The Walpolean

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

Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes

July 16, 2025

Town Hall

 7 pm

These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed at the August 20, 2025 meeting for corrections.

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

Call to Order: Mr. Murray called the meting to order at 7 pm. He asked Alternate Don Sellarole to sit in for the absent Board member. Mr. Sellarole agreed.

Minutes of June 2025: Mr. Murray made one correction: On page 2 he requested that the numerals  2, 3, 4. be placed before three items of the list of Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit requirements. Mr. O’Keefe made a motion to approve the amended minutes. Ms. Barnes seconded the motion and the motion carried. 

New Business: 

Lori and Dave Frandino, 37 School Street. Request for Public Hearing in August for a Variance, Map 10, Lot 48-1, Residential A District. Setback distance to boundary line.

The Frandinos want to build a lean-to roof attached to an existing barn but it would be too close to the property line of their neighbors to the north. Mr. Sellarole made a motion to hold a public hearing on the matter in August. Mr. Murray seconded the motion and the motion carried.

Special Exception request for a Public Hearing. Diane and Dale Ferland at 342 Whitcomb Road,  Rural/ag District. Addition of a DADU, Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit. No one came to the meeting.  

Old Business: 

Public Hearing: Variance: Justin Parker of Classic Signs in Amherst, NH is requesting a variance for two signs (a wall sign and a free-standing sign) at Blue Seal as well as an electronic messaging center on the free-standing sign. The property is at 334 Main Street, Tax Map 12, Lot 59-3 in the commercial district.

Mr. Murray explained to the public that the Board decided at the June meeting to hold one hearing for both the free-standing sign and the wall sign.

Mr. Parker began by discussing the free-standing sign next to Route 12.The ordinance states that “Signs (in the commercial district) shall be permitted no larger than thirty-two (32) square feet” and not be higher than 10 feet, Mr. Parker was proposing a sign of 38.6 square feet and 13 feet high. It would have three components – a Blue Seal logo sign, a Farm – Home sign and an Electronic Messaging System that would create a new short message every couple of minutes. 

The reaction to Mr. Parker’s presentation from several members of the public was that the Electronic Messaging System would distract drivers on a road that had two roads merging nearby. At about the point where the sign would be located on Main Street, cars on Main Street, coming from the village, are trying to merge with cars on Route 12. Local traffic is 35 mph on both roads but usually Route 12 traffic is going a little faster. Members of the public felt that the movement on the electronic sign ahead and a little to the right of the drivers would distract drivers trying to get onto Route 12. This feeling was repeated time after time from members of the public. Mr. Peter Palmiotto also said that if these larger signs are approved, the next variance will ask for an even larger sign and that will snowball into larger and larger signs down the road in the commercial district. 

Another member of the public put forth the idea that since the message was forever changing meant that it it was a new “sign: every time the message changed. Another gentleman talked about the general manufacturing of these electronic signs indicating that there may be another manufacturer out there that could provide a messaging system to fit our ordinance. Mr. Sellarole picked up on this idea and asked Mr Parker about this. Mr. Parker agreed there could be another manufacturer that could make a smaller unit but it would probably be much more expensive.

Someone else pointed out that these signs don’t have to be any larger. Walpole shoppers know where to go for particular items. For example, if he wanted some grass seed, he would know he could find it at Blue Seal. The same for LaValleys for building materials. In other words, people in town learn pretty quickly what stores sell what items.

Ms. Barnes read the sign ordinance about signs with movable parts.

“Limitations:

No sign of any type shall be designed or be placed in such a position as to create a hazardous condition by way of 1) obscuring a clear view of, or interfering with, vehicular or pedestrian traffic, or 2) similarity with official street signs and signals. Inflatable signs, feather flags, oscillating, rotating, flashing, neon, or other tubular gas signs are not permitted except when used for public safety purposes by a governmental entity. “ 

Mr. Parker responded by saying that the sign is not spinning or rotating. It is not flashing. He also said that the store manager can program the electronic system to do many things – change the message, change the time of the message. In fact, he manager could decide to keep the same message for a longer period of time, even to one new message a day. 

Mr. Edkins explained that the only thing this Zoning Board could do was to decide on was what the Planning Board asked to do – address the size of the sign. It cannot make determinations about the message board, a sign being internally lit or not lit. The Zoning Board is only here to determine one thing – the size of the signs. The rest is up to the Planning Board.

