It's Wednesday, December 17th at 7:02 p.m. and I will call the Manchester Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to order. This meeting is being recorded. I have with me in the room from the board um
Moore, Georgia Pendergast, Sean Zan, and John Banerys. I believe we have and Brian Miss Hollisy is a liazison from the select board and I believe that Sue Filbert is on who's the leazison from the planning
department planning board. She has a flu if she stayed home. Um the first item on the agenda is the um continued application for 48 nor
>> I believe. >> Yeah. So I'm I'm in via Zoom tonight. >> Can you hear me? Okay. >> Yeah. I need to open the continued public >> um I move to open the continued public
hearing for the application of David and Jane Metrono for a special permit under sections 9.1.3 and 12.5 of the zoning bylaw and other relief as may be necessary to construct a 186 square foot large ADU and
variances under sections 9.1.3 and 12.3 3.3 and other relief as may be necessary to construct a large ADU in district D1 which encroaches into the primary
side and rear setbacks at 48 Norwood A, assessor's map number 50, lot number 19 in district D1 filed with the town clerk on October 16th, 2025. Do I have a second to open the continued
public hearing? Second, >> Georgia seconds. Roll call vote. Colleen, >> yes. >> Georgia, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> Sean, >> yes. >> And Sarah votes yes. Um, I received an email this afternoon and I had
conversations several weeks ago um that the applicants have requested to withdraw their application without prejudice as they will construct the accessory structure as presented with a kitchenet without a
stove rather than the full kitchen since it meets the setback requirement for an accessory structure and they are not seeking approval for a large ADU. No special permit or variance is required. A quirk of our bylaws.
>> Veronica, do you have anything to add? >> I do not. Thank you, Sarah. >> Um, any questions from the board or comments? >> Um, I move to close the public hearing and at the request of the applicant
approve the withdrawal without prejudice of the above referenced application. Do I have a second? >> Second. Georgia seconds. >> Any discussion? I'll take a vote. Colleen, >> yes. >> Georgia,
>> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> Sean, >> yes. >> Sarah, yes. Um, next I think I'm going to just the order the agenda and take the new applications next before we do the
continued public hearing for 22 Union Street. So, the next application is an application for 38 C Street requesting a special permit to expand a screened porch and add decks.
I move to open the public hearing for the application of Nicole Aranita. I sure I screwed that up. of Wanesquam Home Design LLC on behalf of Katherine Taylor and George Langondorf
for a special permit under section 7.2 to 12.5 of the zoning bylaw and other relief as may be necessary to expand a non-conforming dwelling which encroaches into the front and rear setbacks on a non-conforming lot by expanding a screen
forge repa replacing a patio with a deck and adding a second floor deck at 38C street assessor's map number 15 lot number 37 in district E with the town
clerk on November 17, 2025. Do I have a second to open the public hearing? >> Second. >> Take a vote. John, >> yes. >> Sean, >> yes. >> Colleen, >> yes. >> Georgia, >> yes.
>> And Sarah, yes. Okay. I know. Um, Nicole, are you on to present the application? >> Yes, I am on uh Zoom. >> Great. >> Could you explain what the proposed
project is? >> Sure. Um, do you want me to share my screen or do you guys have all the handouts in front of you? >> I think we have everything in front of us. >> Okay, great. Um so on the first sheet which is the site plan you can see the
um existing setback of the existing screen porch that we are looking to expand is existing non-conforming. It's the 29.6 6 foot set back there to the corner of the rear um set uh the rear screen porch. And we are looking to
increase that non-conformity by expanding that screen porch to the new 23 foot setback to the rear property line. So that's kind of a first phase of it. Um the other portion of this proposal is that uh there is a rear
brick patio that we are looking to remove um and replace with a proposed wood deck. So that changes the kind of imperous calculation where we're removing an impervious surface and replacing it with a rain through deck.
And then the third part of this is on the front of the home where there's an existing deck on that um on the front right corner of the home and the site plan on the second floor. We're looking to expand um and build a new uh second
floor deck. So it's over the existing deck by about half of that footprint. So we are keeping the same setback but we are increasing the nonconformity of that by increasing the height of that second floor uh proposed deck. Um,
if you want to look at the existing partial floor plans, EX101, um, the first floor plan, uh, the majority of the work on the right, you can see the existing screen porch in the rear of the home that opens up to that
brick patio hatch. And then the labeled front deck is where the second floor deck will be proposed above. So, this is all the existing. And if you look at the existing building elevations on EX201. Um you can see the front of the home um
which faces east is the existing building elevation east um elevation number two that shows kind of the majority of what the proposed scope is that we're looking at what the existing condition is now where you have on the left that first floor um open deck and
then the front door under the uh a shed roof and then to the right of that front door is the existing screen porch. If you jump to the page five, the proposed building elevation is that same elevation but now proposed. You can see we are looking to expand the deck to the
rear and about 2'4 um to the east as well to um not only give some more interior space to the screen porch, but also give us this ability to create a gable roof over the front entry door to really bring some hierarchy to the front of the home. And then you can see on the
left hand side there, that's that second floor proposed roof deck um over the existing deck they were proposing. So in the floor plan on A101, you can see kind of the the dashed line of the existing screen porch and how we
are expanding it 2 feet to the right, 2 foot4 to the right and then out to the back and then this rain through deck uh that we are proposing as well. So, this touch touches on um not just setbacks for what we're seeking relief on. We're
seeking relief on the rear setback and this front back sent back that we're existing non-conforming on this existing non-conforming lot. Um, but we're also as a result of the structure of the proposed deck, we're we are increasing
um the lot coverage by structure from the existing uh in impervious areas. Oh, sorry. We are decreasing actually because we're we are replacing a uh patio which is impervious with a deck. we are actually
decreasing the actual overall imperous area of lots u of lot coverage by structure and impervious areas but when you're just looking at the lock coverage by structure we're actually increasing it from 18.6% to 25%.
Um and I apologize hopefully that makes a little bit of sense. >> Yep. questions from the board. >> No, I think we uh Colleen and I did go on the the site visit um and the um
deck is there kind of woods in the back, trees in the back um behind the deck and the house is if you're familiar with Sea Street, it's right along the street house right along the street.
No, I think the plans that look nice and it's a good plan. >> I agree. >> You have any questions on John? >> Are there any members of the public who wish to be heard on this application?
Anybody in the room? Anybody on Zoom? If you're on Zoom, please raise your hand. Um, when we were on the site visit, the homeowner was there and she did say she'd had a conversation with her
neighbors who supported the project. >> Anything else? >> With that, I'll make a motion. >> Could I could I ask one question before you make the motion? Um, >> yes. Who is this? >> This is George Langondorf. Um I'm the home the homeowner along with my wife.
Okay, Kate. >> Um who had we we had one question which was if we were to um not remove the the brick patio but just build the deck over it um in case uh you know everything in the house is working drainage wise
perfectly right now. Um, and it it might be sort of just cheap cheaper and less impactful to just build the deck over what's existing. Um, and I guess that would impact what Nicole just said about the permeability, but we wondered, and I
certainly don't want to derail anything here, uh, whether um, it would be okay to to I mean, we'd still build the footings in, so some of the brick patio would come up, but just to build the deck sort of over the existing brick without removing all the brick
necessarily. Um the board is generally pretty strict on coverage requirements. Um so I think it would be a challenge if you leave the patio then you're going to
be increasing your total coverage by structures and impervious surface >> because the patio is impervious whereas a deck that's being built is pvious. >> I see. >> That's a question. Yes, John.
>> Is the patio laid over concrete or is it drylaid? >> I don't know. >> Do you hear the question? Um, George, >> is the is the brick patio laid over concrete? Is that the question? >> Is it a drylaid patio like with with stone dust in between or is it like with
concrete? >> It's uh Oh, it's it's stone dust in between. Uh, I know that because I tried to um power wash it and I powerwashed out all of the grout in between the bricks accidentally. Um, so it's not >> so it's
>> really doesn't really I don't think it really matters then. >> Okay. >> In my mind, they're already non-conforming on the impervious surface coverage. It would have been an option to reduce that. I don't think there's a harm in them maintaining that
nonconformity they already have. It sounds like they are going to reduce it a little bit by removing um some of the patio for the post, >> but the deck is larger than the patio. >> But it sounds like the deck's impervious is the way it was proposed.
>> No, the deck is being proposed as pvious. A rain through deck. >> No, exact. Yeah, but if it's going over the imperous patio, but in my mind, the patio is kind of impervious. In my what I'm saying is they're already
non-conforming for having too much impervious surface. So they >> Yeah. >> So if they had a pvious surface over the existing nonconforming impervious and reduce it a little bit, I'm >> that they're saying the existing patio
is impervious. Yes. >> And so you're increasing the size of your structure >> on top of >> by um se uh 700
square ft. So you're increasing your coverage by structures >> from 18.6 six up to 25%. So by eliminating the patio, you're bringing down the
total a little bit. Otherwise, you're going to be pushing that up above the existing 30% by 700 square ft, which is quite a bit, I think. I mean, I think there's always an issue
with patios whether they're permeates or not. I mean, it's one thing if it's laid in concrete, but if it's dry laid over, you know, sand and stone dust, it's not like it's not 100% like it it would be like
gravel, but it's still there's a level of permeability there. >> Semi-pervious semi. >> Yeah. So I that you know the deck when it's done if let's say if we did build it over the existing uh brick would be
partially over over the brick which is is dry laid as John said and then I guess some part of it would be uh removed for the footings of of the deck and then the part of the the deck is as as you mentioned slightly larger than
the brick patio but that portion that is larger would I get you know be over the ground or the the ledge actually. Um, so it would be, I think, equally as permeable as it as it currently is. Um, so that'd be the net effect, but again,
however you you decide is is ultimately fine with us. I just was hoping to ask the question. >> What are your thoughts, Sean? You're being very quiet. shape that makes no I don't
mean I don't think they'd really consider that uh even semi per that when you're bigger than that um >> I think patio is always a challenge
because it's Um, do you have standing water on your patio when it rain? >> No. Um, I mean, let me say it like this, like if it rains within an hour that, you know, the water will have drained.
Um, immediately after it rains, you know, there is water. So, I guess that suggests it's uh semi-permeable. Did someone say, you know, it we don't have standing water after an hour after a rainstorm? Uh so, however you you'd sort
of evaluate that, I guess. >> What are your thoughts, Colleen? Um I don't actually think it's an issue to put the deck over top of that because it is going um it's not going to be sitting there and it's not going to create
problems. Um so I I I would agree that I think what he's proposing should be fine. >> And my thought is since it's already there but we're not adding to it. No, but we're adding to the structure the
>> structure, but we're not actually >> adding 700 square ft of coverage due to the enlargement of I believe some of that may be part of the screen
porch was only being increased by 174 square ft. though I'm not complete on that. The rest of that is the deck. A deck is a structure. >> So that 89 square feet that they're reducing impervious >> is fine.
>> That would have been the hypothetical if they were to remove the whole patio and then build the deck on top >> and build the addition. >> Yeah. On top of Okay. So, in my mind, if they're gonna >> the the the
screen porch is being expanded approximately 174 square ft. So, the patio is included in the original imperous surface calculation. Okay.
They're replacing the impervious brick from 356 to a per permeable with deck of 594. >> So I think that's where I'm getting if can I make comment or no I don't want to stop. Yeah my opinion I similar to Colleen I see no issue with the patio
remaining under the deck being built over it. I say semi-pervious because it has the stone dust in between the joints of the actual rocks. It's not just a laid concrete with a little pitch and all the water is running off or just pooling. There is permeability in there.
I don't see an issue with it. And it sounds like some may come up be removed for the footings. Um but also if the board was really strong on having that removed, I think a patio is easier to take out than put in. But
I I'm I'm not amazing, so I don't know. But that that's I have no issue with the patio staying underneath. >> Okay. >> I guess what's the height of the deck? Like is there a space underneath? >> Yes. >> Like how much >> Well, how high is the deck off the ground?
