[0:27] Thank you for tuning in to Exeter TV.

[0:31] Exeter TV is the town's public and government access channels available on Comcast.

[0:36] Channel six and 22.

[0:38] Channel six is your channel.

[0:40] If you have an idea for a program.

[0:42] Want to host your own talk show or submit a film.

[0:45] We're here to get your content on television on channel 22, we bring you

[0:50] live and replay coverage of government meetings and other town.

[0:54] Updates a third channel blue Hawk media is operated by SA U 16 and

[0:58] can be found on channel eight with all your school sports event.

[1:02] Events and meetings, you can watch Exeter TV.

[1:05] online@exeternh.tv.

[1:08] Apple TV and on Roku.

[1:10] Find us on social media for extra content.

[1:13] Subscribe to our YouTube channel and hit the bell to get notified about live

[1:17] streams and new content.

[1:19] Tune in to our platforms every other Friday to watch the Exeter biweekly report

[1:23] with recaps of recent events, updates from town departments.

[1:27] And messages from nonprofits in your area.

[1:30] If you head to our website, Exeter and h.tv.

[1:34] We invite you to sign up to our newsletter to receive monthly updates about

[1:37] new content.

[1:38] Upcoming meetings and more,

[1:40] we'd like to thank you for taking the time to watch Exeter TV.

[1:44] And hope that you tune into our other content as well.

[6:11] Good evening.

[6:13] And welcome to the Exeter zoning board of adjustment meeting for Tuesday, August 18th, 2026.

[6:20] Let me begin by introducing the members.

[6:23] Of the panel this evening.

[6:25] To my far left.

[6:26] I always start on the left.

[6:27] My far left alternate member, Adam Grant.

[6:31] No, it's not grant Adam.

[6:32] Grant's an author Carter.

[6:35] Adam Carter, Adam grants, an author.

[6:38] Get that from geez.

[6:40] Next next to him.

[6:41] Martha Penn, next to me, Laura Monchago to my meter.

[6:44] Wright Esser Olson Murphy.

[6:46] And to my far right John da Santo, my name's Bob Pryor.

[6:51] We have one item of new business this evening.

[6:54] And since there are six of us on the panel.

[6:57] We need to decide.

[6:59] Which of the three alternates.

[7:01] Alternates John

[7:02] Adam.

[7:04] Carter I'll get that name right correctly.

[7:05] And Martha.

[7:07] Will be voting on this.

[7:07] Does anyone have a, a preference for, or again, voting?

[7:12] Amongst the three alternates.

[7:14] Alternates.

[7:14] I just assumed step down if that's.

[7:17] That's agreeable.

[7:19] Well, you have to stay.

[7:21] No why?

[7:21] I know cuz you're giving me a ride.

[7:23] Yeah.

[7:23] Cause I'm a ride home.

[7:24] You're you're.

[7:26] Stuck to lie leave.

[7:27] So I, but I will.

[7:30] Okay, Adam and John will both be voted on this application this evening.

[7:34] Along with the three of us in the center.

[7:36] So,

[7:38] so the zoning board of adjustment we'll continue a public hearing on the application

[7:41] of Tinburg developers, LLC.

[7:43] The applicant seeks a vari.

[7:45] Variance and relief

[7:46] from one article 4.2 schedule one, which allows one family detached dwellings, and two

[7:52] from article five point.

[7:53] 5.3, which limits only one principle building on a lot subject property is located

[7:58] in the R two.

[7:59] Single family district tax BA parcel 63 dash 2 56.

[8:04] And this is EBA case 26 dash four.

[8:07] Good evening.

[8:08] Good evening,

[8:09] who will be joining us this evening?

[8:12] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, my name is Christian Smith engineer with Beals associates representing Berg

[8:17] properties.

[8:18] On this application

[8:20] attorney John Kucinich is with us here in the audience, as well as.

[8:25] Shauna Samis from *****.

[8:28] ***** and Alice, Alice.

[8:29] Alice.

[8:30] Hi, Alice.

[8:31] Alice, come on.

[8:32] Sorry.

[8:32] I'm from the Gulf group.

[8:35] So we did some after the June hearing.

[8:37] Obviously we did not make it to our case last month.

[8:40] But we did some data research and compiled a couple of spreadsheets, which I

[8:46] would just like to hand out copies.

[8:47] I think one of them.

[8:49] You did receive in

[8:51] attorney's most recent.

[8:53] Memo.

[8:54] Thank you very much.

[8:55] And my apologies.

[8:56] All good.

[8:57] .

[8:58] But this does have a location map, which just kind of keys in the

[9:02] properties.

[9:03] To that spreadsheet.

[9:04] And then I just have another one that compares the existing condition to the

[9:09] proposed condition.

[9:10] Along with both the requirements for setbacks, lot size, frontage, et cetera.

[9:15] In both to see one of the R two zones.

[9:17] Thank you, Christian.

[9:18] You have a copy for.

[9:20] Town as well.

[9:20] Absolutely.

[9:21] Thanks.

[9:21] Thank you.

[9:26] I just think this will, my conversation will make a lot more sense with

[9:29] uhoh these you're.

[9:31] Gonna

[9:32] thank you.

[9:32] Well,

[9:35] jury's still on.

[9:36] I think, you know, me, Bob, probably not.

[9:40] Like I say

[9:42] I'll do what I can.

[9:43] Thank you.

[9:47] Your honor, Martha, even though you're refusing, you can follow along, Adam.

[9:51] Thank you.

[9:52] That must have get you copies.

[9:55] Do you want those right now?

[9:56] Or you just gonna do it?

[9:57] Okay.

[10:01] So the other property's listed are the abutting properties.

[10:05] Abutting and in the general vicinity.

[10:07] Thank you.

[10:07] Yeah.

[10:09] That is the case.

[10:11] So I, I think what, what I just wanted to go through.

[10:14] Is

[10:15] as I understand it, I mean, I did read the minutes, but again, I

[10:19] was not at that particular hearing in June.

[10:22] There was

[10:24] concern on a couple accounts, lot coverage, as well as the number of.

[10:28] Buildings being proposed.

[10:31] But what I did want to point out is that there are, and I

[10:34] think John covered this in his letter as well.

[10:36] So much of it's gonna be re reiteration.

[10:40] But just wanted to go through.

[10:43] How this project

[10:45] this proposed project

[10:47] actually reduces.

[10:49] Reduces the non-conformity of the existing parcel.

[10:52] With the three buildings and the seven residential units within it.

[10:56] So two of those homes.

[10:58] Homes have pretty significant

[11:00] sideline setbacks and or front setback encroachments.

[11:05] Which all of the buildings setbacks will now be met.

[11:09] For the proposed condition.

[11:11] And while

[11:13] the board was absolutely right.

[11:14] There is a proposed.

[11:16] Increase in overall lot coverage.

[11:19] But we actually still meet the zoning requirements.

[11:23] Of the R two zone for both building coverage and total lot coverage.

[11:28] We are 22% on total building coverage in the proposed condition.

[11:33] Where max is 25 with total lot cover.

[11:37] Is 17,378, which is 47%.

[11:41] Where max of 60 is, is afforded.

[11:45] Now we also, I have reached out to the fire department.

[11:48] We are going to talk to them about reduction of that entrance drive.

[11:52] It is already proposed at 22.

[11:55] I will just let this board know that very likely.

[11:58] The maximum they're gonna let us reduce that width down to would be 20

[12:01] feet.

[12:02] Cuz that's N F P a national standards for.

[12:05] Firetruck access widths.

[12:09] And I guess the, the other point that I really wanted to hear home

[12:12] is that.

[12:14] You know?

[12:14] Yes, there are five buildings proposed.

[12:17] Which is two more buildings that exist on the lot currently.

[12:22] However it is an actual reduction in lot density.

[12:25] And if you look at the, the table,

[12:28] what do you mean by a reduction in, in lot density?

[12:31] Well, there are seven units within those three buildings.

[12:33] So did I turn it off again?

[12:34] No, it just.

[12:36] It's just, oh, I think it's dead.

[12:37] Yeah.

[12:39] Did you kill it?

[12:39] No battery.

[12:40] not intentionally.

[12:42] No. I assure you not intentionally. Mr. Chairman.

[12:46] So really what we were looking.

[12:47] Yeah.

[12:47] We're, we're talking about unit density, the number of residential units on this property

[12:53] understood three.

[12:54] Buildings.

[12:55] There are seven.

[12:56] We're proposing five.

[12:58] And if you read down through.

[13:00] The, the spreadsheet that was put together by Alex.

[13:04] We are looking at an average square foot per unit.

[13:08] Of 6,224 that's for all of the.

[13:13] The U or the

[13:15] dwellings and properties highlighted on that map.

[13:19] And we come in in the proposed condition.

[13:23] At 7,000.

[13:25] 318.

[13:27] So while, so your lot size is 36,590.

[13:32] Correct.

[13:33] Where do you get?

[13:33] 62 24.

[13:36] 62 24 is at the bottom.

[13:37] Mr. Chairman.

[13:39] That is the average square feet.

[13:41] Per unit

[13:43] that's for all of the abutting and.

[13:46] Area parcels.

[13:47] Oh, oh, oh, that whole table

[13:49] condensed down divided by the number of, of okay.

[13:52] Properties we looked at.

[13:54] Okay.

[13:54] So we're actually slightly

[13:57] greater square footage of lot area per unit.

[14:01] In the proposed conditions slightly less than that.

[14:03] If we look at the seven units that are there currently.

[14:08] And that was largely

[14:10] everything that I wanted to cover.

[14:13] Not, not that it necessarily matters to you folks, but.

[14:17] We also have a fairly comprehensive.

