[0:00] Good evening ladies and gentlemen.

[0:01] Welcome to the zoning Board of Adjustment for

[0:05] September 17th, 2026.

[0:06] Please rise for the P of Allegiance,

[0:10] All the flag, United States, America,

[0:14] and to the stands, one nation under God in.

[0:26] Okay folks, let's start by introducing ourselves

[0:29] to my far left, please.

[0:30] Anthony Henry. Richard Trip,

[0:35] crystal Morin, secretary,

[0:38] Be Lynn Perkins, the chair.

[0:40] Craig Corbett, vice Chair Jim Dettol.

[0:43] Jason GaN, Gus Biba

[0:47] And our code enforcement officer Carrie Owen

[0:50] and our clerk is, help me out again,

[0:55] Eileen.

[0:56] Thank you Eileen Boudreaux. Sorry Ms.

[0:57] Boudreaux maxed out on the names for the evening.

[1:01] Before we proceed, please, a few announcements.

[1:04] First of all, please shut off all cell phones, iPhones,

[1:08] anything that could create a distraction

[1:09] to these proceedings in the event of an emergency,

[1:12] please use the exit door to the rear

[1:14] and don't use the elevator.

[1:16] We are scheduled to end at 10:00 PM tonight as we always are

[1:21] with limited extensions

[1:24] and these proceedings are audio video recorded.

[1:28] Just a special announcement for

[1:31] consideration about these proceedings.

[1:34] Ladies and gentlemen, the zoning board

[1:35] of adjustment is not an executive or a legislative board.

[1:38] The ZBA is a quasi-judicial board that reviews appeals

[1:42] for relief from the zoning ordinances

[1:44] and utilizes community development regulations,

[1:47] state statutes and case law as its guide.

[1:49] Those that have standing

[1:51] before this board are direct abutters

[1:53] and those who could be aggrieved by the board's decision.

[1:56] The higher courts have ruled that just

[1:58] because you live in town

[1:59] and our taxpayer does not give you standing

[2:02] to testify on any case, that will be before us this evening.

[2:06] Therefore, the board will evaluate any individuals standing

[2:09] that are not direct abutters

[2:11] before their testimony is given and accepted.

[2:14] This is a courtesy announcement for those who may wish

[2:18] to speak this evening.

[2:19] I thank you for that and just don't want anybody surprised

[2:23] if they are not able to give testimony.

[2:26] We do have group representations I know here

[2:29] for certain cases, but

[2:31] before we proceed, let's call up our first case.

[2:35] Case number 26 dash 1 28.

[2:38] That's that time synagogue tabled from September 3rd

[2:45] and owner is Andrew Depel, right? Applicant?

[2:49] Yes. You mean I got it right? What?

[2:53] I got it right. Yeah, you

[2:54] Got it right.

[2:55] I remember my clerk's name

[2:56] but I Man should your out Well you

[2:59] Were reading that one. So yeah,

[3:01] So gentlemen, you were here last meeting.

[3:03] We asked in the protocol

[3:04] that you read your application five criteria for the record

[3:07] and then we will go through the normal questions

[3:10] and public input as well as staff report.

[3:15] So to that, I give you the floor.

[3:17] Certainly. Alright, so just going

[3:20] through the five criteria.

[3:22] Number one, the variance will not be contrary

[3:24] to the public interest

[3:26] because the Child Care Center proposed here will provide a

[3:30] needed community service in a location already accustomed

[3:32] to regular traffic and activity

[3:35] involving children and families.

[3:37] The operation will be subject to state childcare licensing,

[3:40] fire building, health

[3:42] and safety requirements with designated parking

[3:44] and controlled drop-off and pickup procedures.

[3:47] Number two, the spirit of the ordinance is observed

[3:50] because the purpose of residential zoning is

[3:52] to protect neighborhoods from incompatible development

[3:56] and uses that negatively affect their residential character.

[3:59] Allowing childcare at this location does not defeat

[4:02] that purpose because the property already serves a

[4:04] non-residential community function

[4:06] and the proposed use does not require converting

[4:09] or eliminating residential housing.

[4:12] Substantial justice is done

[4:14] because there is little public benefit gained

[4:17] by prohibiting children at this particular location

[4:20] when the impacts that zoning seeks

[4:22] to prevent can be adequately addressed.

[4:24] Denial would prevent a be beneficial

[4:26] and reasonable use of the property without a corresponding

[4:29] benefit to the town or surrounding neighborhood.

[4:32] Number four, the values

[4:33] of surrounding properties are not diminished

[4:35] because the pros, the, excuse me,

[4:39] the proposal does not involve construction

[4:41] of a new commercial facility

[4:42] or a significant change

[4:44] to the exterior appearance of the property.

[4:46] Property will continue to be pro, professionally maintained

[4:49] and the childcare operations will be limited primarily

[4:51] to week time, weekday, daytime hours,

[4:55] avoiding late night activity

[4:56] or other nuisance conditions

[4:57] that could negatively affect neighboring properties.

[5:02] Five A one Literal enforcement would result in an

[5:05] unnecessary hardship because no fair

[5:07] and substantial relationship exists

[5:09] between the general public purposes of the ordinance

[5:12] and its specific applications to this property

[5:14] because literal enforcement would result in an unnecessary

[5:19] hardship because one and a half hood road has special

[5:21] conditions that distinguish it from typical residential

[5:24] properties within the medium high density

[5:26] residential district.

[5:28] The property is an established community facility rather

[5:31] than a residential dwelling

[5:32] and is situated among existing educational

[5:35] and childcare uses.

[5:36] At one and five Hood Road,

[5:38] the proposed childcare center would utilize existing space

[5:41] without removing housing

[5:42] or requiring construction of a new commercial building

[5:46] because of the property's existing character

[5:49] and the established educational character

[5:51] of its immediate surroundings.

[5:53] Prohibiting childcare at this specific property does not

[5:56] substantially further the ordinance purpose

[5:58] of protecting residential areas from incompatible uses.

[6:04] And you have the floor to continue if you'd like.

[6:07] Sure. So I just wanna focus on the,

[6:12] the uses already present at,

[6:16] at the same property or nearby.

[6:19] So this property shares a parking lot with One Hood Road,

[6:22] which already hosts a

[6:25] a early learning facility with 34 children

[6:31] allowed under state regulations.

[6:34] This is an expansion of that same facility

[6:36] to another room in a different building.

[6:40] It is also a building

[6:42] that previously hosted childcare in the same space.

[6:48] There was a another business, which I am forgetting the name

[6:50] of, did, do you remember the Hartman's

[6:53] Hartman Hartman School?

[6:54] Hartman's Learning Center? Hartman Learning Center was

[6:57] previously present at 1.5 Hood Road,

[7:01] but it was as to my understanding,

[7:03] it was permitted under a different

[7:06] mechanism rather than through the zoning code.

[7:09] The use here is just an extension of something

[7:14] that's already present at one Hood Road to 1.5 Hood Road,

[7:17] which shares a driveway, shares, accesses,

[7:22] and would share office space

[7:24] and bureaucratic space with the existing school.

[7:30] I I think that's all I'd really like to add at the moment,

[7:34] except that I have a couple of letters here.

[7:39] One from a realtor, Bob Ramallo

[7:43] and one from Steven Depel, which

[7:47] full disclosure is my client's brother,

[7:51] but also is a former assessor for the town of Dairy.

[7:55] Just regarding the property values, can I give those

[7:58] to you folks to review?

[7:59] If you would give to the code enforcement for me please.

[8:05] I, I presume that's diminuation of value,

[8:08] that's what you're heading for?

[8:10] Yes. Okay.

[8:11] Would just like to submit those

[8:13] but in effect they are saying that there is no risk

[8:17] of diminution of value here.

[8:19] Okay. Mr.

[8:21] Proventure, could I trouble you for an image of this parcel

[8:24] one and a half and number one Hood, hood Road, right? Yes.

[8:29] Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you sir. Come right up.

[8:31] Thank you Carrie. I did,

[8:35] I did neglect to ask the board's approval

[8:38] for this late submittal on the, the I make motion to accept.

[8:41] Very good. Thank you Mr. Corbit. Second. Thank you Mr.

[8:43] Dietzel. All in favor

[8:45] of accepting the slate submittal say aye.

[8:47] Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Anything else sir?

[8:51] No, I think that addresses the, the two points

[8:54] that we really wanted to hit

[8:55] that weren't covered in the initial

[8:57] five criteria submission.

[8:59] One and a half hood you said had a prior learning

[9:02] center at it, correct?

[9:03] Correct. And when did that leave that use?

[9:08] I believe her lease ended at the end of July. Okay.

[9:10] I believe I signed the 1st of August.

[9:13] So are you refilling that void?

[9:15] Is that your intention here or?

[9:17] I know she did more tutoring more so than like childcare.

[9:20] I see. Same kind of similar use

[9:25] I guess is what you're actually telling

[9:26] us. Correct? Correct.

[9:28] Okay. Any questions from the rest of the board? We

[9:30] Got a couple, Mr. Chair,

[9:31] Mr. Corbet,

[9:32] So it's not, not necessarily a second location

[9:37] but rather just an expansion of the campus.

[9:39] Is that more of a way to think of it? Is that correct?

[9:42] Sort of. Yeah. These are two buildings

[9:43] that are right next to each other.

[9:45] So there's the Hyam Synagogue

[9:47] and the Church of the Transfiguration.

[9:50] The Village Early Learning Center

[9:52] of Dairy currently has a location inside the Church

[9:55] of the Transfiguration.

[9:57] It is just going to be expanding into a room on the,

[10:01] within its Hiam synagogue as well.

[10:03] And it'll be the same, same name, same school,

[10:06] Same license and everything. Yep. Got it. And

[10:07] How much space within the synagogue?

[10:10] Sorry, what was that? How

[10:11] much space within the synagogue?

[10:13] We have about around 3000 square feet.

[10:17] Thank you. That's all I have.

[10:18] Okay. Anybody else, Mr. Dietzel?

[10:20] No, thank you Mr. Chair. Mr. So the,

[10:25] are the people that are gonna be working at the daycare,

[10:29] are they certified by the state?

[10:32] Yes. So

[10:35] how many people do you expect will be working there?

[10:39] We would only need about two to three staff members on

[10:42] that side with about the expansion

[10:48] increases the capacity for children to 39

[10:51] or so, 69 total in both locations.

[10:55] So we have 34 on the church side, 35 on the synagogue side.

[11:01] And then we'd have, depending on how many we enrolled on

[11:05] that side, we're looking at 16 right off the gate, like

[11:09] as soon as we opened we'd have 16 kids.

[11:11] So we'd have about two to three staff members on that side.

[11:15] And then on the church side we have about eight

[11:19] and they're all accredited through the state.

[11:23] Right. And I believe you said

[11:25] that you had been operating the daycare previously in

[11:30] this, in this facility?

[11:32] Yeah, we've been open in the Church

[11:34] of Transfiguration since 2024.

[11:38] Alright. It's been about two years actually maybe even.

[11:45] Yeah, it was September of 24.

[11:47] You guys came before us for that, is that correct?

[11:50] No, we

[11:51] Had something, sorry, we had something at the church

[11:53] Transfiguration, didn't we? No,

[11:55] It was Journey Church.

[11:56] Journey Church, sorry. Okay,

[11:57] Sorry.

[11:58] Alright, Mr. Trip, you all set?

[12:01] I'm all set. Thank You. So, so

[12:04] essentially you're staying within state ratios of children

[12:08] to instructors or whatever you would call them, right?

[12:12] Yes. Your staff. Staff, everything is accredited

[12:14] to accredited through the state

[12:16] Fire department's already

[12:17] come through and given us approval.

[12:20] Same with the health inspector.

[12:21] So we've already been approved from both of those.

[12:25] Okay. Mr. Henry, you have any questions? I'm all set.

[12:29] Going all the way. Mrs. Moore. And you all set?

[12:33] I am. I am familiar with the property on the inside

[12:36] and I see it as something that would fit easily.

[12:41] Okay. Going all the way down to my far right. Mr.

[12:44] O Bimbo or Mr. Dani? All set. Mr. Dani. All set.

[12:51] I would just say that I,

[12:52] I'm familiar with the property also.

[12:53] I'm not an abutter but I'm close enough.

[12:55] I've never seen an issue with the original one. All

[12:58] Right, very good.

[12:59] Let's go to staff. Mrs. Oland, anything

[13:02] Thank you.

[13:03] As the applicant stated, they're requesting a variance

[13:05] to permit the operation

[13:07] of a childcare facility within the portion

[13:09] of the existing building at one and a half Hood Road.

[13:12] The property is located in the medium high density

[13:14] residential zoning district

[13:16] and the daycare is not a permitted use,

[13:18] therefore the variance is required this evening.

[13:22] Private schools are permitted in MHDR

[13:27] however, but based on the definition of a private school,

[13:30] the age group is K through 12 or older

[13:33] and the daycare facility falls under

[13:36] that age group category.

[13:37] So I'd like to make that statement as well.

[13:41] And as the applicant stated,

[13:42] they do currently operate the Village Early Learning Center

[13:45] in the lower level of the existing religious facility

[13:47] located at the abutting property at One Hood Road.

[13:51] While each property contains its own entrance

[13:54] and parking area, the sites are connected

[13:56] by internal vehicle

[13:57] and pedestrian circulation, allowing access easily

[14:00] between the two properties.

[14:03] The applicant proposes to expand operations to one

[14:06] and a half Hood Road within the existing

[14:07] lower level of the building.

[14:09] This area has historically been utilized

[14:11] for educational programming

[14:13] and activities serving the parishioner children.

[14:16] No significant modifications to the space.

[14:18] Our proposed to accommodate the new, the daycare use.

[14:22] The property consists of approximately 1.26 acres

[14:25] and contains an existing religious facility.

[14:27] The original site plan was approved by the planning board

[14:29] and constructed in 1994.

[14:33] And if approved by the board,

[14:36] a site plan amendment would be required to be reviewed

[14:38] and approved by the planning board as part of that process.

[14:41] Site circulation and traffic patterns are,

[14:43] would be evaluated if approved, appropriate permits

[14:46] and inspections are required

[14:48] and there are per pictures in the file.

[14:52] And I also would like to comment about

[14:56] their u their current

[14:58] location at One Hood Road was permitted

[15:00] because that was a prior daycare facility

[15:03] previously operating under Headstart.

[15:04] So it was looked at as a similar use when the change

[15:07] of use application came through for that property.

[15:11] Thank you.

[15:12] Just update any recollection when

[15:16] that ordinance may have changed.

[15:19] Just kind of random interest I guess.

[15:25] Good question

[15:31] And I apologize that I didn't look myself

[15:33] so didn't mean to put you in a pinch.

[15:36] See if I can find it quickly.

[15:44] Tell you what, I'll leave you

[15:45] to just update us on that Ms.

[15:47] Oland and we'll, we'll keep moving

[15:49] forward if that's all right.

[15:50] That's great. Thank you. Okay, anybody have any questions

[15:53] for the applicant or directed towards code enforcement?

[15:56] Seeing no gestures there, you folks all set for now?

[15:59] Alright, we're make a call to public,

[16:01] see if anybody comes up, anything

[16:03] that's said you have an opportunity to to rebut.

[16:06] Okay, thank you. And we'll just see what happens here.

[16:09] So state court and we'll just see if anybody comes up.

[16:13] Anybody in favor of this application,

[16:15] this would be your opportunity to come forward and speak.

[16:19] Let the board hear your thoughts.

[16:21] Seeing nobody arise

[16:22] and no gestures there, anybody opposed to this application,

[16:26] this would be your opportunity to come forward.

[16:29] Alright gentlemen, we'll yield to this man

[16:31] with his arm in the air.

[16:38] Good evening. Good

[16:39] Evening.

[16:40] Good evening. Thank And your name

[16:41] and address, you'll be a director. Butter. You betcha.

[16:44] Bruce Brown, six Hood Road, dairy, New Hampshire.

[16:46] You are a director. Butter? I am a director. Butter,

[16:49] Thank you very much.

[16:51] What? What say you

[16:53] No, no, and no.

[16:57] You have an opportunity to elaborate.

[16:59] The board doesn't make a decision

[17:00] On that.

[17:01] I've got 69 years in the town of Derry to elaborate on

[17:04] and you don't have all the time in the world

[17:06] to listen to all that crap.

[17:07] You know what, I'm not up for your arrogance and just,

[17:11] and just being dismissive.

[17:12] Please get to the 0.5 criteria. Tell us

[17:14] Which, okay, one of the first questions I would like the

[17:16] board to ask is how many parking spaces this facility

[17:19] or whatever they plan on doing is gonna take up.

[17:22] It is a shared parking lot,

[17:24] but one of the things that has disturbed us since 2007,

[17:29] the original planning board decision had

[17:32] the upper entrance way being all one way going in

[17:37] and one way coming out down by the Church

[17:39] of the Transfiguration, by the time the facility was built,

[17:44] somebody made the decision to go one way in one way out

[17:46] for the synagogue, one way in, one way out for the church.

[17:50] And so that may not seem like a hill of beans to you,

[17:55] but those entryways

[17:57] and whatever are directly opposite driveways

[18:00] of private representatives on Hood Road.

[18:03] And if you can get a picture of that up on your screen

[18:06] or whatever, you'd see that.

[18:08] Okay, so that's one thing right off the bat.

[18:17] Sorry, was the concern the parking spots or the entrance?

[18:20] Well, all traffic. I like the fact when the dairy police

[18:23] come in they can park in there.

[18:25] It helps us out an awful lot.

[18:27] We, the number one major current concern I have,

[18:30] I have nothing against the idea of the facility

[18:32] or anything like that, but our neighborhood is turned into a

[18:35] horror show, especially when it comes to traffic.

[18:38] Okay? You've got Nutfield Heights senior center right next

[18:43] door that doesn't have to put up stop signs coming out

[18:47] according to Alan Cote when I found

[18:49] that out three years ago.

[18:51] So you've got cars coming out at will over there

[18:54] and they're right next to the entranceway for the synagogue,

[18:57] which is in and out right there.

[18:59] The other problem we've got is a stop sign on Lennox Road

[19:02] that nobody understands the word stop.

[19:05] People just go right through

[19:06] that stop sign like there's no problem.

[19:08] So that's another problem we have now.

[19:11] You say, well it's a big deal.

[19:12] Well they've started cross country up at Hood School

[19:16] and yesterday we had two kids coming along Lenox Road along

[19:19] the sidewalk and they're ready to cross the sidewalk

[19:22] and nobody's stopping for the kids.

[19:24] We almost had two kids hit as of yesterday

[19:27] and I've already been up to Hood

[19:28] School to warn them of that.

[19:30] So I don't know who's in charge at Hood,

[19:33] but that's further ference for you folks.

[19:36] Whatever. The other thing in regards to the traffic

[19:40] or whatnot, if I was living at the Kavanaugh residence,

[19:45] which is I'm six, so there four

[19:48] and it's right opposite the entranceways

[19:50] for the synagogue in and out, if you were trying to back out

[19:53] that driveway, you would have

[19:55] to have at least nine different checkpoints

[19:57] to watch out for traffic.

[19:59] You back out, you better look down the street,

[20:02] you better look directly behind you

[20:04] because ETS I am is in and out there.

[20:07] You better look right directly over to the stop sign

[20:09] because they're not stopping at the stop sign.

[20:12] Then you go up the street, you got two driveways for

[20:15] that field height senior center,

[20:16] which don't have stop signs at all

[20:18] that they can come out at Will.

[20:20] And that also includes the FedEx drivers

[20:22] and the UPS drivers.

[20:24] And then I'm right across the street from those,

[20:28] I can't back outta my driveways anymore

[20:30] because we've got people coming up Pearly Road running the

[20:34] stop sign at the top of Pearly Road.

[20:36] So traffic is getting to be an issue

[20:39] or whatever and other things.

[20:42] So if I can hold your thought there. Sure.

[20:46] This, the synagogue currently operates

[20:49] other than the childcare.

[20:51] Yeah. Correct. And the traffic, I,

[20:53] I imagine the traffic there,

[20:54] all those spaces get filled on whatever day the

[20:57] Synagogue, well on on the holy days, yes.

[20:59] Okay. They were just all filled up.

[21:01] Okay. So I guess the point here is you're,

[21:05] you're referring to, you've said

[21:07] to deny this based on people running stop signs

[21:11] and you know, cross cross country

[21:14] activities from the junior high,

[21:17] but that isn't necessarily relevant to whether

[21:20] or not the other five

[21:23] criteria apply here or not? Well,

[21:25] There's more to it than that. Okay.

[21:27] It's The overall traffic pattern. Yep.

[21:30] This we live on what we call in the neighborhood,

[21:33] the pinking and thoroughfare.

[21:35] Yep. Okay. You can go straight from South Pizza on Crystal

[21:39] Ave all the way to the end of Lennox,

[21:41] which is where my house is.

[21:42] I'm right at the corner of Lennox and Hood Road. Got it.

[21:45] Take a left, go up Hood Road, take a right,

[21:47] go all the way down Pearly Road, take a left,

[21:50] go all the way up Hood CRT Drive to Pinkett Academy.

[21:53] So there's also school traffic, other neighborhood traffic.

[21:57] This past year we now have e-bike traffic

[22:01] kids on electric scooters, traffic, you name it.

[22:06] And so it's gotten to be a little bit too much to bear.

[22:10] And 14 years ago I went in front

[22:14] of the Town Highway Safety Committee

[22:17] and asked if we could get a cop over there

[22:18] for like maybe 10 minutes before pinking inlets out.

[22:22] And they looked at me like I had three heads.

[22:24] And I'm just afraid

[22:25] that at some point in time it's gonna reach a breaking point

[22:28] and somebody's gonna get hurt or killed.

[22:33] So are we, are you anticipating

[22:35] that there's more traffic from the daycare

[22:39] then there will be

[22:40] From Yes, I'm, yeah, I think you've got, right.

[22:42] It sounds like they want to operate

[22:45] during daylight hours Monday through Friday

[22:48] and that is the peak range of a lot of things going on.

[22:53] I mean, I'll grant you up at the school.

[22:55] They've got adult studies at night,

[22:58] they've got church services on the Sunday.

[23:01] 'cause the school district is renting out,

[23:03] I think the gym every now and then,

[23:06] but basically the Monday through Friday stuff

[23:09] and now they've redirected the bus traffic in front

[23:12] of the school so that you can't drive behind the school.

[23:15] It all gets redirected back down Hood Road

[23:17] and coming down along with everything else.

[23:20] Okay. So FYI.

[23:22] Alright, anything else Ms, Mr. Trip?

[23:26] Anything you wanna know Mr. Trip?

[23:29] Is it your opinion that denying

[23:33] this variance will resolve this traffic issues?

[23:38] I don't know how much it will, in my opinion.

[23:41] I'm the only one that had the guts

[23:43] to show up at this meeting tonight

[23:44] because everybody else considers it a lost cause.

[23:48] I've lived there 69 years.

[23:50] I almost was killed in 1965 on the road.

[23:53] My parents almost lost their house in 1964 when they threw

[23:57] cigarette butts in front of our house.

