Zoning Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

order the July 15th 2026 count of Londonderry zoning board of adjustment like to welcome everyone this evening before we start our process I'd like to read the meeting procedures so that everybody knows what to expect first the clerk will read the case into the record The applicant will come to the front here with these two chairs and make their presentation. The board will address the applicant if we have any questions or comments. Those that are in favor of the request are given the opportunity to address the board. Those that are opposed or having questions regarding a request are also given the opportunity to address the board. Those that are in either opposed or in favor will come to the podium and you would state your name and address for the record. the applicant will be given the opportunity for any rebuttal to opposition or any rebuttal to um rebut any opposition, and the opposition is also given the opportunity for rebuttal. The board will address the applicant with any additional comments or questions, and if there are none, then the public hearing portion regarding the case will be closed, at which time the board will enter into deliberation and vote on a request or continue the case to a future date. Again, please, those who wish to speak, come up to the podium and be sure to give your name and address for the record. We also ask that all conversations that you may have, whether you are the applicant or in favor or against, that you address the board so that we have one single line of communication and we will give the response back and forth to anybody rather than... Going back and forth with each other, we also ask that you put your cell phones on vibrate or turn them off during the meeting so that we can proceed. You can stay. For the deliberation, or you can go to the town office tomorrow morning for the results. If you don't wish to stay. And with that, before we start Nick, would you like to start.

My name is Nick Carter. I'm the bill inspector and zoning administrator.

Lisa assessment, a zoning board alternate. Andrea Hanson, alternate. Suzanne Brunel, voting member. Jackie Bernard, voting member.

Brennan O'Brien, voting member.

Arianna McQuarrie, alternate.

Mitch Freig, voting member.

Okay, and tonight we have three of us that are four. Oh, Mitch, that's right. You came in at the last minute.

So we're going to do one. You'll need two for the first one.

Yeah. So, Lisa, have you voted yet as an alternate? Yes. Okay.

Andrea?

Yep, Andrea, Adriana, would you like to be sworn in for? Sure. Okay, so we are going to, for the first case, we are going to need actually two. So Ariana and Lisa, Suzanne, for the first case, you are going to be recusing yourself. So for the first case, there will be two of you that will be full voting members for that first case. On the agenda, we're going to do the minutes to approve from the last meeting for May. Excuse me, June. Do I have a motion for the minutes to approve from the June 2026 meeting? I'll make that motion. Who said that? Lisa. Lisa, okay, great. Do I have a second?

Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Opposed?

Do I abstain?

I'm abstaining. Yeah. Okay, so two abstain, okay. So minutes for the June 2026 are approved. This evening, do we have a report by the town council liaison? Let the record show we have none. Nick, regional impact determinations for this evening?

Staff has determined none of the cases tonight have regional impact.

Great. Do I have a motion for regional impact?

I'd like to make a motion to accept the regional impact determination.

And do I have a second?

I'll second.

Thank you. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Now comes the public hearing of the cases. Suzanne will be recusing herself. So, Lisa and Adriana, you're going to be full voting members for case number one. I am ready for the first case.

Case number 715-2026-1, a request for a variance from LZO 5.3.3.D.2.A to allow a shed to encroach 15 feet into the required 30-foot front setback In the AR1 zoning district, the property is located at 44 Clover Lane, tax map 16, lot 38-127. William and Sarah Molinari, owner and applicant.

Good evening. Good evening. Have you done this before? I have not. Okay, so take a deep breath. We don't bite, at least not that I know of. So state your name and address for the record.

My name is Sarah Molinari and I live at 44 Clover Lane.

And did you bring your application with you that you filled out?

I did.

Perfect. So you can either tell us a synopsis of why you're here. Okay. And then go into the five points of law, which is what your application is. Or you can start with your application, five points of law, and then give us a summary. It's up to you. Whatever you feel free.

Thank you. Thank you for considering the application. So my husband and my son and I live at 44 Clover Lane. It's part of Lording Commons, which is a conservation subdivision off of Old Derry Road. We would like to place a shed in our backyard. And as we began planning for this, we learned that because we have a corner lot, we have a different set of setback requirements. The 30-foot setback is not only from the front, but from the side as well. AND BECAUSE OF THE SHAPE OF OUR PROPERTY, WE WOULD NEED TO APPLY FOR THIS VARIANCE SO WE COULD PLACE THE SHED. THAT MAP RIGHT THERE WAS OUR CERTIFIED FOOTING. I ADDED A FEW DETAILS SO THAT WE COULD HAVE AN IDEA OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE PROPERTY. THE HOUSE FACES CLOVER LANE, WHICH IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT MAP. And then behind the house, a swale was placed for drainage. And that is at the foot of a hill. And the hill takes up a substantial part of the property and then is confluent with the conservation land that is directly behind it. The area of our yard that would be suitable for a shed is behind the house and to the right towards Calla Road. I put a notation there on the map. So we would like to place it there. It's at the base of the hill, right near the swale, 15 feet in from Calla Road. Also, I included a photograph. This was sent with an email subsequently that I was told would be included with what you received. This photo shows the proposed footprint for the shed. And there were also two photos of the model of the shed we saw at Reed's Ferry. Ours would be very similar, a bit smaller. Ours would be 10 foot by 14 foot. It would not have a contrasting color door. and um the wall one of the long walls which would face calla road would be a solid wall we bless you we presented this to our hoa the shed itself and the the position on our property and they quickly gave us approval and encouragement and in preparation for tonight i met with many of our neighbors i uh explained our situation with the corner lot setbacks and showed them these same pictures with the proposed placement and what the shed would look like and everyone was very kind in providing their support and providing their signatures these included greg stone who is the chair of our architecture board the subcommittee of our hoa that looks to review placements of sheds and other external fixtures of property Um, Cindy Green, who is also on that same architecture committee, she signed for herself and also for her husband, Mitch, who is the head of our HOA. Um, Chris Baker was also part of our architecture committee and he signed as well in many of our, uh, immediate neighbors. So in, in overview, we have this unique corner lot with a unique topography. So that placement of the shed falls within this 30 foot setback. Um, But we had strong approval from our HOA and from our neighbors, so we are requesting this variance. And then I would go through each of the five points. The first point being the variance will not be contrary to public interest and that this proposed shed placement would not alter the safe residential nature of our conservation subdivision. It poses no threat to the health, safety, or general public welfare. And it is in keeping with the functional and aesthetic concerns of our neighborhood. It does not negatively affect the communal areas, the conservation land, or our neighbor's private property. The second point, the spirit of the ordinance being observed. Our home was built in accordance to the setbacks as described for a conservation subdivision. Lording Commons has 130 lots. Only four of these are actually on a corner. The two houses that are at the corner of Iris and Calla, they have neighbors immediately on either side. And then the remaining two lots belong to our neighbors, the Gordons, and then our lot. We only have one neighbor that is adjacent, and that's on Clover Lane. Then Calla Road faces the other side of our house, and then behind us is the conservation land. So it's a unique shape. The zoning town ordinance, the 533.D for setbacks stating it needs 30 feet from the front and 15 feet from the sides and back applies to all of our neighbors who do not live on the corner lot. And with these two adjacent roads, we have the extra 30 foot from both directions. And because of this, we are unable to place a shed in our yard without it falling into that corner lot setback. The 3rd point being substantial justice is done granting this variance would not cause loss to the public and it would allow us to use our property and in a way that would be commensurate with our neighbors opportunities. Point for the values of surrounding properties will not be diminished placement of the shed would not diminish the value surrounding properties that would enhance ours and arguably those of our neighbors and I would say this is affirmed by the approval of our HOA and the support of our neighbors. And lastly, the 0.5 literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. Under point A, no fair and substantial relationship exists between the general public purposes. Our proposed shed placement will not negatively affect private property or common areas. And the variance would allow us to use our property as the rest of our neighbors are allowed. We have a unique corner lot and topography that limits the placement of the available placement for the shed. So it would fall within the 30 foot setback. And we asked for this variance so that we can place a shed and use our property as our neighbors do.

Thank you very much. Are there any questions from board members?

um I'll ask a couple so you're putting it there from what I could tell you saying your backyard is not an ideal spot because of um topography um and so is that really the only place you can put it

It is. You can see here the swale has river rocks on it. Beyond that is a big hill that goes in both directions, and that is complement with the conservation behind it. Directly behind our house is a patio that is there. So this is the only area. And the other side is where it's adjacent to our neighbor, and there's only 15 feet there.

And also, I noticed two pictures with this what looks like a black shadow. Yeah. Was it an attempt? Because they were different. An attempt to show...

There are. I showed... This is where we are requesting. This is 15 feet from the road.

The other picture was different.

It was. That one was 15 feet from the property line and goes right so that it bisects this small area of lawn. And both positions... affect the road in the same way. And so because this would provide us with the most use of our yard, this is our request. Okay.

