Yeah, >> John is I think Sounded like time. I don't know. We shall see. Who else
can't whatever the Mediterranean We started in Italy. We went down Croatia, Slovenia. Did you get down? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Good. So >> Friday
after year, >> you know sometime which >> not as much for a long time. >> Hi there. How are you? >> Good. Why don't we have different
That's another one that's second. >> That's my only concern. >> Yeah. I predict people respond well She's sharing where you guys
know. I met you with Jackie. Goldie comes. I mean I see this officer. The police department Is everyone made it over there? Make District A with a town clerk on October 20th, 2025.
Do I have a second? >> Joy the second. Take a roll call vote. John >> Bruce >> Rob. Yes. >> Georgia. >> Yes. >> Yes. John. >> Yes. >> Sarah. Yes. Okay.
Um, somebody here to present the application to us. >> Yes. Hello. Uh, Renco Brooker Brooker Design LLC here in Manchester. Uh, and the owner, Michael Kirk. See you again.
And so we'd like to, uh, show this to you. Not sure. Think digital is probably difficult. I can do that right here if everybody's okay with that. >> I'll let Michael talk a little bit more about the project and where that
started. >> Okay. Yeah. My wife and I, we reside at 34 Vine Street. Um we purchased the 53 summer maybe six, seven months ago and um had to do a considerable amount to maintain uh the the structure needed
some some work. Um, and as part of that renovation, we're here to ask your consideration for the shed dormer. You know, our plans for the house are um to house my parents who are aging out in Seattle. So, um, we're hoping that this
could be a convenient spot in town for them to spend some years. So, uh, Remco has, uh, designed a shed dormer to give us a little more head space on the second floor. >> Great. Thank you. Um construction had
started and then at that time um essentially downstairs had been configured upstairs was not configured quite as as as good as Mike would have wanted and so the contractor contact contacted me that's why construction
started a little earlier than our application but uh we have not done any work on the dormer area so um so that's what we're talking about today. Um it's a very small lot for that area. It's in
district 8, so it had large um setbacks and um what we're dealing with is in fact Summer Street is here. The front yard line is right here. And so the entire house essentially sits in the front
yard. Um the rear yard overlaps it as well. So again, the entire house is completely non-conforming. In fact, it's it's very close to the lot line, partially over there. And then on the side, the the one area that it does
conform is on the uh the side on the um uh east side. West side here, it's not conforming as well. So we knew that expanding the footprint also from the point of view of uh just the space that's on site is really not uh doable.
And so we thought we could uh request to expand top floor a little bit in terms of headroom. So here you see uh the first floor. Again, we're not really touching that footprint. Renovations have happened. A
lot of structural uh work on the inside. The area that we're requesting for is this hatched area right here. And that's the dormer. not exceeding the height the current height of the
building. Bridge height stays the same and we are expanding. This is the street right here. You're just expanding it approximately 42 in from the current lean line up and then bringing that shed
back to the ridge. Um, this shows you the rear that nobody will see. And this, uh, shows you the side uh that some that people will see as they're oncoming from Manchester towards Gloucester. Again, it's a fairly simple
shed dormer with a few windows in it. Uh, we're trying to mimic the nice trim detail that the roof has, the building has, and uh, keep it in very much in keeping with what it is. Um and uh contractor has talked to the neighbor
immediately adjacent to this side, this side here. She seems fine. She said uh nobody will give you any trouble, so to speak. So we think um we think we're in keeping with both the neighborhood uh as well as uh surrounding structures and
people of death. >> Question straightforward. No question. >> No, no questions. >> Uh, no questions. >> Is there any member of the public that who would like to speak on this
application? >> Just wait a minute. Hold on. I got to admit everyone. Unfortunately, this meeting was set up with a waiting room. So, I have to admit people. >> Don't usually have them set up with a waiting room.
>> What? >> There's a lot of people waiting. >> Can you see the um for people just joining. wishes to speak on this application um or ask a question. If so, please raise
your hand in Zoom. Um, with that we'll move to a motion. >> Thank you. >> With that, we'll close this public hearing. I move to close the public hearing and have the board enter into deliberations with respect to the application. Do I have a second?
>> Second. >> Roll call vote. John >> Rob, >> yes. >> Georgia, >> yes. >> Yes. John, >> yes. Sarah. With that, I will make a motion. I move to approve the application of Mike Kirk
for a special permit under section 7.2 and 12.5 of the zoning bylaw and or other relief as may be necessary to construct a roof dormer which is approximately 25 ft by 10 ft on an
existing non on existing non-conforming structure which encroaches into the front side and rear set maps on a nonconforming block at 53 summer street assessor's map
number 14 lot number eight in district A filed with a town clerk on October 20th 2025 based on a finding that roof dormer 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 dwelling. And requirements under section 12.5.2 of the zoning bylaw for the grant of a
special permit have been met. Based on the condition, the roof dormer is constructed constructed substantially in accordance with the following documents and plans prepared by Brooker
Design LLC dated October 10th, 2025. T1.0 proposed site plan. E1.0 existing plans and elevations.
A 1.0 0 proposed floor plans and a 2.0 proposed elevations and section. Sorry, that screen just turned off. >> They had problems in the meeting before me with it crashing, but then we were able to get it back. >> Okay. Has that been happening a lot?
>> I don't know. Okay. Oh my god. >> I mean this room is still showing on Zoom. >> Should be good. It's just for your sake to be able to see if someone's talking. >> So we are on camera and we are being
broadcast. You're good to keep going. >> Okay. Um do I have a second to the motion? Yes, >> John seconds. >> Any discussion? We good that it's not substantially more detrimental than the existing house?
>> I think it looks a lot better having the door go as opposed to just a portion. >> Great. >> Okay. >> Um, take a vote. John >> approved. >> Rocky, >> yes. >> Georgia, >> yes. >> Sean, >> approve. Yes.
>> Would somebody like to write this? >> Sean. Okay. who you never you got off that one, John. Get on that one because I don't want to do. >> Very good. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> I'll be back. If you're on Zoom, is it possible for you to go in and eliminate the waiting room on the next application is 48 is now
uh we will consider this application for variance and a special permit for a large accessory dwelling unit ADU. Since this is our first ADU application before us and the bylaw was just approved by the attorney general in
October. I'll give a brief explanation of the two types of ADUs allowed each of which is a separate use under our bylaw. First, there's a standard accessories dwelling unit. It's allowed in all districts except the limited commercial
district. It must conform with coverage and setback requirements and is not larger than the lesser of half the gross floor area of the existing dwelling for 900 square ft and only one per lot is allowed. It
requires one off- streetet parking space if it's more than a half mile from the train station and no parking spaces if it's within a half a mile. The other ADU use is a large accessory dwelling unit. It requires a special permit and is not
allowed in districts D1, D2, G, and LCD. It must conform with coverage requirements and setback requirements for a primary structure. It is only allowed on a lot with a single family residence. No more than one ADU per lot
is allowed. They must meet the parking requirements and it cannot be larger than the lesser of half the gross floor area of the existing dwelling or 1,200 square feet. Okay. Boards on board with that. Yes.
Okay. Um, with that I move to open the public hearing for the application of David and Jane Matrono for a special permit under sections 9.1.3 and 12.5 of the zoning bylaw and or
other relief as may be necessary to construct a 1,086 square foot large ADU and variances under sections 9.1.3 and 12.3 under 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 30, excuse me, assessor's map number 50, lot number 19
in district D1 filed with a town clerk on October 16, 2025. Do I have a second? >> Second. Georgia second. Roll call vote. John >> Rob. >> Yes. >> Georgia.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> John. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Is somebody here to present the application? >> Veronica. >> Hi. This is our >> Dane and Davis. Hi.
>> Um Veronica Hobson. Taproot design. Um so you know we're also learning as the town is learning. So, this is um so bear with us and we'll we'll explain what's going on. Um you know, in spite of the relief that we're here seeking tonight, we think that um the Metronos are
exactly the kind of family that this bylaw is meant to serve. As they enter the stage of life where multi-story independent living becomes more and more of a challenge, this bylaw affords them the ability to stay in their home in
their community. Um, as their son and his family move into the main house and they would um take residence in the single form uh single floor ADU, they um Jane's been in this community. She was born and raised um on that lot.
Uh the house has been in the family for hundred years. they are so embedded in this community and so this is where they want to be. Um sorry makes me emotional. >> I agree. I'm so sorry. Okay. So um so what exists on the lot today? This is in
the rear left corner lot. There's a an existing twocar garage with another little um room included in there. It's about it's a little over 750 square ft. The additional room is a workshop, but once upon a time it was a preschool that
James ran. And so the and currently it sits 1 and 1/2 ft off of the left lot line and it sits 2 feet off of the rear lot line. So the plan is to um the proposal is to demolish that structure. There's no found proper foundation
footing just given the age of the structure. um and to construct this new ADU for them. Um and in doing so, what we'd like to do is to pull it away from each of the lot lines um to allow a 5-ft offset from both the left side and the
rear. And this will allow circulation around the structure if there's any maintenance that's needed. Um and we so we are looking for a dimensional um relief from those setbacks. um we feel that it's appropriate for the
lot um given the context and can I just steal a corner of your >> Sure. Okay. >> So um this is a Logex map and so the this is their um home and this is the current
accessory structure in the back corner and this is the shape of the lot. The grade climbs dramatically once you hit the rear lot line. Um, this is an accessory structure here. This is the neighbor's primary structure here with an accessory structure actually closer
to the road. The location of the existing structure, there's a lot of room around that structure even as it sits, you know, almost right on the line from the surrounding um buildings. And so
we, you know, in order for this um this multi- generational family living situation to work, it has to work for everyone. And so what we are trying to do is to maintain some of rear yard for family gatherings,
for the children, the grandchildren to play. If we pull this structure completely away from the lot lines to conform to the setbacks, it literally obliterates the backyard. The other thing that it does is it crowds the house. So the visual density that it
creates by moving it closer to the house is actually more detrimental we feel to um to the structure than keeping it in the rear left corner where it exists today where there are no other structures in close proximity. Um, so I
apologize for these really fuzzy like Google shots. But what I'm gonna try and show you, if I can find it out, is this is the structure that we would be taking down. This is the main house here. This is their next door neighbor. These are
the accessory structures of the houses behind. And this is where the grade dramatically climbs up. And you can see there's a very tall retaining wall right there. So again, this is the structure that would be removed. So it would be in this approximate location but just pulled in a little bit but accessory
accessory climbing steeply um here that's a retaining wall. So again this is the structure that would be replaced and this is the structure here that would be replaced and roof climbs dramatically here. So this would come this way just a little bit. This is the
primary structure here. Um, so we are we are looking to keep the structure in a similar location with the existing accessory for a host of reasons. We don't feel it's detrimental
to any of the neighboring properties that it remain kind of where it is. Um, and it preserves um a functional backyard for for this multigenerational family to exist coexist together. Um the
we are asking for a larger footprint than is um than the 900 square f feet for the smaller ADU. Um but well under the large ADU. Um we have a obviously a district challenge because we are D1. Um
but within the spirit of that, if D1 were included in that large ADU, we would be still over 100 square feet underneath that limit. um the need of the extra square footage. It's easy to get an ADU
with a single bedroom in 900 ft, but it's near impossible to get it with it with two bedrooms. But given David's medical situation conditions, they really do need two separate bedrooms for them both to, you know, sleep well. And as you know, as you age, sleep becomes
very, very important. So, um, so we are asking for relief from square footage as well. And I'm not sure if that is the variance piece or not because we're I'm still kind of learning about this, but we asked for both the variance and the special permit just to make sure that we
were covered and the town was covered in whatever approvals might be granted. Um, happy to answer any questions that you have about the application. The challenge we have
>> is that when the ADU bylaw was created, it created two separate ADUs as two separate uses. So it has this the standard and the large.
