Zoning Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

I open the session of the zoning committee of the City of London for this August 19, 2026. I welcome everyone tonight. Before starting, I will read the procedures of the meeting. The first step is for the clerk to sign the file for the verbal trial. The applicant will move forward here, where the two chairs are, in this small space, to make his presentation. The council will address any questions or comments to the applicant, if necessary. The people in favour of the request will have the opportunity to address the Council, then those who oppose or have questions will also be able to express themselves. The applicant will have the opportunity to respond to any opposition and the opposing party will also be able to respond. The Council will address the applicant for any additional comments. If there is none, the public hearing will be closed, after which the Council will deliberate and vote on the request or report the case to a later date. We ask those who wish to speak to get closer to the small speaker and to indicate their name and address for the verbal trial. All conversations will be directed to the Council to guarantee a unique line of communication. So whether you are here in opposition or in support of a requirement, you will address us. We will question the requirement. There will be no direct exchange. We also ask you to turn off your mobile phones or at least put them in silent mode during the meeting. You can stay for the deliberation or go to the mayor's office tomorrow morning to know the results. If you prefer not to stay. Before starting the files, I would like the council members to introduce themselves so that everyone knows who we are.

I am Nick Cord, building inspector and zoning administrator.

Lisa Sussman, additional member.

Mitch, voting member.

Suzanne Bernel, voting member. Jackie Bernard, voting member.

Brennan O'Brien, voting member.

André Hansen, additional member.

Arianna Macoré, additional member.

And now, we must approve the report of... of... 15 July... C'était le 15 juillet. Le 15. 15 juillet 2026. Ai-je une proposition ? Je propose l'approbation de ce compte-rendu. Ai-je un appui ? Parfait. Tous ceux qui sont pour ? Je m'y oppose.

Peut-elle faire une proposition en tant que membre suppléante ? Pour l'approuver. Pas encore. C'est exact.

Donc nous en avons quatre. Je propose l'approbation.

Merci. Tous ceux qui sont pour ? Okay. Do we have a report from the municipal delegate tonight? And it doesn't seem that we have any. Any decisions on the regional impact tonight?

Mr. President, the staff determined that none of the files tonight have a regional impact.

A motion to accept the absence of a regional impact.

Would you like to present a motion to accept the decision on the regional impact?

And a second. Thank you, Mitch. All those in favor? Opponents? But what's next? This brings us to our public audience on the files. Suzanne.

Excuse me?

You're going to object now.

I'm going to object to file C. Not for A or B? No, the one we heard last month. All right. Very good. We don't need to do it right now. Very good.

We still have one. And we are Andrea. You will be a member of the voting in full tonight. For files A and B, would you like to read them in the verbal trial?

Okay. File number 705. Demand for derogation to the GFZ zone 5.1. To authorize an additional portable storage structure in the R1 zone on the property located at 131 High Range Road, Planca d'Astral 6, Law 5.1. Nathan Stiller and Jacqueline White, owners and demanders.

Bonsoir. Bienvenue à nouveau. Très bien. Donc, le mois dernier, nous avons demandé plus d'informations. Donc, je demande aux membres de mon conseil, est-ce que tout le monde a examiné la précédente ? Oui.

Exception spéciale pour la propriété. Très bien.

Would you like to make a brief introduction on the reasons for your presence tonight for the verbal trial?

Tonight, we are here to ask for a derogation authorization or the prosecution of the derogations for which we filed in July for a portable storage container of 10 feet and a second derogation.

We will deal with the first files. This is the one we read in the verbal trial.

Just to refresh the memory of everyone on why you are here. Then for the public and those who are watching at home, if there are any.

We are here to request a derogation for a 10-foot portable storage container.

Members of the Council, do you have any questions now that you have additional information? On the previous zoning of this property. Which already exists and has been approved by the applicant. Je suppose que nous pouvons demander au demandeur s'il a reçu les informations sur le dossier précédent. Vous avez vu le précédent? Non, très bien. Alors, la précédente mention au procès verbal était une dérogation spéciale. C'était le 20 décembre 1995 au comité de zonage. I'm sorry, but the hearing actually took place on December 19, 1995. The file number was 12... And it was a request for special derogation to 131 High Range Road, Plan Hello 651 to operate a car repair company as a home activity. It was agreed with the following restrictions, no more than five cars at the same time for repair, no employees and no vehicle storage during the night. Voilà donc ce qui est en place pour l'activité à domicile. Donc vous êtes ici ce soir pour un conteneur. Et revoyons la taille du conteneur.

Il fait 10 pieds. Il fait 10 pieds de long, 7 pieds de large. Il fait 8 pieds, je dirais 8 pieds de haut. Je ne sais pas son nom. In total, it's 70 square feet.

Do the council members have any questions?

If I remember correctly, it's the second container, isn't it? So there are people on the property.

Yes, there is a second one. And does everyone remember the place where the second storage container had to be placed?

It's indicated. And it's precise. So tell us, where is this second container?

The second storage container, the small one, is placed on the left of our garage for three cars. On the map on the screen, the garage for three cars would be the small spot, orange or yellow, towards the bottom of the map. And the container is on the left.

Just where the mouse is.

Almost where the mouse is. So when you arrive from High Range Road, it's on the left, at the back.

To the left of the house, but on the back side of the garage. Once again, to the left of the house.

To the left. Very well. Are there any other questions or clarifications that the council would like to ask the plaintiff? I pass the floor to the public. Does anyone wish to speak in favour of the plaintiff at this stage? Please introduce yourself to the panel and indicate your name and address for the verbal trial.

I am Mark Greenwood, 133 Highlands Road, Riverin, just north. And I wanted my wife and I to know that we are in favor of what this container is doing to this location. It's falling into the background. No one will even be able to see it.

Are you on the other side of the street compared to him?

I'm just next door. I probably bought more than 50% of his property.

On the same side as these garages, or on the other side?

I'm on the same side as the car garage, where the automobile workshop was originally located.

Very well, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak in favour of the candidate at this time?

Madam President, there are two letters from neighbors who gave their agreement, which were read in the verbal process last month.

Would you like to read them in court this month, please?

So these are identical letters. I think they were written by the candidates on the intention of the neighbors. They say, we hope you are well. We are writing you to inform you that we have submitted a request to the Energy Zoning Adjustment Council for three derogations concerning our property at 131, our property at 131 High Range. The derogations we request concern a temporary 3m portable container for general storage and an additional temporary portable container of 6m over 2.5m for secure storage of tools and snow removal equipment such as shovels, snow chasers, etc. Outdoor storage, associated with snow removal equipment and machines. We want to help good neighbors and we want to make sure that you are fully informed of our request. Our intention is to maintain clean, well maintained and compatible property with the surrounding residential district. If, after having examined these requests, you are comfortable with your application and support it, we will greatly appreciate your signature below indicating that you have no objection to the request. Your signature is entirely voluntary and will simply show your support to the Hommage Council. Do not hesitate to contact one of us if you have any questions or if you want to discuss this matter further. Thank you for taking the time to examine our request and we appreciate your kindness and your support as a neighbor. And then, under the neighborhood recognition section, there are two recognitions. The first is, I am Peter Norton, owner of 116 High Range Road. Examine the application submitted by the candidates. There is no objection to the request as described above. This is then signed. The other recognition of Gwaza is Yvette and Donna Hicks, owners of 123 High Range Road, have examined the request for subpoena by the candidates. There is no objection to the request as described above. It is signed by Donna Hicks.

Is there anyone at the moment who wants to take the floor to oppose the candidates? Okay, there is no one in attendance tonight. Le mois dernier, le mercredi 15 juillet à 18h42, j'étais déjà ici et je n'ai pas consulté ma boîte de réception. Une lettre d'opposition est arrivée à ce moment-là. Et j'aimerais l'ajouter au dossier car cela fait partie de la ville.

