ZBA grants sign variance for 155 Riverside St; tables St. Paul's Church appeal

[4:39] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): I watched this documentary about Toronto and they apparently had a city meeting that went to 8 a.m. the next morning. Yeah, they pledged to listen to every single person, so they had to stick around. Started here. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the May 21st, 2026 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Portland. The Zoning Board of Appeals will conduct this meeting by hybrid methods with in accordance with the requirements of one mrs section 403b and the zoning board of appeals remote participation policy. This meeting is being conducted using zoom. Before we begin the public hearing, I would like to read you our rules of procedure. One, the board and members of the public are expected to act with civility and to treat each other with mutual respect. Two, applicants will state their case before the board and may present witnesses and offer documentary evidence. Three, following the conclusion of the applicant's case, the opponents may present witnesses and offer documentary evidence. Four, applicants and any abutter or similar person withstanding shall have the right to present witnesses on the applicant's behalf and offer rebuttal evidence. Five, acting through the chair, parties may cross-examine witnesses. The chair may limit relevant and material or unduly repetitious evidence. Six, at the conclusion of the rebuttal evidence, the public portion of the proceedings will be closed and the board will rule on the application pursuant to the applicable provisions of Portland's land use ordinance, the City of Portland code of ordinances, and main law. Seven, no business shall be transacted by the board of appeals without a quorum consisting of four members being present. The vote of a majority of the members present shall be necessary to authorize any action by the board. Eight, the meeting, this meeting is being recorded. The link to this reporting and to recordings of past meetings is available on the city's website site. 9. Appeals from decisions of this board will be filed in the Superior Court pursuant to 30A MRSA Section 26912G. And 10. All other matters pertaining to the conduct of hearings shall be governed by the provisions of the relevant state statutes, Chapter 14 of Portland's Equal Ordinances, and the rules promulgated by the Board of Appeals. Thank you, and I'll start with roll call. [9:05] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Staff Attorney): John Morse. Here. Andrew Weaver. Here. Dan Black. Here. Nancy English. Here. [9:12] Speaker C (unidentified): Brandon Willis. Here. [9:15] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): Okay, so we have four business items, one of which is requested to be tabled. And just for the purpose of people in the room, the first one is going to be the Riverside Street, and then Congress Street, and then Beanpot Circle, just so everyone knows the order up front. So the first is a hardship variance appeal, 155 Riverside Street, D HJ Associates Ltd owner, and it is a the B4 mixed use zoom. The applicant is proposing to replace a an electronic message sign in an existing freestanding sign. The existing sign is legally non-conforming because it's located in the public right-of-way and off-premises. Section 19.9.2 requires that a lawfully non-conforming sign be made to conform if it is modified in any way. The applicant is seeking relief from section 19.9.2 in order to replace the electronic message signed in the freestanding sign without bringing the sign into conformity. Sections 19.5.1, 19.1F, and 19.5.1A. Representing the appeal is Olivia Trulisi. So if you wouldn't mind coming up to this table so you can present your case. We've reviewed all of your materials, but feel free to run through them or add anything that you'd like to add, and we might have questions for you, [10:33] Speaker D (unidentified): board. We just came on in today. [10:37] Speaker C (unidentified): We did see them. No, we came in after five o'clock. Oh, after five o'clock. Thank you. All [13:09] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): right, we believe them. If you'd like to present your piece. I rent the [13:14] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter/Property Owner): space from the Ramada. It was for 25 years. They closed in the late 90s, early 2000s. Several years before the hotel reopened it as Seasons Bar. They ran it for like 13 years. First few years they didn't have a digital sign. They didn't get any off-road traffic. Then they had a digital sign that lasted eight years before it broke. So the last three years, there was no way. And that's why they closed it. They tried for 13 years. They had it to find another leasee and nobody wanted this lease because she can't take the road. Then Volcano, who runs staffed out front, decided they wanted to give it a go. They're going to make it a year out of their five-year lease. I've been opening once now. I'm not surviving. I mean, nobody knows I'm there, but I really feel like she'll help me open it for the band to hire. [13:59] Speaker F (unidentified): And I mean, I hire. [14:02] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter/Property Owner): I have bands twice a week, so I've got many different bands that play there. They all need to be advertised as well, like I do. We do karaoke, we do bingo, we do self-defense classes, but nobody knows I'm there. I mean, I tried Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat. If I don't get a digital sign, which I thought for sure I would, I didn't know I couldn't replace it when I took over the lease. I've been paying on this sign since September, the $50,000 sign that has to stay there when my lease is up in years. And the hotel and the owner says there's no other place on the property I can put a digital sign that would be visible from the road that would meet state city requirements. [Speaker G (unidentified): So I'm stuck.] And I have sunk my life in this whole thing and I needed to be, not just for me, but for the band my local regulars it's a community. I mean, Sunday for Christmas I had nine of my regulars without carpets with me. That tells you how much it means to people. I had probably 30 of my regulars including bands helping me clean it, put it up to code because it was a disaster, and I brought it from the 70s, updated it. So yeah, I did a little science people can see on there. [15:21] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): Questions from the board. I had a question for zoning administration, quickly, just. So I know this came before us last time as a miscellaneous. We didn't end up talking about it. And last time I asked a question about another one of the projects because they had a freestanding sign and they switched tenants. And that only applies to freestanding signs. But in this case, this is a freestanding sign. So I'm just curious, for context, why, as they were a new tenant, they weren't allowed to update the freestanding site in this case. [15:53] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Staff Attorney): Yeah, so part of the issue, I believe, is because it's an electronic message. You can't really change the message. So if it's a normal freestanding where you have that just that facade that message panel, you are able to change just the message panel for a lawfully non-conforming sign because you're basically replacing the entire sign that triggers that replacement requirement to bring the sign into compliance. Okay. [16:30] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): Yeah, thanks. Sorry, I had to rejoin the Zoom for some reason, it got booted, but questions from the board for the applicant. Well, so I actually have a follow-up question. Yeah, so the reason that this doesn't fall under a routine repair. [16:44] Speaker C (unidentified): Is because it's a complete replace. So if another example would be if. [16:50] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Staff Attorney): A sign was almost completely destroyed by somebody driving into it. Sure, even though that's not the fault of the property owner, we would still require that sign because it's a full replacement [17:01] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Attorney): rather than minor repairs to be brought into form. Okay, and even though this is a one part [17:08] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Staff Attorney): of a larger freestanding sign, it's still, yes, that was the determination, that was a full, considered a full-size replacement. [17:27] Speaker D (unidentified): So in the history of the of the property, the what was it, seasons was there, and that function that, but the owner of the property, he said they were subsidizing that business? [17:44] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter/Property Owner): Correct, because the hotel ran season. [17:46] Speaker D (unidentified): It ran out of loss for many years? [17:49] Speaker I (unidentified): Yes, it goes into many seasons. [17:50] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter/Property Owner): I worked for seasons for years. That's how I knew the space, how I know the owners. So yeah, the hotel did it. I don't know why they were looking for leases to take over, but I spent almost $300, $400, $500 to take some pictures. You can't see from the road, and that's without the trees. Once the trees are up, you can't see me at all. People have no clue we're there. [18:12] Speaker D (unidentified): And Volcano was there for? [18:15] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter/Property Owner): Just about a year on their five-year lease. And they run their business stacks up front. I mean, like, they advertise their stacks. I mean, like, it still wasn't enough to drive the business. [18:25] Speaker D (unidentified): And how long have you been there? [18:27] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter/Property Owner): Eight months on the 12th. [18:30] Speaker D (unidentified): And you have a lease that you're not quite. What part of your business, I mean, this is difficult to share publicly, who wants to say they aren't making a bank or whatever in their business, but your experience there has persuaded you and you want to persuade us that without this more obvious signage, you will be having to shut down, is that right? Correct, I ended up putting two hundred fifty [19:07] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter/Property Owner): thousand dollars into the building that I had planned about, like the kitchen equipment, I covered four pieces, I had to get new pieces, like every single wheel, so I had to move it, clean, like it was just a nightmare. I'd paint everything, I'd place ceiling tiles, co-paste molding, and it looked like a 70s friendly buyer, so I was going to be tiled, paint, you know, finer things. I did paint the other building hoping to stand out, right? People even stay in the hotel still don't even know I'm there, it's crazy. And they have little sized motels if that's all they'll do, like there's only so much I can do to do that. I mean, like Saturday night it's 635 emails and I paid the band. It doesn't include my staff, my food. For Saturday had opened, but it's not generating income. Like I have self-spend classes and people can't find her. It's crazy. [19:55] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, I saw that in the one of these new letters you just sent out, the person saying people are failing to show up for the class because they can't find me, so they go close up. [20:06] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter/Property Owner): In front of the hotel and they're like what the hell and they leave. I had fans call me like we can't find you, we're at the front of the Ramada, like hey we'll drive around back and then they get into the Toyota parking lot. It's just [Speaker F (unidentified): just very frustrating.] I have an ear leaf, like to do that. I know I have 14 employees, it depends on me. I was robbed three weeks ago. So that really hurt, a lot of damage. So, you know, I need this before I want to go make peace. [20:45] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): Sorry, quick follow up question for zoning administration. Looking back over this kind of point, it does mention that signs can be added it or modified but you mentioned that it had to be a like a particular kind of sign. Is that like [21:01] Speaker C (unidentified): in the definition of sign or well no it talks about message panel okay which is essentially [21:06] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Staff Attorney): the you know the piece of vinyl or plastic that fits into like a cabinet sign. So it is if you're dealing with the casing or the electronics and you start getting into it, that would be considered placement rather than just repair. I mean, like you're changing a light bulb, that's minor repair. [21:29] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): It doesn't say minor repair, though. It says for multi-tenant property, signs may be added or modified to reflect a change in the individual tenants without triggering the term of the subsection. [21:40] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Staff Attorney): Right, so when you're looking at a multi-tenant sign, that's swapping out your business that's gone and putting in that new sign. You're not effectively you're not replacing the sign itself so that's what you messaged panel or facade so that essentially that plastic piece that has the signed copy on it. Yeah, you can remove that and you can put something else in but beyond that a lot of times it [22:09] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): considered replacement. So is it this the answer is section in the code that kind of mentions what counts as one of these signs for a tenetship versus what doesn't? Yeah, sorry. The sign rules are kind of spread a bit. Yeah. [22:55] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Staff Attorney): So, yeah, signs modified in any way except for routine maintenance or repair of sudden and accidental damage or for a change in the message panel. So this is a D. Yeah. Unless otherwise required. Repair will not include replacement of the entire sign, which is treated as a modification under the subsection. [23:17] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): My read of E is that it's kind of an exception that gets you ID in some cases, but is that incorrect? [23:26] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Staff Attorney): Okay. So that, in a case of non-conformity for multi-tenant products, sign may be added or modified to reflect a change in individual tenants without triggering the term. So right. So I believe what that's talking about is, so for example, she's replacing the electronic message sign. You know that entire sign doesn't need to be modified because it's you know advertising for [23:58] Speaker C (unidentified): I believe a different I don't know is it just your no it has Wildcat they took over the [24:05] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter/Property Owner): Following part of the restaurant I didn't want that because I couldn't stop but I couldn't [24:11] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Staff Attorney): Do the repairs related right so because you need to be brought into compliance they it doesn't affect their non-conformity of their portion of the sign that's believed how that's yeah maybe [24:25] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): This is also for a different kind of appeal but I guess yeah to my read it does say like a new sign can be added if a new tenant comes in which seems kind of like what's happening in this case yeah [24:37] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Staff Attorney): Again I think it's referring to the message panel and not necessarily an entire sign like if you have a freestanding sign they can't they can they can change the panel on their sign without triggering anything they can change the message panel on there but they can't add a sign they can't change the dimensions of that sign it needs to remain the same because I think I'm not trying to change the size or shape of it no it yeah again I know Will did a fairly long email that [25:15] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): Was in the yeah it just kind of took a benefit of context yeah anyway sorry to kind of drill down on this I just when you kind of write up what we're making yes to you I just want make sure that it's here so sorry any further questions from the board well I just want to have a better understanding of the property itself zero is it located on the [25:41] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter/Property Owner): Same parcel as the hotel attached hotel you can walk down a hallway so up front there's stacks and the romantic entrance and it's like a weird L shape okay and then you walk down a hallway in me and then well cats and buildings are all attached by holiday okay so it is technically [25:58] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Attorney): A different parcel though, it's a different person. Yes, yeah, it's a slave I think they're owned by the same, like they're both going by the same owner, but it isn't, but it is a different, it's a different on the tax map at least, it's a different person. There's like a line kind of cutting through between where you're like a little walkway between your restaurant and the hotel, it's not like where that property line or that person. Yeah, it's part of the same building, so yeah, if we could if [26:30] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): That's true that I think might impact how I'm approaching this, because candidly the prong of the standard that I'm hung up on is the reasonable return. The question that I think I would have had for Amy is, you know, can reasonable return relate to just a portion of a property, or does do you have to look holistically at the entire lot? That might not be pertinent here yet, zero is