City of Portsmouth, New Hampshire Board of Adjustment, 18 Oct 2022

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: 10.18.2022 Board of Adjustment

Description

10.18.2022 Board of Adjustment

A

Good evening and welcome to the uh it's october, 18th meeting of the uh the portsmouth board of.

A

Adjustment, so we have to welcome a new member, mr jeffrey matson, down at the end he's a here.

A

Is an alternate he'll, be we'll be putting him to work early tonight since we're short a member.

A

And we'll say goodbye to our former member arthur parrott, who has left us.

A

So the first item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes.

A

How's that all right, so the first item on the agenda is approval of the minutes from.

A

The previous month's meeting is there anybody that has any object, corrections or addition to.

A

Those minutes jim I have, uh mr chairman, I have a her vice chairman. Sorry, I can be jim okay, jim.

A

I do have uh one or two minor corrections on page five, uh the kind of the second or the first full.

A

Sentence it reads: he noted that if there were any health issues, the community feels will be.

A

Closed, oh yeah, never mind, that's not a correction. I misread it. Okay, withdraw my comment on page nine.

A

um At the end of the second to last paragraph mr rossi asked if the deck provided an additional.

A

View from her four windows that wasn't already there miss tapsco missed hapscott agreed. It was.

A

Miss tapscott the applicant, or was she the navy she's? No butter she's the butter. So I.

A

Don't think that sentence is correct, because what I was trying to say is that I was trying.

A

To ask whether or not the deck provided an additional view that wasn't already there.

A

From the applicant's windows- and this makes it read like it- was from the abutters window,.

A

That's all I had all right anyone else.

A

Hi, yes, mr chair, so on page 11 of the september 27th meeting minutes.

A

The second sentence of the second paragraph uh de minimus is misspelled. It's d e space.

A

M-I-N-I-M-U-S all right.

A

So is that all for uh corrections or additions, so with the entertain, a motion to approve the.

A

Minutes as amended from someone so moved across the second, a second and a second, so.

A

All in favor say aye all right, all right answer approved so we're going to take.

A

With your permission, we're going to take one piece of business out of order, uh six.

A

A

Okay, the application for 67 ridges court has asked to postpone until the following month.

A

So if everybody's in agreement, we need a motion to do that or some discussion.

A

To postpone the application.

A

Second, second, all right, thank you, mr command. Do we need to take a roll call with that or.

A

um If she wants to add anything to her motion.

A

No, I mean, I think the request to postpone is reasonable in light of last minute submissions, so.

A

Mr and I are committed a roll call, you can do a consent, I don't know okay, let's just do.

A

All in favor say aye aye opposed now the ads have it so 67 ridges court is postponed until the fall.

A

So the first order of business tonight under old business is the request of kathleen and.

A

If I butcher your name too badly, please correct me: opria and john schroeder owners for property.

A

Located at 1344 and 1346 islington street, whereas relief is needed to construct a new.

A

Deck and add detached garage which requires the following: variances from section 10.521.

A

To allow a at 28 foot rear yard for the deck where 30 feet is required, a two foot left side.

A

Yard, where 10 is required for the garage and see a variance from section 10.521 to.

A

Allow 30 percent building coverage where 20 percent is the maximum allowed said property.

A

Is located on assessor amount of 233 98 and lies within the single residence b srb district.

A

Lu-22-160, so who is here to speak to that motion that the application.

A

Good evening my name is kathleen opria. I did want to make one correction to the relief granted. We.

A

Are now asking for a four foot setback from for the side yard, whereas 10 foot is required and a.

A

29 lot coverage variance because our our revised garage plan, as you will see, has made the garage.

B

Narrower by two feet, so if we can begin uh with slide two and perhaps make that a bit larger.

B

Or page two, you will see that the highlighted houses on this map here are all of those with.

A

Non-Conforming lot setbacks in our neighborhood and we we show this only to indicate that what.

B

We are proposing is within the character of the neighborhood, and I will go into more.

B

Detail here as to how the five criteria of the variants are met as we go along.

A

But please do do take a look at that and just note that there are multiple houses.

B

With either outbuildings or garages or the main house, which are very close to the uh the side.

C

Of the lot line, including our rear, abutting neighbor, okay, if you can scroll down.

B

So our proposed garage plan is now an 18 foot by 22 foot garage, which will be a four foot.

D

Setback from a budding side, neighbor's lot and we have added gravel and dry wells on.

D

Both sides of the garage to address drainage issues which had been at the prior meeting.

D

You could please go to the next slide. The first criteria that this, this variance is not contrary.

D

To the public interest- and this was demonstrated first by the map- which I have shown- that the.

D

Character of the neighborhood is where most houses of our size and having the number of residents.

E

Which our house would have if it was used as a duplex have garages? Furthermore, there is no street.

E

Parking on islington street, so all all uh parking must take place either on driveways or in garages.

E

So we believe that a two-car garage here would be preferable, because our house is.

E

A duplex, and so it would be meant to have two families living in the house. It actually also.

E

Creates less square footage and thus less lot coverage than if we had two one-car garages.

E

A budding neighbors will not be disturbed by this garage because we have increased.

E

Privacy for our rear neighbor as the garage both will create a barrier to street noise.

E

From islington street and to noise from our driveway, furthermore, we have agreed to put.

E

Up a six-foot privacy fence to increase the privacy of our side. Neighbor next slide. Please.

E

The second criteria that the spirit of the ordinance will be observed, a budding.

E

The the distance between houses, which was instilled in the ordinance, was intended to protect.

E

For fire safety in particular that fire vehicles could get into the area and that there were not.

E

Buildings too, close together, and this was brought up by our neighbor ralph at the prior meeting. It.

E

Was a very good point, so we looked and actually the distance will be 19 feet between our garage.

E

And the next outbuilding on the neighbor's lot, because that building is quite far from the the.

E

Setback, furthermore, we believe that there will be increased lot coverage due to this garage. We are.

E

Improving the drainage, which will actually reduce standing water on the lot, which currently travels.

E

Downhill and creates mosquito problems during the summer, so we are improving the health and.

E

Safety of the neighborhood next slide. The third criteria that substantial justice will be done.

E

This is kind of a historical question because we believe that when our house was built along with.

E

Other homes of its size and age, most people did not drive cars, and so there wasn't a question.

E

About having garages so there was this extremely large house put on a lot that now would certainly.

F

Have had a garage built into it, but because it did not at that time we have to build a.

G

Garage later on, in order to to keep our cars covered and to keep up the character of the.

E

Neighborhood, because, actually when there are multiple cars parked in our driveway or even.

E

Sometimes, if there had to be a car parked on our lawn, such as now because there's a dumpster in the.

E

Driveway during our renovations, it looks bad and where it's actually decreasing the appeal.

F

Of the neighborhood, furthermore, other cars or other visitors may have to end up parking on.

F

Side, streets and taking up other spots in front of people's houses so having this garage will.

F

Benefit not only us, but our neighbors, who won't have to look at a bevy of cars on our driveway.

H

And and also side street neighbors, which won't have more cars, parking in front of their houses.

H

Next, finally, or the fourth criteria, values of surrounding properties will not be diminished.

H

We believe that adding this garage, as well as the additional fencing next to it, will add to.

F

The architectural appeal of our house and thus add to the the value of our house and.

C

Surrounding properties, moreover, the drainage and the landscaping to be done will improve.

H

The quality of life for our neighbors and they that will also value their property higher, but.

F

Most importantly- and this is something which is extremely important to me and to my husband and my.

E

Parents who are co-owners of this house, the only way that we can keep this home owner occupied is.

E

If we can build the garage, because my parents are senior citizens and they are not, they have always.

E

Had a garage- and they are not able to move here unless we can have a garage, so we will be forced.

E

To rent out half the home if they cannot move here and if we, if we cannot build this garage so just.

E

Take that in mind that the value of the property will increase further if it remains owner occupied.

E

And finally, literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary.

E

Hardship- and this also goes back to the fact that we plan to use this home as a multi-generational.

E

Household, that is what we purchased it for. We had that in mind when we purchased a duplex.

E

We were searching for them in the only way to do that is if we can build this garage close to the.

E

Side where my parents intend to live so that they can keep their cars snow free in the winter and.

E

Also, so that we we will be, we will feel safer, bringing our children into the car when it's.

E

Protected from the elements, but mostly for my parents to remain safe during the winter.

D

So we have, we have revised our plans to take into account both neighbors concerns that we heard at.

D

This meeting and uh concerns mentioned by members of the board of adjustment- and we have also spoken.

I

To our neighbors um to ensure that that we are meeting their needs through these revisions, so.

I

I believe that adding the gravel drywall systems reducing the size of the garage and adding the.

I

Privacy fence are sufficient to address the concerns which were brought up and we we do.

F

Hope that our relief will be granted to build this garage next, we will discuss our proposed deck plan.

I

We have also revised this plan to add an eight-foot privacy screen uh in the back of.

I

The deck which we believe will create both noise and view reduction for our rear, rebutting neighbor.

I

And we have also added additional drainage under the deck to increase the amount of.

I

Drainage or reduce the amount of standing water which will flow downhill.

I

So quickly, going through the criteria. First, this deck plan is not contrary to the public interest.

I

Because abutting neighbors will not be disturbed as privacy concerns and drainage issues have been.

I

Addressed in the revised plan, moreover, the- and you can see the picture here if you scroll down.

I

A little bit the the left view is what our house looked like before we bought it. It had these tiny.

I

Landings with steep rickety wood stairs that would have been unsafe for anyone to go down.

I

But much more so even for senior citizens such as my parents, we absolutely could not keep those so.

I

We had those removed immediately when we had our house recited and assumed that we would put a deck.

I

There, which, with a tiered staircase with with much more shallower steps which would allow for safe.

I

Landing going directly to the driveway so that so that entrance and people exiting did not have to.

I

Go down onto the grass and then around, especially in the winter, where that might be slushy or icy.

I

uh So we believe that this is actually an improvement to the house and thus the spirit.

I

Of the ordinance protecting the health, safety and welfare of the general public will be improved by.

I

Having a safer uh space in the back of the house, moreover, in terms of lot coverage, the area below.

I

The proposed deck was already concrete and gravel below those old stairs that were there, so it.

I

Actually, it won't really be reducing the amount of green space which is currently present in our.

I

Yard and as I've mentioned, we're putting in the drywalls, which will improve the drainage situation.

I

This map, unfortunately, should have been a little bit more zoomed out, but there were.

I

Actually, eight homes um in the immediate one mile radius, which have lot coverage of 25 or over and.

I

As we mentioned, uh we are a lot coverage now would only be 29 due to the reduced size of the garage.

I

So we believe that this is not out out of the character of the neighborhood. Some of these.

I

Houses have variances some don't, but they are all over the 20 lot coverage and I can share.

I

That revised map with anyone directly, if you would like to see it because unfortunately it was not.

I

Included in the presentation that we submitted so the criteria that substantial justice will be.

I

Done we believe that the new deck will be much safer due to the safer grade of the staircases.

I

um Which will end at the driveway rather than on the lawn, and furthermore, um we we have to have.

I

Something back there, so we are either going to have to build something with very steep stairs.

I

Down to the yard or the proposed deck which has safe stairs going down onto the the driveway.

I

um And this deck, we believe, also will improve the safety and appearance of the rear yard and.

I

Thus, the value of surrounding properties, because there is currently a green mesh.

I

Fence in the backyard which was put up by our rear, budding neighbor. But we have agreed with.

I

Her that, if this deck plan is approved, we will be replacing that with a black chain link fence.

I

And extending it along our side of the lot line to improve the safety of both our children or any any.

I

Other people, who would be in our yard, and also to to improve the appearance of the yard, we'll.

I

Be connecting that with the privacy fence that we're putting up next to the garage along our side.

I

Neighbors uh lot line or along our lot line, which abuts our side neighbor and then it will go right.

I

Up to the other neighbor, on the other side, um we will also we've also agreed to plant arborvitae.

I

Bushes, along that black chain-link fence, to also increase the privacy of our budding neighbor.

I

And finally, we believe that this one is is the most clear that unnecessary hardship would result.

I

From denial of the variants, because this deck is only two feet wider than what would otherwise be.

I

Allowed from based on the setback, but those two feet make all the difference in being able to.

I

Use it for family meals, because we've we've seen how a table fits on a deck and having.

I

A six foot deck versus an eight foot deck well, basically not allow us to use it as much with.

I

My parents, who will be living next to us we, the intention of this house, was that we could gather.

I

In the backyard on this deck and enter it from both sides of the house and both have a safe.

I

Outdoor space to enjoy each other's company and to watch my children are in my parents.

I

Grandchildren- and so we have done everything in our power to make this deck amenable to our.

I

Neighbors by adding the privacy screen and the additional drywall and drainage systems.

I

So we did want to say, though, that we believe that there is no real privacy concern, um because due to.

I

The elevation of our house and its height, we can see into the backyard of our rear, budding neighbor.

I

From our windows- and I believe this was pointed out by mr rossi at the last meeting as well.

I

From the deck we will have essentially the same view into our rear by neighbor's backyard, but we.

I

Cannot see into her house due to the the setbacks we have, we cannot see into her house. I do not.

I

Know whether she can see into our house, but we believe that there will be no additional site.

I

Line of sight from the deck as there would be from our house in terms of noise. That is why.

I

We're putting up the privacy screen, we will plant additional plants on the privacy screen and on the.

I

Deck as well as the arborvitae bushes, down below, which will provide a noise barrier, but also we.

I

Would otherwise be out in the backyard speaking to each other, and so there isn't a great amount.

I

Of difference between speaking in the backyard versus speaking on a deck or in the driveway.

D

And her her noise will the noise that she hears coming from our property will be reduced when we.

I

Build the garage, so we believe that it's it's a de minimis difference in terms of noise and we hope.

I

That the concessions we've made and attempted to be amenable will be taken into account here.

I

um So that I think that that's basically it and we just had a slide with our photos.

I

Thanking you to take into account our concerns and we we hope that uh we're able to answer any.

I

Questions you might have at this time. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant.

I

No, um how old are your parents uh they're about 70., okay, but they intend to live here for the.

I

Rest of their life, which is why we are trying to make it as accessible. Because when you say see.

I

Your citizen, you know, of course you know anyone. My heart goes to about 85, so I'm not I'm not making.

I

Any uh claim as to anyone's personal definitions, but it's about aging in place in your map.

I

That shows the house is in yellow with non-conforming lot setbacks.

I

Have any of those houses received variances some have and some were pre-dating. Okay.

I

And the same question with regard to uh the eight or so houses with lot coverage have any of those.

I

Eight received variances, yes, I know at least three of those had received variance. Okay, thank you.

I

Anything else all right, thank you.

I

So is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of this.

I

Application speak in favor of the application.

I

Is there anyone that, like to speak in opposition to this application, anyone to speak in opposition.

I

The evening board and chair name is brad meade 1324 islington street.

I

I'm not in opposition the garage, um I think, it'll be okay for them. To put it there.

I

As I stated the last time I was here, um I had three things that I would like to see.

I

um I'd like to see survey done of the property to make sure that they're four feet away from.

I

The property, a letter saying that they're gonna put a fence up and um what's the other thing.

I

I don't think they're untruths, and I got talked to from mr rossi last meeting saying that you people.

I

Ought to get together and where we'd like them to do it, but there's a few untruths.

I

That I just like to state one of the things is.

I

There's never been standing water in that backyard. As I told you last time, I mowed it for 15 years.

I

I've never seen any standing water. I think the dry wells will help contain the water, but my next door.

I

Neighbor does have a concern because we do have water problems on the street behind us melbourne.

I

uh My son works for the camera crew and the engineering and I've talked to look some of.

I

The people in the department and that's always had a problem with drainage down.

I

Back there, a couple of the residents have had problems with stuff going in their basement.

I

So I don't know if it needs to be surveyed or figured out if there will be a problem.

I

I personally don't think there'll be a problem because my garage next door, I have uh um stone on.

I

Both sides of the garage, no gutters and it seeps right down the ground ground and it's gone so.

I

She does my next door. Neighbor behind us does have some concerns about that.

I

um I think it's great that they're putting a garage up there. My wife does too we just.

I

Want it done properly and uh the fence and the survey and done so, okay, any questions. I.

I

Just want to clarify, I wasn't specifically addressing you in my comments at the last.

I

Week, it's just you know, sometimes it's hard for the board to feel like we're in the position of.

I

Resolving a neighbor but yeah dispute yeah we would not have any disputes or anything we've.

I

Talked several times back and forth back and forth, I think a lot of that might have been.

I

Predicated with brick coming up and saying that he would mediate any problems, but.

I

Rick beckstead, so that's where we're at with regard to the fence.

I

The question for maybe peter and jim since it was stated by the applicant that they're.

I

Going to build a fence, that's a condition that this areas would be predicated upon correct it.

I

Could be, it could be if you, if you you make it a stipulation? Okay, I see, but I will add that.

I

A six foot fence can go on the property line, but it can't go in the front yard.

I

So um you would have to meet the front yard setback and then it could start.

I

The front yard setback of that could be six feet to the rear. Okay,.

I

And the uh the survey is that done as a matter of routine. Typically, we will would require an.

D

As built survey for the foundation of the garage, typically, when a structure gets a variance for.

I

A setback and there's a foundation they'll have to once they put the foundation in they'll, have.

D

To get an as built survey, so that might suffice for that: okay, there's! No need for a stipulation.

J

On a survey right, that'll be done anyway, so my thoughts are, I put up stakes where I believe.

J

That the property line was and they're basing it off of that, I would like a correct property line.

J

I mean I'd like to know exactly where it is. I don't want them to put it up, and I.

J

Was two feet off or they were two feet off, so that's why I um I was thinking about that.

D

So it might be in their best interest to do that before they do the foundation right and that's.

D

What kathy and I we had talked to talk about that being done uh as far as that. One other thing.

J

I understand the situation about the parents coming.

J

uh 66 and 67 year old parents coming and living out their life here, but we all have struggles.

J

With that, as we get older, I'm certainly out there plowing and taking care of all my stuff every day.

J

um I don't know if that's a criteria for this board, um they should be able to.

J

Have a garage, I don't think that should be their criteria. Is that they're getting old.

J

Any questions all right. Thank you, sir. Oh thank you very much board chair.

J

So does anyone else wish to speak in opposition to this application.

D

Hi, thank you for letting us microphone this one. Can you hear me now barely.

J

Yell at us, if you want it's okay,.

J

My name is jill tapscott, I'm at um 163 melbourne street and our property is directly behind the.

J

Islington street property and um if, if we could, actually I don't know if you have my document.

J

Up there or if you just if it's easier, just to start over from where theirs started, and then I.

J

Can just review my my piece of it? I don't know which is is easier. We have your document. Okay,.

J

Oh, I thought you were. I thought you were gonna, bring it up. I'm sorry! Okay, all right.

J

um So the um on the first, the the first, the first criteria.

J

um Kathleen already reviewed her piece of it, so I'm not going to waste your time um reviewing.

J

That so I will just um I will just look at um at mine and for the um for the first criteria.

J

Of the public health safety and welfare in the immediate area on islington street between route 1.

J

um And um and vine street, which is the basically the two intersections from where the islington.

J

Street property is, there are, and I have there's an era on there, there's actually 16 three-story.

J

Properties in that area, not 15, but only one of them has a two-car garage. There are.

J

um There are others that have a tiny one car garage in the area, so most of them do not.

J

um And then um in the driveway, that is, that has the garage side but can easily, if you can, if you.

J

See the um the aerial picture that I provided, you can see, and I saw many times from previous.

J

Residents how they comfortably fit um four cars in that in that driveway area, without parking on.

J

On the front lawn and just around the corner, which is which is essex street, that there's.

J

Only one driveway on that's where the excess cars would park that didn't disturb any other butters.

J

um Or any other residences on that that essex street area there is there's a potential of.

J

Of public interest and safety with the potential of water damage to the butters that mainly our.

D

Property behind them, the um their property, as kathleen mentioned, does slope downhill. So the.

H

Water does move down into that area and there is, there is not. um There is not substantial data.

H

Or complete data that that ensures that the the water water runoff does not impact the abutters.

H

The next, the next variance is um on the second. The spirit of the ordinance will be observed.

