[0:01] Okay.

[0:01] Good evening everybody.

[0:02] Welcome to the zoning Board of Adjustment

[0:05] for June 18th, 2026.

[0:07] Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance

[0:11] Of Allegiance Flag in the United States of America

[0:15] and the Republic will stands All nation under God,

[0:20] indivisible, with liberty and justice.

[0:25] All right, beautiful. Sorry for the delay.

[0:27] We had some technical difficulties

[0:29] and actually I didn't mind the break either.

[0:31] So let's proceed

[0:33] with introducing ourselves from my left side,

[0:36] please. Anthony Henry,

[0:38] Michael Donlin, Richard Trip, crystal Morin, secretary

[0:43] Lynn Perkins, the chair, Jim Dettol, gospel Bimba,

[0:46] Jim Jason Regard.

[0:48] And we have code enforcement Officer Carrie Owen.

[0:52] And our clerk is Eileen Boudreaux. Thank you.

[0:57] And Mr. Corbett, you're at home, I believe. Correct.

[1:01] Remote waiting for confirmation. You do see him there? Yes,

[1:05] Mr.

[1:06] Chair, we have confirmed and Mr. Corbett is able to speak.

[1:10] All right, great.

[1:13] So before we proceed, please shut off all your cell phones,

[1:16] electronic gadgets that create distraction in proceedings.

[1:19] In the event of emergency,

[1:20] please exit to the rear of the room.

[1:21] Do not use the elevator.

[1:23] These proceedings are scheduled

[1:24] to terminate at 10:00 PM in our audio video recorded.

[1:28] Any other announcements I need?

[1:30] Okay, scene, no gestures there.

[1:32] Let's get right on with our first case,

[1:34] which is 25 dash one 18.

[1:36] It is tere properties, LLC.

[1:40] We have representation here for Yep. Come right up

[1:52] and good evening.

[1:54] We have all kinds of new faces on this matter, right? We

[1:57] Do.

[1:58] Your understanding is that the HAB has asked this board

[2:01] to review its findings and recapture them

[2:04] or define them more clearly

[2:06] or open this up for rehearing. Is that your understanding

[2:10] For you to put together the compile findings

[2:14] of fact based on three factors

[2:16] that were stated in the HAB order?

[2:18] Yep. So as the HAB,

[2:22] this case is almost a year old, HAB took five months to

[2:27] get a decision correct.

[2:30] Our faces are changing and members are changed now as well.

[2:36] I will say to you, for the record and Mrs.

[2:40] Attorney Sarkis presentation, there was one aspect

[2:42] that he alm almost had me swayed.

[2:44] And this vote was a two to three denial

[2:50] on the factor that his hardship definition

[2:53] and the merging of uses

[2:55] and how they may have been affecting the, the,

[3:00] the area was a promise was a strong argument.

[3:05] On the other side of this is the part that

[3:09] persuaded me to say no was the fact that as he defined

[3:14] the other properties similar, that he was trying

[3:19] to duplicate in the zone despite the fact

[3:21] that the zoning ordinance had changed,

[3:27] that he also wanted to have a, that he was willing

[3:30] to have a sunset on this use in the event that the

[3:35] owners of or te pere vacated that property,

[3:41] that housing unit would go with it.

[3:46] That being said, he was comparing this parcel to others

[3:49] that are non-conforming

[3:51] and to me that created that precedent that

[3:53] that would lock the board into a situation going forward.

[3:57] That that was kind of, I'll almost say hypocritical.

[4:03] But that being said, if we get back

[4:08] to the sunset clause, we're going to add that in the motion.

[4:13] I'm willing to change my vote

[4:15] and give you approval and move this along.

[4:17] I don't wish to have the town engaged in another legal

[4:20] battle on the same case

[4:23] that the HAB has tipped its hat

[4:25] and indicated that regardless

[4:27] what we think we may say on this,

[4:30] we aren't speaking the same language as the A HAB.

[4:33] It is my feeling that the applicant coming in a month

[4:38] after they purchased the property,

[4:41] being versed in what I would say was versed in

[4:46] property procurement, to me is hard to, for them

[4:51] to define that as a hardship.

[4:54] That was my feeling. I think

[4:55] that was expressed by the board.

[4:57] But again, we're not speaking the same language as the HAB

[5:01] does that seem to work for you and your clients

[5:05] and something attorney Swarovski would, would go along with,

[5:09] I'm not aware of the imposition of a sunset provision on

[5:13] that, so I'm not able to necessarily speak to that

[5:17] and I don't believe that that's an appropriate condition

[5:21] to put on a variance based to tie it to a property owner.

[5:25] So I do have concerns from a legal point if somebody wanted

[5:28] to challenge that, that could be a problem.

[5:30] But if Attorney Sasse agreed to that

[5:32] and at that point in time his client did,

[5:35] then we can move forward with that.

[5:36] He did stipulate that he was willing to do

[5:38] that in the last hearing,

[5:40] however, again, it came back to the precedent and,

[5:44] and what that precedent would set when he was contending

[5:47] that he should have a, his client should have approval

[5:51] for this based on the other non-conforming lots.

[5:53] So that was kind of, kind of,

[5:58] I said hypocritical in this matter.

[6:00] This board has put sunsets on this

[6:02] before, so the te pere property would be protected in the

[6:06] event that it until the day that it sells the property

[6:09] and then that that right would be extinguished

[6:11] and whoever else purchased the property, be it 10

[6:15] or 50 years from now, would come back

[6:17] to the zoning board if a zoning board is still a thing at

[6:20] that time and ask for permission to continue that,

[6:24] that use, if that condition is met here,

[6:29] we can dispose of this tonight

[6:31] and your client can have the rights to proceed

[6:35] with their intentions.

[6:36] Okay. Is that acceptable to you? Yes. Very good.

[6:41] I'm, I do not hold the whole sway on the whole board.

[6:45] Let me just kind of see what,

[6:49] where everybody else is on this.

[6:50] Mr. Dani, I'm gonna ask you to sit on this with us. Okay.

[6:55] So this is Mr. Dani, Mr. Dietzel, Ms. Moore, Mr.

[7:00] Tripp and myself.

[7:02] Just before we proceed,

[7:03] let me get the other members' voices on this

[7:06] and let's see how this goes.

[7:08] Anybody wanna open up, have discussion there Mr. Dietzel?

[7:13] Mr. Chair. Chair Perkins can interrupt for one second.

[7:15] Can I just have a moment while you're discussing just

[7:16] to confirm that with attorney Sunki by phone?

[7:19] Very good, thank You.

[7:23] I tell you what, can we do this?

[7:24] Can, do you have quick access to him? I do. Okay.

[7:29] I, what I would do is I would say that if you want,

[7:31] we can suspend this for now, get into the next hearing

[7:34] and then let you come back to it afterwards.

[7:36] How's that? Okay. Good enough.

[7:38] So motion to suspend this case

[7:41] for till the next, after the next case.

[7:43] So moved. Thank you. Second. Second please. Thank you Mr.

[7:46] Dietzel. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed?

[7:49] Hearing none. All right.

[7:51] So next up is 26 dash one 14, this promised land survey

[7:56] representing Peabody family revocable trust.

[8:08] Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.

[8:10] Good evening. Last time we were last. This time we're first.

[8:13] How's that? Appreciated moving on up.

[8:16] All right. For your record, I'm Ari **********>

[8:19] with the Gallagher Callaghan

[8:20] and Gar Trail Law Firm in Concord

[8:21] and I'm here again this evening for the PBD Family Trust,

[8:25] the landowner of 26.5 Ballard Road.

[8:29] And to my right is Craig Peabody, one of the trustees.

[8:32] At the last meeting we presented our application,

[8:35] our arguments for a variance.

[8:38] I wanted to briefly respond to some of the questions

[8:40] that ZBA members had raised

[8:42] before we suspended due to time of night.

[8:45] The issues are also addressed in a letter

[8:48] that promised land survey had prepared

[8:51] and which I delivered to staff

[8:53] before this evening's hearing.

[8:55] I did confirm with Carrie that she was able to send that

[8:57] around, so I'm hoping you each have it,

[9:00] but I do have additional paper copies.

[9:03] If some of you have not received it electronically

[9:06] or an additional copy would be helpful,

[9:09] let me know if that's the case. We have

[9:11] Copies.

[9:12] Would you like to narrate through your intent on that?

[9:14] I would, and again, if anyone wants an additional,

[9:18] just raise your hand.

[9:20] The, the first item was a question about driveway layout.

[9:24] Essentially the discussion at the last meeting was,

[9:27] does the driveway fit within the confines

[9:29] of the lot at its narrow areas

[9:32] and what is the grade of the proposed driveway layout?

[9:36] And what promised land did was provide not only a,

[9:40] a depiction of the driveway within those narrowed areas,

[9:44] but also a profile on the second page of that exhibit, all

[9:47] of which is attached to that letter I was referencing.

[9:51] The short answer is that the driveway does fit within

[9:55] the confines of that narrowed lot area

[9:58] and its proposed grade is no steeper than 9.6%.

[10:02] So in other words, it's within acceptable limits

[10:06] for the town's building codes and process.

[10:11] The second item that came forward at the hearing was

[10:15] where is the abutting residence relative

[10:18] to the proposed screening buffer?

[10:21] You'll recall that we had a conversation about the location

[10:25] of the house to the south of the narrow driveway area

[10:29] and how that property might be shielded from headlight glare

[10:34] for cars using my client's driveway,

[10:36] or if the proposed driveway was built as proposed.

[10:40] We do have that house now shown on the ZBA exhibit.

[10:45] A revised exhibit is the last page of

[10:48] that letter that came around.

[10:51] And you can see that the proposed vegetation

[10:55] is in a good spot relative to

[10:58] the location of that structure.

[11:00] We're certainly open to suggestions of how that may be

[11:04] improved upon or done differently,

[11:06] but the, the intent is to provide a vegetative screen and,

[11:10] and we think we've got that in the right spot.

[11:14] The third issue that came forward was just a general

[11:17] drainage concern relative to the neighborhood

[11:20] and concerns that frankly were the existing condition today.

[11:25] And some of our abutters were explaining

[11:27] how drainage in the area is a factor

[11:30] for their everyday life in the existing condition.

[11:33] What we've done is a coverage estimate so that if we were

[11:37] to put the house where it's proposed, if it were

[11:40] to be sized the way it's

[11:42] proposed, I'm sorry, can I help you?

[11:45] No, no, you're fine. I'm sorry. Okay.

[11:46] I I'm happy to slow down if I'm going too quickly.

[11:49] No, I apologize. I not at

[11:51] All being someone was speaking to me

[11:54] and I wasn't sure what they were saying.

[11:55] Not at all. Go ahead. Just making sure

[11:59] I'm not confusing anyone.

[12:00] No, sorry.

[12:02] The, the coverage for our proposed residential improvements

[12:06] is 10,950 square feet,

[12:10] which on a 2.7 acre lot calculates

[12:13] to 9.2% proposed impervious coverage.

[12:20] Again, it was raised in the context

[12:22] of neighborhood drainage, generally runoff concerns,

[12:27] but I think our math shows that there's a significant

[12:30] infiltration area and that the neighborhood may

[12:34] or may not have drainage concerns,

[12:36] but we're not gonna be improving

[12:38] or deteriorating those conditions in any material manner.

[12:44] Lastly, we had a bit of a conversation about the easement

[12:47] that is on record that benefits the neighboring lot,

[12:51] the easement as I explained.

[12:53] Then I wanna explain now it's purely beneficial

[12:56] to that neighbor.

[12:58] It allows that neighbor to maintain portions

[13:01] of their driveway that are on our property.

[13:05] We apologize that apparently news to us,

[13:08] our seller did not include that neighbor in their

[13:12] negotiations and in their

[13:17] steps taken to record that easement.

[13:20] But the fact is that the easement is only beneficial.

[13:23] It doesn't obligate the neighbor to do anything.

[13:27] And in fact, if they don't want the easement,

[13:29] they certainly could release it

[13:32] and we would cooperate with

[13:33] that release if that were their intention.

[13:36] I will, I will tell you that releasing the easement would

[13:38] simply require some different solution to the encroachment

[13:43] that is occurring

[13:45] and the easement isn't a bad way to solve it,

[13:48] but we didn't create or grant the easement

[13:51] and it does solve the issue of their

[13:54] encroachment onto our lot

[13:56] and the area

[13:58] of encroachment does not prevent the layout of our driveway.

[14:02] Both can be accommodated in that same space.

[14:06] So, so that's it. Those were the questions

[14:08] that were were raised before the hearing was suspended.

[14:12] And I wanted to just quickly summarize our evidence

[14:15] that we presented in detail, and I won't do verbatim,

[14:19] but I think we align well with the statutory provisions

[14:22] of 6 74, 33 i Roman I

[14:27] the peabodys my clients, their trust.

[14:30] They were not aware of the prior variances having expired

[14:34] prior to their purchase.

[14:35] Their proposed project is single family residence.

[14:39] It's consistent with the surrounding

[14:41] residential neighborhood.

[14:44] The house can be built observing all setbacks

[14:47] and in the spirit of the ordinance,

[14:50] perhaps most importantly, the lot is uniquely shaped.

[14:54] None of the rest of them are like that.

[14:56] But it can still be developed in a typical building envelope

[14:59] with a typical residential driveway having standard width,

[15:03] shoulders and grade

[15:05] and the layout even accommodates the easement in favor

[15:09] of the neighbors and proposes some screening

[15:13] and landscaping for the other neighbor

[15:15] to hopefully allow things to peacefully coexist.

[15:20] The driveway usage would be light

[15:22] and typical of any other single family home

[15:25] and typical of what's surrounding them in the neighborhood.

[15:29] And we did provide a letter of valuation, a a,

[15:33] a local broker's experienced opinion

[15:35] that no devaluation would result from

[15:40] one quality residential structure being added in the area.

[15:46] Having said all of that, my client will suffer considerable

[15:51] financial difficulty if the lot can't be reasonably used

[15:55] consistent with its surroundings.

[15:57] And that's why we're here asking for zoning relief.

[16:01] Really appreciate your consideration

[16:03] and I'll, I'll leave it at that,

[16:05] but most certainly happy to take questions

[16:07] On the easement.

[16:10] It's a benefit to the, to the neighbor essentially

[16:13] the restrict the, if if the easement were stricken

[16:18] or reversed, essentially that would,

[16:24] let's create complications for the neighbor.

[16:26] It's snow removal and they don't have to use the easement,

[16:30] but it's there regardless.

[16:31] That's correct. It's beneficial to them if they don't

[16:35] want it, don't need it, don't feel it's helpful,

[16:37] they could release it, but it,

[16:40] what they would be releasing is the ability

[16:42] to use those areas of our property to

[16:44] Their benefit I think.

[16:45] Yeah.

[16:46] The grade on there, you said 9%,

[16:49] 9.6, I mean typical is the, the driveway grade

[16:54] and the town established criteria is about 3%.

[16:59] So you're about 6% over that now that 9% is,

[17:05] is going from, I'm just as a benchmark from the structure

[17:10] towards the oval.

[17:14] It's from the, yeah, it's from the entrance

[17:15] of the driveway up to the building area.

[17:17] Okay.

[17:22] Is there containment provisions so that, that

[17:27] I think behind that house is a slope. Am I correct

[17:30] On the, you, when you're, when you drive up the hill

[17:33] to the building area, there is a slope away.

[17:36] Is that what you're referring to?

[17:39] I guess from the back of the house

[17:42] or I guess at the apex of the driveway

[17:44] where the hammerhead would be?

[17:46] Is that pretty flat? That's pretty flat. Okay. To the left

[17:50] Of the house would be, it's, it eventually starts

[17:52] to slope down, but the, the

[17:55] where the home sits is pretty level right out

[17:57] to the stone walls behind

[17:59] where the conservation land is and so forth.

[18:01] That's pretty flat land.

[18:03] So is there containment provisions that water at,

[18:08] at the apex of the, of the driveway that

[18:11] that water is not just funneling onto the driveway

[18:14] and then down to to Ballard Street?

[18:17] Yeah, we have no right to drain onto other properties.

[18:20] So one of two things will happen.

[18:22] Either the engineering group will, will have a calculation

[18:25] that what we are shedding can infiltrate and will infiltrate

[18:29] or there will be containment measures if it cannot.

[18:37] Do you have any discussions

[18:38] with the engineers at this point regarding

[18:40] that containment provision?

[18:43] We haven't because the house plans have not been able

[18:45] to proceed to building permit

[18:46] because we can't clear zoning issues.

[18:49] We'll have to get there in order

[18:50] to receive our building permit.

[18:52] My recollection is, as you had indicated prior, that

[18:57] when you realized the variance had expired,

[19:00] had hit the two year mark, you held up,

[19:04] Put the brakes on.

[19:05] Got it. Okay. Yeah, we wanted

[19:07] to make sure we had a project.

[19:12] I think we talked about your septic location.

[19:14] It's already been established as a benchmark,

[19:17] but test pit has not been done.

[19:19] Test pit data test pit

[19:21] Has been, It, it was done.

[19:23] And I think some of that information is now on the plan

[19:26] that was provided with the surveyor's letter.

[19:30] And so seeing the grading marks coming across the apex

[19:33] of the driveway, you're at five 12.

[19:35] I can see that the grade descends from that point,

[19:41] I guess going, trying to find north

[19:43] and south on the plan here,

[19:50] I don't see north indicated on the plan.

[19:54] I don't see it either. I think it's, i

[19:55] I I suspect that's probably southerly

[19:58] or east southeasterly.

[20:00] I, I su suspect

[20:01] The septic from the apex there.

[20:03] Yep. Yes, I agree.

[20:10] And that water will wash down over the septic

[20:13] hill, the leach field.

[20:18] Where's the, if you're looking at the house from,

[20:22] from Ballard and you have the left hand end of the house,

[20:26] what continues on is that just wood, upland wood,

[20:30] open space, wooded area, just wood.

[20:32] And so that water runoff as a place to disperse

[20:35] and not come down towards Ballard. Correct? Correct.

[20:38] That's what I was explaining that it,

[20:40] it either goes in the ground or gets contained.

[20:42] Yeah, well it's verification

[20:45] 'cause I'm sure we're go, you know,

[20:46] we may get some feedback on that.

[20:47] Hundred percent. Right. And with

[20:53] heading from the Leach field towards Ballard,

[20:58] is there a berm of some sort that's ensuring

[21:01] that water is not just flowing towards the properties

[21:04] that are along Ballard?

[21:06] It, it certainly can be burned.

[21:08] I I, I don't know that answer as I'm sitting here now,

[21:10] but I know that we don't, as I said, we don't have the right

[21:14] to, to shed water in that direction.

[21:16] So it has to be infiltrated or contained.

[21:18] Ms. Owen, do you have in your inspection system,

[21:21] do you have that way of making sure that provision is

[21:25] that the sloping of the lot?

[21:27] You know, make sure that we're not going

[21:29] to be spilling onto the properties that are along you.

[21:33] We do look at that when we're out on inspections,

[21:35] especially as the project is wrapping

[21:37] up. Okay. For completion.

[21:38] Alright, I'm going to take a break from questions.

[21:41] Anybody else have any questions? Mr.

[21:44] Corbett, if you want to chime in, you're welcome to,

[21:47] meanwhile to my left, Mr.

[21:49] Tripp,

[21:54] The, the slope

[21:57] is the chairman has mentioned his an interesting situation.

[22:03] I I do see that there is a, it is a

[22:08] negative grade after 400 feet,

[22:13] which appears to be about where a

[22:20] the driveway be

[22:24] begins descending.

[22:26] So I don't see the non-trivial surface

[22:32] of the buildings being a problem

[22:33] because it's, it's behind the, the crest

[22:36] of the hill. The,

[22:40] We, we had just prepared

[22:41] that information in response to a question. Yeah.

[22:44] Alright. But I, I agree it's, it is,

[22:48] it's not a bad thing.

[22:50] You know, the non perial service of the, the residents being

[22:54] behind the crest of the hill.

[22:57] So the,

[23:02] the driveway now this is a, a single lane driveway

[23:06] or a two lane driveway?

[23:08] Single lane. Single lane. Typical residential.

[23:11] Say again? Typical Residential. All

[23:13] Right.

[23:14] So there's not that much non

[23:16] perial surface there either.

[23:20] All right. But

[23:27] that's about the only comments I have at this time.

[23:32] Alright, Ms. Moore, thank you. Anything?

[23:36] So my previous issue has been the 26th Ballard.

[23:41] I see that you put the trees

[23:43] and I read that you guys were willing to plant them there.

[23:47] And are you guys willing to go all the way as far down

[23:50] to the road as the abutters would feel comfortable?

[23:54] If, or is there a limit or

[23:56] No?

[23:57] I think if, if we need to, if we need to,

[23:59] to keep everybody happy, like to keep everybody in the Can

[24:01] You speak on their my phone? Oh,

[24:03] Sorry.

[24:04] Yeah, no, I, I'm, I'm sure if we need to work with the,

[24:07] the landowners next to us in front of us

[24:09] and whatnot, if we have

[24:10] to extend the trees down a little further, that's fine.

[24:14] Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Yep.

[24:18] Mr. Dietzel? No, thank you Mr. Chair. Is Mr.

[24:22] Corbett there? Is he on it? Yes, Mr. Chair?

[24:24] He is, should be able to speak. All

[24:26] Right.

[24:27] Yeah, no questions at this time, Mr. Chair. Okay.

[24:28] I didn't ask last week or last meeting.

[24:30] Great. Okay. Anybody else? Mr. Bimba?

[24:35] Dragani? Mr. I have no questions at the moment.

[24:40] Okay. All set? All set too, Mike, Mr. Okay.

[24:46] All right. So let me, let me just see how this goes.

[24:50] We get readdressed all right. Per, per our policies.

[24:52] And hang on a second.

[24:54] Anybody else have any questions here

[24:55] regarding this application?

[24:57] Anything to address? Seeing nobody rise. All right.

[25:03] We do have staff report completed from yourself, right,

[25:06] Mrs. Owen?

[25:08] Yes. Alright, gentlemen, have anything else to add? No.

[25:13] Thank you. Thank you. Okay. All right.

[25:18] I guess if there's no other questions we can

[25:20] go into deliberation.

[25:24] I'll make a motion to go into deliberation. Thank

[25:27] You.

[25:28] Second.

[25:30] All in favor of deliberation, say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

[25:34] All right.

[25:42] Anybody wish to lead off on this? I can.

[25:49] With the previous case, there really didn't seem

[25:53] to be a compromise

[25:55] and them willing to add the landscaping I think

[26:02] could be a big difference

[26:04] and I feel that they're gonna be more willing to work

[26:06] that is with the neighbor

[26:10] than previously. Yep.

[26:12] Okay. And yeah, I think some, some of the answers are,

[26:17] are more completed and satisfactory here.

[26:20] Mr. Tripp?

[26:23] I believe I voted in the affirmative

[26:25] to approve the variance back when

[26:30] it originally came to us.

[26:34] I think that this is probably a,

[26:39] Okay.

[26:41] I have one More thing to add. Yes. Oh, wait.

[26:43] Oh, you can keep going. Probably a,

[26:48] a suitable compromise.

[26:50] You know, I, I was not here at the last meeting

[26:52] so I didn't know about the putting the berm in for the

[26:59] site, but I,

[27:03] I believe it's a workable plan right now.

[27:07] And another big difference from the previous case is

[27:11] that they were building

[27:12] to sell in their building to live there.

[27:15] So that to me is a huge difference.

[27:24] This Was the last case, right? Mr. Tripp? Mr.

[27:29] Tripp, do you wish to remain on this case?

[27:34] Sure. You have that right?

[27:37] As a, as a primary member, I'm just trying to see

[27:40] who was sitting on the case with us,

[27:43] but if you're comfortable with that, that's fine.

[27:47] You have that right and I, i based on the fact that we,

[27:52] that you had affirmed the prior case when we heard it,

[27:56] I have no con I see no conflict

[27:58] with this either, so that's fine.

[28:03] I'm trying to find my motion

[28:05] sheet here, so bear with me.

[28:10] Yeah, if you don't mind.

[28:12] I, I have a pile of papers here.

[28:19] Thank you. Alright.

[28:24] And yep. And

[28:31] All right, and Mrs. Morin, you had indicated that you

[28:38] would, and the applicant agreed that you would want

[28:42] to see some other shrubberies along the driveway between

[28:47] I guess 26 and a half and 26?

[28:52] Yes. And it's already on the plan.

[28:55] I just, because I know it's not too size

[28:59] or just if they work with the neighbors,

[29:02] if they wanna go further, have more,

[29:03] have less within reason.

[29:07] Well I think that it leaves it open-ended. Right.

[29:10] If you want specificity to this

[29:12] and where that requirement would be,

[29:16] I guess I would say plantings from the edge

[29:21] of the right of way back as described,

[29:25] something to that nature if you wish to have that.