And they excluded the large from district D1. And under our bylaw, the ZVA is not allowed to give a variance for a use. >> So in order to have the large ADU
uh in this district, you need a variance and we can't grant it. Um so the which you know I agree this makes sense. This is what we wanted. But unfortunately, the way the
bylaw is, we can't issue a granted variance. But I think there are other options that you might want to consider. Um, one is you could obviously decrease the size to
900, which we you stated is a problem in order to get the two bed ones. Um, you could connect the ADU to the main structure via a covered walkway and then it would be
part of the primary structure and you would need a variance for the five feet versus 10 ft for the setback. Um the the you know another option is you can make
the house two family. You all integrate two family if you wanted. Um, the other thing is I'm going to suggest to the planning board that the town might consider amending the bylaw at the
April town meeting to enlarged allow the large ADUs in districts D1 and D2 by special perm. Um, I don't know if the planning board will entertain that and I don't know if town meeting will pass it.
Um, so given all of those circumstances, I'm wondering if you wish to continue it to consider your >> I think we do. Yeah, I think we would like to ask for continuance at this point. We can talk about um the the
other two avenues. I think April feels like maybe a stretch um you know, needs are increasing. So um but yeah, I think a continuence at this point just so we can discuss and >> Okay. Um, do does members of the board
have questions? >> No. >> Is there any member of the public who wishes to speak on this application? If so, raise your hand and zoom. >> Okay. So, sorry. Sorry. Go ahead. >> I do have a question just to clarify for
myself and maybe people in the public. So, They are requesting two variances. One for the use of a yesu and then one for demolish raising the building and relocating it. >> No
>> varian. That's not a variance. >> Okay. A variance to construct a new building containing the ADU. So that would be the use and a variance to construct the building within the primary sub. I was just wondering it in my mind the build the accessory building
was already nonconforming. >> Correct. >> So would it be a variance for the use and then a special permit for this is a question I don't need answer to now but I was just wondering they're already non-conforming so I didn't know if they had >> the way the bylaw was written um was
that a large ADU has to conform with the setback. >> Got it. regardless >> for a primary structure. Therefore, the existing nonconformity is for an accessory structure set back. So, even though it's called an accessory structure.
>> Okay. >> And is there a square footage limitation on a on an accessory structure? Let's say it wasn't an ADU if it was just an accessory structure. There's no limitation on that. >> But you can't use it as a residence,
right? You can't you you know you could have you could have an accessory structure without a kitchen >> and people could live there. Happens all the time. That's the kitchen. >> So it's the kitchen that's the trigger. >> The stove, right? >> The stove is the trigger for the >> Yeah. Because if you don't have the the
stove, then it's not considered habitable because you can't cook. >> Okay. >> You have a bar, you have a sink, dishwasher, but you can't. >> Right. So I guess that it does that then pose a fourth option which is if we remove the range
>> from the plan then we would simply at that point be seeking um a special permit then for the dimensional nonconformity. >> Correct. Yep. >> Okay. >> Yep. Yep. That's another option. >> Okay. >> Right.
>> It's Yeah, it is. Sorry. No, I know you didn't write it. >> And are they the f are they our first UDU after the bylaw passing? Okay. >> And the attorney general, I think, approved it on October 21st and changed the requirements for the standard ADUs.
Yeah. Um made them more restrict less restrictive, but not for the large. But still, it's the I I think that what I've heard is when the planning board was doing the bylaw, the assumption was
that because you can do a two family, >> did you really need an ADU? >> Um, >> okay. >> But I understand that if if I had a young family in the house, >> Yeah.
>> I would want to be detached. Yeah. >> Okay. Any other questions from the board? No. Okay. >> Does that make sense? >> You're okay with the continuence? >> Yeah. No choice.
>> Unfortunately, our hands are tied, >> right? Um, so at the oh waiting room at the request of the applicant, I move to continue the public hearing to I'm
assuming you want it as soon as possible. Be the December meeting. >> Yes, please. >> Um, which would be um December 17th. >> Okay. to December 17 um 2025 at 7 p.m.
>> 7 p.m. >> And you would be um first on the agenda. We always do the continuences first. >> All right. Thank you. >> Okay. Before you leave,
I'd like a second. Oh, good. Can I find you want your name? Thank you. Sorry about that. >> Thank you.
The next application you're going to consider is 22 Union Street for a height variance and a special permit for change of use in a non-confront contains two restrictions.
One is it if you can sign into Zoom then present on Zoom um has two restrictions. One can't exceed 35 ft, which is the vertical distance measured from the average grade of the existing ground level adjoining the building at each
exterior wall to the highest point of the roof. It also cannot exceed two and a half stories. A half story is defined as a floor level with a roof club. Most floors have roofs. Um, and you measure
it 4T high in the story that's the third story or the half story. And it cannot exceed 2/3 of the floor area of the level immediately below it. And that's why they're asking for a variant because it's exceeding the 2/3
of the floor below. I just want to give him time to get logged in so that he can get it right up because no get paid by the hour. >> What? >> So we get paid by the hour. Can you share? >> Do I have to do something?
>> Um, I just sent a request. >> Can somebody just hit that allow button on that screen? Thank you. >> Thank you. like your presentation. >> For some reason, it doesn't come up on mine.
Okay. I move to open the 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 or other relief as may be necessary to ch to a to a change of use in a
non-conforming structure for retail to retail and residential and a variance under sections 5.5 and 12.3 and or other relief as may be necessary to construct a building with three
stories instead of 2 and 1/2 stories, which does not exceed a height of 35 ft at 22 Union Street, assessor's map number 51, lot number 62 in District G, filed with a town clerk on October 20th,
2025. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Georgia seconds. Roll call vote. John >> Robert, >> yes. >> Georgia, >> yes. Colleen, yes. Sean, >> yes. >> Sarah, >> would you like to present?
>> Thank you. Yes, we would. Um, good evening everybody. Uh, my name is Adam Siger. I'm attorney at Challen Stewart in Boston. I'm here with Chris Stein of Advanced Stein Architects and Workman Development. Um, is the chief primary architect on the project. Um, we're very
happy to be here tonight. A lot of effort has gone into this plan. Um, as some of you may know, uh, it has evolved. It started with a plan in May that, uh, contemplated a courtyard on the street that was revised, uh, before the historic district commission in
July, um, and had a certificate of appropriateness for a two unit plan, um, that was designed to comply with all of our dimensional requirements. Uh during those hearings, there were really two pieces of criticism, two general themes
that we heard um from both town officials and citizens, which was we want commercial. And the second one was from some of the architectural community really disfavored the break in the building facade. Um they felt that the
streetscape should sort of remain intact um and that a better design would not break the building apart from the the structures of the Gladstone building next door and uh hinden the streetscape um to have a more vibrant uh downtown
feel. Uh so the plan tonight uh really is meant to address both of those concerns head-on to guarantees at least some commercial space on the first floor and keep that facade intact. Uh Sarah did an excellent job summarizing the
need that's requested. Um our goal as to build a building that can last and adapt for generations to come um and really serve the needs of community. So what we'd like to do is have Chris uh go through all of the architectural elements. um our board can ask questions and then I can address the the legal
aspects of the special permanent variance um after he's done uh that Chris. >> Yeah, thank you. Uh Chris Van board development alto address of 85 San Fonzo Drive. Um I'm
gonna work off this slide deck. I don't know if people want to turn and can see can see the screen in the audience here but as well. Um I do have some printed slide deck. So um here I'm just starting with the night survey of the existing
conditions. Um I know that most of us are familiar with the 22 union building which is the former cargo unlimited building. Um you can see that the building itself the footprint um takes up a pretty large portion of the site.
Um, it is an L-shape here. There is a full basement under the west side of the building. Um, and then there's a slab on grade single >> one of these chairs >> east side. >> Sorry,
>> that's okay. Um, and there is a drive that accesses the bar back parking lot. Um, which also services the drive for 18 Union, which is our neighbor here on the left, um, to their parking area. Uh there is an existing fence here um that
limits access to the roof uh because when you are on the back of a site, you can step right onto the roof of Billhead. Uh we also have a shared wall um with the Gladstone building here, Dan's property. Um and you can see that
it's zero lot along the Union Street. So we sit right on the sidewalk, sorry my turn. Um so the next slide here is just so show showing some of the existing condition photos. Um you know when we we purchased the the property uh we did
understand sort of the extent of um disarray and sort of lack of uh investment in the property to maintaining its you know current um structural stability. Um we if you go in there I know a few of us you joined us
um yesterday evening but um the roof is leaking. It's extremely deteriorated. Um there's a lot of mold that's starting to propagate and um the facade itself is starting to disintegrate. Um it was coated at some point in its life with a
non breathable paint. Um so it's actually disintegrating on the inside. So all that that cast is just popping off and becoming a a hazard. Um so these are some of the photos of the interior. So you can see the deterioration that's been taking place.
Um the parapits leaking. Uh water is flowing in through the a lot of the penetration. These are some of the images from the back of the property. So you can see step right up onto the roof from the grade. Um, and the upper left is the
access drive to the back parking area and the top right is the that parking area that's u also shared with the 18u. Um, quickly just going through a little bit of site context and where we derived our design from. Um, we were in front of
historic we worked pretty extensively with historic commission on our previous submission. Um what we're showing you tonight is not a deviation from what um we did get a certificate of appropriateness for all the details. The actual front elevation is virtually the same. Um we did add a infill commercials
piece that I'll show you in a minute. Um but if we look at the context along Union Street, we do see um a lot of threetory, you know, two and a half large thirdstory half attic spaces um buildings that are along that. So sort
of the the the mass in the the context for the design is not out of place with the other structures along Union and Central. Um so this is a proposed site plan. It's a little confusing to read because it
also shows the existing um floor plan or floor plate of cargo. So we are proposing um that there'll be six parking spaces that are dedicated to the residential units. So each residential unit will get two um parking spaces. Um
and there it's an open air parking but it's under the third floor. Um so they would you would pull up and under the third floor and I'll show you in the renderings and elevations here. Uh we are our footprint is smaller than the
current cargo footprint. Um we've done this purposefully for um to to reduce the mass but also to make the parking work. It's uh one of the reasons that we do need to ask for a variance today because um if you're only allowed 2/3 um for the half story of the floor plate
below because we have a a truncated smaller floor plate um we to accommodate the parking we had to make a larger third floor. Otherwise, you'll see in the sections, we'd have like a studio, one bedroom, you know, it just wouldn't um function for the the use.
