All towns · jaffrey

ZBA

Video

CBA 2614, Hiram Cutter, 40 lot, nine, zoned rural, without town water variance,
applicant requests variance to allow a commercial use in rural district land use code zoning
ordinance section 4.1.
And since we beat this horse to death two weeks ago, we don't have to go through the
butters and all of this right there.
No, we do not.
Okay.
So any further questions for the board, any thing that came up in the site walk or questions
you came up with, if you had concerns about it, I wanted to discuss.
I have done.
Regarding the variance, no.
Any abutters' fourth proposal would like to speak?
Opposed would like to speak?
Anybody in general who would like to speak?
The question came up at the end of our last meeting as to whether or not
needed a variance.
I think it does or does not?
Does.
Okay, I would agree with that.
Well, he needs a variance where it's commercial.
Yes.
the whole enterprise.
Then let's move right to the five criteria.
The variance will not be contrary to the public interest.
Can I ask a question?
You're putting in bathrooms, I assume.
Yeah, so there's going to be like a staff-only kind of bathroom,
and then it'll probably be for like quarterpotties or something for the outdoor use,
which obviously will need a septic system, but there's going to be, you know, we're going to
try to limit it to minimal bathroom use.
So, just so everybody in and out, if somebody's actually shooting the indoor course,
then they can use it, so we'll have to do a bigger system.
But the brunch of it, hopefully it will be outside with port-a-potties during that.
So there will be restaurants for your club members.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And if I may, I think from our last meeting, you said there is a septic in there that's only about 10.
Yeah, so the, exactly.
I had a septic guy come and look at it and he said, like, the leech field
everything is still good from it.
And I told them that I'd have to go bigger, obviously,
if I'm going to have, you know, that many people using it.
And he said that there was a way to use that bigger tank,
put a bigger tank in and then feed into one leach field
into the second leach field kind of thing.
You know where the leach field is?
Yes, it's behind the existing foundation.
What's the plan for the existing foundation?
I'm going to relief cut it, collapse it,
and take it out by pieces with an escalator and fill it back in.
And like I said, I want that pole
area, kind of a grassy lawn, a billion area.
All right, so, okay.
You don't think it's going to be contrary to the...
I do not think it's contrary to the public interest.
No.
I think it's actually...
Any other comments on the first?
How about spirit of the ordinance?
I think it's really well established those two.
First ones are pretty much synonymous.
Yep, I would agree.
Substantial justice?
I don't think by denying the variance, the town is going to gain appreciably.
No.
Anything they'll be.
The values of surrounding properties are not diminished.
So that brings us to Archer.
I would tend to agree with the applicant and in his description of this is a huge lot.
It's bigger than any of the other lots around, which makes it...
Well, and also the testimony given that any outdoor rain shooting will be directed toward the water.
Correct.
And not moving...
Do we have a problem with Hartford?
Not for one. I don't think that an abutting property already zone commercial is a good reason.
Yeah, I didn't mention that for reason. I didn't either. I am also the fact that the applicant is proposing a different entry to the property. I think alleviates some neighboring
about headlights and intrusion that way.
So we all think that he has passed all five of the criteria and a disagreement there.
So that being said, to approve this variance, but I think there should be conditions on it.
I'll do too.
Well, if land use code, the applicant has to go to the committee.
Correct.
Correct.
Correct.
But I think in proving the variance, we should put conditions on it, limiting it to archery and archery.
archery and archery products.
I want to see it morph into a rifle range or a pistol range.
Or an event venue.
Or an event venue, yeah.
So I think we should put those kinds of conditions on the approval of the variance.
So the applicant did discuss or did present the possibility of holding training events
and archery events, maybe even competitions.
That kind of...
In size to the parking available.
he presents a site plan.
That was your testimony, I believe.
I was just going to make a polite suggestion and be of the condition could read something like
any events of limited to archery events of allowable size subject to planning with you or something.
That way, all of a sudden one day we're not trying to, you know, Taylor Swift do a concert there or something.
If only.
There is, I think the town does have event permits.
A hundred or more people.
More than a hundred.
they have to get reviewed by all targets I agree with that.
Do you want to do your findings of fact?
I do that before that motion.
Right, I just want to make sure we get our conditions in some format of print so that we know what we're...
I also think we should make a condition that's limited to that eight plus acres.
The commercial use?
Yes.
