[0:03] Okay.
[0:03] Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
[0:05] Welcome zoning Board of Adjustment for August 20th, 2026.
[0:09] Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.
[0:13] Pledge of Allegiance to the flag
[0:15] of the United States of America,
[0:17] and to the Republic who stands, one nation indivisible
[0:22] for liberty and justice for all.
[0:27] All right, thanks for everybody
[0:28] for coming here this evening.
[0:30] And before we start, let's introduce ourselves,
[0:33] starting in my far left, please.
[0:35] Anthony Henry Michael Richard
[0:38] Trip.
[0:39] Amen.
[0:42] Richard Trip. Crystal
[0:44] Morin. Secretary.
[0:46] I'd be Lynn Perkins, the chair. Craig
[0:48] Corbett, vice Chair Gas Biba. Jim Dietzel.
[0:52] Jason. And
[0:53] to the far right we have Code Enforcement
[0:55] Officer Carrie Owen.
[0:57] And behind us is our clerk, Eileen Boudreaux.
[1:02] And before we proceed, please shut off all cell phones,
[1:05] iPads, anything that could create distraction
[1:07] to the proceedings.
[1:09] In the event of an emergency,
[1:10] please exit to the rear of the room.
[1:11] Someone will assist you out of the building.
[1:14] We are scheduled to terminate at 10:00 PM
[1:17] and these proceedings are audio video recorded.
[1:21] That being said, we're gonna start in our first case on the
[1:24] agenda, which is 26 dash one 18.
[1:27] This is Koosa Enterprises, LLC. Mr.
[1:33] Dani will remain on this
[1:35] as this is a continuation from the prior case.
[1:43] Good evening. My client seems to be running a little late.
[1:47] Could we let the next people go ahead of us
[1:50] and be heard After that
[1:53] We can cycle you back around,
[1:56] but you'll be probably till the end of the night.
[1:59] We can't just go second. What's that?
[2:01] We can't just go second instead of first.
[2:03] Well, let's see how we roll along. All right?
[2:05] Okay. Fair Enough. Okay, we'll move that
[2:09] to later on in the agenda then give the applicant client an
[2:13] opportunity to show up.
[2:15] Next case up is 26 dash 1 21 Prime Storage,
[2:19] Rockingham Road Dairy.
[2:28] How do you like that? Huh?
[2:29] I sat here all that night and then we just bumped you up.
[2:31] I did Making it up. This is great.
[2:32] Never, never can tell the craziness.
[2:34] That'll go on zoning. Board of adjustment.
[2:37] Great. Good evening, chief covering. Mr. Chair.
[2:40] Excuse me before we start.
[2:42] I, I have, can I make a point of order? I have a question.
[2:45] I think probably for, for code enforcement,
[2:50] could you explain to me one more time why this variance is
[2:53] even requi required?
[2:57] Mr. Dietzel, let's let the applicant move forward
[3:01] and then we can dissect that it's on the agenda.
[3:05] We need to hear the Okay applicant. Alright. Thank you.
[3:07] All right, sir, you're all set.
[3:11] So we ask that you read the protocol,
[3:13] the five criteria Sure.
[3:15] For the record, start off with that.
[3:17] We'll let you have your narrative afterwards
[3:20] and then we can, and if Mr.
[3:23] Diet's point after he hears your explanation,
[3:28] if he'd like to motion into that, he's welcome to do that.
[3:31] Sure. Okay. Sounds good.
[3:33] We yield to you and please proceed. Alright.
[3:37] The variance will not be contrary to public interest
[3:39] because it is already a self storage site.
[3:41] We are adding about 11,675 square feet
[3:44] of single story storage units.
[3:46] The facility is also set back from the road
[3:48] and wouldn't pose a hindrance on the public eye.
[3:51] The spirit of the orange observed,
[3:53] because it is, again, it is an,
[3:55] it's an existing nonconformance,
[3:56] however, it was previously in allowed use,
[3:58] but the zone was changed recently.
[4:01] There is already over 29,000 suite
[4:04] of storage units on the site.
[4:07] Substantial justice is done because I'm just saying same.
[4:10] I just said see above I just mentioned the values
[4:14] of the surrounding property are not diminished
[4:15] because as please stated, is already a self storage
[4:19] and the proposed additional units meet the required setbacks
[4:21] to the property, property limits.
[4:24] Little enforcement of the provisions
[4:26] of the ones would result in an unnecessary hardship.
[4:30] We would not be able be allowed
[4:32] to add more storage to the site.
[4:34] There is already additional space in the site
[4:35] that could facilitate expansion.
[4:37] The proposed units also will use existing drive hours.
[4:41] We are not proposing new parking locations
[4:42] or new access drives.
[4:46] The pro use isn't a reasonable use.
[4:49] Again, just saying it was previously allowed use
[4:51] and we're not changing the use,
[4:53] just providing some additional storage facilities.
[5:03] I I I apologize for the question.
[5:05] Did you, you get through your five criteria? Yes.
[5:08] Did I have, I thought I hit off five. Yep. Yes.
[5:26] So Miss one
[5:28] of our members called point of order here.
[5:32] I don't know if you wish to speak to that first
[5:35] or if you wish to just
[5:38] have your narrative and Sure.
[5:41] I could speak to that. Before we started this process,
[5:44] I reached out to, to the, to the city town
[5:48] and I was told the process that I need to go through.
[5:51] So we actually went
[5:52] to the preliminary planning board first just
[5:54] to get their recommendation on this,
[5:57] which they, which they did.
[5:58] And then I was told that I needed to come here. Okay.
[6:00] Because it's an existing non-conforming use
[6:03] and since we're adding, looking to add additional units
[6:06] that I'd need this variance.
[6:07] And that's what I was explaining. You're expanding and
[6:09] That's why I'm here.
[6:10] Non non-conforming use. Correct.
[6:11] That was under understanding.
[6:12] Mr. Satisfied with that Mr. Dietzel, are you satisfied
[6:16] With that?
[6:17] I'm, I'm thinking. Yeah.
[6:19] So are, we're, I guess I'm a little unclear
[6:23] what we're ruling on.
[6:24] Is it the buildings buildings themselves
[6:27] or the expansion of the business? The exp
[6:30] The new buildings.
[6:32] The new buildings. Okay. All set?
[6:36] Yep. Thank you Sir. You may proceed.
[6:40] I just, other thing I just wanted to point out was
[6:44] actually if you look at the plan,
[6:45] they're actually infilling.
[6:47] So at the time when the previously was developed
[6:49] and these buildings were put on the site,
[6:51] they probably envisioned coming back
[6:53] and as you know, the business grew to in, you know,
[6:56] to add these additional buildings.
[6:57] They probably didn't actually think at the time
[6:59] that the zoning would change
[7:00] and there'd be extra, you know, steps to go through.
[7:03] So basically just that I'm saying that's the same use,
[7:06] we're actually not adding any other imperious
[7:08] besides the buildings themself
[7:10] and they meet all the required setbacks.
[7:14] So I mean,
[7:15] I really don't have much else to say besides that.
[7:19] Okay. Any questions
[7:23] for the applicant from the board?
[7:25] Quick question. That's right in front.
[7:27] The proposed 1500 square foot single story building,
[7:30] how much of the wooded area do you plan on cutting
[7:32] down to put that in there?
[7:35] So it's just enough to get the building in?
[7:36] So it'd be about pretty close to that to 1500 square feet.
[7:40] And there is, there is a slope there just to note.
[7:42] So the idea is that it'd be built into that slope.
[7:43] There's a grade difference there. Okay.
[7:47] But the, the structure itself were used as the foundation.
[7:50] So this doesn't, you don't have to clear around it.
[7:52] It's just to get enough to get the building in.
[7:55] Thank you. Anybody else from the board?
[7:58] Mr. Dietzel? Any questions?
[8:00] No, thank you Mr. Trip.
[8:05] So the, the, the planning board
[8:10] said that since it's no longer an approved use,
[8:15] that you had to come get a variance.
[8:17] I was, that's what I was told, yes.
[8:19] Oh, you you weren't at the planning board meeting?
[8:21] I went to the preliminary planning board meeting, yes.
[8:23] Oh, I was there. Yeah, I was a couple of months ago. Yep.
[8:26] Yep. So and
[8:28] and they went, yeah, they, you know,
[8:29] the steps they told me was I had to come to them first.
[8:31] They'd provide a recommendation to this board
[8:33] and that I'd need to come in front
[8:35] of the ZBA to get the variance.
[8:37] And then I, after that I'm going back.
[8:40] We then would, if we get the variance,
[8:42] do a full site plan design
[8:44] and I have to go back to the planning
[8:45] board for site plan approval.
[8:48] That's how it was explained to
[8:49] Me.
[8:50] So who was supposed to give give you the,
[8:56] the, you said
[9:01] that the, the board,
[9:02] the planning board was gonna give you a, a thing
[9:05] that we would
[9:09] You want me to, they
[9:11] Should have provided a recommendation.
[9:12] Recommendation from them to this board.
[9:14] Did they provide recommendation? Oh,
[9:16] Tell you what, let's go to the
[9:19] code enforcement please for staff. Ms. Owen.
[9:23] Thank you. As the applicant stated, requesting a variance
[9:27] to allow construction of three single story additional
[9:31] buildings on the property totaling 11,675 square feet
[9:35] of additional self-storage property is located in the West
[9:39] running Brook zoning district.
[9:41] The property currently contains a pre-existing
[9:43] non-conforming self-storage facility.
[9:46] Self-storage is not permitted in the west running Brook
[9:49] district, therefore a variance is required.
[9:52] Prior to the creation of the West Round Brook district,
[9:55] which was September 13th, 2019,
[9:58] the current self storage use was considered preexisting
[10:02] non-conforming in the general commercial three
[10:07] district for district, sorry.
[10:09] When the site plan was originally approved
[10:11] for self storage in 2005,
[10:14] self storage was considered a permitted use in the lot.
[10:16] And at that time it was zone general commercial.
[10:19] So it's kind of changed over time.
[10:21] The lot was then moved to general commercial for
[10:24] and August, August 6th, 2015.
[10:27] So 10 years after the original approval date,
[10:31] and now it's West Brook district, which was 2019.
[10:36] The existing lot of record is approximately 6.08 acres
[10:39] and contains one existing single story self storage building
[10:42] three existing two story self storage buildings
[10:45] and one single story accessory office structure.
[10:49] As the applicant stated, they did come
[10:52] before the planning board on June 3rd, 2026.
[10:55] And that's in accordance
[10:56] with the zoning ordinance section 1 65 dash 32.4 B 20
[11:02] for a non-binding discussion to obtain preliminary feedback,
[11:07] that feedback was
[11:09] provided as an appropriate expansion
[11:11] of the existing use on the lot.
[11:15] And so if it's approved by the board this evening,
[11:17] as the applicant stated, a site plan amendment is required
[11:21] to be reviewed and approved by the planning board
[11:24] and then if approved appropriate permits
[11:26] and inspections are required.
[11:30] Ms. Owen, is this a kind of a correct high level
[11:33] of the dates that you provided 2005 plan approval,
[11:36] it fit all the criteria, no variance required?
[11:39] Yes. 2015 sounds like it changed, the zones changed,
[11:43] which then kind of put it into the preexisting nonconforming
[11:45] 2019 changed again, but still in that same status
[11:49] or about 11 years-ish of
[11:51] That's correct.
[11:52] Yes. Thank you. What I'm seeing on this is a proposed
[11:56] 1500 square feet and,
[11:58] and I admittedly I may be through your narrative,
[12:01] i I missed something,
[12:02] but the applications for 1100, 675 feet, so
[12:06] There's three buildings total.
[12:08] There are 1500 square foot on the lower portion of the page,
[12:13] and just north of that you see the 48 50
[12:16] square foot single story.
[12:17] And then just north of that is a third structure at
[12:20] 53 25 square feet.
[12:22] Single story.
[12:24] Okay, very good. Thank you. Yeah.
[12:26] All right. E excuse me, Mr. Chair.
[12:27] I have one more question. Yes, sir.
[12:29] I guess I'm, I guess I'm just thick.
[12:30] I I I'm still not entirely clear.
[12:33] So if this were a permitted use business,
[12:38] then the buildings themselves wouldn't require variance
[12:41] because all the other criteria with setbacks and wetlands
[12:45] and all the other are met,
[12:47] but we're ruling on the buildings themselves.
[12:51] So I, I guess I'm confused as to
[12:55] what we're actually deciding. So in,
[12:56] In 2005 it got approved, everything fit kind of
[13:00] to the point that you had just said.
[13:02] And then starting in 2015 when they started
[13:05] to rezone it then no longer fit the criteria for the zone.
[13:08] So it became a pre-existing non-conforming,
[13:11] There's no grandfathering in for new
[13:15] Construction Yeah.
[13:16] Grandfather for what's there when,
[13:20] but let me ask you from Ms.
[13:22] Owen's opinion, which was what I was trying to do,
[13:29] if we're gonna make a decision on whether he gets a variance
[13:32] for the building, then
[13:35] what do we base our decision on?
[13:41] The five criteria have been met.
[13:45] It's just because if we were, if we were
[13:48] to rule on whether he could expand the business, well okay,
[13:53] that might be an issue,
[13:56] but what am I missing? It's,
[14:00] It's, it's a planning board recommendation
[14:03] or direction, Mr.
[14:05] Dietzel, and it says that you can't add
[14:08] to any other building that's non-conforming without
[14:12] the zoning board.
[14:14] And so it's, it's not our place necessarily
[14:17] to question whether
[14:18] or not the applicant coming forward here.
[14:22] It's just our place to decide based on that criteria.
[14:25] Well, I understand that Mr.
