City of Portsmouth, New Hampshire Board of Adjustment, 16 Aug 2022

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: 8.16.2022 Board of Adjustment

Description

8.16.2022 Board of Adjustment

A

Good evening, everyone elway and welcome to the first.

A

Meeting of the board of adjustment for the month of august, excuse me: we have a.

A

Relatively what looks like a light agenda this evening? Let's hope that proves to be the case.

A

We have six members this evening and as everyone that constitutes a quorum, as everyone knows,.

A

If we have a question where there's only five voting members, I will go through this again.

A

But the rule is that we make an offer to the app whose ever the applicant is.

A

To postpone or proceed this evening, so that's entirely up to you so just in case any that.

A

Comes up this evening, just let me announce that right now, so you can be thinking about it.

A

The ground rules are pretty simple. We read the legal notice of what the issue.

A

Involves we ask for the applicant to present the case to the board using 15 minutes or less.

A

If more is needed, we ask the applicant to request an additional five minutes before they begin their.

A

Speech or presentation and then following that questions from the board, if any following that.

A

We have speakers who are in favor five minutes speakers who are opposed five minutes speakers.

A

Who are too far are against uh with no time limit at all other than and and if you've spoken earlier.

A

You can come up again, but we ask that people obviously be considerate of everybody. His time.

A

And speak to directly to the key points of the question of the question at issue before the.

A

Board so having said all that the first item on the agenda this evening is the approval of minutes.

A

For the meeting of july 19th last month, 2022. is there anyone who has a change, a correction or an.

A

Addition to the board, mr mantle, no, no! Yes, I have a change on page two, um the first full paragraph.

B

Ms margesson said the abutter pike industry submitted an option. I said motion.

B

And uh on page four, the first paragraph underneath discussion of the board at the very end, I say.

B

That she said the fact that the building was in the historic district, not just district.

B

And also was an extra purpose that the board needed to consider when it entertained a variance.

B

And that's all okay, thank you. Anybody else anything further or not. Oh, is there a motion.

A

To approve of the minutes, as amended by miss martinson's comments to clarify anybody, mr mr.

A

Mcdonald, thank you so much second who's got the second, mr, mr lee. Okay, thank you. Those.

A

In favor of the motion to approve with a sec with the uh amendments change, please say: aye.

A

Aye aye aye. Thank you all right. All done we'll. uh We do have a couple of items under old business.

A

This evening and the first one is a request to postpone, and it is for the property at 108.

A

Burkett street and I don't need to need, I don't think I need to read the whole edition, but it's.

A

With respect to a garage and the request is to postpone it, is there a motion from the board to.

A

That effect we'll make a motion to postpone until september. Thank you uh second to that.

A

Second, second, mr lee, thank you, mr mantle. Your your motion, please, um common requests.

C

Have no problem postponing until september. I agree thank thank you. Those in favor of postponing.

A

This item until september, please say: aye aye, all right, any opposed number. Thank you done all right.

A

Now the next item and the last item on the old business this evening uh comes under the.

A

Situation that I just mentioned a few minutes ago, where, if there are only five.

A

Voters the the applicant is given the opportunity to uh postpone- and this is the case here-.

A

And it's the request of jeffrey m and melissa foy owners for property located at 67 ridges court. So.

A

Excuse me is the the reason for that rule. Obviously, is that, regardless of.

A

The situation four of positive votes are required to pass a motion, and, if this not, if there's only.

A

Three people you've got to get four out of the five excuse me. If it's only five, you have to get.

A

Four out of the five, so uh does anyone have any any all the comments on this one? Okay,.

A

uh Would you would you introduce yourself and ex and explain the situation as to whether you want.

A

To proceed, please, yes, thank you, mr chairman. Members of the board, I'm tim phoenix from.

D

Hopeful phoenix, gormley and roberts here in portsmouth here with and on behalf of.

D

Jeff and melissa foy, who are seated in the front row also with me, is john shagnan who's.

D

Done the technical work robin valeri, a realtor who will speak and peter stanhope our appraiser.

D

Who should be on zoom and speak um I've conferred with my client while you were going through that.

D

And they prefer to go forward with five. Okay, very well, uh in that case, I'll, go ahead and read the.

A

Announcement and we'll proceed with the uh hearing. Okay, it reads as follows: the request of jeffrey m.

A

And melissa foy owners for property located at 67 bridges court, whereas relief is needed to.

A

Construct a 718 square foot garage edition with living space and deck above, which requires the.

A

Following one, a variance from section 10.521 to allow a 15.5 foot front yard, where 30 feet.

A

Is required two. It varies from section 10.3 to 1 to allow a non-conforming building or structure.

A

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

A

Said property is located on assessor map 207 lot 59 and is located within the single residence b.

A

Srb district and who again, who speaks for this uh proposal? Please thank you, mr chairman. Again.

D

uh Tim phoenix from hopeful phoenix, gorman roberts, I've already introduced my team.

D

Mr chairman, does the board uh prefer to deal with the other request for postponement? That's in the.

D

New business, before going forward with this, uh no, I think, and I think we'll we'll stick with.

A

The regular uh agenda this evening, thank you. Thank you. um Peter has up on the board the uh the site.

D

Plan this is the existing condition site plan um and you can see um the the house there. That's.

D

Sort of in the center of the screen is on the right side, as you're facing ridge's court.

D

um The lot is 16 500 square feet. It's a very end of ridge's court on the on.

D

The left as you're going down um and it has heart front fronts on little harbor as well.

D

There's a one and three quarter story uh home on it. You have uh renderings of those and photographs.

D

With a 1591 square foot, three bedroom three and a half bathroom cape cod style home there's also a.

D

Detached shed on the side on the site and a dock leading to into little harbor and two driveways.

D

On the property, most of the lot is in the 100 foot title buffer zone, a corner of the existing.

D

Home and one of the driveways is also in the title buffer zone, which means we will be going.

D

To the concom and planning board for conditional use, if you can go to the next page, peter.

D

So this is the proposal you can see at the bottom of added onto the back of the house or the side.

D

Of the house on the right side of there facing it is a 718 square foot. Addition on the first.

D

Floor, you have renderings from the architects, it shows there's going to be a two-car garage.

D

The owners have uh three cars um normally and sometimes an additional car when one of one or.

D

Both of their daughters are home um above that is going to be living space and deck space.

D

Towards the water uh and then above that, they're converting a new area into a master bedroom.

D

Suite so that's what they're doing it's pretty simple.

D

Right now, the existing home is 13.6 feet from the front lot line, so this is going to be an.

D

Addition that's about 15.8 feet, so a little more two feet set back from the front of the house.

D

If you read the staff report, you would note that back in about 20 years ago, a then owner.

D

Got a variance to put a front entry 8.1 feet and before that of a addition.

D

Onto the old dwelling of nine feet- and I ask you to keep that in mind what what would have been.

D

There, if that hadn't come down, because that is even closer yet to the lot line, because.

D

What this is coming down to, as you know, is a concern of some of the neighbors, notably the.

D

Two closest across the street that their views are being are lost and therefore their property.

D

Values are diminished which we uh heartily dispute, but it is something to to keep in mind um the the.

D

Proposal meets all other dimensional requirements, except expansion of a non-conforming building and.

D

The setback and, of course, if you're going to put an addition on a house, you have to put it.

D

On where the house already is, and what there is I've explained, what they're, adding they're.

D

Adding living spaces expanding a living room, um adding a deck with a trellis over it garage.

D

Down on the bottom floor and then a bedroom up above them, the only way that all works is, if you.

D

Make the addition connect to the house in a way that makes it work if you were to set the addition.

D

Back to the 30-foot requirement, then it doesn't work to expand that living space. It's it's! It's.

D

All off kilter, so that's that's the program um and unless you have any questions about what we're.

D

Doing I'll go right into the variance requests or requirements, seeing nothing I'll go forward.

D

So the first two, as I always do, is that the variances are not contrary to the public interest.

D

And the spirit of the ordinance is observed.

D

um I won't go through the whole thing, but the test under the case that I always cite is.

D

Will granting the variance unduly and to a marked degree, conflict with the ordinance such that it.

D

Violates the ordinance's basic zoning objectives, mere conflict with the ordinance is not enough.

D

And the case law in dealing with those two requirements comes down to will granting the.

D

Variance alter the essential character of the locality or will it threaten the public health.

D

Safety or welfare, if peter, if you can go to the tax map, this, I think, exhibit secretly or something.

D

And while I'm looking at this, I I assume you did get and receive and.

D

Have time to review the submission that we did yesterday with a cover letter from me.

D

And an opinion of our realtor and um peter stanhope, our appraiser is that accurate.

E

Yes, yes, thank you and apologize for the late notice. It just took some time to pull it all.

D

Together and I got it to you as soon as I as soon as I got it so the reason I'm asking I'm peter to.

D

Put up the site, the tax map, and you can see the lot there outlined in bluish green- is that on.

D

This tax map- there are numerous uh lots in this area that have buildings that are on small lots.

D

Are too close to the lot lines are too close under current zoning to the um the uh frontage etc? Also,.

D

Noteworthy is that virtually any lot along that has waterfront has homes behind it, whose homes are.

D

Views are blocked by the home in front of it. It's a common thing and, and our proposal and.

D

Our position with respect to the concerns of neighbors, who claim to lose views, is that the.

D

uh When you have a view across someone else's property- and you do not have a view easement, you.

D

Do not have a right to that view. In fact, council for one of the neighbors even admitted that.

D

So that means that the view is not may not always be there. So the value of the property.

D

Baked into the value of the property is the knowledge that that view will.

D

Not alway may not always be there um I'll have my experts expound expand upon that shortly. The.

D

Other thing to keep in mind- and this isn't a proposal- that's going to happen- is that.

D

Any current owner or farmer owner could have planted a vegetation that would block the view.

D

There's no intention to do that. The point is that that possibility is is included in the considering.

D

The value of someone else's property that has a view again that that view might might be lost.

D

So, turning back to those first two variance requirements, the um the addition will not alter.

D

The essential character of locality, as I mentioned 20 years ago or so variances, were granted to put.

D

A home about nine feet, away from the uh from the property, the street side, property line.

D

um There, and as I mentioned, there are numerous homes in the area that are large homes, small homes.

D

Some large lots, many small lots, many homes on very small lots that are close to property lines, so.

D

This lot, and this variance is within the character of the locality and does not alter it.

D

For similarly, it's not going to threaten the public health, safety or welfare, because it's.

D

Going to be a two code edition, it's going to allow the owner to get a better use of their property.

D

As they want to use it, it's it's expensive property. As you know, the waterfront property.

D

Is in portsmouth and given those facts, um neither the public health, safety or welfare is threatened.

D

By a variance which puts an addition, two feet behind the house- that's already there, nor will it.

D

Alter the essential character of the locality for the reasons I've stated the third requirement.

D

That I usually go through is the diminishment of property values. I'm going to skip that one for.

D

Right now, and let my other than what I've said, let my experts deal with it. I've mentioned a.

D

Couple of issues with respect to that already. The fourth is that the denial of the variances results.

D

In an unnecessary hardship and again remembering that we meet all of the dimensional requirements,.

D

Of the ordinance except uh the setback, which we really can't change because that's where the.

D

The addition needs to go to to connect to the existing living space the way they want it to.

D

So the fact that half the property approximately is within the 100 foot, wetland setback and the.

D

House is already there create special conditions. The second prong of the hardship test is that.

D

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

D

Its application in this instance, um why do we have setback requirements? It's to prevent overcrowding.

D

And overburdening of land to improve sight lines for pedestrians and motorists ensure adequate air.

D

Light and air circulation and sufficient area for storm water treatment. Well, as I mentioned.

D

At the outset, this lot is 16 500 feet so meets the requirement. There's plenty of area for storm water.

D

Management, it's at the end of a street there's nothing between it and the the water. So there.

D

You can see past it, pedestrians and motorists who are driving up and down the street are coming out.

D

Of driveways can see past past it. No one is negatively affected by air and light. So there.

D

Is just no reason to apply the strict requirements for a 30-foot setback for this edition. The third.

D

Prong of the hardship test is that the proposed use is reasonable. um Again, that's case. Law is if.

D

The use is permitted, then it's deemed reasonable. um It's a residential use on a residential lot.

D

This area, um the the zone, it's in calls for approximately one to three uh homes per acre. This.

D

Would come in at about two and a half homes per acre, given its size on a 16, 000 square foot lot.

D

And then, finally, substantial justice will be done by granting the variance and as I always.

D

Do the test is, if there's no benefit to the public that outweighs the hardship to the applicant? This.

D

Factor is satisfied any loss to the applicant not outweighed by a gain to the general public.

D

Not necessarily the neighbors, the immediate abutters, but the general public is an injustice.

D

I've cited some constitutional law in here and I'll read part of it.

D

No, no part of a man's property shall be taken or applied for public uses without his consent.

D

Or that of the representative body of the people, the property in the constitutional sense, has been.

D

Interpreted to mean not the tangible property, but the right to possess use, enjoy and dispose of it.

D

And that's what we're asking for here we're asking for the reasonable right to possess you and use.

D

Our property, by expanding the size of the of the house in a relatively modest fashion, at the end.

D

Of a street where um it is going to take away some views of the two closest neighbors, but not all of.

D

The views you will probably see some renderings by those neighbors and I ask you to keep in mind that.

D

Those renderings are not necessarily accurate. It depends on where you're taking the photograph from.

D

I'll point out that some of the photograph that I've seen, which has a red outline, I don't know.

D

If that outlines accurate, they haven't been on the property that I know of, and the photograph doesn't.

D

Take the whole expansive view, so, um balancing the owner's property rights to develop their property.

D

Against the rights of people who claim of you who don't have an easement um I'd like you to consider.

D

The fact that a denial means that the owner's property is is less valuable, in other words,.

D

Granting the rights of someone who's claiming a view and loss loss of a view and therefore loss.

D

Of value, um if, if that is true, then the owner of this property loses value, because he can't.

D

Develop it properly the way they want, so we don't believe there's any harm to the general public.

D

Views are maintained if people walk down the street or drive down the street.

D

Partial views are maintained from the homes of the two neighbors across the street, but.

D

So they are fairly treated and you will hear testimony from experts to the effect that their.

D

Property values are not diminished, uh given those facts uh to do not to grant the variance.

D

Is fair and just and reasonable, but to deny it robs the the foy family of the.

D

Ability to reasonably use their property again, I intentionally left out any further comment about.

D

Diminishing property values, because I have the two people who are going to speak to it. I don't.

D

Know if that's part of my 15 minutes or par part of their five minutes afterward, um I don't.

D

Know what the board's pleasure is: I'm probably pretty close to 15 minutes peter two minutes.

D

And 10 seconds all right, so we're gonna, they're gonna, probably take five minutes each should I.

D

Put them on and and go forward as as at people speaking in favor. um Or do you want to wait and.

