All towns · hampton

ZBA (minutes)

Document

Draft minutes subject to corrections, additions, and deletions
ZBA Draft Minutes September 17, 2026                                                                                       1
HAMPTON ZONING BOARD of ADJUSTMENT
Minutes--Draft
September 17, 2026
Members present:
Bill O’Brien, Chair
Matt Saunders, Vice Chair
Erica de Vries
Tom McGuirk
Bryan Provencal, Alternate
Not present: Member Ken Sheffert,
Gregg Arvanitis, Building Inspector
CALL TO ORDER:
Chair O’Brien called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chair O’Brien welcomed the audience and introduced the Board.
He asked audience members to silence their cell phones and to take any side conversations outside
the room.
PETITION SESSION
25-26 The petition for relief of Arlene H Stammer Rev Trust for the property located at 823 Ocean
Blvd. Applicant is petitioning for a Variance from Article II, Section 2.2.5.2 for dimensional
requirements. The property is located on Map 197, Lot 23-1 in the RA zone.
Henry Boyd of Millennium Engineering came to the podium.
Chair O’Brien pointed out that while the Board can proceed with only three members present,
with four members, were a vote to result in a 2-2 split, the applicant would have to return as this
would be considered “no decision.” He said that it was a courtesy to make applicants aware of this
to give them the right to return to next month’s meeting. The Chair also asked that if an alternate
were listening and would like to come down, that would be an option, but he reminded the
applicant that it could take a while for that person to get to the meeting. 
Mr. Boyd said that they would proceed. He introduced Don Carrier, builder, who was at the table,
both of them representing the Stammers. 
Mr. Boyd presented plans that included both the existing structure and proposed changes that
included an elevator and a set of exterior stairs. He said that existing stairs on the north side would

Draft minutes subject to corrections, additions, and deletions
ZBA Draft Minutes September 17, 2026                                                                                       2
be removed, but they were seeking relief for new stairs on the south that would be at 3 feet where
10 feet is required. 
He pointed out that the entire lot is within the shoreland zone, which requires that there be no net
increase in impervious coverage and that the project would use through-flow decking to comply. 
Mr. Carrier said that he has a building permit for the elevator. He said that the residence is a
three-story home with access via an internal spiral staircase to the primary bedroom on the third
floor. He said that while there is a small deck off the bedroom that the homeowners could access
in case of a fire, they’ve asked the builder to construct stairs to get from that deck to a second-
floor deck and from there to the ground. He said that this would not be a main stairway for them,
but that it was a “life safety” issue for the owners.
Mr. Boyd read the five criteria.
Mr. McGuirk asked if the new stairs could be reconfigured to avoid the need for as much relief.
Mr. Carrier said such a redesign would cross over doors and windows.
Mr. Saunders asked for clarification on the location of the egresses now. Mr. Carrier pointed to
the front door on Ocean Boulevard. He said, however, that the homeowners, who would not be
able to use the elevator in the case of the fire, wanted to be able to get quickly from the primary
bedroom to the ground in an emergency. 
Mr. McGuirk asked if it were possible to replace the spiral stairs inside the house and Mr. Carrier
said that adding a stairwell would encroach on the living room. 
(Chair O’Brien indicated that he was stepping away to contact an alternate to come to the meeting.)
Ms. de Vries said that she would want to see the current design of the inside of the home to compare
a possible redesign inside with the proposed external staircase. She also pointed out that Mr.
Stammer is not listed as an owner of record on the deed but has sent an email saying that he speaks
for Mrs. Stammer who is listed. Last, she said, the restrictions on the deed already put the
second-floor deck in violation. Mr. Boyd said they would get the ZBA’s approval for this project
and then go to the Select Board to deal with that. 
The ZBA had also received a letter that Chair O’Brien said expressed concerns that were outside
the purview of the Board and likely should be taken up with the applicant. Mr. Boyd asked for and
was given a copy of the letter.
Chair O’Brien called for a motion to continue this petition.
Moved by Ms. de Vries to continue to the next meeting. Seconded by Mr. McGuirk.
Vote: 4 yes, 0 no. Motion approved.
Chair O’Brien said that Alternate Bryan Provencal was on his way in.