Regardez ceci. So it's the 12th of July, 2026. Jake Butler, 12th Dambury Court, London, New Hampshire, 03053, to the zoning adjustment council. Dear members of the zoning adjustment council, I write as a resident of Londonderry to oppose the three suspended requests which, I believe, will be examined together. They are deposited in the form of three distinct requests. A special exception for a portable storage structure in file 4, a derogation to allow a second storage structure in file 5, and a derogation to allow the storage and maintenance of heavy equipment in file 6. But they concern the same property, the same demanders and the same project subject to 100. The Council should evaluate them jointly. The fragmented deposits of what is functionally a single, larger commercial use should not allow the cumulative effect to escape the examination. The legal standard in force, the criteria for hardship according to RSA 614, Technologies Inc. 33 and the RSA Simplex Technologies Inc. City of Newington 145 and HF 67. demands that the applicant demonstrate that the special conditions of the property itself, its unique framework in its environment, make the use of the property reasonable and that there is no fair and substantial link between the objective of the ordinance and its application to this property. It is the same norm as the one printed on the city's derogation request, and it is a norm related to the terrain and not to the activity of the asker. It is also established that a use already in progress on a property before the request for derogation pleads against the observation of a hardship rather than in its favor. In the Governance and Enclosure Act, 124 NH 126 1983, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire considered the proof that a use was already operational before the request as a conclusive proof of the absence of hardship. None of the three requests identifies a physical characteristic of the 131 High Range Road that distinguishes it from other AR1 lots in the city and the photographic evidence discussed below indicates that elements of the proposed use could already be in service. Cumulative effect of the three requests taken together. These requests aim to establish two 20-foot storage containers and a storage and maintenance area for heavy commercial equipment, including trucks, carts and equipment associated with a residential lot in the AR1 area. Examinées individuellement, chaque demande peut paraître modeste. Examinées ensemble, elles décrivent un chantier de stockage et d'entretien industriel léger. Concernant la demande d'exception spéciale, dossier 4, la huitième question demande s'il n'y aura plus d'une structure de stockage mobile sur la propriété. Les demandeurs ont répondu oui, ce qui signifie que la requête pour le second conteneur du dossier 5 était prévue dès le départ, et non un besoin ultérieur ou imprévu. Dossier 7.5.1.26.5. for a second storage container. The reason for the refusal invoked by the administrator of the zoning is without ambiguity. A single mobile storage structure is allowed on the AR1 site. This is a clear digital standard and not a matter of interpretation and the demand does not identify any special conditions of this site, justifying an exception. The five justifiable statements largely take up the generic terms used elsewhere in the file of the demander. For example, the value of the surrounding properties will not decrease, in accordance with the nature of the neighborhood. The car, without explaining why this property, cannot be reasonably used with a single container, as required by the ordinance for all other airfields in the city. File number 715-2026-4, special exception, for a mobile storage structure. The request specifies that the container will remain on the property for 2 to 5 years until a permanent structure can be built. This deadline describes an intermediate step towards a more extensive permanent development and not a temporary accessory development. The Council must evaluate this special exception accordingly, in particular to the Regards of files 5 and 6. The history of the ordinance, which holds the limit of a single container. The limit of a mobile storage structure by ownership, defined in section 115.1, is neither new, nor forgotten, nor forgotten. It has been part of the zoning ordinance for many years and the Urbanism Committee reviewed section 515.1 during a public hearing on February 9, 2022. This amendment specifically aims at this section by adding provisions given to the zoning adjustment council, the explicit authority to approve or limit the duration of the presence of a mobile storage structure. The urban planning committee has left intact the limit of a single container during this amendment, choosing to maintain it while updating other parts of the same subsection. This limit reflects a deliberate political choice, recently reaffirmed by the city, which directly concerns file 4 as well. The same 2022 amendment has conferred to the council the explicit authority to limit the duration, which is a central issue, given the intention of the applicant to keep the container in place for 2 to 5 years. File 796. derogation pour le stockage et l'entretien d'équipements lourds. Cette demande sollicite une dérogation à la section 4.1 et au tableau 4.1 des usages afin de permettre le stockage et l'entretien d'équipements lourds incluant le matériel de déneigement dans la zone 1 et 1. La contrainte doit découler de conditions spéciales propres au terrain lui-même et non des besoins commerciaux du demandeur. La demande n'identifie aucune caractéristique physique unique de ce lot qui empêcherait son utilisation en conformité avec le zonage résidentiel. The justification invoked is the exploitation by the asker of a defrosting company, which is a constraint of commercial convenience and not a constraint related to the land. Storage and maintenance of heavy commercial equipment is intrinsically a light industrial use and table 4.1 exists precisely to exclude these uses from residential districts. The demand does not justify its statement according to which the value of the properties will not be affected. It does not offer any evaluation or comparable sales data, rather relying on a range of pipes intended for visual masking, which does not meet the concerns concerning noise, fuel and fluid manipulation, or the increase in heavy-duty traffic related to site maintenance as well as risks. For health and security nearby, the site's sheet submitted with its requests shows a private well located near the area intended for the storage of trucks and equipment. The storage and maintenance of heavy materials implies the use of fuel, hydraulic liquids, fluids and oil. Citing this activity near a private well constitutes a legitimate concern in terms of health and safety that none of the three requests deals with. Question 1 of the special exception request, file 4, asks if the use is harmful to the health and safety of residents. The requesters have answered no, without addressing the proximity of the well with the storage and maintenance area proposed. This should be addressed directly before the Council considers the approval of one of these requests. An additional concern common to the three requests. The photographic documents submitted with the requests show equipment and trailers on the property since 2019, well before the disposal of these requests. The Council should confirm whether an element of the proposed use is already in operation without the required approvals. If this is the case, none of the three requests should serve to legitimize retroactively an existing violation. Each request also indicates that the property has been part of a previous action of the Zonage Council concerning the former property owner. Since the requesters have raised that this previous file constitutes a relevant history, it should be part of the file of this audience, in order to be examined with the current requests. The properties establish a residential character. These real estate announcements show that the 131 Range Road has recently been marketed and sold as a standard unifamily pavilion on 1.2 acres, without any indication of use of commercial or industrial storage. The character established of the property is residential and the use of storage and maintenance proposed in these requests represents a change of character and in the continuation of an existing recognized use. previous and relevant to the Council. The Council previously refused a request for derogation involving a striking factual scheme of similarities in file number 57-23-2-27, Perkins Road, card 212, lot 96-R1, The applicant applied for a derogation to rule LCO 5.12.12.4.3 to authorize the sale of online vehicles and their storage as home activities, arguing that the impact would be low, vehicles stored inside, no customers or employees on site and no repairs carried out on the property. The council could not identify any particular condition distinguishing this property from the other air lots in the city and rejected the derogation by five laws against zero. This case also involved material from a company without a report, already stored on the property after approval, which the applicant declared to want to withdraw only after payment. I raised concerns during this hearing concerning the current conditions of the site and the council finally agreed that the applicant was not satisfied with the unjustified prejudice norm. The same reasoning applies here as in the Perkins case. The applicants did not identify any physical characteristics of the 131 High Range Road which distinguishes it from any other high-range road and the advanced justification is the convenience of an existing company rather than a prejudice created by the field itself. For these reasons, the requesters have not fulfilled their obligation for a special exception in virtue of LZO 5.15.1 or for a derogation in virtue of RSA 654033 for any of the three requests and the Council should reject each of them. I appreciate the time and consideration of the Council and I am happy to provide any additional information that could be useful. Submitted respectfully, Jake Butler, resident of Lennarie, New Hampshire.

