letter of support sorry it's a good amount of documents um here's proof of posting on the
property and here's a letter of support from the rco um saying that non-people non-people supported
it uh there were no none i guess one person was in opposition but in general um they voted in
support of it um i have an old tax clearance from june 2025 um but also then proof that there's
zero taxes on a property um so that really much concludes my appreciation for the most part i'd
like to call um my client uh to the to to adopt my testimony if that's okay yeah what's your
client's name michael clark okay it's becoming back in as a panel when was the property purchased
um look
well when he comes home we'll ask him
mr clark yes hello hi mr clark could you please state your name and spell it for the stenographer
uh michael clark m-i-c-h-a-e-l clark c-l-a-r-k-e right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth yes sir devin proceed yeah mr clark did you hear my
testimony? Yes, sir. And would you attest that it was true and accurate? Yes, it was. And will you
adopt my statements? Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Mr. Clark, I guess the board, the chairman
Mr. Clark, I guess the board, the chairman asked, when was the property purchase?
asked when was a property purchase? Do you recall when you purchased the property?
Do you recall when you purchased the property?
I believe it was sometime in 2018, 2019.
Right.
And it was a duplex then?
Yes, sir.
Did you change it over?
I mean.
No, it wasn't.
It had the original electricity.
It was, I just did some basically cosmetic work, repair the roof, et cetera.
All right.
All right.
Questions from the board.
What's the trash plan for the two units?
Yes, ma'am.
The trash will be located in the rear of the property.
It has a gate.
The tenant will be advised to put their trash in the rear, and there will also be supplied trash cans.
Do both units have access to the backyard?
Yes, ma'am.
You can access the backyard through Salford Street.
Other questions?
questions from our attorney hillary emerson not at this time mr chair questions or comments
from the virtual audience
planning commission oh that's true okay
nina solomonic with the planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the
existing zoning of rsa 5 residential single family the proposed two-family household living
is expressively prohibited in RSA 5.
There is documented use of commercial
with two separate entrances.
Therefore, Planning Commission recommends
the board support the granted
or grant the requested variance.
Thank you.
MI 2025, 000690, 5942 Callahill Street.
I vote yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tynetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes.
Tywin, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Number four, MI 2025, 000692, 1414 South 18th Street.
Richard DeMarco is the attorney.
Thank you.
That was a very slow join.
Mr. DeMarco, could you please, first of all, we haven't seen you in a while, so could you state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Richard DeMarco, last name is spelled D-E-M-A-R-C-O.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Do you identify your client, the relationship to the property?
Andrew Lye.
He is the owner.
He's on the Zoom.
Do you waive the reading of the refusals and agree with their accuracy?
And I see Point Breeze Community Development Coalition, based on revised plans, sent a letter of support.
Exactly.
Please proceed, sir.
All right. I'll be as brief as I can. Mr. Chairman, let me share my screen.
let me bring that up there we go can you see my screen okay mr chairman we see it sir all right
so uh two-dimensional variances for this matter uh mr chairman there's a history with this property
uh this has been before the board before twice matter of fact let me cover that and jump over
that right now get that out of the way um if you see uh here back in 2016 and 17 this board approved
uh a single family dwelling proposal with an addition on the rear i'm going to show you that
plan and the reason why i show you you'll see why it's relevant um right here um the issue
in this case is solely the position of a structure right here. But I wanted to show
you and the members of the board that this board did approve 100% lot coverage back in 2016.
The property always existed as a 100% lot coverage. It's not a very large lot. It's about
900 square feet. And this board did approve an addition there. There's a garage opening here on
the old plan that was approved by this board back in 2017, we're not seeking that curb
uh that curb cut that's not part of this application matter of fact we agreed with
cut. That's not part of this application. As a matter of fact, we
the neighbors that we would not be seeking that so what you see on your screen now is our revised
proposal this was and by the way the reason why i mentioned your 2017 decision is because
actually this plan has is significantly scaled back from that we no longer have a second story
addition. It's just this one piece here, in addition to the main structure. The structure
that existed there before has been knocked down. There were structural issues, and my client has
already invested significant money in bringing down the old property. There were some issues
with the structure. He had to knock it down. He did so, and he's back here now to develop it.
We also shortened, if you will, the roof deck.
