meeting um we have with us um from the board Rob Scott Brian salesy who's an alternate um John berys I'm the chair Sarah melish Katherine how sean Zan and Jim de an ult when we get to voting things only five people will be voting um the first thing I'm going to take up is the continued application of one Crooked Lane I will open the continue public hearing for the application of lindsy d and vald or I name did I okay for a special permit under sections 4.2e 4 6.3.3 and 12.5 of the zoning bylaw and or other relief it may be necessary to construct a 62 foot by 32 foot Sports Court one cppy lane assessor map number 32 Lot number 98 in District a filed with the town clerk on November 7th 2023 um I believe Mr glovsky is here on behalf of the applicants to request a withdrawal of the application without pre Prejudice Mr glovsky that's correct um in response to concerns of the neighbors uh the rushes decided that the appropriate thing to do at this time was to withdraw their application without prejudice and U if at a future point they're able to address those concerns they would reapply for the sports Court special perit thank you Mr CL any question for the board um with that I'll make a motion I move to close the public hearing and approve at the request of the applicants withdrawal without prejudice of the application of lindsy D and v v valdir rush for a special permit under sections 4.2.4 6.3.3 and 12.5 of the zoning bylaw and or other relief as may be necessary to construct a 62 foot by 32 foot Sports Court one Crooked Lane assessor map number 32 Lot number 98 in District a filed with the town clerk on November 7 2023 do I have a second a second Sean seconds thank you uh any discussion take a vote Rob yes John yes Katherine yes Sean yes votes yes thank you um because we have a couple applications that I think might take a little bit of time I'm um suggesting that I'm going to take um them out of order and do the um Manchester by Museum 10 Union Street first okay I will open the public hearing for the application of Manchester by the SE museum for a special permit under Section 5.4 and 12.5 the zoning bylaw and other relief as may be necessary to restore the Portico and historical character of The Original House on the existing front entry within the front setback at 10 Central Street thank you um M that up um um assessment map number 51 Lot number 60 in District G filed with the town Flor on February 14 2024 um I did note in the application that the historic district commission has issued a certificate of appropriateness um on June 20th 2023 and the CPC has approved a funding request to be presented for approval at the annual town meeting Mr genter you here to represent the museum I am Matthew I'm on the board of the Manchester City Museum and this is our anniversary this year of theing which was built in 1823 and soon after she built it the original she expanded and she Ned Captain grass and this revival rep put on this is a photograph probably between 1870 1890 after so this is the best image we have of the ptic but for the uh then what happened in 1923 when it became Museum uh they hired a Boston architectural firm to renovate the house into a museum and at that point it had been decaying over time and nothing adap on uh what you see now which is just a colonial vital very flat to size so what we'd like to do is and the architectural drawing is recreated to the best we can there and the reason we have to come before the board is since the Portico was lost there is a porch there so with building on top the just been um little de but since with it's within the front yard setb it's special permit because we are building within a nonform structure that's basically it if you have any questions do anyone on the board question um is there anybody in the room as a member of the public who wishes to ask a question or speak with respecting this app is there anybody on Zoom who wishes to speak with respect to this application if so would you please re raise your hand on Zoom seeing nothing um you ready me to make a motion I move to close the public hearing on the application of Manchester byac museum for a special permit under Section 5.4 and 12.5 the zoning bylaw and other relief as may be necessary to restore the p portical and historic historical character of the original house at 10 un Street assessor math number 51 Lot number 60 in District g f with the town clerk on February 14 2024 based on a finding the restored Portico is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the bylaw will not be substant potentially more detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood in which it is located than the existing non-conforming structure and the requirements and conditions under section 12.5.2 of the zoning bylaw the grant of a special permit have been met based on the condition that the 7 foot wide by 3 foot deep Portico is constructed substantially in accordance with the proposed fortical plan prepared by Matthew jenta dated February 12 2024 and as depicted in the photos included on page four of the application do I have a second I second John seconds any discussion any thoughts from the board I'll take a vote BR approved John yes John approved Katherine approved and S Jess who would like to write this J I write I'm do who would like to review it John will thank you very much thank you you're all set thank you and it will be written within 90 days thank you hold on I haveone Mr yes I'm not getting you can't hear us or they're green okay then I'll check what there's red on that right one I don't do anything for I know normally they just go on so we don't know carry on is there a green light on that bar no is it plugged in well there's a you can can they hear Us online can you hear us can you hear us Tim can you hear us I can hear you we're fine all right but I don't know if you're recording the recording is looking red at the moment well maybe 1623 is recording it directly we're recording yeah I'm just not getting sound do my headphones you PL Red's not good oh red is you got distracted I by lights the green and red light light don't signing the withdrawal sure yeah not your is it the letter I thought that was we like thank you the town clerk