City of Portsmouth, New Hampshire Board of Adjustment, 24 Jan 2023

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: 1.24.2023 Board of Adjustment

Description

1.24.2023 Board of Adjustment

A

The meeting is in order welcome to the january 24th 2023 board of adjustment meeting.

A

My name is phyllis eldridge and I'm the chair of the zoning board of adjustment due to the large.

A

Number of agenda agenda items at the previous january 17th meeting the board voted to split.

A

The agenda and the new business items e through I were postponed for consideration until tonight.

A

So business continued from january 17th, the request of ashley and robert t, blackington owners.

A

For property located at 65 mendham avenue, whereas relief is needed to construct in addition to the.

A

Existing primary structure, which requires one variance from section 10.531, to allow a seven.

A

Foot setback where 10 feet is required said property is located on a sesame map. 148 lot.

A

11 and lies within the general residence a district. Then I went to speak to this.

A

Before we start, I just want to remind everybody that the applicant has 15 minutes to make a.

A

Presentation and if anyone thinks it will be longer than that, please tell us before.

A

You start and the board will vote about giving extra time and anybody who comes up to speak too.

A

Far against has five minutes each go ahead. Tell us your name and address to be 15 minutes. I am ashley.

B

Blackington uh one of the owners, um we uh thank you very much for considering our application.

B

um We are requesting to build an addition to move a bathroom and create a mud room.

B

um One side of it is seven feet off a property line where 10 feet is required. Currently, our.

B

Back door out to our backyard is right along our property line, so granting the variance.

B

Would allow us to also move the back door to be conforming with setbacks for that as well.

A

um You may, if you would like, speak to our our criteria. Are you familiar.

A

With that I have yeah that was in the letter you may, but you need.

B

Not it's up here. I think I I think I'm good. If anyone has any questions.

A

Does anybody have any questions? Yes, please actually think that the applicant does need.

C

To speak to the five criteria, but I do need to I I think so. Yes, oh sorry, I couldn't hear you.

B

um So not contrary to public interest. um The addition of the bathroom at the rear, our neighbors.

B

Can't see it um it has, it has nothing to do with the front of our house or the presentation of it.

B

um The spirit of the audience um it will not, it will actually bring our back door into conformity.

B

With the current setback requirements um we have, I submitted a picture um of what we are aiming.

B

For it to look like so that it will be substantial, justice will be done for it to match the character.

B

And design of our home and values of surrounding properties will not be diminished. We are fortunate.

B

To live in a neighborhood where, where all work is is good um and a lot of home improvement has.

B

Gone on and then literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance result in.

B

Hardship that has to do more with our rear door being along our lot line currently and that we.

B

The reason we are requesting the variants to build this edition is because we have four.

B

Children and we are trying to make it a safer and easier access for them to their their backyard.

B

That's it. Thank you other questions. Yes, so the I just want to clarify. So your current.

C

Back door, which, I think is what accounts for you being just one yard off of the I'm sorry.

C

That's being moved to the back, yes, so on I don't know if the picture it does yeah. um So the back.

B

Door currently is between the fence and the side of our house, and it will move the back door. Will.

B

Move to the right side of the edition, so it'll be basically in the middle of our house. Oh actually,.

C

Then you you, don't have that non-conformity anymore. Exactly that part! Okay. Thank you.

D

Yes, thank you I'm chair, so um I guess I'm a little confused by what you just told us are.

D

You planning to tear down that current entrance and exit. That's along the side.

D

Towards the bump out, no we're just going to move the door. The bump out is part of.

B

The original structure of the home, so we're not going to demolish or anything right so.

D

um Our zoning board of adjustment rules and regulations do require that, when you're making.

D

Additions and changing around interior layout as part of a application that you provide a.

D

New floor plan- I don't see that here, but I'm so I'm trying to understand what's happening with.

D

That bump out that goes towards the driveway. I did submit the um a floor plan that was drawn.

B

Out with the application, I have one here, if you well, so there was one that was provided. Is that.

D

So there's no interior changes whatsoever that door. I guess I'm trying to understand if you're.

D

Not having that door anymore, what's happening with that space that leads to the door. It looks like a.

D

Hallway of some sort yeah the door where the door currently is, will become a pantry we're going to.

B

Take the door out and put a window in so we'll still have the sunlight coming in, but we won't.

B

Have access to the yard that way anymore, okay, and in the proposed edition, what is going to be there.

D

Is it just going to be an open, porch area? I guess I'm trying to understand. No, it will be a bathroom.

B

And a laundry space right so again, what that's not not illustrated, but, okay, I understand a little bit.

D

Better, so there is no improvement in the side setback with with that addition is you're just.

D

Simply reusing that that space- that's currently sort of in this odd and who why anyone would.

D

Build what they built there. I have no idea this had to be very awkward, yeah and kind of useless.

D

um So I understand your rationale for wanting to sort of reutilize that space, but.

D

um But that will still remain it's just going to be reutilized yeah. The original um door is on the.

B

Opposite side that entered the home and when we bought the house it's been deadbolted. We don't.

B

Even have the keys, the owners that we purchased the home from didn't have the keys. So it's not an.

B

Accessible door, which is why we had originally put one on the back, and so neither of them.

B

um Work or conform, and so we're trying to move that okay. So at one point in time there was only.

D

One door on that on that existing bump out you put in a second one to access the backyard, because.

B

um When we, when we purchased the home, there was no door to access the backyard. Okay.

D

Understood, I think, for the manager. Okay, thank you. Anybody else, mr rossi,.

E

I do have a question about the placement of the bump out edition. So if I understand and.

E

I'm not sure I do, but if I understand the diagram correctly, it's the cross hatched.

E

Area, that is the new edition yep and the reason you need. The variance is because it's within you.

E

Know it's it infringes on the 10 foot setback. Why is it placed there instead of like on your.

E

Graph paper diagram a couple of squares over to the right, instead of where it is now, then.

E

You wouldn't have you wouldn't be seven feet from the lot line, you'd be potentially 10 feet or more.

B

um It's not because the um on the right side of the house is our bulkhead. So in order to have.

B

The bulkhead and stairs going down from the back door and have space for the laundry and bathroom.

B

That's why we ended up at that seven feet versus the ten feet.

E

How does the I'm sorry, how does the bulkhead prevent the placement there? Could you the.

F

Bulk is like right here, so they can. Oh, I see. Okay, the aerial view, I think all right. Thank you. Yeah.

A

Everybody set okay. Thank you all right.

A

Is there anyone who would like to speak two for or against.

A

A

Is there anyone who would like to speak to this proposal.

A

Against this proposal, then the public meeting is closed and we will go to the board.

A

Discussion motion mr middle I'll, make a motion that we approve the variance request as presented.

G

Thank you. Is there a second okay, mr rossi, and your motion as well mendham avenue, like most.

G

Avenues and portsmouth in the houses, uh I'd suspect that many of them are non-conforming.

G

As far as the proposal, uh given the questions by the board, because I was a little confused too- that.

G

The fact that the bulkhead is right there and they're getting around it. This proposed edition is.

G

Less non-conforming than if they couldn't use the back pocket door. So let's go through the criteria.

G

um 10.233.21, granting the very variance would not be contra, contrary to public interest. I see.

G

No public interest involved whatsoever. The public would not even know about it. It's directly behind.

G

It the house.22 granting the variants would observe the spirit of the audience. uh I believe.

G

That it would um it's a greater setback than what is currently there. uh It's still non-conforming.

G

By three feet, but that's a small request: uh dot: two: three granting the variance we do substantial.

G

Justice, in my opinion, it would it's a simple addition to get better access to their backyard.

G

1.24, granting the variance would not diminish the values of the surrounding properties. That is true.

G

um They're, putting on what looks like to be a very useful addition.

G

To their house and if anything that would increase the property values.

G

.25 literal enforcement of these provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessarily.

G

Hardship, the property has special, a the property has special conditions that distinguish it from.

G

The other properties in the area and b, owing to these special conditions, a fair and substantial.

G

Relationship does not exist between the general public purposes of the ordinance provision and.

G

Specific application of that provision to the property and the proposed use is a reasonable.

G

One or owing to these special conditions, the property cannot be used reasonably used in.

G

Strict conformance of the audience and the variances therefore necessary and able to.

G

Reasonably use it now, anybody can make the argument they could do it over here. Do it.

G

Over here do it over here, but since you know, we won't allow it in the front of the house. They've.

G

Already said that the back door, that's out of the variance they plan to keep it there, because it's.

G

Part of the original structure and they have a porch on the other house. This seems like the only.

G

Logical place and to enforce the variance on this would prevent a would be a hardship, in my opinion,.

G

That's the reason for my motion to approve okay. Thank you. Do you have anything to add, mr with.

E

Regards to the unnecessary hardship test, I think the existence of the bulkhead, where it is makes it.

E

Not possible to locate the addition within the setback specified by the zoning ordinance.

E

And that is a hardship of the property that militates toward allowing the the variants.

E

And I think, with regard to observing the spirit of the ordinance, the purpose of the setbacks is.

E

To avoid crowding neighboring properties with excessive massing, and since this is actually.

E

Set back farther than the existing wall of the main structure, I don't see that as an issue and.

E

It does observe the spirit of the ordinance as intended. Okay, thank you. Is there any discussion.

A

Okay, then, the motion is to approve the motion was made by mr mantle and seconded by mr rossi.

A

Mr mantle, yes, mr mcdonald, yes, miss marjerson, yes, mr graham, yes, mr rossi,.

F

Yes, mr matson, yes and the chair votes. Yes as well, so your petition is approved.

A

A

Second, item of business is.

A

The request of lucky 13 properties, llc owner for property, located at 147 congress street.

A

Whereas relief is needed to expand the existing structure, which requires one variance from section.

A

10.5 a41.10 to allow two percent open space where five percent is required said property is located.

A

On assessor map, 126 lot 4 and lies within the character district, 5, cd5, downtown overlay and.

A

Historic district does anyone to speak to this petition? Yes, madam chair members of the board.

H

Attorney derek durbin, I'm here on behalf of lucky properties, llc, which is the applicant and owner of.

H

The property, as well as its member michael labrie, who's seated behind me, did we move closer. I think.

H

With the podium or is it just me, because I don't have my glasses on right now, um I'm confident.

H

Everybody on the board is familiar with this property, given it the prominence of its location.

H

In downtown portsmouth, um it is one of the most highly traveled intersections in portsmouth being.

H

At the corner of maplewood avenue and congress street, many of you are probably also familiar with.

H

Mr liberty, some of the other projects he's done, including jimmy's jazz club, which is next door.

H

To this property, uh the property at 147 congress street is a relatively narrow small corner lot.

H

Has approximately 37 feet of frontage on congress street and 94 feet of frontage on maplewood avenue.

H

Presently there is a two-story commercial building on the property. The first floor.

H

Was previously occupied by the portsmouth health food store until october of 2021 that space is now.

H

Vacant the bottom floor of the building, which is also finished, presently serves this storage.

H

And office space for jimmy's jazz club second floor of the building when looking at it from.

H

The ground level is uh office. Space has a yoga studio that occupies some of the office space.

H

uh The building was constructed in the 1950s. Has a very industrial look to it. There's a few other.

H

Buildings that still retain that appearance in portsmouth and including on this block.

H

um It was constructed during that urban renewal period, maybe not the most forward-looking era of.

H

American architecture, but nonetheless, this building does retain that that character.

H

At the moment, the plan here is to repurpose the existing building add-on to the left side.

H

That'll significantly improve its functionality and also its appearance, bring it a little more.

H

In line [music] with uh with the character of several other buildings that have been approved,.

H

Upon in portsmouth, the proposed renovations as you've seen from the renderings that were.

H

Submitted with the package would bring to life and activate the maplewood avenue side of the.

H

Building which, ultimately, all these improvements will result in a more code, compliance structure.

H

More attractive, more functional for the city of portsmouth, as it stands now that maplewood.

H

Avenue side of the building basically consists, as you probably all know, of a relatively monolithic.

H

White brick wall, there are window openings, but there is no actual pedestrian access to that side.

H

Of the building, either access at the very front or in the back, the op, the alternative, repurposing, the.

H

Building adding on to it would likely be just simply demolish it. Build a bigger structure.

H

There's some long-term financial advantages to that, but that's not the applicant's desire.

H

He would like to just simply improve upon at a relatively modest addition to the building.

H

um To bring the proposed redesign the building of fruition, we would need to utilize the strip.

H

Of landscape land, which is relatively narrow, that runs alongside the building, is shown on the plans.

H

That area right now consists of basically some tall grasses. You know a little bit of shrubbery.

