All towns · greenland

Zoning Board

Video

I have no time yet, but I need to keep something close to that.
Sorry, you can draw that?
We'll be right back here.
But they're kind of people.
They must be.
Yep.
Cause I can't win them right here.
So they're supposed to be right there.
So do I need you?
What's going on?
I'm going to play right here.
You're going to play right here.
You're going to play right here.
You're going to play right here.
You said to go.
Yeah.
I'm going pretty good.
You went to team 2025.
We have a little call please.
They'll be welcome.
Kingie now.
Chipaji.
We have a call.
So record we are being live streamed and recorded.
First thing on your agenda is our request for violence.
130 public land.
Not bartends for residential zone.
Half a tent is often filled.
I mean, you didn't even know that.
And those are David and Susan Sanson.
Okay.
Venice is then requested to allow development of an existing log of record with no frontage
and is subject to anything right away from the time when over the purpose of constructing
a single family home.
So they have ones of 3.57 acres.
And record this is referring to 4.2 of the table.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Okay.
I'm on fire.
Thank you.
I got to sit on this side.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman.
Members of the board.
My name is Tim Phoenix.
I'm an attorney.
I have four teammates.
Glory and Roberts.
In course minutes.
I'm here with on the behalf of Colton and Megan Gold.
Or next to me.
They are intending to purchase this lot from David and Suzanne Sanderson.
The current owners of it for many many years.
It was owned by David's father, Gerald Sanderson, decades ago.
Before you hear on my easel and also up on the screen are there a lot that Colton's intending
to buy in the situation and the issue before you was pretty simple.
Colton and Megan are intending to purchase this block.
That I outlined in yellow here, which is a power of 11 acres.
It is actually two separate lots by Dean.
And you can see here in this box up at the top.
That's where there's three and a half and one and three and a half feet of uplands
where he's intending to put the house.
So it meets the ultimate requirement.
The problem is, or the issue that brings us before you today,
is this pink area, which is the fact that the lot as described has no frontage
on tunneling or any other tunnel road.
It's been landlocked for many many years, which I'll get to in more detail in a minute.
But there is and has been all along a reserved right away from the subject lot
to tunneling over this lot.
It is recorded in the deeds, et cetera.
So to take you back some time, unfortunately, this is still after I was born.
But here's the original plan of the entire lot.
The area that the goal is going to buy is this area here.
But here's everything which was done by John Durgan.
And he had been doing land use work for him on a time.
It's good for a million with John Durgan.
There it is from the sideways view.
Which is fine.
John Durgan was a long, long and respected land surveyor for decades.
This was done in May of 1957.
Shortly thereafter, all of this is in the package.
You can leave that right there.
Shortly thereafter, that large lot that I just showed you was subdivided into
four separate lots.
This lot, one and three, or what the goal is maintaining the purchase.
And then there's two and four up here.
At the time this subdivision was done, this lot, which is one of the ones that the goal was to buy,
was designed and subdivided with this tail that reaches two tunneling as part of the lot.
The problem is that back then before most towns even had zoning and planning boards for food,
but just to show you, this is the tax map that's a lot's on, you'll see it a lot here.
And then you can see the solid line which is against these two lots.
And there's a dash line just depicting this easement.
So I've also given you not every deed in the entire chain,
but I've given you a number of deeds that sort of explain by deed what happened.
These are exhibits B in my submission.
The first one from July 1957 is where lot one was deeded out by the then owners,
which was land of cooperation to Cochran.
And this is Cochran.
And at the time what the deed shows is, this was all described.
It started up here in the description, but then goes down here to this angle,
to this point, and then goes straight across to the line C-A-Cant-Gundelow property.
So it cut this then previously part of that lot as described here,
which was all owned by a man at one point.
It cut that off, leaving it no access.
It did, however, reserve a right of way to get from this parcel one to Tuttle Lane.
Then shortly thereafter, just a few days, according to my notes here.
Lot three was deeded and then had the same problem.
It was, I mean, that has a different description which didn't include this in the first place,
but it does reserve the right of way over it.
And then from that time on, the deeds to this lot in particular,
lot four, all came out saying, I'm deeding this lot,
but reserving a right of way to the back lots in favor of what became Jarps Anderson
and now he's in Jarps on David and his wife, Suzanne.
So we have a history since 1957.
They did what we would today say is the right way by meeting a needs of tail here for access,
although it wouldn't be enough footage by today.
It probably would be a prior non-conforming lot.
But then the deeds took her way, leaving it landmarked,
with the only access being this right of way.
And that's what the first document I showed you.
And that's what this plan shows.
And that's what all the deeds I've just referenced show from mid-1957 to today.
So it's pretty easy to see why we're here requesting relief
because your ordinance and reddit, section 4.2b, says lot frontage in this zone requires,
typically requires 200 feet of frontage.
And what we have is zero feet of frontage.
This right of way is 50 feet wide, at least, through its length.
It's a little longer. You can see that the title is at an angle here.
So it's a little wider here. I think it's 60-some odd feet.
But it's essentially 50 feet.
And I think that's important because if this lot was going to be developed
into more than one house lot, which before all the wetland,
it probably could fairly easily be done to several less,
that would be the width of a road, town road.
So driveways usually 12 or 14 feet, a town road is usually 24 feet
with a 50 or 60 foot, right?
So they were thinking forwardly enough back then
to at least be wide enough here to put in a regular road
to get back to this lot if it was ever developed.
But it doesn't make any sense to build it to road specifications now
due to the expense of it when all we want to do is put a house out there.