Ms. Barnes explained that this board, the ZBA, used to handle all of the signage in Walpole. In March, at Town meeting time and voting time, this changed. So now the Planning Board, since it handles site plan reviews for new businesses including lighting, building size and design, traffic flow,  now also handles signs at these businesses. This is a new learning experience for both boards, she said.

Mr. Edkins asked Planning Board member Joanna Andros, who was at the July meeting, what the Planning Board said when it handed over the task to the Zoning Board. She responded the Planning Board was concerned that the signs were larger than permitted. 

According to the Planning Board minutes of July 2025 it says,  “Mr. Harrington worried the message might distract drivers. He read from the sign provision No 3 “oscillating, rotating, flashing, neon or other tubular gas signs are not permitted except when used for public safety purposed by a governmental entity.”  Mr. Marcom also mentioned provision 3 (Limitations) but other Board members didn’t state concerns about the message board.”. Mr. Parker also said  that the Planning Board wanted to address the size of the signs. He added that that’s when he requested a variance to get permission for two larger than permitted signs. Variances are under the purview of the Zoning Board. 

After many other comments from the public on the safety of the messaging system and how to proceed, Mr. Murray closed the public portion of the meeting at 8:30 pm.

Mr. Parker read his responses to the five variance application questions:

Variance Criteria A variance from Article XIX.A.6 of the Walpole Zoning Ordinance is requested to permit (Give specific details of project) the allowance of a 50 square-foot wall sign. 

1. The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values because:

The proposed sign will have a design that is consistent with the character of the town and the surrounding properties. 

Ms. Barnes wanted to know how his sign was consistent with the character of the town. He said the frame of sign if made of wooden beams much like you would find in a barn. Mr. Murray agreed and said he liked it. It looks a lot like the one Bensonwood has on their property.

2. Granting the variance would be not contrary to the public interest. 

The proposed sign will be consistent with the character of the surrounding properties, and will provide adequate advertisement to potential customers. 

Someone asked if it couldn’t be closer to the building and Mr. Murray said there is a rule that signs must be at least 100 fee from another sign.

3. The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values because: 

The proposed sign will have a design that is consistent with the character of the town and the surrounding properties. Granting the variance would be not contrary to the public interest. The proposed sign will be consistent with the character of the surrounding properties, and will provide adequate advertisement to potential customers.

4. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner because of the following special circumstances of the property that distinguish it from other properties similarly zoned because:

With the square footage allowed by the town, the next smallest EMC would not fit with the sign design. This business has many changing deals and specials that would be advertised. This EMC will be much safer to change the message on than a manually changed reader board.

The entrance to this business is not centrally located to the building, so any increased advertising area will help customers find the business. 

Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: 

Granting this variance would allow this business to have an EMC message board, which would provide a safer alternative for the employees to a manually changed reader board. The proposed use would not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because: This sign will provide adequate advertising to potential customers, while keeping with the character of the surrounding properties. 

End of reading of the responses to variance criteria.

Mr. Murray made a motion to approve the 38.9 size of the sign but it would only be 10 feet high and the message would be changed once a week. No one seconded the motion.

Mr O’Keefe made a motion. He moved to deny the application as denial of the variance would not result in an unnecessary hardship to the individual. The motion was seconded by Mr. Edkins. The vote was 4-1 in favor of the motion with Mr Murray voting no. 

Wall sign on the building

Mr. Parker showed a picture of the current signage at Blue Seal and also his proposed sign with the new Blue Seal logo and text Home – Farm beneath it. He said the wall sign current is 60.91 square feet. His proposal was for a 49.58 square-foot sign.

Definition: A variance is an authorization, which can only be granted under special circumstances, to use your property in a way that is not permitted under the strict terms of the zoning ordinance. In several decisions from 1952 to the present, the New Hampshire Supreme Court has declared that for a variance to be legally granted, you must show that your proposed use meets all rive of the following conditions.

Here are Mr. Parker’s responses to the application.

The values of surrounding properties are not diminished.

The previously existing sign was 60.91 square feet, the new sign will be 49.5 square feet, and will be more compliant with the code. The proposed sign will not be any more disruptive to the surrounding properties than the previous sign.

Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest.

The proposed sign will be moving more toward compliance with the code than the previous sign. 4.