[14:20] Stormwater mitigation program.

[14:23] Proposed with this.

[14:24] We've got a couple of buyer retention areas.

[14:27] Areas there are pervious patios in the rears of these buildings, which will also

[14:31] they're built with the same filtration material.

[14:34] That a porous pavement would be slightly less deep, but there is still.

[14:39] Absorption into the ground and stormwater treatment through that.

[14:43] And with that, I will turn it over to attorney.

[14:46] Kovic quick question.

[14:48] Before you go, go, if you don't mind, you define the front of the

[14:50] building since facing.

[14:51] The driveway and the rear as to the right.

[14:55] Correct.

[14:55] Okay.

[14:56] Yes.

[14:56] Classification.

[14:57] There was someone else had a question for Christian.

[14:58] I have a couple of questions

[15:00] on, unless you want to, you wanna take 'em now or wait?

[15:02] Yeah.

[15:03] By all means.

[15:04] So on this.

[15:06] On this table.

[15:06] Mm-hmm .

[15:08] Reference

[15:09] one.

[15:10] On the map, 75 main street.

[15:13] That C one, correct.

[15:15] Correct.

[15:15] The rest of these are all R two.

[15:19] Is that, is that true?

[15:21] I think there might be a couple of more.

[15:23] 1 2, 3 and four on this map are all commercial.

[15:26] Yeah.

[15:27] All in C one.

[15:28] Okay.

[15:28] So 1, 2, 3, and four are all in C one.

[15:30] I'm looking at the map.

[15:31] 1, 2, 3, and four, right?

[15:33] Okay.

[15:33] And then

[15:35] number 5 61 main street.

[15:39] That property is 17,860 feet.

[15:43] Square feet that seems

[15:46] 61.

[15:48] That 61 main street.

[15:51] That's the lot area that I believe was pulled off the Exeter, Texas.

[15:54] Okay.

[15:54] But you're saying the square foot unit is 17, 8 60.

[15:58] I don't think that's correct.

[16:01] That's lot size and square feet, right?

[16:03] Oh, that I'm sorry, Laura.

[16:04] Yes, that did not because there's only one unit on it.

[16:08] So there are 17,860 square feet of land area, right.

[16:13] For a single unit.

[16:15] But.

[16:16] But the, the square footage unit column mm-hmm .

[16:20] Also has 17,860 feet because that's telling you how many square feet's only one

[16:24] unit on that unit.

[16:25] Property's it's per unit provided it's divided.

[16:28] Divided by one, the one above is 30.

[16:30] I'm sorry.

[16:31] I thought that that was the square footage of the, it took me a

[16:34] minute too.

[16:34] Yeah.

[16:34] Per unit?

[16:35] No. What? Yeah.

[16:36] What the intention of this was it's not per unit.

[16:38] That's the lot.

[16:39] Okay.

[16:40] Whatever its, well, it is per unit because there's only one unit on the

[16:43] property.

[16:43] Got it.

[16:43] Understood.

[16:44] That's all.

[16:44] 16 nine main street has not.

[16:45] That table was intended to.

[16:48] Dictate or demonstrate is that.

[16:51] Land area in each lot.

[16:53] Per unit of residential use there.

[16:57] Oh,

[16:58] okay.

[16:58] So you'll see that in a couple of places as you go down.

[17:01] For single family.

[17:04] Dwellings on a single lot.

[17:06] Those basically

[17:08] equate to the entire lot area, because there's only a single unit on it

[17:12] Okay.

[17:13] I'm not quite sure how that,

[17:15] and then just one question on the.

[17:19] The map there.

[17:20] Yes.

[17:20] The, the diagram or whatever you call that thing.

[17:23] You have a dimension in here for the width of the driveway, but not

[17:28] the length of the driveway.

[17:30] So.

[17:31] How long is the driveway from where the garage is out to where I'm

[17:34] sorry.

[17:35] The pulling to where the.

[17:38] Yes.

[17:41] 20 feet, 20 feet.

[17:42] Okay.

[17:42] Thank you.

[17:44] This is gonna be really annoying.

[17:46] The person who created this spreadsheet is in the room.

[17:49] Yes.

[17:50] Got a calculator with you.

[17:53] Sure.

[17:53] I'm gonna ask you to do no. Stay sit. You're good. You're good

[17:56] I'm gonna ask you to do something.

[17:59] 1 2, 3 and four on your map are in a different zone.

[18:03] They're in a commercial zone.

[18:04] They're not in the R two zone.

[18:07] Would you be willing to recalculate that 62 24 number?

[18:11] Without 1 23 and four.

[18:14] And if you can do that.

[18:16] An attorney Kovic can speak slowly until you get that done, perhaps.

[18:22] If you think you can do that, that would be interesting information to have

[18:26] And with that request, sir, I'll turn it over to you.

[18:30] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[18:31] Good evening.

[18:32] And good evening to all members of the board.

[18:35] John Kovic

[18:36] council of representing chin.

[18:38] I I'm not going to re-argue all of the variance points.

[18:44] You're familiar with,

[18:46] I am sure.

[18:46] I just want to address a couple other points that came up at the

[18:50] last meeting.

[18:51] The, the board was act asking.

[18:54] Very

[18:55] practical questions about the impact of this.

[18:59] On housing,

[19:00] availability of housing.

[19:02] I, I sense there was some concern.

[19:05] About tenants in, in this property.

[19:09] Being displaced.

[19:11] And as I indicated in my letter to the board,

[19:15] there is only one at will tenant.

[19:19] Still remaining

[19:20] in the

[19:23] the out of the seven dwelling units.

[19:26] Six of them.

[19:27] They, they VA vacated voluntarily.

[19:30] We don't know if they stayed.

[19:32] In Exeter or moved elsewhere.

[19:35] But effectively.

[19:38] The loss of any units.

[19:40] Has already been absorbed by the market.

[19:43] And

[19:44] this is

[19:45] new units coming on.

[19:48] But you're releasing the units.

[19:51] So the units are still available.

[19:54] Because of the maintenance and the condition.

[19:57] Chin is not intending to receive at all.

[20:00] Think we should tell Zillow to clean up their act.

[20:04] That's probably true.

[20:05] They've got three.

[20:06] They've got, I think three of them currently listed as available for rent, Dave

[20:11] They should not be if they are

[20:13] interesting.

[20:13] Okay.

[20:14] I,

[20:15] the next thing I wanna talk about in, in my letter to the board

[20:20] I did cite

[20:21] one court case, which seemed to be the only.

[20:24] Analogous case

[20:27] where the issue was.

[20:29] Two nonconforming lots.

[20:32] Lots and they were, there were two, lots were being combined.

[20:39] They needed a variance to St. Two variances to still be able to build

[20:43] on them.

[20:44] And the court held

[20:47] that

[20:48] a board.

[20:49] Should grant variances.

[20:52] Says where it would otherwise reduce.

[20:54] Non-conformity.

[20:56] It was

[20:58] somewhat discretionary.

[20:59] So I can't say you are a hundred percent.

[21:03] Obligated,

[21:04] but I can't say.

[21:06] The

[21:08] intent or recommendation of the court.

[21:11] Was, if you could

[21:13] reduce non-conformity

[21:15] and in that first meeting.

[21:17] I thought just reducing.

[21:20] The number of dwelling units.

[21:22] Would be sufficient and I never.

[21:24] Even argued about the setbacks.

[21:27] Setbacks, but there were two nonconforming setbacks.

[21:30] Setbacks plus

[21:31] seven dwell eggs that are non-conforming.

[21:34] That are going down to.

[21:38] Five units.

[21:39] So it is.

[21:41] A significant

[21:42] improvement.

[21:44] On on

[21:48] the

[21:49] nonconformity.

[21:51] The the next thing.

[21:52] And, and I know with the recalculated number and I suspect what the chair

[21:56] was doing.

[22:00] Is wanting to get a picture.

[22:03] Of density.

[22:05] Just in the residential zone.

[22:07] We were trying to present the board.

[22:10] A practical picture of density.

[22:12] In the area,

[22:13] because it really is a transition zone.

[22:18] So we did not.

[22:20] Concentrate on

[22:22] just the nearby

[22:23] residential.

[22:25] Density,

[22:25] but the, the overall density.

[22:28] Of

[22:31] all the buildings nearby.

[22:34] And, and, and finally, and I, I am somewhat hesitant.

[22:39] To bring this up.

[22:41] Because it is not binding on this board as a board.

[22:46] But I do have to give you a little bit of history.

[22:50] About how Ginsburg

[22:52] bought this property.

[22:55] Prior to purchasing it.

[22:57] Chin Berg

[22:59] went with a conceptual.

[23:01] Review with the planning.

[23:03] Board

[23:04] and the interim planner.

[23:07] And never thought variances were needed.

[23:10] Because it was

[23:13] solely a reduction.

[23:15] Of non-conformity

[23:18] the view on that has changed.

[23:20] And we're trying to respect the process with you.

[23:24] But, but I will tell you, these are.

[23:27] Very important variances.

[23:30] Variances

[23:30] cuz otherwise

[23:32] it is a lot right now.

[23:34] That Stenberg never would've bought and never spent the money on.

[23:39] Not binding it on you and said with all respect.

[23:43] Right.

[23:43] But I wanted to put that.

[23:46] Perspective on the history.

[23:50] mTOR it is.

[23:51] I I know.

[23:52] Okay.

[23:52] I I'm, I'm not saying.

[23:55] That you should

[23:57] do something wrong to save.

[23:59] Thank you.

[24:00] Issues.

[24:01] We won't we'll try really hard.

[24:03] We'll try really hard.

[24:04] Not to, no, I I'm.

[24:05] I'm not, I'm not suggesting that.