[23:59] So we've been through a lot over the years

[24:01] and so it, I mean to stand here in front of all these people

[24:06] and everything and say this is a real bad thing.

[24:08] I can't really predict that,

[24:10] but I know it sure as heck can't help.

[24:12] And by the time you throw into the other strange things

[24:15] that are happening, you know, in our neighborhood,

[24:18] people on two feet at night coming through

[24:22] and my God, I've even got a bald eagle

[24:25] that landed on my house back in July because of exit four A.

[24:29] I mean, where's it gonna go?

[24:31] Oh, we can't re we can't, I

[24:33] Know you can't do anything about that,

[24:34] but I mean, I didn't expect that.

[24:36] Okay.

[24:37] All right. Anybody else on the board questions from

[24:39] Mr. Brown, Mr.

[24:41] Trip?

[24:42] So, Oh, to answer your question, yes, I really,

[24:47] I can't say I, I mean I don't know.

[24:50] The problem is, is that where their parking lot is,

[24:53] is right next to what has become one

[24:55] of the more dangerous intersections in our neighborhood.

[24:58] Okay. Because if you come out from their,

[25:01] from their driveway, you better check Kavanaugh's house.

[25:04] You better check the stop sign

[25:06] to see if they've stopped there.

[25:08] You better check Nutfield Heights

[25:09] because I don't know, even if they dare

[25:11] stop, they don't have to stop.

[25:12] There's no stop sign there.

[25:14] And then they got another driveway further up on their side.

[25:17] So to answer your question, I really honestly can't say,

[25:20] but if this, if this goes through on a five,

[25:23] nothing vote tonight wouldn't surprise me.

[25:26] But I'm saying what I'm saying.

[25:28] 'cause somebody needs to be warned

[25:30] somebody if something happens, somebody say,

[25:32] well why didn't somebody speak up at a meeting

[25:34] or something. Okay.

[25:36] Okay. Mr. Trip.

[25:42] So do you believe that the installation

[25:45] of traffic control signs

[25:50] would resolve some of your problems?

[25:53] Well, I think it would, but I still can't get an answer

[25:56] on the Nutfield Heights thing.

[25:57] Alan Cody couldn't tell me anything.

[25:59] Alan Cody's retired.

[26:00] I know, but not three years ago when I asked.

[26:05] Well, do you think that the installation

[26:07] of traffic control devices will help resolve?

[26:12] I don't know. The thing

[26:13] that really scares me the most though is

[26:15] where they've got the sidewalk,

[26:17] it comes from the sidewalk on the Lenox Street side

[26:19] and it stops right next to the driveway of Nutfield Heights.

[26:22] I really don't know maybe,

[26:24] but again that you're talking about the use

[26:26] of tax payer dollars

[26:27] for like just one little intersection in the town of Derry.

[26:31] You know how many people are gonna go for that?

[26:33] I don't think many, you know, so I, I don't know what the

[26:37] Time.

[26:38] Well it sounds like a couple stop signs would help

[26:41] resolve the problems you

[26:42] Have with the traffic.

[26:43] Well I think the only stop signs

[26:45] that you can put up are already up.

[26:47] That's IAM has got theirs up at theirs

[26:49] and dairy's got theirs up on Lennox Street.

[26:51] Now what the story, it still bothers me

[26:54] about Nutfield Heights.

[26:56] I can't get an answer outta anybody. Why?

[26:58] Why they don't even have a yield sign

[27:00] up for crying out loud.

[27:01] Nevermind a stop sign.

[27:03] Well, are you referring to Nutfield Heights

[27:05] and they're exiting off out

[27:06] of their parking lot onto the street?

[27:08] Yes. Okay, well I think

[27:10] that's a private parcel that, that the town

[27:12] Doesn't.

[27:13] That's what I'm wondering. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay.

[27:15] I, I agree Mr. Parkins, I think I kind of came to

[27:17] that conclusion I think last night. Alright,

[27:20] So overall, Mr.

[27:21] Tripp, are you all questioned out there or not? Yeah. Okay.

[27:25] So overall your concern is traffic flow in and out,

[27:27] Traffic flow in and out

[27:29] and everybody in the summertime just does whatever they want

[27:33] to do whenever they want to do it and

[27:34] The abundance of parking spaces.

[27:36] Yep. Correct. Okay. Anything else?

[27:40] No, I don't think so. All right.

[27:41] Well let's see what I mean. I don't know what to tell you.

[27:43] I just pray to God nobody gets hurt.

[27:45] Well I'm sure all of us respect that concern

[27:47] and we appreciate you bringing it forward.

[27:50] It may not hold mustard in the,

[27:51] Does anybody else have any questions at all?

[27:54] Thank you on anything at all? No.

[27:56] All set. Okay. Let's see what happens. Feel free to call.

[27:59] Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else in opposition?

[28:04] All right gentlemen, come on up. You can rebut.

[28:09] What about people online? I'm sorry? We don't do

[28:12] Online.

[28:13] Oh, we don't do online. Okay. We don't do online.

[28:17] Good evening folks. Good evening. You're already here.

[28:19] I know you,

[28:23] you have opportunity to rebut.

[28:25] Sure. You've got traffic flow and parking spaces, right?

[28:28] Yeah. So on the parking space side,

[28:31] you know Mr.

[28:33] De lapel already addressed that this would be adding two

[28:36] to three staff if it were fully enrolled.

[28:40] So we're looking at an additional two

[28:42] to three parking spaces throughout the day.

[28:45] There would obviously be changes at the times of drop off,

[28:49] which I'm told are between a about six 30 in the morning

[28:53] to nine in the morning in for the drop off.

[28:56] And then pickups are between four 30 and five 30 at night.

[29:00] So there's not a lot a, well there is some overlap there

[29:03] with the, the nearby schools, Grinnell and Hood,

[29:07] but not total overlap, particularly in the evenings.

[29:12] So the, I think the risk there is mitigated just

[29:16] by spreading out the traffic throughout the day

[29:19] and not concentrating it at times

[29:21] that are gonna overlap with the school.

[29:23] In addition, I believe Ms. Owen had made mention

[29:26] that this may require a site plan amendment

[29:30] and changes to circulation within the parking lot.

[29:33] Okay. Which would, you know, at

[29:36] that time the planning board would be able

[29:37] to assess whether there is a need

[29:39] for additional traffic controls coming out of at high

[29:42] or the Church of the Transfiguration for this.

[29:46] That is one and 1.5 Hood Street for, for this use.

[29:50] Okay. So Mr. Brown's voice may be heard at the planning

[29:53] board level if it passes here?

[29:55] That's my understanding, yes. Now

[29:57] The ratios, Mr.

[29:59] Trip had asked about,

[30:01] I think you had indicated there gonna be 16 more

[30:03] children, is that correct?

[30:05] Yeah, the, the expansion could hold up to 35.

[30:08] 35 children. Yeah.

[30:10] Okay. That was via state regulations.

[30:15] Okay. Do you intend to go to that peak? Mr.

[30:19] Corbitt suggested that state regulations would allow that?

[30:22] Yeah, we wouldn't, we wouldn't be bringing it up to 35.

[30:25] I see. The max would probably be, it's a one to eight ratio,

[30:29] so 24 kids would probably be the max. Okay.

[30:32] Alright. So we might be looking at a 24 additional cars

[30:36] per day other than your staff

[30:39] and those are broken up twice during the day, correct?

[30:43] Yeah. Unlike, unlike the schools though, it's

[30:47] like when school gets outta session

[30:48] like everyone leaves at one time.

[30:50] Right. That's not how the childcare center to work.

[30:52] So when parents need to drop off prior to work, you know,

[30:56] we might get 3, 4, 5, maybe six tops.

[31:00] And then same thing on the back end, you might have like six

[31:02] to 10, like 10 cars max right at a given time

[31:05] And minimal you might have three cars, four cars leaving

[31:08] and all in the same within three minutes of each other.

[31:11] But then you might not have anything

[31:12] for another 10 minutes, correct?

[31:14] Correct. It's pretty broken up. Okay. Alright.

[31:19] Anything else you want to address?

[31:22] No. All Right, very good.

[31:23] Anybody else have any questions for clarity?

[31:25] I have a question Mr. Tripp. So

[31:27] What are the operating hours and

[31:29] and what are the days that you're

[31:32] Monday through Friday from seven to five 30

[31:43] The

[31:45] Alright, thank you. All

[31:48] Set?

[31:49] Yep. Any other, any of the alternates have any questions?

[31:53] I'm sorry, did you say you had drop off between six 30

[31:56] and nine in the morning?

[31:58] Drop off is around seven. Okay.

[32:01] I mean I can't give you like a direct time

[32:03] because parents work different hours.

[32:04] I thought you said earlier that's all just generally about

[32:06] seven to nine is the drop off.

[32:08] Okay. I think the pickup is around four to five 30.

[32:12] I think I said six 30. So okay.

[32:14] Trust the lawyer to get it wrong. Would it be safe

[32:16] To Assume?

[32:17] Okay, just clarifying. Thank you. Well

[32:18] We typically, we'll see, I know there's a recent case

[32:21] where something like

[32:22] that the hours are stated it was seven then got

[32:24] to questions people are arriving earlier.

[32:26] Safe to say if people are arriving in that six 30 timeframe,

[32:28] it's likely the staff were probably getting theres a little

[32:30] bit early to set up potentially a parent if they had

[32:33] something coordinated with a teacher

[32:35] or you know, or with the staff.

[32:36] Correct. Sorry, not to lead you on that but

[32:40] Yep.

[32:41] No I was just making sure that hours of operation and clear.

[32:44] Yep. Thank you.

[32:45] All set. You are, have your base all covered here.

[32:50] Believe so. Alright, very good.

[32:51] And if there's nothing else, I'll take a motion

[32:53] to go into deliberation.

[32:54] I move. Mr. Trip has the motion to second please.

[32:58] I'll second it. Mrs. Moore made the second.

[33:02] All in favor of deliberations, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

[33:05] Officially. Okay, very good. Wanna start the conversation?

[33:09] Anybody? Mr. Brown?

[33:13] The Abutter brings forward concerns about traffic violations

[33:18] relative to this site and traffic flow

[33:22] in and out of the site.

[33:25] It seems as though in my view that the amount

[33:29] or the abundance of traffic is not such

[33:32] as I might see coming in

[33:34] and out of Pinkerton Academy at two 30 in the afternoon.

[33:38] I, I have a hard time though I am greatly appreciative

[33:42] of his points of view for safety and so on and so forth.

[33:48] It seems like the congestion

[33:51] and the intensity of the traffic is hard to grasp

[33:56] that it's going to be a major problem here.

[33:58] Now if there's any blind spots, I think

[34:00] that the planning board amendments

[34:04] could help mitigate that.

[34:09] Unlike the zoning board, the

[34:11] planning board does walkthroughs and sidewalks.

[34:15] So any concerns that Mr. Brown was good enough

[34:18] to bring forward to this board may get addressed at

[34:21] that point and his voice could be heard at

[34:24] that point as well.

[34:26] Those are my thoughts on the, on this application.

[34:29] Anybody wish to add to it? Yeah,

[34:31] Mr.

[34:32] Chair. I've been up

[34:33] and down this road daily of the last three weeks.

[34:36] My son's been doing the athletics within Hood,

[34:38] so very familiar with what Mr.

[34:39] Brown's been detailing as well.

[34:41] And I think to that point,

[34:43] I haven't noticed the existing daycare there.

[34:46] As I come down the road, you know, the big traffic

[34:50] or the big amount of traffic I see is the six teams

[34:52] who get let out at the same time up at the middle school.

[34:54] I don't see that an additional 24 kids in a daycare

[34:59] are gonna add anything negative there.

[35:03] Overall for the use of an expanded use,

[35:05] I think this is the perfect location for it

[35:07] to be utilizing an empty space during the week.

[35:09] You know, the synagogue was previously using for childcare

[35:13] to allow an existing childcare to expand.

[35:15] I think it's something that it's definitely needed the more

[35:19] options and I think if everyone on the board I was closest

[35:21] to just coming out of child, you know, the childcare ages

[35:25] and to the point of drop off, you see about two

[35:27] or three cars, you know, your drop off

[35:30] time, you get to know those people.

[35:31] But if there were 35 kids that my kids, you know,

[35:34] I knew three of the parents 'cause those are the same three

[35:36] I was dropping off with or picking up with every day.

[35:38] Sometimes maybe it pulled up and was a full house,

[35:40] but to this point it wasn't like elementary school

[35:42] where every kid gets out at the same time.

[35:44] So I don't think any

[35:46] of the five criteria are really an issue here.

[35:47] Okay. Mr. Dietzel,

[35:54] I share Mr.

[35:55] Brown's concerns. I drive through that neighborhood a lot

[35:59] and a lot of the track traffic rules aren't either

[36:04] obeyed or, or well enforced,

[36:06] but I'm trying to look at it strictly from a zoning

[36:10] standpoint and, and wing this against the five criteria.

[36:15] And I think that most of Mr.

[36:17] Brown's concerns are longstanding and,

[36:21] and are are there whether

[36:22] or not the daycare center comes into existence or not.

[36:27] I think based on the size

[36:28] and the scope of what's being proposed by the applicant,

[36:32] I don't think that that the,

[36:34] the problem which exists already will be significantly

[36:40] increased based on what they want to do.

[36:44] So I I I agree with Mr.

[36:46] Corbett in that I I see that all five criteria are met

[36:52] Very good.

[36:53] Mr. Tr

[36:59] The problems that Mr. Brown brought up.

[37:02] I I don't think that the

[37:08] daycare is the source of those problems.

[37:11] I think the problems that Mr. Brown brought up are long

[37:15] existing and that expanding the

[37:21] size of the daycare would increase those traffic issues.

[37:27] I think I that

[37:33] maybe Mr. Brown should go back

[37:37] to the traffic safety committee

[37:39] and see if they can do something about this.

[37:44] Now, as he mentioned that,

[37:49] I don't remember what Mr.

[37:50] Cody's first name was, but if he wasn't willing

[37:54] to do something since he's gone now that

[37:58] maybe a revisit will,

[38:01] we'll get some resolution to your problems.

[38:03] So I don't see where approving this variance

[38:10] will increase the problems that he has.

[38:17] I agree with what Mr. Corbitt had stated.

[38:21] Very good. Let's structure the motion.

[38:25] So let's see, subject to obtaining Allstate

[38:27] and town permits and inspections.

[38:29] And we'd also like to make sure that

[38:35] it's subject to planning board, site plan,

[38:37] amendment approval.

[38:39] Mr. Brown, you'll have a voice there and,

[38:45] and I, I can't think

[38:46] of anything other conditions I'd want to put on this motion.

[38:49] Anybody else wish to add anything? No,

[38:51] I think we're clear with these two.

[38:52] All right, very good. That being the

[38:54] case, we could take a motion.

[38:56] Come outta deliberation.

[38:57] I'll make that motion. Thank

[38:58] You Mr.

[38:59] Corbit. Second. Mr. Trip seconds. All in favor say aye. Aye.

[39:02] Any opposed? Mrs. Mor, you have a motion to read?

[39:05] I do. Thank you. I make a motion on case number two six

[39:10] dash 1 28 to grant a variance to the terms

[39:15] of Article six,

[39:17] section 1 65 dash four five A

[39:22] of the town of dairy zoning ordinance

[39:25] to permit the operation of a child group daycare facility

[39:30] within a portion of the existing building parcel id

[39:35] 3 2 0 6 2 0 0 2

[39:40] zoned MHDR as presented with the following conditions,

[39:45] one Subject to obtaining Allstate

[39:47] and town permits and inspections.

[39:50] Two. Subject to planning board site plan,

[39:53] amendment approval.

[39:55] And that concludes the reading of the motion.

[39:57] I need a second. Second

[39:59] Mr.

[40:00] Trip seconds. The motion puts it on the floor,

[40:02] therefore we move to finding a fact.

[40:04] Mr. Corbet?

[40:06] Yes. Finding a fact for case 26 dash 28. Motion

[40:10] To abbreviate.

[40:12] May I make the motion to abbreviate this

[40:14] Finding a fact this evening?

[40:16] Second please. I'll second it.

[40:17] Thank you Ms. Moore. And all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye.

[40:20] Any opposed? It's very good. Proceed Mr. Corbitt.

[40:24] All right. Heard. September 16th, 2026 The ZBA heard the

[40:27] application of Andrew de lapel

[40:30] concerning the property located at 1.5 Hood Road parcel ID

[40:34] 3 2 0 6 2 dash 0 0 2

[40:39] Notice was provided to the immediate abutters per statute

[40:43] and the board received testimony from the applicant

[40:45] and legal counsel, town staff and Abutters.

[40:49] The applicant is requesting a variance

[40:50] to permit the operation of a child daycare facility with a,

[40:54] within a portion of the existing building.

[40:56] The property is located in the medium high density

[40:58] residential zoning district

[40:59] where a daycare is not a permitted use,

[41:01] therefore a variance is required.

[41:03] The applicant currently operates the Village Earning Village

[41:06] Early Learning Center in the lower level

[41:08] of the existing religious facility located on the

[41:11] abutting property at One Hood Road.

[41:13] The applicant proposes to expand operations

[41:15] by establishing a second daycare location at 1.5 Hood Road

[41:18] within the existing lower level of the building.

[41:21] This area has historically been utilized

[41:23] for educational programming

[41:24] and activities serving parishioner children.

[41:26] No significant modifications to the space are proposed

[41:28] to accommodate the daycare use.

[41:31] The property consists of approximately 1.26 acres

[41:33] and contains an existing religious facility if approved

[41:38] by the board, a site plan amendment will be required

[41:40] to be reviewed and approved

[41:41] by the planning board as part of that process.

[41:43] Site circulation and traffic patterns will be evaluated if

[41:47] approved, the appropriate permits

[41:48] and inspections will be required.

[41:50] This concludes the finding of fact.

[41:52] Does anybody have any additions or addendums to make?

[41:55] Hearing None. Thank you.

[41:56] Seeing no gestures. All in favor Moving this for a vote.

[41:59] Say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Mr. Trip?

[42:04] Yes. Mr. Dietzel? Yes. Ms. Morin? Yes. Mr. Corbett?

[42:09] Yes.

[42:16] The chair will make you unanimous by a vote of five to zero.

[42:19] Anybody agreed by this has 30 days ask this board

[42:22] for reconsideration.

[42:24] After that recourse would be to superior court

[42:27] and of course the abutter, Mr. Brown has an opportunity

[42:30] to address the planning board on traffic flow

[42:32] and safety concerns.

[42:34] Alright, gentlemen, congratulations.

[42:36] You've been approved. Have a good evening.

[42:38] Thank you. Thank you.

[42:46] Next up is case number 26 dash 1 29.

[42:55] Mrs. Meyer,

[43:03] good evening.

[43:06] Good evening. And you are here for a special exception.

[43:10] We'd ask that you read your application for the record

[43:13] and then we'll just go through some questions

[43:16] with you. Okay? Okay.

[43:18] I left my packet that I made for myself at home

[43:22] and didn't know where we were.

[43:23] So I have Are you Zoe? I'm Heidi. This is my daughter Zoe.

[43:27] All right. As her business manager I was gonna read

[43:30] for her. Is that okay?

[43:31] Yeah, we, Ms. Oland can assist you there. Thank you.

[43:35] Ms. Owen. Did you

[43:36] Want me to read like That the

[43:38] Long, long limits attached?

[43:40] Yes. I'm gonna read the question

[43:43] and your answer for each of these now.

[43:45] Okay.

[43:47] Okay. So you are both

[43:52] co-owners of this parcel.

[43:55] I own the property, yeah. Okay.

[43:59] Alright. So you are, we have the application's name,

[44:03] but you understand that you both are reside at the property.

[44:08] Okay. Alright, let's go with that and go ahead

[44:12] and read the application.

[44:15] Okay. A request for only such special exception uses

[44:19] as our specified in part A above may be granted,

[44:23] provided that the zoning board of adjustment finds favorably

[44:25] with respect to each of the following conditions.

[44:28] The applicant claims the dwelling unit

[44:31] as his or her legal address.

[44:33] Yes. I've been a resident for coming up on five years

[44:36] and Zoe has been a college student going back

[44:40] and forth between her father's home and my home

[44:43] and became a legal resident upon graduation in June.

[44:48] The residential use, oh, I guess I'm repeating.

[44:52] The residential use was established by the applicant prior

[44:55] to the filing of the request for special exception.

[44:58] It was established June 3rd, 26th by Zoe

[45:01] and November in 2021 by myself.

[45:06] The number three, the proposed home business will not be

[45:09] injurious, noxious,

[45:11] or offensive to the neighborhood by reason of omission

[45:13] of odor, fumes, dust, smoke, vibration,

[45:16] noise or other cause.

[45:20] We agree that none of those above conditions will occur

[45:24] from the presence of this business.

[45:27] The home business will be conducted within the residential

[45:30] structure or another existing structure, which is

[45:35] an outbuilding called, referred

[45:38] to as a shed.

[45:41] It is, does not exceed 25%

[45:44] of the finished living area of the home,

[45:48] including that outbuilding.

[45:54] The home business will.

[45:55] Number five, the home business will use will not change the

[45:58] residential character of the dwelling or the property.

[46:02] Essentially the, the pro, the amount of foot traffic

[46:06] or parking vehicles coming is not going

[46:10] to be very much at all.

[46:11] We expect to have one or two cars a week if that.

[46:16] It's very part-time.

[46:18] She has a job now working Mondays through Thursdays

[46:22] and so she'll be working in the evenings

[46:24] in her sewing studio.

[46:28] And we really don't expect the, the part

[46:33] of the business where it would be for sewing alterations.

[46:37] It's really supplemental

[46:38] and it's gonna be a very minor part of her business.

[46:40] So it would really just be like friends coming over

[46:42] to the house once or twice a week.

[46:44] That's all the neighbors should notice.

[46:49] Not more than one. Number six, not more than one sign

[46:51] or other advertising device will be displayed on the

[46:54] property and it will not exceed three square

[46:55] feet in surface.

[46:57] We agree to that. Number seven,

[47:00] not more than one person not residing in the dwelling unit

[47:03] will be employed on the premises at the same time.

[47:07] Total number of non-resident employees would be zero.

[47:12] She expects to just be working by herself.

[47:16] Number eight, sufficient off street parking will be

[47:19] provided for employees, clients,

[47:20] and customers where lot size permits.

[47:23] The parking will not be

[47:25] provided within 25 feet of the front lot line

[47:28] nor within 10 feet of a side or rear lot line.

[47:31] I did provide a sketch showing

[47:33] that we would just be using the driveway.

[47:37] The driveway can hold six cars.

[47:39] We only have two vehicles

[47:42] that are ever parked there.

[47:44] Normally for the residence, just the two

[47:47] of us that live there.

[47:49] So there's plenty of space

[47:50] and we don't expect to have more than two cars at a time.

[47:54] Additional cars ever for the business purposes.

[47:58] Number nine, not more than one home business will

[48:00] be conducted on the property.

[48:02] And we agree to this.

[48:08] All right. Everybody have an image of the parcel? Yes.