H

Flowering plants there's not a whole lot there. The utility meters are also located towards the.

H

Back of the property within that space, given how straightforward the request before it is.

H

Tonight, I'm not going to um wear you down with facts data all that all that's in my narrative.

H

I'll simply turn to the variance criteria and listen to any questions for me at this stage,.

H

Turning the variance criteria granting the variances will not be contrary to the spirit.

H

And intent of the ordinance will be consistent with the public interest, the redesign the.

H

Building is intended not just to be consistent with the public interest, but also uh to be a.

H

Public benefit really that brings new life to this particular intersection in portsmouth.

H

To determine whether granting the variance would be consistent with the spirit of the.

H

Ordinance, I think you have to look at the goals behind cd5 and downtown overlay district zoning.

H

Figure: 10.5 a 41.10 d. That's a mouthful! The ordinance states that the cd5 district consists of.

H

A high density center with a mix of building types and residential retail and other commercial uses.

H

There are no front yards or side yards and limited landscaping and public parking facilities, streets.

H

Have sidewalks and trees or other pedestrian amenities that define small to medium blocks.

H

And moving on in the ordinance section, 10.641.20 states that the purpose of the.

H

Downtown overlay district is to promote the economic vitality of the downtown by ensuring.

H

Continuity of pedestrian-oriented businesses, business uses along streets by allowing your.

H

Variance from the open space requirement, the proposed redesign of the building will make.

H

The property more conforming with respect to the secondary front yard setback requirement.

H

And certainly more consistent with the goals and purposes of cd5 and downtown overlay. Zoning.

H

In the present case, requiring the property to meet the five percent open space threshold, wouldn't.

H

Really serve any legitimate purpose. A majority of the properties that surround it are built out.

H

To the property lines, I always hesitate to use the clicker, but if you look at the say this is.

H

Why I hesitate to use it if you are to look at the photographs all right there we go. Oh I'm! I'm.

I

Controlling oh you're, controlling it. Okay, I can't control this. No, you, you points it's a placebo.

H

I don't have to use it that often, but obviously thank you stephanie. um If you do look at the the.

H

Photos I mean, I think the photos really tell the picture of what this block looks like in.

H

General, there is really outside of the public right away. There's really not any landscaping.

H

That we would consider, I guess at least what the public would consider to be open space. I think.

H

When the public thinks of open space at least me before, I really looked into the definition I said.

H

Open space, it's kind of like green space. It's like landscaped areas, it's somebody's backyard.

H

It's it's something of that nature. That's not what open space really is in the ordinance open space.

H

um For a lot of downtown properties is just sidewalks. um If you look at the definition, it.

H

Really speaks to that. It's really anything! That's vertically open to the sky that could be conducive.

H

To being landscapes, this particular block, there's really nothing other landscaped per se other than.

H

That very narrow strip of grass, alongside the building, which really doesn't serve any purpose.

H

um So I think that the open space definition is is nebulous at best. The city has over the years.

H

Interpreted the definition of preclude areas that are less than five feet in width, regardless of.

H

The fact that they're open to the sky- so that's a problem for this property in general. Without that.

H

Strip of of grassy landscaped area sidewalks that are open, the sky are actually counted towards the.

H

Open space requirement areas that are partially canopied and landscaped or not. So there is a bit.

H

Of a contradiction within the ordinance itself here, the areas that could otherwise be counted.

H

Towards the open space requirement are canopied, that was a design element that was dictated by.

H

Significant degree by the the htc, so that would, if not canopy, bring us much closer to that five.

H

Percent requirement, but um presently with the design that the htc is willing to approve.

H

We we can't, we can't get there, um so the property, as I pointed out, is situated at the end of a.

H

City block; there's really no separation between buildings here and very little landscaping. If any.

H

So in these, uh for these reasons, granting the variance will not alter the essential character.

H

The area to the contrary, I would submit to the board that will actually make it.

H

More consistent with the character of the area and obviously we'll be now complying with the.

H

Goals of the ordinance of the secondary front yard setback requirement, granting the variance.

H

Will not alter or negatively impact the public, health safety or welfare proposed renovation.

H

Will result in several life safety improvements to the building that would not have otherwise.

H

Been mandated, including a new sprinkler system on all three floors: fire rated stairwells and.

H

And hallways, in addition, mr libre intends to grant easements on the worst worth lot side of.

H

The building and on the maplewood avenue uh side, I'm sorry congress street side of the building.

H

For the areas that are within the property boundaries where the sidewalk runs, so that is.

H

On one additional thing that will be improved upon, there will also the 100 foot concrete sidewalk.

H

Along maple avenue will be improved with red brick at mr lebre's expense, so, overall, the aesthetic.

H

And functional improvements to the property will provide a public benefit and be consistent with.

H

The spirit intent of the ordinance substantial justice will be done in granting the variants.

H

I think, ultimately, the question before the board here is whether the public is benefited more by.

H

The proposed improvements or the preservation of very narrow landscape strip of land that.

H

Really doesn't serve much of of a purpose that would be eliminated by the improvements.

H

In this case, I hope the the answer would be clear on that there is really no tangible gain to the.

H

Public by denying the variance to the contrary, denying the variance would result in a detriment.

H

To the public and a loss to the applicant with the functionality associated with the existing.

H

Building surrounding property values will not be diminished by granting the variance.

H

The landscaping will be removed replaced by the addition. The addition is a very attractive design.

H

Should only provide a benefit to surrounding property values, certainly not any type of loss.

H

And I think the htc's willingness to approve the design is is evidence of that denying the variance.

H

Would constitute an unnecessary hardship. Property does have several obvious special conditions.

H

To distinguish it from surrounding properties being a relatively small rectangular corner lot.

H

With a long narrow building on it, that's located at really probably the busiest most highly.

H

Traveled intersection downtown portsmouth, the building does not have much frontage on congress.

H

Street, while it has a significant amount of frontage on maplewood avenue, that's underutilized.

H

Due to how the building was originally constructed, the maplewood avenue side of the building does.

H

Consist of that long, brick wall with no pedestrian access that really limits the potential uses of.

H

The building so graying the open space variants will bring the property into greater conformance.

H

With cd5 zoning, particularly the minimum secondary front yard setback requirement and the goals of.

H

The downtown overlay district to encourage these pedestrian-oriented business uses along the street.

H

It'll also bring the property into [music] more conforming character and appearance with.

H

Other buildings on on that particular block, which really define the character of the area.

H

For these reasons, owing the special conditions of the property, there is no fair and substantial.

H

Relationship between the general purpose of the ordinance provisions and their application, the.

H

Property, finally, the proposes is a permitted one. Therefore, it's been deemed reasonable by.

H

The by the powers that will so so that those reasons I hope, you'll prove the variance before.

H

You, and I know paul, has a question for me but I'll be happy to answer any questions.

G

um Thank you derek um what is going to happen with the second entrance to the basement, I'll.

G

Let mike answer that question for you, because he I know, has intimate knowledge of what will.

H

Happen with that, so better him answer it than me fumble through the answer to that question. Yeah.

J

Hello, michael labrie, um so uh that particular entryway so you're now, knowing about that.

J

Entryway, does that mean that you used to go downstairs to club spin when it was there.

J

It was the ranger club at that point, the ranger club, yet so uh we're eliminating that and we've.

J

Added another entrance on the congress street side uh toward the bottom right, so it's you're.

J

Going to be able to go downstairs directly from a door in the front off of congress street okay.

J

Yeah, okay, the reason I asked is because the basement is huge literally. um I would expect.

G

There's a fire code that you would need to write sales there's a hallway that travels through the.

J

Basement, and so you have the rear and the front okay, okay, that was my only question. Thank you.

C

Series of questions.

C

um So I would need attorney durbin for this. Actually, so.

C

um Hi derek hi, so I have several questions. Sure uh is a cafe going into this space that that was.

H

A question for mike I mean: there's a thai, a thai restaurant; yes, okay, all right so back to derek so.

C

You're saying one of your rationales is added to encourage retail restaurant and, like business use,.

C

um And that it you know, I mean but you're putting a restaurant in there. So um you said here that the.

C

Narrow building makes that difficult. No, I think. um Well, I think the point I was trying to make is the.

H

Activation of that side of the building makes it very realistic. I think the front of the building.

H

Itself, with only 37 feet of furniture, definitely limits um the the window, marketing or visibility.

H

um Associated with any business that goes into that space, [music] um allowing that.

H

Maplewood avenue side of the building to really um well there's a good picture of it.

H

um It it sort of draws people in is conducive to a use like that um sure.

J

The restaurant is one of three tenants who will reside on the street level and uh you can access.

J

All three of those uh spaces from maplewood ave entering from either the front door or the side.

J

Door, that's down just past that white car, the the front of that white car there. So there will.

J

Be a contemporary art gallery. In there there will be a woman's clothing shop and then the.

J

Restaurant, which is actually a fairly small in in size, and that will be the entrance on.

C

Congress street there are actually four entrances on congress street and and the the restaurant has.

J

One one entrance on congress street the clothing boutique has one entrance the contemporary art.

J

Gallery has one entrance the entrance to go down into the basement. Is there and then an entrance.

J

To go up to the second level is also on congress street, each individual entrances. So I think that.

C

Undercuts the argument that the store the amount of frontage makes it hard to use that space.

J

Well it it's allowing us to get a new uh entry into the basement.

J

Which expands that use down there and it's also allowing us to break what was a single tenant into.

J

Three tenants on that on that floor and making a more varied and dynamic use of that building, which.

J

Is much more than just a restaurant.

C

So I think back attorney, durbin.

C

The open space is actually very well defined in the ordinance it's not nebulously defined.

C

And it says that it has to be free of all structures, and I recognize you.

C

Said that the canopy, if it weren't for the canopy, would not be a structure. But it is.

C

um So the uh you know, I find that the cities you know this is frankly, I agree with you not what I.

C

Would think of when I think of open space? But I think the city is very definite as to how they.

C

Defined open space and it's very clear that it's supposed to be free of all structures.

C

Just let me say.

C

So the I mean in terms of the special conditions, the storefronts on congress, even going back to the.

C

Old rudis, they all have really narrow storefronts, some of them. This particular block the storefronts.

H

Are I think, with exception of the lounge, but that still has a longer frontage? They are quite a bit.

H

um Longer wider than what this particular building has, I recall having done.

H

You know a rough calculation on on them just from looking at the tax map and.

H

I mean you can kind of see it here, but this particular block um the the buildings do.

H

Have quite quite a bit more frontage than this particular law. I mean this. This is definitely.

H

uh Well, it's very narrow, but it's one of the smallest lots by by land area.

C

Right and uh just my last question sure, madam chair, so the um I think it's great you're giving.

C

The the city and easement mr liberty, for for the sidewalks, um that's you know pretty typically.

C

Done but this getting the easements does not in any way rely on these variances. I mean the.

C

The easements could be given either they could be given an anytime shirt yeah. They they were.

H

um As part of this process, though, um they were uh because this application has gone for um work.

H

Sessions with hdc, um it's been submitted for attack, so that was something that was discussed.

H

With city staff and and offered um it's not um a a reason for the variances, um it's just simply one.

H

Of the improvements that would be made um with respect to your comment about the open space.

H

If you, if you did remove the canopies, and I asked for a rough calculation, we're very close to the.

H

Open space requirement, um the problem with it is the canopies are integral to the hd to the design.

H

That the htc is willing to approve, um you know I mean you can sort of. You could try to massage.

H

It different ways to get to the five percent. It just doesn't make sense. I mean ultimately.

H

um I I I my personal opinion reviewing the open space definition. um It's just it's been. I do.

H

Believe it's nebulous, I believe it's been interpreted different ways by the city at.

H

Least, in the course of the time I've spent um either on this board or preparing applications.

H

um The interpretation that you have to have five feet in width in order to constitute open space is.

H

Not defined anywhere in the ordinance, however, that's what's I mean we're being conservative.

H

That's what we apply here if you look at the buildings that surround this, there are areas.

H

That are considered open space but they're, basically they're like entrances like sidewalk.

H

There's sidewalks they're considered to be open space to meet the requirements, but they look no.

H

Different than this, except we have a canopy, and I mean literally that's if you look at the front.

H

Of the building the back of the building, you look at the pictures I submitted with the application.

H

Several of the other properties that are run alongside our that's considered, open space.

H

In the back on the worth lot side, some towns would define sidewalks as structures the city.

H

Of portsmouth says because they're vertically open the sky, they don't, if they're, not canopied,.

H

We'll let you count that towards open space I mean it's, it starts to become a little uh of semantics.

