[0:15] Pledge allegiance to flag of the United States of America

[0:20] and to the republic, which it stands, one nation under God,

[0:24] indivisible of liberty and justice for all

[0:38] The details.

[0:39] Details, right. So I wanna welcome all of you

[0:43] to the board meeting tonight, just as a protocol.

[0:46] Let's introduce ourselves as the host of the evening,

[0:50] Michael Donlin,

[0:51] Crystal Morin, secretary.

[0:53] I'm Lynn Perkins, the chair, Jim Dietzel, gas Bimba.

[0:57] We have code enforcement Officer Kerry Owen with us.

[1:00] And Eileen Boudreaux is our clerk. How's that?

[1:04] Fewer people up here. I can remember more names.

[1:07] Just matter of housekeeping here.

[1:11] Please shut off all your cell phones, iPhones, anything

[1:14] that could create a distraction of the proceedings.

[1:16] Please limit your conversations.

[1:18] I know you want to chat,

[1:19] but just so we can keep the

[1:22] distractions down for the record.

[1:24] Speaking of the record, these are audio,

[1:26] video recorded proceedings

[1:28] and schedule to terminate at 10:00 PM

[1:32] And in the event of an emergency, please exit to the rear

[1:35] of the room and someone will assist you.

[1:36] Don't use the elevator.

[1:38] So anyway, on this agenda we have

[1:43] request to table the case 26 dash 115

[1:49] to June 18th, 2026.

[1:51] If anybody is here for that, could I have a motion

[1:54] to table that please?

[1:56] Chair. I'll make a motion to table

[1:59] case number 26 dash 15 to the following meeting.

[2:03] June 18th, 2026.

[2:05] Very good. Second. Thank you Mr. Donlin.

[2:07] All in favor of tabling that to that meeting. Say aye. Aye.

[2:11] Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none.

[2:15] Alright, so we're up to our regular agenda

[2:19] and Mr.

[2:20] O Bimba, I'm gonna have you sit

[2:25] for this and probably the likely the next case.

[2:29] The next case up is 26 dash 12.

[2:33] Applicant is Jeffrey Molton,

[2:36] representing owner Benjamin Powell.

[2:39] Mr. Moten,

[2:47] good evening sir.

[2:49] Good evening. And I think you know,

[2:52] our protocols just introduce on the application if you'd

[2:55] like and then get into that five criteria for the record.

[2:59] Sure. Alright.

[3:02] So the proposal is to allow the construction

[3:05] of a second story expansion

[3:07] to an existing single story garage,

[3:09] which is located less than 35 feet to front property line

[3:14] and less than 15 feet to side property line as permitted

[3:19] by a variance granted in 2016.

[3:24] Number one, the variance will not be contrary

[3:27] to the public interest

[3:29] 'cause the original setbacks will be maintained from the

[3:31] 2016 variance

[3:35] garage modification allows more storage

[3:38] and reduces lock clutter.

[3:42] Number two, the spirit of the ordinance is observed

[3:45] because garage setbacks are consistent

[3:48] with other structures in the area

[3:50] and the project maintains existing setbacks.

[3:53] Acts Number three, substantial justice is done

[3:57] because the project will maintain the same lot coverage

[4:01] with no effect on lake quality

[4:03] and provides more functionality for the owner.

[4:07] Number four, the values

[4:09] of surrounding properties are not diminished

[4:11] because project setbacks are consistent

[4:15] with other properties in the area

[4:17] and increased storage will reduce lot clutter

[4:20] and provide better aesthetics.

[4:22] Number five, little enforcement of the provision

[4:26] of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship.

[4:31] A i no fair

[4:33] and substantial relationship exists

[4:35] between the general public purposes

[4:37] of the ordinance provision

[4:39] and the specific application of

[4:41] that provision to the property.

[4:43] The lot is narrow limiting options for expansion.

[4:47] The lot also has a high water table preventing a basement,

[4:51] a second floor garage modification is the least

[4:54] intrusive solution.

[4:58] Double i The proposed use is a reasonable one.

[5:02] Proposed garage modification is a permitted use under the

[5:06] ordinance and has no effect on lot setbacks or lot coverage.

[5:14] Very good. And please proceed.

[5:18] So I think if you take a look at,

[5:23] say the tax map, that kind of gives you an idea for,

[5:27] for this lot 9 0 91.

[5:31] But you can see in,

[5:33] in general the houses in the neighborhood that are,

[5:36] they're very close to the lot lines and and to the road.

[5:40] So this is very much in character to what,

[5:43] what's already been built in the neighborhood.

[5:48] If you go back to the, some of the architectural plants,

[5:52] you'll see the really all we're doing here is we're raising

[5:56] the roof and putting a a, a higher wall

[6:01] and that allowss gonna

[6:04] storage up in that facility.

[6:06] There'll be no living quarters, there's no heat,

[6:09] there's no water up there.

[6:10] It's just more storage facilities.

[6:15] And we included some pictures that,

[6:18] that shows the existing garage and house

[6:22] and as I said, the roof will be raised

[6:24] and it'll allow more storage space.

[6:29] And then lastly, we included a drawing that shows

[6:34] is consistent with the drawing that was approved in 2016

[6:39] that shows the existing setback from the west po,

[6:44] the west slot line of six feet

[6:47] and 26 feet from the Germantown Road.

[6:54] Any questions?

[6:56] I'm sure that your intended, you may have expressed this,

[7:00] but the, let's go to the last photo

[7:03] with the porta potty on it.

[7:04] Is that roof facing the lake? The water?

[7:07] Yes. Okay. The lake is on the other side of the

[7:11] Do you have any impervious issues

[7:13] or permitting that is relevant to this at all?

[7:16] There's no increase in impervious footprints

[7:20] And not all overly familiar with this,

[7:23] but is the, is the permitting on an addition like this

[7:28] separate from if you just dug it into the ground?

[7:31] 'cause I, I guess the, the first question is,

[7:34] is it 250 feet to the water's edge?

[7:37] And it is. And so is the permitting when you do something

[7:40] like this sep different than if you were

[7:42] to just dig a, a new hole and

[7:44] There's no permit required from Shoreland as

[7:47] you're not increasing the impervious footprint,

[7:50] Right?

[7:51] No. I mean if you had dug this freshly

[7:53] and were building this, not just going up a second story,

[7:56] that, that's where the

[7:58] Absolutely permiting Comes from.

[7:59] Yes. Alright, let me rest.

[8:01] Anybody else have any questions Mr. Donlin?

[8:05] Not at this time. Mrs. Warren.

[8:09] I have none at this time.

[8:10] He answered the questions I had about

[8:12] what would occupy up there.

[8:14] Okay.

[8:20] Should I suppose I Mr.

[8:22] Chair, I do have a question. Yes, sir.

[8:24] The, The proposed ridge height relative to the

[8:28] existing dwellings ridge height, where,

[8:30] where are we talking relative to one another there?

[8:34] How much higher Will the new ridge

[8:36] of the garage be higher than

[8:38] the ridge of the existing house? Yep.

[8:39] We, we included a, a profile of the,

[8:44] the section and it shows that the

[8:48] we're raising at about eight feet on the backside.

[8:55] Okay. Whereas if you look at the pictures, you can see the,

[8:58] the, the slope of the existing roof comes right

[9:00] down to the edge.

[9:02] So then the, the backside will go up eight feet.

[9:07] Okay.

[9:11] You satisfied Mr.

[9:12] Donlin? Yeah, sir. I'm all right. Mr.

[9:15] O Bimbo, I'll do the math.

[9:17] Donlon, ask my question maybe for code enforcement,

[9:21] do we enforce averages for roof ridge heights

[9:27] for similar addition

[9:28] Averages?

[9:29] Yeah. Like look at similar roofs in the area.

[9:33] Let's go over code enforcement.

[9:34] Now, Mrs. Owen, if you'd like to do your staff

[9:37] and answer that at the same time, you're welcome to.

[9:41] Absolutely. Thank you. So as the applicant stated,

[9:44] seeking a variance to allow the construction

[9:46] of a second story expansion

[9:47] to the existing single story detached garage,

[9:50] located less than 35 feet from the front property line

[9:53] and less than 15 feet from the side property line,

[9:56] this property was granted a variance November 17th, 2020,

[10:00] 2016, to construct the detached garage,

[10:03] which is 22 feet by 22 feet.

[10:06] And it's in its current position, it was approved

[10:09] within the setbacks.

[10:11] So the second story expansion is expanding

[10:16] the original permitted footprint.

[10:18] Therefore, the variance is required for this.

[10:21] As we are aware, this is along big island pond.

[10:23] So this is a waterfront property.

[10:25] It abuts a beach area for use

[10:28] by the residents on Germantown Road.

[10:30] Germantown Road is also a private road

[10:32] not maintained by the town.

[10:34] And as the applicant confirmed,

[10:37] a shoreland permit will not be required

[10:39] because the impervious surface is not being increased.

[10:43] And then just standard permitting would

[10:45] be required moving forward.

[10:48] And regarding the ridge height, I

[10:52] I we don't, we do look at averages in certain districts,

[10:57] not necessarily in this residential area.

[10:59] I'm not necessarily convinced that the ridge is

[11:05] in increasing by eight feet.

[11:06] It's more the dormer in the back

[11:08] of the right doesn't, that's increasing height of

[11:10] The overall height doesn't Increase.

[11:12] Increase, yeah. So the, the ridge height

[11:14] will remain the same, the back wall will be lifted up

[11:18] to allow for head height and storage in the, in the space.

[11:22] Well, it's that Mr. Chair. Okay, Mr. Dietzel?

[11:26] No. Thank you Mr. Chair. Alright.

[11:31] I think relevant to ridge height,

[11:33] and I don't, I'm not sure if this is where you were going

[11:35] with that Mr.

[11:37] Bumba. There are, there are Ridge Heights

[11:41] and BA building heights that

[11:45] the building code does observe,

[11:49] but not so pertinent here.

[11:51] I don't know if there was any, any restriction there that

[11:56] the, that the designer self-imposed,

[11:59] but I just add that it's a little more clarity for you.

[12:05] All right, you're all set. Mr.

[12:07] Moulton, let's make a call to public.

[12:10] Anybody in favor of this application direct abuts.

[12:14] If you'd like to come forward

[12:17] and support this application,

[12:18] this would be your opportunity to do so.

[12:22] Seeing no one in the room rise, let's make a call

[12:25] to any opposition, anybody opposed to this application,

[12:29] this would be your opportunity to come forward as well.

[12:33] Seeing no one rise for that. Mr.

[12:36] Molton, if you are all set,

[12:38] we'll take a motion to deliberate.

[12:41] You all set? Alright, can I have that motion please?

[12:44] Mr. Dietzel, you wanna help me out?

[12:46] I make a motion to go into deliberation

[12:49] And Mr. Omba,

[12:50] I'll second the motion.

[12:51] Alright, all in favor of deliberation, say aye. Aye. Aye.

[12:54] Any opposed? Hearing none.

[13:00] Anybody wish to lead off?

[13:05] I will. I guess I think this is a pretty

[13:09] straightforward application.

[13:10] The five criteria I believe were met.

[13:13] I, I looked at the property

[13:15] and I don't see, I don't think that

[13:17] what they're proposing is really outta line.

[13:19] I don't think it changes the essential

[13:21] character or the neighborhood.

[13:25] I and I, I believe that

[13:29] strict enforcement of the rule

[13:31] or literal enforcement would, would deny a, a reasonable use

[13:35] of this piece of property.

[13:36] I don't, I don't have any problem with it.

[13:40] Mr. Bumba? I agree with Mr. Dietzel.

[13:44] I think all the five points have been addressed

[13:47] and they're pretty clear.

[13:48] It's not an excessive ask.

[13:51] We are not increasing footprint to the impermeable surface.

[13:54] Surface. We changing

[13:55] and I think setbacks are staying the same.

[13:59] It's, it's, it's the height.

[14:01] I think it's a reasonable request for the board to consider.

[14:04] Alright, very good. Mr. Don?

[14:10] I too believe it's a reasonable request

[14:13] for all the reasons stated prior.

[14:18] No expansion of the,

[14:21] the actual footprint impervious areas.

[14:24] Generally a bigger concern by the water especially.

[14:29] Seems, seems reasonable.

[14:31] All right. Mrs. Morin,

[14:35] I agree as well that the all five has been met, he could

[14:39] essentially do it without changing anything,

[14:42] just not comfortably.

[14:44] So I think he should be allowed to do it comfortably.

[14:49] Okay.

[14:56] And I, I too seems fairly simple.

[15:00] I think we've clarified all the permitting issues

[15:03] and whereas the permit

[15:05] and the variance were already approved

[15:09] and an addition was put in off of that variance,

[15:14] this increases the building size

[15:16] but not the outward dimensions.

[15:18] So this is, I don't see this overly complex.

[15:24] We could structure the motion, which would be, I think

[15:28] simple would be subject to obtaining all State town

[15:32] permits and inspections.

[15:34] Does anybody have any other

[15:36] addendums they'd like to add to the motion?

[15:40] Seeing no gestures there. Alright, very good.

[15:43] That being said, we can come out of motion

[15:45] to come out of deliberation.

[15:47] I'll make a motion to come Out of deliberation.

[15:49] Thank you Mr. Dietzel. Second. Mr.

[15:52] Donlin has a second on that.

[15:53] All in favor of coming out of deliberation? Say aye. Aye.

[15:56] Aye. The opposed Hearing none.

[16:00] Mrs. Moore, you have a motion to read?

[16:02] I do. Thank you. I make a motion on case number two six

[16:07] dash 12 Jeffrey Molton to grant a variance

[16:13] as provided in Article six,

[16:15] section 1 65 dash four eight B four

[16:20] of the town of dairy zoning ordinance

[16:23] to allow the construction of a second story expansion

[16:28] to an existing single story garage,

[16:32] which is located less than 35 feet

[16:35] to the front property line

[16:37] and less than 15 feet to the side property line parcel

[16:42] ID 1 9 0 9 1 zoned LDR

[16:47] as presented with the following conditions We have one,

[16:50] one subject to obtaining all state

[16:52] and town permits and inspections.

[16:55] And that concludes the reading of the motion.

[16:57] I need a second. Second.

[16:59] What's that motion on the floor for consideration?

[17:03] Let's get into the finding of fact.

[17:06] The board found that the applicant is in the low

[17:11] density residential district.

[17:13] The parcel was granted a variance in 2016

[17:18] to build a 22 by 22 foot garage.

[17:21] The application is to expand that on the second floor.

[17:26] The road in on that this is on is on a private road

[17:31] along the lake and the property is serviced

[17:34] by private water and sewer.

[17:36] Any addendums to the finding of fact

[17:40] seeing no gestures there?

[17:44] All in favor of moving this for a vote? Say aye. Aye.

[17:48] May Opposed? Hearing none. Mr. Dietzel?

[17:52] Yes. Mr. Donlin? Yes. Mrs. Moore? Yes. Mr. Omba?

[17:57] Yes. And the chair will make that unanimous by a vote

[18:00] of five to zero.

[18:02] Anybody of course agree by this decision has 30 days to ask

[18:07] for reconsideration from the board.

[18:09] After that recourse will be to superior court.

[18:12] So congratulations Mr. Moulton. Nice presentation.

[18:14] Alright, thank you. Thank you.

[18:29] Next case up is 26 dash one 13,

[18:33] tabled from May 21st, 2026.

[18:37] The applicant is Edward Herbert representing Craig

[18:42] Bono construction company.

[18:55] Good evening folks.

[18:57] Good evening Mr. Chairman.

[18:58] Members of the board for the record.

[18:59] My name is Shane Jenn, I'm employed with Herbert Associates

[19:02] and with me this evening I have Craig Bono who's

[19:04] the property owner.

[19:09] As you may recall, our protocols just get us into the

[19:13] Five criteria Application base

[19:15] and the five criteria. Yes sir. Sure.

[19:17] Thank you. So what we're looking

[19:18] to do is subdivide this property into three lots.

[19:22] One of those lots is not gonna make the three acre minimum

[19:25] requirement and that's what the variance is about.

[19:28] And with that I will read the five criteria.

[19:33] One, the variance is not contrary to public interest

[19:35] because two of the lots will be three acres and

[19:38] therefore meet zoning A wetland forms a natural boundary

[19:41] for the third lot, which will be approximately 2.4 acres.

[19:44] This is larger than any of the surrounding lots

[19:46] that abut this parcel and provides more than adequate area

[19:49] for the proposed improvements.

[19:51] Granting the variance will not pose any threat

[19:53] to public health, safety, or welfare

[19:55] and will not interfere with the public's use

[19:56] of Winchester Terrace or Pingree Hill Road.

[20:00] Two. Spirit of the ordinance is observed

[20:02] because the proposal for three lots does not conflict

[20:05] with any of the purposes of the zoning ordinance.

[20:08] As stated in section 1 65 dash three,

[20:10] it will give the owner the highest

[20:12] and best use of the property.

[20:13] If the variance is granted, it will meet all other zoning,

[20:15] health, safety and building requirements.

[20:18] Three substantial justice is done.

[20:21] The use that we're requesting is an allow is an allowed use

[20:23] in the low density residential district

[20:25] and is consistent with all of the surrounding lots.

[20:28] It will allow the owner to make reasonable use

[20:30] of the northerly end of this lot,

[20:31] which is physically isolated

[20:33] by a wetland making this land unusable

[20:35] to the existing home site.

[20:37] All three proposed lots will be larger than any

[20:39] of the surrounding lots that abut this parcel in accordance

[20:43] with 1 65 dash three H of the zoning ordinance.

[20:46] This proposal gives reasonable consideration

[20:48] to the character of the area involved

[20:50] as this parcel was surrounded

[20:51] by undersized lots propose lot one 2.31 acres

[20:55] for which the variance is sought is larger than

[20:57] any of the abutting lots.

[20:59] And the next largest lot is abutting 14 dash 26 dash 10 at

[21:03] only 2.16 acres.

[21:06] The value of surrounding properties is not diminished.

[21:09] A wetland forms a natural boundary on the northernmost lot.

[21:13] The other two lots will meet the three acre

[21:15] requirement for zoning.

[21:16] One proposed lot has an existing home.

[21:19] The other two lots lot, the other two lots are large enough

[21:22] for sizable attractive homes

[21:23] that will meet all the building setbacks.

[21:26] Increase property values for surrounding lots,

[21:28] there will be no negative impact to surrounding properties.

[21:32] Five I no fair

[21:34] and substantial relationship exists

[21:35] between the general public purpose

[21:37] and the provision specific to that application.

[21:40] The general purpose of the ordinance is

[21:42] to ensure adequate land areas available for the construction

[21:45] of a house a well and a leach area.

[21:47] The two proposed lots on the southerly portion

[21:49] of the parcel will meet the zoning requirement.

[21:52] The north most proposed lot is physically isolated from the

[21:55] existing home area by a wet area that it

[21:57] and is too remote from the house to be usable.

[22:00] There is no land to add to this lot to make it conform

[22:03] because all a budding lots are undersized

[22:04] and the northerly line is the Chester town line.

[22:07] The lot will have adequate land area

[22:09] for a house well leach bed.

[22:11] It will meet all soil-based lot sizing

[22:12] and require no waivers.

[22:16] It's the proposed use is reasonable.

[22:19] The lot is in the Lowden City residential zone.

[22:21] The proposed use is similar to all of the surrounding lots

[22:24] and it's an allowed use in the zone.

[22:26] All three proposed lots exceed frontage requirements

[22:28] and have adequate area for the proposed improvements

[22:32] and be special conditions

[22:34] that distinguishes property from other properties.

[22:37] The southerly portion of lot 14 dash 24 can easily be

[22:40] subdivided to form two three acre lots

[22:42] that conform with the zoning ordinance.

[22:44] However, the portion of the lot to the north

[22:46] of the wetland cannot reasonably be used without a variance

[22:49] being granted for the house lot due

[22:51] to the natural boundary that this wetland creates.

[22:56] Alright, sounds like you have a bit

[22:58] of explaining to doula.

[22:59] Sure. So this is an 8.44 acre parcel

[23:03] that my client purchased that has an existing home on it.

[23:07] And Craig is a builder.

[23:09] He'd like to develop the property, he'd like

[23:11] to develop it into three lots.

[23:14] The first step that we do when we take on a project like

[23:17] this is we look at, obviously we survey the lot

[23:19] and we have the wetlands flagged out.

[23:21] We hired Luke Hurley of Hurley environmental land planning

[23:24] to flag the wetland that basically runs from the back

[23:27] of the lot between lot one

[23:29] and two all the way to the front of the lot.

[23:31] There's a culvert that runs under Pingry Hill

[23:33] and that wetland continues on between that wetland

[23:36] and the 75 foot wetland buffer on

[23:39] either side of that wetland.

[23:40] It creates quite a separation there from the the area

[23:43] around the house to

[23:45] and then that area to the lot of the north.

[23:47] This lot has long frontage on Pingree Hill Road

[23:51] has 974 feet of frontage on Pingree Hill

[23:54] and has 440 feet of frontage on Winchester Terrace.

[23:59] Obviously lots two and three meet the zoning requirements.

[24:02] Lot one to the north, which is physically isolated is

[24:06] where we'd be looking for the variance.

[24:10] A little about this property.

[24:11] If you look at it on the tax map

[24:13] that was included on the variance plan.

[24:15] You'll notice almost every lot in this neighborhood is well

[24:19] below the acreage that we're proposing here.

[24:21] We are completely, almost, completely surrounded

[24:23] by one acre lots.

[24:29] Other than that, I mean the lot will

[24:31] meet all of the requirements.

[24:32] Obviously it would have to go

[24:33] before planning board for subdivision approval.

[24:35] It would have to get a state subdivision approval

[24:38] and then there would be septic designs.

[24:40] It would have to be approved

[24:41] through the state of New Hampshire.

[24:55] Is lot one the

[25:00] conflicted lot that does not meet the acreage?

[25:03] It is. Okay.

[25:08] Your frontage there is 3 79 0.71.

[25:11] That's correct. And your other three,

[25:14] your other two lots meet the frontage.

[25:22] I'm looking for that length on the ex

[25:24] where the existing dwelling is

[25:27] 2 1 5.

[25:28] Sure. I have it written down right here.

[25:32] 2 1 3 5.

[25:40] It appears to be two 15

[25:42] On where the existing lot is. Mr. Donlin.

[25:45] Yeah, look just north of where it says LP G tank.

[25:48] I believe the L referenced there is the link. Oh,

[25:51] Very good. Yeah, that's

[25:51] 2 15 80 plus there's another 72 41.

[25:54] So you're looking at 290 feet almost.

[25:59] Okay.

[26:04] And the, the frontage in this area is 200 feet, correct?

[26:07] 200 feet requirement frontage. Yes.

[26:11] Anybody else have any questions to throw at Mr.

[26:16] Jen? Mr. Omba?

[26:20] No questions for now. Mr. Dietzel? No

[26:24] Thank you Mr. Chair.

[26:25] Mr. Donlin? Not at this time. Mr. Chair.

[26:28] Okay.

[26:33] And trying to grasp that wetland setback.

[26:41] And I see the 75 foot wetland setback line.

[26:47] It's just to the left of the proposed well on

[26:49] that lot one. Am I correct?

[26:51] That's correct. So the proposed structure is

[26:55] 75 feet away.

[26:58] It's more than 75 feet. Got it.

[27:02] Yep. There's over an acre of usable buildable land on

[27:06] that lot and there's almost two acres of upland high

[27:10] and dry land on that that lot.

[27:16] How do you determine on that lot your

[27:21] septic location there?

[27:23] So we're required by state of New Hampshire

[27:25] and I believe dairy subdivision regulations just show

[27:27] what we call a 4,000 square foot area.

[27:30] That's a state requirement.

[27:32] Typically a leach field is somewhere between three

[27:34] and 500 square feet.

[27:36] So the state is basically required us

[27:38] to show an area that's large enough.

[27:40] We dig a couple of test bits in that area to show that

[27:43] that area proves out.

