Zoning Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

Call to order, the Town of Londonderry Zoning Board of Adjustment, June 17th, 2026. I'd like to welcome everybody this evening. Before we begin our meeting, let me go over the procedure. First, the clerk will read the case into the record. Then the applicant will make their presentation. The board addresses the applicant with any question or comments. Those that are in favor of the request are given the opportunity to address the board. Those that are opposed or having questions regarding the requests are also given the opportunity to address the board. The applicant will be given the opportunity to rebut any opposition, and the opposition is also given the opportunity for rebuttal. The board will address the applicant with any additional comments or questions at that time, and then the public, once that is done, the public hearing portion regarding the case will be closed, at which time the board will enter into deliberations and vote on the request or continue the case to a future date. Those that have cases this evening or wish to speak. Those that have the case, you'll come up and sit in the box, the podium that has the two chairs, and you'll state your name and address for the record. Anyone that wishes to speak in favor or in opposition will come to the single podium. Also state your name and address for our records. All conversations will be directed through the board to ensure a single line of communication, which refers to if you have a question, you are either in favor or in opposition, you will ask the board, we will address the applicant, the applicant will respond, and then we will let you know. That way, it's just a single line of communication. We ask that you either put your cell phones to vibrate or turn them off, and you can stay through the deliberations to... see how we vote on the case, or you can always go to the town hall in the morning. Now that that is over, let's introduce ourselves. Nick, would you start us off?

My name is Nick Codner. I'm the Chief Building Inspector and the Zoning Administrator.

Ariana McCrory. I'm an alternate zoning member.

Brennan O'Brien, full member.

Jackie Bernard, full member. Lisa Sussman, alternate. Now, this evening, whatever you're here for, you need three votes in your favor. We do not have a full board this evening. There's only four of us. There's five for a full board. At this time, when you're called up for your case, you can defer it to the July 15th meeting, and hopefully we'll have five members, and then you have a better chance... You may have a better chance on what it is you're presenting to get those three votes, but you need to know that because we do not have a full board. This board is made up, we are all volunteers. And I can't tell you who will show or will not show because we don't know until we get here. So I just wanted to remind everybody of that. That is your right. Once you present, if you decide that you want to present your case, even though there's only four of us, you can't come if you don't like the decision you can't come back and say i want to do it when there's five members because that's what we um the uh law states that it's one bite of the apple you got one chance to present your case you can't come back and say well i want five now i didn't have five you're told at the beginning of the meeting that there's only four of us um if the If for some reason there was some evidence or something that was not available at the time that you presented your case, that would be an okay thing to say, I need to come back because when I presented it, I had no knowledge of this or this was not available, now it's available. But in the case of just saying, I want five members is not good enough to have you come back. So keep that in mind. So now that we begin the meetings, the first order of business is to approve the draft minutes of the May 20th meeting. Do I have a motion? am i voted in as a full oh let me vote you in ari ariana and lisa you're full members this evening so um you're not no longer alternates you're full voting members i'll make a motion to approve those minutes second second all those in favor aye opposed okay minutes are done do we have a report by the town council liaison this evening Let the record show I don't see anybody in the audience that is from the town for any liaison communication. Nick, may we have regional impact determination?

Staff has determined that none of the cases tonight have regional impact. Thank you.

Do I have a motion for a regional impact?

I'd like to make a motion to approve the regional impact determination.

Do I have a second? I'll second. Thank you. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. This brings us to our public hearing of cases. Brendan, would you so nicely read the first case?

Case number 617-2026-1, a request for a special exception from LZO 515-1 to allow a portable structure in the AR-1 zoning district. The parcel is located at 82 Wiley Hill Road in the AR-1 zoning district, tax map 5, lot 15-2. Nicholas and Melissa Cannata, owner and applicant.

Will the applicants please approach? Good evening and welcome. Good evening. Please state your name and address for the record.

Nicholas Kanata, 82 Wiley Hill Road.