H

To some extent I mean yes they're canopies, but you you can also put that doesn't preclude landscaping.

H

um And when the ordinance talks about landscaping with respect to the definition open space.

H

um It's also talking about areas that could be sidewalks with planters on them, so it.

H

I mean I, I don't. I would submit to the board that it's not well defined.

H

I mean I, I understand you disagree with that, but.

H

There are a lot of contradictions in. It is what I would say, because we can. We can put landscaping.

H

And there will be landscaping within these areas. They just won't be considered to be open space.

A

Okay, thank you. Thank you enough time, mr rossi. Yes, thank you.

E

The proposed edition really looking at the first criteria, and I appreciate what you're.

E

Saying about the intent of the downtown overlay district and improving, you know.

E

Pedestrian access to commercial space, how exactly does the addition do that.

E

I mean it's no additional aggressor egress from maplewood avenue right. I.

E

Yeah, I know it's hard with with the rendering, because it's obviously smaller you're looking.

H

At it and it kind of is function, you don't have to make excuses for it. I.

E

Just didn't understand it: no yeah for the additional ingress and egress of.

E

The building is from maplewood avenue. Could you point that out for me please.

I

um Is there a better image for me to point to.

J

Actually, there was another rendering that I saw from the back of the bill. I'm sorry there was.

J

Another rendering from the back of the building- yes right here, see yes, okay! So that's a that's a.

E

Door going into the well there's stairs going up, we covered it to weather, protect it. You go.

J

Up and then there's an opening, which used to be one of these windows here that we turned into a.

J

Passageway, so you have easy access right into the the building and you can access all of the tenants.

J

You can actually access the entire building by entering that door, got it okay. Thank you.

K

um Mr rossi, are you finished? Oh yes, mr raymond. Yes, thank you, madam chair. um So again, looking at.

D

That same um image, you would you have up there on sheet9, I'm trying to understand all that glazing.

D

That you have along the side, there is any of that openable or is that um just permanent glazing of.

J

The edition yeah, I'm sorry, yes, we have awning windows, could see the ironing windows run above.

J

All of these are openable okay, so the upper portion is but not necessarily the lower.

D

Portion originally, we had double hung windows there. The htc didn't like that. They wanted more.

J

Of a modern glass because we're trying to add a modern addition to this soviet style.

J

Building so really the the whole reason for the canopies is so that we can add this beautiful arc.

J

That wraps around the corner of the building and it's and it's allowing us to soften that.

J

Corner of the building and bring more of a modern flair, and so the hdc wanted us to carry that feed.

J

By having the glass they like and get to a greyhound bus going along there, but I like to have.

J

Open openable windows, so you put those on and windows in there.

D

Okay, so at the sort of the patron level, they won't have open windows, but there'll be some.

D

Open something openable up above up above that hole, okay and then um so, just to just to reiterate.

D

um The the canopies that we're referring to again looking at sheet9 here is this sort of curved.

D

um Area that is covering over uh the sort of the concrete walkway. That's there. Let's get the word.

D

Signage up above it, which would presumably be a signage for uh the basement level,.

D

um Built business and then, if going to the next sheet sheet 10 again part of it is that sort of.

D

Curved piece that goes over what is currently perceived by everyone as open public sidewalk.

D

But that is in fact um that that sidewalk area, at least part of it, is actually part of this.

D

Property is technically private property. The way that planter is located there.

J

People cannot come down the sidewalk without going on private property. That's why the easement is.

J

Actually, rather important right, the intent is, is what is now perceived as sidewalk will in.

D

Fact you'll have a legally recognized easement with the city to allow that to continue to be.

D

Used in that fashion, going forward, if somebody get in many distant years in the future, decided.

D

They want to do something completely different, correct and in order to accentuate the arc of.

J

That canopy, you see that we've curved it and had it die halfway into the front to the frontage.

J

So actually we didn't carry that canopy all the way down to the corner of jimmy's.

J

Because we weren't really looking to add coverage, but rather use it as an aesthetic.

J

uh Piece right, at least for that front, most portion the the portion encloses the new sort.

D

Of eating area, presumably for this new restaurant and it carries up from that the far corner of the.

J

Building in the rear, a single line comes up and then occurs and arcs around that corner.

J

So it's actually kind of an elegant shape that softens that building and adds a more modern.

J

Look and feel to it, which I believe, adds a great improvement to what that building looks like and.

D

And lastly, thank you, madam chair, um where are you at right now with the htc process.

D

Done: yeah, yeah; okay, the approval was good. Okay, that that happened. um I guess more recently than.

H

I was aware, but uh yeah approved through the htc process, um is go ahead. um Yeah and dave just.

H

Just point something out to the board real quick: that area that, where the canopy ends where it arcs.

H

Around onto the um congress street side of the building, that's the open space area. I mean it's.

H

That that's basically, where the two percent um comes from is that that area? That's not canopied.

H

um I'm not sure if I I mean I tried to make this point, but the build out on that.

H

On the side that we're adding on to it is actually again, this is not just a request: um hey. We want.

H

To become non-conforming, this is actually a request to offset with greater conformity on.

H

That side, in terms of the property line, build out offset by obviously a loss with of open space. So.

D

I'm sorry, but I'm sure if I could, if I can indulge you for one more question: okay,.

D

um So and just to understand too going to like sheet 12 the new trash enclosure that.

D

Is also property that belongs to this building, however, because you're putting.

D

um You know required trash enclosures there. That can't be counted. Is that correct? That's correct.

H

Yeah, okay, thank you yeah. uh Could you clarify uh so it seems like so. The intention is actually to.

F

Activate the streetscape on the maplewood side. So so, even if you could have an entrance another.

F

Entrance on congress street is your preference is still to have it on the maplewood side.

F

For activating the streetscape, that's exactly right! It's it's really to to sort of create.

H

A linkage, I guess for lack of better words um with with the rest of maplewood avenue. I know.

H

There's a gap, obviously with the worth lot, but to create something that is more pedestrian friendly.

H

Coming up, maplewood, avenue, accessibility- all of that I think is, is a major consideration here.

C

Just two follow-up questions with respect to the current.

C

Door, that's on maplewood avenue and I don't I've only been in the health.

C

Food store- I don't know the rest of this building- does that go down to the basement.

H

The the one in the rear, the current door, the one near there is a door to the work. No, the on.

C

The existing building yeah- you are you talking about on the worth lot side, yeah yeah, that that.

K

Goes down and it goes down yeah, okay, all right, so it might have been to the former club. There.

J

Under that, on the word side, one goes down. One goes up the other door on the maplewood app side.

J

uh That we were discussing earlier is is a bad set of concrete stairs that goes down to a metal door.

J

That used to be an emergency egress when the club was down there many years ago,.

C

Thank you and just one more follow-up question. This htc gave a certificate of.

C

Approval without us granting the variance first, I didn't think that they could do that until we.

C

Granted a variance yeah that that's always been my understanding, but, like you know, if we were.

J

Granted a certificate of approval, we didn't, um uh I I think that the calculation may have.

J

Come late or maybe was misunderstood their their. um I don't remember exactly.

J

How that sequence, yeah oops, sorry that was loud, the yeah and I and I don't know either because.

H

I I didn't recall the certificate of approval being granted, but I now thinking back in time it.

H

I do recall, having seen you know, you get the emails from the city when you're in viewpoint.

H

um An email to that effect I, but I will tell you from my experience from working on the.

H

Application is that these numbers regarding open space have have been bantered back and.

H

Forth between engineers uh city everything. This because of the definition- and this was the most.

H

Conservative approach was taken is to ask for two percent open space. um I think there's you.

H

Know there's been differing opinions, I mean we've all had probably a different opinion on.

H

What should or shouldn't be counted, but I think this is the better approach, so I could see.

H

um That that may have been the reason why the htc granted the approval. Thank you yeah.

A

Yes, mr I've got a question it might be for derek, but I think it might be for stephanie.

G

um Since we're talking about canopies, um those are considered part of the structure, correct.

G

Well, if they need a variance for a canopy.

G

I mean we have two canopies showing in this application, and so, if I might, the the variance.

I

Is not for the existence of the canopy? It's for um the lack of open space, because the canopy.

I

Inhibits and okay are, are the yellow, canopies part of that building? That is removing open space.

G

Or we're just talking about the orange part on the application, the yellow as well paul yeah. What the.

H

The yellow, the yellow areas as well um are canopy did not consider to be open space yeah, okay, yeah.

G

See this is the question I'm trying to get at if we're just talking about the orange part, then.

G

The canopies aren't part of either adding to or subtracting from open space. So the only piece of.

I

This property that meets the open space criteria is this piece right here: purple that's purple.

I

Because if there's a canopy over it, it can't be counted. Okay. Does that make sense yeah it makes.

G

Total sense yeah, where is the city subtracting for the canopies that are currently on the building.

A

It will be gone, you mean no, no, no, there are two canopies on the building right now.

K

It might be a question for the project team are the canopies that are existing. I'm sorry.

I

Do you mind if I no go verify so? Are you asking if the canopies that are existing currently are.

I

Going to be replaced or obviously they're going to be replaced yeah. I I think I understand the.

H

Question the question is whether or not they were part of the open space calculation to.

H

Begin with for the existing conditions of the property yeah, when we show the yeah um the to the.

H

That's it's a good question, paul, I'm not sure the answer to it. To the best of my knowledge, they were.

H

Not um I don't think they were considered to be canopies by the project by the yeah. I understand.

G

The designer of the plan yep and um they were considered to be part of the open space, because.

G

The blue canopy, which is above the um on maplewood, which is above the entirety of the steps and the.

G

Emergency access from the basement, then you have the green canopy, which go covers. Two-Thirds of the.

G

Property on the worth lot now, those are already in place if you're, removing them and putting up.

G

Another canopy granted different designs, it's whatever: where is that calculation in there.

G

That's my question. Yeah. I think again, I think the that those areas were counted as open space as.

H

Far as I know when I went over the plans with the engineer that worked on it, um I think to be again.

H

I think we were trying to be as conservative as possible and ask for any potential relief.

H

That we thought we would need to not run into a compliance issue, but as far as I know, I went over.

H

This many times, because it's very very confusing when you get into these design elements and.

H

My understanding was those areas that you're talking about in the existing building. The canon.

H

For lack of better words, the canopy areas were considered open space as part of our existing.

H

Open space calculation so very convoluted way: okay, but you were well over the open space.

C

Coverage for I mean you're well over it's five percent you're at 18.5, yeah, correct, counting the.

H

Areas that paul is referring to, arguably they could be or could may or may not be open space.

D

I I would suspect that, because the existing canopies are simply uh fabric over a light.

D

Framework that they maybe do differently than what is being proposed with the applicant's renovation.

D

Which will be more substantial and essentially a built structure, as opposed to something that.

D

Is more easily taken down, it would be, would be one thought it's I I think yeah again, I think.

H

The the approach was to be conservative with the calculations, so err on the side of caution with.

H

Respect to what we have for open space air on the side of the caution um with what we don't.

H

Have for open space with proposed conditions, um I know, is these design elements get get very tricky.

H

I've looked in the ordinance a lot, it's it's hard to always figure out exactly what what is or isn't.

H

um In terms of setbacks, we actually like I said before we actually, regardless of those design.

H

Features are becoming more compliant if they're considered structure, then.

H

We're really really more compliant, um but just bringing the building out itself makes it more.

H

Compliant on the secondary front yard setback, which seems counter-intuitive, but it's the nature.

H

Of the character zoning to try to have everything sort of in a consistent streetscape.

I

Okay, thank you.

A

Is there anyone in the public who would like to speak in favor of this petition.

A

Is there anyone in the public who would like to speak in opposition to this petition.

A

Is there anyone who would like to speak to for or against.

A

In that case, the public hearing is closed.

C

Yes go ahead, but um I I [music] my thoughts on this are that I.

C

I don't find the the ordinance confusing. I think it's clear how open space is defined.

C

um And uh so therefore, I I do not find any confusion there. I don't see that there is.

C

Hardship to this, I think I understand mr labrie's desire to make it maximum use of the of the lot.

C

And I you know, there's no problems with that. That's that's a business decision, but um I.

C

Don't see that there is a hardship or persuasive case for reducing the open space on the slot.

C

um You know I'm aware that it's a strip at the side and at the back is uh is utilities. um However,.

C

You know the loss of that open space around that corner. I do think, will be a loss to the public.

C

um That definitely is not outweighed by a benefit to mr liberty, so I I guess I'm not going to be.

C

Supporting this application, but I'm looking forward to hearing other people's comments.

C

I have a slightly different uh take on this, uh and that is that I do think that uh this application.

