Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Okay, we're on. Good evening everyone. Welcome to the November zoning board meeting. Um, tonight we have several cases. Uh, we're going to be hearing variance requests and I I don't believe we have a special exception, just variance requests. Uh, normally how we conduct business is that I will read the case, then I will ask that the applicant come forward, and I'll ask you to confine your remarks to 15 minutes or less. Be short, concise, and to the point, please. And then I'll ask for anyone who wants to speak in favor of the of the appeal, and I'll ask for anyone wants to speak in opposition to the appeal. Then I'll get comments from code enforcement, and then we'll close the case, debate it, and decide usually that evening. Then I'll proceed to the next case. [snorts] We have an issue tonight with As you can see, there's only four of us at the moment. I expect a fifth member to show up soon. So, we can either begin with a four member board for anybody who wants to be heard by a four member board. You are, however, entitled to be heard by a five member board. And should we deny a case, grounds for appeal uh would not be available to you because we only have four member board. So, you need to decide if you want to be heard by a four member board or a five member board. I also have a conflict tonight uh with a case involving uh 3.1 advantage signs um and also 4.3 Foxy Property Management and there's one more in here and I'll be recusing myself from that. So, is Mr. Dupri here or anybody representing Mr. Dupri? So, at most you'll have a four member board for that case. So, [snorts] you can either be heard tonight with a four member board or

you'd like to have the case heard next month with a five member board. Thank you. There's a chance it'll be a three member board though, right? I suspect that LA Specta Morgan will be here. She's she's a currently at a meeting and whenever that meeting ends which is right now [laughter] so you you will then have a four member board. So Laura I have to recuse myself on three cases. Okay. All right. So we can actually begin now with with our first case. So case 3.1 advantage signs on behalf of Steven Dupri. Would like to be heard right now? Yes.

Okay. So I'm going to recuse myself. I'll read this for the record. Advantage sides on behalf of Steven Dupri with a license agreement with the city of conquered request approval for a one-year extension on the variance ZBAO93 2023 approval to allow an off- premise sign at tax map 583 ZOD 8 unressed North State Street in the institutional is district ZBA326-2025. Would you come on forward and Mr. Moahan will be acting chair and I will step down for the moment. Good evening. My name is Josh Messenger. I'm with Advantage Signs.

I need to swear you in. I'm sorry. Let us know who you are and you swear that you will tell the truth. Yes.

Great. Thank you. Uh and if you haven't already, um sign in. I don't. But anyway, we've all reviewed the the application, but if you'd like to take a few minutes to tell us what it is that you'd like to get done, that would be terrific. Yeah, this was already approved as a variance and I'm filing for an extension because it took time to gather funding for the project. Um, and with the winter, we're not going to be able to do the project until the spring. So, it's just timing didn't work out in our favor on this project. So, it it's already approved. It's just an extension is what we're asking for.

Okay, great. Thanks. Uh any questions of the board of the board? Okay. So if I can check with code enforcement some uh it's it's uh extensions. It's a onetime extension. You would not be able to return for another extension. You have to start the process all over again. So you're aware of that. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Great. Thank you very much. Yep. Have a good day. Uh is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of the um application? Oh, no. We haven't granted it yet.

Uh, is there anyone here that would like to speak in opposition to the application? Okay, great. Uh, any comments from code enforcement? Uh, no. This was just um a public meeting for you to make a determination of whether or not you're going to grant the extension. Free to make a motion to grant extension or not. Good. I will entertain a motion. I move that we grant the extension. I'll second the motion. Okay. All those in favor say I. I. I. All right. The matter is approved.

Okay. Uh, Mr. Wallner is returning to the chair. [snorts] Yeah, I think I'm done. No, you had a few more. Four minute hearing. I like your the pace you said.

Okay, we have the next two cases are for the same applicant. So, I'm going to read them both into the record. Uh this continued from September 3, 2025 by the applicant Walter Walter Dratner requests approval for variance from section 2841D1 minimum front yard requirements table of dimensional regulations to permit zero setback where 10-ft setback is otherwise required along the front property lines village street and lilac street for an addition of decks of on an existing building and uh require request permit lot area of 534 square f feet where 11,500 square feet is otherwise required for the conversion of an existing non-residential building to a two-unit building at tax map lot 1431 P58 addressed at 81 Village Street in the downtown residential RD district not a development of regional impact ZBA 0297 2025 Mr. here. Please come forward. [clears throat]

You sort of tell the truth, all truth, nothing but the truth. Yes, I do. Wait, tell us what you want to do. Well, uh, we apply now from three apartments to two apartments. The issue was the parking lot, not enough parking. And what happens is if it's three, the parking lot has to be big enough to go in and turn around and come out. If it's two family, you can go in and back out. So wait, you mean according to the rules, you don't you don't have to you're allowed to back out if it's two. If it's two family, you don't need that variance anymore. No.

Okay. So uh convert it from three to two and basically I think I'm I'm okay now. So if anybody have any questions regarding this I'm I'm willing to answer them. So, are you are you adding any square total square footage or you're just renovating the existing building to turn it into a two unit?

We we're using the same building, same square footage. The apartment is going to be much bigger from around 800 square ft to,00 square ft each. You know, two bathrooms, you know, we're going to be from regular to more or less luxury type of apartments. And also they will have a storage area underneath the building. So So the um this the setback by uh the setback into the 10-ft setback and the size of the building are both the same as they were when it was used for the furniture storage. Yes. Okay.

Questions? So, I'm sorry. The footprint is the same as when it was a storage. Yes. Okay. Yes. Everything is the same. The only difference is now the people going to have storage underneath, you know, on the basement. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Does anyone want to be heard in favor of the application? Anyone will speak in opposition to the applicant? Please step forward. You just want to tell truth the whole truth. Nothing but the truth. I do. State your name for the record, please. Chris Steven,

one St. Catherine Street, adjacent to property we're speaking of. Great. What would you like us to know? I would just I'm a little confused with the whole parking thing at this point. All of a sudden, we don't need to have parking. So, I'm just kind of curious where we're going to have parking where we originally we needed six spaces, now we only need one space per unit. And I still don't see where that parking is going to become available on that particular [snorts] property. So, I want to clarify that we're not saying, "Okay, we don't have six parking spots, so we're just going to park in the street." Because that was my original concern this whole time. We're not being asked to grant a variance for parking. So

I can clarify this. Clarify for you. So the law changed so that there's only one parking space per unit now required. So where it was a three family, he was going to need a lot more parking. Now he's condensing it to a two family. So now each unit needs one parking space. Mr. Dratner did submit revised plans. If you go to the second sheet, Stephanie. So back here, he's proposing to have the parking lot off of Lilac Street and there'll be two spaces off of Lilac in that parking area creating a driveway there.

Wait, I'm sorry. Lilac is when you say off of Lilac, that's part that's the subject property or different this is a plan from 1998, but he used this same lot. So the parking would be on this side, not Village Street, but it but it's it's the subject property is where the parking is, correct? Yeah. Okay. Thanks. There will be no off street parking and is that the new state law? Because previously would have been two a total of four, right? Yes. So now he only needs one by law, right? Yeah. He only needs two total. Total. Yep.

Okay. That addresses my concerns. Follow maybe. So, as I recall when this case before us before there was a there was a request for variance to the parking requirements. Correct. So, some of the public testimony we heard was about that. That's not before us tonight because he's it's no longer correct. And he's modified his plan to be more um accommodating to those initial concerns with the parking requirements. Correct. Yep. That's my only concern. That's all I had to ask. Thank you very much. Good evening.

Thank you, Mr. Stevens. Yeah. Is there anyone else who would like to be heard? Any comments from code enforcement? All righty. Start off with Mark. Um I do see the hardship the same as it was. I don't I was not at the September meeting, so I didn't see it at that time, but the previous time this was before us. Um law obviously changed so he's not required to um provide as much parking and he's not required to come to us for the variance for the reversing motion is that the other part of it too

so um the it's an existing structure um it's making use of a historic structure um so I I see hardship um I'm inclined to grant experiences

I'm inclined grant both variances as well. Um I I don't know whether the existing structure is being reused or not, but it certainly is a historic structure on an oddly shaped and existing lot. Um there's really no way to build on this lot without needing variances for lot size and for setbacks. Um so there definitely is a hardship arising from the property. Um it is not going to alter the essential character of the neighborhood which is largely residential and rental. Um and again this is consistent with what has always been there. Um I don't see how it will diminish surrounding property values and uh substantial justice. Uh there would be no substantial justice in denying the variance because again the property can't be used without either of these variances. So I would be inclined to grant it.

Yeah. I agree the the the lot is virtually unusable for any practical purpose if if you enforce the setback strictly or the density strictly and um he's he's a perfect candidate for the law which is intended to improve um the ability to to develop housing. Um so I agree. I have nothing to add and I concur with my colleagues. All right. You pretty much stated all the reasons for approval. Do you want to [laughter] for the reasons I've already stated? I would move to grant both variances.

And adopt the Do we still have to do that? Yeah. Okay. Adopt the applicants finding as fact as the boards. Sure. That was your motion second. Second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. I. Any opposition? There's none. So motion carries. Five nothing for both variances. Yes. So now I need to recuse myself for the next two cases. My tablet. You want to move your computer? Do you want this?

Yeah. Okay, moving on to item 4.3 Fox property management request of variance from section 28-4-1 um C minimum lot frontage to permit 50 ft of frontage where 100 ft is otherwise required. The property is located at on an unadressed lot on Little Pound Road uh/penuk street known as tax map lot 651/Z68. Uh the variance request is located in the single family residential district with the remaining portion of lot located in the open space residential district. This is not a development of regional impact. Uh and is the application for me? Yes. Yeah. Great. Um, I just want to remind you that we are a four member board right now. Uh, you have the right to have a five member board. Uh, if you elect to move forward with four, uh, as you're aware, you wouldn't be able to appeal the decision based upon not having a full board. So, could you all introduce yourself and then we'll swear you?

I'm Steve Dupri. Sean Arnold. Great. And do you all swear to truth? Yes. Great. Uh, we've reviewed the application, but if you want to run us through what you think is important for us to know, that would be quick.

I will. Uh, I didn't bring a poster boat up, but I just want to show you so people get a feel for this. Uh, when you drive along Rumford Street, there's Granite Place. Those of us who've been here a long time know it as Chub. A few years ago, uh, the south building was sold to the state of New Hampshire so the Department of Justice could move so that the legislature could build their new garage. Prior to that, the north building, the state administrative office of the courts occupied half the building. They have an option to purchase the building. the legislature as part of its budget exercise the option. We're in there doing work for them right now and we anticipate that they will buy it in March. As part of the deal with them, because I was taking something and paying $300,000 off the tax roles, I insisted that we keep this front land for future development, which has an appraised value of about $2.7 million. I was going to either sell it or donate it to somebody like Catch to turn into tax. The city of conquered administration manager and deputy city manager have approached me and asked if instead I would donate it to conquer to let them guide the development which I've agreed to do on the condition that it provide tax base in the future. In order to get the density here to make the value you have to count in any developable land on this whole large piece. So, we've come together. We've got this kind of crazy plan that takes this land, connects it to this back land, and over on that side as well to get the density. Our ultimate plan is to take all that this lot that we're talking about with this variance and put a either donate that or put a covenant on it restricting it to recreational use only either for the city of conquered if the city wants the park or five rivers conservation trust. For those of you who haven't been out there, this this has got about I would say 12 miles of bike

trails on it substantially and hiking trails substantially larger than Swope park right now. It'll be wonderful addition to the city. Um they will have access down off Peduk Street. We're keeping an access here as well. Um but this is the backland. Um [snorts] this is referring to right now specifically. There was a 50 foot frontage created here long before there were houses here. And I actually think the 50t frontage existed before the current regulations requiring 10020 ft. Um goal is to a 10 and a half acre lot here to create a single family lot. There's a small single family lot here. So the variance we're requesting is to use 50 ft instead of the required frontage. Here's the downside. If we don't get that variance, I can still access this land by coming up through here. If I come up through there and build a road at that expense, number one, will adversely affect all the neighbors because trees will come down. Right now, they look out on forest other than where I've cleared my lot. And number I have to put in a road that long, I'm not going to be able to donate the land. I'll have it's zoned for cluster development. It be developed. None of the neighbors want to see development out there. I don't want to see development out there. So, just carving off this one 10 and a halfacre lot. We have a lot small lot down here. And then putting the easement on it will preserve this land without being disturbed. Again, I could create the frontage requirement, but if I do so, it will It'll require me to put a road all the way in. If I have to go that map back up that you were just looking at.

