[0:00] Good morning, Board of Adjustments. And, President, I'm, I'm Brooks McCampish, also President

[0:05] R. Bill Duffy. She and Bernie. The Mayor Negros. And Laura, beaten,

[0:14] is not, is not able to join

[0:16] us. We have a, we have a four person board tonight.

[0:20] And the first thing on the agenda would be

[0:22] public hearing for submitted by D.B. Design Group for the

[0:30] Allison and Daniel Salazar, Allison C. Salazar Revocable Crest.

[0:38] We have actually two applications submitted,

[0:43] of variance for variance and for a special exception and this is for property on 72 lakeshore

[0:56] drive type map number 20 lot 29 and I guess this point all oh I will confirm I have noticed

[1:07] There's some certification

[1:11] for the post office

[1:12] that the butter application was sent out.

[1:18] They're also posted on a couple of places in town

[1:23] as well as on the website of this hearing tonight.

[1:29] So at this point, I'll ask the applicants

[1:32] whoever to give us a tell us what they plan to do

[1:38] and why starting with the variance.

[1:40] Yes.

[1:40] Sure.

[1:41] Thank you.

[1:42] My name is Robert Waltz.

[1:43] I'm the architect on the project.

[1:47] This is the ASCAP architect.

[1:49] We're also representing the earlier application.

[1:54] If I can, I can use the screen to give you some context.

[2:00] I understand that most of you are able to get out on the sidewalk.

[2:04] I'll put a picture on the top of the couple.

[2:08] So we have a property here, along the shoreline, the bulk of the property is on the lace

[2:16] side of that throne, there is land also on the other side, and one thing I want to turn

[2:24] the attention to, I'll come back to the later, the contour lines.

[2:27] So this is relatively flat and rising to an apex here, and then drops off both deeply

[2:34] down here and continues to a dead end. The existing site has three buildings today and we're

[2:45] going to end up talking about all of them. There's an existing house and deck structure here

[2:50] indicated along parallel to the lakeshore and so much shifted to the north end of the site.

[2:57] I'll start to catch some hordes at the top of the page. The second structure is

[3:02] It's labeled as a garage, but there are too many vehicles

[3:06] that exist that would get into this garage,

[3:08] based on little size and photography.

[3:11] And this garage is essentially on the property line

[3:15] and the evaluation of current setbacks.

[3:19] There's a third building, this little cabin,

[3:22] it's an uninsulated existing structure.

[3:25] And again, we'll end up, we'll find ourselves

[3:27] talking about that again.

[3:28] This variance is the time the focus of the variance has to do with relief to the minimum distance between any building and the public greater plan, W50P.

[3:46] So basically our proposal is seeking relief for the distance to the existing road.

[3:53] So, just want to get to the factual information around the site.

[3:59] So, foundry is here.

[4:02] There's a neighbor immediately to the south.

[4:04] There's also a neighbor to the north.

[4:08] And the history of this law is that,

[4:10] and the reason possibly the building is so focused at this end,

[4:15] is that this is partially used to actually be three small lots.

[4:23] So this lock over time has been merged and it's now legally one lock, but I think we see the some of the residual effects of the initial bill here.

[4:35] A series of extensions and additions over time has this decaying water larger lock.

[4:43] And so, you know, it's switched to the proposal and we're going to talk first about the proposal.

[4:53] Is there another variance application?

[4:56] You have two special exceptions.

[4:57] You have two special exceptions?

[5:04] If not, I can look down at the end of the screen.

[5:08] That's the right thing.

[5:10] Go ahead.

[5:11] Do you have a question?

[5:14] I do now.

[5:15] Do you?

[5:16] Yep.

[5:18] Do you need anything?

[5:19] Are you good?

[5:20] No, I'm good.

[5:21] Okay, thank you.

[5:23] So, right now, please, the screen is to the proposed requesting the old through this variance process,

[5:46] So the proposal is again, we will continue to have three separate structures, we've proposed

[5:55] a more compliant garage here with better access, elevation, and more appropriate distance

[6:04] from both the stopper line and the drainage feature.

[6:09] There's a existing culvert.

[6:11] It goes under the road right at the same property boundary.

[6:15] And so there is water that travels under the road, exits a culvert here and proceeds down

[6:23] We are now giving that proper distance to the building, so that's the garage.

[6:29] There is a new house, which this lot is very much of a balancing act, where in order

[6:37] to respect both setbacks from water, lake edge and the road, there is effectively no building

[6:45] area left when those lines are applied, and so what we've done is we're respecting the

[6:51] distance from the lake, which is somewhat putting us into this need for

[6:55] Americans from the road setback, but there are no neighbors on the other side of the road.

[7:00] We do not get back to anyone in there.

