Zoning Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

The meeting of August 31st in session at 3 minutes past 6. Tonight, the sole purpose is to make a determination if we should rehear two cases. One was the Taylor Community Home Special Exception and the other was a motion for rehearing on 56 Hopewell Point. These meetings are not for public comment. These are meetings of the board to make one decision and one decision only, to rehear or not rehear. Has everyone read the minutes of August 17th? Did anyone see any problems with them?

Yeah, I had a couple edits. I can wait a second, though. Can I just read through the edits that I have?

If they were typographical or spelling, I don't want to deal with it.

Then we don't have to deal with those.

I do have... Only substance.

I do have two substantive ones. One is on page 5, line 210. It says that Mr. Bouchard referred the board to the Kudry case. It should say Kudrick case.

Okay. How do you spell that, please?

Kudrick is just added. It's K-U-D-R-I-C-K.

Spell it again, please.

She needs to know how to spell it. K-U-D-R-I-C-K. And that's page 5, line 210. What did I have? And then the other edit I have is on page 13, line 572 of the minutes. It says that it was moved to open the public hearing. We didn't vote or move to open the public hearing there. It was a discussion on whether or not to continue the application to the 21st. Am I wrong? Because it was on a...

If we didn't move, then you could strike the move part, but it was stated to open it.

Was it?

Well, it had to be. I can't.

I thought it was a, but the question was on a rehearing.

I don't have the minutes in front of me, so I'm going to have to table that. I didn't get the minutes.

Okay.

I can't debate it with you. I don't have the minutes in front of me. I was hoping it would be simple.

It was the only substantive thing I noticed, so maybe. I have two things. Okay, go ahead.

Suzanne, her question, she highlighted a reference on line 134. Section 144B, is that correct? She wasn't sure. Don't know.

I don't know.

All right. Okay, we can.

I'm going to move the table a minute.

I'll second, Suzanne.

Discussion? One other point?

For discussion?

Yeah.

And that is, she recorded all of these, what's that?

You're not done? Making corrections?

No.

Sorry.

In all cases, she recorded the motions as pass or fail 302. It's supposed to be 320, I believe. Yes, no, and abstain is the convention.

I noticed that, too, but I wasn't going to bring it up because it seemed like Suze wasn't ready to take action.

Well, records of our vote are something that's important, so I just want to clarify. I think, no, I think it's very important to clarify.

And I look back, and you're correct.

That's how other boards do it, is yes, no, and abstain. Yes, yes.

I will correct those and resubmit them. Wasn't it?

So it should be 320, not 302, for example.

All, all.

Well, yeah. Because I got the roll call vote correct, you know, no abstain next to each person's name, but I'll correct those and resubmit them. All right.

Thank you. I had one other edit. Okay. The last one I have is on line 608, page 13. It says that the abutter said he believed it would negatively affect his property value, but I think it should also be added after stating it may improve his property value stated both to the board. He stated at one point, this may improve my property value, but then another point he said, well, maybe it'll obstruct my view and negatively impact my property value. It was very wishy-washy with how he responded to the questioning. So I think summatively that kind of matters.

So what's the change?

adding to that sentence an additional clause that says after stating it may improve his property value.

So it would negatively but it may positively affect? He said both to us.

But isn't that an interpretation? I think you want to just reflect exactly what was said. So earlier it should say that he said it would improve and then later it would say it wouldn't.

I don't think you should interpret. I intend to agree with what Sabet's saying. If we're talking about changing somebody else's words as we recall them, I think we need to have Suzanne go back and look at the tape on these particular issues and type them up and give them to us. I think that's fair. So I'm going to table the minutes again. I'm tabling.

Yeah, you have a motion on the floor. This is discussion.

Okay. Are we all done with our corrections? That's all I have. Yes. Okay. So any further discussion? Okay, vote. All those in favor of the table?

Aye. Yes.

