[0:04] Okay, we're going to start.

[0:15] Yeah, why I said that going?

[0:25] Oh, hopefully it's not getting any better.

[0:27] I'll go check. Okay. Thanks.

[0:43] Test test.

[0:47] I'll just go from here. Yeah, you want to hold that the whole time.

[0:54] Go ahead. Yeah, vice chair. All right. I'm going to start on a different mic.

[0:58] I call to order the time of Bedford Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting for September 15th,

[1:03] 2026.

[1:05] We'll begin with introductions of the board members and planning staff to my right as Kelly

[1:11] Gleason, far right, Kelly Gleason, alternate, but she'll be a boarding member this evening.

[1:17] Evan McCorms, alternate member, Joe Faehy, regular member, Alex Kellerman, Vice Chairman,

[1:23] I'm Neil Kassaley, Chairman, Elizabeth Persha, regular member, Colleen Olson, land use and

[1:31] development planner, and Becky Hebert planning director.

[1:36] I thought we got away from the good evenings, but I guess it's back.

[1:40] Yeah, I tried.

[1:41] It's back.

[1:45] All right.

[1:45] First item on the agenda is the approval of the August 18th, 2026 minutes.

[1:50] any amendments needed for members.

[1:55] Do I have a motion to approve the August 18th, 2026 meetings?

[2:00] I will.

[2:01] Move that we approve the August 18th, 2026 meetings.

[2:04] Okay, so motion by Alex, is there a second?

[2:07] Thanks.

[2:08] Second by Joe.

[2:10] All those in favor say aye.

[2:13] Okay, so motion carries, minutes are approved.

[2:16] Next I will go over the rules of procedure for the meeting.

[2:18] Please silence all cell phones.

[2:22] We will have a presentation from each applicant.

[2:24] You'll introduce themselves to the board and present their application including the five criteria necessary for a variance.

[2:31] Board members may then ask questions of the applicant.

[2:34] We'll have public input after with those in favor and then those opposed to the proposal.

[2:40] Providing comments or asking questions, which shall be directed to the board.

[2:45] If you do speak, we ask that you give you name and address first.

[2:49] I ask that there be no debate between the parties.

[2:51] Have to public input for or in opposition to the variance.

[2:55] We'll give the applicant a chance for a rebuttal in summation.

[2:58] All applicants will be heard in order of notice.

[3:01] The board will go into non-public input to deliberate and vote after each application.

[3:05] You can wait for the vote tonight, where you can call a planning officer after 830 tomorrow

[3:09] and find out the result.

[3:12] If we do need to take a recess, we will, by vote, we will hear a last-gen died in

[3:16] before 10 o'clock that shouldn't be a problem tonight.

[3:19] Any items we have not started before 10 will be deferred to our next meeting.

[3:23] Regarding re-hearing, any party has 30 days to request re-hearing from a decision

[3:27] of the zoning board of adjustment.

[3:29] The board has 30 days in which to respond to such requests per RSA-673

[3:34] tomorrow being day one.

[3:37] All requests must be in writing and must contain new evidence.

[3:40] Please point out any errors you believe the board made in this decision

[3:46] We have all variance requests for the seedening or at least two of them the criteria for granting a variance

[3:52] Considering the variance that we have in front of the board this evening. I will not go through the five criteria at this time

[4:08] I will ask you to go through your application and address the five criteria as part of your presentation

[4:13] so that it is recorded. And really it's for the benefit of those in the audience that don't have the

[4:20] paperwork in front of them to see what your application states on it.

[4:26] For a motion of past this evening, there must be at least three affirmative votes out of the five.

[4:31] I'm going to ask that anyone that is going to speak this evening to post rise at this time and get sworn in, raising your right hand.

[4:38] And honorable console is exempt.

[4:46] Do you swear or firm that the testimony you are about to give in these hearings will be

[4:50] the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

[4:54] Thank you.

[4:55] You may be seated.

[5:00] So new business, we're going to start with Carrie and Timothy Murphy, you can come on up

[5:09] to the table, start getting ready as I talk about your application.

[5:16] This is a request to permit a 16 by 25, 400 square feet garage edition, 16.2 feet from the

[5:23] side property line where 25 feet is required at 83 Federation Lot 31-12 zone RNA may begin.

[5:36] I do it. Hi, hold on. And I do ask use the computer as much as possible. We can see it on the screen.

[5:46] And if you refer to like a plot plan or any pictures or something, feel free to use the cursor so we can see you can point to exactly what you're talking about.

[5:56] Thanks.

[5:57] I'm carrying Murphy, this is Tam Murphy.

[6:01] So just high level, we're asking at a third garage stall, which would attach to the existing two from the front or the driveway side.

[6:13] It would be very close to that 25 foot buffer, but because the property line kind of cuts this way.

[6:19] As a garage goes back, it goes into that buffer zone.

[6:24] So, as part of the project too, we would be also turning half of the first garage stall

[6:30] into a mud room, because we don't have one, which would allow people to come in our house

[6:35] through the garage into a mud room, and then we would still have parking for two cars.

[6:41] So, we both drive and then our daughter will be driving in about a year.

[6:45] So, kind of allows two cars to park a better, safer entrance into our house, and then

[6:51] from like all the bikes and scooters and all of those things.

[6:57] So I can start going through John and Squirrel.

[7:07] So if you could read word forward, please.

[7:12] Describe what we are proposing to do

[7:14] at one additional garage stall to our house.

[7:17] It'll be connected to the two existing garage stalls

[7:19] in measure 16 by 25 feet.

[7:22] Part of the existing garage will be used

[7:23] to create a mudroom with an outside entrance store added.

[7:28] The additional garage will...

[7:30] The required side setback variants, the rear corner of the garage will be approximately 16 feet from our property line, with one-to-two kernel Daniels drive, looking at the plot plan and other required setbacks. This is the most reasonable place to add the garage.

[7:49] Please explain how it meets the following criteria, granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest.

[7:59] Whether granting the variance would alter the essential character of the locality.

[8:04] The additional garage would not alter the essential character.

[8:07] The addition would be constructed to match the existing style of the house.