>> Uh it's not very It's about one step off. So, or a couple steps off. It's pretty low. The the grade changes around it. that >> I think it's like a mac a maximum of of sort of 24 inches down to just a couple inches where it intersects with the the
slope. >> Oh god. >> I was just thinking if it was a high higher deck, you could store things. It's easier to store things under there >> rather than having them sit in mud, >> you know. I was just thinking >> uh it's a good it's a good point. Um but
it's that's how high it is. >> Okay. Yeah. >> So, you want to allow them to leave the patty? >> I'm okay with that. I >> mean, I'm okay with it. And when when people come by in front of us and they they're putting pools in, we always ask
that question. What type of, you know, uh, patio surrounds the pool. It's always an attribute when it's like a dry lake. It's the same thing with certain driveways that come in front of us. It helps with drainage. Okay, I'll make the motion.
I move to approve the application Nicole Aanites of Wan Wanesquam Home Design LLC on behalf of Katherine Taylor and George Legendor for a special permit under sections 1.7.
Hold it just a minute. Forgive that. Motion. I move to close the public hearing and have the board enter into deliberations which was already done. So are we closing the public hearing? Second. Second vote. >> Yes. John. John.
>> Okay. Now I move to approve the application to Kolivan Nites of Wanesquam Home Design LLC on behalf of Katherine Taylor and George Legendor for a special permit under section 7.42 two
and 12.5 of the zoning bylaw and or other relief as may be necessary to repair and expand by approximately 174 square ft a non-conforming screen porch which encroaches into the rear setback.
Replace an existing install install a permobile deck over an existing semi-pervious patio approximately 600 ft which encroaches into the rear setback and construct 131
square foot second floor deck over an existing deck which encroaches into the front setback which decrease the total coverage by structures and imperial services from 30% to 28.8% 8% where 25%
is required on non-conforming lot at 38C street assesses map number 15 lot number 37 in district E filed with the town clerk on November 17 2025 based on a finding the proposed project
is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the bylaw will not be substantially more detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood in which it is located than the existing non-conforming ing dwelling and the requirements under section 12.5.2
of the zoning bylaw for the grant of a special permit have been met based on the following conditions. The decks and screen porch are cited as depicted on the plan of land prepared by JRo's land surveying dated 1114
25. Um the decks and screen porch are constructed substantially in accordance with the following plans prepared by Wannisquam home design dated 111725.
EX101 existing partial floor plans. EX201 existing belt building elevations. a 101 um
proposed partial floor plans um with the clarification that the semi-pervious patio under the proposed rainfree deck will not need to be replaced and A201
proposed filling elevations. questions. Um, do I have a second? >> Second. >> John seconds. Any discussion? >> Take a vote. Colleen, >> yes. >> Georgia, >> yes. >> John, >> yes.
>> John, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Somebody want to write it? >> I'll write it. I >> was about to say I could write it, so I'll review it. >> Okay. judge. >> Yes, >> you're all set. We'll write that within
90 days and it will be filed with the town clerk and there is a 20-day appeal period after it's filed with town clerk. >> Thank you very much. >> Wonderful. Thanks so much for your uh time and attention to this and for the work you guys do for the town. Thanks a
lot. the next one. >> Oh, thank you. >> Thank you. >> There's an envelope downstairs. Um the next application is um three Eagle Head Roads requesting a special permit to construct
a singlestory addition in the front setback and a rear deck on a nonconforming lot. >> Um where would you like me to matter? >> It doesn't matter then throw them out. Um, I move to open
the public hearing for the application of Brian Stein, Vanstein Architecture and Interiors on behalf of Three Eagle LLC for special permits under section 7.2 2 and 12.5 of the zoning bylaw and or other relief as may be necessary to
construct a singlestory addition within the front setbacks on a non-conforming structure and to add an upper level rear deck on the ocean side on a non-conforming lot at three Eaglehead roads assessor's map number 153 lot
number 37 in district E found with the town clerk on November 17 2025 I have a Second. >> Second. >> Public hearing. John, >> yes. >> Sean, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Sarah, yes. >> Um, you notice I added the deck in. >> I did. >> And that's because a lot's non-conforming. >> Right. Yeah. >> So, it's an extension of the structure on the non-conforming lot. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um, so yeah, Brian Stein with Banstein
Architecture, uh, representing Three Eagle LLC. Um, as chair just mentioned, we're proposing about a 420 foot addition on the front of the house in the front setback. Part of it's in the front setback. Uh, we are not going any
farther into the front setback than the current covered porch, entry porch on the front of the house. Um, and then we are also proposing a rear deck that is elevated. Uh, it's a walkout basement. U elevated deck off the main floor. uh
which uh is fully conforming uh to setbacks and so uh we depend to conservation for this and with an actually a larger plan. We had a garage attached as well to the addition but we've since removed that that was
approved uh for conservation. Um so we are just asking for uh relief on the plan setback. Uh the owners have owned this property for quite a while. The house is only 2100 square feet, probably the smallest house
on Eaglehead and they have a large extended family. There's no um half bath or powder room on the first floor and they have some of them work from home when they're here in the summer. So we basically have an office slash sitting
room on the end of this addition that will have the view out over the beach and the deck. So that's pretty much what we're adding. Um, so yeah, this just a kind of a things to give away at times from the rest of the house. So there's really only one main living area in the
house and three bedrooms. So natural living area will be very beneficial for them. Um, so I'm happy to. So it's a one-story addition. >> Uh, very happy to answer any questions that you have. >> Yes. So I'll just add that from the site
visit the topography of the land is such that on the street side is one level on the ocean side is two levels >> like many houses in Manchester. >> Uh questions from the board. >> I did have one quick note. I did it was
a tiny mistake on the block coverage for structures. It was higher than what it actually is. Should be 6.8% for requesting conditions and just under 5% for existing. >> You're saying structure lot coverage by structures is
>> what is it now? >> Is uh just under five right now and it will be 6.8. and the total instructions in previous subject. >> It'll actually be last two, but I don't have those numbers.
>> It's under the record, so we're okay. >> Yeah. Yeah, that's right. >> Um, any members of the public in the room wish to speak on this application? Are there any members of the public on
Zoom who would like to speak on this application? If so, please raise your hand in Zoom. Don't see anybody. Um, so I will make a motion
first. I will close the public hearing. I move to close the public hearing and have the board enter in deliberations with respect to the application. >> Second. >> Georgia seconds. Vote. Colleen. >> Yes. >> Georgia. >> Yes. >> John. >> Yes. >> John. >> Yes.
>> Yes. Okay. I move to approve the application of Brian Stein Vanstein Architecture and Interiors on behalf of Three Eagle LLC for special permits under section 7.2 2 and 12.5 the zoning bylaw and or other
relief is may be necessary to construct an approximately 420 square foot singlestory addition on a non-conforming structure in the front setback and add an approximately how tall how high is the how big is the deck how many square
feet is the deck um approximately 400 ft or so. >> Approximately 400 square foot upper level rear and side deck to a structure on a non-conforming lot at three Eaglehead Road, assessor's map number
13, lot number 37 in district E found with a town clerk on November 17, 2025. based on a finding the proposed project is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the bylaw, will not be substantially more detrimental or
injurious to the neighborhood in which it is located. The existing non-conforming dwelling, and the requirements under section 12.5.2 of the zoning bylaw for the grant of a special permit have been met based on the following conditions.
The addition and deck are located as depicted on the proposed plot plan prepared by Hancock Associates dated 111 2025. The addition and deck are constructed
substantially in accordance with the following plans prepared by Vanstein architect architecture interiors dated 1116205. A 101 floor plans existing and proposed.
A 2011, A20, and A203. Elevations existing and proposed. Do I have a second? >> Second, John. Second.
>> Second. Is everyone in agreement that this will not be substantially more detrimental or injuries to the neighborhood? >> Yes. Yes. >> Any more discussion? Take a vote. Colleen, >> yes. >> Georgia, >> yes. >> John, >> yes.
>> Sean, >> yes. >> Sarah, yes. >> Who would like to vote this race this one? >> Right. Who would like to review it? I'll volunteer. You're also >> Thank you. Our
next item on the agenda is the continued public hearing on 22 Union Street LMC aka park limited.
Um, I move to open the continued public hearing for the application of 22 Union Street LLC for a special permit under sections 4 and 12.5 of the zoning bylaw and other relief as may be necessary for
a change of use in a non-conforming structure from retail to retail and residential and a variance under sections 5.5 and 12.3. 3.3 and other relief is may be necessary to construct a building with three stories
instead of two and a half stories which does not exceed the height of 35 ft at 22 Union Street assessor's map number 51 lot number 62 in district G filed with the town clerk on October 20th 2025. Do
I have a second to open the over here? Saki >> vote. John, >> yes. >> Sean, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Georgia, yes. >> Sarah, yes. >> So, we started this at our last meeting.
Um, we've received some additional documentation. Um would you like to explain the additional information you've supplied us? >> Sure. I think um well first we have Chris uh Vance here. Uh we also have
Jeff Dirk who is our traffic engineer available on Zoom. Uh before we get in get into all of the additional materials though I did want to clarify the record um just to make sure that the board had everything um and that we have everything. I think we're I think we're in sync. Um, but I also did want to
raise the issue of the procedural integrity that I mentioned with regard to Mr. Wells uh email today um and our response to that because that letter as I mentioned in the email um that I had sent to the clerk um earlier may not
have gotten to everybody yet um but that email um states that Mr. Weld is uh writing on behalf of several of the eotterters including Dan Weaver and Scott Pulver as well as several other concerned citizens uh relative to the
significant inadequacies of the submitted BAS study. Um you know I'm duty bound to to mention I mean a letter like this is not procedurally proper. You you cannot there's no evidence on the record that any of the bolts that are named in that letter or any other
citizens have authorized Mr. Well to speak on their behalf. And so we just simply request that, you know, until that happens, uh, that the board consider that letter to be Mr. Well's own personal opinion. That's >> Can the board confirm that beauty?
>> Yeah. Okay. >> Someone said to speak, they should sign, but if they're also here in person, they can speak on their own. So if they didn't sign, that's >> I think that people are here. So yeah, that tough. >> Okay, good. And then just to run through
the record, we have our application that we submitted on October 20th. Uh there's a revised first floor plan that we submitted on November 18th, a 3D rendering that was submitted on November 18th. Then there's a full updated plan
set that was submitted on November 19th which included the additional elevations um showing the properties from the side and the rear um as well as a lighting plan and a landscaping plan. Uh after that there was a traffic impact evaluation by Vanas Associates that we
submitted on December 10th. Um actually that was dated December 10th and we submitted on December 12th. Uh and then on on the uh on the 11th we submitted updated first floor plans. Uh one of the questions that came up at the last meeting was sort of what exactly is
it that the board needed to know exactly what it was going to be approving. And so that's the reason why we submitted two alternative plans that are going to that show exactly what the floor plan layout would be under both alternatives. Under the alternative there'll be the small 500 square foot uh commercial unit
and then three um units on the first floor. the first floor and the three town houses would be at the lower level. The second plan which showed three commercial units on the first floor. Um so the board can see exactly what the layout that you'd be approving under
each scenario. Um then there was Lauren Ivani's correspondence from November 4th and November 6th, Rosemary Costello's correspondence from November 19th. Um and then there was the fire chief's email from November 7th. U that all at least I understand that's
the record. Uh the only other documents uh Sarah you had mentioned that you had received a letter in support variance from John Harden. Um and then you have Mr. Wells letter from today and uh in my response to that. So that to us that's the full record in the case. Um just we
just wanted to make sure there was nothing else that I know there have been different processes with the land use department in town. Just wanted to make sure every everything had gotten onto the record and that's what's there. >> I'm not aware that anything else was received. Great.