Okay, opposed none. So table is in effect. Suzanne, when you get a chance, go back and check those. Okay, so now we have, I didn't do a roll call. So you asked me to do minutes. Just let me go in the order that I'm accustomed to going in. Roll call. Suzanne Ryan, I'm chairman. I'm a voting member. Chuck Sumner is vice chairman clerk. He's a voting member. Jody Persons is absent without an excused. Brody is a voting member. Brody Deshaies is a voting member and present. And Sabet has been moved up from an alternate to a full member, present and voting. She's a voting member. Let's see. And in attendance is Suzanne Clark. I can't remember your last name. I'm sorry. That's okay. And town planner Jeffrey Hindelator. I'm getting better at it. And as I said, tonight is the discussion of whether or not to re-hear two cases that we heard. The first one on the agenda is a motion for re-hearing of the June 15th decision to deny the Taylor community home a special exception application proposing an elderly housing use consisting of four residential duplexes located on Bay Street and And the motion to rehear request was by Taylor Community pursuant to RSA 6772. And 6772 lays out how this is to go forward. And the purposes of rehearing are to correct any errors, legal or not, flaws in the action that we took, or it also is put in place to give us the first opportunity to correct anything that we may have, um, unfortunately or inadvertently done before it goes to court. And, um, what I have for Taylor home, we have the, um, I think you have the minutes from that meeting, uh, Okay, so Taylor Home, it's Hopewell Point that had the mixed up vote, right?

Yes, correct.

So Taylor Home was, does anybody have the minutes for Taylor Home? I have the... Did you hand them out?

We have the planner's memo. Jeffrey gave us a memo explaining...

I can't, wait a minute.

Here's what Jeffrey just gave us.

Okay.

Minutes and a motion.

Okay. So these are the minutes we tabled, are they? June 15th, no, okay. So thank you, Jeffrey. The reasons that we gave were number seven and eight and Sabet Storman pointed out one of the letters stating that there was an impact of $60,000 to $70,000 devaluation to the home. Brody pointed out that the letter was written in 2016, but he thinks the point is still made that losing sight of natural beauty and the vista of Back Bay is still related to their property values. When the abutter wrote the letter, he stressed it was the light and snow issues. And I stated, number eight, I cannot make a connection to the spirit of the master plan which supports affordable housing. This proposal is not affordable housing. Those are the two reasons. So let's discuss, do we want to rehear it? Or do we think we did an adequate job? Do we think we made any legal errors? I don't think we made a legal error.

I think we did.

What? I have trouble hearing.

It's OK. I'm trying not to be too, too loud. But I think probably being louder is easier for you, Suzanne. So based on what Jeffrey wrote in his memo, he stated, staff did not prepare a final written decision in accordance with RSA 676 colon 3 and the ZBA's rules of procedure because staff did not prepare this decision, the ZBA did not comply with the applicable statute and procedures. So I think in light of what Jeffrey is recommending, we should rehear. I also think in the applicant's application for rehearing, they brought forward a new letter on property value that is more recent and that's applicable to their proposed development and not the development of a large museum complex. And I think that is even enough of compelling new evidence. So I think between the procedural defect and new evidence.

Hold it right there. Hold it. New evidence. Was that new evidence available at the time of the hearing. No. So what is the new evidence?

The new evidence is the letter from Dow Realty that's dated after the hearing. That's an updated property value impact.

We had that letter.

No, not from Dow. We had it from Maxfield Real Estate. That was from 2016, which is what you quoted in the minutes.

Did we have a letter from Dow?

No. You had the Maxwell letter, and we will have an updated letter from Dow in the rehearing part, if you choose to rehear it. So there is updated information.

Was it available?

The letter was not available at the time the ZBA made their original decision on this application.

I think it's somewhat compelling. Okay.

Sabet, you got anything you'd like to add in on this? No. Chuck?

No. I would like to move that we rehear the case.