And no one else is opposed? Let's go back to the council. Do we have any other questions? Does everyone remember? We know the location. You told us where it was. It hasn't changed. The size hasn't changed. For the verbal trial, what are you going to put in this second one? Storage containers?

The same materials as in the first storage container.

So, indicate it for the verbal trial.

Sorry.

Uh, shovels, manual tools for the snow, tools for the ice, uh... And if my memory is good, during the last audience, you declared that it would only be temporary because you had proposed, in the near future, to build a garage in the back. Is that right?

Everyone remembers these details. Other questions? You have reviewed the five points. So do we have any other questions? Well, apart from the fact that I raised the question about number five and I don't know if we have... We haven't established it. You have to ask this question.

Have we already started to examine them or are we going back to zero? I don't remember.

For information, we are supposed to examine the five points.

Last time, we didn't talk about any of them, but... Because we had to. We granted the special exception, didn't we?

I'm going to ask you a question.

Absolutely. Let's go. Let's review them. Yes, to get back to the subject. This was raised in the letter, the last letter they read to you. To allow us to proceed differently from the first point, which is a special exception subject to a different norm, derogation has five criteria and must be met all five. If you fail on one of them, we must refuse. J'avais mentionné que le plus difficile était le cinquième, à savoir ce qui rend votre propriété unique au Ouyen et différente des autres propriétés aux alentours, justifiant ainsi que vous n'ayez pas à vous conformer aux réglementations de zonage. Avez-vous quelque chose à ajouter ?

Je n'ai rien à ajouter pour améliorer mon dossier à ce sujet. Je comprends très bien la question. Avez-vous plus d'un conteneur, oui ou non? J'en aurai plus d'un si cette demande est acceptée. Je le prévois tout à fait. Je comprends d'où vient cette interrogation. I just hoped that it would not be an obstacle given its small size compared to the standard container, this one making only 6.5 square meters while the usual containers are much larger. It does not matter if it is not approved. Until our arrival, we already had this container and I installed it without knowing the city's orders or the criteria that I had to respect. C'est pourquoi nous essayons de nous mettre en conformité. Sur le tard, nous n'étions au courant d'aucun de ces, je suppose que vous appelez ça, des arrêtés ou je ne sais quelle clause, en petit caractère. Nous ne savions pas. Nous n'en avions aucune idée. Nous venions d'emménager quand, soudainement, on nous a dit, eh non, vous ne pouvez pas faire ça. C'est pourquoi nous sommes ici. Je comprends parfaitement le sens de votre question. Yes, there will be no more of a container. If I have to get rid of the smallest one, let it be so. I have to get rid of it. There are other options. I see that you are allowed up to 400 square feet for shelter, before having to ask for a permit or discharges, according to what I saw online, this kind of thing. But that's all.

Nick, is there a way to authorize a temporary storage container without asking for discharges? We can do it.

No, you can do it under the condition... Forgive me.

If you have a building permit, you are allowed to have containers as long as you have this permit. Once the project is completed, the permit is closed.

Then you have 30 days.

Is he right about what he said about the size of a shelter? Because it seems to me to be a lot of blood.

No, 400 square feet is for the protection against the frost. You do not need protection against the frost for a shelter of less than 400 feet. You need a permit for any shelter of more than 200 square feet. It is according to the codes of the building.

Thank you. But we have conditions. We have the possibility to impose conditions and expiration dates.

They must respect the five rules.

Okay? Very good. Anyone else? That's good for us. At this stage, I will close the public part of the audience. Can we move on to the five points of law or do we have to settle something? Are we good? For me, it's good. Okay.

Agreeing to the derogation would be or would not be contrary to public interest because

I don't think that would alter the character of the neighborhood because of the size.

So... No, I agree with you.

I agree with that. I agree.

The spirit of the order would be or would not be respected because I would say that it is.

I do not think that this creates a threat to public health or security.

I agree on that.

I agree. I also agree.

Cording the derogation would not give justice because I would say yes, I think that refusing the interrogation would cause a greater loss to the demanders. I agree.

I agree with that. I agree.

Thank you.

I agree.

We have to separate the two cases. For the following reasons, would the value of environmental properties be or would not be reduced? I would say that it would not be.

I would say that it would not be. Yes, I agree. I would say no.

Size and location.

Location and size.

Because of the particular conditions of the property that distinguishes it from the other goods in the area, the refusal of the derogation would cause an unnecessary difficulty, because there is or does not exist a fair and substantial relationship between the general public objective of the provision of the ordinance and the specific application of this provision of the ordinance and the specific application of this provision of the property, because...

They said there was one.

Yes, unfortunately. I agree.

I agree that there is...

The property...

The proposed use is not reasonable.

I'm not sure it's reasonable.

I would say it's not the case.

I don't think it's reasonable, but we have to establish it.

Well, you can't do it without. It's a bit one on the other. Do I have a proposal?

Should we do the B? I don't remember if they did the B. They didn't do the B. I would like to propose for the file number 750, Mr. 26, to reject the request for interrogation. Do I support it? I support it.

All those who are for it? I am against it.

In file number 752.26.5, the request for dismissal has been rejected by 5 votes against 0. Ready for the next file? File number 715.26.6. A request for derogation from LZ to 4.1 to authorize the storage of heavy equipment in the area AR111. The property is located at 131 High Range Road, Carte Fiscale 6, at 5.6 Nathan Stiller. Jacqueline White, owner and asker.

Okay. Give your names and addresses for the verbal trial.

Nathan Stiller, 131 High Range Road.

Jacqueline White, 131 High Range Road. Describe briefly, for the verbal trial, why you are here and what this heavy equipment consists of.

Just a brief summary. We are here tonight to ask for a derogation for the storage of, I would not really call it heavy equipment, I would rather call it vehicles and light snowing equipment to be stored off-season during the summer months.

So, to clarify, because it's subjective, heavy equipment, light equipment. What is a light vehicle? Describe it for us to understand.

Well, I base myself on what the DMV uses in the state of New Hampshire. It seems that any vehicle of 26,000 pounds of pbt, that is to say the raw weight of the vehicle or less, is not considered commercial. Everything I store on the property does not exceed 26,000 pounds. Therefore, I considered it light and not as heavy equipment.

So it's like a truck.

I have a series of trucks. I have a few trucks. I have a few compact chargers, VOP4s, and a few... I think they are 6.3-tonne tires.

The size of the bucket on these 6.3-tonne tires.

Which one is just right?

2 m3.

No, not 2 m3. No, but it's...

Speak the same language, just so you know. Its size will surprise you, like... 0.75, I would say. So it's only about half a cubic meter.

Half a cubic meter.

Do the members of the council have any questions tonight? We're going to go back to the criteria, aren't we?

Yes. Is it the same list or have we read the five points?

We haven't even reviewed the five points, but we have to. Does anyone have any questions? Because we have to make sure that we understand this file well now, what it means.

You just don't know that you didn't have to present it, that's all. How many tools do you think you can have at the maximum at the same time?

I would say that at some point I could limit that. I could 100% limit it, certainly. I would say maybe 10 engines at most. This also includes, you know, the vehicles and everything else, everything that would be.

Could these 10 engines, in a conceivable way, be a combination of a tire loader, a pick-up and a compact loader? Could they be kept in the garages that are currently in place?

Currently, some things are already stored in existing garages.

So we won't see anything. Yes, that's right.

Very good. Except if the garage door is open, of course. Yes, of course.

Yes, apart from that.

The purpose of this request is to be able to store them in the wooded area of ​​the fridge behind the house or in the area that I want to clear where we had previously placed the container to put it on the floors so that I can recover the space of my garage for my personal vehicle and for the storage of other objects for domestic and personal use instead of storing equipment It's the same goal as later to build a garage at the back of the property to keep all this material inside.