[7:02] We'll get to that in the questions.

[7:05] So we've located the house both back from the lake to be more sensitive to the lake

[7:11] about the boundary, but also we've sent you to buildings.

[7:14] And that has to do with primarily being a more appropriate placement relative to the boundary line and improving your distance to neighbors.

[7:26] And then lastly, we've done the cabin structure, which again will point it back from the lake into a more compliant location relative to DDS and state permitting.

[7:37] and we're basically rotating it and it now enjoys a planted buffer to additional respect

[7:46] the privacy of the neighbors in the South.

[7:49] So that's the overview of what we're proposing.

[7:54] We've got a much simpler driveway.

[7:57] We heard from the fire chief when we were working with him on driveway permit.

[8:00] And it's our expectation that this will be more serviceable

[8:05] both to the owners as a year-round residents,

[8:09] as opposed to a seasonal draw, which is what it's been,

[8:12] but also to make for safer ingrass and ingrass

[8:15] for emergency vehicles to be in ambulance or fire.

[8:18] And so we've got a very simple layout here,

[8:21] as opposed to what was a fairly difficult,

[8:32] So, I can answer any other complex questions, and then I would go on to the five very

[8:40] I'm going to start with the board, by the way, which you saw earlier today, or placement.

[8:48] Now, the drawing you gave us today, really, it shows things in a better, a little better format than before and the after.

[8:57] I'm sure some.

[8:58] Do you see everything?

[8:59] One of the usual days is dark lines are missing, having some light lines that we love

[9:05] most.

[9:07] Those states that are in situ today.

[9:10] Those states, whether we did say it earlier, those states were told that they answered

[9:14] a light for the survey.

[9:17] So, these credentials will be a complete compromise in the actor's opinion.

[9:24] That plane we gave you today actually just gave out a plane from the survey, so they're all safe.

[9:35] So they're all safe.

[9:37] So, if you're ready, you can go through the five criteria, pass through all the various landing areas.

[9:48] And so the first criteria is that this area is not just a monster, it's all of these things.

[9:58] This is the structure that's the dark.

[10:00] And that's the, you don't know.

[10:03] Is that the archer also relocates the new home further from the lane and further from the

[10:09] I would like to introduce some of our impacts to the shoreline and over on the side.

[10:18] We're going to do that whole by placing it in by the technology that we're going to talk more about,

[10:24] as far as how we're handling around the shoreline water.

[10:29] They're basically, that's only the road set back,

[10:33] which does not create any threat to color to help save people welfare.

[10:37] and we very much maintain the presidential character of the neighborhood and in Hampshire

[10:43] lay homes, because we're improving the relationship of the building and its placement to the

[10:51] lake, to the topography of the Angela Surroundland property.

[10:56] We are reducing the encroachment on the most environmental sensitive portions of this project by

[11:03] increasing the distance with a late, increasing the clearance distance to the drainage features.

[11:11] And we're also, at the same time, by building new, despite having what should be existing building for other opportunities.

[11:18] We're able to, through new construction, bring up the quality of this building to current codes, egress, and fire safety.

[11:26] and we're improving also some potentially questionable outcomes of the whole building

[11:35] that may have even had a bathroom and it's exiting directly into this waterway.

[11:42] So through new construction we're able to improve all those things.

[11:49] the proposed house and garage are relocated.

[11:56] They're more compliant, but they do not meet the current stuff out.

[12:02] And so we're using this improvement and balance between

[12:05] the Lake top lake sensitivity, neighbor sensitivity,

[12:11] and trying to find the best place to place the building.

[12:15] So that's number one, not contrary.

[12:20] Number two is the variance, if the variance were granted,

[12:24] the spirit of Bradford zoning ordinance would be in serve.

[12:30] The ordinance, the ordinance, is to protect public welfare,

[12:33] preserve natural resources, and guide development

[12:36] in a reasonable environmental and responsible manner.

[12:39] This proposal achieves all of those goals,

[12:42] as I've said by shifting the building placement and reducing the impacts to the shoreline,

[12:49] the strict application of the road setback would actually force read about closer to the link

[12:54] or eliminate the possibility of placing a building whatsoever on this law. So we're opting for

[13:02] proposing something that preserves the residential spirit of the property, very much keeping

[13:09] other way, like designs and buildings, all improving overall site condition and reducing

[13:16] those potential negative impacts. Number three is that the proposal would result in substantial

[13:25] justice being done, and these start to be a bit repetitive, but they all are very similar.

[13:32] We are going to

[13:38] be reducing the impervious area and through updating with site engineering

[13:44] to address water management and water runoff.

[13:49] So as I said before, the justice here is really to protect the link and that benefits it.