Um so our our new plan um we are proposing to pull the building forward so that as Adam was explaining you know working with town officials and hearing uh from the public that there we did not want to break up that pedestrian um
retail uh realm. So we've pulled the building forward. We are required to have a fiveyard setback per zoning but um the building's already non-conforming. Um, and we've continued that um, front facade at the the grade level. And I'll show you in the elevation here. So, this is sort of
looking down again at that site plan. Um, we do have some undulation as the front elevation works up Union Street. Um, so there's a little bit of relief. It won't be sitting as tight as the cargo building does currently. Um, so it actually give a more of a friendly
pedestrian feel as you walk. You won't be feeling like you're right up against the building. Um, and you'll see in the the renderings and the elevations how that works. What's that? Yeah. And then the Yeah. The far right front corner where it says Ruth Paris,
that's actually the commercial space. Um, so it's a one-story commercial space. I'll show you in the elevation. Um, we've also designed the building too to make the entry and exit for the driveway safer. Currently, as you come down the drive, it's the visibility to
the left um is almost non-existent. You have to pull out onto the sidewalk. So, we've caned the building so that it actually opens up your view for that left-hand uh visibility. And we've also increased the width of that drive uh from 10, right now it's 10 feet, we're
increasing it to 12 feet. Um so, it's actually going to be wider and safer u than the current condition. Um so this is the street level uh first floor. So you can see um no >> so you can see here uh we have the the
commercial space that's on the the right hand side which has the shared um party wall with uh with Gladstone. Um and then you can see that the first floor is broken up into three units. Um we're leaving this as more of a flex space.
Um, so that could potentially uh serve as residential or commercial which we can talk more about um later in the presentation. And then you can also see how that elevation undulates um as it's working its way down Jun Street to the access drive and how it's caned at the
far left corner. Um, so this is moving moving up to the second floor, which is really the first floor living space for the residential units. And you can see how the floor plate has been condensed so that we can fit the parking and have adequate
turning radiuses so you get in and out of parking spaces. Um, and then the commercial space is one story. So here up at the second floor, it it's a roof terrace for unit number three. um is on the right side there.
Um and then this is the third floor. So here, this is why we're asking for a variance um so that we can get adequate size bedrooms up on the third floor. Um or the units um so you can see one, two, and three. >> Um and I do have the square footages of
each unit in the gross floor of the building on the right charts. I do have two charts. one showing if all three floors were built out for residential or if we only built out two floors for residential and had the first floor for commercial or home occupancy or
use. Um this elevation here uh is uh looking at our immediate butters um and the height context to our butter. So we um are allowed 35 feet uh from the average grade. Um we're actually only 31 feet
from the average grade. So we purposely in working with our butters uh lowered the the roof to not max it out um so that we did not feel out of context with the streetscape. Um so you can see 18 Union on the left. Uh their roof is
higher than what we're proposing here. um that elevation can't 62.6 and we're at 59. So that's from our data point. So you know by right we could go up another four feet but but we we're not we're trying to keep the the
massing in context with the rest of the the street. And here you can also see that the design um at the ground level was intentionally made to look like retail storefronts. So in keeping with that
pedestrian retail um elevation. So then when you move up to the second floor it has double hung windows more of a residential feel. Um so to keep in that sort of mixed use um design elements. Um this is looking at the landscape
plan. Landscape plan's minimal. Um we do have a small landscape area on the parking area. can also be used for um snow plowing and piling up snow during the winter months. Um there is some landscape down at Union Street um where
we have the break in the facade. So you will get um some additional green elements there um looking at various shrubs and um trees and we have them called out there in the post plant list. Um, we also did a phototric study to
look at the uh light impacts. Um, so here that it's very hard to see at at this scale. Um, but this is looking at the lumen levels um around the building based on the proposed lights that we've specified. And you can see that
everything's dark sky and also at zero cut off when you get to the property line. So there's no light spilling over our property into the uh Butters properties. Um, so we, you know, we work carefully with our lighting consultant to make sure that we're not lighting up
the other operations, um, around us. Um, so this this uh section here of the building really illustrates why we need to go for the variance. Um, you can see that uh the first floor at the street level um is where we have that athletic space and you move up to the second
floor where we have the first uh living area for the units. Um, and then you move up to the third floor. Well, if we were only allowed to be 2/3 of the floor below, we'd really only have a small little bedroom up on that that half
story. So, you know, we really need to expand that um half story to a full floor. Um, so we end up with with three floors. But um what I That was fun. Can you just tell me what's the TV?
>> Sorry. Have to let them know that this happens. >> I will sue. >> Yeah, I'll let everyone know. Let the SL know that >> should be muted.
Thank you. >> Um, yeah. So, I was just explaining that, you know, we need the full third floor so that we can have adequate size bedrooms and bedrooms for u, you know, create units that are marketable. Um, you can see the slope actually creates a
pretty unique condition so that when you're in back of the building and you look at that elevation, we really only look like a one one and a half story or about 25 ft from that parking area to the roof line. Um, so it's really when you're on Union Street side that you do
see the full sort of elevation. We've designed in a way using a manser roof so that that third floor really does look like a u a level with the dormers. Um, so we're trying to, you know, purposely use the architecture to keep the scale
and the massing of the design down. Um, like I said, we've worked pretty extensively with historic and, you know, they they approved the design. Our previous design, which we have here that we can show, but it's it virtually looks exactly the same minus the the
commercial space that's on the first floor. Um so this is the front elevation from Union Street. Um you can see here that um we have the small infill acup
uh because originally we that was both in our previous design we had two units that was a courtyard. So there was actually connected um to 36 Union. Uh but now we've infilled that area with the commercial space. Um we just put a generic name on it that's not an actual
tenant. That question's come up a couple times. Um but uh so so that will be the commercial space and again you can see that that street elevation has been been designed to take that storefront look all the way through um the first floor
and then switching to sort of a residential double hung architecture type. And we've used um projected bays to really break down the scale, give a lot of life to that elevation, bring a lot of the historical elements. Um and
then providing outdoor space for the residential units. So on the third floor, there are balconies off of the primary bedrooms um that allows uh and lock pits to come outside. We also have small covered porches on the second floor off the living rooms. So all the
units get because there's not a lot of outdoor space on the back because of the parking area. It gives everyone access to outdoor space. This is the west elevation. So this is cut through the access drive. So going up to the back of the parking. Um we've
done our best to minimize uh the windows and the dormer sizes on this elevation to give our neighbors much privacy. Uh we've also added um the wood screen um that's way down here so that it uh blocks the parking so you won't be
seeing cars that are parked underneath that third floor. So here's the rear elevation. So as you can see it really looks like a one one and a half story uh building and it's only 25 ft from this elevation to the the top of the roof line. Again, we've
worked to minimize um openings and doors on this elevation. It can't give privacy to um this is the east elevation. So, this is cutting through the commercial space that's on the first floor. So, here you
can see this would be the outdoor terrace for unit number three. And then this is the open air parking where I have silhouetted person standing. silicon here. Um, and this some of the materials that we worked through with historic
commission. Um, so just calling out the, uh, different materials that we plan to use, uh, for the construction. Um, using brick veneer, uh, which, you know, ties into the surrounding buildings. Um, we have a sort of a dark slate looking
asphel shingle roof. Um we have a lot of ornamentation on the bays, beads that uh the brackets that surround the sophet. Um so all that information is called out this slide. Then here is a perspective. Um so this
is looking down Union towards um central. Um and you can see how it ties into 36 Union to Gladstone. So that continuation of the commercial space um and then how we bring that storefront down through the first floor elevation
reach the residential level with the projected phase um and then you know all the ornamentation that's been designed into it to uh to the Lincoln Empire historical elements. I think that's that's my last slide.
Thank you. Welcome. Is >> that your Sure. Uh So the standards that apply to the special permit um as the board is aware is that the change in use and in the new structure must not be substantially more
detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing u and our zoning bylaw in section 12.5.2 offers uh a set of performance criteria that need to be analyzed by the board. So, what I was going to do is just run
through those one by one uh because we believe that this design meets or exceeds all of these criteria. The first is lighting. As Chris mentioned, um the lighting plan is dark sky, dark sky compliant. All lighting is consistent with what was approved by the historic
district commission. U the plan is to have motion sensing lights in the rear so that we're not having lights that can always be on disturb the neighbors. As Chris pointed out, uh the intention with the lighting plan is so there won't be any light reflected onto the neighbor properties. Um so we think that when
board analyzes the lighting criteria that uh this development easily satisfies uh the standard of not being substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing. Um the second is category is noise. U this
project is modest. It was a small it is a small project just three units. U we don't think that there is any reasonable basis to believe that three unit building is going to be have any detrimental effect on the neighborhood. We have several buildings you know within several hundred yards that have
six units 10 plus units. Um there's other residential units directly across the street. U insulation is going to be installed for code. Um we're not going to have any exterior speakers or things like that. Um so we think that from a noise standpoint that we also satisfy
the standard of not being more substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Um the next is is topographical standards and site clearing. Um we again feel that that this plan uh more than
satisfies the standard. Uh, as the board is aware and we mentioned at the outset, um, the developer has abandoned the initial plan that would have pushed the building back and required an excavation into the ledge to create a courtyard for parking and a driveway in the front. So,
this design really minimizes uh, you know, any site work uh, that's going to be done there. There's have to be some uh ledge removal, but it's very minimal compared to what uh could have been uh done on the site if we had stuck with the original plan. Uh the site's also
generally fully developed. There's a building that that right now I believe it covers over 60% of the lot. So, this is not a site that is going to involve extensive clearing or anything like that. Um and actually the building the overall building coverage um if you refer to our application
uh the current condition on the lot building uh presently takes up 60.3% of the lot area. Um this is a pre-existing non-conforming condition. Uh we're not going to be able to get it down to the conforming 40% but we're
reducing the building coverage from 60% to 54.4%. So it's almost a 10% reduction in building coverage. Um and then also importantly the presently we're non-conforming status for total structures and impervious surface at
71.5%. The town requirement by the zoning bylaw is 70%. Um we're going to be using PE stone on on the the driveway portion not the driveway coming up but on the rear uh portion of the the driveway. And so we're going to reduce that to a
compliant condition where it'll only be 65.5% covered um by impervious and buildings. So in in that way we are substantially improving the existing site condition. Um there's not going to be any effect on
habitat u and the existing sweet facade is going to be left intact. So with respect to the top topographical standards and site clearing you know we we feel we are well exceeding the standard of not being substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood. Um next is site development standards. This is sort of it's a bit of of a similar uh criteria to the topographical standards and clearing. Um but as we've noted uh the building is being moved forward from its position to align with the streetscape
um which we think is what the town is seeking um in this location and what's appropriate for downtown and having mixed use commercial residential um and creating a lively u appropriate downtown area. So in that in that criteria we
also feel we we meet the standard. Um the next standard is pedestrian and veicular access. Uh, you know, as Chris mentioned, uh, we are improving the condition. The the driveway that's currently 10 feet is being expanded by 20% to 12 feet. And the the cut back in
the building at the front corner by the driveway is is going to really solve the visibility problem. Um, with with cars pulling down that driveway and pulling out, you'll have a a good view of cars coming uh from the left side. Uh, so we think the new design is going to
substantially enhance safety. Uh we're we're we're adding six off- streetet parking spaces. So each unit will have parking. Um the grade of the driveway is going to remain just about the same, but there'll be some slight leveling to improve it. There won't be any kind of bump um that that's there now. Um and
with the six uh with the six off streetet parking spots, we it's very unlikely that residents are going to take up spots on the street. Um so we think that there's a real benefit to the town. Um, next category, aesthetics. The
location and size of the building. Uh, you know, we think are are highly appropriate. Uh, there are other buildings, including the building next door that are actually higher than proposing. Disposal here is to be 4 feet lower than what the zoning actually
requires. Uh, we worked extensively with the historic. There were three meetings uh to go over design details. Uh so all of these design details that were approved by historic um are being incorporated into this new design. So we feel that the aesthetic uh you know is really going to add a lot to downtown.