Do we have any questions? Where can I go? Could you pass the five straight points for this one? Because we haven't done it before.

The material must be placed at the rear left of the property where the container must be installed. There are windows that will provide shade in the area like a visual screen. And that includes the small chargers that he was talking about as well as the chargers. The spirit of the ordinance is respected. The derogation requested preserves the spirit of the ordinance by maintaining the compatibility of the property with the neighborhood. This is really not in the eyes of the public, neighbors or the road. We cannot see it by passing by car and with pipes. This adds an additional natural element. Substantial justice is rendered. Handing over the request would allow adequate storage of equipment, snow removal and machinery, in order to be organized and safe from intruders, for the most part. But a refusal would be for the equipment to be seen by the public, which we do not want, so that no one can feel us. The value of the surrounding properties has not decreased. The application will not decrease the value of the surrounding properties. The project is in line with the character of the neighborhood and will be built and maintained in a way that is compatible with the houses and neighboring properties. And then number 5, the literal application of the dispositions of the ordinance would lead to an unnecessary difficulty. The objective of this subparagraph on the useless difficulty means that due to the particular conditions of the property, it is distinguished from other properties of the area. There is no fair and substantial relationship between the public objectives of the order and the specific application of this provision to the property and there is no fair and substantial relationship between the object of the order and its application to this property. The proposed storage of the material will be properly maintained and located in order to minimize its visibility at all costs for the neighbors and other properties. L'usage proposé est raisonnable. C'est une demande raisonnable. C'est une demande raisonnable du fait qu'elle permettra de stocker la machinerie. Tenez-moi hors de la vue du public. Et cachez des... Sur votre demande que vous avez remplie... In the five points, you also mention the light maintenance of the material, snow removal and snow removal. Describe to us what is a light maintenance.

A light maintenance could consist in a drain or the greasing of the machines. Nothing more than that. All the equipment I own is quite recent and covered by the warranty of the dealers. For everything that goes wrong or goes wrong, I usually send the equipment back to the dealers.

Would you do the drain of the pick-ups and the loader on tires?

I could do it inside the garage with the appropriate installation and everything that goes with it. I would not do it in the yard or by emptying the oil on the grass or anything like that.

Other questions? I have a question. To be very clear and maybe I miss something. What arrangement?

I don't see anything about storage in the use table 4.1 and I just want to make sure I look carefully.

So, 4.1. There are several types of use. What specific use?

What service can you tell us if it is not authorized? Sorry, there should be an authorized use.

So it is not listed because it is not authorized. Quelle bonne question. Parce que ça n'y est pas. C'est pour ça qu'il est venu ici.

Je vais donner la parole au public. Y a-t-il quelqu'un en faveur du demandeur qui souhaiterait s'exprimer maintenant? Veuillez indiquer votre nom et votre adresse pour le contendre.

Mark Greenwood, 133 High Range Road. I'm heading north towards Nate and Jackie's residence. And all the equipment they have is on the ground right now. And we can't see it. He's doing well. The little I can see, if I was in my garden, is very well organized. It's not a visual nuisance. Ma femme et moi, aucun de nous n'a de problème avec le fait qu'ils stockent et, espérons-le, qu'ils s'agrandissent à un moment donné pour pouvoir abriter le matériel. Merci.

Merci. Quelqu'un d'autre souhaite-t-il s'exprimer en faveur du demandeur ? Quelqu'un est-il opposé ?

Madame la Présidente, les trois mêmes lettres que j'ai lues pour le dossier précédent s'appliquent également à celui-là. Donc, j'aimerais... Donc, deux d'entre elles est en faveur ?

En faveur et une est opposée. D'accord. Donc la deuxième lettre aussi?

Elle l'était.

D'accord. Des questions?

Aucune question pour le demandeur? Suzanne? Very good. Now, the public audience. The public part of the audience is closed and we will move on to the deliberations.

Do we have any points to settle, ladies and gentlemen?

When we asked for the previous zoning measures for this file, I was wondering if you had any Specificity concerning the storage of vehicles, and unfortunately they have some.

They had restrictions and they also had restrictions on the amount of fluid that was going to be extracted. You remember reading that there were provisions on this subject. So for oil drilling and the storage of vehicles.

They had two specific restrictions on the storage of vehicles. No more than five cars at a time and no storage of vehicles during the night.

Well, we have nothing else to settle.

No, not for me.

Very well, let's move on to the five points of law.

Passing the derogation would be or would not be contrary to public interest because I'd say she wouldn't know. I don't think it would change this neighborhood.

I'd say she would know. It's still a residential neighborhood. Me too. Me too. It's a residential neighborhood.

Do you understand?

Because storing such a quantity of equipment, whether it is heavy or light in this number and in this size, is not what we usually see in a residential district and, as a consequence, it will change the character.

I agree. I agree. It is largely out of sight, or at least it should be, but the equipment will come and go as well.

And the problem, once again, is that if we agree on the derogation, it is related to the property, even if the current tenants are good, the next group may not be.

Correct. Et le précédent dossier concernant ce terrain The minimal effect in this neighborhood and in this deliberation. Indeed, they actually discussed the fact that it is a residential area. We can't let that seem commercial. They really focused on the residential aspect so as not to change the appearance or the atmosphere of this property and to make sure that it maintained it by focusing on the conditions.

The spirit of the order would be or would not be respected because... Jack would be. I don't think it's a threat to health, security or the general well-being. I probably wouldn't agree. I have the impression that there will be more, I don't know, potential chemical leaks.

The owner...

Because of the residues, once again, due to nature and the number of vehicles and equipment. Because of residential safety. Regarding water, odors, you know all the things we need to take into account. So I agree.

Okay.

Would this derogation give substantial justice or not? Because...

I would say no.

By weighing both sides, the potential loss for the public, in general, concerning the change in the security of the neighborhood. Once again. Once again, regarding the increase in waste, potential dangers, etc. We carry the advantage for the...

I agree. I agree. I agree.

For the following reasons, the value of the surrounding properties would or would not have decreased. I would say that it would not be because, you know, things that could happen because of it did not happen. And if it's really out of sight, it will probably not happen. But it's very tight.

I do not agree. I don't agree because the derogation is tied to the ground. These people will probably be very good managers, but that doesn't mean that the value of environmental properties would not be impacted if there were no good managers.

You know, I think for me it's very tight.

Well, nothing has been presented in one way or another,

I agree with Mitch because it's tight, but I disagreed on the first three, so I stayed consistent.

I agree with Mitch.

Due to special conditions related to the property that distinguishes it from others in the area, the refusal of the derogation would cause a necessary prejudice, because there is or not a fair and substantial link between the general objective of the disposition of the ordinance and the specific application of this disposition to the property, because unfortunately it is this one for me. I think there are some, I just don't think that the property is unique.

I agree. Nothing has been presented to prove that it was unique.

Is the proposed use or is it not reasonable? It does not seem reasonable to store this kind of equipment.

I agree. I agree.

Do you have a proposal? I would like to propose for the file number 705-26-6 to refuse the request for derogation for the reasons indicated in the verbal trial and on the ballot paper.

Do I have a second? I have a second.

All those in favor? I oppose.

So for file number 715, the request for dismissal has been refused.

I am ready for the following file.

File number 8261.

Demands for derogation of the ordinance 508.H. To authorize the implementation of a dependency, an ADU, in the court before the property, the ordinance 508.H, requires that an ADU be located in the lateral court or back of the property, in the district AR1. The property is located at 5 Wilson Road, tax plan 16, B12.0. David and Karen Kelly, owners, and Jeremy Cabell, askers.

For the voting members, Suzanne must turn herself in for this case. And Andrea, you remain Elisa, you will now be a voting member.

Okay. Good evening and welcome.

Hello. Please decline your name and your address.