located on a different parcel and we're just looking at that one subset of the hotel grounds [27:04] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Attorney): And things like that, it is on a county parcel and that's what it looks like when I was looking at the map. I think the other issue is that the sign was built technically in the public way, is what it looks like, yeah, and not even on the hotel's parcel [27:21] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): Yeah, and that is the case, that is the case, although they're asking for an exception to the section of the code that says they can't do that, so you can't, there's like the off-premises perch portion first before. Yeah, I guess, yeah,, the website is being weird [27:38] Speaker C (unidentified): Go back, yeah, the yes, the public wi-fi is, yeah, I joined on a hot spot, sorry [27:51] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): With the technical hangout, any questions, more questions from the board to the african? I think when you verify whether or not it's a different parcel, assuming it is not, I guess my question to you is again, I'm kind of hung up on this first prong of, you know, if the variance is not granted, would there be no reasonable return that you could get for this property [28:20] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter/Property Owner): Do you want to speak to that at all? Well, I don't own the property, so if I don't make my rent, I lose my lease and working employees lose their jobs and now they can't play online, however many bands. I'm already close to halfway through 2017, I think people want to be there, we have cool teams and start teams and doing everything I could possibly do to drive people in there and just not cutting [28:44] Speaker F (unidentified): It [28:52] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): any further questions from the board we can kind of verify that during deliberation okay none thank you if you mind remaining there in case there are questions for you i'm going to open it up to the public does anyone want to make public comment on this application first starting in the room seeing none anyone on zoom and also we did read the written public comments both here and before except but you can comment again if you want and use the raise hand feature in zoom if you want to make a public comment, and I'll give you a moment in case we're focusing on [Speaker G (unidentified): something else. Okay.] Seeing none, any final questions before we go into deliberation from the board? Okay, let's get into what's the liberation in this decision now concerning board of fields. This is a B4 commercial corridor zone, and it's an administrative field. Is it supposed to still say administrative if it's the applicant Zero LLC doing business at a Zero Bar and Grill is seeking a LEAVE FROM SECTIONS 19.9.2 OF THE CITY'S LAND USE CODE IN ORDER TO REPLACE AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING SIGN FOR THE BUSINESS LOCATED 155 Urbaside Street in its current location or in the jurisdictional ruler of this matter sued SECTIONS 2.3.9D OF THE CITY'S LAND USE CODE FINDINGS UM THE BOARD HAS REVIEWED THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT AND SEEDED RURAL TESTIMONY AT HEARING AFTER CAREFULLY CONSIDERING ALL OF THE EVIDENCE in the record the board finds as follows section 2.3.11 b of the land use ordinance states that a variance may only be granted by the zoning board of appeals only where strict application of the ordinance or provision thereof to the petitioner and his property would cause undue hardship. The board will consider the answers and evidence provided by the applicant in response to the four statements below in determining what undo whether undue hardship exists. One, the landing question cannot yield a reasonable return unless a variance is granted. Note, failure to yield a reasonable return means the practical loss of all beneficial use of land. Reasonable return does not mean maximum return. Row B, City of South Portland. So before we start, did we get clarification on [31:42] Speaker C (unidentified): whether or not it's its own parcel? I was looking, I don't know if Max has any or if the applicant [31:47] Speaker J (unidentified): in Topeka. I every delineation I have from GAF has it on the same parcel as the hotel. [31:54] Speaker K (unidentified): On the this parcel on the tax map viewer it shows a delineation right between yeah so [32:08] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Staff Attorney): They are two separate parcels all under common ownership, so they can be treated as one parcel, but provided they, provided that the parcels can meet the standards of the zone, they could be separated. [32:35] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Attorney): So the sign, if it were on the hotel parcel, could be considered on, yes, we would, we would. [32:42] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Staff Attorney): Definitely consider that as online, I. [32:46] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Attorney): Think it's not, well, if there were, I think one of the talk or one of the points in one of the emails was saying a new sign, if you're trying to put up or something, but so if a new sign, where, I know it's not the best option, but you can get into. [33:06] Speaker C (unidentified): Conformity, we need to be on premises, so they could comply with on-premises even if it was. [33:12] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): On the other lot, I think is what you're saying, yeah, but I think because they're legally separate lots, to your point, I like, I think we can consider the return on just one of the lots, yeah, I mean, that's for us to decide, but yeah, so thoughts on this one, I mean, to be totally frank, the hardships for signs, I think are, it's a very high bar, but I think that a lot of evidence about the viability of the business actually was brought forward to this one, like more than I've ever seen on one of these side. Appeals, especially even previous businesses mentioning that they were unprofitable for many years. So I'm still, it's tough, but I think, I don't know, it's definitely one of the stronger, not to compare them all, but it's one of the stronger ones for sure. What are people's thoughts on that? [34:05] Speaker K (unidentified): I would agree. I mean, particularly, yeah, I guess I would agree in the sense that in this location there have been multiple businesses that have failed within a year, right? So this feels to me like there's been evidence that yeah,. [34:30] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): I kind of agree. The only question I have is, you know, are there other beneficial uses that the property could be put to, like residential, and I don't know if that's permitted in the zone, but just looking. [34:42] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter/Property Owner): At or if you have something the way there is no residential housing within like four miles, so. [34:48] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): that 's what i was going to suggest it looks like it's a very commercial area i don't know [34:52] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter/Property Owner): Tucked in between a turnpike, a hotel in Berlin City, you get tire warehouse, you get rich storage, orange or bird king. There's all kinds of businesses. There's very close to housing is all the more happening. [35:06] Speaker D (unidentified): And what is a reasonable return? Well,. [35:14] Speaker J (unidentified): The note from the Cape Father, one of the most famous lines, right, practical use of practical law of all beneficial use of the land, right? Absolutely. That's talking about use. And in this case, commercial use is the use. Is this use correct? And to Graham's point about, you know, are there other uses? It's a question. [35:34] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): I think there could be other use. The residential use is interesting. It just seems like a strange site for residential and I'm not, you know, I can't do a pro forma. I don't know if like a residential development would make sense on the site. I guess my read is that it seems that lots of different kinds of businesses are not viable there so I think within a broad set of like business uses like I don't see like retail making sense there without an example that is kind of my read on it but yeah it's always tough to like rule out every possible use do [36:16] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter/Property Owner): you have a comment yeah I had like 15 000 square feet I think the hotel needs you know he's away but I mean in there even if it was only for that area hot retail like you know we're gonna find them I mean my doors are solid when you keep them open when I'm open like let alone being yeah [36:40] Speaker D (unidentified): Anyway we're we are been persuaded because many applicants are not willing to be as upfront, uncomfortable, but it's persuasive because the past history that we would see this particular situation cannot be yielded a reasonable return. [37:08] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter/Property Owner): And I did ask the hotel if I could put up new posts with the new sign to meet requirement at a hotel as you saw in one of the very first letters with my application that I don't have permission to do that and they don't have the space you need to do it where it would be impossible you can see my picture but maybe [37:32] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): Just a direction for some language and very open to feedback on this I think the pieces of evidence I want to make sure we talk about is sort of a long history of unprofitable and failed businesses in the space all of which have cited visibility from the street as being a contributing factor and then also mentioning that relocating the sign is not feasible on site as well so yeah I think as long as both of those things are in there sorry I'm not being as helpful on language here but do [38:30] Speaker J (unidentified): you want a specific person the [38:37] Speaker D (unidentified): Previous two businesses failed [38:47] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): and there's also evidence in the record that I think gosh was that one called one of them the Ramada convention was never profitable when the modern Red Seasons it would never [38:59] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter/Property Owner): ruffle you know if the hotel's up to that if they just have the amenities to get that's one of the requirements women change requires yeah i'd [39:17] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): also like to see some language about the property not being able to be put to some other sort of beneficial use. You know, I'm still on the fence on this one. I feel like if this was a practical difficulty variance, it'd be a lot easier to get behind meeting this standard. And so to the extent that folks are feeling like this standard has been met, I want to make sure that all of our odds are dotted and our tees are crossed. There's all parts of the decision [39:47] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Attorney): -making process that are included in the findings of the act. I think the letter from the auditor mentioned that the property is uncovered by several public easements. I'm think one or two that kind of cut through the property there, and then the city has a sewer, has kind of like two sewer easements that kind of run through the property, and I think one of the sewer easements actually runs between buildings, like on the property line, which is, certainly encumbered by easements of those two. I know, I don't know if there are other [40:26] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): wants as well, but it does look like a really difficult lot for anything. And yeah, I mean, I think those encumbrances would make it difficult to use it for anything. I mean, I think this case law that is cited, I think that they could have used it for a boat launch, which is kind of obvious [40:50] Speaker C (unidentified): since it's on the water. These things not you, oh yeah, not you, I'm sorry, [40:56] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): but these things where it's like a housing development, it's kind of tough to just speculate. You [41:06] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Attorney): might also give some deference, I guess, to, I don't know exactly how to tie it into this, but the lot was kind of created in this way in the first place because of the taking that was done to relocate Riverside Street to its current location from Riverside Court, which used to run, Riverside Street used to run straight to Bright Avenue, basically through the middle of this parcel. So that's why Riverside Court was created, it and the Riverside kind of bends around it, so that's why it was kind of created in this corner in the first place. Yeah, when did that happen, [41:42] Speaker G (unidentified): 60s or something? I don't look before that because [41:47] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Attorney): it was when they built the highway. Oh, I think, yeah, I'm talking about 70 blocks. Okay, yeah. Question for the zoning administrator, yes, are other uses allowed at this property other than [42:19] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Staff Attorney): Commercial, yes. So you wouldn't be able to, you wouldn't be able to build a single family, but you could do two family and beyond. Okay, for residential. So I guess then maybe if we [42:33] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): can include language saying, you know, the evidence suggests that, you know, any residential, any permitted residential uses would not be suitable for this location. I think that sounds good. You [42:50] Speaker J (unidentified): want me to add like in light of the proximity to the term? Yeah, sure. Give [43:35] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): people a moment to read through it. I would entertain a motion to accept this finding, but no rush. [44:06] Speaker C (unidentified): Second. Okay, your roll call vote. Todd Morse? Yes. Andrew Weaver? Yes. Dan Black? Yes. Nancy English? Yes. Graham Lewis? Yes. [44:21] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): Two, the need for a variance is due to the unique circumstance of the property and not to the general conditions in the neighborhood. It, I think you were kind of speaking to that, and that and this property was created through retakings, and as part of that it has limited visibility from the street, of the road, compared to other properties. Yeah, I would entertain a motion to accept this finding, or any, sorry, or any discussion as well. Move [45:28] Speaker G (unidentified): to this finding. You have a second. Okay. Okay. Any discussion? Okay. Our roll call vote. Todd Morse. Yes. [45:38] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): Andrew Weaver. Yes. Dan Black. Yes. Nancy English. Yes. Graham Williams. Yes. Agree the granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. And there's kind of already a sign there. It will be slightly larger, but not slightly larger. Sorry. Different. I misspoke there. But I mean to me it does not seem to alter the character of the locality at all. It's a, it's [46:04] Speaker D (unidentified): located amid many others [46:06] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter/Property Owner): and [46:58] Speaker F (unidentified): for all, yes [47:08] Speaker C (unidentified): Andrew Weaver? Yes. Dan Black? Yes. Nancy English? Yeah. Grandma? Yes. [47:15] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): Or hardship is not the result of an action taken by the applicant or a prior owner. This one was always like kind of tough to word. I can't think of any particular action by previous owner that would cause the lack of visibility. And even as you, we didn't really talk about it earlier, even as you mentioned, it was created by the takings, which is kind of forced upon the owner. So, but I don't even know if that's worth mentioning, maybe just say there's no evidence in the record of an action taken by the applicant or prior owner that led to the need for variance. I mean, I would say the consequences for them show us that it did not result with their action, but I also agree with these kind of hard to find the negative. Yeah. [48:06] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Attorney): it's kind of yeah says the hardship with the hardship in this case i guess be that the that the code has been updated since the original sign was installed, and that 's not the [48:19] Speaker L (unidentified): problem. Yeah, I like that. Yeah, okay. [48:21] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): I also think like the lack of visibility from the road is not the result of any action taken by the applicant. Was [48:41] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter/Property Owner): there evidence in the record about the taking, or does someone say that? [48:44] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Attorney): Yeah, it's public records. [48:48] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): I will say like conceptually on 4, we had an applicant argue that because they entered That was part of the reason for the hardship. So that's kind of them entering it in themselves. So that's kind of sometimes how people get found findings in this one. But I like people who said, make a deed restriction, for example. [49:14] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Attorney): I guess this could kind of like Mack was mentioning, you know, the hardship could also maybe thought of as the need to bring the sign into performance. So that was a result of the old digital sign dying which the applicant stated that it did and can no longer be used it's not their fault so maybe that I [49:42] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): don't think any one of these [49:43] Speaker G (unidentified): can move to that