There you go. Okay. Thanks.

All right. We are keeping a lot, but I'm also keeping an access point here that exists in case the city decides that they want to use that at some point to build the driveway and a parking lot in for the park and accessing the trails out here rather than coming through here, which I think the city intends to sell to create tax. If I Get the variance though. I have to bring a driveway in here or here. And if I come in here, it goes right behind all these houses. Cuts down all those trees. That's just what you have to do to build a road, which nobody in the neighborhood wants. I don't want to do and probably would not be the use of this as a recreational site. John can go through the different legal requirements, but that's what we're trying to accomplish. Save the land. do the minimum amount of disturbance create tax base.

Um, so I guess just to just to touch on the project generally to put it in perspective, it's about 150 acres that would get donated to the city and about 130 or 135 that would be preserved in a easement recreational use uh for public or or the city. for Steve's comments. Uh I just want to I guess I want to address first uh a comment on the staff memo. So our variance request is uh framed as asking for 50 ft of frontage where 100 ft is required. That requirement comes from the RS zoning district. Uh the staff memo points out that the uh lot that we're creating, this 10 and a half acre lot is bisected by the zoning district boundary. You can see it in the dashed line uh going through the property right there. and the the left and top side of the properties in the RORO district. The RORO district, there's a 200 foot frontage requirement. Um, and the staff memo notes that if the house is built in the RO portion of the property, they believe the 200 foot requirement applies. Um, we don't know where the house is going to be built yet. And so, I just want to clarify our request tonight is to allow a lot 50 feet of frontage. Whether the requirement is 100t or 200 feet, what we have is 50 on the road right there. And that's what we're asking for. And which zone is that access point in?

It's in the RS. Thank you. But does give you any concern when the notice says where 100 ft is required? It doesn't give me a concern with the notice because I think our request is still for 50 feet. Whether the requirement is 100 or 200, I think everybody's on notice that we're asking for a frontage variance to allow 50 ft. John, that notice also references, let's look at it again, that it's in the single family residential district, but I think what you're suggesting is it might be in a different district. Well, it's partially in the RS, single family residential. It's partially in the RORO, um, open space residential.

So, um, the application has all the variance criteria in it. Would you like me to give just a brief summary of that or Yes, please.

Okay. Uh, so on the public In the spirit of the ordinance, uh the variance won't alter the essential character of the locality. The lot that we're creating here is 10 and a half acres, uh which is significantly larger than the other house lots you can see on the map. And the benefit of that is that the house will be set back significantly from the street and the other houses. Um so visually there really won't be any change here. There'll be one more driveway coming off the frontage, but driving down the street and looking at the neighborhood is not really going to have any uh any impact to that character. there won't be any threat to the public safety, health, or welfare. Um because with the frontage with 50 feet there, uh there's still plenty of room to put in a um compliant driveway uh that will be wide enough to uh serve emergency access vehicles and provide safe access to the lot. The um planning board, I would note, has granted conditional use permit for the location of the driveway um on that front ditch already. on substantial justice. Uh the balancing test, will the variance harm the public more than it'll benefit the applicant? Uh I don't think there's really any public harm here. I think that based on Steve's description of this uh project, there's a substantial public benefit. The variance is part of a much larger project that results in 155 acres being donated to the city and 130 something being preserved as recreational area for uh public use. On property values, um there won't be any negative imp um with 10 and a half acres for the house lot. Um as I mentioned, the house will be well separated from the other houses. It'll be well buffered from the other houses. There'll really be more separation and buffering uh between the proposed house and the existing houses than between the existing houses today which are all lined up along the street. Um and also related to the preservation of that recreational land um in this area. I think that's likely to enhance surrounding property values. On the

hardship um the property is unique for a couple of reasons. One, it's really a massive property. I mean, the property overall, the lot, the existing lot today is 107 acres. And when it's combined with the other land that Steve was talking about being part of this project, those properties will be merged. It's over 150 acres and that's just not like any other properties in this vicinity. Um the second thing is that the property has a really unusual configuration. The existing lot today um if you Yeah, thank you. Scroll down just to touch you can see it has three separate frontages. Um but they're all non-ontiguous and that's what that's what's creating the issue here because when you add up those frontages there's uh just shy of 250 ft of frontage but it's in three segments. And so under the zoning ordinance, they all all need to be contiguous to, you know, count towards the frontage requirement. And that's where we have the issue. If they were contiguous, there'd be enough frontage for um, you know, two lots there. The general public purpose of the frontage requirement is twofold. Uh, one to ensure safe and adequate access. Uh, and two, to prevent overcrowding of the streetscape to maintain that separation between development along the street. But here because the property is so large at the 10 and a half acres as I mentioned with the house being set way back it's not going to have any impact on the streetscape so there won't be any overcrowding in that sense and with the um the provision of a 50oot access 50 ft worth of frontage uh and that driveway coming through there uh that's more than enough with in order to provide a safe and adequate access for emergency vehicles. So I think that in this case due to the conditions of the property both of those public purposes are served and um proposed use is reasonable. It's a single family home on a 10 and a half acre lot in a residential neighborhood. Um, you know, as Steve mentioned, at 100 plus acres, the property could develop for be developed for a much more

intensive use. And um you know when you view the variance request in relation to that um the impact on the neighborhood or the abutters or the city on granting this variance is going to be much lesser than a more intensive development um out there on that property. So [clears throat] I think the proposal of creating an oversized house lot and donating 150 plus acres to the city is um really a good thing and the variance makes sense. Okay. Uh any questions of the board? There is in the materials it said something about two house lots. There's the other one. Yeah. The down. Yeah. Bingo. But that

Oh, but that one doesn't need the frontage, right? Oh, so it's just an aside, but that's not the Yeah, we're just trying to show it to Yeah, got it. Um, I'm good. Just the the lot is owned by Foxfire today. Uh uh Foxfire manages it for two granite place by two granite place. Uh is it two or one? It's two grand place. Two granite place LLC. Foxfire is the designated agent just because I get all my mail there. All right. And that's in the packet that document that says that Foxire is here on

I own Foxar and I own two granite place. So I'll give myself permission. Oh yeah, I see it here. It's in there. Okay. I don't know what that signature is. Great. Thank you. Um, stick around if uh Okay. Uh, is there anybody here that would just to speak in favor of the application? Please come forward either on the way up or on the way down. Make sure you sign the uh sign in. I did before I got here. Great. Thank you. Tell tell us who you are. My name is Martin Perroso. And where are you from? I am uh I own property the buddingis in 72 Penoke Street. Great. Can you swear to tell the truth?

I do. Thank you. What do you want us to know? Uh this is a long history because I was born and raised there and my parents bought. Could you put up the other map, whoever it is, that I can show where mine is in relation to this? I've never met Steve Duker before, but I have a lot of good things to say because I've heard so much about what he's done and he's written to me a couple times because I'm going to butter. Okay. Uh so 72 Pentac Don't go too close.

72 Pentacle Street is right here. And uh originally my father bought the land that goes up here and down here to it that goes over here and down here. This was 33 acres and then uh back in the 80s, he sold off land to ch life along the proposed road that was here. So I and this was the uh five of my father's brother and sister who needed a piece of land and so he gave them all a piece of land they built right across from the reservoir. So and they've all moved out since then. I purchased the land this property from my estate of my parents and I still own this little piece here. Um and I've probably shot 25 rabbits here when I was a kid. It's a really nice forest and There's a lot of wetlands in here, too. It's pretty swampy in here. But I did have a question that maybe you can answer. Um, I do understand it's 50 ft where you need 100. And on the map that I got, it has several lots that are shown as other subdivided lots, I guess. Um, so we have lot one, two, three, four, which is not depicted anywhere that I've seen. It's not really part of the you guys.

I think that I need somebody to tell me. Is it the 10 acre one? If I get permission to put a driveway in here, it's 10 acres. If you say no on 50 ft of frontage and we add this on, does lot two become part of lot one? And then if it needs even more, does lot three become part of one, two, and three to finally meet all of the frontage needed. Um that I don't know. It would be a shame to have if that is the case and you have to have all three. Why does the driveway have to be here in order to go all the way over there? Can I speak to this? Yeah, I was going to if you're okay, I'm going to let

the case that we have before us is just for the 50 ft of frontage for the 10acre lot which would be there. Um there is another subdivision coming forward that they have presented to sent to the planning board. better notices just went out, but tonight we're looking at the 50 ft of frontage because the way that our zoning ordinance is written um frontage needs to be contiguous. So when they subdivide that other piece off the the frontage won't contiguous anymore. So that's why we are request they're requesting the variance for the 50 ft for the 10acre lot there.

Okay. Thank you. That that even though it's not part of the case and I was when when Steve was giving us the overview was part of his rationale for why this is should be granted because of that other development. That's the future of what he would like to do. Yeah. Okay. Yes. Right. But you're focusing on the 50 ft of frontage for the 10acre lot. Right. This this is the only thing today. Yes. That is correct. And if this is denied, a new proposal will come up to this board. I cannot speak for the applicant. It'll be up to him.

Right. So, my understanding is if this is not approved, there could be any changes, including a driveway coming in from the opposite way or starting to add additional things on on this map. Can you show me again where your home is? Uh, Peduk Street zigzags across here and I'm right in here. I own all of this. So, do you have the sledding hill? Go ahead. What? The sledding hill. It's a little farther down. It is. Okay. Oh, yes. back when there was a double pit. Yeah. And and I snowmobiled all over this stuff and walked and hiked. And in fact, I'll give I have 15 minutes. Yeah. Seconds here. There's a right down in here. There's a uh

where my dad had built a log cabin in the 1930s from the logs that had come down from the chestnut trees. And there was still a chimney on that property over there that I'll

making good TV tonight. Thank you. Uh yeah, I think that's all I have. I I think it's a great thing and I think that the first proposal to me makes the best sense for all of us to be able to have all of that undeveloped. The other concern I that most of conquered and all of New Hampshire has is boy, if that was developed, we'd have a lot more housing for all the people that need housing. But we don't want to develop everything we own. The front part down towards Roford Street is a great place to do that. Can't sled there anymore, but uh it's a great place to have that kind of thing. And this looks like it's in line with what everyone wants. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Uh is there anyone else who wishes to speak in favor of the application? Seeing none, is there anybody here who Oh,

someone [snorts] has something to offer that might not be for or against. Is that right? I'm like, does it have to be I have question? You can reserve. Yes, I'm happy to let you speak and you're here. So, good. I never knew what you look like. Great. Can you tell us Can you tell us your name and where you're from? Yes, my name is Moren Anderson. Um, I can't do two things at once. And I live at 126 Penoke Street and Okay. Can I just ask you to I just need to swear you in. And so, thank you. Can you tell us that you swear to tell the truth? Yes. Thank you.