My name is Jeremy Cable. My address is 344 Stark Highway North at Dunarton, New Hampshire.

Have you ever done that before? Well, whatever. Okay.

Not in the London area.

Okay. Do you have your file with you? So, for this one, we have... Okay. We have the same... Jeremy Campbell. Very good. It's the same. Would you like to review the five points of the law first, or explain to us the reason for your presence?

Of course, I can start by explaining to you why I am here. I am an entrepreneur in a building and I was hired by the Kellys to build an ADU on their property. I have built many ADUs over the years, but never in London. So I was not familiar with your order until recently during its examination. And I just wanted to tell you to start that I really appreciate your order. Toute les villes ne sont pas aussi claires sur les attentes. Et c'est une bonne chose, car cela sert l'intérêt public pour, comme Chuck, pour commencer Chuck Ryan. This allows flexible use of properties to the benefit of the owners. But selfishly, it also helps me as a builder, because I want to build something attractive for the neighborhood, which increases the value of goods, etc. However, this property is unique. It is a little different from your typical house because it is located very far from the road. You can see it on this photo. There is about 75 meters between Wilson Road and the existing house. And the existing house is oriented perpendicular to the street, not parallel. And I understand. A house located 15 meters from the road is parallel. We would not want to place a dependency in the garden before. But this situation is very different. The yellow square delimits the place where the dependency would be proposed by the. As you can see, it is in retreat behind trees. It is hidden from the road. We would not see it very well from the road. So we would like a derogation to be able to place the dependence there, which is technically, I suppose, in the garden before. But as it is oriented towards the house, it would be in the side garden and it is really the best location for this dependence on this particular terrain.

What is the size of the terrain?

It's a little over 3.5 hectares. In your file, there's like a barn. I don't want to call it a garage because there are no doors. It's a barn. Yes.

On this picture you're looking at, right on the right of number one, that's where I took one of the other pictures. It's about, I don't know, 18 meters from the road, something like that. up to this tree.

And number four is like a terrace area. Yes, there is a terrace and a pergola that has been built there.

But we can't have that since the road.

Not really, not really.

Without retreat, there are bushes, trees and all that. It belongs to Wilson, however. I'm sorry, Kelly.

questions from the council.

Well, it's good. I mean, I don't really know Madison. There are a lot of surfaces there. At what distance will the building be from a neighboring Limitroff? The nearest neighbor to Limitroff, I think, would be directly below, near the place where the Pergola is located. There is an alley just there and there is a neighbor just there. Apart from that, there is none. There is one behind, but it is quite far away. Which makes our location a little more desirable, I think, because it is further away from the neighbor.

So is this alley shared between them? No.

It is dedicated to the property of Kelly. Kelly.

Yes, I drove up to there. It's a different configuration. Yes, that's right.

That's the case.

Questions? Other questions?

So you said it was 9 acres. What does the terrain look like in the trees behind where the house is oriented and on this ... There is another side. Yes, there is a hill that goes up and there is wood up there. Thank you. You can see the location of the well on the disaster site here. There is a well at the back of the proposed accessory housing. And there is also a terrace at the back that they have built relatively recently, in the last two years.

Can you see the house? From the road. It looks like it's far away, but ...

It is the case. We can see it a little.

We can probably see the pignon. But it's difficult because you have this cabin in front of you. So you don't see the cabin, that's for sure. It's just there. That's essentially what we've been seeing since... That's how it came to me.

I just wanted to clarify if that was part of yours. Or theirs.

You were right. The cabin.

Other questions? Do you want to review the five rights?

Does it start with a ? I just want to make sure.

On your request number 1, the justification effect.

The derogation is requested at the end of article 5.18.2.

You can go to the next section which indicates number 1.

Okay, the justification effect starts right there. The derogation will not be contrary to public interest. and a low visibility from the street. And for the neighbors, that's what I noted.

And I think it's pretty clear on the photos I showed you.

The spirit of the ordinance is respected. I would say on this subject that it will provide a comfortable and adequate housing for a family member, which is one of the objectives of the ordinance, while improving the aesthetics of the neighborhood. We are going to build a beautiful attractive building that will absolutely not harm the aesthetics of the neighborhood, if ever that was the case, because we can't really see it in this place. It's a little back. Substantial justice is given because a couple of elderly residents will receive help and care from their adult daughter who will take care of the accessory accommodation. The Kelly girl, Bethany, is currently living in Connecticut, but due to her age and health problems, she will go home to help the Kellys as they get older. And this ADU is intended to be her home. The value of the surrounding properties has not decreased. The proposed help should, on the contrary, increase the value of the properties in the neighborhood. It will increase the value of Kelly's property and, therefore, I do not think it can harm anything. The literal application of the disposition of the ordinance would lead to an unnecessary difficulty. There is no fair and substantial relationship between the general public objectives of the provision of the ordinance and the specific application of this provision to the property. The proposed location is more than 60 meters from Wilson Road. Visibility is masked by trees and an existing garage. Aesthetically, it is the best location for the DU on the property and on the property. As for any difficulty that this could create, I would say that if we placed it at the letter of the ordinance, either behind the house or to the right or to the left in relation to its orientation towards the street, it would be extremely difficult to build. For one reason, we have this pergola in the patio area that we want to preserve. They don't want to ruin it. To the left of the house is the existing septic system, and we don't want to touch it. And then, on the right, in relation to the street, there is this wooded hill that goes up to the back. It would be a little inconvenient place to build. It would be difficult to access for Bethany when she will move here. We should create a kind of aisle to go up there. And it wouldn't be convenient for them when they take care of their parents. So I wrote that the proposed location is practical, accessible and constitutes a reasonable use of this land in particular. Moreover, the existing house is oriented southward, which places the proposed location in the lateral court compared to the house, which respects, I think, well, it would perhaps be more fair to say the spirit of the ordinance. There you go. And then, what did I add here? A derogation is necessary because a strict conformity to the ordinance would in this case go against the very spirit of the ordinance, which I understand. And I don't want to go against the ordinance, but I hope we can get a derogation to help Kelly.

Je vais demander au public. Quelqu'un souhaite-t-il s'exprimer en faveur du demandeur ?

Good evening. Give me your name and address for the account. My name is Karen Kelly, 5 Wilson Road, Landauville. My husband and I are the owners of the house. We built it 43 years ago. Our daughter lives in the Connecticut. She has a job that she can do remotely. The reason for her return is that my husband is suffering from Alzheimer's and that she decided that we needed help. So when she was looking for an apartment, we told her, well, we can build you a small house. It would be better if she had her own space, that we have ours, and that if we need her, she would be right next door.

So, thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else who wishes to speak in favour of the applicant, please proceed. The report indicates that there is none. Does anyone wish to speak against this request at present? The report indicates that there is no one. Have we received any letters?

There are no letters.

Thank you, sir. Questions from the Council regarding this request?

I beg your pardon? No, go ahead. So, what kind of road is this? The one in front of the house. We didn't understand. It's their way. On the photos... That's it, right there? It's their way. Okay. I tried to understand. It's not the road. Yes. I didn't think, but I was starting to wonder.

That's why I asked the question about shelter.

Exactly. So it's on the way. The shelter belongs to them.

It's useful for the orientation to look at Google Maps. You can really see the...

I went there and it was still very difficult because you don't really see what's going on after this trip. And I didn't want to get involved. Well, which route or whatever, I thought it was at the level of... Yes, if you go, yes, this one right here. This picture right there. On this one, we see pretty much what we're looking at. At the bottom of the picture, it's Wilson Road. You're right.

See the location of the house. It's just different.

And I'm going so far because I'm going up this road. We end up having a field on this road. If you go to a certain point, you can't turn around. You have to keep going.

And so there was no other area that seemed reasonable and in line with the zoning, you know, where you wouldn't have needed to come and see us.