[13:56] When we met with the planning board, they were quite fuses that this alliance with their goals

[14:03] and I'm sure we'll hear more from them next week.

[14:06] But we're focusing on this,

[14:08] that we're able to do a public,

[14:09] we're creating public benefits,

[14:11] not just for the local nearby neighbors,

[14:14] but the entire community.

[14:15] We're creating more responsible development

[14:18] of this site, with modern site work development,

[14:24] modern capture of water and runoff of the building,

[14:28] and any of the paid areas.

[14:32] So we think that the impact to the road set back is relatively minor in comparison to those

[14:38] environmental benefits of the reconstruction that we say.

[14:43] Moving on to number four, if the variance for granted, the value of surrounding properties

[14:48] will not be diminished because the proposed replacement takes away, well, an appealing building.

[15:00] It's actually a series of sort of single rooms. It's not terribly high quality. It's charming. But essentially, it's a relatively, it's an assembly of relatively low value buildings. Some parts are done well, some parts are not done so well. So, if anything, we're going to be raising the value of surrounding properties for the new structure. We'll be improving the lake water quality, as I've mentioned.

[15:28] and reducing further criticism, so if anything you increase the value of surrounding properties is not decreasing.

[15:39] And then the last criteria, which talks about hardship, has multiple parts.

[15:48] The special conditions exist that the literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship.

[15:55] And so we believe we actually meet this criterion in the number of ways, and it has to do with

[16:01] the overall site geometry, which is relatively unique.

[16:05] And it's unique, not just because of the amount the other locks certainly have in the whole size of the road.

[16:12] In our case, the road really comes quite dramatically through our site.

[16:17] It would be much preferred if the site with the road continued and actually seems like it could have gone more straight,

[16:23] giving us more space and, again, reducing that 50 foot impact, but the thing that's most unique about our site,

[16:31] you don't know if anyone noticed it today, the drive along this road, you will notice obviously buildings on one side and parking on the other.

[16:39] The road is relatively flat. There's inclines that I was watching you again today when I went down there.

[16:46] The ink be rises and falls our couple feet, two, three feet up, two, three feet down.

[16:52] Within this site, we have over 12 feet of vertical change, and that makes this site much

[16:58] more difficult to place buildings.

[17:00] The combination of the placement of the road and the vertical component of the road is the

[17:06] most specific thing that I get to as far as being a unique condition of this law, where we

[17:12] We see conditional relief to this front setback so that we can place this building in this appropriate location.

[17:19] So that's how we talk about it in a different meaningful way from the other properties in the area

[17:25] that have to do with horizontal and vertical.

[17:28] And that causes this property to be burdened more severely than others in the same zoning restrictions,

[17:34] which is the third criteria.

[17:39] So it's a, it's really a pretty remarkable site, you can write down to it the like the actual

[17:45] buildable area, you know, it's something in here between all these completed offset lawns

[17:51] from both the state and the town under current.

[17:54] I was telling you, actually, it's really great.

[17:57] Grant, what about the actual buildable area with the town growth there?

[18:02] Is not.

[18:03] There's an action now.

[18:04] It's a negative building area.

[18:05] and they don't let you take all of them there.

[18:07] Yeah, they overlap each other.

[18:09] In 75, this line coming from one way,

[18:13] or like this line coming from the road,

[18:16] and then this line points back,

[18:18] there's actually not a spot for that.

[18:20] Which then needs you to only be able to work

[18:22] with what's existing, which then doesn't allow us

[18:25] these other opportunities for improvement.

[18:32] So the last particular key is given a special condition,

[18:38] Instead of just talking about public property,

[18:42] the proposed use is a reasonable one.

[18:45] The proposed single-family residence

[18:47] is reasonable and customary.

[18:49] And consistent with the other late property

[18:52] sold to you at all, and the requested

[18:55] variant supports more environmental

[18:57] responsible design, moving the structure appropriately back

[19:01] from the lake, and reducing impacts

[19:03] to both shoreline and neighbors creating a reasonable,

[19:07] the residential single-family use of the property.

[19:11] So those are the criteria.

[19:14] And we want to copy the answering questions

[19:16] or stand up any of those or showing

[19:19] any of the information that you have questions.

[19:22] Would you have a couple other things to share

[19:24] as far as the letters of support?

[19:27] Well, question.

[19:28] So I was in the file I find one other support.

[19:31] Like you said, you've had some others.

[19:32] This one is from the gene vision for the

[19:37] metacicum timber corporation, the

[19:39] farm's land, and the northeast across the

[19:42] road.

[19:46] Here's the socket one.

[19:47] And then we also have one of the

[19:50] neighbors here.