The the existing building obviously is in a state of decay. It really needs to be replaced as soon as possible. It shouldn't building in that condition shouldn't be in such a prominent location right at the center of town. And we're we're eager to change that. Um
and so there are other u we think from an aesthetic standpoint again we easily satisfy that standard. Um the next stand next criteria is landscaping walls and fences. Um you know we there's there's minimal landscaping on the site just because of the nature of the site being
in a downtown area. But I think as you saw uh Chris's plan has some nice green spaces in front of the building that that don't exist there today. right now it's just a big you know facade and uh so those that little bit of green and some of those grant steps there um and
those details that that he's worked so hard on I think are really going to enhance that area and provide a better condition than what exists today. So again that that's an example of you know easily meeting the criteria of not being st substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Uh next criteria is
utilities uh security emergency systems. Uh this is an easy project in this one. All the connections are available. There's no septic system that's being created. Uh this building is also going to be fully sprinkler uh which is a new standard. I don't think a lot of the the uh residential buildings in town meet
that. Um and so this obviously the existing carbo building doesn't. So we'll have a much safer uh up to code building. Uh there'll also be a full alarm system. So we're we're we're easily meeting the standard under utilities and emergency systems.
Uh the next criteria is fiscal impact. Um obviously there'll be a very significant increase in the real tax real estate tax revenue generated by this project when it's completed. We we don't know exactly but I think that we can see you know maybe a four or
fivefold increase. Um this plan also is is totally in line with the housing diversity concepts that are embodied in the town's master plan. Uh so adding these is is going to certainly bring up uh
speak favor to fiscal impact. So we think from a fiscal impact standard again easily meeting the standard of not being substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing uh social, economic or community needs which are served by the proposal. Again, another uh building right now, even
though it's a retail building, it's too large and it's it's in a site that um it just hasn't had success because it doesn't have parking directly in front, it really just doesn't work as a retail building. This new concept, we're going to have gu some guaranteed retail, potentially more, and it's also going to
have three residential units, which uh the town sorely needs. um you know having diverse how I mean we we're a town is dominated by single family residences so having these townhouse apartments
type uh units available um it just adds to our diversity in our housing stock here in town. Um and that is certainly a an important goal that's achieved by this project uh in this little space. Um and next, traffic flow and safety.
That's similar to what's mentioned before. Um the criteria sort of repeat themselves, but um again, a wider driveway uh the building being cut back for visibility, actually providing more parking u than for the residential units
than is required by the bylaw. By would require five. We're actually providing six so each unit can have two spaces um which should help keep people off the streets as much as possible. um you know if we need to depending upon the commercial we can obviously work with the board if there going to be
loading hours and things like that businesses there because there's the businesses will not have access to the parking in the rear we felt it was important to sort of keep the commercial activity at the front the commercial the commercial units are a story lower so it really wouldn't make sense to have any kind of commercial deliveries in the rear didn't want the commercial
deliveries to disrupt any of the residential neighbors um but obviously if we talk about loading hours and things like that consistent with what or it has done in other cases. We think that that can easily be managed. Um I can skip over the utilities but that
that repeats itself again. Um see moving on to some of the other criteria neighborhood character and social structures. That's similar. We already talked about that. You know, we think we easily meet the standard. Um criteria six, preservation, enhancement of creation of existing and proposed
scenic viewsheds for the enjoyment of the general public. I mean, again, we're getting rid of a serious eyesore in a prominent location that that shouldn't be, you know, a black mark in our town uh to have there. So, we're looking to get that out of the way, bringing a new building in uh with a lower height
that's that's allowed, a wider driveway. Uh so, again, we think we're we're enhancing and easily meet that criteria. Impacts on the natural environment. Next criteria there there's no adverse impact of the natural environment in this project. It's already in a fully
developed downtown area. Uh next criteria, climate resiliency and adaption. Uh again, this this is one where we substantially exceed what was there. Proposed building um is replacing a deteriorating and energy inefficient
structure. This new building is going to meet the stretch energy code. It's going to feature Energy Star appliances. Um it's going to have electric vehicle charging, dedicated circuit uh for foldable voltaic systems, spray foam insulation, high performance LED lighting, high performing windows and doors, low low plumbing pictures. Um
it's better for the climate in every way than what's existing. So it meets the standard. Then the last criteria is also potential fiscal impacts, which is another duplicate. Um and as we talked about before, you know, we satisfy that easily with the additional tax revenue and uh benefits to having three new
residents in town. That's three new customers for local businesses. Uh, every little one counts and uh and it also creates to a vibrancy. People living downtown, walking downtown. It's nice to see that people are living there. They're enjoying themselves. Uh so we think we easily meet the fiscal
impact requirement. That that would cover the requested special permits. U there is also a second variance has an entirely different legal analysis. Um and unless the board has
any questions, we can I can run through that now and we can handle those later. Sure. So in order to obtain a variance, we need to show three things. Number one is that there are unique circumstances related to soil conditions, shape or
topography of the land or structures and especially affecting such land or structures but not affecting the zoning district generally. It's number one. And number two, because of those unique circumstances, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the bylaw would involve substantial hardship, financial
or otherwise, to the to the applicant. And then the third item that we have to show is that desirable re relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially dergating from the intent and purpose of the zoning bylaw.
We feel we meet all of these criteria and this is a an amazing case for a variance. Um, and the primary reason what's unique about this lot that doesn't affect the district generally as Chris mentioned is that very is the slope and the and the ledge. So you
don't have a site that you can build a traditional home on that has a third floor with a gabled roof u that that would have that would satisfy the two/3s requirement. Um, it's really almost impossible. You may want to show the cross-section again because that's is
what really demonstrates it. You can call it up on the screen. So, as as everyone can see, the the first floor the second floor is is smaller than the first. And if you were to have a third floor, that would be
2/ird of the size of the second. Uh the largest one for all three of the units would be, you know, just over 500 square feet. Um which is probably enough to have a primary suite or something of that, but it really wouldn't justify the economic investment to have a third
floor. Um so hence the need to have the third floor larger than the second. And the real reason for that is the parking. Uh if we located the parking located to the rear, it literally eats up all that
usable space on the second floor and creates this condition where the third floor necessarily has to be larger. Um and so that's the the topography that we're dealing with. And if everyone recalls or if those who were
participating recall, the the real main reason why it has to be this way is because we have voluntarily decid elected to keep the parking in the rear. Um when we first presented the plan uh back in May, Chris, do you have the
original? You can show the plan. This was the original plan that was proposed. The initial design um the original the initial design contemplated that you pull in off the street turn into a courtyard. There were two
garage bays for each unit that you pull directly into. we'd be able to pull out, turn in, drive a we thought it was a creative way to address the issues with site. No one agreed. Uh so rather than proceed with this plan, we change
course, move the building forward, and have parking in the back. But to do that, it means that that second floor has been shown just it's small. You can't realistically have a third floor that would meet the 2/3 requirement. Um
this is on this side we'll show you this is this is what the garages were to fill. Um so a plan like this could potentially be done as of right u but it just didn't seem like the right thing to do and uh
the applicant doesn't want to do this. you much prefer to go forward with this plan that's received much more favorable uh input from you know both historic members of the public members of the planning board that we've met with literally everyone um and so we think it
would be highly inequitable for us to now be punished even though we've you've got a building that is less than the the height requirement by over 10% um to not really be able to resolve this sort of anomaly that you because of the slope, we just can't have a traditional third
floor that meets that twothirds requirement. Um, there's other there's some also some other unique conditions that relate to this lot that we're dealing with um that give rise to the hardship. Um, we've got a war wartime store block building that this would
these were designed to be the shopping centers in their day at a time when people walked to stores. Um, it's now that doesn't happen anymore. Everybody wants to drive, pull up, run in, buy something, go to their car, drive away. So, it it's very challenging to have
commercial succeed at a site like this. You need businesses that either people stopping and they're strolling around town or businesses that they sit down and they stay a while. Uh so, you really have a limited set of businesses that
you can bring in. Um and and it's compounded by the fact that this property unlike many others in the commercial commercial district there's no parking spaces directly in front which if you listen to business owners I mean that's their key. I mean, not
having any parking right in front um combined with a obsolete wartime store block building is really difficult and that's that's another unique factor that we want the board to sort of consider um when understanding that we do have
unique conditions that affect this property but don't affect the district generally. Uh so because of all these factors, you know, uh we believe that that a literal enforcement of the bylaw would absolutely involve a substantial hardship here that like I mentioned the
traditional two and a half story building just doesn't work on this slope. Um like I said, we would be reducing that top floor level. Some of these units would have 500 square feet or so or less. And it just it would not be economically feasible to build those.