There are really no others. There are really no others. It's the best location. And yes, when I looked at that, even when we made plans for the septic tank and everything, my terrace was on site. We did pit tests and things like that. He agreed with me to say that it's the best place for that. Just when we did that.

Other questions?

I have another question.

What is the living space of the house compared to the adductor? The proposed adductor.

It fits in the... I... The ADU is done. 800 square feet. The existing house. I know we calculated that, it's... Percentage. Yes, I know, I know it must be a percentage. I have it here. Leave me just a second to find it. I can answer this question.

Do I know what is authorized?

Very good. 40% of the main building. La Maison Existante fait 1976 pieds carrés And the ADU will be 800 square feet or 780. 10.4. Very good. When I was doing the calculation, it didn't work. It's all right there. Just below, it's all right there. Good question.

As long as we are in agreement, we are very good. Good question. Since we have no more questions, I will close the public part of the audience and we will move on to deliberations. Do we need to discuss anything or can we move on to the five points?

I agree with the five points.

Okay, let's go.

Agreed, the derogation would be or would not be contrary to public interest, because I would say that it would not be. I don't think it alters the character of the neighborhood.

I agree. Agreed. Agreed.

The spirit of the order would be or would not be respected, because I would say that it would be.

I do not think that this threatens health, security or the general well-being.

I agree. I agree too. Would granting the derogation lead to substantial justice? I would say yes. I think that the loss for the plaintiff in case of refusal is greater than the gain for the public. I agree. For the following reasons, the value of the surrounding properties would be or would not be reduced. I would say that it would not be.

I agree.

We can't even see from the road. I agree with that. Because of the special conditions of the property that distinguishes it from others in the area, refusing the derogation would lead to useless difficulties. Because there is or does not exist a fair and substantial relationship between the provision of the public ordinance and the specific application of this provision to the property. I would say that it does not exist, it is a unique property, given its size, the distance from the house, compared to the road, the location of the well and the hill behind the house, making the construction more difficult.

And the location of the house?

I agree.

The use.

Proposé est-il ou non raisonnable ? Je dirais qu'il est raisonnable. Les adus sont raisonnables. Les adus sont raisonnables ? Je suis d'accord.

D'accord.

Commentaire, restriction ?

Je n'en ai aucun. Quelqu'un d'autre ?

Rien pour moi.

Moi non plus.

D'accord.

Y a-t-il une motion ?

J'aimerais présenter une motion pour le dossier numéro 809996, 1. Accorder la demande de dérogation.

Y a-t-il un second ? Je seconde. Merci Lisa. Tous ceux qui sont pour ? Je m'oppose.

So for file number 809 026-1, the request for interrogation is granted. Thank you.

Have a good evening.

You too.

Ready for the next one?

Ready for the next one.

File number 806-2. A request for interrogation under regulation LZO 4.33. to allow a commercial garage with an amplitude of 46 feet on the front line, required of 60 feet in the C1 neighborhood. The property is located at 2 Olde-Nacharau, 3rd street, lot 131-1, 16 Mabel Street, LLC, owner and asker. Thank you. I was ready to stop.

Sorry. I saw you get out of the room.

So, Andrea, you remain a voting member. Lisa, you are not for that. Half the size of a book. Oh, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Do you want to put this in your pocket? I'll mark it. Thank you. And have a good evening. Can you give your name and address for the verbal trial, please?

Good evening everyone. My name is Dan Barowski. I am a Geometrics expert at Filston Land Consultants.

We have a office at 206 Elm Street in Milford. I am here tonight to represent 16 Maple Street LLC, which has an establishment at 270 Nashville Road in London. Anne, would you like to deal with the five rights first, or do you want to?

I will give you a brief overview of what we are proposing. So, Mon client est propriétaire du 2 Old Nasha Road, l'ancien bâtiment de Mark Lawrence Photography, juste à l'angle de la 102 et... The Old Nasha Road est donc un terrain d'angle. Il se situe dans la zone commerciale 1 qui exige un retrait de façade de 60 pieds et des retraits latéraux et arrière de 30 pieds. Le terrain lui-même fait environ un acre, environ un, je crois... Recently, the public water network has been made available on Old Nashville Road and this land could benefit from it. It is located right in front of the Etsy's Country Store and next to Maramag Valley Projects. The goal of my clients is to build a 4 bay entrepreneur building measuring 70 or 75, on 80 feet, on 80 feet, not... and to use the existing building on the site as an office space for tenants. We are aware that if we succeed tonight, this will require an approval of the site plan by the urban planning committee. We have dug test wells on the site to level the existing or rather non-existing septic system. I think it's just a retention pit for the moment, but we have identified the place where the label 3131111 is located. This is where an appropriate septic pit could be installed. We are therefore asking for an interrogation tonight for the impoverishment on the facade retreat towards the 102 road and on the lateral retreat towards the adjacent property. If you have any initial questions, I would be happy to answer them, otherwise I can move on to the five criteria.

Does anyone have any questions before we continue? I have a question. Go ahead. I look at the picture and I know the work of Laurence for a long time.

How does it work?

Is there any additional space between this dotted line and the 102 road? What is the surface at this point?

Or is it... Talk about the space between... Here is the 102 roadside and the property limit. The edge of the building is about 50 feet from the edge of the roadside. So there is about 10 meters between the property limit and the beginning of the 102 roadside. And I'm sure you know that the 102 road is a fairly wide road with a complete slope.

So I'm looking, it's just grass for the moment.

Ah yes, and tree foliage.

I think we have one of the photos that was included. I think it shows the view towards the 102. So there's the aerial view and I think there were about three pages of photos.

Oh yes, it's before, I think you have to go to the page or two previous ones. So that's the view towards the Ascent of Mah. And then I think the previous photo looks a little more towards Maramec Valley Properties.

I think it's in the second one. So you put the photos in the second one, I think. I see them. I don't necessarily see them in the first one. I don't know.

It doesn't answer very quickly. So these are the images 10, 11, 12 and 13. Because at first it didn't show up on my screen either. Then it ended up happening.

It's just there.

There.

May I ask you a question?

Yes, absolutely sir. You call this a commercial garage and you will have tenants in the old building... I don't know. I suppose it will be a little renovated. No. What is the garage for?

It's a garage for entrepreneurs. So your tenants would generally be someone like a plumber who would store his pipes or an electrician who would store his materials. In general, very little or no real work is carried out in the bays. It's more for the storage of materials.

Maybe even a vehicle, you know, a truck or something like that that would go in. Like a very small storage box installation. In a way. But generally for service equipment, each bay is designed to also have a bathroom.

So they are all independent of each other?

They are all independent of each other. And then the existing building of McLauren would be an office space where a client could come. A client could come, you know, depending on the type of company he owns here or just for administrative work or offices, you know, in connection with the activity.

Yes, they can see it from above. The bees are here, that's good. So this photo shows... It's like you were in the parking lot, looking at the bees right there.

This location has really been chosen because of the existing coating, you know, existing buildings in the middle of the property, which does not facilitate the expansion. And, you know, the loading, making deliveries of any other orientation or location of the building would make it very difficult. It was almost as if the coating was planned for... You know, it had all its meaning to place the building there. And you know, it also worked with the septic system in the north of the existing building. And then to have all kinds of public parking necessary in front. So, in a way, to the extent of the bays themselves. How close are they to the existing one?

On the picture, it looks like we could touch. We might not be able to pass between the two.

De quoi parlez-vous ? Entre les deux bâtiments. C'est Didi. Nous avons laissé un espace d'un mètre pour pouvoir circuler et faire n'importe quel type de... C'est serré.

Pas attaché, mais proche.

Très bien. Merci.

Is there a reason why you wouldn't be able to move this structure further, further, this way?