likes people good we're waiting to see if she can she's calling fix I sound off so feed that's the problem yeah it's got to be on her I mean if it's going through Zoom they're hearing on Zoom already Tim can you hear us yeah they said they could hear us she could hear us yeah so it's not on there you talk I'm just TR to checkins can you hear us yes I can I can hear you not being recorded can hear you too and the recording looks screen to me what it's it's being recorded by3 [Music] isord she can't he the piece of Steel also fell through S can you just report on that good can you activate on theost yeah yeah SC my they well want to keep going this CR take good notes in case the recording doesn't come through set okay thank you all fixed okay awesome um we're now G to move to 96 old Essex Road I will open the public hearing for the application of Timothy Collins on behalf of 96 old essic LLC for variance under sections 5.4 and 12.3.3 of the zoning bylaw and other relief as may be necessary for relief from the minimum Frontage requirements to create a second lot on an existing conforming lot where the new lot would lack the minimum Fage requirement 96 old ess6 row assessor map number 58 Lot Number Eight in District B f with the town clerk on February 1st 2024 Mr Collins are you going to present your application yes thank you and I'm sorry I can't be there in person I have both the flu and conjunctivitis I'm quarantining myself so my apologies my co um my co-owner though Mike Al is in the room with you um okay thank you but um I was prepared to to do the presentation for the two of us so I hope you can hear me clearly yes we do have um so our lot is 60,000 square feet and the minimum lot size in in this particular zone is only 15,000 square feet so it's it's four times the size of a of the minimum lot requirement and the main hardship is that it is a long and narrow lot blocking out all of the backland from development without without a variance the request if you're if you can see the site plan we're we're actually going to request a carve 60,000 square feet into into three portions there's lot number one where the existing houses will be conforming in every way houses right up on the street it'll be 15,000 square feet plus it'll conform to all the setbacks it'll have the minimum Frontage requirements um that's Lot number one completely conforming Lot number two is where we need the variance this will be a not a pork chop um shape but more like a popsicle it'll have a long narrow piece of land with Frontage that runs back and then turns into know a big ACR siiz lot where a bu a house could be built and that's indicated as Lot number two and in fact on the site plan where it says Lot number two 429102 on a second tier so the land kind of sloped up uh in three tiers the level of the land at the street is basically level at street level and then it ramps up in plateaus um in the area where the house would be built and then it ramps up in plateaus again in the back there's also a small parcel that we will be cutting off it's it's listed on the site plan as parcel 3 and it's just a tiny little 2000 square foot piece that we would be selling to the neighbor cenne berer and his wife Ivon Blanchard um to accommodate a large shed that um is currently on our property and by they accidentally put it on a property by selling them off that that piece it makes that shed conforming and it gives them a buffer from any development that we do um on on Lot number two um trying to think here so the the important thing I think to note with regard to how this may uh impact the neighborhood and why we believe it'll have little to no impact is that the access to Lot number two would be by the existing driveway we're not creating a new driveway we're not creating a curb cut there is an existing driveway that has been used by the previous owners of this lot for 50 years to support their landscaping business so that driveway already exists they their landscaping equipment back there they would dump uh debris leaves brush from their landscaping jobs back up there and we of course would not be using it for any commercial businesses but the that we proposed to be built back there would use that existing driveway so no new driveways or curb cuts are are needed and that is an existing functioning driveway the the way that we get to a 12 foot wide driveway which is what it would be is that the four feet of land uh that of Frontage uh that belong that would belong to Lot number two would be added on to but with an8 foot wide U easement to provide a total of 12 feet for that driveway and I believe 12 feet is the what you need to get an emergency vehicle U Back to the property so it would be 12 feet wide and the two houses that exist the the slab ranches that exist there at 96 and 98 old desic um both are set back a a little bit from the property line and neither of those houses actually have any windows on the sides of the houses that face the driveway just as a an additional point of of minimal impact we've driven our our cars and some equipment back there over this past year the neighbors didn't even notice that we had been doing that because they they have no no windows on that side and they largely live on the right side another thing to to point out is that our house at 96 old desic is one of three slab ranches right in a row at that section of old Essex uh 94 old Essex is to our left and immediately to the left of that lot is a long road it's it's very narrow it looks like a driveway from the street that services I don't know six or seven houses um up in the back there to the right of US 98 Old essics immediately to the right of them is another long driveway that leads to the back area and has four houses on it and so for us to use a long driveway to access a residential property in the back would be very consistent with what else is happening on this street and also in many other areas throughout the town these kind of pork chop siiz Lots exist throughout the town to no detriment to the community in many cases you know very stately homes exist with these long driveways and because we're a historic town we didn't have the benefit of you know having a town planner plot out our street north