D

Hear from others, what's what's the pleasure of the board, do you want to hear it now or or later.

A

Because I don't think it makes much difference, no, I prefer to hear it. Okay. First, I'm going to ask.

D

Robin valerie to speak, and then do you have do you know if peter stanhope's on yes, okay, as soon as as.

D

Soon, as she is done, um if you can uh let peter in and he will comment, it should be pretty quick.

D

Any questions of me before we do that. I just have a quick question.

B

Attorney phoenix the um how much of the project is within the title buffer.

E

B

It'll be a hundred percent yeah, the new yeah. The new edition is in.

D

However, we are removing um existing impervious surface. That's would go around this building.

D

We're putting this building on a location where it's already paved it's already in purpose,.

D

Actually impervious surface is particularly in the buffer is improving, okay and of the existing house.

B

Is any of that in the buffer zone, a very small corner, okay, you can. Can. I can't. I can't see well.

B

I'm looking at existing conditions, I can't quite tell.

A

I don't know what that striped area is, but.

B

Thank you all right, any anything else before I turn my others loose, apparently not. Thank you.

F

Hello, I'm robin valeri from keller williams, coastal realty.

F

And I helped the foyes buy the property last year. I just want to point out a few things.

F

And again he actually addressed a lot of it, but a couple things that I thought was that the up the.

F

Opposition, the neighbors stated that one of the lots would lose over a million dollars in value.

F

I we submitted some comps. I uh it just there's no way uh we did an amortization.

F

Even with the extra two parcels of land that do not have water views, her property would be valued.

F

And again, this is just an assessment. I have never been inside her home at 1.3, the neighbor's home.

F

Two houses up granted- it was two years ago went for 1.135.

F

That was uh 34 regis courts on the same side less than two years approximately two years ago,.

F

The biggest things that popped for me was that one of the neighbors who was bringing this forth.

F

Has lived there for a very long time. That's great wonderful, she's, seen this neighborhood grow at any.

F

Time in the over 50 years that she's lived here and the property was on the market for 85 days.

F

She could have purchased or asked for from any of the previous owners an easement, a.

F

Water view easement right then there that would have. We would not be here she. She never did.

F

The other thing is that just because- and we all know this just because you can see the water.

F

Doesn't mean you have the right to that water view the taxes kind of bring that to light, for example,.

F

The foyes- and this is an approximate pay about 26 000 a year in what in taxes and that's because.

F

They have a water view. uh The neighbor and again this is approximate, is about 11 000.. Sorry, oh.

F

Sorry so I mean the taxes alone kind of tell you that the foyes are actually paying for.

F

Their water view and they they're they're, loving it. It's got a dock. It's beautiful.

F

And the way that it looked to me with the renderings again, I'm not an engineer, but even if.

F

With it being designed, it looked to me as if you, if you stepped out on and I'm bringing the.

F

The neighbor that brought this forth her deck if you went to the side closest to the water.

F

You would be able to see the water, it doesn't look like it's a full blockage, which is what.

F

The other realtor had stated that it was that it was a full blockage and that it would result in.

F

You know a large number loss over a million dollars and then the other piece that I thought.

F

Was that there's there's no market evidence to suggest that a partial loss of a water view.

F

Would result in a huge diminution of value? It just doesn't make sense to me how you know your view is.

F

Partially blocked and you lose a million dollars when, in theory, if I was to put this house on the.

F

Market never having been in her property. Obviously um I would probably based off of what I've seen I.

F

Would list it at 1.3 max the house that sold a few houses, I believe two or three houses up from her.

F

Was completely redone in 2002 and I looked at the pictures all hardwood floors, new kitchens.

F

They stated this was back in 2002, new electrical new kitchen, new baths, new plumbing new heating.

F

And an addition of a family room that was just two years ago sold for 1.1 the 40s paid 2.65.

F

So you know to add: this on is not going to hurt anyone's property value. In fact, I think the.

F

Biggest thing is that it could add to the entire neighborhood's value, because if one house goes up.

F

You know the law is typically unless your house is not well cared for, they all go up.

F

And the other part that the um attorney made a valid point and they would never do this.

F

But they could plant our varieties and block everyone they're not looking to do that. We're not.

F

That's not their point, nothing like that, but they could do that and then.

F

And our providers go pretty tall, they could block you, they don't want to do that.

F

And the other part, if if when the other screen was up on the right hand, side well.

F

If you're, looking at the house, if you're standing in front of it and the water.

F

Is here, on the left hand, side there is a public walkway right to the beach anybody.

F

Any neighbor anybody could literally go. You know up right down and you're on the beach. So.

F

It's not really blocking anyone's view. Anyone can utilize that um and that's pretty much my.

F

My professional opinion, thank you. Is there any any questions on the board at this point.

A

Any questions nope. Thank you very much. I just have a quick question. Oh I'm, sorry, it's miss.

B

Madison, so the the beach that you're talking about, I took a walk down there and there's a.

B

Dock for a boat- yes, is that part of the beach or is it I believe it's the for you own. It.

F

It is the public speech is that it doesn't have a gun. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions.

A

Anybody else, no, I have a question so yeah. We had a situation a couple of years ago, where it.

G

Involved a view, and I contacted a forensic uh appraisal firm in minnesota, that specializes in.

G

Condemnation for power lines and that sort of thing it's their opinion, that the value of a.

G

View of a property is anywhere from five to thirty percent of the value. So what would you say to that.

F

So five to thirty percent of the value correct that seems reasonable. I don't see, I don't think.

F

That's wrong, I think, but if you're talking, even if we marketed uh the neighbors property.

F

At 1.5 I mean I can't quickly do the math, but it's not a million dollar loss of view.

F

So, and this wouldn't be a full blockage, this would be based on the renderings and drawings.

F

That I saw it's a partial view, so it looks like half the house would lose the view and then.

F

Obviously, the other side, where you walk out onto the porch or upstairs you'd, be able to.

F

See the water, the other thing too, is half the day again, I'm not a water expert, but.

F

It's wet flat land, it's nothing that pretty to look at because the tide pulls all it out and it's.

F

F

No just yeah anybody just occurred to me, and I I may have missed this, but.

B

So the subject lot has a water view and is, and is taxed for that yes correct, and what about lots.

B

62 and 63., we I'm not certain which lot that is, is that the cross, the street across the street.

F

So it's approximately and I don't have the exact number, but it's about eleven thousand dollars, but.

B

You don't know if they're, if they're, they have a ward of view added to their taxes. I do not.

F

But I would assume based off of 11 and 26, that they're it mar it is not marketed.

F

Neither property of those that you just stated can be marketed with water view. Easements.

B

But they can have be taxed with the water view yeah. So thank you. Okay. I can answer that question.

H

Or I can give you an answer as I believe it? No, no. No, mr phoenix he's got the lead here. Okay,.

D

I told him to go up and answer it. I have an answer after peter speaks all right.

A

Okay, who's. You who's your next speaker, okay,.

A

Coming in on soon supposedly.

I

There you go okay; here, we go go ahead good evening. My name is peter stanhope.

J

I am a certified general appraiser number 31 in the state of new hampshire.

J

I have practiced real estate appraisal in the seacoast, but nationally as well. For the last.

J

40 years, I have significant experience in the question of view. More specifically, I was an.

J

Expert in the northern pass matter and have been in expert in a case very similar to the subject.

J

Where a party in fact bought a property assuming they had a view only to find that a large building.

J

Was built blocking their view and that was followed by significant litigation, because.

J

Of the fact that it was represented, they had view value. In this case, I was retained more.

J

Specifically to investigate, if there it was probable, there would be demonition in value.

J

For a garage addition to the floyd property on bridge creek court.

J

And in that process I did took a series of steps, um one of the documents you will see this.

J

Evening is the ambit engineering plan. I think it's helpful in examining that to understand the change.

J

In view, there is a series of red arrows that affect the two properties immediate to the subject.

J

Across the street- and you see that their views in fact extend all the way to the end of ridge, court.

J

So we are not talking about a total loss of view. We are in fact looking at.

J

The possibility of a partial loss in view that said, let's talk briefly about the view itself.

J

The view itself excellent, that that is the example. uh The view itself in.

J

The photographs that have been provided to the zba uh show this beautiful water view.

J

Unfortunately, this report was written over the weekend and I did not have the title. uh Mapping.

J

Done until late this afternoon- and I do not have it with me here- but the fact of the matter is a.

J

Half of the time we are looking at mud flats between the shoreline on this side over to.

J

Lady eye, so we're not talking about some uniquely special view here going forward. I interviewed a.

J

Whole series of realtors appraisers and municipal assessors over the question of does an unowned.

J

Uneased view contribute value to a property. Now I heard earlier, a member of the cba say that they.

J

Had spoken to someone who had found that views contributed somewhere in a up to a maximum of.

J

30 percent that finding is reasonable for owned views as a premium to a property as compared to.

J

A property without views and the the range is actually published nationally between 1 and 30.

J

And so the question here is: what does these properties and questions.

J

Legal description identify in their bundle of rights, and there are two key.

J

Documents for your consideration: what is the definition of market value we're talking about the.

J

Change in market value should it occur if you go forward and approve the applicant's appeal to you.

J

Market values definition is very clear: it assumes that the buyer is well informed and educated.

J

To what they're buying now, my report includes descriptions of various just views that are owned.

J

And those are the ones who find this premium of between one and thirty percent and they're they're.

J

They're kind of interesting from the standpoint they're. The first is what we call the peekaboo.

J

View which is basically that sliver of a view which portsmouth frequently has between two other.

J

Properties between them and the water or possibly the park. The second is the partial view, which is.

J

The interrupted view and it could be interrupted by foliage or other buildings and again.

J

This is an owned view that has some premium of value and, of course, the panoramic view.

J

Which is that classic, waterfront or mountaintop view unobstructed no risk factor whatsoever.

J

What we all own is a territorial view. We can all stand in our front yard and look around and see.

J

Just as the two of butters can across my neighbor's property, I can look out my window.

J

Right here in florida, or I can see my neighbor's palm tree, the fact of the matter is, I am not.

J

Protected from that view being interrupted, and so we we as appraisers and to realtors as well.

J

Are confronted, will how do we present a property that has a territorial view.

J

To the market and as an appraiser, can I give it a contribution to value.

J

When, in fact, that value can erode, it can erode, naturally, through the growth of the landscape,.

J

It can be blocked, it's been pointed out already and when I own, when I lived on richard's half, uh I.

J

Put in our bodies to create privacy, they were, as I recall, 16 feet high, and I think I did not point.

J

Out I've I lived in this neighborhood, I lived on the corner of fernal and newcastle I've appraised.

J

A number of properties, so I'm very comfortable how the market reacts to this particular neighborhood.

J

This is a question about a territorial view and what's fascinating here is the abutters.

J

Are protected because their view continues down ridge court to over map 20760, where you can look.

J

Out and see at high tide, water and at low tide, the mud, flats and what's taken away by the granting of.

J

An approval here is a very modest part of that greater view and that sliver of land on 207.60.

J

Has little or no potential of being lost because it is such a sliver? Zoning prohibits its.

J

Development there is some natural foliage on it at this point, but the likelihood is no one who owns.

J

That is going to intentionally landscape it to block their view. So what we're faced with here is.

J

How does the market treat this situation discussing with assessors appraisers and realtors.

J

There's always this question of well, I can see something from the property. I think in many cases.

J

There is not the full discussion of a territorial view and the risk inherent in it.

J

And, as a consequence, any contribution to value is minimal. If any, and I would suggest.

J

Since there has been no loss of view in the case of the granting of this particular.

J

uh Application before you I have concluded, there is no demonition in value, none whatsoever. The.

J

Realtor just pointed out a fact that is so often the case as property values increase.

J

In a neighborhood adjoining properties benefit by a increase in value as well. Finally, I was asked to.

J

Form an opinion as to the applicant's realtor opinion on demonition and value.

J

More specifically that the subject property, with its current view, was worth 2.3 million dollars. I.

J

Examining sales throughout the neighborhood find no evidence that that number.

J

Has any validity, additionally, the probability of a one million dollar loss, I'm assuming that realtor.

J

Was not aware that there was a view preserved and the majority of it still is available to.

J

These properties, but even if you go back to that range of owned views of one percent to 30 percent.

J

And take the 2 million three: you can't get to a million dollar loss in view.

J

So I do not find that opinion reliable, and so that is my conclusion I'll entertain questions.

J

I wish I could have been there this week, but a business keeps me out of town.

A

Questions from the board from the speaker. No, no! No thank thank you very much. You're welcome.

D

uh Thank you, mr chairman, members of the board I've concluded unless uh jeff wants to.

D

Answer him his margins questions would now be the time or do you want to wait until ms, not.

A

You would you like quite your question answered now: that'll, be fine thanks, yeah yeah! Please do.

H

Good evening I'm jeff foye the owner, along with my wife, melissa of 67 ridge's court. uh You asked.

H

A question about was the current tax assessment reflective of the view, which is a good question.

H

I was doing research in the in the neighborhood of the assessed land values right because.

H

We're looking at the uh uh when you're talking about views you're looking at the land versus the.

H

The full assessment and um the uh mr thompson's assessment for her land uh for .48 acres is uh 529.

H

900, which, on a per square foot basis, is actually the small, the lowest um assessment for land.

H

For any property on ridge's court, in addition, uh she has two, uh at least according to the tax maps.

H

Two additional parcels: totaling 0.12 acres, 0.12 acres, each and their assessments of those two.

H

Pieces of land are 18 500., uh so for a total of 0.72 acres, uh the total is just under 567 000.

H

um But in comparison to much smaller lots that are on the street, uh which are almost which are not.

H

Far, underneath that it would suggest to me that there isn't a uh a view assessment, that's going on.

H

In the town today, okay, I was actually looking for an actual verification that there was a water view.

B

Tax assessment on those two properties: no, no there's not actual.

H

I know it yeah, I don't. I don't see that. So that's that's all I am when you did your.

C

Research, did you just go off the tax maps online, or did you pay a visit to.

C

The assessor roseanne lentz to get an explanation of what's on the tax map on the tax card.

H

um I looked at the total figures. I did not go into the office, I did it online through the vision.

H

Website that gives that information, whether or not they're assessed for a water view.

C

You you don't know that correct. I only know that the total assessment is- and I know that that the.

H

Number is uh not reflective of anything that was substantial. Okay. Thank you. Okay! Thank you. Okay,.

D

That's all I have other than any questions you may have and possible rebuttal.

A

Any questions at this point no apparently not thank you.

A

Are the other people present who would like to speak in favor of this proposal? Anyone.

A

President who'd like to speak in favor, mr stith, on the zoom anybody.

A

No one has raised their hand on the zoom call all right. Thank you, apparently not.

A

Is there anyone president who'd like to speak in opposition to this proposal? Please come up.

A

And give us your name and address if you would please.

K

uh Good evening uh my name is darcy piser, I'm an attorney with german law office in portsmouth.

