Zoning Board of Adjustment

City of Rochester Zoning Board of Adjustment Wednesday June 10, 2026 31 Wakefield Street, Rochester, NH 03867 (These minutes were approved on July 8, 2026) Members Present Larry Spector, Chair Tate Adams Robert Longo Matthew Winders Members Absent Susan Austin, absent Randy Lavallee, absent Lance Powers, excused Alternate Members Present Raymand Wayman Staff: Seth Creighton, Director of Planning & Development Crystal Galloway, Planner I 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 recording secretary, Crystal Galloway, conducted roll call. 3. Seating of Alternates: Mr. Spector said the voting members for the meeting would be Mr. Adams, Mr. Longo, Mr. Wayman, Mr. Winders and himself. Z-26-13 Danielle Morrison Seeks a Special Exception from Sections 24.1.I and 24.6 to permit a Home Occupation III located in a multi-family dwelling. Location: 42 B Magic Avenue, Map 130 Lot 42-1 in the Residential-2 Zone. Mr. Sector informed the Board and members of the public case Z-26-13 would be postponed due to a clerical error on the public hearing notice. Ms. Galloway said abutter notices would be resent. Page 1 of 7 26 06 10 ZBA Minutes 4. Request for Rehearing: Z-25-36 Scott Carter (Brighter Day Recovery Corp) Consideration of Request to Rehear a Variance from Table 18-A to permit a Boardinghouse. Location: 11 Lincoln Street, Map 125 Lot 132 in the Residential-2 Zone. The Board discussed whether or not to rehear the case. Mr. Wayman said he felt the Board made the right decision. Mr. Adams and Mr. Spector both agreed. Mr. Winders said he reviewed the May meeting as well as the minutes, in addition to the new packet submitted by the applicant. He said he didn’t see there was any new information provided that would have influenced the Boards decision, nor any information that the Board made a mistake. Mr. Winders said because of all that, the Board should not grant the rehearing. Mr. Longo said he agreed. A motion was made by Mr. Adams to deny the rehearing request for case Z-25-36, citing there was no new information provided and the Board did not err in its original decision. Mr. Wayman seconded. The motion carried unanimously be a roll call vote. Mr. Carter approached the podium to address the Board stating he did not understand the variance was being denied because other organizations have been approved. He asked the Board to explain how his proposed use differs from others in the city. Mr. Creighton explained this is not a public hearing. Mr. Creighton went on to explain Mr. Carter has asked the questions via a right-to-know request and his questions are not applicable to this Board. 5. New Cases: Z-26-10 Jonathan Tarasuik Seeks a Variance from Table 19-A and Section 23.2.A(20) to permit construction of a shed with a 5-foot side and rear setback where a 8-foot side and 10-foot rear setback is required. Location: 105 Wakefield Street, Map 116 Lot 193 in the Residential-2 Zone. The applicant Jonathan Tarasuik explained he is seeking a variance to permit an 8’x12’ storage shed. He said the existing shed will be removed before the new shed is installed, and the carport that was referred to in the staff memo has been taken down. Mr. Tarasuik explained the issue is the setback requirement and meeting them will place the shed in the middle of the backyard. Mr. Wayman asked if alternate locations, such as the end of the driveway have been considered. Mr. Tarasuik said yes, however from his measurements it would still be within the setback, especially when considering the 10- foot setback distance to the house. Mr. Wayman asked if he would consider asking a neighbor to sell a strip of land. Mr. Tarasuik said he has looked into it however, the neighbors house is approximately ten feet from the edge of his driveway. 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 property is located in the R2 zoning district which requires an 8-foot side setback and a 20-foot rear setback. He said because the shed is under 200 square feet the City allows a 10-foot rear setback. Mr. Creighton said the property is much like other properties in the urban area, smaller lots that don’t afford a lot of room to place accessory structures. Mr. Tarasuik said he wasn’t aware of 10-foot setback allowance. He clarified that if he were to adhere to the setbacks stated it would be a legal shed. Mr. Creighton said that is correct. There were no further questions for the applicant. Mr. Spector closed the public hearing, and the Board began deliberating the criteria. Page 2 of 7 26 06 10 ZBA Minutes There was a brief discussion about the 10-foot setback rule opposed to 20-feet. Mr. Longo said he felt a variance wasn’t necessary. Mr. Winders asked if the existing shed were to be replaced, would it be considered legal non-conforming. Mr. Creighton said yes. Mr. Winders asked if the applicant still wanted to proceed with the variance request. Mr. Creighton explained the process of withdrawing the variance application versus letting the Board make their decision. Mr. Tarasuik said with his new knowledge of setback information he feels confident he can meet setbacks. He said he is withdrawing the variance application. Z-26-11 Casey Sowards & Allison Cardin Seeks a Variance from Table 18-A and Section 30.3.A to replace the existing mobile home with a larger mobile home. Location: 26 Flat Rock Bridge Road, Map 210 Lot 68 in the Residential-1 Zone. Applicant Casey Sowards read the variance criteria into the record. Mr. Adams asked if they plan on replacing the existing shed also. Mr. Sowards said no, the plan is to place the new home where the sheds are currently located. He said the new home will be well within the setbacks. Mr. Sowards went on to say the current home is grandfathered because it is too close to the road and side property line. 