Um okay. Um so uh when we left off we had there were really three aside from the issue about knowing exactly what the plans were there were three additional um tasks that we were asked to go and investigate and report back um the
access from the unit from the units to Union Street traffic impact and then the question about whether there would be any trespass on the abuing property uh with cars maneuvering and pulling in and parking to the parking spaces. Um so first of all uh follow-up request number
one um regarding the access from the unit units to Union Street. This is a great example of how every time we go to a hearing and we think we've got perfect plans and we get comments back and we make them better. Um because I think it was Sarah that you raised the issue and I think Sean may have raised the issue
as well about uh potential safety of residents. If we make we had the first floor unit all commercial, then the residents would need to walk essentially down the driveway out to Union Street to have access um to the front of the building. Um so we took that comment to
heart and that was the uh part of the revised alternates 1A and 1B that were submitted. Chris, do you want to? >> So, this is uh the option and what the exact layout would be if the entire floor was devoted to retail use. And as
you can see, what the team has done, Chris could probably explain it better than me, is provided direct access from the units through stairways down to Union Street. So, there'd be absolutely no need for any residents to walk around the side of the building. and down the driveway. Um, we thought that was a fair
comment, especially with regards to the concerns that have been raised by Abutters about the driveway um and access. We just and just overall thinking about how everybody's going to live on the site. If you want to live down in downtown Manchester and have an enjoyable experience, you're not going to want to have to walk out the back and
around to to go to the restaurants and the shops. We got to provide some way to do it. Um, so Chris has come up with a design that allows for that to happen. So that eliminates any need for the residents to walk around to the side. And you can also see there's two vestibules. Um, so it provides some area
for, you know, folks to just, you know, get inside. It creates a little bit of extra space and access, you know, given that the sidewalk is narrow. Um, the middle unit, um, has a direct access from the sidewalk directly into the retail space. Um, which is nice to have. And I think that that that's set back a
little bit from the sidewalk. Um so we I don't think there'll be much congestion there. But and this plan was designed to uh you know address that concern that the board raised about access coming around um pedestrian access coming around the side of the building down the
driveway. And we think this fully addresses that concern by taking that off the table. >> And the design approach too, we didn't want to add a bunch of additional doors on that front elevation. So we created the vestibules so that we didn't materially change that front elevation. So when you look at the procession of
doors along Union Street, that did not change. We just created the best fuels that are access point for the retail space and the unit above. And that does the board have any questions on that particular aspect of
the project? I I I think my confusion is are you proposing 1A or 1B? >> Well, I see that as problematic because you're applying for a change of use, >> correct?
>> So, currently there's one retail space and you've been talking about adding three residences, >> correct? Under one B, you're still doing one retail and three residences.
Under 1A, you're doing three retail and three residences, >> correct? which would could impact the board's decision regarding
the um whether it's more detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood. And I don't see how we can vote on an either or. Our our view is that both of them meet that standard. Um
so even if you I mean it's essentially you've got between 500 square feet and 3500 square feet of retail space. This is all going to be driven by demand. Um assuming we get the project approved. You know the marketing efforts are going to be are going to begin. I think that there's obviously you know a lot of
revitalization going on along the end of town. Uh there seems to be interest in retail spaces. Uh and we want to have these spaces this space available. I mean, there was strong input from the town at the historic process, from the residents. Everybody wanted to see retail. It was probably the most
significant comment or criticism that we received. Um, and so we came up with a plan to try to have that space be available under the residential option. The spaces will just be, you know, potential home occupancy spaces. They're designed that way. There's no critical
residential infrastructure on the lowest level. So those unit owners could have a home occupation that's essentially almost the same thing as a retail space. Um so we think that the uses and the impacts are similar. Um I think that's something the traffic engineer when we
get to that can address. Um if the board, you know, at the end of the presentation isn't satisfied that the standard is met for both scenarios, I think we can talk about changing it. But we think there's a real benefit to the town and having that space be available so that we can market it to businesses that want to go in there. Um you've got
great new businesses that are coming in at two school street um and the intersection here. So it really there's momentum and we want to keep that momentum going. Um and we think that's a positive. We think that only helps the town uh and and and doesn't come
anywhere near meeting that uh failing that st substantially more detrimental tests. But we would ask that the board keep an open mind at least through the presentation um and and see what your thoughts are as we get through this because we are showing you exactly what the configuration would be on under
under both scenarios. There's nothing left a chance. Um and it could be that you know one tenant wants the whole space and we probably have to come back to you and you know with a request for a change but our goal was to give you two scenarios that you saw exactly what you'd be approving. So there'd be nothing left a chance other than what
the market forces uh dictate happens that you know as we take this to to the market try to get tenants uh and and see who's interested. Uh but we certainly think keeping that space open and available for commercial use is what the town wants and this is town center.
Everybody seems to want businesses here. So we don't see any possible way that uh that can fail the substantially more detrimental test um when you look at it in light of neighboring properties. So that's what we we ask on that comment. >> I just don't see how you're not stating
what your new use is. >> You're doing on either or. >> Well, no. It's going to be a res. It's a three dwell three unit residential building with accessory retail use ranging between 500 square ft and 3500 ft. >> But on this other option, you'd only
have >> 400 square feet. That's it's four I say 500 but I believe that's four four between 445 and 3500 >> but isn't three retail different than one retail >> or is it the in my or my question is as
a novice the use is residential or retail does the >> number of units that matter >> okay and the decision correlates relates to a plan that shows how many commercial units or it's not
based on like residential I get we need to know the number of but commercial could >> we've never approved an application >> to just say >> got it >> saying it could be this or it could be that >> but are any of these scenarios more detrimental to the neighborhood
>> I don't know >> they're not >> I don't know maybe we start with one scenario >> then what's there right now >> but we don't know what's going to be built You do? >> Yes, we do. >> Because we'll vote on it. >> Well, I think they present one or I
>> they want to pres they want us to approve both. >> No, I'm almost wondering if it's Hey, if you guys don't like this, we don't have we don't want to have to wait for the next meeting and we're going to show you another alternative we've already thought about to see if the residents also like that. That That's my
>> thinking, but it it may not be right being presented. >> Okay, got it. >> Okay, go ahead. Okay. Um because in our view this is all interior to the building. The build the exterior of the building is the same uh either way. But let's why don't we go into the uh the traffic report um
because those were the key questions that were brought up at the last meeting. >> Um so we have submitted the the vanas and associates traffic impact evaluation um dated December 10th. Uh and we believe that fully addresses u the second and third concerns uh that were
raised. Uh the key findings in the traffic report are are that when when you compare uh the project to reoccupancy of the existing commercial building um for for retail use with two off street parking spaces uh that the proposed project is going to be significantly less impactful. Uh
according to our engineer that there's likely to be 144 new vehicle trips. Um a 75% reduction from what would occur in commercial use. Um and again uh the commercial use is under either scenario is not going to be permitted to use the
driveway. The driveway will be dedicated solely for the residential use no matter what the building configuration is. Uh the second is and I know traffic reports sometimes can be debated but uh as the report concludes that even if that reduction weren't in in uh achieved
that any net increase in the traffic would not be perceivable on Union Street wouldn't result in any queuing uh any kind of increase in motorist delays or um vehicle lineups when when when compared to the previous use. Uh and the project uh the the impact report further
uh found that the proposed project is going to actually improve the driveway sight lines from the existing conditions because of the uh improvements that we've already discussed out of the last meeting. What driveway is going to be widened by 12 by from 10 ft to 12 feet. Um and the front corner of the building is going to be cut back um to improve
those sight lines. back. She also mentioned the rear the rear the rear portion of the building has also been taken away which will improve circulation back. Um and the the report also noted that we have 23 feet which is adequate space for parking maneuvering
so that the cars uh trying to get over parking spaces when they come up the driveway aren't going to encroach on land of our 18 Union Street. Um, so safety is obviously a a very significant
concern. Uh, we've read the uh the response to our traffic engineers report from Mr. Wells. So, we wanted to just talk I'm going to let Jeff Durk do most of the talking about the traffic report, but um we really identified there are very there's very clear reasons why we
believe that the post project is going to be safer than the existing condition. The first obviously is the reduction in the intensity of use that that you mentioned the potential 75% reduction in the average daily trips. Um even if it's not achieved the difference would be imperceptible because again this is such
a small project. Um the second point uh is that there's going to be a complete elimination of any need for pedestrians to use that driveway. That's the comment that you made and at the last meeting and why we revised the plans to include those uh vestibular stairways. Uh but
it's very important to note that as of today, as of right now, in the existing condition, there is no access into the rear of the building from the parking spaces of the site. You park, you drive around the building and you park in those parking spaces and you want to get inside the building. You need to walk
around the driveway. So, not only have we addressed that concern that was raised at the last meeting, but we are substantially improving that existing condition because that will be completely eliminated by this project. Whereas today, if we just occupied for retail use and we don't get the permits,
that condition will continue where anybody that is parking for the retail use, we'll have to walk around the building down to the front to come in to the entrances on Union Street. >> Historically, did anybody ever park up there to go into the retail space? I don't believe so. >> Did anybody ever go into that retail
space? >> Well, actually, the owner I mean, I I would watch Evelyn come walking down that driveway all the time. I mean, people park for the for that business and that's how they're going to walk and that condition is going to be totally eliminated by this project. Um, but then
next, I mean, there remember that the the improvements that we're doing to the building, we're increasing uh the width of the driveway by 20% to from 10 ft to 12 feet, which is going to help maneuverability uh and visibility potentially. If two cars need to come in, there'll be a little space there. Um
the minimum width as we should point out under the zoning bylaw for a common driveway is 16 ft. Um so this the current condition is presently pre-existing non-conforming at 10T and so going from 10 ft to 12 feet actually reduces that nonconformity. Um in
addition I think the other non-conformity we're reducing is the overall impervious. Is that correct? >> Yeah. Yeah. So this project is going to reduce substantially two non-conforming conditions. Um the next is the separation of the
commercial and and the residential uses under either of the options that that we have uh presented. Either case there would be no commercial use parking deliveries access at all up
that driveway. The driveway will be dedicated dedicated solely to the residential spaces. And what that does is it completely separates any interaction between retail or commercial traffic and residential traffic. The whole driveway and back parking area will be dedicated only to residential
use. Um so we think that fully shields the residents of the property and the residents next door at 18 Union Street from ever having to interact with commercial traffic up and down that driveway. And we think that's a significant improvement from what exists today because as of today you've got 18
Union Street um and the Pulver residence next door. those residents have to deal with that driveway and they have a commercial activity that is associated with that driveway and that will go away forever. Um and it will substantially think that will substantially enhance safety over the pre-existing non-conforming conditions. Um, next is
that there's been a lot of talk about the grade of the driveway and as part of the project, the applicant has agreed to include a snow melt, subsurface snow melt system um that the applicant will uh repair, maintain, and replace from time to time. Um, by contrast, right now
with the pre-existing non-conforming use, the town has no ability at all to require that. Um so this is a very important upgrade that the proposed project is going to offer that's going to enhance safety from what exists today. Uh we also think that the nature
of the residential users are going to bring an enhanced safety aspect to the project. Uh if that park meet area is used for commercial activity, you know, you potentially have customers that have never been here before. They don't know the area. They're not familiar with the driveway turning in. By contrast,
residential users, they live there. It's their home. they know it, they're familiar with it. So that in and alone uh we think enhances the safety of the uh of the area and it's also reasonable to expect you've got potential seasonal
residents that could potentially also reduce uh the use of the driveway. And you know again with residential use oftentimes you have folks that are you know pulling out going to work for the day the car's gone for most of the day. Um whereas for retail people are coming in and out generally. So we think that
the nature of the residential use, you know, really just going to enhance the safety of the area. Um and then last and and very important is that in granting uh zoning relief, the ZBA has the ability to impose conditions. Uh for
instance, the snow melt system, you can require and we would expect that you would require that that would be maintained and you don't have the ability to do that today. uh the the pre the existing use is pre-existing, non-conforming. The building inspector has no authority
to you know uh require signage or anything uh any of the recommendations that were uh made in our traffic impact evaluation. Um but the applicant is willing to adhere to things like you know commercial delivery hours uh signage to indicate uh for people
vehicles exiting that somebody is driving up the driveway. So, we think that by granting the requested relief that the ZBA really has authority, an opportunity um to regulate and and put conditions on a site to make it substantially safer than it is today. We
all know it's not perfect. Um but this is the job of the applicant here. We can't make it perfect. We can only propose a project that doesn't make things worse. And here we think that the proposed project is going to make it a lot better and a lot safer than than the pre-existing non-conforming condition.