[8:12] Many of the neighboring houses on Colonel Daniels and Federation have three car garages

[8:17] so it wouldn't match the aesthetic of the neighborhood and there'll still be a large buffer

[8:22] between our house and one out here in Colonel Daniels so I don't know I don't think there's any like

[8:27] street pictures but it's actually like our house are garages and then it's like a big hill up to their house

[8:34] so in the summertime and the leaves are on the trees you can't even

[8:39] see are between the two houses. So you still have a lot of privacy there.

[8:45] Whether granting the variance with threatened public health safety or welfare, it will not.

[8:51] The additional garage in my drum would provide a safer entrance and parking environment for the family and any guests.

[8:57] Access to the front door can be dangerous in the winter because the ingress is off a downhill hill part of the driveway that becomes icy in the winter.

[9:05] So, currently we just leave the garage door open when anyone's coming in and out and only have one car parked in the garage.

[9:13] So, the new garage would allow us to have two cars in the garage and a safer entrance.

[9:21] The spirit of the ordinance is observed because viewing from the road, you'll still preserve right around that 20 foot.

[9:30] be still still be 25 feet from the garage to the property line. The

[9:34] variance is required because of how the house is positioned on the lot. The

[9:38] property line angles towards the back corner of the house and there'll be no

[9:41] overcrowding of the property. The area is currently already paved so we're not

[9:46] removing any trees or any visual buffer to the neighbors and the neighbors

[9:50] 102 kernel Daniels are up to help from us so there's still plenty of space

[9:54] between the two houses. Grinding the variance would do substantial justice because

[10:00] It would increase the curb repeal and appeal and function of the property and there's no other reason

[10:06] All spot to add the third garage stall or separate garage structure and it will provide a safer entrance to the property for guests in the winter

[10:17] The value of the surrounding properties will not be diminished for the following reasons. The additional garage is in line with the other houses on the street

[10:25] It will be constructed to blend in with the existing structure adding value to our house

[10:29] Several neighbors have commented that they are happy for us to do the addition.

[10:34] Some actually volunteered to come here and speak if we needed them moving in.

[10:38] Thank you, Mrs. Surrey.

[10:41] Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship,

[10:46] special conditions of the property, distinguish it from other properties in the area

[10:50] because the house was constructed close to the property line and much as much of the property

[10:55] is in wetland so that really doesn't leave us any other option for construction that would fit in as

[11:01] well with the existing house in neighborhood. In the winter it's difficult to fit both cars in

[11:06] the garage because of snowblowers, generators, this would allow two cars to park in the garage.

[11:11] The entrance from the garage into the house is very tight and cramped because there's no mudroom

[11:16] and there's no entry door into the garage so overall it increased function and value of our house.

[11:24] denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship because there will be no fair

[11:31] or substantial relationship exists between the general public purpose of the ordinance

[11:35] position and the specific application of that provision to the property because there

[11:40] will be no overcrowding between properties and the visual appearance of our property will

[11:44] be improved. The proposed use is a reasonable one because it adds function covered perking and

[11:51] for entrance to our home. Overall, it would increase the function and value of our house.

[11:57] If the criterion sub-paragraph A above or not established, explain why the property cannot be used

[12:04] in strict conformance with the ordinance and why a variance is therefore necessary to enable

[12:09] a reasonable use of it, where the house was constructed on the property line provides no other

[12:14] reasonable option for a construction of a garage.

[12:19] Anything else before the board asks questions?

[12:22] I'll say we did.

[12:24] I know I think you guys mail to neighbors but we also reached out and sent everyone an email

[12:31] or letter or text and got.

[12:35] I think we heard almost from everyone in a affirmative positive and support

[12:39] about adding the garage.

[12:41] You know, a lot of comments of, oh we want to do the same thing or we wish we could do the same thing.

[12:45] So the neighbors are all supportive and I'll highlight that too. Yeah, and then I think do we have anything

[13:00] else

[13:01] Sure, you guys already seen it, but we do have photos of

[13:06] Gold's room if you want to scroll down and it doesn't seem to be working now

[13:11] You may have to click on the mouse people and they go

[13:15] Oh, there's sorry. He's used to max

[13:19] Yeah, so we used AI and

[13:25] that is what the proposed garage would look like.

[13:28] So obviously this is AI so it might not be perfectly proportional like of the 16 foot of cross,

[13:35] but that's generally how it will look from the driveway where you come into our house.

[13:40] Did they leave out the front door?

[13:42] So what happened was like if you look at the flat plan, our house was built to a coal

[13:48] sack and we have this really big long driveway and then they connected kernel

[13:53] the annuals and federation so then this driveway you see there was about

[13:59] what do you say 20 feet from kernel the annuals and then we had a 200 foot driveway

[14:05] to federation so we ended up just putting in a short driveway right here so

[14:11] that he can snow plow it and then the front door is around this corner here.

[14:19] It's facing around here, so that's like what we were saying there's no entry where this garage is so people and then this kind of comes down a little hill and we actually

[14:28] It's someone because it uses really fast fall slip break their leg coming to our front door because it like does dip down this hill

[14:37] So, what we would do is add a door where those three windows are kind of bumps out.

[14:43] So, then someone could walk in there, then go into our mudroom and be in our house without

[14:48] either having to leave the garage open or go down this little hill into the front.

[14:54] If you click at the top of the screen on the plot plan, go to the tabs.

[15:00] The rate top of the image, the middle tab, the middle tab says plot plan. I think you'll get a picture, there you go, of your property.

[15:07] Oh yeah, yeah, that's easier to see. So that long driveway was the original driveway and then we added that little short one and that little tiny path is to our front door.

[15:19] So that walkway, the walkway that comes off the longer driveway is that the walkway to your front door.

[15:25] Yes. Wow. Okay. Yeah. So I think it was all like constructed before they knew that

[15:34] this is actually, where it's a Federation that's actually Colonel Daniels. Yeah, yeah.

[15:41] Where I didn't think they were expecting to connect the two roads. That's actually facing

[15:47] Federation, but yeah. House is okay. Yeah.

[15:52] Anything else? I don't think so. Okay.

[15:56] Memories of the Board questions.