I'm going to read the whole recommended motion Jeffrey gave us. Is that okay, Chuck? I can read it. You can read it too, but I think Chuck gave it. Sorry. I think Jeffrey gave it to us to help with procedural matters.

I make a motion to grant Taylor Community... Motion for rehearing request pursuant to RSA 677-2 and 3 from the zoning board adjustments June 15th, 2026 denial of Taylor community special exception application opposing elderly housing consisting of four residential units located at Bay Street. This motion is granted by finding the zoning board of adjustment did not issue a final written decision pursuant to 676-3 and also due to the lack of a current estimate of property values.

Okay. I'll second. Okay, now I have a question. The Zoning Board of Adjustment did not issue a final written decision. Can someone explain why that happened?

Yes, staff, me, did not put that decision together within the five days that's required by statute. And also, I became recently aware, and thank you to the chair and the vice chair, of our rules of procedure that require the posting of the decision on the town's website. And there's another piece to that that I have in my head, but I can't recite. So that was not ZBA. That was purely result of staff.

Then I would like to say that regardless of the above stated reasons, that that reason alone is reason to rehear. So I'll call the vote. Roll call vote to rehear. Chuck?

Yes.

Ryan, yes. Yes.

Yes.

Okay, unanimous. That's taken care of. Now, Hopewell. Hold on, hold on. Wait a minute, I gotta go over and talk. I need a little break here, I gotta pass the plan or something.

These are helpful.

I have our superintendent of schools do this. It's nice to get a one-page memo so you know. It prevents a lot of questions. Why are we doing it? Usually, they give us who, what, why, and how. That usually answers all your questions before you vote, right? So who's next? What are we talking about? What do we need to decide on? How is it going to be done once we make a decision? Usually 300 words can suffice it. And then you have a paper record so that when you get called by a constituent senator, you can say, well, yeah, we need to do something. Because sometimes you forget three months down the road.

Jeffrey's great.

He is excellent.

Let that go on the record.

back in session. I had some notes on this that I went over with Jeffrey and wanted to clarify what I had written down. OK, so what did I do with the agenda? Seems like my agenda always walks away on me. Thank you. All right, so this is a 56 Hopewell Point. And again, this is a public meeting, not a public hearing. Now, there was some issue on how that vote was taken. I will say that I bear some of the responsibility I should have remembered when a vote goes in the negative and ends up actually not being a vote. You have to take a second vote to clarify that that vote meant you would be here and we didn't do that. So tonight that's the only thing we're gonna talk about is setting that vote straight.

Suzanne, can I read from our procedures? It says it pretty clearly. I just found it. It says that should a motion result in a tie vote or not receive the necessary three votes to decide in favor of the applicant, the opposite of the failed motion does not automatically prevail.

Yeah, you're absolutely right.

The board must set forth a new motion to affirmatively approve or deny a decision. So that's what we're doing now.

And that's in our bylaws that we all struggled for a couple of years rewriting, and I completely forgot it, as did the board, as did our then sitting planning person. So... I'm going to make a motion to grant Irene B.J. and Andrew J. a request to rehearing requests pursuant to 677.2 and 3 from the Zoning Board of Adjustments of March 2, 2026. Approval of special exception application 56 Hopewell Point Road. The motion is granted by findings that the Zoning Board of Adjustment did not have the information needed to properly review environmental constraints as described in the special exception 175-27A3. Second. I have a second. Discussion? Okay, roll call vote. Brody?

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Yes.

And motion is carried. and the public meeting portion is closed. Thank you. That's it. We have no other business, so I'd entertain a motion to adjourn.

May I ask, since we're all together, we're talking about having a meeting. Yeah. Can we do the date? We'll take care of that. OK. Planner will set it up for us.

Yeah, I'll set it. OK.

Okay. I'll make a motion to adjourn. Second the motion to adjourn. I'll second it. Thank you. Thank you.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. Adjourned.

Great.