Um, so with that, I think we'd like to see if we see if Jeff, if the board has any questions, I think we have our traffic engineer probably best suited to answer those questions. I believe he's available on Zoom. Yeah, if the board has questions, he's happy to address
them. I guess my question is was this traffic evaluation submitted to the fire police chief and is a police chief providing
an opinion on the safety of this change of use. >> We submitted it to the ZBA. I think we would have expected the ZBA might have forwarded it to police, but we we did not. Yeah, I mean I would expect that the police chief would have received the
initial application as part of our we submit nine copies. Doesn't go to all the town boards and departments. >> No, so >> I don't know. >> I mean it's not the that is not the applicant's responsibility. That's why we submit the nine cents of plans and then they go to the various boards and
you get comments back and we react. Well, I think that we raised concerns about safety and met with the fire chief. Um, and so we would expect that the applicant would meet with the police chief and get an opinion,
>> which we I did I did meet with the police chief >> with this report. after this report was received. >> Met with him when we uh originally submitted the application u and went through the project with him uh for the you know three residential units and the
commercial and he had uh no objection or comments that he made at that time. >> We would also point out the fire department also indicated in that email from November 7th that they saw no issue with the project. >> Right. in the fire department is with
respect to emergency access, fire suppression, um EMT services. The police chief is with respect to vehicular traffic. And it seems to me that the
vehicular traffic and the coming in and out of that driveway is by residential vehicles is in the purview of the police chief. >> Yeah. Which which I did discuss with him. Yes. So >> it sounds like it's getting better from
>> they were okay with the with the project before this report. What in this report would change their minds? It gives the police chief No, it gives the police chief information on what the expected vehicular traffic is from the residents >> like average trip.
>> He would have that information. >> It also indicates that the traffic is going to be less. >> Well, I I'm not so I'm not I don't know if I agree with that. Why don't we Is Jeff Can is Jeff? >> You're now talking a potential of three
retail which would have more traffic than one original retail, right? I mean, three different places to go. >> Um, >> no, because no parking retail, Sarah. There's no >> So, it doesn't matter if it
>> But he's saying there's 149 or 179 more trips if it's all retail. So, where's the discrepancy, John? The way I understand it is if if cargo as it stands now, however many square feet it is, if that was a retail, this
is how I understand it. If that was a a thriving retail business, that's the number of cars or trips that would be generated by that business. We all know that that was not the case, right? But and I think that's where you see that
that reduction in in visits now because now you're going to three townhouse. >> But now we >> with no with no parking for retail. >> But I think at the end of the day either way they said in either scenario A or B, no one on retail can use this back
parking lot. I don't think I think the traffic study is talking about number of cars on Union Street which is unrelated to the usage of that driveway >> and in okay and in that fact I would say did >> well there's that components
from the property >> what >> there's there's the traffic along Union Street but there's also the visits from >> coming from the property >> from the regist is already. Yes. >> Well, I thought that was the question we
asked was was the traffic impact having the residential cars and we didn't it wasn't a question about now that the retail because there's retail that's already there. It was really the impact of the owners having cars up in the but the driveway is already being used for
residential with no >> for one residence >> for the well the people with the easement have full use of that. >> It's a one resident. But it's a five bedroomedroom house that could potentially have five plus cars up there. >> So now you're adding >> But why should of the driveway have less
use than the person the easement? I don't think that that makes sense. I mean >> I don't see that they are. >> Well, we're well as long as we're not restricting how many park the six cars for the three units.
But I thought that was the traffic. What we were asking for was the traffic for the driveway. Union Street like the happenings on Union Street. I feel like that didn't come up last meeting. Like if this >> what the traffic report is going >> but I feel like we asked for the traffic report because of the driveway and the
>> I guess what are we looking about the driveway >> here? Like what are we looking for? >> I'm looking for something from the police chief personally. >> The police chief. >> The police chief. >> So but then why didn't we talk about this last month? I did I raised the fact that we needed something from the police
chief >> for the driveway. I I I felt like last meeting we talked about the dangerousness of the driveway and pedestrians >> increased number of traffic from the driveway >> and they said now there's going to be no commercial going there's no parking for commercial. It could be an increase for retail,
but I think that's min. The traffic study has said that's minimal. >> 48 trips, >> but it almost sounded like there was more concerns about increased retail on Union Street, which I feel like we didn't talk about last meeting. That's only what I'm thinking. I thought that we wanted traffic study for the
driveway, >> right? >> I I think that what we're looking at is a change of use. >> Correct. mixed juice change from a re commercial >> change of use. >> Today the use is one retail space.
>> Mhm. >> Right. >> A large retail space. >> Last meeting it was one retail space adding three residential.
Now it is the possibility of three retail plus three residential or one retail and three residential. >> See the note that at the last that's not entirely because at the last meeting we presented a plan with notes that showed
that it could be either or. So it's it's not correct to say that this is a new thing that we're proposing retail for the first floor tonight. The last plan showed notes saying yes, these are configured as >> you talked about home. >> We ran through the scenarios though. >> No, but we we had notes that said it
could be used for retail use and if that happened then the stairways would be eliminated which led to the comment of >> retail space you showed us, not three. >> But we ran through the scenario not it was it was it one retail space on the side >> and then do you have a plan that we that we that had the notes on it? But they're
also saying that could be one commercial unit. >> It could potentially break it up. It could be >> market bears. So >> this picture is showing three leafy >> and then one A is showing or 1B is showing one retail.
>> No. Yeah. One little retail. What we had what we had shown at the last meeting could have actually resulted in four retail because you had the commercial on the side here and then you had the three units and we had notes indicating that if those if there was success to have
those be retail spaces that we would eliminate the stairs and that's when the board said well wait a second how are people going to get to Union Street? So this in our in our mind the new plan that we're showing today you know instead of having four zetail because
it's a lot it doesn't line up very well we just reduced it to three um which we thought created more appropriate size spaces allow the units to be uh I I beg to differ the what you gave us
was three units and one commercial and the first full of 3,183 square feet. You did not talk about three commercial on the first floor when you gave us this
this level floor one plan dated November 19th, 2025. There were two scenarios, three residential units plus one commercial unit where you had the commercial at 493 and the three residential on all three
floors. And then the second scenario was that you didn't have residential on the first floor and that you had a commercial space of 3,183 and then you had the sizes for the residential on the second and the third floor. Right.
>> So you showed us one res one commercial >> three. This is the plan. >> I'm looking at the chart you gave us >> as part of that. We talked about the the concept of putting five like walls and
to separate the units to have that flexibility where you could have one master tenant, one large tenant, or you could break it up into four separate tenants. And and these adjustments are a direct response to what we were looking for during the last meeting. So I I just
I don't know what I'm what what am I missing here? >> What was presented to us is what you're missing, John. >> I remember the meeting. I was there. >> Do you have the paperwork? not in front of me but I I was there. We talked about all these things. >> It was one commercial space and he was re removing the staircases
with the one commercial space >> and the idea of firewall. We asked the question are they fire rated walls? >> That was only if the residential went down to the first floor. >> I disagree. I remember asking the questions.
>> That was my first question to the applicant. My very first question >> and I would think to I think the response to that is they came in with options because I felt like we had talked about other scenarios and I feel like the applicant came in with two options based on our feedback and the
resident feedback. That's >> we would be happy if the board wanted to to to modify the plan. Um, just I suppose if the board had a question regarding the number of units,
we could eliminate this wall, this wall, it would be one unit and they would have the same staircases. We might have to come to you uh in the future to make a change if uh we couldn't get demand for a tenant that wanted to take all that space. But but that's John is correct.
This was a direct response uh to the comments from the board looking for clarity on what exactly it would look like if there was going to be all retail on the first floor. And we thought the best way to do it was with these stairways and creating the the three units because >> the stairways
I like. Yeah. >> And I mean doesn't and again we're taking a step back because remember the test here is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. This is a neighborhood where we want stores. So it seems to us having three store if we could get three different retailers to
go in there that would be a huge win for the town. >> But but I think the challenge is is the use today is one retail. If you split the one retail into three smaller retail,
that might be a manageable change of use where you're going from one retail to multiple retail, but you're also adding in three residential. >> Absolutely. You need that, too. It's a substantial increase
in the usage of the lot from what is today with one retail. >> I think the re the the residential is necessary. >> It's necessary. Let's have more eyes on the street downtown because we know residential
will thrive. Retail, I don't know, not so much. >> I agree. >> I worry. I really worry. I drive by the restaurants, they're always empty. I drive by even these new retailers. The roast beef place has been empty for over a year now it seems. I really worry. I don't know anybody who's ever been at
Jay Mclofflin or sorry to point out certain but like seriously like who higherend it's it's not attracting tourists that come from college kids or >> so I I I think that this we we need to allow for some flexibility here. The
capital markets will change. Retail is very hard to underwrite if you're going for a loan. you know, it's it's just you need that flexibility. And so, who knows what the again, I said this last time, where
things will be two years from now. Retail might be thriving. I I hope it I hope it is around here. And I'd love to see storefronts there, but I worry about that. So, I think we need to have some flexibility in this, >> but we need to work within the confines of the bylaw. We can't write. We are
because we're we're we're we're voting >> would like to >> we're voting to approve commercial and residential usage. >> So there's still going to be a commercial component to this. Can I what I well I think again the the test remember and I want to go back to the
test and what we're here for is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. There can be a substantial change without being detrimental. And that's exactly what we think we have here. And I I want to point out some we have we had a list of properties to compare to because look at remember the
neighborhood. 48 Union Street several doors down nine units nine condominiums and no parking. 40 Union Street uh that's mixed mixed use commercial and residential. I'm not sure how many units are in there. That's on a.1 acre lot. 38
Union Street few doors down one commercial unit and upstairs apartment. No off- streetet parking. 33 33 Union Street. The former Zachs building. I think that is six dwelling units on a lot that has just.16 acres. One to one to three school street right at the
corner that's got 10 units 10 dwelling units and a retail space. Um then you've got the mixed units u with three to six residential units um and street level commercial at two school 7 central and 11 central. Those are all tiny lots and
look at how many units are on there. So again, is it a substantial change to go and go from a single story to three stories? Of course it is. The question that you're before you is whether it's more detrimental to the neighborhood. And when you consider that, you have to
look at what is your neighborhood. And these buildings that I've just described, they're all more intense use than what we're proposing. We think that what we're proposing is exactly what the neighborhood needs. And it it's beneficial to the neighborhood. We don't even think you get to more detrimental because we think it helps. You know, we
understand the concerns. We want to address them. Parking, traffic, things like that. Uh obviously, and we work with the board and um we have a substantial set of conditions that u we would be uh willing to agree to. So, we think when when you put it all together,
um it just doesn't it doesn't seem to fail the test. And that that's that's the real key here is is it more detrimental to the neighborhood? I think it's helping the but I think we're diverting from or do we need to hear from tra there's still traffic concerns because I think if if you want to ask
questions of the engineer we we can do that but to us this is >> I mean I think I think in my opinion I mean as far as the traffic goes I don't think there's really a whole lot you can do to improve with the conditions that are there other than like in the study
it says is to uh propose um LED lighting signs and approach of vehicles and things like that. Um that's common place in Boston. They have to do that kind of stuff when you have sidewalks and everything. Um I mean my opinion is it
detrimental? No. Um I think in some ways it is what's needed yet. Um yeah, I do have concerns whether or not the the retail will will be filled because of the way retail's going around here. Um yeah, I mean it
wise I mean I don't see with what's there and it's been that way forever and there's no way of changing it. >> Can I just add as a board member I would be very concerned if there was like they came in front of us and and they're like here's our proposal. have four retail
units like and we're going with this, right? And they get built and then they sit vacant for two years because they can't find a tenant. >> At least they have that flexibility where you can you can adjust based on market conditions, based on, you know,
who you find as tenants. >> Like I love that flexibility. >> That's not how we do approvals under the bylaws. That's the challenge, John. We get them. Well, if you want to do this today and you decide to do this tomorrow, But they did jump all four. >> I'm looking at the the height of the
building the the the way it the way it affects the streetscape. >> Oh, I'm not questioning the >> streetcape. That's what I look at. I don't really I'm not concerned about, you know, how how much square footage of retail is going to be in there three years from now when it's built. Like, we
have to allow some flexibility. >> We never have allowed flexibility in a ZB. >> We've never we've never had a project like this before. Have we ever had any retail project in front of us? I've been on this for eight years. >> We did not allow any flexibility. >> What's that? >> Seven central. We did not allow any
flexibility. They added three residential units. We did not have flexibility. This is the plans they presented to us. This is what they we approved. We approved and they had to build according to our approval. They couldn't go and change it unless they
came back before us. And that's what I'm saying about this. You need to put a stake in the ground and decide what you want us to approve. If you want to change it down the line, come back before us. That's what I'm
saying. >> Okay. So, does it make sense just to pick one route? >> That's what I'm asking for. >> Okay. >> That's what I'm asking. >> Because this again, these al alternate options were a directive from us. I I'm >> We said, "Show us what it looks like with retail. Show us what it looks like
without." >> I I'm not questioning that, John. I'm questioning what we're approving that it needs to be something specific. Um, and they're going to make the decision, I would assume, before they start building.