[14:26] Chair, but I'm just trying to understand on what basis
[14:30] I'm supposed to form my opinion. I would
[14:32] Think about it like a property at Beaver Lake
[14:34] where you have those pre-existing, non-conforming cabins,
[14:37] but then they want to build the garage expansion on it
[14:41] and now everything else,
[14:42] or they're building the new house,
[14:44] it's the exact same footprint, but now
[14:46] because that original one's gone,
[14:48] even though it was pre-existing non-conforming,
[14:50] they no longer have the rights to replace it.
[14:52] So that's how I'm looking at this one.
[14:55] That was a good analogy. Well it isn't
[14:58] because the ones on Beaver Lake were
[15:00] gonna be non-conforming. Okay.
[15:02] So, but This is now preexisting non-conforming,
[15:05] So you, all Right, we'll proceed.
[15:08] Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you.
[15:14] Okay, Ms. Soen, are you all set with your staff report?
[15:19] Yes. Thank you. Does that complete that?
[15:20] Alright sir, do you have anything you'd like to rebut?
[15:25] I do not, Nope. Okay.
[15:28] Any other questions from the board?
[15:31] Do you I have one, sorry. Yes sir.
[15:33] Do you foresee the opportunity, so I don't want
[15:36] to put any words or assumptions in,
[15:37] but it looks to me you guys kind of realized this is
[15:42] the last opportunity to almost capitalize to your point,
[15:43] the original plans they looked like they thought they could
[15:46] probably add to it then they couldn't.
[15:49] This looks like it's probably the last
[15:50] bite of the apple. Is that the
[15:51] Yeah, I don't think there's, there is any plans
[15:53] that I know of them come back
[15:54] and trying to look for more expansion. No. Got
[15:56] It.
[15:57] Thank you
[15:59] Mr. Henry.
[16:01] All set. Mr. Donlin?
[16:04] No thank you Mr. Chair.
[16:05] My questions all circled
[16:06] around the origination dates and the zoning change.
[16:10] Thank you. Alright, well let's make a call to public.
[16:15] Anybody wish to speak in favor of this application?
[16:18] This would be your opportunity to come forward
[16:21] seeing no gestures in the audience, anybody wishes
[16:25] to oppose this application, this would be your opportunity
[16:28] to come forward and speak to that matter.
[16:31] Again, seeing no gestures, no opposition
[16:34] or support from any abutters
[16:37] or those who could be considered agreed by this
[16:43] are all are, we're going
[16:44] to go quickly here into deliberation.
[16:47] Does anybody have anything for clarity that they need
[16:50] before we do so Mr.
[16:52] O Bimba? Mr. Ani?
[16:54] No sir. Okay sir. You all set? All set.
[16:57] Alright, Let's see if we can get through this smoothly.
[17:00] I'll take a motion to go into deliberation.
[17:02] Please. Do we make
[17:03] The motion we go opposed and in favor?
[17:06] Sorry we did. Sorry. That's all right. Mr.
[17:09] Trip, did you move that? I did. Okay. Thank you Mr.
[17:12] Trip needs some support please. I'll second it.
[17:15] Thank you Ms. Moore. All in favor of deliberation. Say aye.
[17:18] Aye. Aye. You opposed? None. So we are in deliberation.
[17:25] Anybody care to wish to lead off on this Mr.
[17:29] Corbett?
[17:32] Somewhat interesting. You know, originally
[17:36] where I may have had concerns was I think kind
[17:39] of hearing anything in the west writing brook zone.
[17:41] As we know, I think some sensitivity surrounding variances
[17:44] to that zone as we've seen in the past
[17:47] or even in like today's news article
[17:49] from the last planning board meeting.
[17:51] But what's being proposed today?
[17:54] I think that this is fits even more so than when
[17:58] the motorcycle shop relocated.
[18:01] I think we have an area that's already
[18:02] being used for storage.
[18:03] It's now non-conforming that really any use
[18:07] of this property from this point forward would basically
[18:09] have to be gutted and something completely new.
[18:12] I believe almost hospitality driven.
[18:14] So to, while it is a good amount of square footage,
[18:17] I think it's tucked in really well within the property.
[18:19] The one concern I might have had was cutting down some
[18:22] of the wooded area, but I think it fits the
[18:24] needs for the hardship.
[18:26] I think to Mr. Diet's original points.
[18:27] It meets the five criteria as far as I can tell.
[18:30] The fact that it's been pre-existing non-conforming
[18:32] for about 11 years seems like a shift in the town's focus,
[18:36] but no need to get rid of this property
[18:39] Or prevent them from utilizing it to the best they can.
[18:45] Mr. Diesel? Yeah, I think it meets the,
[18:48] I think the buildings meet the five criteria.
[18:51] Okay. Ms. Moore?
[18:54] I agree with everything that's been stated.
[18:58] Mr. Trip?
[19:01] Well it's obviously an expansion of an existing use
[19:05] and I don't see any
[19:10] issues with adding
[19:16] to this existing use.
[19:19] Okay.
[19:24] I'm kind of in that same boat.
[19:28] There's this
[19:33] soft usage here and,
[19:36] and I think that it can fit.
[19:41] Let's structure the motion please.
[19:45] Subject to all town state and permits inspections.
[19:49] Subject to planning board, site plan, amendment approval.
[19:54] So it would go back to the planning board.
[19:56] Are there any other conditions that the board would like
[19:59] to have attached to this motion?
[20:03] The Seeing no, no gestures there.
[20:10] Let's move out of deliberation, please
[20:13] Make that motion.
[20:14] Mr. Corbet Second.
[20:16] Moves that Mr. Trip seconds.
[20:18] All in favor of coming deliberation. Say aye. Aye. Aye.
[20:22] And you opposed? All right
[20:29] Mrs. Moore, you have a motion to read?
[20:30] I do. Thank you. I make a motion on case number
[20:35] two six dash 21 to grant a variance
[20:40] to the terms of Article six,
[20:42] section 1 65 dash 32.4
[20:47] B two zero of the town of dairy zoning ordinance
[20:52] to allow the construction
[20:54] of three buildings totaling
[20:56] 11,675 square feet
[21:00] of additional storage space parcel ID
[21:04] 0 5 0 3 4 zoned WRB
[21:09] as presented with the following conditions.
[21:12] We have two. One subject to obtaining Allstate
[21:15] and town permits and inspections.
[21:18] Two. Subject to planning board site planned
[21:21] amendment approval.
[21:23] And that concludes the reading
[21:24] of the motion. I need a second.
[21:26] Second. Motions on the table or on the floor.
[21:30] Anybody have any additions to that?
[21:34] Alright, let's move to finding a fact
[21:38] whereas there's no opposition to this, I would ask board
[21:42] to a motion to abbreviate the finding of fact.
[21:45] I have a motion to that please. Chair. I'll make
[21:47] That motion. Second.
[21:48] Okay. Mr. Corbet moves. Mr.
[21:52] Trip seconds.
[21:54] All in favor of abbreviation of finding facts say aye. A.
[21:57] Aye. Any opposed? Alright.
[21:59] In the case of 26 dash 1 21, the applicant is seeking
[22:03] to add new storage units to a storage facility.
[22:06] The current business is in the west running brook zone
[22:09] and the storage facility is a non-conforming business,
[22:12] which was approved in 2005.
[22:16] The application is to continue
[22:22] for that approval where it is currently non-conforming
[22:30] any amendments to the finding effect,
[22:34] seeing no gestures there.
[22:36] All in favor of moving the motion
[22:41] for votes, say aye.
[22:42] Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none. Mr. Corbet vote? Yes.
[22:47] Mr. Dietzel? Yes. Mr. Trip? Yes.
[22:52] Mrs. Moore? Yes. And the chair will make
[22:54] that union unanimous by vote of five to zero.
[22:57] Anybody agreed by this has 30 days
[23:00] to ask this board for a rehearing.
[23:01] After that recourse is superior Court.
[23:04] Congratulations. Thank you
[23:06] For your time. Have a good evening.
[23:07] All right, have a good evening.
[23:16] Alright, let's proceed to the next one
[23:19] that was on the agenda.
[23:20] 26 dash 1 22.
[23:22] Grant Benson third tabled from
[23:26] July 16th, 2026.
[23:42] And good evening to you, sir.
[23:44] Good Evening.
[23:46] Welcome and we've met before. Yep.
[23:49] Are you familiar with our protocols? Sure. Okay.
[23:52] Have you read the five criteria for the record
[23:55] and then we'll see if we can read you along?
[23:58] Yep.
[24:00] Good evening for the record. My name is Kevin Hatch.
[24:03] I'm a licensed land surveyor
[24:04] and owner of Cornerstone Survey Associates over in Chester.
[24:08] The application you have in front of you this evening
[24:11] is a variance from Article six, section 1 65
[24:16] dash 46, item C two and C3.
[24:20] Those require 125 foot road frontage
[24:25] and 125 foot lot width.
[24:30] The application you have is for a variance to allow
[24:35] the existing 13.15 acre parcel, which has
[24:39] 72 feet of frontage.
[24:41] I do see a typo on the front page
[24:43] of the variance application, which has 75.
[24:46] It's actually 72 feet of frontage,
[24:49] but I will read the five criteria into the record.
[24:53] Is before you go forward, is the 72
[24:55] or 75 whatever on the Sherman Drive? Yes,
[24:59] It, it's 72 feet on Sherman Drive
[25:02] as shown on the plan on display.
[25:04] Great, thank you. Please proceed.
[25:06] Ms. Moore has a question.
[25:08] I'm not sure if you have it Ms. Owen,
[25:10] but is there a letter that he can represent?
[25:16] I do have a letter from Grant at
[25:18] some point that got turned in.
[25:20] He will also be along shortly.
[25:22] Okay. Do you have it readily available?
[25:26] Lemme see if I got that. I have a,
[25:28] If we could, if we could have that and have Ms. Owen
[25:34] There is please accept this
[25:36] letter and application package.
[25:37] You do have it. Okay. Thank you.
[25:39] Their name kind of, it's on the corner
[25:41] on the Cornerstone letterhead,
[25:42] but it does state that it's, you know, looks
[25:45] to me that it's Frank Benson.
[25:46] Very good. Thank you Mr. Corbet. We're good with that, Mr.
[25:49] Thank you. You can proceed.
[25:55] So the five criteria, the variance will not be contrary
[25:58] to the public interest
[25:59] because the variance will allow one additional house on a
[26:03] 13.17 acre parcel without additional impact to Sherman Drive
[26:08] or the surrounding properties.
[26:09] This parcel was granted a variance for three lots
[26:13] by this board on April 7th, 2022.
[26:17] And the landowner would like to reduce that to two lots.
[26:21] Number two, the spirit of the ordinance is observed
[26:24] because the intent of the road frontage requirement is
[26:28] to maintain separation between houses.
[26:30] And this proposal does just that
[26:33] the proposed house will be located out
[26:35] of sight from the road
[26:36] and in the middle of the 13 acre parcel.
[26:40] Number three, substantial justice is done
[26:43] because the variance will allow the landowner a reasonable
[26:47] use of his land without the expense
[26:49] or disturbance that constructing a new road would require in
[26:53] order to satisfy this frontage requirement.
[26:56] Number four, the value
[26:57] of the surrounding properties are not diminished
[26:59] because one additional new home on a 90 acre lot in a
[27:04] residential neighborhood will have no negative
[27:06] effect on property values.
[27:08] New homes and neighborhoods generally
[27:10] increase surrounding property values.
[27:13] Number five, and I used a literal enforcement
[27:17] of the provision of the ordinance would result in an
[27:20] unnecessary, unnecessary hardship.
[27:23] And no feren substantial relationship exists
[27:26] between the general public purpose
[27:28] of the ordinance provision in the specific application of
[27:32] that provision to the property requiring the landowner
[27:36] to construct 400 feet of town road in order
[27:39] to meet the road frontage requirement would create an
[27:42] unnecessary hardship due to the unusual shape
[27:44] of the existing parcel.
[27:46] The landowner would need to create additional lots in order
[27:49] to sell, to pay for the road construction when all he needs
[27:53] to do it, when all he needs is a building
[27:55] lot for his daughter.
[27:57] The front, the frontage provision was intended to create,
[28:01] create rural development,
[28:03] not require additional development.
[28:12] Please proceed with your Sure, sure.
[28:16] Your presentation. Yep.
[28:18] I can keep this fairly brief.
[28:20] The parcel that we're looking at was a right of way
[28:25] off of Sherman Drive originally intended to be a,
[28:28] a larger subdivision back when Sherman Drive was created.
[28:33] The parcel that that has,
[28:37] that frontage is a little over 13 acres.
[28:41] One house is being constructed out there.
[28:42] That is an existing driveway out there.
[28:46] The proposal is essentially to split that
[28:48] to create the lot to the right.
[28:51] As we look at that, at that picture, that will allow
[28:54] for his, his two children to have homes here in Derry
[28:58] without going
[28:59] and putting in a great big subdivision in
[29:03] behind these other folks' homes.
[29:06] It'll keep it quite rural
[29:07] and really meets the intent not forcing someone
[29:11] to over subdivide when they don't desire to or need to.
[29:16] We understand that this is the first stop on the,
[29:20] on the permitting process.
[29:22] If we were granted a variance tonight,
[29:24] we still need obviously conservation commission
[29:27] and department heads and then planning board approval.
[29:31] This subdivision will be reviewed also by Department
[29:34] of Environmental Services for subdivision.
[29:36] Also be happy to answer any questions,
[29:40] but essentially we're going up in there on the existing
[29:43] driveway and just putting a small driveway off of it.
[29:46] We have one small wetland impact, which is
[29:49] something you can just about step over
[29:51] and not get your sneakers wet.
[29:53] But we do need a permit for that also.
