Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Very good.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the regular December meeting of the Conquered Zoning Board of Adjustment. We will follow our usual procedure this evening, which is to say we will call the cases in the order in which they appear in the agenda. I will ask the appellant to come forward, be sworn in, have a seat, and offer us any testimony that he or she would like us to hear. We ask if at all possible that the appellent confine their testimony to 10 minutes. After that, we ask them to step down and we will solicit testimony from anyone in the audience who is in favor of the appeal and anyone in the audience who is in opposition to it. Following that, we will check in with code enforcement to see if there are any comments from their office. And then if any testimony has been offered that seems to bear factual clarification, the uh appellant will have the opportunity to offer that clarification. not new evidence, not new arguments prior to our closing the public testimony of the portion of the hearing. Under most circumstances, the board will act on each case prior to moving on to the next one. The first one tonight is Ryan Washburn requesting a variance from article 284 development design standards section 2841D3 minimum sideyard requirements table of dimensional regulations to permit the location of a screened porch to be located within 5t from the set side property line where 15 ft is required. The property is known as tax map lot 291Z15 located at two Otter Drive in the single family residential district. Is uh Mr. Washurn here or anyone please come forward.

Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Um there's four regular members. So who could assign an alternate um for this case if you would like either one of the alternates? I don't know. That's a tough choice. Mark, will you take this one? Can you thank Thank you. It's last day. You know, please come forward. First time you're here, so take it easy. Yeah, anywhere is fine. All right. You swear to tell the truth and nothing but Would you identify yourself for the record as you testify, please? Um Brian Washurn, uh Two Water Drive.

Very good. Would you fill us in? Uh we we've read your application, but for the benefit of the general public, would you fill us in on the high points of why you feel a variance is appropriate?

Uh oh, I feel variance is appropriate. My guess I mean it's in my little letter here. Uh it's not contrary to the public interest as it will be a modest addition consistent with the residential characteristics of the neighborhood. Spirit of the ordinance will be observed because the is open and unobtrusive, maintaining privacy and open space. [snorts] Granting the variance will serve substantial justice by allowing reasonable use of the property without harming the public neighbor interests. The values of surrounding properties will not be diminished as the addition is typical for residential properties and will not adversely affect adjacent land owners and uh literal enforcement setback requirement would result in unnecessary hardship due to the property's layout and dimensions. You kind of you probably see it on there on the application how it's laid out in the back.

So, I'm looking at at at the site map. And where is it? Is it in the back of the house? It's on the back of the house because you're on the corner lot. Yeah. Um Yeah, right there. That's the satellite. I threw it on there. But I have sec she told me at the town that Second Street and Otter Drive are two front setbacks and I have two side setbacks. So, I I was confused about that as well. So, it's on the back of the house, but it's a side step setback. That's what she told me. So, there's a road on that side of the house. I got a road on Can't see that. Road on Otter Drive there on the right. Oh, okay. As laid out in the picture. And then Second Street on top. So, I'm on a corner lot. So, they said both of the other property lines are considered um side for corner lots. You don't you only have two fronts and two sides.

Okay. But where you want to put the porch is in a sideyard. It's considered a side side. Yeah. Right where that red square is. That's a proposed location. Never mind [clears throat] if it were a rear setback. Do we know what the rear setback requirement would be? 25 ft. Okay. So, it would be worth 15 for a side. Yeah. Be worse. Yeah, it'd be worse. I think the closest I come is 5T. Is this the front step back 25 as well? No. I'm not certain what the front would be. Yes. Yeah. So, when you say that the um the property's layout and dimensions are unique, can can you just expand on that?

I think if you go there's a few other um pictures in there how the side lays lays out. It kind of cuts an angle through the yard. It's not like straight. That's just the plans. There should be other plot plans on there. See how kind of cut I guess the house is more at an angle in this in the lot. So it kind of cuts through the backard right there. Very middle [snorts] back slideyard. Yep. Yep. Especially at its narrowest point. The house is kind of angled in the lot there. And on the house next door, is that their garage on this side? Yep. Yeah. Do Do you have a sense of why they set it in such a It was built in 1995. So I I couldn't tell you.

Is there anything? I could tell you. I mean terrain. So, it's it's definitely in a bowl, but they really could have straight it out, I think. But that's where it's at. Other questions from the board? Anyone? Is there anything else you'd like us to know? I think that's it. Very good. Thank you very much.

Is there anyone here who would like to be heard in favor of this appeal? Is there anyone here who would like to be heard in opposition to it? Any comments from code enforcement? With that, we'll close the public presentation section of the excuse me, public testimony section of the hearing and I'll ask the board members to give us the benefit of their thoughts. Starting with Mr. Walmer.

I think the hardship lies in the way the house is positioned. It's awfully close to the rear setback and I think it's to expect a porch to be generally speaking in the back of a house. Um that seems to be the only location where you could put a porch that I can see. Um I think so I'm persuaded by the hardship argument about the positioning of the house on the lot itself. Mr. W,

I agree. I think it's um it's a it's a seems to be a fairly modest porch which is which is reasonable and for the reasons Nick said there's no other well there's no other place reasonably that they could put it so so I agree Mr. D, I agree. Um, the corner lot it odd so that there's either no rear or no side, however you look at it. Um, and it would not be uncharacteristic for the rest of the neighborhood. I think there's

the spectrum. I think there's somewhere else you could put it, but it's not where they're proposing to put it. So, [laughter] it must be Christmas. Yeah. Okay. After I get done reading my emails here. [snorts] Uh, why is it always in public that you can't figure out where the button is that shuts the thing off? [laughter] Very good. They ship the devices. Yes. They know where you are at all times.