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 said Staff recommends the Board approve the variance. He went on to say mobile homes are not permitted by right. As the applicant stated, the current home is grandfathered in and if the new home was to be the same square footage they wouldn’t need the variance, however the new home will be larger than the current home which would be an expansion of non-conformity. Mr. Creighton said because the applicant is proposing a location for the new home that meets all the setback requirements they are lessening the overall non-conformity. There were no further questions for the applicant. Mr. Spector closed the public hearing, and the Board began deliberating the criteria. Mr. Wayman clarified that the lot would still be non-conforming but would be less non-conforming if the Board were to grant the variance. Mr. Creighton said that is correct. Mr. Spector said he doesn’t have an issue with the proposal. Mr. Wayman agreed. Mr. Adams said it would be an improvement to the area. Mr. Adams said he felt the variance is not contrary to the public interest because it will be a safer environment and will improve the non-conformity. Mr. Winders said the spirit of the ordinance is observed because it lessens the non-conformity by adhering to the setback requirements. Mr. Wayman said substantial justice is done because the property is already developed with a residential mobile home, and the use is not being expanded or changed. Mr. Longo said the improvement would increase the value of the surrounding properties. Mr. Adams said owning to the special condition of the property is met because it is a unique lot due to the existing mobile home and not being able to replace it with a new one of the same dimensions simply because they no longer manufacture home that size anymore. Page 3 of 7 26 06 10 ZBA Minutes A motion was made by Mr. Adams to approve case Z-26-11, citing the criteria has been met. Mr. Wayman seconded. The motion carried unanimously by a roll call vote. Z-26-12 Tyler Emerson Seeks a Variance from Table 19-A and Section 23.2.A(26) to permit an above ground pool with a 6-foot +/- setback where 10-feet is required and an attached deck with a 0-foot setback where 20-feet is required. Location: 175 Brock Street, Map 131 Lot 50 in the Residential-2 Zone. The applicant Tyler Emerson asked the Board for forgiveness. He said he installed the pool 5 years ago and wasn’t aware of permitting and setbacks requirements because he was only 30 years old at that time. Mr. Emerson said he worked with his neighbor to determine where the property line was located and they were able to find the post markers from which he measured 10 feet. He said he has been cleaning up and fixing his property in order to come into compliance with the City’s Code Enforcement. Mr. Emerson stated he believes the city’s GIS is not accurate as it shows the pool 6-feet from the property line. Mr. Emerson went on to state the deck is a platform under 200 square feet and he was not aware he needed a permit because it was under 200 square feet. Mr. Longo asked if he could move the pool. Mr. Emerson said he purchased the pool used and it has settled in and if it is moved there is a chance the liner will rip. He said he could move the deck however it would be nice if he didn’t have to because he has a fence behind the pool that’s on the property line. Mr. Emerson said he spoke with his neighbor before he put the platform up if he had any issues with it and was told no. Mr. Longo clarified that the pool would be difficult to move but the deck could be moved. Mr. Emerson said yes. Mr. Emerson said the issue is that the city’s GIS is off and can make the property lines up to 3 meters off. Mr. Longo asked if he has had the property surveyed. Mr. Emerson said no. Mr. Wayman asked if the deck is located between the pool and the property line. Mr. Creighton showed an overview of the property and location of the pool and deck. Mr. Adams said it appears the deck in well over the property line. Mr. Emerson insisted the property line depicted is not correct. Mr. Emerson stated he will be purchasing property in the next 12 to 14 months and they will be moving the pool to the new property. Mr. Longo clarified the pool was being moved in the future because the applicant stated the pool couldn’t be moved. 