Melissa Kanata, 82 Wiley Hill Road. And I think you've done this before. You remember. Huh? You remember?

Yeah. But if you have any questions, by all means, like before, you can do it at your pace. If you want to describe what's going on or you'd like to go into the five points of law, we really don't care. Okay.

ahead you want me to yeah okay all right so um we have a portable structure at the back portion of our yard it has been there for a few years i would say about five years and um It was a structure that we chose to store some household maintenance items for our yard as well as some antique and collectible parts for our motorcycles and cars. It's a structure that is weather resistant, durable. It's very clean. Our structure is we bought it what like almost new yeah um so it's it's very clean and um we didn't think it had any visual impact on our nuisance and um i don't know do you have anything else to add okay do we any questions from the board members not for me

Okay. Can you tell us the size of the container? Because I don't remember that.

It's 8 feet by 20 feet long. 8 feet wide, 20 feet long.

And it was a steel one, correct?

Correct.

Was it on blocks?

Yes, it is.

All right. Any questions from anybody? Okay. I'd like to take it out to the public. Anyone that would like to speak in favor of the applicant, please approach.

There is a letter in favor.

Ah, why don't we read the letter.

So I'm 78 Wiley Hill Road, Londonderry, New Hampshire, June 17th, 2026 to the Londonderry Zoning Board of Adjustment regarding case number 617-2026-1. Nicholas and Melissa Cannata of 82 Wiley Hill Road have lived next to me for a number of years. I have to say they've been great neighbors. I am aware that they have a storage unit on their property. It has never bothered me or, as far as I know, any of the other neighbors. It does not detract from the value of my property or present as an eyesore. I wholeheartedly support their request for an exemption to allow for a portable storage unit on their property. Thank you, Lee Breslow.

Thank you. Anyone that would like to speak in opposition, please approach and state your name and address at the mic. Okay, let the record show nobody. Bring it back to the board one last time for any questions before we go into the special acceptance. You do want to. I thought I saw your hand go up. Yeah, you have to come up to the podium. Okay. And please state your name and address for the record.

My name is Donna Manarini, and I live at 91 Wiley Hill Road. and i am neighbors of nick and melissa and also a neighbor of lee on the the other side of them i didn't even know there was a storage unit back there so it certainly is of no no concern or eyesore or anything nick and melissa are wonderful neighbors and i'm just speaking up on their behalf thank you thank you you're welcome

Okay, anyone in opposition that would like to speak? Let the record show there was no one in opposition. One last time to the board.

Are we good? I have a few questions, if you don't mind. You indicated that you store motorcycle and car parts there. Are there any combustible items in that unit? Gasoline or. Oil anything like that currently right now?

No, but I have stored my snowblower in there in the off season. OK, yeah, OK, but it's not in there currently.

It just rough roughly. How big is your lot?

An acre and a half.

OK, thank you.

You're welcome.

Anybody else? To your knowledge, just to know, are there any wetlands or anything like that on your property?

I'm not aware.

Okay, we're good.

I think so.

Okay, since there are no more questions from the audience or the board, the portion of the hearing is now closed. We're going to go into deliberations. Do we need to hash anything out before we do the special exception? We're good?

Yep.

Okay, let's do it.

Is the use detrimental to the health or safety of residents? I would say no.

Applicant S stated no.

Will the use create undue traffic congestion or a traffic safety hazard in the vicinity of the proposed development?

Applicant S said no.

I agree. Will the use be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood?

Applicant S stated no.

I agree. Will the use be a detriment to property values in the vicinity of the proposed development with consideration given to the location or scale of buildings, structures, parking areas, or other access ways?

applicant states no, I agree. We have to make sure, for the record, that we all have a vote. So on the first one, are you in agreement, Arianna? Yes. Yes, Lisa. Okay, number two, Arianna. Yes, also I'm good. Yeah, okay, Lisa. So am I. Number three. In agreement. In agreement. Okay, I am as well. Number four, I am in agreement. Yes. Okay, very good. Yep, because it's set back fairly far.