Hardship as the term applies to zoning, results if a restriction, when applied to a particular property that distinguishes it from other properties under similar zoning restrictions. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner because of the following special circumstances of the property that distinguish it from other properties similarly zoned because:

The previous tenant’s sign measure at 60.91 square feet. The denial of this variance would cut the current tenant’s signage in almost half compared to what was previously allowed.

Granting he variance would do substantial justice because:

The sign will be brought further into compliance with the town code while still giving this business an adequate amount of sign area compared with what used to exist there.

The proposed use would not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because:

The proposed sign will be small than the previous sign, and bring it more towards compliance while giving the tenant comparable square footage to what was previously allowed.

End of reading of responses to variance criteria.

Mr. Murray asked the Board if Agway, the previous owners of the store, had gotten a variance to have such a large sign, since the permitted signage for the largest sign is 32 square feet. No one researched the previous sign so Mr. Edkins pointed out that the proposed new sign is quite a bit smaller than the one the building now. He made a motion to approve the proposed sign as it is smaller and more conforming than the one that is there now. Mr. O’Keefe seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 5-0.

Mr. O’Keefe made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Barnes seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously. The time was 9:10 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Marilou Blaine

Recording Secretary

Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes

Wednesday, June 18, 2025

Town Hall

7 pm

These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed at the July 16, 2025 meeting for corrections.

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

Call to Order: Mr. Murray called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Mr. Murray asked Alternate Don Sellarole to fill in for the absent Board member. He agreed.

Minutes: Approve minutes of May 2025 meeting: Mr. Edkins made a motion to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Sommers seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously.

New Business: Justin Parker of Classic Signs in Amherst, NH is asking for a variance for two signs at Blue Seal – a wall sign on the building and a free-standing sign on Route 12. The property is at 334 Main Street, Tax Map 12, Lot 59 in the commercial district. Blue Seal was formerly owned by Achilles Agway.

Also at the meeting were Janus Gibbons, project manager for the Blue Seal re-branding project, Walpole Blue Seal Store Manager Larry Earle and Walpole Blue Seal Assistant Store Manager Tara Pacheco.

Mr. Edkins asked the Board and folks from Blue Seal if he should recuse himself. He is not technically an abutter because the driveway between the Blue Seal building and his home is a right of way. However, his home is next to the driveway. Both the Board and the folks from Blue Seal agreed he could stay on the Board to vote on the variance. 

Mr. Murray asked Mr. Parker what occurred at the Planning Board meeting. Mr. Parker said it was decided that the Planning Board would not approve the building sign or the free-standing sign unless they were 32 square feet. However, the Planning Board did approve the signage for the propane tank and the sign to the entrance to Blue Seal. Mr. Parker asked for a public hearing next month.

The next issue was since there were two signs in question for a variance, should there be two applications or one. Mr. Sellarole thought there should be two applications because there might be two different outcomes. One sign might be okay but the other wasn’t. Mr. O’Keefe felt that the board could handle both with just one application and it would cost the applicant twice as much money if there were two applications. Mr. Edkins made a motion to hold one public hearing at the July ZBA meeting for a variance for both signs. Mr. O’Keefe seconded the motion and the motion passed with 4 yeas and 1 nay.

Old Business: Discussion on Updated Zoning Ordinances from SWRPC. No Board member had any comments on the newly reorganized Walpole Zoning Ordinances.

Mr. Murray felt that since there is such a housing crisis issue, the Zoning Board of Adjustment should further discuss DADUs or Detached Accessory Dwelling Units. He pointed out four important parts of the document.

1. One Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (DADU) shall be allowed in all zoning districts that permit single-family dwellings. The following requirements apply: A. No change in frontage or setbacks shall be required for a DADU, however, the minimum lot size for any given Zoning District shall be the following:

1. Residential District Type A minimum lot area shall be 80,000 square feet
2. Residential District Type B minimum lot area shall be 50,000 square feet
3. Rural/Agricultural minimum lot area shall be 80,000 square feet
4. Timberland not permitted B. 

The maximum area for a Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be 900 square feet of living space. A larger living space may be permitted by a variance granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. 

Adequate provisions for water supply and sewage disposal for the detached accessory dwelling unit in accordance with RSA 485-A:38 shall be demonstrated by the applicant. Separate systems, including but not limited to plumbing, heating, electrical and sanitary disposal systems, are not required for the principal and detached accessory dwelling unit provided that occupants of both units 

The owner of the property shall occupy either the principal dwelling unit or the detached accessory dwelling unit as their “Principal Place of Residence.” Whichever dwelling unit is not the property owner’s principal place of residence may be rented to a person(s) unrelated to the property owner A. 