>> That may not >> No, that's the whole point that the way it's designed is >> is to allow for that flexibility. Well, well, that that will that likely be the LA because the way that these residential units are designed, there's no critical infrastructure on the first floor. So, that can literally be left to
the very end. And you'll often see that when a when when a mixeduse building is constructed, you'll leave the first floor with like a gra you won't even run the plumbing because you don't know exactly what your tenants are going to want. And so the first the the layouts
very often, you know, if you if you go into some other larger towns, you know, projects like this that have different layouts are approved and and and potential different uses and and and uh variable sizes for the uses. They are approved because we're setting parameters. You know what you're going
to approve. Under the residential scenario, we are locked into this floor plan. And under the commercial scenario, we are locked into that floor plan. So you know what you are approving in either case. There's nothing left to chance. >> So you're not put Well, there is though because you've got in one scenario,
you've got residential on the first floor, correct? >> And the other you do not difference, >> but we'll only vote on one. >> No, they're asking us to ask vote on both. >> That's the problem. >> No problem.
>> We have legal authority to do this. >> Well, I would Sorry. I'm going to say my comment is the residential. I feel like the use is the use. And I think I'm going with what John is saying. If if things need to move around a tiny bit, but I feel like I'm building on >> a tiny bit. >> No, no, no, no, no. Between resident
residential and commercial, absolutely not a tiny bit. But if for some reason commercial needed to change to just be two units instead of one because there's a retailer that comes in and has a bigger space. But in my mind, I'm voting
on the use of commercial and residential whereas just once commercial. So I don't care the commercial. I'm voting yes on the use of commercial >> but not on the space and the physical makeup of that commercial.
>> But but if you're in a residential area, let's say T2, >> yeah, >> where you can do a two family or a one family. Okay. If you come to us for a two family, you do a two family. You can't just auto automatically change it to a one family.
>> And what they're doing is saying, "Okay, I'm going to have residential on the first floor here, but now I'm going to change it to commercial." That's a different use of the first floor. >> Even I would absolutely agree. >> And that's why I don't want to approve both. I want one or the other.
>> But can I ask a question? >> I would agree. Is the question before us to change the zoning because right now it's a commercial building. We want to switch change it to a mixed use. So it's commercial and >> we're not changing it to a mixed use.
We're approving residential plus commercial in that structure which is what the parameters of the of the bylaw is. Our bylaw does not have a specific mixed use. >> Okay. So, we're taking it allows retail,
commercial, it allows residential. >> And it doesn't say it has to be in separate structures. So, you're saying, okay, it's an existing retail commercial and we want to add residential to it. Um, and therefore, I'm saying we need to
be more specific because of the bylaw. >> Okay. >> Now, refresh my memory. Does does the bylaw does the bylaw require us to um approve it per per the plans?
>> We always we always make our decisions subject to the plans. We've never done anything else. >> I think if those plans were to change, it should have been a plan that was shown to the public
to that, you know, to that effect. Like if someone if we were to prove this night that has to be the plan in the decision. >> Yeah. And then if they want to change it, they come back before us, >> right? >> Because we actually put the stuff in the
decision. >> Yeah. I mean, I get your point. I get your point because we're because we're we're proving multiple plans for the same thing. >> They're just you're what we're requesting is that there be two alternates for the first floor. and you absolutely have the legal authority.
Should you make the required findings to approve both of those alternates? I mean, I think in we could if we wanted to, you could we could file one se one special permit application for the retail plan and file a whole separate special permit application for the other one. We could file it tomorrow if you if
you locked us into one, but that that wouldn't be efficient or make any sense. I disagree with that because we're issuing a special permit on the property, >> but you could have multiple special permits on the property. We could we could we could apply for a special permit,
go out, try to seek financing, seek tenants, and if knowing that it might not work out, we could next week we could file an application for the other alternative and you go through the exact same analysis. We're just asking the board >> and the first one would no longer apply.
Are you sure the first one no longer apply? I mean, if you if you found that, but we would have authority if you can >> make it no longer apply. But >> why would you want to? >> Because that's what we've always done. >> And that might be why the town is struggling. I, you know, I do this for a
living and and we do this all the time where we we have an apartment building and we have an an estimated, you know, uh, square footage number for commercial. And if we get it, great. If we don't, you have to adjust. We've we've built things where we take away
units and put daycarees in them, you know, and you just adjust and it's never this back and forth with the zoning board on the local level and it's pretty common. >> But our bylaws may be more specific than what you've got we've done. That's the problem. >> Okay.
>> And the problem is is this is a nonconforming structure. If it if it wasn't a non-conforming structure, we would not have to do the change of use. It's because you're taking a non-conforming structure where
you're grandfathering in an existing use and now you're asking to change that use if it were conforming. But could you put me point me to where in the bylaw you believe you don't have authority to approve alternate plan sets
because I I don't think that exists. It's we have the same this is the same section six analysis that you see in bylaws throughout Massachusetts. And just like John points out, you have applicants in mixed use buildings where you have alternate plan sets. And we
think either one of them easily needs to detest. And I I don't I I don't think there's anything in your in the bylaw that that prevents you from doing it. You're simply making a finding that either of these alternative floor plans for the first floor, one floor of the building
is not going to violate the standard. >> Let's move to public comment. >> That okay. >> Sure. >> Is there anybody in the room, any member of the public in the room who would make like to make a public comment? >> Yes, sir. Please state your name and
address. >> Mike Carvala, two Jersey Lane. Um, I want to thank the applicant for your diligence and patience um, putting together a great presentation. I had a chance to to look at some of these and I
was just really impressed uh, that they took to heart as Mr. Zagger said took to heart some of the comments that were made and actually got a better outcome with the inclusion of those stairs coming down. Um,
I think in a larger sense though, our community needs this kind of investment. It reflects um a vision of the future. And for those of you that were able to to walk around town last week, why was that just amazing, right? There's a real
sense of community here, this has been a blight as long as I've lived here and come up to 12 years. There are pieces of the the corners literally falling off this building. We know this, >> okay? And you have somebody that's
willing to put an enormous investment of money, capital. And I think the way that it connects in a commercial retail with what's going on further on down, this this has got a vibrant vibe written all over it. And I
also know because I I work in this development business too uh as an attorney, I see the need to be able to be flexible, particularly with the economy that we've got right now. Things are not good. Um things have been hidden for a long time for this the last year
and I am deeply concerned about things like where my clients get their timber, where their mechanicals, what the tariffs are going to be there. These are publicly held companies that are struggling with this. So, giving a a smaller company that's willing to put the investment in here and giving them a
little bit of leeway, I have to say I am not aware of any portion of the bylaw that prohibits the board here from approving the both alternatives. The key is whether or not there's um a
substantially more detrimental condition that's being created. And and either one of these, it is clear, it's got to be clear to everybody in this room, would be an improvement over that crumbling building, you know, and once you start doing that infill, then you're going to find Jaimes gets picked up. You're going
to find the restaurants getting more business coming into them. It's it's an exciting thing to go through, but I don't think it's fair to the applicant and candidly the town to hold them up and force them to have a crystal ball. Um, this is the kind of thing that I don't know if it kills a project, but it
it makes uh Manchester less interesting to invest in and I think he would consider that. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else? M. Yes. State 11 Central Street. I I agree with uh Mr.
Carllo. um anyone who's willing to invest in the community at this point uh we have to make this a user friendly community and uh right now I've for whatever reason my
grandson likes the Liberty Tree Mall and right now what I'm looking at is the Liberty Tree Mall over there and I don't see anyone running in there to fill up the uh the retail space. So, we have to give some flexibility to someone who's willing to spend some money, put up a beautiful looking building, okay? And
they're taking the gamble as to uh what's going to be downstairs. All right? And whether it's three retail spaces or one retail space, I think that, you know, from a a purely small town, we'd like to see three uh retail
spaces. Plus, it makes it more affordable, I think, for any retailer moving in here. I think that we should be working towards encouraging this kind of investment in our community rather than trying to uh find roadblocks as to why it doesn't work. And uh I I can't
speak to the bylaw that you're that you're uh referring to, but uh if Mr. Zagger and Mr. Cavllo were both attorneys, I just watched them on TV. uh if they they don't think that this is uh
it's outside the purview of this board then I think that you know I think we should be encouraging this kind of thing because it's it's going to be others this we want to open up the the floodgates to reinvesting in the community we've got one individual that's doing it now okay and he's done a
great job but we can't let him shoulder the entire burden of beautifying our community downtown community that's all I've got >> thank Anybody else in the room? >> Yes, sir. >> Mark Well, 15 schools. >> Okay.
>> Uh, I don't agree. I don't disagree with Mr. Gavalo of, you know, multiple uses retail, anybody that wants to make a proper investment. I don't know the legality of and you know making a subsequent uh
proposal from the original uh proposal that was made when everything was advertised and all. So I'll stay away from that. I don't have a problem with the building that's being proposed. I have a big problem with safety. And
the last time we got together, we talked about vehicular traffic and we talked about pedestrian traffic. And I don't see anything in this report about pedestrian traffic.
And if people want to say put whatever you want there, as long as it's safe, it's fine with me. And right now, even where you've seen in my letter that where we perhaps have disagreements with the the
report, there is no disagreement factually that when you get to the bottom of that driveway and you currently look on either side, you are basically a blind driveway. And factually, you are at 20% of what is required required
to be safe. And that's just with an automobile, let alone the child coming down with a bicycle, walking down, whatever. So, I think there are pretty easy resolutions to this, to the safety part. Everybody else can argue about whether they want
the use or anything. We're okay. And I I have two of my people that I've represented uh that are I'm representing that are here and they can affirm that. And uh but um
I think there's an easy solution to this and that I discussed with Chris Vance last night for over an hour. That is that you move this building as you look down the driveway. big a number 10 feet in.
So now you have a 20 foot wide passage there. It doesn't all have to be paved driveway. 10 ft of it can be. But if you move that driveway south, that 10-ft driveway, you will then have
areas on both sides of that driveway going down that you could walk down. which people are going to walk down anyway and I they are going to walk down much more than they walk down now. Okay. But now you would have an area that they
could walk down. They might even be able to bike down. And when they got at the bottom there, you wouldn't be blind. Nor would the people walking from north to south on Union Street that are totally blind to that driveway until they get
into it. So apart from the either lack of scope that we all talked about which included pedestrians and bicycles and kids and all that kind of thing. I
think that the idea that this plan in either of its iterations is generating substantially less traffic than a reoccupancy is absolutely false. And I think even if I'm absolutely wrong
about that, if you picked option 1A, you're creating as much retail essentially plus three units. So, do you add 79% and then 500% on top of it? And
I don't know what the exact number is, but it's much more. And all we authorized friends and maybe my unauthorized friends are asking for is just make it safe. We're fine with it. Otherwise,
we many of us have been here even longer than 12 years, Michael, and have seen gone to beaten hardware. There has never been a retail market there that is going to generate in a reoccupancy, you know, 79% more traffic. It's just not
happening. So apart from the argument that I that I disagree with the fundamental assumption that oh what we're doing is going to you know provide a much safer less traffic
option. Forget that. just ra just make it a reasonable safe exit. And for my group that I can speak for, that's all we're going to do because it's up to you. It's up to the police chief. It's up to them to make it safe. We've raised
the issue and that's about all we can do. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else in the room? >> Dan Weaver, 12 Allen Avenue, also on 36 Union Street. is echoing everyone agrees it's an improved you'll dine with what's
there now but is it safe and the driveway is not safe today they've talked about adding 2 feet but 16 ft I think Adam said is what's required under the zoning block well a wider driveway allows access and that makes the project
safe and that I think is what's needed you push your kids in a stroller down the sidewalk down Union Street you can't see that driveway and so extra car trips for three more units. Safety is all we care about on building
a safe building. Um the how far back is the corner of that building next to the driveway?
Right now it's at the sidewalk. Correct. >> Correct. Yes. on the back. So, here's the uh proposed site plan. So, our building footprint is in the light gray hatch here. You can see that
diagonal hatch is the existing um front facade of cargo. So, we're actually pulling and angling this back six feet. So when you approach the U sidewalk here, we're increasing the visibility from where it currently is.