A

You may want to pull a mic and speak right. Sorry, very, very directional.

A

Thank you pull it pull it right now and speak right into the end of it. Yeah.

K

Everyone else has been a little taller than me, so I have to apologize. um I'm from I'm darcy pizer.

K

I'm from durban law office in portsmouth, uh the law office is located at 144 washington street.

K

And I represent, I'm speaking on behalf of kathleen thompson from 56 bridges, court.

K

Mrs thompson, along with many of the other residents of regis court, object to the proposed.

K

Construction on the basis that it fails most, if not all, of the criteria for the reasons outlined.

K

In the letter which I previously submitted on july 19th, mrs thompson has lived at this property since.

K

1976, it's been in her husband's family since 1930. the property holds immense sentimental value for.

K

Mrs thompson, it's where she raised her children and it's where she currently has expansive views.

K

Of little harbor, and so before I get to the diminution and value factor, I'd like to first.

K

Speak to the unnecessary hardship factor so as a first basis for her objection to the proposal.

K

There is clearly no unnecessary hardship proven by the foies application. The property is bounded by.

K

Water, but does not distinguish it from the surrounding properties, which are similarly.

K

Situated in the present instance, there is a fair and substantial relationship between the purpose.

K

Of the front yard setback restriction and its application to the property, the front yard.

K

Setback restriction is intended to protect the light air and space of the abutting properties.

K

Building a significantly sized structure in the location proposed will have a hugely detrimental.

K

Effect on the thompson's property in this respect, moreover, it's important to.

K

Highlight that the relief to build a garage on the property was already granted in 2002.

K

That space was ultimately converted to living space and is not now utilized as a garage.

K

Which is thus manufacturing the stated need now to create a similar structure.

K

The foys property already boasts two driveways one garage: the additional converted garage space.

K

And ample room to enjoy their views of little harbor, including a wraparound court porch on the.

K

South facing side, so in the present instance, the foys could comply with the ordinance, but instead.

K

They have chosen chosen a structure that is more aesthetically, appealing to them at the expense of.

K

Mrs thompson and the abutters on ridge's court, um while we're not advocating for it the reality.

K

Is that the proposed structure could be moved back so that it creates less of an obstruction? I think.

K

It's worth reiterating that 100 of the proposed structure lies within the wetlands setback and.

K

So the structure could be situated so that it complies with the 30-foot setback, ordinance.

K

With an equal effect to the buffer, without unnecessary hardship to the foies.

K

And so now, turning to the factor of the diminution in value, I think experts may disagree as to.

K

The substantialness of the diminution valley, which the structure will cause to.

K

Miss thompson's property, but it can't be denied that the view will not be negatively affected.

K

By the proposed construction and mr stiff, if you could, please go to exhibit two of.

K

The supplemental materials which were submitted yesterday, which shows.

K

The sight lines from mrs foys I mean mrs thompson's property. Excuse me.

I

This one, uh let's see, I think it's one below that one. Yes, thank you very much.

K

So obviously, supplemental materials to the voice application were submitted at the end.

K

Of the day yesterday, which included contrary opinions to that of miss goodwin, a realtor with.

K

Keller williams, who could not be present tonight with regard to the diminution and value factor.

K

Ms goodwin's opinion was submitted as part of our initial objection and uh I should have said.

K

Before that, I'd like to incorporate all of the material submitted in july with.

K

Hereby reference so the foie's initial application didn't discuss in depth the diminution and value.

K

Factor with regard to the surrounding properties, I believe that there was four sentences on it.

K

And so now they have had a month to compile evidence that their planned edition will not.

K

Reduce the value of surrounding properties, and unsurprisingly, they now produce such evidence.

K

Which we have not had an opportunity to review in depth. But I'd like to say that the submitted.

K

Opinions of the stanhope group and miss valeri and ms goodwin's it's worth repeating that they are.

K

Competing expert opinions regarding the reduction in value to ms thompson's property caused by the.

K

Proposed construction, um however, the the uh a better view shed markup submitted by the foyes.

K

With the voice, supplemental materials yesterday shows the existing and proposed view lines from.

K

Mrs thompson's property and as mr stanhope's report states, not all views are created equal.

K

And it's hard to believe that a reduction in sight lines as significant as what is shown here.

K

Would not would have no detrimental effect on surrounding property values.

K

Chiefly mrs thompson's, so for the foregoing reasons, we would respectfully request that you.

K

Deny the variance relief sought tonight. Thank you other questions from the board. At this point. No.

A

Mr lee, I'm not sure if you've seen the photograph with what I assume is the edition drawn in in red.

G

Yes, I've seen that I have okay, so that that reports, I guess, a view from your client's property.

G

Correct if you walk, and so that's that's the view from there if you walk just for.

G

Example, 10 feet down the street. Would you be looking at a different view, then.

G

Down down the street toward the end of the street to dead end street, yes yeah, you would be seeing.

K

More of the view of little harbor, if you walked 10 feet down the street, I believe that photo was.

K

Taken probably dead center from the um from mrs thompson's front porch. Thank you, okay. Thank you.

A

Anything else no apparently they're, not okay,.

A

Is there anyone else would like to speak in opposition? Please come up.

L

Can I hand this to you all.

C

L

So hello, I am robin hackett from ridges court and I'm here to speak against the.

L

Granting of the variances requested by the foys that document that's going around.

L

Is the letter that I'm about to read with wet signatures? I originally wrote the letter and.

L

Collected electronic signatures and that's the same letter signed you know in uh in inc.

L

Excuse me just just for clarity: you're at 46 registers, I'm at 46, regis court.

L

Thank you right across the street from the foye's place and next door to kathy thompson.

L

So I'm going to read this letter co-authored by me and marta. My neighbor are on the other side.

L

And then I'm going to make a few points that reflect my evolving understanding of the situation.

L

You know over the last month so the letter which is signed by, however many people you see there.

L

Is reads thusly? uh We the undersigned, respectfully request that you deny the application of melissa.

L

And jeff foy for variances to allow them to build a 718 foot square foot garage, topped.

L

By living space and a deck, we have no feelings toward our new neighbors other than welcoming.

L

The neighborhood regis court is beautiful and friendly, even the mud. We welcome the foyes to.

L

Work with us in stewarding, the community that we enjoy, but the prefoy's proposed addition.

L

Negatively impacts our enjoyment of our individual properties, including views of the water from some.

L

Of our porches and from the street for neighbors and passers-by, of which there are a great number.

L

Beyond the negative impacts on us, we're aware that setbacks and regulations about lot coverage.

L

Are in place for reasons related to the public good, including aesthetic and ecological impacts,.

L

We are in support of such protections. Our neighborhood is on a sensitive waterway.

L

It's on an estuary which is a nursery to the ocean and impacted by changes to runoff.

L

It supports eelgrass, which is protected across the region.

L

Regulations based on best practices for the environment and the social welfare of.

L

A community exists for reasons and they're worth adhering to about hardships. The lot at 67 ridges.

L

About hardships, the lot at 67 ridges court occasions, we note that our neighbors ask.

L

For variances to build a garage which they already have, indeed, the former owners built a garage which.

L

They never used as such, but rather finished his living space. Is it a greater hardship to return.

L

A garage to garage use than to construct a new building. Our new neighbors also ask for.

L

Variants to add a porch to the top of the new garage building, yet they have a porch with off.

L

Which offers a broad view of the water? Is it a hardship of the land not to have two porches.

L

Our neighbors request a variance to add living space to the top of the garage as well. However,.

L

Their property is not judged able to support two buildings or an extended building positioned in.

L

The way they describe and simultaneously rema maintain environmentally protective setbacks.

L

Is it a hardship not to be able to add dwelling space into setbacks? Perhaps it is, but were we.

L

All to add dwelling space into setbacks, we would further overcrowd and aesthetically diminish an.

L

Already densely populated neighborhood and damage protected waterways. Moreover, we wonder if the.

L

Hardship associated with building a conforming addition is that it would block the foie's view.

L

Our variances, in order when their impact is to protect the view of a property owner at.

L

The expense of views enjoyed by conforming properties. Thank you and this letter, which I.

L

Draft code co-authored with marta, it was signed by all the people that you sign there, since I.

L

Wrote that letter I you know my understanding- has evolved a little bit. They have a few extra points.

L

Regarding property values in particular, I note the logic of the argument that.

L

The proposed addition will increase, rather than decrease my property values for sales purposes.

L

Sales prices are based on comps, as we all know which go up as houses in the neighborhood build.

L

Additions or get larger right, but this logic considers sales values at the expense of use, value.

L

I do not want to help sell my house, I want to live in it and have my family continue.

L

To enjoy it and the variances as they're written impinge on my ability to do that.

L

The increase in property values alone impinges on my ability to continue to enjoy my property. My.

L

Property values go up. My taxes go up, portsmouth becomes increasingly a place where teachers.

L

And nurses and firemen can't afford to live, and that is not in the best interests of the public.

L

Also, I note that people are talking about two properties that who, where their their view, has.

L

Impacted mine and kathy thompson's: that's not accurate. There are actually four properties.

L

Whose views from their porches and, in my case the bathroom and the front room and the bedroom.

L

Are substantially diminished if not completely closed off? There are four four properties. My.

L

Family's kathy thompson's, family, martin, warren's, family and the gorgeous and and um parent family.

L

As well, there's four houses on ridge's court that have views of the water that will be.

L

Partially or entirely gone as a result of this addition.

L

Finally, about the question of hardship, I would like to know the difference between disappointment.

L

And hardship, it may be disappointing not to be able to build an addition. How and where you want.

L

But not every piece of land can support every kind. Every placement and every kind of addition.

L

This is a matter of fact: it's also a matter, a product of ordinances and rules that we agree.

L

Collectively are worth maintaining, that's that's all I have um thank you very much. I had questions.

A

On the board, no thank thank you very much. Oh so um I didn't say that all the four properties that.

L

Will be impacted by this are um are owned by signatures of the letter.

L

um That you have so 100 of the people who will be impacted are opposed to this. Thank you.

A

Are there other speakers who wish to speak in opposition? Please? Yes, please come up.

M

Good evening my name is mark hep. I live at 28, ridges court.

M

um Caddy corner up the street from the 67 richest court and I'd like to address a few issues.

M

One I just want to talk in general about mud. I've lived in tucker's cove on waterfront property.

M

We've owned 393 newcastle avenue I own 390, newcastle avenue I own 28 ridge's.

M

Court, when the tide goes out around here and the mud is there, the birds come in.

M

Nature comes in it's a fascinating natural place, so it's not just a matter of a water view also.

M

For almost four months out of the year, the sun rises over there. It's not just water view. It's the.

M

Morning, sunrise and the low horizon in the winter, with all the reds, it's beautiful. This particular.

M

Request for a variance puts a 30 foot high three-story building smacked down in the middle of.

M

The setback and why they can find a creative way to build their addition.

M

Without encroaching on the setback, when you look at that picture of the existing house,.

M

The prior owners in 2002 very respectfully kept their addition, angled off of the title setback.

M

And the main edition off of any other dimensional setback, certainly a creative architect, could.

M

Find a way with all the land that they have to build this without encroaching on the setback.

M

I have one hand out for you.

C

I'll pass them down, let me go.

M

Actually wasn't tilt just let us let's pass these off, so we can follow you, okay, on the sheet.

A

M

This is just the markup of the drawing that was submitted late yesterday, which.

M

I only really saw today, which is the kind of view shed from.

M

46 ridges court, what's interesting in all the drawings have been submitted by the applicant.

M

And while we're only talking about a dimensional setback of the front.

M

That setback line is missing off all the drawings. You would think that would be a highlight. You.

M

Should at least see what that 30-foot setback looks like, and that's shown there in red.

M

If, in fact, they complied with the setback requirements, you can see the view shed from.

M

46 ridges court would almost not change. It's only changing significantly because they're.

M

Pulling this building very close to the road, we don't want ridge's court to look like hotel row.

M

Down in the downtown portsmouth, with a 30-foot high building so close to the roadway.

M

And as far as all the discussion regarding didn't someone buy a view, easement.

M

If you knew- and we do know that all of that land is in the 100-foot.

M

Tidal buffer plus, you have the protection of a dimensional setback.

M

You wouldn't think you would need that who would come and build.

M

Such a large structure and block everyone's view.

M

By not complying with the rules, so I'm simply asking that the board.

M

Deny this request and have them meet the dimensional setbacks. Thank you.

M

Thank you any questions from the board at this point, apparently not thank you.

A

Is there anyone else wishing to speak in opposition to this.

A

Proposal anybody else in opposition come up if you, if you want to please.

N

See how do I adjust this? Yes, pull that down? Yes, yes, thank you. Can you hear me? Yes,.

N

Okay, good evening to the board of adjustment members.

N

I am kathleen y thompson and I reside at 56 ridges court located in portsmouth new hampshire, and I.

N

Have owned this property for the past 45 years, my home at 56 ridges court is located directly across.

N

From the 67 ridges court, the foyes residents, who are requesting a variance, I was first made.

N

Aware of the request for the variance in person by mister. Excuse me, mr foy, on july, 4th 2022.

N

My property has been in the thompson family for nearly 100 years and in my name and family for.

N

The past 45 years, this variance will, without a doubt, adversely affect my property value.

N

In grand water views of salter creek and the back channel other homeowners on ridge's court will.

N

Also be directly affected by this variance, my home considerably more than that of any of my neighbors.

N

The variance rules for variants are not met and will certainly cause a hardship.

N

And significant change to property values and quality of the life to those affected.

N

The board must see long-term effects when granting variances and that will obscure or eliminate.

N

Water views and landscapes in portsmouth once extensive water view on ridge's court.

N

Is gone for the present enjoyment of our local neighborhood, it will be gone forever and ever and.

N

Also for the future generations again, I kathleen y thompson of 56 ridges court new hampshire believe.

N

That variance rules have not been met and the board of adjustment will deny the variance.

N

After closely examining the affected homeowners, real concern, my attorney filed documents and those.

N

Presented here this evening, thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Any any questions on from.

A

The board at this no thank you very much other other speakers in opposition. Please anyone else.

N

Good evening my name is marta rubinick. I live at forty ridges court with my husband warren wilson.

E

This is just very brief and from the heart, we're very.

E

Grateful to live in portsmouth, the serenity of this town draws many to want to live here as well.

E

The particular character and camaraderie of ridge's court are worth preserving. Those of us.

E

Most directly affected by the proposed building plan will detract from our beautiful views and.

E

Quality of life, and so we strongly oppose the granting of these variances for the foys.

E

Others, though, less impacted are also sympathetic to this situation in this world of increasing.

E

Troubles and challenges. We sincerely hope that this little corner will be protected.

E

Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else any questions. No other speakers please. Yes, please. Please come up.

N

Good evening I'm nancy andrews, I live at 161 sagmore avenue in portsmouth and.