[29:58] That would be allowed
[30:01] and could be used even if they didn't build a second house.
[30:05] If the existing landowner wanted a barn out there,
[30:08] they would still need that permit
[30:09] and the state would grant access across that
[30:13] Based on the land volume itself.
[30:16] What is the, what would, what would be the equivalent of
[30:22] lots that could be put on this?
[30:24] Just based on the land mass?
[30:27] I have a conceptual with a cluster subdivision there
[30:29] with over 14 lots
[30:31] O over 14.
[30:32] Yeah. So essentially what you're doing is you're taking,
[30:36] instead of overdeveloping this area
[30:39] and creating, let's say even say 10 lots,
[30:43] you're trading off for two.
[30:45] Correct. And essentially creating less
[30:48] of an impact per the land mass than, than
[30:53] what the, the zoning ordinances would permit.
[30:57] And, and to be honest, the landowner at had originally
[31:00] started going down that 14 lot route,
[31:04] but then realized this isn't really satisfying the goal
[31:06] of getting my kids a place to live.
[31:10] So we backed off that and said, let's just scale this back.
[31:13] If I don't have to put a road up through there
[31:15] and sell lots to pay for the road, I,
[31:18] I can accomplish the same end goal
[31:21] and have a lot less impact on the neighbors.
[31:23] Got it. Mr. Trip question?
[31:28] No, it, since it's,
[31:33] it is the, the property already has a variance
[31:37] for the driveway access.
[31:42] That doesn't, that doesn't, that's not a problem to me.
[31:46] The, do we have to do anything to have a shared driveway?
[31:53] They'll have an access easement
[31:55] agreement for the shared driveway.
[32:00] Okay. Anything else Mr. Trip?
[32:05] No. Okay. Mr. Morin?
[32:09] No. I'm a big fan of, less is Moore, so.
[32:13] Okay. All right. Mr. Corbit,
[32:15] I remember when this came before us four years ago.
[32:19] I remember actually that same ar,
[32:22] I don't wanna say argument, but same argument
[32:24] that it could be four, you know, upwards
[32:26] of 12 houses going in there,
[32:27] which is I believe why three was appealing at
[32:30] the time, at least to me.
[32:32] What I remember from the abutters,
[32:33] and there were quite a few of them here,
[32:35] but they weren't in opposition.
[32:38] A lot of them were in favor of it, if I remember correctly,
[32:40] because of the water
[32:41] and the way that it currently runs down, I believe
[32:44] that they saw this as an opportunity really to fix that.
[32:47] I think there was some flooding that went into a couple
[32:49] of the houses, if I remember completely correct.
[32:51] So to go from three to two, I think it's even more of a win.
[32:55] I really don't have, I guess I'm kind
[32:56] of going into deliberative, but I don't have
[32:58] any questions for the applicant.
[32:59] I think it's pretty self evident.
[33:02] Okay. Mr. Dietzel? No, thank you Mr. Chair. Okay.
[33:05] Anybody else on the alternate side? Mr. Ani? Mr.
[33:08] Omba, Mr. Henry or Mr. Don folks are all set?
[33:14] I'm all set. Mrs. Owen, just for the record,
[33:18] let's let you have the give a, an official staff report.
[33:22] Thank you. As the applicant stated is requesting a
[33:25] variance to allow the subdivision
[33:27] of the existing property into two lots,
[33:29] with both lots having less than the required
[33:33] frontage and lot width.
[33:34] This is an existing 13.17 acre lot of record.
[33:39] The proposed subdivision would create two lots.
[33:41] One measuring four acres
[33:43] and a second lot measuring 9.17 acres.
[33:47] The property is located in the medium density residential
[33:50] district, which requires 125 feet of lot frontage
[33:54] and a minimum lot width
[33:55] of 125 feet at the 35 foot lot line set or setback line,
[34:01] or 25 feet at the front lot line.
[34:03] Therefore, the variance is being requested.
[34:06] The lot has narrow access off of Sherman.
[34:08] As we can see as a result,
[34:10] the applicant is proposing the lots will have approximately
[34:13] 35.8 feet of frontage
[34:16] and 39.66 feet of frontage.
[34:20] And both lots have a lot width of 21 feet
[34:23] for the first 200 feet
[34:24] before widening into the larger portions of the lot,
[34:29] the applicant is actively
[34:31] constructing a single family residence
[34:33] with attached garage on the property,
[34:35] which would be on the four acre lot.
[34:38] And then a single family residence is proposed
[34:40] for the second 9.17 acre lot.
[34:43] Both lots will be serviced by private septic
[34:47] and private well as the applicant stated
[34:51] April 7th, 2022, the variance was granted for this property
[34:56] to subdivide into three single family buildable lots
[35:00] with less than the required frontage.
[35:03] That variance was never acted upon. It has since expired.
[35:07] And then as the applicant also had stated,
[35:08] if the variance is approved this evening,
[35:11] planning board subdivision approval will be required
[35:14] and appropriate permits and inspections as well.
[35:17] Thank you.
[35:18] Is there a, a call here
[35:20] for a municipal waiver of liability?
[35:24] Is that fitting on this?
[35:27] No, because those are considered driveways.
[35:31] Okay. Dairy regulation allows
[35:35] up to three homes on a driveway.
[35:39] After that it becomes a private road by, by your definition.
[35:43] Yeah. I just, I'm looking at the distance here. Yep.
[35:46] I mean, what is the property
[35:48] that's on the right of the screen?
[35:51] What is the distance that we're going there
[35:54] At?
[35:55] I can get you an exact number,
[35:56] but you'll, you'll notice the existing home
[35:59] and turnaround up there was intentional for a firetruck.
[36:03] Yep. We can get a full
[36:05] Hammerhead there.
[36:06] Yes. We can get a full firetruck turnaround
[36:08] as required with our building permit.
[36:10] Okay, well then that, that we heard from staff on that
[36:14] and I, I'm fine with that then.
[36:16] I just seemed like a long stretch,
[36:19] especially the one to the left over there. Yeah. Good
[36:21] Luck. Snow blow
[36:22] On that. Yeah.
[36:23] Mr. Chair, if I can clarify, the municipal waiver
[36:25] of liability is required when it's constructed on a Class
[36:29] six road or Got it.
[36:30] Anything but a public road. And this Sherman is
[36:32] considered Class five public.
[36:33] Fair enough. Okay. Good enough. I'm good with that.
[36:38] Anything else, Mr. Hatch?
[36:40] I believe that covers it.
[36:42] I don't need to take up your time.
[36:43] I can, I can tell you all about it,
[36:45] but those are the relevant facts. Alright,
[36:47] Good enough.
[36:48] Let's just make a call the public here.
[36:51] Anybody wishes to speak in favor of this application?
[36:55] This would be your opportunity to be heard
[36:57] seeing no one rise here.
[36:59] Likewise, anybody in opposition to this application.
[37:03] This is also your opportunity to be heard.
[37:05] Seeing no gestures there from either call.
[37:09] If there are no other questions from the board to the
[37:14] applicant's representation, we can take that motion
[37:18] and go into deliberation.
[37:20] I'll make that motion. Mr.
[37:21] Corbett has the motion go into de deliberation?
[37:25] Second. Mr. Trip seconds it. Thank you gentlemen.
[37:28] All in favor of deliberation, say aye. Aye. Any opposed?
[37:34] Aye. Anybody wanna start?
[37:36] Well, I wanna steal crystal's. Less is more
[37:42] Verbiage. Yeah. Yes.
[37:44] It, it seems that
[37:49] this is a, a, a good use of the land
[37:53] and the having
[37:58] instead of having three houses, having two.
[38:00] That's a, a good deal.
[38:03] Okay. Mr. Dietzel?
[38:06] Well, I think it's pretty straightforward.
[38:09] It, it meets the first fight criteria pretty nicely.
[38:13] I don't see any problems there.
[38:14] The fifth criteria with the hardship, I believe the nature
[38:16] of the, the, the characteristics
[38:19] of the land make this a reasonable proposal.
[38:23] There's, there's plenty of land for two buildings.
[38:26] We already approved three i I think this is,
[38:31] this meets the five criteria.
[38:32] Okay. Mr. Corbett?
[38:35] Yeah, I agree. Especially, you know, considering back
[38:40] to the last meeting, it seems like it's an improvement
[38:42] for the current residents there.
[38:43] You know, it helps with the need with the water coming down
[38:46] with the drainage issues.
[38:48] I think making two lots out
[38:49] of one giant lot isn't asking too
[38:51] much. I have no issues with this.
[38:54] Ms. Moore. I agree with what has been stated,
[38:57] but also that anything be, I know I said this
[39:01] before that Mr. Benson touches, he makes it look better.
[39:05] And if this, these houses are for his kids, I know
[39:08] that they're gonna be nothing but perfect.
[39:12] Yeah, so I think based on our prior approval
[39:16] and the exceptions that were made then,
[39:19] and this reduces that impact
[39:22] and makes reasonable use of the property
[39:25] and I think that's key is that it's reasonable
[39:28] and certainly is not excessive when you consider
[39:31] what the trade off could be.
[39:33] This board has seen numerous times development
[39:37] that could be more impactful, especially into that east area
[39:41] portion of the, of the town.
[39:44] And this is less impact for what could be there.
[39:48] So I think this is a good trade off as well.
[39:50] And so I, I can support it.
[39:53] Structuring the motion we have subject
[39:55] to obtaining all state and town permits and inspections
[39:58] and then of course it's subject
[40:00] to planning board subdivision approval.
[40:03] Anybody else have any conditions that they'd like
[40:05] to have added to this motion?
[40:08] Mr. Chair? I think we're all set then.
[40:11] Everybody have a motion
[40:13] to come outta deliberation Mr. Bezel?
[40:15] I'll make the motion to come outta deliberation.
[40:17] Thank you very much Mr. Morin.
[40:19] I'll second it. Mrs. Morin seconds it all in favor
[40:22] of coming outta deliberation.
[40:23] Say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed?
[40:26] Mrs. Moore, you have a motion to
[40:27] Read?
[40:28] I do. Thank you. I make a motion on case number 26
[40:33] dash 22 to grant a variance to the terms
[40:37] of Article six, section one.
[40:40] Excuse me Mr. Chair.
[40:41] Point of order. Did we go to the public?
[40:44] Yes, we did both times. Okay. Yep.
[40:48] All good. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Thanks.
[40:49] Yes, you're welcome. I'm sorry. Excuse me Mrs. Moore. Only
[40:51] I'm allowed to forget that we went to the public.
[40:54] I'm gonna start over. Okay.
[40:57] I make a motion on case number two six dash 1 22
[41:01] to grant a variance to the terms of article six,
[41:06] section 1 6 5 dash four six
[41:10] C two and three of the town of Derry zoning ordinance
[41:15] to allow the subdivision of the property into two lots
[41:19] with both lots proposed
[41:21] to have less than the required frontage
[41:24] and lot width parcel ID 0 9 0 0 1
[41:30] zoned MDR as presented with the following conditions.
[41:34] We have two, one subject to obtaining lc
[41:37] and town permits and inspections.
[41:40] Two, subject to planning board subdivision approval.
[41:44] And that concludes the reading
[41:45] of the motion. I need a second.
[41:47] Second. That motion is on the, on the floor.
[41:53] Now let's divert over to finding a fact. Mr.
[41:56] Corbit, you have Yep. The controls there.
[41:59] Prior to entering the finding of fact, I'd like
[42:01] to make a motion as there was no contentious dialogue
[42:05] regarding this case to do an abbreviated finding of fact.
[42:08] Could I please have a second?
[42:10] I'll second that. All right.
[42:12] Do we need to do it all in favor?
[42:14] Aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you.
[42:15] Sorry Mr. Might be sleeping here. That's fine.
[42:19] Heard. August 20th, 2026 ZBA heard the application
[42:23] from Grant Benson iii.
[42:24] Concerning the property located
[42:29] on Sherman Drive, the applicant is seeking
[42:31] to subdivide an existing 13 acre lot into two lots.
[42:35] ZBA previously approved a three lot subdivision in which
[42:38] the variance had expired.
[42:40] The application is in the medium density residential zone.
[42:43] Property has a driveway off Sherman Drive onto the acreage.
[42:46] The applicant is reducing the impact on the 13 plus acre
[42:49] parcel and the application is for relief
[42:52] of both the frontage and the lot width.
[42:55] Does the board find that this met the five criteria?
[43:00] Mr. Trip? I'll tell you what, let's go to
[43:08] All in favor of moving this for this motion for vote.
[43:11] Say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. And you opposed Mr.
[43:15] Corbet say you
[43:17] and answering to your question of the five criteria.
[43:20] Yeah, I think this fits, fits the five criteria,
[43:23] especially the hardship and the spirit of the ordinance.
[43:27] And that substantial justice would not be served to do this.
[43:30] Looking at the surrounding properties,
[43:31] it was something knowing a lot
[43:33] of the abutters were in favor of.
[43:35] So with all of that, I vote yes.
[43:37] Very good. Mr. Dietzel,
[43:38] and what do you say to the five criteria
[43:41] For reason stated by Mr.
[43:42] Corbett? I vote yes.
[43:44] Okay. Mr. Trip.
[43:47] And to the five criteria,
[43:50] I believe the five criteria are met and I vote
[43:52] Yes.
[43:53] Okay. Mrs. Moore
[43:54] Chair, I also believe that the five criteria has been met.
[43:58] All right? Yes. And the chair will make that unanimous
[44:00] by vote of five to zero for the reasons stated already
[44:05] and protections under the abbreviated findings of fact.
[44:08] Congratulations Mr. Hatch, to you and your applicant.
[44:11] Have a good evening. Thank you. I appreciate it.