If you need to expand or do something to do something.
else to come back from variance.
So that was originally we thought we were going to have to get it zoned commercial
and I wasn't sure where the building was going to go, what it was going to do, what we're going to do
for parking.
So that's why it says eight acres on there.
I wouldn't because it...
So that's what I was trying to do is I thought, but then I found out we can do the variance
and I didn't realize that if we get a variance, it was just because I wasn't sure where the building was going to go.
And then if I did that, if we looked,
that if we limit it to eight acres, I'll have to subdivide it, and then eight acres really, it's a good chunk, but it's not utilizing the 70 acres that we have to spread the targets out to give people multiple, you know, a couple hundred yards between each other and that kind of stuff side.
Perhaps the limitation to the eight or so acres could be the building, the lawn, the parking, and the commercial use, but outside of those eight acres, you may have.
you may have people going out of the trails.
Is that what you've actually been as far as limiting condition on the commercial park?
Well, the application state the acres.
Right.
So, yes.
And there was a question buying a butter about whether or not all 70 acres would be used commercially.
Would be zoned commercial is how, here's what she said.
You're not zoning all 70 acres commercial.
No, but you're trying to use.
Yes.
Okay, so you are planning to use more than a year because you will target set up dry.
Yeah, absolutely.
I guess I should have specified or bring it down more eight acres of flight.
You're going to use the whole 70 acres?
I mean, some of it you can't use because there's not the greatest access or some of it, you know,
too close to the water, neighboring boundaries.
Uh, 40 feet.
Setback, 60 front, 40 side and rear.
The condition.
condition would it be possible to commercial as to the retail portion as opposed to the trail portion
that's right he's proposing a membership type club that generates revenue so the whole
thing's commercial.
Just asking.
Rob, you had a thought.
I was actually going to ask a question about the distinction of the commercial portion and the
the public use for the recreation.
How to answer that?
Well, it was kind of what the conversation I was hearing going on was,
is everything, the commercial,
and you know, is the building and all that sort of stuff,
just the commercial, or is it a commercial?
The use is a commercial one.
From what I understand for the testimony.
That's not what it sort of says in the application, but from the testimony,
that's what it says.
Also.
you know, like you pay money, you get a pass, a season's pass for your family to hike Manadnach.
Is that commercial?
You have to pay for that in order to go and hike that, all the trails and all that,
or you can go and pay by the day, so this is no different.
That state.
Unfortunately, I don't think that falls on the same way.
I guess maybe I think the state can do it there that I want.
That, you know.
So that eight acres, my intention was to have that eight acres, my intention was to have that eight,
which it could have even been less to, like, get the building, the parking lot, everything established with like the septic, everything we're going to need, and then, you know, able to do an outdoor pavilion eventually or the gaze
or the gazebo thing. I didn't realize that it would have been constricted to just only shooting the bows on that eight acres.
I don't think that, from what I gather, I don't think the board has any issue with the commercial use of the property.
The problem is that the way it was advertised and what the application.
How is it advertised?
It's kind of nonspecific to allow a commercial use in the rural district, so it doesn't specify the amount of average.
If we do this, we allow the use for the whole 70 acres.
Conceivably, you could do whatever you want.
Well, that's why we would have it written in there, you know, commercially used for the archery store only, and then, you know, the trail system.
Yeah.
You know, if I may, another way to frame it might be that the restriction is to be the eight acres, again, to have what he's been talking about, the pavilion, the building with the indoor range and the commercial shop that he's got there in a parking.
Then beyond that, you know, you could be restricted to that that's it for development.
Beyond that, the trails and stuff is so you can use it to the safety of recreational archery.
But if we were to expand.
use to expand beyond that in any kind of structural way or infrastructure of any kind he would have to come back
that work the board we allow the eight eight acres commercial yeah and put a condition there that the balance of the acreage
can only use for shooting lanes is that is that the appropriate term shooting lanes
right or archery activities it's not commercial right right right
Correct.
Well, do not be zoning.
Builder, all.
We operate in archery, membership-based archery facility, the development of eight acres
with building B-space gazebo and a small resale space.
Yes.
The balance to be limited to archery lanes, lanes, or outdoor.
outdoor used by notion.
The commercial park to be limited to archery and archery related.
You did all that, Becky?
Not quite because you kind of went around.
The commercial development is limited to the eight acres of proposed structures to include.
Is that how you want it?
