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

Previous Meeting

Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: 8.22.2023 Board of Adjustment

Description

8.22.2023 Board of Adjustment

A

Recording in progress evening, everyone, the august 22nd 2023 meeting of the zoning portsmouth zoning.

B

Board of adjustment is called to order. Thank you. So the first order of business is for 303.

B

Bartlett street they have requested to postpone to the september meeting, and I need two votes to.

B

Suspend the rules and postpone what what is the reason I another letter, madam chair I'll,.

C

Start by saying, let's suspend the rules uh to uh consider co case 303 or case e for 303 b street.

B

Out of work second- and we have a second, and would you like to discuss it, how you feel about this? I.

D

Guess we have to vote on that right? Yes, I'm sorry, we do all in favor of suspending the rules. I all.

B

Opposed so how do you feel about it? The postponement make a motion to postpone.

E

As requested, is there a second? Can I just ask what if we know what the reason is or yes.

F

As outlined in their postp postponement letter, there's additional variance requests that they.

F

Need to outline in their um application, so they would like to get those legally noticed and into.

F

The agenda, thank you that makes second okay. Thank you. Is there any discussion about this.

B

If not, the motion is to postpone, and would you make it for a time certain please to september.

B

That's the request. Okay, so do you want me to say that someone should say it? What uh what.

D

Is the date of our september meeting 19th? Okay, uh I add that it would be postponed.

D

Till september, thank you. I think that will so all in favor. I opposed okay, 303 bartlet.

B

Street is postponed. I just want to say that miss record our alternate will be sitting in.

B

All the um hearings tonight and that I want to remind the presenters that there's a 15minute.

B

Limit and if you think you're going to need more, please ask us before you start your presentation.

B

Okay, okay, so this first one item, a fisher versus do may or may not be applicable to this, and we.

B

Need to discuss that before hearing this this evening, you can vote to bring up the elements.

B

Of fishery over, if you so I still think I'll recused even for this, you are I'm sorry and mr.

B

Matson is recused. Sorry I'll just say that um the revised application uh does speak to some of the.

D

Specific objections that were raised in the uh that were the cause of the denial for the first.

D

Application and so without making any comment on the substantive uh issues of the new applications.

D

I would say it is sufficiently different uh not to invoke uh fiser vto. Okay, anybody.

B

Else m m: um I do have concerns about when we keep getting these subsequent applications.

G

And I recognize that fiser v over you know know, is what we should be looking at when we look at.

G

These reapplications, but you know it, I think it just so happens that tonight we have four.

G

Fisher vover yeah uh situations- and um you know I I I'm very concerned about somebody.

G

Coming before this board and and proposing a project sort of taking a temperature of.

G

The board and then deciding which way to go from there um it's hard for me as a board.

G

Member to know how much um the applicant has revised their application um based on.

G

Our comments, or it's merely just another, uh or they realized that their first ask- was a.

G

Little, uh I would say ambitious and they're coming back, for you know a second bite of the.

G

Apple, so I I have some concerns about um uh these reapplications that we are getting. Those are my.

G

Comments, we do have the option to ask the applicant to come up and we can ask direct.

B

Questions if anybody feels that would be helpful, just want you to know that for any of these, for me.

D

I don't think it's necessary because it's the the the substantive change in my mind was the.

D

Elimination of the duplex uh duplexes, uh which was a major point of discussion in the original, can.

B

You hear us no thank you for letting me know we're going to have to do a better job of that. Thank you.

D

The substantive change, in my opinion, that allows us not to invoke fiserv v over, is the elimination.

D

Of duplexes, which was a major point of discussion in the original application. Again, I'm not saying.

D

That you know any comment about what I think about the new application, just that it is sufficiently.

D

Different right, absolutely, um mr ram, I saw your hand up uh yes, thank you, madam chair, um so I would.

C

Agree uh fisher v over would not apply here. I do think that there is a substantive uh difference.

C

Nine dwelling units down to six dwelling units and, uh as noted by mr rossi, a change in the.

C

Configuration of the uh of the actual structures themselves going back to miss margon's point um in.

C

The 10 years that I've been on the board- um this is, I wouldn't say, common, but it's not unheard of.

C

That you know, applicants come before us. They naturally want to maximize the value of what.

C

They perceive for their their property, they sort of maximize what they think that the board would.

C

Possibly agree to, um and if that doesn't work then they revise it subsequently and bring it back in.

C

A in a in a form that, as they recognize through the laws and as interpreted by fiser v, do um of.

C

The state um which basically says that you have to be substantially different, um they can come back.

C

With an application that is in fact, substantially different um and usually more in conformance with.

C

What the uh with what the board had concerns with, uh I agree. It's usual. We have like four items.

C

Tonight that sort of fall into this category um a little disconcerting, but um also something that.

C

I've seen over many many times in the course of my tenure on the board. That's all thank.

C

You would anybody like to make a.

B

Motion do we need this is a procedural question. If we're not going to invoke fiserv v, do do we.

D

Actually need to make a motion okay, so we would have a motion if someone wants to invoke it, not.

B

Hearing any motion, I suppose we will go ahead and hear this application. Okay, the first public.

B

Hearing is the request of islamic society of the sea coast area issa owners for property located at.

B

686 paperwood avenue, whereas relief is needed to construct six single family living unit structures.

B

Which requires the following one: variance from section 10.52 to permit 10,462 ft of lot area.

B

Per dwelling unit, where 15,000 is required and two variance from section 10.51 3 to permit six.

B

Freestanding buildings, where only one is permitted said: property is located on a cessor map. 220 lot.

B

90 and lies within the sing residence b district good evening good evening. Madam chair uh members,.

H

Of the board, my name is justin p. I'm a lawyer at dtc lawyers here in town uh joined tonight by.

H

Members of the applicants development team, which is chimber development lsc. We have john chagan.

H

From ambit engineering, carla goodnight from cj architects, as well as colton gove from gove real.

H

Estate group, I'll I'll do a brief introduction of the project and the property for the board. uh Mr.

H

Shagden will summarize the plan and talk about the discrepancies and differences between the new new.

H

Proposal and that which was previously proposed, um miss goodnight will discuss the aesthetic and.

H

Design for the individual, six uh single family dwellings that are proposed by this project.

H

I'm happy to summarize the variance criteria and, of course the whole team is here to answer any.

H

Questions the board may have um so for a quick property overview, we're in the srb district here.

H

A uniquely large property at 1.44 acres, really a transitional area between the downtown uh which.

H

Is zoned business and uh the area to the west down woodbury avenue? uh The property itself is.

H

Largely unimproved, it's got a a mature vegetative buffer along the northern boundary uh and most of.

H

The western southern boundaries as well, it's abided by a two family. uh Several two family.

H

Properties and a multif family property, as well as a commercial property and then uh route 95 as.

H

Well, it's one of the first lots situated to the west of the business district, which goes.

H

To the uh the point about the transition, uh oh thank you, madam chair. um The grade of the of the.

H

Property itself is also unique: it's it's about uh 40 feet at elevation at maple avenue and it rises.

H

Sharply to 60 feet towards the back of the lot. um Mr ambit will uh excuse me. Mr shagon will go over.

H

The highlights of the plan itself, but the bottom line here, is that we heard the the discussion and.

H

The critique of this board at the june hearing, um which, by my recollection, was focused on the.

H

Density uh of the project at that time, as well as the use of four duplex buildings um which of.

H

Course is not permitted in the srb district uh I'll note that the density at that time.

H

With nine units uh was 6,975 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit, we had provided the same.

H

Table in that application that we provide in this application as to density, which reflected that the.

H

Proposed density of that project was going to be more dense than the immediate area, but less.

H

Dense than two corresponding neighborhoods uh further west on maplewood avenue, um so we went.

H

Back to the drawing table and are now proposing three less units, all the units, all six units will.

H

Be single family, uh which is consistent, I think, with the perspective of the board in june, um the.

H

Result is a project which is less dense uh not only from the extended neighborhood areas, but.

H

Also from the immediate neighborhood area, uh the new density calculation is 10. Excuse me, 10,462.

H

Square ft uh per uh of dwell of lot area per dwelling unit, which we see as being more aligned.

H

With the purposes of the srb district, which are to facilitate single family dwellings at low to.

H

Medium ium uh densities. The project will also comply with all setback requirements, building.

H

Coverage requirements, open space requirements, parking requirements, we show 16 off street.

H

Parking spaces were nonrequired. We've provided a robust uh landscaping plan that will provide.

H

Screening and buffering to surrounding areas again we're proposing 65, 6,500 ft of recreational area.

H

uh Passive recreational area which will be enjoyed by the condominium owners. um Ultimately, we think.

H

It's a reasonable propo uh proposal, which is consistent uh with the basic tenants of the srb.

H

District very quickly regarding uh the density, um the requested relief, as noted at the top, is.

H

Relief from the requirement that there be only one free, standering, building we're proposing six and.

H

Then the density relief itself again here we're proposing 10,462 ft of lot area per dwelling unit.

H

For each of the six dwellings on the property, um we've provided a a density analysis which.

H

Is uh based on the way that the zoning ordinance calculates density, which is lot area per dwelling.

H

Unit and we're showing that, on that analysis, this proposal and property will be less dense uh than.

H

The immediate neighborhood and less dense than those extended neighborhoods as you go west on.

H

Maplewood um we've also reased for the frontage relief. At this point, uh frontage variance has.

H

Been given to the previous religious assembly uh proposal, frontage relief was granted by this board.

H

At the last uh hearing on on this project, we've asked for it again because it's it's slightly.

H

Different in in an abundance of caution, so with that I'll turn it over to mr shagon to go over.

H

The plan, unless is there any questions for me, any yes, mr r, with regard to density, um I think.

D

You know the math that you've presented is very simple and straightforward. uh What I think it.

D

Fails to capture is the comparison of units that are contained on a single lot, which also have.

D

Side and front in rear yard setbacks elsewhere in the neighborhood uh versus what you have here so.

D

Did you look at the spacing between the buildings themselves uh itself? You know like the how far.

D

Apart, they are compared to let's say what you see in srb: further up the road in maplewood avenue,.

D

That you would consider part of the neighborhood I can. I can ask john to address that question, but.

H

Foundationally, certainly from the side setback uh requirements, this project complies and doesn't.

H

Anticipate any um any relief for for that piece of it understood. You know, I'm really looking at the.

D

Number of structures, because that's another part of the relief you're looking for, is more than one.

D

Structure per lot, which is another way of looking at density, and I'm just thinking about how that.

D

Compares to the density where you know, in that sense of having the open space around structures.

D

When there is one structure per lot elsewhere in the neighborhood yeah, I think the goal was.

H

To have a reasonable amount of uh uh spacing between each of the individual units, but also.

H

Be able to continue to facilitate this proposal for 6,500 squ ft of of recreational space. I mean.

H

Ultimately, you get to the issue of the form of ownership right as a condominium, instead of as.

H

A single family lot and it ultimately goes to the uniqueness of the property, because a single house.

H

On 1.44 acres of land in in pro close proximity to uh downtown would be uh unique. So ultimately,.

H

We're hoping to strike that balance between the form of ownership as a condominium and the density.

H

And the only way density really is calculated in the zoning or which is a you know, lot area.

H

Per dwelling unit and number of structures per lot sure, which is another way. Yes, sir, thank.

D

You good evening john shagon from ambit engineering civil engineer for the project.

I

And u I'm going to maybe try to answer some of that question in a bit here, but the cover.

I

Sheet is shown just to go through the plan set briefly uh shows the location, the zoning.

I

uh The um project team and then the next sheet shows the existing conditions on the property.

I

It still has uh less than uh 50 ft of frontage and is long uh longer and uh rises up from.

I

Maplewood avenue, uh as you go towards the back, so it presents some challenges in that it is a.

I

Long skinny lot that's a hardship that is present with the lot as the redevelopment is proposed. The.

I

Next sheet shows the site development that we're proposing. Now it's similar to the previous in that.

I

We are bringing a driveway off of maplewood avenue with a sidewalk on the uh west side.

I

However, the arrangement of the structures is is different. Previously, there were structures that.

I

uh Were as shown on the left side, but at the top of the driveway at the terminal view there.

I

Was a structure that presented the garage doors facing the road? So this is a more aesthetically.

I

Pleasing um layout, the units start on the left, as you drive in and, and you have, the six units.

I

All on the left side, with the guest parking at the top and the unit that had occupied.

I

That guest parking space, which was closer to the highway, is not present in this rendition. I think.

I

To mr rossy's question relative to setbacks, the setbacks between the buildings is predominantly.

I

20 ft so the space between the building being 20 ft. If you apply the zone, setback of 10 ft.

I

To property line that does sort of align with uh the general light and air between buildings in the.

I

Zone is, is that more in line with what you were asking that's what I was asking. Thank you. Okay,.

I

um I guess that's pretty much all I have to say unless there are particular questions I'll, let.

I

I'll turn it over to to carla goodnight to talk about the building itself. uh They do have.

I

Twocc car uh interior parking spaces, they are set back from the street so that guests can.

I

Park in front of each of the units- and there is also uh other dedicated guest parking.

I

Shown on the southern end at at the top of the development with, as mentioned, the open space.

I

uh Occurring um that is accessible by all the units. So if there's no other questions.

I

I turn it over to carla good night other questions for mr shagman. Okay. Thank you. Thank.

B

You good evening, uh carla good night from cj architects. um I want to thank you for.

J

Your positive comments last time regarding the architecture um we have maintained uh a lot of.

J

The same details, traditional style um in the window organization, uh especially along the.

J

Front facade and uh retained a lot of the trim details with the drip edge. You know providing.

J

Relief in the elevation over the windows, we have flying gables and um we have uh covered entries.

J

uh Accentuated with columns- and I have here in my notes- that um just to sort of talk a little.

J

Bit about the feel of a neighborhood and the traditional kind of neighborhood spacing and.

J

uh One thing I don't think I've done in 20 years is refer from one project to across.

J

To another project in the same night, but I make that exception this evening because as.

J

The architect for this project and for the project that you are about to review um the.

J

Spacing the inspiration of that old neighborhood in the next application is very similar to the.

J

Neighborhood, look that we're proposing in this one with just slightly larger buildings, um but.

J

They al they have the similar roofline similar details uh and in the next application you can.

J

See you know this, this photograph, um which kind of going back and forth in the office since they.

J

Are on the same track for this evening, you can see there's quite a bit of similarity between.

J

This truly traditional neighborhood and the style and spacing um that we are proposing.

J

For the current application, so uh does anybody have any questions for me? Thank you. Okay. Thank.

B

You, madam sher, if the board pleases, I'm happy to summarize the variance criteria, please thank.

H

You so, as the board is aware, the the supreme court is directed zba new hampshire to address the first.

H

Two questions: uh the first two criteria of the statutory variance criteria together. They are.

H

Whether or not the variances will be contrary to the public interest and whether or not the spirit of the ordinance will be observed by the um granting of the variance. The question here is.

H

Really, whether the variances will unduly and in a marked degree, conflict with the ordinance such.

H

That they violate the ordinance's basic zoning principles, um the c the test from the case law.

H

As the court as a board is aware, is that um two questions are asked whether or not the essential.

H

Character of the neighborhood will be violated and whether or not there's any threat to the.

H

Public health and safety, so first foundationally these: u variance requests derive from the table of.

H

Uses and table of dimensional standards the objective of those ordinances to provide.

H

And that of the srb district is to provide low to medium density and aesthetically consistent.

H

Development in the area between downtown and the gateway corridor along woodbury, um really they.

H

Pertain to regulating the aesthetic of the srb district um again, the purpose of the srb district.

H

Is to provide areas for single family dwellings at low to medium densities, appro 1 to three per.

H

Acre so the foundational point here is that there won't be any market conflict because uh really the.

H

Proposal is consistent with those purposes because of the unique configuration of the lot the size.

H

Of the lot, the uh the nature of the existing built uh conditions around the property to include their.

H

Density and because of that, we see this proposal as being consistent with the neighborhood uh with.

H

Specific regard to the density issue, as we discussed we're proposing 10,462 ft of l area.

H

Per dwelling, that's less dense than the immediate neighborhood and the extended neighbor hoods as.

H

We depicted in the enclosures to the board. uh We see that as a good transition from the downtown.

H

Area to woodbury avenue, there's also less traffic uh in this proposal than both the previous nine.

H

Unit proposal, uh the the proposal before that with regards to the religious assembly, I think.

H

In that context there were 76 uh peak trips in the pm uh peak hour. If, as you saw on our.

H

Materials, and, and particularly with regards to uh the exhibit that mr shagon provided um there will.

H

Be four trips during the the weekday peak in the am and 5 in the weekday p.m. um obviously we're.

H

Providing additional housing in a time where, where housing is needed, which will bring additional tax.

H

Revenue to the to the city of portsmouth, all of these we construe as benefits to the public.

H

So ultimately, we see that there isn't a marked conflict with uh the proposal and the purposes.

H

Of the ordinance- and we see it as satisfying the underlying um case law test, because it will be.

H

Consistent, albeit less dense than the than the surrounding area, and there will be no impact to.

H

The public health or safety, the third uh criteria is whether or not substantial justice is done by.

H

Granting the variance the guiding text here is whether um the loss to the individual is.

H

Outweighed by the gain to the general public in and denying um so, in other words, there's got to be.

H

Some gain to the public in denying the variances, which uh outweighs the loss to the applicant here.

H

um We don't uh discern a a great benefit to the public by denying the variance the property has.

H

Been the sight of several proposals over the years, most recently a 9unit proposal, but before that a.

H

28 unit multif family proposal proposal and a religious assembly proposal and ultimately we.

H

See this use of all of those as being the one most consistent with the core purposes of the.

H

Srb district, but in a way that um is consistent with the neighborhood as well, which, as we've.

H

As we've advised is, is more dense uh based on the the lot area for dwelling unit calculation.

H

um If denied, we don't see the property as as being developed in in as beneficial a profit.

H

A manner um the fourth issue is whether or not the proposal will diminish surrounding property.

H

Values, I think, in this sense, we're relying on on uh the density calculation really to show that.

H

With regards to uh the six units that will be on the prop property, they will be substantially.

H

Similar to the density of the units around them and to john shagan's point and and certainly.

H

To mr rossy's question earlier, with 20 f of separation between the proposed buildings, they.

H

Are internally consistent with the 10-ft sidey yard, setback, which applies in the srb district.

H

So we see this proposal is adding value to the property and, by extension, to uh likely adding.

H

Or increasing value to surrounding properties, the last um criteria is, is the hardship criteria, the.

H

Test here is that unnecessary hardship means that that, owing to special conditions of the.

H

Property that distinguish it from other properties in the area. No fair and substantial relationship.

H

Exists between the general public purpose of the ordinance in question and their application to.

H

The property and uh there's a second requirement that the the use be reasonable. So there's really.

H

Three tests are their special conditions, does denying the variances advance the purpose of the.

H

Ordinance and is the use reasonable so quickly uh the certainly are special conditions here. This is.

H

A larger lot in srb district than the surrounding srb district lots. It's got a unique configuration.

H

With only 47.3 1 ft of frontage, it's unique in in light of its proximity to route 95 and.

H

Also, in light of its grade and topography, um it's it's also a transitional area, as we've discussed.

H

um So certainly there are special conditions of the property which leads to the second question.

H

Which is whether uh the purposes of the underlying ordinance are advanced by applying them to this.

H

Property to deny the variance um the answer here is: no again. These variances derive from the table.

H

Of uses and the dimensional requirements and the inherent purpose of those uh ordinances are to.

H

Maintain aesthetically consistent development in this area, as we've discussed, uh the density.

H

Of this proposal will be less than that of the immediate area, and so in actuality, this property.

H

Will be more aligned with the purpose of the srb district than those lots which are around it?.

H

And then, finally, the last question is whether or not the use is reasonable. In light of the.

H

Of our discussion tonight in the materials we provided, we would submit that it is.

H

A reasonable use and one most aligned uh with the purpose of the srb district, so that is our.

H

Presentation again happy to answer any questions. If there are any other questions, mr manel, um the.

E

uh Six units you're proposing to build these will be condo ownership. Correct, yes, sir thank.

E

You, mr maam. Yes thank you, madam chair, um on page four of your right right up. It's page 133 on our.

C

Boa packet uh middle well, upper half page you go. uh Finally, the project incorporates a 6,500.

C

Ft recreation area um as depicted on the variance plan which the area will serve as an amenity to.

C

Residents of the neighborhood, I asked this last time I just want to validate it's the same. The.

C

Intent is not that this is a public amenity, but it is an amenity for the use of the six condominium.

C

Owners and their invited guests is that correct? I agree I believe ultimately, should this be.

H

Successful and we go to the planning board, it will be a common area that will be enjoyed by the the.

H

Cond unit owners- okay, thank you, mr russy. I I did have one other question for you uh with regard to.

D

Hardship, I know we talked about this last time and I I know I like. I thought the answer was.

D

Reasonable, but now I can't remember what it was: the uh there was some discussion about. Basically.

D

Subdividing the lots and building a you know a unit on each lot, but it wasn't feasible. Was it.

D

Because of the need for an access road and the area that would take up, can you remind me with.

D

That, uh where we landed on that, my my recollection is that uh the process of building a city, uh road.

H

That met the design standards to accommodate a formal uh subdivision was the issue. Okay,.

D

Meaning that it would take up too much space or and the city would not get any benefit by.

H

Doing that of the project right, thank you any other questions. Okay, thank you. Thank you very.

H

Much is there anyone to speak in favor of this proposal, anyone to speak in.

B

Favor madame chair board members, my name is jim lee, 520 sagamore avenue. I actually came.

K

To speak to another application tonight, but I was pretty happy to see this one back on.

K

The uh thing for another another go around, I'm speaking as a real estate broker of 43.

K

Years, experien in lcons in three states, uh one of the most important things. This is.

K

Pretty common in real estate, the most important thing is location, location, location. I think this.

K

Is a terrible location which pretty much makes this a good project in my view, because is we we.

K

There's been several applications before us to build things there, and none of them are worked.

K

Out, I think this one makes the most sense of any of them. The big benefit to this. If.

K

Even though there's six units they're so far back there, you really can't see them.

K

From the road- and uh I think that would be a perfect spot for this- and I would uh you know.

K

Speak in favor of granting the variance that they applied for. Thank you. Thank you. Is there.

B

Anyone else to speak in favor of this particular petition. Anyone to speak in opposition to the.

B

Petition anyone to speak to for or against the petition. Okay, the public hearing is closed. It.

B

Is back here, I do have one question just as a point of clarification. Last time they were.

D

Here they got the variance for the lot frontage right, so the the only variance being sought now.

D

Is the square foot per unit and the number of units per lot? That is true right. Okay, that is.

B

True anybody, yes I'll start, um so I I believe this property does have special conditions and.

G

That it is four times the size that or three times whatever it is um that uh the single residence be.

G

Requires which is 15,000 square ft² lot area, and this this uh lot area is just over 60,000 ft.

