Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Just make sure you remember to appoint.

Okay, Brenda, you're on. I was going to say you're stuck with me again. I'm so glad to hear it. [laughter] way worse fates. I can imagine. [laughter] I'll keep my comments to myself. All right. Um um I assume the word got out. There were members of the public, I think, that were planning to to come for the second case that was withdrawn. There's nobody here. So, yes, Kirsten has helped field some people who have showed up to come in and just told them right away that

All right. So, so um case whatever it was in terms of numbers I it's item 4.2 here. I don't know what the case number was. Oh, 0348 is not going to be heard this evening. Now it's official because I said so. We on the air. Okay. Let's consider the meeting uh in order. Welcome ladies and gentlemen, all both of you to the uh regular January meeting of the conquered zoning board of adjustment. Uh we will hear the cases in the order in which they appear in the agenda, which means there's one case and we'll hear it first and last. Um it's case 4.1. We'll ask the appellent to come forward for any testimony that they would like to hear. We will then uh solicit testimony from the floor if any from people who are interested in the issue. And following that, we'll check in with code enforcement to see if there's any discussion uh from their office that we need to hear. And then assuming that there has been any testimony that seems to bear factual clarification, the appellent will have the opportunity to offer that clarification, not new arguments, prior to our closing the public testimony portion of the hearing after which the board will deliberate and act. Uh we have a four member board tonight. If uh Mr. Sergeant, if you wish to delay or defer, you do not. Okay. You understand that the fact that it was a four member board is not in and of itself grounds for a request for rehearing. I do.

Okay. With that, we'll hear uh discuss case 4.1, Mark C. Sergeant of Richard Bartlett and Associates LLC on behalf of property owners Douglas and Patricia Hicks. Request of variance from article 284 development design standards section 2841D minimum yard requirements front yard setback table of dimensional regulations regulations dimensional regulations. The property is known as tax map lot 28Z34 located at 131 Shaker Road in the medium density residential district. This is case 0357. Mr. Sergeant, good evening.

Well, good evening. My name is Mark Sergeant and I am with the firm of Richard Bartlett and Associates and I am here tonight representing the Hicks. Uh, as you mentioned, uh, Mr. Chairman, the property is located at 131 Shaker [snorts] Road. Before you start, there's I I want to interject something.

Sure. which is bears on this, but there was considerable discussion uh in advance of this case about whether or not a variance was required and we I believe you all got a copy of a brief opinion from the city solicitor who um concluded that it was required. So in other words, the code enforcement was correct in deciding that that a variance is necessary even though the building exists and within the setbacks. So, uh, is it the consensus of the board then that we we agree that the case should be heard as a variance? Yes. Yes. Yes.

Very good. Uh, with that, please proceed. Okay. Uh, where was I? So, [laughter] just before I interrupted you, which I just did again.

Thanks, Chris. So, the property has an area of uh 14.73 acres. Um almost thousand feet of frontage on Shaker Road, and I'm sure everybody's familiar with it. It's just located north of the the Shaker Road school. It's the home of uh Doug and and Patty Hicks. So, the Hicks are proposing a subdivision that you can see on the plan there in the upper kind of right hand corner, the northern portion of the property. They'd like to cut off a lot for single family residents in there. Uh the new parcel would meet all the current requirements for area frontage, buildable and usable areas. Uh and uh I can't even read what I wrote here. But anyway, the long and short of it is we had to come here because uh the regulations require that anytime anything is done to the property lose loses all grandfathering. So here we are and uh the existing home right now is 13.8 ft off the rightway of Shaker Road. Uh so it it encroaches on the front yard setback. The house was built in 1771 and interestly enough the road wasn't laid out until 1838. So I don't know if the road is encroaching on the the house or the house is encroaching on the road. So um anyway that that's pretty much how simple it is. If you like I can go through the you know what I had outlined for the criteria.

Why don't you do a quick tour of of uh your rationale?

Okay. So I don't believe it's contrary to uh the variance would not be contrary to the public because encroachment upon the front yard set pre-date zoning the request will not increase nonconformity. If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because the structure predates zoning in the front of the building and encroaches the front yard setback is a small portion of the overall structure with approximately 34 ft of front yard from the closest point of the building to the edge of the pavement of Shaker Road. The spirit of the orders will be observed. All other dimensional requirements will be observed. Granting the variance will do substantial justice because granting of the variance will permit the parcel to be subdivided, creating one new lot for single family residents on property that greatly exceeds all other dimensional requirements. If the variance were granted, the values of surrounding properties would not be diminished because the encroachment is existing and has been in place for decades. Granting the variance or denying the variance will not change the status of the encroachment. The parcel to be created as a result of the variance will meet all the zoning requirements and thereby not diminish surrounding property values and as it pertains to hardship uh I selected that the proposed use is reasonable. The subject building was built in the 1700s which distinguishes from most properties in the area. applying a dimensional requirement that did not exist at the time of construction is unreasonable and therefore there's no fair relationship between the modern zoning requirements and buildings that are over 200 years old. Uh and the second part of that the existing use single family home will not change and the resulting lot if the variance is granted is a is a reasonable use. So with that I take any questions you'd have.