Opposed development to include structure, retail space,
outdoor meeting space, and parking.
And then the balance of the acreage will be
limited to outdoor shooting lanes.
Archery.
Archery.
All right.
All right.
How many of the seven acres is wet, actually wet?
There's about, well, there's probably 10 acres or so that actually
goes out into the water.
And there's a little bit of swamp, one,
probably two-acre swampy section on that.
The rest is high and dry.
No airboats around.
Thank.
And per the testimony again.
They'll have to be shown anything.
Oh, I think.
I'm sorry.
Yeah.
How about 29 Hawthon Road?
Matt 240.
His own rural.
Is it nine or accurate?
29.
29.
Okay.
Thank you.
Can't correct.
19.
202.
14019.
40.
40.
Lot 9.
I'll ask for much.
40 lot nine.
Oh,
yes.
Lot number.
Sorry.
Oh, no.
That's a slash.
Oh, 240 slash 9.
Sorry.
So I'm good with 9?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I'm sorry.
Zone rural, without town water and sewer.
The existing lot is 71 acres.
Supposed building site and operation is to be on an 8 plus or minus acre lot.
I'm sorry?
With as much a venue will be contained.
Then it proposes a membership-based archery.
Operation has been done.
limited to archery only. No gun ranges. No gun ranges.
No gun range.
30 years now. Somebody's looking at this.
Because Mr. Perda makes a killing in cells.
They can collect us.
Is this?
Are you willing on this?
Well, we get a finance effect.
Then you need a motion and then you've got your feelings of approval.
Any of the finance effect?
Anybody wants to add to this?
Peter.
I'll make the motion.
Lowell's thinking here.
You're good?
Okay.
Yes.
motion I'm not going to state because it's changed four or five times well I make
a motion that we zone the grant a variance to allow the eight acres to the
commercial building and any other well sorry so do you want to do it the way
it's written so allow the commercial use in the rural district and then we'll
clarify the rest in the conditions conditions yes and
and for the testimony of the applicant.
I think we should specify for our motion, not per testimony of the applicant.
And I think morals, you repeat what you said before.
Absolutely not.
With the following conditions.
Yeah, you get most of the conditions, then, yeah.
Okay, so I have it limited, it's limited to archery and archery-related products.
Events are limited to allowable size.
Commercial development is limited to
the eight-acre proposed structure retail space, outdoor meeting space, and parking.
The balance of the acreage will be limited to outdoor archery shooting lanes for use by membership.
That's my motion.
Second.
All right, we have a motion. On the floor, it's been seconded.
Is there any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Aye. Any opposed? All right, we'll move on to the special exception.
question I have is in light of the three is the special exceptions relevant?
Yes, it is. We didn't discuss this at all. The but the butters remain the same.
Right. So we don't have to redo that. Is there anything you would like to present in terms of the special
exception?
haven't already? No, actually, we skipped over that one.
So we can try a lot. So yeah. I didn't mean to catch you off guard.
That's all right. I just need the criteria in front of me.
Yeah, I mean, is.
And before we can start, I do not believe it's the correct part with the Landisco that
the special exception is being asked for.
4.1.5.
Well, that's public recreation facilities being allowed in the rule.
But it doesn't, I'm not sure it meets the definition of public recreation, unfortunately.
Shouldn't the special exception be requested under 5.3.5?
And you're saying that because 5.3.3 is in resolution.
residential and commercial districts? Is that your? Well, 5.3.3. It's for non-profits.
Well, it also limits recreational use, includes it as long as the chief activity of which would be one customarily conducted as, it would not be.
It would not be, but it is.
It is.
Right.
So in my application, first of all, it's being requested under Article 4.1.5.
Another 5.3.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Oh, okay.
In this, it adds, it adds 5.4.
We added it to it.
Okay.
Okay.
Fine.
So 5.3.3 allows a special exception for private
blogges and other nonprofits, social, cultural, or recreational use, but not including
any use, the chief activity of which would be one customarily conducted as a business.
Whereas 5.3.3.
five specifically calls out recreational type activities and doesn't limit
the only one that you get paid a ski and golf and so I'm just before we even
get into all testimonial thing I just don't think we've got the right notice it
actually was noticed in the paper with five points of things yeah but yeah but
She thinks it should be 5.3.5.
Oh, because the way every 5.3 point three is nonprofits.