[48:11] Yes. All right. Any questions

[48:13] for the applicant, Heidi or Zoe?

[48:17] Yes, I, I do ask a question.

[48:20] So you say she's already has another job,

[48:22] so what's her hours of operation at this location?

[48:26] It would be by appointment only.

[48:28] But what hours are you gonna accept appointments?

[48:33] Would you be working at midnight?

[48:35] No, she goes to bed early.

[48:39] I would, I I mean it could, I would expect not

[48:42] to go past seven o'clock at night.

[48:45] Okay. And then It could be seven days a week.

[48:49] Okay. That was my next question.

[48:51] How many days a week were you planning to do it?

[48:53] Yeah, that's all I have.

[48:56] Okay. How many days again for the record? Seven days.

[48:59] You said she would

[49:00] Be available seven days a week,

[49:02] but her current job has her leaving at seven in the morning,

[49:06] coming home at four.

[49:08] So you know she might possibly have a af late afternoon ev

[49:12] early evening appointment with someone.

[49:13] Or on Friday, Saturday

[49:14] and Sunday she would be available all day.

[49:19] Might possibly have someone over.

[49:21] You gotta have a range suggestion there.

[49:23] Are we thinking like a possibility of eight to 8:00 AM

[49:26] to 7:00 PM something like that?

[49:29] I think we would be fine with stipulation. Yeah.

[49:32] Okay. Very good. Eight.

[49:36] Eight to eight. Yeah, I'm

[49:37] Thinking prompt season.

[49:38] Yeah.

[49:41] Alright. Eight to eight. All very good.

[49:44] Mr. Ani, you like that?

[49:46] Yes, I do. Very. And I do have one follow up.

[49:50] So this is just for the alterations, not the online.

[49:55] I thought you said something that was about you do some sort

[49:57] of online business also.

[49:58] Yeah, she does. She's building a brand where she sells

[50:03] Western clothing and accessories online.

[50:07] And so she does participate in fashion shows

[50:11] and occasionally needs to have models come

[50:12] to the house to be fitted.

[50:15] So that would be an additional,

[50:18] does that answer your question?

[50:21] Thank you. Alright.

[50:22] Anybody else? Mr. Dietzel? No. Thank you Mr. Chair. Mr.

[50:26] I understand you have a Conex,

[50:32] I'm sorry.

[50:33] Oh yes, yes, yes.

[50:35] Now is this a shared driveway,

[50:37] A shared No, they have their own

[50:39] Driveway.

[50:40] So the driveway is is for

[50:41] for your half the Conex exclusively?

[50:43] Yes. Alright, thank you.

[50:46] All right. Mr. Henry. Mrs. Mor, I'm on.

[50:50] All right folks, have anything else you wish to add?

[50:54] All right, Ms. Owen,

[50:56] you wanna help us out on your staff, please?

[50:58] Thank you. As the applicant stated,

[51:01] she's requesting a special exception to allow the operation

[51:03] of a clothing alteration

[51:05] and custom design business at the residence.

[51:07] The property is located in the low density

[51:09] residential zoning district.

[51:11] The types of home businesses permitted

[51:13] by special exception inclu in the LDR specifically include

[51:17] artist, artisan or craftsmen.

[51:20] The property contains an existing two family residence on a

[51:24] 0.94 acre lot.

[51:26] The residence contains approximately 1,404 square feet

[51:30] of living area, and the clothing business will operate

[51:33] within an existing 192 square foot

[51:36] detached shed on the property.

[51:39] If signage is proposed,

[51:40] a signed permit will be required. Thank you.

[51:44] All right, very good. Any follow up

[51:45] with staff from the members?

[51:47] Seeing no gestures there all?

[51:50] Well, let's take a call for public,

[51:51] see if anybody has anything to add here.

[51:53] Okay. So if anybody comes up,

[51:55] we'll just have you a step aside

[51:56] and you'll have an opportunity to readdress any concerns

[51:59] that are brought forward.

[52:01] All righty. At this time, the board asks for anybody

[52:04] who wishes to speak in favor of this application.

[52:06] This would be your opportunity to come forward seeing nobody

[52:10] rise or any gestures there,

[52:11] anybody in opposition of this application.

[52:13] This would be your opportunity to come forward.

[52:16] Seeing no gestures there, it was quite a lengthy

[52:20] abut list I noticed, but no one has come

[52:23] before the board, so we'll consider

[52:25] that we have met the statute

[52:27] for public input on this matter.

[52:29] That being said, anybody else on the board have any

[52:34] questions or you have anything else you'd like

[52:36] to add before we deliberate

[52:38] The family in the other half of our conduct?

[52:41] He did. He couldn't make the meeting tonight

[52:43] because he's working, but he did have a

[52:45] Concern.

[52:46] Can you speak a little closer to

[52:46] The microphone?

[52:47] Oh yeah, sorry. He did have a concern just about it as long

[52:51] as it wouldn't financially affect his property in any way.

[52:54] And I assured him

[52:55] that she would have her own business insurance

[52:57] so it wouldn't affect our umbrella policy in any way.

[53:02] So, and understanding under the special exception when you

[53:05] were to sell or move that that use would extinguish as well.

[53:09] Okay. All right. Very good. All right.

[53:12] If nothing else, I'll take a motion. Go into deliberation.

[53:15] Thank you Mr. Cor Corbett.

[53:17] Second. Mr. Trip seconds.

[53:18] All in favor of deliberation, say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

[53:24] Anybody wish to lead here?

[53:26] So special exception versus the variance.

[53:29] So obviously we gotta look at it differently.

[53:30] This one's more of checking the boxes.

[53:32] You know, as I go through it, the only potential concern

[53:37] that I had was the, as we got into it with the,

[53:40] normally when we've had a, had a couple mother-daughter

[53:42] combos, but they've been owning the business together,

[53:45] whereas this one was separate.

[53:46] But being that Zoe does have this claim

[53:49] as her legal residence, it checks all nine boxes.

[53:51] It's very clearly allowed By definition, I think the eight

[53:55] to eight that they offered up is more than fair.

[53:57] I seen absolutely no issues with this.

[53:59] Alright, very good. Anybody wish to follow up with Mr.

[54:02] Corvets points? Seeing no gestures there, Mr. Trip?

[54:06] You all set? Yep.

[54:08] Okay, that being said,

[54:12] let's structure a motion somewhere.

[54:15] I had the motion sheet. We want to specify hours

[54:19] and days on this.

[54:21] Thank you very much. We have that there.

[54:24] Subject to obtaining all State town permits and inspections.

[54:28] Not sure if those would apply here,

[54:30] but that's not our purview.

[54:33] We have by appointment only seven days a week

[54:39] and ours are sporadic but they're eight to eight.

[54:42] 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM Anybody have anything else

[54:46] they'd like to add to that?

[54:49] We're all set. Mr. Moore, you have all those?

[54:53] I will.

[55:00] Would you like him separated? So 1, 2, 3, 4, or all

[55:03] In one?

[55:04] All in one is fine.

[55:11] You have by appointment you have

[55:15] seven days a week and 8:00 AM to pm, correct?

[55:19] Yes. Very good. Alright, motion is structured,

[55:22] therefore we can come outta deliberation,

[55:25] Make that motion.

[55:26] Thank you very much Mr. Corbett. Second Mr. Trip seconds.

[55:28] So we exit deliberation with an all in favor, say aye. Aye.

[55:33] Aye. And you opposed? Mrs. Moore, you have a motion to read?

[55:37] I do. Thank you. I make a motion on case number two six

[55:42] dash 1 29 to grant a special exception

[55:46] to the terms of Article six,

[55:49] section 1 6 5 4 8

[55:54] a1 of the town of dairy zoning ordinance

[55:58] to allow the operation

[56:00] of a clothing alteration in custom design

[56:04] business at the residence.

[56:06] Parcel id

[56:07] 1 0 0 6 2 0 0 3 R

[56:12] zoned LDR as presented with the following conditions.

[56:17] We have two. One subject to obtaining Allstate

[56:21] and town permits and inspections.

[56:24] Two. The business will be

[56:26] by appointment only seven days a week

[56:29] and between the hours of 8:00 AM

[56:32] and 8:00 PM That concludes the reading of the motion.

[56:35] I need a second. Second

[56:39] Motion's on the floor.

[56:40] Therefore we are leading to finding a fact. Mr. Corbett?

[56:45] Yes. May I have a motion for a condensed finding fact?

[56:48] I'll make that motion for a condensed finding effect.

[56:52] Second motion by Mrs. Moore and second by Mr. Tripp.

[56:56] All in favor of amend what? What did we say? Condensed.

[57:01] Condensed. Yeah. Condensed. Abbreviated. Yeah.

[57:02] Finding a fact. Yep. Say aye please. Aye.

[57:06] Sorry for the chatter everybody. Any opposed?

[57:11] Hearing none. Okay. Mr. Trip. Mr. Corbitt. I'm sorry. Thank

[57:15] You.

[57:16] Finding a fact for case 26 dash 1 29 heard.

[57:20] September 16th, 2026.

[57:21] The ZBA heard the application for a special exception

[57:25] from Zoe Meyer at the property located at two r Richardson

[57:30] Road parcel ID 1 0 0 6 2 dash 0 0 3

[57:35] R The applicant is requesting a special exception

[57:38] to allow the operation of a clothing alteration

[57:40] and custom design business at the residence.

[57:42] The property is located in the low density

[57:44] residential zoning district.

[57:46] The types of home businesses permitted

[57:48] by a special exception in LDR specifically include artists,

[57:51] artists and or craftsmen.

[57:52] The property contains an existing two family residence on a

[57:56] 0.94 acre lot.

[57:58] The residence contains approximately 1,404 square feet

[58:01] of the living area and the clothing business will operate

[58:04] within an existing 192 square foot detached

[58:07] shed located on the property.

[58:09] If the applicant chooses to move forward with a three

[58:11] by three sign, a signed permit will be required.

[58:14] This concludes the finding of fact.

[58:16] Does anybody have any additions or addendums to make?

[58:18] I just have one amendment. The date is nine 17.

[58:23] You must have,

[58:25] Sorry.

[58:26] Where was that last case? We should have heard it yesterday.

[58:30] We'll tell the, we'll be sure

[58:32] to let the planning board go. Yeah.

[58:33] I got a lot of promises that I'm a day overdue on them.

[58:37] All right. Finding fact has been read any amendments to

[58:41] that Seeing no gestures.

[58:43] All in favor of moving this for a vote? Aye. Aye. Aye.

[58:46] Any opposed? Mrs. Morin?

[58:48] Aye vote Yes. Mr. Corvet? Yes. Mr. Dietzel? Yes. Mr.

[58:51] Trip? Yes. The chair will make it unanimous by a five

[58:55] to zero vote.

[58:56] Anybody agree by this decision has 30 days to ask this board

[59:01] for in reconsideration After

[59:03] that recourse would be superior court for that opposition.

[59:07] We wish you both luck in your endeavor. Big step here.

[59:12] All right, have a good evening. Thank

[59:14] You very much.

[59:16] You can keep it.

[59:23] Buy a belt. Go buy a belt.

[59:30] That last one too.

[59:32] Next case is 26 dash 1 3 0.

[59:35] Robert Burs is the applicant owner

[59:39] of New Hampshire Lex, LLC.

[59:47] Good evening. Good evening.

[59:52] Gentleman. Wish to identify yourselves. Yes.

[59:56] Robert bge, owner of New Hampshire. Lex, LLC. Okay.

[1:00:02] We ask that you read the five criteria for the record.

[1:00:04] Yes. And we'll barrage you with questions. Okay?

[1:00:07] Yes. The variance will not be contrary to public interest

[1:00:11] because by seeking relief we will be providing additional

[1:00:14] housing for the community.

[1:00:16] The spirit of the ordinance is observed

[1:00:19] because the two family dwelling will be within the limits

[1:00:22] and setbacks of the property and will provide ample parking.

[1:00:27] Substantial justice is done

[1:00:29] because the existing structure

[1:00:31] had an additional building attached with separate foundation

[1:00:36] power kitchen.

[1:00:38] So the site will hold, allow for a two-family,

[1:00:42] excuse me, structure to be built.

[1:00:45] The values of the surrounding property are not diminished

[1:00:48] because the original site was in Major Dispair.

[1:00:51] The structure will be brought up to code

[1:00:54] and will be the benefit of the values

[1:00:56] of the neighboring properties.

[1:00:59] Literal enforcement of the precisions

[1:01:02] of the ordinance was result in an unnecessary hardship.

[1:01:05] The existing structure is an established

[1:01:08] and situated on the property as to allow

[1:01:10] for the construction of an additional dwelling.

[1:01:16] The proposed use is reasonable, one due to the fact

[1:01:19] that there are other multifamily properties in the area

[1:01:22] with similar or lesser square footage and frontage.

[1:01:29] Does that conclude? Yes.

[1:01:31] Alright. You want to proceed with the unscripted version

[1:01:35] and tell us what you're doing here.

[1:01:38] So obviously I'm the current owner of 21 Highland.

[1:01:41] It was a property that was purchased in major disrepair.

[1:01:45] We are looking to continue on the re renovation

[1:01:50] of the existing structure with the current footprint of

[1:01:53] where it is we are looking to add.

[1:01:57] There was an existing building

[1:01:58] that was pretty much falling down that was attached

[1:02:01] to the property, which is noted as

[1:02:03] as the existing foundation on the rear.

[1:02:05] We have brought that down to the foundation.

[1:02:08] It was completely inhabitable

[1:02:11] and we are proposing in that area to build a 30

[1:02:16] by 30 additional unit, which will be attached

[1:02:19] to the existing structure that we're renovating.

[1:02:23] Okay. Height

[1:02:26] and so on would be pretty much the same.

[1:02:28] We don't have all the architecturals done for it,

[1:02:30] but the height and everything would be the same

[1:02:33] as the existing structure next door.

[1:02:36] So are you, you're doing a 30 by 30 footprint?

[1:02:40] 30 by 30 footprint? Correct.

[1:02:42] So you're gonna go two stories,

[1:02:43] Correct?

[1:02:44] That's what we propose. Currently the

[1:02:46] property has a sloping lot, which we will maintain.

[1:02:49] We will put a full foundation in the existing foundation

[1:02:53] that is noted on the plot plan.

[1:02:56] Most likely will we have to be 100% removed.

[1:03:01] We will pour in the exact same cru.

[1:03:04] Yeah, it it's cinderblock. That's pretty much been crumbled.

[1:03:07] Well, noticing that the existing structure is on a

[1:03:10] cinderblock foundation as well. Correct?

[1:03:11] That that foundation there is no issues with.

[1:03:14] It's the one in the back that, that was attached to it.

[1:03:18] When did, when I didn't look at the purchase and sale.

[1:03:21] When did you close on this price?

[1:03:23] I closed on this roughly about a year ago, I would say.

[1:03:26] Okay. Maybe, maybe a bit more. Sorry.

[1:03:28] When, when did you raise the building?

[1:03:31] We did it immediately. I mean it there, there it was,

[1:03:34] the walls were falling in.

[1:03:35] It was a major, we pulled permits to

[1:03:38] start working on the structure

[1:03:40] and we noted that we were gonna be taking that down.

[1:03:42] I mean, it was to the point

[1:03:44] that the floor was completely caved in in it. Okay.

[1:03:46] Understanding we have some abutter input that may not be

[1:03:53] completely consistent with your testimony.

[1:03:56] Okay. But I'm going to jump ahead

[1:03:57] and go right over to staff report.

[1:03:59] Ms. Oland, you wanna help us out with some history here?

[1:04:03] Yes. I'll provide you what I have for a staff report.

[1:04:06] Unfortunately, our, our historic records

[1:04:08] of this file are lacking,

[1:04:11] but I can explain to you what we have.

[1:04:13] So the applicant is requesting a variance

[1:04:15] to permit a two family dwelling on a lot

[1:04:17] with less than the minimum required lot

[1:04:19] area per dwelling unit.

[1:04:21] The, the property is located in the medium high density

[1:04:23] residential zoning district, which allows

[1:04:25] for the construction of a two family dwelling

[1:04:28] with a required lot area

[1:04:30] of 10,000 que square feet per dwelling unit,

[1:04:33] or 20,000 square feet per dwelling unit when serviced

[1:04:35] by municipal water and sewer.

[1:04:38] The property in question contains approximately 11,325

[1:04:42] square feet where 20,000 square feet is required.

[1:04:47] The property is serviced by municipal water

[1:04:49] and sewer if approved.

[1:04:51] Appropriate permits and inspections will be required.

[1:04:53] And as you mentioned chair, there is one letter in the file

[1:04:56] and opposition that we received

[1:04:59] The parcel.

[1:05:00] This property was not.

[1:05:02] I'm gonna bounce back over to you, Mr. Burge.

[1:05:06] Burge the property, was it listed

[1:05:10] as a two family when you purchased it,

[1:05:12] or was a private sale between you and

[1:05:14] Yourself?

[1:05:15] It was a private sale. It was a real estate agent.

[1:05:16] Whose family member I see a family property?

[1:05:19] Yeah. Okay. Ms. Owen, was it listed

[1:05:22] as a two family or not?

[1:05:24] It is listed in our assessing record

[1:05:26] as a single family. Single

[1:05:27] Family.

[1:05:28] Okay. Correct. Any idea how old this,

[1:05:31] this extra building was and I guess to code enforcement?

[1:05:35] Is there any validity to the fact that there was a kitchen

[1:05:38] and electrical in the, in the building?

[1:05:41] So I'm unfamiliar

[1:05:42] with the original layout of the building.

[1:05:45] I, I'm unable to locate or reference demo permits

[1:05:49] or permits that are being mentioned this evening.

[1:05:52] So I, I don't have anything on record for recent work.

[1:05:56] And other than that, I can tell you

[1:06:01] approximately I believe it was built in around 1900,

[1:06:05] the original structure, that addition, I'm not sure if

[1:06:08] that was original or constructed a later date.

[1:06:11] Unfortunately we don't have the record in our file.

[1:06:13] Okay. It predates

[1:06:15] Now did you tell me you don't have

[1:06:16] demolition permits for this?

[1:06:18] Correct. Okay. How did you go about turning?

[1:06:22] We have a building permit for the structure

[1:06:24] that it was pretty much already fallen in.

[1:06:27] Okay. I mean, to the point that the roof was compromised,

[1:06:33] it, it was falling in, there was a tree right through it.

[1:06:36] Okay. We removed the broken wood, the broken windows.

[1:06:42] You couldn't even walk on the floor.

[1:06:43] You could see right down there was a,

[1:06:44] a washing machine in one area

[1:06:46] that had fallen all the way to the basement.

[1:06:49] Roof was caved in on it.

[1:06:53] You know, we, we did that at the,

[1:06:55] and we left the foundation.

[1:06:57] So the foundation is intact. Yep.

[1:06:59] Well, I did see but the found, but the foundation

[1:07:01] and the footing is completely on the house.

[1:07:03] There's no issue with it. The footing in the back there,

[1:07:05] it's completely shot. So.

[1:07:07] Okay. Well I did see the, I did see

[1:07:09] where the foundation was on, on a drive by.

[1:07:12] Yeah. Yes. Alright, well let me yield here.

[1:07:16] Anybody else on the board wish to ask any questions? Mr.

[1:07:20] Dietzel,

[1:07:25] Why aren't you building a single family

[1:07:26] house on this parcel?

[1:07:30] We, we do rentals.

[1:07:32] So we looked at the property,

[1:07:35] I purchased the property, I purchased it privately.

[1:07:37] It was never marketed as a two family.

[1:07:41] We went into it, we looked at it, we looked at that.

[1:07:43] It had the separate electric, it had the,

[1:07:46] had more than enough parking on the front of the property.

[1:07:49] The way the existing house was situated far to the left,

[1:07:52] leaving this area on the right hand side.

[1:07:57] We came in and we had spoke

[1:07:59] and we were, you know, trying to obtain a second unit.

[1:08:02] There are plenty of properties in that neighborhood

[1:08:06] with larger lots that have existing two families

[1:08:09] and there's also properties in that neighborhood

[1:08:11] with smaller lots that have two families.

[1:08:15] The way the parcel was set up, we felt

[1:08:18] that we could easily put a two family in there

[1:08:20] or a second unit in there, abutting the existing unit

[1:08:24] that would allow for more rental housing.

[1:08:27] Thank you Mr. Chair. So the existing house will be

[1:08:29] remaining and we'll now be looking at three units?

[1:08:32] No, the existing house will be remaining

[1:08:34] exactly the way it was.

[1:08:36] This unit will be the only unit that will be added to

[1:08:39] that existing foundation that was in the rear.

[1:08:42] So it's a total of two units.

[1:08:44] Okay. So we're not adding a two family,

[1:08:46] We are not adding a two family.

[1:08:47] Got it. We're taking, converting this basically two,

[1:08:49] taking single family per se,

[1:08:50] that is on the left hand side of the lot.

[1:08:53] We're taking the area in the back that had the foundation,

[1:08:57] the questionable foundation that was pretty much completely

[1:09:01] uninhabitable and we want to go in that same footprint.

[1:09:05] We wanna put our, which is, which fits within the, the map

[1:09:08] of, of, of zoning.

[1:09:10] We wanna put a new footing in there.

[1:09:11] We want to do a port foundation

[1:09:13] and we want to attach the two properties.

[1:09:15] We want to keep the roof lines at the same level.

[1:09:18] Got it. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:09:19] Did you say that there was an existing electric

[1:09:22] meter for this bus?

[1:09:23] There was an existing electric meter in there. Yeah.

[1:09:25] So there were two electric meters on the port,

[1:09:27] Two electric meters in there.

[1:09:28] There was, when we purchased it,

[1:09:30] there was a washer and dryer.

[1:09:32] Looks to be a a, a sink, an old cast iron sink.

[1:09:36] Unfortunately, so much has caved,

[1:09:39] caved back in on that back of that property. Okay.

[1:09:43] The curb cut is in the middle

[1:09:44] of the parcel, is that correct?

[1:09:46] Correct. It's a, it's a very light curb cut

[1:09:49] to say the least, but yes.

[1:09:52] And that would be your access for both units for that,

[1:09:57] that one location, correct?

[1:09:58] Yes, because this, the, the house is kind of proud

[1:10:00] to the street, these existing porch and so on.

[1:10:03] This, as you can see, it's much further back with it.

[1:10:06] So we would utilize that front area for parking. Okay.

[1:10:09] We, we we're gonna provide two parking

[1:10:10] spots per dwelling unit.

[1:10:13] We'd be constructing if we're allowed,

[1:10:15] we'd be constructing a two bedroom unit there.

[1:10:18] Okay. Mrs. Moore,

[1:10:21] On the GSI shows there's only been one bathroom.

[1:10:24] So if it was two units they would probably

[1:10:27] have a second bathroom.

[1:10:28] Have you found anything there that

[1:10:31] Was supported?

[1:10:32] There was a, there was a bathroom, so it was a kitchen area.

[1:10:34] And what looks to be where the laundry was, where the washer

[1:10:37] and dryer had fallen through looks to be.

[1:10:39] That's where a bathroom was. Okay.