[27:44] We've already done the test bits on this.

[27:47] All the test bits were greater than five feet

[27:50] reasonable water tables 'cause we're up on a hill.

[27:55] I don't see any issues with septic.

[27:57] Yeah. So they give you a target 4,000 square feet

[28:00] and then you can kind of throw the dart at it, correct?

[28:03] That's correct.

[28:09] Well let's, if you don't have anything else, Mrs. Owen,

[28:12] you have any feedback for us?

[28:15] Thank you Chair. Not a lot to add.

[28:18] I think the applicant did a great job presenting.

[28:20] As we're aware, this is a variance being requested

[28:23] to allow the property be subdivided into three lots

[28:26] where one of the lots will be less than

[28:28] the required three acre minimum.

[28:30] The property is located in the low density residential

[28:33] district, which requires a minimum lot area of three acres.

[28:37] It this proposed three lot subdivision will result two lots

[28:40] meeting the three acre minimum

[28:42] and the one lot will be approximately 2.3 acres.

[28:45] Therefore the variance is being requested

[28:47] for the undersized lot.

[28:49] The existing residents

[28:51] and proposed new lots are serviced

[28:52] by private septic and private well.

[28:55] And as the applicant stated, if approved,

[28:57] the planning board subdivision approval will be required.

[29:01] And that's it. Thank you. Alright,

[29:03] Thank you.

[29:05] All right, well let's make a call to public gentlemen.

[29:08] You know how we handle that. So let's see if anybody comes

[29:10] up and gives us some feedback.

[29:13] Anybody wishing to speak in favor

[29:15] of this application in support?

[29:17] This is your opportunity if you're directly, but to come up

[29:22] and be heard seeing anybody rise,

[29:26] anybody in opposition to this parcel in this development.

[29:29] You may come forward now. No.

[29:45] Good evening your name.

[29:48] Good evening. My name is Jonathan Bresnan.

[29:51] I own 55 Pingree Hill Road.

[29:55] Okay. A week

[29:58] before the last town hearing was when I heard about this,

[30:04] I was informed by the post

[30:06] Office. Yeah,

[30:07] That's lovely.

[30:08] So I haven't had much time to prepare

[30:10] and I definitely didn't, I wasn't given the plans,

[30:14] so I didn't really know too much about them.

[30:17] I came here to observe and learn. Okay.

[30:19] But my understanding based on the plans is they want

[30:22] to put a home directly in front of my property.

[30:27] Where is your property in relationship to this?

[30:31] I was trying to see from the back of the room.

[30:32] I could not. I live at 55 Pingree Hill Road.

[30:35] If you can see it based on the design of the road,

[30:38] I would say I'm at the top of lot one.

[30:41] Okay. So they want to put it in front of your house.

[30:46] Is that what prop house stands for?

[30:49] Prop proposed property house. Proposed a proposed house.

[30:52] It looks roughly where I live. I don't,

[30:54] I don't see my home listed on the map, so I don't know.

[30:57] I don't, no one came to talk to me.

[30:58] Well, I I don't think your home will be on this property

[31:01] Across the street from my property.

[31:03] Oh, I thought you said they're

[31:04] putting it in front of your house.

[31:05] Yes. Oh, across the street. You

[31:07] I would live across they, the current home 34.

[31:10] My neighbors that recently deceased

[31:13] that Craig bought their house.

[31:14] Okay. That they lived there for decades. Yep.

[31:16] I've lived in my house for seven years.

[31:19] My neighbors have all lived in the,

[31:20] the area for 40 plus years.

[31:23] Every one of 'em, none of us know Craig.

[31:27] I met him for the first time last meeting and it was brief.

[31:31] He didn't come to any of our

[31:32] houses and talk to us about this.

[31:33] And the only reason we heard about this was because

[31:35] You were notified. We were

[31:36] Informed.

[31:37] So still processing it to fair.

[31:38] You received, received a certified letter, correct?

[31:40] Correct. And I'm still processing it to be fair

[31:42] because I've lived in my home for seven years

[31:44] and the purpose of me buying my home

[31:46] for my family was the privacy.

[31:48] That was a big selling point to my family.

[31:51] I have two children and when we bought the home,

[31:54] we were actually told that it was conservation land.

[31:57] And I, a couple weeks ago found out it's

[32:00] not because of that letter.

[32:02] So then I looked into the land

[32:04] and I believe it's parallel to conservation land,

[32:06] which a little further in behind me is

[32:09] also conservation land.

[32:11] So in the seven years I've lived in my home,

[32:14] I've witnessed a lot of beautiful natural life.

[32:18] You know, frequent the property across the street.

[32:22] I watch turkeys sleep in those trees.

[32:26] And so for me to not know really what's happening,

[32:29] but to not let this pass by and not say a thing.

[32:32] Sure. I chose to be here tonight.

[32:34] And so my greatest opinion on this would be,

[32:38] it would be a catastrophe to tear down this beautiful forest

[32:41] that we have enjoyed in this neighborhood

[32:44] to put two homes on along with the existing home.

[32:49] And that is not of the character of the neighborhood.

[32:52] The neighborhood itself is very spread out now.

[32:54] My street is a five mile long street

[32:57] where we have four different towns on my street.

[33:00] I'm the last home in Derry.

[33:02] My next hou my next neighbor is Chester.

[33:05] You go down a little further, you get to Auburn, you go

[33:07] to the very end of the road, it becomes Manchester.

[33:11] If you walk that street, you'll notice that every home on

[33:14] that street does not typically have

[33:18] a home across the street from them.

[33:19] And they're spread out. It's a low density area.

[33:22] And that's the reason why I bought the home.

[33:25] And when I started my family,

[33:28] the day we bought the house was the day my son was

[33:30] born and moved in.

[33:32] And so that's all they've known.

[33:34] And I'm also very concerned about the construction.

[33:38] I'm in construction myself. I understand the timeline.

[33:41] It could be a long time to tear a forest

[33:43] down to build homes on.

[33:46] It's a dangerous corner.

[33:47] I watch kids all the time fly around that corner

[33:49] and then they gun it up our street for some fun.

[33:53] I can't imagine what it would be like

[33:54] to see construction trucks backing outta that area.

[33:57] And who knows what could happen.

[33:59] I have little kids, six and four years old.

[34:02] I I know our neighborhood walks that street regularly.

[34:06] It's a very comfortable neighborhood.

[34:08] We all know each other, we all say hello. I don't know.

[34:11] Craig and Craig didn't bother to get to know any of us.

[34:15] So this is alarming.

[34:18] And I am actually a little disappointed.

[34:20] I believe I'm the only person

[34:22] representing, I could be wrong.

[34:24] But that being said, a lot

[34:26] of this neighborhood is in for towns.

[34:29] It's not like anyone else was informed.

[34:32] My neighbors to the right of me,

[34:33] were not informed they're in Chester,

[34:35] but this is gonna happen right next to them.

[34:40] So That's Yeah.

[34:42] I'll leave it for questions. Yeah. What questions do you have?

[34:43] Me? So did you, and, and I understand where you're at,

[34:45] like, you know,

[34:51] urban growth right?

[34:52] Affects everybody. Time changes things and,

[34:58] and everybody particularly over the last handful

[35:01] of years has seen their environment change.

[35:05] And but where I would direct you to is the relative

[35:10] to the five criteria that were read into the record,

[35:12] which are your guidelines by statute.

[35:16] So first one is to the public, right, which would be me

[35:18] To the what? To

[35:19] The public Public interest. Yeah.

[35:22] It doesn't meet my interest on my, the the public.

[35:24] Well that's, that is true.

[35:26] However, you also have to balance the,

[35:31] the constitutional aspects that the,

[35:34] that the New Hampshire constitution allows.

[35:36] Then he has the right to buy a home and build land is

[35:39] or apply to build land.

[35:40] Is that what you're referring to?

[35:42] I didn't hear everything you said.

[35:45] Go ahead. I I apologize I cut you off.

[35:46] I should have just let you finish your sentence.

[35:48] No, just saying that the con the constitutional right to

[35:50] to buy land and develop it is

[35:51] what you're referring to. Yeah.

[35:53] Reasonable, excessive, that kind of thing. Right.

[35:55] And a lot of times that guide is your ordinances

[35:59] and what's allowed within a district and,

[36:03] and a zoning district.

[36:04] Right. And so the test here is that

[36:10] the third lot, which is lot one

[36:13] apparently across from your home, that's, that becomes the,

[36:17] the tipping point of those five criteria.

[36:20] And whether or not that lot is, is permitted

[36:25] or granted a variance and granted relief.

[36:28] Right. So you focus essentially wraps back

[36:32] around those five criteria

[36:34] and the it is up to the applicant to prove their case.

[36:39] And you could try to disprove that case.

[36:43] And so you're welcome to do so.

[36:45] I'm just giving you those guidelines, those rules that,

[36:48] that this board is obligated to follow.

[36:51] Right. So I made a few

[36:55] notes based on my last time spent here.

[36:59] This is the first two times I've ever

[37:01] visited a town hearing.

[37:03] So very unprepared for how they go.

[37:06] But didn't even realize I'd be on television.

[37:10] It's quite a show.

[37:12] How does it Feel? Interesting.

[37:14] I'm sure we all feel very interesting about it.

[37:18] I don't enjoy it. But I don't mind talking

[37:21] to you guys about this because I take this very serious.

[37:23] I am going to live in my home for a very long time.

[37:26] I don't plan on leaving

[37:31] down the road from us.

[37:32] English Ranch was recently developed

[37:36] on a hill where the home was sold

[37:40] and they built four, I believe four homes on that land.

[37:46] And now I've watched those

[37:48] surrounding neighbors sell their homes.

[37:51] And that's one of my biggest fears as well as a homeowner

[37:54] of this property on this land.

[37:57] I've watched people sell beautiful homes that I admired

[38:01] and enjoyed.

[38:03] I enjoyed passing by

[38:04] and I could not imagine selling the

[38:07] home that they're willing to sell.

[38:08] But I'm pretty positive it has a lot to do with

[38:11] somebody throwing four homes on a plot of land

[38:15] and we all hate it.

[38:19] Yeah. The, particularly in New Hampshire,

[38:22] I think the average median age is

[38:25] 40, 49 years old.

[38:27] And like other states like Colorado, the median age is 29.

[38:32] But going beyond the median age, you have a, a lot of people

[38:35] that are aging out.

[38:38] I think a lot of discussions

[38:39] that occur in within the state are that people would like

[38:43] to move, they'd like to downsize,

[38:45] but the, the way the economic drivers on housing is going

[38:49] right now, there's a lot of people that can't move and,

[38:52] or it doesn't make economic sense to do so.

[38:55] So those are the contrasting factors that

[38:58] as you're expressing this and

[39:00] and very well may be that those folks are moving

[39:03] because all of a sudden they've lost their force,

[39:06] whoever's phone that is.

[39:07] Could you shut that off please?

[39:10] I'm just contrasting your, your points. Right,

[39:12] That's fair.

[39:14] You know, if you go through the five criteria,

[39:16] the public interest,

[39:18] the argument very well could be the public interest is

[39:22] serving a direction that the state is pushing

[39:25] for economic drivers.

[39:26] Right. Your your your perception

[39:29] of public interest might be,

[39:30] well it's not in my public interest

[39:32] because I've enjoyed the wooded areas,

[39:34] Paid taxes to live on my property.

[39:37] Yeah. That's Seven straight years in

[39:38] dairy. It's not cheap.

[39:40] But there again, it's not your property. Right. And

[39:43] No.

[39:44] Correct. I i I figured I don't have much say in this,

[39:45] but I'm gonna say what I have to say

[39:47] because if I don't then I'm gonna regret letting this happen

[39:50] and not saying anything

[39:52] and then watch construction happen in front of my property

[39:54] for the next few years and watch a forest I've enjoyed

[39:57] sitting on my front porch and, and looking at and

[40:01] and watching it get torn down with no say would be

[40:04] a tremendous tragedy of my own.

[40:06] So that's why I'm here.

[40:08] I don't know if I'll have the right things to say,

[40:10] but I'm gonna say what I can

[40:11] or I'll gladly answer any questions.

[40:13] But if you want just send me pack in at some

[40:15] point. Just send me pack in.

[40:16] Yeah. And it's not to be dismissive, it's kind

[40:18] of giving you the overview of the ground rules that govern

[40:22] what we do and, and the education for yourself.

[40:27] You know, get familiar with what you're dealing with

[40:31] and, and hear you out.

[40:33] So. Sure. Is there anything else you wish to add?

[40:38] I hope it doesn't go through. I'm sorry.

[40:40] I hope it doesn't happen. Alright.

[40:41] Anybody don't go away. Anybody have any questions for Mr.

[40:44] Bresnahan? No. Thank you Mr. No. Okay. Very good. Thank you.

[40:49] Okay. Anybody else wish to speak in opposition?

[40:55] Seeing no one rise?

[40:58] Alright gentlemen, you wanna come back up?

[41:09] You of course have rebuttal

[41:11] to the remorseful losing the wooded lot

[41:14] and my suspect is

[41:15] that the real estate agent may have suggested one thing

[41:18] to the individual and that of course was not the case.

[41:22] Obviously otherwise you wouldn't be here if trying

[41:25] to build a house on conservation land, correct?

[41:27] No. Is that conservation land right next to lot one?

[41:30] Not that we know of, no. No.

[41:32] Just to clear up a couple of things, Mr.

[41:34] Chairman, we, we did notify folks in Chester. Yep.

[41:38] For whatever reason those folks in Chester have a,

[41:41] have a dairy address.

[41:42] I don't, I don't know why, but when you go

[41:43] to their assessing software, they, I checked it,

[41:46] I checked it twice 'cause I thought my staff had made a

[41:48] mistake, but they have dairy addresses.

[41:51] I don't know why. Maybe it has something to do

[41:54] with your postal service or something going into Chester.

[41:58] I'm not sure. But all the abutting parcels,

[42:01] including the Chester parcels were notified.

[42:03] We did speak with a couple of homeowners.

[42:06] One homeowner came out while we were digging test bits.

[42:08] We spoke with them. Craig is actually rehabbing the existing

[42:12] home for his daughter,

[42:14] so his daughter's gonna be inhabiting that house.

[42:16] So he does have stake in the property

[42:18] and it's not like he's just trying

[42:20] to develop it and flip everything.

[42:22] His daughter will be there and

[42:24] Craig's a pretty quality builder.

[42:26] He is done a lot of stuff in dairy

[42:27] and I think most of the stuff that he's done has,

[42:29] has turned out pretty well for the town.

[42:32] I I get it. You know, people don't want to see

[42:35] land get developed,

[42:36] but I do think that this is probably the highest in

[42:39] and best, you know, use for the property.

[42:41] It's zoned for residential use

[42:43] and there there's certainly plenty of area to develop.

[42:47] Yeah. The frontage seems more than ample.

[42:51] Yes. And you are almost there on the completed

[42:56] three, three lots.

[42:57] The three acre lots. Right.

[42:59] I mean, you're not, you're miss not missing it by much

[43:02] and essentially it has

[43:07] your protective rights as the property owner to do

[43:11] what you'd like other than putting up an industrial plant

[43:15] or something that just doesn't go with the ordinances.

[43:18] Right, right. Anybody else have any questions, Mr.

[43:23] Omba? Mr. Dietzel? No thank you to my left. Ms.

[43:27] Mrs. Morin or Mr. Donlan?

[43:29] No, sir. Okay. Ms.

[43:33] Boudreaux, do you have finding of facts at all?

[43:42] All right, well that being said, I would take a motion

[43:45] to go into deliberation,

[43:48] Make a motion to go into deliberation.

[43:50] Second.

[44:00] Motion made for deliberation seconded by Mr.

[44:05] Dietzel, correct? Correct. Yes sir.

[44:08] All in favor of deliberation, say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

[44:13] Hearing none. All right.

[44:18] Anybody wish to lead off Mr. Donlin?

[44:22] I'm sure Mr. Chair. I feel

[44:25] as though the five criteria have been met, specifically

[44:31] as it relates to the surrounding lot sizes

[44:34] and being similar to what's being proposed in this area.

[44:39] Is not ag egregiously off as far as

[44:45] the square footage under is concerned?

[44:50] Rel you know, especially relative

[44:51] to the surrounding lot sizes

[44:52] and the, the overage on the frontage as well

[44:56] as not needing any other variances as far

[44:59] as setbacks are concerned.

[45:01] And we're not worried about well and septics

[45:04] or shoehorning anything and speaking.

[45:10] That seems like a reasonable use of, of a lot in a time when

[45:15] people are looking for lots.

[45:19] Okay. Ms. Moore,

[45:23] While they were talking, I was writing down from the GIS

[45:28] for dairy, the lot sizes

[45:30] and there's only one that does go above the two acre lot.

[45:34] And I know it's not to set a precedent,

[45:37] but it would keep in with the character

[45:40] of the neighborhood though.

[45:42] So I feel that it meets the five criteria in

[45:47] that it would fit.

[45:50] Did you, you in indicated that in the surrounding lots,

[45:54] that you only found one that was above the two acres

[45:58] or, or less than Correct.

[46:00] It's three acre minimum,

[46:01] Correct.

[46:02] All, so I haven't gotten to the Chester butters yet,

[46:05] but the other 10

[46:08] or so were an acre,

[46:11] like across from the property it's 1.3, then 1.6

[46:15] and 1.59.

[46:17] Those are the acreages of those lots, correct? Yeah. Okay.

[46:21] Alright. Mr. Dietzel,

[46:27] I'm certainly sympathetic to Mr.

[46:30] Breenan his concerns, but

[46:37] whenever we build new houses, trees get cut down

[46:40] and I think probably when 55 Pingree Hill

[46:43] was built in 1977, they had to cut some trees down.

[46:49] So I'm gonna stick to the five criteria,

[46:51] particularly the one non-conforming lot.

[46:53] If we were just dividing it into the two three acre plus

[46:57] lots, then he would need a variance at all.

[47:00] So it's just that one non-conforming lot

[47:02] that we're discussing here.

[47:05] The reason we have the low density

[47:09] residential zone is to keep a rural feel,

[47:13] prevent overcrowding, proximity

[47:17] of the houses and so forth.

[47:20] And I think literally enforcing

[47:22] that ordinance in this particular non-conforming lot is,

[47:26] is really not feasible.

[47:28] And it would deny the property owner an opportunity

[47:32] to reasonably use this piece of property,

[47:37] given the proximity of the wetlands

[47:40] and just the nature of this lot.

[47:43] If we were to deny the variance,

[47:45] that lot would be essentially

[47:49] rendered useless as oppo.

[47:52] Well possibly just to expand the adjacent yard,

[47:57] but that's, that's not what the,

[48:00] the property owner is requesting.

[48:02] I think what he is requesting is reasonable.

[48:05] I don't think it, it,

[48:08] it substantially changes the, the

[48:14] the surrounding neighborhood character of the neighborhood,

[48:17] character of the neighborhood.

[48:18] And so I, I believe all five criteria are

[48:20] met. Thank you Mr. Chair.

[48:23] Yep. Mr. Rab Bimba,

[48:24] Not much to the, it's already been stated

[48:29] to emphasize that if, if we go by averages

[48:33] of the abiding lots, he's still within that number.

[48:38] And for the three parcels,

[48:40] the one he's requesting is still larger than

[48:44] if you look at just the numbers, the other lots

[48:46] that surround the area.

[48:49] So by quote unquote right, he'll still be able to subdivide

[48:54] and develop those properties.

[48:57] I feel they've met all the five criteria.

[48:59] They've been clearly stated

[49:00] by the members who've spoken prior.

[49:03] I have nothing else to add.

[49:09] Yeah, so the, you know, if you took away the oh seven,

[49:13] the oh six on the lots two and three,

[49:15] and you add it to this lot, one, they're off

[49:17] by half an acre.

[49:18] But I think the, the applicant expresses the

[49:23] general spear of the ordinance in this regard,

[49:26] which is still fairly rural development

[49:31] at three acres a piece.

[49:33] Understanding there's some peace

[49:34] and solitude that the neighbors probably have

[49:37] liked out in that area.

[49:38] Looked around there myself from time to time

[49:42] and it's a, it's a nice area.

[49:47] As I indicated to Mr.

[49:48] Bresnahan, the, you know, the, the basis

[49:50] of the arguments become, you know, the spirit

[49:53] of the ordinance or public interest and,

[49:57] and often what you end up finding on, on other decisions

[50:02] that the, the public interest is the

[50:07] development and,

[50:09] and more housing needs

[50:13] that are within the state.

[50:15] It's not the financial hardship that we preside over,

[50:20] but it is the basis of

[50:22] what the ordinances establish in their, in their sphere

[50:25] of the ordinance and their intention.

[50:28] So I think we have a concurrence there within the board.

[50:35] Let's structure the motion.

[50:36] I think it's pretty self-explanatory in that we often have

[50:41] lead off with subject to permits inspections,

[50:48] Then subject to planning board

[50:51] And subject to planning board review.

[50:55] Yes. I'm looking for that motion sheet.

[50:59] Do I have you have that one there? Yes.

[51:03] And subject to planning board subdivision approval.

[51:08] Very good.

[51:14] Other than those two conditions,

[51:16] does anybody have any amendments

[51:18] or addendums they'd like to add to the motion?

[51:21] Seeing no adjusters, you're all set Mr. Donlin? I am sir.

[51:25] All right. No, and but I just to say it out loud,

[51:29] to take the abutters into consideration when building

[51:34] is always friendly

[51:39] Well, and understanding Mr.

[51:40] Bresnahan point about safety as children

[51:44] and yes, we understand the construction vehicles are, are in

[51:49] and out of that area

[51:50] and often professional truck drivers are more cautious than

[51:55] the teenagers that are speeding up and down the hill

[51:57] or up and down the road.

[51:59] And so we don't take his commentary lightly.

[52:04] I think we have the motion structured adequately.

[52:09] So with that we can take a motion

[52:11] to come out of deliberative.

[52:13] I'll make the motion to come out

[52:14] of the deliberative session.

[52:16] Thank you Mr. Omba. Mr.

[52:18] Donlin has a second All in favor of that and say aye. Aye.

[52:23] And the opposed that

[52:27] motion's on the floor.

[52:29] And would you happen to have finding effect with you Mr.

[52:33] Corbit? If you'd like, if you'd like to, if you do,

[52:35] you're welcome to come up and, and

[52:38] Sit with us.

[52:40] We are at 1 1 3.

[52:56] Do you have another motion sheet there?

[52:59] I don't seem to have mine from this

[53:01] Case. Can I find your

[53:01] Motion?

[53:02] Can you give this to Mr. Chair?

[53:04] Thank you can. Oh, you've got one? Okay. Yeah. Thank you.

[53:07] Alright. I think you, you do. I don't. Oh, you don't? Okay.

[53:11] Alright. Alright.

[53:14] So that motion was when I leave off,

[53:17] I have to read the Motion.

[53:18] Yes, read the motion please. Thank you.

[53:22] I make a motion on case number two six dash 13

[53:27] to grant a variance to the terms of article six,

[53:31] section 1 65 dash 48 B one

[53:36] of the town of dairy zoning ordinance to allow the property

[53:40] to be subdivided into three lots where one

[53:44] of the lots will have less than the three acre minimum

[53:48] parcel ID 1 4 0 2 4

[53:53] zoned LDR as presented with the following conditions.

[53:58] We have two, one subject to obtaining all state

[54:02] and town permits and inspections.

[54:04] Two, subject to planning board subdivision approval.

[54:08] And that concludes the reading of the motion.

[54:10] I need a second,

[54:13] I'll second motion.

[54:14] Thank you Mr. Omba. It's motion seconded by Mr.

[54:17] O Bimba motion on the floor.

[54:20] Therefore we can evaluate the finding of fact

[54:28] in the first leg of the finding of fact.

[54:35] Contrary to the public interest, I would say

[54:39] that the public interest is served more by

[54:45] the development of the property versus any

[54:50] takeaway from the public.