I would say 5.3.3 says specifically private clubs and other non-profit is
non-profit.
So it says specifically limiting private clubs and nonprofit clubs just as private clubs.
But the end it says it said would be customarily concluded as a business.
It's not.
Including any, yeah, it's kind of, who wrote this stuff?
It's not, you know, it's, certainly fine, amending it from the floor to the correct site, however,
it would notice different with someone that's concerned for the other.
Yeah, that's my concern.
How does the applicant, how do you folks feel about this?
I mean, you...
So you have to, what, continue it?
They'd have to be announced.
Yeah, I mean, I think we would have to move by, I suppose, and add it on to the six we've already got.
7.
Can we, can we, can the article be amended in the floor?
Well, it is, it is, you know, article 5.3, so we're in the neighborhood.
We're in the neighborhood of the correct.
It's just a subset.
I would be fine amending it to 5.
The board have any problem with that?
And how does the applicant?
I don't think it matters.
I think the criteria is the same.
You still go to section Tanwright for the
Yeah.
I have no objection to this.
As long as we've been.
under 5.
Yeah.
So should that be an official motion?
I don't know how to...
Maybe.
Say it.
Let's do it.
We'll make a motion and second.
I would recommend that the applicant
to make the motion to move from the floor.
And the board's all say, yes.
That's fine.
And it was, so just so I'm correct, if it's 5.3.
1.5.
Yes.
We're going to.
Okay.
I would, please move the honorable
move the Honorable Board to amend the section of the ordinance that we're seeking relief from
Section 5.3.3 to Section 5.3.5, for the reason that 5.3.5 speaks more specifically to what's being asked for.
Okay. We get a motion in a second.
Yeah.
All right. So motion on the floor is to change this to 5.3.5 in the application.
application. Any further discussion? I want to signify by saying aye.
Aye. Any opposed? All right. Moving on to 5.3.5. No, we didn't. No. Now it's all coming back to me.
I don't think you very much. I'm happy to walk you through. The good news is this is as much shorter than the variance criteria. If the honorable board would like, I still don't have a working laptop at the moment, but I do have a nice big printdowns of the
plans that there are these are things I think so I've still got mine here that's
it saying it hasn't changed okay I just figured I'm by myself because I'm getting older need
to figure bigger pieces of paper very good so section 5.3.5 of your ordinance
which speaks to the special exception for recreational use and this gathering of public
recreation this is all subject to section Roman numeral 10 article 10.2 and that is actually
sections 10.21 through 10.2.4 for the record. So the first prong of that criteria is 10.2.1. The specific site is an appropriate
location for such a use, structure, or condition. Well, again, you've all been to the site. You've all seen what we're doing. We've obviously walked through the variance criteria. You get the gist of what is being proposed. Is the site appropriate to the location? We would say it is.
It's extremely well screened around all sides.
The sides that actually do a butt anybody are very heavily wooded.
And then you have multiple sides of this property that are both wet and then just bleed into a large body of water.
This will be a quiet use. Again, it is for archery. It is not going to be a fire range.
Your variance just made sure of that. We have no issue with that. So it's quiet, no guns, right?
The state highway is right there to absorb all of that traffic. So I could say when I drove down, I came from the north today to meet you all at the sidewalk and I was amazed that those sight lines are really hundreds and hundreds of feet. So it's very good. A large lot plenty of space.
The next criteria section 10.2.2. The use structure or activity will not be detrimental to the neighborhood nor significantly alter the characteristics of the district. Again, a lot of these speak to the first two.
prongs of the variance criteria that we just went through. But as far as this one goes for one, this lot is very well set back.
It's a large lot. Again, we have that vegetative screening on all sides.
The use that's being proposed is not one that should be too noisy.
And it still is going to have a very rural feel. As you heard, he's not taking down a lot of trees or anything like that.
It's going to have a, it's going to be just trails through the woods. A handful of neighbors, and to the extent that were
impacting them. We're trying to do our best so that we don't bother them in any way, shape, or form. As we said, the arrows, for lack of a better word, are headed towards the water, not towards anybody's home. We're going to leave a lot of those big trees and big vegetation up, so hopefully the neighbors won't even know we're there. We're moving that driveway so that the headlights will not shine into any of the neighbor's area, and it gives a much more direct route stays off that Class 6 road and will bring the traffic right into his parking lot.
And, of course, I wrote a bunch of commercial area, but I didn't get anywhere with that one on the last one, so I won't bother them.