Yes. Uh I'm inclined to agree with my colleagues. I think that uh there is a hardship based on the configuration of the lot and the house on it and that the use is a reasonable one. Um would anyone care to make a motion? I move to grant the variance from section 28-4-1 D3 side setback uh in H table of dimensional regulations according to the provisions of RSA 67433 to permit a side setback of 5T where 15t is required for the construction of a screen porch at two otter drive in the single family residential district because all of the criteria under 67433 have been met based on the record before us and I to adopt the applicant's proposed findings as the board's findings effect.

Is there a second? I will second. Is there any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please say I.

I. Any and opposed? The vote is unanimous. The variance is granted. That moves us to the next case this evening. Uh this this is actually two cases for the same projects. So, uh we'll have testimony on both cases at the same time. This is TF Moran on behalf of Unatil Energy Systems requests of variance from article 284 buffers uh to bluffs section 28449C. Certain uses prohibited the erection of cons or construction of a building or structure to permit the construction and location of an electrical control enclosure for the West Concrete substation pole storage yard. The property is known as tac map lot 49 or 494-Z44 located at 1 through7 Maguire Street in the Industrial IN District.

Gentlemen, you swear to tell the truth and Yes, I do. Would you identify yourselves for the record as you testify, please? I will. Uh, my name is Nicholas Goolan. I'm a licensed engineer and principal of the firm TF Maria. My name is Nate Sherwood. I'm a principal engineer and licensed engineer for unit. Chris. Um, oh, we're gonna let Mark vote tonight because he's gonna when he becomes counselor, he's not going to stay on board. So, he can just do the voting tonight. I'll just here and look good. Well, what if I don't like that? [laughter] You okay with that, Mark? Let's Let's put him to work tonight. [laughter] We'll miss him. Would you give us your your last names again, please?

Sherwood. and my last name is Goolan G O L O N. [snorts] What would you like us to know, gentlemen? All right. Um I understand you've had the opportunity to Mr. Chairman, there is a a a technical issue um from your staff report and whether or not this application is a development of regional impact. So within the staff report, that would be something that the board would make a motion on whether or not you agree or disagree whether or not it's a development of regional impact. So we would do that before before the hearing would start. So the board determines based on the criteria that are in the staff report whether or not you would consider this application. All right. So we should all take a look at the staff report.

Is that something that you would suggest we hear testimony from the applicant's position on or No, that that's the board's determination based on the criteria in the staff report and whether or not you feel as though this application meets those criteria, then you would declare it a development of regional impact. If this does not if you feel it does not meet those criteria as listed in the staff report then you not declare development of regional impact and the applicant can move forward where in the staff report do you touch on that second yeah does it above penrook at all no

no it is in the aquifer protection community water system overly district [clears throat] we were able to find the so there's six criteria. Yes, sir. There's a proposed motion there as well. Does not delay this so that it has to go to central New Hampshire. If it is declared a development of regional impact, then yes, it does. Neighboring community is notified. Um they have an additional 30 days within their time frame to to move forward through the process. And why was the staff ambivalent about it? Staff just doesn't get to make that decision. We do. Yeah,

but it somewhat strikes me that there are some facts that I mean I can I can make some reasonable guesses about but I don't completely have all the facts in terms of the scope of how this will impact. I mean I can I I can just off the top of my head looking at it I mean obviously there's no dwelling units. It's not on the borders. It might have probably doesn't have transportation, but in terms of emissions and the water impact, that's what I would have questions about. I don't know if if anyone here would have knowledge about that or we can ask the applicant because I I don't mean maybe there's some additional emissions from this but or maybe not because

there's no there's no emission. This isn't generating power, right? It's just connecting it. There's nothing to stop us from, right? Okay. Uh why don't you phrase your question? Well, you answered one that um well, there's no emissions from this. It's simply it's simply transporting power that's already generated, right? Is that right? It's a control building. So, yeah, just electrical infrastructure. No any additional light, noise, odors, or smoke from this?

No. Any lighting, any lighting would be emergency lighting with the equivalent of our lights are on when your lights are off. And what about does it I mean you're near the river but will this have any impact on the water? No. Um just as a a side note this will require an alteration of train permit. So we will go through the state approval process. So obviously the city will review storm water but that's something also be done at a state level. So you have that duality of review that's taking place to confirm there are no impacts to such. Thank you sir. Very good. Any other questions from the board? All right. Um, do I hear a motion?

I'll make a motion. I move that the proposed project be determined to development of regional impact under RSA 36 col 55 as it does not meet the criteria for regional impact. And is there a second? Second. Any discussion? All in favor, please say I. I. Anyone opposed? I you do you don't get to vote. Sorry. No, no, but we have questions. Does it go to public? Oh, not not this part. There there'll be a chance for you to come up. That was just a preliminary, but we're still hear the the application. There'll be a chance for you to come up during the course of the hearing. If you have something you'd like us to know,

um I have however a question for staff, which is up to now we have not been making this determination in in in every case. Is this something we're going to be having to do in every case? Well, we are still in the process of working out the process because there was some confusion um with this particular application as and when it was declared a DRRi by staff and and staff is is not the body by the RSAs to declare a DRRi. So the RSAs say, you know, any application that comes before a local land use board. Um, so we're working through that process to figure out when applications come in, which board do they go to first, who's going to make that um, declaration of a regional impact. Obviously, you know, the previous application is nowhere near the fit the criteria for a development of regional impact. But when you have these applications where it could be questionable, you know, to an aquifer or things like that, then the development of regional impact declaration would come before the board.