E

Meets the criteria it does fulfill the intended purpose of the uh you know of the ordinance.

E

And allow particularly with allowing pedestrian access to the building from the maplewood avenue.

E

Side, better, better access for commercial purposes, but with regard to the special conditions of the.

E

Property, it is an oddly shaped lot and because of the lot any rectangular building on the.

E

Property would end up with a long wedge-shaped space along. You know the maplewood avenue side.

E

Because of the angle of maplewood avenue- and I agree with uh miss martinson- that the definition.

E

Of open space is quite clear in the ordinance, but it does state that unless you have at least five.

E

Feet of width at the you know at some point in that wage you can't count it as open space and.

E

So I think the special conditions of the property are the angular shape of the lot or the irregular.

E

Shape of the lot uh kind of bringing it out of compliance with the requirements that are quite.

E

Clear for open space. I also note that, although the open space requirement is not satisfied,.

E

The building coverage is not in excess of the maximum allowed, so the actual coverage of the.

E

Building is slightly ever so slightly below the 95 percent maximum and that does kind of reinforce.

E

um Kind of the nature of the this the shape of a lot pushing it out of compliance as opposed.

E

To an excessive use of blood so that those are my thoughts on it. Thank you. Anybody else.

A

David, uh yes, thank you, madam chair, so um you know what are the public interests um going back? First.

D

Criteria, what's the real public interest with not allowing this design, um so you know this this. This.

D

Property, as um has has been indicated, um I I it is an oddly shaped lot and I think that was uh driven.

D

uh By the fact, this this building predates uh the creation of maplewood avenue and, as we all know,.

D

That maplewood avenue was one of the uh one of the after effects of the decision to do urban renewal.

D

In this area, with uh tearing down all kinds of buildings, further down uh heading towards the.

D

Heading towards the waterfront and then a desire to connect up um a common intersection between.

D

Middle street and- um and you know as a better way into the downtown back when people were concerned,.

D

About uh you know, malls wiping out, downtowns and whatnot. This was viewed as a much better way for.

D

For traffic flow- and it has proven to be that way for better and for worse, but it did create.

D

Kind of this odd situation here, so what would we potentially get? Well, you have is a little bit of a.

D

Green space along maplewood avenue- I mean, I don't think it really is terribly uh inviting in terms.

D

Of somebody saying that they would want to stop there and enjoy um you know the odd collection of.

D

Plants are there. In addition, as has been pointed out for our open space definition, there's no.

D

Obligation on the part of the property owner to maintain that as green space, they they would fully.

D

Meet the relatively small five percent requirement: that's put in place by the character district.

D

um They could continue to, they could choose if they wanted to to simply brick that over.

D

So I don't think that there's anything here about a loss of of uh green space.

D

um I do believe that the proposed edition does really help to activate the maplewood avenue side.

D

In not only the having the entrance there, which is I'm not sure how much exactly that will get.

D

Used but I really do think that having um the the presence of large windows light people activity.

D

Behind it, I think it would have been even better if we could have gotten the htc to agree to maybe.

D

Allow it to be all opened up in the summertime and even have more of a noise interchange a little bit.

D

There, although that might actually be a negative for the patrons with maplewood avenue traffic, but.

D

Nonetheless, it could have been something that could have been make making this new proposed.

D

Edition even more engaging to the uh to the um any individuals who are walking on maplewood.

D

Avenue, I would have to say from having walked past this many many times, sometimes on my way.

D

To club spin late at night um that it really it just, it has no no pull whatsoever for you.

D

Just want to walk past that area as quickly as you can and and move on to the next thing that.

D

You want to have so I think this is another great step in the improvement of the of the area towards.

D

um Towards trying to bring a more pedestrian feel back to a property that has has not really.

D

Had much of changes what's all whatsoever in the past 70 years and then so the so so the final is.

D

Is I I fully agree, I think our definition of open space is quite clear. That said, we know that the.

D

Applicant is asking for an exception to it. So really, what's the balance, what what do people.

D

Really want to get out of their open space, and I I think they are getting most. I think they're.

D

Getting more and enough of the benefits from that slight loss of open space, with the fact that.

D

That now we will be definitely preserving a area of open sidewalk with that is that is precious.

D

um Through legal agreements with creating an easement for it, I think the the canopying of it.

D

Is is relatively minimal and the feel of it is such that people are not going to go and think.

D

That this is this is being overbuilt. It's going to feel very natural, and I do understand that the you.

D

Know the htc's desire to sort of um you know, get their architectural hats on and and help to steer.

D

The architecture to to give it this this appeal, and I think that the it is appealing overall and.

D

I think, in the end, the project, whatever the little loss, that the public would feel from the law for.

D

Supposed loss of three percent of open space is more than compensated for by.

D

The other added benefits of this project, such as the um you know, bringing the street life to.

D

The maplewood avenue side and providing what is, I think, an architecturally, attractive and.

D

Pleasing uh final result, so with that I would be very supportive of uh of.

D

um Granting the requested relatively minor relief that the applicant is looking for.

A

Would someone like to make motion at this point? Okay go ahead, you know I was just going to add.

F

That, um in addition to the aesthetics uh they can't, which I would I like, I'm a fan of the.

F

Canopies but they are also functional in terms of protecting uh people from the weather and.

F

um It's a way to do that without increasing the building coverage which is under 95. Thank you.

A

More discussion, a motion, perhaps I'm sure I'll, make a motion that we um grant the applicants.

D

Request for variants as presented in advertised, is there a second second. Thank you, mr metz.

D

um Thank you, madam chair. I gave some of some of my background thoughts I'll now. Just try and.

D

um You know coalesce on some relevant facts um grinding. The variance would not be contrary to.

D

The public interest, so, as I indicated, I do think there is a public interest in trying.

D

To improve the streetscape along maplewood avenue, um attempting to create more of a connection with.

D

um Passers-By in that area, I do think that there is a really about an architectural aesthetic that.

D

Is being sought here and has been refined through a very arduous process, with the with the historic.

D

District commission to try and ensure that the final result is something that will stand the.

D

Test of time uh be consistent with, uh with the um all the requirements for um the historic district.

D

And I I think that uh that I certainly trust the historic district commission's judgment.

D

On that, but I would also second it as a from a more an amateur perspective um that that I.

D

Think that the resulting design, while it does require compromises and the absolute letter of.

D

Open space, I think, provides a substantial public benefit that was um which validates this variance.

D

Would be in the public interest grounding variants would observe the spirit of the ordinance again.

D

This five percent open space is probably not being reflected by any of the other properties.

D

um Along the this area of of congress street, I mean for a long long time all the buildings.

D

Here were built out to the maximum extremes. As the applicants representative indicated, the downtown.

D

Overlay district um heads us in that direction and is what we're looking for when we created.

D

The character districts we wanted to get just a little bit more variety, so they did include this.

D

Sort of very minimal open space requirement in there, whether or not the as that was being created.

D

There was truly an appreciation of what was going to constitute open space could be debatable, but it.

D

Is certainly what the letter is that said we you know, the spirit is, is that there are some spots.

D

Out of the out of the applicant's property, it's not built out completely to the property line.

D

That there are places where the public can still access and have a sense of freedom. I think this.

D

Project from that more fundamental concept, more than more than meets the spirit of the ordinance.

D

Granting the variance would do substantial justice again. This allows the applicant to.

D

Make full use of of the square footage that is sort of created by this odd oddity of maplewood.

D

Ave kind of cutting through after some buildings were taken down at the same point in time. um You.

D

Know is there really any major public interest to to not having that additional three percent of.

D

Open space when, when, as the app has indicated, you know, they still have the sidewalk space and the.

D

Back part, there's some areas that probably could have been counted toward the calculation, but can't.

D

Be because of the very strict interpretation and very conservative interpretation as the.

D

Applicant has indicated that they have for trying to ensure that they are being as as prescriptive.

D

As possible about what the potential impacts of their project are, grant's variants would.

D

Not diminish the values of surrounding properties against this relatively small loss of open space.

D

In a downtown area that, by and large, is all built out right up to property lines would probably.

D

Won't be perceived at all, and I just think that the overall increase in improvement of the of the.

D

Property and the ability to make maplewood avenue more pedestrian friendly, I think, would just only.

D

Enhance the desired nightlife: that is what draws most people to this area of downtown and then.

D

Comes our unnecessary, very hardship again in this case here I do think you have an existing building.

D

That's on an oddly shaped lot. The applicant is trying to make use of that oddly shaped lot, but.

D

With that comes some architectural hindrances that they that to give a sort of complete sense.

D

To what the what this odd shaped lot would try to engender, instead of just having it sort of.

D

Cut off and looking kind of weird, the htc has insisted upon these sort of rounded canopies.

D

Sort of add into the sort of rounded nature of the just the way this lot ends up happening to.

D

Be which is very unique compared to other lots and was again likely created by the destruction.

D

Of a couple of buildings to allow the city to have a benefit of connecting maplewood avenue. To.

D

um To the end of middle street and sort of create a traffic connection through there, so I do think.

D

That that constitutes a hardship. I think that the request is a very reasonable one. It is very minor.

D

It is the only thing that the applicant is asking for they're, not asking for relief in any other.

D

Way, just simply for this open space requirement and that there's really no nothing. That would.

D

Really be gained by the public to prevent the applicant from going and trying to create this.

D

um That would that would outweigh the um the the benefit that the.

D

Public would get from from getting it so with all that, I would recommend approval.

A

Mismatching anything to add you know I'll just add that, regarding in the spirit of the ordinance that.

F

uh For this district and the downtown in general, it is desirable essentially to have the lots fully.

F

Built out from a pedestrian standpoint, it's more satisfying and again activating the streetscape on.

F

The maplewood side here, where it's essentially a blank facade there are some windows, but it's.

F

It's not very inviting as a pedestrian, and uh I know we're not voting on design, but I would.

F

Say that this is tastefully done, which is also a benefit to the public, and um initially I was a.

F

Little concerned about the sight line of vehicles turning right at congress there, but after visiting.

F

The site I'm not concerned, particularly because of the the stop lights- and I know tack- will also.

F

Be looking at this, but I I don't see it being an issue, so I'm definitely uh after reviewing.

F

The five criteria in favor of this thank you is the further discussion before we go for a vote.

A

Okay, then, the motion is to approve and the motion was made by mr rayhum and seconded by mr matson.

A

And we'll start with you, mr mantle? um Yes, mr mcdonald, yes miss margison! Now mr bean, yes.

A

Yeah yeah, I know who you are mr ross. Thank you yes, mr matson, yes and the chair votes. Yes, as well,.

A

um So you're approved.

A

All right, okay,.

A

Item g on the agenda is the request of timothy and rebecca o'brien owners for property located.

A

At 396 miller avenue, whereas relief is needed to create a second driveway which requires one.

A

Variance from section 10.114.31 to allow two driveways, where only one per lot is permitted.

A

Said property is located on a session map, 131 lot 24 and lies within the general residence.

A

A district is there someone to speak to this petition. Yes, thank you and I apologize. I brought.

L

My weak reading glasses, so I'm going to struggle a little bit in transition from different strengths.

L

Members of the board. Thank you for your time today. My name is tim o'brien, my wife and I have.

L

Lived at 396 miller, ave for 10 years this coming march with our four kids over the 10 years. We've.

L

Made significant investments to improve our home and yard and to make a place we love and cherish.

L

And is really our forever home? I guess you call it an ongoing concern of ours is the road the.

L

South and miller intersection and traffic over the years we've seen many accidents near our driveway.

L

Including a car hitting our neighbor's house and a car jumping the curb right after our kids were.

L

Playing hopscotch we've also experienced numerous accidents with our cars parked on the street. One.

L

Broken rear, windshield, one car side, swiped, three broken mirrors and two cars completely totaled.

L

With a growing family and two daughters on the cusp of driving age, our concerns will continue.

L

To grow parking on the street will become more necessary and exiting our driveway so close to.

L

The intersection will be even more dangerous with these inexperienced drivers, I'm speaking.

L

Of the united requesting a variance to allow for a second drive would cut on the opposite.

L

End of our driveway, both to increase parking space, reduce the inherent car shuffle that you.

L

Have with multiple cars and soon to be three active drivers in a fourth shortly behind that.

L

That um and to eliminate on-street parking the current arrangement, while a significant while.

L

A significantly significant, mostly unusable width um cut, only allows for single forward.

L

Entry reverse exit and two-car parking just to explain. We call the the driveway cut in front of.

L

Our house, the landing pad for some reason when the city redid the the street right before we.

L

Bought the house they put a 36 foot, driveway cut, which included 13 feet on the side and then 26.