[44:13] Anybody, of course, agreed by this has 30 days
[44:15] to ask the board for reconsideration.
[44:16] I'm familiar. Thank you. All luck.
[44:21] Okay, I'll continue on with the regular schedule.
[44:26] 26 dash 1 23 Samra, Raj Audio,
[44:31] fidelity, LLC.
[44:33] Good evening board. Good evening, sir,
[44:41] we ask that you would read the five criteria for the record
[44:44] and, and then we'll barrage you with questions
[44:46] as you probably already witnessed.
[44:48] Sure. And some comic relief as well, I suppose. Welcome. Go
[44:53] Ahead.
[44:54] Thank you for the record. My name is Samra Raj.
[44:57] I own audio fidelity at LC. I'm renting at 84 West Broadway.
[45:01] And I'm asking for a variance
[45:03] to run a wholesale auto dealership at that property.
[45:07] Variances to the terms of Article six, section 1 65, 34 B.
[45:13] Coming to the questions question one,
[45:15] the variance will not be contrary to public interest
[45:18] because granting the requested variance will not alter any
[45:21] essential character of the neighborhood
[45:23] nor threaten public health safety of alpha.
[45:27] The business is licensed wholesale motor vehicle dealership
[45:30] that conducts business primarily through dealer
[45:33] to dealer transactions and online communications.
[45:37] As a result, the operation generates no customer traffic,
[45:40] no vehicle movement at said premises.
[45:44] Number two, the spirit of the ordinance is observed
[45:47] because the purpose of the zoning ordinance is
[45:50] to promote orderly development.
[45:51] We are running an office and it is for office purposes only,
[45:56] and that is how a wholesale dealership is run
[45:59] as against a retail dealership,
[46:01] low intensity commercial use.
[46:04] The business will not involve retail traffic,
[46:07] outdoor events, vehicle repair operations,
[46:10] or any vehicle storage.
[46:15] Question three, substantial justice is done granting the
[46:18] various, provides the applicant with reasonable use
[46:21] of the property without imposing any meaningful burden
[46:24] upon neighboring landowners or the town of Terry.
[46:27] As stated, this is an office
[46:30] and will be used for office purposes only.
[46:33] Number four, the value
[46:34] of surrounding properties will not be ed.
[46:38] The proposed wholesale dealership is not expected
[46:41] to have any adverse effect on surrounding property values.
[46:45] The operation does not involve any customer visits,
[46:49] loud activity or any outdoor repair work.
[46:52] The property will be used as an office only.
[46:55] Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance
[46:59] would result in unnecessary hardship.
[47:03] I chose B. The requested variance represents minimum relief
[47:06] necessary to permit the operations
[47:09] as a licensed wholesale dealership post-approval.
[47:14] This has to be approved by DMV as of second fact.
[47:19] In conclusion, I would request the variance so
[47:22] that I can set up my business over here
[47:24] and then move to DMV to get necessary approvals.
[47:31] All right, sir, you're welcome to elaborate more,
[47:35] Sir.
[47:36] As stated, this is a wholesale dealership.
[47:38] So we operate from buying cars from one dealer
[47:43] selling to another dealer.
[47:44] There is, even if the cars come to us, they have
[47:47] to be stored in high security places
[47:49] so they'll not be stored at the place of office.
[47:54] Other than that, it does not affect the neighbors
[47:57] or the property value as stated.
[48:02] Did you say you have to store it in a high security?
[48:05] Yes, sir. We, these cars are in excess
[48:08] of a hundred thousand dollars, so they have
[48:10] to be stored in a place of which, which is secure.
[48:13] So we have the vault, which is about 15 minutes from here.
[48:19] I'll be contracting with them to secure all my cars if
[48:22] and when they come to me.
[48:26] Vault in Merrimac? Yes sir. Or, okay.
[48:32] Alright. I I, I Sorry if I threw you off at all
[48:35] or interrupted you, so please proceed if
[48:37] You'd No sir.
[48:38] I'm I, I've concluded. Thank you so much. Okay.
[48:42] Did you wanna sit down this
[48:55] Mr.
[48:56] Dietzel, any questions?
[48:57] No, thank you Mr. Chair.
[48:58] Anybody to the right of Mr. Dietzel?
[49:01] I actually do have a question. So even though you're
[49:04] listing a name as a dealership, you're not a dealership, is
[49:07] that what you're You're more of a transactional wholesaler.
[49:11] So what happens in a wholesale dealership is
[49:14] that I can buy cars and I can sell cars only to a dealer.
[49:18] In order for me to get the license to do that, I have
[49:21] to move to DMV after I get approval from town.
[49:24] So the variance is from the town so
[49:27] that I can be a wholesale dealer.
[49:29] Once the board approves, I have to go
[49:31] to DMV and get my license.
[49:33] Without the license, I can't operate even if
[49:36] you give us the approval.
[49:39] Okay. Mr. Corbett,
[49:43] Are you renting an office within the building
[49:47] or do you know?
[49:48] Are you replacing I think it's, it's accountants
[49:51] that are currently in there now?
[49:52] Yes sir. So the accountants are on the ground
[49:54] floor? I'm at the lower level.
[49:56] Okay, so you'll just be renting,
[49:57] basically just renting a room within the lower
[50:00] or renting out the lower level
[50:02] or a room within the lower level?
[50:03] Yes. And that's currently unoccupied.
[50:05] I've already rented it out.
[50:07] So from June 1st I'm actually paying rent. Yep.
[50:10] But without this variance, I can't operate
[50:12] Prior.
[50:13] And you might not know this. That's okay.
[50:15] Prior to you entering into the
[50:16] agreement, do you know what was
[50:18] In that bottom?
[50:19] There was, yes sir. There was a registration agent
[50:21] that occupied that place.
[50:23] They have moved since. Got
[50:24] It.
[50:25] Thank you
[50:28] Mr.
[50:29] Trip.
[50:30] So there would, there'll be no cars
[50:34] at at this site?
[50:36] Yes sir. Other than yours? Yes. I have a car. Yes.
[50:42] Well, seems pretty straightforward
[50:47] Mrs. Moore, I don't have this.
[50:51] Okay. Mr. Henry, my questions. Very good answer. Thank you.
[50:54] Okay. And Mr. Don?
[50:57] I'm good Mr. Chair. Thank you. Okay,
[51:01] Ms.
[51:02] Soen, you want give us a staff report.
[51:04] Thank you. The applicant is requesting a variance
[51:06] to allow the operation
[51:07] of a wholesale automobile dealership
[51:10] sale business from the property.
[51:12] Property is located in the office
[51:15] business district OBD automobile sales is not a permitted
[51:18] use in the zoning district.
[51:20] Therefore the variance is being requested this evening.
[51:24] This originated
[51:25] or came to us as a change of use application originally
[51:29] and a zoning determination was made
[51:30] that a variance is required
[51:32] because the use is not permitted.
[51:35] And so they, you know, requesting relief this evening.
[51:38] So the existing property is approximately 0.3 acres.
[51:43] Contains an existing multi-tenant office building.
[51:46] The original site plan was approved
[51:47] by the planning board in 2003.
[51:51] And it was constructed in 2003 to 2004.
[51:54] The proposed business activity would be limited, limited
[51:58] to administrative office functions only.
[52:01] No retail sales or walk-in. Customers are proposed.
[52:04] No vehicles associated with the business would be stored,
[52:07] parked, or displayed on the property
[52:10] and all wholesale transactions would occur offsite.
[52:13] This approval is required for the applicant to apply
[52:17] for his wholesale motor vehicle dealer license
[52:19] from the state of New Hampshire.
[52:20] DMV and a wholesale dealer license
[52:24] does not permit direct resale retail sales to the direct,
[52:28] to the general public as well.
[52:31] And the code enforcement office is required
[52:33] to provide sign off with the state
[52:35] of New Hampshire DMV for his license.
[52:39] And then if approved this evening, the applicant is required
[52:41] to complete the change of use application process
[52:44] with the planning department.
[52:46] If a sign is requested,
[52:48] assigned permit will be required at that time.
[52:50] And if approved this evening, appropriate permits
[52:53] and inspections will be required.
[52:55] So the change of use aspect, this is a renter
[53:00] to the building, not the owner of the building.
[53:04] And, and this change of use is going to be
[53:09] for a wholesale aspect
[53:12] where there's no displays.
[53:15] And I don't want to question
[53:16] what you do inter building here,
[53:20] but if there's a change of use review on this
[53:25] when he vacates the building, that there again,
[53:31] that variance is going to go with him.
[53:33] Am I correct
[53:35] In that is a decision the board can make? Yes.
[53:37] Yeah. Okay. I think this goes to Mrs.
[53:40] Morin's pointing out on our spring conferences that
[53:45] on, on land use board purview.
[53:50] So it kind of concerns me
[53:53] and I, I'll go back to this in deliberation,
[53:56] but I just want to be, be clear on the little ins
[53:59] and outs of, of this matter.
[54:02] So you have anything else Mr. Raj?
[54:07] No sir. Thank you. Okay.
[54:08] Any other questions for the applicant?
[54:12] Alright, let's make a call to public then
[54:15] and anybody in favor of this application.
[54:18] This would be your opportunity to come forward
[54:22] seeing no rise there, anybody who is in opposition
[54:26] to this application, this would be your opportunity
[54:29] to be heard as well.
[54:31] And once again, I see no one rise.
[54:35] If we're all set, we can go into,
[54:42] before we go into deliberation, I think one
[54:45] of the things I'd like to specify on this application is
[54:49] that this is wholesale only
[54:52] and you know, whereas we know that this variance is going
[54:55] with the individual itself, I still would like to ensure
[54:59] that this is wholesale so that there's no
[55:03] misinterpretation later on
[55:05] and we end up with a used car lot in the, in this
[55:08] building at a later point.
[55:10] You see a problem with that Mr. Ra? No sir.
[55:13] We will never enter the retail
[55:15] Business.
[55:16] Alright, so we'll probably make that a condition,
[55:19] A condition on the motion.
[55:21] Now that I'm clear on that,
[55:22] let's make a motion go into deliberation. Please
[55:25] Make that motion.
[55:26] Thank you Mr. Corbit. Mr. Trip. Second.
[55:28] Thank you very much. Almost a step ahead of me.
[55:31] All in favor of deliberation? Say aye. Aye. Aye.
[55:34] Any opposed? Anybody wish to lead off?
[55:38] I can dive in. I find this one's a little bit interesting
[55:41] when you gotta look at the five criteria.
[55:44] You know, it first comes across, you see a car dealership
[55:47] and I think it gets everybody's radar up a little bit.
[55:51] And then as you hear from 'em
[55:53] and you look at the property,
[55:54] it's really just an administrative business
[55:58] and the wholesale dealer portion
[56:03] of it to me just seems more of, not necessarily a variance
[56:07] that couldn't keep up, but a position that you know,
[56:10] may not have been able to be really thought of at the time.
[56:13] You know, if there's gonna be a middleman, so
[56:16] to speak for something like this.
[56:18] So I don't think it's necessarily bringing a full dealership
[56:21] in like we have up the street.
[56:22] I think, you know, as you kind of continue on that street,
[56:25] I don't think something like this is the most offensive
[56:28] business that'll have been in
[56:30] operation within the last five years.
[56:32] You know, just to kind of put a cap on that.
[56:34] But I see, really see no issue with this.
[56:36] I don't really think it's against the public interest.
[56:38] I don't see how it would, how the spirit of the ordinance
[56:42] or substantial justice would be served
[56:44] by not granting it for this one.
[56:48] I do think the property could be reasonably
[56:49] used in strict conformance.
[56:51] You know, that's the one that I might wrestle with.
[56:54] But again, I think that an argument can be made
[56:55] for any administrative role like this
[56:58] that it does fit into more of an office based,
[57:03] what's the word I'm thinking of business than
[57:05] a dealership type of business.
[57:07] They're transactional.
[57:11] Okay. Mr. Dietzel,
[57:14] I agree with Mr.
[57:15] With Mr.
[57:17] T's point points as well as the chair.
[57:20] And I agree also with the chair, just to reiterate
[57:23] that even though it may be overkill, I believe
[57:26] that we should put specific restrictions
[57:29] if we do grant this variance to,
[57:32] to alleviate any concerns about future on site sales.
[57:37] Okay. Mr. Trip, anything?
[57:42] Well, I'd just like to point out that one
[57:43] of the permitted uses in the,
[57:46] the office business district is an office.
[57:49] You know, so the, I don't see where
[57:54] this is much of a stretch to allow
[58:00] a wholesale dealer to, to have an office
[58:03] to process paperwork.
[58:06] Sure. And I, and I kind of can see that gray line also,
[58:09] but I wanna make sure whatever we are appro, I know one
[58:14] of the strategies has been to diminish
[58:18] car dealers in the community and,
[58:21] but I also understand that office stipulation argument
[58:25] that you've presented.
[58:27] So I, I think the overall, I'm in concurrence
[58:30] with the affirm the affirmations of the other
[58:34] members of the board.
[58:36] I would ask for two conditions to be applied just
[58:39] as a matter of eh, dotting our i's crossing our T's
[58:45] second condition would be wholesale dealership only.
[58:49] And number three would be the variance
[58:52] of sunset when the applicant leaves the premises.
[58:57] Anybody have any other conditions or exceptions to that?
[59:02] I'm always in favor of a formal Sunset
[59:06] Mack, Mrs. Moore.
[59:07] I just wanna, I, 'cause I was skipped over. Yep.
[59:11] That I know for a fact that he is only getting an office
[59:15] because you have to have an office.
[59:17] The state requires it so he can get the proper insurances
[59:22] and a dealer plate I'm assuming.
