Thank you. It is 7 o'clock on Wednesday 22nd. Um and right I don't have the agenda. Um and I will call the zoning board of appeals uh meeting to order.
I have with me in the room from the board um Rob Scott, John Banerys, Sean Z, and myself, Sarah Melish. Um Georgia, are you on under a different name?
There's Georgia, and Georgia Pendagast is on via Zoom. >> Thank you. Um So you're aware with any application um
there are five voting members present and four of those must um support the application in order for it to be approved. Okay. Um, with that I move to open the public
hearing for the application of Matt Van Wart for a special permit under sections 5.6, 7.2, and 12.5 of the zoning bylaw and other relief as may be necessary to raise an existing non-conforming garage
and construct a new garage in substantially the same location which encroaches into the rear. setback at 116 Pine Street, assessor's map number 30,
lot number 44 in districts D and A found with the town clerk on September 16th, 2025. Um, do I have a second? Second, John. Um, we'll take a roll call vote since,
um, George is on Zoom. Um, Rob, >> yes. John. >> Yes. >> Sean. >> Yes. >> Georgia. >> Yes. >> And Sarah. Yes. >> Um so for this application, I just I wanted
to explain a little bit um that on Pine Street. Um District D extends 100 ft from Pine Street back. Um this lot varies in
depth. um from 125 ft and 111 feet because it's on a slant. Um so we will need to make the determination regarding whether this garage is
um sufficiently um included in district D to enforce a district DE setback rather than a district. people understand that >> I guess what what's the difference in
requirements between >> district setbacks for an accessory structure is 5T is 10 >> okay um okay just so that people are
understanding what we're we're dealing with um Mr. Van Wart, would you like to just kind of explain briefly what you're doing? We all have the applications in front of us. >> Okay.
>> I'll do my best. If something's needed, just let me know. So, there is a current garage on the property and it is in bad need of replacement. Um, so I would like to replace it um and keep it in the same
location where it is right now. backs up against my backyard would be Bob's sideyard and it's kind of like along the property line and feel like leaving it in the same spot is the best move for replacement. And I spoke with Bob. Bob's been a great neighbor, so I
wouldn't want to do anything that's going to disrupt him or Lisa. Um he felt the same way. So the goal is to replace it with a nicer garage in the same location. That's oversimplifying me. Yes.
>> Now, the other thing I wanted to bring to the board's attention is this is on the corner of two streets. However, Crafts Court is private. So, they don't need frontage on Crafts Court. >> Okay. So, this is deemed to just have
frontage on Pine and we set back on the craft port side. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> I love our zoning. Um, so do
people have questions? >> So it looks like right now as the garage sits, it's it's about at its worst point, it's like 2.1 ft away from the property line, >> right? >> And then the new one, you know, at its worst point will be like 1.1 ft.
Everything else seems pretty straightforward, standard, >> right? So if you're looking at the picture with the red line, that little square on the back is kind of like a lean tube off the building. >> Got it. >> So it's not So that's not the foundation. That little square is just like concrete. >> Okay.
>> It seems pretty straightforward to me. I mean Sean and I did go on the site this month and the question the the thing that well number one I think that there's a sufficient portion of the garage in
district D that we can use the district D setback um but the when we looked at the the it and he's having to replace the
foundation. It didn't seem to me like it would be that big a stretch to move it 4 feet to get it out. >> It just seems like a I mean is this seems like like a lot more money and resources to do that, right? Would you
have to build put a new foundation in? I'm going to put a new foundation in regardless. Yeah. >> Um but again, >> talking Bob and I, we both felt it made sense to keep it where it is rather than having like the strip on the side of the garage.
>> Yeah. Just a place for leaves to collect. Anyway, >> I have a garden right up to that garage right now and it just looks clean and neat. It's never bugged us except his garage really going to fall down. Yeah,
the next snowstorm because it's a metal garage and it's compromised completely at the foundation. It could fall right by. So, >> we're just used to it being there and I'm just thinking if it gets moved three or four feet, if it were me, I'd probably put my rubbish fell in the back and couple kayaks and maybe whatever
else I want to hide. So, if I don't see that and I can see my garden as a as in a putter, I'm happy with that. But that's just my personal preference. >> Um, for the record, could you just please state your name and address? >> Robert Gamble, two crafts court. Thank you, >> John. Look at a map.