And I drove past there. You're way up in the north, as I recall. You're way in the north of town, right?

Yes, on the other side of that.

Obviously, when I drove by, I couldn't see where it would go. Nick, I didn't get a feel because it was within the fence. I figured it didn't. You know my usual question. Sight lines, traffic. I didn't think it would do that, but did you get a feel for that? That's always the worry, safety.

No, no. The property starts a bit of a ways away from the asphalt. So it's not going to be in the site view. And I'm a little, I want to be sure that we're clear on this.

Okay.

It's 15 feet from the property is what you're asking for, the 15 foot encroachment.

So my understanding is that, so we are requesting 15 feet from the road. And I included both pictures because there was some ambiguity there.

Yeah, I see. On your request, it's 15 feet to encroach 15 feet into the setback. And the setback starts at your property line, not the road.

Okay. So we don't know then... WHERE SHE EXACTLY WOULD BE, RIGHT? WHERE THE SHED WOULD BE, NOT YOU.

DID YOU SAY THERE'S A DIFFERENT PICTURE? THERE ARE TWO PICTURES THERE. THAT ONE WOULD BE MORE ACCURATE. CORRECT. TO THE REQUEST.

OKAY. AS I WAS PREPARING THIS AND SPEAKING WITH BIGGER PARTNER, ONE MOMENT, PLEASE.

The fence is not on their property line.

It is within our property. It's within their property. Yeah. I see.

Their property is pretty close to the road, though, from that picture.

The property line is approximately 10 feet from the road is where the monuments are. And our property, I'm sorry, the fence that we placed is within that. It starts at about two feet from within the monuments, and then it IT ACTUALLY KIND OF TRAVELS INTO OUR PROPERTY LINE AS YOU GET FURTHER BACK INTO IT. THERE ARE CERTAIN LIMITATIONS ON THE PICTURE. I'M SORRY THAT I'M NOT ABLE TO.

DO WE HAVE CLARITY ON WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO BE OR ARE YOU CONCERNED IT'S NOT?

JUST SO THAT THE AFRICAN IS It's from your property line, not from the street.

Okay.

So that your pictures where you have to place it and what we decide on, if we decide and we have a positive vote for this, you're going to have to follow the guidelines that we're going to give you.

Understood. Understood.

So. i guess we just want to make sure you don't you understand that it's from the property line okay i i think it's going to be more like your second picture not your first that's not what you're going to be if we grant what you're requesting it's not going to look like the first picture it's going to look like the second okay all right now if you would like to um not continue with this case because you would like to reconsider what you're asking we can stop now and we can put you on for next month's agenda if you want to remeasure or reconsider what you're asking okay because um with zoning um They call it one bite of the apple. You're going to have an application for this and whatever. If you decide to continue, whatever is decided, you can't come back and say, well, I'd like to change my mind. It's one time that you get to present.

Understood.

So if you have any doubts and you might want to reconsider because you are not, um, what we what is in the second picture isn't what you wanted you don't have to proceed you can wait okay you can you know withdraw the application for tonight okay you can hear it at another time let me ask this then yes

if you grant us permission for for this this position here my concern is this this cuts the the area in um an awkward way would i be permitted to shift it a little bit so that there was more contiguous area so that is i don't know because we don't know how the voting is going to go there's still a lot there's more questions i have questions on this application okay so

not knowing how the vote's going to go, your question is legitimate because whatever we decide if it's decided we're very descriptive on what we're going to allow so we would we might have um conditions if it was approved that it was only a certain size and it's exactly as written in your application which is you're asking for 15 feet into the 30 foot setback you're not going to be able to wiggle room any of that it's going to be very precise so if you think that you would like to have a different application requesting a different whatever okay you can and you can withdraw tonight and then just come back and we hear it all over again because you're if you feel like you want to change something now here's the opportunity

The way that this drawing is right here, the right hand limit of that black square or whatever shape that is, that's closest to the fence. That is at 15 feet. Okay. If that were... 20 feet from the fence if I'm given permission to be 15 feet from the fence But we end up having to push it 20 feet so that we can have an area that is whole it is There's less than 15 feet in that that would be acceptable.

So you you have to follow the The maximum that we have allowed you if you are Do less than what is required for the setback. You're required to have 30 feet from the setback. Yes. If you only want 15, and that's what you're asking for. Yes. And if you go 20 feet into the setback.

I'm sorry, if I.

So if you only go.

If you permit me to have a 15 foot setback.

Yeah.

And instead I use a 20 foot setback.

Yeah. So you're further into your own land.

Yes ma'am.

Yeah, so you. You. You can be granted the 15 if you were granted the 15, but you used less. You can't use more.

Yes. Okay. We are saying the same thing. Yes.

Thank you. And I will clarify that. Would you have a problem if the applicant used less than what, if it was permitted? No, no, no. Okay.

Okay. Thank you. There we go.

So it's up to you if you want to continue.

I would like to continue. Thank you.

Any other questions?

I'm good for now.

Any other questions? All right. So I have a few for you. Please. On the picture in my packet, I have 44 Clover Lane request for a 10 by 12 shed 15 feet off the road. So we've already clarified that. and it says 5 feet off the property line so we've already clarified that for the record because you know this in your application just needed clarification which we we just did but in that picture that you gave us in our packet, which says 10 by 12, your application doesn't say how big the shed is within the application, but then I have a letter dated July 1st, 1.04 p.m. And it's from your Gmail to the town of Londonderry. Yes. And it says the two pictures, two representative pictures of our wooden 10 by 14. So my question is, is the shed 10 by 12 or 10 by 14? The shed, because I'm not sure.

The shed is 10 by 14.

OK. And you're absolutely sure? Yes, ma'am. OK. All right. Any other questions or clarifications that we need from the board? No. Good. All right. I'm going to take it out to the public. Is there anyone in that would like to speak in favor of the applicant at this time? Let the record show no one is approaching.

So, Madam Chair, there are two letters, if you'd like me to read them. Yes, please. So there's a letter that says, I support the Molinari's petition to the town of London zoning board of adjustment for a variance regarding shed placement at 44 Clover Lane, Leonard area, New Hampshire, 03053. It is signed by, I would estimate 20 different signatures from people living on Clover Lane and Calla Road. There is also a second letter, which is handwritten, dated July 14th, 2026, and it says, with regards to the public hearing mentioned on the backside of this note, I support the request for a variance for Sarah and William Molinari to enable them to place a shed on their property, and that is signed by Donna Galluzzo from 45 Clover Lane.

Thank you. Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition of the applicant? Okay, let the record show there was no one in opposition. I'm gonna bring it back to the board one more time, make sure we don't have any questions before.

The only question that comes to my mind, and I'm not sure it's very material, but this is a conservation subdivision. Did you happen to know the intent of the set, do you know if there are any provisions in the original minutes or the plan itself? I see that we have portions of the plan, but to your knowledge, were there anything about the setbacks that, They had special consideration for special purposes or anything like that?

My understanding is that the setbacks are somewhat smaller than standard for Londonderry because most Londonderry lots must be a full acre and ours are a half acre. The intention was there's many areas of conservation and that kind of stream throughout the neighborhood. But it means that our lots are smaller. Sure. And I think that that was, that's my understanding. Okay. That the setback is, instead of being 40 feet from the front, it's 30. But unfortunately, we get that twice. Okay.

Any other questions? Good? No. All right. So at this time, I will close the public portion of the meeting. Are we okay to go into the five points? Do we need to discuss anything?

I'm okay.

Good? Okay. Let's do it.

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

I would say it will not alter the character of the neighborhood, so I'd say it would not be contrary to the public interest.

I agree.

I agree. I agree. Lisa, do you?

I said, I'm sorry. Thank you. I didn't speak into your mic. Agree?

I think, am I second? Oh, that's right. That's right.

You can still agree.

You can still agree.

I mean, why not? The spirit of the ordinance would or would not be observed because... I would say it would. There's no threat to health safety of the general welfare by the shed.

I agree.

I agree. Agreed.

I'd also just say for the record that it seems that the placement of the shed is actually protective of the purpose of the ordinance. She's not putting it closer to the conservation limits of the lands. I'm looking at it kind of on this aerial photo. It looks like the conservation lands further back. So I think that the spirit is observed.

Thank you.

granted the variance would or would not do substantial justice because I think it would I think the loss to the public loss to the applicants greater than any gain to the public by denying the variance I would agree I agree agree For the following reasons, the values of surrounding properties would or would not be diminished?

I would say would not. It seems like a nice-looking shed, and, you know, sheds are 500 properties, so it wouldn't hurt the value of the property.

I agree.

I agree. Agreed. Agreed.

Owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area, denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship because there is or is not a fair and substantial relationship between the general public purpose of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property because... I would say there is not, this is a corner lot with a hill in the back that limits the places the shed to be put and this placement of the shed is consistent with the purpose of the ordinance.