Okay. So, we're still working on that internal process because it got a little bit offkilter um recently. So, we're trying to kind of just make this a little bit cleaner, a little bit easier. And um review back to the RSA 3654, I believe. 55. 3655 is the RSA for I had I didn't know that. [laughter] I did not know that. It was in front of me. I do it off the top of my head and I missed one. That's the RSA that we're referring to when you look at the development of regional impact. Okay. So, you did very well. So, thank you very much. Well, [laughter] well done motion. Well done discussion. Questions. Okay. Well done all around.

We'll move on to the uh request for variance. Carry on, gentlemen.

All right. Very good. Um I take it you've already read our application. There's no need to recite it page and verse. All right. Very good. Um the reality is this is the existing campus for UNATIL. Um they have office, they have warehouse, they have outdoor storage, but this is also the home to the west conquered substation and has been since the early 1940s. Um much like other infrastructure that we have in the US over time, it needs to grow. Um we have reached the point that our 1940 substation uh has reached its useful life and it's time to upgrade. Um they can provide some background if so needed, but the reality is this provides more redundancy, more reliability of service. This is the next logical step that's important for the community and the surrounding communities. Uh we've been through planning board in the past for other substations in conquered. Um essentially this one it's numbers up and we're hoping to improve upon this infrastructure uh at their existing campus. Um this one has a little bit of an oddity in that it has a closer proximity to the Marramac River than others. Um and there is portion of the property that is considered bluff. Now, typically you look at bluffs and I guess in part, let's do a quick little educational element. What is a bluff? Um, in this case, we're talking about a river bluff. This is a steep, broad cliff or high bank that typically overlooks a body of water, especially on the outside of a meander bend in a river or stream. These bluffs are formed by erosion. Whether a river erodess the bank on the outside of a bend, creating a steep base, the material makes up the bluff does vary. Um, but typically this is windb blown rock, dust over a rock, sand or other sediments. So, why are these buffs bluffs important? Why is this in your ordinance? Um, so river bluffs are important in New Hampshire because they're crucial habitat for unique plants, uh, animal species, uh, provide geological and historical records, and help maintain the river's ecosystem. Their steep slopes support specialized vegetation, serve as nesting sites for birds like our king fishers, and their eroding sediment can build beaches downstream. Um they also have an historical context in that they reveal information about the area's past

climates in geology through the sedimentary layers and fossils. Um so that's a little bit of backstory. Okay. What is a bluff? Why is it important? Um the first variance is being requested is in regards to a structure uh relative to be located within a 50-ft buffer of the bluff. Um that area is currently UNL's pole storage yard. Um they have other equipment um of equal capacity and weight that is located within that area. We also have the existing west concrete substation which is also located um within that bluff. So if we're have any concerns for the interaction of that equipment its weight or otherwise those are really nullified by its existing use. We are not clearing any vegetation. Um that we're actually removing some impervious material in this area that will go back to grass specific to the buffer request for the bluff. So relative to the graphic

little square.

Yep. So relative to the graphic before you, the substation is going in what would be the easterlymost corner of that graphic. Um so the lower right hand corner you can see this long linear item which is actually the pole storage. So there's our existing poles and there's a a route that circulates around that for pickup, drop off of materials or otherwise. Uh where we're locating the substation and it's being done, you know, very methodically is that upper right hand corner of the existing yard. Um it's purposeful in that we need to have certain interconnection points from an electrical safety standpoint. Um the location of this control building is also specific in that it still applies to building setbacks. So we have to make sure that the the building uh the control enclosure is also located outside of those buildings. Um so no no work being done on this side of the campus. So that's their existing office and warehouse. Um we're really focused on the east side. And you can see how the site's really biseected by a component. That's what's considered the the bluff ravine. And our second zoning request has to do with recontouring a portion of that. So as part of the development or redevelopment of this site, there is storm water management features that are now required to be incorporated that were not so required in the 1940s. So we are giving this a more appropriate storm water management system. Right now this site in its entirety basically drains to that low point through the ravine and then directly to the river. Uh on the upstream portion, we'll be adding a storm water management basin that will provide the opportunity for that storm water to be collected, treated, pollutants removed, and then discharge along existing flow course towards the river. Um so relative to that second request of recontouring, it's specific to providing that storm water management area and noting that that area of work is or appears to be uh an existing stump dump. So that area has already been impacted. um there are some invasive species within that area that would be removed um and the loose soils that are

currently there we would have the opportunity to fortify to provide a more enhanced appropriate ravine associated with that bluff. So I look at this across the board and say these are improvements for this property for storm water for the river for the ecosystem and specifically we did meet with the conservation uh relative to this application as they have input on the planning level relative to those bluff buffers uh and received unanimous approval with no revisions. Um, so when I think of the criteria that's required relative to the zoning relief, does it meet the intent of the ordinance? Um, is this consistent with the neighborhood? [clears throat] We've been here longer than most other the other folks. Um, it is very much consistent with what the expectations would be such that relief could be granted. I realize you look for 10 minutes or less, so I'll try and be short and be answering any questions. Do you

do you have are So are you rebuilding a Excuse me. Are you Thank you. Are you re rebuilding and relocating a substation? Yep. So if we pan just upward on that GIS screen. Thank you. Um you can see where the existing substation is really at the just outside the top of the page there. Um just to the right of that building is the existing substation. So it's equally located proximity to the existing bluff. Um the reality is you know the equipment will be decommissioned and that yard may be for storage or otherwise consistent with what's out there now. Is the reason for relocating it because you want to keep the one running until you have the other one ready to go or is there

partially yeah partially that and the other reason is where it is now is very small and all around there is where we store you know equipment for use. Um, so we really have no room to expand that and it's a really small substation. So we just can't fit what we're trying to, you know, install now. So, um, and we need the extra storage just for the equipment around the yard, the, uh, the building there. So,

yeah. So, order of magnitude. The existing substation yard is about 4,000 square feet. The new substation yard is 22,000 square feet. So, you when we fast forward, what is that 60 70 85 years, it needed bigger. Um, and that's important because it provides the opportunity not only for construction construction construction lay down, but also for UNIL's ability to maintain those structures once they're constructed. Could I keep interrupting you? I'm sorry. You go first. [laughter] I never get to do anything. You're the chair. You go first. You always wait till the end. U, as far as the uh the regrading goes, could you explain again exactly why that's necessary?