and south and our Avenues East and West so that we could you know gain access to all the buildable land we've got old streets that were cart paths and and such and and so without the variance to approve these you know minimum Frontage requests you can't unlock these buildable Lots I know many of you were at the site visit this weekend that's a beautiful piece of land up there it's just begging for a house and we would ask that you as you have in the past approve approve this variance to um allow us to create this one acre lot um for for building for building a house if I if I can just add one more piece of I'm sure I've gone on too long but I was in front of this board three years ago and with the same same request I had a a piece of land and I asked for a variance to split it in half split it into two um which would create a one totally conforming lot and one non-conforming lot and it was non-conforming for the same reason it lacked the minimum Frontage and you approv that variance and since then the house has been built there that house was on uh House Hunters on HGTV and it's it's a modest siiz house it's not a mcmansion sold for 1.77 million and the neighbors are delighted I mean I it was a good example of how to use a variance to unlock you know valuable property and this town needs housing and what we're talking about here is single family housing which nobody has a problem with in this town you when you come to some of the higher density multis you know then then there's more conversations and discussion but when it comes to adding single family homes to this town it's within the character of the town and we need housing and not on the other side of 128 I'm talking we need we need housing on our side as well I think that's it for my presentation okay thank you um questions from the board Rob do you have any questions to Mr colins noan not this time done I don't have any questions do you have comments well I just think that you know the this the spirit of the the bylaw for granting variances is not really this is not the right Avenue for this I think a better Avenue would have been you know through the planning board with a subdivision plan um so you know we're the whole point of granting Varian is we're supposed to be very strict about that and I just don't think this is the right Avenue situation um I I don't uh really have any questions for Mr Collins at this time I may have some question questions for board discussion but I can hold those Sean I don't have any at this time Jim what's the hardship you okay we haven't heard the hardship yet Mr Collins what's the hardship the the hardship is the is the size of the the um not the size it is the dimensions of the lot that it is a it is a long narrow lot that doesn't provide me the ability to obtain the minimum Frontage needed so it's isn't that the purpose of the bylaw I don't what you mean by that well the purpose of the bylaw was to have a frontage requirement so that you didn't couldn't create pork chop lots and to cut down on the density and the amount of development that occur um my other question would be is my understanding is the Forest Street situation was a completely different set of facts it was was not asking for a frontage of 3.9 ft um and there it was an existing ownership it's my understanding you purchased this in July of 2023 the same time when the survey was done which would seem to mean that you purchased the property with the intention of subdividing it but had the information knowing that in order to do that you needed variance so it's not like you owned it for 50 years uh that is correct although I didn't own Forest Lane for for for even five years either my point to Jim's point there another Avenue besides a variance that should that be ised before the hardship there is there a hardship if there was another Avenue to get this done is the question I have the bylaws exist so that homeowners aren't just building houses in their backyards where rather than declare a hardship go the route of a uh sub develop you know subdividable that's the only question answer that then I'll be well he I don't see that hardship has been established and that has to be proven by the applicant not by us I just make a Qui question yes so would you just state your name and address yeah my name is Mike Alden I'm Tim's business partner okay 966 um my only comment was there are as Tim pointed out right in site of our house there's same exact thing long driveways that have gone back to much larger developments than what we're proposing um same I'm not sure the exact dimensions of the driveway um but it seems to me that that's happened quite frequently I'm just curious if that was done by subdivision or if that was done by the process that we closing now I don't believe it would have been done by a variance um it may have been done by a I don't know the age of those houses I don't know when it was done I don't know if it was before Zone existed we we have many we do have pork chop Lots in Manchester but for the most part they were because they existed prior to zoning I have one next to me and there was a little tiny house on there next to story high school long before zoning went into a and so therefore they were allowed to use a special permit to rebuild on that lot I think it's different when you're trying to create a new lot that's in effect not a developable lot because it doesn't have the frontage and there's certainly a certain expectation on behalf of people in the neighborhood that if the lot's not developable it wouldn't be developed unless it went through a subdivision okay thank you I know we did get signatures from most of the neighbors that they were it doesn't seem to agree with the information that we've been receiving from the University it seems that there is a according to the emails that I've read and we have copies of them and I guess they'll be introduced by the chair um there seems to be serious objection to this so what you just said um I would take how many signatures did we get you personally went and talked to a lot of the neighbors and we can introduce that into yeah I mean I I think Jim I I don't know I I've seen one email in opposition maybe two and the signatures are from