And we'd also be in a situation that if the first floor were commercial and we could only have that 2/3, these would essentially be, you know, one-bedroom duplexes and that just financially would not work. That would not be feasible uh
for any developer to undertake. U so we believe that this situation with all of these factors really creates a hardship that justifies allowing uh that variance from this dimensional requirement of the half story. again
they're only two feet. So we're almost four feet lower than what would be allowed. Um and forcing us to not to build the other way would really be going against the wishes of just about everybody who's built in this
project. Uh so that moves us really to the third prong which is that desirable re relief has to be granted uh without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derating from the bylaw uh intent or
purpose of the bylaw. And here again and the reasons are in many ways similar to the analysis of the special permit where we've talked about it not being substantially detrimental. Um which we feel you know very strong strongly that that we satisfy those requirements. But
here the analysis is a little bit different because you have to look at the purposes of and the intent of the bylaw. And obviously the purpose of having a 35 height foot foot height limitation is we don't want things to be higher than 35 ft. And we're there. We're not asking to go any higher than the town allows. We're just trying to
deal with this anomaly that we have, you know, because of the nature of the building and the slope and the ledge of where the parking has to go to be appropriate for what the town was. Um so that overall height, you know, is more than 10% less than what we could could do. Um you know, if we had to do it as a
right project. So we we think that the granting the variance is entirely consistent and is not going to deriggate any way from purpose of the bylaw here. Uh, additionally, we use the master roof um to minimize that undue massing at the third level and we will make it feel
like it would look I mean I I think to many of us it would look almost identical um to from the street anyway um to what it would look like if there was only a half story u on the top floor. So from that perspective, I think
that uh granting this variance is not going to do any harm to the public or derate from the purpose of the bylaw. Um you can also see that the the abuing build building at 18 Union Street is higher. The building several doors down in the other direction is also higher. So of the five buildings, you know,
adjoining all lined up in a row will actually be the third highest. Um, so I don't think it's it's taking away the purpose of the biological office relief that we're requesting. Um, now I could take a little bit more time and go
through. If you look at the purposes in section 1.1 of the zoning bylaw, it lists all of the purposes that zoning is designed to serve. Um, encouraging the most appropriate use of land and water within the town. Uh, we think that that this proposal is the appropriate use. We
think that that's part of the reason why we're here and why we're going to be at the planning in front of the planning board asking for three units instead of two is we think that this is a much more appropriate use than what could potentially be done as of right. So granting us this variance is certainly not going to abregate that purpose. Um
next purpose is preventing overcrowding of land. Uh we don't think that this is in any way going to be notified or deriggated by granting this variance. There are certain cases where um applicants will seek to sort of max out the size of their lot and say, "Oh, I
need a variance." And that's not the way it's supposed to work. Um, as the board knows, we special permit would be available potentially for four residential units. We're only asking for three, one more that's allowed. So, this is not a situation where a developer is
looking to max out the lot and saying, "I need a variance to do it." Um it's absolutely the opposite of that. We're asking for one more unit that would be allowed as of right. Um and so we don't think that purpose is going to be undercut by granting the variance. U the
next one preventing undue concentration of population on one hand and preventing excessive scattering of population in the other. The variance this really has nothing to do with height. Um but again this project is adding a very modest number of units downtown all with adequate street parking. and we think
it's a model example of a small mixeduse project that's going to enhance the vitality in downtown area local business. Next next purpose of zoning that's listed in section 1.1 is encouraging various lot size lot sizes and housing
types for persons of various age and income income levels absolutely served by the granting of this variance. project is going to add three new residences in town that are not single family residences that are our housing stock is dominated by single families.
So adding units that are not that are that are not single family dwellings is absolutely uh it's part of the master plan. Um it's a purpose of zoning and uh we think it's going to be served by this proposal. And one of the things that we think especially will be served by this
proposal is the first floor has the potential to be retail retail or commercial use. And if we can achieve that and we hope that market forces will allow that to happen then these residential units become even smaller and smaller means potentially more affordable. These are market rates.
We're not it's not affordable housing. Make no mistake, this project is not about a board blousing. But if we can reduce the size of those units by having retail on the or commercial on the first floor, um that will certainly uh serve this purpose of zoning, which is to
encourage various lot sizes and housing types for persons of different income levels. >> U minimizing traffic hazards and congestion. You know, again, we don't feel that that has any relation to the variance. So that granting variance is not going to nullify that in any way. Uh
we understand that there are concerns uh with any downtown development and we understand that uh that folks have expressed concern about the driveway. It's a little unusual, but that's why we've taken care to cut back the building, increase the width. Um and we're also more than happy to work with
any conditions that the fire department, DPW, uh police department might want to compose or uh talk to us about. We we're absolutely committed to a safe project. We're not going to allow any, you know, playing in the driveway area or anything
like that. It's going to be used solely for driveway purposes. Um, so we're not uh take we don't see any reason why the grant in the variance would would take away from that purpose. Um, next purpose that this listed for zoning is providing
for adequate light, air, and sanitation. Again, we we don't think that this granting this variance is going to have any way an adverse effect on the zoning purpose. Uh the building as we mentioned is 10% is more than 10% lower than it could be um if it were built as of
right. So we've really taken steps to not push the envelope to do a project that's going to be friendly for our neighbors, friendly for the town. Um so even though we are asking for a technical variance uh for the size of that third story u we're not this isn't
a case where the applicant is pushing the envelope and trying to go above the the the maximum height limit or even you know approach it carefully worked to modify our plans based upon the town and neighbor input. So we don't see uh that granting this variance is going to take
away from that purpose of zoning. Um reducing hazards from fire, flood, panic, and other dangers. We don't think that granting the variance has any real relation to that or it's going to cause any harm to that zoning purpose. Preventing blight and pollution of the environment. Same thing. U we don't
think that's going to be nullified or deriggated from in any way. um next purpose maintaining enhancing the natural and historical amen amenities of man Manchester by the sea. On the contrary, granting this variance is going to enhance that. It's going to avoid a situation where we might have to do more ledge removal than we might
otherwise want. Uh and we're going to we're going to build a building that the historic district commission is going to be proud to to approve hopefully. Uh when they see the revised design, it's similar to what they approved before and a building that hopefully you know every resident in town can be proud of. This
is a prominent site right downtown. It shouldn't look the way that it looks right now. And uh and we want to build a beautiful building that everybody can love, that's not going to be too large, that's not going to be intrusive on our neighbors, um that's flexible and last for 75 years uh or longer. Um next
purpose of zoning, conserving the value of land and buildings. Um this one absolutely will be served by granting the variance. We we we want to replace this decaying structure with something and this that that that's going to enhance and not detract from the
property values next door. Um next purpose of zoning promoting the development of a sustainable coastal community and encourage climate resiliency. We already been through that. This building is going to be light years ahead of what's there now. Granting this height variance has no adverse impact on that purpose of
zoning. Um and then the last thing is implementing the recommendations of the town master plan. Again, absolutely served by this variance. This variance is going to result in three non-s single family housing uh units. It goes right to the and I quoted in the master plan.
Diverse housing scaled to fit well into the town's varied neighborhoods to attract and retain diverse businesses in town and encouraging housing size, styles, and prices appropriate for downsizing households. Uh just at our meeting last night, we had multiple potential downsizers inquiring about
these apartments already. Um we think that this is a home run. Uh we think that the variance is fair, not asking for the world. We we kept the building within the height that's required by the town. um we just need to address this
anomaly where because of the slope and the and the topography just you just can't get a third floor that's less than 2/ird of the size of the second. So >> thank you. >> That's it. Thank you. Thank you everybody. I know it's a little longwinded but we want we wanted to
cover all the factors we need to do it. So >> um are there any questions from the board regarding this project? I have a question. >> Go ahead, John. >> Well, you know, I agree that cargo
building is a disgrace. So, I I appreciate you uh taking on the challenge. Do something with that site. Um I think the design's really nice and I appreciate the the roof line, you know, uh reducing
um the scale off the street. So, um I think it's a really nice design. I had a question about um like the commercial floor space. Uh the plan indicates about 3200 square feet. So the way I see it there's the three units and then there's
the space on the far right that includes all four spaces combined. >> Correct. Roughly >> and then I understand you want some flexibility with three units. So, um, you know, one scenario could be you
could lease out the entire floor space if you need to, right? There's no like firewalls or, um, there's some flexibility to have like four separate distinct units or one complete, you know, storefront if you found that right
tenant, you know, down the line. Um, is that correct? >> Yeah, we would, yeah, we would design it. There's a requirement for a twohour separation between commercial and residential use. So we would design that plate >> uh to meet that requirement so that you
can have the flexibility uh for that lower level. Sure. Like just for me personally as a resident and board member, you know, I think I'm fine with just that one commercial unit to the far right and then the rest being just
residential. I mean, retail, you know, as we all know, doesn't necessarily thrive in this town, especially when you don't have parking. I think the parking is a serious challenge in that area in particular, and it's pretty quiet. Um,
just pedestrian traffic. Um, also, have you guys thought about just, you know, staging during construction? The site's challenging. Um just in terms of just like you know contractors coming on and off site and then you know stored
materials just things to think about as you get down that that path. >> Yeah, we've already met with the police department about um the demolition process and what uh their preferred route and police details that they would like for us to
to get with them. So um we've already sort of worked through that whole construction plan with them. Um once we do take down the building, uh we're going to have a substantial uh staging area up on the hill because the building footprint is reduced significantly. So
it actually opens up a pretty significant area so that we can keep you know materials, construction vehicles off off the street and um obviously we have construction psych. And I don't Adam, I don't think you mentioned this, but the fire chief has
signed off on a safety plan. Correct. So, so we well we met with fire chief as well. Um we walked through the plans. He did request that we put a uh dry fire hydrant in up on the hill so that they can connect their vehicle to it if there
is an emergency event. Um that was really their only request for project. That's all I have. Thank you, >> Joa. Um yeah, I do have a and uh your
questions help my questions so that eliminated some. Um I just want to the presentation. So when you guys went to historic district, did the plan that you presented to historic did it require a variance at that time? So it was based on the feedback you got from abutters in
that meeting resulted in changing the facade and switching the parking which resulted in you now needing a variance because of that design that accommodated and I know the variance is also needed because of topography for the site um and blasting
>> in part we we the first I'm not sure that the first plan ever got to store but okay we we submitted it and then we >> there was a lot of push back um >> feedback didn't like the Okay. >> Yeah. So, we ended up resubmitting a new
design um to then put parking on the rear of the site. The thing is there was it was only two units. Um so, the requirements for the parking were much less. >> Yep. >> Um which is this design here. Uh so you can
see that this was that cory yard I was talking about on our original. So there was a break u because we're required to have a 10 foot setback on side yards in the rear and a five foot on the front. So we had to push the building back five feet and maintain the 10-ft setbacks all
around the building. Um so that ended up basically creating a complete separation between 36 union and 18 union. That was >> and then and and this and this only had two units. So this only had two parking
spaces in there were going to be two parking spaces in a driveway in the driveway and back and then two parking spaces under the building. And because there were only two as opposed to six. This plan the third floor could be designed to meet that 2/3 requirement. >> Was it designed that way?
>> This yeah this this building that was this picture here would not need any zoning relief >> whatsoever. So that was kind of my but based on feedback you received >> right >> at the public hearings for the historic district commission and maybe from the historic board. >> Well the the first the first big change
was after the we we submitted one plan I think informally to historic and then we had a meeting with some of the members of the board selectman planning board downtown improvement committee select board and the universal opinion was get rid of that courtyard.
>> Okay. and that design. >> So, we immediately changed that to to go to the two family plan that was as of right with only two parking spaces. And we went and this went to historic and it's an as of right plan. At the historic meetings, those were, as I mentioned at the outset, there were two
major criticisms. Everybody said we want retail. Nobody was happy with losing retail and that was just it was probably the biggest theme of the night. And then the second theme, and this was the reason why we had one historic commission member dissenting, was they
didn't want that facade broken. They felt down the downtown streetscape should maintain that. It should be lively. And so even though we got the historic approval, we went we sat down and and we took those comments to heart. And that's the result in the plan here
tonight that guarantees at least one retail space with the potential for more. And it also addresses that comment about breaking the facade. We think if we go back to historic with this, instead of five to one, it's going to be six to zero.
>> Yeah. And this had a garage space. So that that floor plate, that first second floor is larger. So we were able to take advantage of it twoirds because the floor plate was larger. >> Okay. um where on the current proposed design that we're showing you today, we
don't have any conditioned heat space that we can allocate towards that 2/3 for the third. It's a geometry view. >> Yes, that helped correct. I just wanted to understand what was originally proposed, how it kind of changed, and now why they're asking for the variance
relief that helped. Yeah. And you can see from this um image here that you know the exterior of what we're proposing today looks exactly the same. Like it really hasn't changed from that tree elevation.