[24:06] Yeah.

[24:07] Okay.

[24:08] Okay,

[24:09] copy Mr. Chairman, if I may, just before the

[24:12] issue goes cold.

[24:14] I have the information.

[24:15] Thank you.

[24:16] Calculated without the.

[24:18] Commercial.

[24:18] Thank you, properties, you, and that changes the average square foot.

[24:24] Per unit.

[24:25] So land area on a given lot.

[24:28] Per unit of density, residential density.

[24:30] At six,

[24:32] 6,798.

[24:35] And again, in our proposed condition.

[24:38] We wind up at 7,318.

[24:40] So

[24:41] slightly more land area per unit with the five.

[24:46] The existing with the seven residential units on that property would still be.

[24:51] Below that mm-hmm that average.

[24:53] So you're about 10% over.

[24:56] Correct.

[24:59] Someone will get their calculator out and tell me it's actually 8%, but

[25:03] I think you're about 10% over.

[25:08] Yeah, roughly 68 more land.

[25:10] 68 and 68.

[25:11] Yes.

[25:11] Yeah, almost exactly.

[25:12] Yeah.

[25:13] Okay.

[25:15] Nine

[25:16] thank you.

[25:16] I appreciate your both doing that.

[25:18] Thank you.

[25:18] That's useful information.

[25:21] Are you all set?

[25:22] I'm all.

[25:23] I'm all set.

[25:23] Unless there's specific questions for me, I think there might be.

[25:27] Before we move to public session to.

[25:32] Public

[25:33] testimony.

[25:33] Do we have any further questions for the applicant?

[25:39] Adam, John.

[25:41] Nope.

[25:42] Have anything.

[25:44] Lauren.

[25:44] I said, Nope.

[25:45] Nope.

[25:45] Okay.

[25:46] Thank you very much.

[25:47] At this point, we will

[25:48] hear from the public.

[25:50] And then we'll ask you to come back and.

[25:53] Rebut, if you will or say thank you as the case may be.

[25:58] So, if anyone from the public would like to address the board, this is

[26:01] your opportunity.

[26:02] Please come to the microphone.

[26:05] And tell us who you are and where you live.

[26:09] And have at it.

[26:12] Hello.

[26:12] I'm Karen Fisher.

[26:13] I live at 61 main street right next to the property that we're talking

[26:16] about.

[26:18] Thank you for the opportunity.

[26:19] I'd like to read my letter.

[26:21] That I had sent to you in regards to.

[26:23] You're at 61 Ms. Fisher main street.

[26:25] Yep.

[26:25] Thanks.

[26:28] Please.

[26:29] Okay.Do you members of the zoning committee?

[26:30] I hope you are well in writing this letter to express my strong opposition

[26:34] to the variance proposed for the property nexus.

[26:37] To 61 main street

[26:39] as a resident, resident of Exeter living in main street, I believe it's crucial

[26:42] that the zoning board respect the R two.

[26:45] Single family zone in which this property sits.

[26:49] Sits the applicant is requesting a significant increase to five units.

[26:54] Where only a single family home is appropriate.

[26:57] This property is in fact, a gateway to the zone two, the R two

[27:00] zone and is imperative that we protect the boundaries by enforcing these zone restrictions

[27:06] Zones exist for a reason.

[27:08] To maintain the character and diversity of neighborhoods.

[27:11] And this proposed variance will star tree road.

[27:13] That character.

[27:15] If this variance were approved, we will be deviating from the very intention of

[27:19] the zone.

[27:20] Allowing for a dangerous precedent of development, developmental creep.

[27:25] This would not only decrease the aesthetic and historical charm of our neighborhood.

[27:30] But also reduce the diversity of our population.

[27:33] Displacing residents of various incomes and walks of life.

[27:38] Most importantly, after reviewing the applicant's presentation at the last meeting.

[27:43] I feel their argument was not supported by data.

[27:47] Many of their comments were based on assumptions and in fact were misleading.

[27:51] I would also like to highlight that while I did attend that meeting.

[27:55] The legal process of notifying a butters was compromised.

[27:59] The certified letter addressed was not legible.

[28:02] I am not sure if this was a one-off or a regular practice by

[28:05] developers.

[28:07] But is crucial that the town reviews and strengthens this process.

[28:10] And I have that letter for your review.

[28:11] If you'd like,

[28:13] I respectfully urge the board to deny this variance request and to uphold the

[28:17] integrity of the zoned R two zone.

[28:20] I appreciate your time.

[28:21] And I have more detail specifically.

[28:24] Reviewing each of the points that were made at the last meeting, if you

[28:26] don't mind me reading them.

[28:28] That would be fine.

[28:29] Could you explain what the issue was with the letter?

[28:31] Was it just poor photocopy here or something?

[28:34] Is that what you're talking about?

[28:35] You can't read the.

[28:37] Address at all, they weren't using a laser printer to book, to print out

[28:41] their labels.

[28:42] It was a probably 1980 technology and it.

[28:45] Was totally

[28:46] you couldn't see it as if they put a sponge to it.

[28:48] You just label on the letter.

[28:50] So I never received it.

[28:52] Registered mail.

[28:53] The developer one at a time, you don't do it.

[28:55] Hang on everyone.

[28:57] Everyone, the only person who speaks is the one who is at the microphone

[28:59] So I so brought it with me.

[29:01] See,

[29:02] you can see, see what it looks like, or actually doesn't look like Meg

[29:04] approach.

[29:04] Sure.

[29:05] It was delivered to you.

[29:06] You did receive you not delivered.

[29:07] We had to go and find it all right.

[29:09] But it was, you did receive this in time.

[29:11] Nope, we did not.

[29:12] We had to go and.

[29:14] Recover it, the only reason we knew about the meeting was because our neighbor

[29:17] actually happened to say, hello, are you going to the meeting?

[29:21] So I want to make sure you saw that.

[29:25] Okay.

[29:27] Examples of misleading statements and unsupported, unsupported assumptions, and lack of due diligence on

[29:33] the various application.

[29:34] Here is my.

[29:35] Comment on that number one incomplete description of the neighborhood contacts.

[29:40] The application states that the property at 65.

[29:44] 67 main street is bordered by one side.

[29:47] On one side by the C one zone.

[29:49] Which allows multi-family housing and notes that the adjacent law is intensely developed.

[29:54] This statement, pre presented only part of the surrounding context.

[29:58] The application fails to acknowledge the neighboring properties.

[30:02] Located within the R two zone.

[30:04] Particularly adjacent residential property of 61 main street.

[30:08] By focusing on the neighboring commercial zone.

[30:11] While omitting discussion of nearby single family, residential properties within the same zoning district

[30:17] The application creates a misleading impression regarding the character of the immediate neighborhood.

[30:23] The zoning board should evaluate the proposal based on its impact on all abutting

[30:27] properties.

[30:29] Especially those located within the R two zone that are intended to be protected

[30:33] by the existing zoning regulation.

[30:37] Misleading claims regarding reduced non-conformity and neighborhood impact.

[30:42] The application states that replacing the existing structures with five separate dwelling units would

[30:48] reduce non-conformity.

[30:50] And result in less impact on the neighborhood.

[30:53] This conclusion is questionable.

[30:55] Well, the number of dwelling units may be reduced from seven to five.

[31:00] The proposal introduces five separate residential buildings where three buildings currently exist.

[31:08] The increase in the number of structures changes the development pattern.

[31:12] On the site and intensifies the built footprint.

[31:16] In addition.

[31:18] The proposed design would create significant visual impacts on adjacent residential properties.

[31:25] A particular concern are the approximately and I need to correct my number here

[31:29] 12 foot wide.

[31:30] Second story decks.

[31:32] Decks facing 61 main street.

[31:35] These elevated outdoor spaces would increase visibility into neighboring yards and homes.

[31:41] Homes, reducing privacy

[31:42] and alter altering the residential character currently enjoyed by the abutters.

[31:47] Butters, therefore the assertion that the.

[31:50] Proposal would have less impact on the neighborhood is not supported by the actual

[31:54] site plan.

[31:56] And it's effect on neighboring properties.

[31:58] Number three unsupported claim that five units are necessary for feasible development.

[32:05] The application asserts that it is not cost effective or feasible to rebuild on

[32:10] the existing foundations.

[32:12] And that development with fewer than five units simply cannot be done.

[32:17] No evidence has been presented support this conclusion.

[32:21] The application provides no financial analysis,

[32:24] engineering study or independent evaluation demonstrating.

[32:28] That restoration renovation or redevelopment consistent with the existing zoning regulations is impossible.

[32:37] Many older homes throughout Exeter have been successfully.

[32:41] Restored renovated and returned to productive use.

[32:45] Historic and older properties are routinely.

[32:48] Rehabilitated and marketed successfully.

[32:51] A well restored residential property in this neighborhood would be both desirable and marketable

[32:58] The statement that five dwelling units are required.

[33:01] Required appears to reflect the developer's preferred financial outcome rather than a true hard

[33:06] hardship related to the land itself.

[33:09] Financial considerations.

[33:11] Alone should not justify a variance.

[33:14] Furthermore.

[33:16] Zoning restrictions applicable to the property were in prep place.

[33:20] Prior to Ginsburg's purchase.

[33:22] The limitations of the R two zone were noble through reasonable due diligence.

[33:28] A person, a purchaser's desire to maximize

[33:31] maximize return on investment.

[33:33] Should not constitute grounds for relief.

[33:36] Relief of zoning requirements.

[33:39] If the property cannot be developed in a manner that complies with the intent

[33:43] of the R two zone.

[33:45] And still meet the developer's business objectives.

[33:48] Objectives another option would be to market the property to a purchaser.