one two three four five six different ad seven different addresses probably more people than that I just counted the addresses so see seems to be more in support than an opposition but these signatures are they don't really say much about why they're supporting so I'll introduce that into the record um so a petition was included in the application expressing support from Andrew and Kimberly Winslow at 98 Old Essex Road Michael Brenan at 89 old Essex Road Jason and Jenna SE more at 95 old Essex row Donna and Hillary Hall at 7 Andrews Avenue Carmen Stevens at 16 old Essex Road Davis Bradford at 128 old Essex Road um and Sam Crocker at 91 Old Essex Road Mr Crocker subsequently raised concerns regarding flooding in the area and Nate the roers the DPW engineer provided an email indicated indicating that they must periodically maintain the storm water system as degree aums in addition we received a letter from Michael T Sullivan and Jennifer W Rigs of 81 old Essex Road dated March 19 2024 opposing the application requesting us to deny it and setting forth the facts that they felt um applied to not granting a variance in addition late this afternoon we received um an email um from D and D Stern um saying they wanted to go on record with opposition to The Proposal it was David and Daniel Stern of 106 Old essic Road and one of their concerns was they when they purchased their houses part of the reason for the purchase was the open space that was there on a non-developable a lot and so they weren't expecting it to be developed um so with that I think that I will see if there's anybody in the room who wishes to speak on this application um I would ask that you try not to restate what somebody else has said you certainly can say you support what they said um but we'll see how it goes um um yes please state your name and address Mar 86 over6 um of T I would like to talk about one house behind us was built 82 rear over the six row it caused so much water and ice damage the DBW would be coming by to break up the ice 84 86 and 88 now have sun in driveways um I went before town meeting had a special drain put in front of our house so we could get into the driveway I see this project as a terrible uh water issue it's going to be flowing down that Hill there's no drainage that I'm a aware of I spun by today and um I couldn't and in his letter Michael Mike Sullivan writes you have bylaws against such things this is not a hardship it's to make money um and Mr Hatcher did not have his business uh in his backyard he actually had it at his family's own on Pine Street Mr Hatcher built that for the love of his property he had a pond back there which I've been told has been uh destroyed covered with soil I don't know um but it is a beautiful uh piece of land but it's not for a home this old the six row can be described as ecliptic um the houses on Andrews a have been there as long as I have and that's over 50 years uh the hit the Mansions up on the hill still I don't know how they were built because a fire truck can not properly get up up them and down them and um the houses across the way um that was better than a a horse as far I was going to go in there so I think we neighbors were excited that um but I don't see this helping the neighborhood at all my heartbreaks from MAA she has lived in that home for longer than I have and it's not an asset to the neighborhood and if you had come to my house I would not have signed you went to people who will not be impacted by water that water is going to flow and it's going to go across the street to Mr Sullivan's property I had ledge I had to spend like $4,000 to restore myell a door from the water that pours off of 82 rear ledge l problem yeah and you're and everyone across the street is going to have water and with the passing of Jack Shay Jack kept that Brook clean there's no one keeping that Brook clean and it's all I listen to is some PS from my so I ask you to follow your bylaws if you can and do not allow this this is not a hardship this is a money maker for someone and it's going to just another thing to hurt old dist six Road thank you is there anybody else yes sir would you state your name and address Andrew Winslow 98 old6 um so I had spoke with Tim originally um I did sign that document um but I'd like I came to this meeting um I'd like to withdraw my support for that um um for various reasons um in addition to the water and the supporting the Sterns outlook on having you know more houses built in the work behind me um I also have um a comment where Tim had made where I don't have a window on the side of the house that faces the driveway saying that I don't notice that um we certainly do notice that um there's been a lot of concerns about the property at 96 old S6 in the recent weeks um that I think a lot of the neighborhood has concerns about um I know various people here are aware of those concerns um but I I'd like to formally withdraw on this anybody else yes ma'am state your name and address Martha Elder 94 old Road you had a walkabout of some sort on correct uh there was a beautiful Pond behind 96 and it wasn't really a pond all righty it was manmade by Bill Hatcher who lived in on uh uh in 96 old Essex Road and actually it was for the Overflow of water that comes off the rocks and I I'm a lady with the rocks in the caves okay and it comes and I'll tell you there's some beautiful beautiful shots when it really rains I've got waterfalls in my backyard and uh he tried I do believe to be sure when he filled in the pond which he did and he put a pipe system okay of some sort it reminds me of a French grain and uh Bill had a h Waterway a small little Waterway between my property and his property and it was working just fine and dandy and I will have to admit everything is fine now but we haven't had anything to prove okay that it is going to continue to work uh without any big rains or snow uh building up and what have you so I would like to know if the conservatory uh conservation conservation if the conservation people uh has looked at has any uh opinion in regards to this application that would be something that's completely separate from the the zba one of the requirements is is that we can't predicate our decision on