G

I believe it has a very odd configuration. It has the very um small uh frontage on maplewood avenue.

G

uh However, I do not believe that this application meets the hardship for the six units, um the the.

G

Zoning ordinance says that there's only supposed to be one freestanding building uh per lot, and I.

G

Would say that four uh dwellings per this lot is. I would have no problems with that, because.

G

That would still retain the um the lot area um requirements. The single residence b district.

G

um I I don't think that the applicant has met the hardship criteria for the additional two dwellings.

G

On this lot, um and also I you know, I do wonder- I realize that you know I lost the fisher v over.

G

Argument or you know discussion, but I think that the natural inclination for this board is to is.

G

To compare the six to the nine that was there previous and I realized that some of them were.

G

Duplexes but I'm trying to take this application on its face in that they're asking for six, where.

G

I think that four is reasonable, given the size of the lot. So those are my comments. Anybody else well.

D

I do agree that four would be a very easy would be a very easy. Yes, I think six is tougher, but I.

D

Think I could still get there. Thank you, mr russi. Anybody else, mr ram um yeah. Madam chair. I would.

C

Make a motion that we um grant the requested relief as presented and advertised okay is.

B

There a second, I will second, that okay, okay, all right, uh thank you so uh and understand.

C

The comments of uh board member marison, I mean I I'm always concerned too about hey, let's so the we.

C

We turned the temperature all the way up uh that didn't really work. So let's go down a little bit.

C

And see if that works, um and maybe we didn't get there, let's, let's turn it down a little bit more.

C

um In this particular case, I do think that the applicant has gone far enough with what they're.

C

Proposing here um that they're they're meeting the fundamental criteria that we need to judge this by.

C

I think this board in the past and the other applications that have been put forward with.

C

Special exceptions recognize fundamentally that a single this is single residence b. um It just.

C

Putting a single house on this very very large lot doesn't make any sense. um I I would agree.

C

That, if you could say well, you know sub, you know, create a four unit, condo um you're meeting the.

C

At least one of the two criteria that we're being asked to um um provide relief for um is is easier.

C

But I I still think that they've gone far enough and I and I do think that the special conditions.

C

Of this property are um it's sort of length and positioning along the uh the interstate corridor.

C

um Again, our real concern here is, um you know, density of the units. I think the applicant has.

C

Indicated that even in their sort of condo wise state that the density is certainly no greater.

C

Than many other neighborhoods, um probably close to being uh what is required for uh distance between.

C

The homes, um if this were say more subdividable it. It really isn't, as the applicant has pointed.

C

Out um the creating of a of a legal roadway on this um would make you know further, even for the.

C

Conduis uh extremely difficult, um so they they've indicated about 20 ft um between the between the.

C

Homes, I did a quick scaling on what they provided. It's roughly that maybe just a little bit less, but.

C

I think in keep keeping with that um so going to the criteria, um grant the variance would not.

C

Be contrary to the public interest, so really the public interest. Here um we combin that with gran.

C

The variance would be uh would observe the spirit of the ordinance. So what are we really trying to.

C

Accomplish um you know single residence b yeah, you don't want to have multiple um homes on that.

C

But again the unique shape of this property with it being long and uh sort of narrow on.

C

The street long in depth really creates this a set of circumstances that allows you to um you.

C

Know take advantage of that by um putting multiple buildings again, not typically allowed in a or not.

C

Allowed in a single residence b district, however, the positioning of them really wouldn't be visible.

C

From the road there is actually another home that sort of provides some visual barrier. um It's not.

C

Going to provide an um something, as as someone is going up and down the neighborhood, where they.

C

Would say man that looks really really strange. It is fundamentally uh hidden from that, and I.

C

Do think the applicant has made a decent argument that the other srb properties to the uh west of.

C

This um are really they're they're, approximating the overall density of all of those. They are not.

C

Exceeding that um overall density of those srb properties, not to mention that just to the east.

C

Of this is both a business district, which is something completely different, but then also.

C

General residence, a is very close by which has an even higher density to it, so the the nature of the.

C

The density aspect of it of the number of draing units per um the total square footage of the lot.

C

I think is uh reasonable and within what the uh the spirit of the ordinance would have and the.

C

Public purposes, you know the characteristics of the neighborhood again, because these homes would.

C

Essentially be hidden, they are respectful to the overall architect arure of the neighborhood of.

C

Of portsmouth in general, so uh with that, I I think that um that they are meeting those two.

C

Criteria gr, the variance would do substantial justice. So is there really anything in that? The.

C

Public would demand u out of this. That would outweigh the applicant's right to make a use.

C

Of their property, I don't think so uh again. Some of the unique characteristics with the the short.

C

Frontage um depth of the lot, the the hill- that's some of the topography associated with the lot.

C

um Does make sense that there's really nothing that the the public would perceive out of these.

C

Multiple homes that would um out outweigh the applicant's ability to make full use of that.

C

Property granting the variants do not diminish the value of surrounding properties. uh We had.

C

Some some testimony uh here from uh from the general public, as well as some description from.

C

The applicant um that that, basically, you know buted up against a business area um and budded.

C

On the opposite side, with by an interstate, that's what what's being built here will not be perceived.

C

By by really anyone on either side um as a uh as something that would be awkward or somehow.

C

Reducing property values, it's also burdened by a uh easement on the rear of the property.

C

So really, the closest next closest homes, on the opposite side um are separated by some distance.

C

By that uh that uh that power line easement that takes place there and lastly, the hardship and.

C

You know always kind, perhaps the trickiest, but again I do believe some of the unique.

C

Characteristics of this property sandwich between a business district, fairly close to.

C

A general residence, a district uh up against an interstate, long, narrow um depth just does.

C

Not look like really any of the other uh srb parcels um that are nearby the ones that well.

C

Closely, imitated are ones that have multiple um buildings on them, including uh some that were on.

C

Emory street that were approved previously by this board um so and that I think, is in in in.

C

You know has some unique characteristics: that's in keeping with um the because of those unique.

C

Characteristics, it allows more development than what would be uh normally able to happen. It is.

C

You know a use, that's permitted in the uh zone. um So with that, I I think that we uh meets all.

C

The criteria and should be approved, thank you. Do you have anything to add? Mr rossy? Yes, with.

D

Regard to hardship, uh and particularly as it pertains to uh six structures on that lot, there.

D

Is a special condition for the lot, as pointed out by mr rayum, the shape and uh size of the.

D

Lot, the you, the application of six structures there, the building of six structures there.

D

Does not defeat the public purpose of srb, because the way the uh the property is designed uh it does.

D

Maintain a a density that is as good or, if not superior to the surrounding srb properties and.

D

uh That does maintain adequate space between the structures so that the intended purpose of.

D

Providing light and air between buildings is achieved uh for what's required in srb.

D

Even though that the uh it's a little bit more dense than what srb would typically.

D

Allow- and I would leave it at that- is there any further discussion I'm going to vote in.

B

Favor of this proposal, because I think that if this were used as explicitly zoned, it would be.

B

An otter more odd development in that part of town, and there is no streetscape to compare.

L

With the rest of the neighborhood, so even if it is not just like that, no one will see it.

B

And the cleaning up of the entrance to that lot, I think, is really a benefit to the community and.

B

Denying it will not advance the purposes of the ordinance, so I'm going to vote in favor.

B

Of this, so if there are no other comments, then we will take a vote. A yes vote is to build miss.

B

Record, yes, mr manel, no miss maron, no, mr ram! Yes, mr rossy, yes and the chair votes. Yes, so thank you are.

B

Approved okay, our next item of busit is fisher v.

B

Over so and mr matson has joined.

B

B

Yes, mr uh I'm sure I'll just say that I have no concerns with regard to fisher v over um other.

C

Than the fundamental point, that's already been made that you know the applicant came.

C

Before us once already uh now a short time later, coming before us with something in my impression.

C

Substantially different, um but you know at the same point in time: that's that's the um you know.

C

The the legal standard that we have to abide by, um it's really a tool that the applicants.

C

Recognize in their tool box- and um you know it's not surprising- they take advantage of.

C

Everything that the that they are legally allowed to do so within that, though I mean, I think it's.

C

A substantial reduction in the total building coverage um relief from uh yard setbacks um is.

C

Is also substantially better and it incorporates um uh other concerns that were expressed by by.

C

uh Butters and others with regards to the uh the general um um architectural layout of the.

C

Of the structure, so I I I think it meanss the fisher over um uh threshold to be considered.

C

By the board is, is there anyone who is concerned about fish mar? I am, but I also don't think that.

G

My concerns will be shared by the rest of the board and just to be completely honest. So when.

G

I was denying this variance. It was the um lock coverage the 43% that concerned me, um because it.

G

Was 8% over what is the maximum allowed throughout the entire city, but also of equal concern to me.

G

Was the tear down of an 1870 structure, and so this um this application is still tearing down.

G

The 1870 structure, so I do have concerns with that. I will again raise um so I think that I'm.

G

Not sure that it is a substantially similar that is a substantially different application again, I.

G

Think perhaps I don't know how many members of the board uh shared those concerns of mine and.

G

um You know I, I know the legal requirements for fiserv v over, but the reality is is that um the.

G

More times you come to this board the likelihood that you're going to get approved um because not.

G

Only is perhaps the application uh could or could not be substantially uh changed. The reality is is.

G

That the opposition just tend generally tends to um decrease towards an application. The more.

G

Times it's heard so those are my concerns. Anybody else. I have a question for miss berson. If I may.

D

Sure I just this is for my own edification uh under what aspect of the zoning ordinance is it.

D

Within our jurisdiction to weigh the value or not value of tearing down, you know in 1840s structure.

G

It it's actually 1870 it's in the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance and it's.

G

To reserve buildings within the historic district and buildings um of historic or.

G

Architectural interest, so it's one of the main purposes, even though it's not in the historic.

D

District, I wasn't aware of it until I saw it in one of attorney phoenix's um uh memo uh letters.

G

To us, um and and given the streetcape on that street, where they're all new englanders all set.

G

Up in the same way, it provides regularity of the streetcape and the fact that it's an 1870.

G

Structure in new englander- um that is a concern to me, and I think that it's to me it makes it.

G

Substantially a similar application, but again I have to be very honest and that I'm not sure that.

G

That was the basis upon which this board actually denied the application. I think it was the 43%.

G

um Lot coverage, mr man. Thank you. um This is probably more of a technical question.

E

But in the request, it's relief from variance, you know: 3ot 3ft, front yard or five. You know.

E

3 and 1/2 were 10 36. We 35 and variance to allow two mechanical units doesn't say.

E

Anything about the uh demolition of the back half of the house, nor does.

E

It say anything about the demolition of the current garage is the application in.

E

Error, no, no because I believe when it says be: okay, just a second! No! I don't think so. It doesn't ask.

E

You know to tear down the garage nor the ex the l extension to the house. I believe it's because.

M

There's no variance needed to demolish, doesn't say it in the public notice. It's doesn't say because.

M

There's no variance needed uh and we're and as a zoning board, we're addressing the variances.

G

It actually does say 65 to raise and reconstruct remove, okay right on our staff member to raise and.

B

Reconstruct I'm looking at the public notice, okay,.

E

I don't and there is no variance needed to demolish the house. Okay,.

F

Correct uh yeah, I would also just add, uh I think this um application is closer to.

M

Invoking um fisher be over than the last, but I still don't think uh that it does because.

M

um The specifically relating to the building coverage, uh it's the same percent building.

M

Coverage as is existing and it's only 1% over uh what's permitted or required, um but I do agree.

M

That it's uh worth considering or yeah, I think that maybe we need to separate fiserv v, do from.

D

The analysis of what or not this application you know should we cons. Should we proceed to.

D

Consider it uh meets the criteria and particularly uh observing the spirit of the ordinance which is.

D

What I think that miss margon's concerns would really fall under uh and, and that's perhaps an.

D

Issue that we can take up again if we proceed, if no one considers this with by with fisher v.

B

Then I'm going to, if I don't hear anything, I am going to open the public hearing. Okay,.

B

Then we are, we are being heard now. All I have to do is find the pages I lost. Excuse me for a.

B

Second, second, can somebody read theone? Yes, thank you. Thank you. No, um the request of.

B

Karen s, denicola and um karen nicola trustee for property located at 281 cit street, whereas relief.

B

Is needed for a variance from section 10.5 to1 to allow a 3ft front yard where five is required.

B

B, 3 and 1/2t left yard, where 10 is required and c 36% building coverage with 35 is allowed and.

B

Two variance from section 10.51 15.14 to allow two mechanical units to be located. 7 ft from the.

B

Property line where 10 is required set property is located on assessor map, 144 lot 20 and lies.

B

Within the general residence c district hello good evening, madam chair uh members of the board.

H

I'm justin p from dtc lawyers in portsmith here tonight on behalf of the applicant karen dinola.

H

Of the karen dinola revocable trust, which is the owner of the property I'm joined tonight,.

H

By carla goodnight from cj architects, as well as john shagon from amit engineering, we have also.

H

Karen dina coler herself and her nephew jeff sp spitzer, who is with the chimber group, who worked.

H

On the renderings and is part of the development team here um I I will do a quick overview of the.

H

Property and the proposal, I will ask miss good night to come up and and inform the board of the.

H

Approach on the on the style and the aesthetic of this project, particularly in light of this.

H

Board's comments at the um june uh hearing and then, of course, uh we're available for questions.

H

And I'll briefly, summarize, the dt, uh the variance narrative so we're in the grc district, which was.

H

Established to provide for single family, two family and multif family dwellings with.

H

Appropriate accessory uses at moderate to high densities, together with appropriate, accessory.

H

Uses in limited services, uh we are located on the southern side of cabat street, closer to islington.

H

Street than mcd, which is the the area that we've essentially characterized as a neighborhood here.

H

For the purposes of uh contrasting our project to the area around it, uh we view the property as.

H

Unique as to size, frontage and its proximity to uh the cd4 district and properties along.

H

Islington street, uh specifically with regards to size at 3,865, ft² or roughly 0.89 acres, it.

H

Appears smaller than the average lot size of the neighborhood, which is .12 acres. um It also appears.

H

Unique as to frontage, this property has less frontage than the other single family dwellings.

H

In the neighborhood, more specifically, uh 287 cabat 295, cabat, 3, 303, cabat and 311 cabat, which are all.

H

On the eastern side of cabat street, uh like this property is have less significantly left uh less.

H

Respectively, frontage uh 37t, 37 ft and then 38.7 ft, 312 cabat street, which is on the west side.

H

Of cabat is at 39 ft, so unique as to frontage as well. um That's relevant because part of the relief.

H

We're seeking here is a is a building coverage relief, which is essentially proposed to go down.

H

By 2 squ ft over the existing condensers, uh where otherwise, the proposal is making the property.

H

More conforming with the zoning ordinance in every respect, we also see it as unique as being in close.

H

Proximity to uh those properties along islington, located at 323, 313 and 303 islington, all of which.

H

Are office andor, commercial buildings which have unimproved areas in the rear? Again, that goes to.

H

The building appearance, the aesthetic, the massing and the building coverage issue, which is part of.

H

The relief that we're seeking um the proposal here is to raise remove uh the existing structure as as.

H

Well, as a detached garage and replace it with a new single family dwelling and attached garage as.

H

Miss goodnight will discuss the first floor, will have kitchen dining living and and a den as well.

H

As a bathroom um and the second floor, we'll have a master bedroom, two additional bedrooms.

H

And a bathroom, the important thing here to note, I think, is the net result of the project which.

H

Will be um a a property which is more conforming dimensionally in every respect than the existing.

H

Property, it will be more compliant as to the side yard set back on the left side than the current.

H

Structure, it will be more compliant with the front setback than the current structure. It will.

H

Be totally compliant with both the rear and the side yard right setbacks um where the garage is.

H

Located in those areas now and then with regards to um building coverage where we were proposing.

H

7% additional coverage in the last proposal we are now proposing to go down 2 square ft, from,.

H

148 square ft to 146 squ ft uh the impervious surface area will be reduced by by 9.5%.

H

Across the property, which is, of course, a public benefit, and then specifically to mr ray's,.

H

uh Point at the last hearing where he asked whether a an analysis of the approximate.

H

Building coverages of the surrounding area would yield we we did the best we could to use the.

H

Assessing data to develop um a a number and what we came up with is in this area between islington.

H

And mcd the average building coverage is 33.7%. We're proposed 36%, but I guess most importantly,.

H

With regards to the two uh properties which ab, but this property 287 and 295 cabit, what we're.

H

Proposing is um less than the approximate building coverages that we calculated for those properties.

H

And, of course, it's less than what's there today so I'll stop talking. I ask miss uh goodnight to.

H

Come up at this point to go over the plans um unless there are questions for me, no okay. Thank.

H

J

Good evening, uh carla goodnight from cj architects, um I wanted to start by mentioning that we have.

J

Two letters of support from uh a butter from a butter and from a uh member of the neighborhood.

J

uh Miss bradder and um miss me, and um I would just like to say that miss bradder has captured a lot.

J

Of my uh thoughts on the design and the building, so if you have not had a chance to review that.

J

There's quite a bit in there um that uh I I agree with um design from a design standpoint and uh one.

J

Of the things that we set out to do in designing this uh updated building is to bring forward all.

J

Of the details of on the existing building into the new building, um you can see the side by side.

J

Rendering that captures you know where we plan to uh how we plan to do that with the trim and the.

J

Windows and and so forth, uh one of the challenges that we faced last time was that the front door.

J

um Was actually encroaching and causing more relief required along the front setback um and.

J

So we had moved it around to the side, but we have since brought that back to the front.

J

Which does actually create more mass uh at that point, but um that was a a preference of the board.

J

So we did that. um We've also realized that um this footprint, that as proposed, is roughly the slightly.

J

Less than the footprint of the current buildings on the site, if you look at the combined footprints.

J

Of all the buildings on the site, um one of the other amenities, the single single car garage with.

J

An allowed space in front um pushed us over the setback in the last application, but we've pulled.

J

That back several feet on that side now, so we're no longer um looking for uh relief on that side.

J

We we've got that driveway pulled back um and I believe the other uh aspect of this that I wanted.

J

To talk to talk to you about is that we have done. We do quite a bit of work in the historic district.

J

And understand that um a lot of these buildings have fallen into significant disrepair. um The.

J

Owner had shared with me at the beginning of the meeting that the kitchen, that's currently in the.

J

Building right now, that's in that little lean to in the back um does not have any electricity and.

J

Is running on an electrical extension cord um and that the tax assessor had come out to visit.

J

Her because of the change of ownership and had recommended to her that um his thought was the.

J

Building would be downgraded from fair to poor condition. So um what we're trying to do here is.

J

Just create a a safe um insulated, weatherproof dry, no mold, no mildew structure uh for um miss.

J

Dina cola, and so she can stay in the community and so forth, trying to while capturing as many of the.

J

Historic details um as possible. Other questions. Anybody have any questions. Okay, thank you.

B

All madam chair, if I, if I may very briefly summarize the statutory variance criteria thank.

H

You so, as the board knows, um the supreme court has directed tbas in new hampshire to answer the.

H

First, two statutory variance criteria together. They are whether or not the variances will be.

H

Contrary to the public interest and whether or not the spirit of the ordinance is observed by granting the variances, the question here really is whether or not the proposal unduly and an un.

H

Market degree conflicts with the ordinance such that it violates the ordinance's basic.

H

Zoning objectives, the test from the case law, is whether or not uh the proposal will alter.

H

The essential character of the neighborhood or threaten the public health and safety here, the.

H

Varian is derived from the table of dimensional standards. Obviously, the objective of that table.

H

Is to maintain aesthetically consistent neighborhoods across the city of portsmouth.

H

uh We don't discern any market conflict in this case, because the proposal is uh for a project.

H

Which is more consistent with those dimensional requirements than the current conditions across.

H

The board, um it will also be consistent with the neighborhood, as miss goodnight just explained,.

H

More specifically we're talking about a single family use that would be more conforming as to.

H

The sidey yard setback than the existing condition on the left side more conforming as to the front.

H

Yard setback than the existing, in condition now totally compliant with the sidey yard setback on.

H

The right um now totally conforming with the rear guard setback, um where both of those setbacks were.

H

Previously violated by the existing conditions, we are reducing the building coverage by 2 square ft.

H

There will be 99.5%, less impervious uh excuse less than prvious coverage than the existing.

H

Conditions, and, as we pointed to with regards to the building coverage table in our analysis, the.

H

Proposal will be consistent with the average of the building coverage in the neighborhood, which.

H

Is 33.7% by our calculation, but also less than the building calculation that we came up for.

H

With the three closest properties, those being 287 and 295 cabat street and consistent with.

H

28 rockingham, which is at 35% and is the is the newest uh building, which is directly behind the.

H

Property, um the project has been designed to fit in and complement the neighborhood. It's a tasteful.

H

Development, in our view- and certainly we don't see any market conflict, especially when you consider.

H

The existing conditions and the surrounding conditions, uh we would say that the proposal.

H

Says ifies the case law for the same reasons, it's going to be consistent uh with the character of.

H

The neighborhood and there will be no uh threat to the public, health or safety. In fact, when you.

H

um Account for the reduction in purose service area on the property. It's going to be a public.

H

Benefit so, ultimately, to summarize these first two criteria: there's no market conflict, because.

H

uh The property would be more conforming to the zoning ordnance than it is today, and uh we would.

H

Find on that basis that it's it's reasonable to conclude, those criteria are satisfied. The third.

H

uh Criteria is whether substantial justice is done. The guiding test here is that any loss to.

H

The individual, that's not outweighed to a gain by gain to the general public, is an injustice. There's.

H

Got to be some gain to the general public uh from denying the requested variances that outweighs.

H

The loss to the applicant from their denial we're really talking about a balancing test.

H

Here um we don't see the public gaining anything from denying the requested variances, because.

H

Really, the opposite is true: the public gains from denying the the variances the public benefits.

H

By a property which is better aligned with the dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance.

H

The public benefits from a 99.5% reduction in prvious services across the property, the public.

H

Will benefit from additional tax revenue um and and generally the law favors reasonable use of.

H

Of property um that is otherwise constrained by by size and frontage. Obviously, the applicant benefits.

H

Here too, uh they will be able to re reasonably uh redevelop and live on the property, um as.

H

We've explained in our narrative. Ultimately, we see this as a win-win uh for the public and for.

H

The applicant and lose lose if denied, so on that basis, we would suggest that that third.

H

Criteria is based uh is is satisfied. The fourth criteria um involves the impact of the project.

H

On surrounding property values here, because we see the project as uh uh as creating a property.

H

Which is more conforming as we've detailed uh to the dimensional requirements of the of the zoning.

H

Ordinance and what exists today, we would say, as a matter of fact, that uh it will increase the value.

H

Of the property, obviously, improvements will be assessed at higher values and, by extension, the.

H

Surrounding proper properties will benefit and be um potentially impacted, favorably from a property.