[33:52] Whose plans are consistent with the existing zoning regulations.

[33:57] My response to the applicant's discussion on the variance criteria.

[34:01] The applicant's discussion.

[34:04] Relies heavily on opinion.

[34:06] Assumptions and unsupported conclusions rather than objective evidence.

[34:11] The board should carefully evaluate whether the required legal standards for granting a variance

[34:16] has actually been met.

[34:18] The first one, the variants will not be contrary to the public interest.

[34:23] The applicant argues that replacing the existing buildings with new construction serves the public

[34:29] interest because the project will be aesthetic.

[34:31] Aesthetically pleasing, improve safety.

[34:34] Reduce non-conformity and create housing.

[34:37] These assertions are largely subjective and unsupported by evidence.

[34:42] While reasonable people will, may agree that improvements to the property would be beneficial

[34:46] That alone does not establish that the proposed variance serves the public interest.

[34:51] The property currently has adequate access and driveway access.

[34:56] No evidence has been presented, demonstrating a public safety concern requiring the proposed redevelopment

[35:02] The applicant also argues that the project.

[35:05] Reduces non-conformity.

[35:07] However, this claim is misleading.

[35:10] While the number of dwelling units may be reduced from seven to five.

[35:14] The proposal increases the number of principle residential structures from 3 25.

[35:21] The board should consider whether adding additional buildings within the R two district truly

[35:26] reduces the overall non.

[35:29] Non-conformity nature of the property.

[35:32] The need for additional housing in New Hampshire is a broad policy issue and should

[35:37] not be used to justify a variance that.

[35:39] Is inconsistent

[35:40] with the purpose and intent of R two zoning district.

[35:45] Number two.

[35:47] The spirit of the ordinance is observed.

[35:50] The spirit of the ordinance is not observed merely because new buildings are proposed

[35:56] The purpose of the R two district.

[35:59] Is to preserve and maintain the character of residential neighborhoods.

[36:03] Neighborhoods, the applicant repeatedly compares the project to development located in the adjacent.

[36:09] C one district while giving little consideration to neighboring properties within the R two

[36:14] district.

[36:16] This property serves as a gateway.

[36:18] Into the R two residential neighborhood.

[36:21] The appropriate comparison is not to.

[36:24] More intensive development in the commercial zone.

[36:28] But to the surrounding residential properties.

[36:30] That the ordinance was designed to protect.

[36:33] The proposed development introduces five separate residential buildings.

[36:38] Buildings on a lot where only one single dwelling would be permitted under current

[36:42] zoning.

[36:43] This is in inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.

[36:49] Substantial.

[36:51] Justice is done.

[36:52] The applicant claims there is no hardship or injury to the public interest associated

[36:57] with the proposal.

[36:59] However

[37:00] substantial justice.

[37:02] Must consider the impact on neighboring property owners, as well as the applicant.

[37:08] Adjacent property owners.

[37:09] Would experience significant impacts including.

[37:13] Increased building mass near property lines.

[37:16] Additional building height.

[37:18] Second story Dex facing neighboring homes and yards.

[37:22] Yards loss of privacy

[37:24] changes to the established residential character of this neighborhood.

[37:28] The interests of neighboring property owners should be weighed equally with the interests of

[37:33] the developer.

[37:34] Ranting the variance would impose burdens on a butters while providing a financial benefit

[37:39] to the applicant.

[37:40] Under these circumstances.

[37:43] Substantial justice is not achieved.

[37:46] Achieved the values of surrounding properties are not diminished.

[37:50] The applicant states that surrounding property values would improve.

[37:53] And there is nothing about the project that would lessen property Val values.

[37:58] No evidence, appraisal or expert testimony has been provided to support this conclusion.

[38:04] Property value impacts cannot simply be assumed.

[38:08] Many buyers are attracted to the R two district.

[38:11] Because of its residential character.

[38:14] Privacy

[38:15] scale and neighbor, neighborhood setting.

[38:18] Development that increases density introduces additional structures.

[38:23] Structures

[38:24] and creates direct privacy impacts may negatively.

[38:28] Affect the desirability of neighboring properties.

[38:31] Without competent evidence.

[38:33] The board should not accept the applicant's claim that the surrounding property values will

[38:37] be improved.

[38:39] Improved literal enforcement of the ordinance does not create unnecessary hardship.

[38:44] The applicant argues that there EV existing, excuse me, the applicant argues that the

[38:49] existence of three buildings.

[38:52] Buildings and three foundations is a unique condition, creating hardship.

[38:56] However,

[38:57] multiple structures on a lot are not unusual in this area.

[39:01] There are other properties when the R two district that contain multiple buildings and

[39:06] accessory structures.

[39:08] Structures the presence of three existing buildings does not by itself.

[39:12] Create a unique hardship distinguishing this property from others in the neighborhood.

[39:17] The applicant also claims that the property does not lend itself to a single

[39:21] family home.

[39:23] Because of the value of the land.

[39:25] No evidence is presented to support this assertion.

[39:29] The R two district is a highly desirable residential area.

[39:33] Properties within the district, provide housing opportunities for residents of varying incomes.

[39:40] Incomes and contribute to the diversity and character of our community.

[39:43] The fact that a more intensive development would generate greater financial returns for the

[39:48] applicant does not constitute a hardship under the.

[39:51] Variance standards.

[39:53] Furthermore, the applicant does not, has not demonstrated that the property cannot be reasonably

[39:59] used in compliance with the ordinance.

[40:02] Existing buildings can be restored.

[40:05] Renovated or redeveloped in a manner, more consistent within the zoning requirements.

[40:10] Numerous older homes throughout Exeter have been successfully rehabilitated and returned to productive use

[40:16] The claim hardship appears to arise from the applicant's development objectives, rather than from

[40:22] any unique physical characteristics of the land itself.

[40:26] The applicant's request relies on a series of unsupported assumptions.

[40:30] Assumptions, including claims that their project will improve property values.

[40:34] Serve the public interests, reduce neighborhood impacts and satisfy the hardship standard.

[40:39] The application does not provide sufficient factual evidence to support these conclusions.

[40:44] The proposed development is inconsistent with the purpose and character of our two district

[40:51] Would create adverse impacts on the neighboring properties.

[40:54] And fails to demonstrate the unnecessary hardship required for granting a variance.

[41:00] And for these reasons, the variance application should be denied.

[41:03] I'd also like to comment on the letter.

[41:05] That was put,

[41:07] put in before you move on.

[41:08] Do you have copies of that for us?

[41:10] I do.

[41:11] Thank you.

[41:12] We did get a copy, but it was incomplete.

[41:17] At one point, I think before the last meeting mm-hmm but it wasn't

[41:20] we got it here.

[41:21] Right.

[41:22] But it wasn't complete it wasn't complete.

[41:24] It's not as complete as it's the version that I have.

[41:26] Thank you.

[41:26] Thank you very much.

[41:28] Thank you.

[41:29] Thank you.

[41:33] I would like to make comment on the letter that was presented after the

[41:37] meeting.

[41:39] In regards to

[41:44] in regards to the unoccupied units.

[41:48] That he, that was mentioned in that letter.

[41:50] I wanna make sure that is clear.

[41:52] It says there was a question about losing housing at present six of the

[41:55] seven units or an unoccupied.

[41:57] The.

[41:58] Tens voluntarily moved.

[42:00] That is incorrect information.

[42:02] I know my neighbors, they were, they had leases that were expired and they

[42:06] were not allowed to renew their leases.

[42:08] So of course they had to find housing elsewhere.

[42:11] We had displays a veteran.

[42:13] We displaced young couples.

[42:15] We used to displace a single father and their son.

[42:18] We displaced a teacher.

[42:20] We displaced someone who is works non-profit and makes and works for a community

[42:23] food bank.

[42:24] So there was a lot of people who needed that space.

[42:27] They did not leave on their own accord.

[42:28] They left because they did not have a lease.

[42:32] Now I'm finished.

[42:34] Thank you very much.

[42:36] Before she leaves.

[42:37] Does anyone have a question for Ms. Fisher?

[42:39] Given the

[42:42] nature of her testimony, any questions for her?

[42:46] Thank you, Mr. Fisher.

[42:46] I really thank, appreciate your thought.

[42:48] Very welcome your time and, and thought on that.

[42:51] Not

[42:54] anyone else.

[42:57] I'm gonna lose a bit Baxter.

[42:58] I I'm gonna let you sit down and speak into the microphone for I'm

[43:01] Elizabeth extensive at home audience.

[43:04] Elizabeth Baxter.

[43:05] I live at 69 main street and I too did not get my letter

[43:09] about the first meeting.

[43:11] Until after the meeting was over.

[43:14] And I don't think I'm the only one that lives at 69 who didn't

[43:17] get it until the meeting was already over.

[43:20] They just put them in the mailboxes.

[43:23] After the fact.

[43:24] So 69 is the, the new units.

[43:27] Yes.

[43:27] Okay.

[43:31] Is that all you wanted to say is that you didn't know?Yeah.

[43:31] I just know we didn't get 'em.

[43:33] Okay.

[43:33] So after the meeting was over, so I didn't even.

[43:36] Know about it.

[43:38] There's nothing else you want us to hear?

[43:40] Or you're, you're all set.

[43:43] Okay.

[43:44] Let's I, I'm not a, I think that's a lot of houses to be

[43:49] Adjacent to what it's gonna look like, burn skyscraper heaven, but I mean,

[43:54] okay.

[43:55] Anyone else?

[43:56] Not my business, Doug.

[43:58] Okay, please step up.

[44:04] My name is Jessica O'Leary.

[44:05] I live at 15 south street and I was here for the previous.

[44:09] Meeting.

[44:12] Basically, if I can just.