N

I've spent a good number of hours on ridge's court visiting with my friend kathy thompson.

N

I just want to point out that, as a member of the general public, I feel that I'm really harmed when.

N

You start taking a south end property that is, is placed in a very quaint and beautiful.

N

Community and you start adding huge pieces of buildings set very close to streets.

N

So that soon a beautiful little street, like bridges court, looks like the hotel area downtown.

N

So many I've lived in portsmouth for over 50 years myself and so many of my friends who've.

N

Lived here a long time talk about how sad it is that the city has changed its character.

N

And the way it looks- and I think this is an example of the way things start to change.

N

And the way things start to harm the city, I just urge you to think carefully about the character.

N

Of the beautiful little neighborhood that ridges court is even on sagamore avenue, we are friendly.

N

Neighbors and we protect each other and we live across from the cemetery and it's a busy street.

N

But the neighbors really care about each other and we take care of each other. And I see that.

N

On ridge's cord- and it just breaks my heart to think that the character of.

N

The south end might also start changing and will start looking like the hotel row.

N

I do urge you to look at why there are ordinances and why they're they're put on the books- and I.

N

Don't see a reason that things have to be changed here to build a huge garage. I also love the mud.

N

Flats, that's when the herons come out, so that view is very beautiful. Thank you for listening to me.

A

Thank you questions no apparently, not yeah. Other speaker excuse me.

A

Other speakers in opposition, please please come forward. Anybody yes, come yes,.

J

I'm warren wilson: I live on 40 ridges court and the previous architect for mcauliffe mcclouds.

E

Did a masterful job in nestling that house, in its surrounding area, to put in this addition will be.

E

Really out of scale it'll be out of proportion, and I can't help but feel at the foyes and.

E

uh We'll step back one day and take a look at it and realize that it's just too big for the area.

E

uh Mr hep pointed out that there is creative ways to get what they want, or they would like.

J

And that should be considered, but the proportion is going to be all off. If that happens, if they.

E

Build that addition, thank you. Thank you other other speakers. Please anybody else in opposition.

O

Good evening um my name is mike rayne. Both I live at the end of ridge's court that abuts newcastle.

O

Avenue um I haven't, met the foys, yet I'm sorry you have to go through this, I'm sure it's not.

O

A pleasant experience uh whenever you move into a new neighborhood, you hope to have a welcoming.

O

Committee and people enjoying each other and it's a very emotional decision you have to make.

O

It's not just about legal issues and setbacks and zoning requirements. It's a it's a very difficult.

O

Decision, I do do not envy you in the position you're in. I just want to add my thoughts to this.

O

Subject: I've lived in this house for 17 years my wife and I were actually married on.

O

Your property underneath the tree that sits on your land. I've sat many nights on kathy.

O

Thompson's deck talking to her and looking out over the beautiful view and looking under.

O

The tree where my wife and I were married 17 years ago, this addition will block that view.

O

What does that mean? Who cares about that right? Well, in the words of daniel webster, remember.

O

It's a small college, but there are some of us who love it, and this is a small view, but there.

O

Are some of us who love it, and I would ask you to take that into account when you make your decision.

O

Thank you. Thank you. Any any questions on the board. No, thank any other speakers. Please excuse me.

A

Yes, please come up.

B

I'm dylan pala hackett. I live in 46 ridge's court with my mom.

E

So I lived there my whole life and it's pretty sucks kind of having to go. Could you speak into.

A

Up a little bit, please, we can hear you better. I lived in 46, regis court. My whole life, I'm.

E

17., it kind of sucks having to come up here and defend it from you know, having a building block.

B

It the one view that we have. um I know that the lady over there said it's not very beautiful.

N

But she doesn't live there and that's what we have so it's nice to have. So. Thank you. Thank you.

A

Andy last call for speakers in opposition. Anybody last call last call last call: okay.

A

Two for or against anyone's wishing to speak too.

A

Far or against, if you whether or not you've spoken before, come up, please yep. Thank you.

H

um I just wanted to uh say a few things I I I know that.

H

And we learned very quickly how emotional this was for a lot of the neighbors, and I can appreciate.

H

That my wife and I emailed everyone and asked that they, if they'd like to come, speak to us about it.

H

And understand it we'd be happy to do that and we we had an opportunity to speak to some of the.

H

Folks that are here tonight, as well as others who are not here tonight, um there's a couple.

H

Things that were said that are inaccurate, and I and I wanted to just point them out um when we.

H

Bought the property there was a single car garage on the property that had been converted. I guess I.

H

Was told initially to an in-law apartment and then eventually to an office. And it was stated that we.

H

Could just return that to a garage as it was intended to be that's exactly what we've done.

H

It is a garage again all that has been removed and it's a garage. It's a single car garage, um the.

H

It was also said that that the addition, uh although I'm not disagreeing that it impacts.

H

A portion of several different homes views it does not block 100 block anyone's view.

H

That that's not mathematically possible from an angle standpoint. As you move up the street.

H

A lot of the view falls down bridges court, as you can see there to the water.

H

A

H

Again, I I I know that folks are sensitive about this and feel as though uh something's being taken.

H

Away from them um and they're they're thinking of it as its entirety and and that's not accurate,.

H

um You know we, we started out with a plan that was even larger than this. That was.

H

Proposed by the architect, we didn't want that we scaled down, we scaled it down. We got it to.

H

Fit entirely on the existing asphalt area, the impervious surface, and that we were intended.

H

To actually remove some imperius surface but to to have the garage that was an office or whatnot.

H

Before and to have a full-size garage bay and then a shorter one, which you can see from the plants.

H

Is what we felt would fit best and provide for what we are hoping to use at the house.

H

Again, I I we're not looking to make this difficult for anyone and we respect people's opinions and.

H

That's why we've come up with what we have in terms of the setback uh piece um and I think the.

H

What was dropped off by market, and he had given uh to that that to us when we met at.

H

Our home with him and his wife alan it, you can tell that it's, it doesn't work. I mean you know.

H

You're, barely touching the existing structure uh at 30 feet back it just it doesn't work.

H

uh It doesn't work for a flow, but it also just doesn't. It doesn't even really attach.

H

Enough to even make it um one of the things too about the setback is that the setback um is.

H

Onto it's not on the side on the side of the road, it's actually onto my lawn right. So that's.

H

Where the the the counting of the setbacks starts, um you can see that dotted line there.

H

It's not on the street or at the edge of the street. It's actually on to the lawn um and.

H

And so we worked with that as best we could.

H

And um there was one other point I wanted to make and I'm trying to remember what it was.

H

Oh, they talked about hotel row and properties being on the street and stuff again. This edition.

H

Is back from the current house it's further from the street than any of the four that are impacted.

H

Their viewers are impacted. This edition is further back much further back than their homes are today.

H

Okay um and you know, although the vandermark's home at 86 uh ridges court, they they see this.

H

Edition we spoke to them about it. They they're they're, not here this evening in opposition to it.

H

They didn't sign the letter um they they have a view of this edition as well, and whatever view.

H

Is impacted for them, it's impacted, and we know that with the addition.

H

So um so that's all I I have thank you. Thank you. Any questions on the board. No okay.

D

I'll be brief, mr chairman. um uh First of all, john shagnan from ambit engineering.

D

Who is here who prepared our plans, has asked me to to note for the board that this plan.

D

Prepared and just handed in by mr hep um is a plan that was prepared by ambit and it's it's.

D

Owned by ambit and correct me, if I'm wrong from an engineering standpoint, it's improper, I don't think.

D

Mr hep necessarily knew that, but it's improper for someone to take someone else's plan and just.

D

Use it without their permission, so he has asked me to ask the board to take note of that and to not.

D

uh Certainly, you've seen it and you get the point that mr hep is making, but mr shagnon.

D

Feels it should not be in evidence, because it is a wrong. If you will, I think, accidentally wrong.

D

Amendment to his plan um so be that as it may, um just a couple of points uh attorney, paiser.

D

Mentioned about uh you know the the front, yard, setback and and hardship and the purposes of.

D

It I think I covered that pretty clearly with the purposes of a front yard setback.

D

What they are not intended to do under zoning- and I have never seen a case that says otherwise-.

D

Is to protect someone's view past your property is to protect air and light coming across your.

D

Property, no one's can is, is really harmed uh in any way I granted, some of their view is, is.

D

Now limited because of the building, but they still have views and again for the reasons.

D

That our experts stated peter stanhope being a 40-year appraiser who has done an analysis of.

D

Comparable sales in the area, which demonstrates there's no diminution in property value, and I.

D

Perfectly understand because I've had it happen to me somebody building something in front of your.

D

Home, that's between you and what you want to look at, but that is an emotional respect. I'd also like.

D

To take a very brief moment to say that you know being a practitioner in this, it does sometimes.

D

Get pretty emotional, and I, for one from an outsider, have been very impressed with the respect.

D

Respectfulness um of the neighbors, both towards my clients, when they've met with them, and here.

D

Tonight that doesn't always happen. um uh Some ms hackett mentioned uh environmental concerns and I.

D

Would just again remind not not so much the board, maybe but the public that those kind of concerns.

D

Are not this board's purview? That's the purview of the planning board, go through conservation.

D

um I mentioned that we've, uh there was a mention of a use value and that use value is not a legal.

D

Legal issue: it's a diminution in property value. We've demonstrated that that's not going to happen.

D

The handout that mr hep uh used, I'm no architect, but I think from from from what mr foye said, you.

D

Can't just plop a building onto another building, you have to make it work with. You know what else.

D

Is what the the the structure that's already in there inside uh and so they're, adding to living.

D

Room space, creating bedrooms uh and the like. So I can't say for certain because I'm not an.

D

Architect, but I think just putting that red box on the back of the house doesn't tell the story.

D

That that is even possible other than that I've made my arguments. I won't repeat them here, but.

D

We think we've met all the requirements for the variants we understand and respect the concerns of.

D

The board and their loss of view, but there's been no demonstration that there's any loss of value.

D

Thank you. Thank you. All right last call last last last call too far against. Please come up.

O

Good evening board, my name is evan mullen, I'm here tonight in opposition to the variants.

O

Being applied, I am a resident of austin street, but in this capacity I suppose I'm.

O

Speaking as a member of the general public, uh I'm also a friend of kathy thompson's.

E

And I've had the benefit of sitting on her porch having a lovely conversation with her.

E

While she uh picks honeysuckle from her vines and feeds my child animal crackers.

E

I also have the privilege of designing buildings for a profession, and I would.

P

Just point out that a couple of the canons of the aia code of ethics employ architects too.

O

That they have an obligation to the public and they have an obligation to the environment.

P

And so I would challenge the design team of the applicants edition to.

P

Consider that and any possible alternatives they could come up with as options that might be.

E

Less impactful to the surrounding community. Thank you. Thank you all right. This last call last call.

A

Seeing nobody, mr mr no okay, public hearing, is closed.

A

Okay board: we have uh we've had a opportunity to hear quite a bit of testimony on this particular.

A

Proposal uh sounds like a lot of I sense. A lot of thought has gone into the comments.

A

We've heard this evening: does someone want to start the start? The conversation.

A

N

I don't think I can support this variance because I absolutely don't see a hardship.

N

We were told that the reason variance the setback, the variance for the setback is needed because of.

N

All the buffer zones- and that is the hardship that there's so much land that can't be built on.

N

And yet this is built one hundred percent in the buffer zone. So what difference does.

N

It make where you put it in the yard. I I just don't see how it needs to be there.

N

Architectural problems aside, I cannot see why this needs to have a variance when, with the same.

N

Hardship, it can be anywhere. So that's how I see this.

A

Thank you uh who's next who's. Next, mr mantle, do I sense? No, I'm just it's an interesting.

C

Proposal, uh I understand the emotional arguments. I understand the view arguments.

C

Frankly, I find it fascinating when one side, as far as the real estate appraisals.

C

Says the water view? Well, you know half the time it's only mud.

C

Both real estate experts said that which I thought was quite interesting because you're putting the.

C

Master bedroom in a deck to view the mud. You can't have the same argument pro pro and against that's.

C

Something that doesn't work for me, um but to mrs elder's point, is that the addition is fully in the.

C

Wetlands buffer and I understand how an architect wants to line it up and have nice straight lines.

C

And so and so forth, but if you observe the setback, I don't think we'd be here tonight.

C

um I also find it kind of difficult for the conservation commission to grant this.

C

But if they did, you know the difference of another 10 feet, another 15 feet. I wouldn't.

C

See I can't see where it would make a difference, because you're fully in the.

C

In the um wetlands buffer, that's where I'm at right now.

H

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Who's who's. Next, mr lee. Well, I'd make a comment about views.

G

I was thinking back when I was in the air force in the late 1960s and stationed in florida in destin.

G

Which you know some of you may be familiar with, you could drive along the beach and there would.

G

Be miles and miles of snow white sand dunes and a view of the tides in the gulf of mexico, if you.

G

Go back to that same area now and drive along the beach. There is ten story condominiums along there.

G

However, that is what the the learning depression was talking about about territorial views in.

G

The 1960s that was a territorial view in 2022, the condominiums, are the territorial.

G

View and that's what you're looking at so that would be. That would be my comment about views.

A

Ms eldridge miss madison. Excuse me, so um I want to thank both the applicant and the neighbors for.

B

Speaking so respectfully and also knowledgeably- and I just want to note for the record that this.

B

Board does not have any um jurisdiction over uh the views. The applicant's request was for.

B

um Front yard setback: um that is what we're tasked with deciding today and also you know. I.

B

Share absolutely everybody's concern about the loss uh building within this. This wetland buffer.

B

It's clearly delineated in the ordinance uh under the environmental protection standards.

B

However, again, that is not something that this board can take into consideration. I hope someday.

B

The city council changes the zoning ordinance, um but right now that is the zoning ordinance.

B

That we have in place, so those are two things to keep in mind. But that said, um one of the reasons.

B

I asked attorney phoenix where the title buffer zone was, and now I can see it clearly on the.

B

uh The um plan is that I agree with miss eldridge. You know if the title buffer zone.

B

Pushing this project closer to the the main building, I would have a different view of it, but.

B

Where everything is built, anything that has to be built on this property has to be built within the.

B

Title buffer zone, so I can't really say that that is a is a hardship, and that is something that I've.

B

Kind of changed my mind at um listening to the conversations here tonight.

B

So those are my thoughts. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any anybody else have anything.

A

At this point, excuse me.

A

No anybody inclined to make up motion.

A

Are you warming up to that, mr man? No, I'm not warming up for that. Okay, okay, fair enough.

A

This is a hard application. It is very hard very hard applications. Yes, that that's clear.

A

Anybody else anybody down this side have a I'll try it just try. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, mrs.

N

You can offer advice as we go along, um I'm going to move that this application not be.

N

Approved tonight and as I said before for me the main reason: let's, let's.

A

See if we see if we can get it, thank you nice uh do. We have a do. We have a second.