L

Feet or 23 feet right in front of the house and when we moved in the whole front of the house.

L

Was paved and so it really was a landing pad. So if I use the term landing pad, that's what.

L

I mean in the discussion our requests in the applications reduce the current driveway cut.

L

On the left side of the property from 36 feet to 13 feet, while adding a second driveway cut.

L

Of the same size, 13 feet approximately 84 feet down the road towards the right property line.

L

Of note, the property is unique in the neighborhood, as is a long fronted, 134 feet on miller, with.

L

A house situated on the far left the current driveway being on the far left property line.

L

This 134 feet is over twice the average in the near vicinity. The request requires a variance.

L

To section 10 and 1114.31, which would allow two driveways or only one per lot, is permitted.

L

Before I go into the criteria, any questions I'll just go quickly through those.

L

Okay, great um variants will not be contrary to the public interest in that it will move the majority.

L

Of reversing traffic from the property further away from the busy and dangerous intersection of.

L

South miller, an addition allowing for additional parking and the policeman the new driveway cut.

L

Will effectively reduce parked cars in this west side of miller parked cars, as you can imagine, has.

L

And you may have experienced has resulted in traffic congestion and maybe more importantly,.

L

Neighborhoods, um the spirit of the ordinance will be observed as the overall driveway cut.

L

Will be reduced from 36 feet to 26 feet, the large frontage and smaller cuts will improve sidewalk.

L

Continuity and align with surrounding homes. In addition, placement of the cuts on the lot with.

L

A larger frontage, then the surrounding lots will fit within the fabric of the neighborhood.

L

Substantial justice will be done as it will reduce on-street parking and associate associated traffic.

L

Congestion allow the property owner myself to avoid further damage to vehicles as a result of.

L

On-Street parking and provide safer ingress egress for vehicles, especially with our children, entering.

L

The driving age, in addition, a big consideration, is preservation of the existing driveway is in the.

L

Current form eliminates the risk of deconstruction towards one of 270 year old oak trees, which line.

L

The existing driveway you can see in the picture those two oak trees that we have there there's a.

L

Picture in the public works department looking up miller and our house is the only house and.

L

Those trees are probably a third the size and you can see just those two trees. There's obviously.

L

No condos behind it, but they're they're, fairly historic in the city. The value of the surrounding.

L

Properties will not be diminished and that the overall reduction of the driveway cut length both.

L

Removes the landing pad that I talked about, look in front of the home returning it to the norm of.

L

The neighborhood and improves pedestrian flow, in particular handicap access by reducing the.

L

Frequency of parking delivery, trucks, crossing guards, visitors myself when needed to shuffle.

L

Cars on the landing pad overall, the look and usability should improve that landing pad is.

L

A natural place for any deliveries that we have to the condos across the street, for us for trucks to.

L

Stop and for us it's a because we have to do the car shuffle to try and avoid how much we we pull.

L

Into the street backwards, it's a natural place for us to put a car. While we do that shuffle.

L

We have had notes on the car suggesting that maybe we shouldn't park there because of that.

L

Blockage which, frankly, we hadn't considered when we did it and it's a good point, literal.

L

Enforcement of the variance causes a hardship in several ways, depending on the approach taken by.

L

My wife and I and the event of variance is not granted. If we choose to replace our existing.

L

Driveway with the new driveway cut the act of removing the established gravel driveway, which.

L

We installed instead of payment to protect the trees, we'll put the tree at risk and presents.

L

A situation where parking and drop-offs is a significant distance from the door, so children.

L

Packages, visitors, the resulting larger driveway, would result in a smaller yard, so our side yard.

L

Is essentially our backyard? That's a very narrow. It's a very shallow lot where the house is pretty.

L

Much 10 feet from the back property line, and so our side yard is, is the yard that we have.

L

If we choose to maintain the current driving configuration, despite a large.

L

Lot and due to the orientation of the house on the lot, we lose an option to.

L

Add a garage in the future and parking and safety issues will remain. Thank you.

C

Questions. I'm sorry, you speak very fast. Sorry, I, yes, I just uh don't understand everything so.

C

You wouldn't be removing the existing gravel driveway. No, so do you want to.

L

Come walk up here. I want you have to take the microphone with you. Please.

L

And I learned not so uh this is the existing driveway. If you actually go.

L

Up a couple slides to the seconder, keep going there's a bigger picture.

L

Going so this is the existing driveway right. This driveway cut right here is the entire existing.

L

Driveway we would be keeping the gravel driveway and reducing it from the 36 feet.

L

4 inches to 13 feet and then adding a 13 foot with a gravel parking pad at the end.

C

Okay, so you'll still be using the existing driveway as a driveway. um Not it yes, but not.

L

As a primary just because of those safety concerns, but we will be, we will have three cars uh in the.

L

Very near future, and so this adding the driver gives us that ability to reduce how much we're.

L

Backing up into the intersection, which you always kind of pray as you do and allow us to have a car.

L

Or two parked at the other in the other one, but so to get out of the existing gravel driveway.

C

You don't turn around because we don't have the space to turn around okay, so you have to it's.

L

Like the this is no longer it's just a asphalt like sidewalk and then it's a gravel driveway. This.

L

Is deceptive, you can't there's no space to turn around here. You have to back all the way up into.

L

The intersection and go that way so and my last question is: um why not make why not eliminate the.

C

Gravel driveway, given the concerns that you stated as to safety and make the new driveway bigger.

L

um Because this is our the way that the first off it would make this whole section.

L

Of the yard pretty much unusable right, it just becomes a a space that is not in.

L

Use and then this would have to create this bigger, which cuts into what is our our yard.

C

Is that the little blue square there I couldn't tell I I drove that's a little.

L

Yeah, sorry, that's a little shed, that's a shed and that's a the house. Okay, thank you.

M

Mr rossi, do you have any intention in the future to change that shed into a garage or.

E

Move it and make it a garage where the new driveway is going. um We have talked about.

L

It- um and this gives us the option to someday, do that, but we don't have the plans right now.

L

I mean it's a natural place if you were going to build a garage to build a garage, but.

L

We don't have that and why not make that driveway. Just the newer one, just big enough.

E

So that you could turn a car around and go out front ways instead of backwards because of how.

L

Much of the yard we'd be sacrificing to do that because that's a 13-foot, driveway you'd have to.

L

It essentially cut into the yard. You know like this. This far to be able to turn around a car.

E

Thank you. Are there any other questions, mr raymond yeah, so what you call the landing pad uh that was.

D

There, when you originally bought the property they when they redid that street, probably around 2011.

L

2012 it used to have new um curbs and they paved it completely. If you're going to like google maps.

L

You can go back and you can see. The whole front of the house was paved in fact, all along it was paved.

L

uh From here and then all the way back here.

D

Right so so you're saying your actual lot was paved as well. Yes right, so you eliminated all.

D

That pavement, yes, okay, but was part of the purpose of that pavement to allow you to a park more car.

D

Potentially, and also be able to do some of the maneuvering that you're now discovering is, is a.

L

Bit of a problem, the way that it was paved you couldn't know you couldn't maneuver it, but you.

L

Could park three cars in front? Yes, okay uh and no thought about trying to return that back to some.

D

Some additional parking with- I guess I still don't see where a lot of your issues that you're having.

D

With your current gravel driveway are resolved in any way, shape or manner other than allowing.

D

You one additional parking spot, um so you don't have to park on the street, but did you give any.

D

Consideration to trying to sort of recreate some of that to give more maneuver room and create.

D

The additional parking that you now desire um it! No because the how when, if you look at pictures.

L

From back, then, the house was, it doesn't fit the neighborhood and it it looks horrible. Frankly,.

L

um We, the the biggest thing that we gain from um not parking on the street, is the damage that we've.

L

Had to the cars and the neighbor complaints that we've had, although it's com, it's legal.

L

By city parking ordinance to park on the street, it's not um accepted within the neighborhood or.

L

The people driving by between the honking of horns and obscenities that come out windows yeah, I'm not.

D

Exactly sure how you end up with vehicle damage, like on your substantial justice slide, the first.

L

One was a line painting truck, let's hook out the side of my car and the second one was a neighbor.

L

um Backing out of their driveway at 30 miles an hour, yeah looks like they lost the rear, rear axle.

D

Or something and flipped it around onto the curb okay understood? Okay, so I have questions. Thank you.

C

So the um and when I drove by the the house I saw this, but that line that is from the house to your.

C

To your, your, your your boundary, that's a fact: that's a fence. What is behind that a shed and.

L

A little courtyard like a because it's an entry to the back modern okay, but you could remove that.

C

Fence and make more of a driveway you could you still wouldn't be able to turn around.

L

There's there's no space to it's like a 20-foot wide section. It's extremely.

L

Difficult to turn our car around. Thank you.

A

Any other questions. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

A

So we'll open it to the public. Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this petition.

A

Is there anyone here to speak in opposition to this petition.

A

Is there anyone here to speak to for or against this.

A

Public hearing is closed.

K

Just like a comment that I drive past this property frequently uh on my way toward the.

E

Intersection with south street it a hazard when there are cars parked along the curb.

E

There, because you can't get around it without crossing the double yellow line, fairly close.

E

To the intersection and it's uh I would like to see something done to relieve that. I can't figure.

E

Out how to how to relate that desire to the five criteria you know for approving the variance, so I.

E

Hope somebody will be able to fill in those blanks, as I'd really like to see something happen here.

A

Okay, thank you. Anybody else, mister. I have a couple of additional thoughts to add. uh I guess the first.

F

Is that this lot is essentially twice as wide as the neighboring lot, so two driveways on there.

F

Would be a similar spacing of curb cuts as uh the other, and so this law is unusual. In that sense,.

F

um And then uh another thing is I. I definitely agree that the parking on the street is a safety.

F

Concern I've I've seen some minor uh mirror, accidents and stuff, and also I remember, reading.

F

A paper about the car that I drove off and hit the neighbor's house on the other side of miller, ave.

F

um But I think uh parking off street would be the huge advantage because, even though, if you.

F

Still have to back up onto the street if you're doing that in the daytime.

F

um You've got uh it's, I know it's 20, it's supposed to be 25 miles an hour in general. I don't think.

F

People speed too bad, but is the the issue is more about the narrowness of the road. So if you're.

F

Parking on the street, that's a bigger issue than backing up, so I think just having the ability to.

F

Park, our street is a huge uh advantage um and I bring regard to the other uh board members.

F

Comments, um I do think maybe there could be a way for some type of like three-point turning.

F

uh Situation for the new driveway, um but for the existing driveway, it's not about making it deeper.

F

uh Benefiting being able to turn the vehicle around, it's just that it's not wide enough between.

F

The house and the property line, um so those are my thoughts. Okay, thank you. Mr beijing. um Miss martin.

D

At first you make it so I'm I'm a little torn about this application. I do think that there are.

C

Safety concerns, however, the applicant still does continue to use their garage uh that driveway. I.

C

I think that the miller avenue is problematic for traffic and non-street. You know on-street parking.

C

um However, I think that's this a condition- that's shared by every single other house on miller.

C

Avenue I, um when I did drive by this property, you know I drive by it a lot, but I did notice.

C

That I perhaps it was somebody in your house had drought had parked up on the on the sidewalk.

C

um On the other hand, I I don't see why the applicant can't expand the driveway in the.

C

New position and just use that as a driveway, I recognize that would take away some of your.

C

Yard, but it is much bigger than some. The lot is bigger than some of the lots in on miller avenue.

C

um So I you know it's it's kind of a hard one. I recognize the safety concerns, but yet I think.

C

That uh I think perhaps another driveway could be constructed where the new driveway would be.

A

Ready, yes, uh thank you, madam chair, so I too am torn on this application.

D

um I really you know the applicant has talked a lot about improving safety. I.

D

Don't see what's being proposed has gone in any way shape or man or improve the safety.

D

um That much it's really a matter of the applicant wanting some additional parking.

D

um Off street parking, which I do think that there's merit to not parking on the street.

D

In this area does sound like the parking traffic and safety committee could possibly do something.

M

About all this, exactly I mean if this really is such a significant neighborhood concern.

D

Yeah you know this is this is a in a side, but uh it would seem like something that could be.

D

Taken on uh in that forum and and solve so I mean I do understand the the desire from the.

D

Applicant to have an additional off street parking, I would say that I would be. I would.

D

Say well that there would not be justification for just that benefit to to the applicant. That.

D

Said I really think that mr matson's point of the rhythm of the neighborhood going to the uh you.

D

Know the contrary to public interest really has a lot to do with the nature of the neighborhood.