>> I mean, for me at some of this, I mean, it's they have the space and everything to do it. And there's I don't see a real reason why anytime we should try to bring things into into regulation if we can. And that's that's where I'm having
a problem with it. I think it it should be brought into to code especially since they have to redo the foundation and everything anyway. >> I mean, yeah, the whole thing is going to be removed and the the lots, you
know, certainly has enough size and and with this little lean to making it even more non-conforming. I mean to move it over and put it in conform in con conformity. You have the ability to do it. I mean I said why not? I mean I is
there a hardship to not have it 1.1 ft away from the park building? >> I guess >> but this is um a special permit. >> Okay. Because it's currently nonconforming. So he doesn't have to demonstrate a
hardship. But um >> I guess that's why I asked about if it's more expensive you have to for whatever foundation or anything because it would probably be a little bit more demo. It would have to go out for B.
>> Yeah. >> Oh put into your walkway. Is that the is that the issue? If you move, there is a walkway there. So, I would need to move that. >> Will you plan on doing that anyhow or it looks like they haven't been able to get past the garage with you? >> I mean, it looks like it's gonna be altered somewhat.
Is it the the right hand corner is going to be in the uh >> Yeah, if you shift it over, you might have to redo the walkway. >> It's all flat >> in there. It's not Didn't appear to be ledge or anything,
>> right? I mean there the walkway pave. >> Yeah, but I mean ledge in the grounds looked pretty. >> The ledge wouldn't affect the walkway. >> No, just >> there wasn't really there wasn't what we
looked at was not a real foundation today. So he has to go deeper anyway to put in a real foundation. Yeah. Right. It was >> probably about like 18 inches deep. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Or 18 to 24. It depends on where you saw
the back corner where it's like exposed and then there's other pieces where it's down farther. >> So, it's really it's on a slab that's all got to be removed anyway. >> Yeah. I would not put anything back in it. >> It was in need of repair. >> It was never built to any kind of code
for sure. >> Yeah. I mean, I would say then if you're going to if it's if it's going to be a clean slate, just shift it over four feet and just that way you're in code and you know, >> I think at that point your whole
property would be conforming, right? >> Uh yeah, >> I believe so. >> Yeah, because the house is set. >> Yeah, the house has all the right setbacks. The only thing that's
that's not in compliance is the garage and that's going to be completely demolished and rebuilt. Why not make it, you know, the whole the whole property would be conforming? Um, I don't disagree. Is there any consideration to you know our preference
to keep it where it is or that's I I think the challenge we have is that the the zoning bylaw and decisions go with the property and you're expressing your opinions as
current >> landowners. Um, so I mean, yeah, if if if if Mr. Gamble was, you know, arguing that
he wants it moved back, we require it to be moved back. There's no no question about that. Um, >> I more or less Joe came to land support. So, I mean, I'm >> trying to sway your decision one way or another, but I thought if you wanted to know, you know, how the felt that I should be here for.
>> Yeah. Well, we appreciate that. Um, it just seems like it's so close to being particularly if we enforce the five- foot setback that it's so close that it makes sense just to move it enough so it conforms.
>> Yeah. If you were to take that footprint and actually just kind of turn it slightly along the property line, then you'd have five feet. >> It would be only have to be moved seven inches, right? Yeah. So I can't well the plan was not to turn it though because then I would have to redo the driveway
and I'm trying not to redo the drive. So it would if I moved it I would have to move it four feet from that additional corner. So there would be call it eight feet at the front. 8 feet on the side of my property line
because like that that side line is at an angle unfortunately not a straight line. >> Yes. >> Yeah. He's saying that. Yeah. >> And the rear corner is 1.1. So you need to move it 4.9 ft. >> Right. which will make the front corner
9.2 from the property line. >> This I just to me it just kind of sets a bad precedent if we just move it just because I mean you know let it just happen because when we have the actual clearances to do
what we need to do, >> right? I mean, >> well, on the contrary, there is an existing garage there and it's been there for many years. >> And I would say, not trying to be difficult, but if I do move it, I will
probably have to redo the drive between the expensive. I get I get I totally get where you guys are coming from. >> Sorry, >> Georgia. Go ahead, Georgia. Forget about you. I did have a well I was thinking you
know it's a scenario where there is opportunity to bring a nonconformity into conformity. I don't know if there's something in the Manchester zoning bylaw that requires that you know if a nonconformity is
applied for that we're they're forced to meet the setback if they're able to. Um, and I think it's kind of that that play of we have the neighbor here that's saying I have no problem with it. Um, but I also wonder if it's
the property owner is allowed to keep that nonconformity um, as his right. I I'm getting a little technical here, but I didn't see anything in the bylaw that said, you know, if it is a nonconformity, you have to do your utmost to make sure it gets conforming. I think that's what we want
as a zoning board. Um, but knowing the neighbor is okay with it, I I think that's where I kind of am in the middle right now. >> Yeah. So, the the the case law supports the fact that if there's an existing
nonconformity, it's a special permit. And the parameters for a special permit are for us to determine that it's it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the bylaw
um and that it will not be substantially more detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming garage. So that's the standard we're held to. There's nothing that says we have to force somebody
to conform with the setback. Um but it's within our purview to say okay is it in harmony with the purpose intent of the bylaw and is it substantially more detrimental? I think that's what we have to decide.