I'm okay with it. Okay.

Will a nuisance be created such by way of emissions of odor, smoke, gas, dust, noise, glare, heat, vibration, or other pollutants, or the unsightly outdoor storage of equipment, vehicles, or other materials?

The applicant has stated no, and I agree.

I agree.

I agree. I agree predicated on the fact that other than the snowblower and perhaps some small engines, there's no combustible materials being stored there.

No.

Will the use create a hazard to the public or adjacent property on account of potential fire, explosion, or release of toxic materials?

Applicant has stated no.

I agree.

I agree. Agree. Agreed.

Will the use result in the degradation of existing surface and ground water quality standards or have adverse effects on the natural functions of wetlands on the site, which would result in the loss of significant habitat or flood control protection?

Applicant has stated no.

I agree.

I agree. Agree.

Agreed. Will there be more than one portable storage structure per property?

Applicant has stated no.

I agree.

Agree. Agree.

Will the portable storage structure be larger than 10 feet wide, 20 feet long, and 10 feet high?

Applicant has stated no, and I agree.

I agree.

Agree.

Will the portable storage structure be located to the side or rear of a principal structure on the property?

Applicant has stated yes.

I agree.

Agree. Agree. Agreed.

Will the portable storage structure be set back a minimum of 15 feet from any side or rear slot lines and 40 feet from any property front line?

Applicant has stated yes. I agree.

I agree.

Agreed.

Will the portable storage structure be set back a minimum of 5 feet from the nearest wall of a building?

Applicant stated yes. I agree.

I agree.

Agreed.

Will the portable storage structure be placed on paved, concrete, or other appropriate imperfect services or placed on blocks?

Applicant has responded yes. I agree.

I agree.

Agreed. Agreed.

If applicable, adequate and appropriate facilities be provided for the intended use.

Applicant has responded not applicable.

Okay.

I agree. I agree. Agreed. Agreed.

If applicable, will all necessary state and federal permits be obtained?

That's also non-applicable.

Agreed.

Agreed. Agreed. Agreed.

What is the length of time the portable structure will remain on the property?

The applicant has stated the structure is intended to remain as a long-term accessory storage structure supporting household, property maintenance, and personal. I agree.

I agree.

I'll agree. Agreed.

Any conditions?

I have none.

I agree.

Lisa, Ariana, do you have any commissions?

No, I don't think I do.

Okay.

Do I have a motion?

I'd like to make a motion in case number 617-2026-1 to grant the request for a special exception.

Do I have a second? I'll second. Thank you. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? You guys have it.

Thank you.

Have a good evening.

Appreciate it. Thanks for your time.

Do I need to sign that?

I signed this one.

Okay, perfect. I knew you were here for something.

That's all. Ready for the next case?

Ready for the next one.

Case number 617-2026-2. Request for a variance from LZO section 4.2.1.3.C.1 to allow a structure carport to encroach 18 feet in the 40-foot front setback in the AR1 zoning district. Parcels located at 7 King John Drive, Map 9, Lot 66-22 in the AR1 zoning district. Roger and Suzanne French, owner and applicant.

Good evening, sir. Hello. Please state your name and address for the record.

My name is Roger Allen French, and I live at 7 King John Drive in Londonderry.

Welcome. Have you done this before?

I have in 2002. I applied for a variance.

Begin where you'd like to then. Would you like to tell us about what's going on, or would you like to go through the five points of law?