Um so that whole part of the building is getting pulled back six feet. >> Question in that regard if I might. So the study does not indicate what the visibility is relative to the safety
either desired or required. what the end result will be because the result looking the other way is the same. It's 20% of what's typically required. What is the number there? I don't know. But I would have thought
that would be a key part of your argument. We are we acknowledge we don't have a perfect site. We know that. But again going this is a section six case and the question is not whether we meet an an IT standard that would be applied
if you were building on a site that was undeveloped. We have a site that's fully developed that we have to work with and the test is is what we're doing making it substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and the changes that we that are being proposed including the
cut back widening the driveway from 10 to 12 there there's no question that you make it better. all of the conditions that the board can can uh can impose prohibiting uh any use pedestrians from walking down that driveway. That that
that's an that can be an enforceable condition. It's part of our special permit. It could be part of the condo documents. It could be part of building rules and regulations. U so we think it's not perfect. We know this, but we're trying to make it better. And and we think undoubtedly these changes it
how can you argue that what with a wider driveway with the building cut back u >> because you're increasing the driveway with Adam by 20% by 500. >> Sorry, no back and forth, >> please. >> Well, you can leave
it again. uh you know happy to run through a set of proposed conditions to give the board a >> um hold on I need to take public comment from >> okay sorry um is there anybody on Zoom who would like to make a comment on this
application if so please raise your hand in Zoom I see that Allison Harden has her hand raised go ahead please >> hi uh this is actually John Harden at 54 for School Street.
>> Um I I had a couple of questions. One, um regarding the the the parking, um the parking in our in our zoning is is a square foot situation, right? So, in terms of number of parking spaces versus
number of of retail spaces, it really isn't about the number of retail spaces. It's more about the square footage of that retail. Um, but also because this current retail has no parking um really except for the the spaces at the back
which I doubt were ever used for for retail, I don't see that it's it's any worse um of a situation since uh the the proposed retail would be no greater I would assume in square footage than what
is there now. Um, and then about the, you know, 1A versus 1 1B, I know that the town would always prefer retail on the first floor and is trying to encourage retail on on the first floor, but I but I I wonder and this this is a
question really more of a lawyer question probably, but if if the board was to approve either one, um, would the project then in the future if if a change were needed to happen, is the
project still a non-conforming situation where they'd have to come back or could a change of use happen if the project is is is conforming. Thank you. >> The build the structure they're proposing is in the setback. Therefore,
it's a nonconforming structure. Therefore, it requires EBA approval for a change of use. >> And but in in the future, it would still be >> I'm talking about current bylaws. No, correct. I I mean with the future
building being built, >> right? Once it's built, >> they're building in the um side setback next to 36 Union. >> Got it. Okay. >> The new building is
>> okay. And the front setback, >> right? The answer is yes. We would need to come back. Okay. Thank you, >> Susan Filber. >> Okay. Hopefully my voice will um hold up.
Um I'm not uh wanting to comment about the substance. I wanted to comment about the procedure that um Adam is suggesting. I'm a little bit nervous about the two option scenario and how
that could play out in the future. I don't want to set a precedent for applicants to come in and say, "I'm putting these five things in front of you. They all work." You know, you can accept all five. We're going to try this first. I'm just nervous about that. um
and the precedent it will set with future um ZBA um applications um and then also with the planning board. I would hate to see that start happening with the planning board. Um I just and I also worry about
um the rights of the abutters and folks who might not agree with the ultimate decision. Would they be appealing both both plans or one plan? I just again I'm
worried about the procedural aspect. >> Thank you. >> Is there anybody else on Zoom? >> Don't see anybody. Okay. Would you like to go through your >> Sure. >> suggested conditions? Yeah, we have uh the
Yeah. So, first first condition um we know no commercial customers, employees or deliveries of the proposed project that she'll use the driveway. So, again, restricting to residential only, taking the commercial use out of the equation entirely.
Condition number two, u you know, obviously since those commercial vehicles are not going to be used in the driveway, they're going to have to do deliveries from Union Street. This is not unusual. Um, and this the current situation frankly because the delivery trucks don't bother to drive up sometime they can't they don't want to they see
the slope they don't want to go there. Um, so we think it's appropriate and and and fair that u there would be restriction on uh commercial deliveries on Union Street on during the busy summertime obviously um I guess we would suggest um is between 10 and three on
Saturdays and Sundays uh between Memorial Day and Labor Day. uh to not allow commercial deliveries on Union Street because that could potentially disrupt the beach traffic uh that we see. Condition number three is that the applicant will maintain and keep in good working order a subsurface snow melt
system for the common driveway also recommended uh in the Venas report. Uh number four, the applicant will impose rules and regulations either in a tenant handbook or a condo documents prohibiting any occupants of the property from using that driveway for any purpose other than access. No recre
passive recreation, no games, no nothing. It's only for access purposes only. Uh number five uh is that the applicant would install the safety signage uh that was recommended in the BAS report um including that uh LED sign
which by the way fac will face away from a from Paul residents so it wouldn't be an intrusion to him that would alert vehicles that are coming out of the parking spaces and about to down come down the driveway if a vehicle was uh driving up. Um again not something that
exists today. So a very substantial uh safety feature that would make the proposed project safer than than what currently exists. Um you know six any landscaping that that would be installed as part of the project within the intersection site triangle areas would have to be designed and maintained. Uh
so as not to restrict the sight lines uh again that comes from the venas report. Uh any snow accumulations within the the sighteline areas uh would have to be properly removed um to avoid you know any visibility effects. Uh
um number actually I think I confused number five uh would be number excuse me number no no sorry uh eight would be a uh no sign signage indicating that there's no commercial vehicles that are allowed to access that driveway. No vehicles serving the commercial part of
the project. Obviously if the homes need to bring a landscaper out of it or anything like that or if the residents had a contractor coming up they could come up. But it's the commercial use. Um any of those potential stores that that are going to be there, anybody coming to visit those stores, make a delivery to those stores, um working in those stores
would not be able to use the driveway. Um and nine, uh our proposed parking area is going to be screened from view of the Palver residence. Um that was something that was important to Mr. Palver and we've agreed to. Um and then number 10 is that uh the applicant would
install a remote fire department connection or hydrant at the rear of the proposed building. Um that was requested by Chief McNeely. Um the applicant's fine doing that. Um we believe that addresses all the fire department concerns. Um so that's you know our set of special conditions. If the bullet has
standard conditions that they're looking to impose or any additional conditions that you think you're getting to the site, you know, we're happy to consider them. U you know safety is important to us. uh it's none of us want to be associated with the project where anything bad happens. Um so we're all
ears board has other ideas. Uh but again we think that project as we've designed it um is and and restricting the driveway to the residential use only versus commercial is going to make things much safer especially if these conditions are imposed. So, we asked the
board to consider them. >> Didn't the fire chief have a sprinkler system required, too? So, wouldn't it be appropriate to have that condition be um all conditions required by >> building code would be required to have >> but he specifically asked for a dry
hydrant so that they could connect their truck to it um if they needed to get apparatus behind the building. So that's in addition to the virus suppression system. I would suggest we might want to add a condition
that since the existing retail unit does not provide off- streetet parking for clients that no off- streetet parking would be required for the retail units. >> That's something I think we're going to have to deal with planning board. >> It's under I believe it's under the
special granting authority. So you want to but we're going to have to go to the planning board anyway for the the residential units and we we had intended to ask them for the parking waiver which they have authority to
grant under bylaw section 6.1.8. >> Yep. >> And what are you what are you going before them for the residential units? Because it's more than two, >> right? Correct. We need because it's more than two units. We need planning
board approval for three units >> and and they actually because it's a a change of use to more than two units. We also have to get site plan approval from the planning board. So in addition to anything that you wanted to impose, we're going to be before them. Uh and they would layer on
if you leave anything left for them. >> A dumpster. Where's the dumpster going to be? >> Let's not talk and >> the dumpster and the snow storage and all that stuff. You talked about an LED sign, >> correct? >> At the bottom. Is that
>> It's It's at the top. So >> at the top for the entering vehicles. >> For the exiting vehicles. >> Exiting vehicles. >> So you as you're as you're pulling out around the side of the building, if a car were coming up, there would be an LED that would alert you be facing away from the pulver residence pointing towards the parking spaces. So, if
you're about to pull out and somebody's coming up the driveway, you'll know to stop and wait and let them >> um pull out. >> I believe that the traffic thing also had a recommendation that there be a stop sign and a watch for pedestrians at the base the driveway.
>> Yeah, I think we can do that. I think we have to figure out exactly where it's going to go, but that >> put the stop line. We can't see the pedestrian. I I I'm like, >> is it possible to put a LED like sign for pedestrians warning when a car is
coming down? >> I don't know that that's something that's pretty >> like a parking garage in Boston like a parking garage and it's like >> and that I was going to say I don't there should be no sound. That was going
to be my comment and a flash. That's one thing, but >> I think with the cut back of the building, I mean, it's I don't think we saw that as being something that was crucial. I mean, I don't think there have been any incidents reported that were >> I'm just throwing things out to try to
address some of the concerns. >> I understand. >> You have at the some of the crosswalks, you have a button that pedestrians push and it just blinks. >> That rapid flashing beacon is what it's called.
It is >> that there's no noise. Yeah. It's like a >> Pine and Pleasant. >> You see them on rail trails like C 97 and one um like crossing it just >> I just think you take a little bit of a step. I mean we're talking about a three unit building. We are not talking about
a large this is a very small development. We understand it's in a prominent location and it's significant for Manchester by the Sea, but this is a minuscule development by most, you know, traffic analysis standards. >> And I guess it's no worse than people
backing out of their driveways across the side >> or the unit listed that had the the other units. A lot of units and >> the worst cars coming out. There's no cars >> as Bird >> Dusty's house.
>> That's the worst spot. >> A pillow house. >> You can go 100 yards away to Callus that bu I have my heart, you know, pumps every time I'm walking my dog or my kid. We're going down. I mean, there you don't you don't see anything until you cross into the the driveway. I mean,
these are just >> I see that as different. >> It's flat. Um, >> yeah, it's it's different, >> but I guess if you're coming downhill, you have a better visual of left and right. >> You do.
>> There is no rubric to what's >> You should go down the hill, brother. >> Traffic. >> Yeah, my my driveway is a hill. I don't need your comment. >> Excuse me. >> Okay. Okay. No back and forth, please. And there is there a reason why you're doing parking for six cars in the back
rather than the five? >> I think we wanted each unit to have two spaces. Um it's a it's a quality of life thing. I mean, these are not going to be small units. Um, and they're not going to be inexpensive units, and we think that we want to encourage uh units that
uh, you know, people are going to enjoy living in. You typically, you know, most you know, family units have two cars and just it seems to be a better uh, yeah, just a better development when with everybody having two parking spaces, you
know, everybody's hyperfocused on off- streetet parking. we figured let's go over and exceed the requirement. Uh so again, when you talk about substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood, you've got a project that now exceeds what the bylaw would actually require,
which see very often I'm still very concerned about approving something with options. >> No, I understand. Um, >> and I think Sue Vilbert voiced it well that where do you stop?
>> I think that you do what we did is we say you said look you what you gave us last time had these notes on it. We don't know what it's going to be. And I think we came back from that year and we started thinking, okay, well, how many different options could there be? You know, because you might not build those units. You might have one additional retail tenant, in which case you've got
two of those units would be the triplexes. Um, so what we said is we said, okay, let's keep it really simple. Let's give them two options. One option that has the first floor all retail, and one option that only has the minimum 445
square foot retail. And if tenant demand is us end user demand is different, then we're going to have to come to you with another plan and say, "Hey, do we need to come back for a hearing uh for this change?" And and you'll tell us and if we do, we will. Um but we've purposely
tried to limit the options to very specific floor plans so that we're leaving nothing to chance. And uh and we think that you have authority to do that and we don't think it opens up a can of worms because you've got to you know, I I understand the point. We don't want things to be overly complicated, but you
know, these are complicated s complicated situations where you have buildings that have they're pre-existing, non-conforming. They've been here for, you know, decades. They've got difficult, you know, attributes to deal with between the sloping ledge. We haven't even talked about the variance yet. Um, you've got
sloping ledge, you've got sightelines, you've got, you know, a obsolete, you know, wartime store block building that is completely, you know, functionally obsolete today. um which is part of the reason why you see it in the condition that it is. So our our goal is to design
a building that's going to be flexible not just for the first occupants that come in, but it's going to be able to serve the needs of the community for for decades. We hope with that flexibility, keeping the critical residential infrastructure off the first floor so that those first floors can first floor
spaces can adapt and change to the the market demands and the needs of the community over time. We would love to see it be retail. Um, and I don't I don't even want to go there because we really want to have both options. But, you know, frankly, if we were forced to pick one option, I think we would be economically forced, and I don't want to
speak for Crisp, to take away the retail option and just go straight residential. And I don't think that's what the town wants. And this plan is was designed to give us some flexibility to say, "Okay, if we can bring these tenants in, if we can get demand, this is what we'll do." And we're showing you exactly how we
we're going to do it. And if we're going to deviate at all from either of these two plans, we've got to present it to you and come back. So, we don't think that's something that's, you know, too complicated or difficult or setting a bad precedent. We actually think it's setting a good precedent. Um, as Brian pointed out, to allow the town to grow
and evolve and and revitalize from from where it's been. Uh, you know, we see businesses that are going in. Um, they're beautiful businesses. We want to continue that and move up the street if it's possible. It's not possible. We've got a plan to have residences, but that doesn't have to stay that way forever.