And I would also add too, she has conservation land, she's a half acre lot when our lots Majority of them are one acre lot. So these variances are designed for these one acre lots and she's a half acre lot right right out the gate She's also only one of four corner law and she's She's the minority.

Yeah appears to have you know structure other people have structures So allowing the shed would actually make her property more in conformance with surrounding properties. I

I would also add that the HOA has endorsed placement of the shed.

Proposed use is or is not a reasonable one because is sheds are reasonable?

They are. I agree. Agreed.

Comments, restrictions?

All right, so for comments and restrictions I want to make sure that we address because of the conflicting information that we clarified during the meeting that the shed shall not encroach more than 15 feet into the front setback and the shed size shall not be greater than 10 feet by 14 feet. You can have a smaller one, but not a bigger one.

I support that. I agree.

Agreed.

All set? I'm all set. Do I have a motion?

I'd like to make a motion in case number 715-2026-1 to grant the request for the variance with the restrictions that the shed shall not encroach more than 15 feet into the setback and the shed shall not be larger than 10 feet by 14 feet.

Do I have a second? I'll second. Thank you. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed?

So in case number 715-2026-1, the request for a variance was granted with the restrictions noted.

Thank you very much.

And if you have any questions, see Nick. there you go sir ready for the next case next one uh we need one voting member this time so um lisa you will not vote for this one okay and we'll stay on yep case number

7-15-2026-2, request for a variance from LZ07.5.C.1 to allow a 15-foot high freestanding sign, whereas the maximum permitted sign height in the C2 zoning district is 10 feet. The property is located at 201 Rockingham Road, tax map 15, lot 68. Lawn Rock Realty, LLC, owner, viewpoint sign and awning applicant.

Good evening. Good evening. I'M JASON PERILLO WITH VIEWPOINT SIGNING THIS EVENING. MY ADDRESS IS 1001 EDGELL ROAD, FRAMINGHAM MASS. SO WE HAVE A PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD PETITION BEFORE YOU. THIS IS TO ALLOW DUNCAN DONUTS RAISE THEIR EXISTING MONUMENT SIGN TO 15 FEET HIGH. THERE'S NO PROPOSED CHANGE IN THE SIZE OR THE TYPE OF SIGN IT IS. IT'S SIMPLY TO RAISE IT UP SO THAT THE LOCATION CAN BE MORE VISIBLE AND THAT THE SIGN CAN BE SEEN BETTER FOR VEHICULAR TRAFFIC. I CAN GET INTO THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO DO THAT.

It's up to you whether you want to do that.

I think that they kind of addressed the petition in general. So question one, the variance will not be contrary to the public interest. The existing monument sign at this location has visibility issues due to the topography of the surrounding area of 201 Rockingham Road. The proposed 15-foot high pylon sign will benefit the public by clearly identifying the restaurant and its road entrance. Number two, the spirit of the ordinance is observed. The sign dimensions are not increasing. The variance request is to install the new sign at 15 foot high, where 10 foot is the maximum height allowed. Number three, substantial justice is done. The proposed change to this sign will increase safety for the public by reducing traffic issues because the existing monument sign has visibility issues. Number four, the value of surrounding properties are not diminished. The changes to this Dunkin' Donuts sign will have no adverse effect on surrounding properties. Number five, literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship. Subsection one, no fair and substantial relationship exists between the general public purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property. So the answer to that is the hardship in this particular case is due to the unique positioning of this property on Rockingham Road. Traffic approaching from the west did not see the property or the sign and so completing a curve in the road and often do not have time to see the restaurant and its entrance in a timely manner. Subsection 2, the proposed use is a reasonable one. There is no increase into the size of the sign only increase in the overall height of the sign.

Any questions from board members?

We have a couple. So this is the airport district? No. That seems to be what's... No, this is 28.

Across from the face.

I know where it is. It just seemed like the 75... What was the code? 75...

So on here it's 7.5 point C point 1.

Oh okay. I thought it was 7.5 point C. 15 feet. Then I'll withdraw my question and look back on it then. Oh it does say airport district though. Sign height. No sign other than those specified in section 76D6. Is that just saying outside the airport district? Yeah. I see. I have a couple of Let me ask one other question. What's the current height of the site?

Okay, the actual sign is four foot high, but, you know, it's on the ground, yeah. I mean, it's even got some bushes that kind of obscure it a little bit. It's probably a little bit higher than that because it is on these pillars that are set up above the ground. So I'd say, you know, it's probably on one side it might be a little different than the other. It's probably somewhere between five and six feet off the ground right now, total height.

So is that the bottom? Where do we measure? The bottom or the top of the sign?

Top of the sign.

Top. So you're saying five, six feet currently top? Yeah. And you want to go up to 15? We want to go to 15, yes.

I have a similar question. And I guess, is there any reason it can't be raised to the 10 feet and cut bushes for visibility?

We did, you know, we didn't put up like a sample sign or thing like that, but the feeling was that the 10 feet wasn't really going to give it that same enough visibility, especially when you're traveling west. Because if you're coming, you're completing a curve, you're going down a hill, you don't see the sign until you're literally on top of the property. So that's why we wanted to go with the 15 feet to just ensure that it's visible.

And that's sort of the mock-up of the 15 versus that.

Yeah, that's looking, obviously, east. I submitted some pictures of the application that show.

Yep, we have them. So this is a replacement for the existing sign? Yes, same size. I can tell you that the speed limit is 40 there. That's low. I can attest to you need a better sign there. That is a very busy road, and nobody goes 40. That's correct.

They always go faster, and I have seen more people cut people off and almost cause an accident because they, there's Duncan, and they swerve in there. Yeah. It's an issue. It's an issue. That road is really, really fast.

Yep.

Yeah. I have a question. The current sign, is it lit?

Yeah.

And will the new sign be lit?

Yeah, it's going to be the same exact sign, same type of illumination, same construction, just higher.

Thank you.

Yep.

Actually, you're going to have a more current sign. It'll be a cleaner logo.

Yeah, they're Dunkin' now. That's not just Dunkin' Donuts anymore.

It's going to be cleaner.

Is the intent to get rid of, like what I see, I assume the one on the right is the current with all the brickwork, and it looks like the one on the left, that's gone.

Yeah, it's just a pole, yeah.

No. Anything else? Okay. And we have our dimensions in our packets. Anyone have any question on the dimensions of the actual sign? We good? No. Okay. I'd like to bring it out to the public. Anyone that would like to speak in favor of the applicant, please approach. Let the record show there is no one. Anyone in opposition that would like to speak?

There is a letter in opposition.

Please read it into the record.