[29:28] No, I think it being on the plan is enough

[29:32] 'cause it's also on the side where it's numbered,

[29:35] it says why it's there.

[29:36] Okay. Very good. Mr. Dietzel, anything with you?

[29:41] I reviewed the last case

[29:43] and I don't really see much difference

[29:44] between the variance we granted the first time

[29:47] and this one, other than I believe the applicants may be

[29:53] trying to make more of an effort to be accommodating

[29:56] to the neighbors and listen to their concerns

[29:58] and address them.

[30:00] And certainly with respect to the two sections

[30:03] that are being addressed, the frontage and the,

[30:06] and the minimum lot with, I,

[30:11] I think that those are, are addressed in the five criteria

[30:15] and I, I, I don't really have a

[30:18] problem with this application.

[30:19] Okay. Ms. Corbett, you have anything you wish to add?

[30:23] Yeah, much like the first time that we heard this case,

[30:26] you know, when I look at this property, it's landlocked

[30:29] as it currently sits and really the only other alternative I

[30:32] can see for it would be to split it up, you know,

[30:35] multiple different ways amongst

[30:36] however many landowners, which I don't see really

[30:39] as a reasonable outcome.

[30:43] You know, I do think it is a reasonable request for

[30:46] that reason, you know, understanding what it does do

[30:48] to the privacy of few

[30:49] of the abutters who've gotten accustomed

[30:51] to the driveways the way that they are.

[30:53] I did not agree, although I did vote in the affirmative last

[30:56] time, I didn't agree with the ha's appeal

[30:58] and overturn of it,

[30:59] I thought it should have been remanded back to us.

[31:01] However, we did lose multiple appeals on that.

[31:04] So also knowing where the state's kind

[31:09] of backing on this case is as well.

[31:11] I really personally don't see enough

[31:13] to go against the applicant here,

[31:15] but I'd be open to had a hearing some more.

[31:17] I do feel that, you know,

[31:18] with everything we've learned on this case,

[31:20] it doesn't meet the five criteria.

[31:23] Okay. Yeah, and I, I would concur

[31:25] and I, I really don't wish

[31:26] to go back down the same path we've gone down before

[31:31] and the intentions here, as Mrs. Morin has pointed out,

[31:35] are certainly different

[31:36] and by no fault of their own,

[31:39] I guess the applicants were not totally aware of

[31:42] what they were going to deal with,

[31:44] but I also think that the massive land

[31:47] that their building on as there was,

[31:51] there's already been an approval much

[31:54] to say against the board's will,

[31:56] but this would be kind

[32:00] of an illegal taking at this point if we did not concede

[32:04] with the applicant's request for relief.

[32:08] So anyway, we have typical

[32:12] structuring the motion subject to obtaining all state

[32:15] and town permits and inspections

[32:17] and Mrs. Moore has chosen not to have specificity

[32:22] to the plantings.

[32:23] I think that the intent there for the, between the driveway

[32:28] and the abutter, understanding some of those houses in

[32:33] that neighborhood, the driveways are relatively close

[32:37] to homes as it is in some on, on some of the parcels.

[32:42] So this is not an egregious requirement here

[32:46] and the fact that the applicant is willing to

[32:49] give those plantings as a screen

[32:52] and protection to the butter is, is admirable.

[32:58] And if they did have the right

[33:00] frontage they could put a driveway there.

[33:03] There's nothing saying

[33:04] that it couldn't be there if there was a required frontage.

[33:07] So I think that alone that they're willing

[33:11] to work with 'em says a lot.

[33:13] Okay, very good.

[33:15] Motion is structured then we have the subject

[33:18] to obtaining Allstate town permits and inspections

[33:21] and no one else has any other conditions.

[33:24] So that being said, we'll take a motion

[33:25] come out of deliberation.

[33:28] So moved. Thank you Mr. Trip. Mr.

[33:30] Dietzel, you wanna help out? Second. Second by Mr. Dietzel.

[33:33] All in favor of exiting deliberation, say aye. Aye. Aye.

[33:37] Any opposed? All right, Mrs. Moore,

[33:39] you have a motion to read?

[33:41] I do. Thank you. I make a motion on case number two six

[33:45] dash 104 to grant a variance to the terms

[33:50] of article six,

[33:52] section 1 65 dash four seven B two

[33:58] and section 1 65 dash four seven B three

[34:03] of the town of dairy zoning ordinance

[34:06] to allow the construction of a single family home

[34:09] with less than the required frontage

[34:12] and minimum lot width parcel

[34:15] ID 0 6 1 0 3 A zoned

[34:19] LMDR as presented with the following conditions.

[34:23] We have one, one subject to obtaining all seat

[34:26] and town permits and inspections

[34:29] and that concludes the reading of the motion.

[34:31] I need a second second

[34:34] That puts that motion on the floor going over to

[34:40] finding a fact.

[34:41] Mr. Corbet, are you set with that

[34:43] or do you need me to do it?

[34:45] I'm good. Mr. Chair may just need

[34:47] some help taking the notes on the feedback that we received

[34:50] that With

[34:53] that finding a fact case 26 dash one 14 Originally heard

[34:58] June 4th, 2026 and continued to June 18th, 2026.

[35:03] The ZBA heard the application promised land survey on behalf

[35:06] of the Peabody family, revocable trusts of 2025

[35:10] concerning the property located at 26

[35:13] and a half Ballard Road parcel id,

[35:15] parcel ID 0 6 1 0 3 A notice was

[35:20] provided to the immediate abutters per statute

[35:22] and the board received testimony from the applicant

[35:24] and counsel Town Staff Abutters

[35:27] and members of the public documentary.

[35:30] Evidence included, the book was not limited to site plans,

[35:33] photos, records, and expert testimony.

[35:36] The applicants are requesting a variance

[35:38] to allow the construction

[35:39] of a single family home on an existing lot

[35:41] with less than the required frontage and minimum lot width.

[35:44] This property is located in the low medium density

[35:47] residential zoning district, which requires a minimum

[35:49] of 150 foot lot frontage

[35:52] and a minimum lot width

[35:54] of 150 feet at the 35 foot set, excuse me,

[35:59] at the 35 foot front setback line

[36:02] or 150 feet at the front lot line.

[36:06] A variance was previously denied in 2021

[36:08] to allow the construction

[36:09] of a single family home on the property.

[36:11] The decision was appealed by the applicant

[36:12] to the Housing Appeals Board in 2022,

[36:15] which resulted in the reversal

[36:16] of the zoning board's decision.

[36:18] The town of DER subsequently appealed the HAB decision

[36:20] to the New Hampshire Supreme Court

[36:22] where the HA B'S decision was affirmed.

[36:24] It has been over two years since that final order was issued

[36:26] by the New Hampshire Supreme Court and

[36:28] therefore the variance has expired.

[36:30] The property is serviced by private well in an onsite septic

[36:33] system if approved.

[36:35] The driveway for the new home must be constructed

[36:37] to the Town of Dairy standards as required

[36:39] by the Land Development Control regulations.

[36:41] The board weighed testimony both

[36:43] for and against the proposal.

[36:45] Now with that, starting with Mr.

[36:50] Dietzel, do you feel

[36:53] that the unnecessary hardship is demonstrated

[36:56] because the hardship relates

[36:57] to the unique characteristics of the property?

[37:00] Yes, I do. The unusual shape of the property

[37:04] and the, just the configuration, I

[37:09] would think that it would make it impossible to

[37:12] build a home there with the proper frontage

[37:18] and

[37:23] lot with, and that would be a hardship

[37:26] because it would make that piece

[37:28] of property virtually unusable.

[37:32] I think the, the use of the property is

[37:33] reasonable in and of itself.

[37:37] Thank you Mr. Dietzel and then announcing over to Mr.

[37:41] Tripp.

[37:45] What was the question again? Hardship,

[37:47] Do you Oh, hardship.

[37:49] Absolutely. It's the, the property was originally supposed

[37:53] to be a, a water source

[37:58] and it was determined that there was not sufficient

[38:02] water up there and that when

[38:06] that use was no longer available, it was necessary to

[38:12] determine that the only other use

[38:16] that could be accommodated was

[38:19] it being a single family home,

[38:22] being a single family home.

[38:25] It didn't met all the requirements

[38:28] of the zoning ordinance except,

[38:30] except the frontage.

[38:34] So giving them a variance for a frontage

[38:40] will solve that dilemma.

[38:48] Thank you Mr. Tripp. Ms. Morgan,

[38:50] I also agree with what has been stated

[38:53] that it is a hardship due to

[38:58] the frontage and not being able to use a lot of record.

[39:08] Thank you Mr. Perkins? Yeah,

[39:09] I find the hardship is there in the land

[39:13] primarily from the, its original development in

[39:17] 1980 something three 2003 83.

[39:21] And but

[39:24] to not grant the relief would be re would be an

[39:27] on unlawful taking

[39:31] And the vice share agrees with the chair.

[39:35] I think that as the property sits today,

[39:37] it's currently completely landlocked in.

[39:39] While I do not believe that it was originally intended

[39:42] as a lot for a house to be,

[39:45] I think time has changed over 40 some odd years.

[39:48] I think now it would be more of a hardship

[39:52] to not grant this than it would be to

[40:00] Mr.

[40:01] I will start with you again.

[40:02] Do you find that this is not contrary to the public interest

[40:05] and just, sorry, just

[40:06] before I move on, for those in attendance, to know

[40:08] that you find a fact is structured in the positive,

[40:11] much like we do with our motions, that's not to

[40:16] suggest that we are leaning either way.

[40:18] You'll find this for the remainder of the e evening.

[40:21] So that said, Mr. Dietzel, do you find

[40:23] that this is not contrary to the public interest?

[40:25] Yes.

[40:34] Thank you, Mr. Trip.

[40:37] The

[40:42] Not contrary to public Interest.

[40:44] Yes, I don't, I I don't believe it is contrary

[40:49] to public interest.

[40:50] The there are,

[40:59] there's no reason that it

[41:02] should be denied.

[41:15] Ms. Moore. I feel with the changes in place

[41:19] that it will not be contrary to the public interest.

[41:26] And Mr. Perkins, I'm satisfied

[41:28] that the conflicts brought up

[41:30] by the abutters have been addressed

[41:32] and I see no, no dispute

[41:36] with public interest

[41:42] And I agree while I understand the concerns

[41:44] that the Abutters have and the feelings that they have

[41:46] after what they're originally told by the seller

[41:49] when moving in, I think that overall allowing the, you know,

[41:53] aforementioned landlocked lot to be put

[41:56] to use is more beneficial to the overall public.

[41:59] So I do not believe that this is contrary

[42:01] to the public interest either.

[42:06] Mr. Diesel, do you find that this is consistent

[42:09] with the spirit of the ordinance

[42:10] or that granting this variance would be consistent

[42:13] with the spirit of the ordinance?

[42:14] Yes. I don't believe it changes the, the

[42:19] essential nature of the neighborhood.

[42:21] I believe a single family home in a residential area,

[42:24] not withstanding the frontage issue is, is

[42:28] within the spirit of the ordinance.

[42:34] Thank you. Mr. Trip. The,

[42:40] the variance granted deals only with the width

[42:45] of the lot with the lot is typically to allow

[42:52] separation between the buildings since the, the

[42:59] resident to be built is at the top of the hill

[43:02] and nowhere near as any other buildings.

[43:07] I believe it is definitely in, in

[43:09] within the spirit of the ordinance.

[43:16] Ms. Martin? I agree.

[43:18] I feel the size of the lot keeps it within the

[43:21] spirit of the ordinance.

[43:26] Any thank you and Mr. Perkins?

[43:29] Yes, I feel it meets the spirit of the ordinance

[43:36] And I agree.

[43:37] I think the spirit of the width

[43:40] or the front end should be required here was meant more

[43:42] for overcrowding.

[43:43] I don't believe that a single family house on a parcel

[43:46] of this size would go against

[43:50] the spirit of the ordinance.

[43:54] Mr. Dietzel, do you feel that

[43:56] substantial justice would be served

[43:58] by denying Ms variance request?

[44:05] No. I, I I think substantial justice would be done

[44:08] to allow the variance.

[44:12] I think the benefit to,

[44:15] or the benefit to the town to, for the denial

[44:19] is minimal compared to the potential

[44:22] benefit to the applicant.

[44:27] I, I don't, I don't see how it's reasonable to, to deny him

[44:31] for any reasonable use of his property.

[44:36] Thank you Mr. Trip. The,

[44:46] I believe that what Mr.

[44:49] Dietzel said pretty much

[44:56] is in, in line with what my considerations are.

[44:59] Thank you.

[45:03] Thank you Ms. Moore.

[45:05] I feel that substantial justice is being done

[45:10] by granting it

[45:11] because of the previous HAB

[45:15] case or decision.

[45:19] Okay, Mr. Perkins?

[45:20] I think I may have answered this earlier

[45:22] and been outta sequence,

[45:23] but yes, I believe substantial justice is is

[45:27] served at this point

[45:31] And I also feel think substantial justice

[45:36] would not be served by deny ms variance request.

[45:38] I think it would just cause more harm to the landowner than

[45:41] by approving the various requests.

[45:45] Alright, and lastly, Mr.

[45:48] Dietzel, do you find that the applicant has adequately

[45:50] demonstrated that surrounding property values

[45:52] will not be diminished?

[45:54] Yes. He produced an opinion that it would not diminish

[46:01] prop surrounding property values

[46:03] and I have no re I live very close to that myself

[46:06] and I, I don't feel that it would be contrary to

[46:12] my property value.

[46:14] So yes, I believe he met that criteria.

[46:19] Thank you Mr. Trip.

[46:25] Well I have not heard any testimony as to whether the

[46:29] property values would increase or decrease.

[46:32] I would find it difficult to believe that

[46:38] permitting what is essentially a driveway in

[46:42] between the the abutting properties would

[46:45] diminish their, their value.

[46:51] Yep. Ms. Martin, I feel that with the changes,

[46:56] I know not to sound redundant,

[46:58] but with the changes that they've offered,

[47:01] it helps protect the value

[47:02] of the other properties surrounding it.

[47:07] Thank you Mr. Perkins.

[47:09] I don't see where it creates a di diminuation

[47:12] of property values, so I would say that that's a firm

[47:20] on, on that perspective, sorry,

[47:26] And myself.

[47:27] You know, knowing that New Hampshire Supreme Court kind

[47:30] of allows us to utilize our opinion of the area

[47:33] or our knowledge of the area,

[47:35] it's a very desirable neighborhood.

[47:37] I don't think that an additional house there would be

[47:40] anything less than a net neutral

[47:42] to the surrounding property values.

[47:43] I don't think that one extra one family house on a large

[47:47] size lot that it is would diminish anything where any

[47:50] of those houses were to hit the open market.

[47:53] So with that, that concludes the finding of fact.

[47:57] Does anybody have any additions

[47:58] or addendums that they wish to make to this?

[48:02] Oh, seeing no adjusters there

[48:05] all in favor Moving this for a vote.

[48:07] Say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Mrs. Morn shall

[48:10] Vote?

[48:11] Yes. Mr. Dietzel? Yes. Mr. Trip? Yes. Mr. Corbet?

[48:16] Yes. And the chair will make it unanimous

[48:19] by five vote of five to zero.

[48:21] So congratulations gentlemen.

[48:23] You can proceed with the building of your home.

[48:26] Anybody agree by this decision as 30 days to ask this board

[48:29] for review after that recourse would be to superior court.

[48:33] All right. Good luck.

[48:38] All right, and back to case number 25 dash 1 1 8.

[49:24] Okay Ma'am,

[49:28] Thank you.

[49:29] And thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak

[49:32] with my client and I'm glad that I did.

[49:34] They would not want a condition attached to the variance

[49:38] and there are several reasons just

[49:40] so you understand their thought process.

[49:42] Just the practicality of it, the resale value.

[49:45] They do renovations down in the basement,

[49:47] they get a apartment set up

[49:49] and then when they go to sell it,

[49:51] they can't market the property as having this unit

[49:54] because from what you were saying it would,

[49:56] that variance within end with a transfer of ownership,

[49:59] there would be a recuperative investments that would be

[50:01] of concern from them

[50:03] and from a legal point of view, I believe that

[50:05] that's probably not a proper condition to attach.

[50:08] As this board is well aware,

[50:09] the variance runs with the land.

[50:11] You typically can attach a condition when it has

[50:13] to do with the medical disability.

[50:14] That's not what we have here.

[50:16] So those are our reasons for not wanting that condition.

[50:20] Ms. Moore and secretary has just brought that

[50:22] to my attention, so I'll roll with that.

[50:24] That's fine. It was an offer that Attorney

[50:27] FKI offered this board.

[50:29] Okay. Okay. Thank you.

[50:30] That being said, anybody have any comment on my proposal Mr.

[50:35] Dietzel?

[50:37] No. Thank you Mr. Chair. Mr. Dani. All set?

[50:42] I'm all set. Chair Mr. Trip? Any comment?

[50:46] No. Ms. Morin? I have none. All right.

[50:50] Let us reflect for the record

[50:51] that the chair will change his vote to a yes.

[50:54] Make that vote Affirmed Vote of three to two.

[50:59] Do you need a finding of fact? Are you all set with this

[51:02] Is, I'm not following the process

[51:04] that you're engaging in. I'm sorry.

[51:06] Do you want a finding a fact or are you all set with this?

[51:09] I believe the HAB wants a finding a fact.

[51:12] I'm, I'm changing my vote so

[51:15] that we don't have to go through that.

[51:16] Okay. If you want to have another night of a hearing,

[51:18] we can certainly do that. No, I

[51:20] Do not. Okay,

[51:20] So you're fine with waiving the finding of fact

[51:23] For a three to two vote. Sure.

[51:25] It's painful, isn't it? I love process though.

[51:29] All the best intentions of the legislature

[51:31] and people are gonna falling asleep in the room

[51:34] here. All right.

[51:36] And I'm just not sure if you can do that just

[51:40] Well, I'm willing to note

[51:42] that the chair has changed his vote.

[51:45] Okay. By a voted three to two.

[51:47] We will note the case number

[51:49] and we will affirm with the HAB

[51:52] or you can that this matter has been resolved

[51:56] and that as far as the zoning board of adjustment goes,

[52:01] we've relieved given relief to the applicant.

[52:04] It's noted with code enforcement so

[52:07] that your client can proceed.

[52:08] Okay? Okay. I'm sure

[52:10] that in the idea the HAB had, which was to remand this back

[52:15] to us to get, see if we could get clarity.

[52:20] However, in their instructions they also essentially said,

[52:23] do this or else is my impression.

[52:27] And so instead of going through that

[52:29] and having to have a rehearing

[52:31] because we have to replace members who are no longer here,

[52:34] I think this is the easiest going forward.

[52:36] Okay. I'll read the motion.

[52:41] So I make a motion on case 25 dash one 18

[52:46] the chair officially changes his vote to a yes vote.

[52:50] Making this a three to two affirmative.

[52:54] And the on the actions for Tere properties

[53:01] parcel number p, parcel ID 3 2 0 2 8

[53:06] Zoned general commercial

[53:09] and subject to obtaining Allstate and town permits

[53:13] and inspections. Sounds reasonable.

[53:16] Thank you. All right. Anybody have any comments?

[53:22] That motion? I have that moved please Ms. Morin?

[53:26] I'll second that. So moved please. Oh, so moved.

[53:29] Okay, second. Seconded by Mr. Dietzel.

[53:33] Anybody have any comments before we make a vote official?

[53:38] No. Okay. Nope. Mr. Dietzel? Yes.

[53:41] Mrs. Morin, I'm keeping my voted no. Okay. Mr. Trip

[53:47] I Vote Yes.

[53:48] You affirm that and Mr.

[53:51] Corbet, I'm sorry Mr. Dani.

[53:56] Mr. Dani vote Yes

[54:01] And the chair will make that Yes as well.

[54:03] Mr. Dani takes re the place of the missing

[54:08] original first member changes that vote to at least a three

[54:11] to two, it's now four to one.

[54:13] You are affirmed, your client can proceed ahead.

[54:16] Okay, thank you very much. Alright, have a good evening.

[54:18] Thanks. Next

[54:23] case up is case number 26 26 dash 15

[54:29] tabled from June 4th.

[54:31] Represented applicant is Jermaine Blaske,

[54:34] representing GAL and LLC.

[54:37] Mr. Chair, I'm gonna recuse myself on this case

[54:40] and step down, I have a business relationship with the

[54:43] Applicant.

[54:44] Very good. Mr. Dietzel Recuses. Mr.

[54:47] O Bimbo, would you like to sit in this place? Yes, Mr.

[54:51] Chair. Alright, very good. Good evening attorney.

[54:53] Jermaine, welcome back again. Thank

[54:55] You.

[54:56] How are you? Good evening everyone.

[55:00] I'm here with Brent Cole with Granite Engineering.

[55:03] He's sitting to my right.

[55:05] Also here is Tom Landon, who is the principal

[55:10] of this company and also here is Attorney John Corby.

[55:16] The subject of this application is a 16 acre portion

[55:20] of the lot currently shown on tax map 1 4 0 1 5

[55:25] lot 1 4 0 1 5 has a total of approximately 83 acres

[55:30] and is situated on what will be an extension

[55:32] of Forest Street and the development known as

[55:36] Denali Estates Lot 1 4 0 1 5 is located on the LMDR district

[55:41] where the frontage requirement is 150 feet

[55:44] and lots are required to contain a minimum of two acres.

[55:47] In developing Denali Estates,

[55:49] the applicant has extended the municipal water line from the

[55:52] original portion of Daniel Daniel Road through the terminus

[55:56] of the new portion of Daniel Road and onto Forest Street

[55:59] and will now further extend the waterline onto the remaining

[56:02] portion of Forest Street

[56:03] and throughout lot 1 4 0 1 5 let all like all previous

[56:08] approved lots in the Denali Estate subdivision,

[56:11] all future subdivided lots in lot 1 4 0 1 5 will be serviced

[56:15] by municipal water, thus eliminated in the need for wells

[56:19] within the state and town.

[56:21] Required well radius and septic system separation on these

[56:24] lots lot 1 4 0 1 5 is part of a larger development known

[56:27] as Denali Estates, which has a total

[56:29] of approximately 50 lots which have been developed

[56:32] and approved by the Dairy Planning Board in phases known

[56:34] as phase 1, 2, 3, and four.

[56:39] I'd ask you to look at plan A

[56:41] through D on tab four.

[56:44] The lots which are the subject

[56:46] of this application will be in an approximately 16 acre

[56:49] portion of the remainder of the property currently known

[56:52] as lots 1 4 0 1 5 as shown on Plan B, the desire

[56:56] of J-A-L-L-L-C,

[56:57] the developer is more logical development a portion

[57:01] of lot 1 4 0 1 5 containing approximately 16 acres

[57:04] to better utilize the land with the availability

[57:06] of the municipal water

[57:08] and to protect the aesthetics of the development

[57:10] and abutting homeowners properties.

[57:12] However, that would require

[57:14] that the lots in this 16 acre parcel

[57:17] parcel contain less than two acres each.

[57:20] The applicant has two alternatives available to it.

[57:23] This six eight acre parcel can be subdivided into six lots

[57:27] each with a minimum of 150 feet of frontage

[57:30] and containing a minimum of two acres.

[57:32] However, due to the configuration of the of the land,

[57:36] these would be commonly referred to

[57:37] as finger lots each having a depth averaging 900 feet

[57:42] and that's set forth on plan C on tab four.

[57:45] Obviously this makes a substantial portion of each lot

[57:49] practically unusable to the owner.

[57:52] The owner would effectively be taxed on considerable land,

[57:55] which is impractical to use.

[57:57] The lots do not need

[57:58] to contain two acres each since they will be serviced

[58:01] by municipal water.

[58:02] The alternative and better use of the land would be

[58:05] for the developer to create smaller lots on a new road,

[58:08] still within a minimum of 150 feet frontage,

[58:11] but with a minimum of one acre each,

[58:14] which would allow the lots to be more logically configured

[58:18] with more practical, usable area area

[58:21] serviced by municipal water.

[58:23] The current proposal is to subdivide 16 acres

[58:26] of lot 1 4, 0, 1 5,

[58:28] and to lots having a minimum of one acre each serviced

[58:31] by municipal water, which will require a variance.

[58:34] The new lots will each have a minimum of 150 feet

[58:37] of frontage and more than one acre,

[58:39] but will be less than two acres each.

[58:41] That set forth on plan D

[58:43] and tab four Under the current zoning regulations

[58:46] of the town of dairy, other zones in dairy allow

[58:48] for a little as little as 15,000 square feet

[58:52] of area if serviced by either municipal water

[58:54] or sewer service.

[58:57] The applicant is of the opinion

[58:59] that requiring two acres in an area serviced

[59:02] by municipal water is arbitrary and

[59:04] therefore presents a hardship to the owner.

