All towns · windham

Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting (minutes)

Document

Community Development Department 
Town of Windham, New Hampshire 
3 N. Lowell Road, Windham, NH 03087  |  (603) 432-3806 Ext. 2  |  www.WindhamNH.gov 
Zoning Board of Adjustment 
1 
Approved Minutes 
2 
June 16, 2026, at 6:00 PM 
3 
3 North Lowell Road, Windham, NH 
4 
(Community Development Department) 
5 
 
6 
Attendance: 
7 
Mike Scholz, Chair- present 
8 
Michelle Stith, Vice Chair- excused 
9 
Mark Brockmeier, Secretary- excused 
10 
Jeff Faust, regular member- present 
11 
Pam Skinner, regular member- present 
12 
Galen Stearns, alternate member- present 
13 
 
14 
Staff: 
15 
George Frangomihalos- ZBA Administrator/ Code Enforcement 
16 
Anitra Lincicum- minute taker (present via Teams) 
17 
 
18 
Public Hearing 
19 
 
20 
Case13-2026  
Parcel 17-H-10 
21 
Applicant- Karl Dubay 
22 
Owners- 60 Range Rd, LLC 
23 
Location- 60 Range Rd- Nault’s 
24 
Zoning- Gateway Commercial/ WPOD/ WWPD 
25 
The application requests a variance from Sections 601.3, 616.6.4.1, 616.8, 616.8.1, 616.8.3, to 
26 
make modifications to an existing motorcycle and recreational vehicle dealer to include impacts 
27 
and improvements within the WWPD and WPOD buffers.  
28 
(Continued from the April 28th, 2026, ZBA meeting) 
29 
 
30 
Mr. Faust read the case into the record. This is a continued case. 
31 
 
32 
Mr. Karl Dubay of Dubay Group addressed the Board. Chairman Scholz stated that there was a site walk 
33 
on June 2nd. Mr. Dubay stated that there would be an updated set of plans for the Board while at that site 
34 
walk. Addressing the updated plan, Mr. Dubay stated they are trying to clean up some encroachments in 
35 
the  WWPD and WPOD buffer. The plan no longer has any proposed buildings in the WWPD and WPOD 
36 
buffer. There would be a storage barn with landscaping and fencing near Bank Road on the site. There will 
37 
be a 50 ft vegetated buffer along Range Rd in front of the storage area with raised berm, fencing, and 
38 
evergreens screening the storage area on the site. The fence will wrap around the entire storage area. The 
39 
accessory area on the site will be smaller. Mr. Dubay explained where the wetlands and stream are on the 
40 
property and there were 3 wetland scientists that took a look at the wetlands on the site. There would be 
41 
minimal wetland fill in one area and this was proposed long ago from both the town and the state for 
42 
Nault’s driveway access from Bank Rd which will provide access for their customers, suppliers, and 
43 

 
 
06_16_2026, ZBA Approved  
 
 
vendors and be secured with an electronic gate. There are several containers on the site, and all of them 
44 
will be consolidated into the proposed storage barn. Mr. Dubay explained that the variances are inter-
45 
related.  
46 
 
47 
Mr. Dubay stated that their intention is to make an improvement to the area and they are adding storm 
48 
treatment to the area. Mr. Dubay explained that pavement near a wetland now requires a variance, yet, 
49 
the original intent of the pavement here on this site was for safety. Chairman Scholz asked several 
50 
questions about a building on the plan and a gravel area shown on site. Mr. Dubay stated that the gravel is 
51 
the proposed reduction of impervious area. Mr. Dubay discussed the stockade fence and landscaping on 
52 
the site. The berm is a buffer to separate the storage area. Mr. Dubay discussed the gate; it is completely 
53 
out of the traffic flow in the area. There is second gate on the site as well that is existing.  
54 
 
