could say about that is they don't build them.

D

Like that anymore, I mean it's: it's still massive timbers big granite piers. It's been there a long.

D

Time- and I think it's probably going to be there a long time too to come and it's pretty exciting.

D

To see somebody go to the expense and time to preserve this historic property, so I would be.

D

Glad to second that motion. Thank you anything any further comment from anybody on the board.

H

I will just say that, um under that section, the ordinance with the other criteria there.

H

Is a section that states that the board will notify the applicant in writing of two things.

H

And we will add them to the, I don't think they need to be stipulations, but we'll add them to.

H

The letter decision just notifying them that the required elevation may result in increased.

H

Premium rates for flood insurance up to amounts as high as 25 dollars for per 100 dollars of.

H

Coverage and that such construction below the required elevation increases risk to life and.

H

Property so we'll just add those to the letter decision. Okay, thank you. Yeah, it's appropriate any.

B

Anything further before we take a vote on this motion to which is to approve anybody at all.

B

No apparently not okay, let's start down with mr mantle, the emotion is to approve yes, mr mcdonald,.

B

Yes, mr lee, yes, miss marjerson, yes, miss eldridge, yes and miss rossi. Yes, and I vote yes as well.

B

You're welcome, I think, that's a first we've seen that particularly beautiful okay.

B

I have a trivia question for the board. The trivia question of the evening is: what was the block.

B

Significant proposal for that island.

B

Is this a pop quiz? It was a little while ago after it was a school. My name.

B

After it was a school yeah, that's right! Okay, all right can be. Everybody can be thinking about that.

B

That's just a fun question, but it has an answer. Tim has the answer. I didn't hear the question.

B

You might remember: okay,.

B

The uh moving right along item g on the agenda is the request of john t and mary r mcdonald.

B

Owners for property located at 74 sunset road, where his relief is needed to add a front porch.

B

A front dormer and a connection to a garage which requires the following one variances from section.

B

10.521 to allow a a 16 foot front yard, where 30 feet is required and b a 26.5 percent building.

B

Coverage where 20 percent is required, a variance two infection from a variance from section 10.321.

B

To allow a non-conforming, building or structure to be expanded, reconstructed or enlarged without.

B

Conforming to the requirements of the ordinance said properties located on a cecil map 153 as.

B

Lot 14 and lies within the single residence b srb district who's who presents this project. Please.

L

Thank you, mr chairman. Again tim phoenix from hopeful phoenix gorman roberts, I'm here tonight.

L

With and on behalf of john and mary mcdonald, who are in the front row, butch ritzy who's doing the.

L

Construction is in the second row eric weinreb from altus engineering. Did this the site plans.

L

Before you and we gave him the night off, um this shows pretty clearly what's happening. um The the.

L

Dark orange is, what's going to be new, you can see the front porch to the top of the screen.

L

um The the existing front of the building is right on the setback line, which is.

L

um Just a little less than than normally required, because it's the average of the two on either side.

L

Of it, which makes it 24 feet the front's right on that, they want to add a front front porch and if.

L

You looked at the architecturals elevations, you saw how that is, uh is very tasteful. Looking and.

L

Dresses up the house nicely, there's that dormer that's the second floor dormer. This is a four.

L

Bedroom house that will remain a four bedroom house, but they're giving themselves a little.

L

Bit more room with that dormer that does not need relief because it meets the setback and it isn't.

L

Expanding the size of the structure you can see on the right side between the house and the garage.

L

There's just a little connector, which makes sense, given the proximity of that garage to connect.

L

Them together, so you can walk from the the house into the garage that adds a little bit of square.

L

Footage which is what drives the request for the increased coverage relief in the back you'll, see.

L

A there's, a bulkhead that they're going to build a little doghouse roof over. That does not need any.

L

Relief either and then on the left you'll see a little stairway that that's coming off. So that's.

L

Going to improve that a little bit more, the lot is 8936 square feet and the existing coverage is 23.4.

L

Percent, so the mcdonald's want to slightly expand their home. If you looked at, if you take a look at.

L

The tax map- I didn't, do the numbers, but if you look at the homes on on there, there's a number.

L

Of them, especially across the street, that that are also appear to be roughly the same distance.

L

From the front front lot line, so this building is in is it in the along the street there's the last.

L

Last yellow lot: I forgot to mark it along the street before it turns to gray, which is another.

L

Tax lot, but if you look at the homes across the street and next to it, many of them appear to be.

L

Just I used a scale to measure it. They appear to be this roughly the same distance. You know 18 15,.

L

18 20 feet off the line as this, so it does fit in with the neighborhood, as mentioned, the building.

L

Coverage limit is 20 percent, it's already 23.4 percent. We think these modest editions.

L

Of the breezeway to connect the house and the nice looking porch, which increases to 26.5 percent.

L

Is is reasonable and fair under the circumstances, so turning to the variance requirements again.

L

Now the first two advances are not contrary to the public interest, and the spirit of the ordinance is.

