All towns · meredith

Zoning Board of Adjustment (minutes)

Document

Meredith Zoning Board of Adjustment August 13, 2026

Call to order

Girard called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm

Members present: Jutton, Skinner, Thorpe, Girard and Lombard
Staff Present: Stephanie Maltais, Zoning Administrator

Girard-we have two emergency exits in the back of the room and one behind me.
When you come to make your presentation, you must make it at the podium and
speak clearly into the microphone so the tape can be transcribed properly. You
must begin by stating your name and address. All questions and comments must
go through the chair. We tape record each meeting so please keep noise to a
minimum.

Our procedures are as follows: | will call the case, the clerk will read the
application, and the applicant will then present their case. Once the applicant is
finished we then allow comments and general information questions. | will ask
who would like to speak in favor and who would like to speak against the
application. There will be a rebuttal period for each. After the case has been
heard we will close the public hearing and no more testimony will be taken. We
will then deliberate the case before moving onto the next case. If the board is
unable to finish deliberating the case, we set a time tonight to continue the
meeting within the next 30 days.

If you feel a member of the board has a conflict of interest, please say so when
the case is called. It takes at least three yes votes to grant an appeal or to deny
an appeal. We have a full board this evening, applicants are entitled to wait for a
meeting when a full baard is present. There is a 30-day appeal period that begins
on the date the decision is made.

Has any board member been contacted by anyone in anyway in regards to the
applications before us tonight? By email, phone or in conversation, or in any
other way in how you would vote? Ail board members responded no.
Stephanie, will you take a roll call please?

Il. Approval of Minutes

Thorpe moved, Jutton seconded the motion to approve the Jul 9, 2026 meeting
minutes as presented. Voted 5-0, motion approved.


Meredith Zoning Board of Adjustment August 13, 2026

Thorpe moved, Skinner seconded the motion to approve the Jul 29, 2026 meeting
minutes as presented. Voted 5-0, motion approved.

Public Hearing & Deliberations

#5475: Michael C. Brown and Jane K. Brown- Appeal for a Variance (Article
V. Section D-4 & Table of Dimensional Regulations) to permit the construction of
anew single-family dwelling with a proposed front setback of 19.2 feet where 65
feet is required. Additionally, proposed side setbacks of 15.2 & 15.7 feet where a
20-foot setback is required. Tax Map U33-31 & 32, located at 68 Cattle Landing
Road in the Shoreline District.

Chris Boldt for the applicant- This is a property on Cattle Landing. Exhibit A is the
existing conditions as there are a couple lots along Cattle Landing that have this
setup where the house is on the lake front and there is additional land behind on
the far side of Cattle Landing. We've given the measurements both on the plan
and in the narrative of where things are. One of the things to call out is there isa
rather cool tree house that is being removed as part of this process as well as a
shed and the propane that is above ground will become buried as part of this
project. We do have in the packet exhibits D and E respectively, the shoreland
permit from DES as well as the new septic approval.

Overall, the project is a take down and we're moving the house back and we’re
moving it in from each side additionally. One side is a foot or so other side is less
than a foot. We give you, in the narrative, the square footage of existing versus
proposed in each of those. Obviously with the lake setback of 65’ the bulk of the
existing house but we have a toe of the existing house that is outside of the 65°
line. The whole thing is non-conforming.

Exhibit B is our proposed plan that moves the. house back. The bulk of the house
is in conforming space but what is here in pink is the deck and portion of the
house that is still in non-conforming space. We give the existing house is 13.8
feet from the lake and the proposed house is 19.2’ from the lake. About 6 feet
back. The northern boundary line encroachment where 20 feet is required, right
now were at 14.4 feet. The closest spot will be 15.7 feet. More importantly, to
put it in perspective our total square footage of encroachment on the lake is 2,226
sq. ft. We're increasing that slightly by only 54 sq. ft. We're going to 2280 sq. ft.

We have a 3 bedroom now and when complete we'll have a 3 bedroom. The
approved system, and | make a footnote in my narrative, was when they were
thinking of putting one of the bedrooms above the garage but that plan has been
scrapped. So, the third bedroom is in the house. The system is approved for 3
and we start with 3 and end with 3.