[16:03] Do you want to scroll down and just show where the

[16:05] addition and the setback encroachment is? On the other tab or. It's on that picture, but

[16:12] it's usually a good idea to just say, yeah, point that out.

[16:19] Yeah, so that is already like

[16:22] Pavement there. Where the new garage is going.

[16:29] No questions I take it. That's

[16:31] sure me and okay. Anyone in the public wish to comment,

[16:38] right? So there were a

[16:42] column communication somewhere, text somewhere, letters. So, letters, communications

[16:49] and support from 80 federation, 80 federation, 102 kernel Daniels, 61 federation, by the way,

[17:01] 102 kernel Daniels is the direct to butter. It would be most affected if you will. 61 federation

[17:09] and 71 federation.

[17:14] Anything else before we deliberate? Okay. All right. Is there a motion

[17:19] to go into non-public deliberation, so a motion by Kelly, is there a second? Second by Liz,

[17:28] all of us in favor, say aye. Aye. Okay, motion carries. So let's go over the five criteria.

[17:37] Okay, granting the variance would or would not be contrary to the public interest.

[17:43] A, whether granting the variance would alter the essential character of the locality,

[17:47] No

[17:52] evidence of that. Excuse me. Be with a grant in the variance with threat in public health

[17:57] safe to your welfare.

[17:59] I would argue that it's the opposite. Given the safety concerns with the longer approach

[18:06] to the main entrance of the house.

[18:08] Great.

[18:09] To the spirit of the ordinance, would or would not be observed.

[18:14] So does this propose use conflict with the explicit or implicit purpose of the ordinance,

[18:20] which is the preventable of crowding in general.

[18:23] It does not conflict.

[18:26] Anyone else?

[18:28] As a matter of fact, you look at a satellite

[18:29] and there's a really wide bank of trees on all three sides.

[18:36] And there's been a representation in the application

[18:38] that there would be no removal of any trees or other foliage.

[18:44] That would cause less obstruction.

[18:50] Three granting the variance would or would not do a substantial justice, so this is that scale of the applicant's needs versus the needs of the public.

[19:00] What gives them the third garage for what will be a third driver when you weigh that against?

[19:05] What I think the board is deemed to be really insignificant if any overcrowding in the neighborhood.

[19:11] Are gray anyone else?

[19:13] There's also the fact that there's no other reasonable location to place a third garage given the wetlands encroachment onto the property.

[19:20] That's the most reasonable.

[19:23] For the values of the surrounding properties would or would not be diminished.

[19:27] I don't think they would be with the letters of support.

[19:31] That would be direct.

[19:33] One of the two criminal denials is in favor of it.

[19:36] I would also just now think that most of the houses in that neighborhood have three car garages.

[19:44] Okay, five unnecessary hardship.

[19:48] A literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship special conditions.

[19:53] The property distinguish it from other properties in the area.

[19:57] So one, there is, there is not a fair and substantial relationship that exists between the general public purposes of the ordinance provision

[20:04] and the specific application of that provision to the property.

[20:13] I think one thing you have to look at in this specific property is the fact that there's this long,

[20:17] kind of 200 foot driveway that runs across the front of the home and then you have this walkway,

[20:23] which would really block any other alternative places for this garage to be placed.

[20:30] So when you kind of weigh that, then the unique sort of stance of the property,

[20:34] against the zone awareness, I think it was in the case of the great two variants.

[20:39] Right, and we've already agreed that we don't believe there's any overcrowding issues.

[20:46] The proposed use is a reasonable one, so special conditions of the property cause the proposed use to be reasonable.

[20:55] It's a functional improvement. It's one that promotes safety and easier access to the home.

[21:01] Anyone else?

[21:03] Okay, is there a motion?

[21:08] Mr. Chair, I move that bad for grant the variance from Article 3 Section 275-22A and

[21:15] Table 1 to permit a 16-foot by 25-foot 400 square foot garage addition 16.2 feet from

[21:21] the side property line, which 25 feet is required at 83 Federation Roadlot 31-12.

[21:27] The motion is supported by the findings of fact that occurs during our deliberation, specifically

[21:35] safety concerns and the setback from the road.

[21:37] The variance request satisfies all five criteria for granting relief from the zoning

[21:41] ordinance for the reasons to discuss during the board's deliberation.

[21:44] The board includes all facts found in the meeting minutes for the application and incorporates

[21:47] all meeting minutes into this decision.

[21:51] And specifically, the findings of fact that weight most heavily on the board were the fact that

[21:56] did not weigh against potential overcrowding as identified as the underlying issue and purpose

[22:02] of the ordinance, that it was a safety improvement for easier access to the home given

[22:08] the unique positioning of the property, off of two roads that were later connected but not

[22:13] initially connected when the home was instructed, are constructed rather and that there

[22:18] are significant wetlands of the property that would prevent construction from a garage in

[22:23] So motion by Kelly, is there a second?

[22:26] Second.

[22:27] Second by Alex, all those in favor say aye.

[22:30] Aye. Aye. Opposed. Okay. So that motion carries 5-0. Is there a motion to go back into public session?

[22:41] So moved. So motion by Kelly is there a second? Second. Second by Alex. All those in favor say aye.

[22:48] Aye. Okay. So that's been approved.

[22:51] Thank you.

[22:52] Thank you.

[22:53] Thank you.

[22:53] Thank you. Thank you.

[22:54] Thank you. Thank you.

[22:55] Thank you.

[23:02] So agenda item number two, you can come on up to the table, please.

[23:07] You can start preparing.

[23:12] This is a request for a variance from article five, section 275-304-G3B to permit a pre-existing

[23:20] above ground pool, 10.2 feet from the rear property line where 20 feet is required at 14

[23:26] amount in road, lot five, dash 10, dash 25 zoned RNA.

[23:31] Thank you.

[23:32] Good introduce yourself.

[23:34] Hi, my name is Mike Darling.

[23:35] I'm like a Darling live at 14-Mountain Road in Bitford, New Hampshire.

[23:44] If you could give a, before you get into the five criteria, if you could give a, you know, an overall summation of your proposal,

[23:52] and then you can get into that, that would probably be most helpful.