[19:52] I won't read the whole thing, but

[19:53] basically, they are, they believe that

[19:55] the proposed home and accessory

[19:57] buildings consistent with the established

[19:59] a third of these short drive, and the message

[20:03] he can timber corporation supports the cell

[20:05] as ours application.

[20:07] And respectfully request that the board approve

[20:09] the permits and variance is necessary for this project.

[20:13] So I also have a letter from Sarah Pillsbury.

[20:19] And I'll probably use it as a cell.

[20:21] Properties of cells.

[20:22] This one here.

[20:24] And purpose of this correspondence is to let

[20:27] Let me know that we do not oppose the cell as ours desire to tear down their existing

[20:33] house and nourage and instruct a new resident on their property as shown on the submitted

[20:37] plan.

[20:39] My family has been on a button in this property for 73 plus years and I am not surprised

[20:44] and I am not surprised that with many additions over time, their house will be a challenge

[20:50] to be modeled to the A standards.

[20:52] It appears that what being proposed strives to be a minimum impact you lost in more protective

[20:56] of the lake, which we greatly appreciate.

[20:59] We leave it to your judgment as to compliance

[21:01] with the garden zoning standards,

[21:03] the appropriateness of the variance has requested.

[21:06] Our concerns do not have, include not having

[21:09] been altered to the detriment of our property.

[21:14] I continue to run off to continue to go into the north.

[21:19] And the obvious need to ensure passage of the fire

[21:26] We're grateful for this opportunity to support our new neighbors and be heard.

[21:31] We understand it.

[21:34] We support the requirements, goals, and bread from all of these people.

[21:51] We have an enormous volume here.

[21:53] We have a way back on business together.

[21:57] Can you state your name for the

[21:59] that, 2019, can you stick your name?

[22:03] My name is Theodore Schumus, and I'm 82,

[22:06] my wife and I'm 82, he's for a drive.

[22:09] And he has been the neighbors of the Southwest.

[22:13] His purpose is to fire that without the family on the house.

[22:18] And the thing I'm most excited about is what he did for two.

[22:22] Well, I'm not being a hydro engineer,

[22:25] I'm an engineer with that now, and that's two bed.

[22:27] I constantly maintain the road to avoid road sand invotration into that stream.

[22:36] That piece of property that you mentioned will come up over the top.

[22:39] Dan and I try and keep literally all the sand over the top of that road from making its way into the stream bed.

[22:46] I keep that area personal thing because that stream bed is on my side of property.

[22:51] and all that property means towards our property line.

[22:56] And if you look at the current construction of the drives of it,

[22:58] there's a couple of old four-by-four timbers

[23:00] and run off, come down to the slow-by-four timbers

[23:03] and run straight off into the strain and into our property.

[23:06] And having those systems at my house to meet state

[23:11] and the town requirements, having all the water

[23:14] going to a drainage pond behind the house

[23:16] and settling in prior to going into the lake,

[23:19] I really appreciate what the engineers are saying here, and I'm more than supportive.

[23:24] I fully support what they're doing and the garage is dealt against the proper line as you may

[23:28] have seen through the walkthrough, but I'm supposed to see it in the garage this year.

[23:32] And all that work on the off-the-drawing creates erosion and adds to the challenges of that

[23:38] stream, that natural training.

[23:41] So that part of the project mostly excites me and then obviously, obviously, what they're

[23:47] We're doing a whole increase the value of all the properties of it on this in my own

[23:51] for sure.

[23:53] If you have any questions in the area we have an answer on but I don't need to say much

[23:56] more than that, guys.

[23:58] Questions?

[23:59] For anyone?

[24:02] Any questions?

[24:03] I don't have any questions.

[24:05] I'm looking at the plan.

[24:07] I like seeing that the pitch of the impervious or well supposed to be pervious surfaces are

[24:15] away from the lake, that's good.

[24:18] and

[24:20] it looks like a straight improvement.

[24:24] So we want to, there's no further discussion

[24:30] from the board, questions from the board,

[24:33] questions from the audience.

[24:36] Before we close this part of the public hearing,

[24:39] we want to make some notes about the facts of the case.

[24:49] Let's start.

[24:59] An existing housing garage on a non-conforming lot,

[25:06] It's a non-conforming use of that lot, but they were in existence, both were in existence

[25:17] a lot before zoning was implemented, so they are ran fine.

[25:22] At this point, it's a legal building.

[25:26] It's legal to have a building there on a lot of that size, so that's point one.

[25:34] point two is the existing buildings are in not great shape. Definitely need some work

[25:48] if they were to be continued

[25:54] to be used.

[25:57] And the

[26:00] existing building, the existing house

[26:05] The process is a good bit closer to the lake than current regulations require.

[26:12] Fred, for zoning ordinance, and as the garage is right up against a neighbor's property.