Section 10.2.3, adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use.
Again, we will be designing this with the focus on safety. Anything to do with arrows flying too far away will be backstop.
You heard the applicant on the record for that. Large lot, once again, plenty of room for this activity.
The archery will be kept far from the property lines.
And, of course, as we said again, I wrote down the safety measures.
And by that, I mean like the backstops and burns.
Now, my understanding is there's apparently, depending on how far these errors are flying,
and he'll be, you know, backstops, and he'll be compliant with that.
And finally, section 10.2.4 is such exception and granted will not adversely affect any other district
abortion thereof.
You know, again, we argue this is a very low-impact use.
Yes, he's building a building.
The activities in that building will be kept in there.
have plenty of room for adequate parking they'll be septic when that's relative you
know we'll have well water when that's needed and then to the extent that won't
port-a-potties the activity for the most part is going to remain inside certainly
during the colder months I would imagine the activity will for the most part be
exclusively inside and there's plenty of property to accommodate the outside
use and so that is all we have on this criteria for that special section any
questions from the floor this would like to speak to this
Any opposed? I'd like to speak to it. Anybody in general who would like to speak to it.
Here that they've met all the requirements of the conditions, but we know further discussion.
I guess we could go into deliberations. We could go through our finance effect.
Pardon me?
Close to public hearing.
I'll go to public hearing. Thank you, thank you. Thank you. I go.
Just in the nick of time. Go ahead.
I just have a general question. I'm not opposed to the project, okay?
But you talk about restricting the meetings to the size of the parking, but you didn't say what the size of the parking is.
So is it a parking lot that's good for 100 cars, or is the parking lot good for 50 cars?
I need to be repetitive here, but I'll defer to my Planning Board colleague that that would go to Planning Board, yes?
All of the details regarding the building size or print, the location of the building, the extent of the parking, the drainage,
all that stuff, each field, all those, you know, proposed hours of operation, all of that.
So that's the next chapter.
Yeah.
Okay, that's right. That's right. That's right. I'm new to this.
There's another bite of the afternoon.
No, that's fine. To answer your question? Yeah. Okay, great. All right, then we will close
public portion of the hearing. Just deliberate here, I mean, they met the conditions of the special exception.
I would think the findings of fact would be pretty much the same as for the variance request absent the conditions by incorporate them by reference I move to incorporate the funds of fact from the variance into special exceptions just make reference to the conditions that were
Copy and paste.
Okay.
All right.
Okay.
I don't go to law school, sorry.
We get a motion?
I move that we grant the special exception to allow the proposed use in the New World District, which is a commercial archery by the court.
Second?
Second, second.
The motion on the force, but seconded in any further discussion?
discussion signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Motion carries.
I know you know this.
I don't know that Mr. Cutter, that's. I have to read it to you anyways.
A rehearing request is RSA 677-1-2 within 30 days after any order or decision of the ZBA or any
decision with local legislative body town meeting or board of appeals in regard to its zoning.
A rehearing request may be made by the selectmen any party to the action or proceedings or any
person directly affected.
Thank you very much in the Honorable Board.
I appreciate this.
All right.
Good luck.
We're going to close this hearing.
Okay.
Yep.
We already closed that hearing.
We've already closed that hearing.
The public portion.
All right.
And get a motion to adjourn?
I will be adjourned.
Sorry.
It's two separate.
Second.
Aye.
We have a motion to adjourn.
It's been second.
Any further discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Okay.
Now we will go and reopen.
The grand new ring.
Yeah.
All right.
And it is.
What's the official time, Becky?
Yeah, 411.
We'll call a meeting the order.
On June 22,
26, please rise for the pledge allegiance.
Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.
And to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation under God,
individual, liberty, and justice for all.
We'll move in.
Beard off the agenda here, but just a sec.
We had a longstanding member of our board Lee Sawyer who passed away just very recently, and kind of suddenly.
He spent 37 years, I think is the correct number, but an ungodly number of years representing the zoning board and the town of Jaffrey.
And the board would just like to take a moment, have a moment of silence for Lee.
If you don't know him or his family,
I'm sorry you didn't get to meet them you should have but and just take a few minutes and think of them and what they're going through right now.
Thank you.
This is the board tonight.
Peter Chamberlain.
At the end, Laura McKenzie, called Jeveny.