So we want to use that right of way, easement,
to access this lot to put under the ghost home line.
So that's the history and what we're here for.
Unless you have questions now, I'll quickly run through the variance requirements.
Does that work very well?
We have to go.
So you've got my narrative, which is, I do it the same way in almost all cases.
And some of you have been here when I've been here many times before.
I do the first two state-required variance represses together
based upon a case called Maliki, Glenn Associates,
versus kind of town of Chichester from 2007.
It basically held two of the statutory variance requirements
are very similar, which are that the variances are not contrary to the public interest
and the spirit of the ordinances observed.
And the underlying test of that case that I cited is when this board is looking at an application,
you've got to be turning with the variance unduly,
and to a market degree conflict with the zoning ordinance,
such that it violates the ordinance's basic zoning objectives.
Just because it conflicts with the ordinance, that's obviously not enough,
because if it were enough, there wouldn't be a need for zoning board
because you just couldn't do it if it was prohibited.
And that's why we had this, what we, in the legal pressure call,
a relief valve to come before you to ask for the weed problem
when it's appropriate, such as we believe is the case here.
So whenever I look at those things,
I first turn to the purposes of the ordinance in this case in Greenland.
And under section 1.2 of the ordinance,
its purpose is to promote the health, safety, moral, convenience,
and general welfare of the habits of the town of Greenland
to protect and conserve the valued property,
to encourage the most appropriate use of lands throughout the town,
and to promote efficiency and economy in the process of development
by, and I'll go through the bullet items in a moment.
But we think, I think, and hope you agree,
that getting a variance to access property,
this property put a home on it,
does protect and conserve the valued property,
because if you can't access this property for the purpose of putting a house on it,
its value is significantly reduced, maybe not to zero,
but it's certainly not the value of a standard house line.
And as we all know, any homeless in the Greater Seacoast area
are very valuable these days,
and seem to be going up without stopping in my experience.
So we are, by having this access formalized,
the variance, conserving the value of this property.
It is now in current use,
it's now in current use,
so the taxes that the town is receiving on it is quite low.
Some are off, probably not all of it,
but some of it's going to come out of current use,
at least typically when the town takes the property out of current use for a home,
it takes out whatever is the minimum lot size,
so it's likely that all of this may come out of current use.
But the effect of that is going to be one home
with instead of very low current use property taxes
is going to have standard value property taxes.
This property is assessed very low because it's in current use,
but the tax card shows that its appraised value is over $300,000.
So I appreciate that if it's $300,000 as appraised value,
assuming you can use it for its intended purpose in a residential zone,
which is for residents,
but if you can't do that, its only value is as an improvement
which you could recreate on, I guess, but that's about all.
So turning back to the purposes of the ordinance,
what does it want to do?
It's a secure safety from fire panic and other dangers.
Again, we've got 50 foot right away providing access
as would a 50 foot public street.
It's been the same since 1957,
although it was originally part of the lot,
and since mid-1957 has been landlocked with this access
that I showed in the paint.
The example area for emergency vehicles to get out there,
we do have to go there for seven days.
We have to do a plenty more for conventional use for the offer.
Right, for weapon buffer.
We want to provide adequate areas between buildings
and every way.
I mean, this is hundreds of feet.
This alone is like 500 to some odd feet.
And then it's another, I'd say roughly the same,
back to where he wants to put the house.
So there's plenty of room between buildings
and rights of way.
And the fact is that anybody who owns these logs here,
this is Camp Gungalo over here.
You know, certainly new or had constructive knowledge
that someday somebody might be putting a house object
by virtue of access over this, right away.
We want to preserve the character of the town.
We believe this does.
There's a YMCA, I don't know if it's still there,
but I saw somewhere that there's a fishing game club.
But everything else out there on the title
is pretty much residential homes.
We want to promote good civic design and arrangements,
and we believe this does for the reasons I've stated.
Why is an efficient expenditure of public funds,
which will be zero?
An added provision of public utilities
and public requirement.
The goals will provide for utilities
to reach their home, electric cable, water,
septic will be on site, et cetera,
and will require us to go to the planning board,
as Cole just mentioned.
So in summary, with respect to these issues,
a lot as described without frontage has existed since 1957.
The town of Greenland has also provided this lot
with an address.
It's number 130 title, which suggests
the intention of it being with an address
that somebody made gold on it.
The appraised value is actually $353,300,
and the lot complies with other Greenland
dimensional requirements as well as the house.
So turning back to that Maliki Glen case
in terms of these first two requirements
in this every day of that.
I'm a public interest in the sphere of the ordinance.
The Supreme Court said, will granting the variance
alter the essential character of the locality,
or will it threaten the public health safety for welfare?
The character of the locality is mostly residential.
This is on a 50-foot wide access
where most driveways are 12 to 14 feet,
maybe a little wider for two-way traffic.
The house will be very far from any other house.
A single family home is not going to create
any traffic issues on the title,
and we will go to the planning board
for wetland-related and buffer-related issues.
So the locality of the character of the locality
is met by this, I put an house out there,
and public health safety in welfare will clearly not be diminished.
The third of the five variance requirements
is that substantial justice will be done,
and I always cite these cases, which say,
if there's no benefit to the public,
the general public, that would outweigh the hardship
to the applicant this factor is satisfied
and that's the harder side case that I cite.
If any loss to the applicant,
here are the goals, and by extension,
the Sanderson's, as owners,
that is not outweighed by a gain to the general public
is an injustice to the applicant and the owner.