[59:24] And a lot
[59:25] of places you'd be surprised will not let you in
[59:27] without all that paperwork.
[59:29] So, and at first I was worried,
[59:32] but as soon as you said wholesale
[59:34] and a hundred thousand, that's a lot
[59:36] of money to put out there.
[59:38] Okay. Did I skip over you?
[59:41] Yeah, but I just wanted like he could do everything from
[59:44] probably his bed, but the seat is going
[59:46] to make him have an office. Yep.
[59:49] Okay. Well, all right. Good enough.
[59:51] So everybody's good with the two conditions added to this.
[59:54] So we get three total Mr.
[59:55] More you, you have track of all those?
[59:58] I can swap swap papers with you if you'd like.
[1:00:00] You're the best. There you go.
[1:00:02] Pardon me Mr. Chair, if I may to interrupt.
[1:00:04] We we're just having a problem
[1:00:05] where folks are tending to stray away from the mic.
[1:00:08] If we could just ensure proximity to the microphone.
[1:00:10] Very good. We will heed that advice Mr.
[1:00:15] Preventer thumb. So thank you.
[1:00:18] I think we're good on the structure of the motion,
[1:00:22] so if we can take a motion come outta
[1:00:24] deliberation, I'd appreciate it.
[1:00:25] I'll make that motion. Thank
[1:00:26] You Mr.
[1:00:27] Corbitt. Mr. Dietzel. Second. Thank you sir.
[1:00:29] And all in favor of coming outta deliberation, say aye. Aye.
[1:00:32] Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none.
[1:00:36] Mrs. Moore, you have a motion to read?
[1:00:38] I do. Thank you. I make a motion on case number 26
[1:00:43] dash 23 to grant a variance to the terms of Article
[1:00:48] six, section 1 6 5 3 4 B
[1:00:53] of the town of dairy zoning ordinance to allow the operation
[1:00:58] of a wholesale auto dealer from the property
[1:01:02] parcel ID two six zero four five
[1:01:07] zoned OBD as presented with the following conditions.
[1:01:11] We have three. One subject to obtaining outstate
[1:01:15] and town permits and inspections.
[1:01:17] Two. Wholesale dealership only three.
[1:01:21] Variance to sunset when the applicant leaves the premises.
[1:01:26] And that concludes the reading of the motion.
[1:01:28] I need a second please. Second
[1:01:31] Trip.
[1:01:32] Mr. Trip has a second that puts the motion on the floor.
[1:01:36] Mr. Corby, you got finding a fact?
[1:01:38] Yes. Finding a fact for case 26 dash 1 23 heard.
[1:01:42] August 20th, 2026.
[1:01:44] ZBA heard the application
[1:01:46] of SMA Raj Audio fidelity LLC Concerning the property
[1:01:51] located at 84 West Broadway,
[1:01:53] parcel ID 2 6 0 4 5 notice was
[1:01:58] provided to the immediate buts per statute.
[1:02:00] The board received testimony from the
[1:02:02] applicant and from town staff.
[1:02:04] Before I go any further, as no abutters
[1:02:06] or members of the public spoke, may I please make a motion
[1:02:09] to do an abbreviated finding of fact,
[1:02:12] I'll make that motion.
[1:02:13] Motion is seconded. Can I please? All in favor,
[1:02:17] Aye. Aye.
[1:02:18] Aye. Thank you. So with that,
[1:02:20] the applicant is allowing a variance to allow the operation
[1:02:22] of a wholesale automo automobile dealership
[1:02:25] sales business from the property.
[1:02:27] The property is located in the office business district
[1:02:29] and automobile sales is not a permitted use within the OBD,
[1:02:32] therefore, variance is required.
[1:02:34] The application did originate as a change
[1:02:37] of use application
[1:02:37] submitted through the planning department.
[1:02:39] During that review process, the zoning termination
[1:02:42] was issued identifying the automobile sales
[1:02:44] being non permitted.
[1:02:46] Although this is wholesale auto dealership,
[1:02:49] the subject property consists of approximately 0.3 acre
[1:02:53] and contains an existing multi-tenant office building.
[1:02:56] That original site plan was approved
[1:02:57] by the planning board in 2003
[1:02:59] and constructed between then and 2004.
[1:03:02] The proposed business activity
[1:03:03] for the wholesale automobile dealership will be limited
[1:03:06] to administrative office functions only.
[1:03:09] No retail vehicle sales
[1:03:10] or walking customers are being proposed
[1:03:13] and no vehicles associated with the business will be stored,
[1:03:15] parked, or displayed on the property.
[1:03:18] All wholesale transaction will occur offsite.
[1:03:21] This approval is required for the applicant to apply
[1:03:23] for a wholesale motor vehicle dealer license from the
[1:03:26] New Hampshire Department of Motor Vehicles.
[1:03:28] And the wholesale dealer license does not permit direct
[1:03:31] retail sales to the general public.
[1:03:34] Code enforcement will be required to provide sign off
[1:03:36] as part of the state dealer licensing application process.
[1:03:40] And lastly, if approved by the board,
[1:03:41] the applicant is required to complete the change
[1:03:43] of use application process with the planning department.
[1:03:48] Does anybody have any additions
[1:03:50] or addendums to make to the finding of fact
[1:03:52] Seeing no gestures there.
[1:03:54] Thank you. All right. All in favor
[1:03:55] of moving this for a vote?
[1:03:56] Say aye. A aye. Any opposed? Mr. Corbett?
[1:03:59] I vote yes. Mr. Oh,
[1:04:01] I just to the five criteria as mentioned
[1:04:03] before, I feel the wholesale al auto dealership is
[1:04:06] what makes this fit within the five.
[1:04:08] I feel it's more of just an administrative office function.
[1:04:11] Very good. Mr. Tripp?
[1:04:13] I I feel that the five criteria are met and I vote Yes.
[1:04:17] Very good. Ms. Moore, I also feel the five criteria
[1:04:20] have been met and I vote yes.
[1:04:22] Mr. Dietzel. Okay. To elaborate?
[1:04:26] No, just for a reason stated by Mr.
[1:04:27] Court that I believe the five criteria
[1:04:29] are met and I vote Yes.
[1:04:31] Very good. I I concur with the prior four members
[1:04:35] and I'll make that a unanimous by a vote
[1:04:39] of five to zero.
[1:04:41] Anybody agreed by this as 30 days?
[1:04:43] Ask this board for reconsideration.
[1:04:44] Other than that, recourse would be superior court.
[1:04:47] You're all set sir. And you can have a good evening.
[1:04:49] Good luck. Thank you. Thank you so much everyone. Thank you.
[1:04:52] Take care. All right, we're gonna stick with this last case
[1:04:57] on the agenda and then circle back.
[1:05:01] 26 dash 1 24.
[1:05:03] David Chappelle, Chappelle, family revocable trust
[1:05:07] of 2024.
[1:05:14] Good evening, Mr. Chappelle. Good evening.
[1:05:17] And I presume you're Mr. Cheval.
[1:05:19] This is true. All right. You saw how we do things.
[1:05:23] You just read your five criteria of your application
[1:05:25] and then we will proceed to barrage you with
[1:05:29] Questions.
[1:05:30] Okay. Did you want me to cite the section of the,
[1:05:33] the code we're talking about?
[1:05:34] You're welcome to if you'd like.
[1:05:36] Okay. Applicant is requesting variance to the terms
[1:05:38] of Article six, section 1, 6 5 0.4 of the dairy zoning
[1:05:43] or ordinance allowing construction of a shed 18 inches
[1:05:48] or so from the side property where it's set.
[1:05:50] Set back is supposed to be 15 feet.
[1:05:54] This is a house on the lake on Beaver Lake.
[1:05:57] Public interest, the property is clearly visible from the
[1:06:00] street, but especially visible from the lake.
[1:06:03] The appearance of the property is viewed from the lake,
[1:06:05] will be enhanced by containment structure, eliminating tools
[1:06:08] and lawn care products from accumulating in plain sight,
[1:06:12] spirit and intent granting the variance allows
[1:06:16] for aesthetically appropriate shed structure,
[1:06:18] employing color and trim to match the residence.
[1:06:21] Shed will contain a variety of tools
[1:06:22] and equipment that would be less attractive, left out.
[1:06:27] Substantial justice will be done.
[1:06:29] Older lakefront front properties are very small.
[1:06:32] If you look at the parcels, the adjacent parcel
[1:06:35] to me on the right side was, is actually a dash 0 0, 1
[1:06:39] of the same number 5 1 0 7 7 this was all one property.
[1:06:44] Once upon a time it was divided.
[1:06:47] So my lot is 42 feet at the water,
[1:06:51] 52 feet at the street.
[1:06:52] So it's quite small, just 0.11 acres.
[1:06:56] The house was built in 1935. Original shed.
[1:07:00] There was a shed when I moved in,
[1:07:03] was within the 50 foot water foot border.
[1:07:07] It was removed due to deterioration.
[1:07:10] I'm requesting the opportunity to place in the store to
[1:07:14] to place in store tools
[1:07:15] and equipment in the same manner as afforded by the shed
[1:07:18] that was removed surrounding properties.
[1:07:23] Left side property has a little view of the shed due
[1:07:25] to stockade fence
[1:07:27] and colors that will blend inside of the house.
[1:07:30] And shrubbery property on the right has no view
[1:07:34] 'cause it's on the opposite side.
[1:07:36] In fact, of all the abutters,
[1:07:37] the abutter at number 33 directly across the street is the
[1:07:41] only one that will have a view of this at all.
[1:07:43] I've spoken to that owner.
[1:07:44] He is verbally expressed a negative concern regarding this
[1:07:49] hardship house is too close to the water too, too close
[1:07:54] to water to the street and everything.
[1:07:57] So there's really very little place to put it.
[1:08:01] In order to get 15 feet away from either plot, either side
[1:08:06] lot, I'd have to put it inside my house back.
[1:08:11] A lot has four large trees that I do not want to remove.
[1:08:15] I want to keep those. The only remaining space is at the end
[1:08:20] of my driveway on the left side of the house.
[1:08:27] That got it all I think.
[1:08:29] So the rest of it doesn't have to all be read, I think.
[1:08:32] I'm sorry. I add a couple of notes here,
[1:08:34] but I don't know if it's really pertinent.
[1:08:37] Well, you can elaborate if you'd like, but
[1:08:40] Well, these are small lots.
[1:08:42] Yep. And if you look, look at the boy butters,
[1:08:46] almost everyone there has a shed or a garage
[1:08:48] or structure that's on or next to a property line.
[1:08:53] That's just all the room you have.
[1:08:56] In fact, my previous shed, the one that I tore down was back
[1:09:00] to back with my neighbor's shed.
[1:09:02] Both of them were sitting on the property line.
[1:09:05] I have no problem with his shed being where it is.
[1:09:09] I understand that. I removed one
[1:09:11] and now I'm asking for permission to add one.
[1:09:15] Are you putting this back in the same spot?
[1:09:17] No. Okay. No, it's gonna be outside
[1:09:19] of the 50 foot setback from the water.
[1:09:22] It'll be appropriate distance from the street.
[1:09:25] It's just close to the stockade fence on one side.
[1:09:28] It's outside of the 50 foot setback
[1:09:30] of from the water you said?
[1:09:31] Yes. Okay.
[1:09:33] Can Mr. Preventer Put the
[1:09:35] Volume property?
[1:09:38] Yes. Oh, the property. Yeah.
[1:09:53] Anybody have any questions for the applicant?
[1:09:56] Mr. Chair? Mr.
[1:09:58] Oba, anybody to the right of Mr. Omba?
[1:10:02] No. Thank you Mr. Okay. Actually, I do have a question.
[1:10:04] So, Mr. Ani,
[1:10:05] your neighbor shed is still there
[1:10:07] up against the fence, correct?
[1:10:08] Oh yeah. Yeah. It's, it's in the, wasn't on the fence.
[1:10:11] It goes right the back of
[1:10:12] It.
[1:10:16] I was looking at a different plan. Okay, perfect.
[1:10:18] Thank you.
[1:10:21] You're all set. Mr. Yes?
[1:10:23] No, I was doing my only question. Alright.
[1:10:24] Anybody to my left?
[1:10:28] I'm good. Alright. I'm good. Okay. Mr. Donlin?
[1:10:32] Good, Mr. Henry.
[1:10:34] All Good. Okay.
[1:10:40] Well, I have no other questions.
[1:10:41] I think I, I understand what you're trying to get to. Ms.
[1:10:45] Oland, you want to give us your version of this?
[1:10:48] Yes. Thank you. Not a, not a whole lot to add here,
[1:10:50] but as the applicant stated, seeking approval
[1:10:53] to allow the construction of a shed approximately 18 inches
[1:10:57] from the side property line at its closest point
[1:11:00] and approximately 22,
[1:11:01] or I'm sorry, 25 inches at its furthest point.
[1:11:05] This property is located in the medium density residential
[1:11:08] district, which requires a 15 foot side
[1:11:10] yard property setback.
[1:11:12] Therefore, the variance is being required.
[1:11:14] This is a preexisting non-conforming lot with respect
[1:11:18] to lot area and frontage.
[1:11:20] The existing single family residence was
[1:11:22] constructed in 1940.
[1:11:24] The property is located along the shoreline of Beaver Lake
[1:11:27] and is located in an area of preexisting small lots
[1:11:31] and non-conforming structures.
[1:11:33] Properties serviced by municipal sewer
[1:11:35] and private well, if approved,
[1:11:37] a state shoreland permit will be required prior
[1:11:39] to obtaining a building permit if approved,
[1:11:42] appropriate permits and inspections are
[1:11:44] required. Thank you.
[1:11:46] All right, thank you. Any questions for code enforcement?
[1:11:50] All right. Anything last thing you'd like to add to us, sir?
