what's being taken away by this by this proposal and we do not agree there's any hardship for this
at all. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Chairman, if I may report. Yes, please. Just
looking to this lot size, it's approximately 9,000 square feet divided by six puts us at
approximately 1,500 square feet per unit that we're proposing, which is in excess of the 1,440
required in RSA 5 districts, which is what we were looking at with respect to this property.
The hardship in particular has to do with the dimensions. We have 60 feet of street frontage and 150 feet of depth. In addition, with respect to the concerns about stormwater, we're having a lot here with over twice of what's required in the NARSA 5 district with respect to open area, 53.9% looking to the zoning data chart that I have now on the screen, page 36 of my zoning packet.
in addition permeable pavement in addition we're proposing trees and potentially the
landscape rear yards for each of these units which are technically defined as side yard but
they have sufficient depth in that we have nine feet of rear yard depth for each of the proposed
unit and nine feet of rear yard depth on the actual lot itself with respect to concerns brought up
about roof decks that's not a zoning concern roof decks are allowed by right and i continue to
respectfully disagree with their, with the RCO's assertion that we must be set back in any way
whatsoever. We were not issuing refusals for that. And if we, if we needed to have any sort
If we needed to have any sort of setback, whether on the lot itself or on the third story, the plans examiner would have issued that.
of setback, whether on the lot itself or on the third story, the plan.
So those are my remaining points with respect to this issue.
Oh, one last thing with respect to trash.
Because we have six units, this could very well just be a matter of city trash.
There could be a private trash collection if the zoning board is so required, but because we're under the number of units that would be required to have private trash, this would be serviced by the city.
um just just a thought i mean can see i understand the issue with the depth
of this lot and uh i mean if there there are other ways of doing uh development there maybe
not with the full six units maybe as an example just as an example is two twins which would give
you four units or four singles well we would not be able to do four singles as a matter of right
chairman just because this mentions a lot because we would still require street frontage we only
have 60 feet of street frontage i understand that but if the issue if one of the issues and i read
the letter i want to go back and read it again but uh if one of the issue is the density uh you
could reduce some of the density i don't know if the numbers work uh but you could reduce the
density anywhere from one to whatever even again you can do four singles maybe not by right but you
can you can build that and that might be something i'm not i don't know that for a fact that might be
something that the community well might be accepting just just thinking out loud trying
how do you develop this um you know 9 000 square foot parcel yeah my understanding chairman is that
the community itself, based on our discussions, was set on having three homes facing Sharpneck
Street, which would require a completely separate application. It would require the relocation of
lot lines. So we'd be looking at a completely different lot altogether. And right now,
we're looking at the lot as it exists, 60 feet wide by 150 feet deep. Now, if the board were
to issue a proviso limiting the number of units at five, potentially that's something we could
live with um although frankly considering our only refusal here is due to quote-unquote
multi-family and that's based on the dimensions of the lot being so deep and not quite so uh wide
yeah understood that's our issue it's a unique parcel okay it's a unique parcel chair all right
anyone else to testify in this case and if so please something new and different uh miss curlet
It gave a very thorough presentation as to why the community is objecting.
So if you have something new and different, that would be helpful.
Here we have Charles Richardson with his hand up.
Mr. Richardson, you can unmute and wait for the chair.
Good afternoon, Mr. Richardson.
Please identify yourself for the record.
Yes, Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 312 City Hall.
Do you want to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, sir. Please proceed.
So, Councilwoman is opposed to this randomness variance.
The project is overly dense.
They need to reduce the number of units.
You know, this is actually a manufactured hardship that seems like it's designed to maximize the profit of the developer.
There were two meetings as Ms. Curlett had gone over. All of the attendees in both meetings were totally in opposition to granting the variance. There are other ways that this can be done that they're not looking at because of the fact that they're trying to maximize profit.
But because of these facts, the councilwoman is, and because she stands with the community, she is opposed to this, granting this variance.
Thank you. Anyone else to testify in this case?