L

Observed I'll just cut right to the chase, the the maliki glenn case that I always cite says.

L

Would grant him the variances unduly and to a market degree conflict with the ordinance.

L

Such that it violates the ordinance's basic zoning objectives. Mere conflict is not enough.

L

And the way the courts have boiled that down is will granting the variances alter the essential.

L

Character of the locality, it's a modestly sized house on a small lot, as are many uh in that area.

L

Along that that street, as I mentioned before, just scaling it off, it looks like many are a bit closer.

L

To the lot line, I didn't do a calculation of of coverage, but under the circumstances this.

L

Will not appear much larger because it's not getting any closer to the neighbors on.

L

Either side there's still ample distance for sight lines for storm water treatment and eric.

L

Has designed a drip edge, stone drip edge to to catch water coming off of that roof, which will.

L

Will mitigate any storm water issues from the new roof, so we believe that granting these variances.

L

Which are relatively minor, given the size of the lot and the home on it will not change the.

L

Essential character of the locality they will be built to code, so there is no threat to the.

L

Public health, safety or welfare, the third of the five requirements is that the variances will not.

L

Diminish surrounding property values. We believe that these changes enhance the look. You can see.

L

The the look here that it's dressed up nicely with that front porch and the dormer above it.

L

The the connector breezeway probably won't even be noticed by anyone, it's very, very small, so this.

L

Property value will be increased, so we see no way it's going to decrease surrounding property values.

L

The fourth requirement, um as I always submitted, is the hardship first is special conditions. The.

L

Lot at under 9000 is 40 smaller than the 15 000 square feet that the srb would require. um It is.

L

In in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood, the home is on right on the front lot line. The.

L

The two, the two sides of the building the side of the house and the side of the garage, are on.

L

Or slightly over the right and left setbacks, you can't put a front porch on without adding it to.

L

The front of the house, and the only place you can put a breezeway, is to connect it to the the.

L

House to the garage, so these all combine to create special conditions and for the reasons I've stated.

L

There's no reason to limit the coverage to 20 it's already over 20 percent. uh This increase.

L

Will will really be not noticeable by anyone except the owner and as far as the setback.

L

Again, it's it's some. It looks to be consistent with the setbacks of many of the homes across.

L

The street and in the area, so there is no fairness, substantial relationship between the purposes of.

L

The ordinance with respect to expansion of setback and coverage in its application here. Finally, for.

L

The hardship the proposed use is reasonable, residential use, so it's reasonable and then.

L

Finally, last test: substantial justice will be done if there's no benefit to the public. That would.

L

Outweigh the hardship to the applicant, this factor is satisfied. That's the harborside case again, the.

L

Re for the reasons I've stated the front entry porch is reasonable in 21st century portsmouth.

L

It's a nice addition it'll, let them enjoy their home a little better than they can today. The.

L

And the breezeway will protect them from in the winter when they want to go from the house to the.

L

Garage to get in a car or if there's no shovels or whatever they're going to get there's just no.

L

Harm to the public from granting these variances but denial of the variances, if you will robs the.

L

John and mary of the ability to a a nice modest expansion of their home to make it more livable.

L

And more and enjoyable. So for these reasons we request that the variances be granted. I'm here.

L

To answer questions john and mary are here: if you have questions that I can't answer and of.

L

Course, if there's construction questions, butch is here to answer those. Thank you. Any questions.

B

From the board at this point, mr ross, just one one a little right here, I have one little thing.

E

I might need some help with uh you know, who's speaking, that's! Okay! That's why I'm waving my arms.

E

uh With regard to the hardship requirement, so applicant must establish that the property is.

E

Burdened by the zoning restriction in a manner that is distinct from other similarly situated.

E

Property, so since the surrounding properties are almost identical in terms of size and setbacks,.

E

And all that, how would you suggest we think about that sure? Well, not all of the houses are identical.

L

There there's ones that are directly across the street seem to have similar setbacks. I don't know.

L

About coverages, but I think there's other how there's other lots on the on the in the area.

L

Or on that tax map that are larger, with larger homes, on them, etc that appear to meet setbacks.

L

And probably meet coverage, but there's also a case I did not cite here. I have cited it before.

L

With you folks, before it's a manchester cases, I recall, and it basically says that another basis.

L

For hardship is, if you are doing something, that's already being done in that area, that.

L

Is a form of hardship that that a lot allows you to to proceed with getting your variants granted.

L

Thank you any any other questions from the board right now. No apparently not thank you.

B

Is there excuse me, is there anyone president who'd like to speak in favor of this proposal? Anyone.

B

Else to speak in favor, apparently yeah. Yes, no, okay. uh Anyone presence wishing to speak in opposition.

B

No, mr smith, anybody on the lost all our viewers. All of you. I can't.

B

Believe we want to ask, we won't ask: why can we take the excitement.

D

Last call for speakers, too far are against anybody wishing to speak too far or against.

B

Apparently not and we're clear on the zoom side as well. Okay, very well, we're closed in the public.

