[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.