Adjournment

Mr. Edkins made a motion to adjourn. Mr. O’Keefe seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously. The time was 7:25 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Marilou Blaine

Recording Secretary

Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes

April 16, 2025

Town Hall

7 pm

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

Call to Order: Mr. Murray called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm. He asked Don Sellarole to sit in for an absent board member. There was a quorum present.

Minutes: Review minutes of March 2025: Mr. Sommers made a motion to accept the minutes as presented. Mr. Murray seconded the motion. Ms. Barnes abstained from voting because she was not at the March meeting. The motion passed with 3 yeas, no nays.

NH Planning and Land Use Regulation: 2024-2025 edition: One copy was given to the new Board member, Bill Sommers, and one copy was given to Don Sellarole, who had ordered the book. There are still two more to distribute to board members who ordered the manual.

Discussion: Zoning Ordinances booklet: Mr. Murray thought we should hold off on starting to work on alphabetizing the definitions in the Zoning Ordinances document. He said since Carol Ogilvie, who works for Southwest Region Planning Commission, was working on organizing and integrating the amendments to the zoning ordinance that were approved and part of the town warrant, he wasn’t sure whether or not she was also alphabetizing the definitions. The Board hopes to hear more on the matter before the May meeting from Todd Horner, Executive Director of SWRPC.

Adjournment: Mr. Sommers made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Barnes seconded the motion and the motion carried. The time was 7:30 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Marilou Blaine

Recording Secretary

Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes

Wednesday, May 21, 2025

Town Hall

7 pm.

These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed at the June 18, 2025 meeting for corrections.

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

Call to Order: Mr. Murray called the meeting to order at 7:10 pm. A full board was present.

Minutes: Mr. Murray made one correction. He mentioned that the caveat about the minutes not being approved was not at the beginning of the April minutes. Ms. Barnes made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Mr. O’Keefe seconded the motion and the motion carried.

Walpole Zoning Ordinances: The Board received copies of the updated zoning ordinances booklet recently reorganized by Southwest Region Planning Commission. This update reflects the recent changes voted on by townspeople at the March warrant vote. After members have had a chance to look over the booklet, they’ll come back next month with their comments. A quick look showed that all the definitions were in alphabetical order. 

Conway in the news again: Ms. Barnes said Conway, NH was in the news again. The NH Superior Court recently made a decision about a bakery that had a mural painted over the top of its sign. The mural had pictures of pastries in it. The bakery was said to be in violation of the sign ordinance, however the high court found in favor of the bakery owner.

Gravel Pit Inspections: Mr. Murray said that later this year he will go over the gravel pit inspection process with the Planning Board. Inspections are required once a year and this is done usually in the fall. The Zoning Board has been doing this for years but legally it’s under the purview of the Planning Board. There are three gravel pits in Walpole that are still operating – Cold River Materials on Brewery Road, Tim Graves gravel pit at the end of Wentworth Road and the former Hodgkins gravel pit on Old Drewsville Road now owned by Josh Perry Trucking. 

It was suggested by Mr. Sellarole that he may want to get an expert to help him because it can be complicated. Mr. Edkins suggested a geologist who lives in Charlestown. Someone else suggested an engineer from a company that is hired to do this from a nearby town such as Westmoreland. He will also cover reclamation or closing of gravel pits and add what happens to those inspections: letter to gravel pit owners including a copy of the inspection report. Regulations on gravel pit are RSA 155:E.

Mr. O’Keefe briefly brought up development of regional impact. He referenced RSA 36:56, Section I. “A local land use board as defined in RSA 672:7, upon receipt of an application for development, shall review it promptly and determine whether or not the development, if approved, reasonably could be construed as having the potential for regional impact. Doubt concerning region impact shall be resolved in a determination that the development has potential regional impact.”

Spring conference: Ms. Barnes said she virtually attended a webinar on Saturday, May 10 put on by the New Hampshire Office of Planning and Development Spring Conference. This is what she gleaned from the conference in the afternoon question and answer session.

Recusing oneself:

• The refusal of a Board member to recuse him/herself when there is a perceived conflict. When that happens, you can be 100 percent sure that there will be an appeal.

There was a lot to say about variances:

• The applicant must answer all of the five questions. Otherwise the application is incomplete.