H

And the um with the the lack of credible data and information on the drainage system that.

H

um To ensure that the water runoff would actually work, the installation of the garage does actually.

H

Affect public health, safety and welfare as there is that potential of water running into our yard,.

H

And creating a flooding problem, I do want to note that I have never. We have never had a standing.

H

Water problem in our backyard, we have lived there for over 22 years and there has never.

H

Been a standing water problem there there also has not been a mosquito bug problem there and.

H

um And my basement, our basement is been so dry the whole time. I probably shouldn't say that.

H

Out loud that living space has been created in the basement as a tv room at game room and sewing room.

D

um With with with carpets across the whole floor and that's there because it's always been a very.

D

Dry basement, I don't even use humidifiers down there in the in the in the summertime and so.

D

um So that is also a potential health risk. Is the health risk from added to um added water.

I

Standing water, they are from mosquitoes and also a mold situation that could arrive in the basement.

I

The the water that we had the really heavy water storm that we had on friday when I came home, I.

I

Went out in my backyard and I looked, which I knew I wasn't going to see anything there and I also.

I

Went along my fence line and looked into their backyard and saw no standing water there as well.

I

The the third um and um you can and oh for the for the the lot setbacks um and that picture that that.

I

They have right there and I one of the gentlemen over here asked something about properties. I went.

I

Around the neighborhood and looked at all of those properties with the yellow boxes were around and.

I

They all appeared all, except maybe one, maybe maybe two there was one. I couldn't really see.

I

um But um but all the the rest of them appear to be older properties that, were there probably.

I

Before these setback numbers and and what you call them there were in place, they were all very.

I

Old, just like she pointed out my um I'm one of the yellow boxes on that map and my shed. That's there.

I

Is seven feet from my from the property line, but that was put there over 100 years ago and that's.

I

What it appears to for the rest of them, so I was actually kind of glad to see that map it appeared.

I

That you all have been have been observing the setbacks and not creating more that that.

I

um That that were that were under the the setbacks, um the and also the um in the. If you look at the.

I

Talking about the character of um of the neighborhood and um and if, if their property,.

I

Is different from from other properties um in the um in the neighborhood and would it change.

I

The character of the neighborhood, the aerial picture that um that I provided shows you a.

I

Lot of the neighborhood right there and visually you can see that if there is a garage right there.

I

Beside their property that it would present as a very building heavy piece of property,.

I

And would be very different from the rest of the neighborhood. That does not look like that. The.

I

And it also would. It would also take away from the open space that you can also see on the on the map.

I

There ma'am we would like if we try to limit the comments to five minutes or less so I'm sorry.

I

um um Okay, the substantial the substantial justice um again with the um there isn't the the data.

I

um Information there to support that the the water isn't going to be a problem and.

I

um The would be a substantial hardship to um to our property if there were the the water in the.

I

In the yard and the um in the basement and that six cars between both of their driveways, they.

I

Can accommodate six cars without being on the front lawn value of the properties surrounding.

I

Properties will not be diminished between um again, six properties can be accommodated. There would be.

I

um An overcrowding look of the space and would not the the land would not be able to function.

I

With the um the the grass being able to handle some of the water mitigation there and with the.

I

um With the the water problem uh potential water problem on on our property, that would.

I

Diminish the value and also diminish, especially especially causing uh permanent and constant.

I

um Water flow to the um to the basement, the.

I

um um The last one of the little enforcement of the the ordinance with unnecessary hardship.

I

For um for our for our property, um again, there is the potential of the the water damage. There is not.

I

I've talked with the previous owners asking them how long that they had standing water issues in.

I

Their backyard- and they said they have never had standing water issues in their backyard. I don't.

I

Know if, if, if anybody had standing water issues in their backyard, because this summer, we had a.

I

Drought- and um there was water levels were down for everybody, it seems like and the, um and they.

I

Also have a sloping backyard, so the logistics of their being standing water in the backyard is is.

I

Is is highly unlikely? I did talk with an engineer in regards to drainage and the um and the and the.

I

Water situation, and, if you he did allow me to to use his name, if that's something that you need his.

I

Name in in companies that something that that you all need everything you'd like to present.

I

Would be glad to take it he's eric wine rib from atlas engineering, and he did see the drawings and.

D

He was not able to be with with me here tonight, or he said he would have come, but um he said that the.

D

The drawings qualified engineer did not provide the drawings, credible data or information on a.

D

Drainage system that ensures there will be no water impact to the butters. There is a process.

A

That a qualified engineer would do to determine if a dry well is needed, what kind of a dry! Well there.

A

Should be where the dry well should be located, can it be located there and, most importantly, will.

A

It work at this location, it may not work and it may not be fixable because of the amount of ledge.

A

And rock in the area, if there is a problem and it cannot be fixed, the butter is left with permanent.

A

Ongoing property damage, quality of life, hardship and lower resale values that they will have to.

A

Consistently deal with mine, the installation of this garage does present a serious potential.

A

Impact to public health, safety and welfare issues of increased mosquito population interior.

A

Damage to the property and due to the lack of data, to support their proposal in the serious.

A

Potential damage that can result, we respectfully ask you to deny the garage installation.

A

um We are very I'll, do them very quickly with the with the deck, if it's, if it's okay, if I.

A

Go, if can I cover the deck very quickly? Thank you um for the. For the first point, um the first point.

A

In the deck the advised deck privacy concerns have not been addressed, as previously stated.

A

um That it was agreed on 9 24 in a conversation that there would be a real, a higher rail system.

A

Screening system across the whole deck, and um it is stated that they would only be an eight-foot.

A

Screen across a 38 foot length of a raised deck, which would have no impact extreme little on noise.

A

Level and there'd be minimal, very minimal on view obstruction again because you're talking about.

A

38 feet of um of a deck with a multi-generational family over six, six plus people on there, drainage.

A

Has nothing to do with the deck the next one, but the spirit of the um of the ordinance they want. No.

A

Other properties in the neighborhood, with a very large 38 by 8 foot deck, which is um 304 square.

A

Feet of space overlooking single family properties, the deck is very, this is a very different, is very.

A

Different from other local properties and will change the character of the neighborhood, the.

A

Very large deck is on inside at a two-story level, and um it does threaten the um the welfare and the.

A

Impact of noise because, when you're up at a higher level, voices do carry when you're on the ground.

A

They don't carry like they do across the um across at a higher level, and- and there are, there are two.

A

Smaller children as they get older, the noise level will only increase as the deck is up. The.

A

Ground is down, there will be people constantly talking between the ground and the in the deck.

A

So there will be more more noise level that will be impacted there. The two foot, the additional two.

A

Feet that they are asking for is not just two feet. It's two feet times 34 feet of deck two feet times.

A

More activity, more people, more noise and um um and up and a higher level and more more activity. There.

A

If they do not get a um an eight foot, she has told me that if they do not get an eight foot, deck.

A

um They will put up a six foot deck and um which I don't understand, because that also.

A

Puts them over the 20 lot coverage, but there will be no screening. There will be no bushes.

A

And we appreciate your comments but you're way over your a lot of time, so we're gonna have to.

A

Thank you and ask if anybody else would like to speak in in opposition. Thank you. Thank you.

A

Foreign good evening, thank you, ralph dibenaro, I'm speaking for my wife and I she couldn't be here tonight.

A

1374 islington street, not on the butter but a a close neighbor. But, mr chairman, may I ask to.

A

Clarify the speaking arrangement, uh could the young woman who just spoke return a second time.

A

And finish hers, of course, we uh let people speak in favor of the application in opposition and then.

A

There's another a third follow-up or rebuttal, if you will where people can speak too far or against.

A

And I do understand the limitation, but she could follow up and finish hers. Absolutely. Okay, thank.

A

You at this particular point, I'm speaking for the record, because I want to be sure that it's.

A

Included, uh I have never seen standing water on jill tapscott's property linda and I walked the.

D

Block regularly and half the years we've owned our home in the neighborhood for over 50 years.

I

There was no standing water in her yard after friday's torrential rainstorm, and I made it a.

I

Point to check twice: there was no standing water. This morning after last night's rain.

I

And why I feel it's important that it be in the record, because the statements of.

I

Standing water are going to be in the record and be something that anyone interested in.

I

Her property in the future can reference uh by accessing the city records. Therefore,.

I

Having statements that qualify that are important, if I could just clear anything.

I

You say, or anybody think anyone else says here would be in the record. Thank you.

I

We are also concerned with the process for lack or lack of process for determining and.

I

Verifying the lot coverage of property requesting a variance.

I

When an engineer or architect submits plans with their qualifying stamp and or signature.

I

They are providing their education, training and qualification to support their accuracy.

I

The drawing submitted by the applicant leave a question in my mind to the accuracy of the lot.

I

Coverage stated they do not seem to have adequate measurements on those drawings.

I

To determine the square footage of the two existing front, porches and stairs.

I

Also, the new proposed landing and stairs that will go down from the deck if permitted.

I

um Information from city hall surprised me and indicated that the city officials, city.

I

Officials do not check the accuracy provided by the those figures, and my question is, and I'm not.

I

Looking for an answer, I know we're not in the discussion, but does it ever get measured? Does.

I

It does anyone ever verify that what is stated by an architect or by an individual representing.

D

Themselves are the true measurements, or does the new additions to the property come out greater.

D

In percentage than were stated on the plans uh something to be considered and uh as I said, I.

H

Was surprised to find out that there doesn't appear to be verification by city officials.

H

um Last item, having listened to attorney sullivan last meeting, explained new city state regulations,.

H

Regarding planning board records and uh as they apply to questions that must be.

H

Answered in the positive or negative of the of the variance, the five or six criteria who.

H

Listed that you have to judge, I hope, to see a clear and concise statement for the record.

H

Whether positive or negative for items number 10.233.25 and 10.233.30, which are.

H

Often referred to as hardship of the land, my experience from watching your meetings.

H

Or attending them is that many people come here not having an understanding of what hardship of.

H

The land is, and I'm not claiming to have any greater than the rest of them, but I.

H

Think it's a issue that plagues planting woods. Thank you all right, that's great! Thank you, sir.

D

So is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition to this application.

K

It's a little sobering. My name is barbara moreno. I live at 1345 this linkedin across.

K

The street from the house that's applying today and I'd like to speak from a perspective of the.

K

Appearance of an additional garage and fence, and in opposition to those things the house right now.

K

Abut's neighbors on the south side, literally like this, the driveways are only separated by events.

K

There is no space there to look and see the green, that's down on melbourne from.

K

My side of the street on brad's side of the the brad's side of the house, where.

K

The garage will go, there's now a view down a hillside and trees and a sense of space.

K

You know it's not in my mind, a plus that nine other families have gotten enough approval or.

K

Have been grandfathered in to have more than 20 80 percent of the lot covered. It's not a plus for us.

K

To expand the number of homes that have greater coverage of what we need in a neighborhood which.

K

Is a view of trees of grass of space? So I'm very much opposed to the garage on that basis and I'm.

K

Older than their parents, I shovel my own driveway thanks a lot everybody. Thank you. Thank you.

K

Because there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to the application in opposition.

K

Is there anyone that would like to speak too far against the application that would.

K

Be you ma'am if you'd like to finish your thought? Yes, ma'am.

K

A little bit quick, thank you so much the.

K

um On on the peace of the spirit of the ordinance will be um will be observed in regards to the in.

K

Regards to the deck one of the um one of the things with um that 300 304 square feet of the.

K

Deck that I don't feel as, though, is a reasonable solution um out there, due to the impact that.

K

It has on our property. There is in one of the pictures that I left for you. There is an area on.

K

um On that that side of the of their property that has a fairly a larger flat area, where they could.

K

Install and put a a ground patio in there that would also lower the noise level greatly because.

K

You're at a ground level and the voices don't carry across the ground level like they do at a.

K

At a raised level, and also um there would be some blockage from um for for privacy for all of us.

K

Around the property itself would also blend with the other single family homes in the area, with a.

K

Ground patio, as opposed, goes to a huge, extremely large deck across the the back of um across the.

K

Back of the property, the substantial justice will be done that, um with the um with the deck that.

K

Does permanently impact the loss of privacy and continuous growing noise of our peaceful backyard.

K

And the to support the egresses in the back that they again they. Yes, they do need to have something.

K

Back there for the egresses, but with seeing the back of their property. If there were two landings.

K

And two stairways that came halfway down met into one stairway to then go down to the ground.

K

The stairway would not be would not be steep. It would be a gradual in in tiered stairway that.

K

Would be very safe for for older, older adults and for and for children. So I don't see that there is.

K

A a hardship to having a ground patio and and graduated stairs to the um to the ground. The.

K

Property, um the the property values will not be diminished from um and the I'm you already.

D

Know about the the water conditions that have the potential of causing the image to the to the yard.

H

As well as to the as well as to the property, and the screening of eight feet is, is not is not going.

D

To impact the the noise level and for the last one of the unnecessary hardship that will result from.

K

um From denial, there is no special conditions of this property in regards to. In regards to the the.

H

Height the uh the duplex right next to it also has the same height off of off of the back of.

K

um Of their yard and there's also the potential of maybe building a smaller deck on the.

D

um On the 1346 side, which is um which is their side um in regards to um the the height of some.

D

Of the homes, do you allow for greater view into you know people's backyards? I can see.

D

As as we all can, if someone has their light on inside their house, we can see what they're doing.

D

You can see bodies walking by, but that's not that's, that's not a that's, not a concern. If I.

D

Don't want somebody looking my window I'll close my blinds, um but the um the comparison of the.

D

The view from out their window is absolutely no comparison to being on an outdoor deck. A second.

D

Story up looking into the yard, when someone's inside they're looking out they're walking by.

D

Has no impact outside to our backyard whatsoever, but six people out on a deck outside, overlooking.

D

Voices carrying there's a is there, there's a huge difference there and the the size of that deck is.

D

um We do feel as though is unreasonable and um and that there is no special conditions um for that.

D

For that property, and that it will permanently affect our enjoyment of the backyard as well as.

D

Resale value of my home that, if somebody's coming as you can see from the maps, I have a fairly large.

D

um A fairly large yard that someone would want to have enjoyment in and I would think it would be.

D

um You know coming into the backyard seeing a um a large area overlooking single-family properties.

D

Would not make sense, so um the I don't see a as other options are available for enjoyable.

D

Outdoor dining- and I certainly understand that and would want them to have that we.

D

Enjoy our area out there, but I don't see it as a hardship to have a ground patio as opposed to.

D

An extremely large deck and it would blend with the environment, and so we respectfully asked to.

D

Ask you to continue the utilization of the drugs and ordinances that you've already been putting.

D

In place to protect a butters and the quality of life of people living with those, thank you.

D

Very much for allowing me to come. Thank you very famous. Thank you. Do I have to stay for.

D

For questions, do I have to stay for questions or do if you'd like do you want to have any questions.

H

No thank you. Thank you.

H

Thank you. Is there anyone else that, like to speak 2-4 against this application,.

H

2-4 or against absolutely.

L

I really just want to emphasize the point that I did speak to my neighbors and my husband spoke.

L

To them and my mother spoke with them and we attempted to appease their concerns through.

L

The addition of the privacy fence on the side yard and the addition of the privacy screen to.

L

The back and the addition of the drywalls, and in particular I wanted to state that I was not.

L

Implying that there is currently standing water on miss tapscout's property, but merely that she had.

L

Expressed concern that building the garage would create water running into her property and that.

L

This is why we had our architect draw up dry wells and determined that these would be a solution. We.

L

Also spoke to brad mead about what solution he had used around his garage to reduce the water.

L

Runoff and he suggested gravel with the gutters, we said. Well, you know what, let's take it one step.

L

Further, let's not only do gravel, let's also do the drywalls. We will continue to work with our.

L

Neighbors to make sure that these solutions are functioning as they should and in fact we would.

L

Be happy for you to insert conditions into the relief regarding the privacy fence pursuant to.

L

Current zoning ordinances as far as fences go and also the black chain length fence in the backyard.

L

um And the and the dry wells we added the eight foot privacy screen after speaking to.

L

Miss top scott and discussing that we wanted to you know, give her both noise reduction and.

L

View reduction, so we are doing everything in our power to meet their concerns and I.

L

Think that brad need also stated that up here, that he you know we had had these discussions.

L

And that we he would like a letter about uh stating that we would put up a fence. We had.

L

Discussed that, but I think that a condition on the on the variance would be sufficient.

L

In terms of the survey, I have called seven survey companies and none were able to do a.

L

Survey before this meeting, unfortunately, but they we will definitely get a survey before.

L

The garage foundation is poured and ensure that it meets both the agreed upon setback of four.

L

Feet and that uh that our fence being put up it's along our side of the lot line, um see.

L

And you can make the survey also a condition in the the variance relief.

L

Just quickly addressing several statements about the it appearing building heavy.

L

I our our map, showing the lot coverage and the number of outbuildings I think, speaks for itself.

L

To show that there are a number of outbuildings in our neighborhood and the fact remains we are.

L

In a duplex, not a single family, home and duplexes require more building um and and out buildings.

L

um And finally, I just I'm not sure it's ms tapscott's place to suggest to us that a.

L

Ground patio would be practicable, we have, we did look at that as an option and she had recommended.

L

It strongly to us, but because we have children, we believe that a deck is the most practicable.

L

Way for us to access the outdoor dining area without going up and down steep staircases and.

L

Doing everything in our power to make this deck as safe and private, for both for us and for our.

L

Neighbors, if, if the zoning, if the board of adjustment, does not choose to grant us the.

L

Eight foot deck: we ask that you still allow us to do the the six foot deck the six foot.

D

Depth of the deck, but I I believe that an eight foot deck would have no significant uh increased.

D

Effect on privacy or the appearance of the building from the rear, as seen by our our.

D

Other side, abutting neighbors, who have a similar size deck and are also a duplex.

D

Thank you very much for your time. Any remaining questions for me.

B

Appears not thank you. Thank you have a good evening. Thank you, so one one.

B

Last call is anyone at least else wish to speak, two for or against this application.

D

B

The um the the two neighbors, both on on both sides of um of the islington street,.

B

um Property was stated in their their document that they both have um decks because they have.

B

A sloping yard and- um and that's that's, not the that's, not the case, the deck that is to.

B

um That's to the opposite side of of brad. Their deck is nowhere's near the size of 300 square.

B

Feet: that's a single, a single duplex there and it does not extend beyond if this is the back of.

B

The islington street property house that deck um at the duplex next to them, the furthest out from.

B

That deck is the very back of that house. So it's a very different. It's a very different situation and.

B

In our conversation, it was a screening across the the fullback and the larger deck does have allowed.

B

For more activity, more noise and the permanent, the permanent effect of are of of our backyard.

B

And our peacefulness, that will not be there. The arborvitaes that were discussed were eight to ten.

B

Foot arborvitaes, but that is not in the document that was um that was written up by them. They could.

B

Put in two-foot arborvitaes and it would take 20 years for it to have any impact on a second story.

B

um At deck so um and their um and that the the water, as the engineer spoke to me about.

B

That is a very, very serious issue, because if it cannot be fixed, if there is a water problem,.

B

If it cannot be fixed, my property is left with permanent damage and I would have to disclose.

D

That when I went to sell my property that there is constant water problems there, I would not be.

H

Able to not disclose that so again asking thank you very much for your for your time. Thank you.

H

All right anyone else all right, seeing none anybody on zoom here, close the public hearing.

H

A board discussion: anybody have any thoughts or perhaps a motion to.

H

I'm not quite ready to make a motion, but this seems to me, like the mildest of requests.

D

That the as an eight foot deck is not an enormous deck. It's got a lot of square feet because it's a.

D

Wide building and requesting a garage for a home that has no parking on the street also seems like.

D

A very reasonable request: there isn't a house, you could live in in portsmouth that you don't.

D

Hear your neighbor I'm really having trouble understanding why this is such an intrusion.

D

On the neighborhood, the even with the eight foot deck there will be 28 feet to the back neighbors.

D

Lot line and then from the back neighbors lot line to where their house is located in the.

D

Middle of the lot has to be another 28 feet, so in my mind, this is a very reasonable request and.

D

They will get a lot. This is going to sound like emotion, I'm gonna. Let someone else.