A

To somebody to second that, so we can move along. Second, mr mantle. Thank you, ms elders,.

N

So the first three criteria have to do with public interest and does it need? You know substantial.

N

Justice- and I do agree that this is really written not for the neighbors but for the general public.

N

And in that case I have to say that I think it. It isn't really contrary to the public interest and.

N

It does observe the spirit of the ordinance ordinance and, yes, you would benefit more than.

N

No, I don't think you would benefit more than what the neighbors would lose.

N

And I have no idea about the property values, maybe it doesn't diminish them.

N

But they're going up so high anyway, that this isn't probably going to stop that in portsmouth.

N

But the hardship just isn't there when your choice, when you're saying.

N

We need to avoid the buffer zone and you're, not avoiding it you're just on the buffer zone.

N

But within a setback when you could be on the buffer zone, almost anyplace else.

N

With perhaps new architectural plans, and that's why I cannot vote in favor of this.

A

Okay, thank you. I concur with what miss elders said all right.

C

Because the because the property is problematic as far as the wetland buffer.

C

You knew the hardship going in and to have us grant something. That's fully in that when.

C

You could move it back and eliminate all these things. All the emotional responses.

C

That yeah, I cannot support it. I wish I could it's a beautiful house. It's a beautiful area.

C

um I remember when kevin actually redid it, um but I will support the motion for myself. Thank you.

A

uh Anybody anybody else have any I I will just add. I. I have wrestled with the uh the hardship.

A

Aspect of it also, particularly where it says you know, conditions of the property that distinguish.

A

It from other properties in the area. Well, there are other properties in the area. Similarly,.

A

Situated, that's that's for sure, and I agree. I agree with the analysis with respect to the.

A

But the hajj, the excuse me the wetlands setback, it's it it's in the it's in the setback already.

A

So, that's that's, not a uni! That's not a unique feature that this board has to.

A

Look at through through a glass lens or, however, you want to put it an odd lens, because it's there.

A

Already so that's not that's not something new. So having said, I said all that not very well.

A

uh We have a motion on the floor and the motion is to uh deny the proposal and I I just want to let.

A

Me just add another general comment that I I I as well see opportunities to redesign this to uh deal.

A

With some of the concerns that have been expressed expressed this evening, so for what that's worth.

A

So, having said all that, if nobody else has anything further to say, I would propose we.

A

Move to a vote and the vote will be on the motion, which is to deny the application. Mr mantle, yes,.

A

And for the record, mr mcdonald is recused, mr lee ah reluctant yes, yes, all right! Ms margerson.

B

Yes, miss eldridge, mr yes, mr rossi, is at mr rossi. Is.

A

Absent and the and I vote yes as well, so that's the uh that's the action on that one. So.

N

C

I guess I don't know if it's a thank you, but it made sense to you and that makes me proud.

N

Oh, it's just good. Could you move your conversations out to the lobby.

A

Please folks particularly clear, but the important thing is that it didn't mean.

B

I still feel bad, though, because I was oh, I don't. Actually they have choices.

A

The next the next item on the agenda this evening.

A

Is with respect to the property at 225 banfield road, and there is a request.

A

To postpone that and uh mr chairman someone, you have a motion, make a motion to postpone.

C

Thank you second. Thank you, mr lee. Second, thank you. The motion is to postpone it until next month.

A

Yes correct. Thank you, uh those in favor, please say aye, aye aye, any opposed! No, no, surprise there. Okay.

A

Can somebody close the door okay.

A

All right that takes us to the next item on the agenda and if I could find my.

A

Agenda, I'd be all set it's going to be under here. Thank you.

A

I'm going to make a bold uh prediction: this one will be a lot easier.

G

Aren't you silly silly me is right.

A

uh This is where we are now in new business. The first item was was the request to postpone which.

A

We have dealt with item b uh reads as follows: the request of lonza biologic's owner for property.

A

Located at 101 international drive, whereas relief is needed for the addition of a 372 square foot.

A

Wall sign, which will result in 487 and a half square feet of total sign area which requires.

A

The following a a variance from section 306.01 sub d to allow 887.5 square feet of total sign area.

A

Where 200 square feet is the maximum allowed per lot said, property is located on assessor map 305.

A

Is lot 6 and is located in the airport, business district, commercial, abc district? uh Who speaks.

A

In favor, please, who speaks in favor anybody yeah hey good evening. um My name is brandon currier.

O

I'm from barlow science here representing wanza, yes come on up and just guys hold on.

I

We do have the sign rep on the zoom call: okay, okay, thank you! I'm katie harnedy, I'm from barlow.

L

Signs as well, but brandon will be doing the presentation. Okay, thank you. You're, going to.

A

Stay right there for questions. Oh okay, thank you might as well. I know go ahead. Go ahead, go ahead!.

O

All right so uh good evening, my name is brandon courier, I'm from barlow science here representing.

O

Lonza katie just introduced herself, and we also have a representative ross attending from lanza.

O

I appreciate you allowing us to present this case resume this evening.

O

So, as mentioned we're here this evening, seeking variance approval for a wall sign.

O

That is 487.5 square feet where 200 is allowed in the airport, business commercial district.

O

Of peace, as you know, this is an extremely unique location due to its sheer size.

O

And location as construction of this portion of the building is completed.

O

There is an opportunity to have a sign placed in not only a visually appealing position, but also in.

O

A spot that allows for identification to be seen by many more motorists daily on paper and writing.

O

Proposed total square footage may sound large, but is approximately 4.5 percent of the overall facade.

O

On the back side of that, building, having this identification will attract new customers.

O

And eight uh current customers in locating the building when approaching this distance district.

O

uh There's a lot of buildings that seem identical to people that have not that are not familiar with.

O

This area, having seen the name on the building while approaching from the highway, helps aid the.

O

Everyday motorists to their location as it familiarizes their brain with that location in.

O

The past few months we've been working and we have appeared in front of the pda. We have their support.

O

With the proposed wall sign in front of you this evening, with the one condition that we removed.

O

The existing wall sign off of that same elevation, which we agreed to the existing sign, is located.

O

On the lower section of that building and as can trees and what not continue to grow, that sign will.

O

Then not be visible. Most of those trees that will be growing up will be on a different property, so.

O

Having the sign will not be contrary to the public interests, as it will not be a distraction or cause.

O

Harm to surrounding properties or pedestrians, uh as it is within character of the building.

O

Since this sign is located on such a unique building, it is consistent with the spirit of.

O

The ordinance as we are keeping a sign within scale and function of the building of this size.

O

A smaller sign looked distasteful and out of place on a nice building of this scale, substantial.

O

Justice here has been done, as this property is extremely unique and part of this community.

O

As it is a commercial district, the surrounding neighbors will not be affected.

O

Nor will it diminish the value of their properties. Enforcement of the british provisions uh would.

O

Cause a direct hardship on lonza due to their unique location, deep setback from the road where.

O

The majority of the new and current customers will be identifying them from. uh Thank you and.

O

Please let me know if there's anything that any questions that we can answer again. um I have katie.

O

And ross there from lonza. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, any questions from the board.

A

Did I do I understand it correctly? This is, is this an additional sign, or is this going.

A

To replace the sign, that's there, this is going to be replacing a sign. That's there.

O

It's just in a different location, and so if you scroll down and keep scrolling down.

O

Keep going, that's an old sign, keep going down, that's the new one. It should be.

O

A couple more you'll see the existing drawing should be a site map. Here we go.

G

One more page here we go so the top left is where the new set of channel letters uh will be, and.

O

Where he has the mouse right now is the set that will be removed. Okay and how will that be lighted.

O

uh It'll be internal illumination; okay, any any questions, any other anything else from the board.

A

No apparently not okay. Thank you very much. Any anybody else present who wish to speak in favor.

A

Anybody president wish to speak in opposition. Anybody present too far against any speakers.

A

At all, apparently, none okay, we'll close the post public hearing. Thank you. Thank you.

A

Is there a message there is a? Is there a motion from the board.

A

This is a the form of a recommendation to the pda chair and again using their criteria. Yes, yes,.

A

Mr lee, yes, I move, we approve this application. Thank you, mr sec who's. Ms ms eldridge thank.

A

You, mr lee, you motion so peter did you say we use their criteria to right? That's in this. It's.

I

In the staff report to recommend approval, yeah, okay, I guess I'm not filming that page 54 54.

A

Now, louise, we can't we can't did you prove it on our own? I second, yes, back up to page 54.

N

Their criteria is no, it is so were the certified notion of this.

N

Their criteria is on 67.. Their criteria is okay, all right.

G

G

Apparently, the piece the peas development authority finds that there.

G

Is no adverse er effect or diminution and value the surrounding properties.

G

Varying the variance would be a benefit to the public interest denial, the variance.

G

Would result in an unnecessary hardship to the person seeking it granting the variance would.

G

Be substantial justice the proposed use would not be contrary to the spirit of the sony rule.

G

And I'd just add that you know the sign is a pretty big size, 48 feet long and eight feet tall.

G

But I I feel, I believe, that the scale of the building uh justifies a sign of this magnitude.

G

So, for those reasons I would move that we approve this variance. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

A

Was it mr mantle? Mr lee said I mean it's a sign at pda, we're just doing a recommendation.

C

That's right considering how much lonza has done for the pda, especially in the.

C

Past two years, four years with the vaccine, I see no reason not to make the sign bigger.

A

Well said: okay well sounds like we're all ready to take a vote. The motion is to approve, as.

A

Presented yeah recommend approval recommended approval as presented yeah. uh Mr mantle. Yes, mr.

A

Mcdonald, yes, mr lee, yes, miss rogerson, yes and miss elders. Yes, yes and I vote yes as well. Okay,.

A

Thank you very much everybody for your time. You're welcome. Thank you.

A

You all should be so easy, yeah, okay, okay, what? What time is it oh quarter of now what.

A

Should we have, we got another one in this before nine nine o'clock break.

A

Yes, I think so easy, okay, good all right! That brings us to item c under new business.

A

It's the request of richard p. Fusini. Excuse me for a property located at 201 kearsarge.

A

Way, whereas leaf is needed to subdivide one lot into three lots which require the following: one.

A

A variance from section 10.521 to allow eighty two and a half square feet of street front.

A

Of a running front street frontage, where one hundred feet is required for proposed lot, three.

A

That said, property is located on a cessna map. 218 is lot five and lies within the single residence b.

A

Srb district, who speaks in favor of this proposal, please good evening, mr chair and members of the.

P

Board I'm chris mulligan from bozen associates in portsmouth on behalf of dick fuscini who's.

P

Behind me here, owner of the property, I also have john shagnan who's the project engineer on this.

P

This is a project that some of you may recall, seeing in certain iterations in the past.

P

In fact, my late colleague attorney bernie pilich got substantially the same relief from this board.

P

A couple of years ago, basically, the plan is to get approval, to subdivide an existing lot.

P

At 201 kearsarge into three lots, two of which are fully dimensionally conforming.

P

One of which requires less than 20 feet of frontage relief. That's essentially the same.

P

uh Variance that bernie got in the fall of 2019. What happened is that as the project.

P

Progressed through the planning department or the planning board and technical advisory committee.

P

What happened is there was uh an amount of.

P

Mature trees on the property that would have had to have been sacrificed to accommodate the.

P

Designed drainage improvements that would accommodate the three lot subdivision so that.

P

Was fully approved got through the planning board, the planning board approval is part of your packet.

P

However, when uh mr fussini um understood the impact and the import of the loss of that many.

P

Mature trees on the property, which are extremely important to him, he put the brakes on it and.

P

We went through a number of different internal design discussions for lack of a better word.

P

To see if there was anything we could do, we looked at perhaps coming back and requesting.

P

Front yard setback relief to push the building envelopes away from the mature stand of trees in.

P

The rear we looked at, possibly condominiumizing the property in different projects. However,.

P

What we came to light on is a plan, that's very similar to the one that was already approved, but.

P

Mr shagnan and his team have come up with a design that will allow us to preserve the.

P

Substantially preserved the trees in the rear of the property, you can see on the proposed site.

P

Plan the proposal is to dedicate a portion of the rear of these properties as conservation easements.

P

Actually, the rear of the property abuts an nrp zone, so there's very little opportunity.

P

For additional development after this subdivision is approved, should we.

P

Get the relief we're requesting tonight again, the the two outer lots would be fully compliant.

P

With zoning, it's just a lot in the middle that has um 80 less than 83 feet of frontage, um where.

P

100 feet is required, so that's all the relief we need. Otherwise, it's a 1500 square foot lot.

P

There's a building envelope that is sufficient to comply with all the necessary setbacks. So that's.

P

The project and the relief that we're requesting just to get through the five criteria necessary.

P

To grant a variance um granting the variance we're requesting tonight would not be contrary.

P

To the public interest, nor would it be contrary to the spirit and intent of the ordinance um here.

P

You have to look at the characteristics of the neighborhood and and determine whether or not they.

P

Would be substantially altered by what's being proposed? What we're proposing is um single-family.

P

Residential lots in the single-family residential zone, so the characteristics of the neighborhood.

P

As a residential neighborhood would not be altered in any material way. Health safety and.

P

Welfare of the public would not be compromised again. All the lots meet all the dimensional.

P

Requirements, except for the middle lot, which is less than 20 feet short of the required frontage.

P

Substantial justice would be done by granting the requested variance here. The loss to the applicant.

P

Clearly outweighs any gain to the public if strict conformance with the frontage requirement.

P

Is required, we again are looking at very minimal relief. The purpose of having frontage is to make.

P

Sure that you have lots that are adequately spaced and have adequate access um and.

P

Are not overcrowded, there's nothing about this proposal that suggests any of those concerns.

P

Are present, values of surrounding properties will not be diminished as a result of this.

P

Project you'll get new construction of new homes, which would increase values in the neighborhood.

P

Would also add additional housing to the city's housing stock. It would add.

P

Some would add to the city's tax base, um so values of surrounding properties would not be negatively.

P

Affected by what's being proposed here again, very minimal frontage relief and finally,.

P

As far as unnecessary hardship, there are special conditions of this property.

P

That distinguish it from others in the neighborhood. It's a very large lot for this area.

P

The tax map that was submitted with the materials, I think, demonstrates that pretty clearly this.

P

Is a very significant large lot and is much larger than most of the lots surrounding it.

P

It's bounded by a paper street in the rear. That's oak street abutting, that is the nrp.

P

Zone so again, there's limited development after this project goes forward. So this is not going.

P

To be a situation where there's going to be substantial overcrowding, or any concerns like that.

P

It has uh sufficient frontage for the two lots, which would be fully conforming um and.

P

The relief we're requesting is is really very minor um and especially compared to many of.

P

The lots that are in the uh immediate vicinity that have less than 100 square feet a hundred.

P

Feet of continuous road frontage, so there's no fair and substantial relationship between the.

P

Purpose of the frontage requirement and its application to this particular property. The.