this finding is written okay Todd [50:42] Speaker C (unidentified): Morse yes Andrew Weaver yes Dan Black yes Nancy English yes I [50:55] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): would entertain a motion to grant I'm sorry to the board finds that this applicant has satisfactorily met all the standards above and therefore grants disbarriance and I would entertain a motion to grant disbarriance [51:07] Speaker C (unidentified): I move to grant disbarriance second and a roll call vote Todd Morse yes Andrew Weaver yes Dan Block yes Nancy English yes Graham Willis yes all right thank you congratulations [51:23] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): Congratulations, it's a very high-profile hearing, so. [51:27] Speaker F (unidentified): Wow, I hope everyone, luck. Thank you, guys. Hey, back up the agenda a little quickly. [51:47] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): Up next, we have a practical difficulty appeal, 279 Congress Street, St. Paul's Anglican Church, Ogres, PAXMAP 021, Block E, 8, lot 7 and 8 in the India Street form-based zone, UM sub-district. The applicant is seeking a practical difficulty variance to reduce the minimum rear yard setback to the required intensity to 5 feet for an addition. Representation of the appeal is the Reverend Andrew S. Faust. Thank you. So we've reviewed your materials, but if you want to add anything, present some of your materials, and we might have some questions. [52:29] Speaker I (unidentified): You just turned to me, didn't you? Somehow zoom went away while I was waiting so I need to go back [52:39] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Staff Attorney): unfortunately it looks like public internet is down and I don't have anybody in it here to [52:44] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): Fix that. Oh, I want to connect to my hotspot. I don't know if you get a little issue from there, but [52:56] Speaker M (unidentified): Yeah, I'm running out of my hotspot right now. [53:00] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Staff Attorney): The employee one is working, so scan one. [53:10] Speaker J (unidentified): Are you looking to do a presentation? I'm wondering if... Sorry, what? Are you doing a presentation? [53:15] Speaker I (unidentified): Yeah, I have a brief slideshow. [53:17] Speaker J (unidentified): I don't know if you could do that tomorrow. [53:20] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Attorney): That would be the internet. Shoot. All right. [53:24] Speaker F (unidentified): I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yeah. I don't know if you can reach my phone. [53:32] Speaker C (unidentified): I can. I think you're in shock. Do you see one called Google? [53:36] Speaker G (unidentified): P-L-O-O-L? Do you mind if I ask? Oh, not at all. No,, no. I [53:50] Speaker C (unidentified): think you got it. Here. Yeah. I have no fun. Yeah. Yeah, it's, it's not connected. [54:02] Speaker F (unidentified): Oh, so [54:09] Speaker I (unidentified): that's interesting. Without internet, it's coming up, you know, automatically. Yeah, [54:43] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Staff Attorney): I'm still going to get a bad password error on the canvas, so. [54:56] Speaker I (unidentified): Presentation won't be working. [55:38] Speaker K (unidentified): Yeah, do you have a, did you get an email as a, I did. Yeah, so you'd have to go today [55:43] Speaker C (unidentified): join his panelists. Okay. Yeah, I had it, but I may need to go away. Yeah, I guess we can upgrade [55:48] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): the panelists. You can just like join, actually we can. Oh yeah, we have for you. Sorry about that. [55:54] Speaker F (unidentified): I know she was in there. All right. See you. Yeah. [56:01] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): In progress. Not at all. But you might be getting a little bit later. Yeah. Yeah, so sorry about this. [56:25] Speaker I (unidentified): Yeah. So I can hear a screen somehow. Yeah, sure. [56:30] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Staff Attorney): You should see a square rectangle at the bottom of the narrow. Yeah. We're there. Right. Yeah. [57:20] Speaker I (unidentified): It's supposed to go to... [57:22] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Attorney): Is there a swap screen button on it? [57:24] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): It depends on how you're sharing. I think. Well, [57:33] Speaker K (unidentified): I do charge. Yeah. We would say... [Speaker F (unidentified): We'll say,, I] can't even find what I'm looking for. [57:52] Speaker L (unidentified): Something you could try to do. [57:53] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): Is this a PowerPoint or a? If [57:58] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Attorney): you print it, if you print it as a PDF [58:02] Speaker C (unidentified): and then share it in PDF. [58:04] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter/Property Owner): You can keep something like that. [58:06] Speaker L (unidentified): Yeah, I think you could go with this. [58:09] Speaker I (unidentified): Oh, I moved this out of it. [58:11] Speaker F (unidentified): And then which one do you need? Play, shoot. There you go. There you go. All right. Got it. [58:19] Speaker I (unidentified): All right. Very good, thank you for hearing us. I think Mother Andrew is going to say just a brief introduction, or you just want to do. Okay, so I have, I have two people with me here, Father Andrew and Dan is our choral music director and a music director. Thank you very much has moral support here, so I will get going with this presentation and see if the next page works. Okay, so history, the sale of the land in the late 19th century. It's a very interesting story about this church. The stone front that you see here, all of the public spaces, it's a Gothic Revival Stone Church. It was built in 1868. It was planned to have a longer nave. This church is facing, that image on the right is facing Congress Street. The image on the left is the back of the nave, and that is actually, right now it has asbestos siding. That was built as a temporary wall. It was intended that the church would expand. The church owned the adjacent land, but it was sold soon after the church opened in 1868. eight so there's limited land at that back near a lot line and it basically removed the opportunity to expand the church and to have a door centered on the nave at the back of the church, which is your traditional arrangement. So the sail really prevented extending the church. This is connecting church buildings and providing accessibility. So there are things that churches need these days that they didn't need in the late 19th century. This and also this church never had a sort of entry in narthex, so that sort of vestibule. That you'll find in the back of most churches of this stature. So, and then also accessibility wasn't something that was worried about so much. The grand state of cases, the church is all over the place. So what we have here is this, the top left is the entrance from Locust Street. And that is the main entrance of the church. You can see that there is a step there and these photos are in the application as well. There's a step into that doorway from the walkout front and then to the right of that, 's an interior image. It's difficult to tell, but there is a ramp there, which is not very perceivable. So you tend to kind of stumble because you're not expecting it to be there. But that was built after the fact. And so the total rise from outside the church to the floor level in the sanctuary is 12 inches. Then there's a second building here, which is a former parish house. It's called the parish hall or the parish house. And the church coffees and meetings and other things, offices, take place in that building. Building. So after service, to get to that parish house, you have to go out the Locust Street entrance and then around and back to this parish house that sits behind the church. And in your packet, there's a diagram that it's over 90 feet to get from the church to through that parish hall. And the image on the lower right is showing you the walkway. The wall on the right is that asbestos finished temporary wall. And then you go straight back and you can see the parish house red door in the background. So that's how people have to navigate to get back there. It's very unfriendly in any inclement weather, and especially in winter conditions, even if it isn't snowing, it's going to be cold and icy and difficult to get there, and certainly not in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, which we're trying to achieve here. So I think that's this one. So this is a detail of the site plan that you have, the survey, actually, that we have. You can see the church and the parish house. house. On the left of this slide is that walkway that you just saw a photo of. Again, the travel distance is long. The change in elevation from grade to sanctuary to the parish house is a total of 33 inches, which is a significant amount of ramping to provide and comply with the regulations for the ADA. So we are requesting a variance to achieve a connection between the church and the parish house. The church does not currently have a bathroom. There is a bathroom in the parish house, and it is an accessible bathroom. But again, if you're in the church and your kids are fussing or someone needs to use a bathroom, they're going outside. and traveling in whatever weather conditions are happening to get back there. [1:04:44] Speaker F (unidentified): Sometimes they don't come back. [1:04:48] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Staff Attorney): It's a torturous walk on over there, especially in the wintertime. And when I was in Scotland, I saw this design similar to church. And going from the church to the parish hall, the arcs were going over. So what he's going to show you here or something that conforms to the architecture of the church in a very nice way and makes it possible mothers with young babies can go and cover the walkway over to our parish hall, which we put a new bathroom in, or we did, the one that was there, and put a chairlift on up. It's only three steps. So we're trying to combine and make it usable to people [1:05:41] Speaker I (unidentified): So this is focusing, I'll go back here, you know, this portion of the site that's in between the church and the parish house is a detail of the addition that we want to make to connect the buildings. And that, focusing in on that, you can see at the top of the page is the parish house, the bottom is the church. The doorway that leads from the church into this addition. We need to remove one of the stained glass windows in the church in order to create that doorway. It's a historic church, it's a land farm in the city, and we want to respect the history of the church and that historic structure as much as we can. So we don't want to muck with it any more than we have to. You'll see in this plan you go out then you go to the left and up and there's a landing where you enter the parish house there's also a door to get directly into that from outside so someone who is challenged physically can go back to that doorway and get into the church and you'll you'll see a later slide that shows improvements to the walk back to that area. The circles in the landings are the five foot diameter that you need for an ADA landing and I didn't put all the other dimensions in but there are requirements for the amount of space you have as you approach the door to push it open, the amount of space you have if you have to pull it open, a different rule if the door has a closer. So, you know, this is a tight area and it would have been nice to just have to do a straight run, but there's not enough room. There's not enough distance between the two buildings. So I had to make this a U-shaped structure in order to achieve that. So on the far left, you'll see that's where our five foot setback line is and we're building to that setback line is our plan and that is why we're asking for this setback variance all right I'll go going on. So quickly to point out, the plan of the connecting building is a little out of date, but I wanted to show you this. You can see the door that goes into the addition and then to the right of that are two stained glass windows and those continue throughout the nave. So we're removing one stained glass window. If you come down the street to the bottom where the door enters the church from Locust Street, you can see that there's no stained glass window there either. So we'll really have a balance of stained glass windows in the church once you enter into the nave. The other thing that door location does for us inside is that the rectangles are showing, those are showing the limits of the pews right now. So that means that again we have some balance and the area of entering and moving about is behind all the pews and we're not losing any capacity by having to move any pews. I'm explaining all of this to you because, you know, we could have done that view in the other direction, right? We could flip it. But we would lose capacity within the church. We would lose more of the historic features of the church, the stained glass windows and all of the stonework. And then there's another bonus to this, which is that we now also have an accessible access to the backyard. So on the site plan, the backyard is very landlocked and it's underutilized, but it's actually a feature that could really be of benefit to the church. So that in nice weather you can go out here, there's a patio there and so it's accessible and the church coffees could be set up out there. If you were going to have a church fair, you know, you could make use of that space, put a tent on it. So we want to develop that yard. Right now it's, it's really not having any purpose for the church and for the congregation and for other groups who have meetings here, then it's just, like I said, it's underutilized. So we also feel like this is a very minimal response in terms of all of the things that we're trying to achieve, accessibility and the preserving history. Street. I have looked at several designs here. And I, we at one point, thought maybe we'd get a maintenance easement from the neighbors so we could build even closer. And that didn't work out. So we're only asking for five feet as a relief from the 10 foot requirement. And I think I've covered pretty much everything. I'm sure some more will come up in your questions. Yes, I showed you this, right? Yeah, I did. And so there you go. [1:11:43] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): Thank you. I have a quick question and I think I know the answer. I just wanted to clarify. So the reason you would move is because otherwise the ramp would be too steep. [1:11:55] Speaker I (unidentified): Yes, we have to comply with a 1 in 12 slope, and we are, and I'm just making it. I've got a little leeway because we might get out there and discover that the survey isn't totally accurate, but I allowed myself a little, you know, room for error, but yes, that is why. There was something else in that. Yes, in this slide there's a, there's a big, it's called a space together. You can't see that well, but it's on the, it's at the center of the nave outside. So as you go from Locust Street, the first part of the walk is a ramp, an ADA ramp, and all curbs and handrails. Once we get to the level of the nave, we have a level landing there. It's a place together, but it's also there because if we could add double doors at that location, it would be that much more convenient. It would get people who need accessibility into the church sooner rather than going for their back, but we're not sure that we can, that we can afford that, to do that now. So we're providing that so that it's a possibility in the future. And I bring that up because if we were to put doors there, we wouldn't put a porch there, but we would probably put a canopy just to protect them a bit and brackets or something. Thing, so I wanted to raise that because the line that we're drawing for the five foot setback does come all the way along, and I don't know if you would only do a proportion of the site, but we are asking that to continue for that future, that future potential, which would really benefit the church. Thank [1:13:52] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): you. Any further questions moving forward? There'll be another time for this. [Speaker G (unidentified): Of course I'm] seeing none for now. I'm going to open it up first to public comment in the room. More than just children, it's also, oh, you wouldn't mind stepping up to the podium? Sorry, it's [1:14:12] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter): also for elderly people, because most of our congregation right now is older people, and you know, 70s, 80s, and so the walkway will help for those people too, because you know they want to be walking out in the ice and slipping and falling and whatnot, so it's a big, it'll be a big help for them too. [1:14:32] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): Also, if you wouldn't mind, sorry about opening with your name and address. My name is John Snow. [1:14:37] Speaker G (unidentified): I live on A3, here's the street. Thanks, it's [1:14:42] Speaker C (unidentified): just for the record, yeah, we have a groups [1:14:46] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Staff Attorney): they'll meet there morning and then, I mean, a few times during the week, and there's some handicap have people in that for you to facilitate and get it back and forth. For me makes sense, thank you. [1:15:02] Susan Dench: Yes, I'm I'm Susan Dench, I live at 78th Street, and the other thing that when Carol said she was talking about being an old church, it's actually the oldest church in Portland. We started out on the waterfront and we were bombed by the British. We moved up a little bit and we got wiped out in the fire and they said we're moving out to the country and we ended