I mainly had questions. Um, I too got this map. the same as he got. And the question was, he has it done out in six sections here. And what parts are going to go where and how was that determined? And I know he wants to live in this little part here because we got two letters now from Mr. Dupy. He wants to live here provided he can build the house and make it work. But in all the subdivision, how much guarantee is there that it's going to stay undeveloped or will it get sold to somebody who can then I want to build a hotel or I want to build something more. I know I well that we're thinking of the hotel mogul. Sorry. Um we're thinking a lot about you all in the

Excuse me. Excuse It just be better if for the record if you address it to us and then the applicant have the opportunity to answer questions if he chooses.

We know that Mr. Dupri develops a lot in conquered and we do not want this developed. It's right behind our houses. We bought it for a reason. When Chublife originally bought the land, they bought it hoping that it would stay hiking lands and so on. That happened back in I don't know way back when they bought it the first time. Um, and it has been rumored throughout. And then it went through Lincoln Financial through a few companies and now here we are and we don't want to see it developed. But what guarantees are there that those parts aren't going to be developed? I live along the third section he has here. Um,

for the record, we don't have that as part of our do. So, so this is we're kind of getting into a territory that is is not what's in front of you tonight. Um, so while I appreciate getting the overall view of what's going on, the what's being discussed tonight and decided upon tonight is the frontage issue. So, when this when this project moves a little farther along, I appreciate that, but I do think we'll give the applicant the opportunity to answer the question. And I do think it is part of the presentation that it would that this this frontage request is based upon the value of the the the rest of the projects. Right. We weren't talking about the sub future subdivision.

So I'll get to I'll get to code enforcement when she's done speaking. So if you could continue.

Um but the main part is those other two access points that were on Penook Street. If driveways were made, could they be made into roads which could then be reached and developed beyond that? Um that there's just questions on how much can be developed behind there based on driveway frontage and if you allow one driveway frontage with a variance, it sets a precedence. Am I for or against it? I don't know. I would hope that it's going to be only the one house and maybe the variance can be there. But if he can't get that variance, he's going to extend and extend. And how much can be made through? Can you turn a driveway into a road starting residential and going into the other part? There's RS and RORO. So, can it can it be done that way? Um, and those are just questions like I don't know. I don't know the zoning. I don't know all the laws. I haven't found a whole lot on the I keep looking and you can't find a whole lot just in conquered and what's what and what's relevant and current. So,

okay. It was just questions that I had. It wasn't for or against. It's questions. Okay. Great. While you're here, there questions of the board. All right. Thank you. Okay. Uh, is there anybody else here who wishes to speak for or against or is unsure yet but still would like to speak. Okay, great. So now if the city staff has anything to to offer, please do.

Yeah. Um, regarding the minimum footage and addressing Mr. Arnold's comment about requesting that the board um grant the variance for frontage for the lot in general not distincting the zone where 100 feet or 200 feet. Our zoning ordinance says that no um no buildings or structure and this is for minimum uh frontage. No buildings or structures shall be constructed and no use shall be established on a lot having less frontage than the minimum dimension indicated in section 284-1. So that is why if he does build in the RO zone, that's why that comment was there because our zoning ordinance specifically calls out that he has to have the minimum fronted in that zone. So even though his driveway would start in the RS, he's building on a lot in the RO zone. So that's where that comment came from, just to give you a little background history regarding that. Um,

but do you you agree with what Mr. Arnold said that the amount of frontage they need will depend on which zone they actually build in? Correct. And and do you agree with what he said that that it if we grant it for 50, it doesn't matter if what the what the hearing notice said? You're asking for less right now. What the notice says right now is less than what the request would be. The RO zone requests 200 ft. The RS zone requires 100 feet. So strictest would apply. So if he was asking for the RO zone, I think we would be having a different conversation because he would be having less. But where he's requesting more, that's where the difference is. Okay. Oh. Oh, more of a

correct because you need 200 ft in the AR zone in order to build on a lot in that zone. So, that is where that comment, you know, came from. Stephanie, I don't know if you have anything more to add regarding. Uh, no, just for the to focus on the application that was noticed in front of them and understanding that it is an overall picture, but to compete your decision making based on the frontage requirements and not not a teacher subdivision for the property. Okay. [snorts] Uh the applicant have any thing that they would like to address that came up in testimony.

Yes. At this point, no decisions been made which of two zones the house would be located in. So it might be that it is in the zone that requires 100 ft. Part of the house might be sitting in the zone that's 200 feet. Whether it's 200 feet required or 100 ft required, we're still asking for variance for TF have only 50 feet. I know we're staying on topic. The only point I would make is that we the donation to the city has a restrictive covenant that no further use, no further development ever occur on the property. That's the condition of my gift to the city.

Okay. Any questions of the board? Okay. Thank you. Can I make a comment regarding the house even though they don't have um building permits yet? There is um a section zoning ordinance that allows you if you do have split zoning. Um you can get up to I believe it you can choose 40 linear feet which is not very much to be able to choose what zone you're going to so just keep that in mind as well. [snorts] And did the application say RS or RO? Um, pull it up. I believe it says RO because I think it says RORO. Says RORO.

Yeah. Okay. The application says RO. Well, it says it on the uh Yeah, the application says it's in both with most of the property in the RO, but a portion of it in the RS. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Um Um Why don't we take the temperature of the board? U start with um Laura.

I think it's grantable. Um as John noted, the purpose of frontage requirements are basically to ensure that there's safe and [snorts] sane access and to control density. I think whether you have 50 feet here or 100 feet or 200 feet, you have adequate access. and it's a 10acre lot, so the density is not a problem. Um, it is a weird lot and there is this 50-foot access strip. Um, it makes more sense to utilize that strip than to build a road from any of the other access points both [snorts] environmentally and financially and from good planning. um building a house, there's a reasonable use. You know, there's no good reason to apply the zoning ordinance to this particular piece of property. Um it's not going to diminish surrounding property values and I don't see the justice in applying this 200 ft strictly here. So, I would be inclined to grant the variance.

Um I'm also inclined to grant it. I'm I'll add the it is an oddshaped lot and if the applicant were made to do the driveway to one of the other two potential frontages that would make an even more oddly shaped lot um and it meets the neighborhood character of the single family homes. One thing that's interesting is a lot of a lot of times we hear arguments along the lines of well everyone else in this neighborhood is already sort of in a setback or you know is is somehow already not in compliance. So that you know is an argument why we don't have to be too. Here it's it's the opposite. All every other house on that road is in compliance with the frontage and in my mind that means that if they are out of compliance it's not going to be noticeable. you know, be it would be different if they were the first house on the street and wanted 50. And then you're like, "Well, wait a minute. Now, if everyone else goes for 50, that's really going to change the character because, you know, but here, because the houses are probably far enough apart, if someone's driving by, they're not going to know if one specific lot has 50 when the all the others have 100 or more. So, so in my mind, you know, and also as the others have said, you know, due to the the very unusual nature of the lot and um to have to use the frontage farther down, I think it was explained would would be uh sort of an unnatural way and an inefficient way to develop it. And I think that would be a hardship. And I I'd also say in my mind, I'm not I guess I appreciate a little bit what Mr. do previous explain about the whole big picture of the project, but I'm not really even factoring that in. What whatever else they can do with it or can't do with it, it's going to be for a different forum.

Yeah, the donation doesn't really weigh in. Yeah, it's interesting background, but it's not a factor for me. Can I also add I feel like we we've had a couple RO cases like this where there's like a weird tooth sticking out to get a weird frontage situation. Like this ringing a bell for me anyway. Yep. Okay, great. Before I go and close the record, I just I had a question for Miss O'Brien. So, it looks like um there's a cascading set of things that have to happen and so the sub after this project leaves the zoning assuming leaves the zoning board. Can you tell me will planning

they have an application before or coming before the planning board for November? Okay. And that might be an opportunity for a butters of people concerned about the guarantees and if is it in conservation notices went out on Monday. So right so that might be in a more appropriate form to raise some of those questions. Yeah.

Okay. Great. Thank you. I would welcome a motion at this point. I move that we grant the variance from section 2841C minimum lot frontage H table of dimensional regulations to permit 50 ft of frontage for the construction of a single family dwelling at unressed little pond road/pook street because all of the criteria under 67433 have been met based on the record before us and I move to adopt the applicant's proposed findings as the board's findings of act. Second. Okay, it has been moved and second. All those in favor say I. I. I. It is unanimous and the application is approved.

Okay. Uh moving on to item 4.4. Uh John L. Arnold on behalf of property owners the Arts Alley LLC in Foxfire Property Management request a variance from article 28-6-9BI to allow three new building signs totaling 122.6 square ft where a maximum of three building signs and 73 square feet is otherwise allowed. Uh the property is known as tax m tax map and lot 7412Z37 located at 20 to 22 South Main Street in the central business performance district. Um if you could um introduce yourselves and tell us where you're from.

Steve Dupri. I'm the developer. Great. And you're still well just to be safe. Do you swear to tell the truth? Yes. Great. Uh we've all read the application. if you want to walk us through um uh the high points and tell us what you want to do.

Uh I think some some of you may have been here when we started this project on the board. We had a few variances. I'm not sure anybody on the planning staff was, but at the time we said we couldn't assess what the signage needs would be till we actually saw the thing go up. So, uh we've built the project. I think it's been well received as an addition to conquered. the only sign and we met with the former planning director and staff and understand the signage requirements within the property that don't about face out or aren't visible from the street. Um, but when we originally did the project, I brought a few pictures. This is from across the street uh right by the Red River Theater sign. When we originally did the project, we have a sign proposed down the alley for the venue. This is 5,000 ft of meeting space. This is a seasonal bar up top. Obviously, this is the friendly toast. They got their sign permit. And we have a proposed sign to go in the alley so that once you go down the alley, you'll know how to get to the venue. Uh it didn't take us very long though after we opened and that's one of the reasons we didn't come in with a signed package originally. Uh we wanted to see how traffic flows. Most of the people who visit this property [snorts] are doing exactly what we hoped and that is using the garage because there is enough street parking. So they park on the garage and they come over and then they go, "Where's the venue? I have a bar association meeting." Now we've got a proposed sign we're going to put in the alley. But even with that sign, we'll show you. I'll show you that in a minute. Even with that sign in the alley, if you're coming out of the garage and you're standing across from this building, you cannot figure out what the venue is or where the rooftop bar is. So, uh, we we looked at that and said, "All right, what we'd like to do, uh, is put a sign here. This

is the venue. You can see it on that." Perfect. So that people coming out of the garage know that there is a venue there. They still have to go down the alley to get in. And people are going into the friendly toast asking how do they get to the venue. Uh hindsight's 100%. Maybe should have put the entrance to the friendly toast in the sign down there. And then we have the same problem because of the visual height. Uh and it's uh and I'll show you from farther back. You can't see that that's a bar. So hence we wanted to put one up on the third floor above the Airstream trailer. Here's farther back when you come out the garage door. You can see when you come out the garage door again, you can't see any signage we have down the alley that we've proposed. And it's even harder to read that there's a separate venue there. So, uh, what our goal is is to put a sign here. You see the venue so that at least when people come out, they aren't going where where is the project? Some people have gone into the Bank of New Hampshire stage going, "Is this the venue?" Not an unreasonable question considering it is a venue and ditto with that. And then um the other sign The only other sign we have and we at least had the forethought because when we went to ADR, even though it wasn't part of our sign package, when we went to ADR for the project, we did show that we wanted putting mounts for a vertical sign. So once you come into the alley, once you go towards the Bank and New Hampshire stage, you go, great, I've seen a sign for the venue. How do I get in? Once you get past this front door, we get variances. You'll have a sign here, a vertical sign. Um, and that's really the total signage for it. Uh, once we get inside, we are going to put a an art sign down here, but not an advertising sign that has the name of the bar out back. Um, that's the signage. That's just the background of what we're asking for and John will walk through specific specific variances, but

we very deliberately did not come in with the signs ahead of time because we just didn't know how traffic would flow where most of our traffic over 80% of our traffic is parking in the garage, which is exactly what we want because if you've been in that garage after five o'clock, the top two levels are completely empty. Not like a lot of downtown garages. So, we think that's good. John, you can.