Are there any questions from the board? Any questions? Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there anyone who would like to be heard in favor or in opposition to this appeal? Is there any comment from code enforcement or planning? Uh, no. I just wanted to thank the board for again for um putting in the extra [clears throat] the extra homework and and kind of navigating the the questions that have been brought up and and to come with a clean interpretation that that we can work with. So, I appreciate the board's input and guidance on that. It's been very helpful for us. You're entirely welcome. At least to the extent that I had.

Very good. Uh with that, we'll close the public testimony portion of the hearing and um invite the board to speak up on the subject. Starting with Miss Perkins. I am glaring. No. Um I don't have a problem approving this variance. It's a small encroachment and like he said it existed the house existed prior to the rules any rules miss I agree it makes complete sense we're just drawing a line on the map and it's a really interesting question as to whether the variance was necessary at all very good Mr. Monahan,

I have nothing to add. Nor do I. Would anyone care to make a motion? I move to grant I'm going to put on my glasses. I move to grant the variance for article 284 development design standard section 284-1D minimum yard requirements/H front setbacks table of dimensional regulations because all of the criteria under RSA 67433 have been met based on the record before us and to adopt the applicant's proposed findings as the board's findings of fact. Is there a second? Second. Is there any discussion? All in favor, please say I. I. Anyone opposed? Vote is unanimous. The variance is granted.

Thank you. You're welcome. Are uh as far as do we have minutes from the last meeting to approve? Um yes. First, um I think for for clarification, I think if the board would make a motion to accept the withdrawal for cases 42 through 410, that way we can neaten up those applications and and have a formal decision that the board accepted the withdrawal request made by the applicant. May I hear a motion to that effect? So moved. Is there a second? Second. All in favor, please say I.

I. Anyone opposed? Matter is retired. Thank you. Um, so back to the September minutes. We don't have Oh gosh. [laughter] All of the members in attendance. Those minutes are never going to get approved. September. So they're going to have to be preserved in Amber till next meeting. We now still have to approve the September minutes from 2025. But hopefully we're free to move forward with the December minutes. I actually didn't read them. I didn't see them. Okay. So, we're moving the minutes. Well, well, I guess we'll take a look at the December minutes in February. Sure. Look now. We do that.

Can you email them back out if they did go out? Can you email them back out so we can review them ahead of time? Yes. Yeah. I I think I didn't look at them either, and I It's negligence on my part, I think. But I It's the holidays. Uh yeah, we're blaming the holidays. Yep. Regardless of your race, creed, or religion, it's the holidays. you've forgiven all sins. Uh the the uh uh but it probably would be helpful to send the board at least a link so that it we it comes to our attention. I I do it special. If you could send the attachment that would be easier for us like we're 10

just the minutes. Okay. Well, the idea being that as soon as the minutes are available, send them out. Okay? Or send the link so that uh okay, we can we can take a look at it. Then we we run out of excuses by the time we get to the meeting. [laughter]

Very good. Uh other issues I can we're supposed to elect officers. Yes, sir. I guess can we do that with just three regular board members or we can. Okay. I'm [snorts] sure it's going to make it official, right? [laughter] Need a motion to nominate who you think should be chair. Chris. [laughter] Second. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, please. Done. I I I got to have three of us in order for it to [laughter] to work. Now, I think Nick was vice chair before chair prom. Is that Do we have a formal pro chair prom? I don't think you do, but I think he he assumed that role.

Okay. I don't know the history if it was ever a formal appointment. Well, he's not here, so I nominate him. [laughter] Yeah. Is there a second? It's been moved and seconded. This is what happens when you miss a meeting. [laughter] All in favor, please say I. I. Anyone opposed? Nick is drafted. Is there any other business to come before us? Not that I have. All right. We got one case next month. Yes. Did you already swear me in? Yes. You to act tonight? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Oh, yeah. You were appointed tonight. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I Do we all have to go get sworn in at the city clerk? You and Jim are February. Okay. Council,

depending on the vote. And you Yeah. [laughter] Yeah. Um, I hear it's gonna be a hot topic. Where are my Where are my glasses? Where are my be so deep into the consent agenda? Nobody know it's there. January council meeting. We should probably [clears throat] council meeting is I move that we adjourn. Is there a second? I'll second. It's moved and seconded. It is favor. It is other business before the board. We're adjourned. But the um council appointment