All towns · newport

Document

Document

Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of August 19, 2026 
 
Page 1 of 4 
 
Town of Newport 
Zoning Board of Adjustment  
August 19, 2026 6:30 PM 
 
Board of Selectmen’s Room/Municipal Building 
 
15 Sunapee Street/Newport, NH 
 
PRESENT MEMBERS: Ben Nelson, Chairman; Nick Vertefeuille, alternate; Scott Meyers 
ABSENT MEMBERS: Chris Whalen, Mary Knapp, Jeff Kessler, BOS Representative; James 
Burroughs, BOS Representative alternate 
VIDEOGRAPHER: NCTV 
STAFF PRESENT: Joseph Hoppock, Planning and Zoning Administrator  
APPLICANTS: Clayton Aldrich Case #2023; Marybeth Palumbo and Amelia Pillsbury Case #2024 
ABUTTERS: none  
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. followed by a roll call and 
the Pledge of Allegiance. 
ADMINISTRATION: Mr. Hoppock informed the Board that Case #2024 was remote (via zoom) 
AGENDA REVIEW:  set 
MINUTES: June 17, 2026 
June 17, 2026 
On a motion by Mr. Meyers seconded by Mr. Vertefeuille; the Board approved the minutes of the June 
17, 2026 meeting as presented.  The motion passed 3-0-0. 
 
Chairman Nelson addressed the applicant and stated there was a quorum of three (3) Board members.  He 
explained that in order for his case to be approved, all three Board members would have to vote in favor 
of it.  The applicant could wait for a ZBA meeting with a quorum of four (4) members (one could vote 
against his request and it would still pass).  The applicant informed Chairman Nelson he would like to 
proceed with his case. 
NEW BUSINESS:  
Case #2023: Clayton Aldrich (Owner): Request a Special Exception from the terms of Article IV, 
Section 413 and Article IV Section 402 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a “home business” at property 
identified at Map 111, Lot 057 and located at 60 Cheney Street within both the Professional business (PB) 
and General Residential (R-2) Districts.      
Chairman Nelson opened Case # 2023. He addressed Mr. Aldrich and asked him to explain his proposal.  
Mr. Aldrich explained his small business proposal and when asked, explained the home’s location to the 
Board.  After reading the Special Exception application into the record, he further explained he was a 
stay-at-home dad and wanted to conduct a low impact home business (take in electronics, sell some and 
bring the remaining parts to a professional recycler).  Chairman Nelson opened the Hearing to the public.  
There were no abutters present.  Mr. Meyers stated the case met Criteria for 413. Chairman Nelson 
concurred.  Chairman Nelson closed the hearing to the public.  Mr. Vertefeuille made a motion to go into 
Deliberations.  It was seconded by Chairman Nelson.  The motion passed 3-0-0. 
Zoning Board of Adjustment Special Exception 
Section 402: 
Mr. Meyers made a motion that the applicant’s proposed use is “home business” as defined in the zoning 
ordinance.  All members concurred. 
 
Section 413 Criteria: 
413.1  
Chairman Nelson made a motion that the proposed home business will be carried out by the resident of the 
dwelling unit without employees. It was seconded by Mr. Vertefeuille.  The motion passed 3-0-0. 

Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of August 19, 2026 
 
Page 2 of 4 
 
413.2 
Chairman Nelson made a motion that the proposed home business will be carried out within the principal 
structure (home). It was seconded by Mr. Vertefeuille.  The motion passed 3-0-0. 
 
413.3 
Chairman Nelson made a motion that the proposed home business will not involve exterior storage of materials 
or vary the residential character of the neighborhood.  It was seconded by Mr. Meyers.  The motion passed 3-0-
0. 
 
413.4 
Chairman Nelson made a motion that: the proposed home business will not produce noise, vibration, 
smoke, dust, electrical disturbance, odor, heat or glare.  It was seconded by Mr. Vertefeuille. There was 
no discussion.   The motion passed 3-0-0. 
 
413.5 
Chairman Nelson made a motion that the proposed home business will not generate activity in greater 
volumes than would normally be expected in this neighborhood.  It was seconded by Mr. Vertefeuille.  
The motion passed 3-0-0. 
 
413.6 
Chairman Nelson made a motion that the proposed home business will not provide off-street parking 
because it will not be necessary. It was seconded by Mr. Meyers. The motion passed 3-0-0.  
 
413.7 
Mr. Vertefeuille made a motion that no building will be remodeled or expanded to accommodate the home 
business without required permitting.  It was seconded by Mr. Meyers.  The motion passed 3-0-0. 
 
Section 402 Criteria: 
Chairman Nelson made a motion that the proposed site is an appropriate location for the proposed use.  It was 
seconded by Mr. Meyers.  The motion passed 3-0-0. 
 