[44:14] Tag onto

[44:15] what Ms. Fisher said, I would pretty much.

[44:20] Reread what she wrote.

[44:22] And, and I agree with it completely.

[44:24] The other thing I wanted to mention though, I, I come to a fair

[44:27] Amount of these meetings and planning board.

[44:29] It's disappointing to me that this is a public hearing.

[44:32] And there's nothing that can be on the screen.

[44:34] You guys have your, your copies of the pictures and the plot plan and

[44:38] stuff like that.

[44:39] But it would've been nice.

[44:39] If there had been something on the screen for.

[44:42] The public to be able to see typically there is from people presenting.

[44:46] So I find that.

[44:48] Disappointing that there's no way for us to, you know, we can see it

[44:51] from a distance, but we can't actually see what the layout is.

[44:55] But again,

[44:56] I would agree with Ms. Fisher.

[44:58] In that I don't, I don't see the hardship here.

[45:03] You know, there's

[45:04] there's there's, there's plenty of things that can happen there.

[45:06] And it is a residential spot.

[45:08] I mean, we have these, we have these codes and ordinances for a reason

[45:11] and there's three, there's three buildings on that property, but there wasn't a code

[45:15] back then.

[45:17] From my understanding.

[45:19] So

[45:20] I am in full agreement with what Mrs. Ms. Fisher said, thank you, Ms

[45:23] Oler.

[45:23] Appreciate it.

[45:24] Anyone else?

[45:26] One more

[45:29] so I'm Donald Fisher.

[45:30] I live at 61 main street.

[45:31] Mm-hmm .

[45:32] And I wanna talk a little bit about the data actually.

[45:35] As we go through.

[45:36] So.

[45:38] You know, I believe again, we, as my wife indicated R two S are

[45:41] two, it should be maintained.

[45:43] Some level of integrity by exist.

[45:44] I realize there's three existing.

[45:47] Buildings there.

[45:47] But if I look at the proposal itself, the three existing buildings on the

[45:51] property have a combined footprint I'm talking footprint of around 35.

[45:55] Hundred square feet.

[45:55] Mm-hmm the builders proposal with the three units is to triple that.

[46:00] To roughly 9,000 square feet.

[46:03] That's about 1800 square feet per unit.

[46:06] Likewise, the existing buildings contain 4,200 square feet of living space.

[46:10] While the new five structure would contain, provide about 15,000 square feet of living

[46:15] space.

[46:16] Go of those numbers again, lot coverage right now is.

[46:19] 3,500 and it goes to, and, and, and it goes to about 9,000.

[46:23] Okay.

[46:25] and the second number was living space, living space.

[46:27] The three existing units had around 4,200 square feet of living space.

[46:31] Again, 4,200.

[46:33] 42 0, 0.

[46:34] Yep.

[46:36] And the new structure is roughly 1500 square feet of living space.

[46:39] If, if the 15,000, 15,000, if the buyer would, would.

[46:44] Take the bonus room and would optional bonus room and convert it to a

[46:47] room.

[46:49] So it's roughly three times.

[46:52] So, and then I wanted to make a point.

[46:54] On the data from the sheet here.

[46:57] Cause I looked at it and I looked through a couple things I saw

[46:59] wrong.

[46:59] One was the first four units where C1 mm-hmm .

[47:01] So I was gonna mention that and, and I did calculate another very close

[47:04] to what.

[47:05] They calculated if he took that out.

[47:07] But the second thing is, I don't think this data is appropriate to look

[47:10] at in its existing, in existing.

[47:13] And is this thing?

[47:14] Condition is treating unequal units as equal.

[47:17] Units is equal producing density fingers that are often misleading.

[47:20] So I think that we're comparing, you know, units that are like four bedroom

[47:26] Four, one bedroom units,

[47:27] apartments to a

[47:29] five, three bedroom, four bedroom single family house.

[47:33] And so I, I don't, I don't think that's appropriate.

[47:35] It's a.

[47:36] Let me, let me try to go through this.

[47:38] Treating unequal units at equivalent produces a density figure and is often misleading for

[47:43] land use in intensity.

[47:45] Infrastructure demands, population impacts meaningful comparison, a metric based solely on units per square

[47:50] feet of lot sizes collapses.

[47:52] When the units, the.

[47:53] Eunice themselves differ widely in size occupancy and physical form.

[47:57] It it's the most reliable only within a narrow homogeneous product type.

[48:01] And I wasn't gonna read this, but I got this from AI. Would it

[48:05] be worth me walking through that?

[48:06] Why?

[48:06] I don't think this data.

[48:08] Is appropriate or can I submit it?

[48:12] We're not gonna be able to, if there's something you wanna read to us

[48:15] that would be fine.

[48:17] But I, I think I, I, I.

[48:19] Read it in.

[48:19] I think I clarified it here.

[48:20] You can't compare.

[48:22] I think they were clear with what you just said, you did.

[48:24] We don't need the background of what you just said.

[48:26] Right?

[48:31] Okay.

[48:32] Thank you.

[48:33] That's it?

[48:33] Yes, we're good.

[48:34] All right.

[48:35] Thank you very much.

[48:35] Anyone else?

[48:42] Going once.

[48:44] Going twice.

[48:44] We're all set.

[48:45] Mm-hmm .

[48:46] Okay,

[48:47] we will close the public session.

[48:49] I'll give it back to the applicant for comments.

[48:52] Comments, and then we'll move to deliberations.

[48:55] Thank you to the four people who spoke.

[49:06] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[49:11] There were a lot of comments.

[49:13] Comments, I

[49:14] sort of agreed with.

[49:16] But some of the puzzled me.

[49:19] First of all

[49:20] there, there seemed to be a suggestion.

[49:24] That we weren't make putting in residential units.

[49:28] Well, I don't think that was suggested at all that, that, well, no, their

[49:31] residential units there's no.

[49:34] There's no need for clarification on that.

[49:35] And.

[49:37] It seemed there was a call.

[49:39] To keep the integrity.

[49:42] Of

[49:43] the single

[49:44] family in the residential zone.

[49:47] However, that's not the situation.

[49:50] On this lot,

[49:52] this lot has multiple buildings.

[49:55] Buildings and

[49:56] is

[49:57] a seven family lot

[49:59] right now.

[50:01] I

[50:04] so we were trying to address.

[50:06] That.

[50:07] Yes, we're not making it.

[50:10] Knocking knocking things down and making just a single family dwelling.

[50:15] But we are trying to.

[50:17] Address

[50:19] non-conformity

[50:20] this is also where.

[50:23] The lot does have the hardship.

[50:26] Because

[50:27] two of the buildings.

[50:29] Buildings are also nonconforming as to setback.

[50:34] Back which means

[50:35] we can't renovate them.

[50:38] Or do anything with them?

[50:41] That changes their footprint.

[50:43] Because if we change the footprint.

[50:46] Were back asking

[50:48] for either relief from

[50:51] setbacks,

[50:52] which is not desirable.

[50:55] Or we're asking for

[50:57] relief

[50:58] from the number of.

[51:01] Dwelling units that can go there.

[51:04] As soon as we make any change.

[51:07] So

[51:08] the existing buildings.

[51:11] Buildings having violations other than just number of buildings.

[51:15] Buildings make them totally.

[51:17] Not developable.

[51:20] And can't be rehabbed.

[51:22] So I could understand

[51:24] neighbors wanting.

[51:26] A

[51:27] rehab of a single family dwelling, but we're not changing.

[51:32] The character of what's there.

[51:34] We're trying to improve it.

[51:36] I do agree with them.

[51:39] That

[51:40] it's the board should.

[51:42] Protect the integrity of zones and their boundaries.

[51:47] I,

[51:47] and if this were.

[51:49] If there was only an existing conforming single family home on there.

[51:55] There's variants should be rejected out of hand.

[51:59] But that's not the, the.

[52:01] Reality that we're facing.

[52:03] And I think because of that reality,

[52:06] I

[52:07] we meet all the criteria.

[52:10] I know when the,

[52:11] the commentator.

[52:13] I went through the various criteria.

[52:17] That was as if the criteria.

[52:19] Applied only to a single family home.

[52:22] Existing there.

[52:23] And I will say, I, I, if that's the criteria, we, we, we do

[52:27] violate it.

[52:29] But if you take.

[52:30] What's actually there.

[52:33] To setback violations.

[52:36] And a seven family.

[52:38] Dwelling dwelling.

[52:40] Situation.

[52:43] Are reduction and addressing

[52:46] eliminating the setbacks and reducing the number of families.

[52:50] Is precisely helping.

[52:52] Reduce the non-conformity.

[52:54] Which should be encouraged and is encouraged by the courts.

[52:58] Courts.

[52:59] That's all I have.

[53:00] I don't know if Christian has anything.

[53:02] Yeah, no, you've covered, you covered my action as well.

[53:05] Thank you very much.

[53:06] Appreciate it.

[53:07] Thank

[53:08] Mr. Chair.

[53:08] May I add also my name's again, Shawna with Timburg.

[53:11] This is my team here.

[53:13] I just.

[53:13] Two, two quick respectful points.

[53:16] In response to Ms. Fischer's statement.

[53:18] The first is I know that Eric Kimberg is well known.

[53:21] I think by all members of the board, he's obviously done business here in

[53:24] The town of Exeter and he has built his name on.

[53:28] Rehabbing historic buildings.

[53:30] He himself has walked through those existing historic carriage houses, which have so much

[53:34] charm from the exterior.

[53:36] They are in complete disrepair.

[53:38] The foundations are failing.

[53:39] The windows are all broken.

[53:41] We recently within the past six weeks together have walked through once again, just

[53:45] to be like, you know, let's just take another look.