B

Hearing phase of the proposal uh who wants to start the discussion or perhaps emotion, anybody.

D

Well, that'd make a comment, mr mr lee, so I was able to go through this house back when it was for sale.

D

Several months ago, or maybe a year ago, whenever that was- and you know it- it's a nice house and a.

D

Nice neighborhood, but it was burdened by a kind of an awkward floor plan and I think and the proposed.

D

Improvements, they're looking to do make perfect sense to me, and I think that would make the house.

D

Much more livable and enhance the values in the whole neighborhood. Okay, thank you. Anybody anybody.

B

Else on the board any comments at this point: no, does anyone feel prepared to make a motion.

D

You will mr lee I'd move that we uh we uh grant this variance as presented in advertised. Is there.

B

A second to the motion: anybody second miss madison. Yes, thank you. Okay, mr lee, all right we're taking.

D

The first two criteria together, 10.233.21 and 0.22- granted this variance will not be contrary.

D

To public interest and granting the variants would observe the spirit of the ordinance, the.

D

Proposed use here again is not in conflict with the explicit or implicit purpose of the ordinance.

D

And doesn't alter the essential character. Neighborhood threaten public health safety.

D

Or welfare or otherwise injury any public rights. Substantial justices done because the benefits of.

D

The applicant here is not outweighed many harm to the general public or any other individuals.

D

It during this edition and renovation of this property would certainly add to the value of the.

D

Surrounding properties, not diminished in any way so point number four is satisfied. Number.

D

Five literal enforcement of this ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship. This property.

D

Is somewhat burdened by a zoning restriction that makes it distinct.

D

From other, similarly situated properties uh because of these special conditions.

D

The restrictions applied to this property doesn't serve that purpose in the fair and substantial way.

D

And the proposed use here I find to be very reasonable and doesn't alter the essential.

D

Care to the neighborhood so in my mind that satisfied number five, the hardship criteria so.

D

For those reasons, I would move that we grant this application is advertised and presented dave. Thank.

B

You miss martinson. um I would just add that I had the same question that mr rossi did and I find.

J

That it's walker versus city of manchester applies and that there is existing non-conformities in the.

J

Area, and that constitutes a special condition. Thank you very much. Okay. Anybody any further.

B

Comment before we take them the vote. Anybody anybody last call, no all right, apparently not okay,.

B

Get my sheet here uh we'll start down at my right this time, mr mantle? Yes, mr mcdonald, yes.

B

Mr lee, yes, miss mojism, yes, miss eldridge, yes, mr rossi, and I vote yes as well. Okay,.

B

You're all you're all approved you're welcome.

B

You're welcome.

B

B

Item h is next on the agenda.

B

And the reads as follows: the request of nila llc owner for property located at.

B

324 maplewood avenue, whereas relief is needed to convert an existing garage into a dwelling.

B

Unit which requires the following one variance is from section 10.5 a 41.10 a to allow a now.

B

Lot area per dwelling unit of 1780 square feet with three thousand square feet is required.

B

Then b, a one foot side yard, where five feet is required: two, a variance from section 10.11, 11, 14.,.

B

0.21 to allow an 8.5 foot wide by 18 foot long parking space for 8.5 feet by 19 feet.

B

Is required said property is located on a cessna map 141 as lot 1 and lies within the.

B

Character district 4 del dash, l2, cd4 l2 and the historic district who presents this project. Please.

N

Good evening, chairman members of the board, monica kaiser from hopeful phoenix gormley.

N

And roberts with me is nicole, abshire principal of nila llc and we're prepared to proceed when.

N

You're ready, yes, yes, please go right ahead. Peter could I trouble you to start with the tax map.

N

I suppose I don't know that I needed the tax map to tell you this, but.

N

The properties highlighted here, and what I want to make clear to you, is that nicole.

N

Lives right next door. um We also have a butter support from the person immediately behind the.

N

Property or I guess you would say next to the property, you have a letter in.

N

Your packet from miss jordan and she is directly above the property. If you will.

J

All right guys is that 334.

J

Yes and then the applicant lives in 31., yes, okay um and there is uh there's. I believe there may.

N

Be a another of butter here to to support the application and then there's also support from.

N

A gentleman over here on prospect street, I believe, lot number 16.. um So out of the gate, I just wanted.

N

To orient people about uh who who lives, where, if you can go back to the site plan now peter.

N

um I think you're probably well oriented to the property we drive by it every day.

N

Cabinet concepts on maplewood I talk about in my memorandum, the blue structure and the garage.

N

So this here is the blue structure, holding um a part of cabinet concepts and there's.

N

An apartment on the second floor over here is this garage structure, as it sits a 1080 square.

N

Feet in it is related showroom uh and workshop area for the cabinet shop previously, nicole, who.

N

Lives over here and the former owners back here in the past- and I assume I'm going to.

N

Address fisher v, dover for you- I I did address it in my memorandum, but in the past there have.

N

Been a number of different proposals about what to do. Just with this garage, I mean going back.