P

Use is a reasonable one. It's residential use in a residential zone. So, based on all of that, I believe.

P

This clearly meets all the criteria, as this board found a couple of years ago,.

P

And should be approved again at this time. Thank you. Any any questions at this point.

A

No apparently not thank you. Thank you. Anyone else present who'd like to speak in favor. Anyone else.

A

In favor anyone else in favor anyone else in opposition, any speakers in opposition, mr smith,.

A

Do we have anybody, we have one person, but they they have not raised their hand. Okay,.

A

And last call two for against any speakers too far against apparently not okay,.

A

Public hearings closed: what's your pleasure on this one born, I and I do remember this one.

G

I think mr mulligan was sitting up here with us at that time too. I'm sure, okay.

A

I'm sure you did does anyone have a conversation, starter or a motion? Maybe well I'd, be willing to.

G

Move that uh once again, we approve this variance as presented and advertised. Thank you uh second. On.

A

That motion mr mantle second, thank you, mr mr lee, emotion, all right! Well uh again, as we've.

G

uh Observed this variance is not contrary to the public interest in the spirit of the.

G

Ordinance is observed, the this doesn't conflict with any explicit or other.

G

Implicit purpose of the ordinance and doesn't offer the essential care to the neighborhood.

G

Injured the public health or anything like that, substantial justice is done.

G

Because the benefit to the applicant is not outweighed be any harm to the general public.

G

I see that, in my opinion, the values of surrounding properties will not be diminished quite to the.

G

Contrary I think new construction in that area would enhance everyone's property value and.

G

As far as the hardship, I would refer back to the simplex technologies versus the town of.

G

New england, where the supreme court sort of redefined the definition of hardship.

G

And they said, a hardship exists when special conditions of the land.

G

Render the use for which the variance is sought to be reasonable, and, in my opinion, this is a very.

G

Reasonable request and a very reasonable use of the land. So for those reasons I would move that.

G

We grant this ordinance application is presented and advertised. Thank you, mr mantel. I agree with.

C

Everything except the case he cited for the the hardship. It's ironic that the lot three needs.

C

The variance correct yes, okay and that's the biggest slot.

C

What he said, thank you. Thank you anything further before we take a vote, no okay, the motion.

A

Ms elders, I would just say that it was very admirable that you.

N

Came back to us to save the trees and you ran the risk of going to the cba again. So thank you.

A

Miss rogerson, so I did struggle because I overthink things I did struggle, whether not.

B

To apply the hardship to all three lots or just or just one, um however, um I I.

B

Will support the application? Okay. All the discussion before was about the odd shape.

A

Front of the yes middle lot: wasn't it. We talked about this before a long time. Yes, yeah.

G

Some would say too long yeah exactly so. The motion is to approve, as presented.

A

So, mr mantle, yes, mr mcdonald, mr lee, yes, ms margerson, yes, ms eldridge and I vote yes as well.

A

So you're all you're all set. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Okay,.

A

It's a few minutes. It's a few minutes to nine. We have two issues. Does anybody.

A

What's the sense of uh taking a break versus uh pushing ahead or what what what anybody.

A

Whoever the chairman's pleasure is I'd, say five minutes. Yes,.

A

No more than 10.

G

15, the most.

A

Welcome welcome welcome back the uh we're in back in session.

A

For the final two items of the evening, first of which is item d on the under new business and.

A

Reads as follows: the request of macio goldani von mueller, owner for property located at.

A

Fax, the road, whereas relief, is needed to replace existing entryway with the two-story addition.

A

Including fronts, landing and steps which require the following one: a variance from section .521.

A

To allow a 14.5 foot front yard, where 30 feet is required, said properties thrown on.

A

Assessor map 152 is lot 37 and lies within the single residence b srb district and who speaks.

A

In favor of this proposal, please- and please correct my pronunciation if I mangled your name.

I

Good evening, chairman members of the board, my name is scott boudreau licensed land, surveyor boudreau.

I

Land surveying out a new market representing the von muellens on this project. They are trying to.

I

Put on, like you said, in addition, two additions. One of them impacts the building setback on the front.

I

I have since been given revised plans and I revised the site plan yesterday.

I

And I have those here which makes it a little less drastic. Okay, yes, start them down the end. Please.

A

A

E

How many sheets two.

E

Okay, go ahead, please, okay, the initial application was requesting a variance.

I

For 14 and a half feet to the bottom of the front steps um front setback in this zone, srb.

I

Is listed as 30 feet, with the exception of the average front offset for the buildings 200 feet.

I

Either side of the lot that average front setback works out to be just using the enclosed editions.

I

20.3 20 and a half feet for the front setback, so we were looking initially for five and a half feet.

I

Of relief with the new revision, you can see the the addition is still going to be the same.

I

Which the addition is going to be enclosed now and currently that's a covered entryway they're.

I

Just going to convert that to a two-story addition, but it's going to require some sort.

I

Of landing to get out of that entryway still so they're requiring or requesting a four foot.

I

Landing area outside of that addition, and instead of the steps coming off the front.

I

Towards the street they're going to go off to the side, and that makes that overall.

I

Request for 18 and a half feet instead of the 14 and a half where by average, is 20 20 and a half.

I

Does that make sense everybody, so this won't be contrary to the public interest. It's the.

I

Proposed edition, that's covering the same footprint, that's already there. It's in a.

I

Covered entryway and it's basically due to the the sloping topography right there. That requires.

I

The safe landing area four feet and then the steps it was safer for the steps to go off to the right.

I

Instead of down where you can see the picture that I took that I.

I

If you want to show that that shows the embankment that they have to go down.

I

So that entryway right there is going to be replaced with a two-story edition, which does.

I

Meet the building setbacks, but it's the landing area. That's going to come out in front of that.

I

That cuts into that front setback and then the stairs are going to come off to the side over.

I

By where the fence is in that direction, so it won't be contrary to the public interest, because.

I

It matches the character of the neighborhood. um It's it's a matter of safety with that landing.

I

And the steps to come down, it's a foot and a half relief that we're looking for.

I

Spirit of the ordinance will be observed. The proposed addition to the existing dwelling.

I

Meets the dimensional requirements again, it's the landing that we're having an issue with.

I

In the stairs, substantial justice will be done.

I

It's going to be an enclosed two-story structure, it's an entryway where they can keep their shoes.

I

When they walk in um coats and then it's going to provide more area for the upstairs bedroom.

I

And it won't diminish the values of the surrounding properties, because it it does.

I

Fit in with a character of all the houses in that neighborhood and you can see on the the.

I

Plan that many of these houses also have stairs that come back into that same dimensional areas.

I

That the front setback, so it's very similar to some of the other houses in that area.

I

And the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship.

I

The addition meets the dimensional requirements again, it's due to the sloping nature of the.

I

The front yard and the safety of exiting that or egress from that.

I

Addition, which requires the slight infringement on that setback.

A

Any questions nope, apparently you're, not all right. Thank you is there. Anyone.

A

President would like to speak in favor anybody else in favor. Anyone is opposed.

A

Anybody in opposition, any speakers too, for or against anybody at all, apparently not okay,.

A

Public hearing is closed. What's your pleasure board.

A

Is that is that emotion? No, no.

A

Mr mammal, making a motion to uh approve as submitted. Thank you uh is there a second.

A

A second, mr ms eldridge, thank you, mr mantle. You um well, let me go through the ver.

C

Granting the variance is not contrary to the public interest.

C

The spirit of the ordinance would still be observed, substantial as justice is done.

C

For what they want to do with the property, the values of the surrounding properties.

C

Would not be diminished, in fact, they're, probably most likely increase and literal enforcement would.

C

Be a undue hardship. uh What we have before us is a an established neighborhood that already has.

C

Now we're asking for a foot and a half.

C

Variance off the existing correct.

I

Correct using the front yard averaging.

C

So it will become slightly less non-conforming, because it's already non-conforming by.

C

A third, I don't think that's a big ask here. Thank you, okay, thank you for a second.

N

I agree and have nothing to add okay, but do I recommend the stipulation that yes.

I

What was advertised was 14 and a half feet that you stipulate the front setback, be 18.

I

And a half feet per the plan submitted tonight for the plan submitted tonight correct. Thank you.

A

Thank you, mr great. Yes, yes, good, good stipulation! Thank you. Okay, anything further, if not those.

A

uh We'll we'll call the roll mr mantle, yes, mr mcdonald, mr lee, yes, ms margerson and miss.

A

Eldridge, yes, and I I didn't vote, I'm sorry. Yes too fast. You are too fast. I'm going to take.

A

Yes as well, thank you all right, you're, all you're all set you're welcome, slow down sherman.

A

Okay, as a former chairman used to say a favorite.

A

Item of the evening item e and last oh, a twofer. Well, no, we got one twofer.

A

We've got one after this another under other business, but it's not a not a public hearing.

A

Okay item e reads as follows: the request of john a cignarello owner for property located.

A

At 22 maple street, whereas relief is needed to subdivide one lot into two lots and construct.

A

A new dwelling which requires the following one variances from section 10.521, to allow.

A

A a lot area in a lot area per dwelling unit of five hundred and thirty square feet and ten.

A

Thousand four four hundred feet square feet where fifteen thousand square feet is required for each.

A

B, a lot depth of eighty five feet where one hundred feet is required c 98, feet of continuous.

A

Street frontage, where 100 feet is required d, an 18 foot, front yard, where 30 feet is required and e a.

A

19 foot rare yard, where 30 feet is required, said properties located on assessor map. 237 is lot 1.

A

And lies within the single residence b srb district, who speaks in favor of this proposal.

A

Please thank you, mr chairman, members of the board tim phoenix from hopeful phoenix gormley.

D

And roberts here on behalf of the applicant phil franciosa who's sitting with me, he's.

D

Intending to purchase this lot from the owner and develop it also with me is eric.

D

Weinrigg from altus engineering who has done the plans that you see before you.

D

What we have is 22 maple is an 18 930 square foot lot in the single residence b district presently.

D

There is a single home on the lot. That's pushed far to the right, as you can see in this diagram.

D

It's partially within the 100 foot wetland buffer, an offsite buffer and that's the magenta covered.

D

Line colored line that you can see going through approximately you know, 85 percent of the of the.

D

Home the um the lot frontage is just short of 200 feet. You need 100 feet uh for each lot, so we have.

D

Left the existing lot with a hundred feet uh and asked for 98 feet, but I would point out that.

D

One of the purposes of frontages is for sight line, separation from neighbors etc, and this lot has.

D

Over a hundred foot front line, it's just that the this street ends and then turns onto meadow meadow.

D

um As you can see at the bottom there, uh the lot keeps going so for the purposes. While we need that.

D

Variance the purposes of the of the uh requirement for a certain amount of fractions um is met.

D

What what we're proposing here is a a fairly large lot for this area and I'll get back to.

D

That, in a minute cut into two lots, um the new parcel would be 10 400 square feet. The.

D

Remainder is 8 530 square feet and, while those don't meet the requirement for the ordinance.

D

Lot sizes: they are consistent with many lots in this area and I'll show you that in a minute.

D

We need a lot depth, I'm not sure we need lot depth, but we asked for it, as I always say, in an.

D

Abundance of caution, because the lot depth isn't changing, um uh it's apar approximately 85 feet.

D

And, of course, if you uh reduce that by the front rear setbacks, it leaves a pretty small building.

D

Envelope, as you can see, for the front yard, the the house is at 27.6, the landing is at 21.6 and.

D

The steps are at 18. again, we've asked for all of those, but eric shows on his plans that the landing.

D

And steps are less than three feet, and so those shouldn't require variances. I neglected to catch.

D

And provide you with the zoning section that says that, and I've had eric looking for it, but they're.

D

In there, anyway, the house itself is 28 by 40, um which a pretty standard size when you're working.

D

With homes, you really need to go up and down by by by uh even numbered feet uh for lumber and.

D

What have you so this is 28, and if you, if you have the front set back of the house, you know meet the.

D

Building setback then you're getting at 26, which is pretty narrow for a home um and same with the.

D

Rear yard that the house itself meets the rear yard setback, but the landing and the steps do not.

D

Again, we don't think we need them because they are less than three feet, but they are asked because I.

D

Didn't think of it at the time and don't have a section to give you.

D

That we meet that shows that they don't need a variance, um they're, unobtrusive they're, low.

D

um They shouldn't be a problem. I'd also like to point out, if you look to the right of the magenta.

D

Line about you know, I don't know two inches on that plan. You'll see another straight line.

D

Going kind of through the through the driveway that's a sewer line. Originally we looked at.

D

Pushing the building over as far as we could to the to the right, but we can't do that because it.

D

Interferes with the sewer line, I asked eric as recently as today. Couldn't we push it over.

D

Some amount- and he pointed out that if you've got a car in the garage which is.

D

Under the house and you back out say the car is roughly 20 feet long. You have to clear.

D

The whole garage before you can turn and if you do that, you're going to be.

D

Five or six feet from that back line. So that's why the house is where it is for ease of backing.

D

Out and turning and what have you really couldn't push it uh closer to that sewer line.

D

If you can go peter to the tax maps, which is exhibit c.

D

So this is it's hard a little hard to see here, but hopefully.

D

By the way, the that plan set with the plan sheet with the sewer line on it, was more recently.

D

Provided to you folks, the the original one didn't have it, we didn't know where it was so. I presume.

D

You got it and it was distributed to you in the last few days. Is that right, peter? It's it's in.

D

The back okay- maybe it did get there in time. So um this was the work of uh my associate monica kaiser.

D

um If you can go to the little scale that she did it's at the bottom left, so there we go so she's.

D

Done this, uh the scale that sort of shows how our lot fits in with the rest of the neighborhood.

D

And let me get to that, so the blue lot at the top. There is our lot the lots that.

D

Are pinkish are the are lots in this area that are non-conforming as to frontage and lot area.

D

The lots that are purple are non-conforming as to depth. Now this is taken from the tax.

D

Map not going out and measuring everything it's kind of eyeballing it green is non-conforming lot.

D

Area and depth and orange is not non-conforming lot depth area and fronted. So you can see that.

D

There are a number, not all of them, but a number um on this tax map we've also included- is that 236. I.

D

Think that's 236.. We've also included 237, which is the next page and and has you know similar.

D

It's a similar document with somewhat similar findings of lot sizes and what have you um so.

D

The the point of that is that these lots, when they are made smaller, uh are in keeping uh in in many.

D

Respects with the size and frontages of many lots on these two tax maps. So we're thinking that this.

D

Is a very nice location for a smallish lot, not in downtown portsmouth, but still in portsmouth, proper.

D

That would provide opportunities for uh perhaps a young family to come in and and buy a lot or.

D

Buy a house that phil is going to build them at a less expensive uh price than over on richards and.

D

In that area closer to downtown um and the house would be in keeping with size of the lots and the.

D

Size of homes in the lot out there, so turning to the variance requirements again.

