All towns · windham

Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting (minutes)

Document

07_28_2026 ZBA Approved 
 
 
Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting 
1 
Approved Minutes 
2 
July 28, 2026 at 6:00 PM 
3 
3 North Lowell Road, Windham, NH 
4 
(Community Development Department) 
5 
 
6 
Attendance: 
7 
Chairman Mike Scholz- present 
8 
Vice Chair Michelle Stith- arrived at 6:55 
9 
Mark Brockmeier, Secretary- arrived at 6:45 
10 
Pam Skinner, regular member- present 
11 
Jeff Faust, regular member- present 
12 
Galen Stearns, alternate member-  excused 
13 
Staff:  
14 
George Frangomihalos, ZBA Administrator/Code Enforcement 
15 
Anitra Lincicum, minute taker 
16 
 
17 
The meeting began at 6 pm. 
18 
 
19 
Review and Approval of Meeting Minutes: 
20 
• 
4/28/26 
21 
• 
5/26/26 
22 
• 
6/9/26 
23 
• 
6/23/26 
24 
• 
7/1/26 
25 
• 
7/14/26 
26 
Mr. Faust made a motion to approve the April 28th draft minutes as amended. Seconded by Ms. 
27 
Skinner. Vote 3-0. Motion passes. 
28 
Mr. Faust made a motion to approve the May 26th draft minutes as amended. Seconded by Ms. 
29 
Skinner. Vote 3-0. Motion passes.  
30 

 
 
07_28_2026 ZBA Approved 
 
 
Mr. Faust made a motion to approve the June 9th draft minutes as amended. Seconded by Ms. 
31 
Skinner. Vote 3-0. Motion passes.  
32 
Mr. Faust made a motion to approve the June 23rd draft minutes as amended. Seconded by Ms. 
33 
Skinner. Vote 3-0. Motion passes.  
34 
Mr. Brockmeier joined the meeting at 6:45 pm.  
35 
Mr. Faust made a motion to approve the July 1st draft minutes as amended. Seconded by Ms. 
36 
Skinner. Vote 4-0. Motion passes.  
37 
Vice Chair Stith joined the meeting at 6:55 pm. 
38 
Mr. Brockmeier made a motion to approve the July 14th draft minutes as amended. Seconded 
39 
by Ms. Skinner. Vote 5-0. Motion passes.  
40 
There was a brief recess until 7 pm.  
41 
Public Hearing 
42 
Case13-2026  
Parcel 17-H-10 
43 
Applicant- Karl Dubay 
44 
Owners- 60 Range Rd, LLC 
45 
Location- 60 Range Rd- Nault’s 
46 
Zoning- Gateway Commercial/ WPOD/ WWPD 
47 
The application requests a variance from Sections 601.3, 616.6.4.1, 616.8, 616.8.1, 
48 
616.8.3, to make modifications to an existing motorcycle and recreational vehicle dealer to 
49 
include impacts and improvements within the WWPD and WPOD buffers.  
50 
(Continued from April 28, 2026) 
51 
 
52 
Mr. Karl Dubay of the Dubay Group addressed the Board and is representing the applicant. 
53 
Mr. Dubay explained that he has been in communication with staff about the application. 
54 
The applicant would like to ask for a continuance. The owner, Mr. Nault recently passed 
55 
away. Mr. Frangomihalos stated that he has been in communication with the town’s 
56 
attorney regarding the case. The applicant does not always receive that complete 
57 
communication, only parts of that communication. The Board and the applicant discussed 
58 
if it made more sense to withdraw and reapply with a new application or to ask for a 
59 
continuance. The manager of the property could not make it this evening due to the death 
60 
of the owner as well. The applicant will be removing the winter storage of boats. Mr. 
61 
Frangomihalos stated that if the applicant were to make several changes: one of the uses 
62 
and a buffer and one other change. The Board discussed the timeline of re-application or a 
63 
continuance.  
64 

 
 
