The Walpolean

Zoning Board of Adjustment

December 17, 2025

Town Hall

7 pm

These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed at the January 2026 meeting for corrections. 

Role Call: Present board members: Chair Tom Murray, Vice-Chair Dave Edkins, Clerk Pauline Barnes, Shane O’Keefe, William Sommers. Alternate Don Sellarole. Absent: Myra Mansouri.

Call to order: Mr. Murray called the meeting to order at 7:01 pm.

Minutes: Review of minutes of  November 2025.

Mr. Murray made two additions. He said under old business he said he would discuss more about ADUs. He reminded the secretary to put the unapproved minutes notice at the beginning of all minutes. Ms. Barnes made a motion to approved the amended minutes. Mr. Sommers seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously.

Permanent Posted Meeting Time.

Mr. Murray talked with the staff at Town Offices and offered two laminated signs that would permanently be posted on the outside bulletin board at the Town Hall and on the bulletin board outside of the Post Office. It said Zoning Board meeting third Wednesday of every month at the Town Hall at 7 pm. Mr. Edkins suggested it say Zoning Board of Adjustment and Ms. Barnes thought (ZBA) should also be included. Mr. Murray will add these to the permanent laminated signs.

Old Business: 

In regard to a joint meeting with the Planning Board, Mr. Murray and Ms. Barnes attended a meeting in November about ADUs. At that meeting new state mandates for ADU ordinances were the topic of discussion.

Mr. Murray distributed a copy of a letter written by Town Counsel Jeremy Hockensmith. It was sent after the Planning Board Chair emailed him about a list of new state mandates regarding ordinances about RSA 674:71 to 73, ADUs or Accessory Dwelling Units. The Chair wanted to know if Walpole’s Zoning Ordinances required the Planning Board to comply with some changes. Mr. Hockensmith replied with 16 suggested revisions to the Ordinance. For example, one of them was “Per the new statute, definitions of “attached unit” and “detached unit” should be added. I would add another definition of “existing structure” to read as follows: “a structure existing before 2025.”

Mr. Murray talked about following up with the Planning Board. Mr. Edkins didn’t think it should be Zoning Board of Adjustment participation as it’s the Planning Board’s job to write ordinances not the ZBA. But since the Planning Board is planning to work on a new ordinance. Mr. Murray and Ms. Barnes offered to be part of the group as “knowledgeable citizens,” not as Zoning Board of Adjustment members. 

New Business:

Pauline Barnes and the Board will work on prioritizing menu on left side of the ZBA web site content.

Ms. Barnes prepared a suggested menu to put on the left-hand side of the initial page on the web site. The purpose of doing this, Ms. Barnes said, was to make it easier for townspeople to navigate the web site and better understand how to fill out the applications.

1. Zoning Ordinances

2. Variances

• Definition
• Application

3. Special Exceptions

• Definition
• Application

4. Expansion of a Non-Conforming Use

• Definition
• Application

5. Appeal of Administrative Decision

• Definition
• Application

6. Fees

7. Meeting Minutes

8. Board Bylaws

The rest of the Board liked what Ms. Barnes has done however they thought the last three, fees, meeting minutes and Board Bylaws should be in another order. Mr. Sellarole thought fees should be last. Mr. O’Keefe thought Bylaws were important and showed procedure so it should be number 6. That made Meeting Minutes between the two, so it remained as 7. The final three entries would now be: 6. Board Bylaws, 7. Meeting Minutes, 8. Fees. The next step is to talk to the staff in the Town Offices and having the menu changed after definitions have been written and applications copied. Also applications should be checked for updated information such as fees.

RSA 91-A

Mr. O’Keefe handed out a couple of copies of RSA 91-A. It was the NH Attorney General’s analysis of the Right to Know law. Mr. O’Keefe said he wanted a Zoning Board of Adjustment agenda posted every month. However, posting an agenda is not a requirement of the Right-to-Know Law. He said he wouldn’t attend a meeting if he didn’t know what was on the agenda of a meeting. If there were a meeting about something happening on the road where he lives, he be interested in attending. But if there is no agenda, he wouldn’t bother to attend a meeting. 

Adjournment

Mr. Edkins made a motion to adjourn. Mr. O’Keefe seconded the motion and the motion carried. It was 7:45 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Marilou Blaine

Recording Secretary

Walpole Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes

Wednesday, November 19, 2025

Town Hall

7 pm

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

Call to Order: Mr. Murray called the meeting to order at 7:10 pm. Three members constitute a quorum, so the Board continued its meeting.

Review of Minutes: Minutes of October 2025. Mr. Sommers made a motion to accept the minutes as presented. Ms. Barnes seconded the motion and the motion carried. 