H

Value perspective, the last criteria uh is the hardship criteria. um The the test here is whether.

H

Unnecessary excuse me unnecessary hardship means that, owing to special conditions of the property.

H

That distinguish it from other properties in the area. There is no fair and substantial relationship.

H

Between the purpose of the ordinance and and its application to the property, so uh there are really.

H

Three tests here are there special conditions does denying the variances advance the purpose of the.

H

Ordinance in question, and is the use reasonable so quickly? Turning to those questions are there.

H

Special conditions there are, um as I've noted, the lot is smaller on average than the other.

H

uh Properties in this neighborhood at 089 acres when compared to 0.12 acres uh on the frontage.

H

With regards to frontage, um though smaller than the average uh lot size in the neighborhood, this.

H

Lot has uh more frontage, which makes it better able to accommodate the proposal, particularly.

H

In the in the context of the building coverage uh variants, as I laid out uh earlier, the other.

H

Single family residences on the eastern side of cabat street have uh 10 to 12 ft less frontage.

H

Than this property, uh which has 49 ft of frontage, we also see its proximity to the cd4 district and.

H

Those properties, particularly 323 islington, um on islington street as constituting a unique.

H

Condition of this property, because, particularly in the light of the building uh coverage issue,.

H

The rear areas of those properties are unimproved and have parking lots in them so from an aesthetic.

H

And a a street side perspective, uh it won't present a massing or uh issue particularly.

H

When you consider that across the property there will be less building coverage than there is right.

H

Now um the second question is whether or not the purposes of the underlying ordinances are advanced.

H

By denying the variances in question, the answer here is no again here. The proposal is to make a.

H

Property, which is better in every right uh than the existing conditions with regards to these.

H

Same conventional requirements. um Finally, the question is whether or not uh the use is re. We.

H

Would say it is particularly in light of the the detailed and comprehensive approach that uh miss.

H

Goodnight and her staff have done to accommodate uh the the aesthetic of the current neighborhood.

H

uh To include the front, facade and the location of the front door and the bay window, etc. So on that.

H

We would uh we would uh wrap up our presentation again happy to answer any questions from the.

H

Board are there questions.

N

uh Yes, did you look into the averaging of the front yard setbacks or the neighboring properties.

M

uh Because uh you might not even actually need the variance for the 5 foot front yard, set back.

M

um Another part of our ordinance, uh it looks like the other uh properties, the other buildings on.

M

The same side of cabat street are are also less than 5 ft, yes, um and so, if you average those.

M

I guess I was wondering if you looked into that we did not look into that. Okay, I know now now.

H

Currently, there's an encroachment from the caused by the stairs that go into the the uh that go over.

H

The line into the cities right away on the of the other properties on this property yeah and.

H

Certainly, if that's consistent, I think, with the the remaining properties on the eastern side,.

H

Of street and this one will be set back further than the existing uh property on this lot. Correct.

M

Okay, okay, we're at 1.8 ft now and it looks like it'll be 3.1 as.

H

Proposed are there any further.

B

Questions. Okay. Thank you. Okay, thank.

B

You, okay, is there anyone to speak in favor of this petition.

O

Good evening elizabeth bradder property owner 159, mcd street and 342 cabit, based on the design.

O

Being completely a completely new approach to the rebuilding of 281 cabbat street, it seems.

O

Appropriate to allow the new request for variances to be presented on the bottom of my letter, which I.

O

Presented um via email, it shows the actual visual differences between the two, the entire shape of.

O

The building has changed, the roof alignments have been changed. The clab boards are now on.

O

The entire structure, a front door and a front step which complement the other four buildings of the.

O

Quintuplets, that's what I call the five houses in a row that look alike ties this new design.

O

Into the neighborhood, this new building looks like it's been there for years in regards to the tests.

O

I wrote granting the variance will not not be will not be contrary to public interests. The house has.

O

Had little to no work done for a minimum of 41 years, possibly more, I know that because I'm there.

O

Almost every day, it really needs rehab number two, the spirit of the ordinance in grc were to.

O

Try and build bring older homes gradually up to newer standards. They were not able to meet all.

O

The standards but haven't have gotten closer than what exists in the current. In many of the current.

O

Cases number three granting these variances would be would allow for substantial justice.

O

For the neighborhood and for the owner of the property, the maximum lot coverage is 35%. The.

O

Original proposed was 43%, this proposal is down to 36% and they also tried to increase the setbacks.

O

Which directly impact the neighbors number four, the latest presentation should increase the value.

O

Of the neighboring lots because the new this is a new version of an old structure and it has been.

O

Created to allow for change and improvement in a positive direction, along with maintaining the.

O

Character of the neighborhood as long as it stays a single family home in regards to hardship. It.

O

Seems to me that the way this house is designed, it would allow anyone who lives there to be able.

O

To age out, because you could easily convert the quote unquote den into a first floor bedroom, it is.

O

Also true that, nowadays, cars are being converted into electric cars and I'm finding that more and.

O

More houses going in our neighborhood are having garages put in because they're going to have to.

O

Plug things in I did want to comment on the idea of rebuilding this house. I have a house at 342.

O

Cabit street that I've been working on for a year and a half, we won't talk about that part. We won't.

O

Talk about the ex exorbitant amount of money that has gone into this one-bedroom house, but.

O

We can talk about the fact that that house was in neglected for 12 years the tenant who lived there.

O

Was supposed to be taking care of it, and when I got in there after he moved out, I almost dropped.

O

Dead that was 12 years of neglect, we're talking 41 or more. It involved replacing foundation parts.

O

It involved replacing electrical it involved, putting an in ation. It revolved so many things.

O

I really would not like to think about it at all, because I'll probably have a nervous breakdown.

O

But in regards to this house, if you ever went inside there, it made a it made a house that was.

O

Considered condemned, look good the condition of this house if you have not had the opportunity.

O

To go in, there would make you say whatever you do, just burn it down or take it down. I realize.

O

It's from the 1800s, I'm a big proponent, of saving things from the 1800s. That's why I did the work.

O

On my house, I also didn't want to come, see you and that's why I did the work on my house. The.

O

Way I did, but the reality is, is this house is in horrible? I mean absolutely horrible condition. You.

O

If you lit a match to it, you wouldn't they'd put out the fire in five minutes, because it's.

O

Just a disaster inside, thank you thank you is. Is there anyone else to speak in favor of this.

B

Petition is there anyone to speak in opposition to this.

B

Petition opposition anyone else to speak to for or against the.

B

Petition hello, good evening, chairman uh board members. My name is james beal, I'm on a butter.

P

At 286 cabat street and uh as I look over this proposal, uh I like what has happened in the.

P

Second round, however, uh there's a few things that I find a bit disturbing in terms of the.

P

Application uh it speaks on page 10 is that if the variances are denied it will be difficult.

P

To redevelop the property uh 28 rockingham street directly behind it has a lot that is 9 squ, f feet.

P

Larger than this one, the size of a standup shower and without any variances, they were be a were able.

P

To put in a three-bedroom, 2 and 1 half bath, 1358 ft house, um I understand that she is trying to.

P

Make this house look like a new englander, and I appreciate that. However, on page a2, the proposed.

P

View of cabat street is inaccurate and misleading the the computer drawing makes it appear that the.

P

New building is exactly the same height as the other four buildings along this street. Those.

P

Buildings have a height of 26 ft to the peak. The only information on all of the elevations is a.

P

Dotted line that says 25 ft, which is halfway up the roof line, so the elephant in the room.

P

Is what is the finished height, and although this is not required for a variance? I would hope that.

P

The board asked this question prior to making a decision the reason for this a new building.

P

Height of 30 ft, where the current one is 26 will be 16 ft higher than all of the other buildings.

P

A new peak of 33 of 33 height will be 23, ft, 23% and the allowable current height to be built on.

P

New construction is 35 ft and that will be 34.5% higher than the other four buildings. On the same.

P

Side of the street also there's mentioned that the lot is smaller than the rest of the lots on cabat.

P

Street there are nine addresses on that block on cabat street five of those lots, including hers.

P

I'm sorry, five of those lots are smaller than her lot uh and so therefore, the hard is questionable.

P

If the variance is allowed and the available height of new construction at 35 ft is built.

P

Then it is a detriment to the public, because the loss of light in the air to the direct, a butter.

P

To the left of her uh will be determined, along with the view from cabat street, so I like the.

P

Design um it seems that, by having no variance on the right side of her building, she is protecting.

P

Herself from something that may or may not happen to the cd 4- l2, but the rockingham building was.

P

Able to do everything without a variance, and so therefore I would like the board to ask the.

P

Finished height of what the new building would be proposed, I know that's not something something.

P

That is set in stone, but I think that's a very big elephant in the room. That's not being asked just.

P

Square footage. Thank you for listening. Thank you. Is there anyone to speak to for or against this.

B

Petition, you may come up, you may come up, you may come [music] up. I just very simply can put.

J

Everyone's mind at eas uh we did send uh staff members out there to um you know with a laser to.

J

Measure that eve hey, because it was so um such a an integral part of matching the building design.

J

And take some field measurements, so we will be replicating the width, height, pitch, etc. Of the.

J

Existing building, that's there right! Now! um If you look at the right elevation, you can see that.

J

The um new uh building at the rear is actually slightly narrower, uh causing the roof to be a.

J

Little bit lower um than the other building uh the than the um existing building and two of our.

J

Variances are required to keep this building in the same position that the existing building is.

J

In so that one sidey yard uh variance and the other uh front yard is those distances.

J

Were dictated by the current position, so we want to keep it in that alignment in that lineup. So.

J

That's that's sort of um how we ended up there, uh especially, as I mentioned earlier, putting.

J

The front door back on brought us even less out of out of alignment. So thank you. Did you have a.

B

Question, I'm sorry, can you please come back back up again, just nudge me, sorry, okay, to answer the.

E

Gentleman's question: yes: what is the height of the roof on the final building? I do not know.

J

Offand from memory, but it will be the height of the building next door. Thank you. Anybody.

B

Else, anyone to speak to for or against this project. Okay, if not the public hearing, is closed.

N

A comment that uh building height is, in fact.

M

Determined as uh or defined in our ordinance as being halfway between the eaves and the ridge.

N

Right um just for clarification: well, maybe clarification for people who know what that.

G

Means that means right yeah. Can you explain for the audience? Yes, uh it only requires a.

C

Minor in mathematics, it's not a major. Am yes, rather than the actual tallest point of the.

M

Building which would be the ridge, um the definition uh a building height uh for the.

M

Purposes of the ordinance is it measures um if you have the ridge and then you have the.

M

Bottom of the roof, uh halfway between that that's considered, building height.

M

Which is, in fact shown on the elevation here uh for this application, as 25 ft.

M

And uh in fact fact, uh if it were uh beyond what's allowed uh there, a variance would be.

M

Needed for that we are closed. We are closed closed. Thank you y for that clarification.

B

Anybody I think this is an interesting situation. uh As you know, I was and am in.

D

Of the opinion that that fisher vover did not apply, however, in considering the new.

D

Application, I don't think that comparing it to the first application is the rubric that.

D

We should be using it's really comparing the current application to the zoning ordinance.

D

In and of its own right and what I have a difficulty with is, if we're going to, if.

D

You're going to tear the building down you're, basically starting with a clean slate. So why.

D

Are minor improvements in setbacks compared to the existing structure relevant? It's a clean.

D

Slate, and so I think, the hardship criteria would have to be satisfied in the sense that.

D

You could not given a green field, uh meet the zoning ordinance and I just don't see.

D

It, mr man, and to you, know elaborate on what tom said. um I was unaware that the house was being.

E

Demolished because it wasn't in the legal notice, unlike the previous legal notice, for the same.

E

Applicant, um that being said, it is a clean slate and it's a 50ft wide parcel, which means you can.

E

Easily fit a 30ft wide structure and be clear on both sides, so I don't know if the hardship.

E

Exists. Anybody, mr r, thank you. Madam chair, um I mean I, I do think a hardship exists here. I think.

C

What's being asked for is in terms of setbacks, actually makes a lot of sense, so I think the.

C

Applicant has gone to uh great lengths to try and continue to keep the overall characteristics of.

C

This neighborhood, I do think um um you know we we've heard from interested parties that um that.

C

There's a general sense that it's in keeping with the s sense of the neighborhood. So if you look.

C

At the ad adjoining properties, you have house driveway, house, driveway house driveway, um to be.

C

Able to effectively go and continue to have that feel to the property. I do think that the the side.

C

Setback you're going to need relief of some sort um for the side setback and I I think what they're.

C

Doing here is, is you know, keeping sort of the main front portion of the house um to be um slightly.

C

Within the within the setback, uh to sort of keep that continuity from a visual street aspect. But.

C

Then in the in the new um air portion that's being proposed in the back half of the house, they are.

C

Actually, uh being uh um you know, compliant to the uh to the requirements or or more so at any rate,.

C

More more closely, um it shows it running right along the the line, so I think it's yeah in essence,.

C

There's a little bump out in there, uh but um you know and some utilities that are back there, that.

C

That may may cause it to be somewhat closer, but it's essentially like a 10t distance away from the.

C

Property line wall with um a small bump out for the gas fireplace and then the the utility pads.

C

um That are placed in there. So to me uh it makes sense from a rhythm for the whole neighborhood.

C

um What they're, what they're asking to do again, they're, essentially consistent with the allowable.

C

Lck coverage- um I always you know they're 1% off. I always ask like why couldn't you get down that.

C

1%, but I I would agree, it's currently 36% they're, essentially meeting the same. They said well, it's.

C

Actually, a little smaller 2 s feet, I'm not going to give you 2 s feet, it's the same um as what it.

C

Was in my mind u from a setback, standpoint, they're meeting it from a o overall lck coverage request.

C

They're meeting it they are being respectful of the property that we were most concerned about.

C

The last time, with their expansion so they're not proposing an expansion into an area really that.

C

Was covered by a semi, legitimate garage that was there before they're being respect full of that.

C

That property line setback on that side, um so I think they're meeting the the criteria. Mr.

M

Yes, uh one thing I'd point out is that uh the street frontage for this uh general residency.

M

District is actually 70 uh feet and this is only 50 feet, so it's 20 ft less than what's allowed.

M

um I do agree that if you met the 10t setback need this decide, you could build a 30ft wide.

M

House which uh isn't unreasonable, but um there could be certainly a hardship in the fact that.

M

This lot is narrower than what's allowed uh by the zoning district, um and I think, uh regarding.

M

The variance criteria being asked for, I think a lot of it is being driven by um you know as.

M

Much as I would love to see a historic building be renovated uh and and saved. um This is the the next.

M

Best thing where they're, basically, the design of this building, uh really is being driven by.

M

What is there, which is that historic building, and um so uh the uh the new building would be.

M

No less it, it would be more conforming or closer to conforming uh than what's there, while also.

M

Replicating all of the uh his historical details of uh the building- that's there miss. So I I will.

G

Note that the lot depth on this uh lot is about 27.5 ft longer than is required by the the zoning.

G

Ordinance so they do have quite a bit of space to go back um just the two feet for the front yard.

G

uh The um so I will not be supporting this, this variance loation, I think the building coverage.

G

Is much better that was a significant concern of mine the last time just because of um the reality.

G

Is is that stuff can be built on the other sides of this um of this uh lot that uh you know they're.

G

Trying to take advantage of the open space on the other lots, um so I think the building coverage is.

G

Much better, um I agree with the comments on the front yard and the left yard. The left yard they're.

G

Going from 0 to 3.5, which looks like it is more conforming and it is more conforming. However, the.

G

Reality is is that that is a much bigger structure on that lot line, um that is the closest to their.

G

Nearby, a butter- and we have had applications of that recently, where that has been a real concern.

G

I think that they don't necessarily they could conform to the zoning ordinance on the side yard.

G

Setbacks if they cut off some of the house which the house the additions to the house.

G

Are definitely not um similar to what is in the um what is in the rest of the neighborhood? I.

G

Also say you know- and this is this is my hobby horse kind of thing, but um the purpose of the.

G

Zoning orance is to protect historic structures of architectural and structures of historic and.

G

Architectural interest in the city, even outside of the zoning even outside of the historic district.

G

This is just outside the historic district. I think the um the potential to change alter the character.

G

Of this neighborhood is quite great, um given that these are five little new englanders in a row and.

G

They have a great streetcape, so that is a a very big concern for mine of of mine um and again, the.

G

Fact that they could have pulled this building off of the left yard setback they're, putting.

G

A significantly bigger structure there um onto their uh that their butter is going to have to.

G

Deal with is is definitely a concern. um I will say that after this last application, they did.

G

Go on to z, to see the inside of this house, and um it is dated it is worn. Certainly um I can't.

G

Say that it looked like it was condemnable. um It looked like a very old, very dated house, um and so.

G

I I will not be supporting this application. Would someone like to make a motion? Thank you, uh madam.

C

Chair I'll make a motion to uh grant the requested variances as presented an advertised. Is there a.

B

Second, a second thank you, mr matson, okay. Okay, um so you know again, as I indicated I mean I, I think.

C

The relief that's being asked for here total build building coverage is essentially what is there now.

C

Only 1% above, what's what's allowed, um you know essentially essentially compliant um with with.

C

That it really comes down to, they are compliant on the the sidey guard. Setback for the main portion.

C

Of the house on both sides or the at least the new addition portion of it, sort of the rec creation.

C

Portion of it, um you know recreates, certainly the feel of the uh old home uh that was there.

C

And I think, most importantly continues the um look and feel of the of the um neighborhood as a as a.

C

Whole uh you know going to the argument about you know: preserving historic structures. I really think.

C

That we as a board, need to be extremely careful about. uh Taking that on um somehow saying that.

C

One uh subparagraph of our general purpose and intent, which says the preservation of historic.

C

Districts and buildings and structures of historic and architectural interest somehow empowers this.

C

Board to go and say that um structures that are outside of the historic district um somehow now.

C

Have a we have an ability to go and and preserve those. I I don't see that in in the law that I'm.

C

I'm aware of there is another outlet within the city, the uh demolition review committee.

C

Which also has some dubious um legal backing in terms of any kind of state statute. That would.

C

Would authorize that I would say the fact that this property is in fact adjacent to a historic.

C

District further amplifies the fact that it is not worthy necessarily of any unique historic or um or.

C

Architectural significance, if it were, um why was it not included when that historic district was.

C

Created it would simply be a small extension of the historic district, but in fact, um when.

C

The planning board and the ultimate city council approved that went through. There was no argument.

C

Made that somehow this structure from the 1870s you know raised to do that level of bar that it.

C

Was something that should be preserved as a core element of our historic districts? And uh I just.

C

I just think that you know I'm don't get me wrong, I'm a I'm, a history guy. I love old structures as.

C

Well, it does sadden me that um old structures uh can get torn down but at the same point in time,.

C

There's ultimately, property rights that people have uh and and possess and unless there's you.

C

Know supporting statute that says that we can go and and restrict that I think putting you know.

C

Somehow, interpreting our zoning ordinance, that, broadly, is just you know. It's asking for a court.

C

Challenge- and I think such a court challenge would likely: u result in in a loss for.

C

For the uh for the city, so um with that going through the specific criteria, gr, the variance.

C

Would not be contrary to the public interest and gr. The variance would observe the spirit.

C

Of the ordinance again, big char characteristic of that is the sense of is it within keeping of the.

C

uh Overall characteristics of the neighborhood, I think that extra effort has been done here to in.

C

Fact meet that um you know, as has been indicated, I believe, by board member matson. I mean this is.

C

Probably the second best thing we could have to a true preservation is reconstructing something that.

C

Is somewhat more compliant but at the same point in time honors the history of what was there looks.

C

Very much like it and continues a very noticeable rhythm along the street. um So within that I think.

C

It's it's really meeting that um the act requested relief is is not excessive. It's wherever possible.

C

um The you know the applicant has tried to fully respect all the setback requirements.

C

Has essentially um respected the overall um uh imposition of uh of walk coverage? um You know in.

C

Terms of the front setback, I wouldn't want to push this building back further again for the.

C

Same reason- and I think mr masson pointed out- I think if you actually did a calculation, you.

C

Could demonstrate that uh there would perhaps be no relief required, but certainly the positioning.

C

Of the of the home is in keeping with the the the current positioning and in keeping with the.

C

Overall spirit of this you know row of houses, as has been indicated to us by um by both the.

C

Applicant and other interested parties um granted the variant would do substantial justice again.

C

That's our our balancing criteria, I mean I, I think overall, there's really no public public.

C

Perceived need here, they would say, having that slightly additional setback from the driveway of.

C

The next house over would would somehow provide a substantial benefit in this particular case. I.

C

Am you know leery as board member marson has pointed out in every case of you know,.

C

If there's some other options um you know, and especially where there's a um you know, some.

C

Kind of structure nearby where you are going to be casting um you know, loss of light of light and.

C

Air that that it is a concern, but I do believe in this case that the benefit of continuing to keep.

C

The overall rhythm of the street um outweighs um any perceived need to um more fully enforced.

C

The zoning ordinance grant the variance are not diminish the value of surrounding properties.

C

Again, this you know there's long indications that no matter what this, this property is probably.

C

You know a victim of demolition by neglect, um and um you know that sometimes that happens uh quite.

C

um By design intentionally, uh we've seen that in other properties, like one on the corner of boy.

C

Road and woodbury, where basically it was left to to rot until such time as hey. Now I can go.

C

And replace it in this particular case, not every homeowner in the city can afford to maintain their.

C

Property- and uh you know that's a fact of of life and at some point in time uh perhaps there there.

C

Is a need for? U for replacement of it, and in this case I think this replacement will increase the.

C

Value of surrounding properties, uh by the virtue of its more uh modern amenities and and the fact.

C

That it, uh it is a more um um structurally sound um structure and then, lastly, the uh the hardship.

C

Again, I do think that some of the unique conditions here is is um the existing, where.

C

The existing structure is, admittedly, being being demolished, but again has a historic precedence of.

C

Essentially, being shove to this side of the lot having the driveway on the opposite side, the rest.

C

Of what is being proposed in terms of additional structure is is fully compliant with the setbacks.

C

um Overall, you know narrow width to the to the lot. Not you know, at least in terms of relative.

C

To the zoning ordinance- um and I do believe that the uh the requested use is a you know,.

C

Legitimate one for replacing a single family home with another single family home so based off of.

C

That I recommend approval. Do you have anything to add mr r m? Yes, um I would just add that.

M

This home, uh without a variance this home, could be demolished and a a new modern, contemporary.

M

Home could be built within the setbacks, um so I really do appreciate the amount of effort.

M

That has gone into not altering the essential character of the neighborhood. uh With this.

M

Application, yes, mr man, um I will not be supporting this application. um While we do have that purview.

E

Of historic homes, um it goes back to the original application. For me, when I asked the question you.

E

Know they had structural issues with this house and they still bought it, knowing they could come.

E

To us for relief, and they will keep on coming back to us until they get what they want. We had an.

