Your area Not set — showing everywhere
Meeting report · Zoning Board of Adjustment
Creating this report cost real money. Help fund coverage →

Zoning Board of Adjustment — June 16, 2026

Amherst ZBA denies controversial lot unmerger and pauses massive gravel pit project pending independent environmental review.

The meeting featured spirited testimony from neighbors and legal representatives, particularly regarding privacy rights and environmental protections.

Date Tuesday, June 16, 2026 Duration 5.8h Speakers 1 Public comments 6 Decisions 8 Spirited

Questions about this meeting? ⁠Just ask.

Ask MeetingWatch answers from this meeting’s report, transcript, and records — with linked sources.

Summary AI-generated to surface controversy & community impact without bias — always verify against the actual meeting before relying on it.

During the June 16th Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting, two high-stakes issues highlighted the tension between development interests and community protections in Amherst.

First, the Board denied a variance request for 2 Track Way that would have unmerged two lots for a new home. This decision was a significant win for local abutters, who testified that the existing lot merger was essential to protecting their privacy and property values. The Board ultimately found that the application failed to meet the statutory requirements for unnecessary hardship and public interest.

Second, the Board took a cautious approach to a large-scale gravel pit reclamation project involving 160 acres. While the applicant argued the project was necessary for stormwater management, the Amherst Conservation Commission and local residents raised alarms about potential risks to the local aquifer and the Witches Brook watershed. Rather than taking the applicant's word at face value, the Board voted to continue the hearing until they can hire an independent environmental expert to conduct a technical review.

These decisions show a Board grappling with significant community pressure to prioritize evidence and neighbor rights over development requests. The gravel pit hearing is scheduled to continue on July 21st.

Jun 16, 2026 5.8h long 1 speakers 6 public comments 8 decisions Spirited
Notable statements Drag to browse

“If the board does agree with me with this initial position, I would ask that the board... take a motion and take a vote on that, that a variance is not needed in the first instance.”

— Laura Gandia · Arguing that the original subdivision plan's provisions for smaller lots were still valid/vested. ▶ 07:58

“We were told by the seller that the land behind our property could not have a home built on it, and therefore no residence would be located there.”

— David Rampello · Explaining why they designed their home with extensive glass and why the unmerger impacts their privacy. ▶ 57:13

“The merger states, 'Henceforth, the above two lots of land shall, for all purposes, be considered a single lot and shall not be sold separately...'”

— Guav Perotti · Arguing against the variance by citing the recorded legal language of the 2016 lot merger. ▶ 48:29

“Variances really do not establish precedent.”

— Sam Foisie · Responding to a board question about whether approving this request would lead to a domino effect of other subdivisions. ▶ 1:20:03

“The variance is for the unmerger.”

— Board Member · Defining the specific nature of the relief being requested. ▶ 1:57:14

“The ACC advises ZBA not to grant a variance to the applicant. In our view, the criteria for the variance are not met.”

— Jared Hardner · Reading the official recommendation from the Amherst Conservation Commission to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. ▶ 2:58:05

“I'm not digging holes on property, next to property, grading to the property... I'm asking to grade, loam, and seed next to the roadway, wherever the contours require that to be done.”

— John O'Neil · Clarifying the intent of the 50-foot buffer variance request to the board and audience. ▶ 2:30:09

“If it's 50 feet, it's 25 feet, how can we assure that they will actually abide by it?”

— Steve Nelson · An abutter expressing distrust in the developer's ability to respect buffer zones based on past experiences. ▶ 3:18:58

“Talk about hardship, I mean, hardship for all the residents in our residential area.”

— Michael McLaughlin · Resident expressing concerns about the impact of construction and loam removal on the neighborhood. ▶ 3:21:12

“I'm not doing this because I want to go and spend money moving 25,000 yards of loam. I cannot discharge through an erosive soil that has no loam and no stabilization in that buffer.”

— Applicant (Tanner Properties) · Justifying the necessity of the proposed grading and loam reallocation for environmental stability. ▶ 3:26:31

“Our goal is to keep the now multi-generational family close together on land that they have owned for 33 years.”

— Sarah Zahl · Explaining the personal and familial motivation for the subdivision request. ▶ 4:12:58

“The 10-acre parent parcel requirement is intended to limit the proliferation of back lots and prevent overcrowding. However, when applied to this property, strict enforcement does not meaningfully advance those objectives.”