Public comment opposing sign height variance, Duncan, 201 Rockingham Road, case number 715, 2026-2. Submitted by Cheryl Waite. Standing, owner of 200 Rockingham Road, resident of 57 Noise Road, Londonderry. to the members of the London Dairy Zoning Board of Adjustment. I respectfully oppose the request to increase the freestanding sign from the permitted 10 feet to approximately 15 feet. I own 200 Rockingham Road, located a short distance beyond the Duncan entrance, and I live nearby at 57 Noyes Road. I therefore observe this area both as a nearby property owner and as a residential neighbor. The application states that the additional height is intended to improve visibility and reduce missed turns. Based on my observations, the extra five feet is not necessary and is unlikely to produce a meaningful traffic benefit. Central concern, raising the sign is more likely to increase its visibility to nearby buildings and residences than to help customers at the exact point where they must enter the turn lane. One, traffic conditions do not justify a taller sign. I occasionally see a driver miss the Duncan entrance, continue a short distance, and use my driveway to turn around. This does happen, but not often enough to demonstrate a substantial or continuing traffic problem. Drivers miss entrances for many reasons, including lane position, speed, navigation instructions, unfamiliarity with the area, or deciding to turn too late. Adding five feet to a sign will not eliminate those behaviors. The added height will not change the entrance location, the designated turn lane, traffic speed, roadway geometry, or the point at which a driver must safely begin the turn. Important existing conditions. Rockingham Road is an established commuter route. Duncan is an established business with a nationally recognized name and logo. The site already has an entrance, a turn lane, existing identification, and online navigation. Many customers are regular or repeat customers who already know the location. If traffic safety is being offered as the reason for the variance, the applicant should provide objective evidence showing the frequency and cause of missed turns and explaining why a compliant sign cannot adequately identify the entrance. Two, a taller sign may create more off-site impact than customer benefit. In my view, a 15-foot sign would be seen more prominently by nearby buildings, homes, and residential streets than by motorists at the exact moment they must safely enter the turn lane. A driver who was already too close to the entrance to turn safely should continue and turn around in an appropriate location. A taller sign does not change that basic traffic reality. A larger, brighter, and more elevated sign may also add another visual element competing for attention along an already busy roadway. Three, lighting and residential impact. The proposed sign is internally illuminated. Raising it to approximately 15 feet would increase its visibility from a greater distance and from more surrounding properties, including nearby homes and Noyes Road. The board should consider brightness, glare, hours of operation, automatic dimming, and light spill beyond the Duncan property. Existing lighting concerns in the area. Nearby residents are already experiencing commercial lighting impacts. Concerns have been raised about brightness and spillover from the Circle T car wash property. To my knowledge, those concerns have not yet been fully corrected or resolved by the town. That separate situation demonstrates why the town should proceed cautiously before approving additional illuminated signage that could compound existing conditions. Residential owners should be able to peacefully use and enjoy their homes and yards without an increasing accumulation of commercial glare and light intrusion. Before granting additional relief, the town should ensure that existing lighting concerns are investigated and corrected and that new approvals will not add to those impacts. Four, community character and cumulative commercial impact. This corridor already reflects the cumulative effects of growth, increased traffic, commercial lighting, signage, pavement, larger buildings, and visual clutter. The request should not be viewed as only five additional feet on one sign. Each variance contributes to the overall appearance of the area and may encourage similar requests from other businesses. If greater visibility alone is sufficient to exceed the ordinance, the 10-foot limit will gradually lose its meaning. Businesses should be expected to work within adopted sign standards whenever a compliant design can reasonably identify the property. Five, no unnecessary hardship has been shown. Denial of this variance would not prevent Duncan from continuing to operate. The business already has a recognized brand, established customer base, existing signage, a visible location, an established driveway and turn lane, in the ability to install a replacement sign that complies with the ordinance. The request appears to seek greater advertising prominence rather than relief from unique hardship related to the land. The Board should require evidence showing what specific property condition makes a compliant 10-foot sign unreasonable, why 15 feet is the minimum relief necessary, why the claimed hardship relates to the land rather than the preference for greater visibility, and What compliant alternatives were considered, such as clearer lettering, stronger contrast, a simpler sign face, building-mounted identification, entrance markings, alternative placement, or lower-intensity illumination? Requested action. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the One Area Zoning Board of Adjustment deny the requested sign height variance and require the applicant to design and install a sign that complies with the Town's current ordinance. The occasional misturn does not justify increasing the permitted sign height by 50%. The additional height is more likely to increase the sign's visibility to surrounding buildings and residences than to provide a meaningful traffic benefit. The applicant has not demonstrated that the property cannot be reasonably used with a compliance sign or that the added lighting and visual impact are consistent with the public interest and the spirit of the ordinance. Please enter this letter into the official public record for case number 715-2026-2. Provide a copy to each member of the Zoning Board of Adjustment for the hearing and confirm receipt by email. Sincerely, Cheryl Waite, owner 200 Rockingham Road, resident 57 Noise Road.

Thank you. Is there anyone that is here tonight that would like to speak in opposition? Please come forward. Let the record show there is no one. Any other questions from the board? Okay, I have a question for you. Your current sign is lit. Does that current sign go off after hours? Is it dimmed or turned off?

It can definitely be turned off after hours, definitely.

What are the hours of that, Duncan? Do you know, roughly? I don't. Okay, it's not a 24-7?

No.

Okay.

And I'd also just add that we put dimmers on all our signs now.

so for some reason that sign is is seen as being too bright we can we can we can tone down the the brightness and it's exactly the same type of sign as the one that's there now so it's not going to have any additional illumination impact okay um but you could speak for the possibility that when um this duncan's is not open that the sign could be um dimmed to a very if not turned off dim to a very dull absolutely okay All right. Anybody have any other questions? Okay. Is there any way for you to find out what that Duncan's, what their hours are? Would you make a call?

Yeah, I was going to say, let's Google it.

Can someone do that? See if we can get the hours because I don't want any misunderstanding when we vote. Okay. We have clean records here. We don't want to have any misunderstanding.

Can I bug Nick again? Yeah. Like I like to? Yeah. Nick, when I drive that road, it's very commercial to me. I don't live right near there. How close are the residential homes to that, Duncan? I always think you know a lot more about the town than me. Are they very close? Very close.

They are. There are a couple of houses further up, yeah.

All right, so for the record, this Dunkin' Donuts is open seven days a week, starting at 4 a.m. is the earliest, but they always close at 8 p.m. Okay. Okay, so four to eight. All right, any other questions? No. Okay, I'm gonna close the public portion of this hearing. Do we bring it to the board now? Do we have anything we have to hash out, or are we good? Any questions before we vote? Okay. Okay. Let's do it.

Granted the variance would or would not be contrary to the public interest because?

I would say would not.

I agree.

Not altering the character of the neighborhood.

I would agree.

I agree. Highly trafficked commercial property. Agreed.

The spirit of the ordinance would or would not be observed because? I think it would. I just don't see the threat to health, safety, or the general welfare.

i agree with you because the way that it is now there's more of a safety issue yeah you see the sign when you turn in holy crap they made that stop sign now which could be safer i don't know but yeah yeah i agree there's a lot going on right there yeah so i agree with you do we all agree yes yes okay

Granted, the variance would or would not do substantial justice because I think it would. I think the loss to the applicant is greater than it gained to the public.

I agree. Yeah, I agree. You know, part of that is the five-foot difference. I don't know that that really matters a whole lot either.

For the following reasons, the values of the surrounding properties would or would not be diminished. I would say would not. That's a commercial area.

I agree with that.

Owing to special conditions to the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area, denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship because there is or is not a fair and substantial relationship between the general public purpose of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property because?

I would say it's not.

I agree.

So the unique positioning of the property on Rockingham Road, you can come up on it.

I agree. I agree. I agree.

Yeah, I do have a little bit of a different take on that provision. I just think, you know, so far as the need for the variants, one of the specific questions that was asked was whether or not the opportunity was explored to create a sign within 10 feet, because this is only like five or six feet off of the ground. And I think, you know, Miss Wait's letter um is is evidence for the board's consideration in that you know nearby residents she's you know experiencing direct um potential impacts of visual cluster and things of that nature um when i'm looking at this picture i'm very familiar with this dunkin donuts it is near my house i there is no hill in front of this area it's kind of a straightaway i agree you can get Um, you know, clustered and congested, but there is record evidence from the butter directly that says that it's not that bad of a problem. And I think she would be qualified to speak to that. I think 1 of the things that, um. To me, it seems almost like a self-created hardship issue with visibility. There's a bunch of brush around this bush right now too. I would wonder what it would look like if the brush was cleared and there was a sign that wasn't 15 feet but 10 feet if this pole was not as high or something like that. Have there been other options explored? I mean, yeah, there's a number of businesses along Rockingham Road, but there's no evidence to support that it's uniquely situated from other properties in the area. In fact, I feel like the sign could even be moved on the other side of this entryway if that were, you know, if it was a topography issue. But I would just say that I'm not sure that the record establishes that there really is unique circumstances to this property or alternatives that have been explored to make the sign in compliance with The variance request.

So you are in opposition. You do not agree.

OK, so I agree. Suzanne, you agree? I agree.

I agree. You agree? OK, so we have four in agreement and we have one opposition.

OK. Opposed, is or is not a reasonable one because is. Signs are reasonable.

Agree. Agreed.

OK. Comments, restrictions.

All right. We established that and the applicant did testify that the sign could be turned off when not in operation at this location. So it has been determined that this location is open from 4 a.m. the earliest till 8 p.m. seven days a week and that's directly on their website just for the record so that we know where we got this information. I would like to see if the rest of you would like to put a condition that the sign only be illuminated during business hours. That's fine with me.

Of 4 to 8. I would actually say while they're open because it may not necessarily always be 4 to 8, but I don't know if they're able to do that.

You bring up a good point. They're not 24 now. Let's just say they're not going to be 24 later.

Correct. And then they have to have the sign-off.

Well, we could limit it to 8 p.m., but I'm actually more concerned. Actually, I like the language. You're right. The language is better during operating hours. But not to exceed. Not to go down a slippery slope because we can't dictate when they conduct business. Sure you can. Well, when the sign's going to be lit, right.

I like putting a ton on the side, but I think that balances things.

I'm less concerned about the 8 p.m. as the 4 a.m. Yeah. But for safety reasons, if you're trying to get people in there, it needs to be lit. Yeah.

I mean, business hours, but no later than time?

No later than... What?

No earlier than 4 a.m., no later than 8 p.m.?

Yeah.

I like that. If they shorten their business hours. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. Is there any argument for saying that it has to be dimmed down between?

Well, that's what we're trying to distinguish.

Not this language right now.

But dimmer, you know? You mean like after dusk? After dusk. Before dawn.

That's a tricky time, but dimmer.

Less luminous is subjective. So I don't know how many looms the dimming would come to.

You could throw it back out and ask what the standard currently is.

I couldn't attest to that.

Okay.

So we could say that, you know, it is substantially dimmer. I mean, we have to be careful because I can't.