[1:10:41] I, I did not find, I find the remnants of a sink.

[1:10:44] I did not find the remnants of a toilet.

[1:10:46] Okay. Thank you.

[1:10:47] Thank God.

[1:10:52] Alright, Mr.

[1:10:54] Trip, you all set.

[1:10:58] So you basically, you're replacing the,

[1:11:04] the, the house that was demoed in, in kind,

[1:11:08] Basically we're looking to, we're, we're looking

[1:11:10] to stay within that footprint.

[1:11:12] We went a little further back in the back.

[1:11:13] We have a tremendous amount of land. It's a hill.

[1:11:16] It drops off, it just goes and goes.

[1:11:19] We were looking to box it off.

[1:11:21] So there was a little addition to the back of the area

[1:11:25] that scored out as existing foundation.

[1:11:27] So we are not in the exact footprint of where

[1:11:32] the remnants which are currently there still

[1:11:35] of the footing are.

[1:11:38] We have not removed any, any of the concrete.

[1:11:41] Mr. Tripp, do you see the map on your

[1:11:43] Screen?

[1:11:44] I do. Okay. Yep. I'm just saying that,

[1:11:48] So we kept our sideline,

[1:11:50] we kept our sideline towards the neighbor on the right.

[1:11:54] We stayed in that and then we did did, we are proposing

[1:11:57] to fill a little bit of the back area

[1:12:00] or add to the back area.

[1:12:02] So for you to be compliant with the, the zoning ordinance,

[1:12:06] you're short like a nine,

[1:12:11] 9,000 square feet to,

[1:12:14] That's basically Yeah, it's, it's

[1:12:16] What you're asking for.

[1:12:17] Correct. You're asking for a a, a variance

[1:12:19] of a size variance.

[1:12:22] Is that,

[1:12:23] I'm sorry again, Mr. Drip.

[1:12:24] I, is it, is it size variance what they're asking for?

[1:12:27] No, they're asking for a two family where there,

[1:12:31] where there was tip essentially not a two family listed

[1:12:35] Less than the minimum required lot area per dwelling unit.

[1:12:38] Yeah. So each dwelling unit needs

[1:12:41] to have 10,000 square feet.

[1:12:43] We've got a total of 11,325 spread out

[1:12:46] over what would be two.

[1:12:48] So that's what we're here for today.

[1:12:49] Thank you Mr. Corbet. Now do you intend on

[1:12:58] making the, the second

[1:13:01] building accessible from the first building?

[1:13:04] No, they would have, they would have a,

[1:13:06] they would have a wall that they would share that would be,

[1:13:09] you know, fire coated and so on.

[1:13:12] But they would both be separate, separate units.

[1:13:16] So in, they would be occupied by two separate families.

[1:13:20] There wouldn't be any, it's not like an A

[1:13:23] DU, it would be a separate.

[1:13:26] Now you mentioned that there's,

[1:13:27] there's other lots in the area that

[1:13:31] have two family dwellings.

[1:13:35] Are any, do any of those

[1:13:38] other lots have a situation

[1:13:40] where they're short the amount of

[1:13:43] There was many.

[1:13:44] There was Dave, my operations manager had gone around

[1:13:46] and looked in the neighborhood.

[1:13:48] There was, I think there was one of 'em

[1:13:50] that was a two family that was under 9,500 s squared.

[1:13:52] There was, there was multiple, there was,

[1:13:55] there was multiple in that vicinity

[1:13:58] that were larger of course.

[1:14:00] And there were multiple that were small.

[1:14:03] Alright. Thank you. You need any technical

[1:14:07] reflection for that Mr.

[1:14:09] Trip? Are you all set? No. Alright. Mr. Henry.

[1:14:12] All set. Mr. Chair, if I just might Mr. Dietzel continue.

[1:14:18] The reason I asked my question is, I,

[1:14:20] I was focusing on the hardship criterion

[1:14:24] and five A says for purposes of this

[1:14:29] subparagraph unnecessary hardship means that owing

[1:14:32] to special conditions of the property

[1:14:34] that distinguish it from other properties in the area,

[1:14:41] the proposed use is a reasonable one.

[1:14:44] And you respond due to the fact that there are other

[1:14:50] multifamily properties in the area with similar

[1:14:54] or lesser square footage and frontage.

[1:14:59] So you, you're, you're proposing that the special condition

[1:15:03] of your property, which renders its use a reasonable one,

[1:15:08] is that the, there are other properties in the

[1:15:11] vicinity that are already

[1:15:13] What we were two families. What I was basically saying,

[1:15:15] What is this special condition

[1:15:16] May maybe I I didn't put it

[1:15:18] in there correctly, I apologize.

[1:15:19] But basically what I, what I was saying is

[1:15:22] that not every two family in that vicinity,

[1:15:26] and again, i i has the 20,000

[1:15:30] square feet that was necessary.

[1:15:32] So we weren't looking to put a two family house into an area

[1:15:36] that everybody had over 20,000 square feet.

[1:15:39] That's what I was trying to state in that,

[1:15:41] I don't know if I answered it correctly,

[1:15:45] but the way the house sat on the lot, the current house

[1:15:47] where there were the, the additional meter was there

[1:15:51] where the signs of the, the, the bathroom

[1:15:53] and to a certain point, I didn't say the lab,

[1:15:56] but to a certain point was there.

[1:15:59] And the way the property sat with the parking out front was

[1:16:02] what got me into looking into this.

[1:16:04] So that's when we went through the neighborhood

[1:16:06] and we looked at other, other houses to see if, if,

[1:16:10] So the special condition of the property is the fact

[1:16:12] that you already have the electrical meter. And

[1:16:15] Yes, in, in doing multi-family housing, I own a lot

[1:16:18] of multi-family rentals, dairy in many other communities.

[1:16:20] And I just felt that this would be a spot that the impact

[1:16:25] would be light to put another unit

[1:16:27] and it would fit in there perfectly

[1:16:29] and still allow us to have ample parking.

[1:16:31] And what brought me onto that was the electric meter

[1:16:35] and the separation.

[1:16:37] The separation of the units.

[1:16:40] Okay. Thank you Mr. Chair. All set? Yep. What's the

[1:16:43] Size of the existing foundation on that second unit?

[1:16:48] Exactly. To, I don't, I don't have that exactly to scale.

[1:16:52] We were proposing 30 by 30.

[1:16:53] If I had to guess, I would say in the back,

[1:16:57] we were at least eight, eight feet by 30 feet right there

[1:17:00] that we would, we would be adding if, if that needs to be,

[1:17:05] and again, there's a tremendous amount

[1:17:07] of land going down in the back of the property.

[1:17:09] If that needed to be brought up, you know,

[1:17:12] we could finish some of the basement space there.

[1:17:14] We're gonna put a new foundation.

[1:17:15] It is a walkout so it would have safety egress

[1:17:19] if it was a concern of the,

[1:17:21] It's i'll, I'll be honest, it's not, it might be

[1:17:26] going more deliberate, Mr.

[1:17:28] Chair, which is where I'm leaning,

[1:17:29] where I feel like the questions are leaning.

[1:17:32] What it seems the hardship is here is

[1:17:34] that the property just can't be used

[1:17:37] as a rental at the most beneficial.

[1:17:39] It can be used with the existing house, it can be used

[1:17:41] as the residential property as it currently exists.

[1:17:45] But in order to fully maximize it

[1:17:47] is where we need the multifamily.

[1:17:48] And that's, I just have a very tough time with any

[1:17:50] of the five criteria where we're just adding,

[1:17:54] we're really just bringing it out of compliance,

[1:17:56] completely out of compliance for no other reason

[1:18:00] than just to rent it.

[1:18:03] I don't really have a question with that,

[1:18:05] but I guess I just want to say that that's where I'm stuck.

[1:18:07] Okay. And the applicant has an opportunity to,

[1:18:11] to substantiate his claim based on your comment, Mr.

[1:18:16] Corbet. Mr. Burge, you're welcome

[1:18:19] to elaborate on that. On that

[1:18:21] Again, the signs that the signs

[1:18:24] of a separate electric meter, the signs of overlap

[1:18:28] of plumbing kitchens

[1:18:31] and so on, the separation of the unit

[1:18:35] bring me to believe that it, it was utilized I

[1:18:39] to more than a single family at one point.

[1:18:43] That that's what got us going down the road more

[1:18:46] or less of proposing a two family house.

[1:18:53] And like I said, the comparison to the neighborhood

[1:18:55] of other two family houses that are existing

[1:18:58] with neighbors on both sides, neighbors behind,

[1:19:01] neighbors in front that are operating as two family houses

[1:19:07] was, was what brought us to this.

[1:19:11] And losing a large percentage

[1:19:14] of the existing foundation in the back,

[1:19:16] that's pretty much non buildable at this point

[1:19:18] because of the deterioration of what,

[1:19:21] how it was when we purchased the property.

[1:19:23] So if we were gonna put that back, that's

[1:19:26] what we were looking obviously to put it back

[1:19:28] as of the dwelling unit

[1:19:30] As the courts would, it would require the similar,

[1:19:33] the familiarity of board members being familiar

[1:19:38] with neighborhoods in their community.

[1:19:41] The, the applicant is expressing

[1:19:44] that essentially this neighborhood is peppered with

[1:19:48] multifamily properties.

[1:19:50] Which I, I know that to be true.

[1:19:54] The question it, it's not in my view, it's not that,

[1:19:59] the fact that there's other properties on the street

[1:20:03] that are multifamily that said yes,

[1:20:05] you can go ahead and give this.

[1:20:08] So I'm just kind of answering to your question Mr.

[1:20:13] Corbet and to I guess Mr. Dietzel as well.

[1:20:18] You know, it really comes down to the, I guess

[1:20:21] for me it's gonna come down to the parcel

[1:20:25] and Ms.

[1:20:27] Oland, if this had the square footage,

[1:20:28] they wouldn't be here right now.

[1:20:30] Correct? Correct. Yes. Yeah. Okay.

[1:20:32] So anyway, just I'm a little spit balling there Mr.

[1:20:35] Corbett as well. Mr. Trip, you have anything?

[1:20:40] I not presently. Alright. Mrs. Moore, you all set?

[1:20:44] I am. Thank you. Okay.

[1:20:47] You gentlemen have anything else you want to give us?

[1:20:51] One thing I did wanna say is, you know,

[1:20:53] what we are proposing to do does meet the setbacks?

[1:20:58] Well the new structure does. Yeah. Yeah.

[1:21:00] The existing structure certainly does not.

[1:21:02] Right. And we're not, and we're not taking down porches,

[1:21:06] we're not looking to add to that.

[1:21:07] We're not dormering,

[1:21:10] but Correct the, the new D, the proposed new dwelling unit.

[1:21:14] Attached dwelling unit would meet all set setbacks.

[1:21:17] Okay. Alright, well let's make a call

[1:21:21] to public and see what happens.

[1:21:22] I just wanna make sure that on the record we do have a,

[1:21:29] a letter rather lengthy letter

[1:21:32] and I don't know if this individual is here tonight,

[1:21:35] but it's a seven page letter objecting to this

[1:21:38] and that is submitted by the owner at 21 Highland Ave.

[1:21:42] Alright. We're not gonna read the seven pages,

[1:21:45] we're gonna wait and see if she's there.

[1:21:46] 20 there. 21 We're 21.

[1:21:48] I'm sorry. 20. Right. Okay. You're right.

[1:21:51] I did the same thing when I drove by it. Okay.

[1:21:53] Looking on the wall. Wrong side of the street.

[1:21:57] 'cause I'm going by memory. Right.

[1:21:58] Which might can't remember what I had

[1:22:00] for breakfast this morning, but that's another problem.

[1:22:03] So with that being said, we will, the board notes the

[1:22:09] written butter at, at 20 Highland Ave.

[1:22:14] Mr. Trip, you have that letter? I do. You've reviewed it.

[1:22:17] I have Mr. Moore as well. Yes. Mr. Corbet? Yes. Mr. Dietzel.

[1:22:22] Yes. Alright, so everybody's reviewed that letter.

[1:22:24] We're not gonna read it in it in its entirety,

[1:22:27] but it doesn't object to this for several reasons.

[1:22:32] That letter will stay in the file as a record. Okay.

[1:22:35] Understood. For reference at some later point that aside,

[1:22:39] let's make a call to public, see what happens.

[1:22:41] You'll have an opportunity to rebut anything that comes up.

[1:22:44] Okay? Sure. Anybody who wishes to speak in favor

[1:22:47] of this application, this would be your opportunity

[1:22:49] to come forward seeing no one rise in the room,

[1:22:53] anybody in opposition to this application,

[1:22:56] this would be your opportunity.

[1:22:57] Alright gentlemen, we'll have you can have you sit over

[1:22:59] in that first row there.

[1:23:00] Sure problem. And you'll have a chance to come back up

[1:23:03] and we'll listen to what this lady has

[1:23:06] to say. Good

[1:23:09] Evening.

[1:23:10] Evening everybody. My name is Relle La Cross.

[1:23:12] Oh you are the I am the directive lady. Seven

[1:23:15] Page letter across the street.

[1:23:16] Very good. I am the owner of OCC chair.

[1:23:18] If we could have proximity to the microphone

[1:23:19] Please.

[1:23:20] I'm sorry. I'm the owner

[1:23:21] and occupant for the last 22 years at 20 Highland Ave.

[1:23:27] You have my letter. You do.

[1:23:29] So I am going to try to be very brief. Thank you.

[1:23:33] I'm asking the board to determine whether this application

[1:23:36] actually satisfies each of the five variants requirements

[1:23:39] before voting The public interest.

[1:23:43] The applicant's answer is essentially

[1:23:45] that another unit provides housing.

[1:23:48] Why does the general benefit establish that added dentist

[1:23:52] on this particular undersized lot

[1:23:55] is in the public's interest.

[1:23:57] What evidence addresses parking, traffic, driveway, safety,

[1:24:02] drainage, privacy, light and neighborhood character.

[1:24:05] For the record, this neighborhood is over a

[1:24:08] century and a half old.

[1:24:10] My home is one of two of the oldest homes on

[1:24:13] that street dating back to 1880.

[1:24:17] The remaining homes as Mr. Mr.

[1:24:22] Burge has suggested that are in fact zoned as two families.

[1:24:26] There are exactly four as you've read in that letter.

[1:24:29] There's one four family home.

[1:24:32] Those homes, including 21 Highland Ave, were built in 1900.

[1:24:37] The assessor's office does not have anything on

[1:24:40] 21 Highland Ave.

[1:24:41] That states that the building that was demolished last fall

[1:24:47] was an accessory dwelling.

[1:24:49] It is listed as a base dwelling with no accessories,

[1:24:52] meaning there was no water listed

[1:24:55] and no electricity, kitchen or bathrooms.

[1:25:01] The spirit of the ordinance,

[1:25:03] the application says the project will meet setbacks

[1:25:06] and provide ample parking.

[1:25:08] Where is the proposed plan?

[1:25:10] Proving that DE's variance checklist calls

[1:25:13] for proposed building dimensions, distances

[1:25:16] to property lines and a generalized floor plan.

[1:25:19] The filer reviewed shows the existing house and foundation,

[1:25:23] but no proposed footprint, footprint, floor plan,

[1:25:27] height stories, parking layout or driveway layout.

[1:25:32] Number three, substantial justice.

[1:25:34] The applicant relies on former attached structure,

[1:25:38] foundation, power, and alleged kitchen.

[1:25:42] The assessor still classifies 21

[1:25:45] Highland as a single family.

[1:25:46] One occupancy. Was that area ever legally approved

[1:25:50] as a second dwelling?

[1:25:51] If not, why is an old foundation

[1:25:55] which had an established building intact

[1:25:59] before it was taken down?

[1:26:04] Why is it, why?

[1:26:06] Why does the old foundation

[1:26:07] or form a kitchen establish

[1:26:09] that justice requires a new second unit?

[1:26:12] The surrounding property values repairing a

[1:26:16] deteriorated property is definitely positive.

[1:26:20] But that is different from providing pro proving

[1:26:23] that adding a second dwelling on this undersized lot will

[1:26:27] not diminish surrounding values.

[1:26:29] What evidence addresses the added parking traffic unknown

[1:26:33] building mass and direct impact on the abutters?

[1:26:37] The unnecessary, the unnecessary

[1:26:40] hardship is the key question here.

[1:26:42] RSA 6 7 4 33 requires special conditions

[1:26:46] of this property that distinguish it from others.

[1:26:49] What is this special condition of 21 Highland Ave?

[1:26:53] An old foundation, a desire for a second unit

[1:26:56] or century old duplexes elsewhere do not then

[1:27:00] by themselves identify the hardship of this parcel.

[1:27:04] The frontage I'm hoping will be answered before voting.

[1:27:09] The applicant's own letter says that the lot has 74.42 feet

[1:27:13] of frontage where 100 is required, yet the notice appears

[1:27:18] to seek only a lot area relief.

[1:27:20] Does this proposal also require a frontage variance?

[1:27:24] If not, what provision allows the two family use

[1:27:28] with 74.42 feet

[1:27:31] old duplex comparisons?

[1:27:34] The four Highland Avenue properties classified by assessing

[1:27:38] as two family were built between 1,919 11.

[1:27:42] Do we know when and how those uses became legal?

[1:27:46] They're nowhere to be found in the assessor's tax records,

[1:27:49] which means that they're archived.

[1:27:51] Again, our neighborhood is a century

[1:27:54] and a half old, as are most of those homes.

[1:27:57] Our century old laws

[1:27:59] and non-conforming properties being used

[1:28:01] to justify new dimensional relief in 2026.

[1:28:05] And what exactly are we approving?

[1:28:08] Is the existing main house staying being enlarged,

[1:28:11] incorporated, or demolished?

[1:28:14] How tall will the new construction be?

[1:28:16] Where are the vehicles? Where is the driveway?

[1:28:19] Where does runoff go?

[1:28:21] And if those answers are not known,

[1:28:22] how can the board evaluate the actual effect of the variance

[1:28:26] in the larger neighborhood concern?

[1:28:28] This is not about renters or housing being bad.

[1:28:32] Highland Ave is already experiencing greater nearby

[1:28:34] dam density and traffic.

[1:28:36] We have townhouses

[1:28:37] that were built on either end of the road.

[1:28:40] There is a condominium complex at the end of the hill

[1:28:44] and we have other projects going on in right in

[1:28:47] downtown in Abbott court.

[1:28:50] So if dimensional relief is repeatedly granted

[1:28:53] to add density to older single family parcels

[1:28:56] that did not meet today's standards, at

[1:28:58] what point does the exception begin changing the traffic

[1:29:01] parking open space in character of the neighborhood?

[1:29:05] I respectfully ask the board to address each

[1:29:07] of the five variance criteria separately

[1:29:10] and identify the evidence supporting each finding.

[1:29:13] If there's not enough information to make those findings,

[1:29:16] I ask the variance not be approved based on assumptions.

[1:29:20] Please do not grant permanent dimensional relief first

[1:29:23] and determine what the actual project

[1:29:25] and its impacts are afterward.

[1:29:28] Just on a personal note, the home had construction done

[1:29:32] to it all through 2025.

[1:29:35] We watched HVAC trucks come and go.

[1:29:38] We watch plumbing come and go.

[1:29:39] We watch new windows come and go.

[1:29:42] We watched construction to the outside of the building.

[1:29:45] We watched the attached building

[1:29:49] that the developer is suggesting was falling in

[1:29:54] be demolished.

[1:29:56] I have yet to find any permits anywhere in any of the files,

[1:30:01] which concerns me as an abutter as to what

[1:30:05] actually will happen to the property in the

[1:30:08] end. Thank you. Okay,

[1:30:10] So I think one of the points, Ms.

[1:30:12] Oland, even if this was a single family, this is a,

[1:30:16] a non-conforming lot without the frontage, right?

[1:30:19] That's correct. Yeah. Yes.

[1:30:20] And, and so just, I'm gonna start working back

[1:30:23] through some of your questions.

[1:30:24] Sure. So either way the property was non-conforming on the

[1:30:29] frontage because of the year that it was built.

[1:30:32] Some of the other issues that, you know,

[1:30:34] I can't speak to the permitting.

[1:30:36] However, I am disappointed that

[1:30:39] a demolition permit was not issued here.

[1:30:42] Other than that, the individual trades

[1:30:45] that have been servicing the parcel, I can't,

[1:30:48] I can't address to that.

[1:30:51] The board some other points you made about

[1:30:56] the, about the building and the structure.

[1:30:58] The board doesn't, doesn't have purview in that area.

[1:31:02] It can use it as consideration my opening statements

[1:31:06] for this meeting this evening about ordinances?

[1:31:08] Yes. Using land development regulation statutes

[1:31:12] and case law are, you know, certainly play into

[1:31:16] that same idea.

[1:31:19] I'm going to rest there.

[1:31:21] I think the parking issue,

[1:31:26] you know, that's not something that the board also

[1:31:29] looks at necessarily though it can be considered as well.

[1:31:34] I think the state, the legislature

[1:31:37] and the governor have given relief

[1:31:39] and requirements to the, that parking requirement.

[1:31:42] I think my note on the current curb cut brought me to

[1:31:48] the idea that,

[1:31:49] and I actually, when I looked at this parcel, I thought

[1:31:52] that the driveway might be down the, the side,

[1:31:54] the left side of the property, correct?

[1:31:56] Yeah. There was no driveway to that home.

[1:31:59] Well, there was a curb cut. Where did people park?

[1:32:03] The woman who actually lived in that home,

[1:32:05] who passed away, purchased the home in 1965

[1:32:09] and she just parked her car in the grass next to the ramp

[1:32:13] that they had supplied for her.

[1:32:15] Okay. And is that where the curb cut

[1:32:17] currently is shown on the

[1:32:19] Property?

[1:32:20] That is currently where the new curb cut is.

[1:32:22] When they did the new road

[1:32:25] and the new sidewalks on my side,

[1:32:28] they added the curb cut for her there.

[1:32:31] Where did, how many, when did this lady passed away?

[1:32:38] She passed away. It's been two years now.

[1:32:41] So I wanna say that the home was actually purchased

[1:32:45] in 20, the end of 2024 or the beginning of 2025.

[1:32:50] Because work, work began of

[1:32:54] significant time after her death.

[1:32:56] Yep. So I believe she died in early 2024. Okay.

[1:33:01] I think Mr. Burge indicated he's owned

[1:33:03] the property for a year.

[1:33:04] So that would make sense to the amount of work

[1:33:07] that was in and out of the property.

[1:33:09] Yes. I I'm gonna rest there

[1:33:13] for a minute 'cause you threw a lot at us.

[1:33:15] Sorry. I appreciate that you did not try

[1:33:17] to read the seven pages.

[1:33:19] So I'm going to yield to the other members of the board

[1:33:22] for any questions, Mr. Dietzel?

[1:33:25] No, thank you Mr. Chair. Mr. Corbitt?

[1:33:27] No, it was a nice abbreviated version of the letter.

[1:33:31] I thought you brought up some very good points, especially

[1:33:33] with the, the other houses or the other multi-family houses.

[1:33:38] But I have no questions. Thank you.