N

Over time the property's been before you, but specifically the garage has been before you.

N

Twice in 2009 and both times, nicole, opposed any expansion of this property, any upward expansion.

N

Previous proposals, the first one in 2009, was to add two stories on top of the garage for a.

N

Total three-story structure and then later that was reduced to proposed a two-story structure.

N

The first proposal was two additional, yet dwelling units, in addition to the dwelling unit over here.

N

The second proposal was for only one additional dwelling unit- excuse me, but it did involve.

N

Upward expansion- the setbacks have been referred to in a number of different ways over the previous.

N

Years in consultation with peter, this is how I've identified them. This property technically fronts.

N

On maplewood, that's the address, so maplewood is our front. That makes uh this lot line over here.

N

Our rear, it makes this lot line here our side, and I guess this is a secondary front.

N

um So a lot of confusion- and I did have to revise the memorandum a couple times. I hope.

N

You're looking at the most recent one, because I was getting my sides and my rears mixed up.

N

The important proposal here that is different from what we've done before is that.

N

We're not proposing any physical changes on site at all, so there's a garage that sits one foot.

N

From that side, lot line between this property and miss jordan, that's going to stay the same.

N

And the primary reason, as I understand that we need relief, even though we're not changing.

N

Anything physically is simply because we're converting this to dwelling, uh and so that.

N

Conversion is taking place uh one foot from this sidebot line, uh where I believe uh five.

N

Is required I write about that peter. Yes, the other request for relief is to allow an interior parking.

N

Space in this building, that's eight and a half by 18 feet. Instead of eight and a half by 19 feet.

N

um To just identify uh the rest of the one, I understand that you know parking is a reasonable.

N

Thing for you to inquire about. There are some spaces over here that have been here for a.

N

Long time, um there's not quite three spaces there because of the stairs, so we only count two spaces.

N

Here you can fit two compliance spaces here that are outlined on the plan and then one compliance.

N

Space in the garage as a practical matter in the past, people have sometimes also parked in.

N

Front of the garage here, although our preference would be to utilize that interior space there.

N

If there's no questions about fisher v, dover I'll keep going.

J

I don't think it applies, I don't know if we have to make a finding when we.

J

But just a question because we you talked about two stories on top, it does seem like it's. I mean.

J

We're I'm not very good at architecture, but it does seem like it is going up. One story.

J

um Or is that just no, I well? No, I think you might be looking at. Are you looking at the staff memo.

E

That's the picture, the proposal that was denied okay. So if you look at oh, I get it. Okay, sorry.

J

Okay, so elevation views of our proposal is uh on sheet a3 of exhibit b, so we're literally just.

N

Taking that garage and making it a little bit nicer and renovating the inside and retaining.

N

A parking space, um so I think that's a distinct difference from the previous proposal. The other.

N

Thing that's different is that the zoning has changed uh and the ask is a lot less. The.

N

Lot size uh and the lot size dwelling unit is smaller for the cdl for cd. You know what I mean.

N

um And the the setbacks are shorter and less than they were back in 2009.

N

um We are still asking for an additional dwelling unit, but we think it makes sense.

N

um Given away the the lot is laid out, um it's rather unique if there's no more questions about.

N

Fisher v, dover I'll just turn to the variance criteria. Does anyone have a concern about fisher.

B

Versus dover, no, no! I I think it's significantly different. Okay! Yes, yes, please proceed! Thank you.

N

I understand that attorney phoenix and I have a similar format so I'll try to be brief, because.

N

I'm not telling you anything new, but in any event, if you look at page three of my memorandum, I start.

N

With the five variance criteria, I take the first two together under the malachi glen case, and I go.

N

Through and I identify each of the purposes of your ordinance and why we need it, the primary.

N

Issues the primary themes are: we're repurposing, a building. That's already there we're not doing.

N

Anything to create a new structure, we're simply repurposing an existing non-conforming structure.

N

um That essentially results in no change to any of the setbacks.

N

um We would submit to you that the parking is satisfied on the lot.

N

um With the eight and a half by 18 foot parking space, and so the parking is adequately addressed.

N

No change, obviously to number four purposes: impacts on lighting noise, vibration and the.

N

Like no change there, you're improving the uh the visual presentation of the.

N

Building it's subject to a historic district commission oversight um and.

N

In terms of groundwater, surface water, things of the like this just irrelevant or no change.

N

We would submit to you that the granting the variance doesn't markedly conflict with the.

N

Ordinance uh undermining the basic zoning objectives and also that it doesn't alter.

N

The essential character, the locality, the cdl4 zone, I think you have uh in your staff packet.

N

There's just a cluster of little properties there that are in the cd4 section of going up, dennett.

N

Street it changes zone and going uh the other way it changes the zone, but in terms of the properties.

N

In that immediate area, there are a couple that are either non-conforming for lot size per drawing.

N

Unit lock size or setbacks just on those four corners, there were few enough in the zone that.

N

I didn't think it was helpful to make you a a tax map showing those, but we did look at that and I.