what any other board may or may not very wellcome do you um so and I don't know whether that's in within the jurisdiction of kcom or not um but if it is within their jurisdiction then I'm sure they would be notified I'm sorry but I just I just can't support this at all I just I don't know what next winter is going to bring and lived there for 55 years and been extremely extremely late to living there and hope it keeps up but uh I can't support this measure thank you yes ma'am I'm Lisa Watkins on 103 olds um I just want to not support the um building but support the opposition and the statements that were already made about the lack of hardship um and the slippery slope the my lawn and build a house in front of my lawn and request of varant um and that could tricle all the way down through our neighborhood um so I'd like to oppose thank you anyone else yes ma'am M Jennifer Brandon at 89 old Essex Road my husband Mike actually signed um the letter of support but you know for all the reasons we've spoken about we would also like to withdraw anyone else in the room speak yes um is there anybody on Zoom who would like to speak to this application if so please raise your hand so we can recognize you I see David Stern would you please state your name and address hi David Stern 106 old Essex and um I'm just going on record in opposition to the variant um in August my wife and I first heard of Mr Colin's intentions to divide the lot and build a second home when he he approached our neighbors requesting support to tap into our utilities and construct a new driveway that would join into our existing shared driveway uh that serves the four Homes at 100 102 104 and 106 old essics um I speak only for my wife and myself tonight but I'm comfortable sharing that Mr Colin's Vision was unanimously rejected 5 months later I again through the neighbors heard that Mr Collins was requesting approval for new plan to divide 96 old essics into four Lots this time and to build a second home and again this failed to Garner any of our support um just listening to this meeting I'm getting new Clarity on the actual plans and I I just point that out to call into question the support he may have earned from some uninformed residents on the street which was just confirmed also but um the privacy and the natural Beauty provided by the undeveloped wooded area behind the home in 96 old essic was part of the appeal in purchasing our home our above mentioned neighbors share that sentiment and I'm pleased to see our neighbors at 94 and '98 old essics have just confirmed their feelings on that here um the zoning bylaws open by defining their Authority and purpose and the first two bullet points are to encourage the most appropriate use of land and to prevent overcrowding of the and this variant seems to be in direct opposition to those initiating directives Section 1 of the bylaws continue additionally declaring the purpose of conserving the value of land in buildings and I think constructing an additional home there would surely impact the values of surrounding properties negatively um I understand that Mr Collins has executed this maneuver before and so I'd like to raise the additional concern that approval of this variance would give Mr Collins others a green light going forward to divide lots and build spec homes all over town for profit violating the spirit of our zoning bylaws and degrading our historic Town's appealing character and natural beauty so if the only hardship is buying a lot knowing what it is I see no reason why the town would support this variance or plans for a second home at 96 old essics thank you thank you is there anybody else on Ving who would like to be H this application so please raise your hand I'll send it back to the board thoughts comments s may I speak this is Tim am I able to speak yes okay um first of all I'm I'm shocked at the um at the neighbors clearly some people have changed their minds about their support and others I didn't speak to um and I was unaware of such um opposition to to this project quite frankly second I know my Old Testament and my name is Tim it is not Noah and the rain is going to rain and the water's going to flow and this variance application is going to do nothing to change that it would not have the water continues to run down hill into the street and my development or my proposed house was going to would have nothing a positive impact because of the drainage I would have put in however ever having heard all this opposition I would like to withdraw my application without prejudice and and um and just move on okay any comments from the board request to NOP just you appreciate it okay I'll make a motion um I move to close the public hearing and at the request of the applicant to approve the request to withdraw the application without prejudice for a variance create a second lot without adequate Frontage at 96 Old essic Road assessor map number 58 Lot number 8 in District b f with the town clerk on February 1st 2024 do I have a second a second Sean second any discussion then I'll take a vote Rob John approve SE approved K approve Sarah approves um so I'll need you Mr Collins to sign this unless your partner can sign on your behalf yeah that's fine Mike's a co-owner he can sign on my behalf okay I thank everyone for attending tonight she make me I'm now going to move on to 26 practice Street I hope you're not feeling lonely come back in um I will open the public hearing for the application of Charles William EPS III and Caitlyn Conelly EPS for a special permit under sections 5.4 7.2 and 12.5 with the zoning bylaw and other relief as may be necessary to increase the existing non-conforming coverage by structure the impervious surfaces and a variance under sections 5.4 and 12.3.3 of the zoning bylaw and other relief that may be necessary to allow the connection of a conforming accessory structure to the primary residents to make it accessible for a disabled child at 26 CL Street assessor map number 16 Lots number 19 and 24 in District e f with the town clerk on February 20th 2024 Mr GL are you going to present the application I guess will um evening I'm Mark lski with a lawyer for Trey and celand EPS the owners of the property with an office