D

I will move to present. I will move to approve the variances as presented and advertised. If I get.

D

A second, I will say why a second okay, um first of all, I just want to say in terms of granting.

D

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

E

The spirit of the ordinance um as case law and statue tells us uh we are it's whether.

E

Or not whether or not figuring out whether or not these variance requests would or markedly.

E

um Would markably be different from the underlying zoning? Is whether or not they would alter the.

E

Essential character of the neighborhood or threaten public health, safety and welfare, I find.

E

That, in this case, the construction of a garage and a deck to a residence is uh not would not uh alter.

E

The essential character of this neighborhood they are permitted accessory uses to residential uses.

E

um In terms of uh the granting, the variance would do substantial justice. I do not see that there is.

E

Any benefit to the public that would outweigh the loss of the applicant by being able to build the.

E

Deck and the um and the garage and granting the variance would not diminish the values.

E

Of surrounding properties, uh you know we have no indication that these this uh deck or the.

E

Garage would really result in any water issues. I understand people's concerns, but we don't have.

E

Any kind of evidence that says that there would be increased water issues or drainage issues as.

E

A result of this, I do not believe, and I you know, and I sympathize with the abutters- you know the.

E

Loss of the view, I understand that. However, uh you know this is a an improvement to this house and.

E

Therefore, I think that probably would not diminish the value of surrounding properties and, lastly, the.

E

Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship.

E

The property is special conditions, a distinguish it from other properties in the area and owing to.

E

These special conditions, a fair and substantial relationship, does not exist between the general.

E

Public purposes, the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the.

E

Property and the proposed you is a reasonable one. I will find that the starting kind of.

E

From the bottom up, the proposed uses a deck and a roof are reasonable in a residential.

E

Area there are some special conditions to this property. It is a little bit, I would say, larger.

D

Than some of the other properties in the surrounding area, it is a duplex. I realize.

D

That there are other duplexes in the area, but I do find that because of these special conditions,.

D

um There is that the property has special conditions because of these features.

D

um And uh just as a note, the um the rear yard setbacks is very de minimis. It is only two feet.

D

Less than the minimum that is allowed by zoning, um the building coverage does increase by 10 percent.

D

But some of that building coverage increases due to the deck and even if the applicants have put.

F

Their deck on the the ground floor of the house, they would still need they would still need that.

F

Rear yard set back or actually 18 inches up. I think, um and the left yard setback is a.

F

Significant change, it is significantly less than it is currently now. However, um I find that it is.

F

Necessary for placing the garage there it's two it's now four feet, based on the revised plans.

F

um I think there are two stipulations that I have to make. The left side yard shall be four feet.

F

And the open space is actually 29 the building coverage building coverage. I'm sorry building.

F

Coverage is 29 instead of 30. um and that's my motion. I hope it made sense. Congratulations.

F

All right in your second, mr rossi, I concur. I have nothing else to add.

F

A move to vote so the motion is to approve the application.

F

Mr lee sorry do we want to do the stipulations about the survey of the fence and the arborvitae.

H

I would make the stipulation as to the survey, given that it is quite on the lot. You know.

D

It's pretty close to a lot of line. um I will not make the stipulation as to the fence and.

D

The are providing can I just clarify that you, you want them to survey the left side survey.

D

The property- okay, um I think the applicant said I mean they they would have to do an as.

D

Bill survey: I think she said that she was going to have the whole property surveyed.

D

And I can add from experience that when a lot of people think they know where their lot lines.

D

Are but when the guys with the transits come out there and look, they turn out to not be.

D

There so a survey is the is the best way to find out exactly where your property line is.

D

All right, any more discussion, all right move to a vote. So, mr mantle, your first up here, so what.

D

Yes, yes, mr mcdonald, yes, mr ms martin, yes, here's eldridge! Yes, mr rossi, yes,.

D

Mr metzen, for the first time yes and the chair of otis, also, your application was approved. Man.

D

All right next up, we have the request of martin. Let me just say before we get started here. We.

D

I forgot to uh mention the rules of the road before we start. We generally allow 15 minutes.

D

For the applicant to present their case, if they need an additional five minutes, they can ask for.

D

That- and we generally grant that, thank you anybody any public comment. We try to limit to five minutes.

D

You can make another five have another five minutes during the two four against portion.

D

And I would add, if you have any extensive comments you want to make for the record, then.

D

It would probably be better if you'd submit them in writing before the meeting they become part of.

D

The record we read all that uh all that things that are submitted that way you can get your.

D

Thoughts expressed plainly and we'll have time to digest them too, instead of trying to do it on the.

D

Fly so with that said, uh number b on the agenda is the request of martin hansman for property.

M

Located at 130 gate street, where relief is needed to add an hvac unit which requires the following.

M

Number one are variance of section 10.515-14 to allow three foot setback where 10 is required.

M

Said properties located on accessory map 103 lot 55 in laos, but then the.

M

General residence b, grb and historic districts, lu-22-161.

M

I'm going to resist the uh his on the zoom call: okay, mr hansman's appearing.

M

To this before zoom because he's out of town now so, mr huntsman, can you hear us.

M

Thank you, you'll get better! Please! Okay! uh Hello! Can you hear me okay? Now? Yes, sir, I'm clear.

M

All right, thank you very much. I apologize for not being able to participate in person. I'm currently.

M

Babysitting my granddaughter in connecticut and was unable to change that appointment.

M

um Yes, we are um planning to put in a new furnace in our basement and it will be heating. The first.

M

Floor of our house with that um it's a 40 year old furnace, we decided also to add air.

M

Conditioning to that floor, and that resulted in the need of a compressor outside we currently.

M

Have a compressor outside for the third floor of the house and the um uh the contractor has.

M

Requested we place this compressor in the same area as the existing compressor, which would be.

M

um Next to the property line, and it would result in a variance because it would be.

M

About three feet from the property line: if we look at the second picture from the top.

M

um You can see the approximate location of that there's, an existing privacy fence about 5.

M

High, which would shield it not only visually but also from noise, and, as said it is in the.

M

Same proximity as the in first compressor, which is being used to air condition. The third floor.

M

um I guess from that I would jump straight to the ordinance review itself and you know.

M

As far as the variants will not be contribute to public interest, the proposed ac compressors.

M

In the same areas, in the existing location and when replacing the fence some some years ago,.

M

It was constructed of solid wood to create a visual and an acoustic barrier, and so it will.

M

Not be visible from any public location and only be very minorly visible from a neighbor.

M

um Basically, the abutting neighbor, who has agreed that this is not going to be any issue for them.

M

The spirit of the ordinance will be observed. The compressors already has an existing location.

M

Already has an existing compressor, we're not changing anything about the the view of that.

M

Area and as the new compressor is much quieter, it will actually be a quieter environment because.

M

This will become the dominant compress us here. We currently run the third floor, compressor quite a.

M

Bit more because we're allowing that cold air to occasionally come down to the second and first.

M

Floor, substantial justice will be done. The propos location of the compressor will be as close as.

M

Possible to the house, we have a minimum of about six inches that it has to be away from the house.

M

And that will allow like said the proposed three foot between the compressor and the property line.

M

Value of the surrounding properties will not be diminished. Basic compressor will not be visible.

M

From any public location, it's behind the fence to the abiding property and there is a gate.

M

To the gate street side of the house as well, so there is really no way for anybody from a.

M

Public location to see it and it's only minimally visible from a neighbor's upper floors. We also.

M

Ayurveda which blocks the views from the neighbors there's a multitude of existing ac compressors.

M

Located throughout the neighborhood, which are much more visible to others, so we feel that this.

M

Will not have any mitigating on a mitigating situation on the values of these properties.

M

Finally, literal enforcement of the provision of the ordinance it would be hard to install.

M

A compressor in any other location, as it would be either much more visibly uh to the public.

M

Because we are on a corner lot, which abuts both manning street and gates street and therefore we.

M

Really have only a small kind of opportunity to place these compressors and we're also greatly.

M

Complicate the installation in the layout of the basement and the furnace, the new furnace.

M

Would be located in the same position as the old furnace, and it would be extremely.

M

Difficult to run uh the the necessary compressor lines to an alternate location.

M

I mean that's pretty much all I had for that. Thank you all right. Thank you, sir.

M

All right: do you see any any uh any of the board have a question for the applicant. No one, all.

M

Right so I'll open the public hearing, then does anyone want to speak in favor of this application.

M

Anybody on zoom peter anyone speaking opposition, this application.

M

Anyone to speak too far against see no one rise, I'll close the public hearing.

M

And the discussion, or perhaps a motion from someone, mr mantle.

M

I'll make a motion to approve the request as presented. Thank you chair second.

M

Oh hi, mr mcdonald, I forgot you have to look both ways up here, all right, your uh your motion.

M

Mr metal, um going through the criteria taking 10.233.21 and 10.233.22, granting the variants.

M

Would not be contrary to the public interest and granting the variants would observe the spirit.

M

Of the ordinance- and I find um that would be true for both of them- we're talking about a hvac unit.

M

um With a diminished from the current of three feet,.

M

10.233.23 granting the variance would do substantial justice. I believe it would.

M

We all need heat. We live in new england um 10.233.24 granting the variants would.

M

Not diminish the values to surrounding properties, it would not, in my estimation,.

M

Diminish any of the value of any of the surrounding properties in.

M

Fact it would probably increase this value, because now it has a functional hvac unit.

M

And the last one 10.233.25, literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result.

M

In an unnecessary hardship, the property has special conditions that distinguish it.

M

From other properties in the area and owe into these special conditions a fair and substantial.

M

Relationship does not exist between the general public purpose of the ordinance provisions and.

M

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

M

I find that the proposed use is a reasonable one and the hardship does exist. Considering.

M

The size of the property and where it sits on the lot all right, so your second, mr mcdonald,.

M

um I agree entirely with what mr mill just said. um I wouldn't I wouldn't change it, but I would and.

M

uh That this is, as mr mann said, new england and you need to have control over hot and then cold.

M

Air in-house and with the change of the seasons. And if the air conditioning.

M

For the property is not adequate, it needs to be improved so that it is adequate for those reasons.

M

I believe this application should be granted all right. Thank you. So any more discussion.

M

Anyone all right, we'll move to a vote and just switch things up, we'll start on.

M

The other end this time, mr matson, your vote. Yes, mr rossi, yes, mrs eldridge, yes.

M

Miss martin, yes, mr mcdonald, yes and mr emmanuel, yes and the chair of ochs, also you're approved sir.

M

Thank you very much. Thank you enjoy your visit with your granddaughter. Thank you. We do all right.

M

So, noon to adam c, the request of judith and again, forgive me if I butcher your name, it.

M

Too bad, but it appears to be mraz, revocable trust owner for property located at 11 walden.

M

Street, where his relief is needed to install a heat pump, which requires the following number.

M

One a variance from section 10.515.14 to allow a one foot, rear yard setback and a.

M

1.5 foot side yard setback where 10 feet is required by each said. Property is located.

M

On assessor map, 101 lot 17 and lies within the general residence bgrb and historic districts.

M

Lu-22-177, who is here to speak to this application.

M

My name is jason, I'm the hvac contractor for 11 walden. The proposed project is to.

M

Install a heat pump system with one outdoor unit and three indoor units.

M

um The we're requesting a variance to allow a one foot, rear yard setback and.

M

A 1.5 foot side yard setback where the 10 feet is required.

M

There are pictures of the existing site. We can look at that now or later.

M

um The variants will not be contrary to the public interests. The mitsubishi outdoor unit is.

M

Quiet the sound pressure levels are 56 decibels in heating and 52 decibels of cooling. The mitsubishi.

M

Outdoor unit will be hung from the building by bracket. The outdoor unit protrudes only 18 inches.

M

From the west wall and is partially slash, mostly hidden by two trees, depending on the viewing angle.

M

The spirit of the ordinance will be observed.

M

The installation does not affect any parking areas or access ways to other.

M

Buildings, the outdoor unit does not produce any odor smoke or dust to the environment. The.

M

Proposed locations on the side and back of the structure, not on the most visible street side.

M

Substantial justice will be done, there's very little gaining to the public surrounding neighbors.

M

But by denying this variance, mitsubishi, ductless systems are quieter, look better and use less.

M

Energy than window units with increasingly warmer summers, the need for air conditioning to mitigate.

M

Indoor temperatures is increasing, the values of surrounding properties will not be diminished.

M

Air conditioning outdoor units are common and not known to diminish property values.

M

And again, uh just stated how it's quiet and how it only protrudes 18 inches from the west wall.

M

Little enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship.

M

This property does not have a 10-foot setback from the property line on any.

M

Side of the structure, unlike the surrounding properties, due to the lack of 10-foot setback.

M

The reasonable addition of air conditioning cannot be added in strict conformance with the ordinance.

M

Any uh any questions, any questions for the applicant all right. Thank you, sir.

M

All right so I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone to speak well to speak in.

M

Favor of this application, my own zoom peter anyone, that's speaking, opposition.

M

Anyone to speak too, for or against seeing no one rise. I close the public hearings.

M

And the board were open for discussion or a motion. If anyone feels I would like to move.

M

That we approve the variance as submitted all right. Is there a second to let it.

M

All right, the variance is not contrary to the public interest and the spirit of the.

M

Ordinance is observed. uh I do not believe that the ordinance is uh intended to prevent the.

M

Modernization of older properties for the comfort of the homeowners living, which would be the result.

M

Of enforcing this, when there is such little a lot like clearance in these older homes, substantial.

M

Justice is done. There is no benefit to the public. That would necessitate us to create a hardship for.

M

The homeowner, by denying this variance the values of the surrounding properties, will.

M

Not be affected because of the discrete quiet and uh basically hidden nature of the part of.

M

The unit that's protruding from the side of the house and little literal enforcement of.

M

The ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship due to special conditions. The special.

M

Condition of the property is that the lot line clearance is very small, and it's just.

M

Not possible to update the hvac system without this sort of a variance that that is my motion.

M

A second, I think, any more discussion we'll move to a vote. So, mr mantle, yes, mr mcdonald, yes.

M

Ms margison, yes, ms eldridge, yes, mr rossi, yes, mr matson, yes, chair of ochs, also, you are approved.

M

All right next up is the request of lucky 13 properties.

M

Owner for the property located at 361, islington street.

M

Fred's relief is needed for conversion of use to a restaurant, which requires the following.

M

One variances from section 10.5 a41.10a to allow secondary front yard setback of 66 feet where 12.

M

Is the maximum allowed b to allow front line build out of 32 percent or 60 to 80 percent is required.

M

C, to allow left yard setback of 30 feet where 20 is the maximum allowed and 14.5 open space.

M

Where 25 percent is the minimum required number two are variance from section 10.5 a44-31 to.

M

Allow off street parking spaces to be located in front of the facade of the primary building.

M

Number: three: a variance from 10.440 use; number nine dot; four: two to allow a restaurant with an.

M

Occupancy low between 50 and 250., a variance from section 10.5 a44.32 to allow parking located 19.

M

Feet from a residential zone where 20 feet is required, five, a variance from section 10.321.

M

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

M

Conforming to the requirements of the ordinance said, property is shown on assessor map 144 lot.

M

23 and lies within the character district, l-l, 2 parentheses, cd4-l2 and historic districts.

M

Lu-22-195, who is here to speak to this ordinance? Thank you, mr chairman members,.

M

Of the board for the record derrick durbin, I'm here on behalf of the applicant, it's good to.

M

Be needed llc, I have with me tonight. I'm eric weinrapp is our engineer from altus engineering.

M

uh Jeff dyer and sean creely on behalf of the applicant michael labrie, is also here on behalf of.

M

The owning llc and robert whitemere, as well from winter holman, who is our architect working on the.

M

Project before I begin I'd like to congratulate the chairman for his promotion, also thank arthur.

M

Parrott for the many years that he sat on this board, my uh I think I was appointed the board in.

M

um 2016 and seven and was on the board from about 2007 to 2014 or 15, and my first meeting I.

M

Was seated next to arthur parrott and I will never forget. I was like look at him. I'm like it doesn't.

M

Seem too happy- and I didn't have this real happy appearance to him and he turned to me and he said.

M

You'll be fine as long as you don't say anything sound advice, eventually he warmed out. So thank you arthur in case you're. Listening.

M

um So I believe everybody on this board is probably familiar with this property. I.

M

Think most residents of the city of portsmouth are as well properties located at the corner.

M

Islington and cabot streets: it's really a transitional zone where the downtown.

M

Sort of meets the the west end of portsmouth and the transformed west end of portsmouth.

M

uh The properties along the islington street corridor are all zoned um uh cd4l2, you'll notice.

M

If you look at the tax map with the zoning overlay, I did provide a copy of that and you'll see that.

D

Strip of zoning just sort of runs right down that corridor intentionally. So it's.

M

Intended to encourage a mixture, residential office, retail and restaurant related uses.

M

um It includes businesses such as the kitchen lexi's joint, cafe, kellem, as well as liars.

M

Bench brewery right along this immediate corridor that we're speaking to tonight.

M

There was a get a gas station, the property from 1957 to 2007., the building on the property which.

M

Served as the getty gas station office and vehicle service bay with a metal awning where.

M

The gas pumps were is obviously a very run down, building a bit of an eyesore. I guess you could say.

M

In its existing state, the property fails to conform to the building setback.

M

Frontline lot line build out provisions which were intended to to really maximize um that front. Build.

H

Out of properties along that corridor, as well as the parking layout and open space provisions that.

H

Are applicable to the zoning district? In fact, if you were to apply the building setbacks.

H

Strictly this property, which are intended rather than to bring things in to actually bring them out.

H

You'd have to compromise the parking, so it's it's with this property. There's really a.

H

Catch-22, no matter which way you go with the use or what you're proposing to do with it.

M

um In addition, the property is encumbered by deed restrictions and easements to significantly limit.

M

What can be done with the property you'll notice? I believe it's on the existing conditions plan.

M

That we submitted a parking and access easement on the left side of the property, and maybe it isn't.

E

um Shown in the packet, but there is to, I believe it would be be the western side of.

N

The property, where you see the axis coming in right along the boundary there there is.

E

An axis and parking easement, my recollection of reading that easement, is that it was to maintain.

J

The property next door, but also to allow for two parking spaces for the benefit of that property. So.

E

Right there, you lose a couple potentially viable parking spaces.

E

uh I've included uh brief summaries of past zoning applications associated with the property. I'm.

E

Not going to go through all those I did want to highlight one particular application in 2017 sport.

E

Approved an application for lexi's joint, which was to add a small addition to the existing building.

E

For restaurant use with an occupancy load of 50 and outdoor seating in the end, alexis joined not.

E

To proceed with its proposed use of the property after determining it was not economically feasible,.

E

um What is being proposed this evening is functionally the same, is is what was proposed in.

E

2017 approved by the board, I think argue, arguably it's actually less impactful. If you were to look.

E

At the lexi's joint site plan, which I submitted as an exhibit to my narrative, you would see on that.

D

Plan that the outdoor space that was going to be utilized actually extended right up into the front.

K

Property boundary, whereas we would be set back a bit and buffered by some vegeta landscaping.

K

um In the present instance, the applicant is proposing to renovate and repurpose the former.

M

Gas station vehicle service bay building construct a 73 square foot addition to the westerly portion.

M

Of the building and a 692 square foot addition to the rear portion of it, um the african is proposing.

M

Landscaping and green space enhancements throughout the property and a privacy fence.

M

To the rear to buffer the restaurant use from the nearest residential properties, which you have the.

M

Grc zoning district really just running along all of that corridor uh along the cd4l2 behind it. So.

H

um There is residential uses there to the rear, and- and that is the case with all the properties.

D

In that district, if the variances are approved tonight, the applicant will have several additional.

D

Hurdles to clear, um I have to go through the technical advisory committee, which will.

L

um Vet out, which is, is this board probably knows comprised of city staff, technical.

L

Staff, which will vet out issues surrounding um how we've designed for traffic flowing and out.

L

Of the property parking as well, landscaping is part of that process. So there's there's a lot.

L

That that goes into the to the review process with this particular application, starting here.

L

Tonight as well, the applicant the property falls within the htc district, so they have.

L

To get htc approval for the design itself, on that note, they have gotten favorable feedback.