E

Application in here over a year ago about a demo in a house in a neighborhood close to me um that.

E

Needed no other variances setbacks, whatever it was just a demo and what was presented was very nice.

E

And would fit in very nicely with the neighborhood and no nobody asked the roof height question and.

E

They went to the max and now that house is listed on zillow for $1.6 million in a in a street where.

E

Most of the houses are 4 and 500,000 and it stands out like a sore thumb, because we don't.

E

Control that, but it looks nice in the presentation so frankly, I will not support this, because I don't.

E

Believe what they're telling me thank you. I am going to support this because, since we decided.

B

Fisher versus do doesn't apply, I'm seeing this for the first time, and I agree with just about.

B

Everything, mr ray said: I think that while the house is old, I don't think it's significant.

B

Particularly, I think it's significant lies in the rhythm on that street, which is the reason for some.

B

Of the variances that are needed tonight and they are minor variances as far as I'm concerned, and I.

B

Think this will be a good this. There will not be a gap in the smile on this street. I think it is a.

B

Good addition to the neighborhood- and I know I didn't mean to- were you going to say something.

B

Mr, oh yeah, that's right! I can wait. Okay, no! I'm done I'm patient, sometimes, uh okay, so.

D

I want to make a few comments before I vote on this uh to what you know whatever before.

D

I vote on the motion. uh One is that I still have a problem with the hardship standard. I think that.

D

When you're knocking a structure down and starting with a green field, the burden for proving hardship.

D

On all of these, things is not comparison to the structure that currently exists, because.

D

The foundation of that structure no longer has any relevance, and I don't see anything in the.

D

Stated hardship and unique characteristics of this lot which, by the way, I don't agree.

D

Are all that unique? It is really not a smaller lot than the other lots that are on that side.

D

Of cabin street, nor is it the only lot that's uh adjacent to the cd4 uh district, so I don't.

D

See how those aspects of the lot are um you know are way in favor of hardship for this.

D

Particular application. I'd also like to make a couple of other comments. One is that, with.

D

Regard to whether or not it uh we have a basis for considering the preservation of structures.

D

Of historic or architectural interest, that's a very broadly interpretable uh statement within.

D

The zoning ordinance who determines what is of historic or architectural interest. I guess you.

D

Could make the argument that we can make that determination and the reason that you have a.

D

Zoning board- and you don't just read the zoning ordinance and go from there- is because we have.

D

Local knowledge and we know what we what we think this town should look like. I don't think it's a.

D

Good idea for the board to speculate on whether or not we have a solid legal foundation for indulging.

D

In such uh determinations, uh and particularly do not think it's a good idea to lay out a course of.

D

Legal challenge: should we decide in the future uh to make that kind of determination in my.

D

Mind there's a big difference between a historic structure and something that is rebuilt to look.

D

Like a historic structure, one is a historic structure, the other is disneyland and I think.

D

That is completely different and we may want to make that consideration in the future. uh On.

D

Other applications, so that's all I have to say I I will vote when the time comes there any further.

B

Discussion: okay, then, a yes vote is a vote to go ahead with the project m record. Yes, mr manel, no.

B

Miss marison, no, mr ray. Yes, mr rossy. No, mr matson! Yes, you are approved, you didn't vote. Did you vote.

B

Oh, yes, sorry. I forgot to vote. Sorry you're almost approved, I'm sorry. You are approved.

F

Perorally, I thought I spoke my mind all.

B

B

Fisher v over friends, it's a very unusual.

B

Meeting, what's this.

F

One well I'm sure that everybody's waiting to hear from me. um I actually don't think.

G

That visher v applies in this because of the change in the underlying zone. Zoning ordinance.

G

So anybody else does anybody. I I just have a question. I understand the change in the zoning.

D

Ordinance um did anything actually change in the application. It's the same setback from the roof.

D

And it's the same structure and all of that right, but because the zoning ordinance change the stand.

D

They don't need a roof setback anymore. There are okay, so there's nothing changed about the project.

F

Height, it's just the height because of the change in the zoning. There are some slight changes to.

F

The project as well they ar they don't need the setback variance any longer, um but I believe the.

F

Design has changed as well, they did need them on the perimeter and it doesn't any longer. Okay,.

N

That thank you. I think it's significant yeah, so it moved in from the perimeter right since then.

E

The zoning changed. Mr r. uh Thank you, madam chair. I I also agree. I don't think fiser feed over replies.

C

Here um I was not part of the board when the last decision was made. I was part of the board.

C

When the sort of the first penthouse came before the board um and then uh for this last one, I did.

C

Go back and watch well, I wouldn't say I watched all the. It was very long discussion, but I watched.

C

um A good good portion of it um I I do think in particular that the final motion that was made.

C

uh In particular, um did reference the specific uh nature of the degree of um of um difference.

C

With the requirements of the zoning ordinance, it wasn't a uh a disagree with the idea of a.

C

Penthouse and of itself being on the structure, it was more the degree to which the um relief.

C

Was required that was quite specific in the motion, so I think in that sense, with the change in the in.

C

The requirements of the zoning ordinance that that does make fisher v over, since that was the board's.

C

Concern now we need to rehear it in light of the the new information okay. So I'm not hearing that.

B

Anybody would like to invoke fisher v over I'm going to go ahead. Then open the public hearing.

B

Okay item c, the request of novo cure inc owner for property located at 64 vau street, whereas.

B

Relief is needed to construct a penthouse which requires variances from sections 10.5, a4, 3.30 and.

B

10.5 a21 pointb to allow a maximum height of 47 ft where 42 is allowed said, property is located.

B

On on assessor map, 126 lot 1 and lies within the character district, 5 and northend incentive.

B

Overlay district good evening, madam chair members of the board, I'm attorney john bosen. I represent.

Q

Novocure, which is a global oncology, company that has purchased 64 von street, is being renovated.

Q

For its executive offices and a training and development center, my client expects between.

Q

200 and 250 employees to occupy this facility with me tonight from novocure is dean smith. We.

Q

Also accompanied by architect mark moher from jsa, as you may recall, we did appear before this board.

Q

On may 17th 2022 and we were denied a height variance for 11.6 ft for rooftop barrian, but.

Q

Since then, several things have have occurred. uh First, the building has approvals for a rooftop.

Q

Structure to house the building of perces of 14 ft in height above the flat roof adjacent to.

Q

The structure is an approved outdoor, open air terrace of approximately 2,158 square fet and.

Q

Jillian, that's in diagram boa4 a if we could bring that up. Excuse me, madam chair, can I could you just.

D

Get a little closer to the microphone I'm having a hard time hearing you. Thank you. Well, my wife says.

Q

I talk too softly anyway, go for it. Just shout at us shout at her I'll get in trouble, um so we.

Q

Wanted to point out boa 4 a basically shows the existing approved uh status of the roof. The ask.

Q

Tonight is for approval to cover the majority of the space with a glass penthouse, as shown on boa.

Q

4B, the second big change has occurred as as this board just mentioned, is that the definition of.

Q

A penthouse contained in chapter 10, article 15, section 10, 10.1 1530, has changed specifically.

Q

10.1 1530 b2 uh under states at of penous, is now treated like a slope roof where height.

Q

Is measured between the floor and the midpoint to the top of the roof as a result, only 5t of.

Q

Height relief is now required. I do want to point out in my narrative I mentioned that there were.

Q

7 ft that was required. The correct number is five. I realized that when I read the the staff.

Q

Memo that alerted me to the fact that 42 ft is the actual um permit actually what's permitted.

Q

For penthouse, not 40, but it's 2 feet above that, and that comes under section 10.5, a 21b where.

Q

Penthouse may exceed the building height by 2 feet so resulting in the 5t of relief being.

Q

Requested, lastly, there are material differences than what was requested in 2022 versus what we.

Q

Have tonight, uh aside from the ordinance change, uh the penthouse does have reduced.

Q

Setbacks, it has reduced footprint and there's a modified design uh on the roof. The proposed? U.

Q

Penthouse is now practically also invisible to a butters at 25, maplewood avenue, which is led.

Q

To an overwhelming amount of support from both of our neighbors and the abutters, and I think.

Q

You'll see those letters in your packet, and many of those folks may be here tonight as well. The.

Q

Project has also received positive feedback from an hdc work session held on june 14th. So this is.

Q

A material different project, it's a materially different ask than what we had last year um and.

Q

We also do believe that this project is very important for nova cure, who intends to not.

Q

Only use the building for its employees but to host a variety of professionals and t scientists.

Q

From all over the world, for training and for conferences, there will be no permanent offices.

Q

In the penthouse, either it's going to be used to provide employees and guests access to outdoor.

Q

Space where no green space is available at 64 vaugh street also the approved open air terrace.

Q

On top of the building is a logical place to locate this convening space, which will add.

Q

2,158 ft of functional space, as shown on the plans, the proposed structure will also shield the youth.

Q

uh The rooftop mechanical units, so for a whole host of reasons, the project is very important.

Q

To my client, I also want to point out the even with the additional height the building will be.

Q

Shorter than many of the neighboring buildings, so we see this as a reasonable request um before.

Q

I go through the variance criteria. I would like to invite mark mohler from jsa up to the podium.

Q

Walk you through the plans that mark and I can answer any questions you may have thank.

Q

You thank you john again. My name is mark mhler uh from jsa design and if I could ask uh for you to.

R

Back up a few slides just to uh maybe number two one more, please just just to start here.

R

And again, this was just more for reference of our current design, as, as you can see, the two elements.

R

That are highlighted in the light. Green color are the overb roof apperances the larger one in uh in.

R

Includes a uh elevator and one central ess stair, uh we brought the elevator up uh to service the.

R

Roof deck uh that's being proposed in the center, and that was just to ensure that all employees of.

R

Novocure would would have an accessible means to enjoy the roof deck. uh We could have just brought.

R

A stair up there and not had to go so high, um but that didn't feel the right thing to do so.

R

We' brought an elevator uh in there and that really set the the height that um the maximum.

R

Height of of what we're seeking to meet tonight and then the small grou green element on the right.

R

Side of the roof plant is just a second means of egress from that roof terrace. uh The next slide.

R

Please so number three represents essentially what we're here tonight: seeking relief for, and it's the.

R

Area in blue so essentially we're covering what was going to just be an open deck. We're going.

R

To cover that and close that with a glazed uh structure, next slide, please so these were the.

R

The two views you just saw, um slides, 4, a and 4b uh show the the current condition you see.

R

The two roof apperences with the open deck in the center and then the next slide. It will show.

R

That same essentially the same condition with that green, um essentially, a greenhouse type structure.

R

Conservatory type structure in the center uh there is an an additional um roof deck that you you see.

R

In the the beige color that wraps around that the intent is to try to have some uh uh open. You know.

R

Full fully operable uh windows door elements that could then allow uh users to step out of that.

R

Enclosure out onto a limited amount of a roof deck, it's held back 10, ft away from the parit.

R

All the way around and then there would be a green roof system installed in between that deck and the.

R

Parid, so it has this, uh this softened buer all the way around it next slide, please. um So there are.

R

Really four views um that we've prepared um and we've coupled each of the the the computer views.

R

With uh as close of an actual photograph uh during construction, as you can see- and the point here was.

R

Just uh to illustrate, because of the nature of this penthouse being set back, um 20 ft set back.

R

From the von m side and and more than 20 ft and in some cases, almost 20 near 25, ft uh from the the.

R

Worth parking lot side um at at the you you'll see that it's a very minimal impact that one would see.

R

From ground level, um so the next four four slides show you um the extent of uh you can just barely.

R

See the the actual edge and because of the nature of what we're trying to add, uh we are adding this.

R

um This peak element, so the ve- it's really the very peak of this greenhouse element- is.

R

What's matching that elevator overrun, so the the entire perimeter of this penthouse uh structure.

R

Is is quite a bit lower, so that's why you, you can really barely see it um in many of many of.

R

These views uh next slide be number nine. Nine is the section. This is really just done to illust.

R

Illustrate um this, uh uh this revised definition of the penthouse height so from essentially the.

R

Floor of this penthouse to the midpoint between the floor and the peak, and you can see the the.

R

Point I was just making about the it's really just the peak of this gable form, um that is at the.

R

Matching the height of the elevator overun, which you can see sort of ghosted in the background.

R

The the element shown in blue is is the nature of tonight's variance, request and um 9b. Please.

R

um And these are the two elevation views both uh at the top is the view facing uh von mall side and.

R

The elevation below um would be facing uh worth lot, so these are taken sort of behind the parit.

R

um There's roughly a 2ot highit that does ex extend around the perimeter of this building.

R

So you virtually, no one will see it in this form. You'll see it more uh more akin to the perspective.

R

Views that uh that we just uh finished sharing, but these just illustrate the intent that it.

R

Is essentially a fully glazed structure, I believe the north side um uh will have more solid elements.

R

Where we have some mechanical units adjacent to the structure um and but but by and large.

R

The two more public sides that face von maul and the worth lot side uh will. The intent is to use.

R

As much glazing here as possible and the glazing, the intent is to have uh u multi-light uh windows.

R

It's not going to look very contemporary. It will have that sort of old feel um it will likely be.

R

Matching ing the same color of the windows that uh are are being um installed currently, which.

R

Is a black uh aluminum frame, so it we'll have um um a a character that is uh recalling some.

R

Earlier conservatories and then the last view is just a a a sense of the soft glow that, with with.

R

The intent uh at a at a nighttime- and you can also see the very very subtle um deck lighting.

R

uh Nothing will be obviously shining upward, so you no one's going to be seeing the source of.

R

Light the light will be uh uh dark sky compliant. It will just cast a subtle glow onto the surface.

R

Of the of the deck and and in order to control solar gain and so forth, um you know we will be.

R

Evaluating what type of glazing is being used, the glazing, at least on the slope portions- will likely.

R

Have have uh be be treated in such a way whether it's a a ceramic frit on the glass to to um help.

R

Control the amount of solar gain, um or it will be a tinted glass. We haven't gotten to that stage yet.

R

uh But the intent is that that that coating will uh will also impact how much light uh glows out of.

R

This as as well as how much light it uh admits uh during the day, thank you any questions. Okay, thank.

B

You thank you mark um move on to the variance criteria. First, granting the variance will not.

Q

Be contrary to the spirit intent of the ordinance. Nor will it be contrary to the public interest and.

Q

The test here is whether or not the variance being granted would substantially alter the.

Q

Characteristics of the neighborhood or threaten health safety and welfare of the public. In this.

Q

Case where the variance is to be granted there'd be no change to the essential characteristics.

Q

Of the neighborhood, nor will the health safety welfare of the public be threatened. This property.

Q

Is very visible: u corner of downtown portsmouth where similar heights already exist. The health.

Q

Safety and welfare of the public will not be negatively impacted in any way if the approved.

Q

Rooftop open air terrace is converted to an allseason covered space as as march just.

Q

Pointed out which will allow the nova cure gas and employees some outdoor space in which to.

Q

Also, the urban characteristics of the neighborhood will not be altered in any way uh as a result of.

Q

The relief uh being requested. uh Lastly, the project will need to obtain final approval.

Q

From the hdc, so the interest of the public will be further protected. Next, substantial.

Q

Justice will be done by granting the variance, and this requires the board to conduct a balancing.

Q

Test, if the hardship upon the owner or the the applicant outweighs any benefit to the general.

Q

Public in denying the variance and substantial justice would be done by granting the variance.

Q

The proposed added 5 ft in height, will in no way detract from any of the neighboring properties.

Q

Many of which are already taller than what is being proposed, the uh the proposed penthouse.

Q

Though will add functionality of the space when approved outdoor terrace already exist? The penous.

Q

Will also be similar in height with roof of pertin structures and will help shield the.

Q

Rooftop mechanicals and it will provide much needed open space. So in this case there's no.

Q

Benefit to the public in denying the variance that is now outweighed by hardship upon the applicant.

Q

Next, the val value of surrounding properties will not be diminished by granting this variance the.

Q

Proposed penthouse is not visible from or it's not visible from most of the ground locations.

Q

Near the site and surrounding properties have similar or higher heights than what no recur is.

Q

Proposing this evening the penthouse will sit within the footprint of the existing building.

Q

And the roof of perces, um which will shield the penthouse from residential neighbors at 25.

Q

Maplewood and as you can see, we have many letters of support from both the uh neighbors and from the.

Q

Abutters, which I think speak volumes in terms of the surrounding properties, will not be negatively.

Q

Impacted by this proposal next, there are special conditions associated with the property which prov.

Q

The proper enjoyment of the uh property to the strict terms of the zoning ordinance and thus.

Q

Constitute unnecessary hardship, this main building is an historic structure dating back to the 19th.

Q

Century that sits on an ir regularly l-shaped lot. The building also um is l-shaped and the property.

Q

Has frontage on two rights away, both hanover street and um the von maul? It also borders.

Q

The worth lot, which doesn't meet the definition of a street under the ordinance but has many of.

Q

The same characteristics like regular vehicular, circulatory traffic throughout the site, there's.

Q

Also, no open space on site for no cure employees or gas to concrete or eat lunch and the building.

Q

uh The building use is 100% office, space has no ground floor, retail or other uses, which is.

Q

Unusual in this zone, so we do believe hardship is certainly present. Use is also reasonable.

Q

Use as proposed use is accessor to the office use which is permitted in this zone and, lastly, there's.

Q

No fair and substantial relationship between the purpose of the ordinance as it's applied.

Q

To this particular property, the additional height requested is necessary to create functional space.

Q

That adds to the environment additional height will not in any manner dominate or be out of scale.

Q

With neighboring properties, so there's no fair and substantial relationship between the purpose of.

Q

The height requirement and its application to this property. So for all these reasons we do believe we.

Q

Meet the criteria necessary for variance, uh and we do uh respectfully ask for your approval. This.

Q

Evening, thank you. Thank you anything else, yes m. So I have a question as to hardship attorney bzen.

G

The hardship is that there's no outdoor space for employees to e congregate and whatnot, but isn't it.

G

Correct that they could do so. In fact, you hadn't approved rooftop deck without this penthouse well,.

Q

The hardship is more than that, though. We also have an a regularly shaped lot. We have a. We have a lot.

Q

That sits on has frontage on two rights of way and potentially a third when you, when you factor.

Q

In the the worth parking lot, so I think you have to factor in all of those things that add to the.

Q

um To the hardship in this case, but specifically to your question: yes, they would have the right to.

Q

Go up there uh but we're in new england. As we've seen, we have a lot of rain. We have a lot of cold.

Q

We have a lot of wind and this rooftop of part is. I mean this, this uh filling in of that area.

Q

Between the two apperances is going to allow the novocure guests and employees to be able to use.

Q

That on a more regular basis, and that couldn't be done without with ad heering, I mean the the.

G

Structure that you're putting on top is 14 ft. It's 14t, yes, and um because of the way that mr.

G

Matson explained to us how height is mentioned, um the variance request is, or the uppermost portion.

G

Of it, um because that's the part, that is the f ft, that is y okay, that's correct all right. Thank.

G

You any other questions. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this.

B

Petition good evening, madame chair members of the board, I'm barry heckler. I own a.

A

Condominium at 25 maplewood also known as the provident condominiums, and I am.

A

The president of the board of directors of our hoa, as mr bosen has mentioned,.

A

Attached to novocur uh request are a number of letters of support 100% of the owner at.

A

Provident condominiums support the request for the enclosure of the rooftop deck by the glass.

A

Roof, we believe that this will not only add to the value of the novac cure, building by providing.

A

A space that they can entertain visiting medical and scientific professionals, but.

A

Also their own employees, and they they've also advised us that this place will be.

A

Available to the residents or groups of the city of portsmouth on weekends, if they need a place to.

A

Congregate, as has been stated uh it, it is not notably visible from any vantage point in and.

A

Around the 25 maplewood building or even down vaugh mall, we believe it will to the value of.

A

Neighboring properties, we believe that it is consistent with what has already occurred in.

A

The neighborhood with jimmy's jazz club uh and and improve the value of those that are on vau.

A

Mall as well: u it will eliminate ambient light and noise that will accompany an open air deck.

A

Especially during the spring summer and fall uh seasons and interfere with the quiet enjoyment.

A

Of the neighbors, but if it's enclosed, that gets eliminated, so we think that is a real plus. It does.

A

Not interfere with the view from 25 maplewood at all. uh 25 maplewood has also been assured by the.

A

Associate director of north america facilities uh for novac cure that no further requests will.

A

Be made for development of the rooftop in any way other than routine maintenance, and that.

A

That representation may be included as part of the approval of the variance if the board.

A

Deems approval to be appropriate, we respectfully request that the the zoning board approve the.

A

Application. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak in favor of this.

B

Petition good evening, madame chair members of the board, um thank you for your service to our.

S

Community, first of all, um my name is john ducey for the record. I'm a lawyer in massachusetts. I.

S

Also, I'm the owner of property located at 172 hanover street, which is the laretta building.

S

That's probably you know that this, probably no one, that's more uh more closely connected to that.

S

Property than ours uh we have a common. We share a common wall, kind of like our sister right.

S

We have seen that when we bought this property back in 2007, there was a warehouse across the.

S

Street from us there was nothing that area had nothing in it. Now it's look at it now. Just it's.

S

Vibrant, it's exciting. It's stimulating every time I walk through that neighborhood it just. I just.

S

Get exhilarated by the energy in that area. I think the fact that we now have a medical, high level.

S

Highly graded medical um facility, uh that does research and development in cancer, and you look.

S

Around there's, none of us here that don't know someone that's been afflicted by cancer in some.

S

Way, shape or form, and um I I'm I'm so happy that novak care has found it um uh an opportunity to.

S

Come and and be part of our vibrant community. Not only do we have a beautiful seport city.

S

But now we have a a place where we can say that we also are the mecca of someone who is making.

S

The difference in people's lives, so I I fully support it. um I have studied the the plan.

S

And um I applaud the fact that they have now brought the edges of the building in closer to.

S

The middle, I think, they've really done a nice job with that to try to minimize the intrusion.

S

To their neighbors, you've heard other speakers here today. um We we don't see the we won't see.

S

It at all the top of the building, um but from my perspective, um given what they're trying to do for.

S

Us as citizens as residents as human beings, um I think their request is very minimal. uh Given what.

S

They're going to give back to the community you've already seen a significant investment in the in.

S

The b mall area, the cabbat house, there beautiful building, but it was right, ready to fall down. They.

S

Came in and revitalized that entire building- uh and I really do believe that it's going to be a.

S

Compliment um to the that whole portwalk region uh and bring um um a lot more uh spirit, hope and.

S

Meaning to our community. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak in favor of this.

B

Petition hi good evening, my name is alison griffin and I'm also an abutter at 25 maplewood.

T

um I submitted a letter, but I also wanted to speak tonight because I've spoken against this.

T

Project previously, um but when I started speaking against this, I've watched it very closely. um It.

T

Was supposed to be a three-story building since and as you can see, many more additions have been.