Again, I would ask you to please provide something new and different.
Chair, we have a Ms. Rita Griggs. Ms. Griggs, you can unmute yourself or wait for the chair.
Hello?
Hi, ma'am. Please spell your full name.
Rita Griggs, R-I-T-A, G-R-I-G-G-S.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Thank you, ma'am. Please proceed.
I would like to clarify one sworn truth by Mr. Mauville.
There is one side parking on Sharp Next Street.
There is not two sides.
There are signs posted on each Telegram poll.
the people parking on the other side are parking there because they do not have
adequate parking around there so they're parking on their payment illegally um this
adequate parking around there so they're parking on their payment illegally um this has been
addressed over and over again so i just wanted to make that clear that he swore on his statement
that this was the truth and it's not because there are signs posted that it's only one side parking
that is will become another issue and i know parking does not make a difference when it comes
to development for the neighbors but it should because in this time of what's going on people's
tempers are high and parking around here has become a problem. There are issues with conflicts
and this will not do nothing but create another conflict of type for parking. I also have one
other concern about the demolition of an old building. They said it was not going to be any
harm to neighbors. There will be if you demolish a building with asbestos and lead paint, which we
will deal with dust and runoff even though you're watering it it hasn't stopped COVID so it's not
going to stop this. I have a concern with the lasting effect of the dust fumes and the runoff
from demising that older property rather than restoring it and keeping it intact and that was
my concern and also my last concern was this is not conformity to our neighborhood and it and as
far as how much it will cost to live there versus how much the people are paying across the street
to own their own homes, I feel as though it will become a problem to the residents of the block.
Thank you for your time. If I may, Chair. Yes, sir. With respect to the testimony that was just
given, I don't believe I suggested that there was parking on both sides of the street at any point.
Irrespective of what this design does with one curb cut is allow for the all street parking for
six vehicles, which ultimately would assist in unburdening the street parking that's being
exasperated on the block. With respect to the demolition, I understand the concerns. That's
endemic to the demolition of any old house. My client will take any sort of precautions necessary,
and the demolition isn't necessarily an issue here in this case. With respect to the pricing
that was brought up, again, with the construction of five, six single-family style homes in this
lot. My client's able to offer a lower price than if we were to take this lot and build only three
homes, which would have a significantly higher price tag just because of the costs that are
endemic to construction itself. Those are the only points I wish to bring up on rebuttal.
Anyone else to testify? Something new and different, please.
Chair, we have a Kelly O'Day. Mr. or Ms. O'Day, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Thank you.
Ready to be sworn in, Chair.
There you go.
Kelly O'Day, please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Kelly O'Day.
K-E-L-L-Y-O apostrophe D-A-Y.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
I live in East Mount Airy and I'm on the zoning committee. I'd like to point out the
Mr. Mulville had a photo of just a minute ago that showed the building. If he could possibly
restore that, that would be very helpful to him and to the board, I believe. It shows the rendering
of the proposed building exactly flush with the building next door if we could bring if you could
possibly restore that uh yes that's the photograph the rendering right there what i think is very
important if you look at the aerial photographs you'll see that the existing apartment building
yes you can see it there the existing apartment building is set back 14 feet and the proposed
building is not set back at all. So I know that the plans examiner did not raise that question,
but it is clear when you read notes four and five in the RSA 5 code that it needs to be set back
consistent with the adjacent building. And so the adjacent building is a two-story building
set back 14 feet and I beg to differ that I'm not sure what the zoning practice is but the code is
very clear on this point and then the other point is we've talked about before is the
building on the 216 side is the garage it's set back six feet so from my standpoint
the building as a minimum should be set back six feet and I would argue that the eight feet
The building as a minimum should be set back six feet, and I would argue that the eight feet is more important because the 230 E-Sharpnack, the principal building there is an apartment building, a two-story apartment building.
The principal building on 216 is a garage, and I would believe that an apartment building would be more important than a garage.