[54:52] Mr. Dietzel, how do you feel about that? I

[54:55] I agree with your analysis.

[54:58] I'm sorry. I Agree with your analysis.

[55:00] Very good. You have that Mrs. Boudreaux.

[55:03] Alright, good enough. Mr. Omba,

[55:06] Mr.

[55:07] Chair. I do agree with your analysis.

[55:09] Okay, Mr. Donlin? I do agree

[55:14] In the, okay.

[55:18] Mrs. Morn. Jerry,

[55:19] I also agreed that it won't be contrary to the public

[55:23] Interest.

[55:24] Alright, is your microphone on?

[55:25] Sorry. Okay, Mr. Viner, you have that All right?

[55:30] Yes sir. Alright. Spirit of the ordinance, the intention

[55:34] of the spirit of the ordinance has been expressed as,

[55:41] as keeping open spaces and,

[55:47] and more spread out development.

[55:52] And though lot one does not meet the

[55:56] entire

[56:02] acreage requirement, it gives ample frontage

[56:07] to the property and it also

[56:12] has the intention of meeting that, that

[56:16] spread out development.

[56:21] Mr. Donlin, how does that strike you?

[56:25] I certainly agree and with respect to that, the

[56:29] neighboring properties, with the exception

[56:31] of the two three acre parcels within the subdivision,

[56:35] this will be the,

[56:38] the undersized lot will still be the second largest lot in

[56:42] the forest in the near

[56:45] neighboring area. I guess you could say

[56:48] Ms.

[56:49] Mrs. Moore

[56:50] Chair being familiar with that part of town.

[56:54] In looking at the spirit of ordinance, pinky Hill

[56:58] and English range, both have numerous duplexes.

[57:01] So I could see maybe that was what they were trying to stop.

[57:06] I have no clue why the reason was the ordinance was made,

[57:10] but that would've been my best guess.

[57:12] So I agree that it doesn't go against the spirit

[57:16] of the ordinance as it's

[57:18] still plenty large in the, with the frontage.

[57:22] Very good. Mr. Dietzel?

[57:25] I agree. I don't think it,

[57:30] it conflicts with the basic zoning objectives

[57:32] to a market market degree.

[57:36] I think it's reasonable.

[57:37] Very good. Mr. Omba,

[57:39] I to agree.

[57:41] I believe that the purpose of the ordinance

[57:45] to promote health safety

[57:47] and not of a crowd, the area

[57:50] is being met given the size

[57:52] of the lot we've seen in the evidence

[57:55] provided to the board that the septic, the well have enough

[58:02] area to be placed, all the frontages are being made.

[58:06] I do believe that we are meeting

[58:08] the spirit of the ordinance.

[58:10] Right. Substantial justice.

[58:13] I think Mrs. Moore brought forward the other size

[58:17] of lots along the road

[58:19] and those are now non-conforming lots though we're not going

[58:23] to require them to tear their homes down

[58:25] to meet this requirement.

[58:26] But I think substantial justice works in this regard that

[58:32] the best development of this parcel,

[58:35] the eight point whatever acres

[58:41] is fair and,

[58:43] and matches the overall development of the neighborhood

[58:48] that's been in development for 50 years plus.

[58:53] Mr. Donald, you have anything tied to

[58:55] that or is that acceptable?

[58:56] I agree that seems reasonable.

[58:58] Okay. Mrs. Morhan Chair? I agree.

[59:02] Mr. Dietzel, I also agree for recent stated,

[59:06] Okay.

[59:07] Mr. O Bimba. I

[59:07] Do agree Mr. Chair.

[59:09] Okay. The values of surrounding properties,

[59:18] the development meets the,

[59:20] of these parcels meets the overall layout of the road.

[59:25] Do we see that more homes there

[59:28] and probably pricier homes are going

[59:32] to be a detriment to the, to the values

[59:37] of the surrounding properties?

[59:40] I certainly don't think so. Okay. Mrs. Moore?

[59:45] I don't think so as well.

[59:47] I do remember on English range them showing

[59:51] when new properties are built that it, if anything, it helps

[59:55] the other property values.

[59:59] Oh yes. The old rising tides lift all boats thing. Right.

[1:00:04] Mr. Dietzel?

[1:00:07] I agree. For recent stated, Okay. Mr. Omba,

[1:00:13] I believe new homes will increase the value

[1:00:16] of surrounding properties.

[1:00:18] I was doing some research on the property that was mentioned

[1:00:23] that was sold and it fetched a pretty good sum

[1:00:27] and I'm assuming it's

[1:00:29] 'cause the new houses were also pretty very

[1:00:31] expensive in the area.

[1:00:33] So I believe that the values

[1:00:38] of surrounding properties will be increased.

[1:00:42] Okay. So a hardship, the

[1:00:47] hardship here is that the, in my view is

[1:00:51] that the parcel is not a perfect cube

[1:00:55] and the, the geography

[1:00:59] and the size of the parcel

[1:01:02] and its shape create a hardship

[1:01:05] that would leave significant amount of the, of the land

[1:01:13] unusable for the intent that this district has provided.

[1:01:20] Mr. Donlin, how do you feel on that?

[1:01:24] I agree and I'll add to the, I agree with what you said

[1:01:27] and I'll add to that, that it's

[1:01:32] just shy of the nine and,

[1:01:35] and certainly while this,

[1:01:38] these parcels were being divided up some 50 years ago,

[1:01:41] if it was in keeping with everything else around

[1:01:44] that was like a one or a one

[1:01:46] and a half acre lot prior to any changes in the zoning.

[1:01:51] This, I mean, conceivably could be five

[1:01:53] or six lots if it was happened to be developed back then.

[1:01:58] Yeah. Good

[1:01:59] point. Mrs. Moore,

[1:02:04] I agree with what has been stated

[1:02:07] and there where the natural line

[1:02:12] property line is to that you really can't try to take from

[1:02:17] other properties without it looking or being in odd shape

[1:02:23] or more odd shape, I guess

[1:02:27] Mr. Dietzel,

[1:02:29] I, I think Mr.

[1:02:30] Donlin made a very good point

[1:02:31] and I agree that the fifth criterion, the,

[1:02:34] the hardship criterion has been met, met

[1:02:39] based on the recent stated

[1:02:43] Mr. Bumba,

[1:02:46] I am in agreement with what's been stated.

[1:02:51] I look at the ship of the property and, and,

[1:02:53] and the problem the wetland creates,

[1:02:58] it makes it difficult to subdivide this to meet

[1:03:03] zoning ordinance requirements

[1:03:07] and still be able to make good use of that third parcel.

[1:03:12] Okay, I think that wraps up our finding of fact.

[1:03:20] All in favor of moving this motion for votes. Aye. Aye. Aye.

[1:03:23] Any opposed? Mrs. Moore

[1:03:27] Chair? I vote yes.

[1:03:29] Mr. Dietzel? Yes. Mr. Donlin? Yes.

[1:03:34] Mr. Omba? Yes.

[1:03:36] The chair will make that unanimous as well

[1:03:39] by a vote of five to zero.

[1:03:42] Anybody agree by this decision has 30 days to ask this board

[1:03:46] for reconsideration?

[1:03:47] After that recourse will be superior of court.

[1:03:49] Congratulations gentlemen.

[1:03:51] Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you.

[1:04:04] Hey Greg,

[1:04:08] Welcome back.

[1:04:10] Did somebody leave a cell phone here? Yes. Someone

[1:04:14] Message.

[1:04:15] Who is this? Just counter every

[1:04:19] Ms. Owen, is this yours?

[1:04:23] Yeah. Yep.

[1:04:28] Just a scary note.

[1:04:42] Do we have, are we on to 1 0 7 at this point?

[1:04:47] We are.

[1:05:04] Who's here for 26 and a half? Ballard Road.

[1:05:09] Okay, We had a case

[1:05:12] that was 26 dash one 15.

[1:05:15] Is there anybody here for that?

[1:05:18] Alright, so that has been tabled

[1:05:20] to the next meeting folks.

[1:05:27] 26 dash one 15 has been tabled to the next meeting date.

[1:05:33] I just see a lot of people here so I just wanna make sure

[1:05:36] that we've cleared up everything.

[1:05:39] Is anybody here for 26 dash one 16,

[1:05:42] which is the Kilduff Realty?

[1:05:46] Are the presenters here for that case? You are. Okay.

[1:05:49] Alright. Makes sense about all the people.

[1:05:55] All right, we're gonna see how we do here.

[1:06:00] We may not get to that last case I mentioned.

[1:06:06] Let's see how we do in the next hour.

[1:06:09] All right, next case up is 26 dash one 13.

[1:06:13] We have been, I'm sorry, 26 dash 1 0 7

[1:06:19] Bird Enterprises, LLC, Mr.

[1:06:23] KO and Mr. Dresser, you wish to come up please?

[1:06:30] You all set on that?

[1:06:37] Alright gentlemen, so you gave us some amendments

[1:06:40] Yes.

[1:06:41] To sign? Yes. And thank you Mr.

[1:06:42] Chair for this last opportunity to speak.

[1:06:45] So we sent in a couple letters.

[1:06:47] I was hoping to get in, get them in on one on May 29th.

[1:06:52] But we were still waiting to hear from the my client's

[1:06:57] sign person, if you will.

[1:06:59] So basically what we've

[1:07:02] provided to you, I do have extra copies

[1:07:04] of this exhibit in case anybody doesn't have it.

[1:07:07] We've revised the, signed to some extent

[1:07:11] essentially in, in a nutshell, smaller, shorter, darker.

[1:07:16] And so the letter that is dated May 29th,

[1:07:21] both these letters are meant to more

[1:07:22] or less be very matter of fact

[1:07:25] was just acknowledging the differences that between,

[1:07:30] you know, previous plans that have

[1:07:31] been presented to you in this one.

[1:07:32] And so I'll just read them for the sake of the record.

[1:07:35] And these were altered in light of comments

[1:07:37] by the ZBA as well as the abutters.

[1:07:39] The sign pole now stands at 13 feet total height,

[1:07:41] which is down from 15 feet

[1:07:43] and 11 inches from the original proposal.

[1:07:47] The maximum height of the proposed signs boxes,

[1:07:49] that's the actual signs themselves, is at 12 feet

[1:07:53] and five inches.

[1:07:55] That's how high they go.

[1:07:57] Two, the proposed sign box dimensions are 60 inches wide

[1:08:01] by 102 inches tall.

[1:08:05] Those figures are relative

[1:08:06] to both those sign boxes together.

[1:08:09] Thus the individual height for each box is 51 inches.

[1:08:14] The figures are down from 120 inches tall collectively from

[1:08:19] both boxes from the original proposal.

[1:08:21] Third, the proposed sign's lower box is 43 inches from the

[1:08:26] ground, which is down from 72 inches

[1:08:30] from the original proposal.

[1:08:32] And as to lighting this,

[1:08:37] this new, this new version

[1:08:38] that we've presented here will be constructed

[1:08:41] with an opaque vinyl around it.

[1:08:44] And you get a sense of that.

[1:08:45] If you look at this exhibit here,

[1:08:47] we have a day view and a night view.

[1:08:49] And this is the night view.

[1:08:51] And as you can see, the sign's been made to look dark

[1:08:53] because that has that opaque back to it,

[1:08:56] which I've been told.

[1:08:58] I had a conversation with his sound, excuse me,

[1:09:01] sign designer who told me absolutely no light gets

[1:09:03] through the opa and by doing so, this reduces the lumens

[1:09:08] by more than 50%, which is more than what we even

[1:09:13] opined about at the last hearing, which was 25%.

[1:09:15] And finally there was a little light at the very top

[1:09:17] of the post, which is now gone.

[1:09:20] And then on June 1st we

[1:09:22] provided a letter just and I, I believe it was Mr.

[1:09:25] Corbitt that originally asked for this stuff

[1:09:26] and I wanted to get it to him, which is is some more

[1:09:29] specifications as to lighting.

[1:09:32] So when I spoke with the engineer, he advised

[1:09:35] that the light output now is going to be

[1:09:40] about 70 to 75%

[1:09:43] diffused if you want numbers.

[1:09:46] The L the LEDs that are

[1:09:48] inside the signs emit 7,448 lumens

[1:09:53] applying that 70% reduction from the new material

[1:09:56] that will be covering those lights.

[1:09:58] It's an estimated output

[1:09:59] of 5,214 lumens through that signed face.

[1:10:03] The newly added blackout film that we have there

[1:10:07] to the background, no, virtually no light comes through that

[1:10:10] and it's estimated that approximately 50

[1:10:14] to 60% of the illuminated area is going to be blocked,

[1:10:18] resulting in a visible light output.

[1:10:20] And this is really at nighttime of 2100

[1:10:24] to 2,600 lumens.

[1:10:26] So of course I don't know what a lumen is,

[1:10:28] so I had to look that up.

[1:10:30] And so for some per perspective,

[1:10:32] 2000 lumens are the equivalent of a 27 to 50

[1:10:37] LED watt light bulb

[1:10:39] or about a 150 watt incandescent bulb.

[1:10:44] And that was the information

[1:10:45] that we've submitted since we last met.

[1:10:48] We're happy to answer any questions if we can.

[1:10:51] Do you, you still are proposing a,

[1:10:54] a timeline on when this light is going to go off, is that

[1:10:57] Correct?

[1:10:58] Yeah, I think, I think we'll we'll stand by what we had

[1:10:59] before, which was there would be a timer set

[1:11:02] that would effectively go on when it starts to get dark

[1:11:05] and it's off by nine I believe this time.

[1:11:06] Yes. Yeah. Nine 9:00 PM that area. Yep.

[1:11:08] Yep. And you had a down lighting on the topper

[1:11:13] of this post is that the topper will

[1:11:14] Be Removed it so there's not going to be a light on

[1:11:17] There.

[1:11:18] That's correct. It's gone. Okay.

[1:11:22] So passerbys are going to be able to identify

[1:11:25] with this location and safely and,

[1:11:30] and it sounds like you've been able to decrease the,

[1:11:34] the element that will affect any, any

[1:11:36] of the really two abutters in this matter? I

[1:11:39] Think I've done everything I possibly can do.

[1:11:41] Yeah. Yeah. I, I think, I think, yeah,

[1:11:43] the applicant I think has done a lot to, to try to,

[1:11:45] you know, you know, we, we, we heard everybody

[1:11:47] and we're we're doing what we can.

[1:11:48] Yeah. We'll never make everybody happy, you know, so.

[1:11:51] Yeah. Yeah. And the questions in this regard, by the way,

[1:11:53] are more to make sure that it's clarified for the record

[1:11:56] what your changes are.

[1:11:59] Do you still want the motion

[1:12:01] for lighting separated from the motion of the sign

[1:12:04] or you want to keep those combined?

[1:12:07] I, I have no objection to that. Okay. You're

[1:12:09] Alright.

[1:12:10] Fine. Okay.

[1:12:11] We'll have to make that motion on the fly I think

[1:12:14] 'cause I, I think we I didn't do that.

[1:12:17] I didn't do that housekeeping though. It had dawned on me

[1:12:23] That worse.

[1:12:25] I'm sorry that Mumble was worse than, oh, sorry.

[1:12:30] Alright. Anything you wish to add here?

[1:12:33] I think, I think we've,

[1:12:34] we've said all that can be said at,

[1:12:36] So Ms.

[1:12:37] Oland, you've sent out these proposals

[1:12:40] to three of the abutters.

[1:12:41] Did you hear anything back? I did

[1:12:43] Not.

[1:12:44] Okay. Very good. With that being said,

[1:12:46] we'll take a motion, go into deliberation.

[1:12:51] Are we not in public

[1:12:52] Session Now?

[1:12:53] You are. Your hearing time is done.

[1:12:55] You can sit down. We're not in

[1:12:56] Public session Now.

[1:12:57] We are. This is, we move out

[1:12:59] A public session at the end of the last hearing.

[1:13:01] This is not a public session. We followed our policies.

[1:13:05] All abutters were given an opportunity to rebut. So

[1:13:08] You were moved into deliberative

[1:13:10] Session.

[1:13:11] We are moving into deliberative session. You've already

[1:13:12] Moved into deliberative Session.

[1:13:13] We are moving into deliberative session right now. Is this a

[1:13:16] Public hearing or not?

[1:13:17] This is not a public hearing. This what is this?

[1:13:19] This is their opportunity to make their formal request

[1:13:23] that they are altering their original motion and,

[1:13:26] and compromising to the abutters.

[1:13:29] So they have, I'm not going to go back and forth, Mr. Foley.

[1:13:32] You can return to your seat, but breaking the law.

[1:13:34] I am not breaking the law. They have

[1:13:35] Submitted a new proposal.

[1:13:36] They accepted after you went into

[1:13:38] session and the fact of the matter,

[1:13:40] We have not gone into deliberative session

[1:13:43] until right now hearing

[1:13:44] I have the right to speak since they've always,

[1:13:46] they have spoken again.

[1:13:47] Mr. Dresser, you have any comments here,

[1:13:51] Mr.

[1:13:52] Chair? At our last hearing that was supposed

[1:13:55] to be our last final word, there was a request made to us

[1:13:58] to provide some last bit information

[1:14:01] that was really just matter of fact as I just read,

[1:14:04] that has been submitted.

[1:14:06] We are not opining here,

[1:14:07] we are not making any more arguments.

[1:14:10] The public has been heard multiple times.

[1:14:12] The changes here are really more

[1:14:15] of a revision or an amendment.

[1:14:17] And I think everybody has said enough at this point and it,

[1:14:20] and it is supposed to be that the applicant is supposed

[1:14:22] to have the last word anyway.

[1:14:24] Very good. I, it's, it's always been my perception. Yeah.

[1:14:27] So complete

[1:14:29] Redesign of the sign.

[1:14:30] It's a change in the height of the sign.

[1:14:34] So I would like to have, make sure that the minutes

[1:14:37] of this meeting make it quite clear that

[1:14:42] a new design has been submitted

[1:14:45] after you left public session

[1:14:48] that requires notification in the hearing.

[1:14:51] We received this information on the second agreement

[1:14:55] I'm supposed to never has occurred

[1:14:56] before in my time on this board.

[1:14:59] And we've always been able to make amendments,

[1:15:01] especially when the public input has given us

[1:15:04] direction to do so.

[1:15:05] And do you have the right to, are you fair with that?

[1:15:07] We have the right to Contest Mr. Foley,

[1:15:10] you can either sit down or I will have you

[1:15:13] removed from the building.

[1:15:14] Our meeting only ended because of time. If

[1:15:19] We're all set to go, we're in deliberative.

[1:15:22] I asked for deliberation. Did we go get a motion there?

[1:15:26] No, We do.

[1:15:29] We have Mrs. Moore will be sitting in for Mr.

[1:15:33] Tripp who is absent and

[1:15:37] We need another one.

[1:15:39] You're on. It's five Mr. Donlin.

[1:15:43] Okay. Okay, Mr. Donlin, you're all set to proceed.

[1:15:47] Okay. All right.

[1:15:49] That being said, I need a motion for deliberation.

[1:15:54] I'll make a motion to go into deliberation.

[1:15:56] Thank you. Second. Seconded by Mr. Donlin.

[1:16:00] All in favor of deliberation, say aye. Aye. Aye.

[1:16:02] Any opposed? All right.

[1:16:10] So public input

[1:16:12] and the compromise of the

[1:16:16] property owner have brought forward the proposed

[1:16:22] reductions in the, in the sign

[1:16:26] that was asked for relief.

[1:16:30] The board has had given direction

[1:16:35] as we tabled this without deliberation

[1:16:39] the prior meeting.

[1:16:45] And can we, can we make up a separate proposal

[1:16:51] as the applicant had asked for to separate the

[1:16:55] lighting from the, from the sign?

[1:17:02] So this one only has the one. Yep.

[1:17:06] I don't have, I don't know what he's asking

[1:17:08] For.

[1:17:11] I think we're making, we're designating relief

[1:17:16] for the, for lighting on this.

[1:17:19] Do Ms. Owen, do we have a separate lighting aspect

[1:17:23] to signage in the three pages of ordinances?

[1:17:28] What I'm trying to find In

[1:17:30] Relation to Lumens,

[1:17:39] Who else has a motion sheet?

[1:17:40] Mr. Donlin, do you have one of these with you? Can I, Mr.

[1:17:45] Emba, did you get one of these? I do.

[1:17:48] Could I have yours please? Yes.

[1:17:59] Just hand that down to me.

[1:18:23] Yes, thank you.

[1:18:31] 1 0 2, 2

[1:18:45] And a half

[1:18:52] square feet.

[1:18:53] Okay, so that motion on this is going

[1:18:57] to be 50 square feet, but 42 and and a half.

[1:19:04] The other motion is going to be

[1:19:10] Do allow The installation, we're going

[1:19:15] to go make motion

[1:19:19] code duly authorized to grant the variance

[1:19:21] of one oh section

[1:19:23] 1 0 6, 1 65 1 0 1 0.1

[1:19:31] Chair.

[1:19:32] I'm not finding anything separate in the ordinance.

[1:19:34] Very good.

[1:19:36] All Right. So we will revise a second motion

[1:19:41] as the applicant had requested.

[1:19:45] Would we, Mrs. Owen, would we think

[1:19:49] that as we're separating the motion of,

[1:19:54] and I'm sorry that we're doing this at this moment.

[1:19:57] 1 1 65 1 0 1 0.1.

[1:20:01] Is that all encompassing of all signs

[1:20:04] In this district? Yes, I would agree.

[1:20:05] Okay. Alright, so we'll leave the section

[1:20:09] 1 65 1 0 1 0.1 of the town of dairy

[1:20:14] of zoning ordinance to allow the installation of

[1:20:20] a lit sign.

[1:20:26] Does it need to be clarified that it's internally lit?

[1:20:32] Yeah, we can do that. And do we want to

[1:20:38] record the numbers that were presented of from the report of

[1:20:43] what it illuminates so that there is a,

[1:20:50] With decreased luminance?

[1:20:52] No, I'm, I'm trying let sign

[1:20:56] with decreased lumens

[1:20:59] Or no higher than 2,600 luminance.

[1:21:03] Is that what it Is? It says between 21 to 26

[1:21:08] Permission.

[1:21:10] Okay. Yeah. 2100, right.

[1:21:15] 2,127.

[1:21:17] If it says approximately, maybe it's a, yeah,

[1:21:20] put it within a wheelhouse, but at least

[1:21:22] cap capture a maximum.

[1:21:25] Okay. Lumens?

[1:21:27] Sorry, I probably right Crystal, I think I jumped on.

[1:21:29] No, that's all right. And

[1:21:35] with time lit with time lighting as specified.

[1:21:53] Okay. All right.

[1:21:57] We will do that separately.

[1:22:00] Can I see yours just so I can have the same

[1:22:02] For, and again, you want to change

[1:22:06] that 50 square foot to 42.5?

[1:22:08] Correct. And

[1:22:14] on a condition of that, number two, Ms. Moore, you want

[1:22:17] to note that the L

[1:22:22] lit topper to be removed

[1:22:40] all set there.

[1:22:44] All set last morning? Yes. Yep.

[1:22:45] You have that lit topper removed there. Correct.

[1:22:50] Do you wanna put it as a condition?

[1:22:52] I do want put it as a condition. Yep.

[1:22:54] And, and this is to appease, I think the davisons

[1:22:59] who had concerns about compliance after the fact

[1:23:07] and

[1:23:20] all right, I think let's get into the discussions here

[1:23:29] In the first of the five legs, the question becomes contrary

[1:23:33] to the public interest

[1:23:34] and does the sign alter the essential

[1:23:36] character of the neighborhood?

[1:23:41] My feeling on this, this, as we've discussed prior,

[1:23:47] that this road is a main commuter thoroughfare

[1:23:52] and double yellow line.

[1:23:56] It's not an intimate neighborhood setting like something in

[1:23:59] around a school zone.

[1:24:03] There are similar or larger signs along the same roadway.