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. Going back to the overview of the property, Mr. Creighton pointed out the location of the pool and deck. He went on to explain the City’s GIS shows the lot has been surveyed at some point and is what the mappers use as a base, then verify it through deed research. Mr. Creighton said the GIS maps do have a margin of error, at most is 1 to 3 feet, not 9 feet as the applicant stated. He went on to say even if GIS is off by 1 to 3 feet the structures are still located within the setback. Mr. Creighton added that the pool is roughly 6 feet from the property line where 10 feet is required, and the deck is either 0 feet from the property line or it’s over the property line where a 20-foot setback is required. Mr. Creighton said Staff doesn’t feel the criteria have been met, as spoken by both the Board and the applicant himself. As both have said the pool can be moved. Mr. Creighton said there is land area where both the pool and the deck can be located without any relief, proving there isn’t a hardship. Mr. Emerson stated he also has a fire pit that he is unable to be moved because of fire codes so he is unable to move the pool any closer to it. Page 4 of 7 26 06 10 ZBA Minutes Mr. Longo asked why he didn’t find out what the setbacks were before he installed everything. Mr. Emerson said he had a hard time trying to find the information. There were no further questions for the applicant. Mr. Spector closed the public hearing, and the Board began deliberating the criteria. Mr. Wayman said there is room on the property and he felt there isn’t a hardship. He said the applicant stated he couldn’t move the pool but will move the pool when they move, however the Board cannot base its decision on what might happen in the future. Mr. Winders said there isn’t a hardship because there are no unique characteristics of the property that would distinguish it from other surrounding properties. Mr. Longo said he felt the inconvenience is financial and that is not something the Board can consider. A motion was made Mr. Wayman to deny case Z-26-12, citing the hardship criteria has not been met, specifically because there is room on the property to relocate the pool and deck and there are no unique characteristics of the property. Mr. Adams seconded. The motion carried unanimously by a roll call vote. Z-26-14 Dan & Janet O’Lone Seeks a Special Exception from Table 18-C to permit a food truck in the downtown commercial zone. Location: 24 Museum Way, Map 120 Lot 401 in the Downtown Commercial Zone. The applicant Dan O’Lone explained he has operated the Sausage Express at Home Depot for the last seven years, however Home Depot has changed the requirements this year which has made it impossible for him to be able to run his business. Mr. O’Lone said he was contacted by the property owner for 24 Museum Way about relocating his business because there had been a food truck there in the past. Mr. O’Lone said the property has water, sewer, and electricity hook-ups which is tailor made for a food truck. 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 said the property is unique because it had a food truck for a number of years and was only recently removed. Mr. Creighton said Staff feel the criteria have been met and recommended approval. He recommended the Board discuss some conditions of approval such as hours of operation. Mr. Longo asked if the intension is to just serve lunch. Mr. O’Lone said they serve breakfast and lunch but if they have the opportunity to stay later they would serve dinner also. There were no further questions for the applicant. Mr. Spector closed the public hearing, and the Board began deliberating the criteria. Mr. Adams asked if he would be able to operate year-round. Mr. Creighton said yes, however the Board has the authority to limit hours if they want. Mr. Adams said he feels it would be an improvement for the lot and a great addition to the downtown area. Mr. Winders said he agreed with the City, stating the applicant has met the criteria. Mr. Winders went on to say he doesn’t feel there should be any conditions of approval because it is located in a prime location and it wouldn’t cause a nuisance. Page 5 of 7 26 06 10 ZBA Minutes Mr. Longo stated it should be conditioned the trash has to be removed daily. A motion was made by Mr. Wayman to approve case Z-26-14, citing the criteria has been met. Mr. Adams seconded with the conditions the hours of operation are to be between 7:00am and 1:00am , and any trash that is generated is to be removed from the site daily . The motion carried unanimously by a roll call vote. Mr. Spector called a recess at 8:02pm Mr. Spector called the meeting back to order at 8:06pm Z-26-15 Matthew & Michelle Wirth Seeks a Variance from Section 20.2.M(1) to permit construction of a multi- family dwelling and development (parking & hardscape) within 50-feet of the Brock Street right-of-way. Location: 168 Brock Street, Map 131 Lot 60-1 in the Residential-2 Zone. The applicants’ representative Brian Jones of Allen & Major Associates said the applicant’s desire is to have a development that matches the existing neighborhood. He