L

So far, through a work session with htc, which is the design that's before you this evening,.

L

There are a couple preliminary items, I'd like to address that I pointed out in my narrative.

D

The first is uh related to the variance from section 10.575 for a dumpster to be located.

D

uh Within the 20-foot setback, we're proposing a 19-foot setback, it appears there might even be.

D

Some confusion with the public over that we're actually proposing basically track trash cans.

C

um Totes, um it's they're, not dumpsters per se, but because that is not really defined within.

C

The ordinance we felt that it was prudent to put in the request for that no trash.

C

Compactors, nothing that would generate that type of impact or noise. So I did want to point that out.

C

um In addition, we've sought a variance from section 10.440 after I had a meeting uh with.

C

With peter about the project for an occupant load of 74, where 50s permitted within the district.

C

It's my opinion legal opinion that a variance is not needed. The indoor seating is limited to.

C

44, which is typically what occupancy permits are applied to or anything. That's that's, structural in.

C

Nature, it did provide a pretty detailed discussion of that in the narrative. I want to speak too much.

C

Into depth on that, but the building code is ultimately what the definitions, reference for.

C

With respect to occupancy load um and it defines occupancy load as the or occupant load, I should.

C

Say is the number of persons for which the means of egress, of a building or portion thereof is.

C

Design, um in this case, the applicant has proposed seasonal outdoor seating. It's open air, it's not.

C

On a deck, it's not associated with anything that would require an egress from a building.

C

It's open air. Obviously, people can disperse in the event of any type of emergency associated with the.

C

Building itself in any way they um so choose, so um that we feel it falls outside the definition.

C

And ultimately as well, we believe that jurisdiction of the seasonal.

C

Outdoor seating lies at the planning board pursuant to section 10.440, subsection 19.50.

C

Which states that outdoor dining or drinking areas accessory use to a permitted principle use is.

C

Permitted by conditional use permit that provision was added in 2018 in response to the city's desire.

C

With these character, districts to promote outdoor seating is an accessory use to to restaurants.

C

um Section 10.241, a of the ordinance goes on to state that a conditional.

C

Use permit allows the planning board or other such board or person.

C

As may have jurisdiction to consider uses which may be desirable or appropriate, in particular,.

C

Cases but which are not allowed as a matter of right within the zoning district, so I did want.

C

To just point those out because they're kind of threshold issues, I know that you're you want to.

C

Consider as part of the application we've applied for the variances, I also think it's appropriate.

C

For the board to make a finding as to whether or not those particular provisions apply in.

C

This instance, and either way I mean we didn't the reality, is we didn't, have the opportunity.

C

Due to time constraints to seek a formal administrative determination, regardless of how.

C

That would have gone. You know. If it didn't go in our favor. We could have appealed it to the board.

C

Instead, we decided to bring the issue directly to you tonight, so that's I did just want to address.

C

That before I went on dealing with the variance criteria where I will deal with those variances so.

C

uh So turning the variance criteria granting the variances will observe the spear of the ordinance.

C

And not be contrary to the public interest applicants plan to add on to and repurpose.

C

The existing gas station building and incorporate and enhance many of its existing design elements.

C

For uses of restaurants, consistent with cd4l2 zoning, which was really created for the purpose.

C

Of promoting quote the development of walkable mixed-use human scaled places by providing.

C

Standards for building form placement related elements of development. I believe that approving.

C

The variances would also be consistent with the decision of the board in 2017.

C

The proposed restaurant will make a viable use of property that really has been unoccupied.

C

For the most part, for most of the past, 15 years did have the wrap shack out there.

C

I represented them when they the that food truck occupied the property, but that didn't.

C

It lasts as long as I think many people hoped I know their plan um from having.

C

Presented that application was actually to take that and eventually expand into the.

C

Building and have something similar to what we're proposing tonight that never came to fruition.

C

Property is encumbered by deed restrictions uh that prohibit a number of the potential permitted.

C

Uses under the ordinance, including residences, bed and breakfasts child care facilities and schools.

C

There are also environmental conditions of the property that have to be accounted for.

C

In any plans to develop it or redevelop it, uh the proposed restaurant will operate. I I would argue.

C

Very similar, similarly to other food and beverage related establishments in the immediate area, I've.

C

Already cited some examples, but the kitchen lexi's joint liars bench are all uh businesses in in that.

C

Immediate surrounding area and district that will have that have equal or greater.

D

um Occupant load per parking space than you would find with this property. Lexi's joint has a total.

H

Of 20 uh occupant load of 24., they have four parking spaces. The kitchen has a total of 72.

G

um 48 interior 24 exterior we're proposing 24 here as well, but they only have two spaces.

G

Flyers bench 98., 48, interior 50, exterior one for 10. and I'm not aware of, I think the kitchen may.

G

Have been grandfathered but the liars bench, I'm not aware not to throw them under the bus of.

G

Any variants ever having been applied for, despite the fact that the approvals have been granted for.

G

Their outdoor seating as well, I think that speaks to the intent of the ordinance more than anything.

G

um I would submit to the board that this will serve as a neighborhood gathering place.

G

Connection between the west end and the downtown that it will breathe life and vibrancy into this.

G

Particular property, which is relatively lifeless in its existing state other than some equipment.

G

Piled up out front um and I think it'll generally make the area a more attractive place to live and.

G

Work as such, the proposed use will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood foreign.

G

The original design that the applicant did call for 106 seats, total indoor and outdoor um that.

G

Was actually what was originally submitted before the legal notices went out? We were trying to work.

G

With that to reduce that number and we were able to get it down to what you see now, which is 74.

G

That is like the minimum threshold for making this economically viable, as well as determined.

G

So this is not an attempt to reach and see what we can get. It's really truly what you you need.

G

There would be no threat to public health, safety or welfare opposed by granting the variances.

G

The existing building is obviously in disrepair, doesn't meet current building and safety standards.

G

The renovated building conditions will anything, you touch will have to come up to code and, as I.

G

Pointed out previously, there are many elements of this that will to undergo a lot more scrutiny.

G

We can expect some changes are going to have to be made some stipulations if it makes it through this.

G

Board to the next level, substantial justice will be done by granting the variances to determine.

G

This, as the board is aware, the board must balance the equities between the rights of the private.

G

Landowner versus those of the public, the uses that can be made of the property very limited as I've.

G

Already pointed out, and the costs and challenges associated with redevelopment are are significant.

G

That limits the potential pool of prospective purchasers, tenants and, and also the uses of.

G

The property, the applicant's plan is a viable long-term solution for the property. I believe it's.

G

Reasonable and consistent with the city's cd4l2 zoning um and I would submit to the board that.

G

Denial, the variances would result in a loss- that's not outweighed by any tangible gain to the public.

G

Surrounding property values would uh not be diminished by granting the variance surrounding.

G

Property values likely, I would hope, improve if anything they'll stay static, um and uh I mean the.

G

Properties in eyes or its existing conditions, so any exterior improvements would, I think, help the.

G

Neighborhood denying the variance would constitute an unnecessary hardship. The property has a number.

G

Of special conditions, which I've already pointed out several of the properties, the corner lot.

G

Has two front yards doesn't conform to current zoning in in most respects, in its existing state.

G

Doesn't conform to the setback front line lot line, build out standards, open space.

G

Parking you name it. It basically doesn't comply. um The deed restrictions are also.

G

Special conditions which make it a challenging property to develop or redevelop so, and I mean.

G

It really is those existing conditions that are driving the need for the variances tonight.

G

So the applicant is taking a derelict dump of a property for lack of better words and turning it.

G

Into something good and improving the open space green space on the property. So for these reasons.

G

There is no fair and substantial relationship between the general purposes of the ordinance.

G

Provisions their application to the property and the proposed use is reasonable. The lexis joint.

G

That approval in 2017, I think, speaks to many of the same issues that are before you tonight. If.

G

Not all the same, and um in case the board would find it helpful. I did bring copies of the the.

G

Minutes from that decision, just because they put some of the, I think some of the concerns that.

G

You might have in the context and how they were addressed at that time. Obviously, your.

G

Your own independent decision makers, but I think it at least it's helpful um to see that. So if I.

G

Could I just passed it around, maybe starting mr mantle, he can distribute them. Thank you.

G

I don't expect you to read this while I'm up here, but.

G

um I would just conclude by stating that I believe the applicant has demonstrated that meets all the.

G

Criteria for granting the variances hope the board will approve the application tonight.

G

um I I know I'm going to have some additional comments. I know there's probably some people.

G

Here that want to speak to the application so reserve. Those for for that time give the board.

G

And opportunity to ask any questions. It has of me and also an opportunity for the public to.

G

Speak so I think you uh for the consideration of the application. I know the applicant does as.

G

Well, there's been a lot of thought: it's gone into this and uh happy to answer a question.

G

All right, thank you attorney durbin. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant, mr mcdonald,.

G

um Hi, thanks for coming back the whole city is hoping that you succeed. I hope so.

G

um One of the questions we've heard this a couple of times uh already one of the questions that.

G

Comes bubbling up to the surface. Every uh every time is the fate of the below ground fuel tanks.

G

And what is the plan for dealing with them? I'm going to um let mr labrie speak to that since.

G

He's the property owner with the most intimate knowledge of the des file on the property. And, if.

G

That's okay with the board I'll. Let him address that good evening, uh michael labrie, those tanks.

G

Have been long since removed, there are monitoring wells on the property. It's in the the state.

G

Petroleum system, the levels of contamination have been diminishing over the years, which is what they.

G

Like to see they've they've removed approximately 200 yards of contaminated soil, and so the the.

G

Bulk of the contamination has been dealt with and continues to improve, so you would characterize it.

G

As under control or it's it's gone through their program, they've done everything that they feel.

G

That the state that is, they have done everything that they feel that they need to do. They have.

G

Lots of money to throw at this sort of situation, and they have done so and yes, I believe it's.

G

In pretty good shape, uh the getty corporation as a standard protocol puts deed restrictions.

G

Such as no residential use etc, whenever they sell one of these properties, because.

G

They want to limit their liability moving forward. Thank you. Thank you. All right was martin. Oh yes,.

G

Just a question for attorney durbin: could you briefly address why fisher v dover does not.

G

Apply to the denial of what I think is a different application from august 2021. I think the simplest.

D

Reason would be, um let's say that you're going to consider the outdoor seating as part of this.

D

Since, since we've included the variance request, I believe it doesn't apply because we've reduced.

O

The amount of overall seeding by my math is terrible and beth you're a lawyer, so I.

O

Don't know if your math is better than mine, but I went to law school because I wasn't good at math.

O

um But you're talking about about a 25 rough plus minus difference.

O

So I think that that's significant enough to bring it before this board.

O

If you just yeah, if you don't find that the, if you find that the other scene is part of this yeah.

O

Thank you all right, any more questions for that. All right see now and I'll open.

O

The public hearing is there anyone present who would like to speak in favor of this application.

O

Hi good evening uh max rice, I'm a resident in the west end. I live at 56, fells, road and.

O

As I think about the application, I generally just think about the overall improvement that.

O

It would offer to our community I'm a father of a family. I've got young kids and I think about going.

O

To a place like this for breakfast and lunch compared to what it is now, I generally just.

O

See it as an improvement, it's been mentioned that the current state.

O

Of the property is a bit of an eyesore, it's been that way, since I can recall.

O

um And so I hope that you'll consider approving it, because I think that it'll increase the.

O

um The general feel of our of our community, so thanks for the consideration.

O

If anyone else would like to speak in favor of this application,.

O

Is there anyone present who would like to speak in opposition to this application.

O

Hi good evening, I'm steve ryan, dolly I live at 369 islington street, I'm speaking on behalf of.

O

The undersigned here I did submit this document, so you'll have a chance to read it as well. I'm.

O

Speaking for the residents at 371a is linkedin, 371b, islington and 366 is linkedin right next to.

O

Or right across the street from the getty station, um my one of my park, I mean my parking spot is.

O

One of the two that attorney durbin referenced as being as sharing the easement with this with.

O

The getty station, I'm here to speak against the proposed business and the variance it's.

O

It seeks they have read this presentation to be undersigned and signed their names and support.

O

Lucky 13 properties is seeking to expand its impact on that site and, as a result, the entire.

O

Neighborhood by close to five times seeking the over occupancy from 50 to 250., and this would.

O

Absolutely negatively impact, I know my quality of life because my window is directly over it.

O

Was directly over the food truck, I love the smells, but they only have you know they would only have a.

O

Dozen 15 people as walk-up customers, so that was a very minimal impact. This board voted actually.

O

Attorney: durham referenced the 2017 ruling in favor of lexi's, but there's a much more.

O

Recent precedent, this board voted against the tuckaway tavern that was seeking to come in and.

O

Put a food concept in this very same location with very similar variances, and that was this.

D

Year so there's a reason that there's existing conditions on this property and uh and one of.

D

The reasons many of the reasons I think led to the decision to reject the tuckaway tavern.

D

um Though that, though, that entities over occupancy variants, the tuckaway tavern request and their.

P

Request for additional parking was also part of this decision. It is simply not available.

P

To accommodate this area is not available to accommodate that size of a business, nor is it.

P

Able to accommodate the size, that's needed to make it economical for the owners. They're now.

P

Seeking the occupancy overload to up to 250 people again, that's five times, what's currently allowed.

P

There's a reason that only 50 is allowed, and that is in part for the benefit of the neighborhood. So.

P

Not all citizens want to see well, I think a lot of citizens would love to see something in this.

P

In this location, she's got to be the right thing in this in this location, according to the owner of.

P

The last entity that sought to enter this location, the tuckaway tavern his current eatery attributes.

P

Less than 20 percent of its business to alcohol. Now it's rumored that the food concept going in.

P

Here is a brewery I don't know if that's true or not, but if true obviously there's going to be a.

P

Lot higher dependency on alcohol being sold the entity looking, you know, as I mentioned, that, will.

P

Inevitably lead to a severe public health risk. Now that section of islington street is arguably the.

P

Most dangerous stretch of road in the city within the past six months I have pulled the woman out of.

P

A car that struck another car flipped her jeep about five months ago less than two months ago,.

P

There's another another person that rammed into caused thousands of dollars of property.

P

Damage directly across the street in front of 366 islington street, both of those incidences were.

P

Near fatal crashes, and they both led to dwirs from people coming from either downtown or in the west.

P

End and now this is going to be right right there um so to have 250 people entering cars in that.

P

Neighborhood to have 250 people seeking parking in that neighborhood to drive away after visiting.

P

Is I think, I think dangerous? My building again is at 369 islington street and it shares the easement.

P

With the getty station, the getty station has been fairly vacant since I've been there for seven.

P

Years outside of a couple of temporary tenants and those near crashes um have personally witnessed.

P

This expansive business would cause immeasurable risk to us and the hundreds of pedestrians who.

P

Walk along that street every day the noise and personal energy generated by a business seeking.

P

Five times more impact on the neighborhood, I believe would be too unbearable to even imagine.

P

The variants they seek- that's actually lowest on the priority list- is also actually the most.

P

Detrimental to me, potentially, I know that attorney durbin mentioned that they wasn't going to be a.

P

Dumpster is going to be trash cans, but I'm just going on the abutters notice. Any butter's notice.

P

Does say a dumpster which would be right under my window, while we would all love to see the business.

P

Of the space occupied, it's got to be the right kind of space. I don't think we don't think this is.

P

This is that the impact would cause more extreme, or the impact that this would cause would be.

P

Extremely detrimental and could force homeowners to flee the area. You know this is one of the best.

P

Neighborhoods, in my opinion, in all of portsmouth, it was, it is one of the last ones to be developed.

P

And the character and safety of this great area is essential, I think, to uphold. We have the utmost.

P

Confidence in this board to consider the potential negative effects any business. This would have on.

P

Our community, as you've all proven over and over again, that you do take residence quality of lives.

P

Into consideration- and you set the most recent precedent for this location earlier this year, so.

P

We simply ask that you please continue with that train of thought tonight. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

D

Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to this application.

D

M

Good evening elizabeth brighter property owner 159 mcdonough street, I hope you got to read your 900.

M

Pages that you had to read today, including all of our comments. um Most people see this proposal as a.

M

As a bit of nostalgia, being saved, what's really being proposed is new additions on the side and.

M

The rear and additions of glass garage doors, which will require structural changes because.

M

The difference in weight is over 150 pounds for glass, doors versus steel doors. The addition of.

M

A commercial kitchen and a complete change of the shape and structure of this building.

M

It is true that one way to get neighbors to get on board with something is to not.

M

Maintain a piece of property, however: the lack of activity. Excuse me the lack of actively listening.

M

To what neighbors have brought off brought up years and years in a row is actually neglectful.

M

This proposal could get what they need. If you get my little pun there to run a nice neighborhood.

M

Business and be, and still be, respectful of close to 30 residential units that surround.

M

This property, they are direct abutters. The legal legal argument raised regarding egress could go.

M

On all night, but the truth is, is if any alcohol is served at all in the outdoor sea seeding area. It.

M

Will be required to be enclosed and have egresses, and once the restaurant is approved or whatever.

M

Approvals you give those can roll into another business. So just keep that in mind, as we know,.

M

The maximum occupancy load for cd4l2, as you notice, 50, and anything above that is prohibited.

M

Let's say you approve 74. those 74 people could easily fit in the outdoor seating area.

M

And it would likely be permitted because the occupancy load is not defined as indoor and.

M

Outdoor seating, it's defined to include outdoor seating, but it does not say where and that's the.

M

Confusion that's happening here, we're not talking about giving approval for outdoor.

M

Seating we're talking about giving approval for occupancy an occupancy load here is 50.

M

It is strictly the approval of the number of people. Actually, if you approved only 50.

M

A stipulation of stating that only 25 people could sit outside at one time would be nice for.

M

The neighbors, especially those who live across the street, for which the set sound, will bounce.

M

It could also have a stipulation similar to the other restaurants in the neighborhood, such as.

M

Lexis, which closes at eight the kitchen which closes at eight in kathy killum, which is open.

M

From seven to five, the approval in 2017 was only for 50 people and that comparison has been used.

M

Repeatedly, liar's bench, on the other hand, has continuously had noise complaints, not only from.

M

That from the side, this side of the north pot mill pond, but from the other side they also have.

M

Major parking problems and they have quite a few spaces, because at night they share that parking.

M

Space where washburns well, it's called something else. Now I think ferguson's, but the plumbing.

M

Place is closed at night and they share that they have about 20 spaces, but they still have parking.

M

Problems there are many factors to consider when enlarging a non-conforming seat use the.

M

Impact on the surrounding properties, the impact on safety, which directly impacts our community.

M

The previous approval was an increase of only 90 square feet.

M

And it included all the required parking spaces and was only for 50 people. This proposal will.

M

Need anywhere between 20 and 40 spaces, depending on tonight's approval and all those cars will be.

M

Entering and exiting a very dangerous intersection in portsmouth, the city has tried for years to.

M

Prevent accidents here, but they quite occur quite regularly. I just want to bring up one.

M

Thing in regards to enlarging on a non-conforming use, and that is a use that is non-conforming as to.

M

The requirements of off-street parking shall not be enlarged or altered until off-street parking.

E

Is provided for the original building and I know you're not voting on parking, but what you decide.

E

Will impact parking and they're only providing 10 spaces and they need between 20 and 40.

E

I would also like to talk briefly about the totes. I have a restaurant in one well, we have.

E

A restaurant in one of our buildings, it's a lot smaller than what is being proposed here. They.

E

Have a four yard dumpster, which gets empty twice a month: a four yard: dumpster amounts to eight totes.

E

I want to know how that emptying is going to be accomplished, and I want you to think.

E

About what bow street looks like when their dumpsters, when their totes are out there on.

E

That extra large super wide sidewalk and now I'm at envision eight totes on a small sidewalk.

E

Just something to think about, please consider each of these variances separately. There are.

E

Way too many of them to combine them and they all have different impacts on the neighborhood.

E

Do not approve the variance to increase the occupancy, it would be contrary to public.

E

Interest not only because of the general noising activity, but because of the increase in traffic.

E

At a dangerous intersection and the entire neighborhood will be impacted because there.

E

Will be no place to park, they will be circling. Islington, creek and goodwin park. Neighborhoods.

