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
The Walpolean 
Recent Comments