D

As you just heard me do previously public interest and spirit of the ordinance tests.

D

Are considered together by the courts, um will the variances unduly and to a market degree, conflict.

D

With the ordinance such they violate ordinances, basic zoning objectives, conflict alone is not.

D

Enough, uh you know that um I then I then go through the um requirements of the ordinance.

D

Including the use of land uh intensity of use, which, as I just pointed out, is, is uh uh reasonable.

D

um uh Designed for vehicular access and the like, I've just explained that impact on.

D

Lighting noise, vibration, storm water, those will all be taken care of. We will have to go to the.

D

Conservation, commission and the planning board for a conditional use permit for the wetland.

D

Buffer effect, um preservation and enhancement of the visual environment.

D

We see this as sort of creating a lot. That's meant similar to many of the other lots in the area.

D

um And with a a modestly sized home on it, I think it's 1100 square feet, footprint.

D

And for those same reasons, this larger lot broken into two is not going to harm natural.

D

Resources etc. The underlying tests for these two first sections of the variance requirements are.

D

Will the variants alter the essential character of the locality and for the reasons I've explained.

D

We don't think it will, because the lot sizes, frontages house, location, etc, are relatively in.

D

Keeping with much of the neighborhood, nor will it threaten the public health safety or welfare.

D

It'll, be a house built to code. The frontage, which is probably one of the major issues, is.

D

Just a little bit short and the actual front, lock line, as I mentioned, meets the 100 foot setback the.

D

House is only two feet. The house itself is only two feet outside the um the front uh setback line.

D

And there's not much, we can do with respect to the wetland buffer because it covers much of the lot.

D

um The third test is that granting the variances will not diminish surrounding property values. We.

D

Think in this case that's a common sense test. I didn't hire a surveyor, I mean. Excuse me a realtor.

D

Or an appraiser, like I did on the last one due to its nature again, a reasonably sized home on a lot.

D

That's in keeping with other lots in the area is not going to diminish surrounding property values.

D

The fourth test is hardship. The test is whether there are special conditions that.

D

Distinguish the property from others in the area, unlike most of the time I'm here this, this.

D

Is distinguishable because the lot is somewhat larger than many of the area and by cutting it.

D

To these sizes, it's more in keeping with many of the homes in the area, um the the wetland buffer.

D

Creates a special condition, as does the 85 foot in depth, which leaves a fairly narrow building.

D

Envelope and all those things combine to create special conditions, I'd also point out, and it's in.

D

My papers that there are other ways to determine hardship. I've cited the walker versus city of.

D

Manchester case, which found that a hardship may be found where similar non-conforming uses exist.

D

Within the neighborhood and the proposed use will have no adverse effect on the neighborhood.

D

As I've mentioned, there are numerous small lots with insufficient frontage, inefficient size.

D

Homes that look closer to the lot lines than the present zoning would would permit so adding.

D

One more home when those same circumstances are found in the neighborhood is not going to have an.

D

Adverse effect on the neighborhood there's another case that I've cited belanger v city of nashua.

D

Which says a municipality's ordinance is supposed to reflect the current character of.

D

The neighborhood this we believe the ordinance does not in this particular instance. It may in.

D

Other areas of this zone, but right here it doesn't reflect the character because there are so many.

D

Other lots that are too small have insufficient frontage, have homes close to the lot lines, etc.

D

The second prong of the hardship tested, there's no fair and substantial relationship between the.

D

Purposes of the ordinance and its application, so you know why do we have lot frontages for.

D

um Air light separation from neighbors prevent overbarking over bulking and overcrowding provide.

D

For storm water treatment: well, the lot does that, because it has enough front lot line it just.

D

Doesn't have enough frontage on it on a street, and why do we have to go back to my chart here.

D

Why do we have lot sizes some of the same reasons, but here, while they are smaller than the required.

D

Amount they are in keeping with the area. um Why do we have lot depths again? Some of the.

D

Same reasons to stop over bulking to create separation of neighbors, the lots are 85 feet.

D

Deep, that's not going to change, and why do we have front yard setbacks? Same reasons.

D

Prohibit over bulking provide for sight lines, air light, etc. The house itself is only a couple.

D

Of feet inside the the uh outside, the building envelope and the other items, steps and deck are.

D

If a variance is required is, are are low and are unobtrusive, so there's no reason to apply that.

D

Setback here and then same with rear yard. So for all of those reasons there is just no reason to.

D

Apply the strict requirements of the ordinance in these respects to this particular lot.

D

Under these particular circumstances, the fourth third prong of the hardship test is that the.

D

Proposed use is reasonable. It's a permitted use. Therefore the use is deemed reasonable. That's the.

D

Hudson case, and then finally is substantial, justice will be done by granting the variance.

D

And the test is, if there's no benefit to the general public, that would outweigh the hardship to.

D

The applicant this factor is satisfied, that's the harborside case, it's a portsmouth case or, and any.

D

Loss to the applicant not outweighed by a gain to the general public is an injustice, so we're.

D

Looking for variants to create a comparably sized lot with comparable frontage and in many cases.

D

Comparable setbacks to others in the neighborhood. The wetland buffer effect will be dealt with by.

D

The conservation commission and the planning board, and the conditional use so I submit, is not.

D

The purview of this board, so we think this is good for the public. It's going to be good for.

D

Some family to find a modestly sized lot and home in portsmouth, while denial will.

D

Take away a financial opportunity for the existing property owner, a financial opportunity for phil as.

D

The developer and a living opportunity for for some family down the road- I don't know if these.

D

Guys have anything they want to add. Apparently not you didn't find that section. You weren't looking.

D

Feverishly, like I instructed you but sorry, so that's all I have unless you have questions.

A

Thank you any any questions from the board right right now. At this point, no.

A

Thank you apparently not thank you. Are there any any other speakers in op in.

A

Support anybody in support anybody present witches. Anybody in president wish to speak in opposition.

A

Yes, come up, please do we have anybody on the no? No? No! No! No! No.

A

Yes, it's almost nap time. Yes, your name and address please.

Q

Hello, uh fred mcmullen. I live at 1, 000, woodbury avenue, and my lot is adjacent to this lot.

Q

My frontage on my property, which I've lived there for 43 years, is on woodbury avenue and.

Q

I honestly I can't say I I can figure this map out. I'm sorry. I just can't figure where I am, but.

Q

It looks like there um the south side of my lot is what borders um 22, maple maple street and.

Q

I have to take exception with this uh variance in in all of the variances that are asked for here.

Q

um Going down the the bordering to to my lot is is is going to be this new lot and.

Q

30 feet, setback is what is what the zoning is, and they want only to do. 19 leave me with 19.

Q

And I think I think that is a hardship to me. um The lot is a kind of an odd shape, because it's.

Q

It's a long lot, but it's pretty it's not too deep. um I'm well familiar with that lot because I know.

Q

When it was divided in 19 in the 1950s- and I know why- um and it would have been a lot.

Q

Smaller than that had they not wanted to conform to the to the to the rules of portsmouth, so.

Q

It is that size, it is tough because it does have a sewer easement, which runs through my property.

Q

And through that property, and to the bottom of the lot or to the west, we have wetlands down there.

Q

The the um bottom of that lot, where the wetlands are there are some substantial.

Q

Trees, where I think they've laid out this house, they put four stakes in that we can see.

Q

That would be down into the trees over half of that lot is treed and those trees down on that.

Q

Bottom end of that lot protect that wetland they protect. They protect it from erosion.

Q

The ground from erosion and they use a lot of water out of that wetlands to help the.

Q

Ecology of that wetland and all the neighbors that are butted on the other on both sides.

Q

And the bigger thing, at least to our neighborhood, even although those two things are important.

Q

Is that it's a natural barrier for the noise, from the um spalding turnpike and from the pease.

Q

Air force base to lose those trees, we're going to lose that barrier. We can't go to the state and say.

Q

We need a barrier they're, not going to put it way out on woodbury. Have that's not going to.

Q

Help us any at all those trees are a natural barrier. They not only help 22 people with 22.

Q

Maple street, but they help me, they help everybody in the neighborhood. That's up our side um very.

Q

Important, I know the builder says he's not going to cut any more of those trees than he needs to.

Q

But that sounds like carte blanche to me and um if they have to get a truck in there to do a job.

Q

They're going to cut the tree down so he's not going to come back. If the house is built in there.

Q

Then then the people who buy the house are going to come and say those trees can't be over our.

Q

House we're going to cut them down anyway, so we're going to lose the trees. It's a lose-lose.

Q

Either way and I'll tell you what there's some mass spins down in there that are big.

Q

Trees, they're handsome. We really would hate to see those goals, I'm sure they're all frank jones, trees.

Q

So I think, I think, that's a hardship to the whole neighborhood for that to have happen.

Q

I want to say that I really disagree with dividing the slot. In the first place, we have a nice.

Q

Conforming lot in the city, you know they want to put two non-conforming lots on the sea.

Q

This, this really doesn't make sense. I can't I can't agree with this.

Q

I don't think that's good for the neighborhood. It is going to help crowd the neighborhood and.

Q

We don't we don't need that to have happen, there's no there's no hardship and not doing anything on.

Q

This lot at all and and the amount of good that that small piece of property does, for the whole.

Q

Neighborhood really outweighs any kind of building. Situation can possibly be figured out for this lot.

Q

I don't do this often, but I heard a lot of phrases like public welfare won't help. It.

Q

Property values won't help it unnecessary.

Q

Hardship, I don't think the owner of this property has that unnecessary hardship.

Q

It's not going to prevent overcrowding, it's going to create overcrowding.

Q

The uh there's a lot of water that comes down maple.

Q

Maple is a slanted street, as this property is also slanted and that water runs directly.

Q

Onto this subdivision that they want to make- and you could, if you go there today,.

Q

You'll see where it runs right down through there there's going to be a problem there.

Q

The um negative air and light yes, of course it is the neighbor directly to the.

Q

Other side of this, um then he may speak, is going to be affected by both of those things.

Q

Obligate the fellow spoke on architects having obligations to the environment.

Q

And he's going to just destroy this one 100 percent.

Q

There's no question, and I don't think this is in the public interest at all.

Q

It's a small lot and does a land of good for so much and for so many people.

Q

For the current owner, 22 maple, industrial and the rest of the neighborhood, it will.

Q

It will need it will spoil what we have there and it will be non-conforming. It can take a perfectly.

Q

Good lot and make two non-conforming lots out of it. I really object any questions. Please.

A

Thank you any anybody. Any questions, apparently not. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else, president.

A

Would like to speak in opposition, anyone else in oppositions. Come up come up, please. If you would.

E

Hi there, hopefully you can hear me, um my name is: oh I'm sorry. Yes, your name and.

A

Address my name is uh sandra penalakis. I live at five meadow road right in the corner here.

F

Right right here there! So if you look at this map.

A

We need you on the mic if, if you look at this map, um as fred had already indicated,.

E

Going from right to left, this is a hill, it's a hill, you're going downhill, and then you come.

E

Around that you can, you can see it says maple street and there's two little lines that keep.

E

Going forward, that's my driveway, that's how close I am so for me. um I have concerns of this.

E

From an intrusive level, where I'm coming right out of my driveway and now there's a house.

E

There, where right now, it's just a hill that is partially cleared, and then we have the wetlands.

E

Further towards the left, big big trees, as fred had indicated, I also have concerns about the sewerage.

E

um On our on our um our road talking to another neighbor, that's adjacent to us that didn't make.

E

It tonight she was in indicating how much there's a lot of work going on up in that maplewood area.

E

And woodbury, ave and and our sewer system, meadow road itself is stressed and to add another house.

E

I have concerns about that. We live on a corner lot. My parents lived in the house.

E

That I'm in now before me, they were there for 40 years now. My husband and I are there.

E

And we we love portsmouth, we both grew up in portsmouth, and this was an area this.

E

I always liked the this area. The tree line is great and I just hate to see that whole area.

E

Turned around the way it was as far as two two two lots: two postage stamps. If you ask me that's what.

E

It kind of is gonna end up looking like versus uh two bigger lots like or one bigger lot like.

E

Most of the rest of the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody any questions, apparently not.

A

Is there any anyone else, president like to speak in opposition, come up? Please go.

R

We'll ahead to meet tyler hi, my name is james penalakis, um I'm looking at the variances.

R

And they want to take these variances and almost cut them in half the back side of.

R

That yard you're supposed to have 30 feet to your neighbor. They want to give him 18.

R

The front to the road you're supposed to have 30 feet. They want to give 15.

R

The sides the same way take that lot and cut that lot in half, because it's a long lot.

R

Again, you're making two illegal odds or two lots that don't accept what's going on as far as the.

R

Gentleman speaking about the lots this this, what they're trying to set up is comparable.

R

To what's going on around us, you know this lot is a lot smaller than the houses around us. The.

R

Thing is: is these this slot is going to be cut? The house is going to be right. There you're.

R

Going to have problems with the kids and our neighbor, you know if they put children in there.

R

The other thing is, is this lot is being cut in half only for capital gains, these people just.

R

Want to make money off this lot! That's why they're asking for all these different variances. You can't.

R

Your setbacks go from 30 to 19 from 30 to 18. Your road furniture is from 800 to 82. I think I can't.

R

But these this lot is going to be so much smaller than the lots around us and these two houses on.

R

This lot are going to be so close together that you might you could I could. I want to subdivide my.

R

House subdivide my land this. This property is just being split in half for capital gains. There is.

R

No hardship there is nothing going on. It will do nothing for our neighborhood but make it look bad.

R

And this house will not do anything as far as a for a family single dwelling, there's going.

R

To be a lot of problems on that street, because we don't have the right setbacks.

R

When the plow comes he's going to drive his snow right into that guy's yard.

R

That's how close they want to be to the road. This is only set up for capital gains. These people just.

R

Want to make money off this lot and they want you to make it two illegal lots, as I call them.

R

And it's just not fair to the rest of us. We had. We had to come in here to do setbacks for decks.

R

That were going to be 10 feet inside my house on the back side had to sit, make sure we did the.

R

Right setbacks. We wanted a pool put in the back, we had to make sure we had the right setbacks.

R

We had to come in and do everything to change your setbacks. It's just like saying to the town.

R

Senate to everybody around us, we can stick a house here. You can stick a house here.

R

You got three houses down the end of maplewood they're, so close together.

R

You can actually see inside the guy's house. That's not the way portsmouth used to be.

R

You have to have some breathing room, and this lot will not do that. For us, it is not.

R

It's not going to benefit anybody, but the person that wants to make money on this lot.

R

I don't think it's right giving up too much.

R

Thank you. Thank you. Any questions from the board, apparently not thank you.

A

Any other speakers in opposition.

E

Hi everyone, my name, is tyler bradberry, I'm on 91 woodlawn circle um concur with the the prior.

E

Two speakers just do a couple brief notes. I think this is pretty succinct based on the.