Draft minutes subject to corrections, additions, and deletions
ZBA Draft Minutes September 17, 2026                                                                                       3
Moved by Chair O’Brien to take a two-minute break. Seconded by Ms. de Vries.
Vote: 4 yes, 0 no.
26-26 The petition for relief of Robert & Michele Tarpy for the property located at 21 Dover Ave
#1. Applicant is petitioning for a Variance from Article II, Section 2.2.5.1 for dimensional
requirements. The property is located on Map 296, Lot 141-1 in the RB zone.
(Alternate Bryan Provencal joined the meeting.)
Mr. Boyd of Millennium Engineering came to the podium. He introduced Robert and Michele
Tarpy at the table. They were joined by builder Tim Lutrell.
Mr. Boyd said that this is a condominium site with the Tarpys’ unit at the front and a second unit
at the back. The decks of the Tarpys’ home are 1.3 feet off the property line, Mr. Boyd said, and
the building violates the setback on the left as well,  making it non-compliant “as are most of the
structures in the area.” Their unit has two parking spaces on the property. 
He said that the Tarpys plan to construct a 3-story home that improves the setback at the front,
while stairs on the left will be constructed of masonry and stone—considered landscaping--so they
don’t have to meet the setback, he said. One of the parking spaces will move to the front of the
building, parallel to the street, and on pervious pavers, while the second will remain at the back of
the home. 
Ms. de Vries asked if the applicants have written consent of the owners of the second home on the
property. The response was that those owners were present. Mr. McGuirk said the application
should include both units on the property.
Chair O’Brien pointed out that the two sets of drawings in the Board members’ packets did not
match. Mr. Boyd agreed that they should and that the plans he was presenting were correct for
what the Tarpys were seeking. 
Chair O’Brien questioned the contention that side setback relief was not sought  because the
proposed steps would not be attached to the house and would be constructed of material that makes
them landscape elements rather than part of the building. He read a passage from the Zoning
Ordinance that he said spelled out that the steps on the left side of proposed building would require
setback relief. 
Mr. Provencal said that it is the Building Code that outlines what constitutes structure versus
landscaping. 
Mr. McGuirk said that he was concerned about the front staircase as designed coming down into
a driveway. He suggested flipping the design to have the stairs go away from the driveway toward
the left side of the house and then the owners could do away with the second egress. 

Draft minutes subject to corrections, additions, and deletions
ZBA Draft Minutes September 17, 2026                                                                                       4
Mr. Boyd said that he recognized  that per the language in the Zoning Ordinance, they would have
to seek relief for the side setback so they would remove a side staircase from the drawings. 
He read the five criteria.
Public comment
Jeffrey Carreau,  21 Dover Ave., Unit 2, came to the podium. He said that he and his wife, who
own the second unit on the property, support the Tarpys’ project “as long as there is no
encroachment on the parking and driveway areas.”
Ms. de Vries asked if Mr. Carreau, as an owner on the property, would be providing written consent
to the application. Mr. Boyd asked if the Carreaus could simply sign the application and was told
that they could and they did so. 
Public comment—closed
No further discussion by the Board.
Moved by Ms. de Vries to approve relief from 2.2.5.1, the front setback, with the note that side
setback relief is neither sought nor granted and that further, new drawings that match the plot plan
be submitted that show the repositioning of the front stairs and removal of a second set of stairs on
the west side. Seconded by Mr. McGuirk.
Board members agreed the five criteria had been met.
Vote: 5 yes, 0 no. Motion approved unanimously.
27-26 The petition for relief of Kovacev Family Trust for the property located at 502 Winnacunnet
Rd. Applicant is petitioning for Variances from Article II, Sections 2.2.5.1 and 2.2.5.2 for
dimensional requirements. The property is located on Map 222, Lot 95 in the RB Zone.
Mr. Boyd came to the podium with the Kovacevs at the table.
Mr. Boyd explained that the lot is small, with frontage of 40.7 feet in width. The current structure
invades the front, left and right side setbacks, he said. The proposed structure would be in the
same footprint but would have a 61-square foot reduction in impervious area owing to having
smaller roof overhangs. They need relief, he said, because they will be increasing volume and still
be in the front setback, with a slight increase in distance from the property lines.
Bob and Diane Kovacev introduced themselves. Mr. Kovacev said they bought the property in
2019 as a retirement home. They will be retiring this year, he said, and are looking to make the
dwelling a little bigger to enjoy with family.
Mr. Boyd read the five criteria.