D

The applicant has one huge benefit here, which is is from a hardship standpoint. They have an.

D

Unusually large lot, if you look at right across the street, you know the rhythm of the driveways.

D

That you have going along there. What the applicant is asking for is certainly in conformance, if not.

D

Even farther, apart than what those those driveways would be so in terms of presenting something that.

D

Is atypical for the neighborhood in terms of entrances and exits onto the street? I I don't.

D

I I I don't think that that's a that's a problem, so in that sense I'm supportive, really solely for.

D

The reason of getting getting cars off the street and allowing the applicant some adequate parking.

D

And I can understand why the applicant would want to um you know, change the front of the house from.

D

Being in a sort of sea of asphalt- or you know, if you want to change it to even gravel, I do think.

D

That there is a positive for the neighborhood as well to have a minimum amount of gravel.

D

Along the uh along the streetscape, so I do think this would benefit there. That's all. Thank you.

A

Would anybody like to make a moshi? Thank you. I would like to move that. We approve.

E

The application, as presented in advertising, is there a second.

F

Oh second, thank you. Please state your motion.

E

The variant's, not being contrary to the public interest, uh is.

E

Supported by the traffic considerations that we have been discussing in the safety considerations.

E

In fact, the variants would promote the public interest with regard to traffic safety. uh In that.

E

Particular stretch of road, substantial justice is being done because the benefits of the applicant.

E

Does is not outweighed by harm to the public or to say it differently, denying the application.

E

Would not result in any benefits of the public. In fact, it would eliminate a potential safety.

E

Benefits of the public, so substantial justice is done. The value of surrounding properties are.

E

Not diminished, we have not been presented with anyone in the neighborhood who has made a claim.

E

That this would infringe upon their property values, so we have no evidence before us to help.

E

Forces to conclude that this would diminish the property values in the surrounding area.

E

Literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship and the unnecessary.

E

Hardship so on and so forth, not going to read the criteria but the hardship of the property. I guess.

E

The you can say that the unusual nature of the property is the size of it and is has been pointed.

E

Out along this stretch of road, one would normally see an additional driveway in that in that amount.

E

Of frontage and therefore it is a reasonable use and fitting within the character of the.

E

Neighborhood and I believe that criteria five is therefore supported and satisfied. Okay, thank you.

A

Mr matson anything to add uh yeah, I guess for the hardship. I guess I would also add that, in addition,.

F

To it being a large law, it's uh relatively wide and shallower than the others, but and.

F

Also, where the house is located on the lot, um I can create some hardship for uh driveway location.

A

Is there any discussion before we I'm sorry, can I add something, as can we hold one? Second.

A

The motion maker would like to add something yeah. I just wanted to say that, with regard.

E

To hardship of the property, there is the two well-established oak trees I didn't want to.

E

Overlook that sorry to interrupt you paul, but I think that precludes expanding the driveway.

E

With wise to allow better turn around, thank you, mr manor. um There's a lot of people on.

G

The board I'm sort of betwixted in between on this um and trust me. I know exactly how.

G

You're feeling about being on a busy street and trying to back out of your driveway.

G

I, as somebody's already pointed out, I don't know if giving you a second.

G

Driveway is going to accomplish that granted. It's farther away.

G

From the intersection and a couple seconds means all the difference.

G

um At least you have a straight away, mine's on a curve so, um and I get the.

G

Idea that, sometime in your future, this corner of your lot could be the garage.

G

I think you would have been uh more.

G

I don't know what the appropriate word would be if you from your new driveway.

G

Propose a circular driveway around your trees and coming out and just eliminate where you are.

G

Right now, this way you don't have to worry about backing into traffic, but that's not your proposal.

G

I'm all done, that's it, so I think I'll I'll add so the the purpose of the zoning, so the public, the.

C

Purpose spirit and intent of the ozone ordinance is that this is a single family, residence single.

C

Family district and uh all a permitted accessory uses are allowed subordinate, driveway, certainly.

C

A subordinate won't say necessary to the use of the single family residents and as a single family.

C

Residence- I I you know it seems clear they want one driveway, um so I I'm not going to support it.

A

I used to live on miller avenue everyone backs out, but.

A

Your location really is a very difficult location and I have been influenced by.

A

Mr matson's suggestion of the rhythm of the driveways, with your larger lot.

A

It just seems a shame to me that, given this variance, it's still going to be.

A

Just the same you're still going to be backing out into traffic, I feel like.

A

There's a really missed opportunity here, but that's not my perfume so.

A

um I will be supporting this motion and there yeah. I will be supporting this motion.

A

So if there's no further discussion, the motion is to approve the second driveway cut and the motion.

A

Was made by mr rossi and seconded by mr matson and we'll start down there? Mr matson? Yes, mr rossi,.

F

Yes, mr rahoon, yes, miss martinson! No, mr mcdonald, yes, an instrumental yes in the chair vats. Yes,.

A

Tell your children to look carefully. Thank you.

A

So the next petition is h and it's the quest of karen before a revocable trust in caramelford.

A

Trustee owner for property located at 114 maplewood avenue, whereas relief is needed.

A

For the installation of an ac condenser unit, which requires the following one variance from section.

A

10.515.14 to allow a two foot setback where 10 feet is required, set properties located on.

A

An assessor map 124 lot 4 and lies within the character district, 4, l, 1 and historic district.

A

Does anyone to speak to this uh good evening ann whitney, I'm the architect for the project.

N

um um This project is actually a rebuild of an existing structure. That was there.

N

And the existing structure was tight right to that back property line and.

N

um Part of the redesign was to get it off that property line and.

N

We felt that this was a good location for the ac unit, even though it's very.

N

Close to the property line, if you look on the photo there's an existing building, a.

N

Butter building and there's a whole gang of ac units um that are on that corner.

N

um And it seemed like, even though you know the basic, um that this seemed like a good place.

N

I'm showing just some fence screening. Actually, if you go to the next um page,.

N

um That shows those existing units, that's a section, a blank wall where we're going.

N

To be locating it, and you can see what that current existing elevation is right.

N

Now I'm just showing an l-shaped uh fence. Screening with the htc is going to require.

N

But since I've submitted this we've kind of re-looked at and we're actually going to be.

N

Fencing that entire rear rear property and dog lugging it up towards maplewood and and.

N

Dog lagging it back to the building, so this will be completely concealed from the butters.

N

Some that's what we're proposing we felt like.

N

um The side yard- you know it's the only yard space for this residence and it'd be nice to keep it.

N

Out of there- and there doesn't seem to be any opposition to putting in on that back elevation.

N

So our criteria, one and two not contrary and consistent with this.

N

Spirit, this location is no public view and the unit will be screened from the butter.

N

Any a better view from fencing and the screening also helps with any kind of noise.

N

um Substantial justice will be done. This location has several unscreened ac units and heat pumps at.

N

The butter's rear yard and it's sort of continuing a place where these units can go that are.

N

um Not overly, you know, creating any hardship for any of the butters. This variance will not.

N

Diminish the property values, um I think the special condition of the lot is basically our.

N

Non-Conforming uh rear and left side. The left side is running along the um cemetery and they're both.

N

Pretty tight know that we've improved the rear lot yard. We were sort of set with how you know how far.

N

We could go forward with this existing building. We basically were covering the existing footprint and.

N

Reducing it a bit at the rear yard, so that's um is there any questions? Actually, the other note when.

N

I submitted the application they'd sent me that cut sheet with the, and I just assumed it was the.

N

Largest unit, but it's actually a smaller unit, it's a 30 by 30, instead of a three by three. So.

N

We'll have a little bit more of a setback, six inches, but basically be in the same location.

A

Okay other questions. I just um I'm confused uh this. The air conditioning unit that you're.

C

Proposing to put in is for the new construction, yes, okay, so the little gang of oh yeah go.

N

Back to the site plan, yeah, that's for the other building on this site yeah. These are. uh These are.

N

The existing units that are in that back corner- and um so there are three units currently there.

N

That are unscreened um and we're proposing to just put it on that back side. So we're.

N

Kind of the mechanical systems for these two lots are kind of happening in that back lot line.

N

So it's that's what the neighbors have that's, what the neighbors! Those are, the neighbors okay, those.

N

Are the neighbors units, the butters units we want one, they have three, they have three. Okay, all right.

N

So there's two acs and a heat pump back there, yep, okay and it's kind of a no man's land between the.

N

Two buildings there's a lot of activity that happens between there. Okay, sorry, I was yep. I.

C

Lost the thread there somewhere. Thank you, mr van. Yes, thank you manager, so um back in 2019, the fact.

D

That you were moving this and striking route to the property lines was a a positive factor. I think.

D

That the board considered at that time, um why was it not recognized at that point in time that.

D

You were going to want to put ac into this new structure and you did a location for a condenser.

N

um They hadn't decided on the heating systems, yet I assumed actually they.

N

Were going to wanting to use a heat pump which would even have a bigger setback. But.

N

um You know the owner had decided to go this route with a more conventional heating system, with ac.

N

So, at the time of you know the variances we hadn't designed the mechanical systems. Okay, thank you.

A

Is there anyone to speak in favor of this petition.

A

Is there anyone to speak against this petition? Is there anyone to speak to for or against.

A

Board, what would you like to do.

E

I'll just comment that uh I really don't think the diagrams do injustice. You know if you walk through.

E

The cemetery and take a look at this area- it's really clear that this is where the compressor.

E

Unit belongs, it becomes like a utility plaza between the two structures and it's visually.

E

Much more crowded together, you know than you think, by looking at this diagram and I think.

E

The addition of a fence is great it'll, really shield that hole. You know that thing from the.

E

uh From the cemetery, so I think it's, I think it's good, I'm supportive of it. Okay, thank you.

A

Is there a motion from anybody this side's been quiet tonight I made the first motion. Oh well,.

G

I will make a motion to approve the request as presented. Okay, thank you. Is there a second.

K

Thanks, mr rossi uh uh per the request, um we get quite a few of these. uh My first look at.

G

Foreign, the fact that you know the existing is one foot and we're making it less non-conforming.

G

That goes a long way and given the um situation right behind you with the immediate butter, this.

G

Would be an improvement uh as for the five criteria, granting.21 granting the variance.

G

Would not be contrary to the public interest, it would not be public would have no interest.

G

In seeing this, the back side of this house or the three other heat pumps that 2-2 granting.

G

The variants would observe the spirit of the ordinance, since this is a non-conforming lot.

G

And you're proposing it to be less non-conforming. I think that is in the spirit of the audience.

G

Granting the dot two three granting the variance would do substantial justice.

G

I believe that it would 2-4 granting the variants would not diminish the values.

G

Of surrounding properties, um it would not uh the value with this rebuild plus this.

G

um I believe the surrounding properties would only enhance their values.

G

Um.25 literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary.

G

Hardship property has special conditions um given where it is and the site of the building, which has.

G

Already been approved and owed to these special conditions as far as substantial relationship does.

G

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

G

um I believe that to be true, this is probably the only place you're going to be able to put it and.

G

Given the nature of, what's right behind it, I think it's a great location and that's why I.

G

Made the motion and support the um support it? Okay, I have nothing further. Okay, thank you.

A

No further come. Oh thank you. I'm sure I will support the motion. I agree. It's the.

D

Right place to go and put the condenser, I guess I'm still somewhat disappointed that it was sort.

D

Of presented before this board that uh you know there's going to be some improvement in.

D

The setbacks, and now we're already you know before the before the property is completely.

D

Done uh encroaching back on those milli with a relatively minor encroachment, uh but that said.

D

um Precaution for our board members to. We always need to be be careful when being presented.

D

Information that we're we're that is fully reflecting what the ultimate plan is going to.

D

Be I really don't like the idea of coming back and nibbling just that little bit more and nibbling a.

D

Little bit more nibbling a little bit more, that's all I'll get off my soapbox now! Okay! Thank you.

A

So the motion is to approve and the motion was made by mr mantle and seconded by mr.

A

Rossi and we will start with mr mills- yes, mr mcdonald, yes, miss margison, yes, mr raymond.

A

Yes, mr rossi, yes, mr matson, yes and the chair votes. Yes, so you are approved.

A

Last petition for this evening is I the request of thomas e.

A

Mary beth b james b and megan c peace, please owners for property located at 305, beverly.

A

Hill road, whereas relief is needed to renovate the existing primary dwelling into a two unit. Dwelling.

A

And to construct a new single union dwelling, which requires the following: one: variance from.

A

Section 10.440 use number 1.30 to allow a true unit dwelling in the srb district, two variants.

A

From section 10.513 to allow more than one freestanding dwelling on a lot in the srb district.