[53:48] I mean, they're, .

[53:50] They're no one here would wanna live there.

[53:52] They really are in.

[53:55] Extensive disrepair and additionally

[53:58] I just wanna reiterate from.

[54:01] We did not

[54:02] ask evict anybody in any of those buildings to leave.

[54:05] They all vacated on their own.

[54:08] Free will.

[54:08] So just wanted to reiterate that.

[54:11] In response to Ms. Fisher's statement.

[54:13] So that's provide some clarity for y'all.

[54:16] Thank you.

[54:17] All thank you with that.

[54:18] We will close public session and move to deliberations.

[54:21] Thank you all very much.

[54:28] There's a couple of things I would like to read to the.

[54:34] It seems to me that there's a couple of points that we need to

[54:37] discuss in some detail.

[54:40] On the variance criteria.

[54:41] I think we need to discuss.

[54:43] Hardship.

[54:43] They have applied to us for a variance.

[54:46] Which means that the variance criteria.

[54:48] Do apply

[54:49] all of them.

[54:51] We can go through them and we will go through them in some, sorry

[54:55] I got too close to the microphone there.

[54:57] We will go through all five.

[55:00] And

[55:02] we are gonna have to discuss and approve the points on each one.

[55:07] Also much has been made.

[55:10] About

[55:12] the claim made by the.

[55:15] Applicant that they are reducing.

[55:16] Non-conformity.

[55:19] And

[55:22] I for one

[55:24] have some real questions about that.

[55:26] They are reducing non-conformity if the only metric.

[55:31] To be considered for non-conformity.

[55:33] Is going from five

[55:35] from seven.

[55:37] Residences to five.

[55:41] But there are many other factors.

[55:42] I think that we need to consider.

[55:45] And I think this, this will come up during the course of the.

[55:49] Explanation of a, of the discussion rather.

[55:56] This is

[55:58] I think an expansion.

[56:00] Of a non-conforming use.

[56:03] As well as a contraction of a nonconforming use.

[56:07] Which piece of data are we looking at?

[56:09] I think this is one of the, one of our commentators, Mr. Fisher.

[56:13] Commented about the,

[56:15] and my phrase would be cherry picking the data.

[56:19] And I wanna make sure that we look at all of the data and

[56:21] therefore I do appreciate.

[56:23] Someone going through the calculation because it's bothered me.

[56:26] When I look at this map.

[56:28] And I see.

[56:29] Yeah, there are three buildings on this site.

[56:32] There's a decent sized

[56:34] colonial.

[56:35] Home

[56:35] and two relatively modest sized.

[56:39] Former outbuildings, which are now being, I assume they were former outbuildings.

[56:43] Outbuildings that from the, I assume they were carriage houses from the.

[56:47] To the existing

[56:49] structure that exists on the front of the lot.

[56:52] But we are moving from 3,500 square feet.

[56:56] And these are approximate numbers given to us by.

[56:59] And a butter, not by the applicant.

[57:03] And yet I think a simple.

[57:05] Look at the

[57:07] aerial view of the plan would bear out this.

[57:10] The scale, if not the exact numbers.

[57:13] We are moving from 3,500 square feet of lock coverage.

[57:17] To 9,000.

[57:19] It I'm putting the living space, argument aside, multiple stories, et cetera.

[57:23] That's not really a factor that we consider often here.

[57:26] Excuse me.

[57:28] But I think that there's a lot of data here other than the simple

[57:32] number.

[57:33] Yeah, they're going up on the average square foot per unit is going up

[57:39] By a modest amount.

[57:41] Fine.

[57:41] It's going from 67 98 to 73 18.

[57:45] We've agreed on approximately.

[57:47] A 10% increase,

[57:49] but we're looking at a roughly tripling of the density.

[57:53] Of structure,

[57:54] not even mentioning roads or other pervious surfaces.

[57:58] Surfaces just structures.

[57:58] We're talking roughly at tripling.

[58:01] Of the structure on the property in terms of a mass.

[58:04] We're moving from three modest.

[58:07] A decent sized house and two relatively modest.

[58:10] Outbuildings.

[58:12] Outbuildings now converted to residences.

[58:15] To five large.

[58:17] Structures that as that chart at the bottom shows us.

[58:21] Pretty much dominate the lot.

[58:24] So I think that needs to be taken into consideration during our deliberations as

[58:28] well.

[58:29] With that as a preamble, I'm gonna ask someone other than me.

[58:34] To go through the variance criteria to enumerate them for us.

[58:38] And

[58:41] reaching

[58:43] for your sheet is.

[58:45] An admission of guilt, Ms. Montag.

[58:48] So I've learned not to reach from, well, you've learned not to reach for

[58:51] your is well done.

[58:51] Nobody else flinched toward the blue sheet except Laura, Laura.

[58:56] Did you volunteer?

[58:57] My friend?

[58:58] I will.

[58:58] But thank you.

[58:59] I want.

[59:00] Support and yes, I, but yep.

[59:01] We just want someone else to go through them, please.

[59:04] Okay.

[59:05] So requirement, number one, the variance is not contrary to the public interest.

[59:12] Do we do one and two together?

[59:13] Yeah.

[59:13] We always do one and two together.

[59:15] And.

[59:16] The spirit of the ordinance is observed.

[59:20] I,

[59:21] I think that

[59:23] your introduction to this, as far as how we are measuring.

[59:27] Non-conformity

[59:29] actually

[59:30] plays into the spirit of the ordinance.

[59:32] While.

[59:33] Yes.

[59:34] That it, these are residential.

[59:37] Units that they're putting in there.

[59:38] So it meets that criteria.

[59:41] What I was looking at and what I was reviewing was.

[59:45] The provisions of the R two ordinance currently got.

[59:49] And it's looking at it from units.

[59:52] Right.

[59:53] It's single fam.

[59:54] So what are allowed uses?

[59:56] Mm-hmm single family.

[59:57] One unit mm-hmm right.

[59:59] Open space development,

[1:00:01] which requires a minimum of five acres.

[1:00:03] Mm-hmm .

[1:00:06] So you just, you're just saying what's permitted you the arc.

[1:00:08] Exactly.

[1:00:08] Right?

[1:00:09] Exactly.

[1:00:11] A duplex as a special exception, which is two units mm-hmm and a

[1:00:15] condo conversion.

[1:00:16] Of the existing building, which is four units.

[1:00:19] So,

[1:00:20] and that's a conversion of an existing structure, not a new store, correct.

[1:00:23] Which you can add on to, you can add on square footage.

[1:00:27] Whatever mm-hmm I guess.

[1:00:30] To me.

[1:00:32] I'm in agreement with you as far as.

[1:00:35] I, I don't see this as a reduction.

[1:00:38] In non-conformity.

[1:00:39] I see it as an increase.

[1:00:41] We're going from three buildings to five buildings.

[1:00:44] Buildings and increasing the use the, the.

[1:00:47] Impacted use of the land.

[1:00:53] Do you want me to continue?

[1:00:56] I'm gonna add something at this point.

[1:01:01] So among the

[1:01:04] considerations that are supposed to be taken.

[1:01:07] When

[1:01:08] talking about changes to a nonconforming use.

[1:01:13] Obviously

[1:01:16] the, the idea is that.

[1:01:18] I guess from the state law perspective.

[1:01:21] You can change, you can expand a nonconforming use.

[1:01:25] As long as it does not.

[1:01:28] Create new impacts on the neighborhood.

[1:01:30] And the cons and that's a difficulty determination, but as a couple of the

[1:01:34] considerations, there are five that are, have been enumerated.

[1:01:39] And

[1:01:40] one of the considerations is the degree to which the uses footprint.

[1:01:44] Is expanded on the property.

[1:01:47] And that's why I asked the question that I did.

[1:01:52] And,

[1:01:53] and why I made the statement that I did, which is.

[1:01:56] That that lot coverage.

[1:01:58] And the degree to which a non-conforming structure is physically altered or relocated on

[1:02:03] the property.

[1:02:04] Obviously the existing

[1:02:07] structures

[1:02:09] conforming or nonconforming.

[1:02:11] Are going to be removed.

[1:02:13] Removed and entirely new structures are gonna be put in.

[1:02:17] I don't think that

[1:02:20] the simple encroachment.

[1:02:22] Into

[1:02:25] setbacks.

[1:02:27] Setbacks, which I guess two of the

[1:02:29] existing structures, I don't know which ones are where it's probably the first in

[1:02:31] the, the one in the rear, but I'm not sure.

[1:02:34] I just do that on sight lines, but the, the fact that there are

[1:02:37] existing setbacks.

[1:02:39] Setbacks

[1:02:41] again.

[1:02:41] I do not see that as solely.

[1:02:45] A reduction in non-conformity.

[1:02:51] I understand that the buildings may require significant.

[1:02:54] Rehabilitation.

[1:02:57] But that is not what's before this board what's before this board is an

[1:03:02] application for a variance.

[1:03:05] And the claim that this is reducing non-conformity.

[1:03:07] So I would agree with you.

[1:03:10] That I have a real problem on one and two.

[1:03:15] Anyone else, John you're voting on this.

[1:03:18] Well, I would concur, especially the enlarged footprint and then the elevation of the

[1:03:24] buildings.

[1:03:24] Although within code.

[1:03:26] Certainly

[1:03:30] has a negative impact on the other.

[1:03:33] Houses,

[1:03:34] especially those

[1:03:36] balconies overlooking.

[1:03:39] I, I think that the neighborhood.

[1:03:42] Does have an issue with it that is legitimate.

[1:03:46] Okay,

[1:03:47] thank you, ES sir, do you wanna add anything?

[1:03:52] Adam.