[23:55] Okay, so we had a pool installed and after having installed, learned that I was thankfully not quite as far into the setback that is required.

[24:08] I thought I was closer to 14 feet or 15 feet into the setback, but thank you for calling for defining that it's actually a 20 foot instead of a 25.

[24:21] from the rear property line

[24:25] and that's according to the 25, I guess, would have been according

[24:31] to Article 3, Section 225, 23A, and table one.

[24:38] If you switch to the second tab at the top of the screen, you can share the plot plan that

[24:43] shows the location.

[24:49] So the pool is right here.

[24:52] We had more deck here, but there was a hot tub right here on the deck that was there so that came down so that obviously

[25:03] I'm going to rebuild the deck so that we can get into the pool

[25:10] and that it's 10 feet off there.

[25:19] Okay.

[25:20] Continue.

[25:21] It's up to you.

[25:22] You're the driver.

[25:24] All right.

[25:24] Yeah, if you want to get in the five criteria.

[25:26] I just, I just asked you to read a verbatim on the sheet.

[25:29] please. Thank you. So just to get into the criteria number one, granting the variance would not be

[25:38] contrary to the public interest because whether granting the variance would alter the essential

[25:44] character of locality. On above ground pool is a common residential accessory feature throughout

[25:49] this neighborhood and the R&A district generally. Similar pools are visible on other properties nearby.

[25:56] The full sits entirely within the rear yard is minimally visible from Mount

[26:01] Road and does not change the streetscape, the front or side setbacks, or

[26:06] any other feature that defines the visual or functional character of locality.

[26:10] Since the affected setback faces H.O.A. commonly in rather than neighboring

[26:13] yard, granting the variance changes nothing about how the property presents

[26:17] to any neighbor or to the public.

[26:21] For Section B of that, whether granting the

[26:24] with threat in the public health, see if you're well-fear. The pool is a temporary, non-foundation

[26:29] structure that represents no fire separation, green or just structural concern, distinct from

[26:35] a conforming installation elsewhere on the lot. It does not obstruct sight lines, emergency vehicle

[26:40] accessor utilities, no wetland, floodplain or other environmentally sensitive feature is implicated by

[26:47] the rear location, granting the variant or not threat in the public health, safety or welfare in any

[26:52] aspects.

[26:58] For Criterion 2, the spirit of the Ornance is observed because the objective is not defeated

[27:03] here.

[27:03] The land directly behind the required setback is not a neighboring residential lot.

[27:08] It is commonly endowed by the Bedford Three Corners Association and uses the beach field

[27:13] with no dwelling and no building against which light air or density concerns what arise.

[27:19] There is no overcrowding of land and buildings implicated by placing a pool 10.2 feet from

[27:24] an open common land because there is no second building on the other side.

[27:26] side of that line. The conforming side setback is roughly 20 feet beyond the setback. That's

[27:35] describing, sorry, the space over here.

[27:42] To continue to provide separation, the ordinance requires

[27:45] wherever an actual neighboring residents present, granting the various consistent with,

[27:51] not contrary to the underlying objective of the setback requirement as applied to this

[27:55] particularly configuration.

[28:00] For criterion three granting the variance would do substantial

[28:03] justice because denial of variance would require removal or relocation of existing common

[28:08] residential recreational entity as substantial cost and disruption to the applicant without

[28:13] producing any corresponding benefit to a neighbor or to the public since the land setback would

[28:20] since the land setback would protect at the rear is HOA commonly and not a residence. The loss to

[28:26] applicants disproportionate to any gain, the town or a butter would realize from strict enforcement

[28:31] of the full 20-foot setback in this location, granting the variance for stores a fair balance

[28:37] between the applicant's reasonable use of the property and the ordinances intended protections,

[28:42] which are not meaningfully engaged here.

[28:47] For the values of the surrounding properties,

[28:49] we'll not be diminished for the following reasons, above-ground pools are common in this

[28:53] and comparable neighborhoods, and generally viewed as a neutral positive residential

[28:58] humanity rather than a detriment to surrounding property values, as the land directly behind

[29:04] the rear setback is one of the HOE's common leech field rather than a neighboring residential

[29:09] yard. The pool does not intrude upon or diminish the enjoyment of any neighboring residents

[29:14] to the rear. The pool is roughly 20 feet inside of the near sides setback, preserving the

[29:22] expected buffer for both side neighbors, the near-side being the Kukohamli at 12

[29:30] mountain road, and the far side is Leslie and Kiefer at 16 mountain road.

[29:35] Taking together the installation will have no discernible negative effect on the value or

[29:40] markability of any surrounding property.

[29:43] Number five, literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance was would result in

[29:48] unnecessary hardship, special conditions of the property distinguish it from other

[29:52] properties in the area because the certified boundary survey done by only a land surveying job.

[30:00] 2022, dated 8.426 confirms that the true rear property line does not correspond to any visible feature on the ground.

[30:10] There is no offense, hedgero, or greed clearly marking it. The property line runs at irregular bearings rather than any feature a homeowner would naturally read as the boundary on site.

[30:22] As a result, the actual reset back lines, it's noticeably closer to the house than the

[30:28] lanes.

[30:28] Visible features would suggest to an ordinary owner locating a pool by eye.

[30:33] This is a special condition of this lot's boundary configuration distinct from lots, where

[30:37] the property line is self evident on the ground.

[30:43] Denial of the variants would result in unnecessary hardship because no fair and substantial

[30:49] relationship exists between the general public purposes of the ordinance provision in the

[30:54] specific application of that provision to the property, because the purpose of the 20-foot rear

[31:00] setback is to buffer neighboring residential use.

[31:03] The land directly behind the setback line is not originally guard, but H.O.A. commonly

[31:07] end.

[31:07] I'll each field held by Bedford Three Corners Association with no dwelling in no resident whose

[31:14] privacy or enjoyment is protected by the additional distance, playing the full 20-foot standard

[31:20] calibrated for separation between homes does not serve a fair and substantial purpose where

[31:25] the protected land is undeveloped common open space. The proposed use is reasonable one because

[31:32] above ground pools, a common unremarkable residential accessory use in the R&A district and does not

[31:39] alter the essential character of the neighborhood.