Of course. Um I had mentioned the storm water management system that would be incorporated in this. Uh right now that centrallylo area is a ravine in which storm water currently drains to and drains uh down towards the the Marramac River. At the very headwater of that there's a small uh triangular piece and if do we have the site plan available or can I drive from here? If we could pull up the site plan um I can show you where it is. It's a very small area but it provides for an appropriate grade transition from the storm water basin to the existing soils. Um it's predicated on two things. One, the size of the storm water management system to make sure it's appropriate, but two as part of um if we can go to the second sheet, please. Perfect. And you can see the kind of obles shape there in the lower lefthand corner. Um in order to make sure that our discharge is along an existing flow path, there's some recontouring so that we can make sure that discharge is along a flat area. So it provides a smooth transition to grade. So the [clears throat] area in which we are seeking that relief um is really just a small triangular section along the north side of that basin

where it happens to be close to the bluff. Where it happens to be close to the bluff. Yes sir. So by your regulations um the ravine associated with the bluff is also considered the bluff. So by that token because we are working within that ravine portion it's considered a bluff impact. you guys have a subnote within your regulations that stipulates that as I had mentioned as an aside this is really a little bit of restoration work too these aren't naturally occurring existing soils here um as part of our test pits that we conducted for our storm water management system uh we found that this is a fill area so that fill that doesn't belong within that ravine would be removed um graded flat and then restored with seed

miss there's no way to expand the existing building to accommodate what you need. You have to correct. So, one of the points Nate was making and and it's really you can just look at in the magnitude of sizing. It's a 4,000 square foot substation. It now it needs to be 22,000. Um, so because of the growing needs of the community, that substation has gotten larger. In part, you guys are being fed by many other substations. Um, but in order to provide that redundancy of service, that backup power that's necessary. Um, I want to say order of magnitude is about 2500 customers on this with another 3,500 that are the backup supply. So that redundancy makes sure that those people's power is restored faster. So you're going to keep them both. Um no, the existing sub will go away after this is constructed. Okay.

Um and just order of magnitude. You can see the existing sub in the upper leftand corner. There's just there isn't enough space to rebuild it in that location. All right. My second question was I assume the conservation commission made you do some sort of wildlife survey in the bluffs to sure there's nothing. So as part of endangered. So as part of this and part of the alteration of train program, we do have to file not only US fish and wildlife uh but New Hampshire fishing game um to make sure there are no concerns with an endangered wildlife. So that box is automatically checked as we go through that approval process. Thank you. Guys, just a very basic question. What what exactly is a substation? Like what what is it what's its function? I'd love to answer that. You don't have to give me the full you know the

he loves talking about electric. Well, we'll both nerd this out engineers wise, so [laughter] sorry. No, very simply, electricity is transmitted at higher voltages because the losses are lower. So, when you go 20, 30, 100 miles, you need the higher voltage. Otherwise, you lose so much power along the way. So what a substation does it takes the higher voltage, it steps it down to a more a lower voltage that you can put on the street and then you transform that when it goes into someone's house to, you know, 120 volts. So it's it's basically a it's a switch.

It's it's a transformer station, but there's circuit breakers. So just like a circuit breaker in your house, we have big high voltage breakers that trip and they isolate. You know, if we have a pole or a tree come down and take down a pole, we try to keep that outage as small as possible with a bunch of circuit breakers so that only one breaker opens and you only lose a few customers versus 10,000. So a good parallel is to look at our roadway system. Your transmission system is the equivalent of a highway whereas your distribution system is more of your local roads. So you're stepping that power down to a more useful service to serve the community.

So I assume obviously it's large a lot of automation but you have some human do do you have some people who are manning it at various times or it's all from remote? It's all it's all electric uh electronically monitored and controlled. So those if a tree comes down these circuit breakers know that and they open and we also have remote control of the whole yard. So and that's part of what the control house will be. So it monitors everything. We have a control center 247 that they can see, you know, the instant a breaker opens, they get an alarm. So there may or may not be just not right in the correct. Correct. So there may be no staff there at any given time.

Yeah. Normally there'll be no one there except if there's an outage, we'll send crews there to, you know, operate a breaker. Much like anything, you have typical maintenance inspections. So usually once these one of these substances is constructed, it's, you know, a monthly inspection or otherwise. This one's a little bit different and that it'll also have a pole yard that's associated with it. So that again goes to serving the immediate vicinity of the community. So if there's an outage or if there's a pole replacement project taking place, they'll pull from the stock. Thank you. So just as a followup to Andrew's question, um right at exit 14, that's a substation too. Is that correct? Correct. Okay.

Yeah. You'll see, you know, fenced in to protect the public. Other questions from the board? No. Is there anything else you'd like us to know? Sorry, we're here to answer any questions if there's follow. I think we're all set. Thank you,

sir. Is there anyone who'd like to be heard in favor or in opposition to this appeal? Please come forward. Hello. Good evening. Good evening. You swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but we swear. Very good. Would you identify yourselves for the record, please?

I'm Cheryl Goches, Gh. And we're at Smoke Stack Center. we abut this property. So, we're kind of just want to know everything how it would affect us kind of. My name is Carlos Carlos Coaches. We own the the Smoke Stock Center and you own it. It's all commercial, right? We're commercial. Yes. Do you have specific questions? Well, I want to do you do it.