I then go through, as always,
constitutional issues, which I don't easily repeat here,
but a 50 foot right away on a very large lot
that's been in existence for close to 70 years
to reach a very large lot,
which presently impending one house on it,
on sufficient opens with a trip to the planning board,
is not in any way you get a harm of the general public.
And on the other hand, if it's denied,
then Sanderson's won't have a sale,
and the goals won't have a lot to put their home on,
which will harm both of them,
and will result in a lot, meaning essentially,
again, I don't want to say value is,
but certainly the significantly reduced value
along the lines of what's been attached for it in current use.
So that would just not be fair.
The fourth of the five tests is that granting a variance
will not diminish the value of property values.
I always ask myself when I'm doing these single family home variances,
do I want to get out of the appraisal or doing not?
If it's something really significant,
I will often err on hiring the appraiser to give me an opinion.
But usually for this kind of thing, and here,
I felt that this is pretty much common sense.
It's a large lot in a residential zone.
They want to use it for a house accessed
by a right-of-way that's existed for almost 70 years.
So it's clearly the value of this lot will actually be increased
by putting a home on it and putting it into use.
It will add coffers at fair market value,
so to speak, or set value to the town's tax base,
and will not harm anyone.
So surrounding property values will clearly not be diminished.
And finally, the last test is that denial of the variances results
in an unnecessary hardship.
That's a three-part test.
The first is that there's special conditions
that distinguish the property
from others in the area.
I think it's pretty obvious compared to the other homes
that have access to the tunnel lane.
There may be others out there, I don't know.
But this one has no direct access.
It only has the right-of-way.
The right-of-way is insufficient under your ordinance.
It gives physical access that doesn't meet the ordinance's requirements
for the frontage of a certain amount on a street.
None of those things can be changed under the present conditions,
given the fact that the lots between it
and the tunnel lane are owned by others.
So it's clear that the special conditions exist.
The second prong is that there's no fair and substantial relationship
between the purposes of the ordinance and its application here.
So why do we have frontage direct requirements
to provide for air, light, sightlines,
space, stormwater treatments
and have quick access to street and emergency services?
So this area is as wide as a public street,
which won't be cleared to that amount.
And the access is only one house.
There's plenty of air, light, space.
When you get down here, the planning board will look into this as well.
The clearance and sightlines are protected
when you're pulling in and out of the lot.
Stormwater is not in the problem.
That's going to be dealt with primarily where the house is going to be.
And it will be approved for emergency services.
So there is really no reason under these circumstances
if you balance the rights of the owner and proposed buyer
to their property rights to own and develop property in a residential zone
against any harm against the public purposes of the ordinance.
I think it's clear that there's no reason
under all of these circumstances to apply that strict result
when it can't happen.
And then finally, the proposed use is reasonable.
It's always sight the same case as the region, the town of us,
in case it says.
If the use is permitted and the use is reasonable,
this is a permitted use.
It's the dimensional requirement that we don't need.
That's all I have.
I'll be happy to answer your questions.
I don't know what I'm going to do.
I just want to add everything before we go.
That's pretty much it.
But this is one of the more great followers,
forward ones that I've presented in a while.
What do you have any questions?
What do everybody speak of ones?
What is that considered a backlog?
Well, the question is whether a backlog is considered
as part of a front lot or not.
It's been 70 years.
I met with Mark Fujero about this,
and he gave us that.
He made that advice us to what to do.
Coincidentally, I'm dealing with another backlog in this town
that we actually are going to go to the planning board about
in the next few days.
But I haven't really analyzed it in that context.
If there's a belief by you folks that being a backlog
means we don't need any relief to do this, I'm all for it.
Well, I can tell you that I built a house back in 2011,
and I had a 60 feet of frontage.
The property went down 200 feet, and I had five acres.
Thank you for bringing it up.
I appreciate it.
The difference may be that this has no frontage.
You're set 60 feet, so that I can't say I know for sure.
But often, my experience with that lot is not so much in
particular, but just in general, is somebody has a lot.
It's got this much frontage, then they cut off a certain amount
because they've got a bunch of fact, and they allow,
counts allow, the backlog to have instead of 200 feet
to have 50 feet, let's just say.
But we don't even have the 50 feet.
Does the right away specifically state that the property
has access to that?
Absolutely.
In this chain of deeds, this owner has access,
and it reserves that access in this chain of deeds
as they've come forward over the years.
It didn't make sense to me that that's why.
It doesn't make sense to me that this wasn't done,
but after they did this, and then they cut it off,
that today nobody would have done that,
and they probably wouldn't have been permitted to do it,
but in the 50s, the things were a lot looser than they are today.
The property?
I hope so.
So we just want to make sure that I understand
the variance being requested.
I'm new, and I'm okay.
The variance you want is to be able to accommodate
that 50 foot frontage on the road when we call for 200.
Technically, we have zero frontage, because we don't own that.
The 50 foot right away is not considered frontage on the road.
The right away is not our frontage.
That frontage actually belongs to the lot that we have zero.
We have the right to use 50 feet, but we don't own it.
So you're seeking to weigh frontage altogether.
Court to get zero feet of frontage.
Okay.
We're 200 required.
50 feet of access exists.
So I have two parts remaining.
So the purpose of having 200 feet of frontage
is to have been trying to find out
that it's to accommodate fire trucks and wind.
200 feet of frontage.
So what do you want to say for how much frontage you have to have on the road?
Why?
What is the staff?
Well, how was that established?
You had to have 200 feet.
Why not?
100 feet.