[1:11:54] No, thank You. All right.
[1:11:55] Well I have, let's call the public then.
[1:11:58] Anybody wishes to speak in favor of this application?
[1:12:01] This is your time to come forward
[1:12:04] and seeing the two gentlemen in the back falling asleep
[1:12:07] so they're not coming forward.
[1:12:09] Anybody in opposition to this shed
[1:12:12] may come forward at this time as well.
[1:12:14] Pitch forks are out and the pitch forks are out.
[1:12:17] That's right. All right.
[1:12:18] So seeing no one come forward,
[1:12:21] if there's nothing else, I can take a motion.
[1:12:23] Going to deliberate. I got motion. Thank you Mr. Corbitt.
[1:12:25] Second. Mr. Trip seconds.
[1:12:27] All in favor of deliberation, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.
[1:12:30] Any opposed? Mrs. Oh, we're not there yet. Okay.
[1:12:35] Anybody have anything constructed they'd like to add here?
[1:12:38] Yeah. On the immortal words of Mr. Burgess, it's a shed.
[1:12:41] It's a shed. It's right. Okay.
[1:12:43] I I I've missed having a said case.
[1:12:46] You know it's been what? A few months.
[1:12:49] Sp at least six months, you know,
[1:12:51] so thank you for bringing it up
[1:12:54] Mrs. Mor.
[1:12:55] I am all set. Thank you.
[1:12:57] Okay, Mr. Dietzel, how you doing now? Well,
[1:12:59] A, a wise man once said you never want
[1:13:01] to deny a man who shed
[1:13:03] And I, and I think I was that wise man. At least once
[1:13:06] Or twice.
[1:13:07] Okay. I was gonna say there's no,
[1:13:09] I think the five criteria, Matt.
[1:13:10] Okay. Conditions subject to obtaining state
[1:13:15] and town permits and inspections.
[1:13:17] I think that self-explanatory.
[1:13:19] So if we're all set we can come outta deliberation.
[1:13:21] Make that motion. Thank you Mr. Corbett. Second. Mr.
[1:13:24] Trip seconds. All in favor
[1:13:25] of coming out of the deliberation.
[1:13:26] Say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Mrs.
[1:13:29] Mor, you have an application, Mor. Motion to read. Thank
[1:13:32] You.
[1:13:33] I make a motion on case number two six dash
[1:13:37] 1 24 2.
[1:13:39] Grant a variance to the terms of article six.
[1:13:44] Section 1 65 0.4 of the town
[1:13:48] of Derry zoning ordinance to allow the construction
[1:13:51] of a shed 18 inches from the side property line
[1:13:56] at its closest point.
[1:13:58] One 15 is required.
[1:14:01] Parcel ID 5 1 0 7 7
[1:14:05] zoned MDR as presented
[1:14:07] with the following conditions We have one.
[1:14:10] One subject to obtaining a seat
[1:14:12] and town permits and inspections.
[1:14:14] And that concludes the reading
[1:14:16] of the motion. I need a second.
[1:14:18] Second. Motions on the floor. Mr.
[1:14:22] Corby got finding a fact.
[1:14:24] Yes. Finding a fact for case 26 dash 1 24
[1:14:29] heard August 20th, 2026 on ZBA heard the application
[1:14:34] of the Chappelle family revocable trust of 2024
[1:14:39] Concerning the property located at 58 Beaver Lake
[1:14:42] Avenue Parcel ID 5 1 0 7 1 notices
[1:14:46] provided to the immediate abutters per statue.
[1:14:49] The board received testimony from the
[1:14:50] applicant and town staff.
[1:14:51] And as there are no member abutters
[1:14:53] or members of the public, I will make the motion
[1:14:56] to move forward with an abbreviated finding
[1:14:58] of fact. May I have a second?
[1:15:00] I'll second It. Thank you. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye.
[1:15:03] Thank you. So with that, the applicant is seeking approval
[1:15:05] to allow the construction
[1:15:07] of a shed approximately 18 inches from the side property
[1:15:10] line at its closest point
[1:15:11] and 25 inches from the side property line.
[1:15:13] At its furthest point, the property is located in the medium
[1:15:16] density residential zoning district,
[1:15:18] which requires a minimum, minimum 15 foot side yard setback.
[1:15:22] The property is a preexisting non-conforming lot
[1:15:25] with respect to the lot area and frontage.
[1:15:27] The existing single family residence was
[1:15:29] constructed in 1940.
[1:15:31] Property is located along the shoreline of Beaver Lake
[1:15:33] and it's located in an area of preexisting small lots
[1:15:37] that are all non-conforming structures.
[1:15:40] Property service by a municipal sewer, and a private well.
[1:15:43] And if approved, the state shoreland permit will be required
[1:15:45] to be obtained prior to the issuance of the building permit.
[1:15:48] Does anybody have any? This concludes the finding of fact.
[1:15:51] Does anybody have any additions or addendums to make
[1:15:54] Saying no gestures there all in favor
[1:15:56] of moving this for a vote?
[1:15:57] Say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Mr. Trip?
[1:16:02] I find that all the five criteria are
[1:16:03] met and then I vote yes.
[1:16:05] Mr. Dietzel, I too believe
[1:16:08] that all five criteria have been met and I vote yes.
[1:16:10] Ms. Moore Chair.
[1:16:12] I also believe all five criteria has been met And I vote yes
[1:16:15] Mr. Corbett.
[1:16:16] Yeah, I don't see anything here that would cause concern
[1:16:20] or give me a reason
[1:16:21] to believe it would go against the spirit of the ordinance.
[1:16:23] So I also vote yes,
[1:16:24] The chair sees no conflict due to the constraints
[1:16:27] of the lot and the age of the lot.
[1:16:29] Therefore I vote yes as well and fine.
[1:16:32] All five criteria are met. So congratulations sir.
[1:16:37] You've been approved by five to zero.
[1:16:39] Anybody agreed by this has 30 days assess this board for
[1:16:43] reconsideration after that recourse to superior court.
[1:16:46] Essentially what we're saying to you is if you bill
[1:16:48] before 30 days, someone could appeal.
[1:16:51] Okay? Okay. Thank you.
[1:16:52] Make sure you get along with your neighbors.
[1:16:53] Have a good evening. Good luck.
[1:16:57] Alright, we're gonna circle back
[1:17:02] to case number 26 dash 1 21.
[1:17:10] Mr. Sheriff, I'm was absent the last time this came in.
[1:17:13] I'm not sitting on this. Do you mind if
[1:17:14] I excuse myself for a moment?
[1:17:15] That would be fine. Mr. Corbet and Mr.
[1:17:18] Ani, you're back with us on this case, correct sir.
[1:17:22] Gentlemen, how are you? Let me hold you right there.
[1:17:24] Do please do not approach the board. Sit down on the dais.
[1:17:27] Okay. I presume you were distributing some
[1:17:32] survey plans, is that correct?
[1:17:34] That that is correct sir.
[1:17:35] I have some materials that I submitted to
[1:17:39] Carrie Owen this afternoon that,
[1:17:43] but I, I can't tell if that's the current one.
[1:17:45] And also some pictures she said
[1:17:47] that I should bring hard copies
[1:17:49] because the packets had already gone out.
[1:17:51] Okay. So do we'll hold you there.
[1:17:53] Do we, we have updated photos.
[1:17:55] Are these the photos or are these
[1:17:56] to be submitted by the applicant?
[1:17:59] The photo photos were circulated electronically this
[1:18:02] afternoon to the board after we received the email.
[1:18:04] I think he has hard copies of those as well,
[1:18:06] which I think the board members may have a copying of.
[1:18:08] Now I also provided updated photos as
[1:18:11] of today's date in the folder as well.
[1:18:13] Very good. Okay. Thank you.
[1:18:14] So we'll, we'll proceed on if you think there's something
[1:18:17] afterwards, we'll take a motion
[1:18:19] to receive versus tabling this
[1:18:21] to another night. How's that?
[1:18:22] Absolutely. Okay. Okay. So we, I just, you know,
[1:18:26] noting our minutes in in this matter,
[1:18:30] I just want to kind of consolidate
[1:18:33] and get right to the point before you proceed
[1:18:36] and recaption what it was that we were, that we are seeing.
[1:18:41] And that is that Mr. Osa resides at Six Pearl, correct?
[1:18:46] No sir. You don't? But you are renting Franklin Street?
[1:18:49] No, I own that too. But you are renting it? Yes.
[1:18:52] That was your testimony? Yes. Testimony the last time?
[1:18:54] Yes, yes, yes. So you no longer live at Pearl? Yes.
[1:18:57] Or Franklin. Or Franklin. Okay.
[1:19:00] And lemme just check something out here.
[1:19:04] We had,
[1:19:09] I wanted to recapture
[1:19:10] and consolidate so that we know where we're going.
[1:19:13] Things get a little rusty after the summer schedule. Right?
[1:19:16] And we had a deter determination
[1:19:21] of a contractor yard at six Pearl.
[1:19:23] Correct? That was the
[1:19:25] determination Mrs. Owen, is that correct? That's
[1:19:28] Correct.
[1:19:29] And
[1:19:29] Let's see, four Mrs. Moore asked variance.
[1:19:36] Alright. And separate, so we had separate access
[1:19:40] from Pearl, right?
[1:19:41] We had the main entrance off of Pearl
[1:19:44] and you're using this side access from Franklin
[1:19:48] onto the back of Pearl, correct?
[1:19:50] This Is correct, yep. Mr. Trip you got us.
[1:19:53] You with us there? Okay, good enough.
[1:19:57] I'm still awake. Alright.
[1:19:59] And there was no change of use from Franklin Street
[1:20:04] as I recall it was found in staff Ms. Owen,
[1:20:08] that it was a similar use that he's continuing from
[1:20:11] what was originally established?
[1:20:13] That's correct. Okay, very good.
[1:20:16] I saw a reference in our minutes to building B.
[1:20:18] Can you just ver clarify
[1:20:20] what we might have referenced there?
[1:20:23] I'm not sure what that was, but,
[1:20:26] and if you're not sure then at that point I've re Yeah,
[1:20:30] recited our, what I think is significant before you proceed.
[1:20:34] Okay. Building B,
[1:20:36] if you look at the plan is the building in the
[1:20:39] front of 27 Franklin.
[1:20:40] Got it. Okay. And that's where the actual
[1:20:42] contractor use is happening.
[1:20:44] Building a, being the existing residence.
[1:20:46] Got it. Okay. And then
[1:20:48] that the domicile is what's being rented
[1:20:50] currently to someone else
[1:20:52] Also. Correct.
[1:20:53] Alright. So you've presented us new information.
[1:20:56] We kind of gave you some loose assignment to try
[1:20:59] and see if you might find something
[1:21:02] that might be a little more appealing before,
[1:21:04] before killing it.
[1:21:07] So I'll let you elaborate and go on with your presentation.
[1:21:09] Oh, of course. So we are propo revising the application.
[1:21:17] We are no longer seeking a contractor yard in the back. Mr.
[1:21:21] Kozo has cleared all his materials that are shown on
[1:21:25] that plan, all those areas to say construction materials.
[1:21:31] And they're all hatched with the kind
[1:21:33] of crossways, those are all gone.
[1:21:36] And I, I have pictures of that.
[1:21:40] He's also removed the, the remains of that deck there
[1:21:43] to the, to the right of your hand that
[1:21:48] not that that's particularly pertinent to the task at hand.
[1:21:51] Yep. So we're just seeking an expansion
[1:21:55] of the contractor use into that area
[1:21:58] with the proposed garage area, the pro proposed garage
[1:22:03] for purposes of storing vehicles
[1:22:06] and equipment relative to his contractor use.
[1:22:12] And Carrie, can we
[1:22:14] or whoever's operating the computer,
[1:22:16] can we pop up those pictures?
[1:22:19] I think it's Owen who's in control. Yep.
[1:22:24] Ah, there we go. So this is a view of the,
[1:22:27] of the property looking from Franklin Street towards the
[1:22:31] area where the garage would go.
[1:22:32] So that storage container
[1:22:35] and that covered area,
[1:22:37] that's like a salt shed are going to move.
[1:22:40] And that would be where the garage would sit.
[1:22:42] And you can see in the foreground near that orange
[1:22:46] construction cone all the pallets of materials that used
[1:22:50] to be out there to the right of said salt shed.
[1:22:57] Can we go to the next picture?
[1:22:58] Now the building that's I'm there on the right
[1:23:00] is building B, correct?
[1:23:01] That is correct. Okay.
[1:23:04] Can we, yeah, going down.
[1:23:06] So this is from the same position looking towards the,
[1:23:09] the, the existing house.
[1:23:11] And you can see it's got this nice yard,
[1:23:15] it's a residential neighborhood.
[1:23:16] This is what you would like
[1:23:18] to see in a residential neighborhood.
[1:23:22] So continuing on,
[1:23:28] and this is a view of the area
[1:23:31] of six pearl tho obviously those are the storage containers
[1:23:34] and the salt shed just in more up close
[1:23:37] and you can see that there's a lot less material here.
[1:23:40] And then the next picture is looking more to the right.
[1:23:44] So you can see the kind of the rest of that area.
[1:23:46] And you can see here that all the stuff
[1:23:48] that was along the neighbor's garage on the right
[1:23:51] side is gone.
[1:23:53] Okay. The backup to the prior slide.
[1:23:57] So you have those storage containers there
[1:24:01] and all the apparatus,
[1:24:05] those are there currently.
[1:24:07] Those are there currently. I mean these
[1:24:09] pictures were taken yesterday.