— Unidentified speaker · Arguing against the literal application of the acreage ordinance for the subdivision. ▶ 4:23:49

“I've lived on Chestnut Hill for 68 of my 70 years... I'm just saying, it's a family thing, and we need that [pavilion] for the sun and the elements.”

— Earl Sanford · Providing testimony regarding the historical use of the land and the personal/recreational need for the pavilion. ▶ 5:19:22

“We can't give you a variance for not knowing how much it's going to be.”

— Unidentified speaker · Addressing the applicant's inability to provide specific dimensions during the hearing. ▶ 5:45:44

“The purposes of the ordinance are to preserve and enhance the rural, open character of the town... and to prevent unsightly development along these routes.”

— Unidentified speaker · Reminding the applicant and the board of the legal criteria used to evaluate setback variances. ▶ 5:36:59
This meeting — choose a section

Public ⁠impact

Issues from this meeting with documented community impact.
What was discussed

Potential creation of a new non-conforming residential lot in a previously merged area.

What happened

The board denied the variance.

What was discussed

Modification of protected wetland buffers and significant grading on a 160-acre site.

What happened

The hearing was continued to allow for an independent environmental expert review.

Topics ⁠discussed

Each topic expands to quotes and full context.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

The Chair opened the meeting, apologized for previous delays due to board vacancies, and introduced new members to the board.

What happened

The board was confirmed as full and ready to proceed with the agenda.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker, Andy Pataki, Chris Goodrich, Laura Gandia, Steve Braff, Board Member (unnamed), Guav Perotti, David Rampello, Chrissy Devries, Sam Foisie
What was discussed

The applicants requested a variance to unmerge two lots at 2 Track Way to allow for a new single-family residence. Neighbors and a developer's representative debated the request to create two non-conforming lots for residential development.

What happened

The hearing was held with extensive testimony from both the applicant and the abutters. The Board conducted a five-part legal test and voted to deny the variance, finding that it failed to meet criteria regarding public interest, spirit of the ordinance, substantial justice, and unnecessary hardship.

Speakers: John Mills, Speaker A (John O'Neil), Jared Hardner, Cameron Price, Barbara Staffy, Dwight Taylor, Steve Nelson, Deb Cue, Michael McLaughlin, Applicant (Tanner Properties)
What was discussed

A request for relief to perform grading, reclamation, and water quality improvements within a wetland and watershed conservation district, including modifications to protected wetland buffers and stormwater management features.

What happened

The hearing commenced with a board member recusing themselves. The segment ended during the public comment period. The Board decided to continue the hearing to allow for an independent technical review.

Speakers: Sarah Zahl, Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

An application by Sarah Zahl to subdivide a 7.65-acre triangular parcel into two lots to build a single-family home, requesting variances regarding a 10-acre parent parcel requirement, reduced lot frontage, and driveway separation requirements.

What happened

The applicant began presenting the criteria for the various requested variances. The Board voted unanimously to approve the variances with conditions.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Request to install a 10x8 Reeds Ferry shed with a minor encroachment into a 20-foot setback due to steep terrain.

What happened

The Board voted unanimously to approve the variance.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker, Earl Sanford
What was discussed

Request to install a pre-constructed pavilion 75 feet from the highway, whereas 100 feet is required.

What happened

The topic was discussed, but no final vote was recorded as the discussion was ongoing. The Board determined they did not have sufficient, consistent information to grant a variance.

Controversy & ⁠dissent

Where the board, the community, or the agenda diverged.

Potentially controversial issues

01

Variance Request: PZ2000-111025 (Braff Family Revocable Trust) - Lot Unmerger

The request to unmerge lots for residential development pits developer interests against neighbors who claim their property privacy and values were guaranteed by the original lot merger.
Board position: Denied the variance, finding it failed to meet statutory criteria including public interest and unnecessary hardship.
high concern
02

Gravel Pit Reclamation and Wetland/Watershed Buffer Variance (PZ20014-021826)

A large-scale reclamation project involves significant earth movement near sensitive watersheds, raising concerns from the Conservation Commission and residents regarding water quality, aquifer safety, and self-created hardship.
Board position: Continued the hearing to allow for an independent technical review by an environmental expert.
high concern