55 
Chairman Scholz asked if these are all the variances the applicant would need. Mr. Dubay stated that it is 
56 
and they have worked closely with staff to refine these. Chairman Scholz asked about the variance 
57 
request for 616.8 as it seems overly broad given the variance requests for 616.8.1 and 616.8.3. Mr. Dubay 
58 
agreed 616.8 it is not needed. Chairman Scholz asked about the implementation plan. Mr. Dubay stated 
59 
that there would be a phased approach as this is a functioning business and the applicant will also need 
60 
to go before Planning Board. The first step would be to remove the encroachments and revegetate the 
61 
impacted areas. Next, they would re-establish the front buffer. The third thing would be the storage and 
62 
activity areas and driveway. The applicant could then start on getting rid of all the storage containers and 
63 
begin on building the barn. Mr. Dubay mentioned a restoration bond that is sometimes utilized to ensure 
64 
completion of a project.  
65 
 
66 
Mr. Curt Grenier, the applicant addressed the Board to discuss lighting and phases of construction along 
67 
with the current conditions of the property. Chairman Scholz asked about the removal of the current 
68 
buildings in relation to the construction of the barn. Mr. Grenier stated that the current structures would 
69 
need to be removed to allow construction.  
70 
 
71 
Chairman Scholz invited public comment. 
72 
 
73 
Mr. Steven Andrews, 48 Woodvue, addressed the Board. Mr. Andrews stated he is generally in favor of of 
74 
what’s trying to be accomplished, but he has several concerns. Mr. Andrews believes there should be a 
75 
landscape buffer in front of the (Range Rd) building instead of the 4 wheel drive vehicles up near the 
76 
property line which makes it feel like an industrial site. He’d like to see a loading zone on the site plan so 
77 
that the business will no longer have trucks parking on Range Road to make deliveries. Mr. Andrews would 
78 
like to make sure there’s also enough parking for their business on the site to support the use so that they 
79 
do not trade a loading zone problem for an employee parking problem so there is not parking on or near 
80 
Range Road. Mr. Andrews discussed winter boat storage because the site is currently being used as such 
81 
and he does not believe it is zoned for that. Mr. Andrews stated that the applicant has not voluntarily 
82 
attempted to comply with the zoning for the past year, and a full compliance performance bond shodul be 
83 
required. Mr. Frangomihalos confirmed that the violations have been reported to code enforcement. 
84 
 
85 
Mr. Patrick Nysten, 4 Edgewood Road, addressed the Board. Mr. Nysten stated he has a seasonal view of 
86 
the property. Mr. Nysten said it seems like an industrial site as there is a lot of tractor trailer traffic for this 
87 
business on Range Road. Making an access from the rear is going to be an improvement. Mr. Nysten 
88 
discussed the storage area on the property (where boats are currently being stored near Range Rd); he 
89 

 
 
06_16_2026, ZBA Approved  
 
 
does not think this is an allowed use on the property because it is an expansion of a non-conforming use 
90 
onto the new lot that was voluntarily merged with the existing lot. Mr. Nysten discussed Section 400 of 
91 
the Windham Zoning Ordinance - Continuance of Existing Uses and Structures - no increase in the extent 
92 
of the non-conforming use..., noting Sections 401 and 406. Mr. Nysten does not think boat storage across 
93 
from a residential neighborhood is appropriate. Mr. Nysten discussed the lot merger and how that relates 
94 
to the non-conformance of the uses (Sections 1E and 4C of the Voluntary Lot Merger Regulations). Mr. 
95 
Nysten also submitted a 2012 letter from Town Counsel opining that the sale of vehicles is not a permitted 
96 
use in the Gateway District or other districts where retail is a permitted use. Mr. Nysten stated that the 
97 
variances filed do not address the non-conformance of the use on the new lot that was merged. Chairman 
98 
Scholz labeled the submission by Mr. Nysten as Exhibits A-1, B-1, K-1. Mr. Nysten then addressed the 
99 
tributary stream; he would like this shown on the plan and noted the tributary stream was also not shown 
100 
for a Planning Board case next door. Mr. Nysten stated that the use of the site as a boat yard is not an 
101 
allowed use and does not meet the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Nysten pointed to the rear half of the the 
102 
plan and does think that is an improvement to the site but there are pros and cons to this plan. Mr. Nysten 
103 
also clarified that he does not see a numerical value of the front buffer on the plan from Range Rd, and 
104 
that needs to be clarified.  
105 
 