E

We know that people don't walk and the reason we know that the only day I see white heron have.

E

People walking is on sunday other than that. Their parking lot is full and people are driving in and.

E

Out continuously blocking is in history. The same thing is true for dunkin donuts. On sunday, people.

E

Walk to duncan sims, maybe some people do on saturday after they do their lawn work, but.

E

Most people drive, so we need to be realistic about that. The spirit of the ordinance is to.

E

Prohibit more than 50 people in cd4l2, it's a one building wide corridor which is which is abutted.

E

Directly by residential, predominantly residential neighborhoods at grc, and it was created to protect.

E

Those neighborhoods it this will have to get a special exception and their footprint is 15.

E

000 square feet, so they want to put more than 50. They need to to not allow the variance for more.

E

Than 50 people would be substantial, justice would be done to protect the neighborhoods, because what.

E

They're, asking for is a 50 increase in cars, people and associated activity. People would.

F

Be coming and going 74 people are not going to be there, their cars are going to be moving.

F

There is no hardship here, the kitchen lexi's and cafe killam survived covid the most difficult time.

M

For restaurants and businesses alike- and none of them can seat more than 50 people.

M

The variance to increase the size of the non-conforming youth should only.

M

Be allowed if the additions are combined and only added to the front of the building.

M

Thereby opening up the rear to add more parking, save an old tree. That's probably.

M

A few hundred years old and decrease the size of the outdoor area to be a more reasonable size for.

M

A neighborhood that specific part of islington street has 30 residential units that surround.

M

It liar's bench has residential units on one side, the other three are commercial, so you're talking.

M

About putting something, that's all surrounded by residential, comparing it to something that has 98.

F

Spots, 50 in and 48 out, which is very similar. What they're telling you, but it's not similar, because.

F

They are behind two commercial buildings. They are next to a bank, that's closed and on the one.

F

Side where their outdoor seating is is where they sit next to residential. Thank you for your time.

M

Yeah all right anyone else to speak in opposition to this application.

M

Anybody on zoom peter anyone, somebody, oh sorry,.

M

Hi, my name is sally also and I'm a property owner at 311 cabot street, which is at the intersection.

M

Of cabot and mcdonough, um so I have three points I I I mostly have concerns about the design here.

M

um The first one is the amount of people and the privacy to the neighbors. I think.

M

um The previous speaker spoke an awful lot about the capacities. I don't need to say as much.

M

um But you know it applies to parking and to traffic there. So um if you're to go above 50.

M

I think it would be a big detriment to the community of those who live around there.

M

The parking spots, um if you look at the drawing the only thing, because I know that.

M

There's variances added for the additions onto it. That's why I just want to mention the parking and.

M

The entrance and exit I lived here and uh from in the 80s- and I was a customer of gettys and.

M

Rarely did people drive in on the cabot street intersection you drove in from islington, and you.

M

Drove out of islington and this proposal, the way it's showing you is that everybody would.

M

Have to exit onto cabot street and if you exit and I've done this when it was rap, shaft and.

H

Even today, if you're in that parking lot- and you turn right to go to the intersection, you.

D

Your car actually goes into the other side, so the oncoming traffic there will be a massive massive.

N

Jam up and every single car that goes in has to go out that way whether they park there or not.

N

I do agree that um you know I was a frequent customer of kitchen and lexi's and I I drove there.

N

Sometimes, if it's raining or snowing, I'm not going to walk all the time. So something to consider.

N

N

I think that's it so privacy I talked. The other thing I wanted to mention about parking is that we.

N

All know the parking is a problem in that area and in portsmouth in general, and there is a parking.

N

um Test that went on and everybody was allowed certain.

N

um I think you guys, I don't need to tell you about it. You think you already know about it right. I see some nodding head still, so don't go by me, okay, so if, in that area, if you.

N

um For cabot street was part of it, part of mcdonough as well, and maybe some other streets.

N

But I'm most mostly concerned about cabot that if you didn't have two off street parking, then.

N

You were allowed to have a guest pass, it was free, but now the town has proposed that they.

N

Want to charge 125 dollars. I think it's up to two per house to actually park on the street and.

N

Will we be competing against cars that will go through there to look for parking spots.

N

um When we have to pay for parking spots- and maybe those folks don't necessarily have to so anyway, so.

N

The amount of people parking and that intersection, I think, is a a very, very bad decision. I don't know.

N

How to fix it, but I think if you could enter an exit on islington, it would be better. Thank you.

N

So anyone else to speak in opposition.

N

Anybody, oh sorry,.

N

Good evening my name is: lenore weiss bronson. I live at 828 woodbury avenue, so I'm not in a.

N

Butter but I care about all of our residential neighborhoods in portsmouth, and I was on the.

N

Property today- and I also did speak to anna butter, whose letter you have in your packet and mr j.

N

Beale and I'm I'm in support of the butters, who have already spoken, they've covered pretty much.

N

Everything that I would and more that I would say, but what was really concerning to me again.

N

And I'm repeating is that that, if I understood correctly, they would not. The applicant would not.

N

Be providing even half, they would be probably less than half the required parking spaces and.

N

Then, when I looked at the property and saw which this one, a butter pointed out to me that again.

N

Maybe this is repeating possibly, but for emphasis. The act there's an access on islington into the.

N

Property but then, as the one, our one neighbor said, you're one neighbor set on cabot. It's an.

N

Access and an egress- and it's such a small area- I don't know how big it is, but people.

N

Will be coming in and out and then going on to cabot directly into that intersection as soon.

N

As you take a right, you're, practically you're in the intersection and, of course, there's a light.

N

But um this person I spoke to to one of the people who lives in the area said that that.

N

Again, there are a lot of accidents there and he said bi-monthly. So I and didn't go into detail.

N

But it seemed logical almost that there would be accidents there. The other thing that I wanted to.

N

Bring up was that there is an amazingly beautiful, big oak tree on the border of that property to the.

N

Next: property, residential property, it's difficult to say exactly what the location is, because it's.

N

Right on the border, it I measured it today, it's 11 feet in circumference. It looks pretty healthy.

N

I used to be on trees and greenery committee, I'm not an expert, but it looked pretty healthy and I.

N

So I looked up online approximately how old a tree like that would be, and they said probably.

N

Or the calculator said about 175 years years, old and oak and it would have been so pre-civil war.

N

1840 late 1840s, it would have been in portsmouth a lot, so I consider it a historic treasure that.

N

Should be delivered and also, I would think that in excavating- and I don't know if atlas.

N

Engineering is has considered it, but it must have a big root system and I would think that.

N

Excavating right up to the bottom of the trunk would or near it would compromise the tree, and I.

N

Hope that it's not the case also because it could be dangerous, it's very large, with a lot of bows.

N

And that is, that is really all that I had to say, but.

N

um I just really hope you consider the residents in uh this case and their quality of life and also.

N

um I just like to say that I also have appreciated arthur parrott very much over the years and I'd.

N

Like to congratulate him and thank him, and thank you, thank you all right. Anyone else in opposition.

D

Seen none anybody speak too far against the application.

J

Members of the board again for the record derrick durbin on behalf of the applicant.

J

um Just a few of the comments I wanted to address one about dealing with the variances separately.

J

This is a property where it's it. You really can't do that. The the variances themselves.

J

Are interrelated, as as you can tell, driven by the existing conditions of the property, I I know what.

J

That was an attempt at, but it's it's certainly not appropriate with with an application like.

J

This, I also want to clarify, there was reference, and I think it it was probably just perhaps.

J

A inadvertent, miscon construction of the the plans or the relief that we're requesting, but.

J

We've made the representation of the board and only asked for 44 interior seats and.

J

Let's not mess up the math but 24 outdoor seats. Let's say that the rest being on the inside.

J

um That that is, if you consider the outdoor seating, that is all we're requesting. It's 74 total.

J

Seats um is what we're asking for not 250 nothing above 74. um also- um and I think this is extremely.

J

Important a sort of paint, the the picture over all the variances are being requested. We're actually.

J

Asking for the variances are asking for a smaller structure than what's allowed by the ordinance.

J

Which is interesting, it's the converse of what we're used to dealing with we're actually seeking.

J

Variances, because we can't build it out as it is contemplated by the ordinance if we did you're.

D

Losing even more parking, this has been designed to to truly maximize the parking, while balancing.

D

The economic viability of what's being proposed, and it's also assuming full occupancy at all.

G

Times which we know is not the case, so um uh one other quick note is with lexi's joint and.

G

And I that's a bit of a confusing application. The reason I draw references to it is because of that.

G

Outdoor area that they proposed was significantly larger than the outdoor air. We're proposing seats.

G

Were not shown on that, there were no limitations. Put on that and I know for a fact that it was the.

G

Attorney's opinion whether stated at the board at that meeting or not that it was outside the.

G

Board's purview to consider the outdoor seating that application was left vague, the board, never.

G

Discussed it specifically, if you look at the minutes, an occupant load of 50 was sought.

G

But if you read between the lines, the occupant occupancy alone in the legal opinion behind.

G

That as it applied to the building itself- and I think you could probably look at those plans and.

G

See that something much larger was proposed, so I think there's some nuances to that. But here again.

G

We're pulling it actually back, the addition in the rear is actually creating less impact than.

G

That would have upon those in the front of the property also necessary to have a little more.

G

Space because of the nature of the business- and I know there's some mystique around that right.

G

Now because I haven't talked about a lot, but it will involve baking, so we need a little more.

G

Space than what they may have for lexi's joint at that particular time also gas station traffic.

G

Obvious prior use of the property is much more intense than what's being proposed here. I know.

G

Traffic safety concerns have been highlighted tonight by the public. Those are valid concerns.

C

I think any use of this property- and I would say again and you've probably heard this line.

C

By a number of attorneys, but it really is truly outside the sports purview site plan regulations.

C

Were created for the exact purpose of of dealing with these types of technical engineering issues.

C

Be that as it may, I did want to just briefly bring um eric weinrip up from all this engineering. Just.

C

To touch upon that because it has been brought up. So if I could do that and if he could have well.

C

Or, as have the opportunity as an additional speaker, I would appreciate it so thank you.

O

For the record, I am here tonight eric weinberg with all this engineering, and I do want to talk.

O

About traffic, but I also want to mention the dumpster on the butter that expressed.

O

Concern about the variance for the dumpster we're actually on almost 10 feet beyond the.

O

Minimum to that fence, enclosure to his property or line we're actually asking for a uh a 0.7.

O

um Into the um the buffer for the fence enclosure, so the totes will.

O

Probably be pretty close to meeting the requirement, but it's the fence that we.

O

um Measured with that, as far as safety for access on the site, I'm, I don't think that any site design.

O

We could do would actually have a better site safety than this design. We have to keep the.

O

Isolin constraint, access open because of the the two easements there. We have the parking equipment.

O

And the access, easement and because cabot street is a signalized intersection. That is the best.

D

Place to bring traffic back out onto islington street so we're not having traffic enter exit.

K

Onto islington street, in an area where there's no, it's not a controlled intersection, so it's a safe.

K

Intersection coming out onto cabot it's on as far as people not being able to maneuver that.

K

And going on to the curb or going into the other lane, it's no different than probably hundreds and.

K

Hundreds of other intersection within the city that are four-way intersection on cabot and state.

K

Cabot and austin, on everywhere in the city of their four-way owners perception and this one's.

K

At least the controlled intersection where traffic is stopped in the opposite direction,.

K

We're also showing, on the plan, those four trees at the bottom along islington street. That's part of.

K

The on the islington street improvements project and actually the street will be narrowed when that.

K

Happens so we're making sure that we're planning our plans are coordinated with that. So that's all.

K

Going to be dealt with through tac, but I just wanted to make it clear that what we're doing.

K

Is making it a very safe intersection, controlling access at the best locations possible and keeping.

K

The traffic open for on the easement for the butter. Thank you. Thank you. Eric all.

K

Right last call 2-4 against the application. Mr chairman, oh sorry, uh this technically is.

K

Attorney durbin still have the microphones. I would like to ask him a question sure attorney durpin.

K

I will um I will. um I will conclude my my comments.

K

Just one last thing that I that I I did want to speak to because I think it was.

K

Maybe inadvertently misrepresented of the board by somebody that spoke, but.

K

um The occupancy loads, if we're considering that issue at the kitchen, is that's 72 or 74,.

K

If you count our outdoor space here, they have 24 outdoor seats as well. Liars bench is 98 98.

F

um And um so I just I wanted to clarify that, because I think there was a statement that there.

D

Technically, in strict compliance, even if you count that out to we're seeing that it's just not the.

B

Case I just wanted to clarify that I will attend it's attorney yeah. I do have a question for and.

B

It is has to do with the occupant load. I mean in uh article 15 of the ordinance, which deals with.

B

Definitions, so the occupant load is defined as the total number of persons that may occupy a building.

K

Or portion thereof camerathetically, including outdoor decks at any one time. So why wouldn't.

B

The outdoor seating be part of the occupant load, in this case yeah um and- and I I think.

B

I did um speak to that a bit my presentation but to further those comments. um And if you look at.

B

That definition right it references the building code too, which is really what drives these.

K

Occupancy calculations um here uh we're not a deck, we're not on a structure that would be applied.

K

um For example, you apply for a building permit you're, building a deck. You need to be able to.

K

Improved with a restaurant that you have a certain means of egress for safety reasons,.

K

Here we're on flat ground, it's the same thing as any type of patio or yard area. I know it's. It's.

D

It's it's a tough one. To look at. I mean it's it's um without say the building inspector here this.

K

Is how I apply the occupancy calculations, but it really is an internet um 2015 international.

K

Building code definition, it's not even entirely clear there, but what I believe the intent is.

K

Is really when you're issuing a building permit for structure that you have proper safety means.

K

To to get out in the event of a fire, something like that, maybe eric would disagree with me. I.

K

Don't think so, since he's seen my comments but um but that's that's truly the I believe the.

K

Intent and- and this is just it's a bit different here um and I and I do think that in part is why.

K

um Aside from trying to encourage outdoor seating that the city adopted, the additional use permit.

K

Process and kind of put that issue before the planning board to look at so anyways that thank.

K

You thank you yeah. Thank you all right, someone on zoom, okay. We have someone on zoom, so james beal,.

K

Mr fields, can you hear us.

K

Yes, james beale here, yes, sir, uh thank you chairman and board of members.

K

uh James beale 286 cabot street- uh I sent a letter in uh but I'd like to voice a few issues.

K

um That seem to have slipped through uh and I'd like some clarification, uh although the site plans.

K

Were uh presented and everything it seems that the the large 125 year old oak tree is non-existent.

K

So that uh makes me question uh right away the vitality of uh all the information because they.

K

Choose to uh uh not disclose whether this tree will be removed, or not uh more so than that.

K

uh It states that the property has encumbered by deed restriction and easements, but this.

K

Knowledge has been known since the sale in september of 2017 to lucky 13 and their short.

K

Therefore, should have no bear no weight in regard to the request for variances the approval for the.

K

Lexi's joint included, 16 parking spaces and no additional construction. They, except for a small.

K

Side edition, therefore, it is not functionally the same as the current proposal would need.

K

uh Would provide less than 50 percent of the required parking again? Parking is to be issued.

K

uh At a later date, however, everything is viable based on uh the occupant load. Once again, we go.

K

Into definition, uh per page 15-29 oxygen load amended through uh 2021 states that the total.

K

Number of persons that may occupy a building or portion thereof, including outdoor decks. This is.

K

What we were just talking about at any one time calculated in ordinance with the building code.

K

Cd ford l2, says 50 people period and due to the square footage of.

K

What that is, therefore references. The number of parking spaces needed uh the.

K

The traffic flow uh because of uh less than 50 percent parking spaces will become uh a.

K

Major issue during certain times whether or not you live here or not, if you try to.

K

Drive down islington street from seven to nine a.m. Pretty much every weekday morning there is.

D

Completely stopped traffic in both directions due to the configuration of dunkin, donuts and or.

K

White heron: these are my concerns. uh Islington and cabot. Street intersection is notoriously.

H

Dangerous every time I enter that intersection, I wait because many times cars do not stop.

H

Hopefully, with the edge improvements that have been slated for 2026 on capital improvements.

K

This will change, uh but these are my concerns. uh Like all of us, we would like to see something.

B

Vibrant go into the getty gas station, however, per the master plan of 2025.

B

And the cd4 l2, the restrictions are 50 person occupancy. So those are my concerns. uh I hope.

B

That this can be worked through so that we can have a restaurant and something that's vibrant.

B

For the neighborhood, but we as neighbors who live in here uh on a daily basis, have concerns.

B

That should be addressed. uh We uh for reference. We watched 105 bartlett, request a change of.

B

Zoning from industrial to residential stating with drawings that they would do town houses.

B

Character base to fit in with the neighborhoods uh little by little those plans once they were.

B

Approved those variances have now changed the three massive four to five story: buildings with.

B

150 plus units proposed, so uh we as residents are concerned that if a variance is given for.

B

More than 50 that determination is 50 to 200, even though it is deemed 74.. So thank.

B

You for listening to my concerns, uh and that is all I have to say all right. Thank you, sir.

B

Hey dude, I'm uh I'm just I'm part of the the applicant. I just wanted to. First of all, thank.

B

You guys um you have a pretty thankless job at times, um so all of us all of us in the city thank.

F

You just as for the use of the building, it's we're going to be making bagels. um It's not a.

F

Brewery there's no way kind of be a brewery, so I think those public concerns is absolutely relevant.

F

You know, and we want to be a good neighbor, a good steward of the of the neighborhood, so.

F

That is important. I think sean and myself are novices at this. We're not developers we're not.

F

um You know professional restaurant tours, we want to make this site a.

F

Neighborhood enhancement, not an eyesore, we want to again, we want to be good neighbors and that's.

K

Kind of part the additional space we're putting on the back is because you need a lot of space to.

K

Make bagels it literally takes a lot of space. You got to lay them out and they got to rise overnight.

H

So that is legitimately what the extra square footage is for, um unlike the the lexi's need.

D

Their kitchen was really small and we couldn't work in such a kitchen. So um again I thank you.

D

Guys, I hope uh you know the other concerns can be can be spoken to. I know that the traffic is.

D

Definitely something but eric. I don't know if anybody else knows the city better than eric, so.

D

um He he thought about the site and he said hey. We can do x, y and z next to a lot of the ideas.

D

That we had, because this is the best use of it so again. Thank you all right. Thank you. Thank you.

D

All right see you in seeing no one else rise, one more.

D

Elizabeth bradder property owner 159, mcdonough street and 342 kevin. I just wanted to make.

D

You aware of something and steve peter steith may know the answer to this, but.

D

um The sea, it used to be that, depending on where you were, you could have outdoor seating, but the.

D

City changed that and I want to say it was 20 2018. um that there were new regulations.

D

Everybody who wanted to have outdoor seating needed a cup which took it off of your desk.

D

For out for officially approving outdoor seating and not and by doing that, they included when they.

D

Made that change to my knowledge, you're going to have to look it up. Maybe they included the.

D

Occupancy of the outdoor seating, as well as the indoor, because a lot of places were abusing that.

D

They were extending the outdoor seating to be a lot more than what was allowed in that zone.

D

So they added that in as part of the the zoning change, it's also included.

D

um I can get the thing about gross floor area. It also includes outdoor covered terraces and porches.

D

So, although there we could argue all night about this, the reality is is whatever you.

D

Approve whether the bagel place makes it or not will stay with the property. We all know.

D

Variances stay with the property and therefore that's why the neighbors have a concern. It's not.

D

About whether somebody's nice, the little wet wrap shop, was very nice, they were wonderful, neighbors.

D

But they were, they did not get more than 50.. um Lexi's did not ask for more than 50 and we're.

D

Asking you to protect our neighborhood from too many people. Thank you. Thank you.

D

All right, you could uh quickly, sir, absolutely steve, and I and only 369 uh islington street.

D

I forgot to mention on the um concerning the easement that we share. I have personally I mean.

D

Obviously, the exit and entrance on cabin street. I appreciate the danger of that. I.

D

Personally walking my dog from the back of my building to the front of my building have had.

D

To dodge cars coming flying off of islington street into that easement, whether it's to do.

D

A u-turn or just a park or because they're lost, so my fear, is the easement on islington.