Meredith Zoning Board of Adjustment August 13, 2026
Criteria:

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

The first and second criteria are viewed together and the standard is
unduly and in a marked degree conflicting with the stated purposes of your
Zoning ordinance provision that we’re seeking a variance from. Here with
respect to the lake, obviously protection of the water and you require
further back than the state does. But, we are moving the house back by
about 6 feet from the current location. We do have the DES permit for this
project as a whole. The side setbacks, the purpose is usually to protect
overcrowding, blocking light, and helping so that you're not on top of each
other. Here we are slightly less than what our existing house is. We're
trying to improve the situation. It is one of those things that | frequently
address is can you slide this one back to make it different? Here we note
that you really can’t because once we start going back we have a road
setback bifurcates this lot. We feel like we have brought in as much as we
reasonably can. We are in keeping with the distances that other homes in
the area have. We aren’t so far ahead of anyone nor are we so far behind.
We are compliant with the 30% impervious coverage. Part of the proposed
building is over existing driveway so we aren't creating problems in

that territory and we're adding certain segments of pervious pavement. It
still prevents vegetative growth which is your definition but we still meet
your 30% requirement.

2. If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be
observed because:

Same as the above
3. Granting the Variance would do substantial justice:

This is the balancing test. Is there some benefit to the public with a denial
that outweighs the harm to my clients as a result of that denial. Here we
would argue that there is not because we have placed the building in a
better location in a more conforming location. We're compliant with your
overall lot coverage and we've gotten the permits from DES. We are also
putting in a new septic system as a result of that.

4. If the variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties
would not be diminished because:


Meredith Zoning Board of Adjustment August 13, 2026

We are improving the building all boats rise to the rising tide. To the best
of my knowledge, there has not been a negative comment. My clients
have spoken with their abutters.

5. Literal enforcement of the provision of the ordinance would result in an
unnecessary hardship:

What are the things that distinguish this property from other properties in
the area? What is the substantial relationship between the provisions that
we've asked for and applying those provisions to this property and is this
project reasonable? Here my narrative on page 5 lists out some of the
special conditions; the size, the topography here, configuration of these
existing structures, the location of the abutting parcels that make this
neighborhood kind of the same. We being able to locate a state approved
septic and we're able to have the permits from DES showing that we are
compliant with those spirits. Again, | would say this project is reasonable in
size given the lot size, given the bifurcation of the property by the road, and
in keeping with others along Cattle Landing beyond just our immediate
abutters.

Girard- Questions or comments from the Board Members?

Skinner- If you go to page one on the second paragraph of your summary
introduction and come down to the second line, you're suggesting that the 34,045
sq. ft. is only .078. | think you meant to say .78. Would that be accurate.

Boldt- Correct.

Skinner- Then the next question is, those 4 or five lots in that particular area are
certainly confusing. 1! have some history with that. | want to make sure that there
is no dispute with the town that the town enjoys a 50-foot right of way through the
lot per the deed.

Boldt — Correct. None whatsoever.

Skinner- | also believe that the trustees who owns the property assert that the
Meredith tax map is wrong and that the two lots really are one lot by deed. Is
that correct?

Boldt- That is my understanding. It’s been treated as one lot and they by deed
cannot be sold separately.

Skinner- | actually read the deed but | think the reality of it is that that is all the
right of way is..passage through the property itself which is cumulative from both
parcels are one in the same as far as the deed is concerned,


Meredith Zoning Board of Adjustment August 13, 2026
Boldt- Correct. It's my understanding that we gave the calculus of lot coverage

with and without the road being part of the count.

Skinner- You did do the calculation based on the reduction for the 50-foot right of
way.

Boldt- Correct

Skinner- The last piece of the puzzle is, where .6 of one percent off of the max 30
percent from the lot coverage, correct.

Boldt- Itis close. Yes.

Girard- Questions or comments from the public? No comments

Girard- Would anyone care to speak in favor of this application? No comments
Girard- Would anyone care to speak against this application? No comments
Girard- Hearing is closed.

Deliberations:

Thorpe- Just a couple of general comments. This is so typical of older lots ina
geography like this. Narrow, deep, relatively little area to expand into. So, with
the improvement in the non-conformance and the other plans they had put forth,
it feels straight forward to me.

Girard- | would agree. The plan accomplishes less impact to the water, further
away. Certainly any upgrades to septic or other infrastructure is important,
drainage being handled differently. So, | would agree. It makes sense.

Skinner moved, Thorpe seconded the motion to grant the application in regards
to #5475: Michael C. Brown and Jane K. Brown- Appeal for a Variance (Article
V. Section D-4 & Table of Dimensional Regulations) to permit the construction of
a new single-family dwelling with a proposed front setback of 19.2 feet where 65
feet is required. Additionally, proposed side setbacks of 15.2 & 15.7 feet where a
20-foot setback is required. Tax Map U33-31 & 32, located at 68 Cattle Landing
Road in the Shoreline District.