07_28_2026 ZBA Approved 
 
 
Mr. Dubay decided to withdraw the application without prejudice with the understanding 
65 
that he would be re-applying almost immediately. Chairman Scholz stated that if an 
66 
application had substantial changes, a new application was going to be requested by the 
67 
Board moving forward.  
68 
The Chair invited public comment. There was none.  
69 
Mr. Faust made a motion for Case 13-2026 to accept the withdrawal of the application 
70 
without prejudice. Seconded by Vice Chair Stith. Vote 5-0. Motion passes.  
71 
Case19-2026  
Parcel 1-C-10 
72 
Applicant- Julia & Corey Shepherd 
73 
Owners- Same 
74 
Location- 165 Kendall Pond Rd 
75 
Zoning- Rural District/ WWPD 
76 
The application requests a variance from Sections 601.3, 601.4.2 and 601.4.8 to construct 
77 
an attached 24’ wide garage with a 30’ x 30’ ADU, with a new septic design to be 
78 
approximately 33.8’ from a wetland, where a 100’ buffer is required under the Windham 
79 
Zoning Ordinance. (WZO). (Continued from May 26, 2026 and June 23, 2026)  
80 
(The applicant requests a withdrawal for which The Boad shall consider) 
81 
 
82 
Mr. Faust made a motion for Case 19-2026 to accept with withdrawal. Seconded by Vice Chair 
83 
Stith. Vote 5-0. Motion passes.  
84 
  
85 
Case 35-2026 
 
Parcel 2-B-239 
86 
Applicant- Nick Couture; Crossroads Contracting 
87 
Owner- Jason Noel 
88 
Location- 30 Telo Rd 
89 
Zoning- Rural District/ WWPD 
90 
The application requests relief from Sections 601.4.1 and 601.4.3 to permit a 30’ x 38’ 
91 
detached garage and a 38’ x 32’ addition with a 10’ x 16’ bump out, and a 20’ x 15’ pavilion 
92 
within the 100’ WWPD stream buffer, and within the 25’ buffer of the stream’s associated 
93 
wetland. Under the Windham Zoning Ordinance, a buffer of 100’ from a brook or stream and 
94 
25’ of a wetland less than a half-acre in size is required.  
95 
(Continued from July 14, 2026) 
96 
 
97 
Mr. Nick Couture addressed the Board. This was a previously continued case. Mr. Couture 
98 
discussed the drainage on the plan. The Board discussed the pool drainage system with 
99 
the applicant, Mr. Jason Noel. Mr. Noel explained that a pool is slightly drained towards the 
100 
end of a season and that water is drained in a yard and has no impact on the surrounding 
101 

 
 
07_28_2026 ZBA Approved 
 
 
area. Mr. Couture did explain that he is responsible for the drainage of the gutters and 
102 
other systems. Mr. Noel and Mr. Couture explained that the pool and pool house are 
103 
approaching the end of life and that will be removed from the site. There is a two-car 
104 
garage and there will be an office over the garage. The applicant understands that if the 
105 
office were to be converted to an ADU, that would require a separate application. The 
106 
applicant discussed the location of the garage in relation to the necessary setbacks.  
107 
The Board invited public comment for a second time. There was none. 
108 
The Board and the applicant discussed the Watershed Protection District and where the 
109 
wetlands were nearby. Mr. Frangomihalos stated that the wetland requires a 25-foot 
110 
setback and not more. The Board and the applicant viewed the wetland on and near the 
111 
property. There will be no more than 1 tree taken down on the property. Mr. Noel stated 
112 
that this will improve the buffer in his estimation. The construction on the property will be 
113 
further away from the wetland and less of an encroachment.  
114 
Mr. Frangomihalos explained that the wetland nearby is less than half an acre, hence, the 
115 
need for the smaller buffer. Mr. Noel stated that the office is just over 900 square feet.  
116 
Mr. Karl Dubay addressed the Board. Mr. Dubay has been a neighbor for years and the 
117 
applicant has maintained their property immaculately for many years and he is in support 
118 
of the application. Mr. Dubay asked about the discussed wetland as he has never observed 
119 
a wetland that would require a larger buffer.  
120 
Mr. Couture submitted a color copy of the plan that was submitted into the record. 
121 
The Board entered deliberative session without opposition.  
122 
Vice Chair Stith stated she hopes the office does not become an ADU. Mr. Brockmeier 
123 
stated that the applicant will need to come back in order to do that. Mr. Brockmeier thinks 
124 
his drainage concerns were answered. Chairman Scholz does think this meets the first 2 
125 
criteria and the substantial justice prong. The wetlands impact the location of the garage. 
126 
Mr. Brockmeier made a motion to approve the variance request for Case 35-2025 with 
127 
the condition that the current shed, pool house and propane tanks be removed per 
128 
plan submitted and signed and dated by the Chair. Seconded by Mr. Faust. Vote 5-0. 
129 
Motion passes. The Chair advised of the 30-day appeal period.  
130 
Findings of Fact: 
131 
Criteria 1 & 2 No issues with health, safety and welfare, and the proposed plan does 
132 
not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.  
133 

