Pembroke resident Leah Graham’s hopes for a home addition hit a procedural speedbump Monday night as the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) insisted on a more rigorous legal argument for a proposed sideyard variance. Graham, seeking to build a 24-by-26-foot garage with an attached mudroom and bedroom at 153 Chapel Street, requested an 8-foot setback where 20 feet is required by town bylaws. Graham explained that as she and her husband prepare for their third child, they are desperate for space to remain in their hometown. All of our parents live in Pembroke, Graham told the board. We are trying to find a way to put an addition on here to hopefully make this work.

While sympathetic to the family's predicament, Chair Frederick Casavant IV maintained his characteristically strict interpretation of variance standards, noting that personal circumstances rarely meet the "hardship" criteria required by state law. There is a high standard for a variance and you're asking for an 8-foot setback where 20 feet is required, Casavant said. It is hard for us to grant it without you articulating why you'd be entitled by the standards in Chapter 40A and our bylaws. Give us something to hang our hat on. Vice Chair Christopher McGrail agreed, stating, I don't disagree, despite expressing empathy for the family's situation. Motion Made by F. Casavant to continue Case 7-25 to November 17th at 7:00 p.m. and extend decision deadlines by 30 days. Motion Passed (3-0-0).

The board found a more compelling legal hardship at 7 Riverside Drive, where Riverside LLC and Murphy Electric sought a 10-foot sideyard setback for a new 1,440-square-foot storage garage. Engineer Paul Louderback of M-E Engineers described the property as an odd-shaped triangular lot where the proposed placement is essential for operational safety. If the garage was within the 20 feet, trucks couldn't back into the loading dock safely, Louderback explained, noting the garage would replace unsightly shipping containers currently on site. Mark Pitts, representing Murphy Electric, added that the building would be purely storage with no offices, intended to harmonize with the existing building’s aesthetics.

Member David Lee, who scrutinized the site plan for alternatives, concluded that the lot's configuration left little choice. I was trying to see if there were alternative locations, but it doesn't seem to be, Lee noted. Chair Casavant agreed the industrial setting and lot shape justified the relief, provided the building is never converted into workspace. Motion Made by F. Casavant to approve Case 8-25 for a variance regarding the side setback with the condition that the building be used for storage only with no office space. Motion Passed (3-0-0).

In procedural business, the board cleared a backlog of records from the summer session. Motion Made by F. Casavant to approve the minutes of August 18, 2025. Motion Passed (3-0-0). Motion Made by F. Casavant to approve the minutes of August 26, 2025. Motion Passed (3-0-0).