[26:23] Also, not a serviceable garage and not a building at which age?

[26:28] Do we have those numbers specifically?

[26:31] Which?

[26:32] The setbacks.

[26:34] The car?

[26:34] The setback?

[26:35] The existing and the proposed that they can look at this thing on the point.

[26:45] I can see it. I just didn't know if we had the specific numbers.

[26:48] So, I'm going to say that the existing garage is a foot or less from the property line at its closest point.

[26:58] I was about 20 feet from the lake shore and also from the neighbor to the west north.

[27:12] No, yeah, a little more than 20 feet maybe.

[27:17] More, closer to 30.

[27:52] Given the geometry

[27:59] of the existing lot of the lot,

[28:05] let's say, let's back up.

[28:10] The proposal is to move, to raise the existing house,

[28:15] move it back further from the, build a new house back further from the lake and a

[28:22] new garage further from the property line to the north and also to move an

[28:29] existing one-bedroom seasonal cabin that also be back further from the lake.

[28:41] I have a common hammershift, this is the place to make, so as we mentioned

[28:47] were there moving that cabinet to involve cutting down a number of trees and obviously building

[28:53] that house is going to lose a lot of trees in that spot.

[28:59] And I just want to make sure that it's

[29:01] somewhere stated that when the existing house is raised that natural native species are planted,

[29:10] there's something to, you know, place some of that designation in the company to maintain that

[29:14] I don't want the short lines, I think that's pretty important.

[29:18] Do they have them?

[29:20] The band is for the main work.

[29:23] Specifically, it says all these.

[29:25] Okay, all right, okay.

[29:29] It looks like the gravel, the existing gravel is going to be

[29:38] all replaced with vegetative buffers.

[29:40] So, yeah.

[29:42] Well, I know her being a star, it's like that.

[29:46] It's not going to be either position but her or her being.

[30:03] The plan to reduce the total amount of history to reduce the area of impervious services overall in the lot is that I'm not correct there.

[30:16] If

[30:20] you want me to give you the numbers. If you like, I'm not going to, I don't need to be able to go over those.

[30:27] Yeah, we're going to reduce the, we're going to reduce the impervious by, these

[30:44] are all

[30:45] the numbers at the top of this plant.

[30:46] Correct.

[30:47] No.

[30:48] Yeah.

[30:49] Yeah.

[30:49] Pretty much.

[30:56] Thank you.

[30:57] Um.

[30:58] Uh, quite a little.

[31:24] Yeah.

[31:25] You're on the plant.

[31:25] Yeah.

[31:26] You're on the plant.

[31:26] Yeah.

[31:26] You're on the plant.

[31:33] So plan is to reduce impervious surfaces.

[31:37] area pervious services by approximately 3%. The geometry is a lot in the road, the

[31:48] biography,

[31:53] do present a number of constraints to where building might be located, where

[32:03] any building might be located.

[32:22] What else?

[32:31] Neighbors who have a butters who have been in touch

[32:34] with us are support the project and

[32:52] they mentioned reduced impact to the lake,

[33:13] anything else

[33:14] do we need to do?

[33:19] We can't read, man.

[33:20] Well,

[33:45] I'm going to ask the applicants, is there anything that we've missed in that list

[33:51] that should be noted in our findings of fact?

[34:00] Well,

[34:07] you have the opportunity to, you know, we write the list, but you have the opportunity

[34:13] to review and...

[34:16] The only other thing is that we've referred to the cabins in one way, the one room...

[34:21] One room...

[34:22] The one

[34:28] room...

[34:29] The one room...

[34:32] Yeah, that would be the fire chief.

[34:36] That would be the fire chief.

[34:37] That would be the fire chief.

[34:38] Exactly. The only thing that stuck out in here is a one-room building.

[34:43] It's a one-room building with no plumbing.

[34:46] No plumbing.

[34:47] Correct.

[34:47] So, I don't think it needs...

[34:53] I'll say no one's ever asleep there.

[34:56] The purpose is...

[34:57] No, I think it's legally a bedding.

[35:00] Code bed or shoes?

[35:02] I'll call it a summer cabin.

[35:06] Small summer cabin.

[35:12] If there's no further questions and suggestions,

[35:15] We can close this part of the hearing and move on to the special exception.

[35:22] We'll

[35:27] do that at this point.

[35:29] We can be voting on them together later for, yeah, we'll do the public hearings, we'll

[35:36] do it, take care of them, and then vote on.

[35:43] Right.

[35:46] The mission is open.

[35:47] We're moving on to the application for a special exception,

[35:56] 735.

[36:20] So, the specialists, I'm not going to cover the contacts together for this session.

[36:26] In the sampling area.

[36:29] The criteria for special exception.