>> Rob said I'll pass right now. >> Okay. Um, one of my questions is today, what is the height of the existing building at the street level? So it's 39.8.
That's probably >> Yeah. So it's sea level. >> Yeah. I thought >> was 23, right? 18 feet. >> Fahrenheit is 18. >> Yeah. So from the drive entry, we're at grade elevation 22. The roof peaks at
39. So >> oh of the proposed plan >> it's about double right. Yeah, because both land 36. Sorry. >> Okay. >> Um I don't quite understand
the plan for the first floor. And I don't understand. You've given us something with a lot of whatifs. ladies, we usually get different stuff.
And so, for instance, you're saying the stair may be deleted if the space is used for commercial use. So, if you deleted the stairs, you would have no access to the residential units
from the street. >> No, the it would be from the rear. Right. From the correct street. Correct. And I believe the letter from the fire chief was relying on the fact that he would have access to the residential
units from the street for um ambulance purposes. >> We saw never seen the letter. >> Okay. Um and would you have a second egress from the units if you didn't have the access from the
street? Think you could create one through to the balconies that >> you would have. Yeah. The balconies would be grips. You need one. Your second means needs to be at to or primary needs to be to upgrade
while you have emergency escape and rescue openings. >> So you would meet the building code. >> That sound right? >> Yeah. >> Do they meet the whole code? annual piece of broadcast. >> Yeah. As long as it's sprinkled, I think
that they can get away with one of >> Yeah. You have to have an area of refuge, which we provided with >> an area refuge for what? >> Uh you need a an area that someone can go to that then provides
fire. >> You talking like a pirated stairwell? >> Well, yeah, but this would be at an basically the the open porch. >> You go out on the porch and wait for the ladder to come get you. >> Well, it's the same if you're stuck in
your bedroom on your second door. It's that's building code reads that you have emergency escape emergency escape and rescue openings >> 20 by 24. Well, the only problem I have with it is per uh
fire chief's letter, he just has plans were submitted. This is what he's got, >> right? >> That's what he's judging his off now. You're giving something different what his plans now or his ideas now change. >> We're h we're happy to discuss that
and resolve that. >> Right. But I mean aside from the bioche, you know, we typically grant a variance or a special permit based on what we see, not what we what it might be. You know, they it's specific.
>> Well, we usually have definitive plans. >> Yeah, that's my point. It's very specific and this just seems like it could be one thing, but it could be something else. So, I >> that's kind of where I'm getting hung up a little bit. >> I disagree, though, because it's just talking about the the use of the the force space. It's not changing the the
structure at all. It could be three years until this thing's actually complete. Who knows what the market's going to look like and we could be in the middle of a recession. There's no way you're going to be able to find a tenant to take on 3200 ft with no parking in a recession. So, I I
appreciate that there's actually some flexibility in what we're seeing here. You know, it could be residential, it could be commercial, it could be four units, it could be one large unit. So >> I >> it's very common to do that. >> But the reason I have a concern, John, is because of the driveway and the
limited access to the rear. >> But the commercial people won't have access to the rear. >> And the residents won't have access to the front if they do the flex, >> but they'll have access to the rear. That's their that's their entrance to their home.
>> Yeah. you have to run down the driveway in order to get to the street >> or >> and I or my question is whatever's inside of that bottom unit whether it's one two three four commercial units how does that affect the person
accessing the rear that lives there >> right >> in my mind I don't see something but that could be you could see completely different or the ambulance or >> the walk the walkway the walkway went in and out of the place now it will be the driveway Right.
>> It sounds like though the town wanted this flexibility, >> but it's not the town to control what the ZBA does. >> It just sounds like there's a series of meetings that went on without >> No, it wasn't, >> you know, without our involvement. So,
>> sorry, I I just have one my final comment just Yeah. And the way I'm looking at it is I'm voting on the height, the variance, the special permit, and the three residential units. Well, and I take it back. I guess there you
guys are asking for one commercial unit, >> right? Well, it could be it could be broken up into different spaces. So, >> okay. So, now that's right. I I yeah it's a little but I >> we're asked we we believe that a building this is a building right
downtown residential use is allowed as of right commercial uses are allowed as of right we think it would be unrealistic to think this is a building being class built to design to last for generations and we think it's unrealistic to think that there's not going to be some change
in in the uses um you know we've at 21 Union Street across the street we've occasionally had a real estate office, the yellow building at the end, Zach's was going in and out for beach at times. They've had residential and and details. So, we think this is really consistent with uh with the zoning district and we
do believe that the board has you have authority to grant a special permit u that would allow for that that flexibility. We don't think it's beyond your power to grant a special. I think if we're approving a change of use, we need to know what the change in use is
and not that it's going to change over time from the change of use rate. >> Well, it's it's residential use tech. >> At this point, we have a fair number of people on Zoom. We have people in the room. Um, I would like to get public
comments in tonight. I am going to have a I'm not going to go past 10 o'clock tonight. Um, >> thank you. Um and so um I would ask people to speak only once and to say
what you have to say once. Um and try not to be too repentant other people have said. You certainly can say I agree with so and so or disagree but to give the same argument multiple
will put us to sleep. Um so with that um I will take um public comment from people in the room first. Raise your hand if Mr. Brooker please state your name and address.
>> Yes. Remco Brooker 87 Summer Street in town. Um, this is a very challenging site and I think everybody probably has a lot of different comments, criticisms, concerns or likes. One thing that I
think is a really nice development is that we're maintaining that maintaining that street facade. This this project does that. I think it's vital to the town that we maintain that otherwise we're going to lose the sense of a downtown, the sense of any sort of
centering and commercial sense to the town whether that's one commercial unit or doesn't matter I think um and so I think from that point of view um that's a positive development also I think that
it really should be seen as an urban liberty So even the fire concerns, you should really look at this building as being in Salem or Boston or that sort of thing. It has very similar site tight conditions. I think that um even if
there's an entrance only on the rear of the building, I think that emergency people can easily get to that spot. Um and so I think that's the way you should do this building. Anybody else want your name?
>> Sandy Rogers, 82 Oldis Road. Um two two um items I am concerned about. Um that driveway. I live on a hill that has a curve. Um, and so with the amount of
traffic going in and out for the residents, I don't know what can be done that you can somehow make that drive ladder or something because even with that visibility, the ability to stop
ice, that's just such a treacherous corner. So, I don't know what you can do through the type of pavement that's there. something. But that whole turning radius
coming down, that's something to consider for safety. Second was what uh Sarah just mentioned. Um I don't know how you can have another egress if you cut off the bottom to commercial, which I think the
town and other people do want with the middle unit. Now that you're three units versus two units, if you were two units, you could potentially have some second egress on the side somehow with that
third unit that's isolated in between the two walls. I don't know how you're going to do that. So, I think having a plan for that's important. Um, the other is I have a question regarding how far out the bays go. are do they it looks
like they might overpay where people walk. So getting a good idea of what that is where the water and snow and other thing might be cascading where people are walking and stuff. It it just the idea of having the streetscape have
a continuous line. they seem to jut out a lot and so it might be better to to flatten that out. It would just make it less um bulky uh
regarding the whole building and that might then go better for that upper variance that you need to move. >> Would you like to answer the question of do the e do the bays extend over the
sidewalk? No, the B everything's completely >> both. Are they the um sidewalk? >> It varies. So here closer to 36 Union that bay is a few inches from the property line, but that's the building
opens up towards where the tribe is. They step step back. >> So it's just two inches. >> It's I I can measure it, but it's uh relatively close to that. Yeah, I think there needs to that should it's my opinion it should push back because then
you're going to get potential snow and ice and rain cascading over. So, thank you. >> Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. >> Hi, Brit Magnus 39 Union Street. I just had a question about the difference of what was deemed by the historical
commission and now because it looks like it substantially got bigger. It's three units instead of two. I'm curious what they saw for height then versus what you have for height now and I understand you were adding commercial but you added that commercial to the right side and would doing that to your other plan like
she achieve the goal they were thinking. So I'm just curious kind of what they saw when they approved what you got here looks a lot different. >> Yeah. So the actual fun elevation is the same. Uh it was two large units before. Now it's broken down
into three smaller units. park rate. Also, we pulled the whole building forward. That was one of the biggest concerns because you have a five um 5 foot front yard setback. Um and everyone
wanted to maintain that zero yard or you know as close to the sidewalk as possible. So, the whole building slid forward. Um, and then we did filled what we had is a courtyard with a onestory commercial space. >> Yeah. So, you're saying the height is
exactly the same. >> Yes. >> Just looks the streetscape view looks a lot. >> Yeah. I mean, our original original submitt, we were at 35. We we worked with the butters. We
brought this down as we worked through the plans. So we were actually higher than 18 union. >> No, but the 35. Was there a setback? >> Yes. At the four yard >> the top. What is was there? >> Yes, it's similar.
But here the roof lines coming out there was all setback. >> I mean we're really dealing with the plans that we have before. >> Well district commission didn't go back to this commission. >> So I'm curious. >> This is a different plan. >> No, I don't know. I don't know. I don't
know like how these things >> it's a different plane so it has to go back to the historic district commission. >> What if they don't like it? >> Go in circles. >> Okay. >> It is it seems like >> exactly it looks it looks substantially different to me like that that that not
having that setback on that but I it concerns me how that would look on the street side increasing the height by twice 18 feet to 36 ft. Anyone
else know? >> Yes, sir. >> Mark Weld, 15 School Street, also known as Townill. Um, I am conflicted. Uh, because I have been talking with Chris for quite a
while about this. Uh, because those those of you that don't know, I am up behind cargo. So obviously I have a interest more so aesthetically you wise than anything else. I'm not really worried about that. Um
but I have also listened to a very enthusiastic presentation by Mr. Zagger that I disagree with much on many factual points and many opinions and those things uh all kind of resolve
around the important part of it to me now is I think the aesthetic is great. I think they've done a great design job. Um I think that when people tell you well we may make the whole thing retail. Well take a look at your zoning bylaw.
You'll see that you then need 12 parking spaces according to the bylaw. Now whe you've waved them or not, I don't know, but that's change in use. And as whether you've got enough spaces now, you have the number of spaces you're supposed to have because you have five for three
residential units and one for a retail unit that totals six. So there's a number of things like that that I disagree with the with the factual part of the presentation. Okay. The issue that a number of my neighbors
have brought to me uh and there have been many of them is with the historic district commission. They are focused on what you see from the street. It's the legacy look at the town. What happens behind the building?