T

Granted including that pertinence that they they talk about, that has the elevator in it. So at this.

T

Point it's built, it has the apperance on there and they're just asking for this second part.

T

Of the building to match that and truthfully looking at the building as an abutter, I think.

T

It actually makes the building look better blends the two buildings together and makes it more like.

T

A uniform building together as opposed to two separate buildings, um so I am supporting this.

T

Because I was worried about the height after seeing it if they're asking for the same thing.

T

That they've already been granted also as an abutter um as if it's enclosed, it gives a lot.

T

More positives to novocure, but it also gives positives to as to us as a butters. It keeps.

T

The sound down keeps the lighting down down and overall again, I just think it adds value to them.

T

And the surrounding buildings- so I am in support of this and I'm asking for you to support this as.

T

Well, thank you. Thank you. Anyone else to speak in favor of this petition is there anyone to speak.

B

In opposition to the petition, anyone to speak in opposition, anyone to speak to for or against.

B

You've been waiting come on up. I I just wanted to say that I think an interesting.

U

Solution would be a rooftop garden instead of an all glass space. You would uh provide the.

U

Same social aspect for employees you'd get some fresh air, uh reduce the uh defay. The urban heat.

U

Sink um and add habitat for pollinators, birds and bees, and also they could set.

U

An example for other rooftop buildings, exc buing rooftops. Can you tell us who you are.

U

Please catherine eric hillian, okay resident. Thank you. Anyone else to speak, two for or.

B

Against you want me to.

B

O

Good evening elizabeth br property owner 159 mcdon street, this is the letter that, in my.

O

Craziness, I forgot to send you so um I'm going to just give you a synopsis of the letter and.

O

Then I'm going to speak a second time because I believe I'm allowed to do that. um Elizabeth.

O

Brart, I already told you that so it is stated that the structure is a mansard roof and it is.

O

Clear based on the approved plans and on the current pictures, which I show which.

O

I have on the back um that it is it's a flat roof, not a mansard roof, and you can see that.

O

Right here and if you look at the revision of the ordinances 103 10530 in regards to.

O

Penthouses, they are counted from the floor to the roof surf the highest point of the roof sface. If.

O

They are flat roof or a flat, topped mansard roof. In this case, it's the flo and if you read number.

O

Two on that the floor in the case of a pen penthouse to the highest point of the roof.

O

In other words, both state that penthouses are measured from the floor to the highest point.

O

Of the roof for both a flat roof and a flat topped mansard roof, which is called the roof.

O

Ridge, it even continues to go on to explain to you on page 311 of the ordinances that the.

O

Height of the penthouse shall not exceed 10 ft above the story below from below the flat roof.

O

So, in other words, this penous is being shown as a 14t penthouse. It's not you don't count.

O

Half of it, this is a flat roof. You count the whole thing from the floor to the ridge line.

O

It's 14 ft. That means the height increases 54 ft than the allowed 40 ft. The design of this.

O

Penthouse is not in keeping with a mansard roof, although that's what they claim in their thing, a.

O

Mansard roof would completely obscure the entire penthouse from all directions, as you can see from.

O

The other roofs that they had if you go back to that picture you had a minute ago and therefore.

O

It has different rules, so when these zoning ordinances were created, they were created for.

O

A flat roof having one r rule and the menide roof has another rule, and the reason why is because, if.

O

It had those sides like one congress street, has for their penthouse or in this case, if you look.

O

At a mansard roof you cannot see what's there, so you still have the same setbacks, but the sides.

O

Of the building cover it up, it seems that a lot of the comparisons they made are between apples.

O

And or oranges, there is a big difference between adding coverings around mechanicals and adding a.

O

Penthouse, which is much louer lou, excuse me much higher than allowed and not following the roof.

O

Design presented as they for their said request were the gl glass penous approved. There are very.

O

Specific spe, stipulations that should be put on it. Please do not approve this penthouse as.

O

Presented it does not mean meet the requirements of the revision of the ordinances. Why do we revise.

O

Ordinances to allow for more opportunities for developers and then have them ask for.

O

Variances, on top of that, the height presented heights presented are above the very recent.

O

Changes to 101 1530, which generously went from 2 feet to the current definitions. Thank you. Thank.

O

You is there anyone else, just speak to for or against public hearing is.

B

Closed she didn't come. Is there anyone to speak to for against this.

B

Petition, sorry, you could have used this as you. I'm.

O

Only allowed so many, so that's why I was trying to follow the rules.

O

Thank elizabeth bradder property owner 159 mcdonal street. After reviewing this application and having.

O

Taken part in many other meetings regarding this, it is hard to believe they have been able to.

O

Convince their direct abutters that this proposed glass penthouse will have little or no impact on.

O

Them please do not approve this penthouse based on the following statutory tests. Number one, the.

O

Public will will not gain anything from this penous. There is nothing in writing. There are.

O

No easements to say that this penthouse will be available for the public. The neighbors might.

O

Be surprised as to how a fully lit 2,400 square foot structure at night shines in their windows.

O

And how loud it is to have 66 people in a glass structure which could easily echo that sound out.

O

Outside the building, especially if the windows are allowed to be opened, the new ordinance cr number.

O

Two, the new ordinance criteria were to ensure was to ensure the development of more living space by.

O

Including res reasonable setbacks and heights for pen houses in particular, this proposal is already.

O

Outside the height requirement and appears to be trying to use mansard roof standards.

O

Instead of flat roof standards, this proposal is also proposing occupiable space, which falls into.

O

A different legal category than habitable space. Therefore, this penthouse should not.

O

Be allowed because it does not meet the spirit of the ordinance occupiable space is, is retail space.

O

Restaurants and places where people just sit around habitable space is places where people.

O

Live it's very clear, legally number: three, most training and seminars involve the use of screens.

O

Phones and do not do well poorly with any light at all, much less light that surrounds them. On.

O

All sides in their application they specifically state they want to be able to provide places for.

O

300 plus guests: that's the reason for needing this. On average 3,700 square ft are needed to.

O

Seat 300 people there would be no justice for the applicant, since what is being proposed will not.

O

Meet their their their request to be able to put 300 people into this spot, the approved outdoor.

O

Seating already exists and that allows access for their guests and their employees, but they.

O

Specifically state the reason for needing this is to be able to have outside people.

O

300 or more, it can only fit at 66 number four granting the variance could diminish the value.

O

Of surrounding properties, jimmy jazz's blues club is a soundproof building with fantastic acoustics.

O

This glass structure could be a sound spreading disaster that all depends on the thickness and.

O

The type of glass that is used, it can either be amplified or it could be contained if no.

O

Stipulations are added regarding light, sound and use. The surrounded properties could be negatively.

O

Impacted for years number, five most companies have training and many have seminars, guest speakers and.

O

Visiting guests to their facility, portsmouth has many conference centers, which are available within.

O

Walking distance of this location, a room for the purposes of entertaining 300 people or more could.

O

Have been put into the original building either exclusively or by including movable walls. It.

O

Was stated they needed enough room for 300 plus people under most circumstances, they will have to.

O

Use another location for these meetings because more than 66 people won't fit the other re for.

O

Other reason for needing this space is to not to allow excuse me to allow outdoor access for their.

O

Employees and their guests, which is available on their rooftop, stop top as well as all over.

O

Downtown there is no hardship. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak to for or.

B

Against public hearing is.

B

Closed, can we take a break? You want to do it before we discuss.

G

I would like to I a request for a break. I was using davids. Okay, we.

B

Are going to take a 10minute break, thank you for your patience. Thank.

B

B

Okay, we're back in session pictures of my kids and ready to consider 64 von street.

D

Can I ask a point of clarification: please do uh what is the actual height, so so 47.

D

Is the height that's, I understand that that's halfway between the floor and the.

D

Crest of the hip roof of the penthouse- I got that so is it and and what's allowed.

D

Is 42, so that's the so we're really being being asked to grant 5 ft of. Where does.

D

The 42 come from instead of 40, 42 comes from the character district requirements, okay,.

F

Cd41 c5 right, I think we're so the roof is allowed to be the flat roof is allowed to be at a 42 foot.

D

Height is that what you're saying the building height is allowed to be at 42 ft? Got it okay.

B

Any other I I mean, I think it's 42 feet for the penthouse yeah. It's.

C

Incredibly complicated um because I was looking through the there's- a map also.

C

That you have to refer to, then I'm not sure I have a copy of the map with me.

B

Oh than you the same [music] m, I guess I'd like to make a comment while we're, while I'm.

D

Thinking about that, and it pertains to the image on page 12, 24 of our packet, uh which.

D

Shows kind of a three-dimensional representation of the uh of the.

D

Area I would love to hear some I'd love to hear some discussion from the board as to the hardship.

D

And particularly, what differentiates this building from the buildings that to the north of it, because.

D

My my concern, always with granting variances like this, is that we can find ourselves in a.

D

Situation of incremental change in an entire area. So if you look at the buildings to the.

D

North, like you know this next one up towards maplewood they're, not at 47 feet they're at.

D

Something lower than that, what differentiates this structure from those structures in terms.

D

Of hardship that would pertain to this structure and not the others. Does anybody have a a view on.

D

That there in different zones, I believe no, no, no okay! Well, there are many taller buildings around.

B

It and I don't know what was needed when they went yes, but that's my concern about incrementalism.

D

It's like okay, there's a taller building there. So we get to do this. Then somebody else looks.

D

At it says, well, there's a penthouse that got this variance and this building may be able.

D

To support that too, it just kind of spreads whether we want that to creep through our.

B

Decisions yeah, that's true: we are in charge of them. That's true. We have the.

B

Power um or responsibility responsibility, but I yeah.

B

Sorry, all right, so it's really just a question of hardship period for.

D

This property, not thinking about the incrementalism potential, I suggested.

B

That, no, I think it makes sense you have to yeah yeah. I wouldn't say that we.

M

Cannot ever consider it, but I think there is something to be said for the slippery slope.

M

Fallacy, well, I have the map. Is this? You request? No, I don't believe so. um So if you go on 5 a-16.

C

Of our um of our um zoning ordinance so building form principal building, uh building height c map.

C

10.5 a21 b and section 105a 43.3, so there's actually, I think, a map that determines.

C

Which, which particular lots fall into what particular height categories and then um so.

C

105A 4330 is on 5 a-26, which goes through the various allowed heights, uh but basically says.

C

Refer to the map to determine which one you're in and it's it's not our standard.

C

Zoning map- it's a I used to have that map mine's, probably now outdated anyway, but.

B

Is that useful, no clue?

B

Okay, they're with.

B

Us I I I mean I have seen on this map where it says that pen houses can exceed the building.

G

Heights by 2 feet, so that's how this um this building is. Currently, let me just get back to.

G

um This building is currently 40, but a penthouse with the bump up for the penthouse. That's where.

G

You get the 42 and then the other five feet comes from the change in the uh amendment.

G

To the change in the zoning ordinance that allows for the penthouse to be measured in.

G

A certain way, um but I think the structure is the structure- is 14 ft, so it is 54 ft except.

G

That that, because of the way, they've revised the zoning or orance, it's not considered.

G

uh Yeah, I I understand that, uh in my opinion, the revision of the zoning ordinance makes a.

D

Smaller variance from the height restriction uh more important, you know, I weigh a 5- foot.

D

Variance much more heavily than I would have under the old ordinance, because that would have.

D

Been a 10 or 14 foot, in other words, you get to the 14t height and you're, only getting a.

D

Variance for 5 ft, that means that variance for 5 ft is much more impactful than it would have.

D

Been under the old method of calculation, so the new method of calculation amplifies the.

D

Impact it is, but it means that we're also, I mean, at least in my opinion, I would give more serious.

D

Consideration to a 3 to five foot variance than I would have under the old calculation rubric.

D

Having said all that, yes, I'm sorry dav, I just cut you off. I I do think it's a reasonable use of the.

D

Space and I do think that in the business that nova cure is in and the purpose for which they.

D

Would like to use this building in the space. There is an expectation if you're bringing uh medical.

D

Professionals from around the country or possibly around the world for training or clinical trial.

D

Management and things of that nature, there is an expectation that they would be uh accommodated.

D

In class a office space- and I do think that this is something that is consistent with that.

D

Use mr r, uh thank you, madam chair yeah, so um the the building heights issue is incredibly complex.

C

I mean our character. Districts have both great great points and and not so great points. One.

C

Of the great points is, is that I mean we used to have very distinctive uh building heights, um that.

C

Resulted in some structures that were probably taller than what a lot of people felt uh were.

C

Comfortable with for our for our downtown, um there was a lot of discussion. There were um a number of.

C

Sharetts that came together, city spent quite a bit of money with a a consultant to put together our.

C

First character, districts that we came up with and then eventually extended it to others. um So.

C

The idea is, is it gives us more control over the the nature of the structures that are being being.

C

Created looks more at the more of a micro view of the topography of the surrounding structures.

C

There and tries to match that a little bit better. Hence, while you need a map to figure out what your.

C

Allowable building height is um you know, good good good points in trying to um not just say.

C

Cookie cutter, this is the height you can build to, and then you know what you're going to get every.

C

Single building, that's that's! That's that high um tried to be have more specificity to try and.

C

Create those um variations in our in our downtown landscape. Now that said, there's also all kinds of.

C

Sub rules in there and somehow through one of those sub rules- and I don't fully understand.

C

How, but you will kind of notice that the new addition, that's um next to the what had been.

C

The um the original cabin house building um is is somewhat taller if you're looking at page 124 of.

C

Our package um and just kind of looking at that rendering there it it does end up being somewhat.

C

Taller, which, in turn, I think, gave the applicant the ability to create the apperance height.

C

Somewhat taller because you're allow 10 ft above above the height of the roof, and I think in this.

C

Case here the dominating roof is the the mansard. The new mansard created the ability to create um a.

C

Higher level for um those um apperences associated with elevators, stairwells, etc, which in turn seems.

C

To have created this ability to to put a p patio out um on the roof of the old um cabit house,.

C

Rebuilt sort of cabit house structure, so um you know all very complicated one thing that I would.

C

Agree with that one of the speakers made and mr rossy you kind of pointed to, is you know the whole.

C

Point of the character districts was, it was more more defined, um so I do. I think that the tolerance.

C

Of uh variance that we should allow uh should be less with that in mind right, so we thought, through.

C

This pretty carefully one of our arguments for our most of our zoning is hey. It's kind of you know.

C

Spread the peanut butter as best we can and kind of came, come up with the best. What's the overall.

C

Look for that neighborhood and you can't spot zone character. Districts was a legal way for allow us.

C

To do not truly spot zoning, but trying to better match the characteristics of no really in we've.

C

We've looked at this from a more uh architectural standpoint from more technical standpoint, and this.

C

If we could, if we can adhere to these kinds of ranges, um we should have pleasing results. Is.

C

That to say that no variance should be allowed. I, I don't think that's true either, but I do think that.

C

Our our tolerance for variation should be should be some somewhat less. uh By the same token, um you.

C

Know really this revision to the ordinance also kind of changes around how we're looking at these.

C

These roofs and and measuring them, but keeping the same the same limits as before. So I think.

C

That plays a factor in here. Just fundamentally, is this a a good or a bad thing? uh If, if the.

C

Roof deck exists. I think that having a cover to it is is probably a benefit overall for the the.

C

The surrounding neighbors, I do think that um while there's you know, I think I think an outdoor patio.

C

Would would likely have more noise? Obviously we haven't done any kind of noise study. We haven't.

C

Asked the applicant to provide a noise study. It's only one of the considerations that we would have.

C

To look at here, um I I do think it makes some sense. I I actually kind of like the way it sort.

C

Of is an infill between um two apperences that would just sort of be sticking up. On top of the.

C

Roof would be visible from from a ground level from certain aspects, um so probably looking down.

C

From handover street uh you as you're coming down that hill, you can probably perceive some.

C

Of this other viewpoints, I mean I do think that some of the hardships, if you are trying to find.

C

Some hardships here I would say the fact that the the loetta building in the front really sort of.

C

Creates like a distance on that on that side, from from a streetcape on the backside to the um you.

C

Know to the parking lot. I do think that there's some level of visibility there, but probably not.

C

A high level of visibility, and then you have the vau court, which I think is it set back from the.

C

Most and is sort of behind an an a pertinence. That would be the first thing that you would see anyone.

C

You would see, regardless of whether this um this structure was here. I also think the fact that it's.

C

A glass structure is somewhat helpful from that aspect, in the sense that it kind of gives almost.

C

A sense of being a a clear strey, which is like you know in the in an oldtime building, would.

C

Have been in the way of letting light into the middle of the building, um particularly for like.

C

Industrial buildings where they would add that on um because in an age before um ind, you know.

C

um U bright lighting that would be available to perform an industrial process. That was your way.

C

Of getting light into building um so this just, I think, some of the things the board needs to be.

C

Thinking about and putting this together, I'm you know my my first reaction to this was you know.

C

uh What part of no don't you understand? um You know clearly this board said no, when it was first.

C

Proposed we were sort of given that fan bargain of hey. If you give us some extra hype for a penthouse.

C

uh We'll give you a little park right, so you give up your values um for this height and we'll give.

C

You this little park, the board said no, the park was not worth it. It wasn't worth giving up on.

C

The the additional height then the second time, another application came again for a structure.

C

Somewhat similar to what's being discussed now, a little bit larger a little bit more, um you know.

C

Com, probably not truly higher, but at least in terms of what our zoning ordinance like out. A.

C

Little bit more of a of a imposition on the on the allowable zoning and the board said no.

C

Essentially, we're back here again and why are we being asked for the same thing again in fairness,.

C

To the applicant, I don't think you know that's the emotional response that I have um the intellectual.

C

Response I'm trying to have is is to really look at the criteria that we have to go by. Can it can.

C

It fit into them, and uh I'm not clear-cut, either way on it and would appreciate more.

C

Discussion but I think, as a framework that could be some good good things for us to take a look.

C

At miss maron, so I think where this application really has problems is hardship. um I I I do not.

G

See I mean I know, pen houses are allowed in the zoning ordinance, but I don't see where.

G

Without this penthouse, the variance needed for this penthouse um that there is hardship.

G

For the property attorney bosen is an excellent attorney, but I don't find his arguments in terms.

G

Of the hardship needed to get this variance uh very persuasive, um I I realize there's a lot.

G

Of discussion around this building uh throughout the city- and I have to say I never- I've- have not.

G

Followed it even though my family at one point did own this building, um but you know this has.

G

Now been between in front of us for, like the third time um the zoning has changed. I recognize that.

G

However, you know it, it seems like after we denied the last variance. It seems that a rooftop deck was.

G

um Sort of created and uh the elevator you know um uh was put on, uh and now it seems like it.

G

What what they were denied for they're getting now step by step, which is the penous um I you.

G

Know that that's my impression um also in terms of their need for it for conference spaces, they.

G

Have a building the entire building there and they have an addition to a building. um In terms of like.

G

The need for you know having employees, congregate and whatnot. You know again, I think, there's a lot.

G

Of things that are nice to have, but I don't think necessarily rise to the level of a hardship um to.

G

Deviate from the the zoning ordinance, so I I I will not be supporting the application. I just.

G

Do not feel like that they have met the hardship criteria and I I I had for. I was not on the board.

G

The first for the first application that mr ram um has just mentioned in his remarks. But I guess.

G

Certain part of me is like you know, we have said no twice um and I, but mostly for this application.

G

I do not see hardship, mr le um I'll share sorry, mr b uh yeah, so just to share my thoughts. um um I.

M

Guess, first I'll discuss hardship for a second uh to me, the most obvious thing about this property.

M

Is it's almost like it's its own small standalone block surrounded by streets on four sides, um so I.

M

Have and uh lockett is the sister building here and there's no concern uh and in fact.

M

It was supported by the um the owner, um and so I have less concerns about uh height, affecting.

M

Light air and privacy of the neighbors because it has has uh street uh or it has asphalt um or.

M

Non-Buildable area all around it um and then for me a big thing uh that this project has going for.

M

It is um the fact that uh uh you know in regards to character, district and form based zoning. This.

M

uh Penthouse is inset so functionally from the ground level and the effective viewing angle.

M

uh You you can there's minimal sight lines uh to this, so uh it's not it's much different than if.

M

This were a 47t building all the way around built out to the edge uh that would have a much taller.

M

Perception than this uh setback nature of this and this glass structure, um and then uh I guess.

M

Furthermore, that um I think uh initially I uh I was surprised that uh all the neighbors were.

M

In support of this, but I guess it does make sense that if it's a uh uh already going to be a rooftop.

M

Deck uh en closing, it um would have the positive benefits of containing uh the noise and the light.

M

Somewhat so um yeah, I guess those are my thoughts at this point. Would someone like to make a motion.

B

As our discussion, no not yet okay, mr r, go ahead. I I did, if I may just to address one thing that.

C

um Miss maron brought up uh just to make it clear that first, you know in each of these iterations.

C

That the applicant has come before us and in reality it's two separate applicants um over.

C

The course of time, but basically whomever the property owner was for this I mean the original.

C

Proposal was essentially a fourth story. It was set back uh some dimension away from the from the.

C

From the wallscape, but um it was a much larger, more imposing uh request um the one that came.

C

Before this board, when I wasn't here, uh you know quite a bit smaller and then again, this is this.

C

Is smaller still also again really not like truly living space has been pointed out. It's.

C

Really more of an intermittent use, probably during the weekdays of um using this as sort.

C

Of a gathering space, um as opposed to truly like somebody living there, 247 uh something along those.

C

Lines so so I do think the impact has changed in the course of those three applications. You know.

C

Is is that sufficient to say it now? Is me our crer, I'm not conv to that yet either, but just a.

C

N

Anybody I will make a motion to approve the request, as submitted.

D

At has presented and advertised. Thank you. Is there a second to mr rossy's.

B

Motion I'll second, thank you. Okay, now, we'll find out one way or the other.

B

Continue taking one and two together granting the variance would not be contrary to the.

D

Public interest and granting the variance would observe the spirit of the ordinance I'm going to.

D

Focus on the public interest: there is no vested uh interest in the public uh to to deny the variance.

D

uh Because it really does not impact the safety, health or welfare uh of the general public.

D

So I believe that criterion is satisfied. Granting the variant would do substantial justice. uh There.

D

Is no loss to the public because the structure is mostly not visible in the surrounding streetcape.

D

So there is no loss to uh the public with regard to the appearance of the area or the character.

D

Of the neighborhood, uh should this project uh be granted the variance uh that would outweigh.

D

The loss to the applicant uh should variant not be granted granting the variance would.

D

Not diminish the value of surrounding properties. Several of the properties surrounding this are.

D

Already taller uh and having a pen house on a neighboring or nearby property uh would have no.

D

Impact in a negative way uh for the value of the other properties, I do think that the penthouse as.

D

It's currently designed has a very nice aesthetic to it and visual appeal uh and, to the extent that.

D

It is visible from some of the other areas. uh It's going to look a lot better than just an open flat.

