Zoning Board of Adjustment

City of Rochester Zoning Board of Adjustment Wednesday May 13, 2026 31 Wakefield Street, Rochester, NH 03867 (These minutes were approved on June 10, 2026) Members Present Larry Spector, Chair Lance Powers, Vice Chair Tate Adams Members Absent Susan Austin, excused James Connor, excused Randy Lavallee, excused Matthew Winders, excused Alternate Members Present Robert Longo Raymand Wayman Staff: Seth Creighton, Director of Planning & Development These minutes serve as the legal record of the meeting and are in the format of an overview of the Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting. It is neither intended nor is it represented that this is a full transcription. A recording of the meeting is on file online at http://www.rochesternh.gov/ for a limited time for reference purposes. Chair Larry Spector called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The Planning and Development Director, Seth Creighton, conducted roll call. 3. Seating of Alternates: Mr. Spector said the voting members for the meeting would be Mr. Powers, Mr. Adams, Mr. Longo, Mr. Wayman, and himself. 4. New Cases: Z-25-36 Scott Carter (Brighter Day Recovery Corp) Seeks a Variance from Table 18-A to permit a Boardinghouse. Location: 11 Lincoln Street, Map 125 Lot 132 in the Residential-2 Zone. Page 1 of 6 26 05 13 ZBA Minutes Scott Carter of Brighter Day Recovery stated the boardinghouse classification was given to him by the Planning Department. Mr. Carter stated there was some confusion during the original hearing in December due to some language that was in the application. He said they are proposing to continue the historical congregate living with the same number of residents, and there are no changes to the property. He said the only change would be the residents themselves. Mr. Wayman asked if the residents would be single or if he anticipates some couples as well. Mr. Carter said they will generally be single. Mr. Wayman asked if anyone would be able to rent a room or if they would have to be in recovery. Mr. Carter said they will be screened through the staff and there will be rules to follow while living in the house, and they will be fully managed as well. Mr. Carter added there will be a full time staff, 24 hours a day. Mr. Wayman asked if he were looking for a place to stay, regardless of his history would he be able to rent a room. Mr. Carter said no, the person would have to be recommended by his corporation. Mr. Adams clarified that the proposal is a boardinghouse for someone who is in the process of addiction recovery. Mr. Carter said that is correct and said it would be no different than Freeman House or Abby’s Place. Mr. Wayman asked how long the residents are expected to stay at the house. Mr. Carter said it all depends on peoples circumstances, such as employment and financial circumstances. Mr. Wayman said the current use is an elderly living facility and asked if there would be an increase in traffic with the proposed boardinghouse. Mr. Carter said no. Mr. Spector opened the public hearing. Sam Farrington, State Rep of Rochester Ward 4 of Chesley Hill Road stated he doesn’t want the Board to act too quickly because there are ongoing lawsuits and appeals. He said one of the concerns is fair housing for people with disabilities. Mr. Farrington said it could be a large legal cost to the City. He said the Board should focus on zoning and not whether or not it is a treatment facility. There was no one further from the public to speak; Mr. Spector brought the discussion back to the Board. Mr. Creighton explained the applicant originally applied for a Community Residence-2 which is a residence with a staffed program with treatment and is more scheduled. Mr. Creighton explained after the denial in December the applicant filed suit against the City during which an agreement was made between the applicant and the City that there were some missteps made by both parties. The outcome was to clear the slate and start again. Mr. Creighton said the first application was for a Community Residence-2, and this is also the use designation of the two other entities Mr. Carter referred to are and implied that his facility would be the same as. Mr. Creighton said that this is not what is being requested in this application. Mr. Creighton read Mr. Carter’s application which states "the current application does not proposed to operate a treatment program or provide clinical services at the property. The proposed use is a boardinghouse and functions as residential housing”. Mr. Creighton explained the zoning ordinance has four different use categories that are similar but different, these include: boardinghouse; an assisted living facility, which is what is currently operating and was approved by the City more than 30 years ago; residential facility; and, community residence-2. He further explained each use has nuances which make each different from the other. Mr. Powers said the question Mr. Wayman asked, whether anyone could rent a room or do you have to be part of a program and the answer given by Mr. Carter doesn’t seem to fit with the definition of a boardinghouse. Mr. Carter said there is no difference from the congregate living now, there is no proposed increase in residents, no increase or changes to the structure, there are no changes proposed other than the residents themselves. Page 2 of 6 26 05 13 ZBA Minutes Mr. Creighton read the definition of an assisted living facility as defined in the zoning ordinance. It states “a residential development for older persons that offers a moderate level of support for residents, possibly including recreation, counseling, and medical services and assistance with daily living. Common