D

Street, as well as the cabinet street, there is really no safe in or uh or out to this.

D

Property, so I just wanted to paint that, because before you too, thank you. Thank you, foreign.

D

Cabot street, so um the 50 people. Obviously we've talked that to.

D

Death about why we think it should be no more than that, but my recommendation is.

D

That they do a traffic study at the intersections of cabot in islington.

D

um I have tried walking across that intersection before and you have to be careful because cars.

D

Do go flying by mostly from in town headed out of town snowstorms. We've had so many snowstorms. You.

D

Can't even see cars coming around the intersection, so I would recommend that there be a traffic study.

D

For that intersection, various different times of the day and different days of the week, so that you.

D

Can see weekend, traffic and also um weekdays and obviously there'll be a lot of pedestrians walking.

D

So somehow, if we can do some something to secure the safety of the people who are crossing that.

D

Intersection that would be greatly appreciated, but let's do this traffic study. Thank you.

D

All right, so you know what else rise. I closed the public hearing and we are long past. Our.

D

Nine o'clock break emergency, so I think that we should finish this before we take.

D

Our break okay, I mean yes, okay, so, and I just um carry on so I just wanted to say a few things.

D

um For the public- and I understand everybody's concerns- I really do the traffic issues will be.

D

Dealt with by the technical advisory committee and the planning board, this board doesn't have.

D

Any purview over that this board also doesn't have any purview over the park at the parking spaces.

D

That is also now a conditional use permit by the planning board. We cannot weigh in on those issues.

D

um I I just want to say that I um I do believe that 10.440, which is the.

D

Variance for the occupancy load does not apply to this project.

D

um The the they are proposing 43 and interior seats, 31 exterior seats, the 31 exterior seats.

D

Are also a conditional permit for the planning board. They are not under our purview because.

D

They are under the 50 threshold for the indoor use that is allowed by zoning. The cd4l2 allows.

D

For up to 50 allows for a restaurant with up to 50 patrons in it. So I I do not believe that this this.

D

Needs a variance for the for the load, the out, as I read the international building code, the.

D

uh Seeding involves an outdoor deck, which I would include, which I think includes the.

D

Addition that they are proposing not the seating in front, because that is not really attached to.

D

The building there are both there are doors. um There's uh it's. It's not attached to the.

D

Building, so I do not believe that this uh 10.4 for o is applicable to this application.

D

All right, so uh any more discussion.

D

So to understand miss margeson, since we have five variances number three is off the table. Yes, okay,.

D

It's allowed by right in the in the district, because going to what attorney durbin said that.

D

Is to use his expression nuanced uh because there's 43 in and 31 out and that's how they.

D

Got to over 50 and, like you said, we don't have purview over it so over the 31 that around outside.

D

That is, I mean I read: attorney durbin's menu menu. Sorry, I'm thinking of the bagel bagels.

D

um We're talking about restaurants, um I uh looked at the zoning ordinance myself. It's very clear.

D

That outdoor dining is a cup from the planning board. I do not find that this is an outdoor deck.

D

That attaches to the main part of the building, and I therefore do not think that they need a variance.

D

Well, would anyone be bold enough to make a motion incorporating that.

D

You guys always give me the hard emotions, but you do them so well.

D

um Okay, I I move to approve this variance, these various variance requests as presented.

D

And advertised, and if I get a second I will say why all right so would there be a second.

D

Second- and there is a second okay- so I these are hard, um so variance number three does not apply.

D

The other variances are for secondary front yard, setbacks, left yard setbacks, open space.

D

Coverage and also the front line build out and um so going to the criteria, and I got to take these.

D

All at once, because that is our usual- that is our usual practice, um uh granting the variance would.

D

Be contrary to the public interest, granting the variants would observe the spirit of the ordinance.

D

um This is a cd4l2 district, which is allows for residential use on the ground floor. It does allow.

D

For shallow front yards and shallow medium front yards, they are looking for a variable.

D

Private landscaping and on-site accessory parking, these will not have shallow yards.

D

You know the purpose of this district is to have build out. However, I believe.

D

There's special conditions on this property that that um the counteract that so and also the cd4.

D

um L2 district also is meant to preserve and enhance and make for human scale and walkable.

D

um In a walkable district- and I find that this fi, that that meets, that it meets those criterias and.

D

That it preserves the getty station which, since it's in the historic district, we have to preserve.

D

It is there um again this is so hard because there's so many but the uh I do not believe that.

D

This is um if this alters the essential character of the neighborhood. uh There are many restaurants.

D

In the neighborhood uh lexi's is in the neighborhood. um Restaurants are allowed by right.

D

For up to 50 in are allowed in the neighborhood. I do not believe that there are health safety.

D

And welfare uh considerations- I you know this is a fairly minor impact as it is allowed by zoning.

D

Granted the variants would do substantial justice. The variances are primarily for changes to the.

D

Setbacks and also there is for um parking to be allowed in the front of a restaurant which lexi's.

D

Also has, and also the one foot variance for the variants for the dumpster. I do not believe that.

D

The public would be benefited by upholding those requirements and I think that there would be a.

D

That there would be a substantial detriment to the applicant by upholding those those requirements.

D

The the little enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in unnecessary.

D

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

D

um I don't actually find the deed restrictions that that compelling is, except as special.

D

Conditions but the easements are. There are easements that around this property that have.

D

To be respected, and that really restricts the placement of buildings on the property.

D

um And the uh so owing to that, there is no really fair and substantial uh relationship between the.

D

Public purpose of that, these variances of the ordinance and uh the application to this property.

D

The proposed use is a reasonable one, um because this is a restaurant that is allowed for up to.

D

Occupancy load that is allowed by right in the cd4l2 district. I don't know if I did that right.

D

Yeah, so we need to include this because there's you know dimensional variances and also there's.

D

The dumpster in the parking in the front and unscreened parking was another variance, so.

D

There's a staff recommendation for a occupancy load, stipulation of 74 whoa.

D

If they, if you've determined that that's not needed, never mind, then that wouldn't be.

D

um Recommended but the other one about the design and location of the project may change based on.

D

Htc and playing board review and approval. Yes, uh that would be a good stipulation, because.

D

This has to go through tech. It has to go through planning board in the hd. You see.

Q

um Obviously has got to approve the design of this building, so in your second, mr.

Q

Just a few comments um since we're just approving one, two: four and five correct peter and six okay.

Q

um I appreciate the efforts gone into it.

Q

uh A restaurant in this location, while it's a great idea, I mean a diner, a coffee shop.

Q

Anything like that, if you're gonna put a downtown restaurant there you're going to have issues.

Q

um Because! Strictly because of this specific location, regardless of whether.

Q

It was a gas station before when you're going down islington street from the bypass toward downtown.

Q

After liars bench across the streets of the bread box, you have eight residential houses.

Q

Whether they're single family or two family, three family, I don't know eight residential.

Q

Houses then you have the getty station, then you have another 12 residential houses.

Q

On the same side of the street, the entire side of the street is all residential.

Q

I mean for what you're trying to do if this was flipped with where the mobile station is.

Q

You probably get a lot more leeway simply because that's so much closer to downtown.

Q

But because this is an island all by itself.

Q

It's going to be difficult because, whatever you do here is going to have a direct impact.

Q

To whatever the residence is around there, how much of an impact we'll see but.

Q

I appreciate the effort: can we restrict hours of operations planning board ken? No, I'm the planning.

Q

Board on the planning board: okay, because that would be my only added stipulation but other.

Q

Than that um I approve all right any uh any more discussion. I just want to comment that the media.

F

Overriding consideration is that the property is really an eyesore, as it sits and many attempts.

R

Have been made to make use of it and they have all men, you know untimely ends, let's say so. It.

Q

Would that to me supports the notion that these sorts of changes are necessary in order to make a.

Q

Viable uh space there that can be utilized uh for the you know for private and public good. All right.

Q

Yeah I I just concur with that. I I hope that this is an ongoing concern for your sake, but also for.

Q

Ours, so that we don't have to deal with another variants: application for this property yeah.

Q

All right, so we need more discussion.

Q

All right move to a vote. The motion is to approve mr manuel. Yes, mr mcdonald, yes, miss martinson, yes,.

Q

Ms eldridge, yes, mr rossi, yes, mr matson, yes and the chair also votes. Yes, you are approved. Thank.

Q

You and we are in recess for a short break. uh Thank god not too long, but long enough.

Q

Good afternoon we're back in session, so the next application is the request of.

Q

Request of david, a sinclair and nicole gusto owners for property located at 765 middle street.

Q

Whereas relief is needed for construction of a new detached garage with a dwelling unit above.

Q

Which requires the following one: a variance from section 10.513 to allow three principal.

Q

Dwellings on a lot where only one is allowed for lot: two variances from section 10.521.

Q

To allow a lot area for dwelling of 5, 376 feet or 7500 is required for dwelling unit.

Q

And be a 10 foot rear yard where 20 feet is required, said property is shown on assessor.

Q

Map 148 lot 37 and lies within the general residence, a g r, a and historic districts.

Q

Lu-22-196, who is here to speak to this application? Thank you, mr chairman. Members of the board, I'm tim.

Q

Phoenix from hopeful phoenix gorman roberts here on behalf of nicole giusto and david sinclair,.

Q

David is with me in the front row. Also with us are eric weinrib from from atlas engineering.

Q

Who's done the technical work we have robbie, woodburn who's done, the landscape, design and.

Q

Jen ramsey of soma studios who's done the building design. I'll start you with the existing conditions.

Q

Plan that eric eric did you're, probably all familiar with a lot before it ever came before.

Q

You it's a beautiful lot at the at the corner of middle and lincoln, with a beautiful what.

Q

I've described in here is an exquisite arc architecture home and behind it. If you're.

Q

Looking from middle street carriage house, you can see them on the plan here. The parking is.

Q

All outdoors they park either next to in between the the two buildings. I'd also point out on this.

Q

Plan you can see the dashed line about you know splitting the property. This used to be two lots.

Q

Years ago- and it was invo- they were involuntary merged by the city. There's nothing except the.

Q

Kids, playground type thing on the northerly part today, but a former owner had put a swimming pool.

Q

On the lot, and since they had done that, they were a former owner, had treated lots as merged.

Q

And therefore they remain merged, my point being that if that hadn't happened, we could arguably.

Q

Have a a second lot here: the lot is relatively large for the area. It's 21 504 square feet. If.

F

You looked at the tax map that I included, as exhibit 8 to my memorandum. You'll see there.

Q

Are a few large lots, but mostly there are small lots and this one is rather large for the area.

Q

Q

That is not the right plan. Remember I submitted the wrong one and I just.

Q

I was wondering what that was doing in there.

F

uh The one with the funny.

D

I don't know if you can find it I'll keep going. uh You you've, you've, you've had it uh in your.

K

Packets, I I was submitting two different things at two different places and somehow that happened.

H

um Anyway, so um what we're trying to do is um uh proposing a uh new structure. You can see it to the.

B

Top left the sort of the uh northeasterly corner of the of the building, the existing driveway and.

K

Parking area will be expanded uh to connect to it. It's going to be essentially a four-car garage.

B

Covering approximately 2 000 square feet and mr sinclair and ms juso want to put an apartment.

B

Over it, they're they're building this structure, so they thought they'd take advantage and put a.

B

An apartment and there's going to be a small office space over it as well, and the reason.

B

That it's been done this way and the reason for some of these variances is they wanted to create.

B

A courtyard effect between the three buildings: that's the primary reason that we're asking for.

Q

The setback relief as you'll see the setback is 10 feet, but the carriage house is a little bit closer.

D

To the back that lot line at about eight and a half feet, the other thing that that does is allows.

D

The building to be about 10 feet back, there's a there's, a home fairly close to that northerly lot.

K

Line and we wanted to keep it back a little bit to allow air light and space for that neighbor.

D

Looking out or exiting their home or looking out their windows etc over onto this yard,.

D

So the the exterior designed by jen has been intended to to blend well.

K

With the extraordinary architecture of the existing home and carriage house, the home.

K

um At the corner, um the corner of the two streets is a single family, home occupied.

K

By uh the family and the carriage house has two apartments: uh one one bedroom and one.

K

Two bedroom, so there are three living units on the site in in two buildings,.

K

um I'd also attached and you don't need to find it peter, but I had also attached, hopefully correctly.

H

um Exhibit nine which david prepared, which is um he'd measured, 300 feet from from his property line.

D

And found all properties that are multi-family now they're, mostly different, because they're units.

F

In one building and the ordinance treats them different, but we thought it was a good exercise to.

F

At least compare what we want to do, which is going to be now four units in three buildings. Instead.

F

Of three built three units in two buildings and david has compared um the these other multi-units.

F

Within 300 feet, and the bottom line is that ours is the uh right now it's got the greatest.

F

uh Square footage per unit at 7, 161 68 square feet, as proposed it'll, be five thousand three.

F

Hundred and seventy six, which is the second and is well above the um the average which is 41.90.

F

Three again: it's not a perfect analysis because those, as I said, those are mostly buildings that.

F

Are in units the single building, but we thought it was a it's in the same zone, so we thought it.

F

Was a good idea to compare it, particularly since this lot is larger than most of those.

S

So, as for the relief that we require, it was red, but I'll do it again. Three.

D

Dwelling buildings per lot where two exist and one is permitted. It's it's self-evident.

D

um The um to provide 5376 square feet per dwelling units for four units where 7 168 square.

F

Feet exists, which is less than the requirement, and that's three units and 7 500 square feet is.

F

Required and then finally to provide the rear setback of 10 feet for the garage with the unit.

F

Over it, where 8.7 feet exists for the carriage house and 20 feet would be required. Other permits.

F

We have to get we do. We do have to get plenty board reviews, so this will be fully vetted and.

F

Historic district commission review will also be required, so with that said, turning to the variance.

D

Requirements, as you know, since you read my submission so often we always consider the first.

F

Two together, which is that the variances are not contrary to the public interest. In the spirit of.

F

The ordinance is observed, and the overall test is, will granting the variance unduly and to a market.

F

Degree conflict with the ordinance such that it violates the ordinance's basic zoning object.

F

Objectives so, as I always do, I turn first to the general purposes of the ordinance under section.

F

10.121, which identifies consideration of the use of land, buildings and structures for business.

F

Industrial and residential and other units now, while the while the ordinance limits residential.

F

Uses to one building per lot, we think the proposal is reasonable because of the size of the lot and.

F

Because it compares favorably with a number of other multi-families in the area, it also compares.

F

Favorably with the the overall purposes of the gra district, which is quote to provide areas for.

F

Single family to family and multi-family dwellings, with appropriate accessory uses at moderate to.

F

High densities, ranging from approximately 5 to 12 dwelling units per acre, we will have.

F

Hello four total units which translates to approximately eight units per acre. So it's.

F

Right in the middle of the overall purposes of the zone, which is five to twelve, as I also mentioned.

F

um Previously, up to four units in a single building is allowed again. It's not a single.

F

Single building, but we think it compares favorably if you're converting um a building to up to four.

F

Units, the ordinance does give you a reduction to three thousand square feet per unit, and I don't.

D

Know whether these ones I've mentioned in this exhibit nine were conversions or have been that.

D

Way since before zoning, but I I thought you ought to know that, but it's we still think it compares.

D

Favorably, given the area the, secondly, is the intensity of land use, including lot sizes building.

D

Coverage height bulk yards variances, uh bulk yards and open space, we comply with lot size building.

D

Coverage height and open space requirements, as I mentioned before, we're about eight units acre.

D

Where five to twelve is what the purpose of the ordinance the gra ordinance provides for, and we.

D

Are favorably compared to other multi-family units in the area? Additionally, the the new building will.

H

Not be fully visible unless you're really looking for it. We've given you renderings by tangram, which.

D

Is exhibit 4, as well as some site photographs that show that the building is, as we said, intentionally.

D

Sort of tucked behind the carriage house, if you're looking at it from the I mean, look at that.

K

Building, that's the carriage house, that's just beautiful, so it'll be tucked behind that you'll.

K

See you'll get peekaboo little glimpses of it if you're walking up and down the street, and if you.

H

Look at it from the from the middle street side. You can see that that's the house. I was talking.

H

About on the left that we won't push the building back a little bit to give more air and light and.

H

You know visual positiveness of that size, so you can see it if you're looking for it. um It seems.

D

Large, when you start with a 2000 square feet, but jan has done a really good job of designing.

R

It so that it sort of fits in that corner and doesn't doesn't look obtrusive and robbie has.

R

Done a complimentary landscaping plan which will beautify it and if you ever went by that building.

H

In the not all that distant past- and it was all grown over- you couldn't even see the house on it.

R

And these folks have really made it beautiful and they like to keep keep going with that.

R

um Then we look at the design of facilities for access right now you have parking. That's.

R

There's no garage, you couldn't really wouldn't want to put a garage between the house and the.

R

um The carriage house, because because number one, it would sort of limit access to the backyard and.

R

It would take away the charm of the intent of the original house and placing a carriage house.

H

Behind it, so we want to keep keep that open. The cars will now be able to. You know back up and.

D

And pull out pull out and pull in you can do that depending upon how many there are we'll. Also now.

D

Have up to four uh inside parking spaces, which is a benefit environmentally and weather-wise for for.

D

People here in new hampshire in the winter, we want to look at the preservation and enhancement of the.

D

Visual environment, I think it speaks for itself, preservation of historic districts, you've seen.

H

Some renderings of of what a nice job they've done with the existing home and carriage house.

D

And jen's design complements that at and it will get historic district review and then protection.

D

Of natural resources, we won't have any negative effect on that. The area that's left meets open.

D

Space requirements there's plenty of area for storm water, etc. So then we turn back to that.

H

Maliki glenn case that I cite in the underlying issue is: will granting the variances alter the.

K

Essential character of the locality, we think the answer to that is no. It fits in with the.

D

Character of the locality there are single families, multi-families large houses, small.

D

Houses, some large lots, some small lots. It's rather eclectic, as is much of the beauty of of portsmouth.

D

And it fits in well or will it threaten the public health, safety or welfare? It will be built to code.

D

Will provide a covered off-street parking will allow cars to, for the most part, at least, to pull.

D

In and pull out as opposed to backing out, uh so the public health, safety and welfare will not be.

D

Threatened uh the third test, uh as I do it is, will the variances diminish surrounding property values.

D

You have letters from seven of their nearest neighbors, not every single one that touches.

D

Them but but many I'll just go through them. We've got 670 lincoln, which is joelle and tebow a 70-74.

R

Middle, which is melissa and brian mcguire, that's across middle. The first one was across lincoln.

R

736 metal, which is two down on the other side of the middle uh 664 lincoln, which is karen and.

R

Robert graham, which is directly across from the carriage house, 748 middle miller middle, which is.

R

Can't even read my wrong paula reyes and elton schaefer, which is one down across middle we've.

R

Got 648 lincoln karen and peter dawson, which is next to 664 and then finally, 774 middle.

R

Apartment one which is also across middle, so we've got some pretty good neighborhood support.

R

um And those neighbors don't get support, give support if they think that the variances are.

R

Going to diminish their property values, we think this enhances the lot. You can see the the the form.

R

Of the driveway there that looks beautiful, you can see the building in the back peaking between the.

R

Two, the house and the carriage house there's just no way this is going to diminish property values.

R

The fourth of the five tests is the hardship. The first of the prongs is special conditions.

R

Distinguish the property from others in the area, um usually I'm in here saying this lot is unique.

R

Or special conditions, because it's too small, this one is larger than most so it would suggest that.

R

You should be able to do a little bit more on it than you would one of the smaller lots as.

R

I mentioned before it's it's too involuntarily merged lots. It's at the corner of two streets.

R

Meaning that there's two front setbacks required the placement of the existing buildings limits.

R

The reasonable location for placing a garage or any other structure um and, as I mentioned before,.

R

If you attached a garage and living space to the existing home or between the two you're going to.

R

Lose both the reasonable access to the backyard and the ambiance of the existing juxtaposition.

R

Of the house and the carriage house, so for all those reasons we believe that special conditions.

R

Exist which leads us to whether there's a fair and substantial relationship between the public.

R

Purposes of the ordinance and its application in this instance, so why do we have one freestanding.