I like to, I wrote way too much stuff, but I won't read it all. But I would like to read a page and a half just to give you an overview of the entire thing. That's okay. And you'll, correct me if I get that footage wrong. Thank you. Because I changed, okay. So my wife and I have owned and lived in the house at 7 King John Drive for more than 40 years. It has a two-car attached garage. And for the last 40 years, we have owned three vehicles, not counting my motorcycle. At present, we have two sedans and a van, and we want to have built a carport next to the driveway where I've parked one of the three vehicles for all of those years. It would be a wooden six-post carport that is 20 feet long, and the van is 17 feet 8 inches, so it'll accommodate that, and 12 feet wide, leaving an 11-foot opening between the 6-inch by 6-inch posts, and the van is 8 feet 10 inches wide, including the side mirrors, which don't fold in. It would be eight feet high at the opening on the ends and the sides, and have a 10 feet high at the peak. It would be located one foot from the east side border, and when I originally measured it, 30 feet from the pavement, which turns out not to be the plot line. So I have to come back to that. It would be put within the side boundary setback with our neighbor and within the setback from the street. So I'm really addressing two variances here. One is for the side and one is for the front from the road. Okay.

So what you're going to do is we're going to do one case at a time because you can't combine them, okay?

Okay. All right. So I mentioned the house is a two-story colonial with a farmer's porch and an attached garage, a gated space for propane tanks for the generator, and a 10-by-20-foot shed. All of these are a medium blue color with white trim, and the space has a white gate. The carport will match those with with white posts, medium blue ends to the peak with white trim. The shingles on the carport roof would match the shingles on the house, the garage, and the shed. The floor area will be crushed stone. Its entry would be from the edge of the paved driveway. Access to the street would would only be by using the existing driveway and that means that there'll be no change in traffic patterns and there'll be no change in traffic because the one of those cars has been there for more than 30 years and so you would back out of the carport and then drive down the driveway. There's no direct access from the carport to this to the street. But okay, that's that's what I have for specifics.

Do you have any questions before the applicant goes into the 5 points of law from anybody here. We want to go into the 5 points a lot of.

Sure. Those are the heavy questions. Yeah, OK so. I don't have the questions here, but I think I have the answers here. The variance would not be contrary. Is the first question that has to do with the public interest, I believe?

Which is, yeah, contrary to the public interest.

All right. The variance would not be contrary to the public interest. It would bring no harm to the public interest as the structure would not change or interfere with existing traffic patterns or the level of traffic as the carport is placed Approximately where the owner has been has placed the vehicle has parked the vehicle for more than 30 years. Access to the carport will be on the paved existing driveway and not directly onto the street. It will not interfere with the availability of air or lighting. The style and colors will match those of the structure of the house and the shed. And so the property on the property and so will not diminish the value of the properties of the abutters, the neighborhood of the town.

And then when you read number seven, you're actually following your five points of law. You did it nice. So go ahead.

Okay. So the spirit of the ordinance? The spirit of the ordinance appears to be that for protecting the community, its character, value, and inhabitants with respect to its health, safety, and the general welfare by ensuring that no changes be allowed without appropriate and official review and authorization. And so this application is for the review and the board's authorization. Substantial justice is done. Well, hard to define as suspected justice is accomplished in this case by allowing the property owner to build a planned carport in the planned location such that it does not harm the abutters or the community and does not diminish the value of their property or interfere with their current lifestyles. This carport would provide added protection for one of the owner's vehicles without causing any harm. I did have one thing that I want to mention on that. Okay, I know that would be it so then the value of the surrounding properties would not be diminished because of the style of the car for it and be because it fits the style of the house in the garage and the shed and is actually partially blocked by a large tree between it in the in the road itself. We can John drive. Let's see here. okay so um literal enforcement uh would be an unnecessary hardship as i understand the rationale for this variance is to determine that if this is a general hardship shared by all or if there's something that makes the hardship not common to all property owners the difference here is the characteristics of the property that do not do not allow the placement of the carport anywhere else on the property without significant expense or damage I've worked with four companies to examine options that do not involve the variance to the setback ordinance and found that none work. The location in the back of the property has a leach field and it would prevent use of that. The back half of the property, which is wooded, would be an inconvenient place and less secure, mostly out of sight of the house. Any of those in that back half would involve the removal of several trees and removal of a considerable amount of ground. For the gentle slope up through it to the embankment that's about five feet above King Henry Drive, because I live on that corner. At least one option would require dismantling several feet of an old stone wall that I recently rebuilt.