[59:06] Upon approval of this application for the variance,

[59:08] the plan will be subject to dairy planning board approval.

[59:12] The five criteria,

[59:15] this variance will not be contrary to the public interest.

[59:18] For variance to be contrary to the public interest,

[59:20] it must unduly

[59:21] and to a marked degree violate the basic zoning objectives

[59:24] of the zoning ordinance.

[59:26] This application does not alter the essential character

[59:29] of the neighborhood or threaten the health, safety,

[59:31] or general welfare of the public.

[59:33] The zoning objective of two acre zoning is

[59:36] to provide adequate space for wells

[59:38] and septic systems in rural areas of the community

[59:41] where neither municipal water

[59:43] nor sewer services are available.

[59:45] This is logical given the state

[59:46] and town requirements of one well radius

[59:49] and two well in septic separation distances.

[59:52] However, the proposed location will be serviced

[59:54] by municipal water, allowing a more

[59:57] practical use of the land.

[59:58] The proposed lots will meet all other requirements

[1:00:01] of the zone zoning ordinance

[1:00:02] and will be used for single family

[1:00:03] residential building purposes.

[1:00:05] Consistent with the neighborhood, there will be no threat

[1:00:08] to health, safety and general welfare of the public

[1:00:11] as the new lots will will be on a new roadway built to state

[1:00:15] and town requirements, including the installation

[1:00:18] of a municipal water main

[1:00:20] and proper drainage, there will be no site distance

[1:00:23] or driveway congestion, congestion issues.

[1:00:26] The granting of this variance will not be contrary

[1:00:28] to the public interest, the spirit of

[1:00:30] or the ordinance is observed.

[1:00:31] The spirit of the ordinance to the spirit

[1:00:35] of the zoning ordinance, ordinance is to promote the health,

[1:00:38] safety and general welfare of the community.

[1:00:40] This application does not violate the

[1:00:42] spirit of the ordinance.

[1:00:43] The proposed lots will be serviced by municipal water

[1:00:47] service, eliminating the need for private wells

[1:00:50] with well radius requirements.

[1:00:53] There are many areas of the town of Derry

[1:00:55] where the zoning ordinance allows

[1:00:57] for much smaller lots if serviced

[1:00:59] by municipal water or sewer service.

[1:01:01] For example, zone MHDR allows for lots with a minimum

[1:01:05] of 15,000 square feet.

[1:01:07] If serviced by municipal water zone, MHDR two allows

[1:01:11] for lots with a minimum

[1:01:12] of 15,000 square feet if serviced by municipal water.

[1:01:16] Additionally, N-H-D-E-S requirements allow

[1:01:18] for lot size reductions.

[1:01:19] Where a parcel is serviced by municipal water,

[1:01:22] the requested variance does not add

[1:01:24] to congestion in the streets.

[1:01:25] The proposed lots in the 16 acre area will have a minimum

[1:01:29] of 150 feet of frontage as required by the LMDR district

[1:01:34] will have sufficient area designed by the town for the entry

[1:01:37] and exit of emergency vehicles

[1:01:38] and will maintain the

[1:01:39] residential character of the neighborhood.

[1:01:41] In fact, due to the configuration of the lots

[1:01:43] and the abutting lots on Daniel Road, the residences

[1:01:46] to be built on the new lots will be difficult if not

[1:01:49] impossible to see from the residences

[1:01:51] of the lots on Daniel Road.

[1:01:53] Substantial. As justice is done,

[1:01:55] the New Hampshire Supreme Court has stated in Malachi Glen

[1:01:58] Associates versus Satana Chichester

[1:02:00] that perhaps the only guiding rule in this factor is

[1:02:04] that any loss to the individual is not outweighed by a gain

[1:02:07] to the general public is an injustice end quote.

[1:02:11] The general public has nothing to gain from the enforcement

[1:02:14] of a two acre zoning provision in this area.

[1:02:16] If this variance is granted,

[1:02:18] the ultimate homeowners will be taxed only on usable land

[1:02:21] rather than lar large, oddly shaped lots

[1:02:24] that are consistent, or I'm sorry,

[1:02:26] that are considerable unusable acreage.

[1:02:28] The property being subdivided is approximately 16 acres due

[1:02:32] to the unique configuration of the property,

[1:02:34] it cannot be used to its full potential

[1:02:38] without the required variance.

[1:02:39] Further, the lots are serviced by municipal water.

[1:02:43] The value of surrounding properties are not diminished.

[1:02:46] The residents, the residences

[1:02:47] to be constructed on the lots will be valued consistently

[1:02:50] with other residences.

[1:02:51] In the Denali of Estates neighborhood, there is no concern

[1:02:54] or indication that the granting

[1:02:57] of this variance will diminish the value

[1:02:59] of surrounding properties.

[1:03:00] The proposed lots will all have a minimum

[1:03:03] of 150 feet frontage consistent

[1:03:06] with those throughout the development.

[1:03:08] Literal enforcement of the provisions

[1:03:09] of the ordinance will result in an unnecessary hardship.

[1:03:13] No fair and substantial relationship exists

[1:03:15] between the general public purpose

[1:03:17] of the ordinance provision

[1:03:18] and the specific application of

[1:03:20] that provision to the property.

[1:03:22] The applicant's property is approximately 16 acres in size

[1:03:25] and will be serviced by municipal water service.

[1:03:27] The proposed lots will meet all other requirements

[1:03:29] of the zoning ordinance other than acreage.

[1:03:31] In fact, the proposed lots on this parcel will each have a

[1:03:35] minimum of 150 feet

[1:03:36] of frontage rather than the 125 feet required in other areas

[1:03:40] with one acre zoning.

[1:03:42] Accordingly, the applicant will suffer a hardship in the

[1:03:45] inability to use the property

[1:03:46] to its potential due the special conditions.

[1:03:49] While the property meets

[1:03:52] and exceeds all other requirements of the zoning ordinance.

[1:03:55] The existing road frontage poses no danger to the public

[1:03:58] and due to the special condition of the property,

[1:04:00] strict application of the ordinance

[1:04:02] to this property would not advance the the purposes

[1:04:05] of the ordinance provision in any fair and substantial way.

[1:04:08] There is no harm of any other land, other landowner

[1:04:12] by the granting of this variance.

[1:04:14] Real estate assessments by the town

[1:04:15] of dairy take into consideration the acreage

[1:04:18] of every parcel assessed causing homeowners

[1:04:20] to pay taxes on land that is impractical to use due

[1:04:23] to unreasonable zoning requirements

[1:04:25] where municipal services are available amounts

[1:04:28] to an unjust burden to the residents.

[1:04:30] Dairy zoning ordinance allows for lots

[1:04:33] of 15,000 square feet in the MHDR

[1:04:36] and MHDR two zones where the municipal water is available.

[1:04:39] There is no other reason stated in the ordinance

[1:04:42] for the reduced lot sizes.

[1:04:43] The requirement for two acres in the LMDR zone

[1:04:46] where municipal water is available seems to be arbitrary,

[1:04:49] is no other reason for the requirement is

[1:04:51] stated in the ordinance.

[1:04:53] This presents a hardship

[1:04:54] to the applicants the New Hampshire Supreme Court has stated

[1:04:57] in the time of Chichester versus Brooks

[1:04:59] that zoning ordinances must be reasonable, not arbitrary

[1:05:02] and must rest upon the ground of difference,

[1:05:06] having a fair and substantial relation

[1:05:09] to the object of the regulation.

[1:05:11] The intersection of Daniel Road

[1:05:12] and fourth Street was strategically positioned

[1:05:15] during the initial stages of the development

[1:05:17] and design of Denali Estates

[1:05:19] to be at right angles at locations

[1:05:22] that minimizes wetland impacts.

[1:05:25] Moving the intersection further north would have resulted in

[1:05:28] a greater impact on the larger wetland area while moving

[1:05:31] south would have extended the dead end on annual road

[1:05:34] beyond the desirable length.

[1:05:36] You can see the wetlands set forth on Plan D.

[1:05:39] Furthermore, the intersection was designed

[1:05:42] to include a fourth leg of the of the future, phase four.

[1:05:46] Because phase four requires two wetland crossings,

[1:05:49] the developer precisely located the intersection

[1:05:52] to ensure utilization of the alternative

[1:05:54] that least impacted wetlands affected by the crossing

[1:05:57] of Daniel Road and Forest Street

[1:05:59] to ensure the safety intersection of the design

[1:06:01] and to satisfy the Department

[1:06:03] of Environmental Service requirements.

[1:06:05] This requirement, necessity shifting

[1:06:07] of future phase four roadway farther south,

[1:06:10] which significantly limited the opportunity

[1:06:12] to utilize the 16 acres

[1:06:13] for which this variance is requested.

[1:06:16] New Hampshire legislature has obviously recognized

[1:06:19] that problem of requiring excessive lot sizes

[1:06:21] where municipal water is available.

[1:06:24] SB 84 proposes to set a maximum lot size

[1:06:27] for single family residents use based on the type

[1:06:30] of infrastructure service servicing the lot.

[1:06:33] One provision of the proposal legislation is

[1:06:35] for lots serviced by municipal

[1:06:37] or community water infrastructure.

[1:06:39] No ordinance shall require lot sizes greater than 44,000

[1:06:43] square feet for single family residential use

[1:06:46] where there is adequate water system capacity

[1:06:48] to accommodate development on such lots

[1:06:51] unless the municipal municipality provides empirical

[1:06:54] evidence that the water system cannot

[1:06:56] support additional homes.

[1:06:58] While this proposed legislation has not

[1:07:00] yet passed in New Hampshire legislature, it is evidence

[1:07:03] that the legislature recognizes the need

[1:07:06] for more practical use of available land.

[1:07:09] The special conditions of municipal water service

[1:07:12] being available to this parcel distinguishes it from other

[1:07:15] properties in the LMDR zone, resulting in a hardship

[1:07:18] to the developer whereby the property cannot be best used in

[1:07:21] the strict conformance with the ordinance and variance and

[1:07:24] therefore necessary to enable a reasonable use of it.

[1:07:27] The zoning ordinance of the town of Dairy states

[1:07:29] that its purpose is to promote the health, safety

[1:07:32] and general welfare of the community.

[1:07:34] It further states that the intent among other things is

[1:07:37] to assure the adequate provisions of water,

[1:07:40] assure the proper use of natural resources,

[1:07:42] give reasonable consideration to the character

[1:07:45] of the area involved in its peculiar suitability

[1:07:49] for particular uses

[1:07:51] and encouraging the most appropriate use

[1:07:53] of land throughout the municipality,

[1:07:55] allowing the variance requested is in accordance

[1:07:57] with the basic purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance

[1:08:00] by permitting the reasonable

[1:08:01] and most appropriate use of the land service

[1:08:04] by the municipal water system consistent

[1:08:06] with the remainder of the development.

[1:08:08] At a recent meeting of the Dairy Planning Board, one

[1:08:10] of the items proposed for future discussion was a need

[1:08:13] to revisit zoning requirements in view of the extension

[1:08:16] of municipal water services in dairy.

[1:08:18] Since the last revision to the ordinance, there was a,

[1:08:22] a positive response by members of the planning board

[1:08:24] to the suggestion that this topic needs to be revisited.

[1:08:27] This is further evidenced by mere passage of time

[1:08:30] and improvements by the municipal services

[1:08:32] have inadvertently created circumstances which presents

[1:08:36] a hardship to landowners.

[1:08:37] And I believe that was just as as recent

[1:08:40] as April one of this year.

[1:08:42] When that was discussed,

[1:08:44] the proposed use is a reasonable one.

[1:08:46] The proposed use of the property is a reasonable one.

[1:08:49] Single family residences are the permitted

[1:08:51] and predominant use in the zone, as will be the case

[1:08:55] with this parcel.

[1:08:56] The lot will meet and exceed all requirements

[1:08:58] of the zoning ordinance other than the acreage requirements,

[1:09:01] and there will be no adverse impact

[1:09:03] to any other lot in this development.

[1:09:08] I'll Be happy to take any questions.

[1:09:11] Did you want to add anything to that?

[1:09:12] No, I don't think so.

[1:09:21] Were you here before on

[1:09:22] for the Forest Street bef two months ago?

[1:09:26] A few months ago, yes. Yeah. Okay.

[1:09:29] So many. And so little time to remember. All right.

[1:09:32] I have no questions. Anything from the rest of the board?

[1:09:37] Nope, no gestures. Okay.

[1:09:41] Mr. Owen, you wanna give us your commentary? Sure.

[1:09:45] I don't have anything to add to that presentation,

[1:09:48] but I'll kind of just reiterate and state the facts.

[1:09:51] So as, as presented, the applicant's requesting a variance

[1:09:54] to subdivide approximately 16 acre portion

[1:09:57] of the property into 12 lots, having a minimum of one acre.

[1:10:01] Each property is located in the low medium residential

[1:10:04] zoning district, LMDR, which requires a minimum

[1:10:07] of two acre lots.

[1:10:08] Therefore, the variance is being requested this evening.

[1:10:11] As previously stated, this remainder

[1:10:14] of the parcel is approximately 83 acres as part

[1:10:18] of the ongoing Denali Estate's

[1:10:20] residential Development Project.

[1:10:21] The proposed lots subject

[1:10:23] to this application will be located within approximately 16

[1:10:26] acre portion of the parcel,

[1:10:28] which is located in within phase five.

[1:10:32] The proposed lots, or sorry, phase six,

[1:10:34] the proposed lots would meet

[1:10:35] or exceed the 150 foot minimum lot frontage requirement.

[1:10:40] The proposed lots would be serviced by municipal water

[1:10:43] and private septic septic systems.

[1:10:45] The fire protection is also required in the form of cistern

[1:10:49] or residential Sprinkler system is also required

[1:10:52] if approved, a subdivision approval

[1:10:54] by the planning board will be required

[1:10:56] and appropriate permits

[1:10:57] and inspections will be required as well. Thank you. Okay,

[1:11:01] Very good.

[1:11:03] Anybody have anything off of that? No.

[1:11:07] Gentlemen, why don't we go to public, see who's out there,

[1:11:10] who wants to have a word.

[1:11:12] At this time, we'll go to public input.

[1:11:14] Anybody who wishes to speak in favor of this application,

[1:11:17] this would be your opportunity to come forward

[1:11:21] seeing no one rise.

[1:11:23] Likewise, anyone who is opposed

[1:11:25] to this application has questions to it.

[1:11:27] May you come forward at this time. See no one rise there.

[1:11:32] Seems limited friction this evening. Attorney Jermaine.

[1:11:37] Okay. All right.

[1:11:41] If no questions and the great presentation,

[1:11:46] we can go into deliberation.

[1:11:48] Mr. Chair, I have a question for attorney.

[1:11:50] Jermaine, prior to the liberation Mr.

[1:11:52] Corbin Attorney Jermaine, I'd like to go back to

[1:11:56] where you stated that denying this would be a hardship

[1:11:59] 'cause I'm having a tough time seeing that where six

[1:12:03] parcels would work, where I do feel

[1:12:05] that 12 is a bit of an overreach.

[1:12:07] You please explain why you feel that only granting six

[1:12:12] would result in hardship.

[1:12:15] Well, I think we, we set, we set

[1:12:18] that out in detail in the application itself.

[1:12:22] I would like Brent to Cole

[1:12:26] to talk about the roadway itself

[1:12:27] because I think that makes a big difference in

[1:12:30] how we got to this. Sure.

[1:12:33] And and if you could, could you switch

[1:12:34] to the first sheet of that plan set?

[1:12:37] It's the overview plan

[1:12:39] and I think it's kind of important to take a step back on

[1:12:41] how you know we got here.

[1:12:43] I know this board wasn't necessarily involved in the first

[1:12:46] four phases of this project.

[1:12:49] We don't have that. Alright. So if you switch

[1:12:50] to the first sheet, you guys should have that in,

[1:12:53] in your packet you'll see an

[1:12:55] overview of the overall project.

[1:12:57] The first phase came off of Daniel.

[1:12:59] And again, water is being extended along all these phases.

[1:13:02] Is this plan a Yes, plan a sir. Thank you.

[1:13:05] The second phase was continued through Daniel

[1:13:08] up to that intersection.

[1:13:10] The third phase, and arguably one

[1:13:12] of the most important phases was bringing Forest Street

[1:13:15] into that intersection.

[1:13:16] And that intersection is the critical

[1:13:18] component of this project.

[1:13:20] Not only is it where Topographically, Daniel

[1:13:23] and Forest meet, but it allowed us to extend Daniel further

[1:13:28] without exceeding any dead end lengths

[1:13:31] that the town wouldn't be amenable to.

[1:13:34] It also situated the intersection at a wetland spot

[1:13:37] where we could legally cross.

[1:13:39] And that is at the thinnest spot of the wetland so

[1:13:42] that it would be approvable by your conservation commission

[1:13:44] as well as New Hampshire DES.

[1:13:47] And that allowed us to extend the roadway into phase five.

[1:13:50] While phase five is still being designed

[1:13:52] and hasn't been submitted to the planning board yet,

[1:13:55] the road would meander down through

[1:13:57] and have another wetland crossing at that

[1:14:01] smallest spot down on the south side of where,

[1:14:04] where phase five is.

[1:14:05] This shifts the roadway very south on this vacant piece

[1:14:10] of land, which leaves this north area, which is some

[1:14:14] of the more beautiful land of this parcel.

[1:14:18] Very unused. And if you see from plan, I think it's C,

[1:14:24] you'll see what the alternative is going to be.

[1:14:25] And it's 900 foot flag lots, six fingers

[1:14:31] that essentially don't use the good portion of this land

[1:14:34] because we have municipal water.

[1:14:37] And we met with town staff, they completely agreed

[1:14:39] that Plan D is the preferred alternative out here.

[1:14:43] And when the zoning ordinance was

[1:14:45] or the zoning map was put into place, it was unlikely

[1:14:48] that they thought that water would be extended into this

[1:14:51] area because two acres is just unnecessary.

[1:14:54] When you have municipal water out here, DES, we have

[1:14:57] to get septic permits.

[1:14:59] They would never require two acres

[1:15:01] for this type of development.

[1:15:03] But what this development does in in Plan D is it allows

[1:15:06] for lots that are very similar to

[1:15:08] what has already been constructed wider lots to allow

[1:15:11] for different styles of housing, proper side yard setbacks

[1:15:16] and a reasonable rear setback instead of 600 feet

[1:15:19] that will likely go unused by any of the homeowners.

[1:15:22] So honestly, this, this is a better product

[1:15:26] and it is a product of the,

[1:15:27] the zoning ordinance not accommodating

[1:15:29] municipal water in this district.

[1:15:32] So I don't disagree that plan C would be tight,

[1:15:35] but where I do disagree is that we have

[1:15:37] to go from six to 12.

[1:15:39] As I look at this, it looks like five

[1:15:41] of the lots are now being utilized

[1:15:43] by a forestry rather than the new cul-de-sac.

[1:15:46] Why can't we have eight? Why does the jump have

[1:15:49] to go from six to 12?

[1:15:50] Because that's where I really don't see a hardship.

[1:15:52] And I do feel that it becomes an overreach.

[1:15:56] Well, it's not, you can go ahead.

[1:15:59] You know, I I, I can try to help answer that

[1:16:01] and at a lot to do a lot of that is to do with the roadway

[1:16:06] that is being situated.

[1:16:07] In order to go from six to eight

[1:16:10] and to develop a road like this there, there has

[1:16:13] to be a number that makes it feasible.

[1:16:15] And, and having one acre lots

[1:16:18] and knowing that one acre lots can easily accommodate a

[1:16:21] septic system that doesn't need a well

[1:16:23] because we have municipal water, it wouldn't make sense

[1:16:26] to only increase to eight lots

[1:16:29] while still building this roadway infrastructure.

[1:16:32] Well, I would argue it would because now that's four

[1:16:34] or less lots that require a variance.

[1:16:38] Disagree. Oh, I think we, we

[1:16:41] Probably, you can't say it's a hardship what

[1:16:42] to not get 12 when there are options

[1:16:45] to do less than 12, I guess is my argument.

[1:16:47] But it's the lot size themselves as, as Brent discussed

[1:16:51] and as we is really the theme of this application is

[1:16:55] that a single family lot is appropriate

[1:16:59] under the circumstances and that the town has looked at this

[1:17:03] and said that this is probably the better plan

[1:17:08] as opposed to what we, what is there with these finger lots.

[1:17:12] These finger lots are not the best lots to have

[1:17:16] for a single family home.

[1:17:19] And this, the previous application you just had was we have

[1:17:23] driveways right next to lots that we really don't want that,

[1:17:28] but it's, this prevents that type of finger lot development,

[1:17:33] which, which is quite prominent in

[1:17:37] the previous application in that neighborhood.

[1:17:39] So this does something a little bit different

[1:17:41] and it also creates a, the single family, one acre area

[1:17:45] that is possible.

[1:17:47] It's feasible. You have wetlands there that, that,

[1:17:50] and the, the road configuration makes that feasible

[1:17:54] and usable when you have water providing services

[1:17:59] to those, those lots themselves.

[1:18:01] The, the legislation, the the use

[1:18:06] of lots don't necessarily need to have

[1:18:10] those lot sizes and that's why we're here for variance.

[1:18:14] Okay. I would rest with, I would agree

[1:18:16] that D is better than C,

[1:18:17] but I do not believe that it's the best option.

[1:18:19] And I believe that's just where we've settled.

[1:18:23] I think one of the key points

[1:18:24] that you may emphasized is the fact that now there is

[1:18:28] that the development regulations get changed

[1:18:33] here because of municipal water feed, not

[1:18:37] because of the reliance on wells.

[1:18:39] Correct? Correct.

[1:18:40] And I think that this is one of those things

[1:18:44] that I understand understanding Mr.

[1:18:46] Corbett's point a little bit,

[1:18:49] but that that key element there is a, is a revision that

[1:18:55] is accelerating ahead of our

[1:18:59] ordinances versus trying to ask for something

[1:19:03] that the town, you know, is,

[1:19:07] has merit in their, in their established ordinance.

[1:19:10] I think these,

[1:19:12] and what I mean is the merit is that,

[1:19:14] well we wouldn't have municipal water there, so, you know,

[1:19:20] so our ordinances stand firm, I think that you're ahead

[1:19:23] of the curve on that a little bit. Is that about right?

[1:19:27] I would agree Mr. Chair, if you look at zoning districts

[1:19:30] that do have municipal water in the area, you'll find

[1:19:32] that they are one acre

[1:19:34] or less as indicated in the application.

[1:19:37] And I, I believe that's why we tried to stay consistent with

[1:19:40] that, with going to an acre here instead of just coming up

[1:19:44] with an arbitrary number that resulted in eight lots.

[1:19:47] You know, we're trying to be consistent

[1:19:49] with other zoning districts that do have municipal water

[1:19:52] If Yeah, We're we're right on the cusp of,

[1:19:56] of the other other zone.

[1:20:00] Correct. Right on

[1:20:01] The edge.

[1:20:02] We, we really are. And that, that was the topic

[1:20:03] of the conversation last time.

[1:20:05] Forest Street and Wildwood do have municipal water.

[1:20:08] They are in the MDR district.

[1:20:10] You will notice those lots are one acre

[1:20:13] with only 125 feet of frontage.

[1:20:15] Yeah. We are staying consistent out here at 150 feet

[1:20:19] and adhering to the L MDRs frontage requirements,

[1:20:22] which does drive up the cost for, you know,

[1:20:26] roadways and things like that.

[1:20:27] But we believe it is important to stay consistent

[1:20:30] with the width of the lots

[1:20:31] throughout the entire development.

[1:20:33] We just don't need 600 feet of additional eight land

[1:20:37] to the back of these six F finger lots.

[1:20:39] Hmm. I I would, I would also point out that

[1:20:42] this is not something unique.

[1:20:45] This, the planning board has workshopped this

[1:20:48] and has said in their minutes of April one that, that

[1:20:54] over the last 10 years water's been extended

[1:20:56] to areas currently zoned M-D-R-L-M-D-R the lots were

[1:21:00] originally designated with the minimal mod areas

[1:21:02] to accommodate wells

[1:21:03] and septic systems with water now available in these areas.

[1:21:07] It might make sense to review the current requirements

[1:21:10] to see if we would like to add a provision

[1:21:12] that if the lot has wa has water

[1:21:14] or sewer available, then a minimum lot

[1:21:16] size can be decreased.

[1:21:18] We, we do this in the MHDR

[1:21:22] so it's contemplated,

[1:21:24] it's contemplated statewide at the state legislature

[1:21:28] and this also because of the road configuration.

[1:21:32] This makes a lot of sense at this point. Okay,

[1:21:36] Ms. Corbert, you all set?