[31:43] B,

[31:46] if the criteria and some paragraph A are not

[31:48] established, explain why property cannot be used in strict

[31:52] conformance with the ordinance and why variance is

[31:55] therefore necessary to enable reasonable use it.

[31:57] If the board is not find as established, the applicant

[32:02] notes that because the true rear property line is not

[32:05] discernible from any visible feature on a lot and no fence

[32:08] marker of a station link response to it.

[32:11] And owner,

[32:16] the applicant learned of the issue only when

[32:18] subsequently seeking a full permit and was informed this variance must be resolved first prompting

[32:26] the certified survey. Now on file, the applicant is bringing this application forward as the

[32:31] required step toward compliance. Strict enforcement of these circumstances would not enable any

[32:36] different or better use of the property. It would simply compound removal of a law for residential

[32:41] amenity based on a boundary that was never marked or apparent on the lane itself.

[32:47] Anything else before we go in the questions?

[32:55] I guess there is an aerial shot attached to the staff report

[33:16] regarding kind of

[33:24] the difference in the proper line versus the visible discernment of what I would kind of think of as my yard.

[33:33] There are two garden beds you can see here that we installed.

[33:42] I actually planted a couple of apple trees right behind those when we moved in.

[33:51] And those are, they're partially covered by the trees that are here.

[33:59] But in looking, if you were in my yard, those looked to be within my yard, so the property line is much further in than I would have expected based on the shape of the yard.

[34:22] Anything else?

[34:24] That's all I have for you.

[34:26] Questions?

[34:30] Well, I'm not entirely comfortable with the special conditions that you sit in here, the fact

[34:37] you can't see your property markers.

[34:40] I can't see the property markers in my yard, and I can be suspect most people can, not.

[34:48] So I guess it's a special condition if it's common to

[34:54] that.

[34:55] I guess what I was meaning there is like there's beyond just like the physical little posts.

[35:03] There's not like a fence and again, where I guess I would expect the yard to end based

[35:12] on what's kind of physically landscape and there is significantly different than where

[35:26] these surveillance I found to be. So I guess I'm not, I'm not speaking specifically to

[35:34] just like a visible, like the little iron rebar posts that are set there, but

[35:45] more just the visual marker.

[35:51] Right, I guess maybe looking at a survey before you put the pool in.

[35:56] Yep, somebody do diligence.

[36:02] I was a little distracted when we were trying to get this set up.

[36:07] I've been taking some successes.

[36:11] And I had other stuff that I was working on.

[36:14] And I guess I would have expected

[36:19] between the pool retailer, the installer,

[36:24] somebody to kind of give me a bit more of a, I had something like, hey, you should probably

[36:29] look into this and I understand that is, that is a failing on my part.

[36:37] Couple of questions. What's that? Is it a 24-foot round?

[36:41] Yes.

[36:42] Okay, and you had it professionally installed?

[36:44] Yes.

[36:45] And it didn't pull a permit?

[36:46] No.

[36:47] Okay.

[36:49] That's interesting.

[36:51] So I've got a couple of follow-up questions.

[36:54] Is it, it's not, I'm assuming it's not like an in-text or something.

[36:58] It's a longer-lasting product.

[37:02] Yeah, I'm not gonna remember the brand name right now.

[37:05] You bought it from a pool store?

[37:06] We bought it from a pool store.

[37:07] That's all I need to know.

[37:09] Yeah, yeah.

[37:09] A pool real retailer.

[37:10] Okay.

[37:11] And so then just as a practical consideration,

[37:17] there's a space that I'm seeing on the

[37:19] lot planned that I'm also seeing in the aerial photo that appears to be open yard behind

[37:25] the driveway. It's shaded in the back. It's the right of the pool.

[37:32] So, off the drive, off the back of the driveway, basically. So, we have our well-pump. Is right, I don't know, maybe here ish. And then I have a swing set that is, okay, you all can't English on that area. And then final question, if I may, where the back property line is, you previously testified that that's leech failed for the case.

[37:59] community is any part of that pool weighing on any part of the leech field. I don't I don't believe so. The leech field is up here. Okay.

[38:12] Okay, that's a

[38:13] full. That is higher than my property. Okay.

[38:20] I think one thing that might just be helpful clarifications. I think that this like a lot of these overhead GIS maps. The boundaries not entirely

[38:28] So I think the pool is actually entirely on his property,

[38:32] it's just, you know, with a, it's ten feet from the property.

[38:34] So I don't think it would be within the common space.

[38:37] No, it's not actually physically within the common space, sorry.

[38:40] Your time point to feet from the line of the common property, right?

[38:45] According to what I've been told, yes.

[38:57] So it's touching on what's already been touched on a little bit,

[39:01] to rule it out.

[39:03] Again, the special conditions,

[39:12] can you, because that may be an issue, can you point out

[39:20] on the map using the cursor,

[39:25] number one, what the obstructions are again, so you said

[39:29] that there's a well, swing sets, not really an obstruction.

[39:34] can you, can you rule out or rule in depending upon how you look at it, why the pool can't

[39:45] be anywhere else. And I do want to clarify something in that regard.

[39:54] It sounded like you said

[39:55] that there was a deck in a hot tub prior. And is that why you put the pool that far out from what

[40:03] here is to be a current deck. So it was one so unified that the deck previously came out to

[40:11] it was like it's like four feet beyond the house. So it came out to about here.

[40:19] This is the trench that I dug for the electrical to the pool. They put that in there. So it was about

[40:29] four feet beyond the corner of the house.

[40:34] And the other post is right and about here.

[40:41] And it comes all the way back to this point.

[40:46] I'm sorry, to right here.

[40:49] And then this line would have been the other corner

[40:51] of the deck at the point.

[40:53] This here is like a raised.