[1:24:08] Prior we referenced when the focus was solely on the

[1:24:13] electronic messaging sign.

[1:24:14] We referenced another sign

[1:24:18] at the far end of Hampstead Road as it enters,

[1:24:23] I guess Hampstead, but half a

[1:24:27] mile away on the same thoroughfare is a larger sign,

[1:24:32] 40 square feet.

[1:24:34] The Mr.

[1:24:36] Roge brought the various signs of in the community

[1:24:40] to other like businesses to the attention of the board

[1:24:46] measuring those signs at similar locations

[1:24:49] that he had shown us.

[1:24:51] Those signs vary in size

[1:24:57] and are larger than what the ordinance specifies

[1:25:02] for such a,

[1:25:04] such a venture like this in any of the other districts.

[1:25:08] And that would be 24 square feet.

[1:25:11] The Calvary Christian Church

[1:25:17] up the road probably closer to the roses than this is,

[1:25:21] this is almost a quarter of a mile away,

[1:25:24] has a 40 square foot sign and it's backlit

[1:25:28] and it is also at a facility that is closer

[1:25:32] to the road easily two times than the,

[1:25:38] than this facility at 180 7 Hampstead Road.

[1:25:42] Anybody else wish

[1:25:43] to give some feedback on the public interest aspect of this

[1:25:48] I Mr.

[1:25:50] Donlin?

[1:25:52] Sure, I would agree.

[1:25:54] And I would add that being that some

[1:25:59] of the clients may be first time

[1:26:05] that they are visiting the property,

[1:26:08] this would cut down on any erratic traffic patterns

[1:26:12] or erratic driving behavior on what we conclude

[1:26:16] to be a busy road could eliminate some of that confusion

[1:26:22] Essentially.

[1:26:23] Safety, I think is in some aspect of

[1:26:25] what you're getting at. Correct.

[1:26:27] Certainly turning into

[1:26:30] other properties in an effort to, to turn around

[1:26:33] and then backing out into the road and all that.

[1:26:36] Mr. Ms. Mul,

[1:26:37] I wanna add to what Mr.

[1:26:39] Donolan said though too, that the reasonable

[1:26:43] identification as well for emergency responders.

[1:26:47] That was

[1:26:49] Ellen.

[1:26:51] Yeah. How does a property get identified?

[1:26:54] Any, any property

[1:26:56] and I think as I closed out our last meeting, I said

[1:27:00] that there is no district within this town

[1:27:03] that does not allow some kind of business sign.

[1:27:06] If you look through all of our ordinances, either

[1:27:09] through the effect of, of a special exception

[1:27:13] or as, as designated for a business.

[1:27:17] And it wasn't a matter of whether

[1:27:19] or not this business should have a sign, it's what type

[1:27:23] of sign, how large

[1:27:25] and what is fitting in a district

[1:27:27] where there's an approved use for that.

[1:27:32] That facility and it's a signage is

[1:27:37] needs to be identified or needs to identify a location.

[1:27:42] And as you've pointed out Mrs. Moore,

[1:27:44] for safety issues as well.

[1:27:47] Mr. Dietzel, any thoughts there under public interest

[1:27:53] For recent stated?

[1:27:55] I don't believe it's contrary to the public interest.

[1:27:58] Alright. Mr. Corbett?

[1:28:01] There's been a lot. You know,

[1:28:04] as I look at the latest changes,

[1:28:05] I don't necessarily think they're material.

[1:28:08] Just to go back to that, from

[1:28:09] what we saw at the last meeting, I think the new background

[1:28:14] on the type of material for the sign, you know,

[1:28:17] it wasn't necessarily within our purview

[1:28:19] and just shrinking it from the 50 to the 42

[1:28:22] and a half, I think is typically within changes

[1:28:24] that we've seen come through right beforehand.

[1:28:26] But with that, you know, as I look at this

[1:28:29] driving down this road a lot, you know,

[1:28:31] over the last two months while we've been hearing this,

[1:28:35] I do believe it's tough to see that church back there,

[1:28:38] especially when you're coming around the corner

[1:28:40] with another church right back there.

[1:28:42] I do think that this current sign that, you know,

[1:28:45] while it is larger than a couple of the other ones in that

[1:28:49] general vicinity, I think it's appropriately scaled.

[1:28:52] I think it, I think it works for where it is.

[1:28:57] I don't think it's gonna adversely affect traffic.

[1:28:59] I think if anything it will help with the traffic, you know,

[1:29:02] especially knowing the age groups, people

[1:29:04] that are gonna be coming in and looking for this, the time

[1:29:06] of night that they may be arriving or leaving.

[1:29:09] I really don't think that it's contrary

[1:29:11] to the public interest on the larger scale.

[1:29:13] You know, when thinking about the town

[1:29:17] On the spirit of the ordinance, as I indicated,

[1:29:21] there's not a district in the town

[1:29:23] that does not allow a sign of some sort for a business.

[1:29:27] And I, I won't go back through the, the structural sizes

[1:29:32] that were here, but the, the sphere

[1:29:37] of the ordinance allows

[1:29:40] for different signage in different districts.

[1:29:44] And we see this along this roadside

[1:29:48] at Meadowbrook Farm.

[1:29:50] We see it at, at the church

[1:29:55] and likewise in the reverse direction on this same roadway.

[1:30:02] So to me, the spirit of the ordinance is met

[1:30:06] when a business, albeit is, is a unique business,

[1:30:12] needs to be able to promote itself.

[1:30:14] It's not about, it's not about more revenue,

[1:30:19] but to be able to just be existent and,

[1:30:23] and be identified.

[1:30:26] There's not a building in this town, this building as well,

[1:30:31] that does not have some kind of signage on it.

[1:30:35] And it, it doesn't matter whether it's a school,

[1:30:38] a fire station, the municipal center,

[1:30:42] or any of the other privately owned businesses.

[1:30:47] All of them are allowed some kind of signage

[1:30:52] to be able to let the public know that they're there

[1:30:56] and it would be a hardship to take that away from them.

[1:31:01] But going to the spirit of the ordinance, Mr. Donlin,

[1:31:05] I agree.

[1:31:06] I I would just reiterate

[1:31:08] by saying I I believe it's reasonably similar

[1:31:10] to other signage in the general

[1:31:14] geographical area of the building.

[1:31:19] Mrs. Moore, I think given the property's unusual

[1:31:23] setback, it reduced visibility from the roadway that the

[1:31:27] requested relief is reasonable

[1:31:30] and it allows the property

[1:31:31] to function in a manner consistent

[1:31:34] with other properties in the area while maintaining the

[1:31:37] overall intent of the ordinance.

[1:31:41] Mr. Dietzel? Yeah, regarding the spirit

[1:31:45] of the ordinance, the abutters

[1:31:50] previously had stated that we're conflating the business

[1:31:55] with the sign, and I don't know if we are or not,

[1:31:59] but I I don't see how the two can be completely separated.

[1:32:06] As you said, this business needs a sign of some sort.

[1:32:11] I think that the spirit of the ordinance

[1:32:15] and the, the

[1:32:19] essential character

[1:32:23] of the neighborhood was blown when they put the church in

[1:32:27] and many, many years ago.

[1:32:30] And were stuck with the fact that we had

[1:32:31] to put the church in there

[1:32:33] and given the fact that something had to go in there

[1:32:38] that was not conforming with the zoning ordinance,

[1:32:42] I don't see how a sign of this nature is

[1:32:47] significant compared to what has already been done.

[1:32:53] And there is case law that says that it,

[1:32:57] it must unduly

[1:32:59] and in a market degree conflict

[1:33:01] with the basing zoning objectives of the ordinance.

[1:33:05] And I don't think this sign does that in a market

[1:33:10] to a market degree and in an unduly fashion.

[1:33:17] The harms have been done by the church.

[1:33:19] We can't go back now, we're just talking about the sign.

[1:33:23] I think the sign is reasonable

[1:33:25] and I think the, I think the spirit of the ordinance has,

[1:33:31] is observed.

[1:33:32] Okay. Mr. Corbet,

[1:33:35] I agree with what you and Mr.

[1:33:37] Dietzel really have stated.

[1:33:39] I think that, you know,

[1:33:41] what's allowed there is now lawfully authorized, you know,

[1:33:44] and that happened through a prior

[1:33:45] decision outside of our board.

[1:33:46] And I think that, you know, what's allowed to, excuse me,

[1:33:50] exists there, you know, they do need a clear identifier

[1:33:53] and I don't think that a sign goes against the spirit

[1:33:55] of the ordinance now understanding

[1:33:58] what we're utilizing the property for

[1:34:01] or what we've deemed the property is allowed to be used for,

[1:34:04] I guess I should, that the town is allowed

[1:34:05] the property to be used for

[1:34:09] So substantial justice is the loss

[1:34:12] to the individual outweighed by a gain to the public.

[1:34:18] The abutters had an opportunity to address this matter.

[1:34:22] In fact, during the process, we tried to correct

[1:34:26] one abutter in the fact that he was

[1:34:31] solely talking about the prior case that focused

[1:34:36] around electronic messaging signs,

[1:34:39] but not presenting the objection to any of the five criteria

[1:34:44] that is relevant to this case here.

[1:34:49] And as much as we tried to engage with him,

[1:34:53] he resisted and,

[1:34:55] and really didn't want to engage back with us.

[1:34:59] It leaves us to the, is it Davis' or the Davidson's?

[1:35:02] Davidson Davidson's, yeah.

[1:35:06] Their, their concerns are, are understood

[1:35:10] and I think that the applicant

[1:35:14] has done an awful lot to,

[1:35:19] you know, kind of diminish the impact and,

[1:35:23] and honor what their feelings are here.

[1:35:27] And I think that this compromise that they asked for

[1:35:32] and the abutter notably,

[1:35:35] or the applicant notably gave

[1:35:40] is, is justice in itself.

[1:35:44] Mr. Donnelly,

[1:35:48] I tend to agree with you, Mr.

[1:35:50] Chair would go back

[1:35:53] to something, the point Mr.

[1:35:55] Corbert was just making in his closing statement

[1:36:00] to the spirit of the on

[1:36:01] and that the, the, we're not,

[1:36:05] our board is not here to decide the use of the land.

[1:36:09] So would it be reasonable to contend that

[1:36:15] a business needs a sign?

[1:36:16] And I would agree that that is

[1:36:20] substantial justice for a business.

[1:36:23] Mrs. Moore, I agree with what has been stated

[1:36:26] and I feel the request it signed, it's not intended

[1:36:30] to expand or intensify the already approved use,

[1:36:33] but like I'd said, but rather

[1:36:35] to provide reasonable identification of the property

[1:36:40] and then the relief requested is limited in scope

[1:36:43] and directly related to the unique carriers

[1:36:47] that sticks of the property.

[1:36:51] Mr. Dietzel? I I agree.

[1:36:56] I I think the, the substantial justice substan justice has

[1:37:01] been met that criterion. Yeah.

[1:37:02] Okay. Mr. For recent stated,

[1:37:04] Mr.

[1:37:05] Corbitt,

[1:37:07] I think you made a good point.

[1:37:08] I think that, you know, when you look at the substantial

[1:37:09] justice, if we were to, to deny this variance,

[1:37:12] I think it causes more of a burden to the applicant that,

[1:37:16] you know, again, the signs a reasonable identifier

[1:37:19] for something that's, you know,

[1:37:21] a multiple approved onsite uses.

[1:37:24] And if you approve the sign, I'm sorry I bit short

[1:37:28] of breath tonight, but if you approve the sign, you know,

[1:37:31] I really don't think that it results in much harm

[1:37:35] to the public, especially having a chance now

[1:37:38] to really look at this, to see these lights turn down,

[1:37:42] you know, what it, what was originally proposed,

[1:37:45] what there is now, you know, when it was the church with the

[1:37:48] bat signals going up into the steeple

[1:37:50] that are no longer there and the other light shining from

[1:37:53] the, from the building that we saw, you know,

[1:37:57] almost made it look like an airport.

[1:37:58] You know, I think that the sign is a much,

[1:38:00] much more reasonable use.

[1:38:04] Well I think that we honored testimony even though the Mr.

[1:38:08] Roge has other live-in

[1:38:14] Renee Cloutier and or motivated tiger or whatever.

[1:38:20] I think that the board also has honored what it is

[1:38:24] that they were advocating for with some compromise,

[1:38:28] even though they have not been able to identify

[1:38:31] how they would be aggrieved by this.

[1:38:34] And I think that goes back to the, you know, emphasizes

[1:38:37] that substantial justice, which is what, what is,

[1:38:42] what does the public gain if you don't allow

[1:38:45] this business to promote itself?

[1:38:46] I think it becomes a detriment diminuation

[1:38:50] of property values.

[1:38:53] The board has seen the broker opinion supporting both sides

[1:38:57] of this argument.

[1:38:58] I, again, I think that we've, that the compromise

[1:39:01] by the applicant has allowed

[1:39:06] what is I think something that is very less offensive

[1:39:10] and to the abutters, particularly at night.

[1:39:18] And, and the higher courts have allowed zoning boards

[1:39:22] to determine the relevance of the information to

[1:39:27] diminuation of property values.

[1:39:29] And I find that between the two arguments, it's a neutral,

[1:39:33] I don't see that it, that this facility cleaned up

[1:39:36] as it is not vandalized windows all boarded up,

[1:39:41] a vacant lot just sitting there to go into disrepair.

[1:39:47] I think that this, as you go by this property,

[1:39:51] it actually improves the property values not,

[1:39:56] not diminishes it.

[1:39:58] Mr. Cor Donlin,

[1:40:02] I agree with Mr.

[1:40:03] Chair and I, I will reiterate the,

[1:40:07] the concessions that have been made along the way to

[1:40:12] minimize any effects while still maintaining

[1:40:16] effectiveness in regards to the

[1:40:18] sign serving its purpose as needed.

[1:40:21] Okay. Mrs. Moore,

[1:40:24] I agree with what has been stated,

[1:40:27] but also I had looked at the town's,

[1:40:32] I forget what it's called already.

[1:40:34] The vision. Yeah, the vision plan

[1:40:37] and the number one thing that was in it was

[1:40:41] youth activities, keeping youth.

[1:40:43] And so I think having that property, having

[1:40:47] that in town won't just, you know,

[1:40:49] help their property values but everyone else's

[1:40:52] because of the recreation part of it.

[1:40:57] Very good. Mr. Dietzel?

[1:40:59] Yeah, I agree with what the chair

[1:41:02] and Mr. Morin said about the, about the business itself

[1:41:08] enhancing property values.

[1:41:11] But I'm gonna focus on the sign and

[1:41:14] because we've already, the, the, the business itself is,

[1:41:19] is kind of a past issue.

[1:41:23] I'm just looking at it from my standpoint.

[1:41:24] If I were to move into this, if I'm looking for a house

[1:41:27] and I wanna live in a particular neighborhood, maybe

[1:41:32] I wouldn't want to live right near that business

[1:41:35] because it's, you know, too busy or too lit

[1:41:39] or I don't want to live near a business.

[1:41:42] But if I want to live there, am I gonna turn around

[1:41:45] and say, well I I want to reduce the price of the, my offer

[1:41:49] by $50,000.

[1:41:51] 'cause of the sign, I don't see it as you stated, Mr.

[1:41:54] Chair, I believe the sign itself is neutral.

[1:41:57] I don't see any adverse effect on property tax

[1:42:00] or property values.

[1:42:03] Okay. Mr. Corbit,

[1:42:05] I agree with the way Mr.

[1:42:06] DE's looking at it. You know,

[1:42:08] we heard testimony on both sides.

[1:42:10] We have the letter from the abutters

[1:42:12] that say that it would reduce the value.

[1:42:13] We have the letters from the applicant saying

[1:42:15] it would enhance the value.

[1:42:18] You know, to your point, the Supreme Court, you know,

[1:42:21] precedent doesn't allow the board, you know,

[1:42:22] if you know the area, it's one of the reasons I've been

[1:42:24] driving through it as often as I have.

[1:42:26] It's continued to get a feel

[1:42:27] that you can rely on your own experience too, as just

[1:42:30] as much testimony, if not more.

[1:42:33] And to Mr Diet's point, what I, which I wholeheartedly agree

[1:42:36] with is that I think you

[1:42:38] and Ms. Moore make a good point that what is there now just

[1:42:43] the improvement to the property is

[1:42:45] an increase to the property value.

[1:42:46] You know, I think as it is,

[1:42:48] the property values are already increasing

[1:42:49] because of what, you know, the broken windows, everything

[1:42:52] that we've seen and kind

[1:42:53] of the dilapidated church over the last decade are gone.

[1:42:56] But what I look at now is that

[1:43:01] to say that a sign, you know, located

[1:43:06] at an area that was on the site plan review

[1:43:08] that allowed the business to go in the first place is now

[1:43:10] going to be what reduces the, the neighborhood value.

[1:43:14] I just don't see it, I don't think that the sign can bring,

[1:43:18] I don't think the sign is a negative.

[1:43:20] I think it's at anything, it is neutral.

[1:43:21] I think that it would be a negative to the applicant.

[1:43:24] I just don't see how it would assign itself

[1:43:26] would affect the properties.

[1:43:27] I think that it's already, you know, quote a famous line.

[1:43:30] I think the rise, the rising

[1:43:31] tide already raised all the ships

[1:43:37] Hardship.

[1:43:39] Everybody's favorite.

[1:43:41] Everybody's favorite. That's right.

[1:43:46] Oh, lemme see where this is at.

[1:43:54] Looking at how this,

[1:44:00] this property is and what the hardship is

[1:44:05] and

[1:44:11] the unique setting and whether

[1:44:15] or not the property is unfairly burdened

[1:44:20] by its location,

[1:44:25] the first thing is that this parcel,

[1:44:29] the hardship is, was established some time ago, not

[1:44:34] to the applicant's doing,

[1:44:38] but as someone mentioned already, the church or Mr.

[1:44:42] Dietzel suggested that the church

[1:44:46] was established some time ago,

[1:44:50] poor endeavor on behalf of the archdiocese,

[1:44:53] but They established the hardship

[1:44:57] and they created this building that was designed for a lot

[1:45:01] of parishioners who didn't seem to go there.

[1:45:05] And now you have this, this structure

[1:45:08] and what do you do with it?

[1:45:11] No, no less than than other times when we see people come

[1:45:16] for development of property and they, they claim hardship.

[1:45:20] This individual made a usage of this,

[1:45:24] of this property, which is a reasonable use.

[1:45:28] But as a capitalistic society, the, the idea

[1:45:32] that a business can be there

[1:45:35] but can't ever promote itself, show itself

[1:45:39] or display itself is I,

[1:45:43] I think creates the hardship in itself.

[1:45:48] The proper, the the structure and the,

[1:45:50] and the pictures that were given to the board as well

[1:45:55] as my own drive-bys of this property almost create a,

[1:45:59] a safety risk.

[1:46:00] If you're heading east on this, on, on Hampstead Road,

[1:46:04] you have to rubberneck back in order to see the facility

[1:46:08] and be able to identify what it is.

[1:46:10] And you have people that may, patrons that may want to go

[1:46:15] to this or families that may want to bring their children

[1:46:20] for the baseball school or camp

[1:46:24] and maybe end up having to drive by multiple times or twice.

[1:46:28] And because they overshoot the driveway

[1:46:30] because they don't see it there.

[1:46:32] I understand this technology and GPSs,

[1:46:35] but I happen, my own experience

[1:46:37] that I've been watching on the road helping to enhance

[1:46:41] safety issues, not help.

[1:46:43] So I'm, I'm gonna rest, almost rest on that hardship.

[1:46:47] But the property,

[1:46:51] there are other parcels on this same stretch of road

[1:46:55] quarter, half mile on this double yellow line road

[1:47:00] that are allowed to have signs,

[1:47:04] larger signs than what the ordinance would allow.

[1:47:09] And they're closer to the road.

[1:47:11] This prop, this structure is two times,

[1:47:15] three times further from the road than those referenced

[1:47:18] and the other five criteria, and

[1:47:21] therefore the signage is necessary as I think has proposed

[1:47:27] and improved in the compromise for the, for this applicant.

[1:47:32] Mr. Donlin?

[1:47:34] I agree Mr. Chair. I, I'd just reiterate,

[1:47:37] I believe this is reasonably similar to other,

[1:47:41] other similar properties in the area

[1:47:45] and I I will also reiterate the setback from the street is

[1:47:52] certainly much more than the other properties around,

[1:47:57] in my opinion, further facilitating the

[1:47:59] need for the signage.

[1:48:00] Okay.

[1:48:02] And I guess that would be the signage

[1:48:05] as they're proposing here, which is smaller than the,

[1:48:10] than the other or than the ordinance

[1:48:12] sign ordinance specifies

[1:48:14] through oth other parts of the community. Would you agree?

[1:48:17] I would. Ms. Warren.

[1:48:21] I agree because it's an approved use

[1:48:23] and where it is set really far back, it's unreasonable

[1:48:28] to expect them to like lift the pro the building

[1:48:31] and move that forward.

[1:48:34] So the building was put where it was put

[1:48:37] and it where other businesses in that area

[1:48:42] as well have a sign and it's closer to their building.

[1:48:47] Okay, Mr. Dietzel,

[1:48:53] The hardship is a, a difficult one for me,

[1:48:57] so I'm just gonna go by this, the, the wording

[1:49:05] due to the conditions of the property, no fair

[1:49:08] and substantial relationship exists

[1:49:10] between the general public purposes of the ordinance.

[1:49:13] And I think that pretty much means we shouldn't just be

[1:49:16] enforcing it literally for the purpose

[1:49:19] of enforcing it.

[1:49:22] It should be tied to the, the goals of the ordinance.

[1:49:25] And that goes back to the, the other four criteria,

[1:49:29] specifically the spirit of the ordinance and,

[1:49:36] and substantial justice.

[1:49:41] And so I I I believe that,

[1:49:44] that there is a special condition for this property

[1:49:49] that we've already discussed.

[1:49:51] It's, it, it's a commercial enterprise

[1:49:56] that I don't believe I would've granted a variance for

[1:50:00] had it not been a church before.

[1:50:02] It all goes back to the, the,

[1:50:04] the original problem with the church.

[1:50:06] So given the fact that we have a business there, that

[1:50:10] that's a special condition because what are you gonna do?

[1:50:13] And then the second part, is it reasonable?

[1:50:18] Well I didn't think an electronic messaging

[1:50:21] board was reasonable.

[1:50:23] I thought that was excessive.

[1:50:25] I think their downscaled compromised proposal based on

[1:50:31] the, the, the little picture they gave

[1:50:34] and what I'm, I'm seeing in my imagination,

[1:50:40] I believe what they're proposing is reasonable.

[1:50:43] And so I believe that the hardship criterion

[1:50:48] is now met with this application.

[1:50:54] So you find this parcel to have to be a unique setting.

[1:50:59] I do a unique setting

[1:51:01] and a unique overall condition given the history

[1:51:07] of the, the use

[1:51:08] And unfairly burdened compared

[1:51:10] to other properties in the same road

[1:51:12] Unfairly burdened.

[1:51:13] Very good. Thank you Mr. Corbett.

[1:51:17] I think Mr. Diet's done a very good job, you know,

[1:51:19] over the years of reminding the board how the hardship,

[1:51:22] you know, relates to the characteristics of the property.

[1:51:25] Not to the business, not to the applicant, not to, you know,

[1:51:30] really anything else that you hear.

[1:51:31] And when I review the site, you know, when I look at

[1:51:35] that makes this unique is it's a residential zone that

[1:51:39] a church is allowed to build in

[1:51:40] 'cause the churches are allowed to build anywhere,

[1:51:42] which then led us to a situation

[1:51:44] where the church goes vacant for years, you know,

[1:51:47] the property becomes an eyesore.

[1:51:49] The ZBA itself, you know, we declined how many uses for

[1:51:52] that building over the years, but then a mixed use was

[1:51:56] approved by planning, you know, and then that

[1:51:58] therefore makes this property unique

[1:52:00] as it's now a commercial property

[1:52:02] that exists in a residential area

[1:52:05] and by right, you know, as we see with Jot down.