[1:21:38] Yeah, I was gonna say, you know what was read there was

[1:21:40] that they think it's worth looking into, not that we've,

[1:21:44] this has been rubber stamped to a change

[1:21:45] and you know, I'd hate to, you know,

[1:21:48] what's the term zone plan by zoning, you know,

[1:21:50] if the decision hasn't been made yet, I'd hate to jump ahead

[1:21:53] of that, you know, force their hand.

[1:21:57] Yeah, this was before the planning board itself. Correct.

[1:22:00] So all the minutes are public to that.

[1:22:03] Yes, that, that I was reading

[1:22:04] from the planning board minutes.

[1:22:05] Okay. From April one.

[1:22:07] Alright. Okay. Anything else Mr. Corbitt? Y'all set

[1:22:13] Nothing further for me.

[1:22:14] Okay. Anybody else on the board have questions,

[1:22:16] wanna shake that information out a bit?

[1:22:19] Alright. Okay, so we didn't hear from anybody in the public,

[1:22:22] so with that we can take a motion to go into deliberation.

[1:22:27] Thank you. So moved.

[1:22:28] Mr. Trip has that motion. I'll second. Mr.

[1:22:32] Oba has a second.

[1:22:37] All in favor of deliberation, say aye. Aye. Aye.

[1:22:42] Any opposed? Hearing none.

[1:22:47] Anybody wanna lead off conversation? Mr.

[1:22:51] Corbett? You

[1:22:55] Wanna see understanding the argument on

[1:22:58] well water versus the septic?

[1:23:01] I still feel that this is beyond a reasonable use.

[1:23:06] I think to design a situation that requires 12 lots, again,

[1:23:09] five of which appear to be entering from a separate street,

[1:23:13] you know, one that takes away from a neighborhood concept,

[1:23:15] you know, I think of what you'd be looking for for

[1:23:17] what you're developing, but two, no real argument as

[1:23:20] to why it wouldn't work.

[1:23:22] You know, why less? It was either six or 12.

[1:23:25] Eight was then called arbitrary,

[1:23:27] but it seems 12 is just to maximize.

[1:23:31] So I really have a very difficult time seeing

[1:23:34] how granting 12 of these when a lower number would fit.

[1:23:37] And again, knowing that just

[1:23:38] because planning said that they would be willing

[1:23:40] to consider looking into changing a zone, that doesn't mean

[1:23:45] that they're going to change it, it doesn't mean a decision

[1:23:46] has been made, it means they're willing

[1:23:48] to look into considering it.

[1:23:50] Yep. You know, working in the corporate world,

[1:23:52] that's a vague statement of

[1:23:53] eventually maybe we'll think about it.

[1:23:55] So again, we've been chastised

[1:23:57] before for pushing the planning board's decision

[1:23:59] and that we make decisions

[1:24:00] that go against exactly what's written into the ordinance.

[1:24:02] And I think with what we've been hearing, you know,

[1:24:05] over the past few months as well,

[1:24:07] I have a very tough time going and granting 12

[1:24:10] and understanding how that's a hardship to not grant 12.

[1:24:14] That it would be causing a hardship.

[1:24:21] Yeah, that's not a bad argument.

[1:24:28] Mr. Emba, any thoughts?

[1:24:32] I guess we had a similar case for the same development

[1:24:36] and that's similar arguments brought up

[1:24:41] the fact that the, the, the development is on the cusp

[1:24:45] of another zone that allows for

[1:24:50] slightly smaller s sizes.

[1:24:52] I think I asked last time the average sizing

[1:24:54] of the lots nearby and it was pretty small.

[1:24:58] The ones in, in this development here a little bit bigger

[1:25:02] and will require, will be more compliant than, than

[1:25:08] if another configuration was adopted.

[1:25:13] Thinking about what the vice chair has said

[1:25:17] regarding the number of lots approved,

[1:25:26] besides maximizing a return here on investment,

[1:25:31] which is a good argument even though it's not

[1:25:34] part of the hardship.

[1:25:36] Based on what we've said

[1:25:38] before, I think that design here is a very good

[1:25:43] use of, of this phase here.

[1:25:47] Addition of that cool to

[1:25:52] keep all the lots conforming in terms of other requirements,

[1:25:55] frontage and all not so

[1:25:59] I don't believe it's an excessive ask,

[1:26:01] it's a reasonable ask.

[1:26:03] It's in line with the other phases of this development.

[1:26:10] I have Ms. Moore,

[1:26:12] I understand what Mr.

[1:26:13] Corbert is saying,

[1:26:15] but even if you went from 12 to eight,

[1:26:17] there's still non-conforming

[1:26:19] and they go from one acre to 1.5.

[1:26:23] In adding that, I don't see the benefit if you add

[1:26:27] that half an acre to the properties,

[1:26:29] I don't think it's gonna make or break it.

[1:26:35] I see. I'm, I'm thinking that the way they picked it was

[1:26:40] by the frontage and if it had the appropriate frontage

[1:26:45] and all the other setbacks is

[1:26:50] how they de they got to 12, but to go to eight

[1:26:54] and make it 1.5 instead of one,

[1:27:00] I don't think is an, it's gonna make a difference.

[1:27:06] I guess in that regard.

[1:27:08] If you shrunk down four lots, does it really make it 1.5

[1:27:12] or does it make it some, some other configuration?

[1:27:17] You know, I look at the lot 15,

[1:27:22] I think it's 34 or 24, I can't make it out,

[1:27:26] but you almost could have divided that lot in the,

[1:27:31] in theory in theory to what they're doing here.

[1:27:35] But so I don't think in that regard that's an

[1:27:39] overreach in their relief request.

[1:27:45] I'm, I'm just kind of in, in walking in line with

[1:27:49] what you are suggesting

[1:27:52] Mrs. Moore, Mr.

[1:27:56] Trip.

[1:27:58] Well, I actually like the,

[1:28:01] the one acre lot.

[1:28:04] I think it, you know, it's kind of

[1:28:09] is a, an impediment to

[1:28:12] what's gonna happen I think in the future is when everybody

[1:28:15] wants their ADUs, you know, if since it's a one acre lot

[1:28:20] that's gonna make it, you know, the proliferation

[1:28:23] of the ADUs a lot more difficult.

[1:28:26] So if you're looking for a positive, that would be something

[1:28:29] that I would suggest.

[1:28:31] Yeah. Concept I had considered

[1:28:35] reverse engineering. Anything else? I

[1:28:39] Guess Mr.

[1:28:40] Tripp's point does it, is it eliminating

[1:28:42] that if you've now doubled the amount of houses,

[1:28:44] haven't you just created the same scenario as

[1:28:46] what the a d used to only rather than a smaller A DU you've

[1:28:50] now just allowed for a house of the exact same size

[1:28:53] while splitting the property in half.

[1:28:59] Did you follow that Mr Truck?

[1:29:00] Could you say that again please?

[1:29:02] You say that it would, you know, going from the two acres

[1:29:04] to the one acre will eliminate the A DU problem,

[1:29:07] but I look at this as almost the same thing,

[1:29:10] that if you had less lots, even if you put the ADUs on now,

[1:29:14] what's, what's happened is we've,

[1:29:16] we've maximized the lots now you have 12 full,

[1:29:18] full-size houses rather than if you had six houses

[1:29:21] with six smaller ADUs.

[1:29:23] Well, I would, I would much rather have 12 individual

[1:29:27] single family homes than a six

[1:29:33] family homes and, and another six ADUs

[1:29:36] because ADUs had their own bring their own problems to

[1:29:42] the, to the development.

[1:29:48] Okay. I think the last thing that I would just state with,

[1:29:50] and I can kind of feel that I amone wolf, you know,

[1:29:53] when you look at 15, 32, 33, 34, I think part

[1:29:56] of the largest problems I have with this is

[1:29:58] how these properties are completely shaped in the different

[1:30:01] directions from the remain of the street

[1:30:03] and how you now have, is it lot 1535

[1:30:07] with three houses, you know,

[1:30:09] right on its side property line while every other house got

[1:30:11] the required spacing is called out by attorney Germain.

[1:30:14] It does seem that, you know, in order to maximize this,

[1:30:17] we have just skipped one house where the argument was made

[1:30:20] that we now have the proper relief for everyone's neighbors.

[1:30:24] So I I can tell it's just me,

[1:30:26] but I just have a, I just really

[1:30:27] don't like the way it's depicted.

[1:30:29] It does feel that houses have just,

[1:30:30] or properties have just been forced in arbitrarily.

[1:30:39] Okay. Well I I am I find myself, you know,

[1:30:44] it, it appreciating Mr.

[1:30:47] Corbett's commentary,

[1:30:49] but I also remember looking at this a couple of months ago

[1:30:54] and, and identifying the wet area

[1:30:57] and how they had to approach this understanding

[1:31:02] that, that there's an overage if you stick to the,

[1:31:07] the ordinance without the relief, you are

[1:31:14] creating land that could not be used

[1:31:19] with within its reason, identify with Mr.

[1:31:23] Corbett's point.

[1:31:25] However, that the board has been overly criticized

[1:31:28] by its appointing authority sometimes

[1:31:33] for not walking through

[1:31:37] and staying completely identical

[1:31:41] to the town's development regs.

[1:31:44] But our considerations go beyond that

[1:31:48] and understanding perhaps the first case

[1:31:51] that we had this evening and how the, the legislature

[1:31:56] and the state is pressing, taking

[1:32:00] local control away.

[1:32:03] We also know that we're susceptible to,

[1:32:08] to a recall on a vote.

[1:32:12] So I I find that the, you know,

[1:32:14] putting all those points out there, I find that the, the,

[1:32:19] the reasons for the, the design of this

[1:32:24] portion of the development fall within those reasons that,

[1:32:28] that are working by statute and,

[1:32:33] and with the idea that the parcels

[1:32:36] are being adequately utilized.

[1:32:38] And likewise, I I like Mr.

[1:32:40] Tripp's point that the smaller parcels help

[1:32:45] eliminate multi-families being built on the same

[1:32:48] parcel. Let's close.

[1:32:51] But the other thing is, I would suspect that

[1:32:56] when the zoning ordinance is updated this year, they,

[1:33:00] they may change the,

[1:33:05] the MDR to accommodate for parcels

[1:33:10] that have public water now

[1:33:12] because as, as the applicant said, you know,

[1:33:15] there are other zoning districts that the size

[1:33:19] of the lot required is dependent upon whether

[1:33:24] there's public water or, or,

[1:33:27] or public sewage.

[1:33:30] Yeah. You know, so I would, I would hope that the,

[1:33:34] the planning board when they go through the update

[1:33:38] for this is that they would make a change that, you know,

[1:33:43] permits this instead of making it, you know, having,

[1:33:46] having the applicant come to the zoning board.

[1:33:50] Yeah. You know, it's funny

[1:33:51] because the, you know, if you jump ahead

[1:33:53] of five criteria spear the ordinance, the design

[1:33:57] and development regs in the book

[1:34:00] give acceptance in other zones for parcels

[1:34:04] that may have public water versus private water,

[1:34:08] public septic versus private

[1:34:10] or public sewer versus private septic.

[1:34:14] And also when both are utilized, you know,

[1:34:17] it distinguishes the square footage

[1:34:20] that's necessary in those, in those zones.

[1:34:23] So you almost could use that argument in,

[1:34:25] in this regard here as well.

[1:34:27] Yes. Anyway, let's structure a motion

[1:34:36] that subject to obtaining all state

[1:34:39] and town permits and inspections.

[1:34:44] Likewise, we have subject

[1:34:45] to planning board subdivision approval.

[1:34:47] Ms. Owen, are we, did we already pass that?

[1:34:50] No, they have to go back. Correct. I see. Okay.

[1:34:57] Any, any other conditions anybody would want

[1:35:00] to stipulate here before we move this on for a motion?

[1:35:05] Mr. Corbett?

[1:35:09] No, I have nothing further add.

[1:35:10] Okay. All right.

[1:35:15] That being said, if there's no other stipulations

[1:35:17] to the motion, let's take a deliberate motion

[1:35:20] to come outta deliberation.

[1:35:22] So moved. Mr. Robba. I'll second. Thank you.

[1:35:26] All in favor of coming out of deliberation. Say aye. Aye.

[1:35:30] Aye. Any opposed?

[1:35:35] All right. Hearing none, we are out deliberation. Ms.

[1:35:38] Mor, you have a motion to read?

[1:35:40] I do. Thank you. I make a motion on case number 26

[1:35:45] dash 115 to grant a variance to the terms

[1:35:50] of article six, section 1 65

[1:35:55] dash 47 B one of the town

[1:35:58] of dairy zoning ordinance

[1:36:00] to subdivide approximately 16 acres into lots

[1:36:05] with less than the required two acre minimum parcel

[1:36:11] id 1 4 0 1 5 zoned

[1:36:15] LMDR as presented with the following conditions.

[1:36:19] We have two. One subject to obtaining all state

[1:36:23] and town permits and inspections.

[1:36:25] Two. Subject to planning board subdivision approval.

[1:36:30] And that concludes the reading of the motion.

[1:36:32] I need a second,

[1:36:34] Second Mr.

[1:36:35] Trip seconds. The motion puts that on the floor. Mr.

[1:36:40] Corbett, you have a finding of fact for us?

[1:36:43] Yes. Finding of fact for case 26 dash one 15

[1:36:47] heard on June 18th, 2026, the ZBA heard the application

[1:36:51] of Germaine Blaske PA on behalf of J-A-L-L-L-C.

[1:36:56] Concerning the property located at parcel ID 1 4 0 1 5

[1:37:01] notice was provided to the immediate abutters per statute.

[1:37:04] The board received testimony from the applicant

[1:37:06] and legal counsel, town staff,

[1:37:11] sorry, and town staff.

[1:37:13] The applicant is requesting a variance to subdivide,

[1:37:16] approx an approximate 16 acre portion

[1:37:19] of the property into 12 lots, having a minimum

[1:37:22] of one acre each.

[1:37:23] The property is located in a low medium density residential

[1:37:26] zoning district, which requires a minimum

[1:37:28] lot area of two acres.

[1:37:31] Parcel 1 4 0 1 5 consists of approximately 83 acres

[1:37:35] and is part of the ongoing Denali Estates

[1:37:37] residential development project.

[1:37:39] The proposed lot subject

[1:37:40] to this application will be located within an approximately

[1:37:43] 16 acre portion of the parcel.

[1:37:45] In phase six, the proposed lots would meet

[1:37:48] or exceed the 150 foot frontage requirement.

[1:37:52] The proposed lots would be serviced by municipal water

[1:37:54] and private septic systems.

[1:37:56] And fire protection in the form of a cistern

[1:37:58] or residential sprinkler system would be required

[1:38:01] if approved by the board.

[1:38:02] A subdivision approval by the planning board will also be

[1:38:05] required board weigh testimony both

[1:38:07] for and against this proposal.

[1:38:09] Now moving into the five criteria, Mr.

[1:38:12] Rob Bimba, do you find

[1:38:14] that the unnecessary hardship is demonstrated

[1:38:17] because the hardship relates

[1:38:18] to the unique characteristics of this property?

[1:38:22] I do find that the applicant has demonstrated that

[1:38:26] observing the ordinances has written

[1:38:29] or result in aue hardship for the reasons

[1:38:33] with clearly stated during deliberation.

[1:38:37] Thank you Mr. Trip.

[1:38:42] I believe there's a hardship in that

[1:38:47] the, the good, the proper use of the land is,

[1:38:52] would be,

[1:38:59] would be

[1:39:04] diminishment of the, of the, the number

[1:39:08] of housing units that are gonna be provided.

[1:39:11] You know, I know that this is something that has been

[1:39:17] discussed deeply at the State House

[1:39:22] and that, you know, the, the housing market

[1:39:27] or the number of units that are available in the state

[1:39:33] needs to be increased to me significantly.

[1:39:37] I I think that this is an opportunity to make better use

[1:39:41] of the property in this development.

[1:39:48] Thank you Ms. Moore. I do agree with

[1:39:51] what has been stated.

[1:39:52] They, I also believe that there is a hardship with

[1:39:57] the wetlands that they have to,

[1:39:59] they're basically at the mercy of to work with.

[1:40:06] Okay, Mr. Chair? Yeah, I find that the hardship exists,

[1:40:11] this allows maximum usage of the, of the

[1:40:17] acreage without land locking any of the parcels.

[1:40:24] And I do not feel the hardship has been met.

[1:40:26] I feel that there are other options

[1:40:28] that would not result in 12 lots that would require

[1:40:33] not meeting the requirements.

[1:40:37] Mr. Omba, do you find that this is not contrary

[1:40:39] to the public interest?

[1:40:42] I do. I find

[1:40:47] that this meets or exceeds public interest.

[1:40:52] It, it develops a news a lot

[1:40:57] looking at the testimony

[1:40:58] and the evidence in our pockets

[1:41:03] arrangement of, of the roads to do limited

[1:41:08] or minimum impact to the wetland preserves

[1:41:13] that full cut of that neighborhood

[1:41:15] and serves public interest.

[1:41:18] Thank you Mr. Trip.

[1:41:21] I, I believe

[1:41:24] that the developers forward thinking to

[1:41:30] have public water supplied to this area

[1:41:35] permits the lot

[1:41:39] to be subdivided into a greater number.

[1:41:43] And as I've said earlier, that

[1:41:48] housing is something that is, you know,

[1:41:51] the state has been looking at in, in great depth

[1:41:56] and how they're going to increase the housing so that

[1:42:01] we can have

[1:42:06] a better, well there's just a lot of things

[1:42:10] that we need housing for.

[1:42:12] So I would say yes.

[1:42:16] Thank you Ms. Moore.

[1:42:18] I feel that the variance will not be contrary to the

[1:42:23] public because it meets all the other requirements

[1:42:27] of the zoning ordinance.

[1:42:32] Thank you Mr. Sheriff.

[1:42:35] Yeah, I find there's no gain to the public in,

[1:42:38] in denial of this.

[1:42:39] And so I think public interest is, is affirmed.

[1:42:45] All right. And while I do not like the layout of three,

[1:42:49] as I mentioned as Mr. Perkins stated,

[1:42:52] I don't think there would be a gain here necessarily

[1:42:56] to the greater public interest.

[1:42:57] I don't necessarily think that's contrary.

[1:43:07] Mr. Omba, do you find that this is consistent

[1:43:09] with the spirit of the ordinance?

[1:43:11] I do find that this is consistent with the spirit

[1:43:14] of the ordinance, looking at all the neighboring

[1:43:19] zones that require even smaller lots

[1:43:23] 'cause they're serviced by municipal water and and sewer.

[1:43:30] We've seen, I think DES allows

[1:43:34] for lot sizes

[1:43:35] to be reduced if the town serves them with water.

[1:43:39] So yes, I do believe that

[1:43:44] the spirit of this ordinance is observed

[1:43:47] and granting this variance does not violate any,

[1:43:51] any provisions of that or ev of that ordinance.

[1:43:54] We still promote health, safety

[1:43:56] and general welfare for this community.

[1:44:00] Thank you Mr. Trip.

[1:44:04] As the applicant spoke to during his presentation,

[1:44:08] he's a reason for the two acre minimum

[1:44:13] was primarily to accommodate

[1:44:17] well in addition to the, the septics

[1:44:20] for each individual lot by providing public water

[1:44:25] to the lots that eliminates the rationale for the,

[1:44:30] the second acre.

[1:44:33] I believe that given that, that the spirit

[1:44:36] of the ordinance is

[1:44:38] definitely supported.

[1:44:45] Thank you Ms. Moore. I feel they've met the criteria

[1:44:49] to keep within the spirit of the ordinance.

[1:44:53] It also still has planning board approval.

[1:44:55] So if they want to change it to

[1:44:58] fit more in their opinion,

[1:45:00] there's still that option as well.

[1:45:03] But I do feel they've met the criteria area.

[1:45:08] Thank you. And Mr. Perkins?

[1:45:09] I'm comfortable with the spirit of the ordinance

[1:45:12] just outlining the frontages

[1:45:15] and the intentions of the development regulations.

[1:45:20] Right. I do not feel that it would be consistent

[1:45:22] with the spear of the ordinance.

[1:45:24] You know, while it was noted that perhaps over a period

[1:45:28] of 10 years that this should have been revisited while water

[1:45:30] has come in, you know, to me that's 10 years

[1:45:33] where it has not been revisited while

[1:45:35] the option has been on the table.

[1:45:36] I think that while there's consideration to making a change,

[1:45:41] that until that happens, that right now it is directly

[1:45:44] against the spirit of the ordinance.

[1:45:45] So I'm a no. Mr.

[1:45:50] Bumba, do you find that substantial justice would be served

[1:45:53] by denying this variance request?

[1:45:57] I believe that denying this request will not give any

[1:46:03] of the dairy public any gains.

[1:46:09] The application has proven that

[1:46:15] it's a reasonable use.

[1:46:17] The board has deliberated and seen those factors.

[1:46:20] It's making a very good use of a unique

[1:46:25] land configuration, avoiding wetlands promoting safety

[1:46:31] by, you know, adhering to the frontage requirements

[1:46:35] denying this does not grant the public an injustice.

[1:46:41] So I believe substantial justice will be done if

[1:46:43] we grant this variance.

[1:46:47] Thank you. Mr. Trump. I believe

[1:46:50] that denying the variance will provide

[1:46:52] no gain to the public.

[1:46:59] Ms. Moore, do you feel that a substantial justice

[1:47:03] be served by denying this variance?

[1:47:06] By denying the variance

[1:47:08] and forcing the two acre zoning provision,

[1:47:13] it's not benefiting anybody

[1:47:15] and leaving homeowners with unusable land,

[1:47:21] Ms. Perkins? Yeah,

[1:47:22] I think substantial justice has been served here.

[1:47:25] It's fair regarding especially considering the,

[1:47:29] the abutting

[1:47:32] zoning district.

[1:47:39] Okay, thank you. The reasons that I've stated

[1:47:42] before, I feel the 12 watts requiring a

[1:47:45] variance is not reasonable.

[1:47:46] I feel that moves into excessive us for that reason.

[1:47:50] I do not believe or I do not agree

[1:47:54] that substantial justice would be,

[1:47:57] or sorry, I do believe

[1:47:59] that substantial justice we serve by denying it.

[1:48:01] I believe we could find a more be beneficial use.

[1:48:05] But lastly, Mr.

[1:48:07] Bumba, do you find

[1:48:08] that the applicant has adequately demonstrated

[1:48:10] that the surrounding property values will not be diminished?

[1:48:14] It's a brand new development.

[1:48:16] We've had testimony over the years we've seen it ourselves

[1:48:20] that getting brand new properties developed,

[1:48:26] increase general increases values of surrounding properties.

[1:48:30] So I do believe that the values

[1:48:33] of the surrounding properties,

[1:48:36] some which still under constructions will be increased.

[1:48:41] Thank you Mr. Trip.

[1:48:44] I believe that by permitting

[1:48:49] one acre lots that the,

[1:48:53] the properties will be much more

[1:49:01] useful.

[1:49:02] That the, the, the, the values for the, the costs

[1:49:07] for these lots will be significantly less than the six lots

[1:49:11] that are are of the two acre dimensions.

[1:49:20] Thank you Ms. Moore. I feel that the values

[1:49:24] of the surrounding properties are not diminished

[1:49:27] because where it is a new development

[1:49:31] and for the properties themselves, town water on that

[1:49:36] side of town is rare and definitely a benefit.

[1:49:42] Mr. Perkins? Yeah, I don't find

[1:49:44] that there's any diminuation of property value.

[1:49:47] It's within the board's authority to have

[1:49:49] that determination even when presented

[1:49:51] by professionals related to those industries.

[1:49:57] And I'd agree with everybody.

[1:49:58] Well I think, you know, you could argue

[1:49:59] that you lose some value going from two acres a one acre.

[1:50:02] I think even my, you know, proposed solutions don't do that.

[1:50:06] But overall it's gonna be the houses

[1:50:08] and this development that's

[1:50:09] gonna increase the property value.

[1:50:11] I don't think going from going down to one acre is going

[1:50:14] to negatively impact that.

[1:50:17] That concludes the finding of fact.

[1:50:18] Does anybody have any additions or addendums to make

[1:50:22] Seeing no gestures?

[1:50:23] All in favor of moving this for vote? Say aye. Aye. Aye.

[1:50:27] Any opposed? Mr. Corbe?

[1:50:29] I will vote. No reasons for the hardship primarily.

[1:50:33] Mrs. Moore chair vote yes. Mr. Trip? I vote yes. Mr. Omba?

[1:50:38] I vote yes. Mr. Chair will make it four to one.

[1:50:43] Congratulations gentlemen. You've been approved.

[1:50:45] Anybody agreed by this as 30 days?

[1:50:47] Ask this board for reconsideration. Have a good evening.

[1:50:55] Next up is case number 26 dash hundred 16.

[1:50:58] Kill Duff Realty Trust.