up on Converse Street. So we have a lot of history to our church. We've really adapted with the times as we can. We have a lot of humaners in Portland, many of them are Anglicans from Africa, so we've really opened up our church and we're growing leaps and bounds because we have in addition to older people we also have a lot of children that come and we really need to see you know them to be able to get safely from the church back to a bathroom area and also for a place for them to play and so on. And we really want to open the church up a lot more as well as a historic monument since it is a stark monument. Our history is Portland's history is U.S. history, and so we've also worked with Portland and Mark but we'd like to have that be on the tour eventually but we can't do that without access to about them. This would allow us [1:16:04] Speaker F (unidentified): to have that. Thank you. My name [1:16:10] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter): is Daniel McCool, I live at 35 Curtis Road in Portland. I've been in Portland for 20 years. Though I'm not a native Mainer, I spent the majority of my growing up time here in Maine. I've been part of St. Paul's Church for about seven years, and I have the privilege of serving as the music director. So seven to eight times per year, we have free public concerts. It's a joy to open our doors at Christmastime. People flood in, hear the Christmas carols. Just a fantastic opportunity. opportunity. Just like this vibrancy in Maine is a new resurgence in vibrancy in our church, and it's exciting to see that kind of growth. So I just ask for your favorable consideration so that we can move forward and make our buildings accommodable, to have proper accommodations for young and old and those that are coming to St. Paul's Church. Thank you. cute. [1:17:13] Speaker L (unidentified): My name is Timothy Reininger. I live in Cape Elizabeth. I'm the treasurer of St. Paul's and the church. But also more importantly, I am the head usher at the back of the church, [1:17:27] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter/Property Owner): which means I have all the points. I don't have much clue. [1:17:33] Speaker L (unidentified): Certainly you have young parents, with young children. But the issue of ADA is significant. And it's not just elderly, young people in wheelchairs, young people who want to come to concerts, or people who have a ski accident and temporarily can't get around. So it's a significant problem. The other thing that happens is that it's not sure on the fact when the funeral. And I happened to take the opportunity to chat with the funeral directors who have said that St. Paul's is the most difficult church when it's on their list so they're used to having a crew ready to go to push carol mentioned this lip small one on the door it's 40 inches so they can't get people on each side so they have to strategically figure out getting it in and out now the problem is if there's an oversized casket of 44 inches for individuals of 6'5 in height or over 350 pounds, the casket will not fit in the door. Now, the old days, when the church was built, these were coffins. I never really knew the difference between a coffin and a casket. But it's significant because the coffins are smaller and the caskets are much bigger now. And so this church was not built for these bigger caskets. As Carl mentioned, if you put the double door in the back, it's a huge cement. with the ADA and the rules. And the many people who are used to those rules, even if they don't belong there, I just don't think you can live there. Thank you for your service. [1:19:28] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): Any further public comment in the room? Seeing none, I'm going to move over to Zoom. Oh, sorry. [1:19:38] Speaker D (unidentified): I just wanted to explain [1:19:40] Speaker I (unidentified): that I was hoping that the slideshow would kind of fill in, you know, some of the mysteries of what we're doing here. And so I didn't go into things that are in our application, but we do have a very good discussion of the preclusion of use, the practical difficulty aspects. So I'm here to answer that. [1:20:03] Speaker C (unidentified): Thank you. Thank you. [1:20:06] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): So the raise hand feature on Zoom, there's a picture of a hand. And I'll give people a moment, if they're just listening, if they want to make a public comment. Seeing no raised hands, any further questions from the board? I mean, we just often ask during the deliberation period, but are there questions for the applicant from the board? I have a few, but it might just be as you asked, not during. Yeah, OK. OK, so with that, let's get into the decision document. Okay, so this is an Indian Street form-based zone, U.N. and U.A. Sub-district Practical and Typicalty Variance Appeal. This is May 21, 2026, St. Paul's Anglican Church in the state of Africa, 279 Congress Street. And the applicant is seeking a practical and typicalty variance from section 9.1.7 of the city's land use code, which requires a rear yard setback of 10 feet. The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet in order to construct a hoister connector from the church to the parish house, or has the authority to consider a practical difficulty variance application pursuant to land use code section 2.3.9d. Based our findings are based on the board's review of the written materials and oral testimony presented at the hearing that will be applicable standards. The board finds as follows: an applicant for practical difficulty variance must meet all of the following standards. One, the need for variance is from dimensional standards of the land use code section 2.3 from 11b. This seems fairly straightforward because in fact so dimensional standards and that's what they're seeking. Can I ask a quick [1:22:04] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Attorney): question for the zoning administrator just from what the applicant mentioned about the future canopy for their clarity? Does this vary the variance that we're considering, is that just for this the building permit for the cloister, and it's not exactly, it's not taking the whole rear set back to five feet, or is it just for this specific project? [1:22:28] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Staff Attorney): Yeah, I'm actually going to defer aiming this guidance on this. I think it would need to be [1:22:38] Speaker C (unidentified): for whatever the project is, but I don't know that could be required from any structure. [1:22:43] Speaker J (unidentified): Right, yeah, so it whatever is determined to be a structure under the ordinance that is [1:22:48] Speaker C (unidentified): explicitly accepted since it's fivefold retaining all of our, so it'd be kind of like we reset their [1:22:54] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Attorney): set back to 5p, but we're but for the whole property or just for this specific project [1:23:00] Speaker C (unidentified): where they're for this? Yeah, they're talking about, oh for the purposes of this, I'm sorry. Yeah, so it'd be for the purposes of installing this. Okay, so if they did want to get a canopy [1:23:08] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Attorney): in the future and not included in this project, they would have to come back essentially for another five foot step back for that. Sure, good question, I think, I think [1:23:19] Speaker J (unidentified): I think in that case, right, I think that's right because this is this is the various applications and so I think it would be for this for this purpose of this the construction of what they're isn't the variance tied to the property it ties to the property but it's like so but it's for this construction so I guess I'm unclear so what's supposed in the future I might have missed that [1:23:47] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Attorney): I'm sorry it sounds like you're not you're not building a canopy in this specific construction [1:23:54] Speaker I (unidentified): Or building but we are asking I've never experienced asking for a reduction in a variance and having it limited it's always been okay the rear setback now is five feet what [1:24:11] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): It's worth I think could be a little odd to give a carte blanche variance for the entire property just because a lot of these standards might you know how we feel about them might change based on what's proposed right we have to evaluate what we know about what could would happen yeah I do like I think it's interesting but also we kind of can't consider [1:24:34] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Attorney): It because yeah I just wasn't just asking for the applicant's purposes while we're on the subject [1:24:39] Speaker J (unidentified): That's exactly the point it's right it's a variance from a setback for one purpose different the words now that's different right. [1:24:53] Speaker I (unidentified): So if the purpose is accessibility, and we want to improve it further with an entrance into the right into the maze. And we have we say that 's what we want now. [1:25:15] Speaker J (unidentified): I guess I'm a little unclear as to what how that would intersect with this. And whether you want amend the application to include that as well I guess I'm just yeah so that's yeah like I say [1:25:28] Speaker I (unidentified): I've never experienced that where you ask for a setback and they limit it yeah but it's a long [1:25:34] Speaker C (unidentified): Time since I've been asking for a variance also I think it's an interesting question I think [1:25:40] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): As we kind of consider the application in front of us and I think if you were to add another addition you would go through the relevant application process and then whether or not that variance applied would kind of be decided then so like I don't want to give you a firm answer here about any future application and I think we can just kind of consider what's in front of us because the rest of the board can do that yeah I don't know the answer right [1:26:09] Speaker I (unidentified): Okay because I did not mention how far how long their addition is I you know must be an indication of what we need there. But we [Speaker F (unidentified): Okay.] So I think what I'm hearing, I mean, I'm trying to understand what is the plan that gets filed at the registry going [1:26:41] Speaker J (unidentified): To look like? That'll take the certificate, takes the description from this agenda, and essentially put that into a record that it [1:26:56] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): So like the plans and documents you've provided is kind of what we consider, and we do give you a five foot setback variance or not, and then if you do anything that activates you having to apply for either permit or zoning approval again, I think that's kind of when that discussion would happen. So yeah, I don't know, we can answer that currently. [1:27:21] Speaker J (unidentified): Okay. And I guess I just want to be clear, because for the purposes of this application, my understanding was that it was just the walkway, like the connector that you were planning to construct and need the setbacks from. But if the plan includes something else, then certainly the board can consider that as part of the record, and we can include that in the application. I mean, in the introduction here for this decision. I guess I'm just unclear. Clear that my understanding in the application is for the connector path is what will what will trigger that setback, is that correct? Yes. Okay, based on that, currently okay. [1:28:02] Speaker G (unidentified): Okay, are we still on that piece? [1:28:05] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): I think so, yeah. Interesting. So item one, are we have a motion to accept this finding? [1:28:17] Speaker C (unidentified): Is that the same move? Oh yeah, second. Okay, vote. Todd Morse, yes. Andrew Weaver, yes. Dan Black, [1:28:27] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): yes. Nancy English, yeah. Graham Lewis, yeah. Okay, two, strict application of the provisions of the ordinance we create a practical difficulty, meaning that it would both one, preclude a use of the property which is permitted in the zone it is located, and this I think is going to be the bigger piece of discussion. Do you have questions you wanted to ask with the applicant now, or do you want to start discussing? The one question that I have with regard to this factor actually is for Amy. And so does use relate to the extent of a use, or just whether or not that use in theory could be conducted there? I mean, taking out the context of a church, if you have a property and you could build a single family home there, but you want to build a, you know, multi-family home, are you precluded from a residential use because you can build one type of residential use but not another? [1:29:25] Speaker J (unidentified): Oh, that's interesting. I think I think it's slightly different than the hardship variant standard, because it's talking about the conclusion of a permitted use. I think I think in your [1:29:33] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): Hypothetical you're talking about two residents. Yeah, well, I guess here, you know, well, I guess my hang up is here. The property is currently being used for, you know, worship, and so what you are asking is for an extension of a use that is already being conducted and is permitted in that. So, and so unless the standard is we can use this to the extent that we want to, I'm not sure that is met because the desired use is already being utilized, I guess. Does that make sense? Yeah, no, I agree. I think that's quite a strong point. I guess my interpretation, I don't disagree with you, is that, like, since single family, only, like, two family, three family, four family are all different uses in the code, I guess if you couldn't build a two family, you could make the case that, like, that use, because it's a defined use in the code, in that case, you could make the case that it is precluded, but I guess my hypothetical. Yeah, I think you're, I think yes, I think you're, you're right. Yeah, I guess the only hang-up I have on this is like because the ADA and stuff would be required maybe in a new church, like does that mean it's not really achieving what would be considered a church use in the modern sense? But that's, I can see it, so it's not that it's a complicated way of thinking about it. How does the rest of the board feel about this, Joe? [1:31:09] Speaker I (unidentified): Coming. Yeah, the church use is not available to everyone who wishes to use it, so we're expanding the church use to a wider community. The church does use the parish house, it's not just the church that's being used. [1:31:26] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Attorney): I guess that was kind of my thinking on it in general was, you know, as building regulations have evolved over time, they've expanded the properties being able to be used by moving toward more people rather than fewer people just being confined by stairs and narrow entries and everything like that. So I think preclude isn't, it is a tough word because if it is, it is technically already being used, but I think the applicant has also kind of presented some evidence that they will have a tough time continuing to use it financially with, without a broader range of membership and being able to open the doors and make it physically accessible to more people. But I am a little hung up on for fluid there where it's it [1:32:24] Speaker D (unidentified): would it, although we do not have the double doors, I suppose we could, but we can't. Sorry, I shouldn't have brought this up. But it would preclude the use of the church for a casket that was too wide without there. [1:32:46] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): Yeah, that was interesting. Although, yeah, the double doors are another future direction. Yeah, I guess one, I don't know if it exactly who says this in the code, but I guess according to the ADA, this is not considered usable from their perspective, and if a church was built today, we'd be able to aid those standards, and because of the strict application of the code, I guess they can't have like an accessible church as we would now define it, but I don't know if that is really referenced in the language of the land use code. Yeah, I mean, is there a distinction between a, you know, an accessible house of worship or just a house of worship? I don't know if the code makes that distinction. [1:33:35] Speaker G (unidentified): I doubt it does. Yeah. Yeah. [1:33:47] Speaker K (unidentified): I think this is a tough one to get past, unfortunately, because of the current use is as a, as a religious space, you know, I think, and we're using use in the sense of not in who gets to use it, but in the sense of the purpose of the space, and that's a hard for me. I did when the testimony regarding the casket, that was the one time during sort of this discussion where I was like, maybe there is a way to, but I still struggle with finding a way to [1:34:40] Speaker G (unidentified): get comfortable with this one. I think that's fair. [1:34:52] Speaker I (unidentified): Yes? Yes. Does the fact that the use could go away if the congregation and the church are not sustainable impact? And another question is, we have two things under loss of use and significant economic injury, but they really are intertwined. And so I'm wondering if you need to tick off the use box. But I like my first question better, you know, this we are, you know, we are losing churches in Portland and everywhere all the time, so Williston West Emanuel Church, you know, Williston West joined Emanuel and left their building, that building is still sitting empty. Churches like this one are incredibly difficult to reuse. It's a landmine structure, you can't do much to it, and it's just a big hulking barn, but not as easy to just