D

Roof uh and therefore, I think it would actually enhance the value with the surrounding properties.

D

When it can be seen hardship, uh that's one that I was struggling with here as well, but, uh mr you.

D

Mentioned something uh which I think rings true, uh and that is that, because of the presence of.

D

The apperences for the elevator on one end and the other uh and then another apperance that I don't.

D

Know what it's for, but, on the other end uh that does shield uh the sight line from the properties.

D

On maplewood avenue, particularly 25 maplewood, we heard a lot of people uh from that area.

D

Saying that, with the presence of the apperances, they no longer really can even envision. Seeing.

D

uh The penthouse uh the ridge line, does match up essentially with the top level of the apperences. I.

D

Think that's a special circumstance that doesn't exist, for example on the uh laretta building.

D

And therefore, I do think that that distinguishes it from the nearby properties uh in a way that is.

D

Relevant to the variance uh that is being applied for uh and to deny the variance because of those.

D

uh Because of those special circumstances, denying the variance uh really wouldn't do anything to.

D

Improve the uh the way this building fits in with the surrounding neighborhood again because of the.

D

The lack of visibility of the of the penthouse in part due to those apperences. uh This will be.

D

Consistent, it would not diminish the character of of the uh area or alter the character of the area.

D

So that's my shot at uh meeting. You know defining the the five criteria uh for this application does.

B

The second have anything to add: yes, um I'll, just add that the doesn't alter the essential.

M

Character of the neighborhood and the most uh immediate example would be jim's jazz club.

M

Right across from the worth lot with its uh well done glass structure um and then, uh admittedly I I.

M

Struggled, uh I was debating the hardship a little bit too, but um I, the the main part of the hardship.

M

For me is that uh the amount of um right rights of way surrounding uh essentially on all sides.

M

Definitely the three sides of this structure: a portion of the forest side and then uh with.

M

The only other building that could be affected, uh laretta um being in support of it. uh I think.

M

That's a unique condition of this property where it's own, essentially a small lot, where it has.

M

um Less concern for uh light air and privacy being affected uh by neighboring buildings.

M

And also the other surrounding buildings, uh uh a decent number of them are actually taller.

M

And then, regarding the uh fact that there's no fair and substantial relationship between the.

M

Purpose of the ordinance as it's applied to this particular property. um You know this. This will.

M

Add uh some functional space between the two uh existing parts of the structure that are already.

M

At this height um and and this uh will not uh in any manner dominate or be out of scale with the.

M

Neighboring properties, um so for that reason, there's no fair and substantial relationship.

M

uh Between the purposes of the height requirements and the application to this property, and also that.

M

It's uh not as visible from the ground level due to the setbacks. Thank you. Are there other.

B

Comments, thank you, mr rain uh yeah. Actually, first, a a query for staff, um so one of the abutters did.

C

Bring up a con noted that the applicant has made a representation to them that they would do no.

C

Further uh construction at the roof level, if this were granted uh with this motion, um thoughts on it.

C

You know from a from a zoning standpoint. Is that point moot I mean the applicant at this point in.

C

Time really there's other than another, perhaps roof of pertinence because of a mechanical system.

C

Or something there's really no ability for them to to build beyond what we're granting for relief.

C

Would you say that's true from your assessment or yes, I would say that's true. I would also ask the.

F

Board, if they would consider that a reasonable condition to place yeah on this well and right.

C

It it, you know, tiptoes into some slightly more murky territory from a from a you know, legitimacy.

C

Standpoint, but I just wanted to address that about her concern, that was, that was brought up.

C

um And then just you know two more things. Another concern that was brought up was, you know light. I.

C

Do believe that the even though this is a glass structure, um we've seen most glass structures.

C

In the applicant indicated it would be dark sky compliant. um You know, use the use, clever use of.

C

um Of dark and glass and whatnot: u both for solar radiation purposes and for light exfiltration at.

C

Night- um I don't you know, foresee this being like this massive beacon of light on, on top of the.

C

Building or anything on those lines and then just one more thing on the hardship that I I think is.

C

Helping to sway me as well as you know what part of what we don't always mention in the hardship.

C

Criteria, it says, is it a reasonable use and I and I do think you know part of the reasonableness.

C

Here is: is that that the there really is no change in use? It's not like this is going to.

C

Allow the applicant to do something that they're not already doing. It's simply going to create an.

C

Enclosed space for them to have gatherings that they could have in the outof doors. um You know.

C

Would it maybe maybe they probably wouldn't do it in in you know 10 degree below weather they might.

C

Not be able to do that anyway, depending upon the heating characteristics of this, this structure.

C

But I just don't think it's going to change the fundamental use of this portion of the property.

C

It stays the same, it just simply provides a covering for it. So um that's just my thoughts.

C

Thanks, I'm just going to say that um I'm going to support the application for many.

B

Of the reasons that were stated and also because I guess I consider the 5t request.

B

To rather min request in the whole mass of this building and considering that it's going.

B

To be on a glass building, it doesn't add to the largess to the impact of the building.

B

And it may help with the noise if that roof were going to be as um social as is expected,.

B

For this corporation, so are there any other comments concerns okay, then a vote is to allow.

B

M record: yes, mr manel, no m merson, no, mr r! Yes, mr rossy, yes, mr matson, yes and the chair votes.

B

B

Okay, so moving right along our next item of business is fisher, be.

B

Over this has been a recording, um for9 kent.

B

Street, yes, uh I would say that I don't think official be over applies here. um This.

M

uh Compared to last time, there's all variances that were being asked for that could have been.

M

Addressed have been addressed, the only issue is this lot. Size is too small and they can't.

M

Change that um and in fact that's a unique condition of the property, but we can talk.

M

About that later, but um it's you know the prop: the application has changed enough, that uh the.

M

Other variants is being asked for are no longer being asked for they address what they could.

M

It's a different application. Is there anyone who would like to invoke fisher v over okay, then we.

B

Will go ahead with the application if I can find it again. Sorry, I keep losing things on my thank.

B

You, okay, this is item d, the request of cynthia austin smith and peter smith.

B

Owners for property located at 9 kent street, whereas relief is needed to jamal the existing.

B

Twostory living unit structure and construct a one living unit structure, which requires a.

B

Variance from section 10.52 one to allow a 5,000 square foot to allow 5,000 square ft.

B

Of lot area, where 7500 square ft are required and b 5,000 squ ft of lot area per dwelling.

B

Unit where 7500 square ft are required said property is located on assessor map. 113 lot.

B

42 and lies within the general residence a district is there anyone to speak to.

B

This good evening, madam chair monica kaiser from hul phoenix, gorm and roberts to present this.

V

Application uh with me tonight as well is john shagan from id engineering and vicky martell from.

V

Woodburn and associates landscaping. um I think uh there are also still uh some members of the.

V

Public that may uh be interested in speaking to this application. It sounds like you've addressed.

V

Fiserv v do already, um but I have uh there's an additional argument in the memorandum and.

V

Possible rebuttal, I think it's I think I may need more than the allotted time. Okay, we will vote how.

B

Much more, do you think you might need? I just want to make sure that I can adequately respond to any.

V

Questions at the end, okay, well, that would be yeah that would be covered 24 against you'd.

D

Have a five minute window that okay, that's true, you can always come up again during two for and.

B

Against okay, okay, thank you very much um to just uh illustrate uh the application. I think.

V

um Member matson summed it up pretty well um we're here uh again to speak to you about.

V

Demolishing the existing home and rebuilding, but what we're presenting to you tonight.

V

Is a fully dimensionally compliant structure um complies with front and side yard setbacks as.

V

Well, as the rear yard setback, um it complies with building coverage, it complies with open.

V

Space, um the only thing it doesn't comply with is um the lot size and the lot size per dwelling.

V

Unit um the memorandum submitted by attorney phoenix and I um does include an argument.

V

That I would submit that you can consider uh which is do we need a variance at all to begin with.

V

I would submit to you that it um that we do not um if this this lot has existed in its current.

V

Configuration since 1899, it's had a building on it since well, before the zoning ordinance.

V

Came into existence, I don't know at what point the duplex became an issue, um but we have here.

V

A duplex that's less than a foot off the sideline um and we're proposing to remove that and replace.

V

It with a single family home, uh that's 12, ft from the side lot line, um we're decreasing density.

V

And it it would seem like, based on the language of the ordinance, as well as common sense, that if.

V

We have a lot size that has existed since before zoning in a residential zone. It can't be put to.

V

Any residential use for which it's permitted, um unless, um unless a variance is granted or.

V

You determine that no variance is needed, it seems like if the lot and it developed with a.

V

Home before the zoning ordinance came to pass um that any removal of that house would allow.

V

A similar house or a less intensive of house to be constructed without any variance which.

V

Is what we proposed um and the argument is laid out um on pages 2 and three of the memorandum.

V

Essentially, talking about section 10., 311 um and the language in it, no user structure.

V

Shall be established unless the board grants a variance from the applicable requirements.

V

um The the argument is that that language is essentially meaningless, given that the residential.

V

Use was established in the early 1900s and not changing um and then further looking at section.

V

10320, um it's interesting that this treats um tear downs and rebuilds differently than any.

V

Other destruction, um I think, there's certainly an argument that that is by design, but it does.

V

Seem um unfair as applied, because if this home were destroyed for any other reason,.

V

um It could be rebuilt as it stands or more conforming as we propose without.

V

Any variance at all, um so why should this be any different? um That is the argument.

V

That no variance is required um to move on. I don't know what, if you want to ask me any.

V

Questions about that or discuss it with me, but I'm happy to just move on to the variance and.

V

The variance requirements, if you'd like any question, no okay, please continue. Okay,.

V

Does the board have any question about the design as proposed? Can you go to that site plan.

V

Julian, so the proposed site.

V

Plan constructs the home within the building envelope. There is still a back patio area, but.

V

There is no longer um the buildup of any grading above 18 in so um much of the building coverage.

V

Is reduced from what was previously proposed, um I think by some 20%, because it was it was.

V

53% before- and it is much less than that now I think open space is 42% and building coverage.

V

Is 25% and fully compliant? um There is still a landscape wall involved in the design, but.

V

It is under 18 in in almost every location in other areas. It is essentially acting as.

V

A fence and staff has determined that that needs no relief, so we're left with the lot.

V

Size and lot size, p dwelling request um again, there's a duplex there now. So the.

V

Lot size per dwelling unit is 2500 we're doubling that by removing in a unit.

V

We have obviously the prior non-conforming lot since 1899. We cannot do anything about.

V

That uh what we propose to put there is a significant improvement over the existing.

V

Conditions to address the five variance criteria when we look at the public interest and the spirit.

V

Of the ordinance we go through in our memo on page seven and identify the various purposes of.

V

The ordinance, um the regulation of the use of land and we uh intensity of land use design of.

V

Facilities for vehicular access, the impact on other properties, preservation and enhancement.

V

Of the visual environment etc- um and we talk a little bit in each section- um essentially, the.

V

Upshot in each section is you have a significantly non-conforming structure um on the site right now,.

V

That it's quite dated um the new owner intends to remove that and reconstruct it um in a much.

V

More compliant configuration um it will provide off street parking, which does not now exist.

V

It will provide a 12t um setback to the southerly neighbor, mr moles, um and it is also compliant with.

V

The kent street and rockland street setbacks um as aust adusted by the averaging of the adjacent.

V

Pro of the properties on either side, um so in all respects um it is um more conforming.

V

And less intense um and provides the off street parking. It provides adquate space by contained.

V

In the building envelope to allow for storm water management and the like, um and so for.

V

Those reasons we would submit to you that, um as the malaki glen cas, says mere conflict with.

V

The ordinance isn't enough: the conflict has to be to such a degree uh that it undermines the basic.

V

Zoning objectives- and I would submit to you that that is not the case with what is presented here.

V

Today um other ways malaki glenn looks at it is: are you altering the essential character of the.

V

Locality, or are you threatening the public safety, health and welfare um and we've laid out in page.

V

Eight, why simply we're not altering the essential character, the locality? It remains a residential.

V

Use in a residential zone, it's more, uh it's less, dense and um improving on existing conditions to.

V

The benefit of everyone uh granting the variances will not diminish the surrounding property values.

V

um As I'm sure you're aware, there are multiple properties in this neighborhood and throughout.

V

Portsmith that don't conform to uh what today's ordinance requires in terms of existing lot size.

V

Or frontage or other requirements, um that is the case in this neighborhood as well, um and.

V

It's the same situation, we're replacing something, that's quite non-conforming with something which.

V

Conforms in all respects, except for lot size and lot size per dwelling unit, which are two.

V

Things that cannot be remedied at all um the off street parking again is a significant.

V

Improvement um because, although there's a garage on site now, there's no way to access it.

V

For those reasons, there's not going to be any diminishment of surrounding property values.

V

um I would submit to you um turning to denial of the variances results in an unnecessary hardship.

V

We have special conditions, given the uh small and narrow size which again cannot be remedied.

V

Again, we're not asking for um dimensional relief, we're not asking when I say that I mean we're not.

V

Asking for setback relief so so, um while there are other properties in the neighborhood that are.

V

5,000 square ft, I would submit to you that most of those properties are developed in a manner.

V

That doesn't conform to today's zoning, while we would present to you something that does um other.

V

Existing conditions include the the lack of the driveway and the difficulty for um and and the.

V

The lack of on street parking off street parking excuse me um and the fact that there's no way to.

V

Make the lot in any way conform with the gr lot size requirement? For those reasons we would submit.

V

To you that special conditions exist, um there's no fair and substantial relationship between the.

V

Purposes of the ordinance and its specific application, because the reasons for lot area.

V

And density limits um are to prevent overburdening and overcrowding of the land and permit space for.

V

Storm water management: um we are decreasing the burden on the land by decreasing the intensity and.

V

We're increasing all of the setbacks and providing for adequate storm water management and a adequate.

V

Air white spase separation between neighbors and things like that. um So for those reasons.

V

We would submit to you that there's no fair and substantial relationship uh we would submit to.

V

You the proposed use, is reasonable. um It's deemed reasonable, given that it's a residential use in.

V

A residential zone um and substantial justice is done um again, considering the fact that the owner.

V

Is constitutionally entitled to the use of the lot um as a def fit, including redevelopment for a.

V

Permitted single family home with an incorporated garage that fully complies, except for the lot size.

V

Which cannot be changed, um given that we are improving all conditions and decreasing the.

V

Density, um there's no harm to any neighbor or the general public from granting the variants for lot.

V

Size and lot size per dwelling unit. um However, if you deny that you're, essentially denying any.

V

Residential use on this property, um which has been uh developed and taxed as a residential lot.

V

And and purchased um with the expectation that it could be developed um redeveloped um in a manner.

V

That complies with the use and other dimensional requirements of the ordinance. So, for those reasons.

V

I would submit to you that the five criteria are met. I'm happy to answer any questions. You.

V

Have about the technical aspects of the project and I may rely on mr shagan or miss martell, mr.

B

Russi I've had have a question for you with regard to your quandry about whether or not.

D

This actually requires a variance uh this project we've had a number of cases uh before us recently.

D

And things have changed a little bit in the rsa with regard to nonperforming uses and so.

D

Looking at at the sections of the portsmith zoning ordinance that you've cited and looking at rsa 67.

D

67419, it seems to me that the crux of the issue is whether or not the non-conforming use is being.

D

Expanded and that will help us determine whether or not a variance is required. uh I understand that.

D

This complies with the dimensional standards, but that's not really the criterion for, for.

D

Whether or not the non-conforming use is being expanded is the structure larger. Is it bigger.

D

Greater in volume than the existing use or not well, I think, if you're talking about.

V

Whether the use is being expanded, I would argue to you that the use is being reduced. The use is.

V

Being contracted by virtue of the fact that there's a duplex there now that supports you.

V

Know two families and what is osed is a single family dwelling, but that's bringing it further.

D

Into that's, bringing it into conformance with the standards for the the area corre so use. I.

V

Would say is not if the question is: is the use being expanded? I would argue to you that no, I.

V

I mean use is in this. In this conversation, different than size of building right usage.

D

Well, I'm not sure, that's right, uh the use is residential yeah. uh It was a non-conforming.

D

Type of use in the past, it's still going to be residential, is the area or the volume of.

D

The building in which the residential use will occur the same smaller than or larger than the.

D

Existing structure well, I would direct you then, to look at the c3 jillian, where you can look at.

V

The uh post, pre and post construction impervious um there's a little chart on the uh left hand, side.

D

I'm sorry, could you give us a second to catch up with you? What page are we supposed to be.

D

Looking at c2 exhibit a page c2, which is what page in our packet c2 it's after the there's a.

D

C2 in it comes after yeah c21 like 100 number or something. Yes, I'm looking for an ual page.

N

Number looks like it's: 163: okay, 153, okay, that's 63 is c1. 164 is c2 164! That's something.

D

I can navigate to thank you. Okay. Yes, please pursue jillian. Can you enlarge the impervious.

V

Chart so, oh all right, maybe not so if you look along the side of sheet c two you'll.

V

See that the preconstruction impervious area of the main structure is 1,75, squ ft and the.

V

Post construction impervious is 1122, squ ft. So that's a slight increase but you'll also.

V

See that there was a garage which currently exists and occupies 296 squ feet and there.

V

Will no longer be a detached garage in the proposed conditions. um Furthermore, you can.

V

See if you go further down below the chart, you'll see that existing building coverage.

V

Has been calculated as 1747 square ft or 35% below that you'll see proposed building.

V

Coverage has been calculated to 1264, ft or 25%, so that is a 10% reduction in building.

V

Coverage and the height of the new building compared to the old building, I can tell you.

V

That the height of the new building will comply and requires no relief. I cannot tell you the.

V

Height of the existing building- I don't know if either of my counterparts know the answer to.

V

D

You any other questions. Thank you. Yes, so the um I'm less philosophical than mr rosy. So I'm just.

G

Going to go to more practical things, um the just going to the patio yep is the patio it says here.

G

That the patio is going to be less than 18 in so therefore, it wouldn't count as a structure.

G

Under our zoning ordinance, that's correct, so the question I have is and I'm just trying to get.

G

To the plan set here, there are a lot of other things on that patio um again, I'm just having.

G

A hard time getting to the actual patio, but a spa, a grill I mean are these things built in.

V

I can tell you that the spa is treated by staff as an accessory structure and therefore requires.

V

A 5ft setback which has been met. It's also the type of thing that you can um move around. If you.

V

Wanted to or that you could take away with you in leave uh when you left in this case.

V

It is set in to the ground a little bit, but it requires no um exterior mechanicals, uh like the.

V

Previous proposal had a pool that had requireed, mechanicals and stuff everything with this.

V

Thing is is fully integrated um and we've been advised that that requires no relief, and so the.

G

um There appears to be a structure around the joining to the grill. What kind of structure is.

G

That what page are you looking at? Oh god, I hate to go into pages. um It's sor page, 188, 188. Well,.

V

I don't I'm not digital, so I need you to tell me what you might be looking at. You might be looking.

V

At the previous plan, you're still looking at c, no, this is we'll bring it up here and then you.

M

Can? Okay, let me let's try again: it's not pay, it just has to uh load it's the next. The last slide.

E

No, it's the last slide if you're talking about one of these, this is the previous application.

F

188 yeah: where is right, there exhibit.

C

F

Gotta yeah, I don't think that's the pr noe it's not this. The landscape.

E

Landscape plan, it's considered a structure; okay, that's I saw.

L

That, yes, that's on the landscape plan. We need you to talk into the mic. Please sorry! That's! On.

V

The landscape plan, so let me just get that out in front of me for a moment: yeah, it's l, das. I l.

G

Yes, I I believe that complies it's within the uh building envelope. It's um outside.

V

The if you're talking about the grill, it's within the building.

V

Envelope for the side and the rear, so no that doesn't require any relief at.

V

All where is the building envelope, and so that's probably like a builtin. Oh oh, I see it's like a.

V

The building envelope is the dotted line, so that's the be the base of the stairs to the.

G

Side of the grill see the dotted line here. Yes, that's the overhang okay! Well, what about? What's.

V

This dotted line here, vicky and john yeah, okay, so that right there yeah so there's a.

V

Rear setback here this dotted line and then over here it's the side, so that area here where this.

V

Grill and seating is, is, is fully compliant, but it looks like the seating is partially.

G

Outside of the building envelope, no, it isn't because the building envelope is right here.

M

There's two dash lines: the bolder one is not the rear yard setback. The fainter dash line is okay,.

M

Right which one do you see? I know it's hard and I can't really make this pointer work very well, but.

F

Careful not to touch it, it don't. Okay, thank.

G

You more further questions. No, mr manel, looking at the same line now you say the proposed spa is.

E

Temporary, and that only requires a 5ot setback. That's what staff has instructed us. Yes, 7.57.

C

3.10, okay, uh but we've all learned um that any structure- that's 18 in above ground is part of.

E

The building no, no well any structure. That's 18 in a deck is part of a building. Okay, so on your.

E

Proposed pavers, okay, which is a structure; it's not easily moved and replaced. You also have a 6t high.

E

Retaining wall masonry wall on one side on the abutter side and then a 4ot high masonry wall on.

E

The back of the property: how do you say that? Well, that's within the 20 fot setback, I don't sir. It's.

V

Treated by staff as a fence, it's no different than than any 6-t fence that you would have around the.

V

Side or rear of your house and in fact, there's an 8ft fence uh on the ab buding lot that runs along.

V

uh A portion of that lot line, but that's why it's there are areas of the wall that are 4 to 6 feet.

V

High, but they are not high enough that they aren't treated as a fence. Essentially, okay agreed agreed.

G

I I just want to say attorney kaiser, I know it's late and perhaps people are getting a little short.

G

Temper, but these these plans are very detailed and very complicated and it's not immediately apparent.

G

uh As to where building envelopes are- and another thing so you know are, my questions are of good.

G

Faith, I just don't know absolutely, no, I don't have it's just these. Are I don't think we ever really.

G

See plans like that have the portable gas fire pit on it um very often it's just very difficult.

G

To figure out, what's going on no trouble, some some people will tell you. This is how I am all the time.

V

So uh yeah I just had one question: is the propos sp uh what some people would call like a hot tub.

M

Or is that something different? I think I'm going to ask vicki to address that miss martell. Can you.

V

Explain good evening, vicky vel, woodburn and company landscape architecture. So yes, this is.

W

A um you, you could call it a hot tub. Certainly it's a bit bit larger than normal. It still meets.

W

The accessory structure um framework- um it's totally self-contained, it has the um equipment.

W

For it is all self-contained it's purchased as a pre-fabricated unit. Does that answer your question.

W

Yes, anybody else. Thank you. Can I just john is.

V

There anything that you feel that we should add at this point. Okay, you will have a chance to catch up later, if you want to. Thank you. Okay, thank.

B

You, okay, is there anyone in the public who would like to speak in favor of this petition.

B

In favor, is there anyone in the public who would like to speak in up opposition to this.