[1:52:09] But so through the RSA 6 74 33, you know,

[1:52:13] on the harbor side case that was discussed at length early

[1:52:15] on with this, the applicant just needs

[1:52:18] to show the signs necessary

[1:52:19] or it doesn't need to show that it's necessary.

[1:52:21] They just need to show that it's reasonable

[1:52:23] and I think that a sign for

[1:52:27] a commercial use in a residential area is reasonable.

[1:52:32] Very good.

[1:52:38] Our, let's get into structuring motion

[1:52:40] unless anybody has anything left to add.

[1:52:46] We have two motions.

[1:52:49] One is for the installation of a 42

[1:52:51] and a half foot pylon sign.

[1:52:56] We're gonna take these motions one at a time

[1:52:58] and identify finding of fact for each.

[1:53:05] We have subject to obtaining Allstate and town permits

[1:53:08] and inspections on, on both the,

[1:53:11] the variance application

[1:53:14] or motion for the, the sign as well as the,

[1:53:18] the lighting for the sign.

[1:53:21] And

[1:53:28] we can structure both of those motions simultaneously.

[1:53:31] I guess we have, that's, that's

[1:53:35] the standard is the 42 and a half square foot pylon sign.

[1:53:41] And then on the other motion, which the applicant

[1:53:46] has authorized us to do that will be

[1:53:50] internally lit sign with 2100

[1:53:55] to 2,700 lumens with timed lighting

[1:53:59] as specified.

[1:54:01] So those are the two motions that we're structuring,

[1:54:04] both subject to obtaining state

[1:54:07] and town permits and inspections.

[1:54:12] Anybody have any additional conditions to those

[1:54:15] that they'd like to add?

[1:54:17] Mr. Donlin?

[1:54:20] I don't have any additional things to add,

[1:54:23] but I, I think that the, the

[1:54:28] lumen specification is a little too

[1:54:32] Vague Or strident really like it,

[1:54:36] it was approximations

[1:54:38] and it's so much lower than what we were talking about

[1:54:43] that it's like, I think even if you just said like 3000,

[1:54:47] it would be well in keeping with the, with the, in the,

[1:54:50] in a compromising mindset

[1:54:52] Rather than holding it to such a tight number

[1:54:54] or it could just yeah. Be off by feel

[1:54:57] Up to 3000 lumens.

[1:55:03] Is that what you're getting at Mr.

[1:55:05] And I think that gives him a little bit of,

[1:55:07] gives everybody a little bit of leeway

[1:55:09] because this is, you know, based on approximations

[1:55:13] but keeps it from becoming totally

[1:55:16] egregiously bright, which was the goal.

[1:55:18] They're not gonna want to go on the bright side

[1:55:20] of the 2,600 number. Right. If you give them

[1:55:23] A cap.

[1:55:24] I think the difference between that is, is like setting nine

[1:55:27] and setting 10 on your kitchen dimmer, like it's not much.

[1:55:32] Ms. Owen, you have a 3000 lumens tester, do you?

[1:55:38] We have a lumen tester.

[1:55:39] Okay, good enough. Thank you.

[1:55:41] Alright, so those Ms Mrs. Moore, anything you wish

[1:55:44] to restructure or add to those two motions?

[1:55:47] Well, I just wanna confirm, do you want lit topper

[1:55:50] to be removed on the actual sign itself?

[1:55:53] Yes. Okay. And then in internally lit sign

[1:55:58] with less than 3000 is what we Yes.

[1:56:01] Okay, Thank you

[1:56:04] Mr.

[1:56:05] Corbet.

[1:56:06] We said we're putting in the down lighting top,

[1:56:09] the down lighting topper is being removed?

[1:56:11] Yes. Yeah, that works as it is on the rendering.

[1:56:13] Okay. Otherwise I think you have the hours, you have,

[1:56:16] you've capped the lumens.

[1:56:20] I think the request was to make sure

[1:56:22] that everything was clearly documented as to what we were

[1:56:24] or were not approving.

[1:56:26] I don't, I don't know what other guys's i's.

[1:56:29] Were dotted and t's were crossed that we may be missing.

[1:56:31] I think this is, I think this is everything.

[1:56:34] Okay. Mr. Dietzel?

[1:56:39] No, I'm all set. Thank you. Okay.

[1:56:41] And are we putting light to be turned off at 9:00 PM or

[1:56:45] Yeah, we have with timed lighting as specified.

[1:56:49] Okay.

[1:56:52] Yeah, 'cause they had an on and an off I believe.

[1:56:55] And that would be with the internally lit motion?

[1:56:59] That's correct.

[1:57:12] Okay.

[1:57:13] Yes. All right. With

[1:57:16] that I think our motions are structured.

[1:57:18] We can take a motion to come out of deliberation.

[1:57:23] I'll make that motion. Mr.

[1:57:25] Corbit motions out of deliberation. Mr.

[1:57:28] Donlin Donlin seconds

[1:57:30] and all in favor of coming outta deliberation?

[1:57:32] Say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right,

[1:57:40] Read the 42.

[1:57:42] Yeah, let's do the 42.5 motion first.

[1:57:46] We all set to roll through finding of fact.

[1:57:49] Okay. What

[1:57:51] Was the term that we got earlier?

[1:57:52] It's uneven waters.

[1:57:55] All right, Mrs. Moore, you have a motion to read?

[1:57:59] I do. Thank you. I make a motion on case number 26 dash

[1:58:05] zero seven for by enterprises LLCJ

[1:58:09] yco duly authorized to grant a variance to the terms

[1:58:14] of article three, section 1 65

[1:58:18] dash 1 0 1 0.1 of the town

[1:58:22] of dairy zoning ordinance to allow the installation

[1:58:26] of a 42.5 square foot

[1:58:31] poly sign parcel ID 1 0 0 1 2

[1:58:36] zoned LMDR as presented with the following conditions.

[1:58:41] We have two, one subject to obtaining Allstate

[1:58:44] and town permits and inspections.

[1:58:47] Two, the lit topper is to be removed

[1:58:50] and that concludes the reading of that motion.

[1:58:52] I need a second.

[1:58:55] A second. Oh. Motion seconded by Mr. Corbit. I think

[1:59:01] I just wanted to make a correction.

[1:59:02] I believe it's a 42.5 square foot pylon sign

[1:59:07] Versus what did you hear?

[1:59:11] Not pylon. Oh, include pylon into,

[1:59:14] Yeah, sorry.

[1:59:16] Okay. No, I think you said it.

[1:59:18] I just wanted to make sure

[1:59:19] that it was heard clearly by everyone.

[1:59:22] Okay. Any other changes

[1:59:25] or motions on the floor?

[1:59:27] Mr. Dietzel? You all set? Yes. Okay.

[1:59:33] Motions on the floor.

[1:59:34] So we will go into finding a fact.

[1:59:42] You have all that paperwork there? One of them.

[1:59:44] Do you have the second one or a template?

[1:59:46] I do.

[1:59:52] Finding a fact for case 26 dash 1 0 7

[1:59:55] Originally heard April 2nd, 2026 continued May 7th,

[2:00:02] May 21st and concluded on June 4th, 2026.

[2:00:07] The ZBA heard the application of Bird Enterprises LLC

[2:00:11] represented by counsel concerning the property located at

[2:00:14] 180 7 Hampstead Road parcel ID 1 0 0 2 1 2

[2:00:19] notice was provided to the immediate abutters per statute

[2:00:23] and the board received testimony from the applicant

[2:00:25] and legal counsel, town staff, and both Abutters

[2:00:28] and members of the public documentary evidence included

[2:00:32] but was not limited to site plans, photos, records

[2:00:36] and expert testimony.

[2:00:38] The property is located in the low medium density

[2:00:40] residential zoning district.

[2:00:42] The property is approximately 8.76 acres

[2:00:45] and is currently a mixed youth nursery slash youth athletics

[2:00:48] school and facility.

[2:00:50] The proposal concerns variance relief from Article 12,

[2:00:54] section 1 65 dash 1 0 1 1 for a 42

[2:00:59] and a half square foot pylon sign.

[2:01:02] The board weighed testimony both for

[2:01:04] and against the proposal over the course of

[2:01:07] the prior three meetings.

[2:01:13] Now with that we'll enter into discussing the five criteria.

[2:01:18] I will start at the unnec at the board's findings as

[2:01:23] to whether the unnecessary hardship was demonstrated

[2:01:26] because of the hardship as it relates

[2:01:28] to the unique characteristics of the property.

[2:01:33] Starting to my right, I will start with Mr. Dietzel.

[2:01:36] Yes, I believe that criteria end was

[2:01:38] Met.

[2:01:41] Would you care to elaborate at all or

[2:01:44] Due to the nature of the property being a

[2:01:50] commercial property in a residential zone

[2:01:53] and the setback from the street, a sign is necessary

[2:01:58] and denying the

[2:02:02] application would not

[2:02:07] allow him to use his property in a reasonable manner.

[2:02:13] Thank you Mr. Diesel. Mr. Chair. I'll continue to my left.

[2:02:17] I believe that the parcel under hardship is,

[2:02:21] and we will cover all five criteria, correct?

[2:02:23] Yes. We'll go through each of them.

[2:02:25] That the property is, is in a unique setting

[2:02:28] and that the burden, the property is burdened to be able to

[2:02:34] be useful and the use currently

[2:02:39] cannot be accompanied reasonably without a sign.

[2:02:43] The property is not the only parcel

[2:02:47] of this similar nature along the same roadway,

[2:02:51] which has signage that is slightly larger

[2:02:56] in, in places related

[2:02:59] to their, their locale.

[2:03:04] Thank you Mr. Chair. Ms. Mor,

[2:03:06] I agree that it has been met with the properties

[2:03:11] unique setback

[2:03:13] and the sign is needed

[2:03:18] because of the distance between the building and the road.

[2:03:25] Okay, Mr. Dolan?

[2:03:27] Yes, I too believe the HUD ship criteria has been

[2:03:30] met for reasons stated.

[2:03:35] Thank you Mr.

[2:03:39] Corbet. Yep. And vice chair.

[2:03:41] Sorry, starting this last one down

[2:03:43] before I move, I also believe

[2:03:46] that the hardship was displayed as I noted

[2:03:48] before, especially due

[2:03:50] to it being a non-residential mixed use allowed

[2:03:52] within the residential zone.

[2:03:55] As I went back through, again referencing RSA 6 74 dash 33

[2:03:59] and the Harborside case that we heard about very early on,

[2:04:03] the applicant's not required to show that it's necessary,

[2:04:05] just that it's a reasonable use given the property

[2:04:07] special conditions.

[2:04:09] You know, as I stated before, I believe that

[2:04:12] the planning board determining that, I don't believe that

[2:04:16] their approval means that it should be rubber stamped,

[2:04:19] but I do think that their determination

[2:04:21] that the use is allowed, that it's relevant when you

[2:04:23] evaluating it, that they have a fair right

[2:04:26] not to show that the sign exists.

[2:04:29] Okay. Next,

[2:04:33] Moving along.

[2:04:35] I'll start with Mr. Donlan. Mr.

[2:04:37] Donlin, do you find that the board's finding,

[2:04:40] do you find the board's findings that this is not contrary?

[2:04:43] Sorry, are your findings

[2:04:45] that this is not contrary to the public interest?

[2:04:49] Yes. My findings are that this is not contrary

[2:04:51] to the public interest for all the reasons that we stated

[2:04:55] during the deliberative station.

[2:04:59] I can reiterate them.

[2:05:06] I believe I agreed with the comments made during

[2:05:11] that time and added, which I'll add again here just to, to

[2:05:16] reiterate the, the traffic patterns

[2:05:19] and adverse effects of

[2:05:24] people out of town without the, without knowing

[2:05:29] what they're coming up upon.

[2:05:34] Thank you, Ms. Morton.

[2:05:36] I agree that the variance will not be contrary

[2:05:40] to the public interest.

[2:05:41] I feel the sign being there,

[2:05:43] it will eliminate potential hard braking

[2:05:46] and, you know, dangerous U-turns.

[2:05:53] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[2:05:55] Yeah, I, I believe that the public interest is served.

[2:05:59] I think that the sign does not alter the essential

[2:06:02] character of the neighborhood.

[2:06:05] There are sporadic signs of this nature

[2:06:09] along this same stretch.

[2:06:11] I've reiterated that, just wanna articulate it clearly.

[2:06:15] This is not an intimate neighborhood

[2:06:17] and it is a thoroughfare through way

[2:06:22] for a lot of commuter traffic,

[2:06:24] and I think that this enhances signage will enhance

[2:06:27] and help with safety and identification for emergencies.

[2:06:33] Okay. One moment.

[2:06:40] Mr. Dietzel.

[2:06:43] I agree it's not contrary to the public interest

[2:06:46] for the reasons stated

[2:06:49] by the other proceeding members.

[2:07:07] And as I mentioned during deliberative, I believe the sign

[2:07:11] has been appropriately scaled.

[2:07:13] I think it's been appropriately designed.

[2:07:15] I think it's been revised in a manner

[2:07:17] that works with the property.

[2:07:19] Also, while considering the surrounding residential

[2:07:21] character, I don't think it's gonna adversely affect traffic

[2:07:25] safety or the visual conditions.

[2:07:27] And I believe that the revised changes

[2:07:29] to the light brightness and the hours are gonna ensure

[2:07:31] that the internal lighting doesn't create a material

[2:07:33] different aesthetic from what previously existed

[2:07:35] with the church, with the spotlights

[2:07:37] and with everything that was bringing attention

[2:07:39] with the externally illuminated signs, I do not think

[2:07:42] that it results in a substantial detriment

[2:07:44] to the public good or a der

[2:07:47] derivation from the intent of the zoning bylaw.

[2:07:54] Now, Mr. Dietzel, do you find that

[2:07:58] this application is consistent

[2:08:00] with the spirit of the ordinance?

[2:08:02] Yes, I do.

[2:08:08] The spirit of the ordinance is to keep the,

[2:08:11] the area residential

[2:08:13] and I don't see how this sign in its in its

[2:08:19] diminished capacity from the, the, the

[2:08:22] previous proposals would have any effect on the,

[2:08:25] on the essential character or of the, of the neighborhood.

[2:08:29] I don't think it's a material difference.

[2:08:32] Thank you Mr. Zel, Mr. Chair

[2:08:38] Spear of the ordinance, correct?

[2:08:39] Yes. Yeah, I believe

[2:08:43] that this meets the spear of the ordinance.

[2:08:45] As I've indicated, there's not a district in the town

[2:08:47] that does not allow some sort of signage for a business

[2:08:52] either through special exception or otherwise.

[2:08:56] And therefore not allowing that same privilege here

[2:09:01] for this applicant would be a detriment to to them.

[2:09:05] And I think that that meets this spirit of the ordinance.

[2:09:10] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Morin, do you believe that

[2:09:15] this is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance?

[2:09:18] I do because it's a permitted commercial use on the

[2:09:22] property and reasonable

[2:09:25] identification is necessary.

[2:09:34] Sorry, I'll get you in one moment, Mr. Doman. Sorry.

[2:09:38] Reasonable identification.

[2:09:40] Yeah, because where it's a permitted use. Yep,

[2:09:46] I got it.

[2:09:47] I forgot the last word. Alright, Mr.

[2:09:49] Lin, do you feel that this is consistent within

[2:09:50] the spirit of the ordinance?

[2:09:53] I do feel that this is consistent with the spirit

[2:09:55] of the ordinance for reasons discussed

[2:09:58] during deliberative session, and I believe

[2:10:01] that this is reasonably similar

[2:10:02] to other signage in the general area

[2:10:16] And vice chair.

[2:10:18] I also believe the spirit of the ordinance is met.

[2:10:20] I believe the sign serves clear identification function

[2:10:23] for uses that have already been lawfully authorized

[2:10:26] on the property through the planning board's,

[2:10:28] mixed use approval,

[2:10:34] four or five.

[2:10:36] Mr. Donlin, do you find

[2:10:37] that substantial justice would be served

[2:10:39] by denying this variance request?

[2:10:44] I do not. I feel like substantial justice is done

[2:10:49] in granting the variance

[2:10:56] as for reasons we discussed during deliberative session.

[2:11:01] Thank You. Use case

[2:11:08] And Ms. Martin.

[2:11:10] I believe substantial justice is done as it's reasonable.

[2:11:14] The request is,

[2:11:23] And Mr. Perkins, Mr. Chair,

[2:11:25] There's no gain to the public by denying this.

[2:11:28] The applicant has revised their plans

[2:11:31] to accommodate the direct abutters

[2:11:34] of which there are only two households

[2:11:37] that have protested this.

[2:11:40] And I think that their accommodations have met the,

[2:11:45] the testimony given by those individuals.

[2:11:49] Thank you.

[2:11:54] And the vice chair agrees with the chair.

[2:11:56] I believe that denying the variance would impose a real

[2:11:58] and practical burden on the applicant

[2:12:00] and that it would limit the reasonable identification

[2:12:02] of the multiple approved onsite uses.

[2:12:05] I think ranting it results in little

[2:12:07] to no corresponding harm to the public.

[2:12:09] I agree.

[2:12:15] All right. And lastly, oh, sorry Ms. Fu,

[2:12:20] I, My, my sincere apologies on that.

[2:12:23] I agree. For recent state by chair and vice chair.

[2:12:28] All right. I'm not gonna make that mistake twice.

[2:12:30] So why don't you tell me if you feel if the applicant has

[2:12:34] adequately demonstrated that the surrounding property

[2:12:36] values will not be diminished?

[2:12:39] I believe he has. The applicant has by,

[2:12:43] by greatly reducing the size and,

[2:12:46] and the brightness of the sign.

[2:12:47] I think he's, he's demonstrated that this would be neutral

[2:12:51] with respect to surrounding property values.

[2:12:56] Thank you Mr. Chair.

[2:12:59] Yeah, I don't believe

[2:13:00] that there's any diminuation of property value.

[2:13:03] I think the prior building that was there,

[2:13:05] or that was existing

[2:13:07] before the applicant took it over

[2:13:10] is an increase in property value and by Right.

[2:13:13] Their ability to communicate with the public

[2:13:20] in a modified sense is not going

[2:13:23] to diminish anybody's property value.

[2:13:27] Thank you. Ms. Moore.

[2:13:32] I feel that the values

[2:13:34] of surrounding properties are not dis diminished either due

[2:13:38] to evidence that the abutters had given us

[2:13:42] and the applicant

[2:13:44] that it would essentially, to me it's neutral.

[2:13:49] Thank you Mr. Dolan.

[2:13:51] I believe the values of the surrounding

[2:13:52] properties are not diminished.

[2:13:55] Again for reasons we discussed in the deliberative session,

[2:13:58] as well as reiterated here by the chair.

[2:14:03] Thank You.

[2:14:12] And as I noted during deliberative, you know, we,

[2:14:15] we heard testimony from both sides on this one,

[2:14:18] but I'm looking at this

[2:14:19] through the new New Hampshire State Supreme Court precedent

[2:14:22] that, you know, we can rely on our own knowledge

[2:14:24] and the knowledge and expertise driving through the area.

[2:14:28] You know, I really believe that the sign

[2:14:30] and a well-designed sign of that at the entrance

[2:14:31] of the property at a location that was approved

[2:14:34] during a site plan review,

[2:14:35] I don't think it's gonna negatively impact the values

[2:14:38] of the surrounding properties.

[2:14:39] I just, I don't see it. So with that,

[2:14:44] that concludes the finding of fact.

[2:14:47] This also includes all testimony that took place

[2:14:51] during the meeting minutes.

[2:14:53] Does anybody have any additions or addendums to make?

[2:14:58] All right. Scene adjusters.

[2:15:01] Shall we make the finding of fact applicable

[2:15:04] to both motions?

[2:15:08] I'll make a motion to, we find the use the finding

[2:15:11] of fact on both motions.

[2:15:13] Very good. Mr. Dietzel a second, please.

[2:15:15] I'll second. Anybody Wanna discuss that?

[2:15:19] I specifically didn't mention any lighting,

[2:15:23] so I would hate for it to come back, you know,

[2:15:26] based on that technicality.

[2:15:28] However, the reasons that I stated for each

[2:15:32] of the five criteria, I think that having, you know,

[2:15:36] a diminished light to me it's the same as the sign.

[2:15:41] You know, I, I understand that we've separated it,

[2:15:43] but it doesn't affect the facts

[2:15:46] that I found on the five criteria.

[2:15:48] So perhaps I would apply it

[2:15:51] or note that my other notes is that

[2:15:53] to me the lighting doesn't change

[2:15:55] any of the opinions I gave.

[2:15:56] Okay, so finding a fact applies to both

[2:16:01] motions, correct?

[2:16:04] Yeah. Alright. Mr.

[2:16:07] Dietzel made the motion seconded by I second Mrs. Mor.

[2:16:11] All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right.

[2:16:15] That becomes less painful.

[2:16:18] All right, so all in favor

[2:16:20] of moving the first motion ahead for votes.

[2:16:23] Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any? None. Mr. Corbett?

[2:16:27] I vote yes. Mrs. Moore

[2:16:29] Chair? I vote yes.

[2:16:30] Mr. Dietzel? Mr.

[2:16:31] Is for, sorry, just to act for the 42 and a half, correct?

[2:16:34] That is for the four, two and a half? Yes. Yep. Mr. Mr.

[2:16:39] Dietzel? Yes. Okay. Mr. Donlin? Yes.

[2:16:44] Mr. Moore, you voted already?

[2:16:46] I did. I voted yes.

[2:16:47] Alright, so the chair votes yes as well by, makes that

[2:16:52] unanimous by a vote of five to zero.

[2:16:56] MSS Moore, you have a second motion to read? I

[2:16:58] Do.

[2:16:59] I make a motion on case number two six dash 1 0 7

[2:17:04] for Byrd Enterprises, LLCJ KO

[2:17:10] duly authorized to grant a variance to the terms

[2:17:13] of Article three,

[2:17:14] section 1 65 dash 1 0 1 1

[2:17:20] of the town of dairy zoning ordinance to allow

[2:17:25] and internally lit sign

[2:17:27] with less than 3000

[2:17:30] lumens and

[2:17:36] Lit topper to be removed

[2:17:38] In the lit topper to be removed.

[2:17:40] Parcel ID 1 0 0 1 2 Zoned

[2:17:45] LMDR as presented with the following conditions,

[2:17:49] we have two.

[2:17:52] One subject to all state and town permits and inspections

[2:17:55] and the second would be with the time that was specified.

[2:17:59] And that concludes the reading of the motion.

[2:18:01] And that would be time lighting as specified? Yes.

[2:18:04] Sorry, with time delighting as specified.

[2:18:07] Very good. Any addendums

[2:18:11] or changes proposed to that motion?

[2:18:13] I think we can capture the time. All right.

[2:18:15] In the minutes after from Very good. Okay.

[2:18:18] All in favor of moving that motion for a vote? Say aye. Aye.

[2:18:22] Aye. Mr. Dietzel? Yes. Mr. Corbett? Yes. Ms. Morn? Yes.

[2:18:27] Mr. Donlin? Yes.

[2:18:29] And Mr. Perkins will make that unanimous as well

[2:18:32] by a vote of five to zero.

[2:18:35] Gentlemen, you've been approved for this painful trail

[2:18:40] as it is and I, I appreciate your compromise to the abutters

[2:18:44] and all the testimony that was given.

[2:18:47] Obviously anybody agreed by this has 30 days to bring

[2:18:51] that forward to the board and

[2:18:52] after that recourse would be to some other venue.

[2:18:56] Thank you for your patience

[2:18:58] and sorry for the, the pain that this has been.

[2:19:02] Wish you well, sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Good luck.

[2:19:11] I'm sorry.

[2:19:17] Yeah. All right.

[2:19:21] What do we have left here?

[2:19:22] We have Promise Promised Land here.