Or 10 feet.
That's what the planning board will do in its four.
That's what the citizen voted for.
Tell me.
Does anybody know why it's 200?
Is it to accommodate fire trucks and wind?
If there were fire, they pull up to the curb.
What is it?
I believe the attorney basically quoted what that was for in terms of air
looking, you know, not seeing your neighbor.
And that extra open space.
So it's aesthetics.
It's more aesthetics.
So I can tell you what I've been doing this for 40 years now.
So I've seen sort of a progression.
Back when I started practicing law in the mid-80s,
the tendency for towns was to have one or two acres only
for house lots.
And if you're going to have one or two acres only,
you have the frontage so that you have space between the people.
Today, those things are oftentimes getting tightened because
it's sort of work with your play is coming in to vote so that,
you know, you don't need a two-acre log with 200 feet of frontage.
You know, maybe you can have a half acre lot.
So people are doing subdivisions that are cluster subdivisions.
So you've got the houses all close together.
We've all the land that would have been two times however many lots
you have as common area.
But back then, it was seen whenever it was done.
And it was probably 50 at first and then went to 100 and then went to 200.
And oftentimes, you'll have different budget requirements in different zones.
So in this zone, which is essentially rural, you know,
it's not, it's not, it's not, I don't consider this particular street.
It's very suburb and certainly not urban.
So in these kinds of areas back then, back in the day, they would say,
let's have a lot of frontage for all of these reasons.
Separation, air, light, just to create situations where we're not overcrowding our town.
Because if you have 100 feet of frontage and a half acre lot,
now you've got a whole bunch more lots, now you've got to do it to school
and emergency equipment and personnel and all that stuff.
So it was all done as a way to sort of slow down the very significant growth.
The very significant growth that I experienced when I started, you know,
when I lived in Strada, when I moved to Strada in the mid-80s.
The other part of my question is an inquiry.
You know, this house is going 1,000 feet back into the woods off of a 50-foot company
that comes down to what for the driveway 20 feet?
20 feet for that first 500 feet for the right away, just for fire trucks and stuff.
And then it goes down to 14 after that.
So for your actual driveway 20 feet of the right away.
So with that in mind, you know, not that I would wish this upon anybody.
But where there were fire out there, how does that get managed
with a number of fire trucks that could be the sound of the house?
The fire trucks would probably be sprinkled.
Fire trucks would still go out there.
Correct.
This is my answer and I'm not a firefighter.
So I'm telling you my layperson's response.
A typical driveway width, which is a one-car driveway,
is usually 12 to 14 feet wide, sometimes they go to 20 so cars.
I mean, a typical street is between 22 and 24.
Not root 33, but, you know, a typical in town street.
So if you're going to have a fire, you don't have to,
you're not going to have people going back and forth,
other than maybe at the very beginning if there's ambulances.
But the fire truck can get in there and get on there.
There's a lot up by the house.
Plenty of room there to turn around.
You'll have a yard and all that stuff.
As will any of the police and or medical emergency technicians.
In my mind, again, from a layperson's perspective,
it's really not much different than if it was a 50-foot road
going to 10 lots out there.
It's 50 feet wide, not all would be paved with no need.
It's been the time and money to pay for a staff might be that wide.
But the other half, which is as long,
I just think of it from a liability perspective for the town.
If we don't have to work out those kinds of things,
then I will let that go.
But it was just an inquiry.
I don't think that also falls under.
It can include.
And just a curiosity question.
So what is the use that your property is under now
that got it into the current use taxation category?
It's just over 10 acres.
So people aren't using land over 10 acres.
They usually put it in current use.
So they don't have to pay the full tax amount.
It wasn't them.
No, yes.
They're buying in current.
In fact, when it comes out of current use,
a penalty will have to be paid.
Equal to 10 percent of its value.
Different towns calculate that differently.
But that's one of the factors people also add to the town's coffers.
Just a comment.
It's not going to be a fun bill to pay.
Well, somebody is going to pay it.
Your parcel is going to be seen likely by the Conservation Commission.
And I sit on that as well.
So I'm offering this just because I'm aware of this kind of stuff.
But the vast majority of that property falls under the state's
wildlife action plan.
Highest ranking habitat for the biological region.
We've been in funerary, you guys.
Yeah, we already have our weapons.
I'm going to put that out and everything.
Just, I mean, you know, something to be proud of.
You know, hold on to that.
Protect it.
Okay.
By the way, before anyone else in the answer,
I think Charlotte, they have given you a back lot.
It requires 20 feet of frontage.
Yeah, I think I answered my own question.
The definition of back lot is a lot.
And nothing.
You're over here.
We're right away.
Not a lot.
A lot having not less than 20 feet of frontage.
Right.
A lot.
You don't have the frontage.
You give me where the road is connected.
It's right away, not a lot.
So that's where the best part is.
But thank you for bringing it up.
Let me read something.
Can you open up the problem?
But you have anything to ask?
Yeah, I do.
This is the right away, correct?
So who owns the property?
The right away.
The owner of what?
Four.
Lot for what?
Is the owner of a lot for here?
So they have no objections to this at all?
We gave them a butter's list to town.
And including everybody who's touching this property.
I don't know.
I'm assuming that went out again.
My next question is, does this set the president's
for back lot subdivisions coming into play
and further on down the road?
If we allow the ZBA allows this to go on,
if somebody down the street has that same scenario,
are they going to come in and play off of this?
I can't answer that.
My answer to that is that, as we just said,
this is not a back lot.
It doesn't qualify for back lot treatment.