106 
Ms. Vanessa Nysten addressed the Board. Ms. Nysten stated that the tributary stream, which is on the 
107 
property, is still not shown on the plan. When a stream is on a plan, her understanding is that the level of 
108 
storm water management increases so it’s important for the stream to be shown on the plan. Ms. Nysten 
109 
stated the WPOD buffer is finally being shown on the updated plan, but that the WPOD buffer should be 
110 
shown on every page of the plan. Chairman Scholz stated that he can see it on the plan but Ms. Nysten 
111 
clarified  the WPOD buffer is not shown on the Existing Conditions Plan. She stated that the tributary 
112 
stream is not shown on the plan, but was identified by 2 wetland scientists according to Ms. Nysten, 
113 
including the recent email from the Town’s certified wetland scientist, Mr. Seekamp, as well as other 
114 
documentation. Ms. Nysten believes the applicant did not indicate the correct date on the summary plan 
115 
related to the expired variances as the applicant labeled that plan as approved 2012 instead of 2013. Ms. 
116 
Nysten spoke to the voluntary merger regulations and non-conformity of the lot and that that cannot be 
117 
increased. Ms. Nysten stated that she would like to submit paperwork to the Board: testimony about the 
118 
tributary stream from a transcript of a 2022 PB meeting for a court 
119 
case regarding a property next door (labeled as Exhibit C1 by Chairman Scholz), testimony  about what 
120 
happens if you drop a dye tablet at the top of the wetland (from a transcript of a 2022 PB meeting for a 
121 
court case regarding a property next door) (labeled Exhibit D1 by the Vice Chair), information about 
122 
Cobbetts Pond and Canobie Lake water quality (labeled Exhibits E-1 and F-1 by the Chair), 2025 Assessor 
123 
Card showing the 2021 voluntary lot merger and use code for the property (labeled exhibit G-1), addition 
124 
of Canobie to the watershed ordinance from 2012 Town Meeting (labeled exhibit H-1). She believes that a 
125 
WPOD variance should have been applied for in 2013. Next, the Gateway ordinance (labeled exhibit I-1). 
126 
She believes there’s non-conformance of use based on the allowed uses in the ordinance. 
127 
 
128 
Ms. Betty Dunn addressed the Board and she appreciates the improvements that have been made since 
129 
the last meeting. Ms. Dunn asked if a pontoon boat would be considered impervious based on how large 
130 
the surface area is. Ms. Dunn also asked about lighting in the area.  
131 
 
132 
Mr. Nysten addressed the Board again and asked about the portion labeled storage and stated that the 
133 
use of the lot needs to be something that is conforming with the ordinance.  
134 
 
135 

 
 
06_16_2026, ZBA Approved  
 
 
Mr. Dubay addressed the Board and the public for rebuttal.  
136 
 
137 
Mr. Dubay stated the applicant would be happy to put signage prohibiting loading and unloading and no 
138 
parking. The applicant agrees and also agrees there needs to be a parking plan. Mr. Dubay mentioned a 
139 
performance bond that the applicant would be willing to comply with. Mr. Dubay stated that retail is 
140 
allowed by right in accordance with 16.8.21 and 16.8.28. Mr. Dubay and the Board then discussed how 
141 
the voluntary merger might impact zoning. Mr. Dubay stated that the act of merging 2 lots does not make 
142 
them non-conforming.  Mr. Dubay discussed the 100-foot setback to wetlands. Mr. Dubay stated the 
143 
applicant can show the 100-foot setback from the edge of wetlands. Mr. Dubay stated that he is not 
144 
contesting the setback from the wetland and the plan has been reviewed by the Conservation 
145 
Commission, yet, the setback may not need to be from the pipe, just the wetland. The WWPD have been 
146 
labeled; Mr. Dubay will add the WPOD label to the plan.  
147 
 