put stuff in and create condos. So to me, the highest and best use of this structure is as a church, it's current use, but that use could go away, and that building, you know, I guess I'm not gonna get into scare stories what might happen to that building, but that use could go away if we can't build the congregation, and if people come and want to join, and then they don't because of the limitations, yeah. [1:36:42] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): And that's definitely something we can consider. And also, again, the, it sounds like a really important project. The standards are always very rigid. I think that there was strong evidence that the use would kind of imminent may stop. That is definitely something to consider. I just don't, it's tough to maybe prove that, I guess. Yeah, I mean, for what it's worth, we certainly did hear that not having this passageway induced certain folks to maybe not come to church, maybe not become members. We also heard that the church was accepting a lot of new leaders into their congregation. And so I think, you know, those hold in different directions as to, you know, the economic vitality of the church and whether or not it actually would shut down absent this variance. But I guess even beyond that, I think it's, it's a use we're not using the use of the category not as, this is why, I agree, I'm just, you know, speaking, good, you know, Todd's, because I thought, yeah, you think that, I mean, what we're [1:37:50] Speaker K (unidentified): touching on in the next problem, yeah, which I, and I understand, I don't disagree with you that the, use could go away in this specific circumstance, but in the definition of the use as I read it in the ordinance, it's specific to a religious use. And when it says preclude, it makes, means make it possible, and it is a currently a church, and that is what I'm struggling with. And I wish I had a better, I wish I had a way to be more comfortable, because I think this is where the code becomes a hard line where we live in a soft world, or I wish it was a softer world [1:38:41] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): But that's sort of where I'm at, I guess, with that. And maybe it's not even worth discussing if they don't know as far as nuclear. I think with the preclude, there is like a level of practicality in there, like maybe there might be some technically possible use, but I don't think that like the difficulty would be completely discounted. So if there was evidence that say no church could possibly operate on that parcel, yeah, I mean, I think that, or even practically operate on that parcel, like I would say would be mad, I just, I don't see enough evidence of [1:39:17] Speaker D (unidentified): that. So I guess what about precluding the use by a percentage of the population? I mean, it's a church for many people, but it might not be a church for a person in a wheelchair, or it might not be a church for a person. [1:39:42] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): I see what you're saying, but I feel like the inquiry is how the property itself is [1:39:46] Speaker D (unidentified): utilized not is able to utilize it, but I mean, so in this case, can you can you use the word use for some part of the human experience there, or is the use only in a general term? [1:40:07] Speaker J (unidentified): Generally when state reports, for example, are analyzing these standards, they're talking about the use of the property by the by the by the least lefty, whomever is putting it on the scale, without the use is generally what that use is specific to language codes yeah [1:40:28] Speaker F (unidentified): it's tough should [1:40:34] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): we put language up yeah i guess maybe just one last thing i want to ask of the applicant is do you have evidence that you imminently would not be able to use this space basis in church if these changes were not made. [1:40:54] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter): I'd like to make a comment to address. While we have some new mayors coming, they're not economically stable. We contribute. We're happy to have them. We've had five families over the last two winters with young kids that left because we didn't have cry room. We don't have accessibility to a bathroom. You're a mom with young kids. you have to have those and they went to other places and worshiping in Thelma or Scarborough [1:41:23] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Attorney): you need this you guys have a bad one thing I think someone kind of alluded to I heard kind of mentioned it briefly earlier but I think spaces like this are unique from other use cases like residential or a business and that especially this one in particular given that it's on the national register of historic places it's a very old building very old structure that the second prong the economic for the exact wording is here the economic a significant economic injury right the economic feasibility is not really the same as a business they're they're really they're generally they need a congregation and people to donate in order to just maintain the structure itself right they're not community it's kind of an explosion in time space like this space in particular i think as a religious space in the first place yeah being able to maintain enough funds to be able to fund all the capital projects you need to be invisible is the other kind of like thing that i feel like is kind of relevant here yeah it's true could any church take this over and then also not be accessible. [1:42:41] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): I just have a similar problem. I definitely agree with you on the second, or the 2.2 problem. I guess what I would maybe need to see is a documented and significant decline in membership. Is that right? I don't know. Or budget. Yes. Economic hardship. [1:43:10] Speaker D (unidentified): But you would preclude the use of the church. [1:43:16] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): You know, I do agree with that interpretation. I just, yeah, again, I don't see enough evidence that the church is going to eminently collapse from a congregation perspective. Do we want to do it? This doesn't tie us down to voting on it. But I mean it sounds like at least you two are pretty firm on this. I mean I've been the standards and that's based on the current, that's based on the current use. Yeah, and then to the extent that you know there is a legal argument to interpret this as functional as the law, but you know to the point that you were making, if there's an imminent collapse and then you know the church can go on to place abortion, could we take that into account to the extent that we can? And we haven't heard any evidence suggesting that 's true. I think we've heard some, but in my opinion, not. At least in my opinion, no compelling evidence. Yes. [1:44:34] Speaker G (unidentified): No. I think [1:44:42] Speaker I (unidentified): it's worth noting that a few years ago, that church did consider moving to. But because of the difficulties of the current property, We're fortunate right now that we have donations to do this work, to make this, like, so could we define the, I'm sure this isn't in the zoning code, but, you know, we want a modern church. Modern churches have these things, right? They have accessibility. Possibility they have connected, you know, they have an ability to move from the service to the coffee hour without traveling and endangering, you know, someone to slip and fall on the ice or choose to go home as Father Andrew said. So is there space there? [1:45:45] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): I hear what you're saying. I don't want to get ahead of the board, but another factor that we will have to consider is whether or not there's a feasible alternative. And I understand where you're coming from. We don't want folks slipping on the ice. We don't want to lose members of our congregation. But we also heard that the U could be placed in the other direction. It would obviously impact another one of the same class of those, but at least to me, that does seem like a feasible alternative. And so I don't want to get ahead of ourselves. But to answer your question of, you know, we want these, or to your statement, we want these no more hard conveniences. I think that's within the grasp. It just might not be the way you want it. I disagree. [1:46:28] Speaker K (unidentified): I disagree with that. It just makes sense because it's sort of a property. Fair enough. In addition to being financially feasible, which I think in the past we've considered, I think from a design perspective it's unlikely, so I actually don't, I mean, you know, just, I feel like this is the one problem that I struggle with and that [1:46:48] Speaker I (unidentified): other ones I don't, but that's, it's a real flaw in the code that you can get a variance for accessibility for a residential structure and you can't for a church, so [1:47:13] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): what's that like, that, so yeah, I mean, I think there's a lot in the code that I personally, change, it's just important, like we're not really elected to this forward, we're kind of bound by the language as written, so it is also features of state law, yeah, you [1:47:30] Speaker J (unidentified): did the state law. Well, various, standards are embedded in you [1:47:36] Speaker D (unidentified): did say generally, the definition was previously said, are there other cases where that's not in the general, where there's all of these, this kind of nation of circumstances of each and building landmark status. [1:48:03] Speaker J (unidentified): Like a court case to me. Yeah, there's not a whole lot of people on practical. I would not be able to. Any [1:48:10] Speaker F (unidentified): further [1:48:20] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): Rational board on this language. [1:48:28] Speaker I (unidentified): I am, it, yeah, question, I'm wondering if we could request that you table this. I would be interested, certainly this particular item, I would be interested in us going through the other requirements so we have a full sense of where we stand, but yeah, I think we could, we could do a little legal investigation of our own, that no offense to those here, but I feel a little, I'm surprised, honestly, I'm just surprised by this question [1:49:18] Speaker C (unidentified): and so I think we could be better prepared for it, just for the, before we discuss [1:49:26] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): When we table, do we typically table the whole thing, and can we table in the middle? [1:49:31] Speaker J (unidentified): I wouldn't take any vote on anything before. I think the board can entertain more deliberations or table immediately. I wouldn't take any votes on this particular application if you're going to table it. [1:49:42] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): What I mean is we'd be free to discuss other prongs. [1:49:46] Speaker J (unidentified): I think that's up to the board. That's certainly within your discussion. We'd be happy. To do kind of like a dry run of the other ones. I wouldn't encourage voting on that. [1:49:55] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): And if we did table it, would they have the opportunity to come back with more evidence? [1:49:58] Speaker J (unidentified): The board would probably vote to reopen evidence, and that's perfectly within their discretion. Okay. Yeah. I'd be in favor of that. [1:50:07] Speaker K (unidentified): Tabling? Okay. Well, I'm in favor of going through the prongs so they can sort of see where we are, and then allowing them the opportunity, and then tabling and maybe asking for, can we give specific, you know, I guess they'd be asking for the tabling, so we wouldn't be providing any guidance [1:50:26] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): on, you know, so yeah, okay, so let's move on to then the 2.2 then, and so, you know, another [1:50:34] Speaker I (unidentified): thing that I would like to settle with the church is, are we, are we doing doors right, are we doing double doors or not, that hasn't, that hasn't seemed like something for now, but it affects. So there are two things that are in my mind. Thank you so much. [1:50:56] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): So 2.2 then, we're not going to go over or discuss on, we're not going to vote on any of them. We're doing kind of drafting, I would say. So significant economic injury to the applicants. [Speaker F (unidentified): so] I mean, again, I think we kind of talked about this one a lot during the previous, and personally I think the standard has been met, I think, I mean, even just not having such a significant improvement, this to me seems like significant economic injury kind of on its face, that you can't access the bathroom, I mean, it's like a big difference in value, yeah, I think you [1:51:37] Speaker K (unidentified): You know, if I were a congregate and I was looking at which church to go to and I was, you know, not, if this had an amenity, if one church had an amenity that another didn't have, and as this church, you cannot respond in kind to, you know, to make your church more marketable, then I definitely think that's a, I'll be outvoted on this one. [1:52:04] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): I think what we've heard definitely suggests an economic injury. I'm not sure it suggests a significant economic injury. So to the extent that you do come back with additional information, that would really be helpful for me to see the extent to which, you know, this is affecting members' decision to either leave or not join your congregation and ultimately how that impacts your bond. [1:52:25] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter): So, for example, we show you our budget, so our dividend is down. [1:52:30] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): It would certainly be helpful if you're willing to do it, but of course, it's up to you what you do for it. [1:52:36] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Attorney): Okay. In the past, we haven't had something quite like this, but in cases in the past where a residential property or something, an applicant might say, oh, my house, we talked to a realtor and we think that the house is going to lose $50,000 in value based on this decision, so value can be a component. I don't think it necessarily has to be. There's nothing that prescribes that it has to be a specific number. I think they do have value in [1:53:04] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): their written application as well already, so I guess my read of significant is kind of, I guess, the, in the scientific set of enough to register versus, I think it's really tough to judge relative levels of significance, other than it's enough to be serious, I guess. Like losing a bathroom is like a serious value, like a home, for example, it's definitely something that is like actually factored into the assessment formula. So it would be hard for me, I guess, not to view that as significant. I'm thinking all of this is just kind of a draft. [1:53:46] Speaker G (unidentified): So just kind of, do [1:53:53] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): we wanna, I guess we can't really do a poll or anything either. [1:53:59] Speaker J (unidentified): You can do dry compensation to get a sense, like a straw fold. [1:54:03] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): We want to do kind of a non-binding, how we would vote. [1:54:06] Speaker J (unidentified): Or just give your sense of where you're at, obviously it's not binding. [1:54:12] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): So I agree with what I just said. [1:54:20] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Attorney): I think I'm generally in agreement as well. I think what we're almost getting to there was what the question asked here is that the value of the property would be substantially lower and while they're not looking to necessarily sell the property, I think probably fairly clear that you would get more property with a building without any bathrooms and it is probably less valuable than a building that is connected excessively to a building with a restaurant. I [1:54:52] Speaker D (unidentified): think I've, I've been persuaded that, well, I'm familiar with the churches in town and they struggle. It's a constant battle to hold on to parishioners with enough money to donate and losing families, etc. It's a significant economic injury. I [1:55:24] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): don't think I'm there, but I think I could get there if there's more evidence. So three, the need for variance is due to the unique circumstances of the property and also the general conditions of the neighborhood for the old properties. I think that this one is also fairly easy just because they all tend to be very unique and the historic structure as well just kind of adds to that. Sorry, I'm talking faster than you can write, but are there more thoughts on that one in general agreement? So sorry we Go this fast. I think we talked about pretty much just that the building is both old, which is weird in and of itself, and then for unusual in of itself, and then also it's designated, which adds additional it's. [1:56:41] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Attorney): Probably built before the setback is kind of like, yeah, like the parish house was built clearly right up to the property line, and it's not where you presumably you could do that. I don't know, they're actually anybody checking back or. [1:57:12] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): The renting, it seems like we kind of already pulled on that one, so we've gone to four. Unless there's objections, the renting of the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and a lot of unreasonably detrimental effects on the use of the fair market value of flooding properties. It's. [1:57:34] Speaker