I guess our question is the amount of power going through. It's going from a 600 or 600 square foot substation to a 2200 square foot substation which 22 2200 2200 right that's what they 2,200 um where they're putting it kind of is right almost abuts us. So, I guess we want to know how much power, how is it going to affect us? Will there be fencing? Will there be, you know, is it I mean, this is really the first we kind of know about it besides a little thing we got in the paper. So,

okay. Any other questions?

Yes. Um, regarding the the power transfer is is a obviously a substation is can be a control. A controller controls power up and controls power down. Right now we are supposed to have a we have a licensing with them where they can only transfer so much power through our land and they haven't paid any any license fees. We have been trying to update the license but they have never responded to anything. So, you know, my worry is they could not still be using our land where the lines go through and we are not going to be also uh properly addressed and

that's not something the zoning board can help you with. Well, no, but however, it has an impact because it's going through our land. And if you don't see that, but wait, you're saying licensing that's in your deed, they have a right to do it or you have a contract with them? Well,

I got in the original deed, Unatil has a lensure with us to trans, you know, they have big lines going through part of our a piece of our property that's off of North State Street and we're kind of concerned about that because it's, you know, we kind of abut them and, you know, they don't have access to North State Street. It goes through our land and you know whether we get the proper information from them to contact somebody there. Sure. Yeah. I guess we just want to know how it's going to impact us. And where where are you located here on the map? Where are you located? We're on 54 North State Street. We're above where smoke stack. We

parking lot. Yeah. We're the parking lot. There's a big building down there. We're that whole building. Yeah. and where the driveway is is where UNATL's power lines go through up to the road. So, what the chair was trying to explain to you is that that's a private contractual issue between you and UNIL. Okay? And nothing we can help you with or take into consideration when considering the variance, but certainly these gentlemen are here. we could get information speak with them and after this they are going to have to go to the planning board which will address issues like fencing and those other questions you have in terms of site development in particular um but again they're here tonight and I'm sure can answer some of your basic questions

well nonetheless I still want to express my opinion to you guys

that it has an impact because as owners of the property and if they're going to increase the power definitely it's going to change things for us and we're going to probably say in some polite way no you cannot do transfer power through us. However, they're a utility company which may have a little more weight in your eyes but it's not it wouldn't be as fair. All we let you know is that they are there is going to be an impact and that's what you guys are here for is to notice the impact. That's all

on the bluff. In this case, we our our purview is fairly narrowly constrained and there are certain specific zoning issues that we we are entitled to consider and other things that might very well be important issues, but they have to be considered in another arena, not not here. And nothing we do gives them the right to go over your property. So, we can grant the variance. The planning board can grant site plan approval. If you don't grant whatever rights they need to go over your property, they're going to have to figure out another way to do it. We have been trying to get in touch with them and they have made efforts and then disappear.

I hear what you're saying. When you have an an entity like [clears throat] that, you begin to question what are they truly your neighbor or even they're using our land and you build something that structure that is 2200 square feet is a large structure.

It's up to have impact on the land. We would be accepted if it is also we are trying to develop that land which was um underused at one time. It was industrial was neglected. We brought life to the thing and now the the north end has flourished since then. We brought you know I'm just telling you to keep those things in mind. Very good. Thank you very much. Great job with the the smoke stack. Pardon? You've done a great job with the smoke stack. Thank you. Thanks very much. Thank you. You're welcome.

Any comments from code enforcement?

Gentlemen, would you like to offer factual clarification in response to anything you've heard? Yeah. So, um, to their questions, I'll think what they're referring to is we have an easement from our existing substation that goes across their property and we have some power lines that go up to North State Street. Um, so that easement document is very old. We can we can pull it up. something we can make sure that we address with the planning board which is probably the more appropriate venue to discuss that. Um specific to the question of the power yeah that flows through the facility again not a generation facility.

So the the the power that will be flowing through um the voltage will be the same. So it's not we're not increasing voltages and you know creating another issue. Um that's probably the easiest answer. There is no change in voltage. So, so meaning the amount of power that flows through it at any given time will be the same. It's just there'll be more total. So, it'll be it'll be running through it. It could be more power, but the voltage is the same. So, you know, for example, the the poles aren't getting to, you know, 40t taller or anything much different. The size of the equipment is similar.

So, I mean, there's always some risk. I realize you you have a lot of precautions, but there's, you know, nothing's risk-f free. Does it increase the risk at all? No, I would say decreases it because we have more high-tech protection systems. Um, so if we wanted comparison to think of our technology in 1940, yeah,

think of our technology today. Uh, the improvements are well beyond marginal uh as far as the uh improvements that would be associated with substation. Um, you know, this is an advancement in technology as well as all the um additional systems that they made mentioned to with the ability to remotely and in real time understand what's happening with their substation which is equally important. Um I'll touch on the one item although it is also more of a planning item. It's an 8 foot high security fence with a 1 foot barb wire arm similar to what's out there now. Um and there is fencing that is currently along the property line. So no specific change when we think about what that looks like. Thank you very much. Any questions from the board? Thank you gentlemen.

With that we'll declare the public testimony portion of the hearing closed. We actually have two variances which are listed as two separate cases. So we'll start with the one that's item 4.2 which was uh let's see the erection or construction of a building or structure in the setback to the bluff. Would uh Miss Spector Morgan like to take this one in terms of discussion?

