The Manchester Zoning Board voted on July 10 to grant variances allowing a mixed use redevelopment of the historic Chandler House at 151 Walnut Street into a cultural social club with a small number of overnight rooms and an on‑site spa, a project proponents say is necessary to fund historic restoration.

Project proponents said the proposed use will preserve the house’s distinctive Victorian features while creating a community‑focused “third place” that combines members’ workspace, artists‑in‑residence programming, events and limited guest rooms.

"This is incredibly similar to everything that I've done over the last 10 years," said Ben Finsgraff, a developer with experience restoring similar historic buildings. He described the Chandler House plan as an arts‑focused social club that will fund large preservation costs through private revenue streams and memberships.

Support and concerns: The Courier Museum, which previously bought the property to prevent demolition, supports a plan that stabilizes and restores the building. "Our objective was to save the very unique and special architectural features of this building," said Tom Sylvia, a Courier Museum trustee who spoke in favor. Local developer DECA said it will support parking arrangements and workforce connections; DECA representatives told the board they can make evening parking available in nearby mill‑yard lots for valet operations.

Opponents included the Diocese of Manchester and some immediate neighbors. The diocese told the board it had placed deed restrictions on the property when it sold the Chandler House to the courier and that the restrictions limit allowable uses, reserving upper floors for professional offices and the first floor as museum‑like uses. "The variances ... are not allowed by the deed restrictions that the diocese placed on this when it did sell it to the courier," said attorney Christopher Bolt, who appeared on the diocese’s behalf and asked the board to deny variances.

Board response and legal question: Board members heard the deed‑restriction argument but noted that private deed restrictions are separate from zoning law; the board's role is limited to whether the zoning criteria for a variance are met. City staff advised the board that deed covenants are a private matter outside the board’s zoning jurisdiction and that any dispute about deed provisions would be a civil matter handled outside the zoning process. The applicant said it has sought to resolve deed questions with the diocese and does not expect the covenants to block the intended use.

After more than an hour of testimony, the board voted with one no vote, one abstention and three in favor (3–1–1) to grant the variances needed for the club, hotel guest rooms and spa and for associated dimensional relief (side‑yard setback, parking maneuvering and wall/ramps needed for ADA access). The board attached no unusual conditions beyond standard permitting and required planning review.

What the board said: Board members who voted in favor noted the high cost of restoring the Chandler House and the difficulty of funding preservation while keeping the structure retained in the neighborhood fabric. "The costs to renovate it and maintain it are substantial. This sounds like a plan that may be able to accomplish that," said Greg Powers, a board member who moved the approval.

Next steps: The applicant must complete Planning & Community Development review, secure any required building and historic‑preservation permits, finalize parking agreements for valet operations and settle any outstanding private deed concerns. Supporters said they plan an arts‑focused program and local partnerships; opponents retain the option to pursue private legal remedies if they believe deed restrictions are violated.