[1:33:39] Okay, Mrs. Morn, I have no questions. Mr. Trip.

[1:33:43] So you've indicated that

[1:33:48] the property where the building on the front of the

[1:33:53] property has, has received extensive renovation.

[1:33:57] There has been extensive renovation.

[1:33:59] What exactly has been done? I could not tell you.

[1:34:03] We did take pictures of the HVAC trucks that came,

[1:34:06] the windows that were all replaced

[1:34:08] or boarded up, the plumbing company that came and went.

[1:34:13] And then of course they demolished the,

[1:34:16] the attached building in the back, which was a, according

[1:34:20] to the original owner, it was just an empty garage.

[1:34:25] Oh. And the original owner was the lady that

[1:34:28] Died?

[1:34:29] The woman who? Yes.

[1:34:33] Well, I guess we'll never know

[1:34:35] what was the in the building since it's gone.

[1:34:37] It is. Yes. So, Okay,

[1:34:41] Thank you.

[1:34:49] I'm trying to, I got a

[1:34:51] question from Ms. Owen based off that.

[1:34:52] Yes, Mr. Corbett.

[1:34:53] Ms. Owen, I have a question

[1:34:54] kind of based off that comment.

[1:34:57] So familiar with different properties

[1:34:59] where a garage gets turned into more of an event space,

[1:35:03] we'll call it, we'll get some type

[1:35:05] of kitchen put in heating, basically everything

[1:35:08] that's no longer used for a garage,

[1:35:10] but not technically a living space, if that makes sense.

[1:35:14] How would we delineate that,

[1:35:16] you know, for something like this?

[1:35:18] If, excuse me. I Think I cannot answer those

[1:35:20] Questions.

[1:35:21] Well, you can't answer 'em right now. It's not your turn.

[1:35:24] Thank you. Go ahead.

[1:35:28] If I understand what you're asking.

[1:35:29] So if this was an, an open space with a sink and a and,

[1:35:34] and how would we define that? That means

[1:35:36] Yeah, the separation of, you know, even if it has a meter,

[1:35:38] would it have to be its own separate utility charge

[1:35:43] or its own utility meter as opposed to the house?

[1:35:46] Like how would we differentiate a multi-family, I guess

[1:35:49] as opposed to just two, two usable spaces?

[1:35:55] So it would be separate utilities?

[1:35:57] It would, you would generally see

[1:35:58] for a two family separate electrical meters as well.

[1:36:02] Separate services, one for each space.

[1:36:04] And this is serviced by municipal water and sewer.

[1:36:07] So there would generally essentially be a separate shutoff

[1:36:11] for that secondary unit as well.

[1:36:15] And, and, and staff can be determining where

[1:36:18] that hap you know, where that would be occurring.

[1:36:23] Okay. Does, does that help answer?

[1:36:25] I think so. Thank you. You're welcome.

[1:36:27] It's not unreasonable.

[1:36:29] And with the butter's testimony that the meter

[1:36:33] could have been just for, to, for service in the garage

[1:36:37] and which is significant, you know,

[1:36:41] it's not having any picture evidence of

[1:36:44] what was there Right.

[1:36:45] Starts to play into consideration here. Correct? Correct.

[1:36:49] If, if I may, historically in these neighborhoods,

[1:36:54] summer kitchens were not out of the ordinary and

[1:36:57] because it is, it would have

[1:36:59] to be dug up through the archives.

[1:37:01] It's not something, I cannot say

[1:37:03] that there's a second meter at that house.

[1:37:05] We've never seen one.

[1:37:07] It could very well have been a summer kitchen for

[1:37:11] the woman who lived there.

[1:37:13] She was that old when she passed away.

[1:37:15] I believe she was in her nineties.

[1:37:17] Okay. Anything else

[1:37:22] that we can think of?

[1:37:24] Anything we haven't addressed with you at this point? So

[1:37:26] I got another question, Mr.

[1:37:27] Trip. So there's no record of

[1:37:31] the building being assessed as a two family,

[1:37:37] Not in the records that we've been

[1:37:39] able to find and locate?

[1:37:40] No. So it's, it's been a single family. So

[1:37:43] It's it's the,

[1:37:47] the assessment is based on the building being

[1:37:50] a single family.

[1:37:51] Correct. And there's no record of it ever being

[1:37:56] assessed for two family?

[1:37:59] Not that we've located, no. Thank you. You're welcome.

[1:38:04] I think it is reasonable to suggest

[1:38:06] however, that if it were a garage it would not have

[1:38:09] had a foundation on it.

[1:38:12] Say again? It's reasonable to, especially

[1:38:16] with the conditions of the property,

[1:38:17] that if it were a garage it probably would not have

[1:38:20] had a foundation to it.

[1:38:24] So does, did the assessor say that the

[1:38:29] rear building, was it two story building?

[1:38:34] I don't have record of that.

[1:38:36] The, I'm sorry. The tax card actually says that

[1:38:39] that space is base living space with no other fixtures

[1:38:44] and the assessment starts

[1:38:46] for anything past the building of the house.

[1:38:49] For the purpose of assessment, the tax card has it as 1977

[1:38:54] but they cannot guarantee the actual date that

[1:38:56] that particular building was attached to the home.

[1:39:00] And what I can find here is

[1:39:02] that it's approximately 325 square feet.

[1:39:05] It does say that it did have a basement.

[1:39:08] Visually the image that that's

[1:39:10] provided appears to be a single story.

[1:39:13] The grades do slope in the rear of the lot.

[1:39:16] Not sure if that had changed anything on the back,

[1:39:18] but it looks like it was a single story.

[1:39:21] Approximately 323 square feet.

[1:39:28] All's up Mr. Trip. That's it for now.

[1:39:31] Could I have you re repeat that square footage,

[1:39:35] that last sentence Mrs. O Owen?

[1:39:38] Yes. It is listed here

[1:39:40] as 323 square feet with a basement

[1:39:46] and it appears to be a single story.

[1:39:50] The Okay. Original garage in question.

[1:39:54] Okay, very good. All right. Anything else ma'am?

[1:39:58] No. All right. We'll let you rest.

[1:40:00] There's a gentleman in the back who's really

[1:40:01] anxious to speak to us.

[1:40:03] We'll we'll consider him under anybody opposed

[1:40:07] to this application?

[1:40:09] Sir, you can come on up.

[1:40:21] Good evening your name?

[1:40:23] My name is Richard Magoon. Okay, Mr.

[1:40:26] I live at 19 Highland Ave. All right.

[1:40:28] And I grew up in 21 Highland Ave. Okay.

[1:40:33] It was my mom's house. Okay.

[1:40:37] And I can answer some of the questions if

[1:40:39] you have some questions

[1:40:40] By, well if you'd like to add anything to what was said.

[1:40:44] Well I would like to add that it was never a two

[1:40:47] family D dwelling.

[1:40:50] The two bubbles because that's for electric heat.

[1:40:54] My house has two bubbles on it. Okay. Okay.

[1:40:59] I'm sorry. Not electric heat, but electric cot water.

[1:41:02] Got it. Yep. Okay. Yep.

[1:41:05] Which was typical. Huh.

[1:41:06] Which was typical of back in the eighties. Right, right.

[1:41:10] And that wasn't a, a kitchen if you will,

[1:41:15] that was a storage shed.

[1:41:17] Okay. Now where the

[1:41:23] garage was my stepfather years ago.

[1:41:26] In fact in 1971 he built an office out there.

[1:41:32] Okay. Okay. And his name was Fred Piper

[1:41:35] and he was also the building inspector for many years.

[1:41:38] Okay. Okay.

[1:41:42] But it was never a two family dwelling

[1:41:45] and it was never two bathrooms in it.

[1:41:49] Okay. I grew up there

[1:41:50] and there was 10 of us in that one in

[1:41:53] that house with one bathroom.

[1:41:55] Okay. Okay.

[1:41:56] So makes you wonder how we functioned. Right. Yeah.

[1:41:58] So, but basically that's all I have to add.

[1:42:03] I would like to see a conceptional drawing of the property

[1:42:08] and what's gonna be there.

[1:42:10] Okay. The gentleman is saying that it's a 30

[1:42:15] by 30 and I'd like to see how far back is, you know,

[1:42:19] that's going on attached to the original house

[1:42:22] to get an idea of what that's gonna take up on

[1:42:25] that piece of property. You

[1:42:28] Yep.

[1:42:29] I'm not saying I'm against it or for it,

[1:42:32] but I just wanted to have some of these things looked at.

[1:42:36] Yep. Okay.

[1:42:38] Okay. Alright. Appreciate the

[1:42:40] History.

[1:42:41] Any question, thank any for me, that's all I have. Mr.

[1:42:42] Magoo.

[1:42:44] I Appreciate the history. Okay. Thank you sir. Okay.

[1:42:51] All right. Anybody else in opposition to this application?

[1:42:56] Seeing no one gentlemen come back up and rebut,

[1:43:09] tell me your

[1:43:13] opportunity to address the

[1:43:14] Sure.

[1:43:16] So as we stated, it wasn't a garage as Mr.

[1:43:20] Magoon had said that it wasn't a grudge.

[1:43:24] You know, I don't know if there was a bathroom

[1:43:26] there, he states there wasn't.

[1:43:27] So there wasn't a bathroom there.

[1:43:29] I'd be more than willing to put conceptual plans together of

[1:43:33] what I potentially would propose

[1:43:37] how it would sit on the lot,

[1:43:41] produce a parking plan based on, you know,

[1:43:46] what we need to do for parking or propose to do for parking.

[1:43:50] You know, there is a curb cut out in front.

[1:43:53] So you know, we've never seen a paved driveway there.

[1:43:56] It was grass and as the neighborhood stated

[1:43:59] that was, that's a fact.

[1:44:03] You know, I don't know what the exact square footage of

[1:44:06] that rear area is.

[1:44:09] You know, the wall is still intact

[1:44:11] 'cause it was the wall on the back of the house.

[1:44:13] Right. The majority of the foundation's still intact

[1:44:17] other than the footing on the outer walls.

[1:44:20] I think we heard 323 square

[1:44:22] feet, Ms. Owen, is that correct?

[1:44:23] Correct.

[1:44:25] Right. Me you're looking at 323 and,

[1:44:28] and I will tell you that just I,

[1:44:30] I typically don't look at elevations.

[1:44:33] It's not that we don't do it.

[1:44:38] You know, sometimes there's some considerations if there's

[1:44:40] objections and it's certainly up

[1:44:42] to each individual board member if

[1:44:44] that's what they'd like to see.

[1:44:46] But this is a sizeable increase, 30 by 30.

[1:44:49] Especially if it's going up two stories,

[1:44:52] that's a sizable increase. We're

[1:44:53] Willing to reduce that.

[1:44:54] I mean if that, you know.

[1:44:57] Okay. Any follow up from any

[1:45:02] of the board members on this? No gestures there.

[1:45:06] And we, and we did apply as part

[1:45:08] of it was a frontage variation variance was part of our,

[1:45:15] You were looking for frontage,

[1:45:16] Vari.

[1:45:17] I mean we knew that we only had the 74 feet,

[1:45:19] the roughly 74 feet of the hundred.

[1:45:21] So we knew that was a was a concern.

[1:45:23] Yeah. Is that on your application for frontage? Yeah,

[1:45:26] It's in the letter but it wasn't on I see

[1:45:28] what we're ruling on.

[1:45:29] Right. It says that we're just ruling on the unit.

[1:45:33] Yeah, it's not on the legal agenda

[1:45:36] I think because it's not, if I had to guess

[1:45:38] 'cause it's not increasing or decreasing

[1:45:39] and it's already preexisting, non-conforming.

[1:45:42] Right. Alright. Yeah we did note it in our letter.

[1:45:48] Anything else you want to address the board with

[1:45:51] At this point?

[1:45:52] No, thank you. Appreciate it.

[1:45:54] Alright, before we endeavor into

[1:46:01] deliberation,

[1:46:07] the board members have any other criteria

[1:46:09] or questions for code enforcement before we move?

[1:46:14] No. Okay. That being said,

[1:46:17] take a motion, go into deliberation.

[1:46:19] So Second,

[1:46:21] Mr.

[1:46:22] Trip has the call, Mr.

[1:46:25] Corbet, sorry, has the second on that.

[1:46:29] All in favor of deliberation, say aye a

[1:46:31] Aye.

[1:46:33] Anybody wish to lead

[1:46:34] off Mr.

[1:46:39] Dietzel? Not yet.

[1:46:46] You presented some questions and concerns.

[1:46:49] Yeah, I'm really hung up on the fifth criteria

[1:46:53] and I think, I think

[1:46:55] that flows into the other, other criteria.

[1:47:02] I don't see any special

[1:47:09] circumstances, circumstances

[1:47:10] of this property which would make it,

[1:47:13] which would render it reasonable.

[1:47:15] There aren't any special conditions

[1:47:18] and there aren't any special conditions which would prevent

[1:47:21] him from building a one family

[1:47:25] or something that does comply with the ordinance.

[1:47:30] And so that flows into the first, the the first four.

[1:47:34] I don't, I don't think it's in the, the public interest

[1:47:37] to make this, this neighborhood more thickly settled

[1:47:40] for all the reasons that, that the abutter

[1:47:45] outlined in her, her her letter.

[1:47:52] I understand that, that the historic nature of the, the this

[1:47:56] neighborhood is thickly settled.

[1:47:59] But that's one of the reasons that we, that we

[1:48:01] implemented the ordinances.

[1:48:03] We wanted to provide a little bit of relief.

[1:48:07] Substantial justice.

[1:48:08] Yeah, I can see that there is a benefit

[1:48:14] that there is a benefit to the applicant

[1:48:18] but I think it's outweighed by the, the, the harm done

[1:48:21] by the, to the neighborhood.

[1:48:24] I just don't think it's a, a good fit

[1:48:26] for another multifamily.

[1:48:30] So I think it fails all five criteria.

[1:48:33] Okay. Ms. Moore, any thoughts?

[1:48:35] So I tried to search like high

[1:48:38] and low to find a way to see that it was previously

[1:48:43] to multifamily

[1:48:45] because I agree that it didn't hit the hard,

[1:48:48] it didn't check off the hardship box.

[1:48:51] And unfortunately the statue doesn't include an owner making

[1:48:56] the most profit on a parcel of land

[1:48:59] that doesn't make it so it can't be used.

[1:49:04] So I see that as what it was before

[1:49:07] and what it's always been, it can be reasonably used

[1:49:11] As it in its current single family condition.

[1:49:14] Yes. Okay. Mr. Trip?

[1:49:17] Well I agree with Ms. Morin this,

[1:49:22] it's a stretch to contemplate this being a

[1:49:27] two family lot.

[1:49:31] Now the, there's,

[1:49:36] this is not the only thing that's wrong with this lot,

[1:49:39] you know, even though it's a existing non-conforming,

[1:49:43] I think making it more, more non-conforming is, is not a,

[1:49:48] a path we should be treading on.

[1:49:50] Very good Mr. Corvett,

[1:49:53] I don't mean this at all disrespectfully,

[1:49:55] but one of the few times I find myself in a complete

[1:49:58] agreement with both Mr.

[1:49:59] Dietal and Mr. Trip. I think with their points

[1:50:02] that they, they they nailed it.

[1:50:05] I don't see, I don't see the hardship.

[1:50:07] I do think it, it kind

[1:50:08] of goes directly against the spirit of the ordinance.

[1:50:11] You know, especially the history

[1:50:12] provided for the other multifamily houses in this area.

[1:50:15] They're all over a hundred years old.

[1:50:16] Obviously with this, you know, a change to the zoning

[1:50:19] to prevent some this type of overcrowding.

[1:50:22] You know, perhaps if we were looking at this property

[1:50:24] and it was a house that was burnt down, you know,

[1:50:27] in an effort to you know, try to get the value back.

[1:50:31] The only thing that worked was a two family

[1:50:33] but we have an existing single family house

[1:50:35] and now we're just adding another house to the property.

[1:50:38] I just, I don't see it.

[1:50:41] Yeah, the undersized lot issue is for

[1:50:46] to create a second

[1:50:49] and larger nonconforming issue where it doesn't seem

[1:50:54] as though that it's locked

[1:50:55] that this is what was there before.

[1:50:58] Seems like a stretch to myself as well.

[1:51:05] Other than that, let's get in dive into

[1:51:10] structuring a motion as the board always

[1:51:12] structures in the affirmative subject

[1:51:15] to obtain obtaining all state

[1:51:17] and town permits and inspections.

[1:51:21] I also would add for a planning board review, would

[1:51:25] that be appropriate here Mrs. Owen?

[1:51:27] Or how would you have that if this were to prevail,

[1:51:30] how would a planning board review on this work?

[1:51:35] Is it something we could voluntarily ask them to take care

[1:51:40] of and look at this, it may be redundant

[1:51:42] but, or

[1:51:45] TRCI trying

[1:51:49] to find the avenue to push in that direction

[1:51:52] where two family is a is a permitted use and it's,

[1:51:55] and it's for the lot area

[1:51:59] but based on the size of the lot, I'm sure that

[1:52:02] that could be the reason to push

[1:52:04] For a site plan.

[1:52:05] Alright, I'm just, I'm gonna, I'm gonna state that

[1:52:06] as a second condition to this.

[1:52:09] I think I already know the road here, but you wanna say

[1:52:12] Like site Plan review to something like that?

[1:52:15] Well I would just say planning board

[1:52:17] review, I'm fine with that.

[1:52:18] Okay. But like I said, I think it's already kind of,

[1:52:21] we know where this is going.

[1:52:24] Any other conditions board would want on

[1:52:26] this in structured affirm?

[1:52:28] No, I think you covered them.

[1:52:29] Very good. All in favor of coming I deliberation say aye.

[1:52:33] Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Very good.

[1:52:36] Mr. Moore, you have a motion to read?

[1:52:38] I do. Thank you. I make a motion on case number two

[1:52:44] zero to grant a variance to the terms of article six,

[1:52:49] section 1 65 4 5 B one

[1:52:55] A II of the town of dairy zoning ordinance

[1:52:59] to per permit a two family dwelling on a lot with less than

[1:53:05] the minimum required lot area per a dwelling unit

[1:53:10] parcel id 2 6 2 4 0

[1:53:14] zoned MHDR as presented with the following conditions.

[1:53:19] We have two one subject

[1:53:22] to obtaining El Satan town permits and inspections.

[1:53:26] Two planning board review.

[1:53:28] And that concludes the reading of the motion.

[1:53:31] I need a second.

[1:53:32] Second. Thank you Mr. Trip seconds. Mrs.

[1:53:35] Morin's motion We have finding of fact

[1:53:42] Yes finding a fact for case 26 dash one 30

[1:53:46] heard September 17th, 2026 the ZBA heard the application

[1:53:49] of Robert Burge

[1:53:50] concerning the property located at 21 Highland Ave.

[1:53:53] Parcel ID 2 6 2 4 0 notice was

[1:53:57] provided to the immediate abutters per statute.

[1:53:59] The board received testimony from the applicant,

[1:54:02] town staff abutters and members of the public.

[1:54:05] The applicant is requesting a variance to the terms

[1:54:07] of Article six, section 1 65 45

[1:54:11] B one a II of the town of dairy zoning ordinance

[1:54:14] to permit a two family dwelling on a lot

[1:54:17] with less than the minimum required lot

[1:54:19] area per dwelling unit.

[1:54:21] The property is located in the medium high density

[1:54:23] residential zoning district, which allows a construction

[1:54:26] of a two family dwelling within a required lot area

[1:54:29] of 10,000 square feet per dwelling unit

[1:54:31] or 20,000 square feet for two family dwelling.

[1:54:34] The property in question contains approximately 11,325

[1:54:38] square feet where 20,000 square feet is required.

[1:54:42] The property is serviced by municipal water and sewer

[1:54:45] and the board weigh testimony both

[1:54:47] for and against the proposal.

[1:54:49] Before I dive into the five criteria,

[1:54:51] does anybody have any additions or addendums to make?

[1:54:55] See no gestures there. Alright,

[1:54:59] Let's go through the vote

[1:55:02] and we, we will work through finding a fact along with it.

[1:55:06] Mr. Dietzel, how are you on public interest

[1:55:11] Now?

[1:55:12] I acknowledge that the need for additional housing

[1:55:15] and that is a benefit,

[1:55:16] but I think on balance it's contrary

[1:55:19] to the public interest in that we're trying

[1:55:22] to move away in this particular zone from

[1:55:26] overly dense

[1:55:30] living patterns.

[1:55:31] So I I I do not think overall it is in the,

[1:55:35] in best interest.

[1:55:37] Very good. Mr. Corbet?

[1:55:40] I do not think that it is beneficial

[1:55:43] to the public interest.

[1:55:49] I really don't see how allowing, really just taking a,

[1:55:55] a non-conforming law and making it more non-conforming

[1:55:58] is in the best interest of the

[1:55:59] public. I it's just that Frank.

[1:56:00] Okay. Very good. Mrs. Owen, Mrs. Moore,

[1:56:06] I agree.

[1:56:07] I feel that needing

[1:56:10] or wanting more housing isn't, it shouldn't supersede

[1:56:15] the safety of others.

[1:56:18] Very good. Mr. Trip,

[1:56:23] The, this is one of those things where

[1:56:26] this is quite an ask to say that, you know,

[1:56:32] 10,000 square feet is what's required for a single family.

[1:56:37] And you're saying that 11,000 for 2000

[1:56:42] for a two-family dwelling is, is acceptable

[1:56:47] And I just don't, I just don't see that.

[1:56:49] Alright. And the chair on public interest, I don't see

[1:56:52] where in refuting of the,

[1:56:56] of the applicant's commentary,

[1:56:59] I I don't see the public interest when it's overcrowding

[1:57:03] or creating increased density on a small

[1:57:07] lot spirit of the ordinance.

[1:57:09] Mr. Dietzel?

[1:57:11] Well, the spirit of the ordinance I

[1:57:13] think in this case is clear.

[1:57:14] The ordinance is written to

[1:57:16] reduce density in this particular zone.

[1:57:19] And a a two family on such an undersized lot is,

[1:57:22] is certainly contrary to the, to the, the ordinance.

[1:57:26] Okay. Keeping density in check Mr. Corbett.

[1:57:31] Yeah, I agree. I think it's direct violation

[1:57:34] or the spirit of the ordinance.

[1:57:36] I think that it was intended

[1:57:37] to reduce the overwhelming volume.

[1:57:41] Mrs. Moore. I agree it's non-conforming so

[1:57:46] it's already going against the spirit of the ordinance.

[1:57:49] I I can't see making it more

[1:57:51] Very good Mr. Trip.

[1:57:54] The, it's definitely not

[1:57:58] in congruence with the spirit of the ordinance

[1:58:01] because, you know, the, if it was

[1:58:07] 19,000 square feet in the lot, that would be something

[1:58:12] that I would find much more acceptable than

[1:58:16] a lot being simply 11,000 square feet.

[1:58:21] Yeah, I would, I would vote no on this,

[1:58:23] on the spear of the ordinance.

[1:58:25] 'cause it, the intention is to keep the, the

[1:58:29] density down.

