Zoning Board of Adjustment

August 20, 2025

Town Hall

7 pm

These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed at the September 17, 2025 meeting for corrections.

Roll Call: Board Members: Chair Tom Murray, Vice-Chair Pauline Barnes, Clerk Dave Edkins, Shane O’Keefe, Bill Sommer. Alternate Don Sellarole. Absent: Myra Mansouri.

Call to Order: Mr. Murray called the meeting to order at 8:03 pm. A full board was present so an alternate was not needed to fill in. 

Minutes: Review minutes of July 2025: Mr. Murray made two corrections. On page 1, last paragraph a free-standing sign can be 20, not 10 feet high and the free-standing sign that was approved was 38.6 square feet not 38.8 square feet. Ms. Barnes corrected some typos. For example, on page three, paragraph six, the letter “t” should go before the “his” in the first sentence. 

Old Business: 

Public Hearing Variance for Boundary Line Setback: Lori Frandino and David Sanchez-Navarro, 37 School Street. Tax Map 10. Lot 48-1, Residential A district. Ordinance: Article V, D2 yard requirements.

Mr, Sanchez-Navarro explained that he needed the variance because he wanted to protect the cargo van from the weather. The van was too wide to fit into the barn on his property and even if it weren’t too wide all the bays of the barn are filled. He couldn’t park on the east part of his property because there is a stream there. The terrain is too steep and wooded to put the van in back of the barn. This left the land to the west, owned by Bill and Frances (Dutchie) Perron. The couple signed a letter addressed to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. It stated that they “had no problem with construction of a lean-to roof off the north side of their barn.” There was a photo of the location.

Mr. Sanchez-Navarro then read the answers to the five criteria that makes up a variance.

Appeal for Variance: A variance is requested from article V section D-2 of the zoning ordinance to permit the building of a lean-to roof attached to the north side of existing barn. The lean-to roof support posts would be less than the required 20-foot distance from the back side of neighbors property line.

Facts in support of the granting the variance:

1. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: The lean-to roof attached to the north side of our barn can not be seen by the public as the site is more than 250′ from the road and is not visible from the street.

2. If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because: The lean-to roof would not impact neighboring property or view and would be the most economical way to protect our recently purchased cargo van. (Attached is letter from neighbors Bill & Dutchie Perron)

3. Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: The lean-to roof is the most economical way to shelter the van. It’s too wide to fit though our barn doors (west side of barn), and the barn already stores three vehicles so there is no room in the barn anyhow.

4. Granting the variance will not diminish the values of the surrounding properties because: The lean-to roof attached to the north side of the barn can only be seen from the back of our neighbors property and the back of their property is semi-wooded. The barn (Oliver Hubbard’s old barn) is a three-story barn built into a hillside and the top two stories are already visible from the neighbor’s house.

5. Unnecessary Hardship Appeal for Variance a. Owing to the special conditions of the property that distinguish it from the other properties in the area, denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship because:

i. No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general public purposes of the ordinance provision and specific application of the provision to the property because: Without a variance there is no other economical way to shelter/protect the van.

 -and ii. 

The proposed use is a reasonable one because: The lean-to roof is the least obtrusive way to shelter the van. 

b. Explain how, if the criteria in subparagraph (a) are not established, an unnecessary hardship will be deemed to exist if, and only if, owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area, the property cannot be reasonably used in strict conformance with the ordinance, and a variance is therefore necessary to enable a reasonable use of it. 

The proposed site of the lean-to roof is located on the barn’s north side. On the barn’s south side, an adjacent seasonal brook is too close to build out to (approx. 10′).

The west side barn doors (1st floor) are too narrow to fit the new van and we already store three vehicles on that level. 

The east side of the barn (2nd floor) is on a hillside and inaccessible for a standard street vehicle. 

Mr. Murray asked the public if there were any questions. There being not questions he closed the public hearing at 7:25 pm.

Mr. O’Keefe said “As required by RSA 36:56 all development applications that come before a Land Use Board must consider if it has regional impact. He made a motion that the proposed development, if approved, would not have potential for regional impact. Mr. Edkins seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.

Ms. Barnes said items one  (public interest) and two (impact on neighboring properties) go together. One of the purposes of the setback rule is privacy and since the lean-to can’t be seen from the road, it fulfilled that purpose. The lean-to would not be visible. The land is the physical handicap in this case. There is no where else on the property to go. She made a motion to accept the variance as presented. Mr. O’Keefe seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.

Tom Aldrich and DADUs

Mr. Aldrich has recently been to a Planning Board meeting, a Select Board meeting and now was at a Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting to discuss his concern about the Detached Accessory Dwelling Units ordinance. He is concerned that with the state’s current focus on expanding the ordinance in ways in which they can be used in order to help with the housing crisis, those ways will hurt small towns like Walpole. As he was speaking someone from the public googled the state’s web site and noticed several more attempts to promote accessory dwelling units by the governor signing several DADU related House Bills.

Adjournment

Mr. Edkins made a motion to adjourn. Mr. O’Keefe seconded the motion and the motion passed. The time was 8:25 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Marilou Blaine

ZBA Recording Secretary

Tagged: Meeting Minutes, ZONING BOARD