So, um I guess just to hone in on what we're asking for here, um there's three new signs that are being proposed. One is a 19.7 square foot wall sign for the main venue facing Main Street, right above the windows on the left side, the cursor is. Second is a 30 foot projecting sign for the main venue in the alley on the north side of the building. And then the third is a 72.9 square foot wall sign for the rooftop rooftop social up on the facade of that rooftop deck. So um the friendly toast sign is already there. So with the friendly toast signs and the proposed signs, there's a total of five building signs on the building. We're proposing three. There are already two existing. With the five building signs in our proposal, there'd be total of 176 and a half square feet. So in the zoning district, we're allowed to have three building signs and the maximum sign area is a function of the building frontage. So the building frontage here, meaning the width of the building facing the street is 73 feet long and under the ordinance, it means we get 73 square ft of signage. So the ask is to allow three new building signs totaling 122 square feet um for those three signs. And then I'll on the variance criteria briefly, but the main theme is basically that, you know, the building here is not particularly wide, 73 feet, but it is relatively tall, having three stories and three different users on each one of the three floors, three different businesses. And the the nature of those businesses being bars, restaurants, event venues depend heavily on being easily identifiable not only to, you know, people walking down the street looking for a place to eat or grab a drink or but also people actively seeking out the location. And I think when you look at

the sign drawings like what's up on the screen right now, um I mean it's obviously subjective, but I think all the signs are relatively modest and tasteful. Um this isn't excessive signage in my opinion. I think it fits in well to what's in that area. So on the public interest on the spirit of the ordinance, I don't think the proposed signs will alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Um there are a bunch of signs, but they're all spread out over the facade, both in terms of height and you know, left to right. So it's not like a big cluster of excessive signage. Um and individually or collectively, I don't think they're either oversized or distracting. In terms of the neighborhoods, Steve pointed out the building's right next to the um conquered theater of New Hampshire uh stage that has, you know, more prominent and and uh larger signage than what we're proposing on this building. So, in that sense, I don't think it'll change the character of the neighborhood. Uh the signs won't threaten public safety, health, or welfare. um no substantial justice criteria, the balancing test. Um the signs won't cause any public harm, but they will benefit the applicant. As I mentioned, the buildings here are restaurants and bars um

meeting space

and meeting space uh entertainment venues. So, they rely heavily on good visibility um for people as I said both passing and seeking out the particular venues. So, in that sense, adequate signage benefits the public, it also benefits the applicant. on property values. There won't be any negative impact there. The development as a whole has been a big hit, been really popular down there. Made the downtown area a lot more vibrant. The signage really ensures the long-term success of those businesses by making sure they're identifiable. So, I think that's a good thing for property values in the area. Um, this is kind of what I mentioned to begin with. Uh, the property here is unique because the building's relatively narrow and tall compared to the other buildings in the area. And it means that it only gets 73 square feet of building signage and it has three distinct separate businesses on three separate floors. And the issue with the buildings on the upper floors is that they're inherently um they inherently face a challenge in being prominent and visible to patrons. So signage up there and and large enough signage is important for them. Um the general purpose of the sign regulations is to provide safe and adequate identification of businesses um so that they can succeed but also preventing the unsightliness and potential potential hazards of excessive signage. And I think the proposal strikes the balance between those kind of two competing factors. I don't think as I said that the signage is overwhelming or too large or distracting. I think it's attractive and tasteful but big enough for people to be able to easily identify those businesses. Um, so I think that's it unless you guys have questions.

I would just add one note. I know we're starting a whole trip through and you folks will be involved in master planning, but 200 yards from here down in the store street mall. It's being really done and I know those developers. Well, um, that signage because they have such tremendous frontage is billboard sign yet you can in front and if it were a small sign you could see it. here. If you park in front, you can't see signage and that's really creates a hardship. Tall building, narrow frontage, hard visibility, and three separate businesses, which isn't usual. Okay, questions. the board. Andrew,

are there one the one I'm kind of thinking about is the the rooftop one because that I know that there have been gradually some additional I guess you could say skyline sty you know types of signs. Um but the are there any other signs on that side of the street that high up? Uh yes. Oh, not that side of the street. the other side of the street. Obviously, Conquered Hotel. Conquered Hotel. That's much higher, right?

We actually have a permit at 100 North Main Street on the um on the east side of the building, the very height of the building, and we just don't illuminate anymore. There's a big blue eagle that was five stories up. Um and in this one, what building is that? 100 North Main. Used to be the Eagle Hotel across from the state house. Oh, yeah. Sure. Where Rebel St. So you have a permit of Yeah. It's been there for 30 years. Yeah. Right. Okay. Right. Um

the the other thing I just the challenge is even with this sign up there once you get across the street on the uh on the west side of Main Street, you'll be able to see the venue sign. You won't be able to see the rooftop social sign. This literally will be visible to people coming out of the garage or people on the east side of Main Street. Yeah. You literally can't see it. I mean, it's just it literally is so that when people hopefully use the garage as the primary place to park, they come out, they go, "Where is the venue? Where's the rooftop social?" Did you need any kind of variance from us to to go that high up there or is that allowed by right?

Oh, no. We were our first draft was five stories. You'll remember. We kept chopping it down. But even now it's you Yeah, we're way below. We could Oh, below. Yeah. Yeah. We're way below the height on the on the sign height. I would just point out that initially our application included a request for the height. Um it's not being heard by the zoning board tonight because the staff determined that we needed to go to the planning board for a conditional use permit instead. So the request tonight is really just about the number of signs in the area, but the sign height, which I think you were asking about, is a separate separate issue that's not before you. Oh, I'm sorry. You're probably looking at our application because we had it in our application but removed from the agenda. Okay.

Okay. Other questions? Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of the application? And is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition to the to the application? Any comments from staff? Okay. Great. I'll start with Andrew for this one. Thank you.

Um I mean I mean I'm these sign these signed cases are always challenging. Of course it's a unique property. It's it's a well-developed property. I mean you could say they created the hardship so to speak because they they built it. But I think you know it's generally considered very welcome positive development to a building that otherwise may not have gotten you know this type of use. So I mean I'm inclined to grant it although I do I always get concerned with these sign cases that you know it's it's a slippery where the exception kind of swallows the rule. But but I think it would be unfair to kind of deny them when we've granted you know similar similar sign variances for other buildings in this area. Mark,

um I'm inclined to grant it. Um because even just from the photo that was provided in our packet, I felt like the venue alone was kind of hard to read. So, I'm kind of sold. I could also see the argument for safety for now that there is going to be signage on the street, cars may not stop like looking around for where they're trying to go. But he's also said that they've been mostly going to the garage, so that's probably a good thing, keeping the traffic flow moving. So, I'm in I'm in support of it. Uh Laura, observations, I don't find these cases hard at all because our sign ordinance is stupid. So, I'm all in favor of granting it. [laughter]

But that's why I find that's why I find them hard. Okay. Great. Um,

uh, I will not ask you to make the motion then, but [laughter] I I I'll I'll move to approve because I think that it's a it's a unique building. Um, it's a it's it's a unique design and it's not prim the the variance request is not primarily designed to sort of gain additional advertising, you know, at expense to the neighbors. It's primarily designed way finding and overall attractiveness of of the of the development. So I I would um move to grant the variance as to the square footage allowed and just pull up the language here. Um, so I move to grant the variance from article 286 section 2869B1 A and B to allow 199 189.7 square feet storefront wall sign where 137 square feet is allowed and a side elevation sign of Oh, wait. I'm sorry. I'm looking at the wrong one. I apologize. There's multiple signes. Um uh strike that last. So I move to grant the variance from 28691 B1 to to allow three new building signs totaling 122.6 feet were a maximum of three building signs in 73 square feet is otherwise allowed at 20 and 22 South Main Street because all 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 by. Uh all those in favor say I. I. I. The item is approved. Thank you. I'm going to return the gavl to Mr. longer.

You almost got lucky. I almost granted your motion by accident. [clears throat] This is done. This is done. Change the ordinance. We're just going to grant Oh, I know. I know.

All righty. Our next case is uh 4.5 Interchange Development LLC requests variance from article 28-6 sign section 286B 9B1 Abb to allow 199.7 ft storefront wall sign where 137 square foot is allowed and a site elevation sign of 129.9 square ft for a total of 319.2 2 ft of signage where 137 square feet is allowed. The property is known as tax map and lot 06P56 located at 14 Merchants Way in Gateway Performance GWP district not a development of regional impact CBA3292025.

This way we introduce ourselves first. Do we sell? No, I swear you went first. Do we swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Yes. Now tell us who you are. All right. For the record, my name is Heather Dudco, 27 Old Meeting House Road in Auburn, Mass, and I'm representing American Sign, who's the sign installer for Marshalls. My name is Lari Rosio, and I'm here on behalf of Interchange Development LLC, the landlord. Hey, so tell us what you want to do.

Okay, so uh Marshalls is will be a new tenant in the plaza on Merchants Way. Um I am told that the building has not been built yet. So we are um far ahead of the project. Um and they are proposing a front wall sign and a sidewall sign. Based on the tenant frontage of 137 ft, the total square footage for signage would be 137. Um based on the building height and the width of the side elevation, Marshalls is proposing um they feel appropriate sized signage um for visibility. And on the front it would be a 6 foot letter 31T 1 inch wide totaling 189.7 square foot. That would be over the front entrance. The side sign proposed at 5 foot by 25 foot 11 inch at 129.5 that is positioned on the elevation um to be viewed for customers um by market basket and HomeGoods. So there's no entrance on that side but that was that's proposed visibility for the customers on the that end of the plaza. It's um their typical branding, the blue letters. Um you see Marshalls everywhere. Um they have the typical branding. Um and they do a study based on the height and visibility and traffic um to to appropriately propose um the signage there. Do you need me to go through the criteria?

Yeah, just touch on it, please.

Okay, sure. I'm just going to go for my application if that's okay. Um, granting the variance would not be contrary to public interest because the signage has no visibility from a residential area and no adverse effects on public interest. This is a retail plaza. Um, there's multiple buildings, multiple signs. Um, and it would be consistent with what is in the plaza there now. And it would serve the public interest to those customers need to identify this new tenant in the plaza. If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because this is similar signage and in keeping with the area in the retail area and the ordinance does allow for building signage. U we also had proposed an under canopy sign but that was asked the um architectural review asked us to remove that and we did um because they felt that um that would be more appropriate if there was um more like a strip mall. So that just have the two wall signs proposed. Granting the variance would do substantial substantial justice because the tenant is considered an anchor tenant and the signage is similar to the other anchor tenants. And as I said, they do feel that this sized sign is visually appropriate on this size building. Um the values of surrounding properties would not be diminished. It's a commercial shopping plaza. Um, and there'd be no diminishment to any of the retail stores there or any of the surrounding properties. And it's consistent with what's in the plaza now. And they just they feel the hardship um to conform to a 137 square foot sign. If they were to install something of that size, it would be

the letter height. Oh, sorry. I have it all here. While she's looking for that, where is this building going? Oh, it's um going to go between you know where the service credit union is? Yeah. Okay. And right now we're building a Viva Tarteria across from that. It's it's it's the middle of that. U-shaped parking lot. All right. Thanks. Need to reduce the sign to a 4ft letter height um to accommodate the code. And they feel that that's not appropriate visually on the building.