[36:32] What we're doing here is a non-conforming building that's stated.

[36:36] And that we're working to enlarge the reduced difference at the requirements.

[36:42] So, the first question.

[36:44] and how is the site appropriate for the proposed use

[36:48] or structure?

[36:50] The property is to start the event

[36:51] of a single family, late park residents,

[36:54] and remains the single family.

[36:56] Late park residents,

[36:58] the proposal replaces an aging existing structure

[37:02] and structures with new structures specifically designed

[37:07] for the overall layout of the merge block.

[37:13] The proposed layout includes the site configuration by relocating buildings further from the lake,

[37:20] relocating buildings from side property lines, and maintaining reasonable residential footprint distances.

[37:27] On this non-conforming block, the best of our ability.

[37:30] So, the next criteria, how was the proposal not detrimental, nor injurious to the neighborhood?

[37:40] I think it's a very good term with the support of the neighbors that this is a DMG student improvement.

[37:47] And we maintain the existing resident character of the neighborhood.

[37:52] And we don't introduce any new or nor incompatible uses.

[37:56] The replacement structure is consistent with surrounding the lake front development patterns and is designed to improve the overall relationship between the house and lake and the neighboring properties.

[38:09] We're reducing impacts as mentioned, providing through this work or providing opportunity for improved drainage, improved stormwater treatment and better shoreline stewardship compared to the existing condition.

[38:25] The next trick area talks about how is this proposal as this proposal address potential

[38:33] undue nuisance or hazard that pedestrians are getting to the traffic.

[38:40] It really contains the same use and the same impacts, the same traffic, things of that nature

[38:47] We're not increasing any use or expect any different relationship to the roadway.

[38:55] And we will not create any use sensor hazard to pedestrians in order to get them traveling.

[39:01] If anything, we're going to be moving the driveway closer to the cast of the hill

[39:06] to create improved viewing distances and slightly greater safety for a relatively low travel road.

[39:14] Also, I wrote relatively low speed, so the proposed relocation and

[39:20] re-configuration improved site circulation and access to the roadway,

[39:26] there'll be no commercial activity, no increase in traffic,

[39:30] because all

[39:37] of the, some of the other topics that we don't

[39:47] where we're remaining the same as the current original design to veteran residents, which is consistent in the DDS requirements.

[39:56] All the sedatory facilities and utilities will be designed in permanent importance with local and state regulation.

[40:06] The next criteria of facilities will provide for parking and utilities to ensure proper use of the structure.

[40:14] We're certainly providing better parking, actually parking that will follow more typical

[40:20] patterns.

[40:22] The parking is on-screen, she can imagine this is unorthodox, whereas the new parking

[40:27] will certainly be more expected with modern turning radius's parking places and we do continue

[40:36] by the way that some of us park across the street today, that parking will remain unchanged

[40:41] change from the other side, that's existing, and that's not changed from the two designs.

[40:47] So, arming and utilities drainage will be designed to support your own residential use.

[40:55] We're actually talking about how to handle snow storage and snow clearing, for instance,

[41:01] try to create better scenarios than what is this today, and always focusing on reducing

[41:07] in fact, simply, or surrounding properties.

[41:11] And then the last criteria for special exception

[41:14] asks, is this proposal consistent with the spirit

[41:18] of the ordinance, the intent of the master plan.

[41:23] And as we've already stated, it's certainly

[41:26] promoted to reasonable development of a pre-existing non-conforming

[41:31] law, while improving environmental conditions

[41:34] is introducing, sure, on this project,

[41:39] supports protecting water quality, maintaining

[41:42] a good character and a good relations,

[41:46] and encouraging responsible state to sign.

[41:50] Obviously, removing the structure further than the lake.

[41:55] Big part of that proposal preserves the long-term established

[42:00] residential use of the property, adapting the site

[42:20] The only comment I have is that don't forget about the driveway permit with the road agent.

[42:26] We spoke to the fire chief today about that and we'll put that in the bucket of all

[42:32] things that, assuming we're successful tonight, we'll apply for that as part of the work.

[42:39] Special

[42:43] information from the ward, further questions.

[42:48] We'll set,

[42:56] when we close the public hearing, we'll make a list of the facts that we found.

[43:02] And I'm just going down what's been claimed on the application, but first, it is a property

[43:19] has been used as a lakeside, lakeshore, residents, seasonal or otherwise, since before

[43:30] are, as long as implemented in New Hampshire,

[43:35] but the applicants proposed to remove the existing building,

[43:39] which is not in great shape, or two of the buildings,

[43:44] and replace those with slightly

[43:49] larger,

[43:50] a slightly larger residence, but it would be set back

[43:55] further from, make sure, and put a button

[44:00] to the north.