B

Petition good evening, I'm dave molus uh the butter 19 ken street and thank you for those.

X

Questions you asked the uh the um attorney they're very similar questions that I have.

X

So, thank you first for the opportunity to address the proposed redevelopment of nen street as the.

X

Only director butter, we offer the following concerns regarding the proposed redevelopment.

X

First and foremost, the plan set is incomplete in the first submission to this board. The owner.

X

Submitted a complete plan set that included numerous drawings with sectional details and.

X

An architectural rendition of the proposed development, this inid appears to be missing.

X

Site sections: a patio section, a driveway section, a a drainage of grading plan, utility plan, roos.

X

Control notes in details a lancap plan, se section plus any architectural architectural renderings.

X

That would allow anyone to make a well-informed decision as to what impact this project will have.

X

On the surrounding environment, based on limited information is submitted. I offer you the following.

X

Insights from the applicant's recent submittal to this board criteria number one: the variances will.

X

Be contrary to the public interest on page 10, the applicant states, there is absolutely no harm to.

X

Any neighbor or the general public from granting the lot size variant. The applicant's new home, is.

X

Going to increase in length from 30 to 56 ft the building roof orientation has also changed so that.

X

The mass of the home will now be 56 ft long by 40, ft high from street level and will significantly.

X

Alter this air light and visual environment from the general public using south m pond and.

X

Us as an a butter, so the question was asked is when the conforming uses is being expanded. Yes,.

X

It is, their backyard will have either a 4t or 6ot high masonry wall around two sides of the.

X

Backyard with an evergreen hedge of unknown height, so it seems that over 82 ft in length along a 100t.

X

Property line will now have a physical structure that will decrease the visual environment to the.

X

Neighborhood and general public, the proposed redevelopment is both doubling the size and.

X

Mass of the home to be seen from south mill pond by the public and doubling in length the amount.

X

Of man-made structures along the length of our shared property line, there aren't any sections in.

X

This application depicting this, but it clearly demonstrates the aspects of the plan that run.

X

Contrary to the public interest from the main 16th board of adjustment meeting minutes, their attorney.

X

States the applicant was required to do a storm water plan to document pre- and post construction.

X

Is this not required now their concrete foundation increases substantially in length from 30 to 56, ft.

X

The house and impervious patio from their previous submission are generally the same exceeding over.

X

50% lot coverage of this undersized parcel. If this is a tear down requiring the construction.

X

Of a 5,000 ft home on an undersized lot of buting public land wouldn't have been prudent to submit.

X

This information, with the application to determine if there was any drainage issues, criteria number.

X

Two is the spirit of the ordinance observed. Is there proposed redevelopment pushing to.

X

The maximum extent possible to build the largest possible home on an undersized lot in the spirit.

X

Of the ordinance the house foundation is 56 ft long, and the proposed redevelopment includes a.

X

Finished basement a two star underground garage and three complete floors of living space. Above.

X

Grade that replaces a 2 and 1 half story home and a single detached single car garage shed.

X

The remainer of the plan is basically in touch from the previously denied plan reg. Regarding.

X

The proposed patio comp complex that includes a grill fire pit, dining area, 12x 8t spa with either.

X

A 4 or 6ft masonry wall on two sides of the patio, with an evergreen hedge of unknown height once.

X

Again, the applicant has missing this information in details related to all aspects of this from.

X

Their plans, since there are no sections depicting this area, and you ask earlier it's hard to discern.

X

Whether the masonry walls are built on top of the 18 in of fill the details of the masonry footers.

X

Whether the proposed 8x 12x 8t spa is below ground or above ground and the height of the.

X

Evergreen hedge, all of these details affect lot coverage, drainage, heartscape, but, more importantly,.

X

The visual environment, yet they're missing the mass scale and size of the proposed development.

X

Are to the maximum dimensions in length, width and height? What is already an undersized 5,000 ft lot.

X

On page five, the applicant requests relief for an existing 2t 2 unit. 2500T dwell dwelling for a.

X

Single unit 5000t family dwelling, how is doubling the mass and size of a house on an undersized.

X

Lot considered a significant improvement when increases building density, height and mass as.

X

Previously mentioned they are altering the view and destroying destroying the existing visual.

X

Environment criteria number four denial of the variance results in an unnecessary hardship. The.

X

Applicant in their own submission describes their prop as a side by-side duplex, covering 1,75 square.

X

Ft with no driveway or off street parking, the board voted unanimously a few months ago against.

X

The applicant's projects, for many reasons, one of which was their inability to prove a.

X

Hardship, nothing has changed, there are no special conditions and it doesn't result in a hardship.

X

The applicant knew what they were buying when they purchased the property. Is a house without.

X

An underground garage considered a hard chp. The underground garage allows for the expansive patio.

X

And spa area: is it a hardship without these the rest of the neighborhood has driveways.

X

Next to their houses on similar size lots, it would appear that it's possible to design this proposed.

X

Development in a similar manner. In summary, I would contend that the board has not been.

X

Provided with the appropriate information to make the best determination of the suitability of their.

X

Submission based upon the limited information available, the required variances appear. Contrary.

X

To the public interest and appear not in the expence of the audience in the audiances, this.

X

Board is in charge of, there are no special conditions and it doesn't result in a hardship.

X

For all the previously stated reasons, maybe this is not the correct lot for the mass size and scale.

X

Of the structure being proposed, thank you. Thank you. Anyone else to speak in opposition to this.

B

Petition good evening my name is cliff hodon and I live at 10 kent street right across the.

Y

Street the latest proposal for nine kent street appears to be complying with l line setbacks.

Y

Which is an improvement, but the house pres is a very long, very tall and imposing four.

Y

Story structure on the corner facing the playground with within full view. It looks.

Y

Out totally, it looks totally out of place with the essential overall character of our classic.

Y

Style, neighborhood and adjoining city parks. I am concerned that the owners believe they have.

Y

The right to build part of their driveway on the city property at the end of the pavement.

Y

On rockland street extension, instead of staying on their own property, allowing this encroachment.

Y

Would interfere with snow removal and impede full access to langden park and the playground from.

Y

That spot, I suggest that the underground garage and driveway of the new construction be shifted.

Y

A few feet to the west so that the driveway empties straight onto rockland street extension.

Y

At a 90° angle, without encroaching city property, this was possible in the previous proposal, so it.

Y

Should be workable for this revised design, the placement of the driveway and garage are design.

Y

Choices, it is also not a good idea for any tree, particularly a fruit bearing apple tree.

Y

To be planted or transplanted into the middle of a city grown grassy walkway, alongside rock.

Y

Rockland street extension, essentially that is an unpaved city sidewalk, not just a stretch of.

Y

Lawn, if the property owners do not wish to keep their apple tree, they can remove it, but don't.

Y

Pawn it off on the city, I also read that the property has an onsite storm water management.

Y

System what happens to the water? Does it stay on the property or is the water pipe somewhere else.

Y

Through city property, is there an underground chamber beneath the patio in the backyard? Is.

Y

That why the patio may be almost 18 in above grade level, instead of close to ground level,.

Y

These are some important questions to ask. There was a lot of vagueness in the presentation of.

Y

This new construction project and detailed information on many aspects of this whole.

Y

Property design is lacking. Thank you. Thank you. There. Anyone else to speak in opposition to this.

B

Project uh good evening duncan mcallum 536 state street- um I am not representing any party, uh as I.

Z

Speak here tonight I am speaking solely for myself now in the abstract. There is no question, but that.

Z

The applicants are entitled to a variance. um The uh requirement is that, in order to be according to.

Z

The zoning ordinance you have to have a 7500t lot in order to build. This lot is only 5,000 square.

Z

Ft, uh there's no way you can stretch the lot, so it expands to 7500 square ft and if you don't issue a.

Z

Variance uh they're not going to they're not going to be able to build anything at all. They won't be.

Z

Able to use the property at all, except they could continue to live in the pro in the premises with.

Z

The existing structures, so they are entitled to a variance, but I think that certain accommodation.

Z

Should be made, an adjustment should be made, uh having in mind the uh the fact that uh the lot, the.

Z

Lot is onethird smaller than is normally required for a residential dwelling, and particularly.

Z

In particular, the height of the building uh effectively, as mr midus just pointed out,.

Z

Effectively, the building is, uh is going to be 40 ft high. um According to the uh information sheet.

Z

That uh is provided by the uh plan by the planning department, uh and I assume the information is.

Z

Compiled by the planning department itself, rather than just being supplied by the applicant. But.

Z

Assuming that the information on there is correct, the building height is 34.5 ft, but that takes into.

Z

Account the split measurement that you have for for the roof. It effectively rises, high rises as.

Z

High as 40 ft according to mr mtis, and I have no reason to doubt that what he says is true well.

Z

There is a vast difference between a 40 foot high building on a 7500t uh 7500 squ fot parcel and a.

Z

40Ft building on a 5,000 square foot building. So I think that if you do anything, uh if you choose.

Z

To grant the variance which, again, I think some variants must be granted, but I think you should.

Z

Include a stipulation which says that the building height must be smaller, or there must be only two.

Z

Stories rather than three, and as I understand it, that's what that's the chief complaint of uh of.

Z

Most of the neighbors is this building is going. As mr molus just said, the building is going to.

Z

Be oversized uh yeah, you have to be permitted to build something, but I don't think that you.

Z

I don't think that the property owner should be able to build the same structure on a 5,000 sq.

Z

Foot parcel of land as he would be able to on a 7500t parcel of land, so I would uh and apparently.

Z

uh Speaking of the building height, apparently there is uh been some architectural slight of.

Z

Hand here what I'm told is that with the property owners and its architects and uh and planners are.

Z

Planning to do is raise the artificially raise the level of the ground by 17 in so, in effect,.

Z

They're making the the size of the building even higher, so I think that uh I think that.

Z

Those uh I think that those changes ought to be uh considered uh otherwise, you're going to have.

Z

uh You're going to have basically you're going to change the whole character of the neighborhood by.

Z

This and as uh miss kaiser's uh as miss ker's uh partner, um mr phoenix pointed out uh the m matachi.

Z

Glenn case, which he has cited in his paperwork, indicates that if the, uh if the project is going.

Z

That's one of the requirements for granting a variance uh is if the project is going to.

Z

Change the characteristics of the neighborhood, the variant's request is to be denied so for.

Z

All of those reasons, I hope that you will make some adjustments. uh I hope that you'll make some.

Z

Adjustments and attach some stipulations to the to the variance, uh if you grant it- and I think you.

Z

Should grant some variance, uh but I hope that you will attach some stipulations to it. That reduces.

Z

The impact of this project because as it stands now, I think it's uh inappropriate and uh I haven't.

Z

Seen a artist rendering of the revised report a new proposal, I've seen the last one, but I can.

Z

Tell you that my impression from looking at the original one was that this project was going to.

Z

Stick out like a this building, this new building was going to stick out like a sore sore thumb and.

Z

It was going to altogether change the character of their neighborhood, so those are my thoughts.

Z

Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak in opposition? I see says 35 34.5 prop. You said.

T

40 good evening, my name is barbara adams. I live at 7510 street and um some of what I was planning to.

AA

Say has already been addressed quite adequately. um There was one one thing I wanted to point out.

AA

According to one of the pages I found in this new application, I read that the percentage of.

AA

Lot coverage is still being increased. The same way, it was in the first application from 36.5%.

AA

To 57.8% lot coverage, um I just wanted to point that out um the new project application map, which.

AA

Moved their underground garage indicates a need for a section of asphalt, driveway to encroach.

AA

Onto part of the grass area of langden park, in order to provide adequate entry into and out.

AA

Of the proposed driveway and out of the garage, furthermore, with cars publicly parked on both.

AA

Sides of the end of rockland street, which is often the case for pickle ball courts, tennis courts, the.

AA

Children's playground and ly field there could well be an expectation or need for the applicant.

AA

To prevent public parking so that they could turn in and out of their garage. It seems to me.

AA

That neither of these encroachments are or would be, in the public interest as related to the claim.

AA

Of hardship which I believe was denied in the previous meeting, um what was true then seems still.

AA

To be true today, I see no evidence of additional hardship or any form of hardship. The owners bought.

AA

This house and property, knowing what it was or is their proposed architectural house design as.

AA

Well, as the new updates do not coordinate with the traditional character of the neighborhood houses,.

AA

Nor does it meet the spirit of the city, zoning ordinances, nor the portsmith master plan. I do.

AA

Believe what they are proposing would alter the essential character of the area and of.

AA

Kent street uh sort of, like mr manning described earlier in his neighborhood happened. I therefore.

AA

Ask you ask that you deny this application. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else to speak in.

B

Opposition good evening uh bill arakan 18 ken street. um This proposal seeks to demolish an.

AB

Existing structure um and and what is being sought, is approval of a vastly oversized new.

AB

Construction on an undersized lot, uh the scale of what is being proposed seeks to replace a home is.

AB

Currently consistent with the neighborhood and has a footprint of 30t by 32, ft 960 ft total.

AB

With a new home, that's 22x, 56, ft, 1,232 square ft footprint, an increase of over 28% on a non-con.

AB

Waring lot, it seeks to replace a structure with 2,176 ft of living space with one that has roughly.

AB

Over 4,500 ft of living space, more than doubling the size of what already is one of the largest.

AB

Homes in the neighborhood, it replaces an existing two-story home with four stories of living space.

AB

Standing to anyone standing on rockland street, looking at the structure, um it's difficult to.

AB

Tell the exact heights because they don't give total toal heights and any of their proposals.

AB

But um you know this structure will be over 45 ft high and extend for a length of almost 56 ft a.

AB

Very sizable structure in a prominent location, especially on a non-conforming lot, the scale.

AB

Of this structure will clearly have an imposing impact on the nearby park and the butter it would.

AB

Be distinctly visible due to its sheer size, not just for those in the park, but for anyone on the.

AB

Other side of south mil pond or parav and would essentially um it would it would very it would be.

AB

uh Even more impactful, when fully illuminated in the evening additionally, contrary to the.

AB

Public interest, the installation of a 4ot or 6ot masonry walls on top of what is called out as an.

AB

18-In grade at the rear of the property would result in a cement wall at a height. Just shy.

AB

Of 5 1/2 ft for langon park visitors. Finally, the proposed addition of trees on city owned.

AB

Portion of rockland would block what would be a sidewalk area which will become increasingly.

AB

Important, if through traffic will be utilizing the rockland extension in the last meeting, there was.

AB

A comment from one of the board members about how the structure is in a prominent location and some.

AB

Of the things asked for would negatively impact some of what the public would look for in that.

AB

Location, I feel that comment still holds true and perhaps even more so I would ask the board.

AB

To please consider whether this design runs contrary to the general purpose and intent of.

AB

The regulations related to the preservation and enhancement of the visual environment, as well as.

AB

Whether the size and scale of this proposal is appropriate for a non-conforming undersized lot.

AB

Especially based on the surrounding neighborhood, thank you, okay, thank you. Anyone else to speak in.

B

Opposition esther kennedy 41 pickering na and I'm not in a butter and I don't live on the.

L

Street, but I truly believe that the size of this building and since we really haven't had.

L

A good look at what it's going to look like will change the neighborhood and that neighborhood is.

L

Not only kent street that neighborhood is any citizen that uses a the pickle ball. Sl tennis.

L

Court sl playground sl dog park and looks up there. This is this size of this house and the.

L

Change of this house is going to change the look of portsmouth. That is everyone's backyard. This.

L

Committee here is set up to look at various changes in our zoning and to see see where.

L

Their hardship is when these individuals bought this house. They knew what they were buying when.

L

I bought my house, my first house on bart street. I knew what I was buying. It was a tiny house.

L

There was nothing I was going to do different because of the zoning, and you folks are here to.

L

Judge, I ask you to think about the big picture here. This isn't just kent street. This is anyone.

L

That can be on public property and look up at that hill, and I don't think we need.

L

Something bigger than already was what there I think we are historical community. We are a.

L

Historical town, that is one of the things that um people have come and enjoyed. I guess I'm a.

L

Little taken back of why you would buy a house in this neighborhood, knowing our zoning laws.

L

If you don't appreciate the look- and it's pretty clear this, these citizens.

L

Do not appreciate the look because they're going totally against the look of their.

L

Neighborhood in our park, so I ask you to not vote for this, like you did before, and really.

L

Think about um and realize that there's no hardship here because they bought this.

L

Knowing what the zoning was knowing what the community was knowing what the street.

L

Was thank you. Thank [music] you. Is there anyone else to speak in opposition to this.

B

Project good evening, petra, huda, 28, south street. I am not a butter, but I go past this house every day.

AC

So I do believe that mr mtis has hit all points. um If you look at trying to make a decision on.

AC

This with the data that is missing, uh um I guess I guess I don't know how you could do that there.

AC

Is just too many questions to be answered? First of all, the second of all, second of all, the issue that.

AC

Came up last time was the amount of lot coverage here when you look at a 5,000 ft house and a hot.

AC

Tub and a patio, um I would ask you: what is the calculation for the lot coverage here? Has it.

AC

In they claim it is decreasing to me, it looks like it's increasing that is included in your.

AC

Calculation next the parking um they claim that um they can't get to this garage, um but they're.

AC

Going to put parking under underneath this parking goes over public property, a public.

AC

Park langon park, it seems to be just accepted that that would be not not require anything.

AC

Else from from anything here, I do believe this. This is an excessive proposal that would alter.

AC

The the character of the neighborhood you're, going from a twostory to a four story, you're.

AC

Going from approximately 17 100 sare ft to 5,000 the last thing I would ask you is to either.

AC

Request more information and the drawings that should be included in this application or deny.

AC

This until you have all the information, thank you thank you. Is there anyone else to speak in.

B

K

Evening again, madame chair woman, mers of the board jim lee 520 sagamore avenue, there is a.

K

Whole lot of deja vu going on here tonight. Everything that's been here has been here.

K

Before so, there's a disturbing trend in the town of newcomers coming to town buying an existing.

K

House and then deciding oops a day, this house doesn't work for us. We need to tear it down.

K

And build something bigger, I'm kind of you know, echoing some of the previous comments.

K

These people not look at these houses before they buy them. I mean we, we show houses every.

K

Day and our our clients certainly look at them to see what they're buying so incorporating all.

K

The previous comments have been made. I feel like that, this application, the any benefit to.

K

The applicant is outweighed by great harm to the general public by granting this.

K

Experience- and I would ask you to deny thank you, thank you. Is there anyone else to speak in.

B

Opposition is there anyone else to speak to for or against this.

B

Proposal good evening, rick beckstead 1395 vis street first before anything else, I just wanted.

AD

To ask julian and I', I think I've met jillian once do we pay attention to the online to make.

AD

Sure that everyone online is seen, do you see if there's a hand raised or not? I don't see.

F

Any hands raised: okay, cu on my phone right now. It says that my hand is raised at approximately.

AD

912 I raised my hand multiple times. um I even sent a couple of text of people that I know.

AD

That were here, it did not get through. You went to break sorry at our last meeting. I believe believe.

B

We did have someone and it worked and it was effective. So, okay, I just, I think it's important.

AD

Because I I don't want to say that I don't have the ability to come down here. Not everybody does.

L

Not everybody does, and I and it's something that in the city that we allow to have those people.

AD

Be able to come down here absolutely and it has worked in the past, so I'm okay. I just wanted to.

AD

Point that out, we really need to make sure that we're watching that at all times, so thank you so.

AD

I I guess to address this: um I did not attend the last meeting. I am not in a butter, um but.

AD

The essential character of the neighborhood will be threatened if the variances are to be granted.

AD

And I'll give you an example. Mr manel was the one that actually had gone and set it at essex. It's in.

AD

My neighborhood there was a home that was allowed. That stands out like no one else I mean it. Is it.

AD

Is obscene, and not only did we do it there, but there are two buildings at the high school two.

AD

Homes that were granted variances to be allowed and they stand out like a saw thumb and those.

AD

Are happening over in the creek they've happened on thorton street um they're happening all over.

AD

Our town and they are jeopardizing the essential character of our neighborhood drive down some of.

AD

These streets, they stand right out. How could that be? How could this happen? We need to start paying.

AD

More attention to it now I know that mr rayome will go and say that you know with a demo permit.

AD

uh We have a committee and that committee will take things into under advisement. I would advise.

AD

That any of the abutters that are here, one person complaining actually enacts that h from happening.

AD

Now they don't really have a whole lot of power, it ends up becoming a delay tactic um and it's.

AD

Anywhere, it was always discussed between 90 and 120 days in hopes to deter the applicant.

AD

From being able to demolish and take it down, because it's going to take them longer to do.

AD

If nobody objects to it, so I just wanted to make that clear to everybody, but at the same time, this.

AD

Board is designed for the essential character in the history, as uh beth marson has gone in pointed.

AD

Out new numerous times, if this board isn't take into consideration, I would have somebody do a.

AD

House cleaning recommendation to the city council to strip that from what your requirements are. But.

AD

It's there it's there today for this applicant. It was there for any of the other previous ones. That.

AD

You had this evening, which I didn't always agree with, but still at the same time, that's the way.

AD

That it goes, but you have the ability right now to basically go and uphold how you felt the last.

AD

Time and again, there's no hardship, none whatsoever, and I do like the fact that a couple of members go.

AD

And say that if you're going to wipe the slate clean to actually comply within, and this still.

AD

Doesn't even meet that standard, which was another applicant that you had on cabitt street earlier.

AD

This evening, uh wiping the slate clean and making it conform to what was there. um We need to start.

AD

Being consistent when it comes to this stuff, so please take that into consideration again.

AD

I've said it I always do during this. This part of the meeting, if I two for against is there is.

AD

No hardship for this application. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else to speak to for or.

B

Against uh yes, uh madam chair john shagan, representing the applicant um and not to uh to.

I

Sort of recap: there's there's a lot of things been said. I I don't think this board and.

I

I know you're smart enough not to wait into that territory. We're not here to discuss the tastes. The.

I

Motives uh any of the things that people may or may not do with their property that other people.

I

Have uh opinions about we're here to talk about the zoning ordinance and applying it dimensionally.

I

And use uh applying the the regulations for dimension and use to this particular uh property.

I

So briefly, the uh applicant did come before you previously for a much more aggressive.

I

Project and we provided a lot more information in that application to help you render a decision, but.

I

What you have before you here tonight is enough information to make a decision, and I would submit.

I

Is typical of what you would see for this type of application? um The um plans will comply with all.

I

The other requirements uh regarding um development of the lot we're not going to increase runoff to.

I

Any neighboring property um we'll work with the um community uh with in respect to the driveway.

I

We'll work with the traffic and safety committee to properly site the driveway, a lot of people.

I

Said that the they're uh you know using public property for their driveway. Well, every driveway.

I

Uses public property to get from the street to your garage, so uh this is typical of a driveway.

I

And what is shown is not a misuse of the park or public property. It's the completion of a driveway.

I

To access the street that street does exist and uh they have a right to access it. It's uh part.