 
 
07_28_2026 ZBA Approved 
 
 
Criteria 3 No public interest has been articulated which would defeat the 
134 
applicant’s interest in this instance.  
135 
Criteria 4 No evidence was presented which would, in the experience, knowledge, 
136 
and understanding of the Board members, decrease value of the surrounding 
137 
properties.  
138 
Criteria 5 Proposed plan encroachment on wetlands is minimal given there is no 
139 
possible alternative placement of buildings available given the wetlands setbacks. 
140 
Mr. Faust made a motion to approve the findings of fact for Case 35-2026 as 
141 
presented. Seconded by Ms. Skinner. Vote 5-0. Motion passes.  
142 
Case 28-2026 
 
Parcel 18-L-300 
143 
Applicant- The Dubay Group 
144 
Owner- Angle Wood Pond RT, Inc 
145 
Location- 2 Sharma Way 
146 
Zoning- Residential District A/ Professional Business & Technology District/ WPOD 
147 
The application requests a variance from Sections 603.1.1, 616.6.4.2 & 702/Appendix A-1, 
148 
to allow the previous approvals granted for roof recharge and porous pavement credits in 
149 
meeting the 30% impervious calculations, per the ordinances in place when the phased 
150 
project was approved, and to modify the approved 31 unit elderly townhouses with 42 
151 
bedrooms and reduce it to 16 two-bedroom detached market homes, that would result in 
152 
32 bedrooms, with increased buffers. (Continued from June 23, 2026) 
153 
 
154 
Mr. Brockmeier read the case into the record. 
155 
Mr. Karl Dubay of the Dubay Group addressed the Board and is representing the applicant. 
156 
Mr. Dubay stated he is asking for a continuance to be prepared for the 2 variances. The 
157 
elderly housing regulations have changed since the application. Mr. Dubay stated he would 
158 
like to double check the elderly ordinance in the A-1 district and he would like staff to be 
159 
able to consult with town counsel. Mr. Dubay stated there were 2 parts to the variance, one 
160 
of which had to do with impervious surface (roof recharge and roof area).  
161 
The Chair invited public comment. 
162 
Ms. Vanessa Nysten, Edgewood Road, addressed the Board. Ms. Nysten stated that this 
163 
property abuts properties on Edgewood Road and she would like the vegetative buffers 
164 
shown and noted on the plan. The buffers should screen the residential use. 
165 
Vice Chair Stith made a motion to continue Case 28-2026 to August 11th at 7 pm. 
166 
Seconded by Mr. Faust. Vote 5-0. Motion passes.   
167 

 
 