[1:51:06] Have an hour. You wanna see if

[1:51:10] No, let's see if we can

[1:51:12] get, hang on a second.

[1:51:17] Case number 26 dash one nine Pinkerton Academy.

[1:51:23] You folks here, did you leave? Nope. Okay.

[1:51:29] Alright, well I'll go ahead and present. You're Mr. Kilduff.

[1:51:34] Yeah. So Mr. Chair, my name is Brandon Wilson.

[1:51:37] I'm an associate landscape architect

[1:51:39] with the firm Terrain Planning and Design.

[1:51:41] And I'll be representing the kil uss in this matter.

[1:51:45] Okay, so we ask that you read the app,

[1:51:48] the application face page

[1:51:51] and the five criteria first deviated that from

[1:51:54] that in the last case accidentally.

[1:51:56] But we try to get the five criteria in and down

[1:52:00] before you proceed.

[1:52:02] Do that for us and then you can have the latitude you need.

[1:52:06] Yes. So the proposal is to construct a new house

[1:52:11] with encroachment into the front and side property lines.

[1:52:16] We believe that the variance will not be contrary

[1:52:18] to the public interests

[1:52:19] because it's in the public interest to allow property owners

[1:52:22] to reasonably and responsibly develop their properties in

[1:52:26] alignment with the goals and intent of the zoning ordinance.

[1:52:29] As guided by the master plan, the proposed use is

[1:52:32] to add housing within a residential zone, promoting dairy

[1:52:36] as a place to live, which is master plan goal number four.

[1:52:39] The proposed house includes specific elements

[1:52:41] to allow the owners to ultimately age in place aligning

[1:52:45] with master plan Objective number 4.3.

[1:52:48] Additionally, the proposal provides adequate off street

[1:52:51] parking via an attached garage.

[1:52:53] Despite the spa lot size, the spirit

[1:52:57] of the ordinance is observed

[1:52:58] because the essential characteristics

[1:53:00] of the neighborhood are maintained.

[1:53:03] Additionally, the proposed building area

[1:53:06] precisely 1,752 square feet

[1:53:11] is less than what would be allowed under dairy zoning,

[1:53:14] which is limited by the size

[1:53:16] of the side yards in this case 1,933 square feet

[1:53:21] of allowed coverage.

[1:53:23] Effectively we have to comply

[1:53:25] with the Shoreland Water Quality Protection Act imposed

[1:53:29] by the state because this property is within 250 feet

[1:53:32] of a public water, in this case Beaver Lake.

[1:53:35] And so we have to keep the whole house outside

[1:53:37] of the 50 foot setback from the lake that pushes

[1:53:42] effectively coverage into the front and side yards.

[1:53:46] We believe that substantial justice is done

[1:53:49] because granting the variance allows reasonable use

[1:53:51] of the property in a manner

[1:53:53] that maintains the existing character in the neighborhood.

[1:53:56] The proposed site shares many design elements common

[1:53:59] to the lakefront residential style of the neighborhood.

[1:54:03] That is to say off street parking along the roadside

[1:54:06] with the lakeside having outdoor living areas

[1:54:10] and a walkout lower level that responds appropriately

[1:54:13] to the surrounding topography.

[1:54:15] The stormwater management improvements guided

[1:54:17] by the S-W-Q-P-A rules result in enhanced lake protections

[1:54:21] for water quality, aligning with master plan objective 1.5

[1:54:25] to protect and promote the town's natural resources.

[1:54:29] The values of surrounding properties will not be diminished

[1:54:32] because the proposed structures represent an aesthetic

[1:54:34] improvement to the property which is currently vacant.

[1:54:38] There are no buildings on the property at all.

[1:54:40] We believe the proposed house will not create

[1:54:43] overcrowding in the neighborhood.

[1:54:45] The proposed house is set back a similar distance from the

[1:54:48] road when compared to other houses along Coles Grove Road.

[1:54:52] And it's greater than 50 feet from the lake.

[1:54:54] So it will not screen abutting properties views out over the

[1:54:57] waters to the north of the property.

[1:55:00] There is a deeded lake access right of way

[1:55:03] and that preserves open space to the adjoining lot.

[1:55:06] 10 on the other side of the right of way.

[1:55:09] This is the only property along the street

[1:55:11] that we would say has significant kind of areas

[1:55:13] of open space or or yard within the lot.

[1:55:16] Most of the parcels have houses

[1:55:18] that are relatively close together

[1:55:20] with many also having side yard encroachment.

[1:55:24] The proposed house in sight are thus in keeping

[1:55:26] with the character of the surrounding neighborhood.

[1:55:28] The attractive and useful nature

[1:55:30] of the proposed improvements will

[1:55:32] therefore result in no no dmu diminuation

[1:55:35] of the surrounding property values.

[1:55:38] Criteria number five. Literal enforcement of the provisions

[1:55:42] of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship

[1:55:45] because the subject parcel is substantially deficient in lot

[1:55:49] area only has 0.15 acres

[1:55:52] where one is required in the MDR zone

[1:55:55] and more particularly,

[1:55:56] it is substantially deficient in lot width to a degree

[1:56:01] that's not common to the neighborhood.

[1:56:03] It has only 50 feet where 125 is required

[1:56:06] and the majority of lots along the road

[1:56:08] have at least a hundred.

[1:56:11] In combined with this 50 foot setback from the lake, 48%

[1:56:16] of the buildable area within the property is

[1:56:19] prohibited from having the primary structure on it

[1:56:21] because it's too close to the lake.

[1:56:23] And so the need to locate the new house in conformance

[1:56:26] with this state imposed setback provides a hardship

[1:56:31] that relates specifically to the land

[1:56:33] and the, this specific parcel, the,

[1:56:38] if the board were to uphold the minimum front

[1:56:40] and side yard depths,

[1:56:41] that unnecessarily limits the buildable area

[1:56:44] of this lot when compared to its neighbors.

[1:56:47] For the second part of criteria five,

[1:56:49] the proposed use is reasonable

[1:56:50] as a single family detached dwellings are permitted.

[1:56:53] And in fact the primary use in the MDR district,

[1:56:57] we view this proposal as a win-win.

[1:56:59] The town has receives code compliant new construction

[1:57:03] to increase the town's housing stock.

[1:57:06] The site will also provide water quality benefits in

[1:57:08] keeping, in keeping with the other goals of the master plan.

[1:57:11] And the applicant gets a house that is prepared for them

[1:57:14] to inhabit long term whatever may come.

[1:57:17] So I do have the full size

[1:57:19] plans here with some highlighting.

[1:57:20] I can briefly discuss those if you'd like for the benefit

[1:57:23] of the members of the public.

[1:57:34] I'm reviewing the plans right now, so just bear with us.

[1:57:39] Okay. Anybody have any questions in the interim

[1:57:43] directed at the application?

[1:57:45] Mr. Donlin? Not at this time. Mr. Chair. Mr. Henry?

[1:57:50] I'm all set. Thank you. Going all the

[1:57:53] way down to my far right.

[1:57:54] Mr. Ani.

[1:57:57] I do actually have a question.

[1:58:00] If you didn't get the variances,

[1:58:02] what would be the dimensions that you'd be left with?

[1:58:07] So the house, the lot is 50 feet wide.

[1:58:11] So 15 feet side yard setback on either side would leave us

[1:58:16] 20 feet of width.

[1:58:19] In terms of the depth might be useful

[1:58:23] to point it out on the plan.

[1:58:48] Mr. Do we have a camera

[1:58:50] that can focus on that across the room?

[1:58:53] Yes.

[1:59:01] Would you like to bring that up on screen? I'm sorry?

[1:59:04] You'd like to bring that up on screen? Yes, please. Okay.

[1:59:10] There we go. Nice. Thank you.

[1:59:12] All right. So the purple highlighting

[1:59:15] Is shown on the property lines

[1:59:18] To the south to the north.

[1:59:21] The blue highlighting is the edge of the lake as well

[1:59:24] as the state imposed setbacks,

[1:59:27] particular distances rel related to the lake.

[1:59:30] The first one is at 20 feet. The applicable one to Mr.

[1:59:35] Dani's question is the 50 foot setback

[1:59:37] that is all primary structures, your house, et cetera,

[1:59:41] must be a minimum of 50 feet from the lake.

[1:59:44] And then the setback that's related

[1:59:49] to distance from the street in this case would be the dairy

[1:59:52] front yard, 35 foot setback.

[1:59:55] So your actual buildable area is from this corner here to

[1:59:59] that corner here to here

[2:00:04] on the southerly part it's about 40 feet.

[2:00:08] On the northerly part it's about 60,

[2:00:11] but again the, the strong limiting factor is only about 20

[2:00:15] feet of width throughout that rectangle.

[2:00:21] Thank you. And then I have a question, Ms. Owen,

[2:00:23] what was the, when was this lot developed?

[2:00:26] What

[2:00:30] I can let you know momentarily this lot did house a a,

[2:00:35] it had a previous single family residence

[2:00:37] that was demolished in 2017.

[2:00:41] I'm looking at assessing records

[2:00:46] If you'd like to go right through your staff report now,

[2:00:48] Ms. Owen, you're welcome to.

[2:00:51] Thank you. I'll start with the staff report.

[2:00:55] So as the applicant stated, they're requesting a variance

[2:00:58] to allow construction of a new single family home on a lot

[2:01:03] that's located approximately 23.8 feet from the front

[2:01:07] property lane, 8.4 feet from to the north side property line

[2:01:11] and 6.9 feet to the south side property line.

[2:01:15] The property is located in the medium density residential

[2:01:18] district, which requires a 35 foot front setback from the

[2:01:21] front property line and 15 feet from

[2:01:23] the side property lines.

[2:01:24] Therefore, the variance is being requested this evening.

[2:01:27] This is a pre-existing non-conforming lot of record

[2:01:31] with respect to the lot area and the frontage.

[2:01:33] The property has remained vacant since 2017

[2:01:36] after the previous single family dwelling was removed.

[2:01:40] The property is located along the waterfront of Beaver Lake

[2:01:42] and is located in an area of pre-existing non-conforming,

[2:01:46] small lots of record and non-conforming structures.

[2:01:49] The property is serviced by municipal sewer

[2:01:52] and private well an approved state shoreland permit has been

[2:01:55] issued through New Hampshire DES as well.

[2:02:00] If approved appropriate permits

[2:02:02] and inspections will be required.

[2:02:04] And if approved, a flood elevation certificate will

[2:02:07] be required as well.

[2:02:09] And there are pictures on file.

[2:02:16] I'm not quickly finding the,

[2:02:20] looks like maybe

[2:02:28] the assessing records are pretty blank right now

[2:02:30] because it's vacant.

[2:02:32] So

[2:02:42] the property was originally purchased in 1997,

[2:02:45] but I'm not finding a lot in here to be honest with you,

[2:02:48] when it was originally created.

[2:02:51] Okay, thank you. But it goes back quite a ways.

[2:02:55] Yes, Absolutely.

[2:02:57] I think Chief Shado might have had some

[2:03:01] something to do with this.

[2:03:03] I'm not sure

[2:03:06] Mr.

[2:03:07] Chair may make a follow up comment related to the history as

[2:03:09] Chief Shado. Yeah,

[2:03:11] Not quite that far Back. Okay,

[2:03:14] Sure.

[2:03:15] We have the, if we could show this plan again,

[2:03:20] we have a little inset here that shows the dimensions

[2:03:23] of the previous existing house that was removed.

[2:03:26] That's the portion on the bottom

[2:03:28] in the heavy dash line in the black.

[2:03:35] So you see for the design of the new proposed home,

[2:03:38] we've taken our sort

[2:03:40] of strong queue from what was there before.

[2:03:42] We have in fact moved it further back

[2:03:45] from the road by about a foot.

[2:03:48] And then

[2:03:53] what we've done is tried to be sensitive as closely

[2:03:56] as possible to the spirit of the ordinance while you notice

[2:03:59] that the house has effectively its steps back.

[2:04:03] And you notice that the portion

[2:04:04] that continues towards the lake is within

[2:04:06] the side yard setback.

[2:04:07] And again, the attached deck

[2:04:10] within the side yard setback after the step.

[2:04:12] So we've tried to do the best we can

[2:04:15] to get the desired house and program

[2:04:17] and square footage to make this all practicable while

[2:04:20] respecting the spirit of the ordinance.

[2:04:25] So I it when you're depicting earlier about the shorely

[2:04:29] and protection boundary, I I what I grasped almost was

[2:04:33] that you were giving us reverse numbers from the

[2:04:35] setback from the water.

[2:04:37] And it may have been my misunderstanding,

[2:04:41] but the, the second blue line in from the,

[2:04:44] from the water's edge is, is the appropriate distance

[2:04:48] that the, that DES would want.

[2:04:52] Am I correct? That's correct.

[2:04:54] And so the footprint of the foundation is following

[2:04:56] that gradient line.

[2:04:59] The foundation is fully landward of the 50 foot setback,

[2:05:03] including the entire footprint of the attached deck.

[2:05:06] Yeah, it just looks like there's a jog in it that as,

[2:05:09] as you're getting closer to the waters edge,

[2:05:11] it's the footprint is following that line.

[2:05:15] Am I correct?

[2:05:21] Is there a jog in the foundation,

[2:05:23] the dotted line in the inner inner corner there?

[2:05:26] That's correct. Is that the foundation?

[2:05:31] Okay. If I understand the question. That is

[2:05:33] A cantilever Well the foundation

[2:05:41] doesn't like it. Is, doesn't,

[2:05:42] So this is the foundation here.

[2:05:45] Right. And then this on the main level

[2:05:47] above this is a cantilever portion. I

[2:05:50] See.

[2:05:51] Okay. Covered. Well, so that,

[2:05:51] that answers the question I was, I was getting at

[2:05:54] and I don't know if that helps Mr.

[2:05:56] Dani or not, but I just wanted that clarified.

[2:06:00] So I I understand now.

[2:06:02] No, I'm fully satisfied. Thank you.

[2:06:04] I'm sorry. I'm fully satisfied with

[2:06:07] Okay, thank you Mr.

[2:06:08] O Bimba. I'm all set. Alright Mr. Dietzel.

[2:06:13] So you say it's in the,

[2:06:19] the 50 foot primary structural setback from

[2:06:23] Beaver Lake Reference.

[2:06:25] So, so it's 50 feet more than 50 feet from the lake.

[2:06:28] If you move it back to conform with this,

[2:06:32] will you be then too close to the lake that

[2:06:36] it sort of moving back from the road?

[2:06:38] Yeah. Yes. Okay.

[2:06:39] So it's either it's, we're either gonna encroach on the lake

[2:06:42] or encroach on the front.

[2:06:46] Yeah. So very briefly, if you have a house

[2:06:50] that's too close to the lake under state rules,

[2:06:53] you're allowed to keep it.

[2:06:55] Certainly you're also allowed

[2:06:56] to redevelop it within its existing footprint.

[2:07:00] If you don't have that, there's no provision that I'm aware

[2:07:03] of for constructing a new house that fully complies

[2:07:07] with the town of dairy rules

[2:07:09] that is within 50 feet of the lake.

[2:07:11] You've answered my question, you'll not

[2:07:12] receive a shoreland permit.

[2:07:13] You've answered my question. Thank you sir. Alright.

[2:07:16] What is the square footage of the home?

[2:07:19] I guess the first floor? 'cause it's,

[2:07:21] I you've indicated there's gonna be a cantilever,

[2:07:23] so there's a second floor.

[2:07:31] So the fourth plan sheet has all

[2:07:32] of those numbers on the bottom.

[2:07:34] Okay.

[2:07:42] I think that kind of goes to the questions

[2:07:43] that we're asking, right?

[2:07:45] We understand all the compliance that you're speaking of

[2:07:47] and that you are trying to fit this into there.

[2:07:50] I think part of the question when you get into the five

[2:07:53] criteria is, you know, are, are you overbuilding the site

[2:07:56] or is it a reasonable square footage?

[2:07:59] And I guess two ways to answer that.

[2:08:02] One is the direct way, which is,

[2:08:03] well the house is 1200 square feet, 600 square, you know,

[2:08:07] 600 square feet on the first floor, 600 on the second.

[2:08:11] You can understand that there's some constraints to

[2:08:13] that footprint and it's easier to, to see the hardship.

[2:08:17] If you said to me it was a 35,000 square foot home, I'd say,

[2:08:21] well, it's an excessive build

[2:08:23] and I'd have an argument with the hardship.

[2:08:25] So that's what I was getting at.

[2:08:26] How does this footprint compare to the one

[2:08:29] that was there prior?

[2:08:39] The square footage of

[2:08:40] This one is 1890.

[2:08:41] Okay. Doesn't include, is that about,

[2:08:44] so it's probably a little bit more square footage on second

[2:08:46] floor than there is on the, on the first,

[2:08:49] Yeah, I would say that the, the house has

[2:08:52] increased in size without increasing substantially

[2:08:55] in footprint. Okay. If that makes

[2:08:57] Sense.

[2:08:58] Good enough. That makes sense to me. Mrs. Moore or Mrs.

[2:09:02] Trip?

[2:09:04] I have nothing. Okay. Mr.

[2:09:05] Donald, I already went to you, correct? You did, sir.

[2:09:10] Okay, very good.

[2:09:11] Alright, I have no other questions right now.

[2:09:16] Do you have anything else to share with us?

[2:09:18] Perhaps just to reiterate to your most recent questions

[2:09:21] that the spirit of the ordinance, effectively, the green

[2:09:26] rectangle here is your buildable area.

[2:09:30] That is the nine 1,933 square feet

[2:09:33] that I spoke of in my presentation.

[2:09:35] That's the size of house.

[2:09:37] In terms of footprint that they'd be allowed.

[2:09:39] We have proposed a house that's 200 square feet,

[2:09:42] smaller than that in area,

[2:09:46] but it is distributed differently so that it can comply

[2:09:50] with this 50 foot setback from the state,

[2:09:52] which constitutes the hardship in

[2:09:54] conjunction with the lot width.

[2:09:56] So effectively to your question, Mr.

[2:09:58] Chair, is it too much house?

[2:10:00] I would argue no, it's not

[2:10:02] because we've done that analysis of the area of the lot,

[2:10:05] what would be we'd be allowed by rule

[2:10:08] and we've designed something smaller.

[2:10:10] Okay. All right. Anything else?

[2:10:14] Not at this time. Okay. So I,

[2:10:18] Mr.

[2:10:19] Trip.

[2:10:20] So there's a right of way to the

[2:10:24] left or right?

[2:10:28] Yeah, so to the north of the subject parcel.

[2:10:31] Alright. And and we're the, the,

[2:10:37] the building that you're proposing to build is I believe

[2:10:43] eight and a half feet off of that?

[2:10:46] That's correct. And yet the,

[2:10:53] the building to the south is,

[2:10:57] is only like seven feet from the property,

[2:11:01] from the property line?

[2:11:04] I, I believe so. I

[2:11:11] And where is the other, where's the,

[2:11:13] a budding house located?

[2:11:15] Is it, is it 15 feet off the property line?

[2:11:21] The abutting house to the south, sir? Yeah, it is.

[2:11:24] I believe there's encroachment into the

[2:11:26] side yard with that house as well.

[2:11:28] Oh, It's close.

[2:11:35] Hmm. Where'd do go?

[2:11:39] Where'd do go? Yeah, I don't know.

[2:11:42] What's your, so you have a question? What

[2:11:44] I, I wondering if we could get a street view

[2:11:47] of the property.

[2:11:49] Okay, Mr. Ventura, are you within earshot?

[2:11:57] What Mr. Chair?

[2:12:03] I just wanna correct myself, but Mr. Owens helped me out.

[2:12:06] It actually 4,100 square feet when you count in the garage

[2:12:10] and all of the, and that's on

[2:12:15] 4,100 square feet?

[2:12:16] Yeah. That's first and second floor.

[2:12:19] Yep. Including

[2:12:21] It's on the plans of the house.

[2:12:28] Do you think that's accurate Mr. Wilson?

[2:12:30] I believe so. If you Yeah.

[2:12:32] Account for the vertical spaces.

[2:12:37] Okay. All right. Mr. Trip, you all set to move forward?

[2:12:42] Sure. Okay. Mr. Wilson, are you all set for now?

[2:12:47] Yes. Thank you. Alright.

[2:12:49] I may have some questions coming back to you again,

[2:12:51] but let's make a call to public.

[2:12:53] Anybody who wishes to speak in favor of this application,

[2:12:56] this would be your opportunity to come forward.

[2:13:03] Any chair? Any chair? Any microphone?

[2:13:06] Hi, my name's Bill Dyer.

[2:13:07] I'm an abut of Barry and he's been a great neighbor.

[2:13:12] Also a good steward of the land.

[2:13:14] If you drive by there, he's the nicest house

[2:13:16] or one of the nicest houses on the lake.

[2:13:19] Most of the lake is non-conforming.

[2:13:21] When you look at everybody's house,

[2:13:22] they're really close together.

[2:13:26] Whatever he build is gonna be beautiful. Okay.

[2:13:28] It's gonna increase my value and I appreciate that.

[2:13:35] I'm just trying to say

[2:13:38] that it's very difficult when you build houses on a lake

[2:13:41] with the restrictions from the state

[2:13:43] and the local and stuff like that.

[2:13:44] So it's almost like you're the hot dog in the bun.

[2:13:47] You're gonna fit in there the best you can.

[2:13:50] And I've been listening to people talk here all day

[2:13:53] and it's been about trying to make things work

[2:13:56] and as an abutter

[2:13:58] to see him build something there would make it work.

[2:14:02] Technically, I don't know much to say about square footage

[2:14:04] and back sets and all that,

[2:14:06] but other than that, as a neighbor,

[2:14:09] I would find a great asset, whatever he puts there.

[2:14:12] Thank you. Okay, Mr. Chair, may we get his address please?

[2:14:16] Yes, that's what I was just gonna say. What sir?

[2:14:20] Need your address? Oh, I live in Coles Grove.

[2:14:23] Sorry, I'm just right up the street.

[2:14:26] So you're not a direct ofbut one house off.

[2:14:29] So I'm right on the same street he is. Okay. Okay.

[2:14:33] Very good. Thank you. Thank you. Yes sir.

[2:14:37] Hello, I'm Joshua Ley. I live at

[2:14:39] Two Beaver Lake Avenue.

[2:14:40] Why don't you make sure you get in the microphone there.

[2:14:43] I'm Joshua Ley.

[2:14:44] I live at two Beaver Lake Avenue

[2:14:46] and I have deeded access to the right of way in question.

[2:14:50] I, Mr. And Mrs.

[2:14:52] Kilduff have explained this to me

[2:14:54] and I am in full support of them receiving this variance.

[2:14:58] I believe this neighborhood was developed in the 1930s,

[2:15:02] so things were a lot better different back then

[2:15:05] with setbacks.

[2:15:07] All the lots are about that size in the neighborhood.

[2:15:09] There was previously a, a house on that location,

[2:15:12] which we heard was tore down in around 2017.

[2:15:15] So I see no reason

[2:15:18] to not put a house back onto that lot.

[2:15:21] As my neighbor Bill was saying, whatever Barry

[2:15:24] and Carol do is just gonna be

[2:15:26] wonderful for the neighborhood.

[2:15:28] They're gonna build an amazing property,

[2:15:30] they're gonna take care of it.

[2:15:32] And I would be full support in you approving this variance.

[2:15:35] Thank you.

[2:15:38] Okay, thank you. Anybody else wanna speak in favor?

[2:15:49] Hello, Steven Anthony 20 Coles Grove

[2:15:52] and also what was previously 18 Coles Grove.

[2:15:54] So an immediate abut few points here.

[2:15:59] So the values of the home would

[2:16:00] certainly increase by this project.

[2:16:03] If you were to deny this request,

[2:16:05] the public would achieve no gain.

[2:16:07] This project would have no negative impact to the lake.

[2:16:10] There's, well, I know that the setback now today,

[2:16:13] in today's day is 50 feet.

[2:16:15] There are about 110 homes that are lakefront

[2:16:18] and there are over 25 homes

[2:16:20] that are currently within 35 feet.

[2:16:23] Some with even 10 feet of the lake.

[2:16:26] So this would have no impact in that regard.

[2:16:30] The proposed project would have a positive impact

[2:16:33] to the property value, not only

[2:16:34] of our home, but of the neighborhood.

[2:16:36] As mentioned, the Kilduff do an amazing job of their home

[2:16:39] and their, and what they do to keep their grounds.

[2:16:43] And they are supporters of the lake.

[2:16:45] They are great stewards of Beaver Lake.

[2:16:47] In fact, Carol Kilduff is a member of our board.

[2:16:50] I am the president of the Beaver Lake Improvement

[2:16:52] Association and they've done great things for our lake

[2:16:55] to bring together a community

[2:16:56] and get more involvement in the lake.

[2:16:59] And so I'm in favor of the lake. I'm in favor of the lake.