[1:58:31] Substantial justice Mr. Dietzel.

[1:58:36] Well that flows from the first two, I see harm done

[1:58:39] to the neighborhood and that it's increasing density by

[1:58:43] putting a a two family on an undersized lot

[1:58:46] and certainly there would be a benefit to the applicant,

[1:58:50] but I think it's outweighed by the,

[1:58:52] by the harm done to the neighborhood.

[1:58:54] Mr. Trip, I mean Yeah, go ahead Mr. Trip. What

[1:58:57] Mr. Deso said.

[1:58:58] Okay, Mr. Dietzel got it. Okay, Mr.

[1:59:02] Corbit, sorry to jump around on it. It's

[1:59:04] All right.

[1:59:05] Yeah, I agree. I don't think

[1:59:05] that substantial justice would be, would only be served

[1:59:08] by allowing the additional house to be built.

[1:59:10] I think that the justice works

[1:59:12] as the property's currently constructed and used.

[1:59:15] Very good. Thank you Mrs. Morin,

[1:59:18] Their substantial justice had a bunch of assumptions in it

[1:59:22] and we have learned what it, you know,

[1:59:25] the extra power meter is and whatnot.

[1:59:28] So I agree with everything

[1:59:30] that was previously stated as well

[1:59:35] In this regard.

[1:59:36] Despite the fact that there are the other issues

[1:59:40] that I'm opposed to, the substantial justice

[1:59:44] was somewhat fair here,

[1:59:45] but I will, on that regard, I would've affirmed

[1:59:51] going against the other decisions that I had.

[1:59:54] Values of surrounding properties are diminished. Mr.

[1:59:58] Dietzel,

[2:00:00] The burden is on the applicant to prove

[2:00:03] that it would not be diminished and they haven't

[2:00:07] provided any evidence one way or the other.

[2:00:09] And I have no real estate experience,

[2:00:13] so I I I just don't think that that the burden

[2:00:15] of proof has been, has been met.

[2:00:17] So I don't think that criterion was met either.

[2:00:20] Mr. Corbet, I think the cleanup efforts at the property

[2:00:22] have already increased the property value.

[2:00:24] However, I think that the overcrowding

[2:00:28] that this would create would negate that.

[2:00:32] Okay. Mr. Mrs. Moore? I'm sorry. That's

[2:00:36] Okay.

[2:00:37] Mr. Dietzel worded it perfectly.

[2:00:39] I as well don't have any real estate experience.

[2:00:42] So that would be on the applicant to prove

[2:00:46] and I just don't see

[2:00:50] Mr.

[2:00:51] Trip

[2:00:52] The,

[2:00:59] the addition of a 9,000 square

[2:01:02] feet attached building.

[2:01:08] I don't see where it would either enhance

[2:01:11] or diminish

[2:01:13] the surrounding property.

[2:01:17] So you're a no on the di diminuation of value? Yep.

[2:01:21] Alright. And the chair is no on that as well.

[2:01:24] Little literal enforcement creates unnecessary hardship.

[2:01:29] We are in section A or B. Mr. Dietzel,

[2:01:36] I believe the application fails.

[2:01:39] A, there's there's no special condition

[2:01:42] that distinguishes it from the other property which would

[2:01:45] make this reasonable.

[2:01:47] And if we, if we do,

[2:01:48] even though he didn't address it in the application,

[2:01:51] if we go to B, there's nothing in the, the,

[2:01:56] the nature of the, the property which would prevent him from

[2:02:02] complying by building a single family home or,

[2:02:04] or another conforming structure.

[2:02:07] Okay, so five is not met

[2:02:09] Reasonable versus excessive.

[2:02:12] Correct. Okay, very good.

[2:02:14] You feel that this would be excessive

[2:02:17] and no hardship exists.

[2:02:20] Mr. Corbett? I

[2:02:21] Agree the property works as constructed today.

[2:02:23] The single family house working on the single family lot,

[2:02:26] I don't think we need to go further into

[2:02:28] more non-conforming status.

[2:02:29] Very good. Mrs. Morin, I also believe it's excessive.

[2:02:34] Very good. Mr. Tripp?

[2:02:38] The, he has a perfectly reasonable use

[2:02:43] being the single family residence

[2:02:47] attempting to get a double dual family

[2:02:50] residence is excessive.

[2:02:53] The chair would say that the,

[2:02:55] that the request is excessive based on lot size

[2:02:59] and the na, the

[2:03:03] the other factors under sections.

[2:03:08] Public interest and spear of the ordinance.

[2:03:12] We have gone through the finding of fact points.

[2:03:15] All in favor of moving this for a vote. Say aye. Aye. Aye.

[2:03:18] Any opposed? Mr. Corbet?

[2:03:20] I vote no

[2:03:21] for the reasons listed during the finding of fact.

[2:03:23] I don't feel that this meets any of the five criteria.

[2:03:25] Very good. Mrs. Mor chair,

[2:03:27] I also vote no for the reasons stated

[2:03:30] during the finding of fact.

[2:03:32] Mr. Trip I vote no

[2:03:34] for the reasons stated in the finding effect.

[2:03:37] Mr. Dietzel? No.

[2:03:40] All right gentlemen, I I vote no as well.

[2:03:43] So that's a unanimous opposition to you.

[2:03:46] We've cleared the record.

[2:03:48] Obviously if you're agreed by this, you have 30 days

[2:03:51] to ask this board for reconsideration on points made and

[2:03:55] after that recourse would be superior court.

[2:03:57] Alright, sorry for your failure here.

[2:04:02] Wish you good luck. Appreciate your time.

[2:04:03] Thank you. Thank you for your time.

[2:04:06] I'm going to call for a brief recess for three

[2:04:10] to four minutes, so we will recess Mr.

[2:04:14] Preventer. I'll be right back folks.

[2:04:19] Go use the

[2:11:17] Very good.

[2:11:18] Thank you Mr. Proventure.

[2:11:18] All right, we've called the applicant up

[2:11:20] or they have voluntarily come up on their own.

[2:11:24] 26 dash 1 31 Applicant is Denali Building and Development.

[2:11:31] COR. What is C-O-R-C-C?

[2:11:34] Corporate I see miss the P.

[2:11:37] Alright, corporation Lynn,

[2:11:40] the owner is the Lerner family revocable trust.

[2:11:46] And gentlemen, we ask that you read your application,

[2:11:50] the five criteria and then we will hit you

[2:11:52] with the questions and you'll have opportunity

[2:11:54] to put things into your own words.

[2:11:57] Just a note I wrote, I read, read a disclosure

[2:12:03] for the public earlier limiting

[2:12:06] and expressing who would be able the guidelines for

[2:12:09] who will be able to speak on this matter.

[2:12:12] And that was a public awareness commentary.

[2:12:16] Other than that, you are free

[2:12:17] to start your presentation sir.

[2:12:20] Good evening. My name is Ben French.

[2:12:23] I'm an associate attorney at

[2:12:24] Gallagher Callahan and Gartrell.

[2:12:25] We're up in Concord, New Hampshire.

[2:12:27] Naturally we represent Denali Building

[2:12:29] and Development for 19 Chester Road.

[2:12:31] So with me tonight is Dan ot.

[2:12:35] He's the principal for Denali Building

[2:12:37] along with Doug Brodo.

[2:12:39] He is the individual

[2:12:40] who drafted our conceptual design plans.

[2:12:42] He's from Meridian Land Services.

[2:12:46] I'll be as efficient as possible.

[2:12:47] I do just have a couple notes at the outset

[2:12:49] before I get to the criteria.

[2:12:51] Just some context and background

[2:12:52] to help the board a little bit.

[2:12:54] So this existed in parcel, how

[2:12:56] Long will you be on that?

[2:12:57] Very brief. Okay.

[2:12:59] So it's, you know, we're talking about 11.38 acres,

[2:13:02] size acres in size, 9.3 acres of a buildable lot.

[2:13:06] We're in the medium density residential district, which

[2:13:11] doesn't allow for multifamily dwelling units.

[2:13:13] Am I coming through clearly on the microphone?

[2:13:16] Okay, Mr. Pava, you good there? Yes sir. Thank you sir.

[2:13:22] So naturally we're talking about a use variance to allow

[2:13:24] for multifamily dwelling.

[2:13:26] So this project is proposing a six building

[2:13:29] 156 unit development.

[2:13:31] I note that at the outset

[2:13:32] because what we're putting forward

[2:13:34] to the board is probably the highest density we could

[2:13:37] calculate and that's for the purposes of

[2:13:40] this board being able to consider all the criteria

[2:13:43] and understanding that at the planning stage

[2:13:45] and site review stage the density would potentially change

[2:13:50] or go down, but so

[2:13:52] that we can fully consider everything we wanted

[2:13:54] to put forward what we believe one matches the density

[2:13:57] of projects in the area.

[2:13:59] And two, just allows the board to fully consider everything.

[2:14:04] So for purposes of variance criteria for public interest,

[2:14:07] we believe it's not contrary to the public interest here

[2:14:11] as it won't interfere with the ordinances overall purpose

[2:14:13] of protecting the general safety

[2:14:14] and welfare to prevent overcrowding

[2:14:17] or have an undue concentration in population

[2:14:20] while maintaining the character of the neighborhood

[2:14:21] and encouraging the appropriate use of this land.

[2:14:26] And again, at the planning stage, when we move,

[2:14:29] if we do move forward at that stage, all

[2:14:32] of those things come into consideration.

[2:14:34] Safety, welfare, and given the size of this parcel,

[2:14:37] we don't believe this would be overcrowding

[2:14:40] and in general helps to address the housing shortage

[2:14:44] on a large parcel that could handle the capacity

[2:14:46] of occupancy that we propose for purposes

[2:14:50] of the spirit of the ordinance.

[2:14:52] This factor relates to public interest again,

[2:14:54] so I'll try not to be repetitive,

[2:14:56] but we would be looking at

[2:14:58] how the ordinance ensures compatible

[2:15:00] and harmonious uses here.

[2:15:02] And we don't believe that this would be incompatible

[2:15:05] or lack harmony with some of the surrounding parcels.

[2:15:08] We have the Benjamin Chase Mill in the area,

[2:15:11] the Highland Estates, the condo development.

[2:15:14] There are several other condominium developments

[2:15:17] with multifamily housing

[2:15:19] and there's also the rehabilitation center nearby.

[2:15:23] So we're not talking about a, you know,

[2:15:26] cul-de-sac neighborhood that we're proposing a

[2:15:30] many unit development in their existing similar

[2:15:34] projects in the area.

[2:15:35] So this would be within the character

[2:15:37] of the overall neighborhood

[2:15:39] and this district already allows for similar uses with

[2:15:43] somewhat similar density, which would include potential

[2:15:47] campgrounds or manufactured housing developments

[2:15:51] for substantial justice.

[2:15:53] The guiding factor here is that any loss

[2:15:55] to the individual must be outweighed by gain

[2:15:57] to the general public in denying the variance.

[2:16:00] As previously stated, this serves the general need

[2:16:03] for additional housing while comporting with other concerns

[2:16:06] that the ordinance seeks to address.

[2:16:09] And in addition, permitting the use also avoids the parcel

[2:16:12] being used as permitted, albeit inconsistent

[2:16:16] with surrounding uses.

[2:16:18] Like I just said, a campground in this area would be

[2:16:20] completely incongruent with what's going on.

[2:16:23] In addition, a manufactured housing park would be very

[2:16:26] inconsistent with surrounding uses For purposes

[2:16:31] of the property values, we believe there's a lack

[2:16:35] of evidence to, to suggest

[2:16:37] that we would have a negative impact here.

[2:16:39] As part of the packet we submitted the letter from John

[2:16:42] Maci, a real estate agent in the area

[2:16:45] who said there wouldn't be an adverse effect for purposes

[2:16:48] of this criteria, though you may also consider first

[2:16:52] the fact that we're not gonna be changing the character

[2:16:55] of the neighborhood And we would mitigate

[2:17:00] some general concerns

[2:17:01] and talk about the fact that the development is gonna have

[2:17:04] significant setback off of the roadway as part

[2:17:07] of the plans you have before you.

[2:17:09] For purposes of the directly abutting parcel,

[2:17:12] the developer intends on putting in a six foot berm

[2:17:15] with a six foot high fence on top of that.

[2:17:18] And if necessary, at the planning stage, if,

[2:17:20] or even if it were preferential, is proposing

[2:17:23] to put an additional evergreen

[2:17:25] and vegetation buffer, the buildings would be in line

[2:17:30] with the local aesthetic.

[2:17:32] It'll be new construction, aesthetically pleasing.

[2:17:37] And again, with some of the mitigating factors,

[2:17:40] we believe the impact for purposes of water runoff, all

[2:17:43] of those things would be later

[2:17:45] addressed for the hardship.

[2:17:50] Owing the special conditions of this property

[2:17:52] that distinguish it from other properties in the area,

[2:17:55] a denial we believe would create an unnecessary hardship.

[2:17:58] First, the subject parcel has access to Chester Road,

[2:18:01] which is route 1 0 2, which is a significant roadway.

[2:18:05] It's also significantly larger than many

[2:18:07] of the abutting parcels, which are properly limited

[2:18:10] to their single family uses

[2:18:12] and would not be able to serve the proposed density

[2:18:14] of this project because they would be undersized for it.

[2:18:18] The restriction on this parcel would also prohibit an

[2:18:22] otherwise reasonable form of housing,

[2:18:24] which is consistent again with the character

[2:18:26] of the neighborhood and again, is

[2:18:31] more likely and better serving than other permitted uses in

[2:18:34] this district, like the campground

[2:18:36] and manufactured housing park.

[2:18:39] This parcel's also large enough to allow

[2:18:41] for this multifamily use,

[2:18:44] even at its most heightened proposed use

[2:18:47] while observing the minimum setbacks applicable

[2:18:50] and all the other requirements for a single family use.

[2:18:54] Lastly, the use is reasonable for many

[2:18:56] of the reasons I previously discussed regarding character

[2:18:59] of the neighborhood negatively,

[2:19:02] we don't believe it would negatively impact the other zoning

[2:19:05] goals in the town and would

[2:19:07] otherwise help to address the housing shortage.

[2:19:10] I'm happy to take any questions the board has.

[2:19:15] Anybody wish to start off with any questions?

[2:19:21] So it feels excessive just right off the bat.

[2:19:24] You know, as I'm looking at it, we've got 156 units

[2:19:28] presented in a way that you're expecting to reduce it later

[2:19:32] so it doesn't feel a hundred percent ironed out.

[2:19:34] But in addition to that, we also have a frontage requirement

[2:19:38] that we're gonna need a variance for.

[2:19:39] So we're now gonna be coming before with 156 units,

[2:19:42] two different variances.

[2:19:44] Why can't we split up this 11 acres

[2:19:46] to a few different single family homes that would fit

[2:19:49] rather than multiple.

[2:19:52] But this last one, MR. Prevention rather than

[2:19:54] multiple variances for this.

[2:19:57] Yeah, so understood.

[2:19:59] I'd want to hit on the frontage point first.

[2:20:01] 'cause I think the idea there needed

[2:20:02] to be a second variance.

[2:20:04] We would respectfully disagree on this is a pre-existing

[2:20:09] what would be a non-conforming lot,

[2:20:11] but that area is gonna serve the larger development

[2:20:15] and it wouldn't require a variance.

[2:20:16] 'cause we're not subdividing at this point.

[2:20:19] So that would be our position on that.

[2:20:21] If the board disagrees

[2:20:22] and there would be an administrative decision

[2:20:23] of the contrary, we can, we can talk more about that.

[2:20:26] Perfectly fine with that. It

[2:20:29] Was presented to us that it would require

[2:20:31] one for the frontage as well.

[2:20:33] Sorry, That it requires a

[2:20:34] variance for the frontage as well

[2:20:36] Was presented in our application

[2:20:37] or was presented during our

[2:20:39] Review.

[2:20:41] Okay. So was the board making an

[2:20:43] administrative decision on that point? I guess I

[2:20:44] Can defer to code enforcement, Mrs. Owen.

[2:20:48] I did reference that I, that my staff memo,

[2:20:54] in addition to a variance for the proposed use,

[2:20:56] a variance is required for the insufficient,

[2:20:57] insufficient frontage as a minimum of 125 feet

[2:21:01] of frontage is required on a public street in MDR district.

[2:21:05] So I, I think one of the points there is would,

[2:21:08] and the applicant address this, are you defining this

[2:21:11] or your intentions are

[2:21:13] to make this a street going into this property

[2:21:16] That would be a driveway serving the,

[2:21:18] the units we're not subdividing here.

[2:21:21] Well that's, that's not the point then

[2:21:23] because Mrs. Owen and I think Mr.

[2:21:25] Corbet both make a significant point,

[2:21:27] which if you're not making

[2:21:29] that a public road going into this versus an extended

[2:21:32] driveway, you are severely undersized on the frontage.

[2:21:36] Okay. The point is well taken.

[2:21:37] If that's the board's decision,

[2:21:39] then naturally we know the ordinary course we would have

[2:21:41] to come back before you, which, so we would just ask

[2:21:45] that the board address this application on

[2:21:50] Second that We have before you tonight on

[2:21:51] Folks I announced to have your cell phone shut off,

[2:21:54] please shut your cell phones off

[2:21:56] or any other gadgets that will create a distraction

[2:21:59] or you may exit the room.

[2:22:01] Please proceed.

[2:22:05] Thank you. As I was stating, we will,

[2:22:07] we will follow the ordinary course of the board requires us

[2:22:09] to, and if we could receive either the staff memorandum

[2:22:14] or just something in writing on the administrative decision

[2:22:16] on that point, we would appreciate it.

[2:22:18] Do you have a technical review plan on this yet?

[2:22:22] No, at the outset, again,

[2:22:24] because we are seeking a use variance,

[2:22:27] this conceptual drawing that we have is the current plan.

[2:22:31] Once we saw some of the requirements

[2:22:33] for the zoning application itself, for that,

[2:22:35] if we had plans available to give the board context,

[2:22:38] we had them drawn up.

[2:22:40] We have not, I'm I'm assuming you're referring

[2:22:43] to a technical review by the planning board?

[2:22:46] No, Ms. Oland, you want to jump in on that

[2:22:48] where the technical review would come in on this?

[2:22:51] I don't know. And,

[2:22:53] and how this is coming to us prior to,

[2:22:58] to anything like that.

[2:23:00] I mean, you're obviously kind of caught off guard

[2:23:03] by the fact that you could end up having a

[2:23:05] frontage requirement here.

[2:23:07] So I'm, there's a lot of things going on here.

[2:23:10] I'm just looking for clarity.

[2:23:12] You chime in Ms. Soman if you'd like.

[2:23:13] Technical review committee is, is part

[2:23:15] of the internal review process

[2:23:16] with the planning board application.

[2:23:18] Okay. We have not received any application at this time.

[2:23:21] There's no applications pending oftentimes for, for asks

[2:23:26] of this or projects of this scale.

[2:23:27] We may have concept discussions early on with the applicant.

[2:23:31] I don't believe any of that has happened. Okay. So,

[2:23:34] Alright.

[2:23:35] So you haven't had any concept

[2:23:36] conversations with any of the staff?

[2:23:38] We have not, yeah. And I would

[2:23:42] say caught off guard is different than we fundamentally

[2:23:44] disagree with that position, but that is the normal course

[2:23:48] and the process that we'll take it as it goes

[2:23:49] and we'll work with this board on that.

[2:23:51] Okay. And I, I don't know that I addressed both

[2:23:53] of your questions, Mr.

[2:23:55] Corbett. I, I think we got to the frontage issue

[2:23:59] and if you could remind me of your second question,

[2:24:01] Why we need really, why to go not just

[2:24:04] for the multifamily,

[2:24:06] but such an excessive number whereas, you know, one,

[2:24:11] a single family would work but potentially options,

[2:24:14] other options with the property rather than just, you know,

[2:24:17] the most units that could be possibly fit in.

[2:24:22] Yeah. So understood on that point, like I said, kind

[2:24:25] of at the outset was that this is the amount

[2:24:27] of density we believed we could do with the use, understand,

[2:24:31] so that the board can fully consider what we're doing.

[2:24:35] It could stay the same, it could go down at planning stage,

[2:24:38] but this is at least the position

[2:24:40] that this property owner would like to take it.

[2:24:42] And I understand the idea of doing something different

[2:24:47] or subdividing,

[2:24:48] but with what this owner is proposing, this is what,

[2:24:52] what they see as as their good views.

[2:24:54] Well, I guess that's part of my question. It doesn't sound

[2:24:55] like that's what he's proposing.

[2:24:57] What's been brought to us is this is the most

[2:24:59] that can possibly fit,

[2:25:00] but we're not quite sure what we can do yet.

[2:25:02] So I guess that I, I guess my question is, are you aware of

[2:25:07] how excessive of an ask this is to be coming in off the bat

[2:25:11] with 156 units?

[2:25:14] I think we're aware

[2:25:15] that it's the density we believe was within line

[2:25:19] with other projects in the area,

[2:25:21] specifically the abutting hillside estate.

[2:25:23] That's how we calculated our density in the first instance

[2:25:26] and that's how many units we came with.

[2:25:28] And that is what we are proposing tonight.

[2:25:30] I I wanna be clear that's what the application said.

[2:25:32] I think the purpose of what I wanted to make clear is that

[2:25:35] with concerns about safety welfare,

[2:25:39] those can be addressed at a planning stage.

[2:25:42] If they say, well we don't think this is feasible.

[2:25:45] So what I was using that for is to say for general welfare

[2:25:48] and safety concerns, those would be addressed.

[2:25:51] We do believe we could do this at the proposed density,

[2:25:56] albeit if you disagree, that is your position.

[2:25:59] Yeah, I think, I think I do

[2:26:04] Ms.

[2:26:05] Ms. Moore,

[2:26:06] My first question is, you compare it to

[2:26:11] single family or manufactured housing or campgrounds.

[2:26:16] One the manufactured housing has, they're single

[2:26:20] and they have a frontage requirement

[2:26:23] and campgrounds have some pretty strict rules.

[2:26:26] How do you see the similarities? Because I can't see them.

[2:26:30] So what I, I wasn't comparing it to those uses.

[2:26:32] What I was saying is

[2:26:33] that under the ordinance we can't do a multifamily use like

[2:26:37] this, albeit it would be more consistent with the character

[2:26:40] of the neighborhood as opposed to a campground

[2:26:43] or a manufactured housing development,

[2:26:47] which we could do by Right.

[2:26:48] Well you can't do the manufactured housing,

[2:26:51] you don't have the frontage.

[2:26:53] If they did manufactured housing, they would have to go

[2:26:56] through alternative routes

[2:26:57] to wanna address the frontage issue

[2:26:59] and two, establish either roadways or culverts in there.

[2:27:02] Okay. I guess I'll step in for Ms. Moore

[2:27:05] and I think we're having a tough time is you're saying

[2:27:07] you're stating permitted uses that aren't permitted though

[2:27:11] and it's, it just keeps coming up with Well,

[2:27:14] that's a fundamental disagreement

[2:27:15] or at least that's my view on it,

[2:27:17] but that's just a statement I guess

[2:27:22] I, i is are campgrounds

[2:27:24] and manufactured parks an approved use in this zone?