Community vs. board tension

Public ⁠comment

What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
6
Total speakers
6
Addressed
0
Partial
0
Not addressed
Laura Gandia
Addressed
Representing the applicants, she argues that a variance is not needed because the lots were part of a vested open space subdivision that allowed for smaller lot sizes. She contends that the proposed unmerger aligns with the original spirit of the subdivision and meets all five variance criteria. Key concern
Requesting a variance to unmerge two lots to allow for a single-family residence, arguing the existing two-acre requirement is inapplicable due to the original subdivision plan.
Board response
The board asked several clarifying questions regarding the reason for the original merger, the smallest lots in the neighborhood, and the definition of hardship.
The board engaged in an extensive question-and-answer session covering all legal criteria presented by the attorney.
Guav Perotti
Addressed
Representing the Rampella family, the attorney argues that the subdivision would create two non-conforming lots and violates the town's intent to preserve rural character. He also notes that the lot merger was a 'quid pro quo' for significant tax savings that should not be reversed. Key concern
Opposition to the variance on the grounds of preserving zoning integrity, public interest, and preventing a loss of tax revenue and property privacy.
Board response
The board listened to the presentation; however, during deliberations, the board members largely disagreed with his assessment of the criteria.
The board heard the full legal argument and addressed the specific points (taxes, non-conformity, and privacy) during their deliberation phase.
David Rampello
Addressed
As an abutter, he explains that he purchased his home based on explicit assurances from the town and developers that no residence would ever be built behind him. He emphasizes that his home's design, including floor-to-ceiling windows, relies heavily on this promised privacy. Key concern
Loss of privacy and diminution of property value caused by a new residence being built directly behind his home.
Board response
The board provided time for him to speak and heard his testimony regarding his reliance on town information and his specific property challenges.
The board acknowledged the privacy concerns and discussed them during the criteria evaluation.
Chrissy Devries
Addressed
An abutter who expresses concern over the precedent this sets and the potential for increased density. She also mentions feeling threatened by statements made by the applicant regarding clearing the lot and finds the lack of neighborly warning regarding surveyors alarming. Key concern
The long-term implications of reversing established subdivision layouts and the impact on neighborhood character and investment.
Board response
The board listened to her testimony as part of the public hearing process.
Her concerns regarding the precedent and the character of the neighborhood were addressed during the board's deliberation.
Sam Foisie
Addressed
Speaking as a resident (and son of the developer), he supports the variance, stating the lots are conforming under the original vested open space subdivision. He argues that the proposed unmerger simply returns the land to its original intended use and engineering state. Key concern
Supporting the approval of the variance by arguing that the lots are not non-conforming and that the application meets all legal requirements.
Board response
The board listened to his technical explanation regarding the subdivision's engineering and density.
The board incorporated his arguments regarding the 'open space' status into their discussion of the criteria.
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
The applicant's representative provides a technical overview of a phase four development involving earth removal and reclamation. He argues that the variance is necessary to implement best management practices for water quality and to stabilize sandy, erosive soils. Key concern
Requesting a variance to enter the Wetland and Watershed Conservation District to implement reclamation, grading, and stormwater management projects.
Board response
The board (with one member recusing) listened to the technical presentation and engineering details.
The board heard the presentation regarding the public interest and the technical necessity of the work.

Decisions ⁠logged

Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Denial of variance application PZ20000-111025 (Lot Unmerger)
The board found the application failed to meet the required statutory criteria, specifically regarding public interest, the spirit of the ordinance, substantial justice, and the lack of proven unnecessary hardship.
Denied
Motion to close public hearing for PZ20000-111025 and enter deliberation
The board moved from the public hearing phase into private deliberation.
Approved
Motion to continue the gravel removal/environmental buffer hearing to allow for expert review and to the next meeting.
The board voted to continue the hearing to July 21st to seek third-party environmental expertise.
Passed (Unanimous)
Motion to continue the gravel removal/environmental buffer hearing to July 21st in the Barbara Landy room.
A formal motion was made and seconded to reschedule the hearing for July 21st.
Passed (Unanimous)
Approval of variances for the subdivision of the 7.65-acre parcel (including frontage and driveway separation).
Approval is subject to condition that the driveway is reviewed and approved by the fire department for safety/access standards.
5-0 (Unanimous)
Approval of setback variance for a Reeds Ferry shed at 2 Nathan Lord Road.
Approval granted for the shed encroachment (noting specific corner measurements) provided it meets residential standards.
Unanimous
Motion to continue the pavilion variance case to the next meeting.
The case was continued until July 24th in the same location (Barbara Landry's room).
Unanimous (Aye)
Motion to adjourn the meeting.
The meeting was adjourned following the decision to continue the case.
Unanimous (Aye)

Share ⁠this report

Drafts ready to post — click a block to copy, or use Share to post it.