A

Said property is located on an assessor map, 255 block 5 and lies within the single residence. A.

A

Single residents be a natural resource protection district. Is there to speak to this.

O

Thank you, madam chair members of the board. My name is sharon; summers, I'm with donahue, tucker and.

O

Shandella- and I am here tonight representing the the reese clan and with me tonight- is uh jim reese.

O

His wife, megan and sister betsy zender, the other members of the family, are home. What I'd like to do.

O

Oh, thank you stephanie. If you could put up that, uh I guess it's exhibit one yeah, that's perfect!.

O

Great, thank you. What I'd like to do tonight is just make a couple of comments, and I'm going to.

O

Turn it over to jim reese, who, I think, can probably give you the best sense of what happens out there.

O

And then I'll address the uh the variance criteria. I would also ask for your indulgence in the sense.

O

That we have a member of the public who actually is a relative of john hess who's in the audience.

O

She intends to read a letter that she wrote into the record. I know it's late, but I would ask that.

O

We'd be able to submit that letter into the record after she reads it think: okay, of course, okay.

O

um So with that, as I've indicated in in the application materials, the reach family obtained.

O

The het farm property back in 2014 with the intention of having the family live there.

O

um And additionally, while everyone in the family other than the children has jobs to pay the bills.

O

A large motivator for the family in acquiring the property to begin with was it was to a desire to.

O

Actively farm the land more recently, betsy tom's and jim's sister has decided to join the team.

O

um This property is situated for those of you who have been around for a while is situated on what.

O

Is known as the head farm and back in 1989, peter lachlan worked diligently to get this property.

O

Put into a conservation easement to be held by the by the town and going back several decades.

O

Several dress sizes ago I was the assistant city attorney at the time and in fact witnessed the.

O

Conservation, easement deed. So this has a certain amount of personal interest to me in being present.

O

On the property since 2014, um the family um has learned that farming and managing the land.

O

Requires workers and the reese family believes that the best way to do this and to achieve that.

O

Goal is to have the family be on site, the reese family is close, but they also need their privacy.

O

And can't be living in each other's pockets as they are currently doing all in the farmhouse.

O

um Accordingly, we are seeking relief tonight for two things. One is to if you, if you see on.

O

The exhibit there we have a proposed 32 by 24 home for betsy zender, which is identified. That's that's.

O

um Jim's sister- and that is the existing breezeway- all that's intended to do- is to.

O

Renovate that and to make that into a two-family structure, meeting the existing farmhouse and the.

O

um The renovated breezeway. The second request that we're going to do is to ask for a second.

O

Freestanding building on the property which is depicted there as the proposed, and these.

O

Are all in preliminary designs, but the the preliminary design that we have at.

O

This point is 38 by 28 home and that would be for uh jim and megan reese and their children.

O

So with that at this point- um and I should also note that we we do understand that we will need.

O

To get some additional land use relief, we're going to need to go to uh site review, have them look.

O

Over issues such as the driveway and whatnot, but I'm going to turn this over to jim at the moment.

O

To describe it in a little bit more detail and then I'll come back and address the variance.

O

Criteria, if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them now, but other than that I'll be back.

D

P

um As she said, I'm jim reese, so my wife megan.

P

And my sister betsy are back there: rhonda stevens lives.

P

You can't see it, but it's right up here: she's our immediately adjacent neighbor.

P

She'll explain that she's grown up there, her entire life, so she's got a.

P

Better gauge of history than I do when we came here, we saw the availability.

P

Of this property, and both my brother and I have been looking for a farm for.

P

Almost a decade um throughout the area- and this came up for auction and we were lucky enough.

P

At the time to get it, but we really want to keep this as a working farm. We really want to actually.

P

Improve what's going on there. The backfield, for example, has probably been fallow for 50 years.

P

The headwaters of sagamore creek are on the farm it's prone to a lot of flooding, that's seasonal, so.

P

In the backfield, they cut out a lot of drainage, ditches way back when long before our time.

P

Those have to be cleared out in order to make that backfield arable again in order.

P

To be able to plant crops presently we have rented out the space in both of the barns.

P

For the horse business, everybody comes by, they love to see the horses. That's a lot of work. We.

P

Don't handle the horses directly, but the amount of labor that goes into the property is huge.

P

People don't mika and I are not going to have 10 kids and that's what you used to do for your.

P

Labor force so we've accommodated with siblings. The kids are growing up now. Logan's 16 he's.

P

Pretty adept at driving the tractor- he would have been here tonight, but he had other plans.

P

So, on any given month, we there is so much work to do off hours that it takes the people to do.

P

It and he we had not intended a living in the same house for this long it. You know. I love my brother.

P

I love my sister, but you know you do need a little space. That's really all this is about. um We need.

P

To be on site, within the first week a horse got loose, we had to chase him down beverly hill road.

P

That's part of the deal like it's. What you've got to do if you're going to do this for real it's.

P

Early mornings, it's late nights, it's a lot of uh in the in the what is easier. If I point this out.

P

What we would envision for betsy's house this is the existing breezeway. They built the main house.

P

In 1810 they built the addition that was civil war era. That's 1860. the um the breezeway that.

P

We call it betsy's house is going to be about the same size. What's important about that, is we don't.

P

Have anywhere heated to work on tractors equipment that brakes there's a basement underneath that's.

P

Already there that's a garage, actually that's open to the north side, so that would be really.

P

Wonderful, especially in weather like this, to be able to work on stuff inside right now, we're.

P

Working on it upstairs in the barn which you can't heat so for all the winter months, it's.

P

Good to have access to that, the the red outline that you see is the the two acre buildable lot.

P

That's right: on top of the hill we're trying to keep. Obviously all the buildings within that range.

P

The barns, I believe, don't have to be on that, but you know we're trying to keep all the structures.

P

On the buildable lot and maintain the other 38 acres for all the farming activities, so.

P

Any questions that I can answer, I know sharon can address all of the criteria, but.

A

I guess we're set for now. Thank you, okay, thank you. Thank you.

O

Thank you. So um I'm just going to briefly summarize the variance criteria and if it's.

O

All right with the board, what I would suggest that we do is that I present the variance.

O

Criteria together, since they functionally are, are so similar and then obviously you will.

O

Probably want to debate and take motion on them separately, um so the first criteria is that the.

O

Variance is not going to be contrary to the public interest and to determine that one looks at the.

O

uh Whether or not the variance is going to alter the essential character of the locality or whether.

O

It's going to threaten public health, safety or welfare. All of this, taking into account the.

O

um The essential goal of the of the underlying ordinance as I've stated in the materials there's.

O

No clear indication as to the prevention of of uh either two family houses or a separate standalone.

O

Single family house and within this district, however, it's likely that, what's intended to.

O

Happen is to prevent over development and excess density on the particular lots. So we believe that.

O

Given the con conditions of this lot by the way, I would, I would add that we, um our materials, are.

O

Are presented conservatively referencing only the two acre portion of the entire lot, which is.

O

Buildable, I know in the staff memo they they use the entire 37.9 acres. So I think you can you can.

O

Take that into account, but either way we we more than satisfy the uh the various density issues.

O

Spirit of the ordinance is, as you know, combined with the uh the public purpose.

O

um The third criteria is whether or not the values of the surrounding properties are are diminished.

O

Or not, as for the breezeway construct, the existing farmhouse has been on the property for many years.

O

The breezeway portion is going to be replaced with the attached second dwelling. It should add little.

O

Or no visual impacts to the abutting property and I submitted some photos which shows you.

O

That from the street, you want to be able to see it. We have preliminary designs of the building.

O

And we can state that the height of the breezeway as renovated will be consistent with the existing.

O

Farmhouse so that you weren't going to be looking at a you know: multi-story breezeway there, the.

O

Same thing is true: with regard to the standalone dwelling, we have again a preliminary design. It's.

O

Going to be of a cape style, it will be consistent with the the farmhouse and the anticipated size of.

O

That is approximately 38 by 28 feet, with a similar height line so that it's not going to uh to stand.

O

Out, as you can see, also from this exhibit 2, I guess it is the proposed location of both the.

O

Breezeway and the standalone house is quite quite far away from anybody who could possibly see this.

O

um So the the bottom line is that there will be no negative impact to the surrounding properties.

O

For their tax evaluation with regard to the substantial justice element, this of course.

O

Has been has been discussed in other applications. Tonight is a balancing test. Is the determination.

O

Of whether, by granting the variance that the benefit of the applicant is going to be outweighed,.

O

By a detrimental loss to the individual or to the public at large, we would suggest that the.

O

Benefit to the applicant here, if this is granted is to provide adequate space and privacy for those.

O

Who are currently or in the future residing on the site and who may choose to assist with the.

O

Agricultural or forestry activities that are on the conservation, easement portion of the property.

O

um There's no known detriment to any individuals. There's ample parking here, there's no going to be.

O

No significant traffic- that's going to be added by this. The freestanding house will have three.

O

Bedrooms and at most the breezeway will have two. So we're not talking about an excessive amount.

O

Of cars that are going to be added to the to the traffic out there and again that will be reviewed.

O

By by planning board, um we do not believe so as a result, there's no particular concern about a.

O

Detriment to individuals in the neighborhood and as a matter of fact, the reese's have talked to as.

O

Many of the butters as they can find and they haven't determined anyone who has an objection.

O

To this, and as a matter of fact, one of butter is here tonight to speak in favor of that.

O

With regards to the unnecessary hardship case or test in terms of the special conditions of.

O

This property uh I've identified a couple of things. One is that the property itself.

O

Is extraordinarily large, it's 37.9 acres, the second special condition: that's associated.

O

With this, property is related to the use of the property, in that the lion's share of the.

O

Property has restrictions on the use which are limited to agricultural and forestry.

O

Activities and the overarching goal of that conservation easement is to preserve open space.

O

The third special condition, which really flows from the special condition having.

O

To do with use is the because of the conservation restriction, easement restrictions, it really guides.

O

um Both for the fee owners, which is the reese family and the city, who is the easement holder,.

O

What's going to be happening, a reasonably could be expected to be happening on this property and what.

O

That is, is that somebody's going to be taking care of and looking after the agricultural and forestry.

O

Activities on site, which is the only thing that's allowed on the lion's share of this property.

O

Is jim has um described and a little bit? You need a lot of bodies in order to do that, and.

O

In many respects, the logical way in order to try to structure that is to have those bodies.

O

Living on site- um there's not a uh I I mean he could speak to this more effectively than.

O

I can, but I think that their greatest chance of getting the work done, because workers are.

O

Not necessarily plentiful in this region to do this kind of work is to have the family.

O

Members do it so collectively. We believe that these ideas are in fact, special conditions.

O

Second, element of the hardship test is whether or not there's a fair and substantial relationship.

O

Between the general public purpose of the ordinance and the application here.

O

um As applied to the 2.1 acre portion of the property which, in which structures are allowed.

O

We will still absolutely be adhering to the rule of low density and, if you take a larger.

O

Lot area of 37.9 we are absolutely complying with the purpose of keeping low density.

O

And finally, with regard to whether or not the proposed use is reasonable, we would suggest that.

O

Both with regard to renovating the breezeway into a two-family dwelling and also a standalone that.

O

This is absolutely reasonable. This is properties subject to a an easement which is going to benefit.

O

Or does benefit the city of portsmouth and also happens to contain the last working farm.

O

In portsmouth, and what we believe is reasonable is anything that can be done to try to further.

O

The prospects of the last working farm remaining intact, and we also noted in in the materials that.

O

Even if a future owner does not choose to actively engage in the agriculture and maybe hires people.

O

It is still more than reasonable to have these separate structures there, given the huge acreage.

O

On on the lot and the the fact that it really doesn't impact the density requirements, so I would.

O

Be happy to answer any questions which the board may have and also jim can answer any questions and.

O

We do have one of the head relatives here to speak as well. Other questions. Yes, mr rossi, thank you.

E

uh I'd just like to have a little bit more color on the history of the property. With regard to the.

E

Interactions with the zoning board, it must be very frustrating to come back and ask for the.

E

Same variance twice: well, why did the first one? I think what happened? I think what happened was that.

O

In a you know, and again jim can probably address this more explicitly than I can, but they got the.

O

Variants in 2015 and life being what it is with children and work commitments and various other.

O

Family issues they just didn't get to it before the variance expired. That, coupled with the fact.

O

That they now have a new player on the scene, betsy, which necessitates a different, an additional form.

O

Of variance means that that's why we're here the way we are jim, do you want to add anything to that.

P

Summary we first came before the board when the variance was first granted when it was just my.

P

My brother, brother and sister-in-law, two kids and megan, um and without going into detail there were.