[2:27:28] This zone? Yeah, I have it. It

[2:27:29] Is okay.

[2:27:30] They are, yes. Alright. So it's, I guess why you're

[2:27:32] referencing this as an alternative. Am I correct?

[2:27:36] I'm referencing, I'm referencing them

[2:27:38] as permitted uses in this district

[2:27:40] that are inconsistent with the neighborhood.

[2:27:42] I see. And if that makes sense. Right.

[2:27:44] We're proposing a use that's more consistent

[2:27:46] with the character of the neighborhood, albeit

[2:27:48] that's why we're here for a variance

[2:27:50] because it is not permitted under what's listed.

[2:27:53] You're looking at the image

[2:27:54] of the radius within this a half mile of this

[2:27:57] and you're seeing what you are seeing more as

[2:28:02] a dominant use such as the hillside estates.

[2:28:06] And you're defining that, that aspect as reasonable

[2:28:10] to this Correct?

[2:28:12] I'm saying yes. I'm saying

[2:28:13] what we're proposing is more in line with those close units

[2:28:18] or the hillside of states.

[2:28:19] There's the,

[2:28:21] The radius.

[2:28:23] Yes. Within the radius there's also the Benjamin Chase

[2:28:26] mill and there's other uses in buildings

[2:28:28] that are closer in line

[2:28:30] with a multifamily apartment style living as opposed

[2:28:34] to those two uses that I listed. Okay. I

[2:28:36] Have a question regarding that.

[2:28:37] This is Moore. So regarding the spirit of the ordinance,

[2:28:41] hillside was built in 1972

[2:28:44] and about 10 years later is when the ordinance changed.

[2:28:48] So it's been changed for 44 years.

[2:28:51] So how I don't comparing the two together,

[2:28:54] they're not the same but are the same.

[2:28:56] I I do understand that distinction.

[2:28:58] Hillside does predate the enactment of

[2:29:01] what would be this district.

[2:29:02] So it is already an allowed use

[2:29:04] because it predates the ordinance.

[2:29:06] There is also, again, the Benjamin Chase mill,

[2:29:09] which I would represent

[2:29:10] to the board was established in 2002, which was would be

[2:29:13] after the MDR district.

[2:29:15] While I did search to the extent I could

[2:29:18] to find their variance application

[2:29:20] or meeting minutes, it predates what's

[2:29:22] available on the internet.

[2:29:24] It might be available in person, but

[2:29:25] Do you know how many units are at that one?

[2:29:27] I believe it's 36 units. That's

[2:29:30] Different.

[2:29:31] Which Different? I'm not gonna

[2:29:31] math, but they're different.

[2:29:34] Don't Ask lawyers to do math,

[2:29:35] but I do agree that that is different.

[2:29:37] Okay. Understanding

[2:29:40] that Benjamin Chase Mill is utilizing

[2:29:43] and is an existing structure.

[2:29:44] Right. And and this is significantly

[2:29:47] different. Go ahead.

[2:29:50] Correct. This would be a new development,

[2:29:51] but that's an existing structure with

[2:29:53] what would've been a non-conforming use at the time.

[2:29:57] Okay. I, I've jumbled around,

[2:29:59] I think I may have interrupted Mr.

[2:30:00] Corbitt or Mr. Moore, so I'm going to step back.

[2:30:04] You all set Mr. Moore?

[2:30:05] I am for right now. Mr. Corbitt?

[2:30:07] Yeah, I interrupted her. That's all right. Mr. D Dietzel.

[2:30:10] I'm set. Mr. Chair, Mr. Tripp,

[2:30:17] I too find it fairly amazing that you're asking

[2:30:20] for a 156 units that

[2:30:34] All set Mr. Trip?

[2:30:35] I for now I am,

[2:30:37] Yes.

[2:30:38] Okay. Gesturing any of the alternates?

[2:30:40] I'm all set, Sir. All right, Mr. Bumba all set.

[2:30:44] I find, you know, I,

[2:30:45] and I'm kind of perplexed on the reasonable use,

[2:30:49] it's a basis for which this board operates and,

[2:30:52] and I'm in kind of carrying Mrs.

[2:30:56] Morin's comments to the reasonable use

[2:31:02] and I don't know what the density of, of this,

[2:31:05] if there were a manufactured mobile home park

[2:31:11] or manufactured housing development would be,

[2:31:15] but I'm thinking that the density would even be less than,

[2:31:19] you know, once you went through planning and,

[2:31:21] and some technical discussions with town staff, you know,

[2:31:26] I probably can imagine that there'd be a diminishment

[2:31:29] of this footprint might be all of 10 units

[2:31:33] if this board were to approve this application.

[2:31:38] But even decreasing this

[2:31:39] by 10 units is significantly larger than the density

[2:31:43] that would be for the approved use

[2:31:47] manufactured homes or, or a standard regular development.

[2:31:52] Correct?

[2:31:55] Sorry, did you end that with a,

[2:31:56] with a question? I did apologize.

[2:31:57] Okay. It was very good.

[2:31:59] I I I wouldn't disagree with you there.

[2:32:01] And if the, the point is well taken

[2:32:04] and if I were to just come back to the, the salient point

[2:32:09] of this application is a, is a use variance

[2:32:12] allowing a multifamily on this lot.

[2:32:15] Albeit if this board has conditions

[2:32:19] that they would like us to meet or has disagreement

[2:32:22] or input on what would be the appropriate amount of units,

[2:32:26] we would be open to that discussion as it comes again,

[2:32:30] what we presented to you as a proposal with

[2:32:32] what we believe is the, what would be the maximum density

[2:32:35] that in our position we feel as reasonable.

[2:32:38] Albeit, I understand that there's disagreement,

[2:32:40] the points are are very well taken.

[2:32:42] Yeah. So it's not unusual for the board

[2:32:44] to place requirements as a matter of conditions of approval.

[2:32:50] However, being on this board as long as I have,

[2:32:55] we've also always had some significant, some solid

[2:33:01] plans that have been presented, not speculative

[2:33:04] of we're gonna go shoot for the moon

[2:33:06] and then see if the zoning board curbs it down

[2:33:09] because the, the zoning board is not designed

[2:33:12] to look at the aspects of snow removal, snow storage,

[2:33:17] dumpsters, curbs, flow, water flow, impervious services,

[2:33:22] how sewer and water are going to be done.

[2:33:24] That's not our purview.

[2:33:25] And so it almost is premature for us

[2:33:28] to delve into that for you.

[2:33:30] Other plans of this size that have come

[2:33:33] before this board typically are, are, are

[2:33:36] exactly laid out when they are looking for that relief.

[2:33:41] I don't think that I want to go out on a limb

[2:33:43] and start telling you where you need to go

[2:33:45] and what you need to do with this in order

[2:33:49] for us to pass it.

[2:33:51] I think that's premature in, in this

[2:33:53] situation especially whereas the frontage requirement comes

[2:33:57] into such a large question.

[2:34:00] I, I do under understand that

[2:34:01] and what I wanna make clear is that the application that's

[2:34:04] before you is on its face

[2:34:06] what we're putting forward to this board.

[2:34:08] Okay. I'm not necessarily looking for you to tell us

[2:34:12] how many units would be appropriate.

[2:34:14] And what we're looking for again,

[2:34:15] is, is what we put forward.

[2:34:16] I this is not a, a non concrete, a non concrete application.

[2:34:21] It does have obviously our conceptual plans in there,

[2:34:24] but I don't think it's insufficient for this board

[2:34:26] to rule on what we've put before it.

[2:34:29] And for purposes of the reason why it's

[2:34:32] before you in this fashion is

[2:34:33] because again, at its very essence,

[2:34:35] this first needs the use variance at a stage one

[2:34:39] to expend funds

[2:34:41] and the requirement to go through all of

[2:34:42] that engineering process

[2:34:44] and having someone drop extensive plans

[2:34:46] and then go through a planning process

[2:34:48] and come back to the board would be an immense,

[2:34:52] an immense potential.

[2:34:54] I don't want to call it a waste, it wouldn't be a waste,

[2:34:56] but it would, it would be of significant cost.

[2:34:58] Albeit again, I understood

[2:35:00] and your, your point's well taken. But

[2:35:02] To that same point, you say it's a use variance,

[2:35:04] which means we're just voting on, you know,

[2:35:06] it could be a three family house would be a

[2:35:08] multi-family housing development.

[2:35:10] So to say that we're just voting on a use variance,

[2:35:13] but to have the conceptuality of 156 units, that's,

[2:35:19] it's kind of, you're talking outta no, no disrespect,

[2:35:21] but you're talking outta both sides of your mouth with that

[2:35:24] it ha is it just for a multi-family or is it for 156 units?

[2:35:29] I I do feel this pretty vague. So

[2:35:33] I will clarify.

[2:35:34] It is absolutely an application for the use variance

[2:35:36] for multifamily for 156 units and six buildings.

[2:35:39] That is the application that's

[2:35:41] before you if the characterization

[2:35:42] or if the character of the project changes in the future,

[2:35:45] it could be a different application

[2:35:46] before you, I do just wanna make that clear

[2:35:49] and I, the point of proposing the 156 units at

[2:35:53] that density was so that we don't come to the ZBA

[2:35:56] and say we would like a multifamily use

[2:35:59] and you say, okay, go ahead.

[2:36:01] You can have multifamily and then we, sorry to

[2:36:03] Interrupt, but if I have to play devil's advocate to

[2:36:04] that exact point that you don't want to come

[2:36:06] before us twice, but if I approve 1 56

[2:36:09] and then the planning board shoots that down,

[2:36:10] you have to come back before me.

[2:36:11] So why not just come here with one ironed out number?

[2:36:15] That is the ironed out number.

[2:36:17] I I, I feel I'm,

[2:36:18] I'm leaving a little bit to be desired there.

[2:36:20] That's the ironed out number that we have

[2:36:22] before you right now what I'm, what I'm saying

[2:36:24] and just if I could finish that point quickly,

[2:36:28] what I'm saying is we did not want to come

[2:36:29] before this board simply saying we want

[2:36:31] to do a multi-family use, which we could have

[2:36:34] and then went forward on planning.

[2:36:36] They see our plan and say, well,

[2:36:37] the ZBA couldn't have adequately decided on all the criteria

[2:36:41] because they weren't considering 156 units

[2:36:44] when they made their decision.

[2:36:45] So that is the application that is before you. Alright,

[2:36:48] So you essentially want to test the board

[2:36:50] and see if you can get the use approved

[2:36:53] and then you'll go forward after that.

[2:36:55] It's not unusual for someone to try and put the ZBA

[2:36:59] before the planning board

[2:37:00] because of the, the greater expense to the,

[2:37:04] through the planning process.

[2:37:05] Is that about what we're hearing?

[2:37:07] I wouldn't call it a, a test of the board so much

[2:37:09] as we are, this is what we're proposing is Yeah,

[2:37:12] I don't mean multifamily in this fashion.

[2:37:14] I I don't mean it in that way, but you want us

[2:37:15] to make a decision whether

[2:37:16] or not you can have this approved use.

[2:37:19] You understand the frictions that you're starting to see,

[2:37:21] but you want us to proceed with this?

[2:37:23] That's correct. Okay. We would like you to proceed

[2:37:25] and I do understand that we have many members

[2:37:27] of the community that are gonna come before you and speak

[2:37:31] and I don't believe you'd be able to get to everybody

[2:37:34] and I hope people understand we would consent

[2:37:36] to a continuance so that everyone can be heard

[2:37:39] and are happy to come back before this board.

[2:37:41] Alright, well we made the board disclosure beforehand

[2:37:44] and I can see that the clock is running on Mr.

[2:37:47] Corby. You all set to proceed.

[2:37:48] Alright, let me just get back to the criteria of this lot.

[2:37:53] Is there a, this is a downhill grade going down to the,

[2:37:57] the footprint of this as I is, am I correct in there?

[2:38:01] I would need to look

[2:38:02] and see if we have a topographical plan

[2:38:04] for you. I I couldn't

[2:38:05] Speak to that.

[2:38:06] Page two meridian submits.

[2:38:07] It looks like you have gradient lines there for slope

[2:38:10] and I just, I just wanna verify that

[2:38:14] that's in fact what I'm seeing.

[2:38:16] Perhaps your client can speak to

[2:38:18] That, that would likely be a good question for Mr.

[2:38:20] Braddo who drew up the plans.

[2:38:22] Okay. Mr. Braddo are, you are from Meridian? Yes. Okay.

[2:38:26] Would you like to have a seat and gentlemen? Mr. Prevention?

[2:38:31] Do we have that other mic as work? Mr. Ur?

[2:38:33] You're welcome to use that other mic. Mic. Okay, go ahead,

[2:38:37] Doug Broder Road, Meridian Land Services for the record?

[2:38:41] Yeah, the gray does go down off the fronting street towards,

[2:38:46] into the property and then it's, it does grade back up.

[2:38:49] There are some rolling hills

[2:38:51] So it goes downhill, flattens out and comes back up.

[2:38:55] Yeah. All right. In generality,

[2:38:57] How far off is it?

[2:38:58] There's was the swamp

[2:39:00] or the runoff from Beaver Lake there is that, is that

[2:39:04] How far off?

[2:39:05] I guess I don't understand.

[2:39:06] It's down there somewhere.

[2:39:07] I, I know that Beaver Brook starts or

[2:39:10] Originates if, if you look at the plan on the plan, right?

[2:39:14] Yep. You can see there's a thick line

[2:39:16] that's effectively the edge of the waterfront.

[2:39:18] Okay. It, it's kind of the back water area beaver pond.

[2:39:22] I wouldn't characterize it as I believe it. Chief

[2:39:25] Siento would, would disagree with you.

[2:39:27] Okay. About whether it's a pond or not.

[2:39:29] Well, it, it seems more like swampy to me, but I wouldn't

[2:39:33] Consider this, this end of it. Yes.

[2:39:35] Yeah. The other end. I agree. Yes, that's open water.

[2:39:39] Okay. It's kind of, but like a

[2:39:40] canal they built at some point.

[2:39:42] Okay. And there is a dam immediately to the cell,

[2:39:45] to the property, which is still owned by the Benjamin Chase.

[2:39:49] Chase Mill. Mill. Yep.

[2:39:51] And I believe it, it it's channelized

[2:39:53] and at some point it goes into a pen stalk

[2:39:55] that I believe still goes under the mill

[2:39:58] in a pipe fashion at

[2:39:59] Some point. It does. Yep.

[2:40:00] I, I don't know the specifics of it,

[2:40:02] it's just from what I understand. Sure.

[2:40:04] Okay. Any questions for Mr.

[2:40:07] Ura or the engineer from the board?

[2:40:11] No, thank you Mr. Trip.

[2:40:15] So are there any wetlands on the property?

[2:40:20] I mean, obviously the pond to the south is a wetland

[2:40:24] that's part of the back frontage of the property,

[2:40:27] if you will, or fronts on that water.

[2:40:28] There's also a wetland on the eastern side,

[2:40:32] which you can see, which is less than one acre.

[2:40:34] So it doesn't, I don't believe it requires your buffer

[2:40:38] requirements at that point from a wetland. But,

[2:40:41] So I guess the, the, the real question would be

[2:40:44] in the area that you have the plan

[2:40:46] that you wanna put the 156 units,

[2:40:49] is there any wetland in there?

[2:40:50] There's no wetlands where the physical buildings are,

[2:40:53] but again, if you look on the plan, right,

[2:40:55] I don't have the plan up in front of me.

[2:40:57] There's a wetland that the parking lot's very close to

[2:40:59] that it would appear, would be impacted.

[2:41:03] Alright. We need a,

[2:41:06] It appears that one of the buildings right on

[2:41:08] the wetland setback,

[2:41:09] Right?

[2:41:10] Yeah. Oh, on the setback. Yeah.

[2:41:12] I, I think what you're looking at is the shoreland

[2:41:15] setback at the state level.

[2:41:17] Building B your markup says 75 foot wetland building

[2:41:21] setback on concept A

[2:41:26] I don't have money,

[2:41:35] Unfortunately this concept A was

[2:41:38] shouldn't have been submitted.

[2:41:39] This was based off the town GIS data prior

[2:41:43] to us having an actual survey done.

[2:41:45] So the page,

[2:41:50] did we actually submit this?

[2:41:55] The, the, the second, the second page is

[2:41:58] what the concept plan is based on the actual survey data

[2:42:01] and delineated wetlands.

[2:42:04] So I think there was a bit of a mix up in what was submitted

[2:42:07] To disregard the initial concept A

[2:42:10] Yes, please.

[2:42:11] Although the next one is concept A as well

[2:42:14] because it was revised to fit to the actual site data,

[2:42:22] which in all fairness, I was actually traveling when

[2:42:25] that plan was put together

[2:42:26] and another associate of mine put together

[2:42:29] Or advisor.

[2:42:30] Oh, we understand that, that the intentions here

[2:42:33] to see if the use can be approved by this board or not.

[2:42:36] So correct it the exactness we under, I've understood that,

[2:42:39] that there's some variable here that, that

[2:42:44] if this board were to approve, I think you realize

[2:42:47] that you're starting to run into some other issues

[2:42:49] that you would have to go through in order to get to

[2:42:52] that final point through

[2:42:53] This board.

[2:42:54] Oh yeah, certainly. I mean the planning process is gonna

[2:42:56] require a fair amount on the local side,

[2:42:59] but also, I mean there's quite an extensive list

[2:43:03] of state permits that'll be necessary as well.

[2:43:05] Okay. You know, including an alteration of terrain permit,

[2:43:08] a wetlands permit, a shoreline protection permit, as well as

[2:43:13] I think Chester Road in

[2:43:14] that area is still under state jurisdiction.

[2:43:17] I don't believe it's part of urban compact.

[2:43:18] So it would need a driveway permit from DOT.

[2:43:21] Yep. Okay. Mr. Corbin? I'm sorry.

[2:43:24] Yep. No other questions. Alright, very good.

[2:43:25] Everybody else all set? Mr. Trip?

[2:43:28] If, if I may just in terms of the density,

[2:43:31] I guess I would characterize it as the application is up

[2:43:34] to 156 units, potentially

[2:43:37] Up to 160 units, 156 I is what we correct.

[2:43:42] That's correct. Yeah.

[2:43:44] Okay. So I mean, if it did reduce, I know Mr.

[2:43:46] Corbitt, you know, mentioned earlier that well,

[2:43:49] if you only get 130 approved, you'll have to come back

[2:43:52] to the CBA and my experience.

[2:43:54] That hasn't typically been the normal course,

[2:43:57] but I guess just to clarify on that, it would be up to 156.

[2:44:01] Right? So if there were less units later that were approved,

[2:44:04] we wouldn't have to come back in front of the ZBA

[2:44:07] to have you approve a lower use or density.

[2:44:10] But again, we're not asking for a a a density this evening,

[2:44:13] it's exactly the use

[2:44:16] To me it's a reasonable use versus an excessive one.

[2:44:18] So to come up and ask for the most

[2:44:20] Excessive, I mean, I guess the question I would ask is if

[2:44:22] you could define what excessive means that would be

[2:44:25] The burden of the applicant, unfortunately.

[2:44:27] Sure. Anything else Mr.

[2:44:32] Du?

[2:44:33] Not unless you have other questions, members.

[2:44:35] Not that I, not that I can think of right now.

[2:44:38] I have one for the Attorney. Feel free.

[2:44:41] You state put Mr. Er is fine. Go ahead Ms. Moore.

[2:44:46] Thank you. Can you tell me what your,

[2:44:49] the loss your applicant would have by following in the MDR

[2:44:54] by putting whatever the say,

[2:44:58] nine single family homes instead of this apartment building?

[2:45:03] Sorry, can you repeat the beginning of your question?

[2:45:05] I heard the second half, but not the first.

[2:45:07] So what loss would your applicant have if they were

[2:45:12] to follow the MDR rules?

[2:45:16] You mean if, if they went through

[2:45:17] with a subdivision process

[2:45:20] Or put Well, I wrote, I thought of it

[2:45:24] before the frontage issue.

[2:45:25] So if the frontage issue wasn't there, what type

[2:45:29] of loss would they have if they weren't able

[2:45:32] to do the apartments?

[2:45:35] Yeah, I think, I think again, that sort of gets

[2:45:37] to the substantial justice point that I raised about sort

[2:45:41] of, it it can comport with all of the other concerns,

[2:45:45] albeit yes, it would be less units

[2:45:48] or less livable spaces on the property.

[2:45:52] I don't know that I clearly answered your question there. So

[2:45:55] I'm trying to understand.

[2:45:57] I think more for hardship as well,

[2:46:01] the financial loss your applicant would have if it was

[2:46:04] denied compared to if they had fall, if they followed

[2:46:10] The MDR ordinance Right.

[2:46:14] There would be a significant difference in the amount

[2:46:17] that this property would be valued at with that many unit

[2:46:20] with 156 units versus one house.

[2:46:23] If, if that makes sense.

[2:46:25] I think what, what we got at for purposes of hardship was

[2:46:28] that with the way this property is situated

[2:46:31] and the, the manner, the size of the parcel

[2:46:33] and the density, it could handle

[2:46:35] that given those special conditions that there's not a fair

[2:46:39] and substantial relationship between excluding multifamily

[2:46:41] and this district for what this parcel is.

[2:46:46] Okay. All set? Yep. Okay. All

[2:46:49] Right.

[2:46:50] If there are no other questions, just very briefly,

[2:46:52] my understanding was that there were a couple of letters

[2:46:56] and some other things submitted by members

[2:46:57] of the public to the board.

[2:46:59] If I could potentially get copies of those

[2:47:01] or if someone will be emailing them,

[2:47:03] it would be greatly appreciated.

[2:47:05] But we haven't, we haven't finished the meeting yet.

[2:47:08] Understood. But just so we can adequately respond

[2:47:11] to concerns when we do have rebuttal.

[2:47:13] 'cause from what I understand, there was a letter earlier

[2:47:15] that wasn't read aloud.

[2:47:17] I understand it was a longer letter,

[2:47:19] but if there are things like that we

[2:47:21] Would appreciate that, that that abutter came

[2:47:23] and gave her statement.

[2:47:24] So we don't, we don't conceal files.

[2:47:28] So the fi any files of written testimony can be

[2:47:32] provided to you either through the minutes or documents

[2:47:35] provided into the file itself. Yep.

[2:47:39] Understood. We just wanted to make sure we're able to

[2:47:41] rebut any other points that are made,

[2:47:43] albeit I believe it will be at the next meeting.

[2:47:47] All right, Mrs.

[2:47:50] All you wanna give us a staff run down here?

[2:47:52] Yes. Thank you. As we've heard,

[2:47:55] the applicant is requesting of a use variance

[2:47:57] to allow the construction of or,

[2:47:59] or to allow the construction

[2:48:00] of a six building 156 unit multifamily housing development.

[2:48:04] On the parcel, the property is located in the medium density

[2:48:07] residential zoning district.

[2:48:09] Multifamily is not a permitted use,

[2:48:11] therefore the variance is required to permit the use.