Not so much. Right. And that's where the action is. Now the Mr. Zag or outline. Nobody was in favor of the original drawing. I thought it was awesome because what it did what it did very creatively was provided a space
for four cars in a two family uh development which again I disagree. I don't believe there is anything as of right. This is an exist pre-existing non-conforming use and it requires approval of the zoning zoning board of appeals in any event. just as my house
does, just as many of your homes do. So, um I think that what that initial plan did very cleverly was made it so you did not have to go up and down that driveway that you just referenced, which is 10 ft
wide currently and is very steep. And my neighbor Toby and I know that because we live we live on one that's 10 feet wide that's about 250 feet long. So um but it is not closed at the bottom or in the
middle and you can always see what's happening around you. So my concern again is while the representation is that the driveway will be widened by 2 feet or 20% as you've indicated. The fact is the density is increasing by
400%. And again, not in my own personal interest, but just in the bigger interest, which I feel compelled to speak about. It's dangerous. And I would suggest this board in any event would
suggest there would be a traffic study required by a qualified uh firm that could tell you, you know, yeah, you've got six parking spaces back there, but I can tell you
that the interface of the current property, and I did own that house at 18 Union Street once, so I'm very familiar with where the lines and the interface between how you get in and out of those parking spaces,
let alone the co there's a column between every parking space. Okay, so when you back out, you have to be make sure that you don't worry about the column or your bedroom will be part of the second zip. Okay, so
I think there's a lot of these kind of things public safety wise. Okay. And I haven't seen I did hear the fire department's concerns. The fire department Sarah, you know, on the finance committee when we all talk about ladder trucks, this is why we have
ladder trucks. I get that. But not if people can't walk out the front. That's a detail to me. Okay. But I think that there is I would be in favor of the two family even if it were say even if they said we're going to park the cars out
and back you have a lot less parking you know two family building is fine. The the small uh commercial unit is is uh I think is fine as well. my other neighbor next door right behind me, Dan Weaver,
who's the Gladstone building is uh you know, I'm sure he'll have a feeling on that as well. But again, I I think it needs to be redeveloped. I'm not somebody in you've seen this place for 70 years go in and out. And by the way,
during that period of time at 21 Union, there has always been a commercial spot there. Dr. Eric, everybody, their physicians always. So, there's always been commercial in that home that you're in.
Now, on the other hand, other than Mr. Morse's building, there is no other building along what I call and the chief of police calls 127 in that main area downtown that accesses a residential
development from the street. >> It's all off street parking. And there's a reason for that and that is because that's 127. It's a state highway. It gets lots of traffic. And so I think the public safety issue above
all and I'd love to have like a little debate about uh you know the other factual things. But um that's an issue and let alone you got three family homes. All right. Is it
going to be all people like me that are okay? I can't stand being in a big house anymore. Well, I'm not going to be in a three-level house either without an elevator, which sacred, I suppose forbid. But if you have families in there at all, and like many of us in
this town have grown up with small children that have been on bicycles, now skateboards, and now powered scooters. Wait till you see somebody come down that driveway. And the idea that you're going to prohibit people from playing in
the backyard or on the driveway is you. That ain't happening. And I've I've seen that. And you know, everybody that has owned the house next door has had kids and you know, they they play where they want to play. They're great. But you
have to think about not only vehicular movement but also uh pedestrian movement and resident movement that are going to go up and down that driveway. So I don't think two feet cuts it. I think there's a couple other things you could do, but
um I think that a a proper study to uh take a look at this is would be in order. And I don't think I don't think that any of the public entities in Manchester, you name the fire. Fire is
not spoken about the driveway because they believe they have front access with a ladder and they have people exiting. All residents are able to exit out front. I haven't talked to them about what happens if your ambulance is up there and somebody gets into a problem
on the on the uh driveway, but that's a different that's a different thing. But uh I know police does not has not done a study of public safety study of the traffic uh as well. So again I am I like
it but I think you need to make it safe and um you know have it work the way it's true. >> Thank you. Yes sir. Uh Daniel Weaver, B Allen
Avenue. Also, I've preferred I own 36 Union Street. Um in favor of development in this town, especially with a building that is run down and hasn't been cared for for years, I just really urge the
board to make sure that safety is the number one thing. And if you're putting three units with now six cars parking off the street, people coming in and out, is that six trips a day? Is that more than six trips a day? Are we
talking big SUVs? There's just a lot of concerns about safely accessing this property with no street parking in front. And I'm sure there's solutions for it because buildings like this get built all the time, but this is the main
street in town. So, how safe is it? And if if all the officials say it's safe, then absolutely build this project. But I just don't know that that's the case today. >> Thank you. >> Yes, ma'am.
>> Uh Mary Foley on Plasky Drive. I um I agree with Mr. Wel with the parking. It is um on the ZBA and the planning board to know what the uses are. So you can require that amount of off streetet
parking. So depending upon what the use of commercial space is, you need to then look at the table and determine how many off street parking spaces it needs. So it can't really be in flux. Um but what I'd actually like to do is speak is
reference the um the variance. Um I wrote it down so I wouldn't forget. Um I am compelled to speak about the variance part of this application. A variance is an extraordinary form of relief that can that can be granted only
when a true hardship arises from the soil conditions, shape or topography of the land itself. Here the steep slope does not pro pre prevent use. The site already supports a large building and functional parking. Costly obstacles
such as ledge removal or sight work do not constitute hardship under chapter 48 section 10. Wanting three floors to fit a pre to fit a preferred design or to vote avoid ledge removal is not hardship. Input from town staff or
resident opinions are advisory and cannot create legal hardship. A voluntary redesign that causes a zoning violation is a self-created hard hardship and is not grounds for a variance. Property owners cannot trade one zoning conflict for another simply
because a preferred design no longer fits the rules. If every homeowner could claim a taller building when their design required it, zoning rules would become meaningless. Granting three full floors would exceed the board's authority and stretch the law. Finally,
while I support mixed use and the town has mixeduse buildings in practice, mixed use is not listed at the permitted use in our zoning table under Mass uh general law 48 sections 10. Again, a variance cannot authorize a use that the
bylaws do not allow. The existence of similar buildings elsewhere does not create a legal basis for granting a variance here. Um so I'm not sure how you can do experiments on mix
with that I will go to zoom if you wish to speak on this application please raise your hand. I see that Cindy has her hand raised. Go ahead please. >> Hi there. So I 21
>> state name and address >> Cindy Zagger. Um I own the property at 21 Union Street across the street. I just wanted to talk about the idea that this is adding two more cars and this issue that Mr. Weld has brought up with the safety. We're adding two cars and
we're gaining so much more with this commercial space that I think that you know the the it's it's something that really is some you know it shouldn't be considered as as a valid concern because it has been approved
having four cars. So that's all I really wanted to say. >> Thank you. I don't believe it was approved by the ZBA to have four cars. I believe that was I don't believe there's been approval before >> I think what you mean is as a break you could have
>> well I'm sure about that that's okay um go ahead CD >> hi it's Christine delissio sex link hub um I just wanted to um just touch on something briefly so the applicant is requesting relief um to go from two
units to three, which you know that's a density increase. And so if they're asking for a density bonus, I just feel this property owner has several units around town and there does seem to be an underlining pattern of nonaffordability.
So if we're going if they're asking for another unit, I think that it's very fair to ask for an affordable unit out of this. I think that they're adding to our problem of unaffordability and these units are just generally um don't fall within the affordable range. They are
mixed sizes, but um adding something continually without any affordable is we're just going in the wrong direction. That's what I have to say. Thank you. >> Thank you, Sarah's iPhone.
Hi. Sorry. Could you hear me? >> Yes, please. >> Okay. Hi. Thank you. Yeah. Sarah Paris, Nine Friend Street. Um, I just want to get back to my notes for a second that I took throughout. This has been an ongoing project and I'm going to
summarize this in an email but do want to bring it in front of the board tonight. Um, so 22 Union Street Cargo Unlimited is a really special building to many people in town and it's been established that it's been neglected
etc. and needs to move on to a different phase. Um the first plan for this building was no tear down by the attorney that presented this initially. No tear down of the cargo building. The
second plan was two units with questionable parking either in the front or in the back. And the public did push back on parking in the front. Now we're moving to three units with three stories in an already densely
populated area with very little parking. I have a bunch of questions and comments. So again, I will send this in via email, but I'll just kind of speak to this now. So I'm wondering there are six parking spaces allotted for each
residential unit. How are you accommodating the three storefront parking spaces? >> Two parking spaces from >> No. So I think we should tell her if she just wants to keep going through. I think
>> and just keep keep raising. We're not going to answer all the questions. >> Okay. So I'm just I took notes throughout. So I'm just wondering we're we're very limited on parking throughout town. So commercial or residential, you go down school street or Union Street or
Beach Street, people are kind of lacking parking. So I want to put that out there. Then there was a mention of putting Peace on top of the upper driveway. Is that going on top of ledge?
That's one question. And then the topic of diverse housing, how is this adding to our diversity? It's been clearly stated that there is no affordability piece in this, but are we diverging from the norm of our scale
and height requirements from our town, so high-end condos are diverse because why? And then there was a statement made by Mr. Zagger, who I believe is the attorney and also lived across the
street with his wife. I'm not sure. She just said that. Um, better for our climate. Please expand on the benefit or minimal detrimental effects to our small coastal town and how this project would be better for our
climate. Then there was a comment made about people playing in the driveway. who is policing the quote playing in the driveway and what does that mean? And then there was a comment made, single families are potentially much smaller.
There's a trend now in Manchester where the buildings that are going up are twice the size of the single families that have existed in Manchester and have been here for as long as I've lived,
which I've lived in this town for 43 years. And it is very sad to me to see these overpowering largecale buildings with no allotted parking and they're overtaking what used to give our
town like its basic character and coastal charm. So, I guess I just am wondering what direction are we going in and what is the end goal of adding this two developments to three developments
to I love the idea of the commercial cuz we need that. We need that. But where are people parking and what are people coming to town for to shop for? What are we offering the public? So, I know that's a lot of information, questions and comments. I will follow up in an
email if anyone can answer any of that. That would be great and thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> Is there anybody else on Zoom who would like to speak? If so, please raise your hand. Don't see anybody.
Go ahead, sir. >> Um, I uh since since Elvis brought it up, my name is Carr Morse and I own the old Zachs building and I wish Zachs were still in there. But anyway, uh uh since he brought it up, I will give you a
strange irony. We have like seven or eight parking spaces in that building. Okay, it's amazing. three, at least three of or four of the tenants either keep their car there and never drive it or don't have a car. That's one
of the beauties of Manchester is if you live where he lives, if he had the power in his legs, he could walk down >> walk down to Dan. You're right. he could walk to Crosby's for his
grocery shopping. And and that's one of the beauties of this town. As much as as difficult as parking is, it's it's a town where you can almost get along without a car, which is that's I realize it's not relevant, Madam Chairman, but
uh that that's my speech. There you go. >> Thank you. >> Can I just ask where's the what's the Zach building? >> It's a yellow building. It's most architecturally the yellow building. You have the violin in the town. >> You got the violin. >> That's Larry over there. >> Yeah.