148 
Mr. Dubay stated he will check on the tax card and he and the applicant will work to resolve the tax card 
149 
question. A pontoon boat is not affixed within the surface of the ground so it is probably not impervious; 
150 
this was in response to Ms. Dunn’s question. The lighting package will be dark sky friendly and the sight 
151 
will not need large spotlights. Mr. Dubay stated just because 2 lots were merged, it does not mean that 
152 
there is non-compliance on the second lot. Mr. Dubay would like to do more research with the applicant’s 
153 
attorney on the front display area of the lot. Mr. Dubay stated that the storage is accessory to the retail 
154 
use; this is not exclusively a boat storage yard according to Mr. Dubay. Chairman Scholz asked if all the 
155 
the boats on the lot are for sale. Mr. Grenier stated that boats are housed there while waiting for the repair 
156 
order to be filled.  
157 
 
158 
Chairman Scholz listed some of the items that the Board and the public would like to see updated on the 
159 
plan:  
160 
 
161 
-performance compliance bond details for the ZBA record (Planning Board) 
162 
-marking of outlet and tributary stream 
163 
-adding WPOD label 
164 
-date of prior plan 
165 
-updating the lighting in the front of the site 
166 
- history on the existing front area display (which the applicant said they would look into) 
167 
-fence/berm/trees and the height of this feature  
168 
 
169 
The Chair opened discussion for limited rebuttal. 
170 
 
171 
Ms. Vanessa Nysten asked if the list can include: no loading on Range Road, no parking on Range Road 
172 
and be sure the applicant details adequate loading and parking on the lot. Ms. Nysten stated that there 
173 
were not any WPOD buffers on the plan provided for the previous meeting and she had asked the 
174 
applicant, staff, and the Board several times that these buffers be shown. Also, she stated that the WPOD 
175 
and the WWPD are different; they are not the same as they are two different ordinances with two different 
176 
criteria. Ms. Nysten stated that the WPOD is a much higher standard. Ms. Nysten cited the standard in the 
177 
WPOD. Ms. Nysten summarized differences between the WPOD and the WWPD. 
178 
 
179 
Mr. Nysten suggested the Board discuss the motor vehicle issue with their attorney for clarity. He stated 
180 
that, back in 2012, the applicant tried to spin it as retail. You can merge two lots, but you can’t expand a 
181 
non-conforming use onto a new lot without a variance . Mr. Nysten stated that the Board might consider 
182 
having their attorney present at the next meeting to speak to the motor vehicle question. 
183 

 
 
06_16_2026, ZBA Approved  
 
 
 
184 
Mr. Andrews mentioned that, regarding winter storage of the boats, to say boats need to be stored for six 
185 
months to install a fish finder in the spring is non-sensical. In addition, the area displaying the 
186 
merchandise right by the street was not always used as a display area. 
187 
 
188 
Mr. Grenier stated that wrapping a boat is a paid service, the boat is then wrapped and stored high so the 
189 
boat can be worked on from underneath. There are 2 employees that work on the boats all winter and that 
190 
is their work for the winter. 
191 
 
192 
Mr. Dubay stated that he and his firm will be sure to update the plans as requested by the Board and the 
193 
abutters/residents. Mr. Dubay stated that they are sure to comply with the standards of WPOD. Mr. Dubay 
194 
reiterated they will show the no parking and loading areas. The applicant only requires 1 stormceptor and 
195 
that is shown on the plan as proposed and meets the requirements. The stormceptor is at an access point 
196 
on the site. This is separated from the septic system. Mr. Dubay would like to get legal clarification from 
197 
the town’s attorney and town staff along with the property owner’s attorney regarding definition and uses.  
198 
 