So I would argue that whether or not the plans examiner identified it, it should be considered by the board that the code does call in this case for at least the six foot and more likely a 14 foot setback. Thank you.
and chairman in response I brought that up in my case in chief and we I just stand that the
plans examiner was correct in not requiring either an eight foot setback or any setback
in the street based on the adjacent structures of the parcel on the other side so noted thank
you anyone else there are no other hands at this time chair thank you planning commission
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission
this property is indicated for single family residential in the comprehensive plan
the density of the proposal is in line with what would be allowed as of right if the property of
this size was subdivided by right accordingly the planning commission recommends the board
to approve the variance. Thank you. Mr. Mulvihill,
would it make any sense if you guys would go back and try to see if you can figure out
another design that might reduce the density? Well, Chair, what we have in this case, I believe
is we're at loggerheads with the RCO, as their position remains that this should be developed in,
this should be one resubmitted with a completely different application okay including a subdivision
um my i mean if if the board would have a proviso max five units uh perhaps that's something we
could live with i just have to get my client on the line again to affirm that um okay planning
commission stated where we did this with respect to this lot looking to the overall requirements
of rsa5 lot size considering the interesting dimensional um restrictions that are placed on us
with 150 foot deep lot that's only has 60 feet of street frontage thank you all right um mi 2021
does zero zero two eight nine eight two two four east sharp nick my vote is no confessor
James Snell, my vote is no.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is no.
Number seven on our list, MI 2021, that's 002-911-2601 Reed Street.
It's either Mr. Notkinson or Ms. Amazon.
Grace Ferry Community Council sent a letter of support.
Chair, Ms. Amazon is coming back in now as a panelist.
Hey, good afternoon, Ms. Amazon.
Please identify yourself.
You're still under oath.
You're muted.
Yes, thank you.
Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the board.
Clemente Amazon, C-L-E-M-E-N-T-A, last name is A-M-A-Z-A-N.
Mr. Plaza has some questions for you.
Amazon, you agree to wait the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents,
proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal,
or referral, photos, and plans five days prior to this hearing?
Yes, I did.
And have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, and we have a letter of support.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Of course.
I'm just going to share my screen.
I'll take that as a yes.
Thank you.
So today I'll be presenting 2601 Reed Street.
This is a project, excuse me.
Okay, so this is a very straightforward project.
The board may remember that we presented
2600 and 2602 Reed Street last week.
It's a similar request here.
It's a similar request here. I will go through the notice of refusal, letter of support from Grace Ferry Community Council.
I will go through the notice of refusal.
Letter of support.
Our request is not uncommon for this block. This property is zoned as CMS1.
It's a residential block. The community would like to maintain that residential use.
So we're just looking to eliminate the commercial use here and place it with residential use.
We have maps of the area, photographs of the property, our proposed plans and drawings, the notice that we sent out for that community meeting,
as well as the application for appeal, deed, and certificate of tax clearance.
Again, the property zone, CMX1, is a residential block.
We're just looking to replace that commercial use with residential.
We met with the community on September 30th, and we're happy to say that we did receive support for this particular project.
And there are several properties along this block of Reed Street.
unfortunately i'm having technical difficulties i cannot show them to you however last week the
board also um approved 2600 as well as 2602 in addition to the two other properties on that
block that are also multi-family properties um i'm sorry i'm having some time i think we i think
we have proved that did you have the case on the other side of the street last week 26 yes exactly
I did. For some reason, some of my slides are not coming through, but here's a view of the front of the property along Reed Street, view of the side of the property from South 26th Street,
Reed Street to the left, Reed Street to the right, views of South 26th Street, our plans and drawings.
And I apologize for whatever glitch I have going on right now, but they're comparable to what was approved last week.
We had the meeting with the community on September 30th at 7 p.m., which included the refusal, date, time, and Zoom information, as well as I'm just going to stop sharing and hopefully that will resolve whatever is happening right now.
But we did send out notice of that community meeting. It was well attended. We did receive the community support. Here's a list of the properties that were notified.