[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.
[1:11:50] 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.
[1:12:17] Aye.
[1:12:18] 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.
[1:15:25] 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.
[1:16:56] 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.
[1:18:54] Aye.
[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.