dining facilities are featured with limited or no cooking facilities in the individual units”. Mr. Creighton asked Mr. Carter if this definition fits what he is proposing, Carter said no. Mr. Creighton went on to say boardinghouses have more people come and go faster than an assisted living facility. Creighton further explained the uses permitted in the residential-2 zone. There were no further questions for the applicant. Mr. Spector closed the public hearing and the Board began deliberating the criteria. Mr. Adams said the definition of a boardinghouse is clearly different than an assisted living facility. Mr. Powers said its an intensity difference between the two uses. Mr. Wayman said if the Board approves a boardinghouse but only certain people can be there then it is not really a boardinghouse. Mr. Longo stated the difference between the two uses is the risk level to the surrounding neighborhood. He said there is a higher risk level with a boardinghouse than an assisted living facility. Mr. Spector added it’s near a school and a park. A motion was made by Mr. Wayman to deny case Z-25-36 citing it is contrary to public interest because there is a transient population, there could potentially be an increase in noise and activity levels, the zoning ordinance prohibits boardinghouses in the R2 zone, and there is a school and public park located in close proximity. Mr. Adams seconded. The motion carried unanimously by a roll call vote. Mr. Creighton stated the variance has been denied. Anyone directly affected by this decision has the right to appeal within 30 calendar days from the date of this meeting. Z-26-8 Steven Fleming Seeks a Variance from Table 29-A to permit an electronic message sign. Location: 43 Highland Street, Map 104 Lot 56 in the Neighborhood Mixed Use Zone. The applicant Steven Fleming explained the variance request is for an electronic message sign. He stated the current sign is 25 years old and is at the end of its life and it is difficult to find parts for it. Mr. Fleming stated he would like to install a more modern digital sign with a static header which will display messages related to the business. Mr. Adams asked for clarity regarding the comment that the existing sign is the original sign to the previous business. Mr. Fleming said that is correct and stated when he purchased the building a couple years ago he resurfaced the sign with his company name. Mr. Adams asked if there are ground lights shining up on the sign or if it is internally lit. Mr. Fleming stated the sign is internally lit. Mr. Wayman asked how bright the proposed sign will be. Mr. Fleming stated the sign will not be extremely bright and will only be on during hours of operation. Mr. Spector opened the public hearing. There was no one from the public present to speak; Mr. Spector brought the discussion back to the Board. Mr. Creighton explained the applicant is seeking relief to permit an electronic message sign which is not allowed in the zone. He went on to say the neighborhood mixed use zone is a Residential Zoning District, Page 3 of 6 26 05 13 ZBA Minutes though it allows for some low-level commercial uses. Mr. Creighton explained the businesses in the surrounding area have internally lit signs, much like what the applicant currently has. Mr. Creighton said the question is, is there a hardship that the property presents that would allow it to not adhere to the rules to allow a sign that is potentially brighter and more intense. He said staff doesn’t feel there is. Mr. Creighton said if you drive down Highland Street there are no other signs like what is being proposed. He said staff feels this request doesn’t meet the variance criteria and approval cannot be given. Mr. Fleming mentioned other business signs in the area and asked if they meet zoning criteria. Mr. Creighton said with nearly 16,000 properties in the City, and not having the property files at hand, he cannot speak to whether or not specific property’s or their signs conform or not because there are a lot of things that go into determining that, including whether or not a property or its signs are grandfathered. He further clarified there are differences in allowances between freestanding signs and wall signs. Mr. Spector asked where the nearest homes are located. Mr. Fleming stated there are a couple homes located right across the street, then approximately 600 feet to the side of his property. Mr. Spector clarified that there are homes directly across the street. Mr. Fleming said yes. There were no further questions for the applicant. Mr. Spector closed the public hearing, and the Board began deliberating the criteria. Mr. Wayman stated that the City’s GIS showed the first 50 feet of the parcel is Neighborhood Mixed Use and the remainder is Residential. He asked if the commercial zone applies to the entire parcel or just the first half. Mr. Creighton explained that the ordinance states when a property is bisected by two different zoning districts the applicant can apply to extend one of the zones by approximately 100 feet. There was a brief discussion regarding whether or not the applicant could apply for a zoning amendment. Mr. Creighton said yes, and explained the Planning Board, the City Council, and Staff often propose a zoning amendment. He further stated he does not feel the neighborhood mixed use zone is an appropriate zone to allow electronic message signs, and thus would not offer Staff support to such a zoning amendment.. Mr. Adams stated Highland Street is a very busy road with a number of businesses located along it. He asked if the Board grants the variance to allow the proposed sign would it then set a precedent for the other businesses. Mr. Creighton explained