And these are six feet on the front six and on the side is five. So it's I'm not too familiar with I haven't been up there much. Wait, can you Yeah. Is it in the same build? A separate set of buildings than the than where the market basket is. Look up here. Here's Market Basket, right? That's Market Basket. Okay. Okay. I know where the liquor store is. Um, so we're down in here.

Yeah. Unfortunately, this is a pretty old um comprehensive development plan that because it was at the time that Market Basket was being built, that was the current proposal. It's since changed quite a bit. So, where that proposed retail is that you just circled, that is where it is. It's just not that shape. And right now that's just empty parking lot. That's right. It's it's a it's a lot it's getting ready for the is that is any other store going to share that or space or it's going to be entirely

Yes, it's been through planning board already. It's been through planning board a number of times. It's um I wish we had the site plan here but um so Marshall's is the majority of the building. It's 23,000 square ft of 30,000 31,000 foot building with the front door facing north and the east wall facing um Market Basket and HomeGoods is the long wall where they want the second sign. The west wall of the building will face essentially the new hospital building which if you haven't been up there there's a new hospital building uh conquer hospital walk-in care and that will have multiple tenants on facing west. So, we may or may not have any other tenants on the north wall. That is yet to be determined. If anything, we'd have a small tenant,

but they'll need a sign, right? Yes. But they would have their own frontage. So, their sign is based on only their frontage, not the frontage of the building. So, each tenant gets assigned based on their frontage. And the frontage is calculated based on that that road is considered. Yeah. The road in which you get the access to, which this one would be Merchants Way, which is the road to the north. Oh. circular the kind of rounding the main road that leads right to Market Basket. That's Merchants Way. Okay. So, their entrance, Marshall's entrance is on Merchants Way, the front entrance. Thank you.

Anything else regarding the criteria that we should know in terms of hardship? Does HomeGoods have a side sign or just a front sign? They don't. They don't have a side sign because it faces what I'll call the back industrial lot. There's There is nothing in that area. Okay. So, in this case, the side sign for Marshalls would face a pretty large parking lot where you could share. You could park in the middle of the lot in front of Market Basket and HomeGoods and then walk over to Marshalls because you'd say, "Oh, look, there's Marshalls." And then on the north side, you would be seeing this sign from all of Merchants Way as well as all of Route 4. So it's a it is the main attention grabber sign.

Yeah. But it seems like, you know, based on the frontage on Merchants's Way, almost every we must have granted variances for Market Basket and HomeGoods, right? Yes, he did. So almost every every store built here is going to need a variance, right? No, not necessarily. Some have some have asked for varants for additional signage because some of the buildings are facing two different directions. So they've put sign on the back side of a building which is becomes the front side depending upon which way you come into the building. Um but but yeah, HomeGoods and Market Basket, they generally look for larger signage to kind of match the size of the building.

Those are actually in the packet. Oh yeah, them. Yeah. Thanks, Any other questions? Jim. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone who would like to be heard in favor of this application or is there anyone who like to speak in opposition to this application?

Code have any comments? Uh I would just like to previously note that in the staff report I had um wrote that case number 6321 to allow 482.42 ft for a sign at market basket um where 200 ft. So we have you the board has approved previous signs for that that area for market basket and then for homegoods it was a square footage of 25675. Okay. Thank you. All right, with that, I'd declare the hearing closed and start off with Jim.

Uh, yeah, thank you. I'm inclined to support this. I think uh there's a lot going on in this campus, retail campus here, and so proper signage will get customers where they're going and not wandering around parking lots and roties and stuff. So, um I think the wisdom of the sign gives us the flexibility for this to move. All right. It's a really busy site. It needs good time in favor of the

I mean I I have the same very similar comment as the last as last meeting but I'll instead of repeating my pontificating I'll [laughter] just agree with what Laura said earlier that you know obviously the ordinance doesn't really match anything they're doing here and they've created essentially this entire development that really is not affecting anything remotely. So don't see the harm.

What um we keep getting these applications for these national chains just because of the way our sign ordinance is written. So I'm for that and all the reason not that's not the reason but for all the reasons for me I'm inclined to support it. I am too. I mean, this campus is going to continue to enlarge and I think uh identification is going to be a key issue for the folks who going to visit that. So, anything we can do to ease that process, I'm inclined to support.

So, at this point, would like to make a motion. I move to grant the variance article 286 sign section 2869B1 A and B to allow 189.7 ft storefront wall sign where 137 ft is allowed and a side elevation sign of 129.9 ft for a total of 309.2 2 ft of signage where 137 square feet is allowed at 14 merchants way because all of the criteria under 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. Thank you. I'll second

and seconded. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. I. Anyone oppose? Motion carries.

Five to nothing. Good luck with that. Our next case tonight is Juliana Sheldon and Michael Buchard on behalf of property owners Jennifer and Charles Baker requesting variance from article 28-4 development design standards section 2841D3 minimum sideyard requirements HH table of dimensional regulations permit the construction of a detached garage with a 4 foot setback where 15 ft is required. The property zone is tax map and lot 1421P28 located at two Albert Street, excuse [clears throat] me, in the residential single family RS district, not a development of regional impact ZBA 03322025.

Let's do this. Do we do we swear to tell truth, whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes. Great. State your name for the record, please. My name is Juliana Sheldon. And I'm Michael Buchard. Great. And as of today, we are now the official property owners of Two Auburn. We closed. [laughter] Congratulations. So, so tell us what you want to do at two Auburn Street.

Yes. So, we are looking to build a detached twocar garage at the end of the existing driveway. Um, we have a pretty unique lot. Um, two frontages, no backyard, and a sideyard. Um, so we've also looked around in the neighborhood and I think we included in our packet just examples of other detached twocar garages of the neighborhood. So, you know, with New England Winters, we're looking to put cars and strollers in a garage. Um, yeah. So, speak a little bit to the hardship.

Yeah. So, I think just coming, you know, with snow, my husband's a 100% disabled veteran and having to shovel out cars in the middle of the winter is not really something we're necessarily looking to do. We have a seven-month old daughter that we want to make sure her strollers, bikes, all that can be put away in a garage instead of out on the street. Um, I'm familiar with the lot, but speak to the uniqueness of the lot and why you can't put it in anywhere else. Why you can't scoot it a little bit?

Yeah. So, we have So, the front the two frontages have even larger setbacks. So, if we moved So, the gray box is what we're proposing and if we moved it, we would be within the other setbacks of the front of the other two sides. Um, and the driveway as it stands is we're trying to put it right at the end of what the existing driveway. Um, and we do have we have talked to our butters at 6 Auburn and we did include they're okay with it as obviously they would be the most impacted and we did include a letter from them saying that they were okay with our proposal.

The side of the lot on Liberty Street also slants back sharply um, which makes putting it too far that that way significant. Um, the but there's a slant on the property going towards Liberty. Okay. We have some pictures that we added. It's a pretty big slant and obviously this is a a pretty historic site at the top of the hill and if we were to move it a little bit further it would kind of impede the view from the roundabout and we definitely won't keep as much authenticity and historic nature of the property preserved. That helps. Thank you. Yes.

Any other questions? Yeah. Do we have that letter? I didn't steal our packet from the from the neighbor. Oh, here it is. I am the owner of the property at 86 six Auburn Street which Yep. It's in packet. Thank you. There's only impact of the stone wall if it's in the historic district. Is that right? Really like that. I don't know if that I don't think that's our scope anyway, but Stone walls can only not be touched if they're boundaries. Got it. Okay, great. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application or is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition to the application? Comments from code. Just that it is a corner lot. So, our zoning ordinance says that corner lots otherwise has have multiple frontages on streets. So, they shall be They shall be observed as frontages and sideyards. So there's no rear yard setbacks. So they would have to adhere to the frontage in the sideyard. And I believe that zone, my computer wants to work with me. I believe it's a 25 foot. That's what it looks like.

Yeah. So they would have to meet the 25 foot and the 15 foot because they don't have a rear yard set back. Okay. Thank you. And there's also a little another frontage right here on Vernon Street, which would add, you know, additional hardship to relocate the garage, the proposed garage. Mark, what do you think?

Um, I see the hardship. um with the slant on the Liberty Street or going down toward the Liberty Street frontage um and the need for a safe place to store vehicles and whatever else they would need. Um I I see the hardship on that front. It is it'll match, as they pointed out, it matches the detached uh garages elsewhere in that neighborhood. um and does not um alter the character of the neighborhood. Jim,

uh yeah, I uh support it. I think this is we we generally support them in garages because they add value to the property. Uh and the um the slope in this property suggests that this is where it belongs. Yeah, I I agree. I think that that you know, typically we we think it's a reasonable use to be able to put a garage on [clears throat] a single family property and here, you know, it's really the only logical place that someone would put it uh without having to do extensive construction. So, I think that's reasonable. I agree.

And I do too. I drive by that place at least two three times a day and uh um it's quite a pronounced hill on the Liberty Street. I mean, it would be a real challenge to do anything with that. So I mean obviously Glad supported at this point a day. Yeah. I mean it's my main He's a busy guy. Jim go down Albert [laughter] Street all the time. Oh yeah. It's a hight traffic traffic street. Yeah. Nice going the little roundabout that trying to make the turn to go up Aubbert Street is always always good fun. Yeah. So who would like to make a motion? I'll move.

You will? Great. I I move to grant the variance from section 28-4-1D3 side setback H table of dimensional regulations to permit a side setback of 4T or 15 ft is the minimum setback allowed for the construction of an attached garage at two Auburn Street in a single family residential district uh because of all the criteria set forth in RSA 674 colon 33 have been met uh based on the record before us and I move to adopt the applicants proposed findings as the board's findings have packed. I second that. Great. Uh any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. I.

Anyone oppose? Seeing none, motion carries. Five to nothing. Congratulations. Enjoy your garage. All right. Our next uh applic our next request is in two parts. I'll read them both into the record. Suzanne and Robert Aldrich request a variance from section 2841D1 minimum front yard requirements H table of dimensional regulations in RSA 674 col 33V to permit the construction of a porch with a ramp with a 5 foot setback where 25 foot setback is required tax map lot 753Z42 addressed at 14 Marian Street in the single family residential RS district. Also the request of variance from section 2841D3 minimum sideyard requirements age table of dimensional regulations NRSA 674 col33 v construct a porch with a ramp with a 10-ft setback where 15 foot is required at tax map lot 753Z42 addressed at 14 Marian Street in the single family residential RS district not a development of regional impact ZBA3432025 and ZBA333 20225.

Good evening. Do we swear to tell truth, whole truth, nothing but the truth? For the record, please tell us who you are. I'm Robert Aldrich. Susie Aldrich. Great. So, tell us what you'd like to do.

Well, we want to um we want to add a front porch, a small front porch because we used to own uh six acres up in Pittsburgh, New Hampshire. We lived up there for like 15 years and we had a hobby farm and so we uh and we we had an eight 8 foot porch up there and he used to sit on the porch a lot because that's all he he's a Vietnam veteran and he's got a lot of um disabilities. So the porch adds a a nice touch to for him to be up on the porch to you know enjoy the weather and um also yeah and also um it'll be easy access once we have the porch up. It'll be easier access for him to to uh go to the driveway um to get in the car. You know what I mean? film.