E

Five variances that they fall short of um you know boating into the idea that, where we live.

E

In portsmouth and the frank joe's neighborhood, I think this is a a sheer attraction in terms of.

E

People living in this part of the city for reasons that it's not close to downtown it's not congested.

E

It has the allure where there's certain roman spacing to enjoy all that. Seacoast has to offer.

E

You know I first learned about this through some zoning personnel that was trudging through the.

E

Back end of my property, you know and where I'm you know a little bit old school initially wish that.

E

These people would come, and you know, introduce themselves face-to-face based on what they were.

E

Trying to do here um kind of it initially put me in in a corner of discontent here about learning.

E

It that way, um you know, after it being certified wetlands and seeing uh problems that occur down.

E

Between these properties I, but to firsthand uh this building, will absolutely adapt that.

E

There's pooling it even can even causes further issues for the other two properties that are.

E

Down on woodlawn circle as well, um you know and really kind of considering where this variance.

E

Falls short in five areas to have an adequate lot. What are the purposes of having these variances.

E

In the first place, if we're going to be passing that they're coming short time and time again,.

E

An additional building will absolutely cause further congestion over saturation for livable.

E

Properties in a comfortable neighborhood greatly impede the privacy for all surrounding.

E

Neighbors within that general area of two neighborhoods um building, a new building.

E

In this lot is not something that's desirable or necessary for the frank jones neighborhood.

E

um I kindly oppose this and the rejection to the divide, this property in a small lot and jam one.

E

More building into an otherwise quiet and quaint, neighborhood part of town and appreciate your time.

A

Thank you any questions on the board, apparently not any other speakers in opposition anybody any.

A

Other speakers, uh mr dessert, mr sith, no, nothing! Okay, uh two last call for speakers too far.

A

Against anybody- oh okay, just me, as you might expect tim phoenix again. Okay, um I would. I would.

D

Point out that I didn't, and I didn't before that mr franciosa did attempt to speak to.

D

uh Some of the neighbors he did speak to mr pantalokos and he did speak to. Is it michael prue.

R

That was a conversation. He has no right to bring my name up onto this. It was.

R

A conversation I'll give you another I'll, give you a chance to respond, sir.

R

You're gonna have a problem. I just wanted to mention that that he didn't go into this.

D

You know blindly lightly. He did try to reach out to some neighbors to have a conversation. They're.

D

Obviously, entitled to whatever position they want to take, he has, he would be willing to to offer.

D

Mr mcmullen, a fence along their comedy property line. If that would uh ease his concerns, the other.

D

Thing the section of the ordinance that I asked eric to find that he couldn't I found um and.

D

It's also which I forgot it's in my it's in my submission under um foot note 2 and it's section.

D

516.40 of the ordinance which I also have here, provides that in the sra and srb zones, terraces.

D

Decks, steps and stoops that are uncovered and unenclosed and are less than three feet.

D

In height and less than 100 square feet in area only require a five foot front and rear setback.

D

So you know in the chart, there's been concerns about the distances and I brought some of this.

D

Onto myself, because I I listed them um but just to be safe, so that the house is 27.6 feet.

D

In the front where 30 feet is required, but the rear uh actually meets it and those.

D

Other appendages, I'll call them that eric um advises me are um less than three feet in height.

D

uh Just don't if I could just those are projections into the front yard so instead.

I

Of a 30-foot setback, it could be 25., so you could have they could project into the.

I

30-Foot, oh, I read that wrong. Yeah, okay, they could be 25 feet in the rear in the front.

I

But then um okay, well I apologize thank you for correcting me. I thought it was reducing.

D

It to a five feet, so some of it would still apply, but part of it will not apply.

D

The rest of it, I won't belabor it. We've. We've made our arguments. We think this is a good project.

D

In my opinion, the the those that have spoken against it, just don't like it. I don't think.

D

That that those their reasoning uh overcomes the rights of the property owner.

D

And mr francios developed the property, which is in keeping with the size.

D

And characteristics of that neighborhood, that's all I have thank you last call too far against.

R

Sorry about you, man comes to your house and wants to talk to you about what he wants to.

R

Do is a casual conversation then he brings it up like something's going on the other thing. I'd like.

R

To bring up is this gentleman is talking, he didn't put this in. Oh, this isn't right. I didn't 25 feet.

R

Here or I don't know if they really know what they want to do, but I'm explaining to you right now.

R

That that lot in that house, that you built they want to build on is just not right.

R

Setbacks, neighbors all the neighbors. I talk, do not want this up there; they don't want it in there.

R

I'm not speed. I can't speak for everybody because they're not here, but our conversations, even houses.

R

Down the road do not want that house there, because it would make for a bad spot for a house be built.

R

And cram two houses together, it's just you all our setbacks. Everything they want is just shrinking.

R

That lot down to two bad logs, and I just think it would be wrong. He does. He doesn't even know.

R

He doesn't wrote out he's got too many of these things to say. Well, I'm not sure about this or that.

R

How do we know what we're getting into they're not up front with us? He doesn't even remember.

R

The secretary address the board. Please yeah, thank you, okay, he doesn't know. What's going.

R

On. Thank you very much. Thank you. Last last call 2-4 against no speakers. Okay, we're.

A

Were closed on the public hearings aspect and ready for some discussion on the board.

A

Did anybody uh have a thought to kick us off here.

E

Well, I just need to to quote one of our former chairman. I have some pretty serious heart learning.

G

About this application on multiple levels, you know we're taking a conforming lot and dividing.

G

Into two non-conforming lots, most of the house would be in the wet wetlands buffer zone, which is.

G

A huge problem now who makes that decision so for those those two reasons right, there would.

G

Be plenty for me, I would not be supporting this application all right as who's that got the next.

A

Comment: anybody somebody miss miss margerson, no, no, no! I was playing so I think um I will.

B

Be supporting this application, I think that it is at first blush a lot of relief to ask for.

B

However, there's a lot of things about this that they really do meet zoning in terms.

B

Of open space coverage they well exceeded building coverage. They are well below it.

B

I I hardship is always an issue for me. However, the applicant's applications have uh have persuaded.

B

Me that this is there's a lot of non-conforming lots um in this area, and I do not find that this.

B

This um this lot uh is, it is a new kind of um configuration with for that neighborhood.

B

So I will be supporting this all right. Thank you. You know, I do understand people's concerns.

B

Over wetlands, I think that you know a lot of the members here.

B

Have concerns for that, but that is not within the purview of this board that is within the.

B

Purview of conservation, commission and the planning board and that's a separate process.

B

Called the conditional use permit that we have no control over. Thank you. Who's who's. Next.

A

Ms eldridge, I'm also inclined to support it because, as I look at the lot here on the tax map.

N

It indeed looks very much like too many of the other lots that I'm looking here in this.

N

Neighborhood and it's just not that much smaller and I agree with miss margesson in terms of the.

N

Lot coverage there'll be plenty, there will be the required amount of open area around the homes and.

N

Again, we can't control some of it. We can't control the wetland that'll be judged by.

N

Another committee, the trees- I hope you keep as many up as you can. It's clearly.

N

Important to your neighbors, but other than that, this just doesn't seem intrusive and.

N

Seems more like the neighborhood than the current enormous lot.

A

Thank you. Thank you. Anybody on this, mr mcdonald,.

G

This discussion, and and others like it tonight, um caused me to come to a conclusion.

G

That what we, what we really have, is a competition in each of these cases, competition between.

G

Private benefit and public benefit.

G

G

It's um it's hard to say.

G

For me, hard to say uh which one supersedes the other in terms of importance.

G

um People who buy a piece of property and pay for it are entitled to the use and enjoyment of it.

G

uh Within the limits of the ordinances.

G

The ordinances are there to protect the public.

G

And I I can't, I can't see any.

G

Unnecessary hardship on this lot that would entitle it entitled the owner of the property to.

G

Go outside of the ordinances of the city in order to.

G

um Maximize the return on their investment, because that's what they're doing so.

G

After thinking all that, through until my head, hurts I'm.

G

Kind of deciding that I will have to vote no.

G

uh On a motion to approve this application.

A

Okay, thank you. Thank you. uh Anybody anybody else before we before I try try to encourage emotion.

G

I like to add one thing: I think the fact that they are similar.

G

Or even if ever lot in the neighborhood is non-conforming.

G

That's not a valid reason to inject two more non-conforming lots in the neighborhood.

C

I'll throw it in there.

C

We're looking for five variances.

C

um I have no problem with the lot depth. I don't think that's a big ass street frontage. It's two.

C

Feet the primary front yard or the rear yard. I really don't have a problem with that. As you say,.

C

There are a lot what 90 of all the house lots in portsmouth are non-conforming.

C

um I don't think it's the job of. I don't think it's my job to create more non-conforming lots.

C

You have a conforming lock um and you know one lot is two-thirds. The other lot's nearly half.

C

Of what it should be granted you're not going to find a lot of 15 000 square foot, lots in.

C

The city of portsmouth anymore, to build on, but I can't I can't see taking an existing.

C

Conforming lot and making two non-conforming lines. Those are my thoughts. Thank you. Okay,.

A

Okay, mr lee, no well I'd just say for the reasons outlined before. I would move that we deny this.

G

Application all right that the motions is denied. Do we have a second to that motion. Second, anybody.

A

Mr mcdonald, I think you've got it okay, mr lee, well, for reasons I've enumerated before. I think I think.

G

That the uh you know that the non-conforming we have an unconforming lot. So I really.

G

No matter if every other lot in the neighborhood is non-conforming, that's not a valid reason to.

G

To inject two more non-conforming lots into the neighborhood.

G

It only has to fail on one of the one of the requirements, and I think it does that so.

G

For those reasons, I would move that we deny this application. Okay, miss mcdonald.

G

Well, I first of all I agree with mr lee entirely.

G

And I would just say that if we keep granting variances to the ordinances, then there will be.

G

More properties in portsmouth that fail to comply.

G

Than those that do comply and then we can just throw the ordnance book out the window.

E

Excuse me, and I'm gonna say: if you don't believe in granting variances, you probably shouldn't be.

N

On the zoning board, I mean it's what we do, we judge them, but we do them you. You know it's.

N

Kind of that we have to believe that there's a reason for it and we don't you don't this time.

N

And that's fine, but, mr chairman, it's what we do. No, yes, I reply. Please do yes, um I I don't.

G

Think the mission and purpose of this board is to grant variances. I think it's two times evaluate.

G

uh Land and building use in the city to make sure to the extent we can that it's appropriate.

G

To the city's vision of where it wants to go yes appropriate, sometimes it is yes, sometimes.

G

uh But not always yes, I agree because you've seen me vote no yeah. Okay,.

I

I'll just get a point of order on what criteria I didn't have.

A

Yeah we'll we'll get to that yeah. I agree well number one: the variance.

G

Is not contrary to public interest part of the criteria here? Is it can't injure public.

G

I think in this case, the benefit to the applicant is outweighed by harm to the general public.

G

And that's two: you only need one. I I will add that I I have struggled to try to find a.

A

A hardship in the in the lot- and I I gotta admit I don't find one it's over. It's over.

A

It's oversized somewhat, uh but this it's a perf. It's a perfectly good lot in terms of total size.

A

It's got some very special characteristics, as we heard about it being wet on a on a slope and.

A

Supporting some very large trees, which serve very good purposes, obviously which trees aren't.

A

Protected by the ordinance, I know I know that, but they are very important to the neighborhood.

A

And that does relate to the character of the neighborhood. In my my judgment anyway, so I I.

A

Have a when I first read this: I said: yeah that'll that'll be an easy one. I can support that, but the.

A

More, I thought about it and looked at it. I decided it doesn't really. It doesn't present a hardship.

A

It's a perfectly adequate lot in terms of the dimension. Excuse me dimensionally and.

A

It does it does, as we heard, uh serve up a real uh public purpose. If you will in by uh having.

A

It's a drainage area, apparently and uh and supports large trees, which help with drainage.

A

As as well so for all of those reasons I I will be supporting the uh motion and my particular concern.

A

Is that it does, it simply doesn't present the hardship that I I would be looking for.

A

To uh vote for it, which I'd like to do, but, but I can't so having said having said all that.

A

uh The vote is with respect to the no is to uh deny yes, so I just want to point out that the.

B

Applicant's application was that a hardship may be found where similar non-conforming uses exist.

B

Within the neighborhood and the proposed use will have no adverse effect on the neighborhood.

B

um And so that's very different from our traditional analysis of hardship and that we have.

B

A neighborhood where there is a lot of existing non-conforming lot sizes and you know therefore.

B

I think that they have met the hardship criteria under that, if not under a traditional criteria.

B

And you know I find this use reasonable. It's in the single residence um b zone and.

B

I don't find that anything that would be put into that lot would be any different than what.

B

Is there now okay, and I think that, frankly, we're getting this wrong? Okay, any anybody else. Any final.

A

Thoughts, no apparently not okay. The motion is to deny and we'll start on the we'll start down. There.

A

With mr mantle, yes, yes, uh mr mcdonald, yes, yes, mr lee, yes, miss rogerson, no, no, uh miss eldridge and.

A

I vote yes as well, so the vote is uh fortitude to pass the motion which is to to deny so okay.

A

First non uh non uh unanimous vote tonight. Does someone have it? Does someone have a motion.

A

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry um and I said that before and I forgot it. Yes, we have one more.

A

Item uh peter, that's yours, we're working with the um new hampshire municipal association to.

I

Authority from here um you can provide some training.

I

We're working with the new hampshire municipal association to provide some training for the.

I

Board and we're looking at september 27th, which would normally be our second meeting.

I

However, um we already have a lot of applications in for september and the deadlines.

I

Not for another two weeks plus with the rehearing of banfield, um so I might put out.

I

I'm gonna reach out to stephen buckley who's, the attorney who would be doing the um session.

I

We're gonna look for some alternate evenings, maybe and then I'll probably send out a poll.

I

To the board members to see what works, um but hopefully maybe in the end of.

I

September or or if we have to push it to october, but I'll just want to give you.

I

So he would give some presentation and then also have some question questions from the board.

I

um And it's actually a good timing, because we have this new.

I

Legislation that is coming- and we should expect a memo from our legal department about that.

I

New legislation, which takes effect august 23rd, so it'll have to do with how we make our.

I

Motions uh they're, probably gonna, have to be more detailed. um Finding the facts for each criteria.

I

So, okay, but we should have something so just to give you a heads up about um probably just like.

I

A work session um on a night that we don't have any other business, I mean this would be.

A

An informal around sure table, and even even if we have to be in conference, room a or something yeah.

I

um If there's something else going on in there, okay, I mean this is somewhere we're not going.

A

To sit there and listen to a lecture, it's two hours, we can do it right right, right, okay, there.

I

Might be a little lecture in the beginning? Could we order? Could we order pizza now, all right.

M

Did someone have a motion motion to adjourn? Thank you, mr mantle. Thank you second. Yes,.

E

E