N

Would submit to you that this is um in line with uh those surrounding properties in the cdl4 zone,.

N

N

We also looked at the master plan, which seemed to.

N

Recognize some opportunities to expand housing opportunities in.

N

Some of these uh urban neighborhoods- I think this is a decent example of that.

N

Granting the variants will not diminish the surrounding property values precisely because.

N

We're not going up we're not going out we're just utilizing. uh What's there and we're not trying to.

N

Overdo it, we just have. We have a decent sized structure there of a thousand some square feet.

N

There's a way to utilize, it that's not just for parking and, furthermore, the butters recognize that.

N

And are in support of the proposal, particularly the most affected, about her to the side. You know.

N

Or behind dennett street, if you will deny all the variance results in unnecessary hardship as you.

N

Know it's a three-part test, starting with special conditions of the property. um I think it's a funny.

N

Shaped little property and it's also developed in a weird way, it's triangular in shape. It's got a.

N

Pinch point in the middle: it's got two structures on it at opposite ends, both very close to.

N

um Anything we do, there is going to require relief, and so for that reason I think the.

N

Property has special conditions, there's no fair and substantial relationship between.

N

The general purposes of the ordinance and its application uh again for a number of.

N

The reasons that I've already said we're not looking to go up or out we're just looking.

N

To utilize spaces already there uh in a way that is economically beneficial for the owner.

N

But also provides a modest downtown apartment, that's needed in portsmouth and makes use of.

N

This property and this particular structure on the property in a way that makes sense.

N

uh Side yard setback is going to remain the same. The interior parking.

N

Accommodates uh the vast majority, if not all cars at 18 feet, long.

N

I've already talked about the master plan proposed use is reasonable. The test is if the use is.

N

Permitted it's deemed reasonable, reasonable so because duplexes and apartments are permitted in.

N

This zone, as are mixed, uses, I think this works and satisfies that criteria of the hardship test and.

N

Lastly, the final criteria is that substantial justice will be done. The test is, if there's.

N

No benefit to the public that would outweigh the hardship to the applicant. The factor is satisfied.

N

Another way of looking at it any loss to the applicant not outweighed by again to the.

N

General public is an injustice again, I think, as acknowledged by the abutters, there's nothing that.

N

They would gain from denial of this. That structure is already there. The neighborhood has sort of.

N

Accommodated it and accommodated the use of it on the inside for the cabinet shop. It's not a big.

N

Difference to have that area used as a dwelling unit and provided the parking is accommodated. It's.

N

A it's a win for all concern and certainly any denial to outwise the hardship. Excuse me doesn't.

N

Outweigh the hardship to nicole, if you don't have any further questions, that's all I have.

N

Okay, thank you is any questions from the board. Any questions, apparently not. Thank you. Anyone present.

B

Wishing to speak and support, please please come up and your name and address please if you would.

D

uh My name is walter ormond. I live at 56th senate, which is kitty corner across the street.

D

And I speak in support of this project of all the proposals that have happened in for.

D

This property over the over the years- this is certainly the one that has the least impact on.

D

The neighborhood in that the building isn't changing significantly the footprint's, the.

D

Same the size is the same: it's not trying to cram several stories onto this tiny property.

D

um As far as the allowing this to be a dwelling unit, it would again fit more.

D

Into the property area, in that there's, multiple multi-family single-family.

D

And that use would fit much more into the neighborhood than a commercial use. That is.

D

Presently so I would support this project. Thank you. Any questions for the speaker. No thank thank.

B

You very much any other speakers, anybody else in favor anybody else any opposed. Anyone wishing to.

B

Spin composed we have anybody on mr stith, no put yes too far or against yes, come up. Please.

O

Good evening, um first and foremost, thank you all for what you do for this city.

O

I acknowledge you I'm pleased to be here with you and thank you. uh Nicole, has been my neighbor for.

O

Over 15 years, everything she has done has been honorable and forthright. If you visited the site.

O

They indicated her house on the left-hand side of the project.

O

She has invested easily over a hundred thousand dollars into that property. The foundation has.

O

Been done, the siding has been done, the trim has been done, the windows have been done, the roof.

O

Has been done, okay, everything is restored to like and kind to what it was originally built.

O

What more can you say about somebody who does that for your city, okay, the project as proposed.

O

Okay, I think, is outstanding again you constantly here in the city, a shortage of property, rental.

O

Property here you have something very simple: you have an existing building and I know in my heart.

O

My mind that it will be refurbished to belong not to be out somewhere else recently in the city on.

O

Maplewood ave, you have just seen a mcmansion built. Okay, you ought to hear the comments in.

O

The neighborhood okay: here we go where you get one that slams the hell out of everybody and.

O

Then you have the opposite, where you have a very decent human being, who has put time effort and.

O

Care into her property, what what can you ask for for such a wonderful neighbor for 15 years? Can we.

B

Have your name and address please for the record, sir! Oh I'm sorry, it's all right. George dempsey.