07_28_2026 ZBA Approved 
 
 
Case 38-2026 
 
Parcel 17-J-145 
168 
Applicant- Evan Marek  
169 
Owner- Bridget Hughes & Evan Marek 
170 
Location- 12 Gardner Rd 
171 
Zoning- Residential District A/ WPOD  
172 
The application requests a variance from Section 702/ Appendix A-1, to permit an 
173 
approximate 30’ x 8’ deck to be approximately 9’ from the westerly lot line, 19’ from the 
174 
easterly lot line, and 19’ from the southerly lot line, and to permit the total lot coverage to 
175 
go down from 43.4% to 36.3%. Under the Windham Zoning Ordinance, a 30’ side and rear 
176 
yard setback is required, and the lot coverage shall not exceed 30%.    
177 
 
178 
Mr. Brockmeier read the case into the record. Mr. Frangomihalos stated that the percentage of 
179 
impervious coverage is an error on his part but the application of the applicant is correct.  
180 
 
181 
Mr. Evan Marek, the applicant, addressed the Board. Mr. Marek stated they are looking to add a 
182 
deck to their property and they have verbal consent from their neighbors that they are fine with the 
183 
proposed plan. Mr. Brockmeier read one of the letters from the abutters into the record (16 
184 
Gardener Road). Mr. Marek reviewed the 5 criteria contained in the public packet. Mr. Marek 
185 
discussed the retaining walls and the walkout basement. The Board and the applicant discussed 
186 
the area that is now grass and if it would prevent less run off to have gravel in that area. There will 
187 
be no trees taken down on the property for the project. Vice Chair Stith asked if the applicant was 
188 
comfortable having the conditions that the porch would not be screened in or enclosed.  
189 
 
190 
The Chair invited public comment. There was none.  
191 
 
192 
Chairman Scholz stated that the applicant is looking for 43.4% lot coverage; this is an increase 
193 
from 39.3%.  
194 
 
195 
The Board entered deliberative session without opposition. Vice Chair Stith stated that she is fine 
196 
with this as long as the condition is put on the deck that it will not be roofed, screened or otherwise 
197 
enclosed. Chairman Scholz stated he does think it meets the criteria. The Board discussed the best 
198 
way to mitigate against the run-off, grass or gravel.  
199 
 
200 
Mr. Faust made a motion for Case 38-2026 to grant the variance as requested with the 
201 
condition that the deck will not be roofed, screened or otherwise enclosed per plan submitted 
202 
and signed and dated by the Chair. Seconded by Ms. Skinner. Vote 5-0. The Chair advised of 
203 
the 30-day appeal period.  
204 
 
205 
Findings of fact: 
206 
 
207 

 
 
07_28_2026 ZBA Approved 
 
 
Criteria 1 & 2 No issues with health, safety and welfare, and the proposed plan does not 
208 
alter the essential character of the neighborhood and the deck is a common feature of 
209 
homes.  
210 
Criteria 3 No public interest has been articulated which would defeat the applicant’s 
211 
interest in this instance.  
212 
Criteria 4 No evidence was presented which would, in the experience, knowledge, and 
213 
understanding of the Board members, decrease value of the surrounding properties.  
214 
Criteria 5 No deck can be constructed that does not impact the setback requirements. The 
215 
deck is a reasonable one that allows the homeowner enjoyment. 
216 
Mr. Brockmeier made amotion to approve the Findings of Fact for Case 38-2026. Seconded by 
217 
Mr. Faust. Vote 5-0. Motion passes. The Chair advised of the 30-day appeal period.  
218 
Public Meeting 
219 
 
220 
Case 27-2026 Request for Rehearing 
 
Parcel 19-B-507 
221 
Applicant- Cally & Lawrence Weymouth, III 
222 
Owner(s) – Same 
223 
Location- 63 Mammoth Rd 
224 
Zoning- Rural District 
225 
The application requests a rehearing after being denied a variance at the June 16, 2026 ZBA    
226 
meeting.  
227 
 