[40:59] almost balcony that you can, I mean it's not about, it's just a raised deck area

[41:04] it's just that it's only about four feet wide there and you walk down here to that lower

[41:11] portion of the deck and then these are stairs so this is like a little, it's not a sunroom

[41:17] but it's like a annex off the back of the house you walk down this way to the ground level

[41:24] you walk down this way to the the previous deck. The other part of this is that the

[41:31] the long-term goal probably next year is to rebuild the deck. These stairs are actually

[41:38] not that it's especially relevant to the case of the pool, but these stairs are particularly

[41:43] dangerous as water tends to run off the top of the house, go on to these stairs, freeze, and

[41:55] So, I'm actually going to rebuild the deck so that it comes all the way out at the higher

[42:01] level and put stairs down, walking to a pool level area over on the side here.

[42:12] So, I would increase the safety of the area.

[42:15] So, that's also why the pool is there, is that it's going to become attached to the, or

[42:20] above the deck.

[42:21] Okay. Do you reuse those posts that are there?

[42:27] I don't know that I'm going to be able to reuse.

[42:30] So there's two that are two or three that are further in.

[42:34] I'm hoping to be able to reuse the ones that are right next to the pool.

[42:40] They're only 12 inch footings.

[42:45] But where that will be lower.

[42:47] I think the 12 inch footing is okay, I'm still trying to research that and figure that out

[42:52] and making blue prints and understand that I have to get a permit for that and I was going to be doing that work.

[42:58] So I would expect myself to get a permit for that.

[43:05] There will be some footings further in that will be 18 inch that I'll have to dig out in place.

[43:17] Okay, so out of all that, so confirming again, the deck was there, you built the pool after.

[43:23] Okay.

[43:23] And that's why it's so far out.

[43:27] Where can you point out where your well is again?

[43:33] It's roughly.

[43:34] It's towards this corner of like the setback corner there.

[43:39] Okay.

[43:39] I mean, it's in here somewhere.

[43:41] and then the, uh, the swing set is here.

[43:46] Well, that could be, yeah, that can be moved.

[43:50] Initially, he said it was near the off the driveway, but it's not really off the driveway.

[43:54] It's not in the middle.

[43:54] No, it's in that building envelope.

[43:58] Uh, okay.

[43:59] So any reason why the pole can't be moved to that, uh, you know, north east corner.

[44:09] I suppose that we could have, but the intent was to have it sitting off the back of the deck is what we thought we'd wanted to try and accomplish.

[44:19] And the reason I ask is, it's hardship and special conditions.

[44:25] So, okay, thank you.

[44:27] Can I?

[44:28] Mr. Chair.

[44:28] I mean, it's September 15 right now.

[44:30] So if you had to move the pool presumably, you would have to drain it, just assemble it.

[44:37] move it before the liner shrinks in the sunlights that you didn't have to replace your whole

[44:41] liner over again. Make sure the area you were moving it to was graded. Refill it with water

[44:46] before it got too cold and you couldn't pump water through your hose line and then close it for the

[44:50] winner, right? That is also true, yes, thank you. Okay. Is there any cement foundation on the pool?

[44:58] I know it's above ground, but

[45:00] No, the only thing is that, so we had to have the area kind of leveled up a little bit, and flattened as well.

[45:11] So they put like, you know, peace donor or gravel, you know, gravel, but no cement poured.

[45:18] And then the pool supports just sit on like little half-papers that they placed.

[45:25] So no, there's no foundation, nothing like that.

[45:32] Anyone else?

[45:37] Sir?

[45:39] Good.

[45:40] Anything else you'd like to have before we go into the variations?

[45:44] I don't have anything else at the moment.

[45:47] Thank you.

[45:48] Motion to move into non-public debate.

[45:53] So second.

[45:55] Okay.

[45:56] So motion by Joe in a second by Kelly.

[45:59] All those in favor say aye.

[46:00] Aye.

[46:03] All right. Well, through the criteria.

[46:17] Number one, granting the variance would or would not be

[46:19] contrary to the public interest, A with a granting the variance would alter the essential

[46:23] character of the locality. I don't think it would. The houses are relatively close together.

[46:28] There are a number of buff crown pools in the neighborhood, and there are a number of buff

[46:32] ground pools in that neighborhood that have already sought in obtained variances. Anyone else?

[46:36] And I would just point out that a direct a butter has a pool that's on essentially the same line. It appears.

[46:42] I don't know if there is a barrier or not, but it appears to be the opposite.

[46:49] Be with the grants in the variance would affect a threat in public health safety, a welfare,

[46:56] the evidence to the spirit of the ordinance would or would not be observed.

[47:03] So Chris spirit is profound overcrowding.

[47:08] It's a vacant lot, but it's a budding onto, and so really the overcrowding argument is

[47:13] in light of that path.

[47:16] And especially where I don't think

[47:18] probably should be built on.

[47:19] I think future developments

[47:21] seem unlikely as well.

[47:25] Three grants in the variance.

[47:26] What would not to substantial justice?

[47:31] I mean, denying the variance

[47:31] at this point is going to require

[47:33] re-grading, moving up full

[47:35] significant new sense to the homeowner

[47:41] and probably significant cost.

[47:46] Anyone else on that?

[47:49] Yeah.

[47:50] I don't know if I want to give him the benefit because it's there when it shouldn't be there for the same time

[47:54] I think it's fair point, especially if it was a professional installation he didn't put it himself me kind of rely on the expertise of a business to do it

[48:02] So I think that's a fair

[48:04] I will add the cost cost to the applicant alone is not

[48:12] right should not be considered right unless there are other unless there are other

[48:18] you know, things support it. So I just want to throw that in.

[48:23] Well, plus looking at it as no permit was obtained.

[48:26] If the process would have been followed and a permit would have been obtained, then this would have,

[48:30] they would have found the discrepancy prior to putting the pool.

[48:34] So what does that say, you know, as far as

[48:38] if a mistake was made because, you know,

[48:41] the proper channels weren't for the proper procedure wasn't followed.

[48:46] It makes it difficult because it's kind of sending a precedent saying.

[48:53] Four of the values of the surrounding properties would or would not be diminished.

[48:58] I don't think we see any evidence there.

[49:02] So unnecessary hardship.

[49:03] Little enforcement of the provisions, the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship.

[49:07] Special conditions of the property distinguishes from properties in the area.

[49:12] One, there is, is or is not a fair and substantial relationship that exists between the general public purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of the provision to this property.