[2:48:14] This is an existing vacant lot of record dating back

[2:48:17] to earlier than 1900, containing approximately 11.38 acres

[2:48:22] with approximately 57.8 feet of frontage.

[2:48:27] In addition to the variance for the proposed use,

[2:48:30] I believe a variance is required

[2:48:31] for the insufficient frontage as a minimum of 125 feet

[2:48:35] of frontage is required in the MDR district,

[2:48:39] the rear portion of the property slopes down

[2:48:41] or slopes down to River Brook.

[2:48:43] This area is located within the 100 year floodplain

[2:48:46] and is also subject

[2:48:47] to the New Hampshire Shoreland Protection rules.

[2:48:49] Because a portion of the proposed work is located within the

[2:48:52] 250 foot 5,250 foot area,

[2:48:56] a state short land permit will be required

[2:48:59] and due to the proximity, the property's proximity

[2:49:01] to the 100 year floodplain,

[2:49:03] a flood elevation certificate would be required

[2:49:06] to ensure the property

[2:49:07] or the proposed dwelling units are elevated above,

[2:49:09] above the flood hazard area.

[2:49:13] The development is proposed to be serviced

[2:49:15] by municipal water and sewer if approved by the board.

[2:49:19] The project will be subject

[2:49:20] to full planning board site plan review if approved,

[2:49:23] appropriate permits and inspections will be required.

[2:49:27] And as the chair stated,

[2:49:28] we have received two letters in

[2:49:29] opposition included in the file.

[2:49:32] And thank you.

[2:49:37] And that wraps that up. Any other thoughts, Ms. Owen?

[2:49:42] No, thank you. I'm sorry.

[2:49:45] No, thank you. Okay.

[2:49:49] In the normal process is, has this process

[2:49:52] with this application been normal

[2:49:55] or is it, have, have they presented any,

[2:49:58] I you've indicated no concepts that come to you earlier

[2:50:03] prior to this submittal, am I correct?

[2:50:05] Correct. Alright.

[2:50:08] Any input from other town staff on this?

[2:50:14] More questions. Looking for clarification this evening.

[2:50:19] I'm, I believe people will be tuning in Okay.

[2:50:22] To understand more as well. Alright.

[2:50:25] Okay. Well, and I think as the attorney has, has suggested

[2:50:28] that, that this is kind of preliminary for them just

[2:50:32] to see if they can get the usage

[2:50:33] before they go through the expenditures

[2:50:36] of further creativity.

[2:50:38] Right. Management. Mr. Corbett,

[2:50:40] I have a question for the Applicant after Yes sir.

[2:50:43] Sorry. So 156 units is the number I keep kind

[2:50:46] of focusing on, but how many bedrooms per unit?

[2:50:52] So for, again, for that purpose, we,

[2:50:54] we don't have a concrete number.

[2:50:58] It would be, I can't really speak to that honestly,

[2:51:03] because that's not part of what we have planned.

[2:51:05] So I struggle to, to be able

[2:51:06] to give you a clear answer on that issue.

[2:51:09] Okay. I mean, the market conditions are currently such

[2:51:13] that two bedroom units are what people are seeking.

[2:51:17] It turns out economically, and I know this for a fact

[2:51:20] 'cause I've worked on it, three bedroom units don't work

[2:51:22] well because the cost to construct them versus,

[2:51:25] versus the rental cost is right.

[2:51:27] Excessive and one bedroom units are not desirable

[2:51:31] for a multitude of reasons.

[2:51:32] There's not many people that are single and

[2:51:35] or don't have children renting apartments.

[2:51:38] And I shouldn't say that's, that's not entirely true,

[2:51:41] but the rental rates are significantly lower

[2:51:43] for single bedroom. Just

[2:51:45] Thinking two, two bedrooms looking two, three people,

[2:51:48] just two bedrooms, two,

[2:51:49] three people we're just getting upwards

[2:51:51] of about is that almost

[2:51:53] The, the demographics were down to 500 people

[2:51:56] on multifamily?

[2:51:57] It's about 1.5 people per bedroom,

[2:52:00] But unfortunately I can't count a half a person.

[2:52:02] But yeah, probably round up well that,

[2:52:04] That would be three people per two bedroom unit

[2:52:06] On average.

[2:52:07] So three times 1 56.

[2:52:08] We're looking at what, 470

[2:52:11] people ish.

[2:52:16] I think in the regard Ms. Owen touched on in her

[2:52:19] or Mrs. Moore touched on in her question, which was leading

[2:52:23] to that reasonable

[2:52:24] or excessive question, the reasonable being

[2:52:29] looking at what's across the street,

[2:52:31] I guess at Hillside states, that this is similar in

[2:52:35] that neighborhood, but Mrs. Morin posed the question,

[2:52:39] what's the significant loss

[2:52:42] when you are using the reasonable calculation versus

[2:52:45] excessive to putting in

[2:52:48] what would be an approved use here, Mr.

[2:52:52] Corbett's calculation goes to what similar approvals

[2:52:57] since these ordinance changes have been, the multitude

[2:53:01] of those approvals in similar scope are have been studios

[2:53:05] or one bedrooms just for your information,

[2:53:08] you're using the calculus of what's in the community now

[2:53:13] asking us to solve the state's problem of,

[2:53:17] of affordable housing.

[2:53:19] But creating a dynamic that is creating,

[2:53:24] I think, a pretty significant impact when it's compared to

[2:53:27] what our most recent approvals have been.

[2:53:31] And that's the, that's the excess on the two bedrooms

[2:53:34] aspects versus the one

[2:53:36] or studios that have been more consistent

[2:53:40] with the board's approvals trying to satisfy that need

[2:53:43] of the workforce housing issue that the state has tried to

[2:53:50] overcome, which you're using is part of your reason

[2:53:54] for approval here, Mr. Morin?

[2:53:59] To add to what you said,

[2:54:02] assuming it's true on the internet,

[2:54:05] Benjamin Chase Mill is 55 plus as well.

[2:54:09] Okay. Anybody have any questions for code enforcement?

[2:54:15] Seeing no gestures there? Thank you. Chair. I

[2:54:16] Don't know if you wanna do extended time.

[2:54:18] It's 9 56.

[2:54:19] Very good. Let's go to 10 15. Please

[2:54:22] Make a motion to extend to 10 15.

[2:54:24] Very good. Second please. I'll second it.

[2:54:27] All right. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Very good.

[2:54:32] Thank you Mrs. Oland

[2:54:34] and gentlemen, you have anything else you wanna share

[2:54:37] with us before we go to public?

[2:54:39] No, sir. If you need the applicant's permission to

[2:54:42] continue, when you do decide to close out,

[2:54:45] we can give it now.

[2:54:46] If not, I can always come back up,

[2:54:48] but I've had some boards look for the applicant to consent

[2:54:52] to continue to the next zoning meeting.

[2:54:55] But we would obviously at this point, but ascent to that.

[2:54:58] Okay. Well, let me see how things shape up here. Okay.

[2:55:02] Absolutely. Thank you all for your time.

[2:55:03] At this point we'll make a request for public input

[2:55:08] that would be anybody in favor of this application.

[2:55:11] This would be your opportunity to come forward. Okay.

[2:55:21] Please keep in mind my public service announcement

[2:55:25] before this meeting started

[2:55:27] and that will be considered as we go forward.

[2:55:31] At this point, we'll take anybody who wishes

[2:55:34] to speak in opposition of this one at a time.

[2:55:42] Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.

[2:55:44] My name is Joel Rosen.

[2:55:46] I'm an attorney living at Fivefield Road on Beaver Lake.

[2:55:50] I represent the Beaver Lake Improvement Association.

[2:55:53] It's a New Hampshire nonprofit corporation

[2:55:56] and it represent it.

[2:55:58] The association includes more than a hundred property owners

[2:56:01] who are members and some of whom, all

[2:56:06] of whom reside on, most of whom reside on the lake close

[2:56:09] to the property and some of whom

[2:56:13] but the property. So, okay,

[2:56:16] So I'm gonna stop you there.

[2:56:18] Field Road is on the opposite side

[2:56:20] of Beaver Lake is Field Road

[2:56:21] Is.

[2:56:22] Yeah, it's on the opposite side.

[2:56:24] You have clients that are part of your association

[2:56:27] that are direct abutters

[2:56:29] Here. Direct Abutters, yes.

[2:56:30] Okay. And therefore you are representing those parties

[2:56:34] as well as others related

[2:56:37] Through the association.

[2:56:38] Very good. Any

[2:56:41] of the board have any conflict with Mr.

[2:56:45] Rosen's input?

[2:56:47] No, it makes sense that clientele would extend.

[2:56:49] Very good. Please proceed

[2:56:51] Mr. Rose.

[2:56:52] Okay, so I don't need to do any more understanding.

[2:56:58] The Association

[2:57:03] not only represents the interests of its members who,

[2:57:07] who own the 125 houses around Beaver Lake

[2:57:11] and observe that that is fewer than half of the houses.

[2:57:16] That, that this,

[2:57:18] that this project would more than double the number

[2:57:20] of residential units on Beaver Lake.

[2:57:24] But we not only represent them, but we also

[2:57:32] act in the, in the beneficial interests of members

[2:57:35] of the public who use Galen's Beach in the boat ramp.

[2:57:39] We oppose the project

[2:57:43] because Denali has not met its burden

[2:57:47] to demonstrate a hardship to show

[2:57:48] that the variance is not contrary to the public interest

[2:57:52] or it does satisfy any of the criteria.

[2:57:56] I'm not gonna, I I've submitted a letter. It is on record.

[2:58:01] It is on record. I'm not going to

[2:58:03] read the letter to you again.

[2:58:05] It's much too late for that.

[2:58:08] The fundamental thing I want to talk about though is

[2:58:11] that the variance would be contrary to the public interest.

[2:58:14] I think that's our strongest argument in the area that this

[2:58:19] this application absolutely fails.

[2:58:27] First of all, it would undermine watershed pro protections.

[2:58:32] The spirit of the single family zoning around Beaver Lake is

[2:58:35] to keep density low.

[2:58:37] Among other reasons. It's to protect,

[2:58:39] prevent massive storm water runoff and Lake Blooms.

[2:58:44] As you can see from the picture

[2:58:46] that's up on the screen right now, there is,

[2:58:50] I can't tell you, it looks like more than an acre

[2:58:52] of impervious surface that's just going

[2:58:55] to run right down into Beaver Brook

[2:58:58] and into the groundwater and into the lake.

[2:59:04] I also wanna observe that this is for a six

[2:59:08] application for six buildings containing 155 units.

[2:59:13] This looks to me like seven buildings containing 132 units.

[2:59:19] So it, it's a little confusing to look at this plan, given

[2:59:23] what they're asking for, in addition

[2:59:27] to undermining watershed protections, it would undermine the

[2:59:32] shoreland buffer as I think the,

[2:59:37] the members of the board have observed

[2:59:40] it would increase traffic.

[2:59:41] I'm looking at this plan, I can't count the number

[2:59:45] of parking spaces, but it looks like there are about

[2:59:47] 200 parking spaces.

[2:59:50] Adel, they don't even have enough frontage to build

[2:59:54] one house on this lot.

[2:59:56] Right? They could potentially ask for a variance,

[3:00:01] a frontage variance, which they haven't done, and,

[3:00:04] and build one house.

[3:00:05] But this is right in the place where

[3:00:10] the new exit four A is going to empty out.

[3:00:14] And if you put just these 200

[3:00:19] cars on Chester Road in the morning

[3:00:24] combined with and, and coming back on in the afternoon,

[3:00:28] combined with the other traffic coming off

[3:00:29] of the new exit four A,

[3:00:31] this is gonna be absolutely unworkable in a,

[3:00:34] on a two lane road.

[3:00:39] The, the growth management ordinance,

[3:00:41] I'm not sure if it applies literally to this project or not.

[3:00:44] I don't have an opinion on that,

[3:00:46] but the growth management ordinance

[3:00:50] expresses policies of the town, which I think that

[3:00:55] the board has to take into consideration when it considers

[3:00:57] whether or not this project is in the public interest.

[3:01:02] And one of the things that, the justification for this, the,

[3:01:06] the policy is justifying this ordinance say, is

[3:01:09] that dairy has done way more than its share of providing,

[3:01:15] providing housing compared

[3:01:19] to surrounding communities.

[3:01:22] And because of this, all of our public services

[3:01:27] are absolutely stressed.

[3:01:30] Transportation, water, sewers, schools, parks, recreation,

[3:01:33] drainage, and

[3:01:39] the as, as the, as the ordinance says,

[3:01:43] dairy has taxed itself to the very limit having one

[3:01:45] of the highest property tax rates

[3:01:47] in the state of New Hampshire.

[3:01:49] And it also says that dairy's made major arteries are at

[3:01:52] full capacity in most cases it's serve levels

[3:01:55] of service indicative of a failure condition.

[3:01:58] So this is, this project is not in the public interest.

[3:02:05] Also, I don't think that they have

[3:02:10] satisfied any of the conditions to show a hardship.

[3:02:16] I don't think there's any attempt to show that there's no

[3:02:21] relationship between the general purposes of the ordinance

[3:02:24] and the specific application of

[3:02:26] that provision of this property.

[3:02:28] If they want to, they can.

[3:02:30] I mean, if they could get a variance,

[3:02:32] maybe put a road in there, they could easily build.

[3:02:35] They, they say they have nine buildable acres.

[3:02:37] They could build nine homes.

[3:02:39] I mean, that's a perfectly useful use of the property.

[3:02:43] Frankly, since they're offering us a campground

[3:02:45] or this project, we'll take the campground.

[3:02:54] And they also can't say that the use is reasonable.

[3:02:56] And I don't think I have to take the board's time right now

[3:02:59] to, to explain why 150 units

[3:03:04] in a rural area is reasonable.

[3:03:07] There. As I said, there are 125 residences on the lake.

[3:03:12] They're all single family homes.

[3:03:14] There is not a multi-family home on the lake.

[3:03:17] And if you look at the, at the

[3:03:22] Google Maps picture that we saw

[3:03:24] before, you'll see that all around the lake.

[3:03:27] It's, it's rural, it's wooded.

[3:03:29] And that's, that's the character of the neighborhood.

[3:03:33] So they can't, they can't satisfy

[3:03:36] the section A criteria.

[3:03:39] And I don't think that they can satisfy any of the, any

[3:03:43] of the other criteria.

[3:03:46] They can't show that literal enforcement would create an

[3:03:48] unnecessary hardship because as I said, they can build

[3:03:52] nine houses on the property.

[3:03:53] If they can get a, a frontage variance

[3:03:56] and put a road in, perhaps it's

[3:04:00] manifestly contrary to the public interest.

[3:04:03] It's not consistent with the spirit of the zoning ordinance.

[3:04:05] It's the zoning ordinance is single family homes.

[3:04:08] That's the density that the town wants here.

[3:04:13] And it's not, if you, if you do the balancing test required

[3:04:17] by the question of substantial justice,

[3:04:20] I don't think there's any way that you can say

[3:04:22] that a massive profit to the developer.

[3:04:25] I in any way counterbalance is the interest of the public.

[3:04:29] And as far as the, whether the variance would diminish

[3:04:33] surrounding property values, I mean, that's their burden.

[3:04:36] And they haven't said a word about it.

[3:04:42] And I think really with my letter, I think I can,

[3:04:45] I can just rest on that.

[3:04:47] But I'm here to answer your questions.

[3:04:51] Mr. Corbert. Yeah. So Attorney Rosen, one

[3:04:53] item I wanna stop halfway through.

[3:04:54] You notice I did change the image for you up top.

[3:04:57] I that was a good catch for you.

[3:04:58] Notice the seven I questioned that page

[3:05:00] before that page was incorrectly inserted.

[3:05:02] They noted they were rescinding that one.

[3:05:04] So the, what's up now with the six buildings?

[3:05:07] It does show the 1 56. That's what we were told to Okay.

[3:05:09] Consider for this evening. So I just wanted to clarify.

[3:05:12] Okay. That one between the seven and the six. Thank

[3:05:14] You.

[3:05:15] I like the other one better. Anything else?

[3:05:20] Attorney Rosa? No, no. I'm, I'm here for your questions.

[3:05:23] If you have no questions, I will seat the,

[3:05:26] I do have one question.

[3:05:27] Mr. De, Mr. Chair. Mr. Rosen, I, I'm looking for it.

[3:05:32] I have a, an ocean of papers here,

[3:05:34] but I believe that they did submit a letter from a realtor

[3:05:42] with the opinion that it would not reduce

[3:05:45] surrounding property values.

[3:05:47] Is that something that you don't

[3:05:49] I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

[3:05:50] Oh, I'm sorry. They did provide a letter from

[3:05:55] re max giving the opinion that it would not

[3:06:00] reduce surrounding property values.

[3:06:02] I haven't seen it. I apologize.

[3:06:04] Haven't seen it. So, but it is your opinion that,

[3:06:08] Well, it's my opinion that it will destroy the surrounding

[3:06:11] property values because living on a lake,

[3:06:14] this is a rural place.

[3:06:15] If you, I I'm sure you've all been to Galen's Beach,

[3:06:18] I'm sure you've all been on the lake in boats fishing

[3:06:20] or, or kayaking.

[3:06:22] And you look, you look around the lake

[3:06:24] and what you see is woods and, and, and small houses.

[3:06:29] And, and that's the value of living,

[3:06:31] living in this neighborhood.

[3:06:34] So I think I, not to mention

[3:06:39] the interest that we have in water quality,

[3:06:41] and we are very scrupulous.

[3:06:43] The BLIA on water quality, we test

[3:06:46] Beaver Lake in its tributary several times a year.

[3:06:49] We share our findings with the state.

[3:06:51] We have volunteer dive teams that go in and,

[3:06:56] and take up invasive plants.

[3:06:59] And we have made the lake free of milfoil.

[3:07:02] I mean, we really take care of the lake.

[3:07:03] And the, the, the threat

[3:07:05] of all this impervious surface dumping salt

[3:07:09] and fertilizer into the lake is just unsupportable.

[3:07:14] Okay. I just wanted to make it clear for the record

[3:07:16] that they did in fact address

[3:07:17] that. And I wanted to get your

[3:07:18] Opinion on that.

[3:07:19] And I apologize. I did not see that. Okay.

[3:07:20] Thank you Mr. Chair. Anybody else?

[3:07:22] Any questions for attorney Rosen? Very good, sir.

[3:07:26] We'll rest policies allow rebuttal for you

[3:07:29] and we're in compressed time now.

[3:07:31] So you're all set. You may I ask how many people here wish

[3:07:35] to speak in opposition?

[3:07:38] And you are all direct abutters to this parcel? Yes. Okay.

[3:07:42] All right. Well that will be our requirement.

[3:07:44] The next time this board comes together, we're going to,

[3:07:48] we're going to end the meeting at this time

[3:07:51] because we won't have time to hear all of you.

[3:07:56] October 1st. October 1st, gentlemen. October 1st.

[3:08:01] You good with that? Very good. All right.

[3:08:04] October 1st board.

[3:08:08] I need a motion to table this. I'll

[3:08:09] Make a motion to table this case

[3:08:11] until our next meeting on October 1st. Second.

[3:08:14] Second by Mr. Trip. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye.

[3:08:17] Any opposed? Hearing none.

[3:08:20] You direct your questions to the code enforcement. Okay.

[3:08:23] Either now or during the week.

[3:08:27] Wanna give it my turn? Let's go ahead

[3:08:32] Folks.

[3:08:33] If we, folks, if we may, we have to wrap up in five minutes.

[3:08:35] We just take your conversations outside.

[3:08:37] We just need it to be quiet for us to finish. Thank you.

[3:08:42] Hope you got A visitor. Ms. S,

[3:08:48] Please Don't even joke about

[3:08:51] That.

[3:08:52] Will you get,

[3:08:53] Just go away Please.

[3:08:56] It's nice to see you. Yeah. Yeah.

[3:08:59] You'd be taking us back to the considered old days.

[3:09:11] Folks, would you please leave this room

[3:09:13] so we can wrap up our business?

[3:09:15] Thank you. Take your conversations out back.

[3:09:22] Alright, Next step on the agenda.

[3:09:24] We have the correspondence.

[3:09:26] The town, the bimonthly town

[3:09:28] and city publication. Yeah, I've got it here for,

[3:09:30] I have it here for Mr. Trip.

[3:09:31] All right. Very good. On reserve.

[3:09:33] Next we have approval of minutes from 7 16 26.

[3:09:37] Were those amended? Mrs. Ms.

[3:09:40] Boudro? No.

[3:09:43] May I have a motion to accept the minutes from July 16th

[3:09:46] as presented please?

[3:09:48] I'll make that motion to accept the minutes from

[3:09:50] July 16th.

[3:09:51] Mr. Lauren has the motion. Second please. Second. Second.

[3:09:54] Mr. Dela second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye.

[3:09:58] Any opposed? Hearing none.

[3:10:00] Approval of the minutes for August 20th, 2026.

[3:10:04] Any amendments there Mrs. Boreux? No. I'll make

[3:10:08] That motion to accept as submitted.

[3:10:10] Thank you. Motion by Mr. Corbet. Second by,

[3:10:15] I'll second It.

[3:10:16] Mr. Moore? All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed?

[3:10:20] Hearing none.

[3:10:25] We have the minutes for September 3rd.

[3:10:29] Do you have any amendments there Ms. Boudreaux? No.

[3:10:32] Could I have an acceptance of those minutes

[3:10:35] as presented please?

[3:10:38] So moved. And I'll second it.

[3:10:42] All in favor of that say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you.

[3:10:46] Any none. Alright.

[3:10:48] So October 1st, we will follow up

[3:10:50] with the open up with this case. Any others?

[3:10:53] There are no new applications.

[3:10:55] Wow. What? Nothing. Wow. None.

[3:10:59] We almost got off. You guys

[3:11:01] would've extended this to midnight.

[3:11:03] Whoever shut the doors. All right,

[3:11:07] We go get them.

[3:11:08] I'll make, we're back. We're off on October.

[3:11:11] We haven't, I'll make a motion to adjourn.

[3:11:14] No, hold on one moment. There is a training second.

[3:11:16] Where was going there? Oh, we had a training next week

[3:11:19] On Friday.

[3:11:20] Oh yes, next

[3:11:21] Friday.

[3:11:22] So right now we have five members that have signed up.

[3:11:25] If anybody else is interested, please let us know

[3:11:28] by tomorrow so we can sign you up a week in advance.

[3:11:31] This is plan review. Am I correct? This

[3:11:34] Is the plan review? Yes.

[3:11:35] Very good. I signed up. Oh, good deal. That's nice.

[3:11:38] Owen, you going? I'll be this. Alright.

[3:11:40] It's going all good enough. Alright.

[3:11:42] Back to your motion. This is

[3:11:43] Warren.

[3:11:44] I make a motion to adjourn. I'll second the motion.

[3:11:47] Mr. Omba has a second adjournment.

[3:11:52] All in favor say aye. A. Any opposed hearing none.

[3:11:55] Were opposed. Have a good night everybody.

Zoning Board of Adjustments - 09/17/26

Transcript