The closer you get here, the closer you get to the lateral property limit, just because of the configuration of the terrain.

Okay.

So, we estimated, just because of the way it was built, and if the photos didn't really do it justice, but

This area is probably about 1.5 meters, 2 meters higher than the 102. So it would not be very intrusive for traffic.

You would not be driving with the impression that a building is right there. And also because it is the active part of the building where things come and go. So we thought it would be better to keep it further away from the adjacent property than the inactive part, the back of the building where no activity would really take place. By putting them closer to 102.

Thank you. And this building is 80 by 75. Correct. And what comes in the accounting line for this decision?

Humble. Yes, it's really about providing enough space for, you know, a company to store adequate materials. A bathroom in each unit. This will probably take the last three or four meters of all compartments.

Is it mandatory or you just... No, I don't think it's mandatory.

Is it used by... You spoke briefly. There was a kind of storage faucet. Is it used by water and the city's sewage in this place? Is it used by the city's water now, or is it possible to be used by the city's water?

Correct, Nick. Correct me if I'm wrong, but yes, it's something that was recently added to the Nashville Road, or more recently than I explained it.

Here you go. When this building was built, the promoters could not find a reasonable place to install a septic system because there were too many rocks.

They therefore chose to install a storage pit. Years ago, it was a restaurant and it is still used by this pit which must be periodically emptied.

But they found a place on the property where they think they can install a septic system.

Who makes septic systems?

It would be much smaller than what a restaurant or even a photography company would need simply because these people will not be there, you know, 10 hours a day. It's essentially a place to go in the morning and come back in the evening.

How old is this property, Nick?

How old?

Do you remember when it was a restaurant in 1973? Okay. Thank you.

You beat me. I'm only 70.

Le banc d'Andibon. They say it was created. It was created. Le mandiban. The guys who owned the old restaurant, that's where they started.

For the love of heaven. Okay, that's good.

May I have a little more information on this line of reception? So again, the main line and the 102.

The floor of the 102.

So the space between this ground and the 102 road is this reception.

Yes, so the 102.

Reception created for...

National roads generally have very large dams. If they ever had to enlarge the 102 with more roads or if they needed more space for drainage systems or any other improvement, the national dams are generally much larger than the municipal dams. As you can see on Old Nashville Road, the roadside is barely retreating from the property limit. Maybe 3 meters. So it's good.

Everything is fine. I'm going to address the public. Is there anyone who wants to speak up in favor of the plaintiff? The verbal trial indicates that there is no one left. And there is no one here who wants to speak up against because there is no one left.

Have you addressed the five points? I can address the five points if you haven't done it.

I'm just taking care of it so that it's done.

You can continue. Thank you. Very well. Thus, granting this derogation would not be contrary to public interest. As you know, the first criterion is also linked to the second. The spirit of the ordinance is respected. And the main test for this is to know if what we propose threatens health, security or the well-being of the general public or modifies the neighborhood materially. The properties directly adjacent to ours are very similar in terms of use and construction. The Maramak Valley Les propriétés de la Marmac Valley sont essentiellement un long garage. Cela ressemble beaucoup à ce que nous proposons. Eh bien. L'empiètement sur le retrait que nous proposons ne modifiera, vous savez pas, le caractère du quartier. C'est une zone commerciale et nous proposons une utilisation commerciale. Nous sommes dans la zone de performance et nous proposons, vous savez, un usage commercial et les usages commerciaux sont une partie précieuse de la ville. Et cela menacera ni la santé, ni la sécurité, ni le bien-être. Comme je l'ai mentionné, cette propriété est surélevée par rapport à la 102. Donc nous ne prévoyons aucun problème et elle est très éloignée de la chaussée. Nous ne prévoyons donc aucun type de problème de santé ou de sécurité avec l'empiètement vers la 102 ou vers le voisin existant. In reality, the goal behind the lateral and the frontal retreat is to promote orderly development and to allow adequate spacing between buildings. And even by authorizing this impoverishment, we will always maintain a safe and adequate separation between structures. The use proposed has a low impact and the essential character will remain the same. Number 3, granting the derogation would render a substantial justice because it allows a reasonable use of the property while imposing no prejudice on the public or the neighbor's owner. Refusing the derogation would unnecessarily restrict the productive use of a commercial use area. The approval allows the property to contribute to the local economy without creating a significant negative impact. Any potential impact could be dealt with by regional approval conditions. And as I mentioned earlier, this property will have to go through the mass planning process with the urban planning committee. The auction will not decrease the value of the surrounding properties. The entrepreneur's site will be maintained in a clean and organized state. The proposed site will have to be approved by the urban planning committee before construction and operation. The proposed 4B garage will keep vehicles, tools and equipment closed, out of sight and secured, where closures, a layout, landscape and other appropriate protection measures will minimize visibility from adjacent properties and public roads. And as the property is located in a commercial and industrial framework, the proposed use should not negatively affect the value of the properties. And also, according to our experience, the revitalization of vacant properties and new constructions will significantly increase the value of the existing property and therefore that of the surrounding properties. Excessive constraints. We have addressed this point a little earlier, where the current configuration of the terrain really dictates the location of the building. Due to the location of the property, its configuration and the environmental model of commercial and industrial development, preventing the property from hosting an entrepreneur site has little public interest, while unnecessarily limiting its reasonable economic use. L'immeuble de bureau existant et l'aire de stationnement pavé faisant le tour de l'arrière du terrain rendent la propriété particulièrement bien adaptée à ce type d'activité commerciale, car elle offre un espace clos pour le stockage et les activités de maintenance qui soutiennent l'exploitation de l'entrepreneur. L'utilisation proposée est compatible avec le développement voisin, peut fonctionner en toute sécurité sur le site et n'entre pas en conflit avec les objectifs de la zone commerciale n°1. L'octroi de la dérogation permet une utilisation raisonnable de la propriété sans altérer le caractère central du quartier ni créer d'impact négatif. And I just want to add to that. The existing model of development on the ground makes it difficult to install the cheek elsewhere without interfering with the use of the property. The request for the frontal retreat compared to Natural Road, which is a first class road with a very wide slope, and the limit of the terrain from which the frontal retreat is measured is already at a considerable distance from the paved sidewalk of the road, which offers a separation and an additional buffer zone. The building is designed to face the opposite of Nashville Road, which would only lead to little or no activity near the slope. The property is also located higher than Nashville Road, which would help to hide the development project from the road. The objective of the withdrawal requirement is to preserve an adequate separation between the structures and the roads, to maintain the character of the neighborhood and to protect public safety. The demanded derogation will not harm its objectives and the proposed improvement will not obstruct visibility, will not pose a danger to traffic and will not negatively affect adjacent properties. On the contrary, it represents a reasonable improvement compatible with the existing development model, while allowing the property to function as planned. The proposed use is reasonable because the demanded derogation aims to obtain a flattening of the court's retreat before along the natural road and the lateral retreat to allow the construction of the desired structure. The addition will be of an appropriate scale, architecturally compatible with the existing building and designed to improve the functionality of the property without indirectly increasing the intensity of its use. The proposed improvement will not create an additional impact on neighboring properties, will not reduce the value of goods and will maintain the character of better environments. Properties and commercial use are important for the city, especially in the area of ​​performance superposition. Providing the derogation requested will allow reasonable use of a property for the unique construction while preserving the intention, zoning ordinance and protecting public interest.

Is there a list of the neighbours in the bottom that you don't have? Check.

There is a list of the neighbours.

Yes, I don't see them.

Well, there is less staff in this office.

Does this indicate that they have been notified? Are the recommended shipments engraved in it?

I have recommendations for shipments.

Okay, that's good for me.

Good king.

Make sure they have some on board. No, there aren't many. That's not a big deal. They don't need any signatures.