P

A lot of life circumstances that happened that impacted our ability to move forward.

P

With construction at the time, there's some health problems in the family and things of that nature.

P

Megan was starting up a firm. I ended up starting up a firm. We both have businesses in portsmouth.

P

Now so we got a extension, as you know, a few other things happened. We finally got to the point where.

P

We can actually pull the trigger on this and make it work, but it's taken a lot longer than we had.

P

Anticipated from the get-go but you're ready to go now, we are ready to go now. Thank you. Thank you.

A

Thank you, madam chair, uh so I have no doubt that your client is trying to do something. That's in.

D

The best keeping of the spirit of what was created here and you probably have more knowledge from.

D

What I've heard there was, there was a fair amount of drama associated with uh trying to transfer.

D

This into conservation- and certainly it's a it's a very precious asset for the city, now understanding.

D

That this board did grant um really, for you know a second dwelling unit on the property. Now we're.

D

Looking for three dwelling units, my my concern is that is, you know, a future owner right. This.

D

This runs with the land. uh What more nefarious purpose could someone use that what this board.

D

Would grant tonight um if we were to approve it for something that would not be as in keeping with.

D

The spirit of what was trying to be accomplished so towards that end I was wondering if um you had.

D

Any thoughts if the the board made a stipulation that the three dwelling units must be occupied by.

D

A familial relation, you know someone a familiar relations or someone who is a full-time employee.

D

And on the farm, if that would be some kind of an acceptable stipulation to your to your client.

D

Just to help kind of preserve the this precious asset that a lot of people were very hard to try.

D

And make sure I was available to the city going forward and you know whatever perpetuity is right.

O

I would uh be somewhat reluctant to agree to that only because, first of all, I don't think.

O

That there will be any nefarious activity taking place there, because the the nature.

O

Of the property in and of itself, the only thing that can happen is within the that two acre lot.

O

Or true acre portion of the parcel. However, I guess I would say that in future.

O

um Should the reese's depart and um three unrelated people choose to live in each of these.

O

Separate dwellings, I don't see that there would be any um uh impact on the purpose of the ordinance.

O

Which is to prevent an excess impact on density and again, I think your point is well taken that.

O

As a practical matter, I can see that employees managing the forestry and managing the agriculture.

O

Might want to live there, but in terms of marketing this in the future, to restrict it to that.

O

um I'm not sure that I would. I would want to impose that restriction on my client in terms.

O

Of future marketability those people may not want to live there. They may be some sort of.

O

A combination of the two and I think it could pose difficulties with them. Okay,.

C

Following up on mr smart, I think that that I are thinking a little bit along the same track. The.

C

Multi-Family dwellings are three or four dwellings which are not permitted in the single residence.

C

A in single resonance b zone, so if you're, if a stipulation as mr william has suggested, was not.

C

Acceptable: what about one that says that no more than three dwellings will be allowed on this lot.

C

I think I let me ask my client, I think that would probably work. That's fine! That's fine, and I and.

O

I think that, and I and I think that that would in fact probably go towards the the root of mr room's.

O

Concern, which is that you don't want to develop a you know, a colony of dwellings out there. You.

O

Want to have it be a reasonable number, so that's perfectly acceptable to us because, given the size.

C

A lot that is certainly it could be a possible. It could be a possibility going forward. So.

A

Thank you, foreign.

A

Excited, I think somebody is going to come up. Is there anybody to speak in favor of this petition.

M

Hello, my name is rhonda stevens, it's rhonda, hett, stevens and uh I'll correct a little bit.

M

On this I do live at 303 beverly hill road, which abuts this property. uh It was owned before us by.

M

My grandmother and grandfather and my father was raised there. They obtained the property.

M

In 1940 the same year that john hett obtained the farm, and it was john's wish that relative.

M

Lived in that property, and so he got a hold of my grandfather, frank and said uh once you guys.

M

Consider moving in there and at that time, that property had been partially destroyed by a fire.

M

And my family moved in, I did not live there. My father grew up there and then um later in life. My.

M

Husband and I bought it from my grandmother- we've raised our kids. There we've been there since 1994.

M

So I did submit a letter to you uh briefly explain explaining this and I think I got it in time, so it.

M

Should already be in part of the public record, I just want to add that after I wrote the letter, I.

M

Called my father and told him about this planning board meeting and and mentioned to him, and I said.

M

Do you have any concerns knowing john hett john, a mod and the family and what they wanted done with.

M

This property, do you have any concerns, and he said his only concern was that no building be.

M

Done outside of that two acre section on the top of the hill that the conservation.

M

Land remains a working farm and he said if, if that's their intention, that he's all for it.

K

And he's very happy to see that a family would be able to go in and be a part of doing. This is.

M

um That was john's intention also that family was part of uh you know this property in this area.

M

And it was passed down from john to his uh grandson prior to the reese's, getting the property.

M

So I just you know we talked it over. We feel that it's reasonable to have three units up there.

M

um Even if it were other owners that that wouldn't be a hardship for us as a neighbor.

M

And we believe it's consistent with the family's vision of what.

M

They wanted to happen on that property, so thank you. Thank you.

A

Is there anyone else to speak in favor of this petition.

A

Is there anyone else to speak in opposition to the petition.

A

Is there anyone to speak to for or against? If not, the public hearing is closed board.

A

What would we like to do? It's more interesting, I think I'll, take a stab here.

C

um I would like to approve the application as presented and advertised with a stipulation if.

C

I get a second I'll explain why. Second, thank you, mr okay, going through the five criteria.

C

The first two are, the variance is not contrary to the public interest and the spirit of the.

C

Ordinance uh shall be observed, um the public interest and spirit of the ordinance analysis.

C

Is intertwined and for purposes of this motion I am combining the two variance requests presented.

C

By the applicant for the two family dwelling and for the more than one dwelling uh per lot.

C

um So the um the explicit or implicit purpose of the ordinance is this lot is contained this huge.

C

Lot is contained in the single resonance, a and single resonance b district and the uh restriction.

C

I'm no more than one dwelling unit per lot and no more than the two dwelling units per the other.

C

Area 10.440.130 in our table of uses is to present prevent excessive um uh congestion and uh density.

C

And uh the- and I find with with this with this particular application- this is a humongous lot.

C

um It is uh the buildable part of the lot is 2.1 acres. However, the total lot is, I believe, 39 is yes.

C

39.7 acres, when you take into account the the um the the conservation easement part, uh it is in the.

C

Single residency and single residence b district, but there are no nearby neighbors. That would.

C

um That the excessive density on the lot uh would actually threaten the.

C

um Would actually alter the essential character of the neighborhood, uh so I feel like the applicant.

C

Has uh successfully uh proved those two various criteria. The third one is substantial justice.

C

Of done is done, and this is a balancing test. The benefit to the applicant should not be outweighed.

C

By the harm to the general per public or to other individuals in general, the public, through its.

C

Zoning ordinance would like to restrict uh density or uh on lots. I do not believe that.

C

That is the case in this application. Again, this is a form on a huge lot that is not really in a.

C

Neighborhood per se, so I do not believe that there is any benefit. um I don't believe that.

C

There's any harm to the general public by by by granting this variance and then the values the.

C

Surrounding properties are not diminished. We did not get any real testimony on that. However, you.

C

Know using our common sense the addition of the second unit and the construction of a freestanding.

C

Signal single living unit will not harm the surrounding properties, especially given how.

C

Far away, they are from the subject, property and then to everybody's favorite, unnecessary hardship.

C

A little enforcement of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship, unnecessary hardship means.

C

Because of special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties,.

C

In the area a there is no fair and substantial relationship between the general public purposes.

C

Of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property.

C

And the the proposed use is a reasonable one. I can honestly say that this is truly a case where.

C

We have special conditions, this is a farm that is 39.7 acres, it is zoned single residency and.

C

Single resonance b and I do not see that there is any fair and substantial relationship between not.

C

Allowing the addition of the second using it unit to the existing structure and the new construction.

C

Of the freestanding single living unit is is applies to that property and, lastly, the proposed.

C

Use is a reasonable one, as I just stated, this is single residency, single resonance b, and this.

C

Is a residential I use this as a house, um I would ask for a stipulation to be approved by the board.

C

And the stipulation would be that no more than three dwelling units will be allowed on the lot.

A

I think it does the second and second, mr mantle, do you have anything all right, nothing more to.

G

Add? Okay, thank you. Is there any discussion before we vote? Let's write them yeah. I I.

D

Don't think I can support this motion and um I guess my concern is: is I think that the I.

D

Think, while you're trying to put a stipulation on there, I think it's a toothless stipulation.

D

um By by definition, if we approve three dwelling units tonight, um then that is what is allowed.

D

Going forward putting a stipulation, saying it's a maximum of three dwelling units, I don't think.

D

Adds adds anything to address my concerns. um This whole stretch of beverly hill road has been single.

D

Residence b and the city has not done a great job at all, of keeping it to anything close to being.

D

Single residences we've seen the watcher lots, not surprisingly the um be developed out to a maximum.

D

Where we have many additional housing units put in place, uh you know okay, so they they weren't.

D

Right, you know as part of this national natural resource protection area. Perhaps it was a bit more.

D

Something we could live with, but I just think that there was something very, very special created here.

D

um And I appreciate everything that the applicant is trying to do to continue what was was created.

D

My fear is, is there were starting to roll down the hill of having something that is.

D

Going to go completely in opposition to what people worked very hard to and and the hits.

D

In particular, of trying to create as something special for the city, um you know just in a mere.

D

Five years since the since the what this board allowed um back in 2015 just a mere five years,.

D

Since the that expired with its extension, we've gone from two dwelling units to now three and.

D

um I I think, without some kind of additional type of stipulation at some point I'll be like.

D

Wow, it's just you know we're already three. It can just be four or somebody creates like three mega.

D

Homes on there, they let the fields go fallow, and um you know what was what was intended. uh Could.

D

Potentially be lost, so I just without something more to control it. I I'm I'm terribly concerned.

D

About the long-term future of this very unique asset, and with that I I can't support the motion.

C

I think, just as the maker of the motion, that's a point very well taken and very well expressed.

C

Mr ram, I I completely understand where you're going. I when I when I say that no more than.

C

Three dwelling units will be allowed on the lot. I do mean the entire lot. The 39.7 acres.

C

So I I but I your point is well taken. I mean it's national uh natural, natural resource protection.

D

That's essentially unbuildable already that's my concern. I'd like to make a comment uh please. I.

E

Will be supporting motion I I think that, with all due respect to the long-term considerations, uh if.

E

You don't manage, there's a there's, a interesting saying that was very common in the company. I used.

E

To work for very well respected company, and that is it's great- to manage the long term. But if you.

E

Don't manage the short term, you don't have a long term and in the short term, this is necessary for.

E

The family to make it a viable agricultural effort, and I do believe that making this accommodation is.

E

Appropriate in the long term, we shall see what is economically feasible. Okay, I'm going to support.

A

It too, um it seems like a reasonable request. Goodness knows, their density is not an issue.

A

The head family is in favor. I think the three dwelling unit might have some teeth. We hope so, but.

A

If, in 15 years, a future zba is sitting up here and makes a different decision, I hope they do it with.

A

um Good intentions and following the rules- and I can't control that so if there are no.

A

Further comments, I'm sorry, mr I I have one comment. This is a very exceptional instance.

Q

um And everything about it is commendable.

Q

It's just the the right thing to do with the right kind of people.

Q

And so we can take some action tonight and we'll take a picture and put it in a safe deposit box.

Q

Because the pressures of the economic market are going to be applied in the in the most dramatic.

Q

Ways you can imagine to a piece of property like this one. It's a spectacular piece of property and.

Q

However long it takes probably won't take very long, the cracks will be found by clever lawyers.

Q

From somewhere else, who will find a way to come here and own that property and then it.

Q

Will be developed again in a way and probably with variances, that none of us ever imagined.

Q

And I I don't think this is this is the united states and and it's the offspring of the united.

Q

Kingdom, where uh development of the world has always been an imperative, it's by definition, good.

Q

And as you try to stop it, you're bad and wrong, that's how that's how the west was won. That was.

Q

What what lies behind the greatness of america now- and I don't think it's going to stop just because.

Q

We took everything into account when we voted.

A

Right if there are no more comments, we'll vote, mr mantle? Yes, mr mcdonald, no.

A

Ms um miss martinson, yes, miss ram. No mr gray, mr rossi.

A

Yes, mr matson, yes and the chair votes. Yes, so I hope the family's happy there.

A

Okay, madam chairman, yes, make a motion to adjourn. Is there a second thank you long, favor aye.

A