So what I've got, and you tell me if this is a problem. The sign shall be illuminated only during operating hours, but no earlier than 4 a.m. and no later than 8 p.m. But then that gets both. I think it catches both.

I think that's okay.

Can you just read the beginning again?

The sign shall be illuminated only during operating hours, but no earlier than 4 a.m. and no later than 8 p.m. How about May instead of Shem? May? That's fine.

I don't want to illuminate it. I'm good.

Yeah, that's fine with me. then may only may only be illuminated yep that's even better yeah a lot of people the sign may only be illuminated during operating hours, but no earlier than 4 a.m. and no later than 8 p.m. That's a lot of lawyering, but yes.

That's what we do.

A lot of legalese. All right, are we good with that? Okay. All right, do we have a motion?

I'd like to make a motion in case number 715-2026-2 to grant the request for variance with the condition that the sign may only be illuminated during operating hours, but no earlier than 4 a.m. and no later than 8 p.m.

Do I have a second? I'll second. Thank you, Suzanne. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Aye. Okay.

In case number 715-2026-2, the request for variance was granted with the condition that the sign may only be illuminated during operating hours, but no earlier than 4 a.m. and no later than 8 p.m. Have a great evening.

Great. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

You're out again. Okay. so lisa you are back up as a voting member thank you four and five okay four and five are the same property yes oh wait a minute no no no you weren't seen No, not yet.

Three and four are the same property. I apologize. No, that's not right. Three, four, and five. No, no, no. Three is alone. Three is alone. Right. Three is alone. I apologize. It's four, five, six. Okay. I was reading three and four together. So case number 715-2026-3 requests for a special exception for a home occupation massage therapy pursuant to LZO 5.12.4.A to the AR1 zoning district. The property is located at 254 Mammoth Road, tax map 6, lot 20. Brian Hanlon, owner. Jennifer Carlisle, applicant.

Welcome. Thank you. Please state your name and address for the record.

My name is Jennifer Carlisle, and I am also a resident at 254 Mammoth Road here in Londonderry.

Would you like to tell us about, because this is a special exception. Correct. So we don't have the same protocol that you've seen for the first two cases. Okay. So would you like to tell us about what it is that you would like to do there for this home occupation?

Okay. What it is is that I was under the assumption that this had already been taken care of. There is a room within the property that Mr. Hanlon and I made an agreement with when I lost my rental space at a salon that had closed so that I could see clients privately. It takes up a very small portion of the house. It takes up, I think it's like 5% of the house. Yeah, it takes up 5% of the house. It's in a small corner on the street level. The only thing we had was just a tiny sign on the building itself, and it seemed that the problem was that it was a question of parking. This property, prior to Mr. Hanlon purchasing it, was actually owned by the Smiths, and they had two commercial properties. businesses on the property. And I believe there was a picture that I did send in that shows a picture of the property from across the street, which is actually the town forest, that shows that there is a circular driveway as part of this property, which means there is plenty of space for not only residents, but for the one client at a time that I see on any given day. And so we are simply looking to get the special exception so that there is no – so it's completely clear between us and the town that it is okay for me to have clients parking on the property for the length of their session, which is no more than an hour and a half, no less than a half an hour.

Okay. Do you have in the record what this property was actually zoned for, permitted in that –

It's zoned as R1, AR1. It's an AR1.

I don't have any.

The previous zoning, it was actually a commercial previously.

Nick, can you verify that? Because we have nothing in our packet back here, if that really is. It used to be a preschool.

Yeah, it used to be a preschool. Winnie's Creative Kindergarten. For the kindergarten. Okay.

okay um any questions from the board i had one question do you live at the property as well i do

I have a question. Are you an owner or a tenant of that property?

Okay, that gets complicated. Mr. Hanlon and I have a longstanding relationship, which is not acknowledged in the state of New Hampshire because it's common law. However, technically, the property is his. It is now officially under his trust, of which I am a trustee. And while I reside at the property, I like have like one room that I reside in and one room that I work in. so your name is not on the deed not anymore we have just recently put it officially into his trust and you're a trustee of the trust correct that's where my lawyering ends i am i am a trustee on his trust i am also the executor of his estate okay when he passes okay um if you need that information i can provide i did not bring it with me tonight i did not think that was going to come up um

We do have a letter from Mr. Hamlin as well.

Would you like to read that into the record now?

Sure. July 13th, 2026, Zoning Board of Adjustment, Town of Londonderry, New Hampshire. To whom it may concern, Ms. Carlisle has my permission to represent me at this meeting of the Zoning Board. The previous owners of 254 Mammoth Road in Londonderry, Brad and Winnie Smith, had two large commercial businesses running on the property, a welding slash sheet metal shop and a full-day kindergarten. I figured Ms. Carlisle having room to work out of and an address to receive mail at as compensation for her time spent caring for me, helping with my doctor's visits and medications, personal care, et cetera, wouldn't be a problem. It neither generates significant traffic nor creates any disturbance in the area. She's invaluable to my well-being, especially during the month's long depressive episodes that happen. She will literally get me out of bed and make sure I eat because I'm debilitated. She's my rock during these times. Please allow me to have the help I need to live my life with dignity. I'm 65 years old, disabled, and struggle with brain fog related to my health conditions. Ms. Carlisle is my caregiver. It's my constitutional right as a citizen of the state of New Hampshire and of the United States of America. Thank you for your time. Brian Hanlon.

Thank you. Do you have any other questions, Lisa?

No. Okay.

Anybody else? I do not. Okay, so in my packet, or in all of our packets back here, let me just read what you have expressed. This is a part-time massage therapy practice. Average of 15 hours per week. No more than five clients per day. standard hours of operation Monday or Wednesday at 12 p.m. Tuesday and or Friday afternoons Thursday 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. and every other weekend between 8 to 5 optional Monday afternoon or Friday morning on a holiday weekend if a working weekend there will be minimal delivery deliveries and traffic created is that still the same Yes. Okay. And do you have any employees? No. Only you? Correct. Okay. Any other questions? No. Okay. Anyone that would like to speak in favor of the applicant, would like to approach? Let the record show no one. Anyone in opposition? Let the record also state that there is no one. So let's do the questionnaire.

The activities associated with home occupations shall not detract from the rural character of the residential neighborhood, nor shall they create traffic, environmental, or aesthetic impacts substantially different than impacts created by other permitted uses in the neighborhood. She has said they will not. I agree. I do.

I agree. I agree.

The home occupation shall be incidental and secondary to use of the property as a residential dwelling. She has said it is. I agree.

I agree. I agree.

Home occupations shall be permitted only in single-family or two-family dwelling units and are not permitted in multi-family dwelling units. It is indicated as a single-family or two-family dwelling. I agree.

I agree.

I agree. I agree. The home occupation shall occupy no more than 25% of the existing normal living area of the primary residence, or if the home occupation is conducted in an accessory building, no more than 50% of the existing normal living area of the primary residence, up to a maximum of 1,000 square feet may be dedicated to the home occupation. She has indicated that 144 square feet of 2,800 square feet is used. I agree. I agree. I agree. Only members of the occupant's immediate family residing on the property may be employed. She has said that is yes. I agree. Agree.

Agree.

No exterior renovations or construction shall be permitted as part of a home occupation. She has indicated there won't be. I agree. Agree. Agree. Exterior storage of any products, equipment, machinery, or material associated with the home occupation is prohibited. She said there will not be. I agree. Agree.

Agree.

Traffic generated by the home occupation shall not create safety hazards that would be substantially greater in volume than we normally expect in the neighborhood. She has said they will not be. I agree. Agree.

Agree.

The off-street parking shall be adequate for anticipated customers, although no parking area in excess of those necessary for normal residential purposes will be allowed. She has indicated that that is correct. I agree. All home occupations shall be conducted in accordance with all town regulations, state laws, and licensing requirements. She has said yes. I agree. Sign. She has requested one exterior wall sign, 13 inches by 19 inches. The sign is not illuminated and the sign does not exceed three square feet per side.

All right, I agree Hours of operation So the standard hours of operation That she's listed

Standard hours of operation are either Monday or Wednesday at 12 p.m., Tuesday and or Friday afternoon.

It's closed.

I appreciate that, but what I'm thinking is that rather than having me potentially make a mistake in copying it, we take what she has provided, mark it as Exhibit A. Exhibit A. Thank you.

Can I just say something amongst us? Monday or Wednesday at 12 p.m. doesn't have an end time, or am I missing it?

Sessions are no longer than...

So her first stipulation is there's an average of 15 hours per week. Right. So that's what we go by. If she has no clients on Tuesday or Friday, but she happens to have a client on Monday or Wednesday, from noontime till...

uh... five p m she between eight and five p m well that's a good question i have that's every other weekend that's every other weekend but yeah so the question would be what is the end time for monday wednesday tuesday and friday oh good lord because mitch is right it's monday or wednesday at twelve p m tuesday and or friday afternoons but there's no end time so those all start at noon

So, but Thursday is 8 to 7 p.m.