Yeah. Um, I don't have any concerns about building this building in the setback of the bluff. I think that the public interest and spirit of the ordinance are not hindered by the granting of this variance. It's not going to alter the essential character of the neighborhood is essentially an industrial neighborhood. There is already a substation there. We're just moving it and we're moving it into the buffer. We're not moving it directly into the bluff. and the appropriate research has been done to make sure that the environmental characteristics of the bluff that we want to protect are in fact being protected. Um, substantial justice is being done because there is no gain to the general public from denying the variance whereas the harm to the actual general public of denying the variance is very real. I don't believe that there's any evidence that there will be a de dim demunition of surrounding property values and the hardship is that the property was developed in the 1940s and so this is where the property is and this is where the substation needs to go. [clears throat] So yes, I would be in favor of granting the variance.

Mr. Davyy, how do you see it? Nothing to add, Mr. Wyers.

Yeah, I agree. I mean obviously we we have to listen to the the applicants in this case are the experts and we didn't hear we don't have any other experts who are saying oh this sub would they be better served by an expanding substation somewhere else. Um I thought the applicants were credible on this point. I don't I don't blame the abutters for for coming forward um because they they may have a legitimate concerns but their rights are going to be governed by the easement that they have and you know that's if they're not getting answers directly from UNIL they should pursue that you know private action of some sort venue but you know as was stated here our only concern is is with the with the variance on the bluff and I think the benefits of the community greatly outweighs I we haven't heard anything that this will in any way change any existing impact to the bluff which seems to be minimal.

Mr. Waller, I have nothing to add. Nor do I. Would anyone care to make a motion? This is on the variance concerning actually building the installation.

I move to grant the variance article 28-4 buffers to bluff section 28449 C1A. Certain use is prohibited. The oops, nope, wrong one. 28449 C1A certain uses prohibited the erection or construction of a building or structure to permit the construction and location of an electrical control enclosure for the West Conquered Stub sub substation pole storage yard located at 1-7 Reguire 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.

Is there a second? It's been moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion on the motion? All in favor, please say I. I. Anyone opposed? The vote is unanimous. That takes us down to item 4.3. Same proposed project. This is a variance to permit revision of the existing grading. We testimony that this is ne necessary for adjusting the drainage surface drainage. I'm going to start this one with Mr. Winters. How do you see it? I don't have any I think the statements made previously by Inspector Morgan are remain largely true for this variance. Mr. Davey.

Um, same. They're going out of their they're going to get the AOT per alteration of train permit. So, there will be a redundancy on the impact of the regrading in particular. Mr. Wallner, nothing to add. Is Spector M? It will improve the storm water drainage. I don't see the downside.

I agree with my colleagues. Would anyone care to make a motion? I move to grant the variance article 28-4 buffers to bluffs section 284 49 C1A certain uses prohibited the recontouring or grading of the land to permit the construction and location of an electrical control enclosure for the West Conquered substation pole storage yard located at 1-7 Maguire Street 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. Is there a second? Second.

It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? All in favor, please say I. I. Anyone opposed? The vote is unanimous. The variance is granted. You're all set.

The next case is item 4.4 on the agenda. John Arnold on behalf of William Young Properties LLC requesting a variance from article 284 development design standards section 2841C minimum lot frontage um H table of dimensional regulations to permit 80 ft of frontage where 100 ft is otherwise required for the conversion of a non-residential building to a residential building. The property is known as tax map lotin 1413- or slashp33 located at 37 Washington Street in Penacook in the urban commercial district ZBA case 0347-2025. Mr. Arnold, you swear to tell the truth and nothing but

Yes, I do. Would you identify yourself for the record as you testify, please?

Sure. John Arnold from Warren Reno presenting the applicant William Young Properties LLC. Uh, so as you said, this is 37 Washington Street in Panakook. It's in the urban commercial zoning district. Um the site was previously occupied by Capital Alarm Systems, so commercial use in an existing building uh built in the 1960s. U Mr. Young bought the property a few months ago and he's going to convert the inside of the building into three apartment units. Um the lot is a pre-existing non-conforming lot. It has about 60 ft of frontage. 100 ft is uh excuse me has about 80 ft of frontage. 100 feet is required in the zoning district. So, it's about 20 ft short. Uh city determined that we need a frontage variance to convert the building from the prior commercial use to the residential apartments. We applied for that variance. Um but um in our application, it's a threshold matter. I don't believe that a variance is necessary here. So, I'd like to briefly address that first.

Please do. Um section 2883C2 of the zoning ordinance says that you can develop uh any non-conforming lot for any use that's permitted by right in the district in a in a non-residential district if uh five conditions are met. The first condition is that uh the lot has at least 22 feet of frontage. We have 80 feet here. Second condition is that all the setbacks and other dimensional requirements can be met. Uh here we meet all the dimensional requirements except that the existing building is within the sideyard setback. However, that encroachment in the side in the sideyard setback is entitled to remain. The building itself is a pre-existing non-conforming structure built within the setback. So the 15oot sideyard setback does not apply to that building. Uh the third criteria is that the lot was under separate ownership from the adjacent lots when the ordinance became effective. Fourth is that the lot uh be combined with any adjacent lots under common ownership. Um this doesn't apply since there aren't any. And fifth uh that the property is served by public sewer or as a septic system approval. Uh this property is on uh public sewer. In the staff report, the city uh uh takes um exception to two issues under that section. And the first is that they believe that the second criteria is not met because as I mentioned the building is in the sideyard setback. I respectfully disagree with that because I believe that the grandfathering provision in the ordinance that allows the building to remain in that setback essentially trumps this provision. In other words, we comply with the setback that we need to comply with. We don't need to comply with the 15oot setback because the ordinance says the building's allowed to be there. It was built before the ordinance came into effect. And the second issue the staff takes is that um they don't believe that this uh