There's somebody else has a lot that doesn't have frontage
and has an easement out to the main road.
Yeah, they may come in.
As a matter of fact, one of the things I forgot to mention,
one of the exhibits I gave you was agreement tax maps are 7,
13, and 21.
It's not perfect.
But it's our attempt to identify similar situations
that already exist in town.
And I just highlighted some of them in all candor.
I can't tell on some of these whether these things are
rights of way or streets or whatever.
But in R7, I've highlighted a lot.
R7, not 45, it has a similar dashed line
running from breakfast hill road back to a back lot.
And then some others that will like that.
The point I was trying to make wasn't so much that it was exactly
the same as this, meaning a lot that has this but has no frontage.
I was more planning trying to show other lots that are not on the main road
that are on over a relatively narrow access to get to it.
It might be a street, it might be a right-of-way, I don't know.
But it just shows that it's not particularly unusual because back in the day
when everything from most of the sea coast was farmed,
as the farm's not broken up, what people would do,
typically is keep the front land where the farm house was
and back in the day farm houses were close to the road
because of the way people traveled with horses and whatever.
And they would sell off the back lots.
Back in the fifties, there was no necessary requirement for the frontage
and all that.
So, you know, the cart path would be done out of the back
and then it would just be developed.
You would realize what the time of the early variance is.
Every, you know, it's funny, but whenever I bring a variance
and whenever I raise the issue, well, you've done it for so and so and so
and so.
And so, the answer I usually get from folks like you is
the fact that we made a mistake in the past doesn't mean
we would have to make a mistake again.
So, and the Colton's rail, all kidding aside,
each variance application stands on its own.
I think it's factors you can take into account, but you can't just say
because you did it for someone, so you have to do it for me.
It's because circumstances are often very different.
Anybody else have any questions, comments?
You know, how much of an algorithm has the area for those?
I think I don't have a specific answer.
I'm not sure if Colton and Megan do whatever is going to be
necessary to create a driveway and to create a home and a decent sized yard.
I don't think they want a mobile big yard.
I don't think they intend to, you know, hear how it was.
That's one of the reasons they want to be here is because of its occlusion.
They don't intend to kill a whole area.
Correct.
Correct.
They have one more driveway, is that correct?
Is people wide?
No.
No.
No, the access way, this pink space here is between, I think,
roughly 65 at the road and narrow down to 50 towards this end.
But the driveway is going to be 12 to 15 feet.
It's going to be 20 feet for that first long portion for trucks to just get in and stuff.
And then it narrows down to 14 after that.
So, that's pretty good size.
20 feet.
What I'm looking at, I'm showing the black way there and going there.
How far up does it go?
You didn't.
Here's the proposed house.
It's like 100 feet I believe.
This distance is just short of 600 feet, five hundred feet, something I think.
And this is approximately the same amount.
Yeah, that's a thousand feet or another feet.
We could put it right away in but I'm your house, Bill.
Can you hold me for a hour?
Maybe it's going to show a little bit.
No, that's how it gets.
I'll hold it.
And here you go.
Anybody else have a question or a comment?
Here with the proposed public area, who was the pink?
A motion to grant the variance.
Here's a request.
Yes, she did.
When you said, I do.
Okay.
I moved to grant this applicant.
The variance for 130 total lane.
The whole thing?
Yeah.
R10 for coal and residential zone and grants.
To allow the development of an existing lot of record with no frontage and subject to an easement right away from total lane.
For the purpose of constructing this single handling home on uplands of 3.57 acres.
According to the plan submitted by Beels Assessor.
Data January 25, 2025.
Project number 10H-EXT-JF.
Thank you.
Wait a second.
I'll second.
All in favor?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
6,000 square feet and on the maintenance will be resolved and the LCA will become the property
of it. So it's actually the same section that's possible in there for us.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're going to put that in up.
Oh, okay. So we? No, we won't.
15x, again, the whole 15th floor and then Robert's assistant.
I don't know, I'm trying to put juniors for our next knee pad and the fishtrap.
I'm also stuck out of this here from a heavy war.
I was going to put plans there before you.
A couple of preliminary things before I go into my steel.
I'll say this one's also two straight forward.
I'm going to give you a revised exhibit A, which is two pages.
This is the subdivision plan.
The reason is because the one that has hatched to my submission was not stamped.
So since then, we got to stamp one.
So I'll just complete the reference so you have a stamp.
We'll have to go to the planning board about this.
You know, it's no different than the plan that was attached other than it's got stamp on it.
Cheese cross.
Well, I didn't think it was going to find something Monica came in today.
She said, did you hear the stamp plan yet?
No.
We also have, I think there's three or four total units.
Perry's here.
So I do have, I'll get to each of you, an email to me from Tom Porath on Friday June 13th.
They live at 19th birthday point and from Jonathan Northwood, who's the owner of 16th birthday point,
stating their support for two lots.
I'll give this to you in a minute.
But basically, what we have, a truck of stamps out there today,
and the shooter's own one home on a lot, this one on the water,
and Perry's family owned the other lot, that is currently a condominium.
So the lot is owned by both owners.
But there's buildings and other improvements on the lot owned by the individuals.
So because there's joint ownership, that creates a number of circumstances,
one of which is issues of liability.
If something happens on the part utilized by the other owner,
you might be brought into it if somebody throws in the water, falls off a dock,
or might be.
But what's driving this in the first instance for the shooters is they would like to put a dock on their lot.
And they've spent a fair amount of time and a fair amount of money working with expert dock designers,
including heavy war for the necessary technical plans to do that.