[1:03:54] I just echo that it just does feel like it is a creep into

[1:03:57] the, the R two zone in a pretty.

[1:04:00] Significant way.

[1:04:02] And it is a pretty intense.

[1:04:05] Use for the, for the space for the total.

[1:04:08] Volume of square footage.

[1:04:09] That's going on there.

[1:04:12] Why don't you continue on with criteria three?

[1:04:16] Laura.

[1:04:16] Okay.

[1:04:17] Criteria three substantial justice is done.

[1:04:20] The benefit to the applicant should not be outweighed by the harm to the

[1:04:23] general public.

[1:04:24] Or to other individuals.

[1:04:26] Individuals

[1:04:27] is this, I think we've.

[1:04:30] Heard both.

[1:04:33] From the public and the applicant.

[1:04:39] The value.

[1:04:41] Well,

[1:04:43] just that we are.

[1:04:45] You know, assessing, you know, the need of the applicant with respect to the

[1:04:49] building, as well as.

[1:04:51] You know, the general public and.

[1:04:53] What their

[1:04:55] opinions are and beliefs of the impact.

[1:04:59] I think it says to the general public or other individuals.

[1:05:01] I think the other individuals in this case would be the abutters.

[1:05:05] Abutters correct.

[1:05:05] And specifically the abutter.

[1:05:08] Butter on one side.

[1:05:09] Okay.

[1:05:10] Okay.

[1:05:11] So did, are you saying that you don't feel that it meets criteria three

[1:05:14] No, I think it does.

[1:05:15] Oh, you think it does meet criteria three?

[1:05:17] Yeah, I think we met.

[1:05:18] Right.Substantial justices being done.

[1:05:20] Yeah.

[1:05:21] Okay.

[1:05:22] Do you disagree a little bit?

[1:05:24] I, I really do think the benefits of the applicant.

[1:05:28] Is

[1:05:28] being outweighed by harm to the general public.

[1:05:32] Okay.

[1:05:32] I legitimately do.

[1:05:34] I don't see.

[1:05:37] This tremendous benefit to the applicant.

[1:05:39] In this, in getting this variance.

[1:05:42] Tremendous benefit to the applicant.

[1:05:43] Yep.

[1:05:44] Putting aside, monetary is not part of the whole thing here.

[1:05:49] But to have five new, very large.

[1:05:52] I mean, we all know what housing costs and Exeter today.

[1:05:56] Those are

[1:05:58] million dollar properties.

[1:06:00] I'm sure

[1:06:01] hell.

[1:06:01] Everything in exhibits is a million dollar property these days.

[1:06:03] It doesn't matter where you live.

[1:06:05] It's kinda sad, but.

[1:06:06] Be that as it may,

[1:06:07] I think this tremendous benefit to the applicant in getting this variance.

[1:06:12] And I'm concerned that there's gonna be.

[1:06:14] Harm done to the

[1:06:17] if not the general public, definitely do other individuals in, in the sense abutters

[1:06:21] okay.

[1:06:22] That's my take on it.

[1:06:23] All right.

[1:06:25] The values of surrounding properties are not diminished.

[1:06:29] Expert testimony on this question is not conclusive, but cannot be ignored.

[1:06:33] Ignored.

[1:06:34] And the board may also consider other evidence,

[1:06:38] evidence affecting property values, including personal knowledge of members themselves.

[1:06:42] Obvious we didn't receive any.

[1:06:45] Market assessments, but oh, no, there's not.

[1:06:49] I think

[1:06:51] I don't, we, we didn't really get any information.

[1:06:54] You have no information either way.

[1:06:55] So that was kind of a, there's an anecdotal right.

[1:06:58] Evidence.

[1:06:59] On either side.

[1:06:59] I don't think that's a, a factor that we can consider in our criteria

[1:07:02] Yep.

[1:07:03] And then the fifth is literal enforcement of the ordinance.

[1:07:06] We result in an unnecessary hardship, an unnecessary hardship.

[1:07:11] Because of special conditions of the property, that's distinguish it from other properties in

[1:07:16] the area.

[1:07:19] And

[1:07:20] unnecessary hardship means that owing to the special conditions of the property that distinguish

[1:07:23] it from other properties in the area.

[1:07:25] The property cannot be reasonably used in strict.

[1:07:28] Conformance of the ordinance.

[1:07:31] And I

[1:07:32] do not believe that they, that the applicant meets this criteria.

[1:07:36] There's.

[1:07:37] There's there's I don't see the, the hardship in the property.

[1:07:41] And being able to

[1:07:44] build within

[1:07:46] what is allowed.

[1:07:48] In the ordinance.

[1:07:49] There's no.

[1:07:51] Issues with, you know, setbacks, wetlands, anything like that?

[1:07:54] There is.

[1:07:56] Potential on this property.

[1:08:02] anyone else want to comment on that?

[1:08:05] I would agree.

[1:08:06] I don't see the hardship and I understand if you wanna get.

[1:08:11] Rehabbing what's there is difficult, but the land itself doesn't.

[1:08:15] Doesn't there's nothing preventing them from building something within.

[1:08:18] The set rules.

[1:08:18] There's no significant wetlands.

[1:08:20] There's no.

[1:08:22] Odd shape.

[1:08:22] It's it's a large lot.

[1:08:24] Mm-hmm but it is, it's not the largest in the neighborhood, but it's

[1:08:27] a large lot.

[1:08:27] Yeah.

[1:08:27] It's a pretty good size lot, but that you could probably still.

[1:08:30] Do a lot with that.

[1:08:31] Mm-hmm .

[1:08:38] All right.

[1:08:39] Gentlemen end second.

[1:08:42] What you mentioned.

[1:08:45] I fully agree.

[1:08:45] I don't believe this hardship.

[1:08:47] I do not believe that there's hardship.

[1:08:49] There is nothing about the property.

[1:08:51] That allows it, that prevents it from being.

[1:08:54] Developed within

[1:08:55] the code.

[1:08:57] For R two single family.

[1:09:00] Residential district.

[1:09:03] Would anyone like to make a motion?

[1:09:05] Thank you for walking through the criteria.

[1:09:06] I appreciate it.

[1:09:07] Would you like to follow that up with a motion?

[1:09:10] Well, we have two

[1:09:12] here

[1:09:14] they asked for didn't.

[1:09:15] Are there two different variances we're talking about?

[1:09:18] It's one variance request from two different.

[1:09:21] They can be handled together.

[1:09:22] Okay.

[1:09:24] I can't do it.

[1:09:24] I can't find my piece of paper.

[1:09:26] Here, who piece of paper would you like?

[1:09:28] Yes.

[1:09:28] Well, now I gotta thank, hold on.

[1:09:30] Give me a second.

[1:09:30] This as well.

[1:09:34] It may be it's duplicated there.

[1:09:35] I'm not sure that's it.

[1:09:44] Take your time.

[1:09:45] No pressure.

[1:09:46] Take your time.

[1:09:46] No, no pressure.

[1:09:48] Raise stairs.

[1:09:51] I

[1:09:54] hold on.

[1:09:59] I moved to deny the application from Tinburg developments, seeking a variance and.

[1:10:04] Relief from article.

[1:10:06] 2.0, sorry.

[1:10:08] 4.2 mm-hmm schedule one.

[1:10:11] As well as article

[1:10:13] 5.5 0.3.

[1:10:15] As

[1:10:17] om, I'm S

[1:10:19] period.

[1:10:20] Do not forget that we articulate which of the oh criteria.

[1:10:23] It does not meet.

[1:10:25] Due to the review of the variance criteria.

[1:10:28] Not meeting.

[1:10:33] One in

[1:10:34] Brian's criteria one in two were Barings, contrary to public interest in spirit of

[1:10:38] the ordinance not met.

[1:10:40] As well as

[1:10:42] number five.

[1:10:44] I've unnecessary hardship.

[1:10:48] Is there a second.

[1:10:50] Second moved and seconded.

[1:10:52] Any discussion.

[1:10:54] Of the motion.

[1:10:56] I would like to success to suggest an amendment to the motion.

[1:11:00] Which would say that the.

[1:11:03] Application also does not meet criteria.

[1:11:05] Three substantial justices done.

[1:11:08] But that was kind of my issue.

[1:11:09] So I will see if anybody wants to second that and add it or

[1:11:12] just leave it at.

[1:11:14] One two and five.

[1:11:16] Is there a second to my suggestion to add criteria three.

[1:11:21] And make a second.

[1:11:23] To add

[1:11:24] criteria three, moved in second, did any discussion of the amendment?

[1:11:29] To add

[1:11:31] to

[1:11:32] Esther's motion

[1:11:33] that it is also being denied due to not meeting.

[1:11:37] Variance criteria, three substantial justices done.

[1:11:42] Hearing none.

[1:11:43] I will call the vote on the amendment to the motion.

[1:11:46] All in favor of the amendment, indicate by saying aye.

[1:11:50] Aye.

[1:11:51] Aye.

[1:11:54] I'm in work my way out amendment carries.

[1:11:57] We now have an amended motion before us to deny the application.

[1:12:00] Because it does not meet.

[1:12:03] Variance criteria 1, 2, 3, and five.

[1:12:05] Any further discussion of the motion.

[1:12:09] Hearing none, all call the vote.

[1:12:11] All in favor of the motion to deny the application

[1:12:15] indicate by saying aye.

[1:12:17] Aye.

[1:12:18] Aye.

[1:12:19] Aye.

[1:12:20] Five zero.

[1:12:22] I'd like to thank the applicant and the members of the public who are

[1:12:24] here this evening.

[1:12:26] This is not an easy one.

[1:12:27] Thank you for being here.

[1:12:28] Thank you folks.

[1:12:30] Thank you.