1. They have met all 5 criteria.

2. This Variance applies only for the project described by plans submitted
with this application and on file in the Planning & Development Office.


Meredith Zoning Board of Adjustment August 13, 2026

3. All State and Federal requirements must be satisfied, and all required
permits must be on file in the Planning & Development Office prior to
granting of a Certificate of Occupancy.

4. An as-built plan produced by a NH-licensed land surveyor will be
required by the code enforcement officer.

Roll call: Girard, Jutton, Lombard, Skinner, Thorpe
Voted: 5-0, applicants request granted.
Thirty Day Appeal Period

#5476: Donna Ryan- Appeal for a Special Exception (Article V. Section D-2(a)
A.) to permit a short-term rental in a detached single-family dwelling. Tax Map
U19 Lot 12 located at 62 Pinnacle Park Road, in the Meredith Neck District.

Donna Ryan the applicant- | am only seeking a short-term rental for the lower
house. It’s a three-bedroom ranch. It has one and a half baths. I’m prepared to
be in compliance with the limitation of 90 days because | am an Owner Not in
Residence. Most of the guests was always renting at Cape Cod whether you
liked it or not. Most of the guests that come up here only like to stay for the
weekend so it’s not that hard to meeting the 90 days with the summer being the
times that it will be rented. We bought the property in 2017.

One of the things that has taken me some time is getting an approved septic
design. The town had nothing on file and | could not find anything at the state. |
also had an evaluation done and they said everything was good. They worked
with me to get an approved plan from the state for both houses.

Criteria:

1. The use will not be detrimental to the character of neighborhood
because:

Using this property as an STR will not impact the neighborhood in any
way. Renters will be screened and the ad says that this is a quiet, family
neighborhood.

2. The use will not be injurious, noxious or offensive thus detrimental to
the neighborhood:

A camera is at the second house on the property and will be monitored
during rentals to ensure all is quiet and that rules are being followed.

3. The use will not be contrary to public health or safety because:


Meredith Zoning Board of Adjustment August 13, 2026

A property overseer takes care of trash on the day of departure. The
rental ad will state that there is room for 2 cars only behind the house and
street parking overnight is not allowed.

Girard- Any questions or comments from the Board Members?
Girard- Is the person in Laconia taking care of trash and is her number supplied?

Ryan- Yes. We do have bears in the area but | have a big can in the back that
has straps to keep the bears out. I'm an hour and 18 minutes away and if she’s
not available | will be.

Jutton- Can you elaborate on the litigation that is happening and if you intend to
allow guests to use the right of way to the water.

Girard- | just want to caution. We are approaching private issues. | want to
make sure the board is aware that as we open certain discussions, we've always
stayed away from these issues.

Jutton- | am aware but am asking for a specific reason.

Ryan- | would like to say that yes, there is a deeded right on the property for the
purposes of swimming, sun bathing and picnicking for the use of the waterfront
area which we have not enjoyed very much lately but it is never my intention to
extend that to people.

Jutton- I understand that. I’m more concerned about the fact that you were
provided with copies from an abutter with objections, correct?

Ryan- Yes

Jutton- My understanding is that you and the association are in litigation and it
will be heard on September 3d. Is that correct?

Ryan- | am not named as a litigant.

Jutton- So, you’re not involved in that?

Ryan- No.

Girard- Questions or comments from the public? No comments

Girard- Would anyone care to speak in favor of this application?

Sue Methot- We're directly next to this property and we have never had an issue
with any renters. We have a barky dog and we've got grandkids that are
probably more of an nuisance to them.

Girard- Would anyone care to speak against this application?


Meredith Zoning Board of Adjustment August 13, 2026

Gary Kiedaisch- My wife Cynthia is here with me in the front row. We own
property immediately adjacent to the Ryans. We border on the back of the lot.
We also own a property across the street in a corporation owned by Pinnacle Hill
Waterfront LLC. | submitted comments and | believe you have read those
comments. But before | ask if we could go through those. | received this
afternoon an e-mail from Robin Howerth who is an abutter to the South of the
Ryan’s property, immediately adjacent. | have copies if you'd like. She asked me
to read it into the record. “Due to an unexpected correspondence and short
notice, / am unable to attend the Special Exception meeting Number 5476. | give
Gary Kiedaisch my proxy vote against this request here are my reasons. The
Ryans have never completely addressed the weekly renters in the existing short-
term rental leaving the trash outside and the bears getting into the trash bags
and dragging the bags into my yard and breaking the bags apart. This creates a
mess in my yard and has to be cleaned up. Will a second rental unit give twice
as much trash and cleanup? The Ryans have been known to hoot and hollar
around the smokey fire pit that is located in front of the special exception unit
until 1-1:30 in the moming. If they find this acceptable behavior why would they
stop a renter?