Right.

And then on the week, every other weekend, it's 8 a.m. to 5, so she goes no later than 7 p.m. Yeah, so I think we should, yeah.

We probably just need to confirm on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday, what is the latest appointment? What is the latest that an appointment could go?

But she could operate from 8 a.m. to... 7 PM and has an average of 15 hours per week.

Right. But the average isn't limit.

Correct.

So.

Thursdays alone are 11 hours. Correct.

Wouldn't it make sense to limit the business to no more than 15 hours per week, but to be no later than a certain end time if we're concerned about the later hour?

We could do something like that as well.

Yeah, that's the question. Because we can put conditions. I just don't know if we can condition the hours like that. Correct.

tight because she's by herself right she's not it's not a monday through friday or even a seven day a week it's not always starting at eight o'clock in the morning So it's whether or not she has clients.

Right. Could we ask her, though, on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday, since all of those are noon and on, could we ask her what the end time is for that?

I will reopen up to ask the applicant. What is the latest you would work on?

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Friday.

I never work past 7 p.m. Okay.

Yeah.

Okay, so why don't we say hours of operation as reflected in Exhibit A and on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday not to go past 7 p.m. Shall not exceed. Shall not exceed, yeah.

The hour of 7 p.m. Okay. Beautiful. Thank you very much. You're welcome.

Comments restriction.

And the sign was not illuminated, correct?

The sign was not illuminated, yes. Okay.

All right. I have no.

I don't either.

I don't have none.

Okay.

Okay. Do I have a motion?

I'd like to make a motion to grant the request for a special exception in case number 715-2026-3. And do I have a second?

I'll second. Thank you. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. You're all set, ma'am. Thank you. If you have any questions, you can always ask the office, but I think we covered it for you.

Yeah, I think you did. Is there some sort of a letter or something?

No, you're all set. I'm all set? It's on the record. All right, thank you. Take care.

You ready for four?

Let's do it. Does anybody need a break? I'm good.

I'm good. Okay. Case number 715-2026-4, request for a special exception for a portable storage container pursuant to LZO 5.15.1 in the AR1 Zoning District. The property is located at 131 High Range Road, Tax Map 6, Lot 5-1, Nathan Stiller and Jacqueline White, owner slash applicants.

Good evening. Good evening. Welcome. Welcome. Have you done this before? No. Okay. Did you bring your form with you, what you filled out? Yes. Okay. Would you like to tell us about this request for a special exception?

A special exception was asked, we were asked to fill in a special exception due to a second variance we have filed as well.

You have three for this. Yes. So we have to address each one separately. Okay. So the first one that we'll address, you can tell us about this structure. And then the storage container structure, but the storage container. And then if we get to the next one, and then the next one, we'll guide you through that. So we'll stay narrowly focused on this one first. So tell us about this container. This is the first one. This is number one, yeah. Yeah.

The first container is a 8 foot wide by 20 foot container I use it for general storage for some snow and ice Tooling shoveling snow Raiders stuff of that aspect So this is a This is the first container on your site yes, I

What's the container made of?

It's a steel shipping container.

It's steel? Yes. Is it on blocks?

Yes.

And you said it was 8 feet by 20?

8 feet wide, 20 feet long, yes.

And you said it is going to have snow raiders and snow blowers. Yes. Is this for commercial use?

Just storage. Okay.

So this is a residential, like just your house snowblower?

Well, I actually own and run a snow and ice business. In the off-season, there's certain equipment that it's all commercial work that I do. Nothing is actually done out of the house or the property itself at 131 High Range Road. This is just essentially summertime storage for six to seven months of accessory equipment.

Okay. Does any of this accessory equipment contain gasoline?

There would be two things in the container that would contain gasoline, yes.

Batteries?

Yes, the same two units. Okay.

Any small engine type writing apparatuses?

Yes, the same two. Okay.

Does anybody else have any questions?

Do you store any chemicals or salt?

No chemicals, no salt, anything like that. It's all basically hand tools, shovels, stuff of that matter.

Any other questions? Height on the? We got 20 feet long.

How the container is 8 foot 6 inch high.

Thank you. Anything else anybody?

There are letters OK. So Mark J. Greenwood, 133 High Range Road, July 12th, 2026, the Lenonderry Zoning Board of Adjustment, dear members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment, I am the owner of 133 High Range Road in Lenonderry and a budding neighbor to 131 High Range Road. I am writing to express my support for the variance request submitted by Nathan Stiller and Jacqueline White for their property at 131 High Range Road. I understand that they are seeking variances to allow a temporary shipping container for secure storage, storage of smell removal equipment, and related outdoor storage associated with the equipment. Based on my understanding of their plans, I do not believe these requests will negatively affect the neighborhood. I appreciate their commitment to keeping the property neat and orderly and believe the proposed use will remain compatible with the surrounding residential area. For these reasons, I have no objection to the request of variance and respectfully ask that the board give their application favorable consideration. Thank you, Seely Mark J. Greenwood. And then there are two others. so so this is a letter that was written there were two letters that were written to neighbors and then the neighbors signed them so i'll read them i'll read the letter and then uh what the neighbors signed so this one is to dear peter we hope you are doing well we are writing to let you know that we have submitted an application to the legendary zoning board of adjustment requesting three variances for our property at 131 high range road The variances we are seeking relate to a temporary 10-foot portable container for general storage, an additional temporary 20-foot by 8-foot portable storage container for secure storage of snow removal tools and equipment such as shovels, snow raiders, etc. Related outdoor storage associated with the snow removal equipment and machines. We value being good neighbors and want to ensure that you are fully informed about our application. Our intention is to keep the property neat, well-maintained, and compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. If, after reviewing these requests, you are comfortable with and supportive of our application, we would greatly appreciate your signature below indicating that you have no objection to the requested variances. Your signature is entirely voluntary and would simply demonstrate your support to the Zoning Board. Please feel free to contact either of us if you have any questions or would like to discuss the matter further. Thank you for taking the time to consider our request, and we appreciate your kindness and neighborly support. Sincerely, Nathan Stiller, Jacqueline White. The Neighbor Acknowledgement Form says I, Peter Norton, owner of 116 High Range Road, have reviewed the variance request submitted by Nathan Stiller and Jacqueline White for 131 High Range Road. I have no objection to the requested variances as described above. And Peter Norton signed it on July 14, 2026. The same letter was sent to Yvette and Donna Hicks, and the neighbor acknowledgement reads, I, Yvette and Donna Hicks, owner of 123 High Range Road, have reviewed the variance request submitted by Nathan Stiller and Jacqueline White for 131 High Range Road. I have no objections to the requested variances as described above. Signature, it looks like it's Donna L. Hicks who signed it on July 14, 2026.

Is there anyone else that would like to ask any questions of the applicant?

We have a lot in our packet of pictures, and I'm not sure. We have pictures of containers. We have cleared property with markings. I don't know what any of that is. I mean, I get the pictures of the containers, but propane line, a setback, a 15-foot setback, a 30-foot setback. Why are we concerned about that for this case? Because this case is just whether they can have

storage container we're addressing yeah the storage container where's storage container going to be placed maybe that's what the picture is depicting yes so the map we kind of submitted the photos and the map as to an oversight of all three variances the storage container the 20-foot container is currently behind the house And we plan on putting that in the area to the back left of the property that shows on the map.

Right there.

In the area that I plan on clearing out some trees and moving it from behind the house and putting it there. The smaller container that you saw the pictures of a second ago, it's a 10 foot by 7 wide and it's 8 feet tall.

So we only want to talk about the first one, which is... Eight feet by 20. The 20-footer? Yeah. So there's the property. So you have this eight foot by 20 in the backyard.

Correct.

And you're going to be moving it to the front.

I would be moving it to the farther back left corner of the property.

Okay. So in that picture, when I look and I see the house, to the left we have that couple stall garage.

Correct.

So you're going to be parking that container to that side.

It would that yes, it would be on the left side of that same 3 big rush and it would be in the very back corner back of that yes, very far back.

There is a map in there as well that shows there is a lot of geographic a budding. So it's in that back corner where that. Kind of triangular is behind the natural tree line.

Yes, right there.

That's where it's located now.

No, that is where I plan on placing it. It is located, if you see where the picture of the pool that is on there, and the pool is actually no longer on the property, but somehow it keeps showing up on the geomaps. It's to the north side of the pool there. It's got a little box that we put it in there. That's where it currently sits now.

okay and uh this previously was an automotive repair shop yes yeah okay and you just recently purchased that yeah we just purchased it uh may 18th okay do you all of you understand that okay um anything else So in this special exception, you have questions that you have to answer. And number five states nuisance created by way of emission of odors, smoke, gas, dust, noise, glare, heat, other pollutants, unsightly outdoor storage of equipment, vehicles, or other materials. You stated no on your application, but there will be some of that in there. only when it leaves to go to its designated sites designated parking lots that it is in but it will be stored there when it is not needed for snow removal so it'll be stored there for a good amount of time yeah a few months yes yeah okay does everybody understand that sure um but right the concern is the emission of odors gas and dust i don't

Yeah, nothing would be running inside or anything like that.