[49:26] So, you know, this points to the special conditions of the property.

[49:31] As Joe had mentioned, at least what's in the application I agree with, this is not a special condition.

[49:38] That's a good not knowing where your property line is. I surveyed my property, and there's a lot of properties this way.

[49:46] I didn't realize I thought that it was like rectangular from the road, and then I had the surveyer start going this way to the right.

[49:55] And my property line is two feet from my neighbor's driveway.

[50:01] And I'm sure that neighbor, until they told them, was not aware.

[50:06] And so I don't think that's a special condition of this property.

[50:11] I think it's pretty common.

[50:13] And then you appointed to the diligence, which, yeah, was not done either by the applicant

[50:19] in or the, you know, sounds like the contractor.

[50:23] So, I agree with those points.

[50:26] And I don't think that not being able to kind of see a property

[50:30] in line with necessarily special conditions.

[50:32] I do think though, there are some special conditions.

[50:36] It's 0.35 acres. That's probably the starting point.

[50:38] I mean, that's for, you know, I understand that neighborhood

[50:42] has smaller lots, but relative to Bedford.

[50:45] That is a relatively small lot, which does make it difficult

[50:47] to place a pool anywhere that's going to be within the setback that's not either going to be

[50:53] you know shaded entirely by the home or right up kind of against the house or I know we

[50:58] suggested maybe moving it towards what would be the northeast corner. I think I can see on the map you

[51:04] see some shading and the trees are ready so you have issues there you may have cut down some trees but

[51:08] also I think just thinking about that you know that essentially is putting a pool at the end of the

[51:17] what we're trying to do with the spirit of the ordinance, which is to avoid overcrowding

[51:21] and kind of have a conformant in the neighborhood, if you have a pool at the end of a parking

[51:28] while you're driving away, that's visible at the road, that does defeat the first, and then,

[51:31] of course, you have the well that he discussed.

[51:34] So I think there are some special conditions in that, probably.

[51:37] And I would agree with the Vice Chair on that.

[51:40] I think that's a special condition that he articulated would be the special conditions

[51:45] that were notable to me.

[51:46] I viewed any discussion about seeing or not seeing markers

[51:49] is kind of superfluous language that I just

[51:52] regard in.

[51:55] Anyone else?

[51:57] Well, I would just say that that was moved to put plantings

[52:01] in what a fence-off it's not insurmountable.

[52:07] Yeah, and I kind of agree with that.

[52:09] It doesn't have to be at the end of the driveway,

[52:13] And it doesn't have to fall as much into the setback if it were, if it were, say, behind that deck area, it still looks like it would get into the setback a little bit, but maybe not to the same extent.

[52:30] So anyone else can put a rectangle tool in, put a little ground. Yeah, visual. But then you paint, then you're painting from the pool. Yeah, there are options.

[52:44] Anyone else on that one? Okay.

[52:47] uh uh the proposed use is a reasonable one again not

[52:52] we'll get a focus on it's not like as a pull reasonable because yes pulls a reasonable

[52:57] garage is reasonable for this particular site is this pull reasonable

[53:05] I'm I mean yes I mean I think it's kind of displayed and again the neighbor's property

[53:11] has a pull on a very similar site that neighborhood which we don't know how they how it's not

[53:16] But I think it does kind of speak to the reason on this, of having a pool in that type of location.

[53:22] You know, close to the property line.

[53:26] Anyone else?

[53:28] All right.

[53:29] Is there a motion?

[53:33] Mr. Chair, I move that the board grant the variance for Article 5 section 275-34G subsection 3B to permit a pre-existing

[53:41] about down pool 10.2 feet from the rear property line.

[53:45] We're 20 feet is required at 14 mountain road.

[53:47] Lot 5-10-25, the motion is supported by the following findings of fact.

[53:53] One that the variance requests satisfies all five criteria for granting relief from the

[53:56] zoning ordinance for the reasons discussed in detail during the board's deliberations.

[54:01] And two that the board includes all facts found in the meeting minutes for this application

[54:05] and incorporates all meeting minutes into this decision.

[54:09] Is there a second?

[54:10] I'll second.

[54:11] So if that was a motion by Kelly in a second by Alex, all of a sudden, favor say aye, aye, aye, aye, and a no,

[54:24] no, no, no, but you know what I said aye, and I didn't really mean to say aye, I'm used to saying aye, but I will stick with that, particularly with that looked.

[54:35] Um, yeah, I'm a little ambivalent, but we're going to leave it if that's so, uh, the motion carries three, two.

[54:44] Is there a motion to go back into public input?

[54:49] So motion by Kelly is there a second?

[54:52] I'll second.

[54:53] All of us in favor say aye.

[54:56] Okay, so that is approved.

[54:59] Thank you.

[55:00] You're welcome.

[55:03] Okay.

[55:05] So agenda.

[55:07] Item number three.

[55:09] Is there a motion to go into public debate?

[55:16] So, so motion by Kelly in a second by Alex, all those in favor say aye.

[55:21] Aye.

[55:23] I can do we need a roll call for that.

[55:27] To go.

[55:31] There's no public input on this.

[55:34] There's no public input on this.

[55:37] I just expected.

[55:39] Okay.

[55:41] So this is item number three,

[55:44] Kyle Littau. Request for a re-hearing of the Zoning Board's August 18th, 2026 decision at

[55:51] Denai of variants from Article 3. Section 275-22A and Table 1 to permit a 16x30, 480 square

[56:00] foot to touch garage, 8 feet from the property line with 25 feet is required. At 105

[56:07] Michaela Serod, lot 2-12-8 zoned RNA.

[56:33] OK, so let's refresh August 18th meeting.

[56:38] We denied the variance.

[56:42] And the applicant at the time is requesting a re-hearing

[56:49] on the matter.

[56:53] So any input from board members about whether we should

[56:57] grant to re-hearing or deny the re-hearing.

[57:04] I want to do the hearing.

[57:06] Okay, why?

[57:08] All right, thank you, Grace, some points.

[57:12] Presentation.

[57:14] Okay, and is the communications to planning.

[57:18] The most recent.

[57:20] Yeah, for me.