I have a lot of experience with short-term rentals. | was president of Stone
Mountain Resort for 8 years and we had over 100 condominiums which were all
in the short-term rental pool. | was vice president of Waterville Valley Resort.
We managed 80 condominium units that were in the short-term rental pool. We
had a full staff of personnel to manage the rental of those units. The care and
supervision and discipline of the units. | can assure you, there was never a week
that went by, particularly a holiday week or a college holiday week, that we didn’t
have multiple issues with revelry, loud noise and partying from short-term
renters. We did not experience that from long-term renters. We also had a
rental pool of condominiums that we rented on a seasonal basis that we rented
from the beginning of the season to the end. For the reasons that I’ve stated, in
my brief and particularly with the uncertainty of what is going on with the lawsuit
that is going to be heard on September 3d, if I’m able to post a sign on my
property stating what the deeds call for, people cannot access that unless they
are owners of that easement and/or guests of the owners of that easement and
accompanied by the owners of that easement. That is to be heard on the 3d.
After that what the court has to say about that. If you'd like, | could be happy to
go through some of the other issues. The biggest concern is that if somebody go
there with or without the Ryan’s permission to access that water lot over what is
now very, very rough terrain. The access to the lake is outright dangerous
because there is an overflow that comes from the town culvert flowing down from
the east side of Pinnacle Park Road. The rocks cannot be manipulated by state
regulations. | wasn’t able to build a walkway to my dock after | relocated it.

Where our concern is is actually two things. Liability and 2 that the Ryans have
not been cooperative in adopting the rules. | submitted some additional
documentation to you this morning and if you read the Gilford rules and


Meredith Zoning Board of Adjustment August 13, 2026

regulations mine facsimile that. The easement owner has the right to make
reasonable rules and regulations to protect themselves and that is what I’ve
made. The Ryans have stood in the way of those being adopted as well as the
other easement holder who just spoke this evening. | request that you deny the
special exception to make this a short-term rental.

Jutton- | would note that the issues that we raise here are private property issues
that have no direct impact on what the board is looking at in making it's decision.
You are in court for various reasons and that is the proper channel for you to

pursue those. Again, it's outside what the board has to do in its decision making.
| would indicate though and we could have a general discussion with the concern
about access to this piece of property to the lake, obviously there is another

beach right down the street. You said you would not be letting the tenants know
that they had direct access to this piece. Would you be opposed if the board

includes language in the motion that the owner would be posting that in the rules
that the renters would not have access to that easement with access to the lake?

Ryan- Yes. | agree.

Girard- Hearing is closed.
Deliberations:

Jutton moved, Lombard seconded the motion to grant the application in regard to
#5476: Donna Ryan- Appeal for a Special Exception (Article V. Section D-2(a)
A.) to permit a short-term rental in a detached single-family dwelling. Tax Map
U19 Lot 12 located at 62 Pinnacle Park Road, in the Meredith Neck District.

1. They have met all criteria.

2. This Special Exception applies only for short-term rentals described by
the application submitted and on file in the Community Development
Office.

3. The property's use as a short-term rental is subject to all applicable
Meredith town ordinances. It is also limited to a maximum of 8
overnight occupants and 3 vehicles. The operator of the property is
required to inform all renters of these limitations and to enforce them.

4. This rental is limited to 90 days cumulative per year as an Owner-Not-
In-Residence.

5. Life-Safety Provisions as approved by a Fire Inspector (Form
Attached) will be completed prior to any rental of the property.


Meredith Zoning Board of Adjustment August 13, 2026

6. Daytime occupancy from dawn to dusk is restricted to overnight
occupancy plus 50% additional persons for a total of 12 people.

7. Provision of RSA 130A-5D which shall require a lead safety
certification if the property was built prior to 1987.

8. The property owner is directed to post in the rules for renters that the
tight of way through the abutting property is not to be used to access
the water.

Roll call: Pelczar, Thorpe, Jutton, Skinner, Girard
Voted: 5-0, applicants request granted.
Thirty Day Appeal Period

#5477: Mark & Ysabel Porter- Appeal for a Variance (Article V. Section D-4 B.)
to permit construction of a garage with a setback of 58.2 ft. and a deck 30.8 fi.
from the shoreline where 65 ft. is required. Tax Map R14 Lot 13 Located at 39
Wicwood Shores Road in the Shoreline District.