C (unidentified): A bit subjective. Read what our response was. We reviewed your. [1:57:40] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): Yeah,, I mean, it seems like a very measured renovation from everything that we've seen. I couldn't imagine it lowering property values personally, but I agree, I agree. Okay, I agree with that. So for the record, all these other standards we generally seem to feel have been met. So this would be, it's really just that 0.1 so far. [Speaker F (unidentified): 2.1 between, we.] Kind of already pulled this one. So we move on, five, practical difficulty is not the result of an action taken by the applicant or prior owner. How do we feel about the church selling the HAC parcel? What year did that happen? So I think it was a long time ago. So, I mean, I don't want to hold that against how would they have known, I assume that there is case law on dividing a lot. [1:59:12] Speaker J (unidentified): There is case law on dividing a lot, usually much closer in proximity of time. Okay. That's a good point. I guess. [1:59:22] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): For the old laws, I do, I mean, if something happens like I think a hundred years ago or so, I tend to view that as kind of time immemorial, but I agree, I just wanted. [1:59:35] Speaker M (unidentified): It's a pretty hard thing to see. [1:59:38] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter): We've been here for about a hundred years. [1:59:41] Speaker I (unidentified): Oh, yeah. That's the neighboring building. I don't have it with me, but it was, I think, even before 1900 that the building that went on the solar plan was built. Okay. That's that's in the tax centers. I can set up for you. [2:00:01] Speaker J (unidentified): But I think that's worth mentioning. Like, although it may have been split at one time. [2:00:04] Speaker C (unidentified): The board funds that predates that back. Okay, yeah, I think again. [2:00:11] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): this is always a weird one to write because it's like proving a negative somewhat but i didn't see anything even recent enough history to be worth considering don't encode existence that's not so we adopted there's already put in the 20s and then we have like briefly almost unadopted in the 30s but there's a big referendum on it 's like narrowly passed very fun ad full page ad in the press herald that they took out to get people to vote for it that [2:01:09] Speaker G (unidentified): might just some of them, you know, there's [2:01:12] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Attorney): placeholders there, might be a placeholder, yeah. [2:02:04] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): i think we kind of struggled that one already as well so six is no other peaceable alternative to the african accepted variance and i think there were some thoughts on that one yeah i 've been convinced by dan i hadn't considered the historical nature of the building. So to the extent that you could go the opposite way, I don't think that 's useful. [2:02:29] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Attorney): And that was my initial question was about why it wasn't just straight, but you explained very well that it needs to be U and either. [2:02:38] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): That same question about it being straight, [2:02:40] Speaker G (unidentified): so it seems like there's an option here. [2:03:10] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): So with that, I agree with this finding. Anyone object on the board? Then you're supposed to vote on it. No, I know, I just like straw poll objectives. No, I've got a little thing to make. So next is the guarantee of variance will have been reasonably effective adverse effect on the natural environment. This also seems pretty straightforward, it's quite a built-up area already. Anyone on the board have concerns with that finding? Me so moving on to eight, the property is not located in the part of shoreland area [2:04:22] Speaker M (unidentified): it's another quite straightforward one so [2:04:30] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): based on the summary and we haven't voted on this so it's not binding although we did put on the first finding which is that it's a dimensional standard it looks like only 2.1 would be in question and we didn't vote on that although So you kind of heard the concerns of the board. I think now we can, I would entertain a motion to table this discussion. And then do we table to a date, or do we? [2:04:57] Maureen Hickey: Yeah, can we do the 18th? [2:04:59] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, June 18th. [2:05:02] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter/Property Owner): That would be great, just as we need to know this. [2:05:04] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): OK, so I would entertain a motion to table this until June 18th. So moved. Second. OK. Okay. Okay. Oh, sorry, is there discussion? [2:05:16] Speaker K (unidentified): Yep. One question I have was if, just for folks, if other board members are present at that time, at that board meeting, would they need to say that they've seen the prior meeting? [2:05:33] Speaker J (unidentified): They can review the video, they can review the materials, they can indicate on the record that they've done so, and as long as no board member [2:05:37] Speaker C (unidentified): with other calls about generally they're qualified to vote on it. I think the materials probably in the packet for that meeting again is actually right. Yes, they have to review the video and [2:05:50] Speaker J (unidentified): if the board was inclined to reopen the record and receive more information, that would also receive public comment and we'll notice it that way as well. Maybe [2:05:58] Speaker G (unidentified): four votes, so there's only five of us today. It's a tight one there. [2:06:05] Speaker I (unidentified): We go, that's the one, the deadline for our submitting additional [2:06:11] Speaker J (unidentified): Generally we have the Friday before that meeting. Okay, just so we can circulate it, we'll take [2:06:16] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Staff Attorney): anything up to this time, but obviously if it's five minutes before, they're not gonna have time. [2:06:22] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Attorney): Okay, I think we, I think in order to, we don't have to reopen the record at that meeting to consider, but we will have considered new evidence, you know, the application process [2:06:36] Speaker J (unidentified): essentially, because we closed the public portion, we want to be open and different, make additional observations from the applicant, and then kind of do a mini public hearing on that [2:06:45] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Attorney): and allow the public comment for a process. Yeah, so if they are providing more information on [2:06:50] Speaker C (unidentified): exactly, that's what I would suggest. [2:06:56] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): Any further discussion on the motion to table? Seeing none, roll call vote. Tom Morse? Yes. [2:07:03] Speaker C (unidentified): Andrew Weaver? Yes. Dan Black? Yes. Nancy English? Yes. Graham Lewis? Yes. Okay, thank you, and again [2:07:11] Speaker I (unidentified): I'm sorry that the standard is very high information and also that you have a hard I'm sitting here and not doing what we wanted to do. [2:07:27] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Attorney): So I'm going to excuse myself from this next one because of what I've done in general to the projects. [2:07:35] Speaker K (unidentified): So for what it's worth, I will mention [2:07:38] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): that I don't think I have enough work for a firm [2:07:46] Speaker M (unidentified): that also represented the group, [2:07:47] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): But I think, you know, for what it's worth, and I think we've provided that you don't get back home. It's a majority present, but we've, we've both remembered. [2:08:06] Speaker J (unidentified): Oh, we've both. Yeah. Right. But even with the four. Yeah. [2:08:13] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter/Property Owner): You're going to go. Yeah, you're going to refuse. [2:08:16] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Attorney): or if you're getting should I come back for the vote to touch her and Andrew I'll give me a proxy [2:08:29] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): welcome thank you for waiting through the meetings so up next we have you are i'm just trying to read the exact wording in the agenda up next we have 58 bean pot circle northeastern university owner tax map 447 block a lot one in the v5 base view zone the rue institutional overlay zone ae flood zone cfroc and shorelands over the applicant is requesting a relief from section 12.5 point sorry 12.4.5 point 12.4.5 i think i which requires the lowest floor of the building to be two feet above the base flood elevation of 10.74 feet in the AE zone. They're requesting that the elevation of the lowest floor remain at 10.74 due to the historic landmark designation of the building, representing the owners as well as Sweat. Thank you, thank [2:09:37] Speaker K (unidentified): you. Hi, good evening, thank you for having us. Sam Righty with Spring Point Development, representing Northeastern as the owner's price manager. With you with Maureen Haney from Northeastern Online, to help with answering your questions at the end. Michael Ockren, also from Northeastern. And Maureen's left with Gordon Kern. So Lauren will talk through the details of both the variance we're requesting tonight and the rationale for the variance. And just to give you a quick background on the project, we've worked with various city departments sort of last several years on overall site plan, starting with the sort of the, we've got the whole site designated a historic landmark with the city 2022, worked through the certificate appropriateness with the historic preservation office on 2024, and then continued through the site plan process, which is what we refer to at the time as the Bean Building, which we use here for the building, now called Lumber Innovation Labs, is central to the whole campus plan. And so just to show you on the right-hand side here where it sits in the plan, so Tukey Bridge or I-295 is on the bottom of the page here, so you have the new academic building that you see being constructed on the top of the page, and Lumber Innovation Labs is [2:11:05] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): the orange building in the center of the page. [2:11:07] Speaker K (unidentified): So, Lauren will talk through how the existing structure relates to flood elicitation and water closures. [2:11:16] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter/Property Owner): Great. So, I'm Lauren Sweat, Civil Engineer in Water and Current. We've been working with the project team throughout the development of this site. And so today I'm here to talk to you specifically about our request for reliefs from the land use code section 12.4. So this section of the ordinance with our project, we have substantial improvement to non-residential use, a structure in FEMA flood zone, and for the ordinance flood proofing or a finished wall, they should change up to at least the design flood elevation would be required, and the design flood elevation here is 12.74, or two feet above the base flood elevation. And just for reference, we included information on this in our application, and all of these elevations have been converted to the city's flood system, so it may look a little bit different than when you look at the FEMA flood map itself. So our request with this variance is to allow for flood proofing to the base flood elevation, so the 10.74, and this would allow for the lower level basement space of this building to remain usable without significant impact to the building structure. Sure, okay, so as part of our application we included information to talk about the variance criteria summary, talking about reasonable return and strict compliance with the regulation. There'd be infeasible construction measures that I'll talk a little bit more about in the future slides, but really it would come down to damage to the historic. We're looking to be able to preserve the historic façade and support the rehabilitation of a landmark building. And we've got unique circumstances here with this historic building. The building's historic construction includes thick masonry walls, early structural systems that are very different from modern methods of construction today. And then we also have the case of this building, the foundation actually bears on bedrock location. And all of these challenges are not self-created, again, this is a historic building. The building predates current floodplain regulations, and hardship really rises from applying modern floodplain requirements to an existing historic structure. [Speaker G (unidentified): And] So as part of our analysis of this, we really looked at the different alternatives that we could use to be able to comply. And the first one and the primary one we looked at was wet flood proofing. To wet flood proof would require the installation of a minimum of 43 flood vents in the exterior walls of the building. In order to install those vents, it would require full depth cutting of the concrete and brick masonry, installation of structural headers and handles at each of the openings, and added reinforcement for shoring because of the number of openings and the spacing that would be required to fit all of those openings in. And so the concern is really the permanent loss of historic material, but also the structures due to potential structural implications of adding all of those openings into that bottom level. We also looked at a couple of other options. So where the previous was wet blood proofing, the dry blood proofing option determines to not be a good option because the building bears off bedrock. In order to do this method of flood proofing would require extensive excavation around the structure that could undermine the foundation due to the way that it was constructed and then we also looked at the possibility of raising the existing slab to the design flood elevation the existing finished floor elevation of this basement level is 9.5 9.5 feet and city critical data and so we need to raise that by over three feet to get to the 12.74 and what this would end up doing is reduce the floor Structure height and it would reduce it below a code required levels specifically to be able to install the mechanical equipment that would be needed in the space to make it usable so we would run into clearance limits within that space to be able to be useful so ultimately looking at all of these alternatives made the determination that meeting requirement of flood proofing to the design flood elevation wouldn't be feasible enough for us to request specifically the variance to change the flood Proofing elevation to the base flood elevation and so if this variance is granted we would still actually actively provide for flood protection beyond the base flood elevation the lowest floor elevation the plan is to raise that from the existing 9.5 up to 11. And so that increase of a foot and a half instead of the greater than three that would require for the design flood elevation would allow for compliance with the code requirements for clearance and that would bring the floor elevation to about three inches above the base flood elevation and that would allow you know by having that allowable clearance we've been able to use the space for building support as is planned we're also planning to install critical building systems like the primary Electrical services and telecommunication systems up at on the first floor, and so the first floor is with an elevation of 21.5 feet, so a little above the base of design elevations. The lower level finishes that would be within this lower basement space would be designed to be flood damage resistance, and then future plumbing for the building into this space would be designed with that flow connection to additional conditions. So in closing, we're asking for this relief to allow for flood proofing to the base flood elevation instead of the design flood elevation. The requested variance really represents the minimum relief necessary for us to be able to use the space in this basement floor level, and even with this request we are continuing to improve flood resilience and protecting flooding issues, but while also avoiding compliance methods that could cause an irreversible advantage or prevent us to use the space. And so the Lunder Building would continue to be able to support the overall purpose. [2:18:46] Speaker G (unidentified): That's it. Any [2:18:51] Speaker D (unidentified): questions from the board? I just wondered how many square feet you can give us. And the entire building has how many 58 remaining [2:19:20] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): 50,000 or so would still be usable. Sorry, forgive me, I don't know what flood vents are. How big are these things that we're talking about? I guess I'm trying to conceptualize how much of an impact putting in what's in 43 [2:19:42] Speaker K (unidentified): but I'll say, well, you might know the size of our structural engineers that [Speaker F (unidentified): I guess] why isn't it feasible? Because the structural nature of the facade, you have to break it up. Do you notice how the openings, yeah, they're about two by two, I think they vary [2:20:00] Speaker M (unidentified): the requirement was needed of that for every two hundreds for around perimeter, so that's where from a 43 football game from. Okay, but the concern comes from the fact that you're cutting the whole depth through the three wide masonry historic basement right here, and so if you have these [2:20:22] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): holes