It's not actually a roof deck, as you see here from the cross section.
It sits on the third floor here.
No height variance, just that open area and rear yard variance.
We agreed with the neighbors to remove a deck.
We were initially proposing to have a deck on top of that one-story structure in the back there.
That has been removed per the request of the neighbors.
We had two meetings, and we made all their requested changes.
There was a proposal that this board heard a couple years ago that the applicant abandoned.
It was a mixed-use attempt to have a storefront, a restaurant on the first floor.
that has been obviously removed. So basically, Mr. Chairman, this is a classic Hertzberg case.
Going back to the refusal, it's two-dimensional variances in pursuit of a permitted use,
which is the single-family dwelling. And I'll have Mr. Lycomore in a moment, but I'll summarize
what his testimony will be. He's basically asking you to approve that addition here because it's
going to be used for storage. Like I said, it's not a large lot. Bicycle storage, trash storage,
that sort of a thing. Let me see if there's anything else I want to show you. While I'm
going through the rest of this, can Mr. Lai raise his hand virtually so he can adopt my presentation
and testimony? By the way, Mr. Chairman, we will ask you to stamp one page revised plan. We did
submit the required form um and so we'll ask you to stamp one page uh revised plan by the way mr
chairman a lot of the corner properties also have 100 lock coverage it's a common occurrence in this
particular area and that's shown on some of these photos that the architect prepared by the way we
do have agada a reister from landmark available as well on the call if you have any questions
so with that i can uh ask uh mr lie to uh be uh promoted hi
okay andrew andrew lied uh did you hear my testimony and wait a minute oh he's not with
us hello i'm here mr lie could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer first
name andrew last name lie l-a-i right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth? That is correct. Please proceed, counsel. Mr. Lai, did you hear my
factual presentation and remarks to the board just a moment ago? Yes, sir. Is everything true
and accurate, and can you adopt all those statements as your factual testimony in this
matter? Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's it. I do want to point out we actually changed
the elevations to show proof
to the neighbors that we were not seeking any type of side
curb cut in this case.
Questions from the board?
Questions or comments from our attorney? Hillary Emerson.
Just briefly, board,
the refusal doesn't list the proposed use, so if the board does
approved we would just want to indicate be a proviso that the approved uses single family
household living yep thank you questions or comments from the virtual audience
i do not see any further answer mr chair planning commission
nina solomonic with the planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change
in zoning from the existing rsa5 residential single family the appellant has not shown that
the property cannot possibly be used in strict conformity with the zoning code and that a
and that a variance is therefore necessary.
variance is therefore necessary. The proposed variance will impair an adequate
The proposed variance will impair an adequate supply of light and air
to the adjacent conforming property.
The Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Board
deny the variance for rear yard depth and occupied area.
So MI 2025, 000692, 1414 South 18th Street.
I vote yes with proviso.
Approved use is single-family household living.
revised plans one page
stand by ZBA July
16, 2025.
Michael John, my vote is yes with
proviso. Cheryl Gaston,
my vote is yes with proviso.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes with proviso.
Tywin, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ryan McAdams, my vote
is yes with proviso.
Thank you, counsel. Thank you. Have a great time.
Thank you so much.
Thank you, Mr. Lai. Number six,
MI 2025
825-000-803-843-North Lawrence Street.
Roger Perry is the attorney.
There's a letter of support for Northern Liberties
and a letter of non-opposition from Council Member Young.
I'm back in as a panelist.
Thank you.
Well, there you go, Mr. Perry.
How are you, sir?
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
My name is Roger Perry, R-O-G-E-R, last name Perry, P-E-R-R-Y.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and their relationship to the property?
Thank you.
I represent Michelle and Peter Torelli, T-O-R-E-L-L-I, who are the co-owners of the property at 843 North Lawrence Street.
Do you waive the reading of the refusal, and do you agree with its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Why don't you start your presentation, Mr. Perry?
Thank you.
You see my screen?
It says I'm sharing.
I see your screen.
Thank you.
Here's just a list of the exhibits, and I won't go through all of them, of course, but I incorporate those.
I'm having a hard time.
Could you get closer to the mic?
I'm having a hard time here. I'm sorry. Sure. I'm sort of leaning back after a while.
843, the list of the exhibits I incorporated into my presentation. I won't go through them all. I