[1:24:10] Okay. And so are those going
[1:24:12] to be removed when you build the shed? The garage,
[1:24:14] They will be relocated probably onto 27,
[1:24:18] but we, we will have to work with the, the TRC to figure out
[1:24:23] where everything's gonna end up.
[1:24:25] Got it. Okay. On this.
[1:24:27] Alright, well please proceed
[1:24:30] Of course.
[1:24:31] So if we keep going down,
[1:24:34] and then obviously we've looked at this picture
[1:24:36] and then we've got the last photo which shows this is
[1:24:40] looking towards the back of building B
[1:24:42] and you can see all that material
[1:24:43] that was removed from Six Pearl taking up most
[1:24:47] of the parking spaces that are currently on 27 Franklin.
[1:24:51] Okay. So the, the thrust of our
[1:24:55] application is to, you know, create this garage
[1:24:59] and store his materials in a covered area and
[1:25:04] therefore there won't be, you know,
[1:25:06] the parking will be still be available.
[1:25:09] And the the alternative to that would be to put all
[1:25:11] that material and probably those storage containers as well
[1:25:16] into that nice lawn that we looked at in the second photo.
[1:25:22] Okay. And that would have to get all kind of eaten up
[1:25:27] and if, if the, if building a were
[1:25:31] close to the street as building B were
[1:25:34] and as the neighboring house were, you can see
[1:25:37] that neighboring house to the left there,
[1:25:40] this would be a much different application
[1:25:42] 'cause it would be easy to just put all
[1:25:43] that material out back out of the way.
[1:25:46] It wouldn't be disruptive to the neighborhood.
[1:25:49] But as of right now, with the amount
[1:25:53] of space that Mr.
[1:25:55] Coone needs to just run his operation,
[1:26:00] it would be the only alternative to occupying the back
[1:26:04] of sixth Pearl would be
[1:26:05] to throw it all in the front of 27th Franklin.
[1:26:07] Where it just kind of presents a nuisance.
[1:26:11] And that, that's basically our, our position is
[1:26:16] that basically everyone wins if we get
[1:26:20] to just go back there.
[1:26:22] Okay. So the container, the red hash marks, the sand shed,
[1:26:26] that's all moving and you are, your intention is
[1:26:30] to put a proposed garage there?
[1:26:32] Correct. Okay.
[1:26:37] Mrs. Owen, you have any comments here at all?
[1:26:42] I think you gentlemen before, I'm,
[1:26:44] I don't mean to interrupt you.
[1:26:45] I, I actually, I've kind of lost train of thought
[1:26:48] and your intention is to take this plan back to TRC
[1:26:52] for a review and to
[1:26:54] put everything in perspective at that point.
[1:26:56] Now Ms. Owen, I can go to
[1:26:58] You.
[1:26:59] Thank you. So the way that I'm kind of understanding
[1:27:03] the what's being proposed
[1:27:04] or what's being revised this evening
[1:27:07] or presented this evening is
[1:27:10] still constructing a contractor garage on six Pearl for use
[1:27:15] of the adjacent separate property at 27 Franklin Street.
[1:27:20] So it's still creating the use of
[1:27:23] between the two separate properties, different ownerships.
[1:27:26] So that's what you're asking to approve this evening.
[1:27:33] And moving the, the contractor materials over to 27
[1:27:38] Franklin, that's still contractor yard materials
[1:27:42] that's not permitted.
[1:27:44] And they look to be in the location of the
[1:27:48] required parking spaces for the employees.
[1:27:50] So something that would have to be sorted out as well.
[1:27:54] Okay. So there's a lot of still moving pieces here.
[1:27:59] You had indicated you're revising your application Exactly.
[1:28:03] How is it that your verbiage or revisions are intended?
[1:28:09] Just that the original request was for six Pearl to
[1:28:15] maintain the contractor yard that had been,
[1:28:18] it had been declared or determined by code enforcement
[1:28:22] and it will not be a contractor yard
[1:28:26] In that, in that there's no intention of materials.
[1:28:29] Correct. And you're still looking for a garage
[1:28:33] for the, for the back.
[1:28:35] Correct. And so is it that you are,
[1:28:39] and hang with me Ms. Owen, is it that you want
[1:28:43] to revise this application?
[1:28:51] So if all you want,
[1:28:52] and I think we covered this, if all you want on the back
[1:28:55] of six Pearl is a garage,
[1:28:59] but we have no more materials stored there, does that
[1:29:04] eliminate the contractor yard aspect at six Pearl
[1:29:09] and only takes them back to a garage
[1:29:13] that has to comply with setbacks?
[1:29:20] Some of that yes.
[1:29:21] I agree with the it, by constructing the garage
[1:29:25] and removing the materials, it removes the contractor yard
[1:29:30] definition at six Pearl Street.
[1:29:33] However, it's still constructing a garage on the property
[1:29:36] to be used by a separate property business
[1:29:39] that's an operation under separate ownership.
[1:29:42] So it's not to be utilized by six Pearl Street.
[1:29:45] It's be utilized by the business next door.
[1:29:48] So it's, it's beyond just setbacks, it's,
[1:29:51] it's it's permitting use of an adjacent property.
[1:29:57] Yeah. Permitting use from the adjacent property. I guess
[1:30:00] It would not be unreasonable
[1:30:02] that someone could have a garage in the back of their home
[1:30:06] and rent space out to someone else to be able to store
[1:30:10] something in a boat, a car vehicles. Correct?
[1:30:14] Correct. It could actually,
[1:30:16] on a multi-family perhaps be that you're paying
[1:30:20] $1,800 a month for the studio apartment
[1:30:22] and if you want to park your car undercover, you can rent a,
[1:30:27] a garage bay at the back philosophically. Am I correct?
[1:30:30] Correct. To my knowledge, this garage would be utilized
[1:30:34] to store the commercial vehicles for the business.
[1:30:41] Do we have a stipulation where the,
[1:30:46] where there's only permitted one access from the
[1:30:51] for parcel, typically you would go,
[1:30:56] where I'm going with this is
[1:30:59] one parcel would have a driveway,
[1:31:01] if they wanted a separate driveway, they might have
[1:31:03] to apply for a curb cut.
[1:31:04] Correct? Correct. And so is there a stipulation
[1:31:07] where in our ordinances where they, they
[1:31:11] cannot have separate access to a, to a property
[1:31:16] if they own like an easement
[1:31:18] or an access to that same property, they could do that
[1:31:21] With an easement, correct? Yep. Yeah.
[1:31:24] And, and so I'm not, I'm not sure where we're going.
[1:31:27] I'm just trying to separate this all out. Right.
[1:31:30] I think one of the, one of the conflicts
[1:31:33] that you gentlemen may have is the fact that this came
[1:31:36] to the board very late and
[1:31:38] likewise the opportunity for code enforcement
[1:31:42] to digest this at a reasonable time becomes kind of an issue
[1:31:47] as we're sitting here currently.
[1:31:49] Correct. So now that we've kind
[1:31:53] of rationalized all these pieces out,
[1:31:56] and by the way, if anybody on the board wishes to chime in,
[1:31:59] you're welcome to do so.
[1:32:02] But
[1:32:07] the application here
[1:32:11] indicates that the property, I'm just kind
[1:32:15] of clipping into the standard dairy zoning ordinance
[1:32:17] to permit the use of the existing rear of the property
[1:32:22] as a contractor yard
[1:32:24] and allow the construction of a contractor garage
[1:32:28] for the use of the abutting property at 27 Franklin Street.
[1:32:35] So they're getting rid of the contractor yard
[1:32:38] as it's been deemed by, is it TRC?
[1:32:42] Correct. I think I've said this
[1:32:43] before, I've never been to a TRC meeting,
[1:32:46] but I'm sure they're very exciting
[1:32:48] and never being there before.
[1:32:51] I'm not sure how those are, how those go about.
[1:32:54] But is it that we,
[1:32:59] I mean essentially this application says a contractor
[1:33:02] garage, but are we to say
[1:33:05] that you would amend away the contractor part of the garage
[1:33:09] and where does that fall for code enforcement?
[1:33:11] Or is it something that needs
[1:33:13] to be sorted out at a later point?
[1:33:16] I, I'm not quite following.
[1:33:18] Well, so they, they wanna amend the contractor yard aspect
[1:33:21] of it and they're taking this off
[1:33:23] and I think we agree without materials on Pearl Street,
[1:33:25] it's no longer a con contractor yard.
[1:33:27] Yes. But they have the contractor garage.
[1:33:30] And I think what I heard you say was it's still a garage
[1:33:34] that a contractor's using.
[1:33:39] How do we sort this out?
[1:33:40] And, and it's of course speaking about coming in from
[1:33:44] 27 Franklin Street. Correct?
[1:33:46] Yep. I'll, I'll yield to you at this point.
[1:33:48] I've, I've dissected and broken this down enough,
[1:33:52] but I'll, I'll yield and you can give us your thoughts.
[1:33:59] It's, it's kind of, it's a lot to digest in the moment.
[1:34:03] Again, not having time ahead of to, to be able
[1:34:05] to be prepared.
[1:34:10] I, I think this is, brings up some questions from
[1:34:13] what we have seen through TRC through change
[1:34:16] of use applications and that this has taken a couple years
[1:34:19] to get to this point and it's gonna have to go back
[1:34:24] through TRC and I'm not quite clear on all the direction of
[1:34:27] where that will be heading
[1:34:28] 'cause I don't think that the plan directly
[1:34:30] answers all of that yet.
[1:34:34] Would it be safe to say
[1:34:35] that you might want a legal opinion as to
[1:34:40] what the access from Franklin Street onto this actually
[1:34:43] means be and break these terminologies down?
[1:34:48] Is that safe to say?
[1:34:49] If time allows it, I would love that opportunity. Okay.
[1:34:53] I have something else for her to Ms. Moore,
[1:34:55] my concern has been the safety aspect.
[1:34:59] So it could you find out like Ms. Owens regarding 9 1 1
[1:35:04] and how they would be able to distinguish the two?
[1:35:10] 'cause if they call for six Pearl Street
[1:35:12] and it's in the back of six Pearl Street, I just,
[1:35:16] that can get iffy.
[1:35:18] Good question
[1:35:20] Gentlemen.
[1:35:21] I, I'll I'll, you've heard the commentary going back
[1:35:23] and forth in in how this is being dissected and complicated.
[1:35:27] It is. I think it's reasonable, as I said earlier that
[1:35:31] that having this brought to us at, you know,
[1:35:35] this afternoon complicates this.
[1:35:37] Do you have some suggestions, some direction you want
[1:35:41] to go here or thoughts?
[1:35:52] I guess not really.
[1:35:54] I mean I didn't think this was vastly different than
[1:35:58] what was presented last month.
[1:36:03] I would, I would even go so far as to say it's less
[1:36:05] of an ask than it was last month.
[1:36:07] 'cause a contractor is an allowed use in the zone
[1:36:10] whereas contractor yard is not.
[1:36:13] Yep.
[1:36:17] Like for example, there was no discussion of
[1:36:23] the legality of accessing from one
[1:36:25] lot to the other last month.
[1:36:26] Right.
[1:36:29] And I don't know what the answer to that is.
[1:36:31] And you know, we've, so we've deci dissected this
[1:36:35] and now we're gonna go to the board's
[1:36:38] viewpoint on it overall because I'm not the only voter here.
[1:36:42] I just want to kind of break this down as much as I can
[1:36:46] and you know, I think we're gonna hear some reflections here
[1:36:50] of what we think on this code enforcement is indicating
[1:36:53] that perhaps they're uneasy about just these changes
[1:36:58] and what they legally represent and mean
[1:37:01] and they don't want to necessarily stick their toe into
[1:37:04] that water without some guidance there.
[1:37:08] Whereas you're already before us.
[1:37:11] I think it's possible that, that
[1:37:16] the board could decide to once again table you as opposed
[1:37:20] to abandoning this and, and wait for legal opinion on it
[1:37:25] and bring you back again.
[1:37:28] Or they could decide to, to continue on
[1:37:33] and, and take your chances on a yes or no.
[1:37:36] I have another question too.
[1:37:39] What are you using to divide the six Pearl Street address
[1:37:44] and the back of the property where Rite Aid is?
[1:37:47] Just because I know it's going to be used for kids
[1:37:50] and kids like construction.
[1:37:54] I know Franklin Street has a fence. You can see that
[1:37:59] We are proposing an additional fence.
[1:38:01] It's in blue coming off the back of the house
[1:38:05] and go to the side of the house and going around.
[1:38:08] Okay. And that isn't, that isn't the latest plan
[1:38:13] that we had, but we're also proposing some additional
[1:38:16] fencing at the top of the driveway at six Pearl.
[1:38:21] So basically coming off the bottom side of the back
[1:38:25] of the building at Six Pearl
[1:38:26] and going down to near the Butter's garage. Alright.
[1:38:29] Yep. Thank you Chair. I have a question.
[1:38:34] Mr. Dti, More to a code enforcement is
[1:38:39] Franklin an approved construction debris lot?
[1:38:46] So Franklin has a, is approved to operate a contractor
[1:38:52] business out of the garage at the front.
[1:38:54] So there is opportunity for accessory storage.
[1:38:58] However, what was so, so
[1:39:03] there is opportunity for accessory storage
[1:39:04] outside of that garage.
[1:39:06] Within reason, I guess within limitations what was shown
[1:39:10] for pictures today is in the employee parking spaces.
[1:39:14] So that that you
[1:39:18] know, can propose a challenge. So
[1:39:20] That is not any permanent solution that is just
[1:39:23] to get it off of six Pearl in the short term.
[1:39:27] Okay. Is six, is six Pearl
[1:39:31] where the violation stems from or was it Franklin Street
[1:39:34] Itself? Franklin. Okay.
[1:39:36] Alright. Mr. Ani. I'm
[1:39:37] Sorry.