[1:12:30] Thank you, Christian.

[1:12:31] Thank.

[1:12:32] You Christian?

[1:12:38] Hmm.

[1:12:38] Hopefully.

[1:12:41] She doesn't get my hesitations in there.

[1:12:44] She doesn't put ums and herbs.

[1:12:46] She doesn't do any of that in there.

[1:12:49] We have one more item of business before we close for the evening.

[1:12:54] Which is the

[1:12:58] this all goes.

[1:13:00] Yes.

[1:13:01] This baby all goes together.

[1:13:08] And

[1:13:10] so we have the minutes of the July 20.

[1:13:13] If people could take the conversation outside, I'd appreciate it.

[1:13:16] We're still in session.

[1:13:18] It's all right.

[1:13:21] So we still have the minutes of the July 21st, 2026 meeting to discuss.

[1:13:28] Let's see myself.

[1:13:30] Esther Laura

[1:13:32] and John.

[1:13:33] And Adam and Adam can all vote on it.

[1:13:39] Laurie, you said you found a couple of things.

[1:13:41] Well,

[1:13:42] line 44 at the end, it says.

[1:13:45] We said a special exception was granted for two.

[1:13:49] Duplexes in the R two district, but it was.

[1:13:53] Three duplexes.

[1:13:55] So, I don't know if.

[1:13:58] Mr.

[1:13:59] McKinnon misspoke and said to.

[1:14:02] Or whether it was a typo.

[1:14:05] Was that, that was attorney Leno speaking at that point or Mr. Belden.

[1:14:11] No, it was Mr.

[1:14:15] Mr Belton said we met.

[1:14:16] Yeah.

[1:14:16] Mr. It was Mr. Belden.

[1:14:20] Yes.

[1:14:20] So I don't, I don't remember if he misspoke and said two or whether

[1:14:24] that's a typo.

[1:14:25] I think

[1:14:26] Joanna.

[1:14:27] Who's listening to this meeting could go back.

[1:14:29] And

[1:14:30] review the tape, please.

[1:14:32] And if it's two, we leave it in there because that's the statement that

[1:14:34] was made.

[1:14:36] If it's not, so we're not gonna approve this evening.

[1:14:41] I think that what we'll do is ask her to look at that.

[1:14:44] Tape and clarify.

[1:14:46] Whether it's two at the end of line, 44 or three.

[1:14:51] So we're not gonna be able to approve cause you're right.

[1:14:53] I wanna get that correct.

[1:14:55] And then

[1:14:57] lines.

[1:14:57] Thank you, Joanna.

[1:14:58] I am speaking into the ether lines, three 40 and 3 41.

[1:15:02] Yeah.

[1:15:04] Ms Davies asked Mr. Eastman's administrative decision relates to.

[1:15:10] These points.

[1:15:12] And I guess I thought she was asking.

[1:15:15] Doug these questions, but was sh.

[1:15:18] Was she actually asking the attorney.

[1:15:22] Yeah.

[1:15:22] Okay.

[1:15:23] Got it.

[1:15:23] All right.

[1:15:24] Yeah, that was a little confusing to me.

[1:15:25] Yeah.

[1:15:26] Okay.

[1:15:27] Attorney Allen was the attorney for some of the abutters, because I remember we

[1:15:30] did engage with Doug a couple times during the meeting and I wasn't sure

[1:15:34] if that was.

[1:15:35] I think she was referring to, she was simply referring to yeah.

[1:15:38] Was there east?

[1:15:38] Yeah.

[1:15:39] Okay.

[1:15:39] Thank you.

[1:15:39] That's that?

[1:15:40] Those were the only two things.

[1:15:41] Those was the only two things you had.

[1:15:43] I did not find anything.

[1:15:46] I had two little things, please.

[1:15:48] Line 17 through 18.

[1:15:50] It was 17 through 18.

[1:15:52] Good, great.

[1:15:52] Well, I think, I think it's right.

[1:15:54] I just, it feels very vague to me.

[1:15:55] Does everybody.

[1:15:57] This is Davy said, since we don't.

[1:15:59] Don't she didn't participate in the final case for June 16th.

[1:16:02] Meeting her vote will reflect that.

[1:16:04] That was the minutes of the June 16th, 20, 26.

[1:16:06] She did.

[1:16:07] She did.

[1:16:08] She approved them, but she, she wanted us to.

[1:16:11] Know that

[1:16:13] it excluded the one, it excluded the one she didn't see.

[1:16:16] That's what I thought is it sounded kind of vague.

[1:16:17] Yeah.

[1:16:18] I know.

[1:16:18] It's odd phrasing, but you're right.

[1:16:19] That is correct.

[1:16:21] That was it?

[1:16:22] No.

[1:16:24] 2 96.

[1:16:27] This one, I'm pretty.

[1:16:28] I, I.

[1:16:29] Found this, and I talked myself out of it, but since we're here, Mr

[1:16:31] Pryor said,

[1:16:33] it was not a condition of approval for lots to be merged.

[1:16:37] Merged.It was

[1:16:38] semicolon.

[1:16:39] It was a condition proposed by the applicant prior to approval.

[1:16:41] Mm-hmm okay, so that not so we don't need, we didn't need, my

[1:16:44] point was we don't.

[1:16:45] Don't need to make it a condition of our approval because it was essentially

[1:16:49] a preexisting condition to the application.

[1:16:51] That's what I got myself to.

[1:16:52] But at first threw me off.

[1:16:53] It's like,

[1:16:53] there would be no application if they did not merge the loss.

[1:16:56] Yes.

[1:16:56] Okay.

[1:16:57] That's all I had.

[1:16:59] Oh, cool.

[1:16:59] All right.

[1:17:00] I do want to get the two versus three, correct?

[1:17:02] It should have been three.

[1:17:04] Yeah, either they missed, I, I don't want to correct.

[1:17:08] What was said, because the minutes have to reflect what was said, not what

[1:17:12] We, he meant he should have said, right.

[1:17:14] Understood.

[1:17:16] So maybe that's what he said, but it just we're just gonna have her

[1:17:19] go, but it was just like, it was a big thing.

[1:17:20] It was.

[1:17:22] Three units that we approved not to .

[1:17:23] Yeah, exactly.

[1:17:24] No, no, no. I fully agree. I fully agree. And we're gonna defer the

[1:17:29] We're gonna defer until next month.

[1:17:30] Okay.

[1:17:32] Now I need to look at my calendar cause.

[1:17:35] I'm thinking that

[1:17:37] I will not be here next month.

[1:17:39] Oh.

[1:17:40] No,

[1:17:41] I will be in Scotland.

[1:17:43] Well,

[1:17:44] well, Hells bells, woman.

[1:17:57] I will not be here on the 15th.

[1:18:03] I'm hoping we don't get any applications.

[1:18:05] are you here?

[1:18:07] I it's a 50 50 shot.

[1:18:09] It's audit season.

[1:18:11] .

[1:18:12] Okay.

[1:18:13] I will not be here.

[1:18:15] Okay.

[1:18:16] We'll let, neither will.

[1:18:16] I we'll let Doug know.

[1:18:18] Okay.And we'll see.

[1:18:20] So we need.

[1:18:22] Laura or I have to be here.

[1:18:23] One of the, two of you officers has to be here, Laura, other Laura

[1:18:27] other Laura, other Laura.

[1:18:28] You're standing Laura.

[1:18:29] Yeah.

[1:18:30] Other Laura has to be here or you not.

[1:18:33] And then we have on 2 34 alternates.

[1:18:35] So we're good with that.

[1:18:37] Oh, Kevin could be here.

[1:18:38] He could, he could, depending as an officer, right.

[1:18:40] Kevin could be here as well.

[1:18:42] All right.

[1:18:43] I just wanna let y'all know that I'm not gonna be here on the

[1:18:45] 15th.

[1:18:47] Motion to adjourn.

[1:18:49] I make a motion to adjourn seconded.

[1:18:49] Adjourn.

[1:18:51] I'll second that moved and seconded all in favor.

[1:18:54] Aye.

[1:18:55] Thank you all.

[1:18:56] Appreciate your.

[1:18:57] Appreciate your business very much.

[1:18:59] Thank you.

[1:18:59] I'll never into Exeter TV.

[1:19:02] Exeter TV is the town's public and government access channels available on Comcast channel

[1:19:08] six and 22.

[1:19:10] Channel six is your channel.

[1:19:12] If you have an idea for a program, want to host your own talk

[1:19:15] show or submit a film, we're here to get your.

[1:19:18] Content on television on channel 22, we bring you live and replay coverage of

[1:19:23] government meetings and other town updates.

[1:19:26] A third channel.

[1:19:27] Blue Hawk media is operated by SA U 16 and can be found on

[1:19:31] channel eight.

[1:19:32] With all your school sports events and meetings.

[1:19:35] Meetings, you can watch Exeter TV online@exeternh.tv.

[1:19:40] Apple TV and on Roku.

[1:19:41] Find us on social media for extra content.

[1:19:45] Subscribe to our YouTube channel and hit the bell to get notified about live

[1:19:48] streams and new content.

[1:19:50] Tune in to our platforms every other Friday to watch the Exeter biweekly report

[1:19:56] With recaps of recent events, updates from town departments and messages from nonprofits in

[1:20:01] your area.

[1:20:02] If you head to our website, Exeter and h.tv, we invite you to sign

[1:20:06] up to our newsletter to receive monthly updates about new content upcoming meeting.

[1:20:11] Meetings and more,

[1:20:12] we'd like to thank you for taking the time to watch Exeter, TV, and

[1:20:15] hope that you tune into our other content as well.

Zoning Board of Adjustment - 08/18/26

Transcript