Carl Johnson for the applicant- There is actually two separate pieces to a single
piece of property. One on the southeast side of Wicwood Shores Rd. and the
other is on the northwest side of the road. Wicwood Shores Rd. has been in
existence for quite some time and in the 90s the Town of Meredith. There was a
survey done that created Wicwood Shores as a town road. They took that over
by fee but this property is a singular piece of property and according to the town
regulations it can be treated as one property for lot sizing calculations and also for
lot coverage calculations. As with many structures of this type, the homes were
constructed prior to zoning very close to the lake. This house is 27.4 feet from
the lake and the giant majority of existing dwelling exists within the 65’ town
setback. The Porter’s decided that they wanted a garage which in this day and
age is more of a necessity rather than an amenity. We've spent quite a bit of time
going over the placement of the garage and the existing home is 16.8 feet from
the southerly lot line and the original plan for the garage was to have it be
violating the 20’ setback on that side for reasons that deal primarily the layout of
the existing dwelling.

In looking at the requirements for the town and the requirements of the state we
did a considerable amount of work to move that garage such that it would be
conforming with the 20’ side setback and would be conforming with the 30’
setback from Wicwood Shores Road. Being attached to the house is a result of
wanting to maintain that 30’ setback from Wicwood Shores. The result of this
creates a small triangular piece of the garage of 54.9 sq. ft. here.

No trees will be cut for this project.

Criteria:

10


Meredith Zoning Board of Adjustment August 13, 2026

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

The proposed garage and mudroom addition is consistent with the existing
residential use of the property and with the character of the surrounding
neighborhood. Roughly 90% of the addition will be constructed within the
permissible building envelope. Critically, the minor 65-foot setback
encroachment is screened from the lake by the existing dwelling. All
neighbor side setbacks and the road setback are satisfied in full.

2. Ifthe variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be
observed because:

The natural vegetative buffer between the property and the shoreline is
preserved undisturbed. Careful thought was given to placement and
design of the addition specifically to minimize setback impacts while
achieving a reasonable and practical residential use. Same as number 2
above.

3. Granting the Variance would do substantial justice:

There would be a clear loss to the Owners if this variance is denied and
that loss would be greater than benefit, if any, to the community. The
proposed garage and addition represent a reasonable, modest
improvement to an existing single-family residence that is entirely in
keeping with the character of the neighborhood, which has multiple
attached and detached 2 and 3 car garages. As noted, the overall project
reduces nonconforming conditions on the property: driveway coverage
with the setback zone is being reduces, and the deck relocation lessens
the existing encroachment into the neighbor setback.

4. Ifthe variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties
would not be diminished because:

The garage and mudroom addition is residential in nature, modest in scale
and designed to be architecturally compatible with and in keeping with the
character of the existing home and neighborhood.

5. Literal enforcement of the provision of the ordinance would result in an
unnecessary hardship:

The purpose of the 65-foot shoreline setback requirement is to protect the
water quality of the lake- not to prevent property owners from making
reasonable use of their property. The two minor encroachments shown in
yellow on the site plan result from the orientation and geometry of the
existing structure and lot relative to the setback line and occur entirely on
the landward side of the existing dwelling, screened from the lake by the
existing home itself. A garage in NH is a reasonable one.

11


Meredith Zoning Board of Adjustment August 13, 2026

Girard- Questions or comments from the Board Members?
Skinner- Did you say that it is a right of way for Wicwas Road?

Johnon- So, no it was taken over by the town in fee. That was the result of a lot
of different issues.

Girard- Questions or comments from the public? No comments

Girard- Would anyone care to speak in favor of this application? No comments
Girard- Would anyone care to speak against this application? No comments
Girard- Hearing is closed.

Deliberations:

Jutton moved, Lombard seconded the motion to grant the application in regards
to #5477: Mark & Ysabel Porter- Appeal for a Variance (Article V. Section D-4
B.) to permit construction of a garage with a setback of 58.2 ft. and a deck 30.8
ft. from the shoreline where 65 ft. is required. Tax Map R14 Lot 13 Located at 39
Wicwood Shores Road in the Shoreline District.

1. They have met all 5 criteria.

2. This Variance applies only for the project described by plans submitted
with this application and on file in the Planning & Development Office.