I'm Walt Batchelder.
And we have Ken Prane.
We have no alternates, but we have a full board today, so we won't need them this evening.
We use the guidelines in November 2025 handbook for local officials titled the Board of Adjustment,
in the Hampshire in conjunction with the terms and rules of the ordinance of
help us perform our duties. We have a full board. Notice of hearing for case number
ZBA 2617, 2618 have been advertised in the newspaper for general local
circulation. A copy has been posted in the town hall, the library and on the town website.
Copies that are sent to the Planning Board, the Witness Conservation Committee, and the Board
of Selectmen. And notice of hearing has been sent by certified mail to all of others and
names that have been provided by the applicant. The order of speaking during this meeting
will be the applicant presents the request to the board. All questions from
audience will be held until after the presentation has been completed.
Then a but is in favor of granting the requests may speak.
A but as opposed to granting the request may speak. Anyone else in attendance who is in
favor of granting the request may speak. And finally, anyone else in attendance
who is opposed to granting the request may speak. All questions will be addressed
to the chair. There will be no cross-questioning between members of the audience and
members of the board may ask questions at any time. All people wishing to speak should
identify themselves stating their names and their involvement by eating a butter, neighbor,
It's a citizen or agent for someone else.
Is the board's policy to inspect the site of each request, the board will discuss their
availability.
The time will be announced at the conclusion of each applicant's presentation and site inspection
may be waived at the discretion of the board.
Tonight we're looking at ZBA 2617 Sarasiva owner 40 Charlotton Street.
Map 238, lot 46 zone residential with town water.
The variance applicant requests of variance to exceed the performance standards.
of the home occupation and I use code zoning ordinance section 5.17.1 a, B, and
half. How about regional impact? Comfortable with that? So the general consensus
Becky is no regional impact. The abutters are April Neal, Kenneth and Susan Woodwood,
45 Main Street and Jaffrey, Sarasiva, two Main Street, Jaffrey, David S and Lisa and Lisa
M. Apastenhu, 46 Charlon Street, Jaffrey, Scott B. Walker, Cheyenne
Vennett, 49 Main Street, Jaffrey. Main Street, LLC, 325 McLeod Drive, Suite 100, Las Vegas,
Nevada. Thomas and Allison Shea, 43 Charlon Street and Jaffrey, Jaffrey, Jaffrey Rins Cooperative
School District, Kara SAU 47, One Conan Wayne, Jaffrey, Laurie A. Ordway, 35 Charlonan Street,
Jaffrey, Shirley A. Daprie, and
revocable trust Ronald M. Day revocable trust, 41 Main Street in Jaffrey, and
Joan George, 37 Charlotton Street in Jaffer. Is there anyone present claiming to be in
a butter who was not notified?
Mr. Sieber, I think you're on. Okay. I think we were, for the most part,
of your last time, so general idea of here being...
Yeah, you've just given us an overview. We kind of beat this horse to death, I think, two weeks ago.
We're familiar with the concept, just what you're currently asking for.
Sure.
So, yeah, asking for the variance 517.1 to achieve the standards of the requirements on our home occupation.
And on letter A, carried on by residents of the premises, no more than one, one resident-employee.
The business consists of myself, my brother, and my father, and I'm the two non-resident employees.
And I could, given my father's age, for C.E.
Potentially a third time.
And if I could keep that door open, that would be good.
But that next question on there.
on there are operated entirely within a principal and or accessory structure and occupy no more than 25% of this floor space.
The resident, that I think, was just a particular point in the original variance request with some other to be a special exception to me or the fair footage was apparently an issue. And in this case, the actual fair footage requested to
used as a business is roughly 1,400 square feet, which is over the 25%.
That would be the large dining room downstairs in a small office, off the opposite side.
And there's some question, I suppose, as to whether or not the entryway would be considered part of the business
that's somehow you have to get into this.
But I imagine there will be conversations about entryways going forward in the running board or are still
going code end of things.
And as for the F, I think that that was a recommendation of the board or of Rob.
And I think that's sort of a technical area for you guys.
I'm not quite sure.
If you would want to do a site walk around or something like that,
maybe that was why they have been respected.
experience there because basically the home occupation did not require site plan
renamed by the planning board.
It explains why.
Yeah.
And then the second of 26-18, or dash 18, that's whole special reception.
I think I can actually withdraw that.