199 
Mr. Faust made a motion to continue Case 13-2026  to July 28th at 7 pm. Seconded by Mr.  Stearns. 
200 
Vote 4-0. Motion passes.  
201 
 
202 
 
203 
Case 16-2026  
Parcel 17-C-101C 
204 
Applicant- SFC Engineering C/O Carole M. Martin 
205 
Owner- Carole M. Martin 
206 
Location- 2 Cross St 
207 
Zoning- Residential District A/ WPOD 
208 
The application requests a variance from Sections 405.2, 405.3, and 702/ Appendix-1, to raze 
209 
and replace an existing single-family dwelling, with a new single-family dwelling, on a pre-existing, 
210 
non-conforming lot of record.  
211 
(The applicant requests a continuance to the July 14th, 2026 ZBA meeting for which The Board shall 
212 
Consider) 
213 
 
214 
Mr. Faust read the case into the record.  
215 
 
216 
Mr. Stearns made a motion to continue Case 16-2026 to July 14th, 2026.  Seconded by Mr. Faust. Vote 
217 
4-0. Motion passes.  
218 
 
219 
 
220 
Case 21-2026  
Parcel 7-A-903 
221 
 
 
Applicant- George Zalaket 
222 
 
 
Owner- Same 
223 
 
 
Location- 5 County Rd 
224 
 
 
Zoning District- Rural District 
225 
The application requests a variance from Section 401, to permit the addition of a second story on 
226 
a non-conforming garage that received a variance on August 2nd, 1976, to be approximately 23’ 
227 
from the side property line.  
228 
 
229 

 
 
06_16_2026, ZBA Approved  
 
 
Mr. George Zalaket, the applicant, addressed the Board. Mr. Zalaket explained that there was a variance 
230 
granted in 1976 on the property. Mr. Zalaket reviewed the 5 criteria contained in the public packet. The 
231 
applicant is looking to make use of his property. 
232 
 
233 
The Board entered deliberative session without opposition.  
234 
 
235 
Chairman Scholz stated that the location of the garage does make this proposal unique and he does think 
236 
this is a reasonable request. The surrounding properties do have garages so it does fit with the use of 
237 
surrounding properties.  
238 
 
239 
Mr. Faust made a motion to grant the variance request for Case #21-2026 as presented. Seconded by 
240 
Mr. Stearns. Vote 4-0. Motion passes.  
241 
 
242 
Findings of Fact: 
243 
 
244 
Criteria 1 & 2:   
245 
• 
There is no threat to public health or safety, and the proposal is consistent with others in the 
246 
neighborhood.   
247 
Criteria 3:   
248 
• 
There is no articulated public interest which would defeat the applicant’s interest in this instance.   
249 
Criteria 4:  No evidence has been presented which, in the experience, knowledge, and understanding of the board 
250 
members, would decrease surrounding property values.   
251 
Criteria 5:   
252 
• 
Custom to the property. 
253 
• 
Location of Existing structure and its unique setting since last variance in 1976 
254 
 
255 
Mr. Stearns made a motion to approve the Findings of Fact for Case #21-2026 as presented. 
256 
Seconded by Mr. Faust. Vote 4-0. Motion passes.  
257 
 
258 
Case 27-2026  
Parcel 19-B-507 
259 
Applicant- Cally Weymouth 
260 
Owners- Cally & Lawrence Weymouth, III 
261 
Location- 63 Mammoth Rd 
262 
Zoning- Rural District/ WWPD 
263 
The application requests an amendment to a previously approved variance that was granted relief 
264 
at the January 14, 2025, Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting. The Board placed conditions on the 
265 
property, and the condition the applicant is requesting to remove is listed as “Condition 3”; “No 
266 
commercial operations out of the garage and no living space in the garage”. 
267 
(Continued from June 9th, 2026, per the applicant’s request) 
268 
 