[2:19:26] Promised land survey, you're here. Okay.

[2:19:31] You had Kilduff Realty Trust is here.

[2:19:34] Alright, I don't think we can get to you folks. Yes. Okay.

[2:19:39] If you'd like, we can extend you

[2:19:41] to the next scheduled meeting. Okay.

[2:19:44] Just sheriff, I've asked, so on behalf of building trust,

[2:19:48] I think there are a number of members of the public here.

[2:19:51] The other motion 1 1 4.

[2:19:54] Do you have a sense if we could at least

[2:19:56] my presentation would take under 10 minutes,

[2:19:59] Who are you?

[2:20:00] Brandon Wilson, Marine Planning

[2:20:02] and Design LLC from on behalf of the buildups?

[2:20:06] No, we're not gonna take any testimony,

[2:20:07] we're not gonna take anything on that.

[2:20:09] I think what we're going to do is let you reschedule.

[2:20:14] I can't get into, you know, you're gonna open

[2:20:16] with five criteria and then you're gonna get into testimony

[2:20:19] and I don't see that getting abbreviated in in any sense.

[2:20:24] The case number 26 1 1 4 was up next.

[2:20:27] So we're gonna plug them in and hopefully get through that

[2:20:30] before 10 o'clock.

[2:20:32] All right, so we will, who is, who's the,

[2:20:37] who's representing, are you representing Kilda?

[2:20:39] Yes. Okay, so does the next scheduled meeting

[2:20:42] work for you? The

[2:20:43] 18th, 18th, Mrs.

[2:20:46] Correct. Owen. Owen, right? Yes. Yes.

[2:20:51] Put you on there for that please.

[2:20:53] Finding a fact obviously is dragging this out.

[2:20:58] Good intentions but anyway.

[2:21:02] Alright, so 26 dash one 16.

[2:21:05] Motion to table to the next meeting. Mr.

[2:21:09] Corbett, has that motion your mic on? No, no. Mr.

[2:21:13] Corbitt has motion. I'll make

[2:21:14] That motion second.

[2:21:16] A second on that please. Second Mr.

[2:21:17] Dietzel seconds that table.

[2:21:21] One to 26 to the next scheduled meeting. June 18th.

[2:21:25] All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Alright.

[2:21:29] Alright, next up is 26 dash 14

[2:21:34] promised land and survey LLC representing

[2:21:39] Peabody Family Revocable Trust

[2:21:47] 1 1 4.

[2:21:59] Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.

[2:22:02] Good evening. My name's Ari ***********>

[2:22:04] I'm an attorney at the Gallagher Callahan

[2:22:06] and Gartrell Law Firm.

[2:22:07] I have a letter of authorization signed by the trustees

[2:22:11] of the Peabody Trust that I'd like to submit

[2:22:13] to staff for your file.

[2:22:15] Very good. Ms. Solan, can you receive that please?

[2:22:17] While I'm heading that way, I also have a broker's opinion

[2:22:20] of value that I'd like to make part of our testimony.

[2:22:23] You have enough copies for Everybody? I do. Okay,

[2:22:26] Very good.

[2:22:31] As I mentioned Mr. Chairman, members of the board,

[2:22:34] my name's Ari *******.

[2:22:35] I'm an attorney here for the Peabody Family Trust,

[2:22:37] the landowners of 26.5 Ballard Road

[2:22:41] and Derry with me this evening are the trustees, Jen

[2:22:44] and Craig Peaty and Craig is seated to my right.

[2:22:48] Also with me in the gallery is Neil McCarthy

[2:22:50] of Promised Land survey.

[2:22:52] Neil actually prepared the application for the Peabody's

[2:22:56] and his firm has surveyed the lot in question.

[2:22:59] I'm late to the party, which is why I have the letter

[2:23:02] of authority for you this evening.

[2:23:05] The application seeks a variance from ordinance section

[2:23:08] 1 65 47 to allow development

[2:23:12] of a single family home to hit the elements of the variance

[2:23:17] and then move into explanation.

[2:23:19] The variance will not be contrary to the public interest

[2:23:22] because the proposed single family dwelling is consistent

[2:23:26] with the area's present usage

[2:23:28] and the lot can be improved without overcrowding.

[2:23:32] The spirit of the ordinance is observed

[2:23:34] because the proposed single family dwelling

[2:23:37] is again consistent with the neighborhood

[2:23:39] and the lot has sufficient area,

[2:23:43] but a unique layout

[2:23:44] that provides separation from structures.

[2:23:47] Substantial justice is done

[2:23:49] because the proposed single family dwelling is consistent

[2:23:52] again with the character of the neighborhood

[2:23:54] and the application of the zoning ordinance

[2:23:57] to this uniquely shaped lot would not allow

[2:24:00] for any development.

[2:24:01] The proposal frankly, is consistent

[2:24:03] with other zoning requirements such

[2:24:06] as building setbacks and lot size.

[2:24:09] The values of the surrounding properties will not be

[2:24:12] diminished because the proposed single family dwelling is

[2:24:16] consistent with the homes in the neighborhood

[2:24:18] and the lot can accommodate

[2:24:20] that structure without overcrowding.

[2:24:22] Literal enforcement of the provisions

[2:24:25] of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship due

[2:24:29] to the unique configuration of the lot.

[2:24:32] Restrict adherence to the ordinance will not allow

[2:24:35] for development of a single family home,

[2:24:38] which isn't allowed use in the zone.

[2:24:40] And even though the lot meets the area requirements

[2:24:43] and its unique configuration allows adequate spacing

[2:24:47] and separation between the proposed dwellings

[2:24:50] and the existing dwellings.

[2:24:52] The proposed use is a reasonable one in that it allows

[2:24:55] for a single family home

[2:24:56] to be constructed on a uniquely shaped lot

[2:25:01] consistent with the character of the neighborhood

[2:25:04] and the unique configuration of the lot

[2:25:07] and its narrow frontage is the really the main obstacle

[2:25:11] for development and is the subject

[2:25:13] of the explanation I'd like

[2:25:15] to provide if it pleases the board.

[2:25:18] The parcel contains 2.7 acres

[2:25:21] and it has ample building envelope for a residence.

[2:25:26] We submitted a zoning exhibit with the application, if

[2:25:29] that might be able to be brought up.

[2:25:34] The residential use is allowed or that one would do it.

[2:25:38] The the, the residential use is allowed in the low medium

[2:25:41] density residential district

[2:25:44] and in this case the relief saw is dimensional

[2:25:47] and involves the frontage and driveway to the building area

[2:25:51] or building envelope.

[2:25:53] The building area is accessed via a connection from Ballard

[2:25:56] Road that is eight

[2:25:58] 108 feet wide at its frontage approximately

[2:26:02] 35 feet wide.

[2:26:04] Over the course of its narrowed length,

[2:26:07] the ordinance requires 150 feet in terms

[2:26:10] of both frontage and width.

[2:26:12] And therefore we've asked for variances in order

[2:26:15] to make the lot buildable for a single family residence.

[2:26:20] The building envelope, the septic field, the existing, well,

[2:26:23] they're all typical of residential development in this

[2:26:26] zoning district and in the surrounding neighborhood.

[2:26:28] And all of those are sufficient

[2:26:30] for construction without special relief.

[2:26:34] The issue, as I mentioned, is the proposed driveway

[2:26:39] and the story of this property started long

[2:26:42] before my clients bought it in 2025

[2:26:45] when they closed last October, they understood

[2:26:48] that a variance that, excuse me,

[2:26:50] that variances had been approved

[2:26:52] and that the lot was developable for their intended use

[2:26:56] as a residence.

[2:26:58] Their only interest in the lot is as residential.

[2:27:02] They reside in London dairy.

[2:27:04] They own a local business

[2:27:05] that operates both in London dairy and in dairy.

[2:27:08] And this lot is intended to be their retirement residence.

[2:27:11] They want to move to dairy after they closed on the lot.

[2:27:15] And as their house plans were progressing towards a spring

[2:27:18] construction start this year, they became aware

[2:27:21] that the lot variances had been valid

[2:27:25] but had expired actually prior to their purchase

[2:27:28] and prior to the lot even being listed for sale.

[2:27:32] So there's something of the, the victim here

[2:27:36] and they unknowingly stepped into some considerable

[2:27:39] procedural history, which frankly is now a a

[2:27:43] a significant burden.

[2:27:45] The variances that expired in 2025 were actually the subject

[2:27:49] of litigation both in front

[2:27:52] of the New Hampshire Housing Appeals Board

[2:27:55] and then even to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

[2:27:58] And again, before my clients were involved,

[2:28:01] this board actually voted in 2021

[2:28:06] by a vote of two to three to deny the relief.

[2:28:10] Litigation was then brought to determine

[2:28:13] that the variance was appropriate under the circumstances

[2:28:17] and they were approved by the board, affirmed by the court.

[2:28:21] And they lived for two years by statute.

[2:28:25] The building permit was not pulled during that period

[2:28:27] and the variances expired in August of 2025, again prior

[2:28:32] to the listing, prior to my client's closing.

[2:28:35] And of course, sadly prior to their knowledge

[2:28:38] that the variances were no longer valid.

[2:28:40] So we're asking that the property be put back into the

[2:28:43] position where it was left by the courts in 2023

[2:28:48] with variances to allow a residential use

[2:28:51] by driveway constructed from Ballard Road.

[2:28:55] Just to expand a bit on the verbiage in the application,

[2:28:59] and I'll be brief, I know the hour is late,

[2:29:02] the variance will not be contrary to the public interest.

[2:29:06] The district is residential

[2:29:08] and this a single family home is exactly what's proposed.

[2:29:11] The lot's sufficiently sized with a building envelope

[2:29:14] to support a house.

[2:29:15] There's room for water, there's room for septic,

[2:29:19] there's room for driveway, there's room for parking,

[2:29:22] yard setbacks can be honored

[2:29:24] and there's sufficient room for the driveway

[2:29:26] to be laid out in a functional and typical width.

[2:29:29] With its typical shoulders,

[2:29:33] the public interest is served by the creation

[2:29:37] of additional housing.

[2:29:38] And if it weren't for relief,

[2:29:40] this lot would not have a reasonable residential use.

[2:29:44] The spirit and intent of the ordinance would be observed

[2:29:46] because the proposed dwelling is entirely consistent

[2:29:50] with surrounding uses

[2:29:51] and building setbacks

[2:29:53] for the structure can be observed in full.

[2:29:56] The ordinance protects against overcrowding

[2:29:58] and unreasonable massing.

[2:30:00] And in this case, that's exactly what would be accomplished.

[2:30:03] A house that fits nicely between other houses

[2:30:05] and other neighbors, the driveway would again be

[2:30:10] functional and would appear.

[2:30:11] Typical substantial justice is done

[2:30:14] because the residential use of the lots allowed

[2:30:17] and the gain to the landowner is not overshadowed

[2:30:20] by inconvenience or harm to the abutting owners.

[2:30:24] There's more of a burden

[2:30:25] to the applicant if the variance would be

[2:30:28] variances were to be denied.

[2:30:30] And the lot can be developed in the same manner as that,

[2:30:33] which surrounds it with really no greater

[2:30:35] or lesser intensity of use.

[2:30:37] It's more of the same. It's a driveway

[2:30:39] servicing a single home.

[2:30:41] The values of the surrounding properties are not diminished

[2:30:44] by the proposal because the proposed use is again, the same

[2:30:48] as what surrounds it.

[2:30:49] And if anything, the development of new, efficient

[2:30:52] and well-maintained construction will

[2:30:54] enhance neighborhood values.

[2:30:56] And on this point, we've

[2:30:57] provided an opinion from a local broker,

[2:31:00] Julie McMaster of Caldwell Banker.

[2:31:03] She is here tonight. She's available

[2:31:04] to answer your questions.

[2:31:06] In short, I will share with you

[2:31:08] and save you the a moment

[2:31:10] that Julie's letter recites not only her experience in the

[2:31:14] local market, but also her professional opinion that the use

[2:31:18] of this lot for residents will not

[2:31:21] diminish surrounding values.

[2:31:22] One more house won't hurt is essentially the message.

[2:31:26] And she writes that higher ended, excuse me,

[2:31:30] higher end well maintained homes will help

[2:31:32] and not hurt abutting values.

[2:31:34] And that the development

[2:31:35] of vacant lots essentially reserves uncertainty over

[2:31:39] what would be there someday.

[2:31:41] If anything, what you see is what you get.

[2:31:45] I, I am wrapping it up, Mr. Chairman.

[2:31:47] Another factor in valuation is whether the function

[2:31:51] or use of the neighbor's properties would be impaired

[2:31:54] by the variances that are sought in this case.

[2:31:58] Some survey work done prior to the application

[2:32:04] determined that the neighbors to the north, the Harvey's,

[2:32:07] and maybe they're here, were using a driveway

[2:32:10] that they actually, or their predecessors had actually

[2:32:12] constructed over a corner of the subject lot

[2:32:17] and they were using an existing hammerhead

[2:32:19] turnaround near their home.

[2:32:21] That also came over the property line onto the subject lot.

[2:32:26] I can share with you that an easement was granted

[2:32:29] by our sellers in 2025 in connection with the closing

[2:32:33] to my client to rectify this situation

[2:32:37] and the easements on record.

[2:32:39] And it essentially allows their improvements to remain as is

[2:32:44] neither of those easements affects our ability

[2:32:47] to lay down a driveway and it's exam.

[2:32:50] It is an example of neighbors working together

[2:32:53] to accommodate each other and predict value.

[2:32:57] Lastly, literal enforcement would

[2:33:01] of the ordinance would result in UE hardship due

[2:33:04] to the unique configuration of this property.

[2:33:06] You can see it in red on the screen.

[2:33:09] The lot has plenty of building envelope

[2:33:12] and it was actually intended to be a community well for

[2:33:16] this development of homes.

[2:33:19] But there's a minimal access route

[2:33:22] because it was originally intended as a utility parcel.

[2:33:25] Fast forward to today and the issues of frontage

[2:33:29] and width will

[2:33:31] otherwise deprive the landowners of what is a reasonable

[2:33:35] and allowed use that's pursued by all of the properties

[2:33:39] that surround it.

[2:33:40] The lot can be reasonably developed with a typical driveway

[2:33:44] and we're proposing screening

[2:33:46] and landscaping to help shield

[2:33:49] the abutter on the other side

[2:33:51] of the driveway from some concern relating

[2:33:54] to headlight glare.

[2:33:56] At the end of the day, we're talking about

[2:33:58] a typical residential amount of traffic, a few cars coming

[2:34:02] and going from one house the same

[2:34:04] as every other house in the neighborhood.

[2:34:07] And I I, I won't bore you with all the details,

[2:34:10] I'll read the case to you,

[2:34:12] but I can share that the New Hampshire Supreme Court,

[2:34:15] as recently as 2018, did recognize that irregular

[2:34:19] and unique lot shape can serve as a basis for a hardship.

[2:34:24] And that was the Rochester City Council v Rochester ZBA

[2:34:29] two boards in Rochester suing each other.

[2:34:31] It must have been a rip roaring time

[2:34:34] constructing a similarly constructing on a similarly

[2:34:37] shaped panhandle lot.

[2:34:40] Let me just summarize our evidence if I can please.

[2:34:43] The use is reasonable

[2:34:45] and we line up well with the established principles

[2:34:49] of 6 74 33.

[2:34:52] The Peabodys, my clients were not aware

[2:34:55] that the prior variances had expired prior to their purchase

[2:34:59] and frankly they now wish that they were.

[2:35:03] The proposal is for a single family residence.

[2:35:06] It's consistent with everything that surrounds it

[2:35:08] and the house can be built observing setbacks

[2:35:11] and the spirit of the ordinance.

[2:35:13] The lot has a unique shape that justifies relief

[2:35:16] and that shape does not affect the building envelope

[2:35:19] or the ability to lay out a typical driveway of width

[2:35:24] and shoulders.

[2:35:26] The layout accommodates the easements that were granted

[2:35:29] to the north and proposes some screening for the abutter

[2:35:34] to the south, and the usage would be entirely typical

[2:35:38] and light relative to a single residence.

[2:35:42] I mentioned Mc, Ms. McMaster is here for any questions

[2:35:45] regarding her opinion.

[2:35:47] And Mr. McCarthy is here regarding any opinions relating

[2:35:51] to survey or lot layout or building envelope.

[2:35:56] And of course the peabodys

[2:35:57] and I are here for your questions as well.

[2:36:01] Our, our summation is simply

[2:36:03] that the peabodys face considerable financial harm if the

[2:36:07] lot can't be used for a residence that's consistent

[2:36:10] with its surroundings and, and

[2:36:12] otherwise a a reasonable proposal.

[2:36:15] Thank you for your consideration.

[2:36:17] The access easement you're speaking of, is

[2:36:19] that noted in the middle of that driveway stretch?

[2:36:23] Is that where that's at? It is, yep. Okay.

[2:36:25] And what's your proposal on reducing glare or whatever?

[2:36:29] We have some planting shown on that concept plan. Okay.

[2:36:32] We're certainly open to suggestions.

[2:36:34] The idea is something evergreen that will prevent glare

[2:36:37] all seasons of the year.

[2:36:39] I think one of the conflicts that this board saw

[2:36:41] before when it was this case was this lot was

[2:36:44] before us was, I see, I see the plantings

[2:36:48] was travel disturbing of the, of the

[2:36:54] abutters there on 1 0 3 dash 22.

[2:36:58] And so noting that, that the board recognized

[2:37:04] to its failure, the disruption to their property,

[2:37:09] I I can appreciate that and their presence of mind.

[2:37:14] I can appreciate the proposal of the line of trees.

[2:37:18] The easement, circular easement area

[2:37:21] that you've noted on there goes into the back

[2:37:23] of these parcels that are along Ballard Road,

[2:37:27] you know, on the frontage there.

[2:37:29] What is that, what is your intention for

[2:37:31] that radius in there?

[2:37:33] That easement area? You gonna leave it alone?

[2:37:36] I, I believe we're gonna leave it alone

[2:37:37] and use it as it's laid out today.

[2:37:39] Okay, very good. As this plan is

[2:37:41] depicting the That's correct.

[2:37:43] The layout. Okay. I rest for, for now.

[2:37:47] Anybody else on the board have questions? Mr.

[2:37:52] Abiba, can you entertain us on this one? Thank you Mr.

[2:37:55] Donlin. I will.

[2:37:57] You good on that Mr. Dietzel? Any questions?

[2:38:02] No, thank you Mr. Chair. Mr. Corbett.

[2:38:06] So realistically I remember this case well from last time.

[2:38:12] You know, just a couple of points to that.

[2:38:14] I disa just get into it.

[2:38:16] I disagreed with the overturn when it took place.

[2:38:19] I felt the board did dot its i's cross its t's,

[2:38:22] but I don't say that outta a place of bias as I was one

[2:38:25] of the two who voted in favor of the prior applicant.

[2:38:30] I just say that as I look at it again today,

[2:38:32] I don't see any changes to that request

[2:38:35] and my feelings are still, I think I'm just kind

[2:38:37] of getting into my deliberative portion,

[2:38:39] but I have no questions for the applicant at this time.

[2:38:42] I'd like to hear some of, I'd like to hear,

[2:38:47] hear from everybody and then kinda go from there. Sorry.

[2:38:51] That's alright. Mrs. Morin,

[2:38:57] I as well want to hear from others

[2:39:00] as their concerns.

[2:39:03] Okay. Mr. Darlin, you have any questions at all?

[2:39:06] I do not, sir. Alright, let's go over code enforcement.

[2:39:08] Ms. Owen, you wanna help us out with your staff?

[2:39:10] Thank you. Not a lot to add here.

[2:39:12] Other very detailed presentation.

[2:39:16] But as we're aware, the applicants are requesting a variance

[2:39:18] to allow a con, the construction

[2:39:20] of a single family home on a lot

[2:39:22] with less than the required minimum lot width

[2:39:25] or frontage at the minimum lot width.

[2:39:29] This property is located in the low medium density

[2:39:31] residential district, which requires a minimum

[2:39:33] of 150 foot lot frontage

[2:39:35] and a minimum lot width

[2:39:37] of 150 feet at the 35 foot front setback line

[2:39:41] or 150 feet at the front lot line.

[2:39:44] Therefore, the variance is being requested this evening.

[2:39:48] As has been previously stated,

[2:39:50] and the board may recall this parcel was previously denied a

[2:39:53] variance in 2021 to allow the construction

[2:39:56] of a single family home on the property.

[2:39:58] That decision was appealed

[2:39:59] to the Housing Appeals Board in 2022,

[2:40:02] which resulted in the reversal of the ZBA a's decision.

[2:40:06] That decision was subsequent, subsequently appealed

[2:40:10] to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, which

[2:40:13] affirmed Habs decision that was in August,

[2:40:17] August 17th, 2023.

[2:40:19] And it has been si two years since

[2:40:22] that final order was issued.

[2:40:23] Therefore, the variance has expired.

[2:40:27] Property is serviced by private well

[2:40:28] and onsite private septic system if approved.

[2:40:31] The driveway for the new home must be constructed

[2:40:34] to the town of Derry standards as required

[2:40:36] by the land development control regulations

[2:40:39] and if approved standard permits

[2:40:41] and inspections will be required.

[2:40:44] And hence you may have covered this,

[2:40:46] but that's why this, this is back before us now

[2:40:49] because the, the

[2:40:50] as specified by Mr.

[2:40:54] *******, the variance had expired

[2:40:59] and per statute were required to hear that again

[2:41:02] unless an extension had been granted, right?

[2:41:04] That's correct. Very good.

[2:41:05] Thank you folks who have anything else you wish

[2:41:09] to say to us at this point?

[2:41:11] I would only make the comment

[2:41:12] that there were changes in circumstances since the last

[2:41:15] time, which was the granting of an easement

[2:41:17] to benefit the property to the north so

[2:41:19] that their improvements could remain as constructed.

[2:41:23] And I believe as are used

[2:41:25] and the proposed screening on the south side,

[2:41:30] we're doing our best to make a unique

[2:41:33] and oddly shaped property function well for everybody.

[2:41:37] Even with those concessions, the driveway

[2:41:40] that we're proposing would be of compliant with

[2:41:43] and have a, a sufficient traveled way

[2:41:46] along with some shoulders.

[2:41:48] Okay. I I appreciate that clarification.

[2:41:50] I did not mean that, that you guys were,

[2:41:52] I appreciate the clar, the concessions as well.

[2:41:54] I was looking at it more of a setback related

[2:41:57] only certainly.

[2:41:58] So I did not mean to dismiss

[2:42:00] what you guys were working to do as well.

[2:42:02] Thank you. We, we wish

[2:42:03] that an extension request had been filed

[2:42:07] and that we would have been buying something

[2:42:09] with the relief we're requesting,

[2:42:11] but that didn't turn out to be the case

[2:42:13] and we're trying to rectify that

[2:42:14] with this evening's application.

[2:42:16] Thank you. Okay, well let's,

[2:42:18] if you don't have anything else, let's go to public

[2:42:20] and see what they have to say.

[2:42:22] You'll just take a step back,

[2:42:25] but you'll have an opportunity toBut. Okay.

[2:42:27] Thank you. Thank

[2:42:28] You.

[2:42:29] Anybody in support of this application,

[2:42:31] this is your opportunity to come forward.

[2:42:35] I see no one rise, so this would be opportunity to oppose

[2:42:39] anybody wishes to oppose this

[2:42:41] application? Good evening.

[2:42:45] Good evening.

[2:42:51] I am Janet VER 20 Ballard Road, a butter

[2:42:56] to 26.5.

[2:43:00] This is about the third

[2:43:01] or fourth time that I have sat in this seat in this matter

[2:43:06] before the zoning board lot 26.5.

[2:43:11] I should probably have my name printed on the back

[2:43:14] that it's my jail.

[2:43:17] It came before the zoning board in 2003

[2:43:22] and it was turned down due to lack

[2:43:24] of frontage on Ballard Road, 34 point

[2:43:30] 14 feet of frontage.