[2:17:02] I'm of course I'm in favor the lake.

[2:17:04] I'm in favor of this proposal, so thank you.

[2:17:08] Okay, any questions? Oh, okay.

[2:17:16] My name is Jennifer Sheard.

[2:17:17] I live at seven Coles Grove Road

[2:17:20] right across the street from them.

[2:17:22] I have known Barry and Carol for 20 plus years.

[2:17:26] They have been a huge part of my life, my daughter's life.

[2:17:30] And they are amazing, amazing neighbors.

[2:17:34] I do remember there being a house there

[2:17:36] and I just wanted to, I agree with everything they said.

[2:17:39] They kind of took everything outta my mouth,

[2:17:41] but I just wanted to say that I do approve of this

[2:17:44] and support them a hundred percent.

[2:17:46] Everything they touch pretty much turns to gold, so.

[2:17:50] Okay, thank you. Any questions? Okay. Thank you.

[2:17:57] Anybody else speaking favorably?

[2:18:00] Anybody wanna speak in opposition?

[2:18:04] All right. Seeing no one rise, Mr. Wilson, come on back up.

[2:18:10] So 4,100 square feet, Mr. Ani.

[2:18:15] Yeah, that's what's on the plans.

[2:18:17] So that includes finished

[2:18:18] and unfinished spaces as well as including the garage?

[2:18:21] Yes, it's a little bit over 3,500 square feet of finished,

[2:18:25] which also includes the attached decks outside.

[2:18:30] So the 4,100 square feet includes decks,

[2:18:33] Decks, garages, and mechanical spaces. I

[2:18:36] See.

[2:18:37] Is that how you see it, Mr. Dani? Yes. Okay.

[2:18:41] All right. Anything else you wish to add?

[2:18:48] So I would say, speaking specifically to the water quality

[2:18:53] benefits of this project, the lot right now

[2:18:57] is grass.

[2:18:59] It is grass as you can see on the screen,

[2:19:02] that uniformly slopes towards the lake

[2:19:06] that's attractive, that is idyllic.

[2:19:08] And having all

[2:19:10] of the grass going straight down towards the lake is one

[2:19:12] of the worst things you can do in terms

[2:19:14] of ensuring water quality.

[2:19:16] What happens is the grass has to be mowed, it has

[2:19:19] to be fertilized when it rains shortly

[2:19:23] after that, it just washes straight down into the lake.

[2:19:27] The lot as it exists now does not have substantial

[2:19:30] stormwater management systems or structures.

[2:19:35] The proposed lot

[2:19:37] and proposed project site as a whole really

[2:19:41] has a stormwater management system that has been sized

[2:19:46] to account for capture filtration

[2:19:49] and infiltration of 90% of the water quality volume,

[2:19:54] which is the benchmark for these sort

[2:19:57] of residential storm water installation systems.

[2:20:00] And so what that does is if you can capture, filter

[2:20:03] and infiltrate 90% of the WQV,

[2:20:07] you are capturing 90% of the pollutants

[2:20:11] that might end up in the lake.

[2:20:13] So for this particular project, the driveway is permeable,

[2:20:17] the patios are permeable.

[2:20:19] Underneath all of the roof overhangs is a drip edge

[2:20:22] infiltration trench, which will capture all

[2:20:25] of this storm water from all of the new

[2:20:28] and existing surfaces of the lot.

[2:20:30] And then, as I said, filter and infiltrate it.

[2:20:33] Right now, there's no real capacity to do that

[2:20:36] because the lot is vacant.

[2:20:39] So put in those terms,

[2:20:42] this project will provide a public water quality benefit,

[2:20:46] which is that incremental treatment

[2:20:48] and capture filtration of storm water.

[2:20:52] But in, in this depiction,

[2:20:57] you know, a smaller home essentially does the same thing.

[2:21:01] Correct. And what you're asking for is not us to purify,

[2:21:05] you know, allow a bill to purify the water,

[2:21:08] but you're asking us to allow a build that doesn't conform

[2:21:13] and, and the same thing

[2:21:17] that you are indicating can be accomplished

[2:21:20] with a smaller footprint,

[2:21:24] The same thing.

[2:21:25] I mean, your containment could occur

[2:21:28] and the runoff could be contained with a smaller footprint

[2:21:32] or a smaller home versus the size that's being proposed.

[2:21:36] I believe that's reasonable. Yes.

[2:21:39] And I, and I understand the front setbacks, I wrestle

[2:21:42] with the side setbacks and how much bigger this footprint is

[2:21:47] and haven't quite totally wrapped my head

[2:21:49] around the different sizes that have been spoken to.

[2:21:55] And one of the things I'm looking for is that justification

[2:21:59] of, you know, again, wrapping my head around this whole size

[2:22:03] of the footprint, because I understand everything you're

[2:22:06] speaking of, you know, the Shoreland Protection Act,

[2:22:10] and I've indicated this earlier

[2:22:12] and there are other parcels that the structures are

[2:22:17] imposing on those side setbacks.

[2:22:20] We get that and it's custom, it's custom.

[2:22:23] And it's common to see that around Old Lakes and,

[2:22:29] and I've had those experiences myself.

[2:22:34] So I guess for me, I'm more justifying not the fact

[2:22:38] that you're trying to protect the water quality,

[2:22:40] but why we need this size of a prop of a home

[2:22:45] in order to function

[2:22:47] and resolve the same conflict.

[2:22:51] Does anybody else have any questions for Mr. Wilson?

[2:22:59] Okay, gimme a second.

[2:23:00] I want to review a couple of things here and

[2:23:03] before we go into deliberation, Mr.

[2:23:06] Dani, what was that page you were looking at?

[2:23:10] It is the planning of the house and

[2:23:17] I was, I was trying to find it

[2:23:18] and there was a lot of detail in here to look at

[2:23:22] and find, including the brick patio

[2:23:28] Floor plan, conceptual floor

[2:23:31] Plan, it's sheet, A one and maybe the last one.

[2:23:34] One in the stack. Thank

[2:23:36] You.

[2:23:38] Thank you. Say again please. A1C

[2:23:41] A one should be the last in the stack of plans. Oh,

[2:23:44] By the way, Mr.

[2:23:45] Corbet, did you have any questions? Thank you, Mrs. Owen.

[2:23:50] Mr. Corbet, you still there? Not at

[2:23:52] This time.

[2:23:53] I here, not at this time.

[2:24:13] I see a proposal for a lap pool that's in,

[2:24:16] must be in the basement.

[2:24:18] That's correct. There is a lake nearby, you know,

[2:24:31] well, they can chop ice.

[2:24:39] How many bedrooms? Two. Two.

[2:24:59] Hmm.

[2:25:16] Okay. I'm ready to proceed.

[2:25:21] I don't know how accurate

[2:25:22] Zillow is.

[2:25:24] It says that the other house was built in 1955

[2:25:29] with four bedrooms, two baths, 2,239 square feet.

[2:25:34] But again, that's Zillow is my source.

[2:25:38] 2,900?

[2:25:40] No, 2,239.

[2:25:44] And that's must be livable square feet.

[2:25:51] Yeah, I mean overall I'm looking at the, at the design

[2:25:56] contains the vehicles off the street.

[2:26:03] A vehicle like a Chevy Suburban

[2:26:05] that's depicted is probably about 21 feet long.

[2:26:11] Certainly consumes up a lot of the 35 feet

[2:26:14] of the frontage setback that they're asking for relief on

[2:26:21] pulls the vehicles inside.

[2:26:23] And that's not unreasonable in my, my viewpoint.

[2:26:30] First floor is not excessive in, in size

[2:26:36] and second floor follow follows or mimics that.

[2:26:46] Okay. I have nothing else.

[2:26:51] If you're all set, Mr. Wilson,

[2:26:52] we'll go into deliberation. Thank

[2:26:54] You.

[2:26:55] Very good.

[2:26:56] Take a motion. Go into deliberation please.

[2:27:00] So, Thank you Mr. Trip.

[2:27:04] Second. Thank you Mr. Dietzel.

[2:27:08] All in favor of deliberation, say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

[2:27:13] Hearing None.

[2:27:19] I don't have that. Anybody wish

[2:27:22] to start off in

[2:27:23] discussion Mr.

[2:27:28] Dietzel?

[2:27:30] Well, I think the proposal is a reasonable one.

[2:27:34] I, the, the five criteria were addressed.

[2:27:39] It seems to me that,

[2:27:40] that the structure itself is reasonable in, in dimensions

[2:27:45] and footprint and so forth.

[2:27:48] The, the only problem is what they're here for, the variance

[2:27:51] for and that's the setbacks.

[2:27:55] They could pull it back and,

[2:27:56] but then they'd be closer to the, to the shore.

[2:28:00] To the shore. And so

[2:28:04] I I think it's, I think it's a good proposal.

[2:28:09] Mr. Trip. Well,

[2:28:15] it's not a very big light that's a readily apparent.

[2:28:22] I think the, the northern side

[2:28:28] being able to be eight

[2:28:31] and a half feet off the lot line

[2:28:35] is, is fine.

[2:28:40] Seeing how the, the abutting lot is right away.

[2:28:44] So there's nothing gonna be built there.

[2:28:47] I do have some concerns with

[2:28:50] it being only like seven feet off the southern lane lot,

[2:28:55] you know, 'cause there's no,

[2:28:59] there's no guarantee that the building that exists there

[2:29:08] is gonna, if it was gonna be rebuilt,

[2:29:12] would, would creep in a little.

[2:29:14] So it's, I I have, I have some

[2:29:20] concerns about it being, you know,

[2:29:24] shoehorned in like this.

[2:29:29] So they do own that lot as well.

[2:29:32] I know they, you can't say they'll own it forever,

[2:29:35] but, oh, it does show that they own

[2:29:40] lot six as well.

[2:29:42] Oh, And Mr.

[2:29:43] Trip, I went through about 20 years of photos

[2:29:46] and you actually can see lot

[2:29:48] or house 12 get rebuilt in the last 20 years

[2:29:51] that originally resembled the structure.

[2:29:53] That was at 16

[2:29:55] and from at least 2011 until now,

[2:29:58] it looks like some quite the restoration

[2:30:00] and increase in size.

[2:30:02] So I don't think they're, I have a tough time looking at

[2:30:06] what's there now and thinking it would be

[2:30:07] redeveloped really at all.

[2:30:12] If that just helps at all.

[2:30:14] And we usually have people

[2:30:16] that have access to the easement.

[2:30:18] They usually, you know, are abutters that come

[2:30:21] and they're not for it at all.

[2:30:24] And we've had the complete opposite.

[2:30:31] Okay. For myself, you know, I've,

[2:30:36] I've err on that side of, of wonderment and whether

[2:30:40] or not the, the build is oversized

[2:30:44] as I expressed, I can see that the,

[2:30:49] that the structure, now that I understand the, the footprint

[2:30:53] and the plans, that

[2:31:00] seems like it's, it's fairly reasonable.

[2:31:05] I don't know, looking at the footprint

[2:31:07] and the design of the footprint, I don't know

[2:31:10] how much more you would contain that.

[2:31:14] You would still be looking for

[2:31:18] relief from the side setbacks.

[2:31:22] And I can agree with the, the, with the layout

[2:31:27] of the, with the garage

[2:31:32] and storage of the vehicles away from the, the street.

[2:31:35] So that seems reasonable to me as well.

[2:31:41] I'd like to structure a motion

[2:31:43] but for whatever the reason,

[2:31:44] my motion sheets keep running away from me.

[2:31:56] I have the others. By the way, I have 17 through the rest

[2:32:00] of the agenda, so I shouldn't bother you again.

[2:32:06] So structuring the motion we have subject

[2:32:08] to obtaining all state and town permits and inspections.

[2:32:11] Anybody else have anything they'd like to add here?

[2:32:16] I heard nothing in the discussions of the questions

[2:32:19] directed at the applicant to suggest

[2:32:22] that there were should be other, any other terms

[2:32:26] added to this motion.

[2:32:28] So I'll, I'll presume the silence from the other members is

[2:32:33] a sign that we can move forward.

[2:32:35] So that being said, let's take a motion,

[2:32:39] come back outta deliberation

[2:32:43] Chair.

[2:32:44] I'll make that motion to come back outta

[2:32:45] deliberation. Second.

[2:32:46] A second. I'll give that to Mr. Dietzel.

[2:32:49] And all in favor of coming outta deliberation, say aye. Aye.

[2:32:53] Any opposed? Mr. Moore, you have a motion to read?

[2:32:58] I do. Thank you. I make a motion on case number two six

[2:33:03] dash 11 6 2.

[2:33:05] Grant a variance to the terms of article six,

[2:33:10] section 1 65 dash four six

[2:33:14] C four of the town of dairy zoning ordinance

[2:33:18] to allow the construction of a single family home

[2:33:22] located less than 35 feet to the front property line

[2:33:27] and less than 15 feet

[2:33:29] to the side property line parcel ID

[2:33:33] 5 1 0 0 8 zoned MDR as presented

[2:33:37] with the following conditions.

[2:33:39] We have one, one subject to obtaining our state

[2:33:42] and town permits and inspections.

[2:33:45] And that concludes the reading of the motion.

[2:33:47] I need a second. Second.

[2:33:51] All right. That puts that motion on the floor.

[2:33:54] Brings us to finding a fact. Mr.

[2:33:58] Corbet, we have only supporting testimony there.

[2:34:03] Nothing opposition.

[2:34:05] Can we do an abbreviated finding a fact without a roll call?

[2:34:09] You read my mind Mr. Cher. Very good.

[2:34:11] I was very good not doing the long form.

[2:34:13] Perfect. I'll think I'll, I'll let you do your stuff.

[2:34:17] Alright. Finding a fact for case 26 dash 116

[2:34:22] heard on June 18th, 2026.

[2:34:24] The ZBA heard the application

[2:34:25] of Kilduff royalty Trust Carol Kilduff trustee represented

[2:34:30] by terrain planting

[2:34:31] and design LLC

[2:34:32] concerning the property located at 16 Coles Grove Road

[2:34:36] parcel ID 5 1 0 0 8 The applicant is requesting a variance

[2:34:41] to allow the construction

[2:34:42] of a single family home located approximately 23.8 feet

[2:34:46] to the front property line, 8.4 feet

[2:34:49] to the north side property line

[2:34:51] and 6.9 feet to the south side property line.

[2:34:54] The property is located in the medium density residential

[2:34:57] zoning district, which requires a 35 foot minimum setback

[2:35:00] from the front property line

[2:35:02] and a 15 foot minimum setback to the side property lines.

[2:35:05] Therefore, a variance is being requested.

[2:35:07] This is a preexisting non-conforming lot with respect

[2:35:11] to the lot area in frontage.

[2:35:12] The property has remained vacant since 2017

[2:35:14] after the previous single family dwelling was removed.

[2:35:18] The property is located along the waterfront of Beaver Lake

[2:35:20] and is located in an area of preexisting small lots

[2:35:23] and non-conforming structures.

[2:35:25] The property is serviced by municipal sewer

[2:35:27] and a private well and approved state shoreland permit has

[2:35:31] been issued through N-H-D-E-S

[2:35:34] and the board also includes all facts found in the meeting

[2:35:36] minutes for this application

[2:35:37] and includes all meeting minutes into its finding

[2:35:39] of facts and decisions.

[2:35:41] Does anybody have any additions or addendums to make

[2:35:44] Seeing no gestures.

[2:35:45] All in favor of moving this for a vote? Say aye. Aye.

[2:35:49] Any opposed? Mr. Dietzel? Yes. Mr. Trip?

[2:35:54] Yes. Mrs. Warren? Yes. Mr. Corbett?

[2:35:58] Yes. And I'll make it unanimous

[2:36:01] by a vote of five to zero.

[2:36:02] So congratulations to the applicant, Mr. Wilson.

[2:36:07] Anybody agree by this has 30 days to request rehearing After

[2:36:12] that recourse would be superior Court.

[2:36:14] Have a good evening. Thank you

[2:36:16] All for your time.

[2:36:17] You are welcome. All right, so other business here,

[2:36:22] we're gonna get to the next case.

[2:36:23] We have Kozo and Pinkerton Academy.

[2:36:28] We're probably not going to get to you this evening.

[2:36:32] Pinkerton Academy. I know Pinkerton Academy.

[2:36:36] So we're gonna take a motion, put you off

[2:36:39] to the next meeting unless you have an

[2:36:43] objection, but you can sit here.

[2:36:47] You might be sitting here for two weeks.

[2:36:50] That's actually the end of July.

[2:36:52] That's case number 26 dash 1 18 26 1 19.

[2:36:57] We won't get, I don't see us getting to you this evening.

[2:37:01] Do you want go to the next meeting?

[2:37:05] I'll have to. Okay, so we need a date certain

[2:37:10] we will, Ms. Owen, I think we can leave that date open for

[2:37:15] the discretion of Pinkerton.

[2:37:17] Absolutely. And you know if we go too long then

[2:37:20] you have to re-notice.

[2:37:21] Yep. Just so you're aware. No problem.

[2:37:27] Zo you here. All right, so we won't get to you tonight.

[2:37:30] You wanna come back to the next meeting? Yeah. Okay.

[2:37:35] We to, yep.

[2:37:36] Okay, so gimme a motion for 26 1 1 8 please.

[2:37:41] Table to the next meeting. So moved. Thank you.

[2:37:44] Second please. I'll second. Thank you.

[2:37:47] All in favor of that motion, say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

[2:37:50] Hearing none. Case number 26 19

[2:37:55] Pinkerton Academy tabled to the next scheduled meeting.

[2:38:00] I have a motion for that please. I'll make the motion.

[2:38:02] So Mr. Trip has that. Mr. Omba, you want a second?

[2:38:07] I'll second. Very good, thank you. All in favor say aye.

[2:38:09] Aye. A opposed? Alright.

[2:38:12] So gentlemen, we have you scheduled for the next meeting

[2:38:14] to stay in contact with code enforcement if you can't do

[2:38:19] that, and we'll work out details afterwards.

[2:38:21] Thank you for your patience. Sorry that's gone on so long.

[2:38:24] Next case up is 26 dash hundred seven Michael

[2:38:27] and Frannie, Greenberg Greenberg, family of local trust.

[2:38:32] I'm gonna let an alternate set.

[2:38:35] Very good. Mr.

[2:38:38] Donlan, would you sit on this for me please?

[2:38:41] Yes, Sir. All right folks,

[2:38:44] how are you this evening? Fine, thanks.

[2:38:45] Thank you. All right. Appreciate your time.

[2:38:47] I'll to save critters, I presume. Yes. All right.

[2:38:50] Everybody's doing that. So we ask

[2:38:51] that you read the five criteria for the record.

[2:38:54] Okay. And the faster you can go, the faster we can get out

[2:38:56] Here.

[2:38:57] Try and do it so you can read it.

[2:38:59] The variance will not be contrary to the public interest

[2:39:01] because the proposed use serves

[2:39:02] as an important public benefit

[2:39:04] through wildlife rehabilitation, environmental stewardship,

[2:39:07] and educational outreach use supports the humane treatment,

[2:39:10] medical care, rehabilitation and release of injured

[2:39:13] or orphaned native wildlife,

[2:39:14] while also providing community education

[2:39:16] regarding responsible coexistence

[2:39:18] with wildlife species throughout New Hampshire.

[2:39:21] Millstone Wildlife Center works closely

[2:39:22] with animal control officers across the state

[2:39:24] by providing training and guidance related

[2:39:26] to wildlife handling, triage, and rehabilitation.

[2:39:29] Due to the organization's established reputation

[2:39:32] and high level of a public engagement,

[2:39:34] most on Wildlife Center also serves

[2:39:35] as aig significant resource for New Hampshire Fish

[2:39:38] and Game by helping to manage

[2:39:39] and respond to public wildlife concerns.

[2:39:41] Filling more than 8,000 public inquiries annually.

[2:39:45] The spirits of the ordinance is observed because the spirit

[2:39:48] and intent of the zoning ordinance are preserved

[2:39:51] because the proposed use remains compatible

[2:39:52] with the surrounding area and utilizes existing residential

[2:39:55] and accessory structures in a manner

[2:39:57] that minimizes impact on neighboring properties.

[2:39:59] The zoning ordinance currently permits veterinary clinics in

[2:40:02] the care and treatment of domestic and farm animals,

[2:40:04] but does not specifically address licensed wildlife

[2:40:07] rehabilitation facilities.

[2:40:08] The provide use is similar in nature

[2:40:10] to other permitted animal care uses while operating on a

[2:40:13] smaller non-profit

[2:40:14] and low intensity basis focused on temporary

[2:40:17] rehabilitation and release.

[2:40:18] Rather than any commercial activity.

[2:40:20] Proposed use maintains the character

[2:40:22] of the neighborhood providing an important public

[2:40:23] and environmental benefit.

[2:40:26] Substantial justice is done

[2:40:27] because granting the variance allows an established

[2:40:30] non-profit organization

[2:40:31] to continue providing valuable public services

[2:40:33] to the residents and wildlife of New Hampshire.

[2:40:36] Since its inception, millstone Wildlife Center has assisted

[2:40:39] more than 1000 dairy residents

[2:40:40] through Wildlife Response Education

[2:40:42] and rehabilitation services Organization also provides

[2:40:46] opportunities for volunteerism, community service,

[2:40:48] public education regarding coexistence

[2:40:50] with the native wildlife, through ongoing coordination

[2:40:54] with the dairy animal control officer

[2:40:55] and other public agencies.

[2:40:56] Most on Wildlife Center provides substantial value

[2:40:58] and support to the town of dairy

[2:40:59] and surrounding communities.

[2:41:02] The values of surrounding property values are not diminished

[2:41:04] because the proposed use will maintain the existing

[2:41:06] residential character and appearance of the property.

[2:41:09] Activities occur primarily indoors

[2:41:11] and involve temporary wildlife rehabilitation rather than a

[2:41:14] permanent animal housing or commercial animal boarding.

[2:41:17] Most wildlife center will continue

[2:41:19] to main the property in a clean,

[2:41:20] orderly, and professional manner.

[2:41:21] Manner operations are low impact in nature

[2:41:24] and are expected to generate minimal traffic, noise,

[2:41:27] lighting, or exterior activity.

[2:41:29] The property will continue

[2:41:30] to retain its residential appearance

[2:41:32] and character consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.

[2:41:34] Due to the limited intensity of the use,

[2:41:36] the proposal is not expected.

[2:41:37] Negatively affect surrounding property values.

[2:41:41] Little enforcement of the ordinances would result in

[2:41:43] an unnecessary hardship.

[2:41:45] The property contains existing residential

[2:41:47] and accessory structures uniquely suited, uniquely suited

[2:41:50] to the proposed nonprofit.

[2:41:52] Wildlife rehabilitation use the existing layout

[2:41:54] and configuration, allow rehabilitation services activities

[2:41:57] to occur in a controlled low impact setting without

[2:42:00] requiring a substantial exterior development

[2:42:02] or alteration to the property.

[2:42:04] The property's existing configuration accessory buildings

[2:42:06] and lock characteristics make it particularly well suited

[2:42:09] for low intensity wildlife rehabilitation activities while

[2:42:12] preserving the overall

[2:42:13] character of the surrounding neighborhood.

[2:42:15] Granting the requested variance will

[2:42:16] therefore enable reasonable use

[2:42:18] of the property in a manner consistent

[2:42:19] with the public interest and compatible surrounding

[2:42:21] area. Hopefully

[2:42:26] That's, do you ever get any bears?

[2:42:28] We're not licensed to do bear deer or moose.

[2:42:32] That's a shame. All right.

[2:42:34] So why don't you proceed and tell us what you're doing.

[2:42:38] I'm Sorry, outside of the, outside of the scripted.

[2:42:42] Yep.

[2:42:47] Mill Stone Wildlife Center began in 2015.

[2:42:51] We plan to bring in a few animals to our home.

[2:42:55] We currently are up and running in Windham, New Hampshire.

[2:42:58] Can you speak in the microphone? Yes.

[2:43:02] We are in Wyndham, New Hampshire,

[2:43:03] currently operating from our home.

[2:43:05] We began in 2015.

[2:43:08] We are fully licensed throughout

[2:43:11] through New Hampshire Fish and Game.

[2:43:13] We hold A-U-S-D-A license

[2:43:16] and we are operating services for

[2:43:19] to anyone in the state of New Hampshire

[2:43:22] that is found an injured, orphaned or ill animal.

[2:43:26] We bring them in. The goal is to treat and release.

[2:43:30] We are not keeping them long term.

[2:43:32] However, we do have a few animals that have been deemed

[2:43:35] by a veterinarian to be non releasable,

[2:43:38] but used, usable for program services.

[2:43:42] The goal is to get them in to treat them as best we can.

[2:43:46] Hopefully they're back to their 100% self

[2:43:49] or close to it, and then we release.

