Meeting report · Zoning Board of Adjustment
Creating this report cost real money.
Help fund coverage →
Zoning Board of Adjustment — May 20, 2026
While the board reached unanimous decisions, the meeting featured formal opposition from neighbors and debates over property rights and safety.
Public impact
Issues from this meeting with documented community impact.
01
Zoning variances for residential setbacks
Localized impact on property privacy, sightlines, and neighborhood character. Affected: Local residents and property owners
zoning change
Decisions logged
Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Approval of previous meeting minutes.
Motion made and seconded to approve last month's minutes.
Approved
Acceptance of Regional Impact Determinations.
Staff determined none of the cases have regional impact.
Accepted
Case 5202026-1 (18 Rossini Road): Variance for pool and deck encroachment.
The board granted the variance to allow the encroachment into the rear setback.
Granted
Case 5202026-2 (35 Sandborn Road): Variance for 6-ft fence encroachment.
The board granted the variance for the front setback encroachment.
Granted
Grant variance request for case number 5202026-3
The request for a variance (specifically regarding a 6-ft fence) was granted following a motion and a second.
Approved
Topics discussed
Click a topic to expand quotes and full context.
▶ 04:10 Procedural Opening and Introductions
The Board Chair outlines the meeting procedures for applicants and the public and introduces the board members and building inspector.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 06:59 Approval of Minutes and Regional Impact Report
The board reviews and approves the previous month's meeting minutes and accepts a report stating no cases have regional impact.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 07:20 Variance Request: 18 Rossini Road (Pool and Deck)
The applicants seek a variance to allow an 18-ft above-ground pool and attached deck to encroach 14 ft into the 15-ft rear setback due to lot constraints and existing septic systems.
Speakers: Raymond Blevins, Unidentified speaker
▶ 27:29 Public Comment in Favor of Variance
Samantha Elliott testified in support of the applicant, citing child safety concerns due to traffic and speeding on the street, as well as noting that the proposed fence would not impact sightlines.
Speakers: Samantha Elliott
▶ 39:00 Variance Request: 35 Sandborn Road (6-ft Fence)
The applicants request a variance to install a 6-ft high vinyl fence in the 40-ft front setback to improve privacy and safety for their children near a rail trail and apartment complexes.
Speakers: Mike Kelly, Unidentified speaker
▶ 52:10 Variance Request: 2 Overlook Ave (6-ft Fence)
The applicant seeks a variance for a 6-ft fence in the 40-ft front setback to provide noise reduction and privacy on a corner lot near high-traffic Mammoth Road.
Speakers: Danielle Courtemanche, Unidentified speaker
▶ 1:11:45 Variance Deliberation
The Board deliberated on the specific dimensions of the proposed fence and whether the variance meets legal criteria regarding public interest, hardship, and character of the neighborhood.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
Controversy & dissent
Where the board, the community, or the agenda diverged.
Potentially controversial issues
01
18 Rossini Road Pool and Deck Variance
Direct opposition from neighbors (the Heggies) who cited concerns regarding privacy, property values, and the applicant's history of prior encroachments.
Board position: Granted the variance, determining the applicant met the legal criteria despite neighbor opposition.
medium concern
02
Front Setback Fence Variances (35 Sandborn Rd & 2 Overlook Ave)
Involves deviations from front yard setback requirements which can affect neighborhood character and street visibility/sightlines.
Board position: Granted both variances, prioritizing resident safety and privacy over strict setback adherence.
low concern
Community vs. board tension
Ready to share? AI-written accountability posts about this meeting's controversies.