at St Washington Street in Beverly uh sadly the uh EPS couldn't be here tonight but I think they're joining us virtually together with their architects who also couldn't be here tonight who I believe is joining us virtually Garrett Goodridge and Mike Tarter M they're good new is on they're from p and Trey BS are also on yes okay um most of you uh attended the site visit last Saturday so I think you're familiar with the existing physical conditions U site plan before you indicates it's the property is a non-conforming lot in the in District e which requires 90,000 F feet uh the subject property has 36333 it's a lot that was built on uh more than 100 years ago uh after its original configuration it was added on to the area in the back where you saw the swimming pool was acquired later and so the lot has grown but it hasn't grown up to 990,000 square ft so it's a non-conforming lot the structures on the lot uh are also said at least 100 years old U there's a twostory barn garage building which is about 20 ft from the existing house uh you saw the existing conditions the garage is non-conforming uh it is currently 3 and 1/2 ft from the side set back in 3.6 ft from the rear what this project anticipates is is the connection of the garage to the main dwelling by a uh 20t connector that the Architects can describe better than I if need be but by doing that the garage building becomes a prim part of the primary structure so uh consequently it is uh a situation that now necessitates a variance because the set back requirements for the main dwelling are higher than they are for an accessory building so in this case the side setback is 20 ft and we only have 3 and 1/2 ft currently that would have been fine if we didn't connect the garage to the house but by connecting it we need to comply with a 20 ft we obviously don't and consequently we need a variance in that respect we also need a special permit for modifying the nonconforming house on a non-conforming lot the house itself is currently 4.7 ft from the rear setback uh as you know if you have an existing single family nonconformity uh you can make that condition even more intense without a variance so in that case we would need a we would need a special permit because by connecting the house to the garage the house becomes closer to the rear line than the 4.7 the four the 4.7 related to the dwelling portion uh of the uh improvements the 3.6 relates to the setback of the existing garage so the house itself will obviously uh get about a foot closer to the rear line and that requires a special permit lastly the uh lot coverage by structures and imperious surfaces is limited to 25% that the existing conditions succeed that there's 9761 Square ft of lot coverage which equals 26.9% and the improvements that we're proposing would increase that 9,761 to 10,108 thereby increasing the lot coverage uh again from 26.9 to 27.8 which requires a special permit so we need multiple special permits and the varant in order to complete the project uh as you heard in the reading of the legal notice uh the primary purpose of this project is to make the interior of the dwelling uh and the accessibility of the dwelling uh handicapped accessible to enable the EPS six-year-old daughter who is uh handicapped and in a wheelchair to be able to access all portions of the house and move from the garage to the house uh and at the moment that's a little easier because she's six years old and she can be lifted and carried and the wheel TI smaller but as she gets older the equipment's going to be more cumbersome and heavier and consequently the EPS are anticipating that and eager to make the improvements sooner than later the application itself included uh our rationale was required pursu to section 7.5.2 U and I have addressed some of that with respect to the site itself obviously it's been used as a single family property for more than 100 years we're not changing the use of it it certainly has adequate Frontage and and uh distance from existing improvements uh without the need of any special relief uh it is not going to modify the traffic in the neighborhood the design of the improvements as you can see from the plans in front of you uh is consistent with the architecture of the house again uh Garrett Andor Mike could talk to that if need be uh but I think that actually what they're proposing is actually going to uh add some detail of the house and make some modifications which enhance the existing Arch um as far as utilities go it's not going to be affected by this project it has an adequate septic system and other utilities uh with respect to the variance that's being requested uh unlike the prior application uh I think uh this is a situation where we certainly meet the uh legal parameters for obtaining uh that relief uh the lot itself as you can see from the site plan is uh irregularly shaped the existing Barn is uh pinched into the corner of the property and it's been like that forever so because of the relationship of the existing improvements in the lot uh to the unusual INF figuration we can't complete this project without the relief that we're requesting tonight and what we're requesting is the reasonable is the minimal relief they can grant reasonable relief to the applicants uh and I I think that that hopefully that is obvious um and that I think is is all I can tell you at this point we're happy to answer any questions you have I'm actually looking for my I I I did spell out the grounds for the variance uh better than I just explain them in the application and uh I'd be happy to go through that again if need be I think I'll ask Mr Goodridge to to speak about um the architectural design and how you came to the decision to do what's being done hi there this is Garrett good speaking um from Patrick ahern's office um the the goal honestly for the design was to enhance the existing characteristics of um the dwelling that has been on the property for um over 100 years now and um one of the goals of our firm is to um sort of bre bre life back into the Timeless classical architecture that uh New England is known for um in terms of the addition that is being proposed we feel that the um the scale uh it's a roughly 8 foot wide by 20 foot