it might compromise the integrity of the foundation. Is that correct? Okay, yeah [2:20:34] Speaker K (unidentified): When was the historic designation put on the property? And you all owned it at that time. And I guess maybe this is, it's partly a question for the applicant, but maybe a question also for the city. What is creating this issue now in terms of, you know, you're pulling a new permit that's causing that, it wasn't, not this isn't a level of detail that would have been like that in a site planner, if you were like that, and you know, okay, so we're now moving forward with design [2:21:16] Speaker G (unidentified): obviously we're [2:21:21] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): talking about being factory here but the parcel has these parking garage as well as the academic building is that all one parcel or are they yes okay yeah what are the requirements like on you as kind of owning this historic building in terms of you know maintenance [2:21:45] Speaker G (unidentified): basically [2:21:49] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter/Property Owner): being specifically related to it being a historic building well i'm not sure [2:21:58] Speaker K (unidentified): i totally understand the question where you were as we approach the construction process they are working closely with the store preservation office to ensure we are replacing the windows properly handling all the masonry properly so i would shoot with the city to come out once already i'll come back next week the week after we'll look at the way that we are restoring the brick in the basement concrete of the barrel building so i think we're trying to take great carried the right way thank you [2:22:31] Speaker F (unidentified): any further questions from the board no [2:22:36] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): i don't think there's anyone here in the room for public comment but maybe someone's waiting in the hallway now would be your time to come and then we can go to zoom and i think we've had someone join and leave so that the raise hand feature is how you participate in the to you okay so i guess we have no public comment and we can go into scotland so i will open up the decision document all right this is the room institutional overlay zone on new hardship variance application is may 21st 2026 and applicant lauren sweat agent Woodard and Curran, and the name and address of the owner is New York City University, 316 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA. The applicant is seeking relief from Section 12.4.5i of the City's Land Use Code, which requires base flood elevation plus 2 feet, so 12.74 feet. The applicant is requesting to allow lowest floor at base flood elevation of 10.74 feet, to rehabilitate the former B&M Cannery building located at 58 Beanpot Circle. B&M Cannery building is a locally designated historic landmark. The board may authorize variances from article 12 for repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or restoration of historic structures upon determination that the conditions set forth in section 12.7.3 be met. This board's jurisdiction to hear this variance requests pursuant to land use code go in sections 12.7.1b and 2.3.1b. Our findings are as follows. The board has reviewed information submitted by the applicant, received oral testimony at the hearing. After carefully considering all the evidence in the record, the board finds as follows. Section 12.7.3b of the land use ordinance permits the board to grant a variance for repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, and restoration of historic structures upon the determination of the following criteria subsection 12.7.2 are met. A, the applicant has made a good showing and sufficient cause. I mean, this seems pretty open to interpretation to me. I would say that they have a strong application. It's detailed. I can understand why they want to do it. And that it convinced me that in order to use that first basement they do need to do these changes and I would say that is sufficient cause for this particular finding I guess all the question I would have then is let's say the variance was not granted what would the impact of a project be? [2:25:40] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah Changes to the design [2:25:44] Speaker K (unidentified): Line overall for the building yeah I'll say I mean this space clearly couldn't be used in other portions of the building you rely on will rely on the basement and this being a public space like that [2:26:04] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): I just want to make sure I understand so the you know obviously the basement space couldn't be used and they're you're intended to have any identical just down there presumably those would have to be moved elsewhere in the building and then the rest of the building could be used or are you saying that if the variance isn't granted then none of the building the upper floors of the [2:26:24] Speaker K (unidentified): Building could in theory be used correct otherwise yeah I would say the basement is like functioning [2:26:31] Speaker M (unidentified): As a support space for the rest of the building so trash storage mechanic I mean there are functions of the building that would need to be modified to be able to operate the building. [2:26:44] Speaker K (unidentified): Yeah, within our site plan it would be. [2:26:51] Speaker L (unidentified): Any further questions from the board? And [2:26:56] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): Do people have thoughts on whether or not they've made a good showing of sufficient cause? [2:27:04] Speaker D (unidentified): It's for the limited use of the texturized level. [2:27:12] Speaker K (unidentified): I mean, yeah, I don't know what the language would be, but I think it allows them to use [2:27:21] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): The entirety of the historic structure, and since this is like more of the historic prompts, [2:27:27] Speaker G (unidentified): I think that makes sense. Yeah, I agree. [2:27:36] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): Especially what we just heard about this being called a basic structure, and it was political, you know, elements have to be moved to the person, but that makes it that much harder ability to give a license right now you can't be working to accept this finding although no [2:28:38] Speaker G (unidentified): Rush if you're sorry okay [2:28:47] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Staff Attorney): Todd Morris. Yes on the weaver. Okay, here's good, thank you. [2:28:58] Speaker C (unidentified): Yes, the applicant has demonstrated that should a flood comfortable for the base flood occur, [2:29:07] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): the granting of variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety or public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud or victimization of the public, [2:29:18] Speaker M (unidentified): or conflict with local laws, or offenses. [2:29:23] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): So yeah, what can mine speak to this? [2:29:28] Speaker D (unidentified): So with what [2:29:31] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter/Property Owner): we are proposing, it will not result in a negative impact to other parts of the space or the space account. So we're not going to cause any threats to public safety, public expense, or create new systems by what is being allowed here, because we're continuing to use existing buildings in this space. Does that answer your question? [2:30:07] Speaker G (unidentified): Yes. Well, I'm [2:30:12] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): curious for the board's thoughts. What the applicant just said is well take it from the building curve they exist and so any you know if the variance is granted and these you know flood beds are not put in there wouldn't be any increase in major because that's the way the property has existed since it was built right But I guess the flip side of that is, if the variance is not granted, there is a potential that other mitigation factors, like the, I think it's called dry, flood proving would be taken, which then might mitigate, you know, flood risk, etc. I think it's a little unfair to approach it that way, but I don't know if that's simply spelled. I agree. It's like ranking the variance is not going to be good to take an action or like allow them to take an action that would make things worse than the current issues. And if like the footprint of the building is staying the same, it sounds like to me this would probably be met. I'm just trying to think of an example. I agree. I just kind of need. [2:31:30] Speaker K (unidentified): And we're in separate programs where I can, I mean, our rates are as high as far as we can. Yeah. [2:31:38] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): But yeah, a lot of times they're more constrained than this, and I'm not an engineer, so I'll have to take your word for it. [2:31:53] Speaker D (unidentified): I had a question. How often does the flood insurance, the federal flood insurance change? [2:32:03] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter/Property Owner): I know it varies. Is this latest change it actually took a while I think before it actually went into effect it [2:32:10] Speaker C (unidentified): had come out a few years before but I'm not sure so 2020 to the 2023 2024 the 2017 flood master [2:32:20] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter/Property Owner): yes 2000 I couldn't remember when they started but yeah it took from 2017 to 24 for him to be actually authorized. They put them forward in 2017. [2:32:34] Speaker F (unidentified): I just [2:32:40] Speaker D (unidentified): Speculated reimagined public expense with it with the increased sea level, and it changed in the flood maps, and destruction. That's not about the current building. Right. [2:33:03] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): My understanding is that building in a flood zone as well means that you have to waive your insurance in some form. Am I making this up? I remember a previous case where we had this. Oh, right. They couldn't insure. Yeah. I don't know if that's relevant here, but I don't know. [2:33:28] Speaker G (unidentified): I don't think that this is... [2:33:29] Speaker F (unidentified): Yeah, I think [2:33:34] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): The public wouldn't be on the hook for fixing it if it were to flood. Correct. Yeah. Yeah, no, I know we talked about that then, I just don't remember the exact details of that case. [2:33:51] Speaker D (unidentified): But this is complying with the flood map requirements, it's not the extra requirement for local zoning, [2:34:01] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter/Property Owner): But the base flood elevation is the elevation that's defined in the model of the map. [2:34:11] Speaker D (unidentified): I think maybe that other instance was the actual word for it. [2:34:16] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): Oh, yeah. Okay. That's perfect. I don't know a little bit of [2:34:40] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter/Property Owner): The board long capture brain on your sure I did completely. So we can [2:34:54] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): Say like, and the current footprint and remaining within the current footprint. But I think it's really good. Otherwise, I'm [2:35:19] Speaker C (unidentified): Sure, but it'll be moved on. [2:35:22] Speaker D (unidentified): Yes, I think we should have put that out. Are [2:35:40] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): There any motion to accept this finding? So moved. Second. Son of course. Yes. Dan Black. Yes. Nancy English. Yes. Graham Lewis. Yes. See, the applicant has demonstrated the issuance of variance will not conflict with other state, federal, or local laws or ordinances. I think we've just chatted about this, they're going down to the federal level and they've demonstrated they are in compliance with those laws and ordinances. Do I entertain a motion to accept this finding? Second. [2:37:06] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Staff Attorney): Todd Morse? Yes. Dan Black? Yes. Nancy English? Yes. Graham Lewis? Yes. [2:37:12] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): Okay. And D, the applicant has demonstrated that failure to grant variance would result in undue hardship, which means the land in question cannot yield a reasonable return unless the variance is granted. Note, failure to yield a reasonable return means the practical loss of all beneficial use of the land. Reasonable does not mean maximum return. This one is really tough, I think, for this application. What are the board's thoughts on it? I mean, I agree. I think this is a top standard to meet in any situation, in particular this one, for a couple of reasons. One, we heard that there's other buildings on the parcel that are being used that would assume, well, two, the rest of this building could be used, and three, the case law that we always talk about pertains to a ocean side property, which this is as well. And so I think that's a really tough standard. [2:38:17] Speaker F (unidentified): To me, yeah, I kind of [2:38:23] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): agree. I think what they're asking for is very small and reasonable, and I think necessary for the use of the historic structure. And also that's kind of why I was getting at, are there some costs that they have to incur to maintain the historic structure, but it's Yeah, that is the top part here. What do you think? [2:38:47] Speaker K (unidentified): Yeah, I was I always struggle to find In [2:38:59] Speaker G (unidentified): this case, it does seem Yeah, it does seem like there's there [2:39:10] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): is still the bad visual use of the land. [2:39:18] Speaker G (unidentified): So let's see it is the [2:39:23] Speaker K (unidentified): land that is the property, yeah, one of the same or in this case [2:39:28] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): the land typically we're drilling and the most clear cut is a parcel on this board. Again, we don't necessarily follow previous decisions exactly, but there has been some discussion back and forth on that. So I don't want to say it's always the whole parcel. It could maybe be a part of it or depending on how it's split up, but so yeah, I mean, it's not necessarily I don't want to make a strong statement that in every case it's the entire legal parcel, but in this case I think that even that some of the building can be used, it doesn't we don't even necessarily need to go to like where the line is on the parcel level, and I don't know if there's [2:40:11] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter/Property Owner): were clarifying further it was clear. So we're calling this like the lower level, the basement level, and part of this front part of it is at ground level. So it is the what kind of faces the active the frontage of this building and where the trail passes by, and there are uses on like the land around it too. So yeah, make sure by saying basement we're not just talking [2:40:42] Speaker K (unidentified): everything underground too, so he's he has space, yeah, it all like that's your activity, yeah. [2:40:48] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): And for the record, the case that we've been talking about here is that South Portland found that someone could use their property because they could use it as a as a personal boat launch because it was on the water. So the fact that use was available global precluded their ability to do the hardship variance. So the standard, especially on a parcel like this, is just extremely high, even though on a personal level, everything that you're saying makes total sense to me. It's just that the hardship variance bar is really, high. Yeah, again, it does sound like a positive thing for the project to have this done. It's just I'm really thinking about it. I can't see a way to standardize that personally. [2:41:37] Maureen Hickey: Could I jump in here? This is Maureen Hickey. I'm based in Boston for Northeastern. I'm sorry, I can't be there in person. But I just wanted to say, I think if we think about the Lunder building itself as the property in question, and somebody raised the question of, you know, are there additional costs associated with historic preservation? And I just want to say affirmatively that there absolutely are in Northeastern wants to preserve this structure, which we know is so integral and important to the history of the Portland area. But we are incurring significant costs to, you know, maintain the existing masonry, replace the windows with historic windows. Knows we're taking a lot of care in the design and so then to lose effectively one level that is public facing of this building when we're incurring additional cost does start eating into a reasonable return on a use of a property and the investment in it. I [2:42:57] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): Think that's really interesting if could you speak maybe to the magnitude of some of the costs that you're [2:43:03] Maureen Hickey: Talking about and sure you know I would actually look to Michael Cochran who's in the room if he's able to speak on you know sort of a percentage basis of some of the premium charges for some of the historic elements that we are preserving yeah [2:43:23] Speaker J (unidentified): Put him on the spot but he is much more [2:43:25] Speaker M (unidentified): familiar than I am, yeah, the restoration, you know, with most structures, the structure itself is a good percentage of the building overall cost. The structure existed, but the building overall cost, the order of magnitude is 30 million, and to reconstruct the entire perimeters or the exterior is very noted, including the historic windows, the recouping of the parapets, and the entire masonry