[2:43:33] The LA land sat undisturbed since the end

[2:43:38] of construction of ba, the Ballard Road subdivision,

[2:43:43] which was in 1985.

[2:43:47] But I'm sure this land has been a forest

[2:43:50] for well over 100 years.

[2:43:55] I'm sure some of the board members were weren't even alive

[2:43:58] or did not even live in Derry in 1985.

[2:44:03] You may not even know where this lot is

[2:44:08] or what it topography looks like.

[2:44:12] I'll enlighten you. This land is the highest

[2:44:16] point on Ballard Road.

[2:44:19] Yes, it has been mentioned at every hearing.

[2:44:23] A well was driven on this site,

[2:44:27] but not sufficient water could be obtained.

[2:44:32] I ask who drills a well on the highest point

[2:44:36] of land looking for water.

[2:44:39] I might also add

[2:44:40] that it was stated at the last zoning board meeting

[2:44:45] on this lot that the property has not been taxed

[2:44:51] as usable property.

[2:44:54] One would think once a request for variance was denied due

[2:44:59] to lack of frontage, that would be the end of all

[2:45:03] of this back and forth.

[2:45:05] However, not in this case, it came

[2:45:10] before the zoning board in 2021

[2:45:15] with a denied decision in 2022.

[2:45:21] Same road variance issue.

[2:45:24] And here we are back again.

[2:45:28] Well that wasn't the end of it.

[2:45:31] Mark Cooper is a proxy for John

[2:45:35] and the estate of Edward Cooper

[2:45:38] and his attorney of record went

[2:45:42] before the New Hampshire Housing Appeals Board

[2:45:46] made up of an attorney, a real estate agent,

[2:45:51] and the land surveyor, two

[2:45:53] of which oddly have the same last name.

[2:45:58] And they were there to plead for the overturning

[2:46:03] of the zoning board's decision.

[2:46:06] Insufficient frontage in the discussion

[2:46:10] by the appeals board.

[2:46:12] Several frontage numbers were, as the saying goes

[2:46:17] thrown against the wall to see which one would stick.

[2:46:22] Starting with 31 point 14, 34

[2:46:26] 0.41, 108

[2:46:30] and 118

[2:46:33] where 150 feet is required.

[2:46:37] With each number change, supposedly the earth expanded

[2:46:42] in the cellar's favor

[2:46:46] During the November 18th, 2021 meeting,

[2:46:52] attorney Sullivan said that the frontage would be

[2:46:56] 108 feet, not 31 point 14

[2:47:01] if the cul-de-sac were

[2:47:04] reversed, but it was not.

[2:47:08] So they settled on frontage being 108 feet.

[2:47:13] Funny how the land seems to expand to fit the case.

[2:47:19] Two variances required for this future development,

[2:47:23] maybe even more once new problems arise.

[2:47:27] This is not reasonable. The lot is a circle.

[2:47:33] If it does not fit, do not commit to the allowance

[2:47:37] of this variance.

[2:47:40] I'm going to leave the frontage issue that is

[2:47:43] before the board and go to the real reason

[2:47:48] for the abuts objection to this being a buildable lot.

[2:47:54] There is a saying that we all know water

[2:47:58] runs downhill.

[2:48:00] What I'm all alluding to is once one

[2:48:04] or two acres of land has been deluded,

[2:48:09] the water from rain, et cetera, has only one place to go.

[2:48:14] Not to the original roots

[2:48:16] and vegetation that was there

[2:48:19] that will be gone but downhill.

[2:48:22] And we have four families living in that area.

[2:48:27] I must note that lot 26.5

[2:48:31] is at a higher elevation to the abutting properties.

[2:48:36] There is a rule called the reasonable use rule,

[2:48:42] which says if a property owner's actions

[2:48:47] result in unreasonable amounts of runoff

[2:48:51] that damage neighboring pro properties,

[2:48:56] they the owners can be held legally

[2:49:00] and financially liable.

[2:49:03] Not only the four direct abuts,

[2:49:07] but 17 Mallard Road, which is across from 26,

[2:49:13] has a down sloping driveway through their garage.

[2:49:18] So any excessive runoff could end up in that garage.

[2:49:24] The damage to the abutters that I am talking about is water

[2:49:29] damaging foundations, filling cellars,

[2:49:33] furnace damage, soil erosion pool filled

[2:49:38] with mud and debris, and the rendering of a septic

[2:49:43] and leach field system located in a back lawn

[2:49:48] being completely damaged and in need of replacement.

[2:49:53] We as a buts face all of these outcomes.

[2:49:59] My caution to the board

[2:50:01] and the owners of lot 26.5 is

[2:50:06] that any work done on this property, if zoning allows,

[2:50:11] be managed by a qualified engineer to ensure

[2:50:15] that there is absolutely no runoff at any time

[2:50:21] from whatever is being done has been done

[2:50:25] or will be done in the future.

[2:50:29] We as abuts have lived in peaceful enjoyment

[2:50:32] of our property, taking care of it, improved it,

[2:50:38] enjoyed our decks and backyards,

[2:50:41] and now we lose whatever peace and quiet we once enjoyed.

[2:50:46] Because once the destruction of the forest takes place

[2:50:52] and the construction starts, our peace,

[2:50:56] our quiet, our privacy will all be gone.

[2:51:02] I note that we have two brothers who work from home.

[2:51:06] Imagine what this noise will do

[2:51:10] to their daily work schedule.

[2:51:14] Listen, listening to the presentation by

[2:51:18] the Peabody's attorney, I have two questions.

[2:51:23] When the driveway is constructed,

[2:51:27] especially at the top by the house,

[2:51:31] will there be sufficient room for let's say

[2:51:36] Gary's ladder firetruck to go up there, turn around

[2:51:41] and come back down.

[2:51:46] They also, the New Hampshire zoning,

[2:51:51] New Hampshire Housing Board of Appeals in their

[2:51:56] decision on this, stated

[2:51:59] that screening vegetation shall be planted on the east side

[2:52:04] of the driveway as needed

[2:52:07] to provide a site buffer to the easterly butter.

[2:52:13] It also needs to be a safety buffer

[2:52:16] because 26 Ballard Road has a very young child

[2:52:21] who likes to play in the yard.

[2:52:24] And I can't imagine any UUPS

[2:52:28] or oil truck or whatever coming down

[2:52:31] that road on an icy morning.

[2:52:34] And guess where it's gonna land in the yard

[2:52:37] of 26 Ballard Road.

[2:52:40] So I'd like you to

[2:52:43] think about this.

[2:52:46] If it were your home, my husband

[2:52:49] and I have lived in this house for 41 years.

[2:52:53] We are in our mid eighties.

[2:52:56] We had hope that this would be our last home.

[2:52:59] But with all of this happening, we may be forced to leave.

[2:53:05] But thank you for your attention.

[2:53:08] You know, I had an interesting conversation

[2:53:11] with the two gentlemen at the Housing Appeals Board.

[2:53:14] I asked them the same question you

[2:53:16] presented, were they related?

[2:53:18] They actually, oh they are not. Okay.

[2:53:21] But, but one had long hair

[2:53:23] and the other one didn't looked like total opposites.

[2:53:28] And there was a question in there.

[2:53:32] I mean, I think originally we came up with this, the

[2:53:37] Fisher Doctrine laid into this, didn't it?

[2:53:39] Yes. We ended up reviewing that, I believe between,

[2:53:43] we tabled this the first night we went back to review,

[2:53:48] I believe the 2003 document

[2:53:50] and we reviewed it against the Fisher Doctrine, sorry.

[2:53:53] And determined that we had to go through, it wasn't a,

[2:53:58] I forget the exact, I'd have to have the minutes in front

[2:54:00] of me, but I don't want to complicate it.

[2:54:02] But we said it wasn't duplicative.

[2:54:05] And I think overall we've ruled that we did have

[2:54:07] to vote on it again because in 2003 maybe that's

[2:54:12] where you're going with the Fisher Doc trial.

[2:54:13] And the vote was structured in a very specific way. I know.

[2:54:16] And then it changed that you no

[2:54:18] longer had to do it that way.

[2:54:19] Whereas in oh three every single board member had

[2:54:23] to vote yes or no.

[2:54:25] Unanimously it was simplex Simplex. That's it. Thank you.

[2:54:28] And when we came back we realized that

[2:54:30] what the change in the zoning law,

[2:54:32] it's simplex no longer being applied,

[2:54:33] which is seemingly the basis of the oh three ruling

[2:54:37] that we were able to hear it again.

[2:54:39] So I rest my case.

[2:54:41] Okay. Well thank you.

[2:54:43] Anybody else have any questions for Mrs.

[2:54:45] Ver? No. Okay. Same. Thank

[2:54:47] You.

[2:54:49] Next we're gonna have to go to an extension.

[2:54:54] Gerald, I'll make a motion. 15 minutes.

[2:54:56] Okay. I second motion at 10 15.

[2:55:00] If you would please go to 10 15

[2:55:02] On that.

[2:55:03] A motion to extend to 10 15.

[2:55:04] Okay. Second by Mrs. Moore. And all in favor? Aye. Aye.

[2:55:08] Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none. Good evening. Go ahead.

[2:55:12] Good evening. My name's David Harvey.

[2:55:15] I'm an order of 28 Ballard Road. Me and my wife.

[2:55:18] One of the issues that I'd like to bring your attention

[2:55:20] to is the easement that was supposedly filed.

[2:55:24] If you look at the easement, you won't find mine

[2:55:27] or my wife's signature on it.

[2:55:29] It wasn't considered by us, negotiated by us or anything.

[2:55:32] It wasn't presented to us at all.

[2:55:34] We found out after the fact,

[2:55:36] after the property was sold, that

[2:55:38] that easement was submitted

[2:55:41] and in that easement it says something about maintenance.

[2:55:44] None of that was negotiated with us.

[2:55:46] It was not a case of neighbors helping neighbors.

[2:55:49] We didn't have a discussion about it.

[2:55:51] So I don't know where this easement

[2:55:54] or what this easement means

[2:55:57] because we haven't spoken to the new owners.

[2:56:00] They haven't come to talk to us at all.

[2:56:02] So whatever that easement may provide to them in advance

[2:56:07] to this project, I'm not sure.

[2:56:12] We haven't been consulted or anything.

[2:56:14] So the driveway that was put in,

[2:56:18] I don't know how long it's been there,

[2:56:20] but I would probably assume that it has been that way

[2:56:24] for a very long time. That

[2:56:27] So when you're referring to the driveway, you mean the one

[2:56:29] that gets you from the half oval out to the build site?

[2:56:34] The, the driveway that currently exists. My driveway.

[2:56:38] Okay. That's what I'm trying to find.

[2:56:39] Your driveway or the one that is,

[2:56:42] was essentially a service access to this lot?

[2:56:46] Ye yes. The driveway on the north on the screen

[2:56:50] that's showing right now, the one that says paved running

[2:56:54] to the road, that is our driveway.

[2:56:56] And the easements marked that are supposedly covered by

[2:57:00] that easement doc document.

[2:57:02] Those don't have signatures from my wife

[2:57:05] or myself, either of the owners of our property.

[2:57:08] But you were the owners at the time?

[2:57:10] We were the owners of the point of sale.

[2:57:12] How long you been there? We've been there since

[2:57:15] 20 20, 20 24.

[2:57:20] Okay. So you're contesting the easement?

[2:57:24] Yes. If I may, so you were not, so you,

[2:57:29] you were not here when we

[2:57:30] previously heard this case, is that

[2:57:32] Correct?

[2:57:33] No, I was not. Okay.

[2:57:34] So This, I had a question

[2:57:35] regarding that, but it would be irrelevant. So thank you.

[2:57:38] This thing that says trail on it is that that's,

[2:57:41] you are telling us that exists now.

[2:57:43] So that was there when we moved in.

[2:57:47] We used it to move some stuff into our house.

[2:57:52] So that currently is still there.

[2:57:55] I think there might be some rocks on it,

[2:57:57] but it does still exist.

[2:58:00] And the easement in question is between E two and E four.

[2:58:05] Is that a safe, basically where the hammer head is kind of

[2:58:09] E there's E two and E four

[2:58:10] and then there's on the top right corner where the front

[2:58:14] of our driveway crosses over.

[2:58:17] Okay. Right there too. Yeah. Oh, okay.

[2:58:18] Everywhere we got it. Thank

[2:58:19] you. Everywhere. Let's get the lines.

[2:58:21] That's beautiful. And it's important to note

[2:58:24] that the power pole that services our house

[2:58:28] also sits right near there.

[2:58:29] I don't know where it falls on that drawing,

[2:58:33] but it sits right next to our driveway on

[2:58:38] that side, on the property line side.

[2:58:41] Owen, you wanna show us where the power pole is?

[2:58:44] Where the power pole.

[2:58:48] Alright, may I ask a question there?

[2:58:52] Sure. Dr. Ms. Owen, what is the, do you know

[2:58:54] what the typical process is for

[2:58:57] how an easement would get recorded?

[2:58:58] One sided, two sided? Well, how would that normally work?

[2:59:01] Would, to me, I would think it's almost just

[2:59:03] partially executed at this time.

[2:59:05] I think it's partially executed at this time.

[2:59:07] I, I'd have to review that.

[2:59:11] I, I'm, I'm not clear on that process to be honest with you.

[2:59:17] Okay. Any questions for 28 Ballard Road?

[2:59:22] From anybody? Mr. Bumba? Mr. Dietzel? All set. Mr.

[2:59:27] Donald, you all set too? I'm good.

[2:59:29] Okay. Lauren, you're all set.

[2:59:31] I, I'm gonna say I don't tonight,

[2:59:32] but I'm not gonna, I don't wanna lie to the applicant.

[2:59:35] I might by the next meeting if that's

[2:59:38] Okay, If that's okay.

[2:59:40] Alright, we're all set for now.

[2:59:42] If you've all set, you just said that's,

[2:59:44] that's your point is it's a contested easement.

[2:59:47] That's, that's my main point. Yes.

[2:59:48] And I, and I So if the easement were erased right,

[2:59:53] or were found not legitimate,

[3:00:01] what does that do to your parcel, relative

[3:00:03] to this application?

[3:00:07] That I'm not sure I, like I said,

[3:00:11] I haven't had any discussions with, with them

[3:00:13] or anything, so I don't, yes.

[3:00:16] I dunno what the plans are or, or

[3:00:18] Yeah.

[3:00:19] So your, your driveway comes in, it's paved,

[3:00:21] I guess there's a hammerhead there, right?

[3:00:23] Yes. Yeah. Okay.

[3:00:25] And that hammerhead goes into

[3:00:27] where the trail starts at E four?

[3:00:30] Yes. Okay, got it. Okay. I think I'm good for now. So if I

[3:00:35] Ahead speak it in,

[3:00:36] 'cause I remember this from the last meeting,

[3:00:37] which is why I asked if he was the owner at the time.

[3:00:42] I believe, and we'll wait when

[3:00:43] the, sorry the applicant's come back up.

[3:00:45] They can correct me if I'm wrong at all,

[3:00:46] but I believe they said that the easement was put in

[3:00:50] by the seller, which I believe was Cooper.

[3:00:53] And remembering the last meeting to Mrs.

[3:00:56] Vers point of why, you know, the Popsicle headache began

[3:00:59] to exist on the frontage.

[3:01:01] They were originally giving a chunk of land to this property

[3:01:06] that was going to then eliminate the

[3:01:08] cul-de-sac, if you remember that.

[3:01:09] And the other, that the owners of lot 1 0 3 24

[3:01:14] weren't aware of that either.

[3:01:16] And all of a sudden it was gonna end up impacting their

[3:01:18] taxes because they were now acquiring more size.

[3:01:22] Mm. Ultimately the applicant then went back

[3:01:26] and if I remember right,

[3:01:31] we stated a preference.

[3:01:32] I think I stated a preference actually,

[3:01:34] but I'd prefer the cul-de-sac to remain.

[3:01:37] And the council for the Coopers at the time noted

[3:01:39] that they were happy to do that

[3:01:41] because that's what would increase their frontage

[3:01:43] to 108 feet.

[3:01:45] So I guess that's where I'm going with that.

[3:01:46] And I'm, I'm sure it's the right way,

[3:01:48] but there is a history from The previous property owners

[3:01:52] of making a move without necessarily consulting.

[3:01:55] I don't know how that goes into anything,

[3:01:57] but I did just wanna share that as it

[3:02:00] continued to weigh on me.

[3:02:02] My, my understanding is that that's been fairly typical

[3:02:05] that there, the consultations didn't,

[3:02:08] weren't very often happening or were contentious at best.

[3:02:11] Yeah. And I, and I just state that again, just to, not

[3:02:15] to go either way with the current applicants,

[3:02:16] but it did seem like everybody's kind of been in a bit

[3:02:19] of a headache from the prior owners.

[3:02:21] Yes.

[3:02:23] Okay. Very good. Thank you. Thank

[3:02:24] You.

[3:02:26] Next up, opposition.

[3:02:42] Hello? Hello,

[3:02:43] I'm Laurie fao.

[3:02:44] I am the owner at 26 Ballard Road.

[3:02:47] And this just feels like a little deja vu

[3:02:49] 'cause we've been here before.

[3:02:53] I don't know what I can say that hasn't

[3:02:54] already kind of been said.

[3:02:57] We've talked about this at length, about

[3:02:59] how this was denied at 2003.

[3:03:03] The land has been untouched for over 40 years at this point.

[3:03:09] What was deemed a utility road

[3:03:11] or a paper road has never been used as such.

[3:03:14] Never been used as a road.

[3:03:16] Vehicles have never been gone up that pathway before.

[3:03:20] There was actually a construction vehicle there recently

[3:03:22] while they were surveying that got stuck, that had

[3:03:26] to be moved out.

[3:03:29] It is a kind of a dangerous narrow

[3:03:33] pathway up to that property.

[3:03:35] So whatever you say about the frontage in front might be a

[3:03:38] little bit wider, but the driveway is way more narrow,

[3:03:43] maybe like 30 to 35 feet.

[3:03:45] So to Janet's point about emergency vehicles going up,

[3:03:48] they wouldn't be able to make it

[3:03:51] unless you start encroaching on our properties at 26 and 28.

[3:03:57] Which if you see some of the markers that were placed

[3:04:03] for surveying, there's trees that cut through those markers.

[3:04:07] So that fall onto my property, which I, I mean for me,

[3:04:10] I wouldn't want those cut down.

[3:04:12] And you would need that

[3:04:15] to have enough space for the driveway.

[3:04:19] I mean, trees for privacy is all nice,

[3:04:22] but again, I have a three-year-old

[3:04:23] and a dog that are in that, in that backyard.

[3:04:27] And having a driveway cut through the whole entirety

[3:04:31] of my backyard essentially causes safety concerns for me.

[3:04:37] There's also the issue of drainage.

[3:04:40] 'cause again, that property is up higher.

[3:04:42] If there is any kind of flooding,

[3:04:44] it's gonna go right into my

[3:04:46] basement, which will cause damage.

[3:04:48] So you can talk about, it's not gonna change property value.

[3:04:52] You can't really determine that.

[3:04:54] It's all a matter of opinion

[3:04:55] because you don't know what's gonna happen in the next two

[3:04:57] years after the property has been built.

[3:05:00] Right. It could cause damage to the surrounding

[3:05:04] properties, the surrounding houses.

[3:05:07] I mean, do they have enough space in the back? Absolutely.

[3:05:10] That's never been the question.

[3:05:11] The question is on the

[3:05:15] proposed driveway not being big enough

[3:05:18] and encroaching on our property.

[3:05:21] My, my house is only 20 feet away from that path.

[3:05:27] Well, and that was understood I think the first time

[3:05:29] that we heard this.

[3:05:30] Correct. And I think that went to why we were some

[3:05:35] of the concerns of the board relative to your privacy.

[3:05:39] Right? I mean they're, they're looking at a diminuation

[3:05:42] of property value

[3:05:43] or a, a broker survey in regards to how it

[3:05:48] addresses the overall property values around.

[3:05:52] But we also understood that, that it diminishes some of your

[3:05:58] privacy that you've been accustomed to.

[3:06:01] However, in one of these points, you know,

[3:06:03] you were looking at your yours

[3:06:06] and your prior abutter

[3:06:10] expressing the issue about emergency vehicles

[3:06:14] and the town design

[3:06:18] criteria would establish that.

[3:06:20] Is it a hundred or 150 feet?

[3:06:22] Yeah, over 150 feet required to be 14 feet wide.

[3:06:25] And they're required to have a turnaround

[3:06:27] or a hammerhead at the end of the driveway,

[3:06:28] Two feet on each side of the,

[3:06:30] of the stabilized ground grade.

[3:06:33] More than that, preferably for drainage. So

[3:06:36] Yeah, no, I mean as far as clearance

[3:06:38] beyond the driveway, is it over a hundred?

[3:06:40] Is 12 feet or 14 feet?

[3:06:42] Over 150 is, is 14 feet.

[3:06:44] Got it. With two feet on each side of that.

[3:06:46] So that's an eighteen's correct foot swath and,

[3:06:49] and the improvements require DOT grade

[3:06:53] gravel 12 inches down, that kind of thing.

[3:06:56] So that criteria is not within this board's purview,

[3:06:59] but it is to address that concern

[3:07:02] and narrow your, your argument down to, you know,

[3:07:06] the significant points.

[3:07:07] And I'm not diminishing any of them. Hmm.

[3:07:10] How, how deep is your lot? Is it 351 feet?

[3:07:14] I don't know offhand how deep the lot is.

[3:07:17] It's, I think it's something like the whole lot is

[3:07:20] of 1.3 acres or something like that.

[3:07:22] 1.23 acres, something like that. 3 51

[3:07:25] 0.73.

[3:07:26] Alright. So the, the buffer trees

[3:07:28] that are shown on the screen over my head there, is

[3:07:32] that about where your deck would be in line with

[3:07:37] See The buffer trees up over my

[3:07:39] Shoulder?

[3:07:40] No, it actually is would be a little further back.

[3:07:42] I see the, the, maybe the last one on there. Yeah. Okay.

[3:07:45] No, maybe like the last tree on there is kind of

[3:07:47] where it starts.

[3:07:49] So the whole back of that is missing.

[3:07:52] How far back from the road edge is your house?

[3:07:55] From the, the road edge? Yeah. Or is that,

[3:07:59] I'm sorry, what Do, what do you mean?

[3:08:01] How far back from the road edge is your

[3:08:03] House?

[3:08:04] Oh, the road edge. I didn't, sorry,

[3:08:04] I didn't understand what you said.

[3:08:07] I don't, honestly, I don't know offhand.

[3:08:08] There's a good amount like 40,

[3:08:13] 50 feet I'd say.

[3:08:14] So if you are, if your house is, let's just be generous

[3:08:18] and say it's 40 feet wide, you know, the,

[3:08:20] the from the road edge to the back

[3:08:22] of your home is a hundred feet.

[3:08:24] That gives you 250 feet

[3:08:28] of grade behind you to the

[3:08:33] development line

[3:08:34] that the applicant's providing anything else.

[3:08:40] Also, as you know,

[3:08:42] the property was never intended to be built on.

[3:08:44] It was never intended for residential use.

[3:08:47] It was supposed to be a water source. Right.

[3:08:51] And when we all purchased the property, it was told

[3:08:55] that nothing would ever be built back there

[3:08:57] because it was supposed to be a well source,

[3:09:00] it was a water source and oh yeah, hey,

[3:09:01] there's not enough water there to supply the neighborhood,

[3:09:04] but nothing would be built on there

[3:09:06] because there's a water easement.

[3:09:09] So the fact that this has come up a couple times

[3:09:11] and been denied was never intended to be there.

[3:09:15] Everybody who purchased houses there, it would never

[3:09:20] saw that like a house would be built back there.