I think I was misunderstanding the nature of this.
of this 517.1, you're basically saying that you don't need a special exception.
If I understand correctly, that that's just either, these are the rules that are just sort of given.
Anybody can have these without a special exception.
You can have a small business.
Why, if you need to be qualified.
I think.
And, yeah, hopefully that answers the question.
Okay.
We need to get testimony into the record for this,
hearing that you do not anticipate substantial traffic.
No, yeah.
We are in a very low traffic building.
Actually, back when we were in Dublin, we didn't have any trouble getting out.
area for being outside in the commercial district.
We never became an issue there.
So, we never became an issue there.
We're open for full retail and we have no intention of doing an on-site retail.
I would imagine the traffic to be used.
Do I understand your withdrawing your request for the special exception?
Yeah, I think that's no room for a special exception.
There's no room for special exceptions.
17.1 and the variance should take care of that.
Is that?
Try with everybody else with understanding?
Well, I'm just trying to understand.
I had been so fixated on the 17.2 for so long, thinking that was how...
The way to go.
Yeah.
That I figured that this was also a special exception situation,
so I didn't want to proceed without getting a variance on a special exception
without having a special exception, but it isn't just special exception.
So, from what I understand, what you're proposing,
exceeds a couple of the requirements of 17.1 but does not meet the level of 17.2, requiring a special exception, provided you receive a variance for a couple of these under 17.
Right, yeah.
So let's get through the variance part.
Yeah, that makes sense.
As I remember, the last time around, we decided them because it didn't get that ancillary, um, you know, that makes sense.
portion of the home-gates business that they wouldn't qualify for the 17.2 and there was no place for a special
over a variance within that. So it's the requested group forward.
All right, any more questions from the board? I have none.
I have none.
Okay. Any butters in favor of this?
Oppos would like to speak to it?
In favor?
In favor of.
And you are?
In favor of, very much.
But you are?
Your name, please?
Lisa, Papua Cephano.
I am directly next to our guards practically shared.
Okay.
And we have kids.
Yes.
They have kids in consideration.
So I'm very, I have a strong opinion on who and what would be right next to our home with
children.
And I happen to go for business.
I know that it won't do these topics.
She doesn't care that we have a dog.
Like, it would be a very good fit, and I don't feel like would be an issue for me as a mom.
And as a neighbor, I'd much rather see her than many other options.
Okay.
Okay.
Anybody else to like this?
Speak in favor of it?
Who's in the butter?
Anybody opposed?
Would like to speak to it?
Anybody in general would like to speak to it, either for or against?
Not nice of fact.
I'm sorry.
Jump in the gun here.
Consideration of the five criteria?
Can I ask?
Why are we asking?
for variance for F?
Yeah, I was curious about that as well.
Not really.
Go ahead, Rob.
If you read the last sentence, so that's the part that explains
that may require a variance from the zoning order.
It's just being included as a reason why the
.
Okay.
Granting, I think, variance is to a...
We don't really need a variance request for F, which is
allowing the variance requests to be added?
Correct.
Correct.
Okay.
All right, so let's talk about A and B and how they fight criteria.
I do not believe this variance is contrary to the public interest.
I think that it's in the public interest to see that building use of in a participating attractive way.
We all agree to them as well?
Okay.
How about hardship?
Not hardship.
Yes.
And I would say, you know, denying the variance doesn't do much for the town.
No, it does not.
And it does not do much for...
It won't hurt anybody's property values.
No.
Probably will improve them.
Yeah.
TLC to the building.
Property.
And so the values of the surrounding properties are not diminished.
Correct.
Hardship.
How do we feel?
It is a different building by nature of what it was originally constructed to be.
I mean, there's an old Masonic Hall that.
Sonic Hall.
It was a GAR and then the Masonic Hall.
Yeah.
Yeah.
You know, when they talk about variances here in hardship, the first prong A is the purpose of subparagraph
on a necessary hardship means that owing to special conditions of the property that it's
distinguish it from other properties in the area.
It would be hired to make it in for residence.
Yeah.
And it's an old traditional hall, you know, residences on me, yeah.
And it's, I think it's a reasonable use.
So I would give it a pass and hardship, I don't know.
Yeah.
Yeah.
All right, so we agree on the five criteria.
Do we want to do a sidewalk?
We have a motion to waive the sitewalk.
Second.
Have a motion to waive the sidewalks.
It's been seconded.