constitutes development and so the ordinance allows the development of any non-conforming lot with a permitted use. Um and I respectfully disagree with that as well. I believe this is development. It's not groundup building. I agree with that. But I think that in a the ordinance doesn't define what development is. I think in a common sense understanding the plain meaning of the word development includes renovations like this convers converting the building from a commercial use to a residential use. And just from a practical standpoint, I don't think it really makes any sense to say um you know uh you could go out and build a a threeunit apartment building here from scratch on this lot, but you can't take an existing building and convert it to three units um because the building is already there. The frontage is the same either way. This is just repurposing a building. It's really just changing a use from a commercial building to a residential building on a pre-existing lot, pre-existing building. I think it should be allowed. Um, having said that, we did submit the variance application because, as the staff determined, I'll pause before I get into the variance criteria. So, you can address that threshold issue. Um, if you find that a variance isn't needed, I think we're done. If you think that a variance is needed, happy to address the uh criteria. Very good. Thank you.

Could we get the staff perspective on this please? Um it's as it's clearly spelled out in the staff report, we have made the interpretation that this um application does require a variance for frontage as the use is changing. It's an allowed use in the zone, but it's changing to residential use and that is the frontage requirements is 100 ft. This lot is 80 ft. Also negating it is that as Mr. Arnold said that um you know the side setback cannot be met. does not meet the parameters. And also this is that section of the ordinance also talks about um a single family dwelling. This is not a single family dwelling. That's another issue that doesn't apply to this application.

If I clarify on that last point, um the provision in the ordinance allows in a residential district the lot to be developed for a single family residence. In a non-residential district, it's allowed to be developed for any permitted use in the district. This is the urban commercial district. It's a non-residential district and so it can be developed under the provision I cited if those five five criteria are met for any permitted use, not a single family residence. Very good. Thank you very much. All right, let's uh talk this over amongst ourselves. I'm going to start with Miss Spector Morgan. How do you see this?

I think he needs a variance because it's in the side setback. Okay. Can you say why that is? In other words, yes, it's in the side setback, but Mr. Arnold's contending that doesn't apply in this case.

I understand that he's contending that doesn't apply. And I understand that it's a non-conforming building and the building is entitled to stay there. But the condition for developing on a non-conforming lot is that all yards, setback, parking, and other requirements of this ordinance can be met. And if this was a vacant lot and you were going to build this building there, you would have to meet the side setback. So it's not exactly the same thing as saying if this was a vacant lot, you could go ahead and put this building on it because you couldn't do that without a variance. And while the existing building is entitled to remain, that's true. But if you want to convert the use, you have to comply with the requirements of the ordinance. And in this case, because you have a non-conforming [clears throat] lot and you want to develop it, and I do think this is development of that lot, you've got to comply with the requirements for doing that. And in order to do that, you have to comply with the yard sideyard setbacks and can't. So I think a a frontage variance is required.

Mr. Davy, how do you see it? I'm stuck because we're not into the variance yet, but I don't I'm still having trouble understanding why the single versus three unit hits the trigger, especially when it's surrounded by other residential in in a not residential district. So, do we know why that threshold is the way it is? like the single family. Yeah. Why the threshold is for single family and not multif family?

It says in a residential district, a one family detached dwelling may be constructed on a non lot and in a non-residential district a permitted use maybe. Understood. This is a permitted use. Yeah. Okay, Mr. Twitter, then are we going to say then I'm leaning um that we should just give the or not give it, but we should do the variance. Do the variance. It's your experience. Your experience.

Well, I think I think Mr. Arnold makes makes some interesting points. What I will say is my sense is the way staff interprets it is traditionally how how it's we've viewed it or at least maybe by default because I'm not sure this has always been raised um the way that Mr. Arnold has. So, so it's I think if we took his position, it would it would kind of change a lot of or not a lot, but it comes up semi-regularly and and it would it would change some of our practices, which maybe is not reason to to disagree, but I'll I'm also thinking practically and I um I don't want to overstate, but I think in my mind this is going to be a pretty easy variance case. I don't know if this is the right case to to make that sort of big change in precedent. Not that we set precedent, but you know, so so I I think I I would heir on the side of sticking with what staff says in this case and maybe thinking about it sort of in a sort of a case that better captures the entire big picture where it would really hinge on it.

Mr. Walker. Yeah, I'm tending [clears throat] to lean on the side that we hear this is a variance. I have one question that I'm still not clear on. The the violation that triggers this is a sideyard setback of the existing building. Yet we're talking about asking him to get a variance for frontage because it's a non-conforming lot and you can develop a non-conforming lot if you can meet among other things the sides. Got it. Okay. Now I understand. Excuse me.

Okay. Uh I think it could be reasonably said that they don't meet all of the criteria A through E or however they were even though the building is entitled to be there. It is kind of a weird situation, but uh probably the most straightforward thing for us to do, my point of view is uh hear the request for variance. Would anyone care to make a motion? Do we need a motion? Yeah. Okay.

I move that we require a variance because the requirements of section 2883 C2 are not all met. Very good. Is there a second? Go ahead. Either one. It got half seconded by two people. Let the record show. Is there any discussion? All in favor of affirming the de the the requirement for variance, please say I. I. Anyone opposed? The vote is unanimous. Uh Mr. Arnold, please proceed.

All right. Thank you. I appreciate you considering that and I've been wrong before and I'm sure I will be again, just hopefully not tonight.