O

42 dennett street. Okay. Yes, thank you all. Thank you, mr dempsey. Thanks george any anybody. Anybody.

B

Else, president, too far against last call for speakers is the zoom clear is clear, clear: okay,.

B

We are close with the public hearing. Okay, someone have a comment on the proposal here or perhaps.

B

Even emotion, there might be a motion down at this end. Thank you, mr rossi. I would make a.

E

Motion to approve the variance as uh submitted. Thank you a second second second, second, up for.

B

Bid, oh, I think you know everything actually to paul all right. Mr mantle, all right, you win. Okay,.

E

So, uh with regard to the specifics of the motion uh with section 10.233.21 and.22, uh the spirit.

E

Of the pub of the ordinance in this zone is to create spaces that are walkable mixed use and.

E

Of human scale, since there is no change in the scale of the building, this proposal and there's.

E

No, no does not in any way diminish the walkability or the scale. The human scale of the neighborhood.

E

uh Granting the variance would do substantial justice we've heard from uh butters that they.

E

Perceive no loss to themselves. I agree that there is no loss to the public. In fact, there is against.

E

The public, by increasing the housing stock and therefore, there's no loss of the public that.

E

Outweighs the benefit to the applicant and uh likewise because the statements of the butters.

E

We can be assured that granting the variants would not diminish the value of their properties.

E

uh Literal enforcement of the provisions, the ordinance, uh would result in unnecessary hardship.

E

It's a very oddly shaped lot: I'm not even sure what to call it other than a irregular polyhedron.

E

uh It's really, I commend you for being able to identify a front back inside uh to that shape.

E

It's not not easy, therefore, I think it's very hard to literally apply the setbacks with regard to the.

E

Garage dimensions: uh 18 feet is adequate to fit even a large full-size sedan. It's with room to.

E

Spare it wouldn't fit a light decent truck, but neither would a 19-foot garage. So I see no uh no.

E

Purpose in creating a hardship around the garage because it just you know the ordinance has not.

E

Really provide any benefit by complying to it. So that's my uh that's my motion. Okay. Thank you, mr.

B

Mail, I have nothing yet he did a great job all right. Thank you, mrs margison. So I just I'll be.

J

Supporting the motion, but I just want to add that the lot area is a significant uh change. I mean.

J

There is 3 000 minimum um and it's having it to 1 780.. So that is a significant um ask. However, I do.

J

Note that there is already a structure there um on that lot so and all other sites, except.

J

For the right yard, which is not becoming any more non-conforming, all of the setbacks are met.

J

Yep, great okay, yeah, that's uh it's an existing building. That's with me the main feature I think.

B

Okay, anybody further anything further. No, in that case, we're going to take a.

B

Roll call vote and the motion is to approve mr mantle. Yes, mr mcdonald, yes, mr lee, yes, ms.

B

Margison miss eldridge, mr ross. Yes and I vote yes as well. You're all approved you're welcome.

B

Straight run of seven o's: okay, I'm gonna see it again. I don't think we're. Does everyone agree.

B

We're still 20 minutes from my nine o'clock break so we'll we'll try before mr mcdonald.

D

um I received a letter from the planning board informing me that I'm in a putter on um item I.

D

Is that one that we're taking up next you're with it? Yes, regis court? Yes, the there's the.

B

Magic numbers three within 300 feet of the project. If you live with it, that's that's the radius of it.

D

I have not measured.

D

um Don't do it, however, in my opinion, I'm not in a butter because it's a block away.

H

um So we measure that radius from the parcel and then we.

H

Send out notices to all properties within 300 feet.

H

As the crow flies, so I'm.

B

Well, it's really it's really your! It's really your decision. It really.

B

It's it's it's up to the individual conscience, so is whether you feel.

B

You have any sort of a conflict or not that that's what the law says.

D

um uh I don't think I have a conflict, but I think I am in a butter, and so I will recuse on this.

D

All right, thank you. All right leave last one. Okay. Moving along to item, I.

B

The request of jeffrey and melissa foy owners for property located at 67 ridges court, whereas relief.

B

Is needed for the expansion of an existing main roof and front porch roof and addition of a new.

B

Roof over a side doorway which requires the following one variances from section 10.521,.

B

To allow a an eight foot front yard, with 30 feet is required to expand the existing front.

B

Porch b, a 13.5 foot front yard, where 30 feet is required to expand the main roof of the house.

B

C, a 13.5 foot front yard, where 30 feet is required for a new roof over an existing doorway.

B

And d: a 9.5 foot left side yard where 10 feet is required for a new roof over an existing doorway.

B

Two, it variance from section 10.321 to allow any non-conf a non-conforming billing or structure.

B

To be extended, reconstructed or enlarged, without conforming to the requirements of the ordinance.

B

Said properties located on assessor map, 207 is lot 59 and lies within the single residence b. Srb.

B

District who presents this project please thank you, mr chairman, members of the board tim phoenix.

L

From hopeful phoenix, gormley and roberts here in fort smith, I'm here tonight on behalf of jeff and.