I

Of the original um subdivision, which you have in your packet uh has been provided. That subdivision.

I

From 1899 there was actually a lot on the other side that uh never got developed. U, but the street.

I

Is not the park the park is on the other side of the street, so they're not using the park um and.

I

What you see from uh the park um is a second issue here. What we're talking about are the dimensional.

I

Requirements of the ordinance and what you have before you complies with the setback requirements.

I

The building height requirements, the coverage requirements both for building coverage and lot.

I

Coverage the structure has been uh uh various people have said. It's a four-story structure.

I

It's a three-story structure um by definition, a three-story structure that is an architectural.

I

Plan that shows you the height and the height, is not relative to lot size. There is nothing.

I

In the ordinance that says that um you should vary the height of a structure based on the.

I

Size of the lot, the height requirement, is the height requirement so to have a special.

I

Condition that this lot be because it's of its size uh requires a special height requirement.

I

Would be contrary to your own ordinance in interpreting that the tree planting.

I

Mentioned there was, there is a tree that is a fruit bearing tree. That's going to be removed.

I

And the trees that are in the landscape plan to be planted are not fruit, trees and they were.

I

Approved by the cities, trees and greenery committee for planting in a public space.

I

So uh that's, I guess, just to put some facts back into the record. That's all I have at this moment.

I

If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them any questions. No, it's public.

Z

He it's exceptional, but I yeah um so your reference for the height just to make sure.

C

We understand the height of the currently proposed structure, 34' 6 in above your you.

C

Determined an average grade around the building per perimeter and that's what you're measuring.

C

From looking on page 166 of our packet, which is exhibit, I think yes, so yes don't touch it.

N

Yes, don't touch yeah. Currently, the um the definition is from existing grade. So you.

I

Look at the existing grade, 6 ft from the proposed structure. They take the average.

I

Grade every 5 ft- uh and that is shown on this plan the average grade and then the.

I

Structure height is measured from there so to the midpoint do. Do you know what that similar.

C

Dimension would be for the uh existing building to your average grade or roughly, like the 29.

C

Ft, um uh I do not. I know that uh just looking at a pict picture, uh I believe it's wider and.

I

So it has a 1212 pitch, uh but I can't give you the exact numbers. Okay, thank you. Other.

B

Questions just yes, okay, so.

G

um Just want to go back to this great issue, so the your prop proposing to do underground.

G

Parking you're going to demo underneath to get underneath the house and raising the grade or.

G

How are you affect? How are you doing that? So, if you look at the, if you slide that up in picture.

I

View no, the other way up slide up yeah. So right now the property rises up from the street and.

I

In order to get the parking that uh the client desires from the street, it is going to go down.

I

To the basement level, so you're going to access the basement sort of like anything, you would.

I

Build uh in downtown portsmouth whether there's parking below street level, you need to go down.

I

To access that and that's what will happen here so we'll come off the street and go down to be.

I

Able to access the parking under the structure and in the process will you be raising the grade.

I

uh Possibly I have to take a closer look if you go to the site now and I don't appreciate that.

I

By the way, if you go to the site now and you look at where the street is, and in fact if we go to the.

I

Existing conditions plan you can see what I'm going to to talk about. There's a set of steps.

I

That go up to the yard. The yard is proud of the street, probably 3 and 1/2 ft. So if you look at the.

I

Contours and h the right hold top button. There we go yeah, so here's the street level and then.

I

There's a contour here and a contour here and a contour here and some steps that go up so there's.

I

It's at least 3 and 1/2 ft above the street to get to a plateau. That's at the base of the structure.

I

Currently, does that mean there's a hill? You would call it a hill if you looked at it.

I

From the street, so if we look at the existing floor elevation, then, for example, it is at uh 3.

I

275, we don't have theg grading plan, but it's pretty close to uh 35 or so so I don't think.

I

The floor is being raised a whole lot because of that change in gray that exists now the the.

I

Building is definitely proud to the street. As you come around the corner, you can see.

I

The the contouring of kent street sloping down, you have a a contour here, a contour.

I

Here so across the front of the property, as kent street comes down, you lose four feet of.

I

Grade mr matson, I guess uh to ask more directly: are you changing the grade.

M

Anywhere within 6 feet of the building or or any are you changing the grade anywhere where.

M

The building height is calculated from because, if it's beyond 6 feet away from the building.

M

It's or 5t, whatever the criteria, your average, the height from the ordinance, was, was revised.

I

To um the average grade, plane is calculated from existing ground, so you that's. What is.

I

The important measurement right- and so that's okay, so you're saying that so if we change the.

I

Grade that doesn't change the calculation of building height now there will be some grade.

I

Changes along the rockland street side to uh and if you look at the next sheet, there's.

I

Some or I'm sorry go to the site plan. There are some changes proposed with some.

I

um Landscape walls that will align this grade to the grade that you have at the.

I

Entrance so to make that all one grade and that will um soften the look of the.

I

House break up just to because I think the concern of the board is and the concern of.

C

The public is that you're, somehow building a mound and then building your building on top.

C

Of this mound and saying, oh, it's only 35 ft high cuz. I built a mound and now my building.

C

Is only 35 ft above the mound I just built, do you intend to build a mound to put your.

C

Building on top of, or is everything that you've told us tonight, related to the height of all the.

C

Structures, including the 18 in for the patio all related back to that average grade, so that you.

C

Are never exceeding those requirements from the calculated average grade existing grade so from.

I

The calculated average existing grade uh the house is the height of the house proposed is.

I

Based on that, the patio on the back is a different measurement. It's less than 18 in above the ground.

I

Okay and once it's higher than that, it becomes a structure and the previous. um That was why it was.

I

Included previously, it's been lowered all right, so it may not be to the average, but it is to the.

C

Basically, the ground that the patio is sitting on it is no more than 18 ines greater than where.

C

That ground lays today correct. Okay, yep! Is that clear? Hopefully I think so. Okay, no not for me.

G

Sorry well, the important thing to me, as as mr rom asked, was that you are we building up and.

G

You're saying yeah he said: can I answer this? We're not building up you're an engineering. Oh sorry, go.

I

Ahead so you measure the measurement rules require the measurement of height to be taken.

V

Based on the ground, that is there right now, not your finished grade. It's existing grade.

V

So that what that requires john to do is to go around and measure the grade at various.

V

Points around the existing building, as it is right now, okay, and then he averages that.

V

That existing value at you know corner, and then you go a few feet and you measure again.

V

And you go a few feet and you measure again those get averaged into a calculation which.

V

Is called the average existing grade today that average existing grade is.

V

27, let's just see it's on the architectural plan 2892, which is, I think, the next couple.

V

Sheets, I know I'm not supposed to talk over there, so you can take the mic with you.

B

Yeah, so if you can hear me that number that john calculates by walking around the building and.

V

Taking those measurements is then given to the architect that average grade around the building.

V

Per ambit calculation is what the architectural plans say that is 20 28.9 2 is the average grade.

V

Around the existing building, the height as required by your ordinance, is measured from.

V

That value up to the midpoint of the roof. That value is shown on the architectural plans as.

V

34T 6 in okay, okay, that wait! Okay! Sorry! I'm sorry! Can you just? Can you just make that please don't.

M

Touch the screen. Sorry, I'm trying yeah, don't touch it, but just show me where you just did that last.

AC

Measurement from here- yes, I understand that to here, okay m: point of the roof. Thank you. I didn't.

AC

See it correctly average grade around the building, what that should say is average grade average.

V

Existing grade around the building, but that is the value existing grade. Now some towns are different.

V

And they allow you to measure height from your finished grade, which is what you get after you've.

V

Put down your dirt or smooth things out, but that's not the way you do it here. You require us to.

V

Measure the existing grade, as it is right now, and that whatever we put there once we're done, cannot.

V

Be higher than 35 ft from that number, so, whatever we do in terms of carving into that little hill.

V

To put the driveway to go under the garage, none of that has anything to do with anything.

V

Because the height is calculated from, what's there right now, the ground, that's there right.

V

Now, no, and can you tell us the square feet of this building which has grown enormously over the.

B

Evening yeah, thank you for asking that question. This is not a 5,000 ft building. um There is a a.

V

Section of our relief chart where we illustrate a 5,000 ft lot and a 5,000 ft lot per dwelling unit.

V

This is not a 5,000 ft home um and by the way, the existing home is not a single story. It's a.

V

2 and 1 half story per the tax card. So again the main structure that exists today is 1,75 square.

V

Ft it is wider and shorter, but it is the area I think we can all agree. That area is length times.

V

Width and that's calculated as 1075 okay, post construction in perus for the main structure is.

V

1122, you have the gross flor area, you have theint square footage square footage of the house.

V

Peter so that would be 300 that would be 3,300 if it's.

L

Right peter, do you know not, including the basement.

E

3366, you have to speak to the mic. Please sorry! Let me just see if the architectural.

V

Plans yeah, I would I appreciate the board's interest, but I'm sure, as you know, that that's.

V

Not really before you, I disagree with that statement. We just want to know valid question.

V

Yeah, no, I understand you got no okay. I think it's a valid question. I'm sorry! You don't know that.

B

But if you know the footprint of the building, we should be able to figure out the square footage.

B

Of the structure, please don't soret hi peter smith, property owner. um It's it's not really.

AE

Just take the footprint of the building times three, because on the first floor, there's an.

AE

Inset for an outdoor kitchen, which cuts into the footprint and then on the third floor, there's a.

AE

Very large deck that cuts into the square footage as well. Could we do a more or less.

E

So please do not talk, so we can hear you up here. I would just take the footprint it's roughly 33.

B

To 35 100, I'm thinking. Okay, excuse me: you have to address us. Sorry all right. We, mr matson, has.

B

Suggested and we may go with the between 33 and 3500 square ft to account for the decks and the.

M

1100 * 3 is 3300. I have john here for the math. No, you are correct 1100 time. 3 is 3,300 and 1,00 * 2.

I

And5, which would be the existing, is 2500 just for comparison. Yes, thank you, okay! Yes, thank you. Okay,.

B

I have anything else, yeah a couple of questions: um I'm going to go back to the existing gr fors.

G

But I have a question for city staff: there were conversations about the convers about building the.

G

Driveway off of rockland street and apparently that was going to go before tac and apparently.

G

There was some concerns on city staff. What is the status of that? um It's my understanding.

F

That they have to get some uh permission from dpw for a driveway permit, but the rightway exists for.

F

Them to connect off of that part of rockland street yeah, okay, so then john, can you address.

G

That I know I wanted to hear from city staff all right um so and then the other question was.

G

The existing gr thing and I'm sorry to go back to this, but I was under the impr, so I was under the.

G

Impression that that was changed to allow to stop people from actually um you know do I think what.

G

You're proposing to do is it's the existing grade. Now. Are you raising the grade of this.

G

Building the the averaging, what you change changed- the zoning- maybe not you cuz, it was.

I

Planning department that changed the zoning, sorry, the zoning was changed to require building height.

I

To be measured from the average existing grade, yes, that I know previously, building height was.

I

Measured from proposed grade so you could fill and that created a new point of measurement and.

I

You could get a taller structure, so that was revised and this is based on measuring the.

I

Ground, that's there now, looking at the footprint location, so you're not raing. When say this, I'm.

I

Not raising the grade, I can't I can raise the grade against the structure, but the calculation.

I

Is from the existing ground to create the height of the structure, so you're talking an apple and.

I

An orange can I raise the grade. Yes, I can raise the grade, but the building can be no taller than.

I

The specified height above the existing average grade, okay, understood. Okay, are you raising the.

G

Grade yes, there are some grade changes associated with that construction along rockland street, as I.

I

Mentioned to make it flat around the front of the house: okay, okay um and then you have the driveway.

I

That goes down there's some. The patio is raised to make it flat, because it's now a slope but no.

I

More than uh 18, in so with any construction, there's changes to grade as a result of the.

I

Construction, but the measurement is not from that changed grade for the for the building.

D

What about for the patio correct? The measur is not from the new grade the measurement, the.

D

Patio as well yes, so the chang in grade is not what reduced is not what took the patio out of.

D

The of the lot coverage- oh I'm sorry, should let me speak. The patio is now no more than.

I

18 in above the existing grade, so it is not a structure, so it doesn't have to be counted as.

I

Building coverage, so the p was lowered. It's not that you change the grade and and that's thank.

D

You that's what I to know. Sorry. Are there any other questions? um I just wanted to respond.

V

To the direct the board, as I'm sure you already know, to look at the chart about the building.

V

Coverage and the open space coverage as well, um because there have been representations made that.

V

um Were well above and such we do increase, or I guess decrease the amount of open space, but.

V

We're still 12% above the minimum, open space requirement um and I think, as I've said before,.

V

The the building coverage is fully compliant, so while there are changes there, they they.

V

B

You steing anyone else to speak to for or.

B

Against correctly quickly and try not to repeat please, so I think my point was just made that.

X

There's insufficient ev uh evidence or uh uh plans provided to this uh board to make an.

X

Appropriate decision, because if we can't takes us 20 minutes to figure out an elevation or the.

X

uh Height of a building, I think it it lents the fact that we don't know, because there's.

X

In drawings, a couple clarifications right, so I just heard the owner representatives talk about.

X

um Property files up from the street desire and no grading plan. So let's be clear from.

X

The dimensions if you can actually find them the new building footprint, is 22x 56. My mouse.

X

Says that's 1232 square ft, vi, * 4, that's 4,928, ft of a finished basement, including.

X

The two stall garage and three floors of above ground living. Thank you. Okay, thank.

B

You close it two for or against public hearing is.

B

Closed, mr matson, uh yes I'll just uh make a few comments um uh yeah. So uh previously I.

M

Voted to deny this application, um and uh a lot of that was uh very well uh um uh spoken to by.

M

The director budding neighbor, who I believe, is most immediately affected by this. um I I.

M

Do believe that a lot of those changes have uh been addressed um most most notably just.

M

By the actually, what's, what we're? Actually as a zoning board of adjustment, dealing with with.

M

These variance criteria, um all all the other other variance criteria that could be addressed.

M

uh Have been addressed by this application um and one other thing I would uh point out.

M

Is um this uh application is uh sufficient um as much as I I prefer more information, and I I.

M

Enjoy renderings and uh and things that would be at the expense of the applicant um they're.

M

Not required and everything that is required by the planning department to submit for the.

M

Application is here um and granted. These are complex, uh architectural drawings that require.

M

Some interpretation, um the information, is on the the paper um and uh I independent of my.

M

Personal uh preferences for aesthetics and what not um the uh for for us actually addressing.

M

The variance criteria of um altering the essential character it's in regard to.

M

A use not the the look of the building, it's um or not, not the structure, it's the uh the.

M

Proposed use uh must not alter the essential character, and, and this is a single family home.

M

um So, independent of my personal aesthetics, uh that's what we're required to stick to okay! Thank.

B

You anybody else. Yes, sorry, I'm I'm losing my voice because we've gone on so so long.

D

Here I really don't remember whether I supported the application last time or not. I don't think.

D

I did, but it's really not relevant because we're considering what we now deem to be a new.

D

Application against the standards of our zoning ordinance and whether this application is in some.

D

Way superior or inferior to the old application is really not. I think part of our consideration.

D

I do go back to kind of the first question and I know that miss mar marison is going to say that.

D

I'm too philosophical on this point, but the first question really posed before us was is a variance.

D

Needed at all, because it is a pre-existing non-conforming use and what we have evolved.

D

In our understanding of that topic over the last 6 months is that if there is an expansion of a.

D

Non-Conforming use, then that is something that the zoning board can't approve or disapprove. Hence my.

D

Frustration at not being able to get a direct, clear, simple answer to a simple question: what.

D

Is the square footage of the living space of the current structure and what is the square footage.

D

Of the living space of the new structure, all I know right now and really all I need to know is.

D

That the new structure that is proposed here is substantially expanding. The non-conforming use.

D

From whatever it was 2500 ft is what the estimate we heard as reliable, as that may be, to 3,300 to.

D

4,000 or whatever the new number is so that is an expansion. I will also comment that several of the.

D

Comments from the public really resonated with me because of maybe a somewhat tangential issue.

D

And even though it's late, I'm going to indulge myself a little bit here, I apologize, but as you.

D

Probably know I moved up here from new jersey, I spent a lot of time at the jersey shore for many.

D

Decades, uh not with uh you know the situation and those guys. I'm talking about the family, oriented.

D

Part of the jersey shore that started out as a baptist camp and over the years and decades as.

D

Property values went from this is a bunch of sand that nobody wants to this 50 by 100t. Lot is worth.

D

$3 million the character of those neighborhoods completely changed because everybody who bought.

D

These quaint cabins, really to be by the shore, tore them down and maxed out everything they.

D

Could on those lots so listening to the public comment, I do think there is a concern about that.

D

You know obviously, property values and portsmith or skyrocketing. There is a propensity for people.

D

To come in or who are already here, it does not necessarily have anything to do with being a.

D

Newcomer to want to maximize the house that you put on a piece of land, that's now worth a million.

D

Dollars with no house, so you know you're going to want a substantially bigger, more.

D

Expensive property improvement program. Having said that, uh I do think that this proposed use.

D

Or this proposed project not only expands the non-conforming use, but does so in a manner that.

D

Is inconsistent with the essential character of the neighborhood, and so I will not be supporting.

D

uh I will not be supporting the application. Any other comments, a motion. I just ask a question of.

G

Fellow board, members do we know if any other place in portsmouth that has underground parking for a.

G

House, a single resident house- yes sure you may ask: no, I I I'm I I'm sorry. The public hearing was clos.

G

I'm just curious and that's the thing that really strikes me about this is being sort of strange.

G

Does anyone just happen to know not when the house is on a level whole? Whatever lot? Okay, I mean drive.

E

Around the back, when the whole lot drops off and there's parking underneath the house, but.

U

Okay, I was just curious. L drops off here right yeah. I guess I'm I'm also curious is why do you.

C

See that's relevant to our exporation. I was just curious. Okay um yeah. I guess I would say I'm not.

M

Sure how important it is, but on uh um woodburry ab across from the frank jones mansion there's some.

M

uh 1950S to 60s ranches that drive down into a single car garage, no just curious. I've never seen.

G

It what would you like to.

L

Do madam jif, I I mean it is um it is late, I don't know if the board feels like they've had enough.

C

Time to absorb, we had a lot of information that came in in from many different directions. Tonight.

C

A lot of questions a lot of thinking, a lot of looking at the plans, for you know the eenth time.

C

um It is in the board's purview if we um don't feel we are in a position to make a decision.

C

Tonight I don't have to- I just want to councel the council the board to that. That effect would.

B

You base that on needing more information could be more rumination more. uh It could be any of.

C

The above I I know there was some requests for some additional information regarding um from.

C

The applicant regarding square footages, some some concerns along those lines. We don't have.

C

To I'm just app, I'm just throwing it out there, it's been a tough application. um Do we make it.

C

Do we make it worse by making a decision um you know, without all the information or without the.

C

Ability to think about the information that's been presented, this thr it out there go ahead.

C

Beth I I would agree in fact I I was going to say something ser uh very similar. I wanted to.

G

Vote to continue this application, because I I find this very confusing- um and you know with.

G

All due respect to the applicants, we've just asked some very basic questions and we have.

G

Not been able to get answers, I I would like to see renderings uh um it's just it's very.

G

Difficult for me to visualize what this is going to look like. um I I I feel like I need more time.

G

To digest what has been said tonight, um and also, um I would support moving to continue this um to.

E

That end, I was going to um make a motion to deny the application and if I get a second I'll speak.

E

To it, how was that to that end, but, okay, well, this! This is why I raised my hand in the first place.

B

And then we went, we went into po atonement mode I'll, second, that um I appreciate the applicants.

E

Work as far as reducing all the variances uh and skirting the 18 in on the solid block patio so.

E

It doesn't have to be part of the structure, uh but I only need one criteria: 10. 23321 granting.

E

The variance would not be contrary to the public interest. I believe granting the variant would be.

E

Cont, contrary to the public interest, considering the size of the structure, that's going to go there.

E

Not talking size as far as all the variance criteria, I'm talking size as far as four.

E

Stories or three and a half or three, depending on where you measure the medium variance height of.

E

This structure, uh I think a lot of information would have been better, but that's not what was.

E

Presented so so we're left with what we have, um and I think, if we grant this as presented.

E

It would be in contrary to public interest and that's why I'm making the motion based on first.

E

Criteria, I would add that I believe it fails on the criterion of not affecting the property values.

D

Of the surrounding properties as well, uh this is a. However, it's measured, it's a massive structure.

D

And this expansion of the non-conforming use and the massive structure associated with it will have.

D

A delerious impact on the value of the surrounding properties, so I believe it fails on that.

D

Criterion- I'm not going to support this, because I would much prefer to do a continuation and have.

B

Some of my questions answered, for example, I would truly like to see what this house would look like.

B

In a streetcape and how much it affects the house next door. But I would say that of all.

B

The neighborhoods in town- I think this is one of the fastest changing neighborhoods there.

B

Have been enormous homes built on elwin, and this just isn't whatever neighborhood I don't.

B

Know who you're picturing anymore, because this is a very quickly changing neighborhood, so I'm.

B

Not sure that I feel it's inappropriate in that way, but I do need to see it in context. I believe.

B

To help me make a decision, I agree. Madam chair, I also will not be support the motion again. I I.

C

Do think that some of the board members need more time uh with this application. I I probably feel a.

C

Bit more prepared with it, but um I I think to have the board truly think about it carefully.

C

Understand that two of the members are ready to move on, I'm not sure that all of them are so.

N

Thank you and I would add, the applicant had every opportunity to do this. Considering the previous.

E

Application so we had architectural renderings back then we had all that information back then.

E

So that's why I made the motion project good. I I understand that I don't I'm we're talking about.

B

Completeness of the application and information needed any other comments. Okay, the motion is to.

B

Deny a yes denies the project miss record. No! Mr man, yes m maron! No, mr v! No, mr rossy! Yes, mr.

B

Matson no and the chair votes. No, so you are continued well, no, we have make motion. We you.

B

Are not denied, I would move that we um continue this application until september september board.

G

Meeting um and uh my motion would be that you present us with some of the um answers.

G

That we have asked for tonight um and a fuller application packet. uh I mean that's my motion.

G

I, if anybody wants to oh did we get a second, I'm sorry. Yes, we do have a second, it's fine, I'm tired.

B

It's fine. That was my fault. um We have a second, and would you like to add anything? I have nothing.

M

To add okay, so the motion now is to continue in order to get more information, and I think.

B

That working with the planning department, we can heard you've, heard our concerns and then.

B

You can communicate with them, so a yes vote is to continue m record. Yes, mr m, yes m marson! Yes, mr ray.

C

Yes, mr rossy, yes, mr matson, yes and the chair votes. Yes, thank you for your patience. This is.

B

Has been a long night, thank you, madam chairman. No, madam chairman motion to adjourn seconded all in.

E