and concrete restoration. It's over half of that cost of the of the entire project, to do closer to two-thirds to do the restoration component of it. So I think that's Sam, yes, Sam had noted before, the entire perimeter is under historic preservation jurisdiction. So every component is reviewed and approved by the HP board. So having to be complicit with that is definitely costly and cost of the project. [2:44:34] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): And if you allow me to ask a very naive question, if you could, you buy this property and just knock down factory, or is that like how, by what mechanism is the historic preservation ordinance preventing you from doing that? I'm not suggesting that you do that, I'm just trying to establish how that burden is kind of imposed upon the land itself, because it does specifically [2:44:58] Speaker K (unidentified): they say it's land, not just the property, yeah, we condone it all for starker, I certainly know that special approval, so this is a landmark, yeah, a structure, we, I don't know how many did northeastern apply for the historic status, northeastern did not, ideal since the prior owner, which the nonprofit said that really permanent work for the size of northeastern, and so we [Speaker F (unidentified): were, I'll] say on the reasonable return, just to add a more range point, we talked about this before, which is to bring up again, if we can't occupy this space, those uses would then have to occupy the space above, and so it just gets to be a bigger percentage of the overall building, which would not be useful, both of them were running those reactive. Is there any use at [2:45:59] Speaker D (unidentified): all available if you raise and then we just kind of quit [2:46:06] Speaker K (unidentified): ready to be if I don't believe, I don't think it would be an [2:46:13] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter/Property Owner): occupied space. It's a clearance to the mechanical equipment that needs to go through the walls. [2:46:20] Speaker D (unidentified): Oh, to use it, or to use it with it? [2:46:23] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter/Property Owner): Yeah, like the HVAC, mechanical events [2:46:26] Speaker D (unidentified): that we have to have in the ceiling. We could put it in some kind of walls. [2:46:34] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter/Property Owner): I don't think we would have, I don't think we would end up with the adequate clearance at those particular locations. If there's a code requirement from the floor level [2:46:46] Speaker I (unidentified): to the duct level. I [2:46:52] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): Mean, I think that was a good question about the application for historic from the prior owner, because then if we consider that as part of the hardship, then you kind of lose on the fourth prompt. So again, I definitely think what you're proposing is reasonable. I just can't see how it keeps the standard going forth. I'm not sure that so I agree. I don't think it's the first standard going down to the fourth one. To the extent that we do want to get ahead of ourselves, I'm not sure that the hardship here is the fact that this is a historic building to think our hardship is we have forward without we can actually comply with these blood restrictions. So I think my question is a little misleading. All right, I say that out to be if we say I was perhaps thinking that to find a land obligating you to maintain this historic structure, it could be part of a hardship that is then combined with the flood. Yeah, but to use that as part of it, which I actually don't even know if we could, but if we did, then that would be action by our owner to make up the total hardship, which is both those things combined. So it's kind of like you're caught between the two wrongs. Yes, you know, good thing we have a lawyer here who might be able to tell us how it's been interpreted. Right, the hardship is [2:48:15] Speaker J (unidentified): the impediment right now, and I think right, the impediment right now is the flood. Right, so and I think maybe the historic preservation could be a piece of that space that is the one nexus between beating it and not the hardship, but it's the hardship that they're running out against [2:48:30] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter/Property Owner): and I wonder is it worth noting that the flood elevation [2:48:45] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): I don't think that impacts my analysis for at least the first part. Yeah, that's not no [2:48:50] Speaker F (unidentified): it's not all right [2:48:54] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): Well I kind of beat around the bush on this one as much as I could. I think just [2:49:02] Speaker K (unidentified): back to the land it part of our site plan was I mean the whole site in the state, city, all the community to build this public bike path, so there's a public pier, there's a public plaza that provides access into the Lunder Building. This is a critical part of that entire system, which is going to yield a bridge that goes over to the Eastern Proms. So without this, and without the ability to track and have scorebikes at people coming to LA, I think it is broader. Both people coming to the campus as users and as visitors. [2:49:50] Speaker D (unidentified): What were you imagining would be in the basement with the cafe and the welcoming tourists? What was the plan for that? [2:50:00] Speaker K (unidentified): We don't actually have a plan right now, so in our current permit we're not, we don't have a, we're not coming trying to figure this piece out. I'll say during zoning what we always contemplated this would be by adjustment. I mean, kind of a public-facing use they interacted with the [2:50:17] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): background following here. Maureen, do you want to add anything? I mean, I think I do kind of like let the applicants be decent that they and I just think that you've definitely established like this is important to the project. Unfortunately, I just don't know if we can consider that. I mean, like the law is basically like, well, if you personally wanted to just use that to launch your vote, like that would kind of disqualify you, so we almost can't even really consider a lot of So again, I apologize. I agree with you on the level of the plan. And I don't know if it's really worth getting into the details of the plan, which I think are great. But I just don't know if they are relevant to the idea. Any further discussion before we conclude? [2:51:15] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter): Can you scroll up here? Sorry. [2:51:19] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): And I know it is confusing because the historic one especially, there's reasonable step, reasonable step. And then also you have to clear this impossible thing in the third sub-bullet, but it's, yeah, that's the standard. The only thing I would, well, yeah, one thing that I would include is, you know, the remainder of the parcel is being used for, is being beneficially used in a variety of ways, to the extent that other members of the board are pointing to that as well. And we didn't really come to a firm conclusion on whether or not we viewed the parcel as a whole or just a mid portion of it. Yeah, I feel mutually about that. I mean, I think if any of the building is usable then I, if we can include it, we cannot include it. Yeah, I guess they're just keeping an eye towards should this be appealed, we want to have a front basis for many reasons why he found the way that we did. Yeah, if you want to have a narrative objective [2:52:24] Speaker F (unidentified): to it so you've [2:52:40] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter/Property Owner): noted that this is a hard one to get through. How would someone [2:52:48] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): so I mean, I think what you really want to demonstrate is that no possible use of the land could be made, and I think you can also show that through like economically viable uses, but again the waterfront property, the case law As was explained to me, I'm not a lawyer, I'd definitely recommend doing your own research, but yeah, the South Portland case mentions this kind of boat launch thing, yeah, it's [2:53:18] Speaker K (unidentified): A very high bar to do, but you're saying any part of the entire 13 and a half acre site? Yeah, and even if it's a 100 acre site, it's just the same? [2:53:26] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): I'm not necessarily saying that because you could theoretically subdivide as long as you're not using the size of the lot as the reason for your hardship, as long as it's like a legal law so yeah i 'm not a lawyer i'm not gonna like tell you exactly what you can and can't do with every portion of the parcel but it's usually considered at the parcel level and whether or not you can divide it is ambiguous depending on the case in this case you don't have the justification so that would be historic. I guess what I would say is viewing this as a parcel as a whole, I don't think the standards matter because obviously there's other points. Sure, viewing just the building, I also don't think the standard is met because, you know, several floors can still be utilized, and I understand that it will impact how the structure itself is utilized, but it can be utilized nonetheless. Absent all of those considerations, you know, the case law is clear that for ocean side properties, you know, even using something as, you know, for purely recreation integration is sufficient to not meet this standard, and so the bar is just incredible. [2:54:34] Speaker F (unidentified): I [2:54:37] Speaker M (unidentified): think the great island case that you brought up earlier, that was one where this was, this was passed, I believe, maybe the only instance, and I think it was just [2:54:52] Speaker F (unidentified): the structure in that instance and not, wasn't applied to the entire property. [2:54:58] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): Yeah, I definitely want to get into like every past case and all of the differences. I do think the parcel size was definitely like a factor there, and also, I mean, that whole building could not have been used. So again, it also is a different board, and I don't want to speak to the entire board then. I will say that there are some differences between these two, not just the split. [2:55:21] Speaker F (unidentified): but daddy [2:55:26] Maureen Hickey: Is there, is there any way to try to value the public benefit of the bike and pedestrian path and pier area, that this section of the wonder building will be dark effectively, and what the impact to the public value is when considering this standard? [2:55:55] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): I mean, one, you can consider all sorts of things. I do kind of want to cut off this back and forth. I mean, this is also the deliberation period. I really value the input here, but I think that those things are valuable. Unfortunately, the value of those things is not mentioned in the standard, and we have to go by the standard. So, I mean, if the zoning code were updated, that's kind of law that's voted on by elected officials. We are kind of interpreting the limited case of the standards. And though I personally, and I think others on the board, think that it makes sense on some level, the standard doesn't mention that. And the point, I guess, for zoning, people set rules in advance with no idea about the particulars of parcels. And we have these tools that we can use, but that's kind of all we have. Yeah, so yeah, we had this language in front of us for a while. Is there anything more on the language to [Speaker G (unidentified): discuss? Okay.] Seeing none, I would entertain a motion to accept this finding. [2:57:04] Speaker C (unidentified): Todd Morse, yes. Dan Slack, yes. Nancy English, yes. Okay. [2:57:13] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): Two, the need for variance is due to the unique circumstances of the property and not the general conditions in the neighborhood. She changes across the area. Presumably there are many other properties in the neighborhood that do not be in the plus, so you would say this has been that. So I think this has been that. Yeah, I agree. Okay, so [2:57:43] Speaker C (unidentified): you said that elevation changes around, yeah, around the neighborhood, so this is [2:57:50] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): is unique. Being in the flood zone is unique to this problem, so everyone good? [2:58:36] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter/Property Owner): Oh, sorry. [2:58:52] Speaker C (unidentified): Seconded. Morris, hi, yes, sorry. Let's just read that. Dan Black, yes. Nancy English and Graham Lewis, yes. [2:59:05] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): Three, the granting of a variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. I think this variance would actually preserve the essential character of fluid quality because it's contributing to the preservation of it and reuse of the historic structure. The variance would help in the preservation and reuse of the historic structure and therefore or would not alter the essential character quality. And this is in reference to the core structure [2:59:50] Speaker L (unidentified): of the use of the original languages, [2:59:52] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): which is kind of irrelevant from the various. Oh, Maureen, would you mind, I'm reading, I can hear some sound from. [3:00:05] Maureen Hickey: Oh, sorry. No worries. [3:00:25] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): Findings, are there any? Okay, do we have a second? I can do it. [3:00:30] Speaker L (unidentified): Todd Morris. Yes. [3:00:32] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Staff Attorney): Sam Black. Yes. Nancy English. Yes. [3:00:35] Speaker C (unidentified): Graham Lewis. Yes. Yes. [3:00:37] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): Or the hardship is not the result of an action taken by the applicant or prior owner. [3:00:44] Speaker F (unidentified): I mean, the flood ordinance [3:00:47] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): was adjusted after they acquired the property. I mean, it doesn't seem like any action [3:00:53] Speaker F (unidentified): that they took to cause the hardship. [3:01:35] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): I'd entertain a motion to accept this finding. Second. Kyle Morris. Yes. Dan Black. Yes. Nancy English. Yes. Rand Morris. E. The applicant demonstrates that the variance is the minimum necessary considering the flood hazard to afford relief of the board-made imposed conditions to such a variance as deemed necessary. The applicant appeared to make a strong effort to bring it up as much as they possibly could. [Speaker F (unidentified): But the] minimum necessary is strong language. And again, I'm not an engineer, so I don't know exactly how to bring it up to the federal level. So this is weird, just because they're asking to not do something, not to do something, right? And so it's kind of hard to do the minimum necessary when you're asking to frame for matching, right? It's not like the setback issue we encountered earlier, where you can have a three-foot setback or a five-foot setback. This is just you know cut holes in the wall yeah so I guess what I'm saying is the language of this standard is seemingly incongruent with what is actually being applied for so I think the extent of the variance not the extent of the minimum action so like that [3:03:11] Speaker K (unidentified): I would interpret it as a knife and I do think it's mad yeah I just don't know why that, you know, the applicant made a case for having reviewed other options that were available and why they would not, you know, be suitable for or [Speaker F (unidentified): suitable] to address the reason for the variance or the cause of the need for [3:03:55] Speaker G (unidentified): really yep [3:04:03] Speaker F (unidentified): sounds good 3d [3:04:55] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): board therefore something about the most minimal [3:05:04] Speaker D (unidentified): they [3:05:41] Speaker F (unidentified): went through [3:05:53] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): every other option they were bringing up to some level great [3:06:27] Speaker C (unidentified): I'm not going to raise, I'm giving everyone the base, but it was the base level, which is I'm giving everyone. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Sorry. No. [3:07:20] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): I think we're going to accept this finding. Yes. [3:07:36] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Staff Attorney): Yes. Dan Black. Yes. Nancy English. Yes. Graham Lewis. Yes. [3:07:47] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): The board finds that the applicant was not satisfactorily met all the standards above and they're organized by areas. I would entertain any motion if you do have the variance. Todd Morse. Yes. Dan Black. Yes. Nancy English. Yes. Graham Lewis. Yes. Okay. Thank you for your time. Again, I really am sorry. Yeah, thank you. [3:08:14] Speaker C (unidentified): Okay, that was our last item of business. [3:08:21] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): I assume you don't have to go to our table again. [3:08:23] Speaker C (unidentified): that you already put it on that you'll see it on the 18th and then I would take a motion to [Speaker F (unidentified): adjourn move] Yes, Dan Black. Yes, Nancy English. Yes, Graham Lewis. Yes. And on the first one, I need [3:08:42] Unidentified speaker (Chair/Presiding Officer): to come in for a wet signature, right? Yes, yeah. So this one I'll sign now, and that one I'll sign [3:08:46] Speaker K (unidentified): kind of tomorrow. Is there a time that works for you? I'll be here all day. Okay.