L

Melissa foy jeff is with me in the front row also with me is john shagnan of ambit engineering, who's.

L

Prepared the plans before you, I feel a little bit of explanation is necessary. I'll, say in front of.

L

You and to mr foyer, I don't think I've acquitted myself very well on behalf of mr foy, with this.

L

App with this project, because I've discovered a couple of things that were not discovered when.

L

I was here last month, if you'll recall, we were here last month with the addition that was in.

L

The wetland buffer and also needed setback relief. There was a fair amount of neighborhood opposition.

L

And the board denied it that was not appealed. We are, I went for full disclosure. I want the.

L

Board to know that we will be coming back with a modified proposal for an addition, which is smaller.

L

Etc, so I just want you to know: that's coming what we've discovered after I submitted the the first.

L

Application you heard last month, and this one is that the setback requirement for this house is not.

L

30 feet: 30 feet is the underlying, but I missed, and anyone who who looked at it missed until I.

L

Met with peter a couple of weeks ago to look at it that there's a provision in the ordinance that.

L

Says if, if you've, if you've got homes next to you within 200 feet that are less than the required.

L

You can go to the average, so the real setback on this lot for the front setback is now 19 feet. The.

L

Only reason that's important today is because my relief requested 30 feet because they're raising.

L

They're raising the rear roof within 30 feet, but since that's 19 feet, we don't need the relief to.

L

Raise the roof, so the only thing we're here: I've submitted a withdrawal last week. The only thing.

L

We're here on, and it is peter did thank thank you. Peter note note this in his staff report, the only.

L

Thing we're here is for the front entry, which is being expanded slightly and we'll show you.

L

In a minute and a little eyebrow roof over a side door, it's a little hard to see there. That's the.

L

Plan that shows when we thought it was a 30-foot setback. I have submitted an updated plan. That's.

L

Not, but if you can go to the ones where I've got the circles on the elevations, keep going.

D

Keep going, uh I thought so this is the revised. Oh, that's the revised one. Let me check check this.

H

Okay, so in your packets that were originally submitted, I cleverly submitted copies of.

L

The elevations, with a circle of the area where, where we're looking for uh the relief today and.

L

Looking at the house from a side view the front entryway it goes out and then it goes down and.

L

Then it goes out again at a slant and basically we're filling that in so that it's a very slight.

L

Expansion of the front entryway roof and over the there's, a man door, a walk-in door on the.

L

L

There we go so um so number one is the one that we withdrawn. That was where we were raising that roof.

L

And I thought it was within the required setback, but it's not. You can see number two at the top.

L

That's the existing home and you can see how that that entry roof is. It got a little notch in it.

L

And they're going to extend that roof so that it goes all the way out to the to the pillar. And then.

L

Comes down so it's just that tiny little expansion of that rectangular area go to the next page.

L

And then on the side you can see where I've circled to nothing, there's a man door. There.

L

And down below I've circled it again, there's a little what I call an eyebrow roof over that.

L

Man door, which is a little bit too close to the front lot line, and a little bit too close like.

L

Not 13 points some odd feet where 19 would be required and the from the side setback is nine.

L

And a half where 10 feet were required, so that's all we're asking for tonight is just those two.

L

Very small changes to the house to dress it up a little and provide some some additional.

L

Cover from the weather, if you're going in and out of that door, originally there was another.

L

Eyebrow roof over the garage door on the left front, but that's been removed and we're not.

L

Going forward with that, so the the changes are extremely minor. For this ask and again one of.

L

The reasons I made my comment about the foys is that those fight features were on the one last.

L

Month, but I I didn't realize it, it never came up that those were add-ons as opposed to the.

L

Original house, so we didn't ask for them. So we've come back to clean that up and ask for these now.

L

So again, turning to the requirements for these tiny little variances.

L

Public interest and spirit of the ordinance clearly, these are not going to change the.

L

Essential character of the locality, the front roof is essentially a static only and the side roof. The.

L

Only the only one who's affected by it is the neighbor at 46, and I don't know if the board got.

L

It, but I do have a letter that john shagnon gave me that he found on on the public site website for.

L

Today, today, around five o'clock uh does: has the board seen this yeah okay, so this is 67. This is 49.

L

49 is it yeah 49 ridges court, which is the first neighbor um to the to the left as you're looking.

L

At the house, the one who would look out and see that eyebrow window and they have supported it so.

L

Granting these variances in a circumstance where, if you're, going to make these little additions, you.

L

Got to put them on the house, the house is where it is. The door is where it is the front door.

L

Is where it is so, there's no way to accomplish this without these minor variances they will not.

L

Alter the essential character of the locality and they will not threaten the public health.

L

Safety or welfare. Similarly, I think the new front edition looks better than than the the one that's.

L

On there now, I think it's more inviting dresses the house up a little bit has a little bit of.

L

Character and and whatnot and the eyebrow roof is just for protection, and the neighborhood would see.