[3:09:22] I think it kind of diminishes the overall neighborhood

[3:09:26] because there was never an intent from the development back

[3:09:30] in the eighties that this would ever have a house on it. So

[3:09:35] Yeah, the, the board will be in a hard place to,

[3:09:38] even though the technicalities

[3:09:41] of why this has come back to us Mm.

[3:09:44] For statute reasons that occurred five years ago

[3:09:48] and knowing the path that this has gone in already

[3:09:52] all the way to Supreme Court.

[3:09:55] You know, there's still some vetting to do here,

[3:09:57] but just understand that the, that where this path has gone

[3:10:00] with this parcel prior makes it tougher for this board

[3:10:05] to render an opposing decision.

[3:10:07] Well if they had a variant

[3:10:09] to build on it, why wasn't it built on?

[3:10:10] Why was it sold after it expired?

[3:10:13] What is your impression of the former owners?

[3:10:18] That is a loaded question, sir. We just

[3:10:21] Document the laugh of record.

[3:10:22] I know everybody behind me is laughing.

[3:10:24] They, they understand. I, I think, think they,

[3:10:26] without getting my personal opinion, it was sold

[3:10:30] with ill intent and they did not disclose the fact

[3:10:34] that they were having issues building on it.

[3:10:36] And it should never have been sold

[3:10:37] as a residential property.

[3:10:39] I understand. Because otherwise they would've built on it.

[3:10:41] They were threatening us to tear down the trees

[3:10:44] and build a house with, they had two

[3:10:45] years to do it, why didn't they do it?

[3:10:47] I understand. Yeah. Alright. Is that it?

[3:10:50] Yep. That's it for me. Any questions for Ms. Fao?

[3:10:53] No, thank you Ms. Fazio. All set? Mr. Dietzel? All set.

[3:10:56] Thank you. Very good. Thank you. Somebody else?

[3:11:00] We have four Minutes. Yeah.

[3:11:01] This might be our last one. Three minutes.

[3:11:03] Yeah.

[3:11:08] Hi, my name is Raymond Veer. I live at 17 Ballard.

[3:11:11] And my problem with this whole thing is right now,

[3:11:16] if you look at the street at 18 Ballard, the road bends

[3:11:19] and comes down to the cleaving.

[3:11:21] So when it rains real hot, the water comes down

[3:11:25] the road is crowned

[3:11:27] and also the ball circle, that is the cl

[3:11:32] that feeds onto that road that comes over.

[3:11:34] And also at 28, his deer driveway there is on a big deity

[3:11:39] where the water comes down, hits the ball circle,

[3:11:42] gets Ballad road, comes over to my property.

[3:11:45] And also if that property, they allow that property

[3:11:48] through a driveway, that's gonna be a

[3:11:50] driveway on an angle too.

[3:11:51] So that's more water coming down. As Ms.

[3:11:55] Burr said, you know, 17, the water, the people

[3:11:59] before me put from between the road

[3:12:01] and my property, put a piece of plastic down

[3:12:04] and put a bunch of gravel on it.

[3:12:06] And when a rain's real hot, that gravel moves.

[3:12:10] There's so much water coming down that that gravel moves.

[3:12:12] And my driveway is on a dec ity.

[3:12:14] And even after these last couple of storms,

[3:12:16] I've got puddles in my garage.

[3:12:19] So that's my problem with the water.

[3:12:20] And you're at 17? Yes.

[3:12:23] And I'm afraid of my property gonna be flooded out

[3:12:26] 'cause it gets, if they didn't put some of

[3:12:28] that stone up there that it's kinda holding it back,

[3:12:30] but it's still getting down into my garage. But,

[3:12:32] But isn't that to the road design, not relative

[3:12:35] to this parcel that's being requested?

[3:12:37] No. 'cause all that wa if they put the driveway in,

[3:12:40] it's gonna be on another deity

[3:12:41] and I've got water coming from other three other sources.

[3:12:44] All that water's coming down

[3:12:45] and it's coming across the road into my property. So

[3:12:48] You're, is it safe to assume you're feeling as if

[3:12:51] as it stands today, it's a hazard,

[3:12:53] but any construction to it would increase the hazard?

[3:12:58] Yes. I mean, my property's gonna get flooded

[3:13:00] and I, I don't wanna have to buy flood insurance.

[3:13:02] That's damn expensive.

[3:13:04] And then what kind of damage it's gonna do?

[3:13:07] I mean, it's coming down my driving

[3:13:09] now and they have more water.

[3:13:10] It's gonna come across the front of my lawn

[3:13:12] and my, my land is on an angle too,

[3:13:14] so it's gonna head towards my, my garage again.

[3:13:16] Alright, so you're veu, right? Excuse me? Your veu? Yes.

[3:13:20] Okay. For some reason I thought I heard your name was ver

[3:13:23] and I thought Alan's brother lived across the street.

[3:13:26] No, no, I've been up here before When? In 21.

[3:13:30] Okay. So,

[3:13:32] Alright. Any, anything else?

[3:13:34] Nope. That's my, that's what my, my problem is the water

[3:13:37] and it water and you see the stones we've been having

[3:13:39] lately and even last year.

[3:13:41] Yeah. A lot of water and I've had water in my

[3:13:44] garage all times. Alright,

[3:13:46] Very good.

[3:13:47] Thank you. Thank Gimme an extension.

[3:13:51] 15 minutes please. I'll

[3:13:52] Make an extension to 10 32nd.

[3:13:55] All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? You in favor?

[3:14:01] Yeah. Aye, she's opposed. You all set? Yep, we're all set.

[3:14:04] Thank you Mr. Eu. Anybody else?

[3:14:10] We're only gonna let you go about another 10 minutes.

[3:14:13] Very brief. Well,

[3:14:15] it's not just you that's been said tonight.

[3:14:17] Hold on. It's not just you, it's, I have

[3:14:20] to get other people and Yes.

[3:14:21] So we have 10 minutes. I understand. For testimony. Okay.

[3:14:23] My name is Annette Hyde. Okay. I live on 24 Ballard Road.

[3:14:27] Okay. I've been there since 1995

[3:14:31] and I too am opposed to the building

[3:14:34] of the developed home.

[3:14:37] Mentioned in particular, my neighbor has a little girl

[3:14:42] and she's in her backyard playing.

[3:14:44] And I have three grandchildren

[3:14:46] who will play there quite often

[3:14:48] and I'm very concerned about vehicles,

[3:14:52] trucks, et cetera.

[3:14:54] So without much ado, I'm just here

[3:14:56] to support my neighbors and stating that. Alright.

[3:15:00] But you're north of, I'd like to see that you're north of

[3:15:02] that oval closer towards Hampstead Road.

[3:15:05] No, I'm south. South. You're 24. 24?

[3:15:09] Yes. Oh, I see. Got it. Okay. Okay. Very good.

[3:15:12] Thank you.

[3:15:14] I'm at Hyde. Okay. Anybody else?

[3:15:28] Hi. Hi.

[3:15:29] Good evening. We'll be quick. Okay.

[3:15:31] Lauren Ton. Kevin Ton. We're at three Briar.

[3:15:34] We're actually

[3:15:36] Southwest on the bottom.

[3:15:37] We're on the backside. Very, very small amount

[3:15:40] that we abut their property.

[3:15:41] Okay. We, we aren't personally impacted by this.

[3:15:45] I don't believe too much on I have,

[3:15:48] I have questions actually before I deem that.

[3:15:51] So we haven't seen this before.

[3:15:52] We saw the other map that you had without the house.

[3:15:56] If this goes forward

[3:15:57] and this is their proposed layout, are they able

[3:16:02] to then change it and move the house or

[3:16:06] As long as they're within the setback

[3:16:07] requirements, they would be

[3:16:09] Able to it so they can move it back as far as they want

[3:16:11] Within, they'd still have to keep a specific setback.

[3:16:15] I don't wanna misquote it now,

[3:16:17] but they wouldn't have complete free reign.

[3:16:19] There still would be restrictions

[3:16:21] for each property line that they would have to meet.

[3:16:24] There's also a town forest.

[3:16:26] Does that impact that at all? That's a,

[3:16:28] It would be a property line. Okay.

[3:16:29] What is that rule? What is,

[3:16:33] I guess so, so like right there

[3:16:34] that they put a horse right there for the 26th.

[3:16:36] It's only 54 feet, so can't be that big then I guess.

[3:16:41] Well I'm, I'm gonna guess here,

[3:16:43] but the expense of putting in the driveway is not one

[3:16:46] that is going to suggest they want

[3:16:48] to push their house deeper into the forest.

[3:16:50] Okay. That was one of my main questions.

[3:16:54] You can keep talking now. Yeah,

[3:16:55] Mine was more just the, the neighborhood itself.

[3:16:58] Just if you look, if you expand more on Ballard,

[3:17:03] all the property lines are north of that.

[3:17:07] There's like 10 to 12 property lines

[3:17:08] that are pretty much identical.

[3:17:09] They're all narrow and long properties.

[3:17:13] There's neighbors to the sides, very pretty close

[3:17:15] to the sides of you, but there's nobody behind you.

[3:17:17] So, and they're pretty much all identical.

[3:17:19] This would be a very unique property.

[3:17:22] The the three or four properties that are in front

[3:17:24] of us now are impacted by that.

[3:17:26] 'cause now theirs are different than the rest

[3:17:27] of the properties along that road.

[3:17:30] So it kind of changes the structure

[3:17:32] of the neighborhood a little bit for those people.

[3:17:34] And it's different from the rest of the properties,

[3:17:36] I guess in that, if we're talking about property value,

[3:17:38] our property value, I don't see

[3:17:40] how this would increase our property value in

[3:17:43] any way, shape or form.

[3:17:45] Our property is unique

[3:17:48] where we are set back in the woods

[3:17:50] and privacy is one of our number one benefits.

[3:17:53] There's, we can't see another house from our house

[3:17:57] and this would potentially impact that.

[3:18:01] We're not really sure based on the layout.

[3:18:04] And then I guess the property value of the abutters

[3:18:07] that all have very legitimate concerns would definitely

[3:18:11] be diminished.

[3:18:12] Maybe the general overall value of the houses

[3:18:15] and the neighborhood, because a nice house is put in would

[3:18:19] be increased, but the people directly touching would be

[3:18:21] lower because no one wants to move into a house

[3:18:24] with a house in their backyard.

[3:18:26] Well, I, my thinking by the way is that this is 250 feet,

[3:18:31] 300 feet away.

[3:18:33] I hope so. But nervous.

[3:18:35] So I, so I'm not sure how that end ends up impacting this.

[3:18:38] I hope so. But you said

[3:18:39] that they could potentially move it back

[3:18:42] so then who knows how

[3:18:43] Close it's No, I didn't, I said

[3:18:44] that it's not likely they're,

[3:18:45] I'm guessing they're gonna push it back further

[3:18:47] because of the cost of putting in the driveway.

[3:18:49] I, I said that it could move within the requirements

[3:18:52] of setback that was

[3:18:53] Made ly because the setbacks,

[3:18:55] I guess one thing that people talked about previously

[3:18:57] that I am not sure of with water, in terms

[3:19:01] of water in the well, is this gonna be on a well?

[3:19:04] And they said something about drilling the

[3:19:07] well and it running dry.

[3:19:08] We are on a well and we can't get on town water

[3:19:10] because of how far back we are.

[3:19:13] So that would be a potential impact

[3:19:14] to us if they're both tapping into the

[3:19:17] same, I forget what it's called.

[3:19:20] Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Yes sir. If we could ensure

[3:19:22] Just some, a little bit closer

[3:19:24] proximity to the microphone.

[3:19:25] We're getting a little bit of feedback

[3:19:27] On.

[3:19:28] Got it. Okay.

[3:19:29] What was, what came through in the application is

[3:19:31] that the property will be serviced by a private well

[3:19:33] and an onsite septic system.

[3:19:36] Okay. As far anything else? I don't,

[3:19:37] So if the water's the same source, I guess

[3:19:40] that could potentially impact us if our wells running dry.

[3:19:44] Yep. There's always that chance.

[3:19:47] Not likely, but there's a chance. Anything else? Nope.

[3:19:52] Any questions for these folks? No, thank you. All right,

[3:19:55] You guys are okay.

[3:19:56] Thank you. So quick. Get before the 10 30. Alright, thank

[3:19:58] You.

[3:19:59] Everybody else? All set in opposition?

[3:20:02] Okay, gentlemen, why don't you,

[3:20:05] Can we get a copy of this?

[3:20:08] I su I suspect so. Okay, thank you.

[3:20:14] So gentlemen, we're not gonna get through all

[3:20:16] of this for you tonight.

[3:20:18] You want to come back and start your rebuttal then?

[3:20:21] Or do you want to try and dig into it now?

[3:20:24] I, we, we can give you about four minutes.

[3:20:27] I, I'll take the four minutes if it's offered.

[3:20:29] Only because these items are now fresh in everybody's mind.

[3:20:32] Okay. Including mine. I'm older than I look

[3:20:34] and I may not remember in two weeks the, a lot

[3:20:38] of comments about the easement to benefit the property

[3:20:41] to the north, which I believe is 26 Ballard.

[3:20:46] I've never spoken to the seller about this.

[3:20:48] I found the easement on, on, you know, in record.

[3:20:53] It's, it is fully executed.

[3:20:55] It grants rights, not obligations to that abutting owner

[3:20:59] to maintain the driveway improvements

[3:21:02] that are currently on 26.5.

[3:21:06] It, it allows them to maintain what

[3:21:09] otherwise would be an encumbrance if they don't want

[3:21:12] to do it, if they want to remove those, if they want

[3:21:14] to release the easement, all of that can be done.

[3:21:17] But my, and

[3:21:19] and again I've, I've got no knowledge of

[3:21:21] what was in the seller's head at the time.

[3:21:23] But I think this was done in an effort to

[3:21:27] simply preserve an existing condition

[3:21:29] and not cause anyone in hardship of

[3:21:32] one fighting over those encroachments

[3:21:34] and two, having to remove them.

[3:21:37] Sorry to interrupt. So I write that down correctly.

[3:21:40] You said maintaining rights to use but not,

[3:21:42] They have a right to maintain the existing

[3:21:45] layout of the driveway.

[3:21:46] They have no obligation to keep it there

[3:21:48] and they have no obligation to maintain it,

[3:21:51] but they have the right to do so if it benefits them to clip

[3:21:54] that corner at the front

[3:21:56] and to come into that E 2 3 4 rectangle.

[3:22:00] Further down the line, there was quite a bit

[3:22:05] of conversation about drainage and cutting of trees.

[3:22:10] Let me be very clear, we have no rights to,

[3:22:12] to do any work on anyone else's property.

[3:22:15] If there are trees on other people's properties

[3:22:17] that they wish to preserve, we will not be touching them.

[3:22:19] We cannot be touching them.

[3:22:21] And as far as drainage is concerned,

[3:22:23] we're talking about a single family residence

[3:22:25] with residential accessory improvements

[3:22:29] just like all the other properties that are there.

[3:22:31] And there's no reason to suspect

[3:22:33] that the impervious coverage associated

[3:22:36] with a single residence would create a significant change

[3:22:40] in the drainage pattern.

[3:22:41] And actually, as was mentioned by one of the speakers,

[3:22:45] we would have responsibility for that if it was

[3:22:48] to be leaving the property flow,

[3:22:51] leaving the property in an unreasonable amount

[3:22:54] that changed the natural drainage pattern.

[3:22:56] We don't have any easements for drainage.

[3:22:58] We don't have any rights

[3:22:59] to drain on other people's property.

[3:23:01] We have to manage our drainage just like

[3:23:02] everybody else is supposed to do.

[3:23:05] There was a, a comment about whether

[3:23:09] or not the house could potentially move back.

[3:23:12] It could potentially move back.

[3:23:14] But I can assure you that nobody wants that

[3:23:16] for reasons the chairman mentioned in terms of the expense

[3:23:20] of a longer driveway and more area of disturbance.

[3:23:23] But also that's a perfectly good location

[3:23:27] that has been scoped out by my client's builder

[3:23:29] and they're quite comfortable

[3:23:30] with the envelope that's put there.

[3:23:32] Does it move a foot or two here

[3:23:33] or there as they get into field conditions?

[3:23:35] I don't know, but, but that's the preferred layout

[3:23:38] and why it's proposed on the plan.

[3:23:41] There was a comment about construction traffic.

[3:23:44] It would be no different than developing another vacant lot

[3:23:48] or redeveloping an existing residential lot with a new home

[3:23:53] anywhere else in the neighborhood.

[3:23:54] We're talking about a use that is sim similar

[3:23:58] or same to all that surrounds it

[3:24:00] and the comments about the width

[3:24:02] and utility of the driveway.

[3:24:05] We believe we can have a fully compliant driveway on this

[3:24:09] property, whether it's 12 feet, 14 feet

[3:24:11] with the required grade

[3:24:13] and the required shoulders so that utility

[3:24:17] and emergency vehicles would have reasonable

[3:24:20] and typical access.

[3:24:22] And that would be on us as the applicant

[3:24:25] for a building permit and the party constructing a residence

[3:24:28] to make sure that at the end

[3:24:29] of the day we've followed the rules to be able

[3:24:32] to occupy the structure.

[3:24:34] I raced, I raced through that Mr.

[3:24:36] Chairman, I, I took you seriously about four minutes. Okay.

[3:24:40] I'm out of breath and I'll stop. Alright, well very good.

[3:24:42] And as one person to another that probably we both forget

[3:24:45] what we had for breakfast this morning.

[3:24:47] I appreciate that. The,

[3:24:50] I I think one thing we'll be curious about is grading.

[3:24:54] And I know you have Mr. McCarthy here.

[3:24:56] Perhaps he can provide that for us prior to the next

[3:25:01] board meeting to,

[3:25:04] and perhaps look at how the drainage is,

[3:25:09] is suspected here.

[3:25:10] I also see the approximate proposed leach bed, which,

[3:25:13] you know, weighs into where the house is.

[3:25:16] Yes. Might go. Is has that test pit been done at this point

[3:25:21] or is that just a building?

[3:25:22] We did a test pit. You did? Yeah. Okay. It's been proof.

[3:25:25] So, so is that going to be your test pit location where

[3:25:28] that's shown on the map?

[3:25:29] I believe so. Okay. And what's your

[3:25:31] water table looking like?

[3:25:34] I, I didn't roughly have the data all. It was good.

[3:25:36] If you can gimme the grading for the next meeting as well as

[3:25:40] that, that, have you gotten an approval from DES yet?

[3:25:45] No. You haven't submitted No. As necessary. Right.

[3:25:49] I suppose when, when this blew up, we hit the brakes. Sure.

[3:25:52] Yeah, no, I get it as necessary. All right.

[3:25:54] I think you'll know what

[3:25:55] we're looking for for the next meeting.

[3:25:56] Appreciate it. Okay. Very good. Motion to table this motion

[3:26:00] Table until Our next meeting on June 18th.

[3:26:03] 18th. Very good. Second please. Mr. Donald. Second.

[3:26:06] Thank you very much. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

[3:26:09] Very good. Have a good evening gentlemen.

[3:26:11] Thank you very much for your time.

[3:26:12] Yeah, thank you for staying

[3:26:13] late and we'll see you in two weeks.

[3:26:14] Yes. Appreciate it. Otherwise, pretty good.

[3:26:19] Next up is a review of summer schedule.

[3:26:23] Do you have, does staff have preferred days there

[3:26:27] other than every Friday in the month of July? I

[3:26:30] Think if we follow town council then

[3:26:35] my friend on my left gets a whole week.

[3:26:40] When's town council Mr. Prevent you, do you remember?

[3:26:43] Sorry. That's all right.

[3:26:45] I, off the top of my head, I'm not sure

[3:26:47] of the August month,

[3:26:48] but July I think they're avoiding the first week

[3:26:51] as being the holiday week. Yeah.

[3:26:52] July 2nd, third Week of July.

[3:26:55] I'm Sorry, third week of July.

[3:26:57] You Third week of July. Okay. I won't be here. Okay.

[3:27:01] Third. Oh you won't,

[3:27:03] It would be July 2nd.

[3:27:05] Folks, can I get you to exit the room please?

[3:27:09] Mr. Chair will be out first, second

[3:27:12] and third week of July. Myself,

[3:27:14] I'm sorry again, I'll be out the first, second

[3:27:17] and third week of July

[3:27:19] Far.

[3:27:20] All of July. You'll lose me for week three.

[3:27:21] I'll be gone the first week of July. But

[3:27:24] You're gone the first week of July?

[3:27:25] Yeah, I, I think we're practically going to have

[3:27:27] to be the third week of July because July 4th.

[3:27:31] Okay. And then August, did you have a suggestion?

[3:27:34] I'm not, I'm not sure what the council chose

[3:27:37] For that Second or they chose the first one.

[3:27:39] The first one. So it would be

[3:27:40] August 6th.

[3:27:43] I can Do August 6th does,

[3:27:44] Which would be two weeks after the July meeting.

[3:27:48] You're not sorry again, Ms. Owen

[3:27:51] Jo.

[3:27:52] The, that would be the first meeting in August,

[3:27:54] which would be two weeks after that.

[3:27:55] That meeting in July If you, if you stuck with that.

[3:28:00] Alright. Consistently over the years, it's all,

[3:28:02] it's been the third week of July. Third week of August I

[3:28:05] Think.

[3:28:06] I think the 4th of July impacts it enough

[3:28:06] that we can do the first and third.

[3:28:08] But that would be my recommendation.

[3:28:09] Just historically, it's usually the third week each time.

[3:28:12] Okay. Ms. Boudreaux, that works for you. Did you

[3:28:15] Say the third week of July and then August 6th?

[3:28:19] No, the third week of July. The third week of August. Yep.

[3:28:25] We all in favor of that sir. Very good.

[3:28:30] And then minutes we table please. Yes. Yes.

[3:28:33] Table around a couple of May 7th. I think

[3:28:38] I wanna table last week changes to

[3:28:41] Me.

[3:28:42] Okay. And so I need a motion for

[3:28:44] that approval on the minutes to table 5 7 5 21.

[3:28:49] I make the motion we table both minutes for five,

[3:28:51] seven and 5 21. Very

[3:28:52] Good.

[3:28:53] Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

[3:28:56] Hearing none to peer properties.

[3:28:59] So we have to bring that back in some way, shape or form.

[3:29:05] Mr. The HAB took a long time to decide this case

[3:29:10] and remand it back to us.

[3:29:13] Mr. Burgess is not here.

[3:29:15] So evaluating deeper discussion on the decision

[3:29:21] is kind of tough to do as he was one of the deciders.

[3:29:26] We can bring this back for a full hearing

[3:29:28] or bring this back for I guess open discussion

[3:29:33] and reevaluating the, the decision.

[3:29:39] The second of the two is more abbreviated.

[3:29:42] Does anybody have a feel for how you'd want to go that

[3:29:45] I missed this, the last meeting that's led

[3:29:48] to this set of appeals?

[3:29:51] I would be content making them come back a third time.

[3:29:54] I would also be had, I'd probably,

[3:29:57] I guess I could sit and step in

[3:29:58] Mr. Burgess, but I would,

[3:30:01] I would think maybe he'd let them just do the revised

[3:30:04] talking points and then dive back into deliberative.

[3:30:07] Almost take it as a man back to us.

[3:30:10] Okay. Anybody have opposition to that?

[3:30:15] I'm okay with it. Alright, very good.

[3:30:18] So Ms. Owen, we'll notify te Pere properties, Mr.

[3:30:23] Attorney Suki that we're gonna bring this back for

[3:30:27] brief discussion

[3:30:29] and reevaluate our vote on it.

[3:30:35] We're not looking for new information on it. Okay.

[3:30:39] All right. Very good. I think we've covered our agenda

[3:30:42] as much as we can for the evening that we can take a

[3:30:46] motion to adjourn.

[3:30:48] Make the motion. Second. Second.

[3:30:50] All in favor of adjournment, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed?

[3:30:53] Hearing none. Have a good night everybody.

Zoning Board of Adjustments - 06/04/26

Agenda

Transcript