Okay. Any questions from the board?

So I'm looking at a picture of your house right now. It looks like you have a shed. If I'm looking at your house straight on, you've got the two-car garage, and then you've got to the right of that, as I'm looking, a shed. So is the carport going in between those?

No.

Where's the carport going?

The carport's going in front of the shed and closer to the side border.

Okay.

In that gap between the two-car garage and the shed are the propane tanks for the standby generator. Okay.

So as I look at it on Google Maps, it looks like you have a car park there. So the car is parked basically perpendicular to the front of the house? Right. Is that right? Okay.

Basically, the car park will go where I've been parking for the last 30 to 40 years. Okay. I understand. Thank you.

Any other questions? I have none. So I just want to remind you, number five, which is the literal enforcement of the provision, that is the hardest one, unnecessary hardship, to fulfill of the five criteria. And because it costs, or there is substantial cost, is not an argument for Number five.

Okay.

So I just want to remind you that you did. You in your presentation, you stated. The other facts that are applicable to number five, you're a corner lot. You also have a giant slope. You have some propane tanks. You already have a – it looks like a pool back there.

The pool is gone.

The pool is gone. Okay. But you are limited because of that corner lot and the setback that requires that. So you – You saved yourself by also going into those criteria. But I just want to remind you that cost is not a reason for a hardship.

I'm also concerned with how many trees would have to be removed because the back half of the lot is all trees and two stone walls.

Okay. And you said the carport is how big again?

12 feet wide and 20 feet long. And the opening, the ridge line would be, the roof of it would be 10 feet high. The opening would be 8 feet high, but it would have a peak. So the peak would be 10 feet high.

Okay. I'm going to take it out to the audience. Is anyone in the audience that would like to speak in favor of the applicant? Let the record show there is no one. Is there anyone in opposition that would like to speak? At the record show, there was also no one.

Take it one last time to the board. We have any other questions for the applicant? I just have a question on the construction of the structure. Could you describe that just briefly for us?

Yes. Originally, I thought it would have four posts. They would be six by six inch posts. Post sunk into the ground in these something to take him in the name from standard construction. I don't do construction. But then I modified that and change the plan that I turned in on it to be have 6 post a middle one that each of the 4 corners and on the long side. A middle post with the with the appropriate corbels to support it.

I'm just thinking about the snow load on top and you know, supporting, being able to support the structure itself.

Yeah. I'm not an expert, but it's designed with the right kind of supports and ridge pole, ridge beam, I guess it's called.

And Nick, you would go out and make sure that it meets all the specifications?

If he gets this, if he gets the variance, then we do a plan review. You do a plan. Okay. Plans to begin with to make sure it's going to be built right. And then it is inspected afterwards.

Thank you, Nick. Okay. Any other questions? All right. At this time, the public portion of the hearing is closed. Let's go into deliberations. Do we need to talk about anything or can we do the five points?

I'm fine.

I'm good. Okay. Let's do it.

Granting the variance would or would not be contrary to the public interest because I would say it would not.

Because?

No threat to health safety or general welfare.

And it would also not alter the character of the neighborhood.

Right.

I also think it sounds like there is going to be a tree that remains between the carport and the right-of-way. And I think sort of the purpose of that ordinance is to make sure that there's no impacts to the right-of-way itself and visibility and all of that. And I think that there's no impact to any of that here.

Agreed.

Spirit of the ordinance would or would not be observed because, I would say it would, no change to the general character of the neighborhood.

And there's also no violation on the protection of health, safety, or welfare to the public.

Agreement.

Agreement.

Granted, the variance would or would not do substantial justice because I would say it would. I think the loss to the applicant is greater than any gain to the public.

I agree with that. Agreed.