Draft minutes subject to corrections, additions, and deletions
ZBA Draft Minutes September 17, 2026                                                                                       5
Ms. de Vries read from the Zoning Ordinance and pointed out that according to it, the homeowners,
while still needing relief, did not need as much in the side setback as requested in the application.
Chair O’Brien asked about front stairs that do not appear on the drawing of the proposed structure.
Mr. Boyd said that they would not be changing but agreed they were not illustrated on the plan.
The Chair also asked about the concrete block foundation he was seeing and whether it goes below
the freeze line, and whether it was adequate to support the new structure above. Mr. Boyd said
that a structural engineer would have to determine that and that the building inspector will require
this be done. 
Mr. Kovacev said that the foundation under the portion of the house that will support the new
structure is actually poured, that the concrete block area will not have more structure above it. 
Public comment—none
Back to the Board
Moved by Ms. de Vries to approve the petition. Seconded by Mr. McGuirk
Board members agreed that all five criteria had been met.
Vote:  5 yes, 0 no. Motion passed unanimously.
28-26 The petition for relief of Alex & Celeste Manganiello, Co-T’ees of the Manganiello Family
Trust for the property located at 5 Great Boars Head Ave. Applicant is petitioning for Variances
from Article II, Sections 2.2.5.1 and 2.2.9, Article IV, Section 4.1.4.2.2 and Article VII, Section
7.5.2 for dimensional requirements, wetland and non-conforming use. The property is located on
Map 266, Lot 55 in the RA zone.
Attorney James Scully came to the table with Paige Libbey of Jones and Beach Engineering. In
the audience, he said, were Ms. Manganiello and a member of the architectural team.
Mr. Scully said that the applicants are proposing a number of renovations to the home, only some
of which require relief. (The application listed  a new front egress, a rear main entrance, removal
of an existing impervious patio within the wetland buffer, removal of a side porch, and
[construction of] a modest front deck. The deck is proposed within the applicable 12-foot
dwelling-structure setback from the Wetlands Conservation District and the 50-foot wetland-
buffer setback. The requested additional encroachment toward the Atlantic Ocean is limited to
approximately six feet.)
Mr. Scully said that although the wetlands issues are there because of the home’s proximity to the
ocean, it sits several feet above the water. 
He read the five criteria.

Draft minutes subject to corrections, additions, and deletions
ZBA Draft Minutes September 17, 2026                                                                                       6
Ms. de Vries asked for clarification on the amount of encroachment into the front set back of 20
feet, which Mr. Scully said is 10.8 of encroachment.
Chair O’Brien asked if the abutters’ list included the correct number. Mr. Scully said paperwork
had the names of five abutters, while the application listed three, the Chair said. 
The Chair said that the applicants would have to reapply to include the two abutters at the rear of
the property. 
Mr. Scully said that he would like a continuance.
Public comment--none
Back to the Board
Moved by Ms. de Vries to continue to the next meeting. Seconded by Mr. Saunders.
Vote: 5 yes, 0 no. Motion passed unanimously.
29-26 The petition for relief of Charles E.J. Roy II, T’ee of The Charles E.J. Roy II, Trust for the
property located at 595 Ocean Blvd. Applicant is petitioning for Variances from Article IV,
Sections 4.1.7.C.1 and 4.1.7.C.2 for wetland use. The property is located on Map 235, Lot 21 in
the BS zone.
Mr. Scully remained at the table and was joined by Joe Coronati from Jones and Beach
Engineering. 
Mr. Scully pointed out that this property, which for years has been a vacant lot, was the home of
the former Lupo’s Restaurant. He said the applicant is looking to build a structure of two dwelling
units and is seeking relief because the property is in the Wetland Conservation District. 
Mr. Coronati said that the wetland buffer extends almost halfway across the property. The
proposed building is “a 40x30-foot structure with a small jog in it to work with the wetland buffer.”
The first floor, he said, would be garages and storage, the second floor one unit and the third and
fourth floors another unit. He said that they will be seeking permits from the Planning Board and
Conservation Commission, as well at the state and DOT. 
Mr. Scully read the five criteria.
Ms. de Vries asked about the applicant seeking relief from Article IV, Section 4.1.7.C.1, which
she suggested may not be necessary, as it pertains to newly created lots. Mr. Scully agreed, saying,
however, that relief from 4.1.7.C.2 was necessary.
Public comment—none
Back to the Board