>> Well in that case then no it's not substantially more detrimental at all. Okay. I mean the the side on on the uh adjacent property line is not really changing with the exception that you're going to add that that lean to. Is the lean do you have to
be on that side or could it be on the other side and then you wouldn't really be increasing and not conforming at all? It pretty much just be the same. Does that make sense? >> Uh >> instead of having the link to the left just put on the right. Then then the 2.1 remains the same. The 4x3 remains the
same. Then you don't add the 1.1 foot from the prop. >> I I don't know it. So it's not like a like a customuilt thing. It's like kind of like like they come. It's like a kit type.
>> Um possible, but it does put it in the middle of the yard. >> Yeah. Then you have a large area. >> Yeah. >> Refined it for junk. >> Yeah. I think that's that's asking too
much to gain a foot. >> I'm just hearing a spit bowl from >> Yeah. >> You know, somewhere in the middle, you know, that's all. >> What are your thoughts, Georgia, after I gave my little spiel about what our obligation is? >> Yeah. No, I I agree with that. I don't
think it's more detrimental, especially hearing from the neighbor. Um, but I feel like in our experience, we've had another project that's had a detached garage accessory and I think we added a condition that it could not be turned into a living space or an ADU or if they
had to do that, they had to come back to the board, which I think is already another trigger. Um, but knowing this garage is so close to the side step back in 10 years if they wanted to retrofit and make it a small apartment, I would definitely want to see them come back to us.
>> Um, we're our hands are kind of tied now um under ADU law by law. >> Yeah, that makes sense. >> So, I don't feel like it would be appropriate to add a condition. >> I agree. Okay. Just have the ADU come before us if it needed to come before
us. things change, John. >> I'm good. >> So, are we okay with leaving it in the current position? >> I'm mixed. >> Okay. Um,
do you have any more questions, Georgia? >> No, I'm satisfied. >> Okay. 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.
>> Rob seconds. Roll call vote. Georgia, >> yes. >> Rob, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. Sean. >> Yeah. >> Sarah will chess. Okay. So now we discuss it. We have to determine that this location
which is 1.1 from the sideline from the rear setback where five is required. We have to determine that it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the live bylaw. will not be substantially more detrimental or
injurious to the neighborhood in which it is located than the existing non-conforming garage. >> Yeah. I mean, I don't see it as causing anyone any in any injury. >> Should have brought a picture of the existing one. See how bad it looks. >> It's really bad. >> No, I I have no doubt that whatever you
replace is going to be >> It's a onetory is a one and a half story. Yeah, it's just, you know, you know, the problem is sometimes when we make a decision, it can affect decisions, >> right? >> That's right. I was just >> I don't Yeah, I mean that's that's my
biggest challenge is is we're setting a precedent when we do this >> and everybody the intent of the bylaw is that we're supposed to be if we have to set back supposed to do it within a setback. We're not showing We're not showing it where it's
Yes, it's gonna It may cost him a little more to move it. I mean, is that is that what we're considering as detrimental or is it >> I I'm just saying like the design the the layout as it's construed is not more
detrimental either because it's something's there. It's been there. >> It's not making it any worse. Yeah, I I do think that the challenge of the court cases in this area is
saying that if something is already nonconforming, the property owner has the right to rebuild something as long as it's not more detrimental.
And I think that's kind of when we we get into the catch 22. I would love to be back five feet, but I also agree that replacing one non-conforming garage with another non-conforming garage, which is not
substantially larger um than what's there. It's a little bit larger, but it's not substantially larger. Um, seems to me like it's something we should allow. >> I would agree, Sarah.
>> Okay. >> I know you closed the public hearing, so I don't know what my status is to be able to comment at this point. >> Would you like to comment? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> As the le from the planning board. >> Planning board. >> Um, so one of the things to consider is
the intent of the bylaw. you know, the spirit of the bylaw and a setback, especially a rear setback and a side setback is all about the neighbors really. Um, and we're hearing, you're hearing from the neighbor. So, I would
just make that by regarding the one criteria. Well, and I think the other thing about this site is that this garage is very close to Craft's Court.
Mr. Gamble's house, which is just beyond it, is set back. So, this garage is not adjacent to his house in any way. It's his front yard, right? >> Yeah.