For the following reasons, the values surrounding properties would or would not be diminished. I would say would not.

I would say would not due to the testimony of the applicant and how he's going to match the existing home.

Agreed.

Agreed. Agreed.

going to special conditions the property that distinguish it for the properties in the area now the variance would result in unnecessary hardship because there is a reason not affairs central issue between general public per se or provision and the specific application that provision to the property because I would say there is not. I think the fact that it's a corner lot, I think the fact that there is slope in the back, he did explore other ways to go, but because of the leach field and the slope and the frontage on the two streets, I think there is no fair and substantial relationship.

I agree. Agreed. I agree.

Proposed use is or is not a reasonable one because is carports are reasonable.

I think carports are reasonable. Agreed.

Agreed.

Comments restrictions.

The request is 18 feet to encroach 18 feet into the 40 foot front setback. So I say the conditions shall be carport shall not be any larger than 12 feet by 20 feet as testimony from applicant.

agreed agreed yes okay okay do i have a motion i'd like to make a motion in case number 617 2026-2 to grant the request for a variance with the condition that the car shot carport should not be any larger than 12 feet by 20 feet do i have a second a second i'll give it to you this time

All those in favor? Aye. Opposed?

So in case number 617-2026-2, the request for a variance was granted with the condition that the car part not be any larger than 12 feet by 25. We're ready for the last one.

Let's do it.

Case number 617-2026-3. Request for a variance from LZO 4.2.1.3.C.2 to allow a structure carport to encroach 14 feet into the 15-foot side setback in the AR1 zoning district. Parcels located at 7 King John Drive, Map 9, Lot 66-22 in the AR1 zoning district. Roger and Suzanne French, owner and applicant.

Now for this one, it is for a different encroachment, which is 14 feet into the 15 foot setback. Your testimony from your first presentation, is it the same as it is for this one?

It is. What I would add to that is that I talked to the neighbor on that side, that encroaching on that side. They've only been there about six months about it, and they approved. I mean, they're not here or anything, and I explained everything I wanted to do, and they would get a certified letter, and they could respond to that letter, or they could come if they had any objections. They said they had no objections at all.

Do you have any letters for this one?

I don't believe I do.

Let's just check the file. Sure.

I do not.

Okay. Very good then. So I will accept that your facts from the first case that we just heard, case number 617-2026, are the same, but you'll have to go through the five points of law for me, which on your presentation for that is number one. Did you bring that with you?

No.

For the second one?

I would use exactly the same words.

All right, so read that into the record. That's all you'll need to do for the five points.

Read the five points into the record? Yeah. Oh, sure.

Which is your number, what, six, seven, eight, and nine on your sheet?

I think on this one it's back to one from three.

Well, he doesn't have that with him. Oh, okay. He's going to read the first one. Okay.

I made them continuous, and then I split them between two, so I didn't know what happened.

Yeah, we have to do it that way. Yeah.