The problem with that, in the first instance, is the state of New Hampshire.
The state of New Hampshire only allows one dock per lot.
And even though this is two different homes, it's still one lot.
So the state of New Hampshire said, well, you can't put another dock because there's already a dock there.
And the dock is on the area of the land that Perry and his families owned and utilized.
So for both of those reasons, and to just separate ownership, which makes sense,
given that you have two separate owners in two separate homes,
standalone homes, and not attached condominiums of two completely different homes,
it makes sense to separate the lots.
By subdividing them, that allows each owner to have a complete own lot with its own size, its own frontage,
its own liability issues, and its own dock issues.
And so that's what the human is here asking for.
There is here on behalf of this family, and you can speak to this.
I do have a letter from him that we got back in March.
It'll be very, very interesting.
That I will give to you, like, intended to put it in our submission, but I don't think it will.
And it's fairly short, so I'll read it.
He told me, I want to acknowledge, this is to really make a concern.
So Perry Johnson.
Regarding the Johnson House, a.k.a. unit, one of the Great Bay East Condo Association,
I, in my family, have always wanted to subdivide the property here on Great Bay.
Today known as number 11 and number 15 in Birch Point,
Greenland and Hampshire, 38th World.
And do away with the Great Bay East Condo.
I believe Brandon Huebner and Christophe and I are on the same page as one of the subdivided property
and the Greenwood subdivided property is proposed using the current common area line.
I'll get back to that in a minute.
We previously installed a temporary dock close to the existing limited common area line,
but that dock has been removed and will not fill that.
So you'll see on the plan to give you that there's a dock, if you will,
the far end of Perry Johnson family property, which has been there for decades.
And then there's one that's sort of closer to the house that they've had a temporary dock,
because I understand it in and out, you know, on a seasonal basis.
That's going to, that is out now and it's not going to be put back.
And I want to make that point because it's not directly related to our request to subdivide,
but it's on there and I wanted you to know.
In fact, there's a note on the plan that reflects that fact, that that dock will not be placed.
So, according to the exhibits, this is exhibited in my submission.
This is from Hilly Ward and this is the existing conditions plan.
Basically, this is the plan that is the subdivision.
I mean, excuse me, the condominium.
So, one large lot, within the volume line here, which has been deemed the common area property line.
So the agreement between the parties is, everything on this, which is south, south, there's the referral.
So, you know, is the Fugner's property, which is TaxMap R14 Lot 3A,
and everything to the north of it is Perry's family's property, which is R14-3.
The important thing here is that on the ground, nothing changes.
Everything that you see here that is one large lot will remain exactly the same.
This whole thing is nothing but lines on paper.
So, any person who goes out there to take a look after we get the variances from you
and after we get some of these approved from the town will not notice anything different
if a driver walk out there from today, then they will after all this happens,
because all that's really happening is instead of this now being one big lot,
it's going to be this portion of the lot will now be its own lot.
This portion of the land will all be its own lot, and this portion of the land will be its own lot.
And you will have its own frontage.
So, over the two lots of the entire, the average is the same, and the overall frontage is the same.
And just on the numbers, the current frontage is 284.97 feet.
And if you go to the second page of my exhibit, and that's the, this is the subdivision plan that Henry would prepare.
And it shows the line, the separating the two lots here, which is the same location as the existing line.
The only factor is there's a well, there's a single well servicing boat properties,
and the well is on, on the humerus side of the limited common area line today,
and will be on their side of the subdivision line.
So, it will be subject to an easement to be entered into between the humerus and Perry and his family
so that they can continue to use that well.
And that will be recorded on the duty, on the duty.
The duty recorded, yeah.
And we'll deal with the nice needs of all of that with the planning board on the subdivision.
So, right now, a lot three, this northern lot, will, when we're done, have 120.25 feet of frontage.
And a lot is supposed to 200.
And a lot three A will have 164.72 feet of frontage,
totaling what's there today, a total of 284 points.
And if approved by you and then subdivision is granted by the planning board,
the condominium will be dissolved.
Documents recorded, dissolved.
That's the question of the year.
Of course, go ahead.
So, my assumption, as I said, over reading the stuff earlier,
I was trying to figure out why the condominium was originally put in.
And that makes sense.
Now, with the frontage, you can get more houses on the condominium than you could on the other.
So, now, basically, it's a way of, I don't want to say circumventing.
But, basically, what would be...
I can't believe it would be able to address that.
I can't believe it would be a family that would create this condominium.
I had run through that historical deed.
We go back to the early 1900s.
I think the Mrs. Tagger's own property.
And then, he equips it to two different families.
There was always two different homes on the lot.
But, that's when the first split in ownership happened.
When the owner of that was before Perry, they had fallen under sports closure.
And they had historically wanted to divide the lot as well.
But there was no hardship when it was a common owner.
The part that was changed, too, is when you purchased the property, the condo dogs have been changed.
So, the single dog that's now available on Perry's property used to be available to both units.
And now, it's pretty exclusive in access to the one which leaves her home without access to the one.
So, given you...
Thank you, both of you.
I'm giving you the numbers.
And then, that's the frontage that we need the variance for.
Because any lot requires two and a few frontage.
Neither lot has it.
Together, they don't have it.
But, nothing changes on the site other than, instead of being condominium with a common area line,
common area here, common area here, but what's called limited common area?
I don't know what you know about condominiums.
But, usually, in this case, the unit...
The unit could be the whole area, but the unit is the building, and then what's called limited common area.
