Atkinson Zoning Board approves conversion to year‑round use but denies two setback variances at 7 Lippold Rd.

The Atkinson Zoning Board of Adjustment voted April 8 to allow the conversion of the seasonal lot at 7 Lippold Road to year‑round use while denying two separate variances that would have reduced required side and front setbacks.

The board approved the special exception under Article VII §700:2 by a 5‑0 vote, with Vice Chair Scott Sullivan moving approval and Member Guy Wetherbee seconding. Board minutes state the board found the lot—rather than the structure—meets the requirements for conversion, that the town health officer had reviewed the proposal, and that NHDES has approved the new septic design. The approval was conditioned on the applicant achieving a certificate of occupancy before year‑round occupancy is permitted; Chair Glenn Saba reminded the applicant that a 30‑day appeal period applies and that any work done before the appeal period is at the applicant’s risk.

Beaumont & Campbell, the applicant’s law firm, represented the Bureau Family Revocable Trust. Attorney Bernard H. Campbell told the board the project will be new construction with the required building permits and inspections, and that the new septic design had been approved by NHDES after review by the town’s health officer. Campbell asked the board to find the special‑exception criteria satisfied; the board’s written findings record that the lot was considered seasonal and that the structure and property met applicable criteria for conversion.

The same application included two variance requests for a replacement year‑round home at the same address; both were denied after extended discussion.

Side‑setback variance denied Beaumont & Campbell sought a variance under Article IV §400:4 to allow a house 4.47 feet from the right‑side lot line where 15 feet is required (a 10.53‑foot variance). Chair Saba read into the record letters from Fire Chief Andy Murphy and Department of Public Works Director Ted Stewart opposing the variance on public‑safety grounds; those letters were read aloud by Gabi Dias, the board’s designated finder of facts.

Attorney Campbell proposed mitigation measures—installing a residential sprinkler system and using fire‑resistant materials on the encroaching side, and shifting the structure 1.46 feet to the west—but board members who visited the site described the lot as very small and expressed concern about emergency access and the ability to set ladders. Member Guy Wetherbee, who said he walked the property, called the lot “very small” and cited front‑setback and access issues. Chair Saba and others said the house, as proposed, would fill the lot and create life‑safety and access problems despite mitigation.

The board found the application failed the required criteria related to public interest, public welfare and safety, substantial justice, and unnecessary hardship; only the criterion that the proposed use (a single‑family home) is reasonable received a majority vote. The board voted unanimously to deny the side‑setback variance (motion to deny by Vice Chair Sullivan, second by Member John Troy; vote 5‑0).

Front‑setback variance denied The applicant also requested a front‑setback variance to allow construction 5.8 feet from the front lot line where 30 feet is required (a 24.2‑foot variance). Attorney Campbell said the existing seasonal structure currently encroaches and that topography—a steep rear slope—and the location of the septic system limit moving the house farther back; he stated the house would remain approximately 97.4 feet from the water.

Board members questioned alternatives such as repositioning the septic or removing a concrete pad to gain frontage. Several members said the proposed reduction did not provide a measurable public benefit and that the scale of the proposed house was too large for the lot. The board voted unanimously to deny the front‑setback variance (motion to deny by Vice Chair Scott Sullivan, second by Member Corey Barnes; vote 5‑0). The minutes record that Criterion 4 (no diminution of surrounding values) passed unanimously for this front‑setback request, but other criteria failed.

What the board required and next steps Although mitigation measures—including a residential sprinkler system—were discussed and appear in the board’s findings of fact, the board concluded those measures did not cure the principal concerns about access and lot size for the variance requests. The approval to convert the lot to year‑round use was conditioned on obtaining a certificate of occupancy and the applicant was reminded of a 30‑day appeal period for the decisions.

The board closed the public hearing and adjourned at 9:13 p.m.; the next regular Zoning Board meeting is scheduled for May 13, 2026. Attorney Campbell said he understood the right to appeal.

Speakers quoted or cited in this report are identified in board minutes and the meeting record.