Okay. So the variance will not be contrary to the public interest. It will be no harm to the public interest as the structure will not change or interfere with the existing traffic patterns and the level of traffic as the carport will be placed approximately where one of the owner's vehicles has been placed for more than 30 years. Access to the carport will be from the paved existing driveway and not directly from the street. it will not interfere with the availability of air or lighting the style and the paint colors will match as near as possible the current house garage and shed on the property and so will not diminish the value of the property to the abutters and as i mentioned the the shingles on the top will be the same color and style shingles as on the other structure The spirit of the ordinance is observed. The spirit of the ordinance appears to be protecting the community, its character, value, and inhabitants with respect to its health, safety, and general welfare by ensuring that no changes be allowed without the appropriate an official review and authorization, and I state that the zoning board is performing that review and is the authority. Substantial justice is done. While hard to define, I suspect that justice is accomplished in this case by allowing the property owner to build The planned carport in the planned location does not harm the abutters or the community and does not diminish the value of their properties or interfere with their current lifestyles. This carport will provide additional protection for one of the owner's vehicles without causing any harm. The value of the surrounding properties are not diminished. The material to be used, the colors of the paint and trim will match that of the other structures on the property. The minimal design and the recessed location will ensure that the surrounding property values and appearances are not diminished. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship. As I understand the rationale of this provision, Variance criteria is to determine if the general hardship shared by all or if there's something that makes the hardship not common to all property owners. The difference here is the characteristics of the property that do not allow placement of the carport elsewhere on the property without significant change. I have worked with four companies to examine the options that do not involve a variance to the setback ordinance and found that none work. The location of the leach field prevents the use of the backyard with access to King Henry Drive. The back half of the property, which is mostly forest, would be an inconvenient place and would be less secure as it would be mostly out of sight of the house. Further, each of the locations there would require the removal of several trees and the removal of considerable amounts of ground to create a gentle slope through the earth embankment that is about five feet above King Henry Drive. At least one option would require dismantling several feet of the old stone wall that i have recently rebuilt the purpose the proposed use of the carpet in place where i is in a place where i've parked my car for more than 30 years and so i believe it is a reasonable one thank you let's take it out into the audience anyone that would like to speak in favor of the applicant please come let the record show no one anyone in opposition

Let the record show no one. Bring in one last time to the board. Are we good?

Yep.

Okay. And for the record, will this carport for this case be the size of 12 feet by 20 feet?

It will.

Thank you. Public portion is now closed. Do we have to go into deliberations? Are we good to go into the five points?

I think we can do it.

Let's do it.

Granting the variance would or would not treat contrary to the public interest because I would say there would not be because there's no threat to health, safety, and general welfare, and it does not alter the character of the neighborhood.

I agree. And then on this one, too, with respect to the side abutting property, the purpose of the ordinance is probably to make sure that there's no overcrowding and then It appears that on Google, there's a significant tree line buffer between the two properties, coupled with the fact that Mr. French is indicating that the owner approved of this. There's also kind of directly across from where the carport looks like it would be located, there's a fence that belongs to the abutter that would be blocking any view. So just note those facts to the record.

Thank you. Agreed.

Agreed.

Superior to the ordinance, would or would not be observed because, I would say it would, there is no change to the general character of the neighborhood with a threat to health, safety, or general welfare.

I agree. Agreed. Agreed.

Granted, the variance would or would not do substantial justice because, I would say it would, I think the loss to the applicant is greater than any gain to the public.

I agree. I agree. Agreed.

For the following reasons, the values of surrounding properties would or would not be diminished. I would say they would not be, given the nature and the construction of the carport.

Agreed? Agreed. Agreed.

Only the special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties and areas. Now, the variance would result in unnecessary hardship because. There is, or is not a fair and substantial relationship in general public purpose, the ordinance provision. And the specific application of that provision of the property, because. I would say there is not given that the property is a corner lot. Probably sloped location, the leach field all make the property unique.

I agree on all those points. Agreed agreed.

The proposed use is or is not a reasonable one because is carports are reasonable?

Reasonable, I agree. Agreed.

And the restriction, the carport should not be any larger than 12 feet by 20 feet?

Yes, I agree. You guys in agreement? Yes. Okay. Do I have a motion?

I'd like to make a motion in case number 617-2026-3 to grant the request for a variance with the condition that the carport should not be any larger than 12 feet by 20 feet.

Do I have a second? I'll second. Thank you, Lisa. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed?

In case number 617-2026-3, the request for variance was granted with the condition that the car porch should not be any larger than 12 feet by 20 feet. Thank you.

You are all set, sir. Have a wonderful evening.

Thank you.

Next up on the agenda, communications and miscellaneous information. Nick, do you have any communication for us or miscellaneous information? I have nothing. Okay, neither do I. We have no other business. Do I have a motion to adjourn?

I'd like to make a motion to adjourn.

Do you have a second? Second. Perfect. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it.