It means it's owned by everyone, but this unit has the exclusive right.
So, that's what I was saying when everything to the south of this line is the exclusive...
Today, owned by both parties, but exclusively used by the humans and vice versa up on top.
So, the subdivision merely makes formal and separates what is on the ground effect today.
So, for the numbers on the lot size, the top lot, 14-3, will have 24,620 square feet.
And, cubed is a lot.
3a will have 19,386 square feet.
So, one just a little more than half an acre, and one a little less than half an acre.
So, together, they are roughly a little over 44,000 square feet.
So, just a little bit more than an acre, which is 43,560 square feet.
So, again, the lots are smaller and requested, but no change over the two lots.
I also wanted to point out, related to this interesting anomaly.
This is the tax map, which was attached to my submission, its exhibit C.
Up here in this part of the top corner, the other is the land in question.
What's interesting about it is that this depiction showed three and three a little line across them.
It showed them, in my opinion, on the tax map, as though they are already two separate lots.
And, I'm going to give you something else.
This is the two tax cards that we call for these lots, which is also interesting,
just by virtue of the way the talents were there, treating these things.
So, the explanation.
I'm just going to, you know, we get it. We understand.
You don't need to drive this on, because it's pretty easy to understand.
This seems like a no-brainer or a no-understander kind of thing.
The problem is, is that it could potentially set a significant precedent for us in town for future development.
Not knowing enough about that yet, I would want to look into that more.
I just have a question.
Is there no way to take down the dock that is exclusive to one side,
to put in the dock that is in the middle, and exclusive to both?
We evaluated a lot of options, and at the first time I was, you know,
Are you planning to put a dock in?
That we would like to, yes.
I mean, we absolutely would like to have it on the other side.
The hardship is that the state sees this as one lot, and says, no, you've got a dock.
And that's the shorthand, plummeting, and so.
I don't know if you guys are familiar with that area right there.
I would say that it's very consistent, and we have another 8th floor in here,
as well.
You know, all those locks are, I mean, I don't know if you, I don't know,
but it doesn't set present on me.
You've done before, you don't have to take a brief spot.
Three can sit.
For any other town do associations, we're aware of that would be similar.
It would be a similar redress to this.
Check.
Do you know anything?
I didn't realize that.
I thought those were two separate locks.
I always thought they were driving through that area or whatever.
I always thought there was two separate locks.
I never realized the condo thing, and then reading the paperwork I was trying to figure out.
Why did that condo thing came about?
When that was...
I don't know, yes.
The liability is also consistent with the concerning.
Perry does kind of write down the properties.
There's renters.
A few of us are just setting the president again.
I just made that statement a little while ago.
I'm greening it up again.
What kind of president are we setting here to actually condense...
What is your piece of profit?
Well, I don't really like that.
I have a lot of money for my life.
What liability are we assuming that ZBA members see it?
I agree with the whole concept of what president are we setting.
I don't think we've had that answer.
But we should find that answer all before we go in the group.
How is it going to go about doing it?
How would our board go about doing it?
It would be a better breaking into this and finding out where there's the wording to prevent future development from sort of exploiting.
I made such a really good account council.
I'm all for it, I think.
I think it makes it 100%.
Thank you for that.
Thank you for stopping my round.
A long time ago, I was ready to say yes.
But I've got to create a record.
I just go along.
Gene, you can do the same thing with your piece of profit.
I come in and subdivide your piece of profit.
You say I want 100 feet of financial year.
And 100 feet of financial year.
So I can put another dog going out and pull the rope.
But she doesn't have a meeting with her.
She doesn't have a condominium.
The condominium doesn't answer it at all.
Really?
That's the part about all for you.
So that's what we're here for.
I would say the problem is if there were conducts like you see them attached to each other.
These aren't attached to each other.
They totally suffer from it.
They actually were only two different people.
I understand historically.
And that is more efficient.
I think we need a chance to speak to town council.
To just see how we would protect the ordinance from being,
I hate to use this word, but exploited,
to prevent an opportunity for future development,
to circumvent the very way that Rick framed his question.
You know, this makes total sense to do this.
But as a condo association,
it allowed for more buildings on that one lot.
Now we're splitting it up and now we have too lots of,
you know, how do we prevent that from happening?
Well, let me address it as best I can.
I would respectfully request that you approve this tonight.
I don't believe it is my opinion that there is no presidential value in this.
And I don't think frankly that it's fair to the humaners to say,
well, we want to look into so nobody else can come do this before.
Because we talk about in the last application,
every application is separate.
And everybody has the right to do what they want.
The difference here between here and what Mr. Villado has suggested for you is,
you know, is that these homes already exist.
Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right there.
Right. Right. Right. Right there. Right there.
The future. The only difference, as I said before,
is lines on paper.
The area of the hole is the same.
The frontage of the hole is the same.
This is just letting them each have property houses on their own lots.
I was surprised to learn,
and we didn't go back that far.
But what I really thought had happened when I first started dealing with this.
The humanist was that at one point it was too lots.
And somebody combined them probably back before they were zoning.
And then they were in common ownership.
And then when somebody wanted to not have them in common ownership anymore,
the simplest way to do that was to create a condominium.
And then they could sell one to an underrated third party.
And I think that might be what Perry's family did.
They wanted to be able to not have to family on both.
So they created this condominium, which was brilliant at the time.
But I don't see in all candor how what we're asking for here,
especially if you think this makes sense.
Has anything to do with what somebody else may do in the future?
Because we don't know where.