Any further discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying I.
All right.
All right.
Sitewalk is waived.
There are no additions.
Nobody wants to speak.
We will close public portion of this findings of fact.
In fact.
Property is 4th Street, 1-238, lot 46.
It's owned residential with snowing water and sewer.
The applicant proposes a home occupation, a wholesale online antiques business.
For the testimony given, traffic will be low.
If I recall correctly, there was previous testimony that the external factors, the light of
being signage and all that would be in accordance with the requirements of that particular
section so I think that we can make the findings of fact that would be the case.
Anybody else?
Sorry, in accordance with the home-based business or the...
Occupation.
Requirements of the occupation has specific requirements for signage, parking, and the like,
and I believe testimony.
You get the questions of the ordinance will be met.
Yes, correct.
The applicant seeks relief.
on paragraphs 5.17.1 and B to allow up to three non-resident employees.
Square feet.
That's in the variance, all right?
That's what she's allowed.
That's what she's proposed.
Okay.
All right.
She's proposing.
Okay.
What are we doing with F?
We're discounting it.
Yes.
We are not having a variance.
variance.
I think you withdraw that.
We have to do withdraw up.
Well, we're not going to grant a variance death.
It's all in one.
It's all in one.
It would be enough.
Correct.
Correct.
It's granted variance as variance.
We can specifically say if it's not included.
Right.
We're granting that variance as allowed under F.
For A&B only.
Yes.
Make that condition.
Okay.
I'm kind of a big one, but it's got out of the window, isn't it?
No various required.
Right.
I'm sorry, did we get the findings of fact that the proposed area used by the business will be as much as 1,400 square feet?
Yeah, it actually could be depending on whether that's not including whatever it's going to be counted as an empty room.
So let's not make you come back here.
that the proposed business area will exceed the 25% allowed.
Is 2,000 enough?
How about that we...
Right.
You can cite the areas.
The business in the 17.2 says not more than 3,000.
Is that a number that we can use?
not more than...
Is this a total area of the building?
Are we just under $40?
Shall not...
How many, $16,000?
48.
Yeah.
So you're saying keep it under the 3,000 square feet?
No, more than 3,000 square feet.
Or less than 3,000.
We did 1,000.
We did 19 under square feet?
Why?
What's magic about 2,000?
That's magic about 2.
The building itself right now has,
you said 4,500.
500?
Because 4,000.
4,000.
4,000.
With no change to the building, it's in 4,700 total.
That's all right.
Right.
Right.
But that's where the 3,000 came.
So 25%?
1,200.
Yeah.
2,000.
It gives you more and enough space, right?
2,000 screpe.
I recommend it.
I recommend it.
may not use that much, but because the floor space is already in the building, we can't change that.
And because of fluctuations, I would recommend not more than 3,000 square feet of that building
be allowed for the home occupation.
So we're starting to get in a year.
Well, we're crafting a variance under 17.1 and based it upon
the testimony we could set whatever conditions we figure so the
so the applicant's request in testimony discussed fortune hundred
square feet I think to I think they're granting up to 2000s I think 2000s more
than more than she needs and and it gives you 20 sure okay here yep yeah
sorry you know that's okay so basically it will exceed the 25% but not more than
than 2,000 square yes right that will be
condition. All right, if we settled on that, I get a motion.
The 5.17.17.1 to allow up to three non-resident employees and 16.17.1
area used for the home occupation up to 2,000 square feet, not to exceed 2,000 square feet.
That's allowed under paragraph 5.17.1.
If we need to rope F in.
So that's the motion which included the
killed up. And then we're officially withdrawing without prejudice these. What are we doing with the second part?
The applicant is jumping ahead.
Without presidents. Got it.
Let me see if I will read you.
Just so you know that within 30 days after any order or decision of the ZBA or any decision of the local legislative body,
body, town meetings, or border appeals, and the route to its zoning, a rehearing request
may be made by the selectment, any party to do the action of proceedings, or any person directly
affected. So what that means to you is you get away 30, well, you don't have to wait 30 days,
but you should wait, you should wait 30 days before you do any projects on that building just
in case somebody wants to rehear this and say, you think we made a mistake. All right?
But, but Anshall on the street happy. You're all set.
Anybody want to do this important? Can I get a motion to adjourn? Second?
Second. How'd you know? We'd all in favor? Say aye. Aye. Any opposed?