Chairman Nelson made a motion that adequate and safe highway access is provided to the proposed use and 
there is adequate off-street parking provided for the proposed use.  It was seconded by Mr. Vertefeuille.  The 
motion passed 3-0-0. 
 
Chairman Nelson made a motion that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the overall character of the 
neighborhood by reason of undue variation from the nature of other uses in the vicinity including design, 
scale, noise and odor.  It was seconded by Mr. Vertefeuille.  The motion passed 3-0-0. 
 
Chairman Nelson made a motion that the proposed use will not be injurious, hazardous or in any way 
detrimental to the neighborhood, and 
The proposed use is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance and the intent of the Master Plan.  It was 
seconded by Mr. Meyers.  The motion passed 3-0-0. 
 
Mr. Meyers made a motion to approve the Special Exception as presented.  It was seconded by Mr. Vertefeuille.  
The motion passed 3-0-0. 
 
Chairman Nelson asked for a motion to memorialize the Board’s decision.  
Mr. Vertefeuille made a motion to approve a Special Exception for Case #2023 as presented.  It was seconded 
by Mr. Meyers.  The motion passed 3-0-0.            
 

Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of August 19, 2026 
 
Page 3 of 4 
 
Chairman Nelson informed the applicant that abutters had thirty (30) days to appeal the ZBA decision. In 
discussion with the applicant, Chairman Nelson addressed the viewing public and requested that they tell their 
neighbors of their proposals before coming before the ZBA.  Applicants could answer their neighbors’ questions 
before the meeting.  
 
Mr. Hoppock addressed the Chair and explained Case #2024 was being presented not by the owner but by 
Marybeth Palumbo, agent.  She is requesting a variance for a setback to install an accessibility ramp at 29 Myrtle 
Street.  
Case #2024: Marc Tremblay (Owner) Marybeth Palumbo (Agent): Request a Variance from the 
terms of Article II, Section 208.5.B of the Zoning Ordinance to install an aluminum ramp to 
accommodate a tenant (Ms. Palumbo) with a physical disability.  The proposed ramp will encroach  
approximately 4.5 feet into the required eight (8) foot side yard setback, resulting in approximately 3.5-
foot setback from the side property line on property identified at Map 110, Lot 049, located at 29 Myrtle 
Street. 
  
Chairman Nelson opened Case #2024 and acknowledged Ms. Palumbo who was attending the meeting 
via zoom. He asked her to explain her proposal to the ZBA members. 
After explaining her disability, Ms. Palumbo told the Board that none of the entrances to her apartment 
have the ability to get her wheelchair out/in the building.  Her state caseworker assisted getting an 
aluminum ramp purchased for her use.  Ms. Palumbo applied for a building permit, afterwards she was 
told there was a side setback issue; she would need a variance.  Ms. Palumbo explained the proposed 
location for the ramp; it would be temporary.  When she moved, she would take the ramp with her.  
Questions were answered by both Ms. Palumbo and her daughter Ms. Pillsbury.  
Questions: 
1. The set of stairs before the ramp, what is the distance from ramp to bottom of stairway?  Ms. 
Palumbo stated they were emergency stairs to the upstairs apartment. 
2. Will the ramp encroach on the emergency egress stairs?  No.  When measured, there were 4 feet 
between the ramp and the set of stairs.  
Mr. Meyers informed Chairman Nelson that if the ramp was too close to the stairs it would be a fire code 
problem.  He explained. 
3. Would the whole ramp be located on the house’s property (lot)?  Would it be on pavement, 
gravel? 
A photo indicated the fence (property line) and low wall (garden) 
All agreed installing a ramp was a reasonable use.  ADA requirements state that whatever modifications 
are necessary needed to be done (whether paid for by apartment owner or tenant).   
4. How far from the street will the ramp be located?  Approximately 25 feet (2 car lengths) from the 
edge of the ramp to the street. 
In discussion, the biggest concern was clearance between the ramp and the stair rail with the fire 
department.  Eliminating the required setback was brought up; instead having a set amount of distance 
from the property line.  It would ensure ability to install the ramp and ensure public safety.  Chairman 
Nelson said a condition could be that the fire department sign off on the ramp (that the distance meets 
their code).  The Board members concurred. 
Chairman Nelson closed the hearing to the public and asked for a motion to go into Deliberations.  
Mr. Meyers made a motion to go into Deliberations.  It was seconded by Mr. Vertefeuille.  The motion 
passed 3-0-0.    
Variance Statement of Reasons and Discussion Chairman Nelson asked for motions on the prongs.    
Mr. Vertefeuille made a motion that: Granting the Variance would not be contrary to the public interest 
because the use was a reasonable one.  The access ramp would create access into the building for the 
applicant.  It was seconded by Mr. Meyers.   Chairman Nelson called for a vote.  The motion passed 3-0-
0.