I think actually we would have to just hope and pray that our subdivision rigs have us covered that way.
Well, actually the only other place to be similar,
was the flammability, the age of strictity housing.
They don't, there's a,
they're way on property.
The houses are all separate.
There's other things you kick in, so.
No, we wouldn't be setting it.
I don't think we're setting it for us.
Yeah, no, I would change your mic.
I think you got it.
Well, let me run quickly tomorrow.
I got to, I got to run through the variance requirements.
But before I do, I just want to show you that these tax cards also,
if you just look at those,
we have knowing, understanding the legal niceties of lots.
And you'd say those are two separate lots.
That's how they show on this point right here.
And that's how they show on those tax cards,
two separate lots.
The fact is that even identifies 0.44 acres for both of them,
for 0.47 and one of the other.
So what I'm saying is the town is already essentially,
thinking of this here separate.
Right.
We're just making that formal.
So, although two different,
the variances are not considered as having interest
and the spirit of the ordinance is observed.
Again, do you want to promote health, safety,
morals, convenience, and preserve the value of property?
This will, in my opinion,
separate lots will increase the value of both properties,
which will increase taxes,
we'll also protect them from liability,
and then it will allow the cuteness to deal with the state
with the requests for a dock on their own lot.
We want to secure safety from fire, panic,
and other dangers.
No change.
Medical areas between buildings and rights of weight,
no change.
Preserve the character of the town, no change.
The most good civic design and arrangement, no change.
Why is an efficient expenditure of public funds,
none, provision of public utilities,
and other public requirements, no change?
Again, those two cases say,
will we, that one case by the Supreme Court,
now what he Reynolds says,
will we author the essentially,
the essential character of the locality
with threat in the public,
health, safety, or welfare?
The answer is clearly no,
because nothing on the ground,
in terms of what you see out there,
or how people are living and using their property
is going to change.
He's just a line on a plan.
It says, now this is a separate,
very family owns one,
and they own one,
rather than they own everything together.
Substantial justice will be done
if there's no benefit to the public
that outweighs the hardship to the applicant,
this factor is satisfied
and you lost to the applicant,
not outweighed,
might be gained to the general public
as an injustice to the applicant.
Again, it retains existing single family use
it retains existing lines of occupations.
Nothing is changing on the site,
in terms of on the ground,
so there is no harm,
but if you deny this,
then it will harm both the human,
and the Johnson's,
who will be unable to terminate the condominium,
unable to get the house on their own life,
excepting eats from the liabilities of the other,
and will harm the humanors
in terms of giving it back.
The fourth requirement is
that the parenting insurance
will not diminish surrounding property values,
for the same reason.
In single lots,
I think there are more in line
with what else is going out
and on in that general area.
Are there anything that's made,
or actually what do you mean?
So if we have it on the record
because it's been submitted
in that way, right?
I'm ready to make a motion.
So can we...
I've got one more minute.
Okay.
We have to need to open it to the public too.
Okay.
Special conditions exist
for the reason that I've already told you
in writing and nausea.
Okay.
There's no relationship
between the public purposes of the ordinance
and the complication here,
the same thing.
I've been through it,
and to propose you this reason.
Okay.
Before we turn it to the public,
I don't want all of this,
anything that needed my folks here
when I had...
Hey, let's open this up to the public.
They want to make comments.
They want to close public carry.
But what else is that?
Yeah.
I'm ready for motion.
Okay.
Do you want all of this?
It's going into motion.
I still have the impression
that we should know what you mentioned
about being more involved with this.
More accurately, of course,
made sense.
This is...
Well, I understand the points
that are made,
but what I'm saying is,
this group...
I'm a little worried about this.
No, I'm not.
I think we're okay.
I think...
We can let them go.
We can always follow up
and make sure that they're said
right there.
Wait till we get it.
Very tight.
A big question asked us.
Can we get a nice big bowl of it?
Yeah.
No, I think we're okay.
I make a motion.
Hi, motion.
Two grants.
The variance for 11 birch point
are 14, 3, 8 colon residential zone,
and 15 birch points are 14, 3 colon residential zone.
To create two lots,
each with less than 200 feet of frontage,
each lot will be less than the required 60,000 splitting,
according to the plan submitted
by Ambit Engineering Inc.
created May 1, 2025.
Number 1503-7.
Go second.
Second motion.
Can we go on further?
Yeah.
Hi.
Hi.
Hello.
Thank you.
Have a nice day.
Thank you.
All right.
What are the rules?
What are the rules?
Okay.
Next we're going to move on to the next.
We have...
Just one minute.
One minute.
We have W-18-2025.
We need to...
Right, right.
That's your mark.
We're killing shit.
I'll make the motion to approve a minute.
Second.
Thank you all.
I'll take it off.
All right.
Okay.
Now, it's just a minute.
This is the last minute.
It's the last minute.
Next, we're going to move on to April.
April's in here.
Yep.
And I read them and I approved the 5 motion to approve a minute
from the April...
18.
Right.
Who seconds it out?
I mean, we were here all the 5 minutes.
18 seconds.
I'll second it.
I'll say no.
Hi.
Hi.
Okay.
What's that?
I wonder where I want to go.
You're at some vehicles.
You can't.
Anybody got any other business?
Taking classes online has been very educational.
Yeah.
Good.
Thank you.
So, when will we go up?
When will we go up?
How many tours?
We're going to go up.
I'm going to go up.
I'll second.
Okay, bro.
Hi.
We're adjourned.
All right.
Kill the camera.
But...
Can I ask a general question to you?
No.