It would be very easy to convert one of those into a commercial space if we had if there was demand in the future when somebody moved out. Um, so that's that's what we'd like to do. Board is is willing. >> But is that I mean, so you're showing three retail spaces here. What if you
find out you can only rent one? Are you then going to put the other residences down to the first floor? >> We would have to come back to you for a change. We as it as it stands now, we you potentially have to come back to you for an amendment. You tell us because you might have a tenant that wants to take twothirds of the space. We you don't know if if we were going to
deviate from either of those plans, you no, I will be back to you with a new floor plan saying this is what we got. Um do we have to come back and and get an amendment to our permit? And you'll tell us yes or no. And if we want us to get an amendment, then we'll come back and we'll have the same kind of discussion about whether what we're
proposing is acceptable. Uh, but we think that with these two floor plans, we're not leaving much chance and we're locking ourselves into two options that both, as I said, easily meet that substantially, not substantially more detrimental standard. >> But, but what if you do all the retail
day one and then you decide you don't like it and two years from now, you switch it out to this other plan with residential. >> That would be if if you're willing to approve that, we would have the right to do that. We can make a any change of
>> We can be approved too. >> We can >> but in the Oh, sorry. I I may be wrong. >> What I was going to request is that that you that you not that we have that flexibility because what could happen is there might not be the retail demand. We you could have retail stores that might not work and uh that their leases could
expire and we we might need to go back to residential. uh the and again like if you look at things like like the Zach's building, us at 21 Union Street with with the small office, I mean things change and evolve over time and we think this has always been the general
district where retail uses are allowed as of right and residential uses are generally, you know, up to, you know, two families are allowed as of right. We're asking for one more. So we don't think we're asking for much different than what the general district has been all about for decades. >> It's the flipping back and forth.
>> But Mr. Mr. Sal, 11 Central Street. Uh, I think we need flexibility. I'm not concerned at all about precedence. As a matter of fact, maybe that's what's we're stuck in the mud with here, okay? As retail evolves
or devolves, okay? And as our town, if we want the town to to uh prosper, we have to be we have to be some show some flexibility. and to say that we don't want to set a precedent as opposed to showing potential investors in this
community that we're willing to work with them. All right. Uh I'm more concerned about throwing up roadblocks and people finally saying I'm not moving to Manchester. I'm not going to do anything in Manchester. I would rather see us become uh flexible, user
friendly, and I'm not at all concerned about the presidents that uh you or actually Miss Fber to. I don't disagree with that, Brian, but my concern is we have
a bylaw that says they need a special permit for a change of use in a nonconforming structure. If we eliminated that provision, we wouldn't be here >> and we wouldn't need to do this. And that's my concern.
>> My question is this. So every and and maybe I'm mis misinterpreting this is that any change in the future we still you still have to come back. >> We would >> you're not you're not taking any bullets out of your uh >> we are Brian if we say as a town we want
retail and therefore we're going to approve this with three retail. Oh but if that doesn't work out now it's going to go residential. >> As a town we don't want empty storefronts either. But it's it's you know what goal are you trying to
accomplish? And and you know I would say if we want to give the flexibility amend the bylaw don't require them to come before us for a change of use. >> You would default to you would default to 4A section 6 anyway. >> In my I think there's a way we could if
there is an approval on the table. I feel like there's a way we could structure that conditional approval to say you either have >> 1B or 1A with this date by this company and if anything is changed by that you need to come back to the zoning board whether that's in two months, six
months, >> two years asking >> that's the way I feel what you just said to me. >> Yes. What we're asking for is yes to be clear 1 A or one B one or the other. We have we have to we have we have to comply with either one but we can comply with either. We could go back and forth between the two of them.
>> Right. That's my concern. >> But if there were any change from from either of those plans, >> if we approve both, >> do you have an >> They can do this one in its entirety >> or this one in its entirety. >> And I have no issue with either.
>> Start with this one this in 2026. >> Yep. >> And then >> and there's no retailers and they're like, "Oh god." >> They get retail in there. >> Yep. >> And then two years later, the retail's not working out. they can switch to this without any additional proof.
>> So I think we put a condition in the permit of the variance or the special permit that says if there is to be a change of use from what is approved whether it's one residential going up to three or three down to one or commercial they need to come back and check in with
us. >> I but I don't think we can do that if we approve two plants. >> Okay. Yeah. And I I absolutely respect that because I that's just my >> my thought. If it doesn't match the bylaw or town council or then I would say I mean I would rather one of them
and if they get into construction and they do more marketing and say oh this one isn't going to work then come back to us for the other one. That's what I'm saying rather than approving both up front. You will be approve you will be approving the residential
project and there will be no re there will be only one 445 foot retail space because we could not start construction and start marketing retail spaces and we just without having the approval we we just couldn't do it. And if you only if you're only going to approve one of them
it's it's going to have to be the residential. the whole purpose of why we applied for these permits. Uh because we we had a two family plan that was approved by historic y >> that that we could execute. But the re the whole reason to apply for these
permits was because >> every at every meeting all we heard constantly was we wish it were more retail. We wish there were retail. So we're trying to find a way to get some retail. have we have some interest um and we want to have a plan that allows us to do the retail, but we could not
execute a plan that had retail as the only option. It would not be economically viable. We it just we couldn't do it. So, we would be locking ourselves into the residential plan and 445t of retail and losing 3,000 square feet of retail space uh without having
to come back and do this all over again, which I don't think any of us are so eager to do. uh you know, we want to preserve that opportunity. And again, we we look at the test substantially more detrimental to the town in either of these scenarios. We don't see how it
possibly can be substantially more detrimental than the pre-existing use. You've got a decrepit building that's obsolete. It's crumbling. It's got environmental hazards. >> And both plans, that's that's the key here is that yes, you've got two plans that you're brewing, but both of them
meet the test. Both of them would be a substantial improvement to what's existing, let alone substantially more detrimental to a neighborhood that is filled with multifamilies, filled with businesses, and arguably needs more to of them to to bring some vitality, you
know, back to the area. So, we think either scenario is better and that and and by limiting it, we thought we thought we were doing what you asked for by limiting it to very two specific concrete floor plans. If there's any deviation from either of those floor plans, we have to come back. But we want
the right to drive both of them and have both of them be approved under the special permit which I I we we've researched this. I I don't see anything in the bylaw that prevents you from issuing a special permit that allows that flexibility. As John pointed out, I mean this is not uncommon in larger
towns where you have mixeduse projects where there are ranges of the square footages that are there approved by boards. just that if if other towns are doing it, it it it can't be a problem under 4A section 6. And our zoning bylaw mirrors 4A section 6. So I don't see any
legal reason why you feel you can't too. What about the fact that the a special permit expires in three after three years and so if you've done the construction on this basis
and don't do this within three years then it seems to me like this portion of this special permit could expire. I don't think that's correct because I think it's whether you the test is whether you have executed and started construction and the the test under 4A section 6 it actually even says that
when you're doing site work in preparation that that that that counts. So I I don't think that it once you have the special permit, it becomes part of the title to the property and and it would allow the property have that to have that flexibility. And again, we think that's going to be just a huge benefit to the town to allow that. And
it's very similar to what is permitted today in the general district where you have space that can go from residential to commercial. I mean, the only reason why uh apart from this, apart from the building, if this were two units, I mean, you wouldn't have some of those same issues
>> if if if it was a conforming building. >> Right. Right. >> And I would I would argue that perhaps there aren't any conforming buildings >> in the downtown area on Beach Street. They go set back property line to
property line. Major, you know, there's hardly any that would be conforming, I believe. I think at 21 across the street it's kind of for me >> right across the street.
>> We got one. >> I think the little white Oh, actually that's two two on one lot. So that's >> I'm talking about the businesses. >> Okay. >> I'm talking about the businesses on Beach Street >> because they're non-conforming structures. They can't change from
retail to residential without approval because they're non-conforming structures. >> That unless that may be true, but I I I but I I think there is very significant in case law in Massachusetts that would say that for the board to deny a change
from a resident from a retail use to a residential use in one of those buildings would not be allowed. I mean the the the Bali High case in in Lynfield is what stands for that that residences do not cause harm. So even though technically yeah you'd have to come for I suppose for a uh for a change
of uses granted >> Chinese food >> man I'm not not having a problem with it probably the best option that we >> I think the problem that comes up is
writing the decision that's the only thing I could think of and if that's something that seems more technical that we need to consult But that's the only reason I can think of my mind laying it out. I am >> but how we physically
>> if if we receive favorable if we receive the zoning relief we are very happy to draft that decision and provide it to you and work with legal counsel to make sure that it satisfies your requirements. >> I would agree with that. >> If council reviews the decision
>> been there done that >> didn't work out well. >> Didn't work. I was going to say, how'd that go? Not good. >> I was asking. >> Yeah, that one didn't work so well. >> Sorry. Um, okay. So, let's
switch to the variance. >> Okay. So, we talked about the variance at our last meeting, correct? that the variance is a height variance because they're doing three stories instead of
two and a half. And the two the reason it's three stories not two and a half is cuz the third story is more than 2/3 of the level below it because the second story which is below the third story
>> has appreciate that >> has parking on the back. So the floor plan of the second floor the footprint of the second floor is substantially smaller than the third floor. And the question is do we have issues
with that? >> From what I took from the last meeting was that they gave us reasoning why soil shapeography is validated here for a variance and I >> because of the ledge. >> Yes. And I agreed with that. So I am okay. >> We are all in
>> consistent with that. >> Yes. >> Mr. W. >> I and perhaps we have absolutely no problem with that to support it. >> Thank you. I apologize. Now you're busting. Now you're besties.
>> It happens on rail, guys. >> Yeah, >> I don't want to be in the middle of >> Can you also explain to us What paperwork we have that
shows the second and third story consistent with these first four plans because when I was looking through it looked to me like what we had from no I could be wrong but what we had from November 19th
only reflected the 10- foot wide driveway. way. >> So, have you provided us with paperwork showing the 12 foot wide driveway in the and the second and third floor plans,
>> right? Yeah. We that's never been It's always been 12 feet. Never. >> No. What I have says 10 >> existing >> from 1119. 10 foot0 in is what's shown on the driveway.
>> And that's the last plan. >> They told us they were going to increase it, but it's not. It's on. I'm sorry. I I just saw >> I'm looking for floor levels two and three reflecting >> the driveway. >> I wonder if that's
>> right. >> 10 ft. >> There's nothing that I can find >> because the building >> if you're increasing the driveway to 12 feet, you change the footprint of the building a little bit. Correct. Correct.
>> To give you the 12 ft correct for the building. >> Yeah. So, >> and I don't see anything. I have >> Yeah, that this does say the 10.4 that you're and then it goes to 14 ft up here. >> Um, so you're going to have to have the civil engineer up update that background
because that's not reflected >> to the 1A plan that you're proposing >> show reflecting this with. >> Yeah, correct. >> Okay. All right. That makes sense. and would need elevations likewise. >> Yeah, it it the architectural plans are
like the 10 foot or the 12 foot drive. This civil plan is not reflecting that. And if there's dimensional discrepancies, we make sure those are updated for the final gravity needs to be 12 feet. Well, you're you're telling us the
driveway is going to be 12 feet, and all I'm saying is is on the 1119 things we received, it reflected a driveway of 10 ft. >> Isn't Isn't that reflecting the existing? >> Yes. >> Says increased to 12.