But the concern is the ongoing... So that's equipment.

You know, it's interesting. If it was for his home use, so if he was storing his mower... Correct. This is commercial. No, I know. But five would still apply, right? And would he not allow someone to store a mower or their own snowblower with those things? I'm trying to figure out if that would be okay. And if that's okay, then... I don't know where it would be.

So an average homeowner may not have several snow blowers and several gasoline cans and several pieces of small equipment that it's going to be it's not a homeowner's use. So we just have to establish because what the applicant is putting on answering on this special exception will be read and that's what we have to make sure that we understand what's going on here so on the last question how long will the structure remain on the property so you've indicated that it's two to five years until a permanent permanent structure can be built. So that's your intention later on.

Yeah, my intention down the road would be eventually to get the approval from the town to build a sort of say pole barn of whatever size could be possibly granted and eventually remove the container from the property and completely get rid of it and be able to store the stuff in a actual enclosed larger structure, actual garage.

Okay, so this is more or less like a short-term solution to a problem, and you have a plan in place for... Correct. Nick, if this is granted, we haven't put language about sunsetting or any conditions yet. Should they construct such a permanent building, could their... I don't want the, if we agree on it, that the storage container is there still, and then we have a garage and we have this container still there. We haven't written the sunset rules in a long time. Do you advise, because I don't know who looks at that. who monitors that? Nick does. Nick does. So if you know, if we did a, say, even if after we go through the discussion here, if we did the latest, the five year date, is that even feasible how would it be enforced yeah well we have done this before we have done it but we haven't done it in a very long time 10 years is what we typically put on for people that are using it for home storage home occupant yes yeah not commercial i don't know that we've ever done commercial yeah we have we have okay we have all right so that is feasible if we write uh sunset

I believe so, yes.

We're still okay. All right. I don't know how it's different. We had been advised once about the sunset language, and I just brought it up. All right. Well, that's good to know. All right. Thank you. Any other questions we have before we go into the special exception?

Okay. Are you good, Mitch? You look... I was trying to think... Out of curiosity, how much equipment would go into this? Like, you know, am I envisioning 27 snowblows filled with gas or four?

No, right. Actually, as it sits right now, I won't lie. It's got it has three snowblowers in it and a lot of hand shovels. And that is. What stays in there and that is it. Even if there was a cause of, you have to drain the fuel out of the equipment before it's stored, that's perfectly acceptable and I completely understand. Okay.

All right, I'm set.

All right, you ready? Yeah. All right.

Is the use- Wait a minute.

Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of the applicant?

Did you appoint, I forgot where we are in numbers of people who are voting on this.

One, two, three, four, five. Anyone would like to speak in favor of the applicant? Thank you. Please approach and state your name and address for the record.

I am Mark Greenwood. I live at 133 High Range Road. I am north of the butter.

Okay.

And I wanted to come up and say I have absolutely no issue with what he's doing. I've lived at that property for 50 years. And he's been an absolutely awesome neighbor. And he's doing an excellent job with what he's got going on there.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the applicant? Please approach and state your name and address for the record. I almost forgot.

Excuse me. I don't know if I'm allowed to. My name is Brad White. I'm Jacqueline's father. If I could just reiterate a couple of things, am I allowed to? In their behalf? Sure. Your address.

Yeah, your address for the record.

407 South Street, Halifax, Mass. Okay.

And direct it to us, please.

They purchased the house, as you know, just recently in May. And they were told at that time that there was an automotive business there, and that was one of the reasons why they had purchased it, that he'd be able to put the stuff in there. Right off the get-go, he ordered 42 trees, albivites, to put across the front, just to shade out the trucks and stuff that are coming down from the DPW, and to work both ways as a natural screening. And he has more that he was going to put to the rear of the property. So that was ordered and done. They were only in there for a week and a half moving when the code enforcement officer came in. So when he says the container and stuff that he has now was out back, that's because when the code enforcement officer stopped in, he halted everything. That's why the 24-container was out there. So what they would like to do, as he stated, was put into the rear of the property, but he didn't want to move, do anything without permission from the board. That's pretty much it. I understand. They're young. They get nervous. Some of you might bite.

We don't. We just don't bite. We don't. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the applicant? Let the record show there is no one else. Anyone in opposition that would like to speak? Let the record show there's no opposition. All right. Now we can go into it.

Is the use detrimental to the health or safety of residents? The answer is no. I agree with it. I wouldn't agree. Agree. Will the use create undue traffic congestion or a traffic safety hazard in the vicinity of the post development? The answer in the application is no. I agree with that. I agree. agree and we all have to yeah make sure we all respond to this one will the use be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhoods they have said no all the only neighbors have said no so i have no reason to disagree with it i agree i agree will the use be a detriment to property values in the vicinity of the proposed development consideration given to the location of or scale of building structures parking areas or other access ways again There's been no evidence that it would, and they have said no, so I agree. I agree. Will a nuisance be created by such use by way of emission of odors, smoke, gas, dust, noise, glare, heat vibration, or other pollutants, or the unsightly outdoor storage of equipment, vehicles, or other materials? They have said no. I don't think what they've proposed will create a nuisance as a result of any of that, so I agree with them.

I agree.

Will the use create a hazard to the public or adjacent property on account of potential fire, explosion, or release of toxic materials? They've said no. And again, I haven't seen anything to disagree with that, so I agree.

I agree.

Will the use result in the degradation of existing surface and groundwater quality standards or have adverse effects on the natural functions of wetlands on the site, which would result in the loss of a significant habitat or flood control protection? They have said no. I agree. Agreed. Will there be more than one portable storage structure per property? So they have said yes, and the answer has to be no. And the problem is that they need a variance for the second one, which they've requested.

That is correct.

So we approve. Just the one, the answer is no, correct?

Well, we'd have to change the answer then, and then we'd have to go back out.

Yeah, we'd have to go back out. So let me go back out. Are there any other issues before we?

That's a good point.

No, well, no, because starting at 10, the answers have to be yes. So we're okay on all the answers except that one. But the problem is they're kind of in a bind.

Well, do you want one?

Yeah, I mean, that's the thing.

Yeah.

That's the thing.

I don't think they're going to bind. They can go here and get this one, and then they're going to go for the variance.

I don't think the timing is, you think that's okay if they do it that way? Yeah. Okay. I think that that's better.

I treat these all as separate anyways. So I'm going to bring it back out to the applicant. So for the record, on number eight, there will be, Will there be more than one portable storage structure per property? You answered yes. However, that is an incorrect answer for what you testified and what you gave us for information for this special exception. You answered incorrectly. Is your correct answer no to number eight? For this first special exception, this first case, you got to stay focused only on this.

um i would say no it's not okay let the record show that we number eight shall be changed to no the applicant has acknowledged they answered incorrectly okay uh close it now thank you will the portable storage structure be larger than 10 feet wide 20 feet long and 10 feet high no we were told it was eight feet by 20 feet by eight feet by six eight feet six inches i agree yes will the portable storage structure be located to the side or rear of the principal structure on the property yes

Agree.

Will the portable storage structure be set back a minimum of 15 feet from any side or rear lot lines and 40 feet from any front prop lines? They said yes, and I believe their map or their drawing shows that as well. I agree. Will the portable storage structure be set back a minimum of five feet from the nearest wall or building? They said yes. I agree. Agree. Will the portable storage structure be placed on paved concrete for other appropriate impervious searches or be placed on blocks. They have said yes.

And he testified to that. You asked him. Yeah.

If applicable, will adequate and appropriate facilities be provided for the intended use? They've said yes. I agree. It might not be applicable, but that's fine. It's not applicable. If applicable, will all necessary state and federal permits be obtained? Again, I don't know if that's applicable, but they've said yes. I agree. What is the length of time the portable storage structure will remain on the property? So they've said two to five years. So the question is, do we want to make it five years so they have more time to build the structure or make them come back, which...

I say we do the maximum, which is five years.

I agree. I agree.

Comments, restrictions?

So to adequately describe that, so five years from today's date?

Five years from July 15, 2026.

Specify the size, since there seems to be a few different containers.

This one was testified 8 feet by 20.

OK, this container. 8 feet by 20 feet by 8 feet 6 inches.

Yes.

Okay.

All right. Do I have a motion?

I'd like to make a motion to grant the request for a special exception with the condition that the container will be no larger than 8 feet by 20 feet by 8 feet 6 inches high.

And the... Time period for sunset?

That's in anyway, but five years from July 15th, 2026.