[44:00] I think

[44:04] just in garage, it's not usable. Currently not usable as a garage would be also moved

[44:10] further from the driveway

[44:19] would be redone to improve drainage on the property but also

[44:25] to improve, the new driveway would improve site lines from the road a little closer to the

[44:34] talk to Hill, which might make for a safer,

[44:43] better safety for that, for traffic for the

[44:47] pedestrians.

[44:52] The new structure would be, as the old one, as the new building would be.

[45:01] Would be a two-bedroom residence, the main building, as is the old building. There's no change there. I didn't see it on your application, but it's my understanding that a new septic system is part of this proposal to replace the existing one which may well need,

[45:25] which may not be functioning as the testing one may not be functioning as it should this point.

[45:31] I knew septic system to state code would be installed, there would be more parking, improved

[45:44] parking for access to the house, also

[45:52] talked about improved overall,

[45:59] the site range on

[46:01] the site would be improved, which would help to protect the lake environment, the lake

[46:08] shore. And there was a discussion about snow removal, management of snow removal to

[46:18] make that, that those considerations would be part of this plan in order to make it easier

[46:30] make access easier around use of the property and other properties on the road and also to protect the lake from runoff

[46:49] are the facts

[46:53] that I

[46:57] I don't know if anything else you should be at it.

[47:03] I think you caught the highlights.

[47:09] And before the public hearing is closed,

[47:12] this is your opportunity to comment on the facts.

[47:15] We presented them.

[47:20] There's no further questions.

[47:22] We'll close the public hearing.

[47:29] 747 at this point.

[47:33] We can liberate us just when we take up the variance first as was presented to us.

[47:42] To do that role, I think we need to go through the five.

[47:47] The five criteria.

[47:51] We members of the board.

[47:53] You may know that three or more members of the board actually believe that all five of the criteria have been met.

[48:01] Yeah,

[48:05] let's start with the, we need to make a motion on that, or do we make a motion at any time?

[48:12] I would make a motion that all five meet criteria without anyone going to go through them again.

[48:18] And I would second that.

[48:24] Could you further discussion on that?

[48:27] I don't, other than that we typically have gone through all five individually.

[48:42] I agree with the arguments given in the application as presented.

[48:50] I guess that's my question.

[48:53] All five as presented.

[48:57] In which case,

[49:01] if that's the case we don't, I don't think we do need to go through everyone.

[49:04] I thought we did. I thought there was a change.

[49:08] Well, that's the one.

[49:10] Let's go through them quickly then.

[49:12] Real quick, yeah.

[49:13] I was drawn by Emotion.

[49:16] Not your motion is still on the floor, but we're just going to discuss it at this point.

[49:27] Number one, comments on the first question.

[49:34] This proposal is not contrary to public interest.

[49:41] I have no comments there.

[49:42] I don't think we need to make a motion on e20 individually.

[49:47] We just need to have it.

[49:49] Just to have it.

[49:50] We haven't known that we've considered e20 individually.

[49:54] So I would suggest that it's not public.

[49:57] It would not be contrary to public interest

[50:00] because the proposal would replace a house that's not

[50:11] building a house that's not in good condition on a garage in any of the worst

[50:15] condition moving them further from the lake which would protect the health

[50:21] to protect the lake environment and further from the lake further from the

[50:27] a butter property line closer to the road but that will make it easier in some

[50:36] respect. Yeah, probably the least impactful.

[50:46] I would agree. There's no other comments we'll

[50:49] go to would experience regret it with the spirit of the ordinance be observed.

[50:59] I think yes, because

[51:01] there are all the changes that are made around this. Improving, improving, improving existing situation

[51:11] which is an older building and older amenities.

[51:20] And I think the same logic can be approved.

[51:23] Yeah. Go for the third criteria.

[51:27] The proposal would result in substantial justice being done.

[51:32] Again, it's improving the protection of the late.

[51:39] By moving the building back and improving the drainage

[51:42] on a lot.

[51:48] I think that that would be a greater benefit to the to the public.

[51:56] Then I

[52:02] don't

[52:02] see any anything negative to the public interest from from the city itself. They would have

[52:12] the right to rebuild on the same site on the same footprint as the existing house, but the

[52:19] The proposal would definitely improve the

[52:25] protection of the lake and, et cetera.

[52:34] If the granted value of surrounding properties are not being diminished,

[52:43] again, I think, improving

[52:48] the

[52:52] distance from the neighbors, protecting and helping to protect the neighbor's property

[53:01] and as well as protecting the lakeshore,

[53:12] I've only been able to help the value of the neighborhood

[53:15] and taking a building that's been described as charming,

[53:21] but also not in great shape and replacing it

[53:25] with something that's up

[53:31] to modern

[53:35] standards, I guess.