Draft minutes subject to corrections, additions, and deletions
ZBA Draft Minutes September 17, 2026                                                                                       7
Moved by Mr. Provencal to approve relief from Article IV, Section 4.1.7.C.2  Seconded by Mr.
Saunders.
Board members agreed that all five criteria had been met.
Vote:  5 yes, 0 no. Motion passed. Motion passed unanimously.
30-26 The petition for relief of 112 Ashworth Ave Realty LLC for the property located at 112
Ashworth Ave. Applicant is petitioning for Variances from Article II, Sections 2.2.1.1, 2.2.5.2 and
2.2.6, Article VI, Section 6.6.5.2 and Article VII, Section 7.5.2 for dimensional requirements,
parking and non-conforming use. The property is located on Map 290, Lot 94 in the BS zone.
Mr. McGuirk said that he was recusing himself as he is an abutter to this property. He had asked
Mr. Provencal to fill in for him on this petition. This once again leaves a four-member Board; Mr.
Scully, representing 112 Ashworth Ave. Realty, asked for a minute to speak to his clients to see
how they wished to proceed and they agreed that they would.
Mr. Scully came to the table with Paige Libbey from Jones and Beach Engineering. He said that
the property is a portion of what has been for decades the Marguerite Motel at Hampton Beach.
The Marguerite occupies two lots; what the applicant proposes is to turn its portion into a
“condominium-style of ownership.” The intention, he said, is to reconfigure parking to make it
more conforming, The applicant also intends to add mini-splits to the proposed condominiums,
and they are seeking relief for the mechanicals’ encroachment into the side setback. 
Ms. Libbey showed the existing area with parking under the motel building, parking with
inadequately sized spaces across from the building, and nine spaces now accessed from Mooring
Avenue that, she said, the DPW wants eliminated as they are in a public right of way.
She showed the proposed plan with proper parking spaces, the nine spaces removed, and the
addition of a handicap-accessible space. A separate one-story building at the back of the property
will be retained and managed by 112 Ashworth Realty, Ms. Libbey added. 
Mr. Scully said they were asking “for relief from the minimum lot area per dwelling unit as well
as relief from the minimum square feet per dwelling unit; for side setback relief for the addition of
the mini-splits; for 6.6.5.2, the accessible disabled parking space requirement; and for expansion,
alteration and abandonment of non-conforming use (7.5.2).”
Mr. Scully read the five criteria.
Mr. Saunders asked if there had been consideration given to reducing the number of units and
expanding the size of the remainder. Mr. Scully said that the building is in a flood zone and under
FEMA regulations, more changes to the building would require raising it. 
Chair O’Brien pointed out that with parking under, the living spaces are already above flood
elevation. Mr. Scully said this was true for the one building, but not for the back building.

Draft minutes subject to corrections, additions, and deletions
ZBA Draft Minutes September 17, 2026                                                                                       8
There was a lengthy discussion about minimum size for condominium units that could be
permanent residences versus “con-tels,” which are limited to short-term occupancy.
Mr. McGuirk was asked to come to the podium, not as a Board member, but to offer his real estate
expertise. 
Tom McGuirk, 95 Ocean Blvd., said that condominiums can be financed, whereas it is much
more difficult to get financing for con-tels. 
Chair O’Brien invited an audience member who also desired to speak to come to the podium.
Anthony Fusco, 106 Ashworth Ave., said he is a direct abutter on the side. He said that he is
concerned about these 36 units becoming year-round residences and “the impact on the system”
were this to happen. He pointed to another property in the area where the units had a maximum
30-day occupancy. 
Ms. de Vries said that she did not believe that that issue was in the purview of the Zoning Board.
Mr. McGuirk, again speaking as an audience member, said that other units in the area such as
those at 18 Ocean Blvd. and 6 Ashworth do not allow year-round residency. 
Board members asked whether units could be combined, thereby requiring fewer parking spaces
and potentially allowing for more ADA spaces.
Moved by Mr. Saunders to allow the applicant to continue to the next meeting. Seconded by Ms.
de Vries.
Vote: 4 yes, 0 no. (Mr. Sheffert absent, Mr. Provencal replacing Mr. McGuirk.)
Mr. McGuirk returned to the Board.
BUSINESS SECTION
August minutes were reviewed and amended.
Moved by Mr. Saunders to approve as amended. Seconded by Mr. Provencal
Vote: 3 yes, 0 no, 2 abstentions (Ms. de Vries, Mr. McGuirk, who were excused last month)
Chair O’Brien thanked the TV crew. Motion to adjourn by Mr. Provencal, seconded by Mr.
McGuirk, approved unanimously at 9:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa B. McNerney, ZBA Secretary