>> This is 10. This is 10. Yes. >> So she said the elevation and the architectural is still 12 but the civil plan is 12. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It's one 12. >> Yeah. But I'm looking for Yeah. The whole the whole architectural
>> the whole package. Yeah. >> The 12 foot drive. >> Could you just put a condition on that we need to revis 12 driveway? Then it's just a matter of And is the second floor
deeper into the lot than the first floor >> on the west side >> rear the second floor deeper into the lot and what's reflect on the plans. What's sorry what's what's the question?
>> I I'm trying to line up all of the documents we have and and I'm not sure what's consistent is my problem. And you're on the first floor you're showing 365 in. And I have something showing a
second floor which doesn't give me any dimensions. So I can't tell. Oh, yeah. The corner room, the covered room where they like cut off that front edge on the left. >> No, no, that's not what I'm talking
about. I'm talking about here and here. >> I don't know. There's no dimensions to know is this floor plan on the second floor the same
as the first floor >> and the cars behind it or what? >> Yeah, that's what you mean. Yeah, they're not showing the floor level with the >> stat floor and the second floor stack. Then the third floor
>> overhangs the open air parking spaces. Let me show you when I'm looking at it why it's confusing. So here you have a claim. >> Then I have this one. >> So I can't figure out how this
>> My apologies. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. So you can't tell from this is all this parking behind here. That's what I said. >> Right. It's >> you're telling me that, but there's nothing on the plan that tells me. >> Well, this is all buried into the hill
side. So the parking is typical. You have side elevations that I thought there were side elevations on the in the full landset that was submitted on the the 19th. There you go. Yeah. >> That was a bunch of
>> Yeah, >> that's part of the front p. There should be >> it's the first bank. Yeah, this is October 17, >> but it's
>> Yeah, this is October 17th. >> That means he's changed it. The October 17th has 10 foot driveway, so it's a different footprint. Now >> that that's not showing a driveway. The actual building is 12 ft away. Not showing your required zones. So the red
line is the setback says setback, >> but you said you've done it to 12 feet. >> You're looking at the roof plan and there's an overhang of the roof. So the actual drive is under the overhang if that makes sense. The first floor >> which is double
third floor. >> So we need all the dimensions to make it clear. >> We got to have >> because even in here you got it where it says Right. >> Yeah. That's the existing >> but you're showing the parking >> which you're showing you're show you're
overlay. Yeah. So it's >> just inconsistent as to what we have. >> Yeah. The shaded area showing up the walls. >> So I think we clarified we just need more detail to
Yeah. just have that as a conditional plans to test more detrimental. >> He doesn't want to continue. Do you get that feeling? >> I agree. >> You don't want to be doing demolition during the summer. 90 days to >> That's also true.
>> 90 days to potentially to issue to get you a decision. It's a 20-day appeal period, >> right? No one is in the if we've got an unsightly pit or >> peak of July >> as a conditionus be revised.
I think it's clear. It seems it's clarifications because when you start to overlay existing conditions and the way things are labeled, but we can absolutely >> Yeah, that's that's in the variance section where we're referencing the plans.
That's for the height. So we need we need all three level. >> But again it's I mean I don't think minor differences and you know clarifying those plans are going to have much effect on the fact that there's the hardship and you just take a look at it.
You know you're not going to get a sec third floor that's going to satisfy that sixth time. >> I don't care Adam. The fact of the matter is is we need to be able to attach to our decision and cite the dates of the documents we're attaching
>> and we don't have those dates because we don't have the documents. That's what I'm reacting to. I'm not reacting to, you know, is it material? We just need it. >> Okay. So, we're going to include that. Is that
a condition? >> The final documents. >> We can we usually handle these types of things. >> And you're going to write this one. >> Sure. >> Iron Glove's going to write it. >> Okay.
I'll make a motion. >> Okay. >> What? >> Please. >> Well, after my first time, >> the first motion is I move to close the public hearing. >> I second that.
>> Yes. >> John? >> Yes. >> Sean? >> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. >> Okay. >> We've done our deliberations, right? >> I think so. >> It goes in.
>> Yes. Okay. I move to approve the application of 22 Union Street LLC for a special permit under sections 4 and 12.5 of the zoning bylaw and or other relief as may be necessary
for a change of use in a nonconforming structure from one retail unit to to three residential units and up to three retail units. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> Like that. Um at it >> actually I think it would be no be any technically I think it would be 143 because that's what corres >> okay >> oh
got it okay okay >> I think we've committed that we I don't want to have a decision different than what the record is and we presented you plans with one or three >> that's why we have a lawyer >> now you're a lawyer >> okay that's why you have a lawyer and
one or three retail units at 22 Union Street, assessor's map number 51, lot number 62 in District G, found with a town clerk on October 20th, 2025 based on a finding that the proposed change of use provides adequate
parking for the new residential units and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the bylaw and the use will will not be substantially more detrimental or injurious to the neighbor. neighborhood in which is located than the existing retail use and
conditions under 12.5.2 the zoning bylaw for grant of a special permit have been met based on the following conditions. The residential units have interior
access directly onto Union Street. Parking for six cars for the residential units is provided at the rear of the structure with adequate turning radius to avoid encroachment on the Abut's property as depicted on level two floor plan
prepared by Vanstein architecture/teriors dated to be updated. DVD >> to be okay to be pro to be provided.
>> Let me refer to the existing plan to be supplemented with actual dimensions. >> Okay. To be revised with actual dimensions. Yep. Okay. though I'm citing the data November
19th, 2012. Since the existing retail unit does not provide off- streetet parking for clients, no off- streetet parking will be required for the retail units. We've done that before. All conditions required by the fire
chief, including a dry hydrant and sprinkler system, are installed. The driveway is at least 12 feet wide and and a subsurface snow melt system
is installed and maintained to ensure no snow or ice buildup on the steep drive. An LED sign shall be installed at the top of the driveway to display vehicle entering detecting vehicles entering the
driveway from Union Street or to detect. Landscaping along Union Street shall be installed and maintained and snow removed such that it does not impede sight lines from the driveway and along
Union Street. The driveway shall not be used for commercial activities. I think we need to be careful about the commercial activities for in driveway will not be used in connection with the commercial use of the property.
We're not >> the driveway not contractors or effect or trash pick up >> in connection >> with the commercial use of the building of 22 Union Street. Let's make it specific.
Um, I'm reluctant to put something in about deliveries. >> Okay. >> I I think that if we attempt to restrict diveries to this building, we're
impacting >> buildings, >> all the buildings. >> And I just I don't think that's where >> then we're talking also UPS, Amazon. Yeah. Earls >> water delivers. >> The
the footprint of the building shall be constructed in the location depicted on new mixeduse development prepared by Vance Stein Architecture/teriors dated 12 11205
number 1A or 1B. Um and then you said you were willing to have a condition that condo documents >> Yeah. the uh >> will restrict >> the applicant will impose rules and regulations either in tenant handbook or
condo documents for all occupants of the project utilized on the common driveway for any use other than parking and access. >> You got all that? >> He's going to give it to me. >> Can I read it again? >> No. Do you have a copy of it?
>> I do. >> Just give me the copy. You have a copy. I can You had all sorts of copies. >> Well, tell me, but there's other stuff in here. So, I don't want to >> I just want to circle that part. >> I just
think it's okay. Okay. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. Do two seconds. >> Are you going to do separate ones for the change in the structure and the variance? Yeah, separate one. Yeah,
separate motion for the Barretts. Are we ready to vote? Yes. >> Colleen? >> Yes. >> Georgia? >> Yes. >> John? >> Yes. >> Sean? >> Yes. >> Such? Yes. >> I further move to approve the
application of 22 Union Street LLC for a variance under sections 5.5 and 12.3 of the zoning bylaw. And other relief as may be necessary to allow a height of three stories where two and a half stories is allowed which does not exceed
a height of 35 ft owing to circumstances relating to the shape of the land and existing ledge which does not allow for the second floor to be expanded and still allow for parking on a second floor. especially affecting such land
and structures but not generally affecting the zoning district G in which it is located. A literal enforcement of the provisions of this bylaw would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, and
that the desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially deraggating from the intent or purpose of the bylaw based on the following conditions.
The building is constructed as depicted on plans schematic and schematics prepared by Vanstein Architecture Interiors dated November 19th, 2025.
Union Street elevation, west elevation, north rear elevation, and east elevation. Um as revised what did it say before as revised with actual dimensions
that okay? Um, the proposed project shall be constructed in accordance with the floor plans prepared by Vansstein Architecture/ Interiors dated
um, November 19th. 12 and 121 uh first floor, second floor, third floor um to all be revised
to include dimensions. And what I would like is that the they all have the same date. Anything else? More discussion. Do I have a second? Uh vote. Colleen. Yes, Georgia. >> Yes,
>> John. >> Yes, >> Sean. >> Yes, >> Sarah. Yes, >> I will write it and I will send it to you for review. How's that? >> We can get it as soon as we can to avoid uh people angry with us over
>> It will be January. >> Perfect. >> That's great. Thank you. >> Are people good with that? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you, Sarah. I just we we had another situation
where an attorney drafted the decision and it's been in the appeals court. >> That's not >> you don't want that. I don't want >> I don't like going there >> and I believe that too. >> So we would like to avoid that.
>> Me too. >> But we would like to be in agreement. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Now we need to do the structure. >> What? >> We need to get a special permit to extend the pre-existing non-conforming structure. We just voted.
>> Oh, we need a special permit for the use. >> A special permit for the use >> the varants. And now >> special permit to expand the pre-existing non-informing structure and the driveway which is because you're going from 10 ft to 12t. >> It's pre-existing. >> All these decisions now. What?
>> You might want to rethink. We got to make these decisions. >> I move to approve the application of 22 Union Street for a special permit under
section what is it 7.2 2 and 12.5 of the zoning bylaw and other relief as may be necessary to alter
>> a pre-existing non-conforming >> a pre-existing >> nonconforming building and driveway and driveway. Okay. >> Um, at 22 Union Street, assesses map number
51, lot number 62, District D, um, filed with a town clerk on October 20th, 2025, based on a finding that the proposed alteration
is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the bylaw and will not will not be substantially more detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood in which it is located than the existing non-conforming building and driveway.
Um, and conditions under section 12.5.2 of the zoning bylaw for the grant of a special permit have been met based on the conditions approved under the special permit for a change of
use. Great job. >> Do I have a second? That's it. Don seconds. A vote. >> Yes. >> John Sean. >> Yes. >> Yes. Georgia. Yes.
>> Sarah Roz. >> Yeah, I know. Exactly. >> Well, I'll be able to read my name. >> At least we can watch back. Hopefully. >> Oh, that's right. I'll get the um >> Yeah, it was fast on. Oh, she has been very So, we good.
>> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much patient. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate it. >> Um minutes from November 19th, 2025. Have a chance to review those? >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes. I'll make a motion to approve them. Do I
have a second? >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? Colleen? >> The only edit I would I was not the only addit. >> That's a good one. >> You actually read those.
>> I handed them to her and I did so >> said it's okay. It's okay. >> Um amended to include Colleen Moore as an attendee. Thank you. >> I vote. Yes.
>> Yes. >> John. >> Yes. >> John Sarah. Yes. Um applications for the next meeting. >> Oh, good morning. >> None. Right. >> Put your seat belts on. >> Oh, come on. Sarah,
>> they were making Kay >> Crosby shutting down redevelopment. >> Listen to condoms. to Blossom Lane. >> Oh, yes. I read that appeal. >> Appeal of an administrator's decision.
>> Yeah. The building inspector said there was no zoning violations. They're appealing that, but they already went to Are we still in? I don't want to >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, I haven't really looked at the whole thing. >> I would haven't really looked at what was received, so I'm not exactly sure.
>> I skimmed it. It's coming out of the the lawsuit that still ongoing. Yes. So, >> all right. Well, we'll deal with that. >> Anybody have anything else? >> Motion to the day of the uh meeting. >> Motion to adjourn.
>> January January 22nd. >> 22nd. >> That's the next meeting. >> I think it was tax records going first. What else? >> Is that the only thing on the docket? >> Yes. Nothing else is coming out. >> January 28th.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. It's a Wednesday. >> Can we turn the TV? >> I'm with this. I still have >> You haven't yet. >> Oh, so thank you. I a motion to adjourn. Motion to I second that.