>> Like additional massing that's not creating that, >> right? And he wouldn't he wouldn't be a his property wouldn't be able to build something next to this garage without a variance because it would be in his front setback, which is district A,
which is 40 ft or 30 feet. I can't remember which one of those two feet. So it would have to be anything built there would have to be. >> I guess you know the only question I have just having experienced zoning in like other cities and towns is that if
you have a a structure that's non-conforming and it's completely removed whatever you replace is to be con conforming and that's why they might leave certain section or a wall or a piece of foundation of the original and then build off of that in order to kind
of loophole through that. I guess the question is do does our zoning bylaws state anything that if you keep a piece of of the piece of structure remaining then build off of that it would be
allowed but if it's completely taken out whatever is replaced we've have to be brought to to the to the zoning requirement. Now, our zoning bylaw says if it's nonconforming, you can rebuild something nonconforming
as long as it's not it meets the requirements of a special permit. >> That's what I'm getting. What this is what >> Yeah, >> I'm going it's like we've had other ones before us where they're doing a h a house or whatever and we're making a move it to get within the setbacks
even though they had an existing dwelling there. >> Yeah, that's true. >> And that's where I'm houses though. These are larger, you know, >> but it's still within it's still within the, you know, the what we're doing. >> Still a structure >> and you know, I mean, when we say, you know, this this neighbor
likes it right now, what about the future neighbor? >> Future neighbor may question what that's what I'm saying. When we think about it, we got to think not just of the current with the future, >> but the future also is purchasing the property with the
structure there, >> right? George Jeff >> I I totally agree with um really what everyone has said but Sarah mainly I think it is a nonconformity now
and they should be afforded those grandfathering of that structure if the bylaw doesn't require if you're going to demo rip up foundation you have to go to conformity then I'm okay with what they're proposing
um and I think to what you had said looking at the neighbor's house I think more detrimental to me is what people have discussed how does that impact neighbors and looking at the lot of the other neighbor mainly the garage is going to be near that driveway of the
neighbor's house so not very that impactful but again in 30 years if someone else buys the neighbor's lot and they demo and they want to build something new I agree with what Sarah said they would have to file anyway so that's kind of if they buy that
neighbor's house property in 30 years, that's the risk that they're taking being closer to another structure. So, I am I'm okay with what's being proposed. And and I think the other thing that people should keep in mind is that
the new ADU bylaw I believe requires if it's going to be a 900 square foot small ADU by right it has to meet the setback requirements. So, if this were to be turned into an
ADU at any point, it would have to come before ZBA board to get approval because it wouldn't be by right. >> I'm sorry, Sarah. Does it have to meet the accessory setback or the a main dwelling setback?
>> Um, the accessory dwelling setback. The attorney general did not approve the primary structure set back which is what we approved at town meeting
>> that just came yesterday. >> Okay. And the reason for that is because they said the large ADU because we're only allowing one was standing in place at the standard ADU and the standard ADU only had to
meet the setbacks of an accessory dwelling. So good, bad, or indifference. That's what they seem to have ruled. I need to look at it more before we have our ADU next month. Is that an actual law or is that just
guidance? >> That's the new bylaw. >> This Okay. >> We passed a bylaw at town meeting. >> No, I'm talking about from this from the AG. >> They have to approve all zoning bylaws. So, they did not approve certain sections of the zoning bylaw that the
town approved. And what I'm told is we don't have the right just ignore the whole bylaw. That when they act out sections, the rest of it remains. Evening is not what we wanted. So,
are we ready to vote? Okay. Well, I guess I you need to make a motion first before we vote. Um, I move to approve the application of Matt Van Wart for a special permit under
sections 5.6, 7.2, 2 and 12.5 of the zoning bylaw and or other relief as may be necessary to raise an existing singlestory non-conforming garage which is 2.1 ft from the rear property line
and construct a new 1 and a half story garage which is 1.1 ft from the property line where 5t is required um at 116 Pine Street assessor's map number
30 lot number 44 in district's DNA filed with the town clerk on September 16th, 2025 based on a finding the proposed new garage is predominantly within the boundaries of district D in which a five-foot setback is required and is in
harmony with the purpose and intent of the bylaw will not be substantially more detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood in which in which it is located than the existing non-conforming garage and the requirements under section 12.5.2
of the zoning bylaw for the grant of a special permit have been met based on the following conditions. The garage is located as depicted on plan of land prepared by vineyard engineering and environment services
dated September 15, 2025. The construction is completed substantially in accordance with the plans prepared by Country Carpenters Inc. dated the 7th of July 2025.