[2:43:51] So it's short term. We're not a nature center.

[2:43:54] We don't invite people to come in.

[2:43:57] Anyone who brings us an animal meets us in the driveway.

[2:44:02] They do not come into the residence.

[2:44:04] On this new property, we would use the residents

[2:44:08] for a residence.

[2:44:10] There are four outbuildings.

[2:44:11] That's what would be used for this, the services we provide.

[2:44:16] So giving medical care if it's an orphan,

[2:44:21] training them to how to swim if you're a mink

[2:44:24] or hunt for something, if that's part of your training.

[2:44:30] So the existing property

[2:44:34] would not announce to the public what we do.

[2:44:39] We don't want people just stopping in

[2:44:42] because we are, we don't have the ability

[2:44:45] to have people see the animals.

[2:44:47] We're asked often, can I bring my

[2:44:50] granddaughter, can I bring someone?

[2:44:52] No, the answer is no.

[2:44:55] The animals that we have need to remain wild.

[2:45:00] So they are cared for by volunteers, by veterinarians,

[2:45:05] by people who are able to give food medication,

[2:45:09] but we don't invite other people in to see.

[2:45:13] So the property would be, it,

[2:45:17] it's suited for that.

[2:45:19] The outbuildings would be utilized, the animals treated

[2:45:23] and released without hopefully even knowing we're there.

[2:45:28] If you look at our current location,

[2:45:31] you can see very little.

[2:45:32] Our packet showed you

[2:45:33] what it looks like from the front of the house.

[2:45:36] People drive by saying, I am trying to get to you.

[2:45:39] Where, where is this facility?

[2:45:42] Where we're a house on a street?

[2:45:44] And we make it a point to be so, so

[2:45:49] that people don't think, aha, I've found bunnies,

[2:45:52] I'm gonna just drop 'em on the doorstep and run.

[2:46:00] All right. You made mention of program services.

[2:46:04] What kind of services does your program sur survive provide?

[2:46:08] We with a limited amount of programs, go out

[2:46:13] to whatever that location is, whether it be girl Scouts

[2:46:18] or where, what other schools or a senior center.

[2:46:24] We are, are taking animals there.

[2:46:28] We can't have people coming into us at this point.

[2:46:35] Yeah. I I, in looking through your packet that you

[2:46:39] provided, one of the things that I

[2:46:44] thought that was interesting was the number

[2:46:49] of animals and the type of animals you're allowed to

[2:46:53] provide services to.

[2:46:55] Yes. Could you enlighten us on that? Sure.

[2:47:00] Last year we were up to almost 1500 animals.

[2:47:04] 1500. Yes, I did say that. In our home, they come in, have

[2:47:09] 1500 animals in your home.

[2:47:11] Yes. Not all at one time through a they,

[2:47:15] they come in, they're treated.

[2:47:17] Now remember they could be tiny animals.

[2:47:20] We had over 800 small little bunny rabbits.

[2:47:24] So we're not talking about having our home

[2:47:28] overrun with animals.

[2:47:29] There are specific rooms. We are inspected.

[2:47:31] Yesterday we had our USDA inspection. We are fully licensed.

[2:47:36] We comply with all the regulations.

[2:47:38] They come and they go, you may be there

[2:47:41] for 48 hours for treatment.

[2:47:43] So it's not like there's a big overlap with animals.

[2:47:47] We do have baby season, remember, these animals are little,

[2:47:50] but yes, our numbers are large.

[2:47:53] We're there are not enough hovers in the state.

[2:47:56] We feel the need to grow, to have another space to be able

[2:48:00] to provide more to the, the people

[2:48:03] that have found these animals.

[2:48:05] We are also a service in part

[2:48:08] of our mission is to answer the phone.

[2:48:10] If you've mowed your lawn

[2:48:12] and you've heard a bunny, what do you do?

[2:48:13] There's not a lot of people that are gonna answer at 6:00 AM

[2:48:18] or at 11 o'clock at night.

[2:48:21] I will tell you what to do

[2:48:22] with your bunnies when you call me

[2:48:24] or with the fisher that's in your attic.

[2:48:27] Or how do I, we we don't take your pests.

[2:48:30] If you call and say, I have a woodchuck eating my romaine.

[2:48:34] We'll talk to you about building a fence.

[2:48:36] I don't collect animals.

[2:48:38] We bring them in, we treat them, we release.

[2:48:41] Unless that cannot be done comfortably.

[2:48:45] And sometimes it's a sad conclusion.

[2:48:48] Sometimes euthanasia is the kindest end for these animals.

[2:48:52] So sometimes that is what happens.

[2:48:57] One more. You said you had like

[2:49:00] 15, 14, 76, but yes.

[2:49:03] 1476. Now this was not all at once. No,

[2:49:07] No, no, no.

[2:49:08] So, so how many animals would you have on a,

[2:49:12] at a maximum at your facility?

[2:49:13] We don't have a, a maximum per se,

[2:49:16] but this time, this is our busiest time of year.

[2:49:18] Right now at last, last count was 111.

[2:49:22] Now remember, many of those

[2:49:26] fit in a single room

[2:49:28] and we have rooms that are

[2:49:32] divided from our homes.

[2:49:34] So our, you know, our, our bedroom doesn't have

[2:49:40] raccoons running through it or possums.

[2:49:42] We have a small animals and incubators,

[2:49:45] but that's, that's a number that

[2:49:48] is not uncommon in May or June.

[2:49:51] In the winter we have far fewer

[2:49:53] because animals aren't having

[2:49:55] babies in the middle of the winter.

[2:49:57] What we're getting then is the animal that was hit by a car

[2:50:01] is the animal that got stuck in your attic

[2:50:04] or in somebody's glue trap.

[2:50:06] So it's very seasonal.

[2:50:09] Baby season starts now.

[2:50:11] Temperatures are warmer and it starts a little earlier.

[2:50:15] May and June are our busiest months.

[2:50:19] Pardon the chair. I need to,

[2:50:21] we get excused from this case.

[2:50:23] Unfortunately, she came to the London A Rotary

[2:50:26] and we were offering

[2:50:28] up donations to them.

[2:50:32] So I'm gonna step out of this one.

[2:50:34] Okay. Okay. You don't mind if I excuse myself? Yeah,

[2:50:38] You surely can.

[2:50:39] Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else have questions?

[2:50:44] A question Ms. Moore,

[2:50:46] On your USDA certificate, it says maximum number

[2:50:50] of animals authorized is 50.

[2:50:52] That's 50 animals that can't be released. Okay.

[2:50:55] So the USDA regulates non releasable.

[2:51:00] If I have 50 non releasable animals,

[2:51:02] I'm gonna need a new license.

[2:51:03] It's gonna be a new marriage license,

[2:51:05] not a new USDA license.

[2:51:08] I but you can USDA will grant you a permit to go hire.

[2:51:12] We've got up to 50 Currently I have no non no ambassador.

[2:51:18] There's, which is different than non releasable.

[2:51:20] Currently we have none. We've released everyone.

[2:51:24] Okay. I would not be able to release. So

[2:51:28] Anybody down the left?

[2:51:30] I do. So you had said earlier that you were gonna use it

[2:51:34] as a residence.

[2:51:36] For whom? Are you guys moving to Derry?

[2:51:38] We're not moving, no, we're staying put

[2:51:41] but we will rent it.

[2:51:43] So there's, the plan is to have somebody affiliated

[2:51:47] with our organization.

[2:51:48] Okay. So that there's somebody on site

[2:51:51] and long-term, it's really a long-term plan for us as well.

[2:51:55] We're not 40 years old.

[2:51:57] We would very much like to find ways

[2:52:00] for Millstone Wildlife Center to continue

[2:52:03] and when we do not have the ability

[2:52:05] to work 365 days a year all day, all night,

[2:52:11] we'll have other people doing that.

[2:52:14] But there would be somebody in the home using it as a home.

[2:52:19] And at some point it might be compensation for,

[2:52:22] for the people that we don't get paid.

[2:52:25] We're not paid by town government.

[2:52:29] We receive no salary

[2:52:30] and Millstone Wildlife Center board, if they'd like

[2:52:35] to compensate somebody in the future being a director could

[2:52:39] potentially offer housing.

[2:52:41] Say

[2:52:45] All set. Anything else? I do.

[2:52:47] We're at 9 59.

[2:52:49] Okay. I'll take a motion to extend 15. So moved. Vote.

[2:52:53] Oh, sorry. Mr. Donlin, you want a second? Mr. Moore?

[2:52:57] I'll second it. Thank you.

[2:52:58] All in favor of extension say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

[2:53:01] Any opposed? Hearing none. Go ahead. You all set? Mr.

[2:53:04] Donlan? Yes sir. Mr. Anthony, no questions.

[2:53:09] Thank, I'm sorry.

[2:53:12] Mr. Henry and Mr. Bumba, you all set? I

[2:53:16] Think Mr.

[2:53:17] Donlan asked, I wanted to know

[2:53:20] how they're gonna maintain the two properties,

[2:53:22] the house in Windham and this one here in Derry, but

[2:53:26] Maintain it.

[2:53:27] In what way? Like

[2:53:29] I think residency wise are you guys gonna move

[2:53:31] into Derry to the new property?

[2:53:33] But he asked. Okay. Once, thank you.

[2:53:37] I'll set Mr. Emba. I am Mr. Chair.

[2:53:39] Okay, good enough. Anybody else have any questions? Mr.

[2:53:44] Trip?

[2:53:45] So you do not intend to live here,

[2:53:49] Correct?

[2:53:51] You, you're going to continue to operate your other

[2:53:57] rehabilitation center in Wyndham.

[2:54:00] So you would rely on volunteers?

[2:54:05] Well, there are two of us. So we figured in

[2:54:08] 1500 animals.

[2:54:10] Pardon Me. And 1500 animals.

[2:54:12] Yes. Not all the same time. So, but,

[2:54:18] And we do use volunteers.

[2:54:19] We have about 40 regular volunteers that staff what we do.

[2:54:25] Now, that's a lot of that is in these busy times we

[2:54:30] give college opportunity, college credit

[2:54:34] opportunity to, currently we have 10 different interns

[2:54:39] that come and they're learning how to care for these animals

[2:54:43] and they help with the work.

[2:54:46] So that would be part of it.

[2:54:48] But yes, we would have, there would be someone over there

[2:54:54] will remain as headquarters.

[2:54:56] All the animals come to the Wyndham location.

[2:55:00] It could be that a possums go to

[2:55:04] that location are in the barn or are in the garage and,

[2:55:09] but they start in one place.

[2:55:10] But they're given veterinary care.

[2:55:12] We have veterinarians that come directly to us

[2:55:15] and would do both sites.

[2:55:17] Yeah, well I,

[2:55:21] I have had neighbors that had chickens

[2:55:25] and they didn't have a hundred of them,

[2:55:29] but they had enough that

[2:55:34] the noise and the smell

[2:55:40] and other things

[2:55:43] were noticeable.

[2:55:46] So how do you deal with that sort of thing?

[2:55:51] Well if you ask our neighbors they will tell you they're

[2:55:54] not hearing our animals.

[2:55:55] While the animals tend

[2:55:58] to be very quiet so they're not noticed.

[2:56:02] Your neighborhood fox that walks through your yard

[2:56:07] during mating season will make as much noise as a possums

[2:56:11] who make very little noise or bunnies who make no noise

[2:56:15] or noise hasn't been an issue.

[2:56:18] We keep our cleaning standards at the utmost

[2:56:24] so that smell is not an issue and noise is not an issue.

[2:56:28] So many of those animals

[2:56:31] that we do are tiny little incubator based animals

[2:56:36] and they don't make too much noise.

[2:56:40] I mean, yes, when woodchucks are hungry,

[2:56:43] little woodchucks will scream.

[2:56:44] They're called whistle pigs for a reason.

[2:56:46] They will whistle and tell you it's

[2:56:48] time, but they're in my house.

[2:56:50] Right. Well thank you. Sure.

[2:56:52] So what is the licensing criteria that you, that you deal

[2:56:55] with or is, or is appropriate here?

[2:56:57] You don't rehab bears, do you rehab deer? Do you know what's

[2:57:01] We do mammals.

[2:57:03] We can go any size. We can start as small as we want.

[2:57:06] We go up. We can't do deer bear

[2:57:09] and moose other than that, if it's a mamm, no deer

[2:57:13] bear or moose,

[2:57:16] Primarily game animals. So

[2:57:19] Right.

[2:57:21] What we see most, we had as I mentioned,

[2:57:24] 800 eastern cottontail rabbits.

[2:57:27] We do a lot of squirrels.

[2:57:28] We do a couple hundred a possums,

[2:57:32] all the other species.

[2:57:34] But of course some we don't see very often.

[2:57:36] There are not that many out there.

[2:57:38] It's been years since we've had a fissure.

[2:57:40] We have one weasel in our care right now.

[2:57:43] A long tailed weasel.

[2:57:44] We have two mink, but they, those of course,

[2:57:48] you know you need a much different facility than if I had

[2:57:52] 1500 white-tailed deer.

[2:57:55] Okay. I think that might help with the answer

[2:57:57] of odor and noise.

[2:58:00] Right. Mr.

[2:58:01] Mr. Chair, I have another question, Mr.

[2:58:05] In the residence itself, given that there'll be

[2:58:09] a reasonable amount of people in theory

[2:58:11] between the volunteers

[2:58:13] and the vets, I would assume a certain amount

[2:58:15] of vehicles would come along with that.

[2:58:17] Is there adequate off street or adequate parking?

[2:58:22] This property is, I don't know what the right word, zoned

[2:58:26] or when it's listed

[2:58:28] as being a 10 car driveway.

[2:58:32] So that's, we don't have that many cars there at one time.

[2:58:35] We stagger our volunteers so they come

[2:58:38] and they go throughout the day.

[2:58:40] But there is ample opportunity to park within the driveway.

[2:58:46] Thank you. Okay, everybody else set? Alright Ms.

[2:58:50] Olin, you want to give us your staff report?

[2:58:53] Certainly. Thank you.

[2:58:55] As applicant stated, they are requesting a variance

[2:58:58] to allow wildlife rehabilitation center use at the property.

[2:59:03] The current property is approximately 1.52 acres

[2:59:06] and contains an existing single family residence

[2:59:09] and multiple accessory structures including a barn

[2:59:12] that was converted into a living space, a garage,

[2:59:15] and multiple sheds.

[2:59:17] The property is located in the medium density

[2:59:19] residential district.

[2:59:21] A wildlife rehabilitation center use is not specifically

[2:59:24] defined in the town of der zoning.

[2:59:26] Ordinance is not a permitted use in the zoning district.

[2:59:29] It also does not meet their definition of a home occupation.

[2:59:33] Therefore a variance is being requested this evening.

[2:59:37] The proposed business,

[2:59:38] as the applicant had stated will operate, sorry,

[2:59:43] will operate as a rehabilitation center focused on providing

[2:59:46] temporary care and recovery for wildlife.

[2:59:48] With the goal of releasing the animals back into the wild.

[2:59:51] The operations on site are proposed

[2:59:53] to occur primarily indoors within the existing

[2:59:56] structures on the property.

[2:59:59] It is recommended that planning board site plan

[3:00:02] determination, approval to, to kind of capture the

[3:00:07] existing site, the existing structures on the property

[3:00:10] and to capture the use on the property

[3:00:13] if it is approved this evening.

[3:00:14] And there are pictures on the file in, in the file of the

[3:00:18] Property.

[3:00:19] And did you indicate you'd like a a site

[3:00:20] plan? That's what I heard

[3:00:21] You site plan determination?

[3:00:23] Correct. Okay.

[3:00:27] Alright. Any questions for code enforcement from anyone?

[3:00:33] Okay, I'm hearing nothing there.

[3:00:35] Let's take a call to the public

[3:00:37] to see what they have to say.

[3:00:38] Anybody wishes to speak in the affirmative?

[3:00:41] Please come forward.

[3:00:44] We have somebody racing up and then you can be second sir.

[3:00:47] Okay. You can talk.

[3:00:55] Is that mic on Mr. Bennett? Very good name and

[3:00:59] My name is Mark pil.

[3:01:00] I'm actually representing a friend of ours

[3:01:04] who couldn't make it tonight because she's at work.

[3:01:06] Her name is Nancy Webb

[3:01:08] and she lives at 25 Maxwell Drive in dairy

[3:01:13] and as I said, she's at work so she wasn't able

[3:01:14] to hear be here.

[3:01:16] She says she's lived in Derry for over 40 years and

[3:01:20] and living next to the Rockingham Recreational Trail,

[3:01:23] have been thrilled to live among the diversity

[3:01:25] of wildlife in our area.

[3:01:27] As such, I have been following the Millstone Wildlife Center

[3:01:30] for several years, both on Facebook

[3:01:32] and through friends who volunteer at Millstone.

[3:01:35] I was so proud when two possums whom Millstone had

[3:01:38] rehabilitated from injuries were allowed

[3:01:41] to be released on my property back into the

[3:01:43] wild where they belong.

[3:01:45] I was excited to learn

[3:01:46] that Millstone Wildlife Center is planning

[3:01:49] to expand into dairy.

[3:01:50] I understand that last year they helped over 1500 injured

[3:01:54] or orphan wild animals and look forward to the property

[3:01:58] and dairy, allowing them to continue their mission

[3:02:00] and commitment into the future

[3:02:02] and help even more New Hampshire wild animals.

[3:02:05] Signed Nancy J. Webb. Very

[3:02:07] Good.

[3:02:08] Alright, thank you sir.

[3:02:13] Thank you. I'm Erica Leon, 84 Shanita Road. I'm coming up.

[3:02:18] I was expecting to be in a lot stronger support.

[3:02:20] Some other questions have been raised here,

[3:02:22] but just for some background, I'm a state representative.

[3:02:25] I'm vice chair of the joint Legislative

[3:02:26] Committee on administrative rules.

[3:02:28] So when my neighbors had questions, I dug into the rules

[3:02:31] around wildlife rehabilitation to understand what the laws,

[3:02:34] rules, regulations are.

[3:02:36] I also spoke to Colonel Jordan from

[3:02:38] the Fish and Game department.

[3:02:40] So the biggest concerns that I heard from my neighbors were

[3:02:43] around parking and just around the noise

[3:02:44] and mess that may come from animals.

[3:02:47] I understand that under the fish

[3:02:49] and game rules in the permitting process, if there's noise

[3:02:52] and mess, that's going to be outside

[3:02:54] of the permitted application.

[3:02:56] And if people start hearing, if there starts to be problems

[3:02:59] with that, that's gonna be an issue

[3:03:01] that's taken up with fish and game.

[3:03:03] Not really an issue with the town.

[3:03:05] I do wanna say that Colonel Jordan said that you are one

[3:03:08] of the best life rehabilitators in the state

[3:03:11] and that you are a model rehabilitator.

[3:03:13] So that makes me feel very good about this whole process.

[3:03:18] It did, it sounded like the request was not

[3:03:21] for a fixed location exhibition

[3:03:24] because if this variance is, is

[3:03:26] for the wildlife rehabilitation

[3:03:30] and potentially the site for the wildlife, sorry,

[3:03:34] the one that's under fish and game eight 10, the wildlife

[3:03:39] exhibition permit, that's based on the rotating locations.

[3:03:43] Right now, I believe the permit that you have

[3:03:45] for the exhibition is for, it was either five

[3:03:48] or seven animals and you haven't done any ex

[3:03:50] expositions with anybody.

[3:03:52] So you're sort of a low footprint.

[3:03:53] It's not like you have traffic coming in.

[3:03:55] It would be a pretty significant change of use

[3:03:58] to turn it into an exhibition center, a fixed location.

[3:04:02] And so I would just ask that,

[3:04:03] that the variance be specifically not

[3:04:05] to include a fixed location

[3:04:07] because that brings up the traffic issues

[3:04:09] that the neighbors are highly concerned about.

[3:04:13] So that's, that's one of my biggest concerns.

[3:04:16] And also I don't think that the laws

[3:04:18] and rules around wildlife rehabilitation centers really

[3:04:22] considered the idea of this becoming a satellite location.

[3:04:25] That's one where I'm gonna go back up there

[3:04:27] and talk to some people and see really what the intent was

[3:04:30] around the laws and the rules for wildlife rehabilitation.

[3:04:33] Because this is the sort of thing that can sort of cascade

[3:04:37] and snowball as it moves forward.

[3:04:39] You know, you're some of the model people

[3:04:41] that do this in the state.

[3:04:43] Just the question is where it can go from here.

[3:04:45] But I I I do feel comforted knowing

[3:04:48] that in the permit process there needs

[3:04:51] to be the general conditions just to make sure that,

[3:04:54] you know, there's the, the, the cages of sufficient size.

[3:04:57] They allow full freedom of movement and exercise.

[3:05:00] They're clean and well ventilated.

[3:05:02] They're in quiet surroundings only accessible to premieres

[3:05:05] and assistance and they comply

[3:05:08] with some other federal regulations around it

[3:05:11] that they'd be released as soon as they're able

[3:05:13] to be released within the natural habitat.

[3:05:16] And considering that we maintain quite a few acres

[3:05:19] of woods close by to you, I'm also happy to know

[3:05:22] that you can't release it without specific permission

[3:05:24] of the executive director.

[3:05:26] So you won't be released the bunny net rabbits right next

[3:05:28] to my neighbor who's growing their garden.

[3:05:31] This'll be in a place where it's well agreed upon,

[3:05:34] I believe with the property owners.

[3:05:35] So a lot

[3:05:37] of the different concerns I think are already handled

[3:05:39] under state regulation.

[3:05:41] But I do come back to the question about that, the idea

[3:05:45] of having the variance not include the fixed exhibition

[3:05:48] because that would be a significant change from

[3:05:52] what you're already doing and could be a change

[3:05:53] to the character of the neighborhood.

[3:05:55] Especially because wildlife rehabilitation is not included

[3:05:59] in the statutory definition of agriculture.

[3:06:01] So it doesn't meet those exemptions for agriculture.

[3:06:04] But from what I've heard, you do a fantastic job.

[3:06:09] I was hoping you were gonna actually be our neighbors

[3:06:11] because if you were going to actually be our neighbors,

[3:06:13] there'd be fewer of these questions.

[3:06:15] But,

[3:06:16] So I'm not totally clear on the fixed exhibition issue

[3:06:20] that you're, that you're mentioning and,

[3:06:22] and the clarity. So,

[3:06:24] So clarity on that is when you have an exhibition license

[3:06:27] from Fish and Game, you can either have it at a site

[3:06:30] where people come into your site, that's one

[3:06:33] where you would have traffic coming in,

[3:06:34] people visiting in order to see the animals.

[3:06:37] Something like wildlife encounters

[3:06:39] or something else where people come to your site

[3:06:42] that is very different than the one where they travel

[3:06:45] and take it, take it to other locations just

[3:06:48] as it was discussed, bringing it to the Girl Scouts

[3:06:50] or bringing it to the rotary

[3:06:52] because if you're taking the animals offsite, there's less

[3:06:55] of an impact at the location that's going places on request.

[3:06:59] If it's a fixed site

[3:07:00] and you're having people come in, look at the animals,

[3:07:03] then you have a lot more traffic.

[3:07:05] And if that's not what the request is,

[3:07:07] I would think keeping the variance limited

[3:07:08] to the actual request would eliminate a lot

[3:07:12] of the neighborhood concerns about the traffic.

[3:07:15] I mean, with a hundred bunnies at a time,

[3:07:17] there's probably gonna be a lot

[3:07:18] of cars dropping that off as well.

[3:07:20] So I, I'm hopeful that also something around the cars

[3:07:23] and that consideration is part of the variance.

[3:07:27] But without wildlife rehabilitators,

[3:07:29] all we can do is eat the animals

[3:07:31] and while they're tasty,

[3:07:32] it'd be nice to be able to save them.

[3:07:35] I do have a question, not for Erica,

[3:07:37] but it brought up a different question.

[3:07:39] When an animal expires, do you have to report it to somebody

[3:07:44] and what do you do with their body?

[3:07:47] We do a yearly report on every animal that comes in.

[3:07:51] We have to tell the state who brought it, what,

[3:07:54] where they found it, how long they had it,

[3:07:57] did it bite someone, did it scratch someone with that goes

[3:08:02] the, the disposition of it was it released,

[3:08:05] where was it released?

[3:08:06] So there is record of every animal that comes to us

[3:08:10] if an animal doesn't live

[3:08:12] and you're all imagining

[3:08:14] that we're repopulating New Hampshire

[3:08:16] with eastern cottontail, we're not, they are a very,

[3:08:21] very difficult species to rehabilitate.

[3:08:24] They stress, they have heart attacks.

[3:08:26] So we do have a lot

[3:08:27] of unfortunate deaths in our bunny incubators.

[3:08:33] We feel strongly that when possible we feed wild food,

[3:08:38] the, the appropriate food to another animal

[3:08:41] that might normally eat rapid.