So, where's the porch going to be in relationship to that picture right there? Like, see where all the rocks are in the front? Okay. Okay. From the from the um it's going to be 32 feet long and six feet out only. And is it going to wrap around the house? No. No. No. It's just going to be in the front. Okay. Do you think the uh porch should give you more room to make the ramp easier to get in and out of the door? Yes, very much so. We don't have a we don't have a diagram what you're trying to do, do we? Sort of. Sort of. Okay.

Do you have a contractor or Yeah. Plus, it's going to be um easy easier access for him because if you look at the front of the house, there's a uh the big picture window is where he sits and that's where he'll be coming out of. So, it's much easier for him to um because sometimes I got to use the wheelchair for him and so um Oh, so you're going to put in a door there. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Oh, it that's important to understand. [laughter] Yes.

Yeah. See where the picture window is? That's his That's where he actually sits there. Okay. Now I understand. So, it's gonna is it going to be uh a covered porch? It's going to be enclosed or Yeah, it's going to be a covered porch. I mean, a a roof on top. Not fully enclosed, but No, not fully enclosed. No, but the it would lead it lead into your front door. Yeah. And then you'd put the ramp.

Correct. Like see where the white post is right there at the corner. It would go in like probably I think it's a foot a foot foot and a half in and then from there all the way down to the other side the same this way. Yeah, correct. That way. And then it wouldn't go like uh so the porch would stop where the rocks are. It wouldn't go on the on the um on the grass. Okay. It's only six feet there from the

So So you are you already in your setback with your current house or is this because porch am I? Because you're coming within 5t of the setback. So are you already within the setback? No. The house is okay. I had the setbacks of the Yeah, they they must be within No.

Yeah. What's the other because the porch looks like it's only maybe five or 10 feet tops, right? So, if they're coming within five feet of the setback, they must already be be within the setback. So per for per GIS just a quick measurement off of our GIS system the house is 14 ft from the road currently and what's the setback 25 so they're already in the setback correct yeah okay thanks so just extending it another sorry I thought you were asking if it was conforming to the setback currently

no problem so and how how much further out is the porch going from that sorry if you already said Just getting my brain wrapped around it. You mean from the house to only six feet? It's only six additional feet. It's only six feet out. Got it. Yeah. And the width of it is no further than the current width of the house. Correct. Correct. Like I said, my measurement was off of our GIS, so it's it's not a survey, but it's pretty. Do we have any other questions? Can I see the um the map of the neighborhood?

Are there two buildings on your lot? There's uh the garage. Okay, that's a garage. Okay, garage. Thanks, Stephanie. How long have you guys did have you guys lived here? Just you just moved here or you We moved here. We moved there in 21. Okay. Yeah. Good. We good? Everyone good? Good. Thank you very much. All right. You're welcome. You may Yeah. You may step down.

Thank you. Thank you. [snorts] Are there any for staff? Are there any ADA ramifications in a case like this or is that sorry if it was already in your memo? There's a lot of cases. She she wrote the memo so she's more

fluid. There's um as the memo the staff memo kind of pointed out there is a particular RSA 67433 which is a version of the hardship but but it's um five which which discusses that for a situation for a ramp for accessibility. reasoning, but 674 335. Um, is that the applicant doesn't have to prove the hardship. So, it's it's where you go through 633, excuse me, the regular variance criteria, they would have to get you have to prove a hardship, something with land, something in the property or things like that. But if you're moving to go under the 6735, then with the ramp for the accessibility purposes and for access, um they [cough and clears throat] don't approve a hardship. Uh the ZBA has the ability to place a condition on this particular approval if you want to do it under five that the ramp exists as long as the need is there. So you have the option of

out the ramp has to come down. It's it's as long as you have the option of doing that under five. So the board can choose whichever way they would like to consider this application. Um but I don't think that's what Andrew was asking. I think you were asking are there ADA standards to which the porch would need to be built. No, I I was asking if if there was some special building permit and things like that. Yes. the ADA accessibilities for turns and the rise of but if we could if we think we can grant it under the typical grounds then that would that would be preferable for them because then they wouldn't have to potentially tear it down. Correct. Correct. Got it. Correct. There's there's either that's the staff report spoke about is that if the board chooses you could do either where if there was

if you're having a hard time getting to the hardship Yeah. 735 is there so they don't have to have it with a caveat that once the need isn't there anymore that the ramp would you know could be removed and put do it under the normal hardship clause where there is a hardship to the property and approve it that way where then that it would stay got it sorry I must have missed I there was a lot there's a lot of cases I must have missed the memo on that one I apologize that's okay is there like to be heard in favor of the application please let me make sure there's no one Is there anyone who wants to speak in opposition? Please come forward.

I'm signed then. So, let's take care of this. Sure. We just want to tell truth. All truth, nothing but the truth. I do. Great. Now, state your name for the record, please. Don Wilson, and I live at 12 Marion. Uh, I I join 13 Marian. Yep. So, you're the better. So tell us why you're in opposition to this application.

Okay. Well, I've lived uh called this my home for about 65 years. So I know that the uh neighborhood very well. And I can tell you that um Conquer has done a really good job of uh of uh improving development in the area from Malberry Street all the way over to Plum Street with Airport Road. And the uh houses are typically approaching like a half a million dollars now in range. Uh if you note across the street from this applicant that's 13 that just sold for 520,000. Uh the people have been there less than a year. Yes. Right there. And um my main opposition to this uh variant these two variances is that [cough] it it uh brings uh the development and the uh the um quality of of housing in area backward instead of forward because as you were trying to figure out the this house is uh already in the setback. back. So that is it's it's um it's out of compliance because of its age. It was built like 1950 or something like that. Um and they are trying to extend this house. It's it's been uh portrayed as a porch, but you'll note that the six feet out is the entire length of the house. So, it's it's an it's it's I believe they're trying to get an extension uh built an addition of this home uh and do a workaround, meaning the house is

not in uh compliance with the setbacks and they're making it worse. So it's uh if you note some of the other information they were stating that they believed it was uh improving the area. For instance, when I say that if you look on Airport Road next to Malbury Street, for instance, there are two small homes that are very close to Airport Road. You'd call them like cottages now. They would never be allowed. uh one of the two of the few that are you know uh just put so close to the the road and I think conquered has uh in in developing the area they've gotten they've been able to improve that and people like that. Um see where else is it going to go. So, so you're are you suggesting that if

the porch close to the road is going to detract from the the appeal of the neighborhood and reduce the property because it's it's so it's turning it into a box. It's so it's bringing it so much closer to the road. Uh I think uh if you do the math, maybe it's just five feet back from the from the uh the city line. Is that correct? I I don't Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. So, it's very close. And um you note that it's being called a porch, but it's the whole length of the house. And it's and uh you were looking for drawings. I actually got two drawings from the uh next door. I don't know if you'd like to see them, but this is what they uh gave to the um permit department.

Okay. Is that okay? Uh, so those are in the permit department and so they're they're incorporating this like it's an add-on to the house. It's making the house bigger, you know. Um, and uh I'm totally uh for people that have uh issues with disability. I have a physical disability. My uh I can tell you this just in a short background. This house was owned by the Toll family for over 50 years. And he had two strokes. He completely ramped this house. You'll note in this section here. Um he has ramps on the side of the house, which is the main door. There's no front door in the the street side. If you pull that, you'll see if you go up a little bit, you'll see I'll point out the side door. That's the front, which facing the street. There's no door. So this is no hardship to them because there is no door. They bought this with the house completely like this. If you look on the side uh going to the Yeah, you go. So this is the main door facing the driveway. And you'll notice now that's the whole ramp system of the previous owner who he he died. Now uh if you go to the right, you see that wood ramp. So that house is ramped. There you go. So, it's ramped into the house for convenience for um walkers or anything. And you'll note going to the back the the outside areas of sitting areas. That's another gazebo. They're all ramped. This was already set up for for a handicap purposes. So, the that ramp's still there. Actually, I was going to guess this because I feel it's a little bit of a red herring here about the throwing in

about a ramp with this when the uh applicants own words on this first uh findings of fact. They put right on it. They weren't of what they uh they said uh the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because and they state there will still be plenty of buffer uh for property lines, but then it's going Oh, the values of the surround surrounding properties would not be diminished because and they go a front porch adds great curbside appeal. Well, this box extension is coming practically into the street. But getting back to this other portion which you were asking me about the ramp, the these these applicants uh after this picture was taken, they spent thousands on a huge aluminum ramp system which if you go into the next picture, you have it on this uh this form here. Uh you'll note that see this yellow uh block right there because I think this is an important thing to note. Uh you see this this down schematic. Can you pull that up on the screen? Yes. I don't know. Can you blow that up? Uh so you can see the house as you're doing it before. Yeah. Go in on that as much as you can. Yeah. And go if you can go any further in so you can see the house and the garage clearly. The yellow one. Yeah. Okay, that's good enough. You'll note now this this was here just until a little while ago. You see this huge U that is aluminum between the garage and the house? That was a

very expensive ramping system that these applicants put in to give access to the rear part of the property, which is the the uh boardwalk, gazebo, there's sitting areas, etc. And it and went right to the um driveway. So, that was the improvement. So, when you're talking about there's no hardship, they they actually made it even better than it was for a handicap uh person before. And so this was yanked out for whatever reason just recently. And I and I didn't know until I got this letter in the mail saying that they're trying to put this addition on. And I feel that that's actually just a pretense to build out a bigger house because as you see there's uh oh by the way it's not just this but presently which there isn't a picture of you see the ramp system here but that side if you pull up the side of the house again which is uh another page you'll see they actually have Yeah. Go uh to the to the side. That's the front. There you go. Um so see that's the own the previous owner's ramp. They have aluminum ramps there now going to the driveway. So they they improved the the house that they bought two years ago, by the way. I don't think it's 21. I think it's 23. Uh couple years back, they improved it. So that wood ramp is gone. They have a much more expensive aluminum ramping that goes to the driveway. And like I say, there's there was a huge aluminum U-shaped ramping system to come out to the driveway that goes into that door. And this is the home that was bought. And now they've moved in and they've had the time to think, how can

we get this house bigger when our ordinances keep all the newer homes from uh building into the street. So I am my father was a Purple Heart uh Korean War veteran. I'm all for people getting what they need. Hopefully, I won't need it worse than a cane. But I'm trying to point out that um we should put this uh when this uh when the lady here is pointing out that you could actually bypass what would be really pretty strong residential ordinances for well if there's something written in there. If you got right ramp in there with the porch, then it's you can bypass it all and give it to them or you can say handicap and then you can just avoid um the what you would normally say is we want to comply with good housing because I can tell you most of those neighbors in the expensive homes, they don't have the time to come over here tonight like I do. But I know what they're thinking. if if they see, you know, things like this pop up, they go, "What are we doing?" Because I know the new neighbors across the street, they work on their yard every day. They spent 520 and they'll probably sell it for 700,000, especially after conquer raises the tax rates next year. Okay? So, I I won't go on and on, but I hope you can see a bigger part of the picture here that um you know, I'm all for giving people that have hardship something to go with. On the other hand, I'm saying if they don't really have hardship, why play that pity card? Because my family never has. My mother was blind for 15 years in the end of her life. She did not ask for ramps, you know? She just said, "Take my hand." We've got your point. Okay. Thank Thank

you. I'm done. Any questions from from me? I don't believe so. Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak against this application? Mr. Mrs. uh Aldrich, would you like to offer us some factual rebuttal as to what you heard?