R

Dwelling per lot: it's to prohibit overcrowding, allow for air light separation between neighbors.

R

And prevent permit storm water treatment. We've already got two buildings and three units. We.

R

Believe we have the right to a garage, it makes sense, given the housing shortages. This will.

R

Be another home for somebody to to rent in in downtown portsmouth affordability, not sure what.

R

That'll be but at least it provides something that is also going to provide off-street parking.

R

As I mentioned, the fourth unit is tucked over a garage that will, you know, hold house cars so.

R

Really won't be noticed, um as I also mentioned, we need the height building coverage and open.

R

Space requirements and the just the density is consistent with at least a number of other.

R

Lots within 300 feet not in its layout but in the number of units or the or the units.

R

The square footage of area per unit, the purpose of setback requirements is similar to prevent.

R

Overcrowding to provide air light separation and sight lines where, where appropriate, etc.

R

Since this building is behind the carriage house, it's already a bit closer than we're proposing.

R

um There there's no loss of air light separation between neighbors and.

R

You've still got adequate area for storm water, storm water management.

R

And then the third and final problem is that the proposed use is reasonable. um The case law says.

R

If the use is permitted, it's deemed reasonable. uh This use residential use is permitted. The density.

R

Of the residential use is what we're here to deal with and then finally, substantial justice will.

R

Be done by granting the variance and the test test under the harborside case is, if there's no.

R

Benefit to the public that outweighs the hardship to the applicant. This factor is satisfied. Maliki.

R

Glenn case, which I always cite- is any loss to the applicant not outweighed by a gain to the.

R

General public is an injustice, so we believe that granting these variances to allow this building.

R

With this unit at this location will not in any way harm the public, we think we've shown that some.

R

Strength in that by the number of of neighbors or butters, who have submitted letters of support.

R

um So there's no harm to the public, but denial will disallow the family from what we think is.

R

A reasonable location size of a building to park, multiple cars in and have an additional.

R

Living space in an office um the office would be for david. The living space would.

R

Be for some couple or family in or who wants to move to portsmouth all those reasons we.

R

Believe that we meet the requirements for the variances requested, we are all here to answer.

R

Any questions you may have so fire away all right, so you don't have any questions for the applicant.

R

The 10 foot uh setback to the rear yard, I'm trying to figure out what qualifies as the rear yard on.

R

This lot is that the one that borders on uh 733- yes good, very good question um peter, tell me if.

R

I get this right, there are two front yards, but the rear yard is deemed to be the one that is.

R

Opposite the street address front, that's correct! So since it says 765 middle, that is the rear line.

R

Thank you sure, so the purpose is for this new addition to rent it out.

R

And become cars, identifiers, david sinclair, owner 765, middle street.

R

um The purpose is to park cars and to offer a place for somebody to live.

R

um And there's one office associated with it, yeah, so the footprint's quite large, and if.

R

We were to rent the whole place to one say: individual it'd be quite large, so kind of.

R

Took the opportunity to cut out basically one bay and kind of keep it to ourselves for flex.

R

Space, it could be an office could be workout room, yoga studio, just kind of like a great room space.

R

With flexibility for anyone really us or the tenants, okay, thank you.

D

Nothing else, I'm gonna sit down all right. Thank you all right, we'll open the public.

D

Hearing does anyone here who wishes to speak in uh in favor of this application.

D

Lost all our zoom colors, no zoomers, they were interested in the last application.

D

Is there anyone here that wishes to speak in opposition to this application.

D

Is there anyone who wishes to speak too, for or against the application.

B

See no one rise. I close the public hearing.

D

All right board discussion or someone wants to make a motion, we're open for business.

B

I I will not be supporting this application. um I uh I you know the zoning ordinance is.

B

Very clear that there's one dwelling unit for a lot I it seems like it's.

B

Not in character with the residential area, I mean, I know it's another residence, but it is.

B

um uh It just seems like it's going to be a mini sort of complex or or something but.

B

um So don't look at me to do it. Yeah motion, but.

B

Comments anywhere.

B

I think it's a tough one, I mean, I think, you're kind of agree with you, but it really is a.

B

Beautiful structure and a beautiful lot- and I do think that it will be um just a nice property to.

B

Have in that location, so I don't really see it being detrimental to the public good to.

B

To allow this to proceed, I'm a little surprised that the people at 733 middle street didn't have.

B

Anything to say about it because they're, the ones that are going to have the most.

B

Impact really from the location proximity to the lot line, but.

B

They didn't say anything so I presume they don't have any objection to it.

B

So I probably will support it.

B

Well, what what we consider the application for is the is the five criteria. So it's not really.

B

A popularity contest for the uh where the butters lock it or not- that's true, but one.

D

Of the criteria is impact of the neighboring abunding property values and I think if the.

D

Butter at 733 felt that the proximity of the new structure was going to affect their property value.

D

They'd be here and the fact they're not. I presume that they're comfortable, that it won't all right.

D

So I'll get the ball rolling I'll. Make a motion to approve the variance as submitted.

D

See if anybody wants to second it all right so could we get a second.

D

We could continue, mr man. Second, all right. Your motion, mr rossi,.

D

I don't think there's what the variance has contrary to the public interest because of the.

D

Reasons that I already mentioned, it's a really nice development of the property, uh and I do.

D

Believe that it complies with or doesn't really comply with, but it resonates with the attention.

D

For this zone for in terms of the density of housing, substantial justice is done. I don't see.

D

Any loss to the public by allowing this to proceed, and I think that the loss to the applicant is not.

D

Outweighed by a loss to uh by potential loss to the public value of the surrounding properties,.

D

Are not diminished? We have a lot of butters who are attached to the fact that they're comfortable.

S

With this, presumably on that basis and the one of butter that I was concerned about, has remade.

S

Silent, presumably with no objection with regard to the impact on the value of their property.

S

And therefore, I think that literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary.

S

Hardship, the special condition of this property is that it was forcibly combined into one lot.

S

When it had historically been two lots, had that not been done and the swimming pool is no longer.

S

An issue that that made that happen so had that not been the case, there wouldn't even really be.

S

An issue with adding and dwelling unit in that spot, so I I say for all of those reasons.

S

I support the variants. Thank you, mr mantle. In a second, I concur all right. Thank you.

S

Well, I I guess I'd have to say I would not be supporting the emotion. I remember my first.

S

Night on the zoning board several years ago, when I was sitting down on that end and.

S

I was the first one to vote for a motion that uh ultimately passed. I think I was the only one that.

S

Voted against it, it's kind of a lonely position, so I would be standing with this martinson on.

S

This one solidarity: there you go so if there's no further discussion, we will move to a vote.

S

So let's see mr mantle! Oh sorry, sorry.

S

Let me guess, that's a reasonable question. Well, certainly, and I think you know miss morgan's.

S

Point was pretty clear: it's one one, something new dwelling person there's already two. There.

S

So this would be three which is, in my estimation, of bridge too far.

S

All right can I ask the motion maker pill entertain the.

S

Stipulation about um design and location may change, because this has to go to htc and.

S

Planning board; uh yes, I so so, specifically: okay, thanks.

S

All right so we're ready to vote. I think also I'll make a comment. um Sure the the more than.

S

One freestanding dwelling on a lot uh I I know is generally uh quite sacrosanct and.

S

The single family, residence uh district, um but in this case it's the gra uh district.

S

um Although it is also a criteria to have, uh and then they already have the two dwellings uh on the.

S

Lot um but uh the fact that uh it's consistent with because due to the lot size and the.

S

How many dwellings per acre it's it's still in um in meeting with the uh intent of the ordinance.

S

Thank you all right. Any further discussion we'll go the vote. So, mr mantle, yes, mr mcdonald, yes.

S

Mrs martinson, no ms eldridge, yes, mr rossi, yes, mr matson, yes.

S

And the chair votes. No, so it passes five to two. You are approved you very much.

S

Yeah, I know we're well past our 10 o'clock quitting time so we'll need.

S

A motion to continue for the next four items on the agenda: if the uh foreign.

S

All right, next up middle street, the request of cornwall properties, llc owner for property,.

S

Located 50 cornwall street, whereas related belief is needed for the addition of a shed dormer, which.

S

Requires the following number: one: a variance from section 10.521 to allow three foot right.

S

Side yard, where 10 is required to a variance from section 10.321 to allow a non-conforming.

S

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

S

Of the ordinance said, property is shown on assessor map, 144 lot 2 and lies within a.

S

General residence c grc district lu-22-194 who's here to speak to this application. Thank you, mr.

S

Chairman and thank you everybody for hanging in there, it's been a long night, I'm charlie moreno.

S

Property owner I'm here with my wife, lori and also our architect, richard dejardins of mchenry.

S

Architecture is here to answer any questions, but I'll make the presentation. So the basic thing here.

S

Is that we would like to um to add a small dormer to the back of the house, so we can fit a bathroom.

S

A third floor bathroom there is a bedroom and a small study in that third floor, and it would be.

S

Nice to have a bathroom there, without that there wouldn't be a way to really fit it because of the.

S

Way the eaves come down I'll, really keep this simple. um We we did come in um last year for a.

S

Variance a couple of several variants: requests to demolish an old structure and rebuild, and at.

S

That point we in the architectural design, which was more in the nascent stages we had a in the.

S

Diagram a small bump up there, but it was early in the design stage. We needed the variants to know.

S

If we were going to proceed or not so because of that, we now have a more defined idea of what that.

S

Little dormer area is also in redoing the building we had the property surveyed and found out that.

S

Our old building was actually a foot over almost a foot over the property line, so we had to move.

S

The whole thing over so we that's a substantial improvement over what was anyways to move on.

S

The I'm going to go through the variance criteria, the variances that, contrary to the public interest.

S

um First of all, the the dormer is set within the building footprint, and it is I measured it.

S

Today, it's 25 feet from the nearest a budding house. It's really nowhere near any other house.

S

And so from our neighbor's house. Okay, on that side, it, it really is you can't really see it from the.

S

Street and there are trees that block it, it, the roof line, blocks it from the other directions and.

S

Are a butter to the right? The trees block his view, but he he's already told me that he is on board.

S

With us and has no problem with what our our thing is, it's on the third floor, it's really not visible.

S

um The spirit of the ordinance is observed, the reason for setbacks is a tight neighborhood and.

S

You know, as you would say, the setbacks are for fire safety privacy, light to allow house.

S

Maintenance, if the buildings are too close, you know it's hard to put a ladder up to paint or.

S

Something like that in the future, but I just want to kind of underline that that the houses are.

S

It's farther far enough apart and easy to get up there not easy, but it's possible to get up there.

S

With staging or whatever, there's room for that, it does not affect the light it's below the roof line.

S

um There's no windows in that dormer, so there's no issues for privacy and all those walls, because.

S

They're within the setback are fire rated walls so as far as fire safety, the buildings being.

S

Too close that that's covered, so I think this is within the spirit of the ordinance.

S

I had other reasons in my application, but just in for the purpose of brevity, I'm going to move.

S

On unless you had any other questions, um but okay, substantial justice is done.

D

um Again, we're we're building a modernized energy efficient fire, safe structure that meets current.

H

Building codes fire codes- this is, would be a part of that by not having the bathroom there.

H

Would be a substantial loss to us, but from the public standpoint, there's really no loss. It's.

H

It's kind of a non-visible thing from the from the street and um I want to say that in the original.

S

um I think I might have mentioned in the original design that was presented and approved for the.

S

Variants we did. The richard showed a bump up there that probably not quite a shed dormer.

S

But there was a bump up because we knew there was going to be some need for something there.

S

So that had been approved, it's just that this is a little bit higher a little bit taller. Okay, as.

S

Far as the values of the properties are not being diminished again, we're renovating the front part.

S

Of the house, which is a 1820 or so colonial and completely renovating that to its former stature.

S

um And we removed a really poor, looking addition and are building a architecturally compatible.

B

Structure behind the house we're investing significantly into the property. I think it's.

S

A it's a win-win for the neighborhood as well, and um and the the small dormer that we're.

S

Proposing is, is um you know it's not going to diminish the view or the look of the building.

S

At all, it's not highly visible from the street or anything and then finally, uh literal enforcement.

S

Of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship. We have limited space on the third floor.

S

For a bedroom in an office we'd like to have a bathroom for someone that might be sleeping.

S

In the bedroom it would just be nice, so they wouldn't have to travel downstairs and again. The.

S

Dormer does not change anything on the ground, for your butters does not change the house's.

S

Footprint, it's hardly noticeable does not change the amount of sunlight in order to track from the.

S

Look of the property, however, without the dormant we would be missing in a central part of the house.

S

So we feel that literal enforcement of the ordinance would cause a unnecessary hardship for.

S

And and one neighbor that that faces is said that he has no problem with it, he's on board.

S

Thank you. So do you want to have any questions of the applicant.

S

All right, thank you, sir. Thank you so much.

S

All righty we'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak in favor of the application.

S

Does anyone here to wish you should speak in opposition to the application.

S

Anyone that wishes to speak to for or against the application.

S

All right seeing nobody rise, I close the public hearing and we'll open the discussion board or.

S

If someone wants to make a motion, we'd certainly entertain that mr mantle um I'll make a motion.

S

To um grant the variances as presented, thank you, sir. Do we have a second somewhere yeah.

S

Miss eldridge. Thank you all right. Your motion, sir, um going through the criteria um 10.233.21.

S

And 10.233.22 granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest. I do not believe.

S

It would be granting the variance would observe the spirit of the ordinance. um Yes, it would.

S

10.233.23, granting the variance would do substantial justice.

S

um Yes, it would considering that this this couple has already come before us.

S

And we've already granted the variances and we're just doing this do-over for the bump.

S

Out for the bathroom, if I'm reading this all correctly, um we've already granted.

S

um A one foot, side, setback and now we're doing three. So it's an improvement.

S

um And we're doing the uh variants for.

S

Working on a non-conforming structure, which is what we've already granted you before.

S

10.233.24, granting the variance would not diminish the values. The surrounding properties.

S

No because we're improving this one and the last one 10.233.25 little enforcement of the provisions.

S

Of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship, a the property is special conditions that.

S

Distinguish it from the other properties in the area and owing to these special conditions, a fair.

S

And substantial relationship does not does not exist between the general public purposes of the.

S

Ordinance provisions and the specific application of that property of that provision to the property.

S

And the proposed use of reasonable one. um I agree with all of that. This is a very small.

D

Ask for an adjustment of the original building plans for the accommodation of the bathroom.

D

Thank you in your second is average. I agree and have nothing to add all right. So any discussion.

D

All right we'll go to a vote.

D

On the other end, just for the heck of it, mr matson, yes,.

D

Mr ross, yes, uh miss eldridge. Yes, this is uh martinson. Yes,.

D

Mr mcdonald, yes, mr uh mantle, yes and the chair of votious, so you're approved sir. Thank you.

H

All right so moving on to part d, the request of lucia investments, llc owner for the property.

D

Located at 3020 lafayette road, where relief is needed to remove existing deck and construct.

H

New stairs to second floor behind the window and add new hvac units, which requires the following.

H

One a variance from section 10.521 to allow an eight foot side yard where 10 is required.

D

A variance from section 10.515.14 to allow an 8-foot setback for the hvac.

H

Units where 10 feet is required said properties located on assessor map.

H

292 lot 152 and lies within mixed residential business. Mrb district.

H

Lu-22-127 who's here to speak to this application, rob correo, lucia investments, 3020 lafayette, road.

H

um I'll be precise and objective and right to the point, because we have two of them with.

H

The staircase, um the variance as you noted, is needed because it's eight feet uh two inches or.

H

I need 10. so right now currently we're um the structure is at 30 20, I'm sure you all saw it.

H

At our saws it used to be versa's pantry, it's a staircase, there's a huge deck and a bridge.

H

um And the goal is to remove that and if you see the structure now uh 24, I believe yeah so.

H

We want to remove all of that um and then, if, when we fast forward after we move the.

H

Staircase that will be siding and stare and uh siding the roof will be done gutters and that.

H

Is ocean right there and then lafayette is on the other side. You can see it from all the way around.

H

um The only a butter is right behind us where the staircase is going to be, and I did upload.

H

Their letter- um and I do have that letter as well because they don't oppose it because they don't.

H

Want to look at that anymore, so in the back of the building where the staircase would go.

F

um Where I'm proposing that we put it where it was at one time there's a picture of, I believe.

H

It's 31, no uh yeah, no 32! Sorry! I apologize so right. There is where the staircase would.

B

Actually end on the side of the building in the corner, um and then we would build the walkway.

H

To the parking lot, so it would come down, there wouldn't be a deck it we're proposing a landing.

D

uh It would come off the entry right now, there's a window there, and you can already see that you can.

D

See that there's a a patio ledger already there, where it was at one time, so we're going to build.

D

um Four feet by five feet: when you come off in off the entry come down, you need one more landing.

S

um Just to break up the steps, so that way we could be in code.

D

um I do have a design that was created. I just get didn't have time to get it in.

D

um I only had uh I believe it was uh six hours when I was told I needed a variance, so I rushed.

D

As fast as I could so, I can get into this meeting for peter, so my 12 year old, it looks.

D

Like drew that, but it was me so um the steps uh will be four feet wide by five feet: deep.

D

The door will be a 36 inch, uh 36 inch entrance uh just so if a tenant does.

D

Go in there they can bring their stuff in and out. I want it four by five, so I.

D

Allow so no one puts a table there or a deck like on a deck. It is just a landing.

T

um I am going to use higher ends material, I'm going to do that. I do that on all my properties.

T

um And then uh green and company who's behind us, the butter uh took the color that I usually.

T

Use on all my showrooms and my buildings, midnight blue, so I agree with them that.

T

I wouldn't do that. I'm gonna go with dark gray, so the decking is going to be gray, uh treks and.

T

um We're gonna use vinyl, there's already a six foot fence already that they already installed.

T

There as well so and there's a view that we took a picture of.

T

From the side of their building, I believe it's uh coming up.

T

Is it that yeah? No, that's the decking.

T

Sorry because I resubmitted so, I forgot my numbers here: yeah, that's it right. There.

T

We were just there yep, so that's! Actually what you see is the side of the building.

T

From the butter they love the idea where the steps are going because, right now, you could.

T

See when you're driving into that complex, you could see that whatever, that is the tree house.

T

That was built on the side of that building. So to answer the questions, um if I can objectively.

T

um First of all, I appreciate the opportunity to be in front of you guys it's my first building.

T

In portsmouth so um but the staircase I'm asking to move it to the back, I'm going.

T

To remove this, there won't be two entrances: there'll only be the one from the back down.

T

It'll add value and uh it's in the public's best interests or relocating the staircase. Multiple.

T

Reasons, one visually: it's just more appealing. It also will add value to the neighborhood, because.

T

Obviously, it's going to be more consistent with what's going on around it. Also, it's a safer.

T

um Entrance to the second floor, currently that end what no matter, what I have to tear down that.

T

Staircase, there's uh not only notches and splits, but two of the posts. Don't even re, meet the ground.

T

So actually, when you're walking up the steps is the only time it hits the ground the pulse, so we.

T

Have pictures of that there number 25, I believe, no right above it yeah it's right there, so we added.

T

That, just because I had inspect, I had people going upstairs and I just had to add something under.

T

That like blocking, but that didn't even touch the ground, so it's safer. um It won't be contract.

T

Contrary to the public interest, I'm relocating the staircase, it's going to add value. um Will it.

T

uh It will not be contract, contrary to the public interest, because um it's not safe currently and.

T

It's going to be safe aside from being unsafe, the public is looking at a deck on the side of.

T

The building it also won't be safe for future use. If I keep it on the side of the building, because.

T

It's right in the parking lot, I'm going to have to add steel beams, something or cement barrier. So.

T

When the cars come parking into the parking lot, I can't I don't want them driving into the staircase.

T

um It's most aesthetically pleasing and easier the spirit of the audience. The ordinance will be.

T

Observed because it will not threaten the health, safety and health of the general public on the.

D

Crown prairie it's going to enhance the safety and best interests of the public aesthetically.

T

Obviously, the property will be enhanced. It's the first step of many things. I can't do anything.

T

Else until I do the stairs, um the new stairs will have the land uh a land, two landings.

T

um Substantial justice will be done, there's no gain to the public to deny the variance it would.