said one of the proposed buildings is located within 33-feet of the roadway. Mr. Jones said instead of pushing the building back and having the parking all in front they are seeking relief from the 50-foot buffer requirement to allow for a better layout. Mr. Longo asked if the development could have been configured to honor the 50-foot setback. Mr. Jones said there would be other compromises that would make it less desirable for the neighborhood. Mr. Spector said he thought there are other ways to do the development without a variance, such as relocate the 2 parking spaces closest to the road. Mr. Jones explained that the building had a patio area for each of the four units which also have to be outside of the 50-foot setback. Mr. Jones said he feels the intent of the setback requirement is most likely for larger scale projects and understands that by definition multi-family is considered anything over three units. Mr. Winders said he likes how the proposed site is laid out, however he feels the hardship criteria is not met because there are other alternatives that would conform to the ordinance. Mr. Wayman said he agreed with Mr. Winders. Mr. Spector opened the public hearing. Property owner and applicant Matthew Wirth explained the driveway cannot go any further than 150-feet off the edge of the curb otherwise the fire department will require a turnaround for their firetruck, which is a 90-foot radius. The property is only 80-feet wide. Mr. Creighton said Staff believes the first four criteria have been met. He further explained that the 50-foot buffer requirement is typically for a more conventional multi-family structure such as a large building with a bunch of units and a parking lot in front of the building. Mr. Creighton said this development falls under a multi-family development but could easily be categorized as two duplexes because they are two separate buildings with two units each. Mr. Creighton brought up the property image on the screen to explain to the Board how the property is unique. He explained the topography of the property, the steep slopes, and the odd shape. There were no further questions for the applicant. Mr. Spector closed the public hearing, and the Board began deliberating the criteria. Mr. Adams said he agrees with the City. He said he feels the development is in keeping with the Brock Street neighborhood. Page 6 of 7 26 06 10 ZBA Minutes Mr. Winders said after the discussion with both the applicant and the City, he believes the hardship is met specifically because of the topography of the land such as the steep slopes and wetlands. Mr. Wayman said the reduced buffer will not be contrary to the public interest because the reduced buffer will not create adverse impact on traffic safety, drainage, utilities, emergency access, neighboring properties, or the character of the area. The proposed multi-family development can be constructed and operated in a manner that protects the health, safety, and welfare of the community. The spirit of the ordinance is observed because the project satisfies the ordinance’s underlying objectives, such as preserving neighborhood character, and providing adequate screening. Substantial justice is done because the benefit of allowing multi-family development, including increased housing opportunities and reasonable use of the property outweighs harm to the public interest or neighboring properties resulting from the reduction of the required buffer. The value of surrounding properties will not be diminished because the multi-family development will be compatible with the surrounding area, will be properly landscaped and screened, and will not create adverse impacts that would negatively impact neighboring properties. There is an unnecessary hardship because there are unique characteristics of the property, including size, shape, topography, and existing site constraints that prevent the reasonable citing of the structure’s parking. Application of the buffer requirement bears no fair and substantial relationship to the ordinance’s purpose because the project can adequately protect neighboring properties through alternative design measures. A motion was made by Mr. Wayman to approve case Z-26-15, citing the criteria have been met, with the condition a site plan must be approved by the Planning Board and building permits approved by June 10, 2028, two years from the date of the Zoning Board decision; and Per NH RSA 674:33.I-a(a) the approval is valid until June 10, 2028, and there is to be no extension granted or considered. Mr. Adams seconded. The motion carried by a 4 to 1 roll call vote. Mr. Spector opposed. 6. Approval of Minutes: A motion was made by Mr. Winders to approve the minutes from the May 13, 2026 meeting. Mr. Wayman seconded. The motion carried unanimously by a voice vote. 7. Other Business/Non-Scheduled Items: There was no other business to discuss. 8. Adjournment: A motion was made by Mr. Adams to adjourn at 8:39 p.m. Mr. Winders seconded. The motion carried unanimously by a voice vote. Respectfully Submitted, Crystal Galloway, Planner I Page 7 of 7 26 06 10 ZBA Minutes