[57:20] It's to be, okay.

[57:22] Can you all follow on?

[57:23] I can elaborate if that's helpful.

[57:25] I think that perhaps we should consider granting the re-hearing

[57:29] to address relevant legal questions, or arguments that the board may or may not have considered

[57:34] during the initial hearing of furthermore, I think that allowing the current decision

[57:39] to stand without further findings of fact on the record may run the risk of creating an

[57:46] injustice.

[57:47] So out of an abundance of caution, I think that I personally would be supportive of a re-haring.

[57:52] Okay, can you further give with that injustices or, you know, with their errors?

[58:00] Do you believe there are errors by the board or...

[58:05] I think that I think I'm sitting at a tough spot here because I didn't deliberate on

[58:14] the underlying application and I want to be very clear about that.

[58:18] However, I think that perhaps the board had some insight into the application that may or

[58:35] may not have been relevant at the time of consideration, and I would like to see the application

[58:40] specific findings that fact made on the record, and a fresh look given to the application as a result.

[58:45] Okay, so the opinions or the facts are not the facts, but the state and some of the statements...

[59:01] I think we're in relevant to the items that we were discussing, they were proportionality of the...

[59:08] And I would let me say that I would caution casually as a member only, although I do wear an attorney hat in my day job.

[59:21] But simply as a member of this board, I would caution members who express personal opinions that if they have strong feelings that would perhaps complicate their ability to vote on the matter, they consider refusing themselves for the re-hearing.

[59:41] All right, any other comments, so either, you know, basically in a nutshell, it's, you know,

[59:49] anything that you felt the board didn't do correctly or that there was new information that

[59:58] was not available to me.

[1:00:00] The applicant at the time that we should be considering that maybe he had been mentioned in his communications.

[1:00:09] Again, it would have to be something he was not aware of because if you were aware of it, not presenting a thorough application is not a reason to allow a re-hearing.

[1:00:22] true, but if it was consideration given that was not appropriate to the item that we were discussing,

[1:00:36] for instance, may offer, for instance?

[1:00:40] Well, I'd rather not like we're here the case, but I guess in general, because it's a

[1:00:47] percent direction here, specifically here, which it was before.

[1:00:51] your deliberation at this point doesn't have to be as specific as your deliberation when you are

[1:00:59] reviewing the five criteria in the non-public deliberation. I just want to make that clear. So

[1:01:04] granting the re-hearing if it's granted, we will notify the applicant and the process starts

[1:01:09] a new so you will have a fresh application. Yeah, I mean, I would say I think out of minimum there was at

[1:01:17] some ambiguity as to what was being considered when the motion was made and the final vote was

[1:01:28] made by the board and you know in order to maybe rectify any ambiguity about what factors were

[1:01:36] considered or what was or was not a consideration of the board, it could warns a re-herey.

[1:01:44] If I can just add to that, I did just want to add that I think that the board may have

[1:01:51] sidetracked on the proper application of the definition of unnecessary hardship as it pertains

[1:01:56] to the properties specifically, and also I think that the board has been presented with additional

[1:02:00] evidence regarding the topography of the land and for that reason alone and coupled with

[1:02:05] the former stated reason that we should allow for the re-caring.

[1:02:07] Okay.

[1:02:09] Although I'll go back to my initial one of my comments about the thoroughness of the presentation

[1:02:15] is not necessarily a good reason to allow a re-hearing because then we're deluding the

[1:02:23] first hearing and we were just allowing a second hearing all the time if someone comes

[1:02:28] unprepared.

[1:02:29] And so the topography may fall into that category where it wasn't presented and so do we allow

[1:02:37] two bytes of the apple every single time something like this comes up and somebody is not

[1:02:42] thoroughly prepared. I mean, I think that that's, you know, in the, you know, kind of the,

[1:02:52] some of the communications from the planning offices, you know, for the state that that should

[1:03:01] not be entertained. This is going to be something different. I think some of the points made

[1:03:07] for the special conditions of the property could have been given more consideration and thoughtfulness by the board.

[1:03:17] Setting aside his rather detailed nuanced supplemental presentation just looking at what was in the original packet.

[1:03:31] It sounds like we have enough, I think, and what somebody else has something else to add.

[1:03:37] Can we could probably entertain a motion?

[1:03:42] What somebody has something else to add?

[1:03:44] I would agree.

[1:03:47] I did feel that he came prepared, however, when I was reading through the additional email,

[1:03:53] he had sent to the planning department that were things as far as, you know, the percentages

[1:03:58] of the property that could be used for certain purposes that that I thought was valuable information

[1:04:06] to be considered.

[1:04:10] Okay.

[1:04:10] Anyone else?

[1:04:11] No.

[1:04:12] All right.

[1:04:13] Is there a motion?

[1:04:15] I'm assuming a rearing.

[1:04:16] Chair, pursuant to RSA-677, Colin III, and the Board's Rules of Procedure, I move

[1:04:21] that the board grant the motion for the hearing to clear up the record as to potentially

[1:04:29] in consistent commentary from board members with regard to the application of certain factors

[1:04:35] and to entertain additional information from the applicant and accordingly that we hold

[1:04:43] a re-hearing on the entire application with a better and public notice to follow.

[1:04:48] Okay, so motion by Kelly, is there a second?

[1:04:50] All second?

[1:04:52] Okay, second by Elizabeth.

[1:04:53] all of us in favor say aye. I opposed. Okay, motion carries. So we'll, there'll be set for next meeting.

[1:05:05] October that will be set for your next meeting. October.

[1:05:12] I don't need to check the calendar. Unless we don't have to have an on record.

[1:05:19] Yeah, you're going to send out the appropriate.

[1:05:25] Okay.

[1:05:26] Anything from planning?

[1:05:28] Not tonight.

[1:05:30] All right.

[1:05:31] Is there a motion to adjourn?

[1:05:33] So moved.

[1:05:34] So motion by Alex.

[1:05:35] Is there a second?

[1:05:37] A second by Liz.

[1:05:39] All is the paper say aye.

[1:05:42] Post.

[1:05:43] Meeting is adjourned.

Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting Tuesday September 15 2026

Transcript