[3:08:43] If the animal that passed was an ill, if it died

[3:08:47] because you know it has a puncture wound

[3:08:50] or it was hit by a car, we're able to use that

[3:08:54] and feed our other animals so that a lot of that goes

[3:08:58] to feeding when not if it's an animal that has to go

[3:09:02] to the vet's office to be euthanized, the veterinarians

[3:09:07] will put them into the cremation with other, other animals.

[3:09:11] We don't get those ashes back. So it potentially goes there.

[3:09:15] We utilize animal control officers, they help at times

[3:09:19] with euthanasia and,

[3:09:22] and thereto those bodies are disposed of

[3:09:26] as any animal control officer would.

[3:09:28] Depending on the town they have different locations.

[3:09:30] Those are the two, those are two very common ways.

[3:09:34] Three actually. 'cause we talked about food source

[3:09:36] of disposing of bodies that can't be released.

[3:09:39] Okay, Thank you.

[3:09:42] Okay, I have another extension please.

[3:09:45] Mr. Chair, I'd make a motion to extend 15 minutes.

[3:09:49] Motion Second. Thank you. All in favor say hi. Aye. Aye.

[3:09:54] Aye. Yes.

[3:09:59] Are you done or what? What did you want to add?

[3:10:03] Are are we able to say something? No. Yes.

[3:10:07] Are you in support? We're neighbors but are you in support?

[3:10:11] No. Oh you're not. Okay. So why don't you hang on a second.

[3:10:14] Okay. I'm sorry. Anybody else wish

[3:10:16] to speak favorably on this?

[3:10:18] Yes, please. Yep.

[3:10:21] Hi, good evening. Thank you for allowing me to speak.

[3:10:24] My name is Christine Trow

[3:10:25] and I'm a fourth generation dairy native.

[3:10:28] I'm here tonight to support the grant, the variance

[3:10:31] for the wildlife rehabilitation at 76 Shani Road.

[3:10:35] As someone who has spent years educating the public about

[3:10:38] local wildlife and helping connect injured animals

[3:10:41] and license to with licensed rehabilitators,

[3:10:45] I have been firsthand

[3:10:46] how desperately New Hampshire needs facilities

[3:10:49] like this every year.

[3:10:51] Countless injured and orphaned

[3:10:53] and displaced wild animals need specialized care

[3:10:57] without local rehabilitation sources resources, many

[3:11:00] of these animals face unnecessary suffering

[3:11:02] and residents often have nowhere to turn

[3:11:05] to find the wildlife in distress.

[3:11:08] This center would not be a commercial business

[3:11:12] attracting large crowds.

[3:11:14] It would be a professional licensed

[3:11:16] wildlife rehabilitation facility dedicated to caring

[3:11:19] for injured and orphaned wildlife, educating the public

[3:11:22] and returning healthy animals back into their

[3:11:25] natural habitats.

[3:11:26] Dairy has always been a community that values conversation,

[3:11:29] compassion and reasonable stewardships

[3:11:32] of our natural resources.

[3:11:33] Supporting this variance is an opportunity for

[3:11:36] to demonstrate that values while providing a much needed

[3:11:40] service not only to dairy residents,

[3:11:42] but to surrounding communities as well.

[3:11:45] The property has already been purchased

[3:11:46] and the team behind this project has shown a commitment

[3:11:49] to operating responsibly and being a good neighbor.

[3:11:53] The facil, this facility would become an important community

[3:11:56] resource helping both wildlife

[3:11:58] and residents who care about them.

[3:11:59] Before I close, I would like to thank the planning board

[3:12:02] for taking the time carefully consider this request

[3:12:05] and your service to our community.

[3:12:07] I would also like to thank the team at Millstone

[3:12:10] Wildlife Center for their vision, dedication,

[3:12:12] and willingness to bring this much needed resource to dairy.

[3:12:15] Their work helps countless animals

[3:12:18] and provides an individ invaluable service

[3:12:22] to residents throughout our region.

[3:12:24] As a grandmother, I want my grandchildren

[3:12:26] to grow up in a community that values wildlife,

[3:12:29] conservation and compassion.

[3:12:31] This center will help ensure the future generations

[3:12:36] can continue to enjoy incredible wildlife

[3:12:38] that makes New Hampshire special.

[3:12:40] Thank you for your time and consideration.

[3:12:42] Okay, thank you. Anybody else? Did she say her address?

[3:12:46] Address for the, yeah. Ms. Tr what, what number do

[3:12:50] You live at? I know the rest. I'm

[3:12:52] At 15 Lawrence Street in Derry.

[3:12:55] Thank you. Alright.

[3:12:59] My name is Kimberly Connors.

[3:13:01] I'm at two Lynden Street in Derry.

[3:13:04] I, I have a 9-year-old daughter and while her

[3:13:07] and I are playing in the yard or walking down the street

[3:13:12] or going for a walk on a trail,

[3:13:15] we come across wildlife everywhere we go.

[3:13:17] And she is an animal enthusiast.

[3:13:21] So when we have come across injured

[3:13:24] or ill animals in our travels

[3:13:27] or in on our property, you know,

[3:13:30] she can't just let it be she, she can't just let it die.

[3:13:34] So we have had to call them on several occasions,

[3:13:38] text them pictures

[3:13:39] and get advice on what to do

[3:13:41] until we can get them the animal to them.

[3:13:44] And it's been, it's been an,

[3:13:47] an invaluable resource having them close.

[3:13:52] I understand that there's another one in Keene which

[3:13:56] would not be feasible for me to get to.

[3:14:00] You know, I work full-time

[3:14:01] and have a full-time part-time job so

[3:14:03] like traveling is is not good.

[3:14:07] They need more space so that they can help more animals.

[3:14:12] My 9-year-old, like I said, is an animal enthusiast

[3:14:14] and I can imagine that one day should

[3:14:16] we'll be volunteering with them.

[3:14:19] So I hope that you guys consider their ex expansion

[3:14:24] because it's needed and they're incredible.

[3:14:27] Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

[3:14:37] Good evening. Yeah, so I'm Chris Rodriguez,

[3:14:39] I'm also from Dairy nine Juniper Road.

[3:14:41] I also happen to be a volunteer

[3:14:43] for probably about the last five years at the center.

[3:14:46] I've lost track, honestly so many bunnies.

[3:14:48] But anyway, so just to speak to

[3:14:53] the practical situation

[3:14:54] of having them here, I'll put it this way guys.

[3:14:56] If you walked up to their property in Wyndham,

[3:14:58] you wouldn't know they were doing this except for

[3:15:01] a little sign by the front door.

[3:15:03] It's quiet, it's clean, it doesn't smell.

[3:15:07] They do a great job taking care of all these animals.

[3:15:09] I think we've heard all of that.

[3:15:12] So, and I'm also happen to be a teacher in the Hamstead area

[3:15:16] so I can speak to the education side of it.

[3:15:18] So we've had the wildlife come to our school

[3:15:20] before, which has been very valuable.

[3:15:23] So there's really nothing but positives to all of this.

[3:15:27] And I'm about a mile away from where the new center will be,

[3:15:30] you know, and I would be happy to have them as my neighbor.

[3:15:32] My chickens are much louder than anything

[3:15:34] that is in the center, so. Alright.

[3:15:37] Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

[3:15:39] Anybody else speaking positive here?

[3:15:43] Okay, anybody? Sorry.

[3:15:51] Hi, Carrie Rogers to Symphony Lane. We have horses.

[3:15:55] I don't have wild animals.

[3:15:57] I've known Franny

[3:15:58] for God maybe like the last 10 or 15 years.

[3:16:02] Initially I was in interested in, in helping out

[3:16:07] Franny's, like a, a huge, huge asset to the community.

[3:16:12] The amount of information she gives you should see like on

[3:16:15] any of the, the websites that there's so many people

[3:16:19] that have requested assistance with wild animals.

[3:16:21] Frannie is always the one that offers

[3:16:24] information and guidance.

[3:16:27] I've been, we've been to her property many times

[3:16:30] and I have to say you would never know,

[3:16:33] like you'd never know they were there.

[3:16:35] You know, people with hor horses or anything like that.

[3:16:38] You would know. You wouldn't know it at Franny's.

[3:16:41] Very good, thank you. All right. Anybody in opposition?

[3:16:44] This is your opportunity.

[3:16:48] Sorry for the mix up.

[3:16:50] I know it's late and I don't want to keep

[3:16:52] Everybody up name and address

[3:16:54] So I do wanna share that.

[3:16:56] My name is Linda, Linda Hilker.

[3:16:58] My husband Jim, he injured his back but he's here to support

[3:17:02] Address.

[3:17:03] We have been in Dairy New Hampshire

[3:17:05] for 43 years at our location on three Jeff Lane.

[3:17:11] And we have a number of neighbors here in the back

[3:17:14] that have also been in our neighborhood for 40 years plus

[3:17:19] basically we have a neighborhood that we love

[3:17:24] that we've invested in

[3:17:26] and that we have raised our family here

[3:17:28] and now our grandparents here

[3:17:30] and we have kids that even live in dairy as well.

[3:17:34] We love our neighbors. Jen Roses were wonderful neighbors.

[3:17:37] The people that they bought the house from,

[3:17:41] my husband plowed their property this winter

[3:17:45] after they deceased within five weeks of each other.

[3:17:49] And we don't see that 10

[3:17:53] spots would be in that park, in that parking area.

[3:17:56] But in the past when genders would have gatherings in their

[3:18:00] barn, they would use sometimes the grass out back.

[3:18:05] We love animals and I want you to know that we do,

[3:18:09] but we also are concerned

[3:18:11] with some things getting outta control.

[3:18:13] The attitude and the plan that you put forth makes

[3:18:16] some sense for what they do.

[3:18:19] But going forward it's very concerning.

[3:18:24] When I think of even the,

[3:18:25] the one up the street on Shanita Road, pumpkin Wall Farm,

[3:18:30] what started out with somebody said chickens has now gone

[3:18:34] way beyond that and it has been

[3:18:37] disruptive to the neighborhood.

[3:18:41] Releasing of animals is a concern.

[3:18:44] My husband has a huge organic garden, a number

[3:18:46] of our neighbors do.

[3:18:48] He has been gardening for 50 years

[3:18:50] and we share our vegetables with the community,

[3:18:54] our neighbors and so on.

[3:18:56] I don't know where they'll be released,

[3:18:58] but if we have bunnies more than

[3:19:00] what we already have, we're in trouble.

[3:19:03] Vehicles coming and going when it was mentioned,

[3:19:05] how many volunteers?

[3:19:07] There isn't concern

[3:19:08] because what's going on up at the Pumpkin Mill farm is they

[3:19:12] are parking on side streets.

[3:19:14] And so Jeff Lane is a quiet cul-de-sac with a few homes

[3:19:18] and now we start to have grandkids.

[3:19:20] There are some young kids that is a walking area too

[3:19:22] for Pinkerton.

[3:19:24] And to think about them parking on Jeff Lane maybe

[3:19:29] in the future is a concern with the volunteers.

[3:19:33] They mentioned 40 of them coming and going.

[3:19:37] Also, we have exit four A coming Nita Road is,

[3:19:41] this house is historic

[3:19:43] and it's right on if you look at the

[3:19:46] picture on Shanita Road.

[3:19:48] So the idea that we're going to have a

[3:19:52] bike area there

[3:19:54] and a walk sidewalk as well, that I don't know if it's going

[3:19:59] to come into the land a little bit more,

[3:20:03] where the house is disappointed

[3:20:05] that you're not gonna live there.

[3:20:07] I have to say my husband

[3:20:08] and I when we learned of that tonight,

[3:20:11] we were gonna welcome you with open arms as a neighbor,

[3:20:14] not necessarily agreeing with what we may have to deal with.

[3:20:18] Even though at first the smell is not an issue

[3:20:21] or the amount of animals that is concerning

[3:20:25] because of what has happened up the street from us.

[3:20:28] And it's gotten outta control

[3:20:33] and the value, we're concerned about the value now

[3:20:36] that it's gonna be rented.

[3:20:38] And I'll tell you right now, my husband

[3:20:41] and my grandsons plowed and mowed

[3:20:44] and took care of some of the fruit trees in the bat.

[3:20:47] And now I don't know with it being a renter,

[3:20:51] we don't know what's gonna happen with that.

[3:20:53] I have one more thing to share with you.

[3:20:54] And this is from the daughter of the,

[3:20:57] that sold the property this year.

[3:21:00] She asked me to read this.

[3:21:01] She could not come because she's just emotionally a wreck.

[3:21:05] Dear town, a dairy, my parents bought the 76 Juanita Road in

[3:21:09] the summer of 1976

[3:21:11] and they moved our family of five children, small,

[3:21:14] moderate ranch in Massachusetts, suburb

[3:21:16] to this magical place.

[3:21:18] 76 was their dream home

[3:21:20] and they started their plans immediately

[3:21:22] to restore the 1800 colonial home to its original splendor.

[3:21:27] They continued for 50 years of their lives

[3:21:30] inside they restored the original beauty.

[3:21:32] They even fully restored the barn.

[3:21:34] In fact, my dad waited two years

[3:21:37] until contractors he trusted were available

[3:21:39] to undertake the restoration

[3:21:41] and the outcome was spectacular.

[3:21:43] My point is the house has always been a home

[3:21:46] and restored to keep its colonial charm.

[3:21:49] My parents put their blood, sweat

[3:21:51] and tears into this property and they kept it immaculate.

[3:21:54] Since 76 was sold in March,

[3:21:56] it has already become an eyesore.

[3:21:58] The grass is overgrown

[3:22:00] and slightly comparison to when my parents lived there.

[3:22:04] I would hate to see this turn into an ABO nation like the

[3:22:07] pumpkin wall Farm at 56 Shani, an animal sanctuary

[3:22:11] and nonprofit organization capable of hosting

[3:22:14] in their case a hundred guests for parties.

[3:22:16] Now with parking on small neighborhood streets,

[3:22:19] horses drive the farm.

[3:22:21] On 56 was several gravel entrances

[3:22:24] that empty onto horseshoe make it easy for trucks to come in

[3:22:27] and out to pick up piles of manure.

[3:22:30] I would hate for the neighbors to deal with that.

[3:22:32] My heart is broken. Hearing the new owners of 76,

[3:22:35] our non-profit animal rescue business,

[3:22:37] like the one in 56 pumpkin wall, started out

[3:22:41] with one chicken and now has too many to count bunnies,

[3:22:44] goats, ducks, donkeys, pigs,

[3:22:46] and over a dozen llamas,

[3:22:48] several cows on the residential property.

[3:22:50] And I feel bad for those animals since

[3:22:52] they don't have a lot of room.

[3:22:54] I want to prevent a similar business coming into the

[3:22:56] neighborhood and prevent the same situation of 76.

[3:23:00] I don't know how it's even possible since there's

[3:23:03] hardly any frontage.

[3:23:05] And with four A coming through, there may even be less.

[3:23:08] The new business on 76 could easily use their property

[3:23:12] as entrances onto Jeff Lane.

[3:23:14] Like what happened on 56 in Horseshoe.

[3:23:17] Jeff Lane is a quiet cul-de-sac neighborhood

[3:23:20] and I would hate for the

[3:23:21] neighbors to have to deal with that.

[3:23:22] Traffic could probably increase on Jeff Lane since there

[3:23:25] will be traffic bringing animals in

[3:23:27] and out all over New England area.

[3:23:29] I'm especially worried about the effects

[3:23:31] of the business on longtime loving neighbors.

[3:23:34] Noise is a big concern.

[3:23:35] We live in Canada, get awakened in the middle of the night

[3:23:38] by scream sparks, house squealing and foxes.

[3:23:41] I'm also concerned about foul odors like skunk,

[3:23:45] skunk stench, raccoon funk,

[3:23:47] and other pleasant odors like manure.

[3:23:49] And once these animals are cured,

[3:23:50] they will be released somewhere,

[3:23:52] maybe in the neighborhood creating further issues

[3:23:55] in neighbors gardens.

[3:23:57] It's been a historic home, not a business in 1835

[3:24:02] and part of the King George Land grant

[3:24:05] in 1740s a home, my parents spent their time caring for

[3:24:10] to be enjoyed and cherished for another United States

[3:24:13] centennial year celebration,

[3:24:17] which sadly they'll miss.

[3:24:19] They were good friends. I believe it's a home

[3:24:23] to be treasured by the town and its people.

[3:24:27] So many family friends of which some

[3:24:29] of you in this room tonight have enjoyed lots

[3:24:32] of wonderful celebrations at this house.

[3:24:34] And yes, some noisy ones.

[3:24:36] This is not what her family had in mind.

[3:24:39] And in this treasure of a home,

[3:24:40] being a residential neighborhood,

[3:24:42] I never ever thought I'd have to write this letter.

[3:24:45] In fact, I am blown away emotionally.

[3:24:47] I could not make it Tonight to this meeting,

[3:24:49] I am writing this in memory Ed

[3:24:51] and Judy Ro, who many of you know, two

[3:24:55] of the most passionate and patriotic people in this country.

[3:24:58] Please consider the years of love my family gave

[3:25:01] to this home and the toll your decision may make

[3:25:04] on their beloved neighbors.

[3:25:06] Thank you for your consideration Deborah Ro both live

[3:25:10] and I wanna thank you as well

[3:25:11] for you're all set for your time,

[3:25:13] Right?

[3:25:14] Thank you folks. You have an opportunity to rebut.

[3:25:20] Sorry Lynn. One more.

[3:25:21] Alright, I don't know that I'm in opposition.

[3:25:24] I actually came here in support.

[3:25:25] I've been listening this evening. My name's Michael Land.

[3:25:28] I live at 84 Schal Road. People have given a background.

[3:25:31] I'm a lifelong conservationist.

[3:25:33] My hands are still dirty from being out in the dirt today.

[3:25:35] We have 90 acres, less than 500 feet from the gentleman.

[3:25:40] And gentle lady love rehabs. It's great.

[3:25:43] I rehab birds as a kid.

[3:25:45] My kids have such an awesome opportunity.

[3:25:48] We have watched rabbits be ripped apart by bald eagles

[3:25:52] as well as Redtail hawks.

[3:25:53] It is amazing to see one such case.

[3:25:56] My kids who were young went out the baby was a hot day,

[3:25:59] went out and picked up the baby rabbits,

[3:26:01] put 'em in a cardboard box, fed 'em, gave 'em water.

[3:26:03] Three days later they

[3:26:04] were able to go out and live on their own.

[3:26:05] And we watched 'em for a few days. It was pretty cool.

[3:26:08] Big fan of rehabbing.

[3:26:12] I think a big concern, I've heard this

[3:26:13] from neighbors in the area.

[3:26:15] You're not moving to dairy, you're expanding to dairy

[3:26:18] and you're gonna rent out the house.

[3:26:19] Does that not make this a commercial property?

[3:26:23] It, it sounds like it's changing this from a residential

[3:26:26] to a commercial property That it's a mixed use

[3:26:29] commercial property is what it sounds like.

[3:26:31] That this is not the actual variance that's needed for this.

[3:26:35] There's a lot of concern I'd suggest anyone on the zoning

[3:26:38] board, if this isn't decided tonight,

[3:26:40] go up and walk in horseshoe.

[3:26:41] There is a literal zoo there, a petting zoo.

[3:26:44] You can pay to go work there. I haven't, but you can.

[3:26:48] There are definitely concerns in the neighborhood.

[3:26:50] I hope they can be delayed. If the traffic is gonna

[3:26:54] significantly increase, that would be a huge disincentive

[3:26:59] for the neighbors to be supportive.

[3:27:00] That's it. I don't know if that's neutral, positive

[3:27:02] or negative, but thank you. Very

[3:27:05] Good.

[3:27:06] Thank you Mr. Leon. All right folks.

[3:27:08] We're way past our timeline, right? And so

[3:27:11] I'll quickly mention the renting.

[3:27:13] As I talked about, we're looking

[3:27:15] to have some millstone intern.

[3:27:19] It would be someone who understands wildlife.

[3:27:22] We're not just gonna put an ad in the paper and find someone

[3:27:26] and hope they don't knock down the walls.

[3:27:29] This would be part of the millstone family.

[3:27:31] So that's one thing we'll talk about.

[3:27:34] I, my wife Linda just spoke earlier.

[3:27:36] Hey, I, one concern, I plowed that property this winter.

[3:27:39] Mr. Chair, if we could ensure proximity to the microphone.

[3:27:42] Could you speak to the Mike Paul please give us

[3:27:44] your name and address please.

[3:27:45] I'm Jim Hilker three Jeff Lane Dairy.

[3:27:48] I do have one concern. I plowed that property this winter

[3:27:51] and it is a nightmare of a place to plow to keep cars in,

[3:27:56] to get into Shanita.

[3:27:57] So she wintertime. And so if extra traffic coming

[3:28:01] and going is a really concern about the safety

[3:28:04] of people coming and going outta that property.

[3:28:07] It's miserable to try to plow that. But take care,

[3:28:10] The property. But somebody's gonna live there,

[3:28:11] Right?

[3:28:12] I'm sorry. Somebody's going to live there. Someone's

[3:28:13] Gonna live there. So

[3:28:14] I think that caution is noted.

[3:28:16] Yeah. And if you're gonna have people coming

[3:28:18] and going who don't live there,

[3:28:19] don't understand there's a lot of concern

[3:28:21] for people's safety getting outta their property.

[3:28:24] Are you suggesting that no one should live there?

[3:28:25] No, I'm not saying at all. I'm just saying

[3:28:27] so they're aware of what they're getting into.

[3:28:29] Got it. All set into, Okay.

[3:28:31] Very good. Thank you folks.

[3:28:33] You have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 things to address

[3:28:38] and they are parking release

[3:28:40] of animals not living there, renters.

[3:28:44] And the, the other petting thing

[3:28:47] that's going on up the street,

[3:28:48] which I believe you are not part of, right?

[3:28:52] And you have other responsibilities than what you know

[3:28:56] that you're answering to in the commercial property.

[3:28:59] I don't want to get into 'em now.

[3:29:00] I'm gonna, we're gonna have to bring you back. Alright.

[3:29:03] But those are the things that are noted

[3:29:05] and if you have any follow up questions,

[3:29:08] you can call code enforcement and ask them

[3:29:10] and then have you back at the next,

[3:29:12] it'll be first case on the next meeting,

[3:29:15] which is the third week of July.

[3:29:18] Okay? Okay. Could we get a list

[3:29:20] of all the things you'd like addressed?

[3:29:23] I just, I just told you you can call code enforcement.

[3:29:26] Okay. And she'll give 'em to you. Okay. Just

[3:29:27] So we don't overlook anything. Sure.

[3:29:29] All right. And that would be fair

[3:29:30] because the decision making process is gonna take us out

[3:29:34] to 11 o'clock and, alright.

[3:29:36] Alright. So that being said, thank you.

[3:29:38] We will close public hearing

[3:29:40] and let you address those concerns when you come back.

[3:29:43] Alright? Very good. Thank you all. Thank you. All right.

[3:29:45] Motion to table case number 26. 1 1 7. So

[3:29:49] Second.

[3:29:50] Thank you. Second by Mr. Donlin. All in favor say aye.

[3:29:53] Aye. Aye. All opposed? Okay. Hearing nobody.

[3:29:55] Thank you very much. Alright, next order

[3:29:58] of business are minutes.

[3:30:00] I'm gonna ask that we table the minutes

[3:30:02] that are listed on the agenda.

[3:30:04] I think they go back to May something or other.

[3:30:08] I'll make a motion. We table the minutes. Very

[3:30:10] Good.

[3:30:11] Second, I need those folks.

[3:30:16] Folks, can you take it outside please?

[3:30:19] I need 'em specific table minutes from 5 7 5 21 and six.

[3:30:24] 4 26.

[3:30:27] I made the motion to table all the three minutes.

[3:30:30] Very good. Thank you. Second please. Second.

[3:30:33] Alright, second by Mr. Tripp. All in favor say aye. Aye.

[3:30:36] Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none. All right.

[3:30:40] Other than that Ms. Zone,

[3:30:41] we have any cases scheduled other than the carryovers?

[3:30:45] We have two. Okay. And we are still open for applications

[3:30:49] For one more. One more day.

[3:30:51] We are open until June 3rd, 30th.

[3:30:54] Oh, so that's right. 2020 ninth. The money.

[3:30:56] It's the third week of Right. Got it. Okay. Good enough.

[3:31:02] Motion to adjourn then, please. So moved. Thank you Ms.

[3:31:05] Donlin. Second. Second. Thank you Mr. Dietzel.

[3:31:08] All in favor of adjournment, say aye. Aye. Aye.

[3:31:11] Any opposed for adjourned? Have a good night everybody.

[3:31:15] Thank you.

Zoning Board of Adjustments - 06/18/26

Agenda

Transcript