um addition connecting the main dwelling to the garage um the the scale of that addition is um diminus in comparison to sort of the or when you relate it to other uh structures along the street along parter Street um so we feel that in addition to providing the necessary means to uh transport um the eps's daughter uh very comfortably and safely uh from the garage and uh to the dwelling on a day-to-day basis um we feel that that achieves the goals that um Caitlin and Trey were aiming to to do um if there are any other questions specific to the the comprehensive design I'm I'm happy to answer those thank you um now I'll ask um training Caitlyn EPS if you have anything you'd like to speak to with respect to the application um you know I think as we kind of walked through during the uh site visit a lot of what we're trying to deal with with that connection in particular is the fact that the getting Avery out of the home to the driveway level currently requires us to either carry her or bump her down in her wheelchair down four steps and as she grows um and likely loses ability given the progressive nature of her disease as we know so far by our research team at MGH has been incredible um those devices may not even be able to do that in the future um and bump down you know we may not even even be able to manually bump them down so without the opportunity to have a covered space given how much wind and rain and Ice happen in our particular location it kind of comes over the town of Manchester and whips across the harbor um that covered space becomes crucial to safely get her out of the house and us as we age um and into a vehicle and so that is where um you know we are seeking this variance for that as far as the rest of the opportunities that is really about um quality of life and being able to access her home and her family uh while at home which you know should be the most accessible place and currently isn't you know at the moment when she can move around the fir a majority of the first floor of her home she cannot go upstairs without with her wheelchair it does not fit and so um which of nature of an old home means that the hallways are extremely narrow so um you know that's where we really took to um one of the most important decisions we made was who was our architect going to be and how could they really honor the history of the house and what this street used to be and who were the families that really built these original homes and that's something that Patrick aarn and Garrett and Mike really do I mean from the moment we've met them and if you were to go on the website what we've heard is when we leave it should feel like we were never here and so we feel like even though this connection does require a variance that it will be done in the most respectful way possible and something that I think the street really deserves am I correct that there's a list in the connector that's correct sorry that's correct there will be um with within the there will both stairs for Access as well as a a lift yeah we tried to do a ramp um and that was why we ended up at the width of the connector that we did we tried to do a ramp it was far too long for anyone to reasonably use um and especially given the progressive nature of Avery's um disease we felt like the likelihood of her gaining strength was minimal the likelihood of her losing strength was Far higher and subsequently even potentially moving to a um um a uh motorized wheelchair and so then the idea of having to continuously migrate up a 30 foot ramp given the height difference of the house to the garage just seemed silly and that uh lift would make the most sense so that she could transition from the car garage into the lift up to the house level and then everything once in the home would be zero threshold as well so there will be a lift next to stairs um and that was kind of the need for the added width of the connector questions from the board I would just add a couple things if I may uh first off uh I think you received some communication from most of the neighbors uh before the EPS dove into this project uh they wanted to make sure that the neighbors were buying in and uh they've kept the neighbors oppressed throughout the court of of the process and consequently I believe you have uh letters or emails from almost everybody uh if you don't I have copies here we we have an email from Peter and Caton of six a a and one from Chris Po and Georgia Pendergrass of 29 proper Street I don't believe we any other I miss okay I I talk to um Mona and she had intended to write one i' had as did the West so I'll just see if they had a chance to send them I know that it was um Mona was out in California where she spent some time I have I I have Mona's right here okay great thank you you and lastly I guess uh after hearing PN I would say that uh going back to the variant matter that uh granting the requested relief is going to be consistent with the purpose of the zoning ordinance as we heard alluded to in the prior application uh as opposed to derogating from it uh by encouraging appropriate use of land in buildings by allowing various housing types to accommodate diverse and special needs of Manchester residents and by enhancing the value of land and buildings so I I think we satisfy all the requirements thank you when you chose to apply for a variance rather than a request for reasonable accommodation yes okay that uh no uh other than uh it seemed appropriate under the circumstances um questions from the board Rob do you have any questions comments pretty straightforward I mean one of the largest parts of my job is ensuring accessibility and happy to have the opportunity do that here today no I'm good Jen I I have no objections to it I would like to point out that this work is osed um should the um the EPS at some point vacate that property would not have any effect on the house or the surroundings um and I think so what they're doing is long-term a very good thing it's actually improving the property so I would support it of course John yeah I have no okay think this is a thoughtful and and well laid out project that's asking for reasonable relief and I would agree I I I think that they here to have spent a lot of