L

It doesn't care it's further back from the front than the front corner or front face of the house.

L

So there is there's going to be a an increase in value of this house by these little touches.

L

So it's not going to diminish surrounding property values. Turning to the hardship, the.

L

Special conditions again, the house is where it is: it's it's within the required front. Setback.

L

uh Today, it's very close to the required side setback, so we need about a half a foot side.

L

Setback relief in about a two foot, uh a front setback relief for the eyebrow window. That's.

L

Number three and uh an area of you know I don't know one cubic foot or so for the expansion of the.

L

um The front entry roof, um so the special conditions are that the house is where it.

L

Is- and you have to put these uh little touches on it, where the doors are, there's no reason to apply.

L

This specific setback requirements under these circumstances, the front roof, is not.

L

Getting any closer than it is today, it's just being expanded ever so slightly the side, roof.

L

Is almost unnoticeable, so there's no reason to prevent it. The proposed use is reasonable, as it's.

L

Residential, finally, substantial justice is done if there's no benefit to the public that outweighs a.

L

Hardship to the applicant, this factor is satisfied. Clearly, these very minor additions to the house.

L

That require these very small variances is not going to affect the public in any way negative way.

L

Whatsoever, but denying it do not in turn, denies the foys of dressing up the front of their house.

L

And providing a little bit of weather protection and another architectural feature on the side.

L

That's all I got unless jeff has anything. He wants to add john no we're here to answer your questions.

L

Okay, thank you. Any questions from the boy miss marges, so I just it's a little bit confusing.

J

Using our various requests that you meant to include in the pat in the application we heard.

J

Last month, these features were on the proposed plans. They weren't significant enough that I.

L

Noticed it and- and I don't remember everybody telling me so we didn't ask for them- they were on.

L

The plans, but we didn't make the request. The only request we came for before you last time was that.

L

Addition that that you denied okay, thank you, it is confusing and I I'm the confuser, so I apologize.

B

Anybody anybody else, anybody else, anybody else. No, apparently not. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone.

B

President who'd like to speak in favor anyone else, president who's like to speak in favor.

B

Anybody on the zoom, no one on the synth, no okay, any anybody present wishing to speak.

B

In opposition, anybody in opposition, anybody wishing to speak too far against last call.

B

For speakers seeing nobody- and we have nobody on the zoom, so we're all clear so.

B

The public hearing is closed. What what's your pleasure board on these on these uh requests.

E

I actually am in favor of the requested variants, but I don't.

E

Want to do all the work, so I've been waiting for somebody else.

B

There's a frank statement.

B

Who feels it feels inclined to john 3 tonight? Yeah, we've done a very good job today. Come on paul.

B

Said that's a yes shrug. I think.

D

I don't like this board pressure.

B

Any anybody phil thank you. I'm gonna, you're gonna, you're gonna, make the motion and you can.

A

All help I will move that um that we approved this. Thank you. All we need is a second okay.

A

Mr lee, thank you, miss miss elder your motion, please, so granting variance would not become.

A

Counter being made to this house will not affect anybody, but this house, and they are minor changes.

A

um Granting the variants would observe the spirit of ordinance.

A

It would do substantial justice, there is nobody that is going to be harmed by this.

A

Change and the owner of the property will benefit to the degree that they'll be kept.

A

Out of the weather and have the aesthetic changes that they would like for their home.

A

um It certainly won't diminish the values of the surrounding properties. It may not increase them.

A

Greatly, but it is certainly not doing any harm to the properties. Literal enforcement of the.

A

Ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship for the owner and the variances that they are.

A

Asking are very minors very much like what exists at the house right now, and um you know if they.

A

Want to cover over their drawer, there is no way that they can have it without some infringement on.

A

The property, so, for those reasons I would approve, I would suggest we approve this petition. Thank you.

B

Mr lee, I concur when this elders motion I'm in full support and happy to second. Thank you. Thank.

B

You very much any further comment before we take the the most we take the rule, um so I just uh want.

J

To know for the record that these are for front yard and left yard setbacks, the left yard set back.

J

Of rounding error basically um and the primary front yard set burke, is definitely less.

J

Significant given the front yard averaging under the zoning ordinance, so these setback requirements.

J

Really are about overcrowding of properties, moving of light air storm water whatnot and therefore I.

J

Don't believe that there is any violation of the um the spirit and intent of the ordinance.

J

With this at variance application, thank you. Okay. Last last call for comments, if not we'll we'll.

B

Take the vote, mr mantle. Yes, mr mcdonald is recused, mr lee, yes,.

B

Miss margison, yes, miss eldridge. Yes, mr ross, yes and I vote yes as well. You're welcome.

B

This is a record. We have a clean slate of 7-0 votes, crazy.

B

There you go any all, that's left is someone to. Does someone want to make the uh what.

N

Child used to say the favorite motion of the evening yeah. I move that we adjourn.

B

Thank you, mr rossi, mr lee, okay and it's eight. What's the official time, 8 59 yeah.

D

Okay, this this little dude has a beer.