>> Mr. Gilbert. >> Wow. Uh, >> please state your name and address. >> Larry Gilbert 11 Magnolia. Um, I've just got miscellaneous comments. Um, as I recall, an original proposal was that you'd have two curb cuts right on the street and you'd have two driveways
or one one curve. One curve parking in the front. >> Correct. >> Okay. To me, that would be horrible on many levels. Talk about safety. Way less safe. It's also really would erode away. Our the streetscapes in our town are charming, but we have too many what's
sometimes called missing teeth. There's too many voids. There's too many curb cuts going across the sidewalk. There's buildings perpendicular to the street with parking lots perpendicular. There's there's too much anomalies. We need a consistent street wall. And it creates a sense of intimacy when you walk around
town. He's allowed to go to 35 feet. People shouldn't talk about height on this project anymore. He's literally allowed to go taller than he's going. The street wall helps. The fact that he's bringing the building closer to the street is incredibly beneficial in terms of experience when you walk through
town. Um he could do a lot worse in previous proposals. This is a charming building with modulated facade. Um, I think we're there's a lot of talk in town to try to uh encourage mixed use very quickly. We're going to be passing
laws. We're going to have to be realistic. You can't be requiring lots of parking for commercial spaces. You won't get them built. They're hard enough to rent out as it is. We have to be realistic. We have to be a little flexible. Um, he's got a real hardship here as he's made the case of with this
with the topography. He's going to make it better for the environment because it's going to be more impervious surface, less footprint of the building. Those are hard facts. Those we need more water absorption in town in general. So, this is a plus on that level. The safety arguments, fire chief, I really think no
one should be talking about that. Don't second guessess the building inspector. They'll do their job. He won't get a permit if he doesn't satisfy that. The egress, we shouldn't be spending time on that in my opinion. It happens a lot. people digress, but let those people give him a permit or not give him a
permit. He will, he's a responsible architect with experience. He's going to satisfy the code. Um, uh, let's see. I'm just about done. Um, and one thing I guess finally, a big
picture-wise, we have a chance, you have a chance to write, maybe you could call it a wrong from way back when when they set up the zoning for downtown, they didn't think it through all the break. It's not the same as up on Old Essex Road where you should have two and a half story pitched roof homes and a
certain amount of parking and etc. Downtown should be treated differently. It's our village. It's our it's our little town. Um the parking requirement should be varied. We shouldn't be requiring five foot setbacks. We should encourage zero outline setbacks to to create that street wall and that that
charming experience which is our town. And this twothirds of a of a story is also an anomaly. It really shouldn't be a requirement. Makes sense out in the residential neighborhoods, but not downtown. We want to have we want to I think eventually we're going to all vote that we want to see mixed use. So, we
have to encourage it. We shouldn't be requiring two and twoird story buildings downtown. >> Thank you. >> Okay, I think I'm going to close public comment. Seems like everyone has spoken or two. Um
board it seems to me that they the missions raised and I feel that perhaps we need some additional information. currently abusive. >> I would agree strictly on the fact that
they hadn't seen the letter from the fire chief and his concern that you had um you had raised. So I I that alone I feel comfortable continuing the meeting until um at least had a chance to read the letter figure that out.
I mean, I would agree with with that. I mean, I think Jake needs to be more informed of what is going on. I don't think he has a a good representation of what's being presented right now. Um, like I said, you know, stated earlier,
my concerns are are not so much that it's a back exit, but that there's no no pathway out of the building to street level when you're dealing with kids. driveway to me for a multi-u a multi-
family unit is not considered a good walkway with kids are involved and um that's that's my major concern with that um trying to do justify the difference in the three levels that's another concern
and not not having a specific plan for the main floor presented >> I mean I just want to Are we going to vote on free residentials or are we going to vote on mixed use occupancy? Which what are we going to vote on
specifically? >> The the uses in our town allows commercial retail and they allow residential. >> Right. >> So we would be voting on the exact number of units. >> Right. And I believe on the exact amount
of commercial space um we need to consider that because I I think that requirements are different based on whether you've got >> that's my understand >> 3200 ft of retail versus 440 people.
I think we need to take that into consideration >> and I think the president I mean it's a great looking I mean to me it's pretty looking place I think it you know go look nice do you know be nice but we got for us to give the actual our actual decision I think we need more
information >> no I agree with that I think also sort of my question if it was three residential would that be an easier yes for three floors of residential is that easier. Yes. For the height versus not knowing.
And I guess I'm concerned too. It all looks commercial but you have residential then then you switch. What does that first floor actually look like for a whole lot? >> Um >> it'll it'll be the same. The out the exterior of the building is not going to
change based upon what the uses. It's been designed to look >> commercial. >> I mean similar to I know I showed the building on across from Masanoma. originally it's designed to sort of look commercial. Somebody can live in there but it it looks commercial. Um the other
clarification just so the board is where our intention is we we also need to go to the planning board to approve the three units. Um and at that hearing that section 6.1.8 of the zoning bylaw allows the planning board to wave or reduce any of the parking requirements. So in
connection with that application, we plan to ask the planning board to wave the parking requirements for the commercial use which is consistent with what's happened we understand what's happened at 7 central. So that that piece of the application u we intend to
resolve parking that planning process uh which will play out I think uh roughly at the same time as this one. They do have the authority to do that. I mean, I I have serious concerns over the broad um and access to the
resolution. So, I I would like to see the traffic. I'd like to understand whether that access to the parking spaces behind the building is feasible without
trespassing on a butter's lane. Now, I'd like to understand what the potential volume increase and impact to Union Street of the cars coming down that driveway.
I mean, I look at my neighbors. I don't happen to drive much. I walk. I look at my neighbors and I look at my neighbors and without kids,
they go out of their driveway five or six times a day. Um I if you've got six vehicles going each going out five or six times a day, that's a significantly different
impact than the historic use of that driveway. Today you go by that driveway, you don't hardly ever see a car. Maybe now because it's rented you do, but you know, it's it's not you. So I think a a traffic study would make sense. And I think we
need the police chief to appine on that traffic study. We need sign off from DBW and we need the fire chief to look at the impact if there's no access
to the residential units from the street. >> I think that those are what we take safety very seriously. It's no it's it would be a disaster for us as attorney and developer to uh build a project and
have a disaster occur. Uh I guess on on and the fire the fire chief on the the access that I think that's an easy one to address. Um the parking study I mean this as as of right you could build two units here. So we're really talking
about one more unit. Uh, so I guess what I'd requested would is was like a letter from a traffic engine. I mean, I'm not sure what the scope of a traffic study. It'd be pretty unusual to have a traffic full traffic study for a three-unit building or add one more unit that that
could be built as of right. >> Just to make it clear, we're not talking one more unit. We're talking a building that is currently retail to which you were adding three units. That's the change of use.
three units. >> But if we >> not one, >> but if we weren't here and we succeeded with the plan, >> we're that's not we're voting on the plan presented to us, which is three units. >> Can I also mention that that's also a shared driveway, >> right?
>> Which we haven't brought up. >> Almond drive, >> right? >> Of course. >> So you already have one residence. I mean, so it just it seems to us that the incremental increase versus what would be allowed as a right, which is two family, it really
it doesn't really warrant a full traffic study. I mean, I think um we can certainly get an opinion letter from a traffic engineer that's looked at it. Maybe that might be enough. I mean, if if the public works and the police and the fire, you know, find deficiencies in that, I think we could expand, but I
think it's it's a pretty tall hurdle to say that we've got to do a full traffic study that we would be doing for a, you know, apartment building or >> red flag. Okay. >> I have a question.
>> We've closed off public comment. >> We want We want to address your concern. We're not saying no, but I I think the scope of the traffic >> I think >> in my mind there are three things. Okay.
One is the accessibility in the rear for the maneuvering of six vehicles. Okay. Number two is what is the expected number of trips
daily trips that one would have from six cars and three units. >> And the third is pedestrian access. >> Pedestrian access to the units
>> from the units to the street. If you don't have access from the street, >> if you have access to the units from the street, then I'm not concerned about pedestrians. >> If you don't have access to the street directly on the first
level, then I have concerns about the little kiddos. And you know, you might even consider, is there a way to put a staircule or something on the first level that
would then give you staircases to the residential from the street? >> Sure. That those that's absolutely fair. That scope is absolutely fair. I think we'd be happy doing the rest of those points. >> Okay. >> I was just worried we're full we can say traffic study. Can he be >> the police chief isn't going to be able to give us an opinion unless he
understands how many the expected number of trips. We've seen that. >> I mean the it for units like this the IC standard is generally you know five six trips per day per unit but we can we can address that in a in a letter. I think
that's a reasonable thing to ask for. We want to assure the community that this is going to be a safe project. We're not looking to ram this thing through. Uh we want to make sure everybody's comfortable. So that that scope is is very fairly that's fine. >> Something gets finished on that first floor whether or not you're going to
have access to the res. >> Anything else? >> So you willing to continue it? >> Of course. Um in December agenda >> uh what's meeting is >> December is the 17th a relatively full
meeting. January would be the 28th. I'd prefer January, but that's okay. >> Yeah, we we'd rather do December if it's going to be that far out. Can I settle for
Never mind. No, >> no, fourth. fourth Wednesday of the month. The only time we do the third Wednesday is in November and December because the holidays. >> Okay. At the request of the applicant on a
motion to continue the public hearing to dece December 17th at 7 p.m. >> Georgia seconds. >> Yes. >> Georgia. Yes. >> Yes.
>> Chess coordinators. Exactly. >> Yeah. Freaking air right here. >> Thank you. >> Potentially So I live >> and so
>> and I'm like I know. But we >> think they need to do something. It might be. >> It's like a little signal that >> something.
>> You don't know, do you? Aren't you say hello? >> I'll talk to you in a minute. Um, the next item on the agenda is to review
the minutes from October. Did people have an opportunity to look those >> have any comments? >> I did not. They were >> beautiful. >> It's all being done by AI now. >> Is it really nice?
>> Good job. Chat GBT. >> Um, do I have a motion to approve the minutes? Motion to approve the minutes or >> change your moves. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Rob seconds. Take a vote. >> John Rob
>> and Sarah. Yes. Okay. So, that's that. Um there's one decision that I'm working on that's outstanding from that last meeting. Um I work on it soon. Um that's the one from the corner of School Street
and Grass Court. >> The garage. >> Yeah. >> Um we have two new applications for December. >> Uh that good or bad? >> Three Eagle Head and 38 Sea Street.
>> Okay. Single family homes. >> They're they're both nonconforming. >> Sure. James, >> what >> you said? Shut >> talking here. >> Well, you're the one that said that 80% of the homes in here are non-conforming anyway, >> right? >> I mean, look at
>> Oh, 67%. >> Excuse me. >> Yeah. >> Um, so what will happen on on in December is we'll hear the 48 Norwood AB first and then cargo and then we'll move to the new
applications. Are the new applications ads or just they're just >> whatever they're doing. >> One of them is >> We'll see the applications when they come in. How's that? >> But not nothing to >> so relatively minor.
>> Okay. Good. >> Okay. >> Sorry. No more question. I'm all done. >> So do you just getting on my count? So the 13th which is that Saturday, you'll want to do the site. >> Oh, thank you. Yes. Okay. Site will be Saturday at 9:30.
And we'll do sea street then eaglehead >> right there. >> That's on my way. >> Yeah street's one way. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. You have to go from town. >> Just so you know. >> Um anything else?
>> Take a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion >> approved. >> Yeah. >> All in favor? I >> thank you very much everyone. >> Completely forgot I was going to look up the Bible. Yeah,
>> I don't care about what you want to be. >> Something else. >> Go home. See your family. >> And so, >> it's not a common drive until they add
>> and because they're adding res. Thank you very much for coming in tonight. I really appreciate it.