effort to do as much as they can to make it really accessible and do it with as little um adverse impact um to the neighborhood is as possible and I think they've showed a true hardship okay is there any member of the public on Zoom who would like to be heard if so please raise your hand ready for me to make a motion and my plan is to make two separate motions one for the special permit and one for the BS we'll vote on each one separate I move to close the public hearing and approve the application of Charles W FEPS the thir and Caitlyn Conelly FEPS for a special permit under sections 5.4 7.2 and 12.5 of the zoning bylaw and other relief as may be necessary to allow an increase in the coverage by structures and impervious surface from 26.9% to 27.8% where 25% is allowed and to alter a non-conforming structure on a non-conforming lot at 26 Proctor Street assessor map number 16 Lots number 19 and 24 in District e file with a town clerk on February 20th 2024 based on a finding that the proposed use is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the bylaw the proposed alteration in the coverage requirement and to the to the non-conforming structure on a non-conforming lot is in harmony no sorry will not be more detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood in which it is located than the non-conforming structure and the existing non-conforming coverage by structures in impervious surface and the requirements and conditions under 12.5.2 of the zoning bylaw with the grant of a special permit have been met based on the condition that the residential structure renovation is constructed in accordance with the following plans topographic plant of land prepared by Hancock Associates existing site survey dated June 16 23 proposed site survey dated February 14 24 zoning board of appeals submission March 20th 2024 prepared by Pat Patrick AAR aerial photo page two existing exterior photos page 4 through five existing versus proposed exterior elevations Pages 8- 12 existing and proposed floor plans Pages 13- 18 and illustrative site plan page 19 do I have a second second Catherine second any discussion take a vote Rob approved John appr Sean approved K approved yes now move on to the variant I further move to approve the application of char William EPS the thir and Caitlyn Connelly EPS for a variance under sections 5.4 and 12.3.3 the zoning BW and other relief as may be necessary to construct a connector with lift between the existing non-conforming accessory garage to attach it to the existing primary residence resulting in a new non-conforming encroachment into the side setback du the difference in the setback requirements for an accessory structure and a primary structure based on a finding that the location of the existing garage owing to circumstances relating to the shape of the land especially affecting such land and structures but not generally affecting the zoning District in which it is located a little enforcement of the provisions of this bylaw would involve a substantial hardship Financial or otherwise by not allowing the applicants to create an ADA Compliant residence for the disabled young daughter and that the desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of purpose of the bylaw based on the condition the residential structure renovation is constructed in accordance with all plans listed above under the conditions for the issuance of a special permit do I have a second second Catherine second any discussion take a vote Sean appr approved Rob approved joh approved s approves I can write this would would like to review it thank you y all set thank you thank you projects make great sense yes they do right that was [Music] thank you very much thank you than thanks bye everyone thanks well you get to leave early I okay we have minutes to approve they're really old um I think I resent out the one for November 15th and December 21st that I had edited you did um are people prepared to vote on those yes so I do I have a motion to approve the minutes from November 15 23 and December 21st 23 Sean okay Sean moves and Jim seconds take a vote Rob John I wasn't here I approve cine John Jim Sarah we'll hold the ones for January because I have some changes to those I kind of make changes as I'm writing decisions that's when I did you have any questions the comments that I sent you on that no okay thanks um status of the decisions outstanding the 49 Forester went out for review today I think all the other ones from January are still outstanding that's correct who has them I think I got one I have the rest okay and I hope to do them in the next couple of days okay got way behind the last couple of we so um now our next meeting is April 17th right which is school vacation week yeah we have one application which is 35 School Street and it is it's at the corner of Brook Street and there's a little house there that's going to be torn down and then put in two connected condo type town houses um I had concerns with the application when I looked at it that there might be coverage requirements or sets or something so I'm concerned that it might take more than one meting um and because the next meeting is during school vacation I'm wondering if we want to not hold a meeting in April and defer that application to no or does everyone want to do it on the 17th let's defer it to May second guess check it's still within the 65 days so we can do that I'm not sure if I can be here so that was but I remember have to be in Pennsylvania okay anything else people wish to discuss no okay so Gail yes would you contact Mr gtis I will be happy to contact the applicants okay just let them know we're not going to hold the April meeting that we'll hold it in May and don't put anything in the paper ail please nothing in the paper got it missed a lot what Miss literally missed a lot wow yeah you miss that you missed it all you can't believe what we did while you were gone oh I can anything is more than what I would do if I was um with that I'll take a motion to adjourn so ran moves do I have a second J second all in favor okay thank you very much by what does that all know he wouldn't tell me he said he was gonna start say but it's he can't long done long conversation i s