View posts →
Notable statements
The variance would negatively impact privacy, property boundaries, and property values; the applicant has a pattern of prior encroachment. — Mark and Lori Heggie (via letter) · Opposition letter regarding the 18 Rossini Road pool request. ▶ 23:45
I do think that it would be for the safety of basically everyone in that to just have a fence. — Samantha Elliott · Testimony regarding the dangers of traffic and speeding in the neighborhood for children. ▶ 29:50
We live across the street from multiple large apartment complexes... we have about a dozen people who are walking out of their complex into the end of our yard smoking. — Mike Kelly · Explaining the need for privacy and safety for his children at 35 Sandborn Road. ▶ 1:08:20
I'd rather have it so that... [we] make sure we don't cut it too close because I'd rather have it so that [we don't] say the wrong dimension here. — Unidentified speaker · Discussing the precision of the setback measurements in the formal decision to avoid technical errors. ▶ 1:12:17
I ride a motorcycle... Getting out on that road is dangerous... coming off of the road is even worse. — Douglas · Testimony in favor of the 2 Overlook Ave fence, highlighting traffic dangers on Mammoth Road. ▶ 1:50:30
Public comment
What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
6
Total speakers
6
Addressed
0
Partial
0
Not addressed
Raymond D. Blevins IV
Addressed
The applicant is requesting a variance to install a permanent 18-ft above-ground pool and deck in his backyard. He argues that the lot layout and existing septic system make other locations impossible, and that the pool will meet all safety codes.
Key concern
Request for a variance to encroach 14 ft into the 15-ft rear setback for a pool and deck.
Board responseThe board asked several clarifying questions regarding the lot size, the placement of the house, and whether the pool could be placed in the front yard.
The board engaged in a lengthy discussion regarding the applicant's arguments and eventually voted to grant the variance.
Mark and Lori Heggie
Addressed
The neighbors formally oppose the variance, claiming it violates existing laws and diminishes their privacy and property value. They also noted a prior history of the applicant encroaching on the setback with a temporary pool.
Key concern
Opposition to the variance due to privacy, property value concerns, and perceived lack of hardship.
Board responseThe board read the letter into the record and then proceeded to deliberate on the five points of law, specifically addressing the issue of property value and uniqueness of the lot.
The board addressed the concerns within their deliberations and ultimately denied the opposition's request by granting the variance.
Mike Kelly
Addressed
The applicant is requesting a variance to install a 6-ft high vinyl fence in his front yard. He cites the need for safety and privacy for his young children due to the proximity of a rail trail and apartment complexes.
Key concern
Request for a variance to allow a 6-ft fence to encroach 11 ft into the 40-ft front setback.
Board responseThe board asked about the location of the apartment complexes and expressed concern regarding potential traffic visibility/sightlines.
The board discussed the safety and visibility concerns and voted to grant the variance.
Douglas
Addressed
A neighbor expressed support for the fence, noting that the street can be dangerous for motorcyclists and that the lot layout makes the corner feel like a 'fishbowl.' He also mentioned the benefits of a fence for pet safety.
Key concern
Support for the fence to increase privacy and safety for residents and pets.
Board responseThe board listened to the comments during the public hearing and considered them during deliberations.
The board's decision to grant the variance aligned with the sentiments of the supporters.
Samantha Elliott
Addressed
The applicant's sister spoke in favor of the fence, highlighting the danger of speeding cars and the need for a barrier to keep her children safe from the nearby traffic.
Key concern
Support for the fence due to child safety and noise reduction from passing traffic.
Board responseThe board listened to the comments and addressed the safety/traffic concerns during their deliberations.
The board granted the variance, effectively addressing the safety concerns raised.
Danielle Courtemanche
Addressed
The applicant requested a variance for a 6-ft fence to provide privacy and noise reduction due to being on a busy corner lot. She noted that the setback requirement would otherwise leave almost no usable yard space.
Key concern
Request for a variance to allow a 6-ft fence in the 40-ft front setback.
Board responseThe board asked about the line of sight/visibility at the corner and the exact distance of the fence from the street.
The board deliberated on the impact to visibility and the uniqueness of the corner lot and granted the variance.
Support coverage
Creating this report cost real money.
MeetingWatch attended, transcribed, and analyzed this meeting on its own dime. If this work is valuable to you, chip in to keep covering Londonderry.
Follow Londonderry
One email when a new report is published from the Zoning Board of Adjustment — or one weekly digest.
Report composed by
grok-4.3, gemma-4-26b, grok-4.20-0309-reasoning · analyzed 2026-06-02.