You can come up. Yeah. Just you don't both have to come up. You can All I got to say is that um since we moved there, he hasn't been a very friendly neighbor. Tried to say hi to him. He gives you a look like I don't want to say it, but he's um he's sad that the part of the other family, the towels died. Okay, I understand that because he's been living there for a long time. It's his childhood, but he's on my property and tried to look at some of the, you know, like um being nosy, I guess you want to say. And I told him, I go and it was like 6:00 in the morning and I go, "What are you doing?" I I believe you. But putting aside the, you know, the personalities involved, can you address some of what the one thing I wanted to ask you about what he said is

because now that now that I'm looking at it and he he was pointing out the it look, you were saying that you're going to build the porch and it would lead into the front door, but it does look like it's more in the I guess what would be considered the back of the house. Do I am I wrong? No. No, it's the front of the house. We're adding just adding a You're going to add a But so you take out You're going to take out this tree and all this? No, no, no, no, no. Hallelujah. No, no, no. We're not taking out no trees. They're going to take out the picture window and add a front door to the house. Oh, it won't go out far enough to

No, it's only going, like I said, the rocks that you saw is exactly where the porch is going. Nowhere else. We should go to the picture probably. So, you're going to build a front door. Okay. Where's the picture? The picture of my of the house that I the um Yeah, right there. See? So, oh, the one of the picture I have on the maps. Just where the rocks are is where the porch is going. You got yours from Google Map, which two years old if you look at. Yeah.

Even older than that. It's a red house there. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Cuz we've you did a lot. No, we did a lot of renovation. It was a very very old house that So, you tore out all that landscaping. You're going to build You're going to build a front door where the window is, the porch. Yeah. So, the porch would take up approximately where that rock where the rocks are from. See where the white post is? Yep. Can I get up there? Sure, please. Okay. Sorry.

Right here. All the way down. Wait, what do you mean all the way down? Well, all the way down the length of it. But But how far out will it come past? Right up to here. Right to where the rock inside. Okay. Gotcha. Yeah. Yeah. So from there to there and then the length of the house. Okay, got it. Make sense? Yep. Okay. What else would you like us What else would you like us to know in rebuttal of what you're Is there anything else? No. Okay. I'm good. Thank you very much. Yeah. I don't have anything else to say. I'm happy where I am. Good.

Thank you. You code enforcement. What do we think? Any comments? Uh, no. Just again with the board, you know, consider the recommendations in the staff memo. Um, the two RSAs and and make your decision from from the options that you have for which you're going to apply for this case. So, actually now I see the staff me the link is actually broken. What what's the RSA? It's 674. Let me get my glasses on. 33. Oh, sorry. I thought it said 33. Okay. I'm in the heritage.

You bring the book of statue here. But this is There you go, Andrew. Oh, you got the book. I got the book. You guys are making me look like she's got the bigger book. They're bringing all kinds of books. Well, you know, I live with the book. Yeah, there you go. Thank you. So, I'm going to declare the hearing closed since this is discussion part. Yep. It's the ADA part is 674335.

Oh, gotcha. It's part of the same hardship criteria just kind of at the end necessary to allow a person with recognized physical survive as long as this particular person. Thanks. All right, Andrew. Let's start with you. Oh god.

I love when it when there's like this backtory of these neighbors who don't get along. Not that it really matters, but um I do think the butter, although I I believe that he might be a little cranky for for no good reason, had made some good points. um it did bring up a lot of the the history. That makes me wonder how much because if on the other hand, you know, the setback the city takes up so much land that when you actually look at the yard, the setback is there's still going to be a lot of yard space there. in the back. Yeah,

in the back, but also even in the front because they're only going up to those rocks and this even though they're five feet from the setback, the city has a whole another I think 10T of land that's into their yard. And if you look at their yard from that one, it does. But if you pull up like the the front shots Okay.

Um Yeah. Can you pull up the one of the the picture It's only going to go up to those rocks. You're still going to have quite a bit of front yard. So, I'm I'm a little dubious that it's going to make that much of a bad presentation. G might just be off a little bit.

Yeah, there's still going to be all that yard. It's only take up where the rocks are. So, but on the other hand, I mean, They already have a a ramp, so I don't know. Kind of a I'm not really sure. Um, are are you I'm good. Yes,

I could see the hardship in the sense that the applicant has the right to change the primary entrance of the home to the front, in which case they would need some kind of accommodation, whether that's the entire porch or just a ramp. So, I'm inclined to support it. I don't necessarily have a problem with it. I mean, adding a front porch is certainly a reasonable use of the property. I don't think adding a porch is going to alter the essential character of the neighborhood. I don't think it's going to diminish surrounding property values. And I don't think there's a lot of justice in denying the variance. And the property is somewhat unique in the fact the house is already in the setback. On the other hand, the house is already in the setback. So, you are making a non-conforming structure more non-conforming by granting this. And if the reason you want the porch is to sit outside, well, you have a very lovely backyard to sit outside in. And if the other reason you need the porch is to access driveway or the outside, well, you have a ramp to access the backyard and the outside. And we are supposed to be bringing nonconformities more into compliance than out of compliance. And so that is where I'm struggling with branching the variance.

I don't know if it's a hardship or I'm trying to say it's cur it's an oddity and intermittent observation that this looks like it's the back of the house not the front of the house. So I think there's some brings some value to the neighborhood by having a presentation of a home with a front door in in a porch. So, I think that offsets whatever the impacts might be to the neighborhood for that. But again, that wasn't in the record. That's kind of my observation of it, but they did talk about creating the

the front portion. So, uh I did, you know, we approved something earlier today with no frontage, right? So, [laughter] you know, there's the need for some flexibility when it's an older neighborhood that was built. um before the um the ordinances were in place. So I'm inclined to support it. I tend to lead with what Jim said about creating different for the front. Um so I'd be inclined to support the request and and just to be clear, you're supporting under the the standard variance action, not under

Yeah. I'm not going to exert authority to require them to remove the handicap access. It's fine. They meet the standard. Yeah. I mean, like about half their front yard is actually technically part of the city right away. So it's a Yeah. So is it in the setback? Yeah, I know. So, so the five feet I mean it is still invasive in the setback but it's not on a percentage basis as extreme as the first years. So I mean they're not asking for an addition as the neighbor kind of implied that you know they'd have to come back for anything different than this.

They're not asking for any enclosed property. So, I think I think in a porch I I I kind of agree with what what what Marcus said that if they're going to make it part of the front yard, that's a reasonable use. And to the butter's point, they won't be [clears throat] the first or the last homeowner to make their front porch flush [clears throat] with the whole front edge of the structure, right? Even if they they didn't do a porch, [clears throat] they if they were going to put a front door there, they would at least come out with a stoop or something that would be just as far out.

Jim, if you make a motion, I'll vote in favor of it. I'd like to make the motion, but the link to the staff memo is not working in my um agenda, so I don't have the proper I think it's Yeah, I think it's something temporary with the city website. Yeah, because I can open our regular PDF version of it. Do you want me to pull it up for you? Luckily, I'm gonna let I'm old school. Old school. Not old, but old school. But I only have one variance. Are there two? Yes. But they're both the one the stand and the front and the front. Oh, okay. It's 4.7. Yep. Thank you. 4.7 and 4 on the agenda.

Okay. I move that we grant the variance from section 2841D3 front setback and side setback. Um yeah, inside setback inside setback table of dimensional regulations according to the provisions of RSA 67433 to prevent to permit a front setback of 10 ft and a side setback of 10 ft. No. So there two separate cases. So the first motion should be to allow for a Oh, a side step back of four feet. A side step back of five feet. I believe it was

five feet. Five feet. Yeah. Okay. A front set back of 10 feet. No, a front setback of five feet and a side set back of 10 feet. Okay. To permit a front setback of five feet and a side set back of 10 ft. Um because all of the criteria under RSA 67433 have been met for the reasons stated by the board and based on the record before us. And I move to adopt the applicant's proposed findings as the board's findings of fact. Second. I'll second and second it. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. I. I. Any anyone oppose? Motion carries. Five to nothing.

Okay.

Okay. So, you got to do Mr. Walker. I know. That's That's why I was saying it needs to be one motion because you only opened one of the cases. You didn't open both cases. So now you have to hear the second case. I did open them. I read them both. I did read them both. You did read them both. Did we need So now you need a Why do we need two motions? Because they're two separate cases already. You read them in together. It was 4.7 4.8. But you need two separate motions because it's two separate two separate cases cases. Okay. We always do them as Okay, they're still here.

I move to grant the motion for the front setback for the reasons stated by the board and move to adopt the reasons set forth by the applicants. I'll [snorts] second that. Again, all in favor? I. Anyone oppose? Motion carries on the second one. I move to grant the side setback for the reasons stated by the board and the reasons set forth by the applicants in their application. I'll second I I Okay, we got to simplify these rules.

Oh, they're they're what we have been doing since I started. So, um, you did the the first one you did, right? But because there's two different applications, 47 and 48. So, we only needed one more to do this. So, we're all good. You're all good. We're all good. You couldn't do one. You couldn't do one motion for both applications. So, we have an issue coming up. Mr. Walker, one of our members needs is unfortunately has to leave us. So, we're going to be down to a four member board. That means you need at least three of us to to to grant it. And there's not grounds for a rehearing if we deny it if it the vote is two to two. I'm okay. You all right? Please step forward.

And then let me read. So we have three variances and I'm going to read them, but I'm going to sort of combine. I hope you feel better. Hi Jim.

Right. So we now have uh 4.9 Kevin Walker on behalf of property owner flatly conquered center LLC requests a variance from article 286 signs section 2869 a table of maximum sign dimensions for non-residential district to allow freestanding sign with a height of 40 feet where 20 ft is required in area of 200 feet where 100 ft is required. Additionally um 4.10 10. Uh, the applicant request a variance from article 286 sign section 2869C3 permitted freestanding steines to allow a horizontal dimensional of 22 feet where 60 ft is required for proposed freestanding ste and finally uh request 4.11 request a variance from article 286C signs section 2869C7 permitted freestanding signs to allow a third freestanding sign on property of less than 10 acres and less than 100,000 ft of street funage. All uh this property is known as tax map and lot 6414 Z78 located at 10 Ferry Street in the opportunity corridor performance OCT district not a development of regional impact ZBA uh 0335 ZBA36 ZBA 0337 2025

we did this already why are we doing it again it expired and you didn't get back in time the well I don't know you want so um there was already an extension the extension it was also cited incorrectly so even though what it was it was cited incorrectly cited to the public posted it to the public incorrectly you mean back when we first granted we this no the second time you granted it there was something about a utility poll

because they had to move it the second time you granted it for the removal. One was referencing ADRC. The other one was which had nothing to do with what they were asking for and the other one had had just missed the the height requirement. We hated this variance. You're never going to put sign up. Just I'm just [laughter] like we're already digging. You've already got the Sorry. [laughter] I I don't So So essentially, yes, you're rehearing the same cases that you've already heard before. It's just cleaning everything up to be approved. Plus, we blame you. Can we be mad at you? I think I was on. It was [laughter] him.

Be mad at one of our previous zoning administrators that just reference. So I was on the first case, but I know wasn't on the second case, I don't think. Second time around, but it's all the same sign. Mr. L has been here. This be his fourth trip to this. Yes. Nice to see you all again. [laughter]

He had been granted the variance and requested an extension. He started his construction prior to that extension expiring. in review of his new permit to put all this in because he needed a permit to support the variances. They realized there was a sighting error as far as administratively [snorts] we cited the wrong portion of the side regulation. Fairly minor. I'm not positive that would need a correction in that. But he agreed to come back. We said we'll just do all three again just so that it's all in one package. But technically you need one of them that was cited wrong because stop construction. There's substantial work being done in the correct time

and and you voted on the correct var requests last time I was here. It was just advertised incorrectly apparently. Yeah. If I recall going back to the first time, the only the only people who had a concern were the Kimble Jenkins and that you kind of resolved it with them, right? Yeah, they were fine with everything and they've been continuing to get all the notices, right? Yes. It's all notices. Same thing. Yeah. I remember I had a big issue about safety, driver distraction that this sign would create, but I think I end up voting for it. Yes, you did. Not reluctantly. Yeah, we were all reluctant, but we all voted for it.