Hardship is often the hardest part of application to answer. Here’s some help:

• Figure out what the underlying purpose of the restriction is about.
• Is that purpose affected by a request?
• Focus on the merits of the proposition.
• What is the purpose behind the zoning restriction for which the variance is being requested. Is the purpose furthered when you apply the restriction to this particular property? If so, then there may not be a hardship.
• Be tolerant on matters of procedure and focus instead on the merits of the proposition.

Equitable Waivers:

• The lecturers themselves couldn’t agree on some questions about equitable waivers, underscoring how complicated they are. An equitable waiver does not confer protected status.  Once granted, it does not create a non-conforming use. Ms. Barnes wondered if the Board had ever dealt with an equitable waiver, leading to a discussion about them.  No member could recall having done so.     

Adjournment

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

Respectfully submitted,

Marilou Blaine

Recording Secretary

Zoning Board of Adjustment

March 19, 2025

Town Hall

7 pm

Roll Call: Present Board members Chair Tom Murray, Vice-Chair Dave Edkins, William Sommers. Alternates Don Sellarole and Myra Mansouri. Absent: Board members Pauline Barnes and Shane O’Keefe.

Call to Order: Mr. Murray called the meeting to order at 7:02. He welcomed new ZBA member Bill Sommers. He asked alternates Myra Mansouri and Don Sellarole to sit in for the missing Board members. They agreed.

Minutes: Review of February 2025 minutes: Mr. Murray said in the last paragraph of page 1 the RSA number should be 674:33 not 6754:33. Mr. Edkins made a motion to accept the amended minutes as presented. Mr. Sellarole seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously. 

Tonight’s minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed for corrections at the April meeting.

New Business:

Election of Officers

Mr. Murray asked for nominations. Ms. Mansouri nominated Tom Murray as chair. Mr. Edkins seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. Ms. Mansouri nominated Pauline Barnes as Vice-Chair. Mr. Sellarole seconded the motion The vote was 5-0 in favor. Mr. Sellarole nominated Mr. Edkins as Clerk. Ms. Mansouri seconded the motion and the vote was 5-0 in favor. 

Old Business:

Public Hearing: Variance: Jennie Cure, Map 11, Lot 27, 529 Valley Road, Rural/Ag District. Proposed is a wheelchair ramp. Ramp will be too close to the center of the road. Presenter and builder is Doug Phelps. Zoning Ordinance: Article VIII D-2.

Mr. Edkins recused himself from sitting in on this public hearing.

Mr. Phelps brought in a large drawing of the layout of the property: road, driveway, original house, a new deck, new addition and the location of the wheelchair ramp. All items were delineated in different colors. For example, the ramp, which is 20 feet with a 6.8-foot-by-5-foot pivot area at the top and a 1/12 grade, were outlined in green. He explained that his client bought her mother’s house on Valley Road. Her mother is now in a nursing home in Bellows Falls. The original section of the house was built in 1808. An addition was added to the home with all new features. He and Zoning Coordinator Ernie Vose measured the distance to the center of the road and it was 60.4 feet.

Mr. Murray explained that a person applying for a variance must meet five conditions. Following are conditions in regular type and the applicant’s response in italics.

1.

 Condition No. 1 Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest.

It is in the public interest that a dwelling be handicap accessible. 

Condition No. 2. If the variance were granted, the spirit of he ordinance would be observed because:

It wouldn’t infringe on the setbacks. 

Condition No. 3. Granting the variance would do substantial justice because:

The handicapped (person) would have access to a warm dwelling. Ms. Mansouri said friends of the handicapped person would also be able to visit.

Condition No. 4: Granting the variance will not diminish the values of the surrounding properties because:

The project has already increased surrounding property values. It makes the property look more civic minded and friendly.

Condition No. 5: Unnecessary Hardship: 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:

1. No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general public purposes of the ordinance provision and specific application of the provision to the because:

Low profile and low impact. The construction of the ramp shows the owner is concerned about her property and the neighborhood.

and The proposed use is a reasonable one because:

The building always had two entrances that infringed on the setback. Mr. Murray quoted from RSA 674:33. “any zoning board of adjustment may grant a variance from the terms of a zoning ordinance without finding a hardship arising from the condition of a premises subject to the ordinance, when reasonable accommodation are necessary to allow a person or persons with a recognized physical disability to reside in or regularly use the premises…….”