Um so on the variance, I'll be very brief on the public interest and the spirit of the ordinance. The frontage variance is not going to change the character of the neighborhood or threaten public safety or welfare uh or health. Uh frontage has been there for several decades and has proved that everything has been just fine on the substantial justice for the same reason there won't be any harm to the public. I think there'll be a benefit to the public here by providing three additional housing units on a time when there's a strong need for housing in the city. On the property values um there won't be any impact because nothing's changing in terms of the frontage. It's just a continuation of the existing 80 feet. And on the hardship, uh, properties existing was created with 80 feet of frontage before the ordinance existed. It's not a way to increase that frontage. And, um, the frontage that's there has, as I said, proved adequate. There haven't been any safety issues. So, there really isn't a public purpose served by, um, requiring it to comply with 100 ft. So, the use itself is reasonable. It's permitted by right in the district. As I said, it's just taking an existing building, an existing lot, converting the use. Um, and so that's it.

Is it fair to say that any converting to any allowed use would still trigger this problem, right? Well, I mean, I guess it goes back to my initial argument. I think it's I think it's debatable. Yeah. Um but but yes, I think under your ruling that um the building being in the setback precludes uh the use of this lot for any other use without a variance. Um answers that question. I'm eating supper. [laughter] Excuse me. No problem. [snorts] John, you're here so often. We should offer you.

Yeah. Would you like would you like a cinnamon roll? I am a little offended. [laughter] We should we should have we should have offered that sooner. Bad manners on my part. Um, very good. Any other any other questions from the board? Any cinnamon meetings before. Is there anything else you'd like us to know? No. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone who'd like to be heard in favor or in opposition to this appeal? Any comments from code enforcement?

No. Thank you. With that, we'll close the public testimony portion of the hearing. We have a request for a variance to allow conversion of a non-conforming building to from its current use to residential use. We heard testimony that the configuration of the building and the lot create a hardship. I'm going to start this one with Mr. Walner. How do you see it? Dan. Yeah. Um, I'm inclined to favor this. I think it meets all five criteria. uh for granting a variance. I think the hardship is there. I don't think the surrounding property values should be diminished. Um and I think we're doing substantial justice by granting it. Mr. Wyers.

Yeah. And I and I think that the conversion is it's a strong use of the building. It you know, as was stated by somebody earlier, it's it's something that is beneficial to the city as a whole, you know, by adding more housing and and seems like it's the best way to convert it. So, I think his his arguments in favor of why it doesn't need a variance, although we um we deny that request, I think they kind of carry over to the variance itself. Very good, Mr. Davy.

Um same as the above. Um it's an excellent reuse of a structure. Um the structure predates and the lot predate the current zoning. Um uh it does not it aligns with the character of the neighborhood which is appears residential despite the urban commercial zoning district. So I'm inclined to support it. May expect to work more. Me too.

I agree with my colleagues. I I believe that uh variance is justified. Would anyone care to make a motion? I move to grant the variance from article 284 development design standards section 828 41C minimum lot frontage/H table of dimensional regulations to permit 80 ft of frontage where 100 ft is otherwise required for the conversion of a non-residential building to a residential building at 37 Washington Street Pinnacook because all the criteria under RSA 67433 have been met based on the record before address and to adopt the applicant's proposed findings as the board's findings effect.

Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? All in favor, please say I. I. Anyone opposed? The vote is unanimous. The variance is granted. We do have a couple of other items on the agenda. Uh minutes from September 3rd, October 30th, and November 5th. Damn. September 3rd minutes. [laughter] I just don't know if this is the right time to approve though. I feel like we should wait a little longer. Stop. Are you guys all here though? Wasn't it Jim the third person? Oh, is this Oh, no. Do we need three people who was Was this the fateful September 3rd was when we only had three people?

Was this the fateful? I think if you if you've all read them, I don't see an issue with I'm sure they haven't read them specifically. If everyone has read the if that's if that's the [clears throat] case read the minutes I feel as though you're I had to chair it so I know I was there. This was the federal street meeting, right? Yeah. Okay. I was not here. So I was not here and I didn't read them. There's only three of us. Um it was Jim, myself and Andrew. Yeah. So only two of us are here.

But theoretically that we could all vote except they probably should have watched the meeting, right? Because have you because the minutes you kind of need they have to see [snorts] if they match the So all right. To tell you the truth, I am not prepared to vote on this because I have not read the minutes and I've not looked at the tape and I would be It's not that long a tape for 16 cases. Bring it in the new year with September. [laughter] Well, some people run a much more efficient meeting than others. We know that. [snorts] Guess we pass on this one, right? October and November. How about October 30th? That was that was the Friday one, right? That was the special Thursday. That was a special meeting and I was not there. I was there.

I second. Okay. It's been moved and seconded. I Okay. All in favor? I. Anyone opposed? I was not. I was not. Who was the first? Laura and Mark, you were the second. Andy and thank you. And November 5th, I was not for those. I move to approve them. Second. It's been moved a second. Any discussion? All in favor? I. Okay. I said I even though I don't mean I [laughter] uh approved 2026 meeting dates. What if we have a hissy fit and say we don't like them? By me. We have to [laughter] we want cinnamon. They have a lot of

So we have to approve we have to approve that. All right. Anyone care to make a motion? Oh yeah. We had them last meeting. They're the first Wednesday of every Let me get my We'll stick to the same regime we had for the last 50 years. Only the only weird thing sometimes is July 4th. But it wasn't But it wasn't weird. It wasn't weird this year. Well, if it gets I mean if we have to make an adjustment, we'll do it. Anyone care to make a motion? I move to approve them. Is there a second? All in favor? I I Anyone oppose? Very good. Thank you so much, Mark. Thank you, Mark. I'll miss you. So, Mark,

you get a new job, but not a new chair. No. No. That goes to Brenda. Oh. Oh. One, two, three, four. Do you get a paycheck? No. Serious. You get like a grand or something. You get to keep your name plate. Do I hear a motion to adjourn the meeting? Yes. All in favor? I I Well, you pick.