that’s the reason for the criteria set by the State, the applicant has to prove they are still meeting the spirit and intent of the ordinance; they are protecting the people within the zone; and their property is unique. Mr. Spector stated in the past the Board has voted to deny electronic message signs within the city because there is typically no hardship to the land. He further stated most of the time the applicant is looking for a larger sign, however there is really no hardship here as to why an electronic is needed. A motion was made by Mr. Powers to deny case Z-26-8 citing the hardship criteria is not met, specifically it is not substantially different from other properties in the area. Mr. Adams seconded. The motion carried unanimously by a roll call vote. Mr. Creighton stated the variance has been denied. Anyone directly affected by this decision has the right to appeal within 30 calendar days from the date of this meeting. Z-26-9 Ryan Jacques Seeks a Variance from Table 19-A to permit construction of a garage within the side setback. Location: 3 Gina Drive, Map 205 Lot 205 in the Agricultural Zone. Page 4 of 6 26 05 13 ZBA Minutes The applicant Ryan Jacques explained the variance request to construct a 24 x 24 garage which will go approximately three feet along the back right corner of the side setback. He said based on the lot layout and constraints this is the only location he would be able to build. Mr. Spector asked if the land has been surveyed. Mr. Jacques stated he has not been able to located the boundary markers, however he has a copy of the original land survey for the neighborhood. Mr. Jacques went on to say there have been pipes installed on abutting properties from previous owners that he has been using as a reference. Mr. Creighton clarified that the survey is from the 1970’s. He said staff worked with the applicant before the variance was submitted and GIS matched well with the plan he has. Mr. Adams clarified that there will be a 7-foot side setback. Mr. Jacques said that is correct. Mr. Longo asked if he intends to remove the existing porch located on the side of the home. Mr. Jacques said yes, to allow for the 10-foot separation distance between the structures that is required for a detached garage. Mr. Spector opened the public hearing. The Board received letters from two abutters. Judith Toner of 1 Gina Drive, and Mark Phalan of 14 Sunrise Drive, both in support of the variance. There was no one from the public to speak; Mr. Spector brought the discussion back to the Board. Mr. Creighton explained the parcel is long and rectangular with only a small section for access to the road. He went on to say staff feels the applicant meets the hardship criteria as the property has a unique layout. Mr. Creighton briefly explained how some of the other criteria have also been met. There were no further questions for the applicant. Mr. Spector closed the public hearing and the Board began deliberating the criteria. Mr. Wayman said in looking at the property next door it seems the portion of land closest to the subject parcel will never be used to construct anything and he feels the variance can be granted as it is fairly low risk and fitting for the neighborhood. Mr. Spector said he is also in favor of the variance as there is a hardship for the property. Mr. Adams stated the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because it fits the scale and pattern of surrounding properties. Due to the properties location is will not cause overcrowding, and the encroachment is minor. Mr. Wayman said the spirit of the ordinance is observed as there will still be adequate separation in the area. There is no meaningful impact to the abutting properties, and the neighborhood has similar patterns and constraints due to odd property sizes. Mr. Powers said substantial justice is done because it will fit the size and scale of the neighborhood, and still leave adequate room for the abutting properties. Mr. Adams said the value of the surrounding properties will not be diminished because of the location and how the applicant proposes the construction, the setback reduction is minimal. A motion was made by Mr. Adams to approve case Z-26-9 citing the criteria has been met as stated during the meeting with the conditions 1) The proposed garage must be constructed and obtain final certificate of use approvals by May 13, 2028 (two years from the date of the Zoning Board decision); 2) Per NH RSA 674:33.I-a(a) the approval is valid until May 13, 2028, and there is to be no extension time granted or considered; 3) all other setbacks are to be met. Mr. Powers seconded. The motion carried unanimously by a show of hands vote. Page 5 of 6 26 05 13 ZBA Minutes 5. Approval of Minutes: A motion was made by Mr. Powers to approve the minutes from the April 8, 2026 meeting. Mr. Wayman seconded. The motion carried unanimously by a voice vote. 6. Other Business/Non-Scheduled Items: Mr. Spector told the Board Mr. Connor will likely be stepping down from the Board, and Mr. Longo would be applying to become a regular member. Mr. Spector informed the Board members they have to be careful what they say on social media. He said everyone needs to be mindful as they represent the City. Mr. Creighton said he understands as private citizens we all have freedom of speech. He went on to explain there is case law that has been proven to work against communities because it could be viewed as a member could be bias against a use or applicant. 7. Adjournment: A motion was made by Mr. Powers to adjourn at 8:08 p.m. Mr. Adams seconded. The motion carried unanimously by a voice vote. Respectfully Submitted, Crystal Galloway, Planner I Page 6 of 6 26 05 13 ZBA Minutes