228 
Chairman Scholz stated that he believes the minutes are comprehensive. The use of the 
229 
garage was discussed. Regarding the variance from 2025, there was an opportunity to 
230 
appeal that decision and it was not appealed. This condition was also deliberated during 
231 
the recent variance request. There was discussion about the original variance requested 
232 
for the home on the lot and the conditions placed on the garage, and the Chair believes the 
233 
correct decision was made and there was no technical error made.  
234 
The Board agrees there is no mistake in fact, mistake in law, or mistake in process and no 
235 
new information presented that could not have been presented at the original hearing. 
236 
Mr. Brockmeier made a motion to deny the request for rehearing for Case 27-2026 for 
237 
the above-mentioned reasons. Seconded by Mr. Faust. Vote 5-0. Motion passes.  
238 
Case 14-2025 HAB Reverse & Remand 
Parcel(s) 17-G-20 & 17-G-6 
239 
Owner- Arena Square LLC C/O Middlesex Glass Co. 
240 

 
 
07_28_2026 ZBA Approved 
 
 
Location(s)- 82 Range Rd & 102 Indian Rock Rd 
241 
Zoning- Gateway Commercial District/ WPOD 
242 
The application is requesting relief to construct a multi-family development of 350 units 
243 
and associated amenities in the Gateway Commercial District, where multi-family uses are 
244 
not permissible. Ten percent of the proposed units are intended to be designated as 
245 
workforce housing. 
246 
 
247 
On June 25, 2026, the NH Housing Appeals Board Case (2025-013-ZBA), voted to uphold 
248 
their decision to REVERSE and REMAND the Zoning Board of Adjustment use variance 
249 
denial of April 22, 2025. The Board will consider the five criteria in a resumed deliberative 
250 
session in a public meeting.  
251 
 
252 
The Board looked at the totality of the project, without regard to percentages of workforce versus 
253 
market-rate units. While acknowledging the inclusion of Workforce Housing units, the presence (or 
254 
absence) of such units does not affect the evaluation of the first criteria does not affect the first two 
255 
criteria in that there are no differences in terms of design, nature of the building, noise, or traffic 
256 
conditions. Board members believe that the proposal will result in a permanent negative change of 
257 
look and feel of the neighborhood, which will impact persons both within and without the district.  
258 
Because of the impact on the community for a project of this scale, and in consideration of 
259 
substantial justice, the workforce housing percentages mandated by our ordinance versus market 
260 
rate housing, when viewed through the public interest lens (project size, scale, traffic, public 
261 
safety, schools), the applicant has not demonstrated that substantial justice will be done in this 
262 
instance.  
263 
The Workforce Housing designation does not impact the appraisal information submitted at the 
264 
rehearing or the testimony given at the hearing. The Board continues to give greater weight to the 
265 
property abutters who have testified that their property values will be negatively impacted.  
266 
The workforce housing designation by itself does not impact hardship since those are strictly 
267 
property related. The Board, by virtue of prior variances, has determined that the property does 
268 
have Special conditions which the applicant could utilize for a commercial use, in a commercial 
269 
district, consistent with the zoning objectives of the Gateway district. The proposed use is not a 
270 
reasonable use given the scope and magnitude of the project and its impact on the surrounding 
271 
community (traffic visual impact, noise, demands on public services, etc.). 
272 
Mr. Faust made a motion to reaffirm the findings of fact for Case 14-2025 Seconded by Ms. 
273 
Skinner. Vote 5-0. Motion passes.  
274 
 
275 
The Board discussed codifying changes and when that would be done. The Board discussed a few 
276 
upcoming scheduling issues based on a meeting on voting day.  
277 

 
 
07_28_2026 ZBA Approved 
 
 
 
278 
Vice Chair Stith made a motion to adjourn at 9:09 pm. Seconded by Mr. Faust.  Vote 5-0. 
279 
Motion passes.  
280 
 
281 
Respectfully submitted by Ms. Anitra Lincicum  
282 
 
283