269 
Mr. Faust read the case into the record.  
270 
 
271 
Ms. Cally Weymouth addressed the Board; she is the applicant. Ms. Weymouth stated she is looking for a 
272 
variance to support mothers who recently had children. Ms. Weymouth does have a studio near Nault’s 
273 
but that space will not work for the proposed use of the barn on her property and she would like to use this 
274 
space in a different way than her studio. 
275 

 
 
06_16_2026, ZBA Approved  
 
 
 
276 
Mr. Frangomihalos stated that the applicant has not paid for the variance but they have paid for 
277 
notification of abutters and the notice. The Board and Mr. Frangomihalos discussed the best way to 
278 
proceed based on what was noticed, what was paid for and what application was before the Board.  
279 
 
280 
Mr. Shayne Gendron of Edward N. Herbert and Associates addressed the Board. Mr. Gendron submitted a 
281 
letter of authorization to the Chair and is representing the applicant. Mr. Gendron stated he walked the 
282 
site with the applicant a month ago and is familiar with the septic system that was installed on the site in 
283 
2022. The septic system can accommodate both the 4-bedroom home and the proposed use of the barn. 
284 
The building is existing and has been on site since the 1960’s but the structure is not viewable from the 
285 
street. Mr. Gendron cited Section 602.6.1. The driveway is existing. The Board also discussed the use of 
286 
the building; it would not be for living space. 
287 
 
288 
Mr. Gendron asked if there was a restriction on installing a small bathroom in the barn based on use. 
289 
There would not be.  
290 
 
291 
The Board and Mr. Gendron discussed the use of the barn prior to this request; it had been used for 
292 
different small businesses in the past.  
293 
 
294 
The Chair invited public comment. 
295 
 
296 
Mr. Rodney Layman, 57 Mammoth Road, addressed the Board. Mr. Layman is in opposition to the request. 
297 
Mr. Layman stated that all interested parties were aware of Condition #3. Mr. Layman would like to know 
298 
that circumstances have changed since the condition was placed. Further, Mr. Layman stated that his 
299 
property would lose approximately 7% of the value were the variance granted based on a recent appraisal. 
300 
Mr. Layman is in opposition to the request. Mr. Layman submitted the appraisal and it was labeled Exhibit 
301 
A by Chairman Scholz.  
302 
 
303 
Richard Crawford, 55 Mammoth Road, addressed the Board. Mr. Crawford does not believe there should 
304 
be a commercial service on the property. Mr. Crawford stated they already have an issue with an abutting 
305 
business. Mr. Crawford thinks the business is better suited for a commercial property instead of on the 
306 
applicant’s property.  
307 
 
308 
Chairman Scholz asked Mr. Gendron if there was a plan to put a replacement structure on the property. 
309 
Mr. Gendron stated there was a plan approved in 2022 that went before the Planning Board which did not 
310 
go before ZBA at that time. Mr. Gendron submitted that plan and Chairman Scholz labeled it Exhibit B.  
311 
 
312 
Mr. Gendron read a letter of support from Erin and Matt Russell, Mammoth Road, a direct abutter, in 
313 
support of the business. 
314 
 
315 
Mr. Steven Roberts, 59 Mammoth Road, addressed the Board also wrote a letter in support of the variance 
316 
request. 
317 
 
318 
Mr. Gendron stated that this is not a commercial use; this is an in-home business. 
319 
 
320 
Chairman Scholz addressed Mr. Layman about his letter from the appraiser. The appraisal was written 
321 
about a different local business. 
322 
 
323 

 
 
06_16_2026, ZBA Approved  
 
 
Ms. Weymouth addressed the Board and stated that her business across town is not suitable for young 
324 
moms and her property will allow her to provide a service to young expectant moms. Ms. Weymouth 
325 
stated that having it at home will allow her to provide a service for young moms. Providing a service for 
326 
expectant moms means she will need a bathroom and a septic system. 
327 
 