Old Business:

Recap: Joint meeting and ADUs Legislative Position and Walpole’s Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Sommers received copies of the talking points made by Chair Murray and Vice-Chair Barnes at the joint meeting of the ZBA and the PB in October about ADUs. He also received a copy of that meeting’s minutes.

New Business: 

Applications: Mr. O’Keefe did not attend the meeting.

Zoning Board of Adjustment on the town’s web site

Using the big screen Ms. Barnes was able to get on the town’s web site and pulled up the information about the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Tonight’s and next month’s concern was and will be the “menu” on the left side of the page and the organization of that menu. The current web shows the first two items are “Meetings” and “Appeal of an Administrative Decision.”

Ms. Barnes posed the question if you were a citizen of Walpole what would you want to see first. While minutes are written for every meeting, Appeal of Administrative Decision would be a very special meeting and  something in which the Board rarely would be involved.. Ms. Barnes was also concerned about how does the board make it “user friendly” so townspeople know what the different applications (variances and special exceptions) were for and about. She thought the Board should start with definitions and explanations of the applications.

The Board will continue to tackle these questions at its December meeting.

Adjournment 

Mr. Murray made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Sommers seconded the motion and the motion carried. The time was 7:46 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Marilou Blaine

Recording Secretary

Zoning Board of Adjustment

September 17, 2025

Town Hall

7 pm

These minutes are unapproved and will be reviewed at the October meeting for corrections.

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

Call to Order: Mr. Murray called the meeting to order at 7pm. Mr. Murray asked alternate Don Sellarole to fill in for the absent board member. He agreed. Mr. Edkins came in at 7:15 pm.

Review minutes of August 2025: Mr. O’Keefe pointed out that the August minutes didn’t have any approval. The secretary looked back at the August minutes and found that Mr. O’Keefe made a motion to approve the July minutes as amended. Mr. Edkins seconded the motion and the motion carried.

Regarding the August minutes, besides Mr. O’Keefe’s correction Ms. Barnes pointed out three typos. Mr. O’Keefe made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Mr. Sommer seconded the motion and the motion carried.

New Business:

Kristen Burke, 68 Cold River Road, Tax Map 26. Lot 24, Rural/Ag. Add a 19-foot-by-foot-14 deck to the back of the house. The ordinance says he must put the deck 65 feet from the middle of the road which is in the front of the house. She said it was 55 feet. 

Kristen Burke came to the meeting. She said she went to the Town Offices for a building permit to add a deck to her house on Cold River Road. She was told to contact the Administrative Zoning Coordinator, Ernie Vose. He suggested going to the town web site for an application. She had filled out an application for an Appeal From an Administrative Decision. That application is for an appeal of a decision already made and was not the correct form.

Ms. Barnes asked about the age of the house. Ms. Burke said it was built in the 1940s. This meant it was a nonconforming. There was a long discussion about Article X in the Walpole Zoning Ordinances document about nonconforming uses. There were five suggestions about possibilities of things to do. As an example item “D” says “A nonconforming use may be expanded or enlarged or changed to another nonconforming use after the Board of Adjustment determines, after a public hearing, that the proposed expansion, enlargement or change will not materially increase the hazard or nuisance value of the nonconformity.”

After several minutes of discussion on nonconforming uses, it was decided to follow the Administrative Zoning Coordinator’s advice. In an email Mr. Vose wrote:

“The problem is that the deck will be on the back of the house and doesn’t change the set back from the street.

“As long as the deck isn’t too close to the rear boundary line

“”I think that a (building) permit should be granted.”

Ms. Burke has about three acres of property behind the house.

It was suggested that Ms. Burke go to a Select Board meeting next week and explain the situation and ask them for a building permit. 

Discussion of MG Building/Abingdon Spares property on South Street.

There was some talk about this property at the September Planning Board meeting and Mr. Murray said he has heard some some talk about possible buyers. Mr. Murray wanted to remind the Board that this property received a variance that had three conditions and that the conditions go with the property. The conditions were: 

1. That only the mail order business be conducted at the above location.

2. Only the existing building be utilized.

3. All business operations be conducted within the interior of the building.

Owners were Doris and Gerard Gougen. They obtained a variance from the Board of Adjustments on March 1980 to conduct a motor car parts mail order business from their premises. The property is located in Residential B district. The use was “Pick and Pack,” a mail order for auto parts. The original use of the building was a chicken coop. The minutes of that meeting say that before zoning the land was categorized as commercial. 

Adjournment

Mr. O’Keefe made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Edkins seconded the motion and the motion carried. The time was 8:50 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Marilou Blaine

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