[53:39] I've only been able to help the value of properties

[53:43] in the neighborhood.

[53:44] So, lastly, the special existing conditions exist such that the little enforcement, literal

[53:50] enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship because they

[53:58] have explained

[53:59] the special conditions on this property that the signature from other properties in the

[54:03] area and in some of the ways that it is different in a meaningful way from other properties in

[54:08] the area.

[54:12] How the property is burdened more severely than others by the zoning restrictions and

[54:22] given

[54:23] in the special conditions of the property,

[54:25] explain how the proposed use is a reasonable one.

[54:27] I think we've explained quite it would be a reasonable one.

[54:34] I think the issue is, how is the property

[54:37] different in a way from other properties in the area?

[54:46] Several things that jump out to me,

[54:48] that would be the

[54:52] topography of this particular lot,

[54:55] and also its relationship to the road bends

[54:59] and as of the property and also goes downhill fairly steeply as it goes by the property.

[55:08] So those are two reasons that those

[55:16] are two things that are different about this property

[55:17] from others and if

[55:21] the proposal went ahead it would protect the,

[55:27] it would help to mitigate

[55:30] great issues from the road as well as possibly traffic safety, etc.

[55:43] I'm very happy now.

[55:44] I'll do the vibe.

[55:46] So happy.

[55:48] Having further discussion on the motion about the motion on the floor,

[55:52] which would be to improve a group.

[55:54] You said to approve the plan as presented.

[55:57] Yeah, to approve the plan.

[55:59] As presented to the board.

[56:01] hearing

[56:05] none, call for vote on a favor, say aye.

[56:08] I think that was four in favor, so the variance is passed.

[56:13] Jump on to the special exception,

[56:15] so

[56:18] somebody will make more of that.

[56:22] Special exception is needed because we have a grandfathered building,

[56:30] grandfathered use, the proposal is to expand the footprint of it,

[56:35] But at the same time, it would be you moving it back.

[56:39] It would be addressing the

[56:44] benefits of doing that.

[56:45] Let's propose we've already discussed that we do need to approve a special exception

[56:51] to allow an expanded footprint from the buildings over there.

[56:57] I'll make a motion that we accept a special exception application

[57:02] and plans as written.

[57:05] I would second that.

[57:08] Discussion? Oh, yeah.

[57:15] I would say that the, that the, to me, the, the application

[57:23] describes the situation fairly and, uh, both, uh,

[57:28] and that what is proposed would, would certainly be an

[57:33] improvement to them, to the current situation.

[57:45] Yeah, I think we can address appropriately any

[57:52] further discussion on the favor of the motion to signify by saying I

[58:42] I

[58:50] know we don't have to vote on each one individually but don't are we supposed to?

[58:56] I don't know, I just thought I thought there was something, I know this one is afraid, so I think the main thing is that anyone that's in favor of it, should agree that all hydrogen have been met,

[59:21] and if that's clearly stated,

[59:25] If it hasn't been clear in the application in the discussion before, it's probably good to go through it individually.

[59:33] If there's controversy about how it has been to code for it, it's not clear then it's good.

[59:41] This seems to correct a bunch of things.

[59:44] The hypothetical, I guess, was that not that this was occurring or as it was occurring.

[59:51] But if, if, as a group, everybody felt like the majority...

[1:00:00] The majority of the questions had been fulfilled, but not everybody, but it wasn't the same three people for each.

[1:00:18] Yeah. For each criteria. To vote in favor, one has to believe that all five criteria have

[1:00:27] been met.

[1:00:33] If there's not three people that agree to that, that's my understanding of

[1:00:37] how.

[1:00:40] I know there's other, sometimes, in some cases, people will go through each one and vote

[1:00:46] on each some zoning boards will vote on each Nigerian and if that's where you get that

[1:00:53] situation where one might be one wasn't met and another person might feel that another

[1:01:01] wasn't met so that's just five person board that's two people you know or four person board

[1:01:09] and that's due to that don't lead the long-fi for men.

[1:01:13] No, not so much that the majority of the board

[1:01:20] passes and the majority.

[1:01:21] Yeah, right, right, right.

[1:01:24] Well, that's how we've done it.

[1:01:26] I think, you know, so well put together presentations.

[1:01:31] Yeah, amazing.

[1:01:34] Okay.

[1:01:35] Anything else we need to come into that?

[1:01:38] Motion to adjourn again?

[1:01:40] Yeah, very nice.

[1:01:41] Second.

[1:01:41] I have to say that next meeting will be September 2nd,

[1:01:53] looking to turn on favor.

[1:01:55] All right.

[1:01:56] Hi.

[1:01:56] Bye.

ZBA Public Hearing

Transcript