328 
Mr. Crawford mentioned a recently approved business for dogs which also required a variance. 
329 
 
330 
The Board entered deliberative session without opposition.  
331 
 
332 
Chairman Scholz stated that the condition placed on the barn was a concern around using it as a 
333 
dwelling. He does not think there is a change in ordinance. Chairman Scholz does not think removing a 
334 
condition is in the best interest of the Board and he does not think it meets the 5 criteria. 
335 
 
336 
Mr. Stearns stated there was rationale when the condition was placed. Chairman Scholz does not see a 
337 
change in circumstance or ordinance. Chairman Scholz recalls the barn was not going to be used as living 
338 
space or commercial space.  
339 
 
340 
Mr. Faust stated he is looking for the distinction between a commercial space and a home occupation 
341 
use. Also, what would have changed to make the property unique now.   
342 
 
343 
Mr. Stearns stated that the applicant in 2022 was going to use the garage as storage, not for anything else. 
344 
Home occupation is arguably a quasi-commercial use according to Chairman Scholz. Mr. Stearns further 
345 
stated there was a lot that went into the use of the garage during the 2022 hearing.  
346 
 
347 
Mr. Stearns made a motion to deny Case #27-2026. Seconded by Ms. Skinner. Vote 3-1. Mr. Faust 
348 
opposed. The Chair advised of the 30-day appeal period. 
349 
 
350 
Findings of Fact:  N/A See NOTE 
351 
 
352 
Criteria 1 & 2:   
353 
• 
There is no threat to public health or safety, and the proposal is consistent with others in the 
354 
neighborhood.   
355 
Criteria 3:   
356 
• 
There is no articulated public interest which would defeat the applicant’s interest in this instance.   
357 
Criteria 4:  No evidence has been presented which, in the experience, knowledge, and understanding of the board 
358 
members, would decrease surrounding property values.   
359 
Criteria 5:   
360 
• 
Custom to the property. 
361 
Note: This was a hearing to remove existing condition. Board voted 3-1 to Deny as there was no ordinance 
362 
relief sought to modify. Findings of fact N/A for this case. 
363 
 
364 
Mr. Stearns made a motion to approve the Finding of Fact for Case 27-2026 as presented. Seconded 
365 
by Ms. Skinner. Vote 4-0. Motion passes.  
366 
 
367 
Case 33-2026  
Parcel 3-B-265-17.46 
368 
Applicant- Eric Lavoie 
369 

 
 
06_16_2026, ZBA Approved  
 
 
Owners- Eric and Elizabeth Lavoie 
370 
Location- 46 Hadleigh Rd 
371 
Zoning- Rural District/WWPD 
372 
The application requests a variance from Section 610.7.1.4 to permit the construction of an 8’ x 
373 
8’ deck that would encroach within the required 35’ horizontal separation between buildings. 
374 
 
375 
Mr. Eric Lavoie addressed the Board; he is the applicant. The packet submitted was labeled Exhibit A by 
376 
the Chair. Mr. Lavoie reviewed the 5 criteria. The applicant submitted pictures of his existing deck.  
377 
 
378 
Discussion between the applicant and the Board and the best way to proceed and the applicant was 
379 
continued to August 11th 
380 
 
381 
Mr. Faust made a motion to continue Case #22-2026 at 7 pm to the first case on August 11th, 2026. 
382 
Seconded by Mr. Stearns Vote 4-0. Motion passes.  
383 
 
384 
Chairman Scholz explained the process moving forward and staff would try to get information from fire 
385 
regarding the setback.  
386 
 
387 
Mr. Faust made a motion to adjourn at 8:47 pm. Seconded by Mr. Stearns. Vote 4-0. Motion passes. 
388 
 
389 
Respectfully submitted by Ms. Anitra Lincicum  
390