Ms. Mansouri made a motion to approve the variance. Mr. Sellarole seconded the motion and the motion carried in favor 4-0. Mr. Edkins returned to sit on the Board.

Adjournment

Mr. Edkins made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Sellarole seconded the motion and the motion carried. The time was 7:37 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Marilou Blaine

Recording Secretary

Walpole Zoning Board of Adjustment

Wednesday, February 19, 2025

Town Hall

 7 pm

Roll Call: Present: Board members Chair Tom Murray, Vice-Chair Dave Edkins, Clerk Pauline Barnes, Shane O’Keefe and alternate Myra Mansouri. Absent: Board member Tom Winmill and alternate Don Sellarole.

Call to Order: Mr. Murray called the meeting to order at 7:04 pm. Mr. Murray asked alternate Ms. Mansouri to sit in for the absent board member. She agreed. 

Minutes: Tonight’s minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed at the board’s regular March meeting for corrections.

Minutes of January 2025: Mr. Sellarole’s name was misspelled in two places: in the section on Call to Order and the section on Minutes. In the section titled 2024 Town Report the result of the Joint Meetings with the Southwest Region Planning Commission and Planning Board was one warrant not “a number of warrant articles.” Mr. Edkins made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected, Ms. Barnes seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously.

New Business:

Variance: Jennie Cure, Map 11, Lot 27, 529 Valley Road, Rural/Ag District. Proposed is a wheelchair ramp. But will be too be too close to the center of the road. Mr. Phelps is asking for a public hearing for a variance. He has talked with Zoning Coordinator, Ernie Vose. Zoning Ordinance: Article VIII D-2.

Mr. Edkins recused himself from sitting as a board member on Mr. Phelps’ request because he is a long-time friend of not only Mr. Phelps but also the applicant, Jennie Cure. 

Mr. Phelps came to the meeting, explained what he wanted to do and submitted an application, sketch of the situation and wrote check for the application and letters to the 8 abuttters. He asked for a public hearing in March 2025.

Ms Barnes read RSA 6754:33 Section V. The ordinance says:

“V. Notwithstanding subparagraph I(a)(2), any zoning board of adjustment may grant a variance from the terms of a zoning ordinance without finding a hardship arising from the condition of a premises subject to the ordinance, when reasonable accommodations are necessary to allow a person or persons with a recognized physical disability to reside in or regularly use the premises, provided that:
(a) Any variance granted under this paragraph shall be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance.
(b) In granting any variance pursuant to this paragraph, the zoning board of adjustment may provide, in a finding included in the variance, that the variance shall survive only so long as the particular person has a continuing need to use the premises.” She gave Mr. Phelps a copy.

There was discussion about when to hold the meeting on the public hearing for Ms. Cure’s proposal. Two board members were not going to be at the March meeting. Also the Board would vote on election of officers. Should the Board wait until the April meeting for the public hearing? However, Mr. Phelps said if the wheelchair ramp were to be approved, Ms. Cure wanted him to to start building it on March 20. So a motion was made, seconded and unanimously approved to hold a public hearing for Mr. Phelps’ client at its regular March 2025 meeting to build the handicap ramp and proceed with the election of Board member titles for the new term.  

Old Business:

Gravel pit inspection report: Chair Mr. Murray asked for the board to accept a single-signature inspection report for the gravel pit inspection of JP Trucking Inc. on Old Drewsville Road even though gravel pit inspection reports are usually signed by the two people conducting the inspection. Mr. O’Keefe made a motion to accept the single-signature report, Mr. Edkins seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor.

One of our own

Ms. Barnes, Ms. Mansouri and Ms. Blaine couldn’t let this meeting end without acknowledging the passing of one of our own, Bob Anderson. When Bob was on the ZBA he was an important member. He was known for his inventiveness, professionalism, fair play, wit and compassion. He was admired by all, even by people who didn’t always agree with him. And, as Ms. Mansouri said, he was one of the kindest men she has ever met.

Mr. Winmill’s last meeting

Mr. O’Keefe made a motion to thank Mr. Winmill for his three years of service on the board. Mr. Murray seconded the motion. Mr. Edkins agreed. Ms. Barnes and Ms. Mansouri abstained. 

Adjournment

At 7:48 pm Mr. Edkins made a motion to adjourn. Mr. O’Keefe seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously.

Respectfully submitted,

Marilou Blaine

Recording Secretary