And I've had some I've had [laughter] some misses on on that road since then. If you look at the road, you'll see my skin marks are still there. [laughter] Did we impose conditions of approval? uh po I don't think there were any let me look I don't believe I remember but I think if I recall what had convinced me I'm kind of shortcutting a few things but just to make the you know record of what my thought process was was the a huge uh grade issue right so you needed the height

you needed the height otherwise you wouldn't but the the 40 the 40 foot height puts the bottom of the just at you know just above no the sight line of a vehicle the 2022 variant. So that was the testimony. Do we do we want to hear on Do we have to like you still have to open the public hearing? Yeah, it already did. Well, and and whatnot. And I mean that's to you guys if you want to get in the weeds on it. Okay. Okay. Well, I think we can we say for the record that we all clearly recall the multiple other times they've been here and so we can kind of consider Were you here?

I don't remember. I was just trying to think like I don't remember you were here. I I was here for one of them, but I don't think we voted on it. Yeah, you would remember. It was started when Laura Scott was on the board. That's how old he [laughter] Laura started in 2022. Okay. Yeah. Doug Richardson, who doesn't work for our company anymore, started it. He had the sign in a certain location. It turns out it was in the middle of a sewer easement, right? He didn't decide to look into that or anything because why do that? So, so it was former staff now and everything is fixed and everything is uh the way it should be. So,

well, do we have any further questions of the applicant? Andrew, Mark, so the sign itself is essentially the same that we same sign. If if you really want want to put it on the record, we went to architectural review and at the bottom we had something about the city of conquered. They said didn't want that on there. We took it off the approved sign from that uh that board is is in the application. Size the size is the same. It's still 10 by 20. The height is be a maximum of 40 ft. It may be a little less, but it would be no more than 40 ft. Can Can you just Sorry to um No problem.

The height I I remember perfectly what what our reasoning was. Can you just repeat what the justification is for the for the um size? Oh, no. I'm sorry. for the the third freestanding it was it that are you talking about why they need to come back or no why they need what the original justification for it I I see the hype but I guess the second the second one is the fact that you're getting three signs instead of um what would nor would normally be two yes on less than 10 acres with less than 1,000 ft of frontage

what was your what was your rationale for why that was appropriate. Do you remember? Well, I think I mean the rationale was had more to do with the the frontage is it's 10 Ferry Street. It's a 50ft rideway. The building's like a zillion feet long. The properties Oh, your frontage is absurdly small relative because because most of the building doesn't technically I got Exactly. Yeah. the the property is very very long, but it has a little bit of frontage um on the highway and only a 50 ft of frontage or 40 ft of frontage on Ferry Street. That's what that was. Got it. Are we good? Yeah, I'm good.

Stay right there. Let me go through the motions. Anyone who wants to speak in favor? Anyone wants to speak in opposition? Seeing none, code enforcement comments? Seeing none, do you need three separate motions? I'll declare the hearing closed and we'll go through the three motions. Hopefully, one of you is willing to do that.

Thank you. I move to grant the variance from article 286 sign section 2869A table of maximum sign dimensions for non-residential districts to allow a freestanding sign with a height of 40 feet where 20 ft is allowed and an area of 200 feet or 100 ft is allowed at 10 Ferry Street because all 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 findingsffect Second. All in favor? I.

Anyone oppose? Motion carries on item 4.9. Four to nothing. Let me find the next one. I move to grant the variance from article 286 sign section 2869 3C permitted freestanding signs to allow a horizontal dimension of 22 feet where 16 ft is allowed for a proposed freestanding sign at 10 Ferry Street because all of the criteria under SA 67433 have been met based on the record before us and to adopt the applicant's proposed findings as the board's findings effect. Second. All in favor say I. I. Anyone opposed.

Motion carries. Four to nothing on item 4.10. And finally, I move to grant the variance from article 286 sign section 2869 C7 permitted freestanding signs to allow a third freestanding sign on a property of less than 10 acres and less than 1,000 ft of street frontage at 10 Ferry Street 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. Second. All in favor say I. I. Anyone oppose? Motion carries. Four to nothing. Right. Thank you. I appreciate it. What's your signs? Enjoy your digging. See you next year. All right. [laughter] Have a good Thanksgiving.

Thank you. I appreciate it. And last but not least, uh, [laughter] item 4.12, Erin Haruna Damesh. Yes.

Thank you for your patience. Request a variance from article 284 development design standards section 2841D3 minimum sideyard requirements H table of dimensional regulations to permit the location of a carport to be located 5 ft from the site property line where 15 ft is required. The property is known as tax map and 203P34 located at 13 Wildflower Drive in the single family RS district not a development of regional impact ZBA382025. Do we swear to tell truth, whole truth, and nothing the truth? Yes, I do. Please tell us your name for the record. My name is Aaron Drama. I'm the property owner, 13 Wildflower Drive. All right. Tell us what you'd like to do.

Uh, we're looking to install the carport. However, we are 10 ft uh short of the uh side setback between uh us and the neighbors to the left. Uh the cupboard is 20 by 20. Uh it's going to be metal frame. Uh the the roof will be the same color as the siding of our house. So it will be uh not awkward um view in the area and also um it's not permanent structure. So at some point if we want to remove it, we can remove it at any time. is going to be anchored on the ground uh using in ogre anchors into the uh ground.

Wow. I can I can go and uh describe what it likes if you want to scroll down. Oh, uh by the way, if you [clears throat] go up, I'm going to describe something between us and uh our neighbors. So So there are trees between um our property and the neighbors is not visible. Uh our house is not that visible from them and their property is um constructed at an angle. So we don't believe that'll be an extension in from their direction. So will the carport be over where that that car is right now?

Yes. Uh little uh back in line with the house. So the it will line up the front of the house. line up over the existing driveway. Yeah, in the existing driveway. Yes. This is a sidewalk, right? No. Uh a walkway. This is a walkway. Yeah. Let me see. No, that's a street. Is it right here? Yes. This is your car? Yeah, that's a car. So, this is a walkway to your house. Yeah. Yeah, that's a walkway to the front house. So, carport would be just in this area. No, will be for the back towards the uh Yeah, right there.

So, it's not going to go in the front setback, but it'll go into the side setback. Yeah, but you've got you're not going to Are you have going to have to cut down any of those trees or No. Uh we're looking to trim them. Uh the problem is uh some of those trees are dropping sap onto our cows and Sure. at some point we use a a windshield wiper and was a big

Yeah. [laughter] So that's one of the reason we uh wanted to put this car port in to prevent that also to prevent the cars from being uh damaged and uh but we are arranging to uh trim the trees. We don't want to um cut them because they provide shelter for some wildlife. But so so but there'll still be a pretty substantial wood line in between. So your neighbor really wouldn't be able to see the cardboard at all. No, not not in the summer. No. Yeah. Yeah. Probably in the fall. Right. All right. So,

and there's no other place you can put the cardboard really, is there? No, that's the only place I can put it. Um on the on the driveway. It doesn't matter where I put it. I will still run into the setback. Right. Is the character your neighborhood such that people other people the car ports or garages? Uh we one time we drove and we have seen some in in the driveways. Not in our um not in right in our neighborhood behind. We good? Right. Thank you very much. You're welcome.

I I know what the answer is, but I'll go through the motions anyway. Is there anyone who wants to speak in favor of the application or in opposition to the application? Seeing none, code enforcement, any comments? Also seeing none, I declare the hearing closed and uh look for comments from our board members. Do you want me to just do it? [laughter] I think we're all nodding our heads. So yeah,

it will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood because a carport is a reasonable residential use. It is not going to diminish surrounding property values because as he said, it is a structure that can be removed at any time. Um it is there's no substantial justice in enforcing the side setback here and there is a hardship given the location of the house and the existing driveway on the lot. Um, yeah. And to be consistent, we pretty routinely grant similar applications when it's either a driveway or sometimes a carport that we think is a reasonable use of the property. And, you know, building it accessible from the driveway is the most logical place to put it. So, we think that's a reasonable use. It would be a hardship not to allow it.

It'd be in violation even if you only build carport. Yeah. So, so was that a motion? Yes. No, I can make the motion. I move to grant the variance from section 2841D3 side setback H table of dimensional regulations to permit a 5ft setback where 15 ft is required um for the construction of a carport at 13 Wildflower Drive in the single family residential district because all of the criteria under 67433 have been met based on the comments of the board members and on the record before us. And I move to adopt the applicant's proposed findings as the board's findings of fact. Second

discussion. Seeing none, all in favor say I. I. Oppose. Motion carries. Nothing. [laughter] It is a giant bug that has been flying around the whole meeting. [laughter] You haven't seen it? It's been going on. Do you know that included in the records in the minutes? [laughter] Who was the second? And I was interrupted by a bug. Andrew was the second. All right. So, we need to review. I've seen it all night. You're all set. Thank you. Thank [laughter] you. I thought I thought your chair was probably I thought she fell. No.

So, can you bring up the the minutes for September 3 and tell us who was there because I need that we need to review and accept that. Meanwhile, who October 1st, who was there? Let's get that one done and I'll tell you about September. Are you getting I was I've got it right here. I was not October 1st. I was here but I honestly don't I'm pulling it up. Thank you. I remember seeing minutes probably October 1st. All of you were here except for James. Oh, okay. I was here. I just know it wasn't September.

September 3rd. Uh it was just you, Mr. Walner, Mr. Winters, and Mr. Monahan. Oh, yeah. Oh, we remember that one. Yes, we do. So, we can't approve it, can we? I think we punted it to this month because we didn't have the full people that were present at that meeting. We only need two people to approve that second minutes, don't we? You don't actually need to approve minutes at all. I think we had that discussion last month, too. Yeah, but we're just accepting them. Not approving. You don't need to do either, really. All right. accepting them is approving them. So, they'll come out of draft form and then put be put on the record. That's the technical cleaning up.

If there's only two of us, we can still do two of us can still do that. I don't see why. I don't see it being I just haven't seen them. So, I think I'm out of the habit because they're not sent to us. Yeah. The draft only goes to the chair. It doesn't go to the rest of us. Oh, no. just gets I just website. Right. Right. And it was explained why that's the better practice. So I'm just out of the habit of looking at them. I think the issue was it was sent to all of us. Chris would send comments to everyone and that's a violation of the right to know law. So Okay. So it's okay to send them to us. We just shouldn't reply all. Correct.

But you could have them in your we could put them in your packet or reminder. Yeah. Do do you mind just that way? Yeah. But um that would be great. They are linked to the agenda. Um I don't know why the September 3rd link went missing because it was previously linked. We'll add to the packet. So I could have opened it up that way. Okay. So anything with a blue hyperlink on the agenda you can click and go into. I'm learning. Well, why don't we do the next till next month because I mean we have three sets to do. Yeah. I'll just take I want to take a look at it. You want just do they take 30 seconds? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Both of them for next month. Yeah. Okay. All right. So

Oh, we can do the October first ones. You've got October 30th, too. So, you're kind of racking up the minutes here for December. You've got the 30th special meeting. [clears throat] Got September. I move to approve the October 1st ones. Second. All in favor? I Okay. I approve. They don't say anything bad about me. So we're going to hold off on September 3rd and so then yeah so in December you'll be approving September 3rd, October 30th and November whatever is today is the 5th. Okay. So you'll have three sets to do in your homework. So one more motion which is to adjurnn. Move to adjourn. Second and we all concur. Thank you.