T

Create a hardship for me because I would have to redo something on the side and I'm.

T

Going to have to build a bigger structure than that because I'm going to have to come around twice just to make sure I don't get into the parking lot. So I can have the 15 spaces still.

T

um The current location is unsafe. I think I that the values of surrounding properties won't will.

T

Not diminish be diminished. I believe this property has been an eyesore for a while. um That's the.

T

Reason why I bought it and I that's the kind of properties I look for. I think that it'll be.

T

Enhanced the values will will also increase after I finish and aesthetically, it's one of the reasons.

T

And also just it's more appealing, it'll, add more curb appeal, denying the variance for the steps.

T

Will create undue hardship as the cost to build a new structure where the current is will probably.

T

Triple and it won't look good it'll be huge, so that's all I have for the staircase is that how.

T

It works and then we go into the condenser or you want to go right into the condenser.

T

Go right into condenser, you want to do questions for the staircase I well. I've got. I've got a.

T

Question about purpose, and are you repurposing the building it used to be a little convenience store.

T

Yeah uh and uh it was never super busy or anything, uh but now it's got this gigantic residential.

T

Looking complex next door to it, yeah and so it's it's a mixed use. So the occupancy the last meeting.

T

I was awarded so we're going to put a cabinet a kitchen and bath showroom downstairs. I work with.

T

A lot of developers, so I have multiple showrooms on all the real estate and I warehouse cabinets.

T

And warehousing because I buy from manufacturers direct, so this will have uh kitchen and bath and.

T

I work with multiple developers that are starting to build in the area in southern maine, but it's.

T

So, residential, it's no it's commercial yeah, but upstairs is going to be in a three-bedroom.

T

Apartment: okay, yeah: you missed that meeting, yeah yeah, so I am renovating upstairs and I'm going to.

T

Make the staircase upstairs, I don't own any residential. All my property is a commercial.

T

Outside of the showroom too so I'm not sold on, I might keep it empty for a while, but that's.

T

What it's going to be could be an employee yeah. It could no that might not work out.

D

So yeah so uh with the condenser, um I need a variance because it's eight feet. Two inches.

D

um And to the fence: it's actually nine feet, seven inches, but it's eight feet. Two inches to the lot.

D

Line and I'm replacing two condensers right now, the systems do not work in the building at all.

D

The condenser uh one of them does work, but it's uh really I'm replacing both of them.

D

Just because I'm renewing them anyways and they're going to be located where.

B

I'm, where they're at right now so I'm going to replace what's there uh with new systems.

F

um All high efficiency, I'm even actually putting I'm not even putting.

F

um Water tanks downstairs I'm replacing because they have two bolt units are actually tied into.

F

One water tank when the other one went instead of buying another one, they tied it into two. I'm.

F

Putting on demand systems, so I don't have to worry about it when I'm not around and.

F

Then the two condensers that are going to go outside are goodman high efficiency, probably a.

F

Little more than I need for the unit, but they're quieter, so they're not going to turn on as often.

F

um Again, I ran by. I ran this all by the butter who wrote me a letter.

F

um uh They're, all for it and uh they're just gonna be right there. One of them is going to be.

F

Underneath uh by the stairs on the other side of the stairs, where it's at right.

F

Now uh so they're just being replaced, so the criteria really quickly. um It's.

F

Objectively, there's it's just going to replace. What's there right now, it's going in the same.

D

Location, um it is going to add value again because the other ones that are there one.

B

Of them there's no way that it wasn't noisy and one of them never worked. um Aesthetically they're.

K

Both going to match and they're going to go on the side of the building, you won't even see it.

K

From lafayette, because you got a fence there and there's bushes and you're not going to see it from.

K

Ocean, because it's in the back of the building, um it won't be contrary to the public interest.

K

And replacing the conduct, the variance will not be contrary to the public interest, because I'm just.

D

Replacing the condensers and re not relocating them, they're going to be in the same area.

D

um They're going to be against the building, it's going to be hidden in the back. You won't see it.

D

On the other side, my button won't see it because they have a fence and it's below the fence line.

D

And you won't see it from lafayette because of the bushes. You won't see a promotion, the spirit.

D

Of the audience ordinance will be observed because it's not threatening the health, safety and health.

D

Of the general public, if anything, I need heat and uh ac in the summer. It's just going to be part of.

D

The whole mechanics being replaced, 100 percent um substantial justice will be done. There's no gain.

D

To the public to deny the variants and uh it would create hardship, because I need obviously heat hvac.

D

um In the unit, the values of surrounding properties will not be diminished. Values will.

D

Not diminish rather it'll increase because it's again going to enhance the quality of.

D

The area and the home and the building uh unnecessary hardship, it would add hardship.

D

Because I need to heat the place and also putting ac, so that's all I have for the condenser as well.

D

Any questions, questions from the board anywhere all right. Thank you, sir all right. Thank you.

P

All right so we'll open the public hearing.

P

Is everyone here to wish us to speak in uh in favor of this application.

P

Is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to this application.

P

Is there anyone who wishes to speak too far or against this application.

P

See no one rise. I closed the public hearing.

P

The board discussion are some memos to make a motion one way or the other we'd appreciate that.

P

Ms eldridge, I moved to approve this application.

P

If there's a second all right, is there a second, mr mcdonald,.

P

um What's being asked here is really very simple, I think they're not asking very much. Despite that.

P

This building has been before us a dozen times a dozen times just last month. Yes, yes, well, you.

P

Know 12 times a charm, as I say, I'll give 13. branching the variants would not be contrary.

P

To the public interest, nor with granting the variants would observe the spirit of the ordinance.

P

There needs to be a staircase. He has limited places where you can put this.

P

Staircase- and I think that having it will not there's no neighbor to crowd, there's no.

P

It's not in a small space. It's a small change to a building that needs some upgrading um branching.

H

The banks reduce substantial justice, there's no harm to any neighbor while there's a benefit to.

K

Our applicant certainly number four granting the variants would not diminish the values of.

P

Surrounding properties, we're getting a new staircase instead of a broken staircase and.

P

We're getting new hvac units instead of one that doesn't work and one that's very noisy. So I think.

P

That this is an improvement of the property. The special condition is that there's really no other.

P

Place for the applicant to put these things without making them unusable either they're.

P

In fringing on parking spots or they're, not working with the interior of the building, those.

P

Are considerations that he needs to have and um not allowing this would not benefit anybody else.

P

In the neighborhood, so for those reasons I would like to move, we approve this application all right.

P

uh I agree entirely with what you've just said.

P

um The building the building has been one that I've been watching since 1990.

P

Why? Because because it's a spaceship, it used to be a weed lot and oh and now it's something.

P

Different and this building is like the kid who can't stay out of jail. Oh oh he's coming back here.

P

That's what happens now, maybe this time that's what happens at the convenience stores, goodness.

P

um So it will, it will be something that's good for the community good for the owner.

F

um Good for every it's a win-win, so I like it.

F

All right, thank you. So if there's no further discussion, we'll move to a vote.

P

Mr mantle, yes, mr mcdonald, yes, yes, uh miss martinson, yes, miss eldridge! Yes, mr rossi,.

F

Yes, mr metzen, yes, chair also vote. Yes, you are approved, sir. Thank you. So much have a nice night.

P

See you next month.

P

Moving on to uh number, if.

H

The request of jessica, kaiser and andrew mcmahon owners for property located at 232 wyberg street.

D

's relief is needed for the demolition of existing structures and construction.

D

Of a new dwelling with an attached garage which requires the following number: one: a variance from.

D

Section 10.521 to allow 66.5 feet of frontage where 100 feet is required. A seven foot right.

D

Side yard, where 10 feet is required and see a 12 foot front yard where 15 feet is required, said.

D

Properties located on assessor map, 149 lot 14 and lies within the general residence, a gra district.

H

Lu-22-198, who is here to speak to this application uh good evening, my name is tom emerson, I'm the.

D

Architect for the project jessica, kaiser, one of the owners is with me here this evening.

H

um In light of the hour I'll try to be as quick as possible. Thank you. You guys are probably familiar.

B

With this, this, the same property was uh before you earlier this year with the previous owner.

D

Who was uh flipping the project, uh then jessica and her husband bought the uh the property.

B

The uh jessica and her husband are moving to the property with their.

B

Family they currently live on spring street. They have three small children. This will be.

B

Continue to be a single family home, the plan is to to uh demolish the existing buildings.

B

And build this new single-family home, one that fits into the uh the neighborhood and diminishes.

B

The existing context it diminishes the existing non-conformance. uh I guess the the elephant in.

B

The room is wide demolished. The building, primarily it's got hazardous materials. The report was not.

B

Available at the time we made the application, but now the building does have significant asbestos.

B

And the bathroom flooring, pipe insulation, the paneling mastic and the all of the exterior siding.

B

um The other reason is that the uh the current configuration the previously approved applications.

B

Simply don't work for a young family. If you look at um in the application, we show.

B

Previously approved plan, you can't stand or sit in a public area of the of the house and look.

B

At a children playing in the backyard that just doesn't doesn't work for a young family.

B

um Additionally, uh we have the opportunity by moving the garage forward.

B

To eliminate the uh the vehicular pedestrian.

B

Intersection currently, if you want to get to the backyard from the house.

D

You have to cross the driveway which bisects the the path to the backyard.

H

And then also, if we move the the garage forward, they won't have to back out into weibert street.

D

That you currently have to do. I guess the second thing is: why can't we simply conform? If we're.

D

If we're demolishing all the existing buildings, primarily that's because the the site is only.

H

66.75 feet wide in 100 foot zone. um That leaves you 46 a little over 46 feet to put.

D

Everything in if you are to to meet the two side, yard setbacks where normally you have.

H

80 feet: if there was 80 feet, we wouldn't be here, we'd be able to fit the garage.

O

Side access the garage so that people can turn around and leave and not have you know.

F

Two days worth of garage facing the street with the wide curb cut and there's a place not to cast.

F

This versions, but there's a place, a couple about a block away on hawthorne, where that happened and.

F

It changes the nature of the block, walking down the sidewalk. It changes the massing it changes.

F

The way you feel when you, when you walk down the street and you'd rather not do that to widberg.

F

um um Given the hour we, you know, the application addresses all of the criteria. It also addresses.

F

The variances that that we're asking for the variants to have the narrower lot is simply.

F

Because by taking out the houses and the house in the in the garage, we have a non-conforming lot.

F

um I can go through all the rest of those if you'd like me to, but we could stand with what.

F

We've written so far and you could ask questions if you had them, maybe just to keep the paperwork.

F

Police and the powers and be happy if you can do that, that'd be great all right. Thank you.

F

Thank you. um The variants will not uh be contrary to the public interest, uh because.

F

The youth size, shape and dimensions of the proposed home are in keeping with the area.

F

The other requirements except lot size will be met and the property will be less non-conforming.

F

Than the existing conditions, the proposal reduces the intensity of vehicular use on.

F

The property, as well as the amount of lot given over to vehicular use there, will be no adverse.

F

Impacts on relative to lighting noise, vibration, runoff or flooding impacts on the neighbor to.

F

The right and the sidewalk will be improved. The visual environment will be preserved by increased.

F

Setbacks and enhanced by the aesthetic design the property is not in historic.

F

District, but is it but is in a distinctive location? Care has been taken in the design.

F

Of the home that fits in and the home will not adversely affect any kinds of natural resources.

F

That kind of addresses you know not being uh average to the public interest, uh granting.

F

The variants will not diminish the surrounding property values of brand new homes, larger than.

F

The existing one and without hazardous materials I can't help but improve the uh the value.

F

The not the denial of the variance results in an unnecessary hardship, uh the special.

F

Conditions that distinguish the property from the others in the area is that the.

F

um A lot, even though it exceeds the minimum lot size, is narrow.

F

The lot in the house existed before the advent of zoning, no fair on substantial relationship.

F

Exists between the general public purposes of the ordinance and the specific application in.

F

This instance, the purpose of the side yard setbacks- is to maintain space and light and.

F

Air and all that kind of thing we're just doing a little bit more of that in the existing condition.

F

The proposed use is reasonable. The proposal maintains a single-family residential use of.

F

The property which is permitted in the gra zone and substantial justice will be done.

F

By the granting of the variants, because the sepection of the neighbor on the right side.

F

And from the sidewalk of the front will be increased, the improvements to the existing.

F

Conditions include the removal of hazardous materials, primarily asbestos, but although.

F

There is some lead paint from the site and the minor variance requests will have no negative.

F

Effect upon the general public, however, denial of the minor variants will harm the applicant.

F

By creating a less safe, safe, vehicular exit from the property um and uh would require that.

F

Garage doors could face the street which will be adverse to the public interest in a visual way.

F

um And for those reasons, we respectfully request that the board of adjustment.

F

Grant the requested variances. Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant.

F

Thank you, sir alrighty. So is there anyone here that wishes to speak in favor of the application.

F

But here are the wishes to speak in opposition to the application.

F

Is there anyone here that wishes to speak too, for or against the application? Still in those.

F

Numbers all right seeing none rise. I close the public hearing. I move to approve the variances.

F

Second, all right, so your motion, mr rossi, the variance is not contrary to the public interest.

F

And the spirit of the ordinance is observed, I will not alter the essential character of the.

F

Neighborhood in a negative way, as a matter of fact, it's a substantial improvement over the existing.

F

Structures and we'll be more in keeping with the trend in the neighborhood, which is really toward.

F

Improving the structures around it, substantial justice is done because by improving the property.

F

They are not creating any negative impact to the general public and therefore there is no harm to.

F

The public that would outweigh the harm to the applicant if we were to deny this application.

F

uh The surrounding properties will not be diminished because of again the overarching.

F

Fact that this is a substantial improvement to the appearance uh and structures that.

F

Are located on the property and literal enforcement of the ordinance would result.

F

In unnecessary hardship, there is a special condition for the property, and that is that.

F

It is inherently non-compliant due to the 66 and a half foot frontage and that forces all.

F

Of the other variants, all the other variances that are required in order to accomplish this project.

F

All right, thank you in your second. uh I would agree all the.

F

um Propose are all less non-conforming, the current condition. So I support the motion.

F

Thank you so any discussion and I I will say that um I will support the motion. It does bring.

F

It uh it does make it less non-conforming. I think it's a shame to lose this structure.

F

um I understand the asbestos and the lead paint they're, usually ways to remediate that. But I I.

F

Do think it's a shame to lose the structure, but the purview of this board is the zoning and it.

F

Is less on conforming all right? Thank you all right. No further discussion, we'll move to a vote.

F

Mr mantle, yes, mr mcdonald, yes, can quit riding uh miss martinson. Yes, miss eldridge! Yes, mr rossi, yes,.

F

Mr matson, yes, chair, votius and you are approved, sir. Thank you very much.

F

Right and uh adam g, sir adam g, the request of thomas m hager hammer, I'm sorry, hammer revocable,.

F

Trust of 2015 owner for property located at 219 sagamore avenue, where his relief is needed to add.

F

An additional dormer to a previously approved garage- this must be dorm or not, which requires.

F

The following a variance from section 10.573.20 to allow a nine foot rear yard where 15 is required.

F

For the dormer, a variance from section 10.321 to allow a non-conforming building structure to.

F

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

F

Said property is located on assessor map, 221 lot, 1 9 and lies within the general residence.

F

A district lu-22186 who is here to speak to this application- I I'm the architect for the project.

F

Tony fallon tony fallon architecture- and this is a little bit similar to three topics ago, where.

F

You had a variance that was approved and there's a slight change. In this case, uh the approval was.

F

For a garage reconstruction, the existing garages rotted very in very poor shape and we proposed the.

F

Proposal in what was approved, the last time was to create a new garage and much better.

F

Shape that is further from the sidelines than the current one is and covers less slot area um and.

F

I would in the change the site changes at first. They had a one shed dormer proposed, and this one.

F

Just has a second shift dormer, so um let's I'm not familiar with this, uh but you can just see.

F

um You know the two [ __ ] dormers in that proposal. That's right there! If you'd, like.

F

uh What I'd suggest I could just run through what the applicant had for the five conditions.

F

And just kind of a fun note: I've really enjoyed over the last couple of years. The picture of.

F

Cava restaurant I designed that building and had a lot of fun in these halls. Getting that approved.

F

So- and it's just it was so cool to come in here and see that a couple years ago, for the first time.

F

F

We're here for that, um I'm not sure it was lively, it was very lively, but.

F

Will not be a country to the public interest is replacing a collapsing routed structure.

F

Will serve the public interest and provide a safe, stable structure with a greater visual appeal. The.

F

Addition of the dormer will balance the structure and add 52 square feet to the second floor.

F

The spirit of the ordinance will be observed. Item two are conditioned to. I guess the existing.

F

Property is currently non-conforming with the two-car garage. That is one.

F

Foot from the property line, creating a greater distance from both the rear and side lot line.

F

Is in line with the spirit of the ordinance we're also reducing the building coverage, increasing.

F

Open space again with the spirit of the ordinance condition, three substantial justice will be done.

F

Allowing this variance request will create a safer environment for the community and there's no harm.

F

To any of our partners will also allow us to continue the use of the property as intended.

F

Condition for the values of the surrounding properties will not be diminished. The removal.

F

And the reconstruction of the two-car garage will improve the appearance of the structure. I.

F

Guarantee you that it will not diminish the value of any butter's property uh condition. Five little.

F

Enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance we result in an unnecessary hardship. The purpose of.

F

This project is to be able to utilize the existing two-car garage for its intended use. Rebuilding the.

F

Structures necessary for this use, as previously mentioned, this is, and I'm confirming lot and the.

F

Literal enforcement would result in a hardship, so any questions I I do have one question, sir: how.

F

Does the addition of this dormer change the rear yard setback from the existing one foot to the.

F

Proposed nine feet: the dormant changes that that's the delta between the old rotting garage and the.

F

Proposed garage, so that's that's more like what was previously approved, correct, exactly and so. The.

F

Dormer, there's no additional variance requested it's just because it's the three-dimensional.

F

Aspect of it, it's nothing, there's nothing in the footprint. That's changing here. Okay,.

F

Okay, all right! Thank you, sir. Thank you all right, so I'll open the public hearing.

F

Is there anyone here that wishes to speak in favor of the application, anyone that wishes to.

F

Speak in opposition to the application run down there and raise my hand, please don't anyone that.

F

Wishes to speak too far against the application, so you know when rise. I close the public hearing.

F

And uh discussion, or some of the mistake, make the motion we're open to that.

F

Oh gee, sorry, mr massive, would you like to make your first one? That should be an easy one.

F

F

All right, I am, I moved it. Thank you. Thank you somewhere.

F

Second, oh, thank you there. You go all right, mr mandel, your motion, please let me get my screens.

F

Back up, um we've already seen this. um This is more of an administrative variance, because we've.

F

Already approved it and just adding a second dormer to the garage um criteria, 10.233.21 and.

F

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

F

The variants would observe the spirit of the orange. The finding is yes for both of those.

F

10.233.23 granting the variance we do substantial justice. Yes, it would.

F

Granting233.24, granting the variance would not diminish the value of the surrounding.

F

Properties, uh no, it would not it's actually improve them and, lastly, 10.233.25 literal.

F

Enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship.

F

The property has special conditions that distinguish it from this other properties. In.

F

The area and owing to these special conditions of fair and substantial relationship, does not.

F

It does not exist between the general public purposes of the ordinance provisions and the.

F

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

F

Yes, it is, um and just like the previous application.

F

The lot becomes less non-conforming and for those I will made the motion. Thank you. This.

F

uh Elder your second, please, I have nothing to ask all right. Thank you so for any discussion.

F

No discussion: okay, we'll go to the boat, mr mantle! Yes, mr mcdonald, yes, mrs murchison, yes.

F

Mrs eldridge, mr rossi, yes, mr metzen, yes, chair also votes. Yes, you are approved, sir. Thank you.

F

Thanks for hanging in there, I make a motion to adjourn well, we have. We have other businesses.

F

Let's just make that motion.

F

To bring in a cut, apparently we have no other motion. So a motion to adjourn exactly.

F

It's a stone here: okay, all right, all in favor all right returned. Thank you.

F

Yes, we are we're going to be back here on tuesday.