Just send them by mail. Oh, okay. So maybe they're the only ones who received a return, right? Okay. So they at least sent them.

Usually, we have a document that proves that it has been sent. Other questions? If no one has any other questions for the moment, we will close the public part of the audience and move on to the deliberations. Do we need to examine anything?

I want to examine a problem.

You know, it's curious, I hadn't thought about it for a while. But this property has been operating as a company since 1973. Without a building, which hinders on façade retreats, and suddenly, you know, this is what they want to do here. So I suppose what I mean is that there is no reason for it not to continue to function as a company. Maybe not the company they want, or maybe not with this beautiful extra space for the tenants. And I should always ask myself, you know, what would happen if you wanted to exploit three companies?

You know, they are in trouble with the withdrawal.

I was wondering if you had to prove it, because they will use the property as a company. It has been successfully used. Is it an element to be taken into account when they ask to build another building that does not really integrate?

I think at least one of my children.

I think it has been empty for a long time.

So I mean, one of the points that was raised was that it is a reuse.

It is not checked with local companies to see if they are open or closed.

But times change too, don't they? It was also less commercial over there at one time. It was much more agricultural. If we go back a long way, even if I don't remember the restaurant, we'll see about that. But the photographer had a very low impact.

I don't know if they used a septic tank, but whatever.

But it strikes me, and sometimes I ask myself this kind of question. Could a company not simply operate there? Your comment on the fact that it has been vacant for a while is quite relevant. I'm just saying, you know.

Because in 1973, there were probably a lot of possible uses, but we are now talking about 2026 and what is appropriate today for this property.

How can we use it?

Well, its location next to the 102 is very important.

I think it's a very good location.

I wonder, for example, if you look at the type of company they are targeting, if they need a specific size of separate bay.

You know, we have the impression that we want that because it will make us more profitable and maybe it's not always a bad thing. Especially in the commercial sector, I feel much better about it. But it only brings taxes.

Okay, it's just...

I just wanted to raise the point because I sometimes have a hard time with that. Okay.

I also noticed a previous zoning action on this property, but it is indicated decision not found.

It's true, I remember it.

72. Stay attached to the ground.

I went through all the decisions of the zoning council to try to find which file it was. And how it was cut, but it was not listed.

I don't see anything.

It was a few years ago. Is it still attached to the ground? I know. But someone should find it.

Yes, it was on the plan that subdivided this property. It was listed as a zoning file. Number 700, Iuil-Sumil-721. All I know is that there was a file. I don't know what it was or how it was cut.

Maybe it's not even relevant.

Yes, it remains with the field, but if we don't even know what it was and that the use has been abandoned, then...

In Massachusetts, they register the derogations in a file register so as not to lose them. Don't do that.

It's lost.

It's lost.

You put most of it online, that said, and it's very useful, more than most of the voids do. I'm telling you.

I imagine that there is a certain period after which it expires. I'm ready now.

Okay, everything is good now. Very good. Let's move on to point 5, point of law.

Would giving the question be or would not be contrary to public interest because... Would it be or not?

It doesn't matter. Okay.

I agree with you.

Okay. I agree with you.

I was impatient to hear the question. The spirit of the order would be or would not be respected because I would say that it would be. I do not think that the proposal threatens health, security or the general well-being.

I agree.

I agree, I agree. For the following reasons, the value of environmental properties would be or would not be reduced. I would say that they would not be. It's a commercial zone just on the 102.

There are other companies

Because of the particular conditions of the ownership of the area, which distinguishes it from the other ownership of the area, the refusal of derogation would lead to unnecessary difficulties, because there is or does not exist a fair and substantial relationship between the general public objective of the provision of the ordinance and the specific application of this provision of the ordinance and the specific application of this provision of the property, because I would say that there is none. It is an angle field on the 102 which has multiple retreats. It is also in a commercial district and I think it is a unique property.

I agree with all these points.

I agree.

Do you agree, Suzanne? I was just checking the possibility of building near the right of passage. Do you know if there is a restriction on the proximity of construction in relation to the right of passage of the State?

But I'm not aware of this subject.

There is none to my knowledge.

I can't find anything. Normally, it would require an extension service. And I don't think there is an extension service on this property.

If the state doesn't want you to do something, will they just take your land? I don't know.

The proposed use is or is not reasonable because... I would say it is. Yes, I agree.

Build.

Commentary restrictions.

I don't have any. Neither do I. All right.

Do I have a proposal? I would like to make a proposal for file 819-2026-2 in order to grant the request for dismissal.

Do I have a second? Thank you, Suzanne. All those in favor? I am opposed.

So, for file number 819-2026-2, the request for derogation has been granted. Are we ready for the last one? We are ready for the reading of the second file. File number 812-6-3, a request for derogation to LZO 4.3.8-2 to authorize a commercial garage with 15 feet on the lateral retreat, mandatory of 30 feet, in the properties of district C1, located at 2 Old Nashville Road, map 3, lot 131-1-16 Maple Street, LLC, owner and demander. A question for you, sir. Yes.

Everything you gave us as information in file number 819-2026 of EES, is it the same information?

In file number 819-2026-3. Copy the pages. Okay.

I would like for the verbal trial to accept that Dossier numéro 819-2026-3 et les 5 points de droit ont déjà été consignés au procès-verbal car ils sont exactement les mêmes que pour le dossier numéro 819-2026-2. Avez-vous quelque chose concernant ? Is there the slightest difference here? Because I didn't find anything different.

I presented the two files at the same time, simply because it seemed logical.

I didn't find any difference because it was only about the location. It's the same, isn't it? Okay. Questions. It's just about the distances. Questions for the asker?

I don't have any.

All right, I'm going to remove that. Is there anyone in opposition who would like to express himself in favor that the verbal trial indicates that there is no one? And someone in opposition? There is no one. I give the floor to the council for the verbal trial. If everything goes well, we will close the deliberations for the moment. Let's move on to the five points of law.

I'm fine with that. Let's go. Assigning this derogation would not be contrary to public interest, because I would say that it is not, because I do not think that the proposal modifies the essential character of the neighborhood. I agree, I agree. The spirit of the ordinance would be respected because I would say yes, since the proposal does not threaten health, or security, or general well-being.

Agreed. Agreed as well.

You all agree. I agree. Perfect.

Take everything I said at the beginning. Perfect. To grant the derogation would give justice, I would say yes. Yes. I think that the loss for the demand is greater than the gain for the public in case of refusal. In case of refusal.

Agreed.

For the following reasons, the value of the surrounding properties would not have decreased. I would say no. The property is in a commercial area.

The commercial area and the property are adjacent to Route 102.

Okay. I agree. And then, due to the special conditions of the property that distinguishes it from others in the sector, refusing the derogation would lead to useless difficulties because there is no fair and substantial relationship between the general public objective of the ordinance and the specific application to this property. I would say no. The property is located in the middle of a commercial area with several streets and is adjacent to Route 102.

Okay. Okay.

L'usage proposé est raisonnable, je dirais que oui. Oui.

Je suis d'accord. Les commerces, garages et bureaux sont raisonnables.

D'accord.

Does anyone have any conditions? Do we have anything? I don't have anything. I don't have anything.

Do I have a proposal? I would like to make a proposal concerning file number 809.26.3 to grant the request for dismissal. Is there any support?

There is. Okay, but I want to take all the turns.

All those who are for, I am against.

So, for file number 809.26.3, the request for dismissal has been accepted. Thank you very much.

Have a good evening. Thank you, you too. Thank you. Communication and various questions or other matters. Do we have any or only to your knowledge? Nothing to my knowledge. No, I have nothing. If we have nothing, is there a motion to raise the session? Motion to raise the session. Thank you. Is there any support?

I support.

All those who are for? I am against. And to take it away. We will not stay here tonight.