[1:39:38] That's okay. I, I guess I was just trying
[1:39:39] to get clarification if that lot is approved
[1:39:43] to house all the materials we are,
[1:39:47] we're crossing over back and forth between two properties.
[1:39:50] The original property wasn't approved
[1:39:52] to have those materials but had them for years
[1:39:55] and the other lot now has them.
[1:39:58] That's where I was just trying to figure out,
[1:40:01] 'cause it might be changing our whole variance.
[1:40:03] So we might have a different variance for that lot.
[1:40:06] Well I, I guess the variance, the conflict comes from
[1:40:12] Franklin Street, but I think Ms. Owen needs to have,
[1:40:17] I think what she's leaning towards is a legal interpretation
[1:40:22] of the access of this onto Pearl.
[1:40:27] I think what we were reflecting on the last meeting was a
[1:40:30] lot line adjustment that I insulates the, the,
[1:40:33] the two proper isolates the two parcels together
[1:40:37] and gets you towards that direction.
[1:40:41] So I think that if this is your proposal,
[1:40:44] which you've done some work here to try
[1:40:47] and get to that point, is to try
[1:40:49] and get a legal definition on this that,
[1:40:57] that the staff can work with as well.
[1:41:00] Mr. Dietzel, you have any thoughts?
[1:41:03] No, thank you Mr. Chair.
[1:41:06] Anybody else can chime in? However, Mr. Warren or Mr.
[1:41:09] Trip?
[1:41:13] Well it seems to me like the,
[1:41:17] the plan of what you're gonna do is still kind
[1:41:20] of up in the air 'cause you've moved the
[1:41:27] material from six Pearl to 27 Franklin.
[1:41:32] But in the process of doing that you've
[1:41:36] eliminated the, the employee parking spaces.
[1:41:41] Again, that is not intended
[1:41:43] to be a permanent solution situation.
[1:41:45] That's just, I mean he, he's cleaned this, moved
[1:41:48] that material off six pearl just in the last
[1:41:51] Well I, I understand that
[1:41:53] but you know, we have to have,
[1:41:58] have to understand how you plan to use the,
[1:42:02] use this property, you know,
[1:42:05] before we can approve it, you know,
[1:42:07] and right now it appears that
[1:42:12] you're still trying to figure that out.
[1:42:18] Now if the TRC folks,
[1:42:23] do they have any input into how this thing will play out?
[1:42:29] Oh they absolutely will. Oh yeah.
[1:42:32] We're gonna Act So So you have to have a variance
[1:42:34] before you can go back to TRC?
[1:42:36] Yes. Because we need to know what we're proposing to TRC.
[1:42:40] So if we, we can't go to TRC with this,
[1:42:42] with this plan with the garage.
[1:42:45] Yeah. And have them bless it
[1:42:47] and then have this board say, oh no, that won't fly.
[1:42:51] 'cause then you know the plan's invalid.
[1:42:56] So I think Ms. Owen, again we're going back to process
[1:43:00] but we, I can the board agree that
[1:43:05] an amendment to the
[1:43:07] application is in order on the basis of the,
[1:43:12] the contractor yard at Pearl Street.
[1:43:15] Mr. Dani thoughts,
[1:43:21] there's no longer any debris,
[1:43:23] construction debris on Pearl Street.
[1:43:27] Correct? Mr. Dietzel?
[1:43:29] Yes, I agree with that. Okay. Mr. Trip?
[1:43:33] Yes. Ms. Moore,
[1:43:35] Can you restate it? I'm sorry
[1:43:38] The, there's no longer any materials on the Pearl Street
[1:43:42] property, therefore it cleans that discussion up as far
[1:43:46] as being a contractor yard.
[1:43:47] Correct. And so in that regard, it now circles back to,
[1:43:55] to just what's on Franklin Street
[1:43:59] and Thero in the long term plan of that.
[1:44:02] Whereas the violations are initiated from
[1:44:05] 27 Franklin Street.
[1:44:08] So what that said you, this variance
[1:44:12] that wouldn't be voted on then
[1:44:14] 'cause it's no longer an issue for us
[1:44:16] on the original application
[1:44:20] Except that the contractor garage,
[1:44:22] Ms. Owen Coen Enforcement needs a legal interpretation
[1:44:25] for the accessibility of that.
[1:44:29] And so with that said,
[1:44:32] if she can get a legal interpretation to make sure that
[1:44:38] the contractor garage issue can be
[1:44:43] utilized and that we can amend this application
[1:44:48] at that point, I guess Ms. Owen can have discussions
[1:44:53] with TRC and the applicant
[1:44:56] and applicant's representation about their long-term plan
[1:45:01] and then this board can review
[1:45:02] that. Mr. Corbit, I
[1:45:06] Have a question.
[1:45:07] Now granted I'm not on it.
[1:45:08] I missed parts
[1:45:09] of this one in the last meeting so I apologize
[1:45:12] If this is completely outta whack,
[1:45:14] but when I'm, am I wrong in looking at it?
[1:45:17] So at 27, Franklin had the change of use to operate
[1:45:21] as a contractor business seems like a bled over onto six if
[1:45:25] everything's been moved to six to 27 Yep.
[1:45:28] 20 seven's in compliance currently six no longer has
[1:45:33] the violations that kind of got them on the radar
[1:45:35] that's being cleaned up.
[1:45:36] Right. So wouldn't it now just be,
[1:45:40] and maybe this is what you're saying, that the variance is
[1:45:42] just potentially for the contractor garage on six
[1:45:46] Well it is except that they're not sure
[1:45:50] and they'd like legal interpretation
[1:45:52] 'cause there's an access from Franklin onto Pearl that
[1:45:56] has a little bit of a concern
[1:45:58] and then the contractor garage stipulation. So
[1:46:02] And then, yep.
[1:46:03] And I guess the second part of my confusion question
[1:46:07] is the concern because if he owns both of these lots, is it
[1:46:10] because it's two LLCs for each one?
[1:46:12] Is that where we get the different ownership?
[1:46:14] 'cause I don't, I guess we're, yes. Okay.
[1:46:16] 'cause if he, if it was just
[1:46:20] Franklin Street Dairy LLC for the two, I don't,
[1:46:24] and maybe it's just a question like wouldn't he be allowed
[1:46:26] to translate?
[1:46:28] That's where you were going, that he could use the
[1:46:29] properties for both things.
[1:46:31] But if he owns both LLCs, I guess I don't,
[1:46:34] I also then don't, it's almost like a sub a subsidiary.
[1:46:38] I don't get how it's a different owner.
[1:46:41] 'cause they would all go up to the same
[1:46:42] umbrella. It would still be
[1:46:43] Under, they all go into a trust
[1:46:44] Under One trust.
[1:46:45] Yeah. They all go into, so all the LLCs go into a trust.
[1:46:48] So with that, to me it would be one o one owner.
[1:46:51] Well this is, this is where we're going.
[1:46:53] The legal interpretation Is the legal interpretation.
[1:46:55] Sorry if that was just Me.
[1:46:56] No, that's, that's fine. Still
[1:46:57] Playing olive of to that point. Okay. Yeah.
[1:46:59] And I think there's also the part of the construction yard
[1:47:05] on 27 and on and on Pearl.
[1:47:10] So they move it over to the 27.
[1:47:13] Is it still a valid use of that property?
[1:47:16] I know construction company was approved
[1:47:19] but was the construction material
[1:47:21] Right.
[1:47:22] The yard and the garage would have to be used for
[1:47:25] residential, not a business using it.
[1:47:28] It's my interpretation. Yeah.
[1:47:30] It's not, you know, a car registered to me
[1:47:33] but registered to my business.
[1:47:35] Well right. But I guess why wouldn't
[1:47:37] that variance then be for a commercial garage?
[1:47:40] Well again, it commercial garage
[1:47:45] becomes kind of a, is it a legal definition
[1:47:48] or is it a, a loose def definition.
[1:47:52] Right. So, so I think we've kind
[1:47:55] of hashed this out about Mr.
[1:47:57] Dietzel. You have anything else?
[1:48:00] No, no. Thank you. Is it fair to you and Mr.
[1:48:04] Dani that we table this so to yield for?
[1:48:09] Well I, I think if any members
[1:48:10] of the board have legal questions that they want answered
[1:48:13] by counsel, I think it's appropriate to table
[1:48:16] and get those questions answered.
[1:48:18] Okay. Mr. Dani?
[1:48:20] I agree with Mr. Diet.
[1:48:21] So I think having these questions answered would be better
[1:48:26] for the applicant than going in blind.
[1:48:28] Okay. Ms. Moore?
[1:48:29] Yeah, I'm not comfortable making a decision either
[1:48:32] until we find out the 9 1 1 aspect of the
[1:48:38] entrance on Franklin Street.
[1:48:40] But for, for apparel
[1:48:42] Mr.
[1:48:43] Trip,
[1:48:46] There are questions, there's unanswered questions
[1:48:48] that I believe would require us
[1:48:52] to table tonight.
[1:48:54] Okay Gentlemen, you have a feel for this, right?
[1:48:59] You see the discussion going back and forth.
[1:49:02] It doesn't surrender your right to come back If you want
[1:49:05] to date certain, we put you on for the next meeting.
[1:49:09] And what do we have scheduled?
[1:49:11] Do we have any cases coming up? We
[1:49:13] Have five.
[1:49:14] Five. Okay. Well gentlemen be here on time. Yes sir.
[1:49:19] Okay. And you can come back
[1:49:23] and to the, to that date certain
[1:49:26] and if for whatever the reason you don't hash out this
[1:49:28] stuff, you know, I would let code Enforcement know
[1:49:32] that you need a continuance to the next meeting.
[1:49:36] And, but I would encourage you to be forthright with all
[1:49:40] of this and Mrs. Owen,
[1:49:42] I think you know the direction the board's looking for.
[1:49:45] And with that we would need a motion to table this
[1:49:48] to the next meeting if I could please.
[1:49:52] I'll make a motion to table it to the next meeting.
[1:49:55] I Second Mr. Dani seconds that all in favor
[1:49:58] of that say aye.
[1:49:59] Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Very good gentlemen.
[1:50:02] We'll see you next meeting. Okay.
[1:50:04] May I ask really quickly, it sounds like the board and
[1:50:08] or Ms. Owen will be reaching out to town council regarding
[1:50:13] questions that were asked tonight.
[1:50:15] Is there anything that I can provide that you need,
[1:50:20] you know, anything that you need from us to be able
[1:50:25] to move forward?
[1:50:28] I think we've kind of spelled it out.
[1:50:30] It's really about the legal interpretation, the two
[1:50:33] LLCs on two different parcels.
[1:50:34] The access from one to the other, continuance continuation.
[1:50:39] Right. And,
[1:50:43] and I think that gets answered.
[1:50:44] I think it's easier for this board to get some clarity.
[1:50:48] I certainly might suggest that you start
[1:50:51] to have the long term plan of what's going
[1:50:54] to happen on Franklin and make sure that that's clear.
[1:50:58] I'm not telling you you have to go to TRC,
[1:51:01] but through the explore exploration of what we're asking
[1:51:05] for, Ms.
[1:51:07] Zohn may relay to you different information
[1:51:09] or she may reflect back to me of what,
[1:51:12] where she thinks the path is going.
[1:51:14] I think the long term plans going
[1:51:15] to depend very much on whether this board will approve
[1:51:19] the, the use.
[1:51:21] Well I think you've heard the commentary
[1:51:23] that we can concur about the contractor yard
[1:51:26] aspects on Pearl Street.
[1:51:28] I think the, the gray area is whether
[1:51:30] or not you can stipulate this
[1:51:32] as a contractor garage or just a garage.
[1:51:35] What that means, the, the access to it.
[1:51:38] I think that needs to be defined for this board
[1:51:44] because this all stemmed from access going in
[1:51:47] and out of Pearl Street
[1:51:48] and then the, the, the realization of
[1:51:52] what was on Pearl Street.
[1:51:54] So there's a lot of gray areas,
[1:51:56] but by all means don't wait till the last minute
[1:51:59] to come back and talk to Mrs.
[1:52:00] Oland. Reasonable. Okay. Alright. Very good.
[1:52:05] Did we we did it all in favor on that motion to table?
[1:52:08] We did do that. Okay. Thank you Mrs. Boudreau.
[1:52:12] That being said, we're all set.
[1:52:14] You guys can have a good evening. All righty. Thank you.
[1:52:16] Thank you. Yep. Alright, next order
[1:52:19] of business are the minutes for the
[1:52:22] last board meeting in July, July 16th.
[1:52:26] I make a, I request that we
[1:52:28] and the board's been given some direction for
[1:52:31] reviewing those minutes.
[1:52:33] Could I have a motion to table that please? So moved.
[1:52:36] Thank you Mr. Tripp. Second. Thank you Mr. Donlin.
[1:52:39] All in favor of tabling those minutes to the next meeting.
[1:52:42] Say aye. Aye. Any opposed?
[1:52:45] That being said, you heard Ms. Owen say we have five cases
[1:52:48] already lined up for the next board meeting.
[1:52:51] Is there any other business the members wish
[1:52:53] to bring forward before we adjourn?
[1:52:56] Seeing no gestures there, I think Mr.
[1:52:59] Tripp had indicated his desire to get home
[1:53:01] and listened to his Tito Puente albums so
[1:53:05] he could help us get there. We'd appreciate it.
[1:53:08] I'll make a motion to adjourn.
[1:53:10] Very good. I'll second this morning. Mr. Ani has a second.
[1:53:14] All in favor of that recess, say aye. Aye. Any opposed?
[1:53:17] Hearing none. We're adjourned.
[1:53:20] Have a good evening everybody. All. And can we.