Thank you. And you're going to second? I'll second. Thank you. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. See, this is approved for number one. Let's do number two now.

Okay. Okay, so for 131 High Range Road, the special exception was granted with the condition that the container will be no larger than 8 feet by 20 feet by 8 feet 6 inches high. Yes. Case number 715-2026-5. Request for a variance from LZO 5.15.A.1 to allow an additional portable storage structure in the AR1 zoning district. The property is located at 131 High Range Road, Tax Map 6, Lot 5-1, Nathan Stiller and Jacqueline White, Owner-Applicant.

Okay. State your name and address for the record. We'll start there.

Nathan Stiller, 131 High Range Road.

Jacqueline White, 131 High Range Road.

Thank you. Do we have previous zoning in your packet for this?

I don't think we get that anymore.

Previous zoning board action on this parking, yes, by previous owner. So, okay, you don't have any of that. Okay, so for the record, Nick, this was an approved automotive repair facility.

Yes. Thank you. The previous one got a variance for it.

Thank you. All right, so that's out of the way. Do you want to tell us about this container? How big is this container so we can identify it?

Yes. This second container is a 10 foot deep, seven foot wide, and it is eight feet. I want to say this one was three inches high. It was a little bit shorter than the first one is currently located on the left side of the house to the right of the three bay garage.

Okay, to the right of the three-bay garage. Okay.

It meets all the setbacks by multiple feet. On the map, it shows all the drawings.

And what will be in this container?

This container is strictly for shovels and more shovels.

Maybe a set of jumper cables?

Yeah. We kind of use this one more so for shovels and household stuff when we don't have room.

Okay, so this is a smaller container than the first container that we just heard of. Correct. Okay. And this one, you want to keep it permanently onto the property, this particular one?

If possible, I would like to.

Okay. And what is it made of?

Steel.

Okay. And is it on blocks?

Correct. Yes, it is.

Okay. Members, do you have any questions of our applicant?

We're going to go through the five criteria.

We will. Okay.

We're going to ask questions because... Well, yeah, ask questions. I think we should wait until after they go through the five points of law.

Okay, we can do that. You want to go through the five points of law now? Do you have your application with you? I do. And you can just read right what you wrote, okay?

I apologize. This is my first time, so if I stumble a little bit. Oh, no, no.

Just read right. Just read verbatim because it's for the record. And the audience and everybody viewing, if they so choose at home, they wouldn't know what you wrote. So just read it as you have described it, okay?

Okay. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. The equipment will be moved and stored on the back left side. Bear with me here. Okay, the container is located on the backside of the three car garage and is used for general storage for shovels and more shovels and jumper cables. Items include such as what I just stated. The spirit of the ordinance is observed. The requested variance preserves the spirit of the ordinance by maintaining the property compatibility with the surrounding neighbors. You can't see it from the roadway as much where the natural foliage has kind of filled it in and we also are Going to plant the rest of the arborvitae trees to block in that area Substantial justice is done granting the requested variance would allow storage of the tools to be organized and out of inclement weather. Denial would result in equipment being in the weather and to the public eye. The values of the surrounding properties are not diminished. The requested variance will not diminish the value of surrounding properties. The project is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and will be constructed and maintained in a manner that is compatible with nearby homes and properties. Number 5A. The purposes of the subparagraph unnecessary hardship means that owning the special conditions of the property that distinguish it from the properties in the area. I... No fair and substantial request exists between the general public purposes and the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property. And there is no fair and substantial relationship between the purposes of the ordinance and its application to the property. The proposed storage container will be properly maintained and will be located in a manner that minimizes visibility and impact on the neighboring properties. proposed use is a reasonable one it is a reasonable request due to the fact it will be put put with snow tools and etc out of sight of the public eye and out of inclement weather and is in proper storage it would not affect any site from the neighboring properties

Thank you. All right. So since this is the first time you're here, so just to let you know, variances run with the land, regardless of who owns it. So this had a previous variance for an automotive repair. business and that stays with the land okay so um just so that's fyi for you so whether or not um you remain there or it leaves this variance runs with the land okay any questions on suzanne great so per variance the little enforcement the number five criteria

requires for your property be different so that everyone else is complying with one storage facility but you want to what's different about your property than the other properties in the area that you should get to storage containers when everyone else can only have one i would say that the way that the layout of the land is um with

one container being very far set back completely out of sight out of mind with the second smaller container being hidden by the way of the structure of the house and the garages it kind of really shadows any view of anything there along with the multiple trees we planted to use as a privacy fence thank you

Any other questions or comments?

You're also directly across from that DPW road, right?

Correct. We are directly across from the DPW road.

Okay. And there's nobody, like, it's not like there's another house there. You guys are the ones. Yes, that's us. Okay. And what's the traffic in and out of there like? Is it pretty?

During the weekday, it's frequent.

It's very busy. What types of vehicles are you seeing coming in and out of there?

Trucks, large equipment.

Loaders, excavators, all kinds of stuff.

OK, thank you.

Thank you.

Mitch, you have any comments?

No, I'm just thinking hard.

So you in your first case with US 715 2026 dash four, you stated that that first container that was granted is temporary and you have five years in which to construct that garage so this just for the record this one would then be the only container if we vote on it that would actually be there in the end yes once you build your garage just stating Because this one builds upon each other. So this one's a little more difficult. Do you have any other questions?

Are we good? I think we could sunset this one, too, if you wanted to. If you wanted to combine them, to keep them on the same timeline. But we don't have to.

You're going to sunset a variant? So don't forget, this...

has a previous variance granted for automotive repair. Higher impact than a 10 by 7 by 8 storage.

Just thinking about it.

And what is interesting with this and the way that it runs, when the other container sunsets,

he would only have one container not two so this becomes a moot point it would be helpful to see what the what the prior zoning because if they were granted a variance for automotive repair they hit this property satisfied five correct i just don't know i don't know what the basis was at that point and i don't remember that i don't i apologize i don't remember This case, I don't know if you do.

It was there a long time. That repair was a long time.

So you're making the presumption that because it was an automotive, they could have two storage sheds?

No, the use being automotive repair.

I'm just interested in how was the property found to meet the fifth criteria then? That's my question.

I want to say I thought I had researched 40 years he was there, 35? It was quite a while. Yeah, okay.

We know it was a variance and it wasn't pre-zoning. It wasn't pre-zoning.

It was a variance.

It was a variance. It was a variance.

And then it was a variance, yeah.

I don't even know what the variance statute or law was at that time in terms of- No, no.

Well, that's what conditions are anyways at the end if we need to hash that out.

I guess, you know, to follow up with what was said, I wonder would it benefit us to have that information?

Well, let me ask you this. Your intended new garage in five years, do you think you would even need this 10 by 7 by 8 at that point?

Possibly not. As of right now, I don't have a real yes, no, 100% answer on that. If the garage was... you know uh if you could have the garage that yeah that you wanted yes if the garage was big enough and i could fit everything in there plus what was in all of you know the container regardless of the five years on the other one then i don't see why i would still need this smaller one but if i would still need it it is half the size of the one that i would be getting rid of so it is cleaning it up quite a bit if that's the concern

Yep. So I mean that, so technically you might not even need it. Correct. Get that garage. So just keep that in mind. All right. Um, the applicant may not even need this variance at that point. So we, we have language that we can sunset and have it sort of, um, Tag along with the 1st, 1.

I have not heard of sunsetting a variance with the exception of any handicap person.

I only so it's in the comments restrictions. It now says, including any timeframe condition. Yeah. So I'm not sure. I agree with you. I don't know what you want.

I mean, I'm going to do it.

Well, I do not struggling with here. I mean, if we're talking about this thing is. i i don't remember ever saying that because the property is different that could have more stuff it feels like a odd use of of the fifth choice yeah i know and i i the fifth one is the hardest to satisfy this is this is sort of backwards and i can't quite figure out how i get there yeah that's why we have this board because we things don't fit in nice boxes anymore um number five is the actual hardest one and suzanne

has stated that. So you not having to follow the rules has to, there has to be a hardship that is expressed. I don't see it written, so I'm wondering if you can just take a moment to try to tell the board what is the actual hardship.

He's going to tell you about his own personal hardship, which is not what that is.

No, that's not how it works.

He said that the storage facility would be out of view, that they've planted trees. You guys mentioned they were across from the DPW.

We do plan on planting more trees as well in that area where that one actually is.

So the purpose of the ordinance to not allow more than one structure is likely to not overcrowd a lot, create a convoluted look to the properties or overcrowding the properties. What I'm hearing is The question that was asked of him was whether, what's different about your property that should allow you to not conform to the ordinance, and I guess maybe state it differently, is it that the relationship between the property and sort of the past uses and the configuration of the lots and the sort of arbor-vedi trees that now exist, that others might not have that natural screening, does that alleviate the need to, I guess, is there a substantial, is there a need for the application of, let me try to rephrase this.