Um, left and front elevations page one, foundation plan page two, and rear right and rear elevations page four.
Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Rob seconds. Any discussion or have we had enough? >> Have enough. >> Okay. Um, go to a roll call vote. Georgia,
>> yes. >> Rob, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> Sean, >> yeah, that's >> and Sarah, yes. Um, I can write it. Who would like to review it?
>> Don will review it. Um, so you all set? >> Thank you. I had no idea what went into takes us a while. It takes us a while to write the decision. >> Okay. >> And a building permit won't be issued
until we file the decision with the town clerk. >> Okay. >> Okay. And then there's a 20-day appeal period. >> But the building inspector will issue a building permit before the appeal period is up. I don't know when you're planning on doing this, but >> just wait for the thumbs up here and
then figure all that out. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um, so will Paul reach out to me or do I check in with him? >> No, it's the town clerk who will um
receive the written decision. Um, >> since I'm writing it, I can send you an email when I filed it with the town clerk. >> Fantastic. >> Okay. We have um a new administrative person supporting
us. So I'm not exactly sure. >> No, >> you have to file with our registry. >> We we do that. >> You do that. Oh, good. >> That's why we charge $1,000. >> Oh, actually decent service. See you. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Oh, no. Like I said, thank you guys very much. I had no idea. So, thank you for taking on Wednesday night. I appreciate >> you. Okay. >> No, I have three kids. I have enough. >> Thank you very much.
>> Appreciate it. >> Um, the next item on the agenda is to review the minutes from Sep September 24th. I don't know if people looked at them, but that was the review. It only
consisted of the review of the minutes from May 28th and July 23rd. >> Yeah. I couldn't get that to open. They sent me like a code and I put the code in, then the whole thing crashed. So, I didn't get Sorry. >> Would you like to glance at >> Yeah, I'll take >> They're so quick.
>> These are the accurate and I approve them. >> Okay. Um, Georgia moves to approve. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Sean seconds. If Georgia says it's good, it's good. >> Y um roll call vote. Georgia, >> yes.
>> Rob, >> yes. >> Sean, >> yes. >> Sarah, yes. >> John, >> I wasn't there. >> John will stay. Um there are no decisions outstanding. >> That's a record. >> I know. I think I wrote the last five
just to set the record straight. Boy. Um but next month, November, we have three applications. Um we have 53 Summer Street, um which is a dormer. Um we have 48 Norwood A, which is a large ADU in a
setback. Um, and we have 22 union, which is Cargo Unlimited, where they want to put in three residential units plus a small retail unit. And that's a special permit for a
change of use in a non-conforming structure plus a variance for the height because the third floor is larger than the second floor because the second floor has garing for cars and so it doesn't
qualify as a half story. So it's a variance >> now. Sorry Sarah, >> what >> what's above cargo right now? What's upstairs? >> Nothing. >> Just those green jackets in the window for six years.
>> Like retail storage or like it it hasn't been apartments or residential. >> Oh, no, no, no. It's it's the huge retail store on Union next to um >> But what's it? >> What's above Fargo?
>> It was one story. >> Okay. you're gonna go up >> and so they tear it down and start a new >> Got it. >> Um, and I think it's important for people to look at the site if you can't make the site visit will be the Saturday
morning before because of daylight savings time. >> Um, and I think it's important to look at that site. Make sure you if you can't make the site visit to look at that site >> and because there's a driveway to the left that will be used for the cars parking in the back.
next to the brick house. >> Is there a house behind it that kind? >> It's the brick house to the side. >> Oh, that was the one that hit the market recently, right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And there's a driveway. >> Now you know why. >> Now you know why. >> Yeah. >> And then it's also important to look at
the 48wood because that's the ADU. >> AU. >> And I will pass out. No, I won't pass out. I will distribute the new ADU
bylaw. >> It's 48 Norwood. >> 48 Norwood. >> I like to look at maps. >> I'm told that the garage that is being torn down to put an ADU in used to be the only um preschool in Manchester. >> Wow.
>> Like >> 40 or 50 years ago. >> Oh. where Brook Street is. Isn't this in the market, too? >> The one next door is >> there's a for sale sign.
>> I think they're carving pumpkins over there. >> I think they're carving pumpkins over there. >> Um, okay. So, are we good? >> Thank you for your service, Salassi. >> Yes. >> I take a motion to adjurnn. >> I second.
>> Yes. >> Georgia. Yes. >> Rob says yes. John? >> Yes. >> Sarah says yes. John says yes. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> We're journed. >> All right. >> Thank you guys. >> Thank you. Just trying to look at that
screen.