3. All State and Federal requirements must be satisfied, and all required
permits must be on file in the Planning & Development Office prior to
granting of a Certificate of Occupancy.

4. An as-built plan produced by a NH-licensed land surveyor may be
required by the code enforcement officer.

Roll call: Girard, Jutton, Lombard, Skinner, Pelczar
Voted: 5-0, applicants request granted
Thirty Day Appeal Period

#5478: William & Joanne Pendergast- Appeal for a Variance (Article V.
Section D-4 B.) to permit construction of a garage with a setback of 50.2 ft. anda
covered walkway 36.1 ft. from the shoreline where 65 ft. is required. Tax Map
U28 Lot 16 Located at 18 Dale Road in the Shoreline District.

12


Meredith Zoning Board of Adjustment August 13, 2026

Carl Johnson for the applicant- | was in contact with David Ames and got
permission to use his plan. This is Fish Cove which leads in to Johnson Bay. It’s
a very narrow lot. The Pendergasts would like to make this a permanent
residence and a garage is critical especially during the winter months.

Criteria:
1. Granting the variance would not be contrary to public interest because:

The property is well hidden on all sides including the shoreline by a well
preserved woodland buffer of approx. 200+ mature trees. The design,
building materials and colors will be chosen to blend well with Dale Road’s
woodsy feel. Impact of existing trees will be minimal and not have an
adverse affect on current property visibility.

2. If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be
observed because:

They purchased the property 17 years ago and love the vintage charm of
the cottage. The garage and covered walkway will make the property more
safe/liveable year round. The request is within the 30% net impervious and
there will be minimal impact to woodlands and ground disturbance where it
will be built on an existing driveway. Both storm weather management and
erosion control measures have been incorporated into our plan.

3. Granting the Variance would do substantial justice:

They are a retired couple and have owned property on Lake Winni since
1986 and love the lake and area. They now live happily in Meredith,
however, winters can be difficult to safely access our vehicles. They have
also found we need a little more space to have family and friends stay for
holidays and weekends. They have no intention to ever rent the space
short or long term, however as they age they may need live-in help and
would use this space for that to keep them living in the house longer.

4. If the variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties
would not be diminished because:

A high percentage of Dale Rd. properties have large detached garages.
They are currently using a 12x20 fabric covered storage structure for our
lawnmower, snow blower, gardening materials, etc., this will be removed
which would increase curb appeal/value. The visibility of the garage will be
minimal for the neighbors, and from the street and shoreline

5. Literal enforcement of the provision of the ordinance would result in an
unnecessary hardship:

13


Meredith Zoning Board of Adjustment August 13, 2026 wt

It would be a hardship to relocate the garage to the other side of the
property. Working with a narrow lot presents challenges. Exposed Ledge
over the area in front of the holding tanks will create significant ground
disturbances and interrupt and underground water line to the leach field. It
would surround the septic tanks prohibiting access for maintenance and
pumping, interrupt an underground propane line, and existing electrical line
to the shed. A garage is a reasonable use for a residence.

Girard- Questions or comments from the Board Members?

Skinner- Is that a deck in the ground or elevated?

Johnson- Slightly elevated.

Girard- Questions or comments from the public? No comments

Girard- Would anyone care to speak in favor of this application? No comments
Girard- Would anyone care to speak against this application? No comments
Girard- Hearing is closed.

Deliberations:

Lombard moved, Skinner seconded the motion to grant the application in regards
to #5478: William & Joanne Pendergast- Appeal for a Variance (Article V.
Section D-4 B.) to permit construction of a garage with a setback of 50.2 ft. and a
covered walkway 36.1 ft. from the shoreline where 65 ft. is required. Tax Map
U28 Lot 16 Located at 18 Dale Road in the Shoreline District.

1. They have met all 5 criteria.

2. This Variance applies only for the project described by plans submitted
with this application and on file in the Planning & Development Office.

3. All State and Federal requirements must be satisfied, and all required
permits must be on file in the Planning & Development Office prior to
granting of a Certificate of Occupancy.

4. An as-built plan produced by a NH-licensed land surveyor may be
tequired by the code enforcement officer.

Roll call: Girard, Jutton, Lombard, Skinner, Thorpe

Voted: 5-0, applicants request granted.
Thirty Day Appeal Period

14


Meredith Zoning Board of Adjustment August 13, 2026

IV. Adjourn
Meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.

Minutes respectfully submitted by,

Genie Smith
Zoning Board on Se [2, joaly

ZBA Clerk
Approved by tj leredjth
By | wos

15