X / Twitter — by angle

Community concerns being upheld
At the 6/16 ZBA meeting, the Board denied a request to unmerge lots at 2 Track Way. Neighbors argued the merger was vital for their privacy and property values. The Board found the request failed to meet legal criteria for... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/amherst/zoning-board-of-adjustment/2026-06-16/ #MeetingWatch #AmherstNH
325/280 chars
Prioritizing evidence over applicant claims
The ZBA is pausing the 160-acre gravel pit reclamation project until they can hire an independent environmental expert. Residents and the Conservation Commission raised serious doubts about aquifer safety and whether the... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/amherst/zoning-board-of-adjustment/2026-06-16/ #MeetingWatch #AmherstNH
323/280 chars
Board refusal to accept inadequate information
Transparency check: The Amherst ZBA continued the Chestnut Hill Road pavilion hearing because the applicant provided inconsistent info on dimensions and setbacks. The Board refused to grant a variance based on incomplete data... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/amherst/zoning-board-of-adjustment/2026-06-16/ #MeetingWatch #AmherstNH
328/280 chars

X thread

1
The June 16 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting in Amherst saw high tension over two major issues: residential privacy and watershed protection. Here is what you need to know about how the Board handled these contentious cases. 🧵 #MeetingWatch #AmherstNH
253/280
2
First, the Board denied a variance to unmerge lots at 2 Track Way. Neighbors testified that they bought their homes based on the assurance that the land behind them was non-buildable. The Board ruled the request didn't meet the legal standard for hardship.
256/280
3
Second, the massive 160-acre gravel pit reclamation project is on hold. Despite the applicant's claims, the Conservation Commission and residents voiced distrust regarding water quality and aquifer safety. The Board is now seeking an independent expert review.
260/280
4
The takeaway: In these major cases, the Board is being forced to weigh developer interests against specific community concerns regarding property values and environmental safety. The next big hearing is July 21st. Stay informed. https://meetingwatch.org/nh/amherst/zoning-board-of-adjustment/2026-06-16/
252/280

Facebook — long form

During the June 16th Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting, two high-stakes issues highlighted the tension between development interests and community protections in Amherst.

First, the Board denied a variance request for 2 Track Way that would have unmerged two lots for a new home. This decision was a significant win for local abutters, who testified that the existing lot merger was essential to protecting their privacy and property values. The Board ultimately found that the application failed to meet the statutory requirements for unnecessary hardship and public interest.

Second, the Board took a cautious approach to a large-scale gravel pit reclamation project involving 160 acres. While the applicant argued the project was necessary for stormwater management, the Amherst Conservation Commission and local residents raised alarms about potential risks to the local aquifer and the Witches Brook watershed. Rather than taking the applicant's word at face value, the Board voted to continue the hearing until they can hire an independent environmental expert to conduct a technical review.

These decisions show a Board grappling with significant community pressure to prioritize evidence and neighbor rights over development requests. The gravel pit hearing is scheduled to continue on July 21st. https://meetingwatch.org/nh/amherst/zoning-board-of-adjustment/2026-06-16/ #MeetingWatch #AmherstNH

Action ⁠items

Who owes what, by when.
Identify and hire an environmental expert/specialist to review the gravel removal and stormwater management plans.
Assigned: Zoning Board / Town Engineer · Due: By the July 21st meeting
Provide an estimate for the cost of the environmental expert review if required by the town.
Assigned: Applicant (Tanner Properties) · Due: TBD
Submit driveway plans to the Planning Board and Fire Department for review and approval regarding width, length, and turnaround requirements.
Assigned: Applicant · Due: Prior to building permit
Continue the hearing for the Chestnut Hill Road pavilion application at the next meeting.
Assigned: Board/Staff · Due: 2026-07-21
Provide updated drawings and precise dimensions for the pavilion, including the exact setback distance, the structure's height, and the location/impact of the exterior fireplace.
Assigned: Applicant · Due: 2026-07-24

Member ⁠positions

0 issues · 0 explicit · 0 inferred

Positions marked ~ are inferred from context and may not reflect the member's explicitly stated position. UNCLEAR means the vote was split but the record did not name how this member voted — it is not a “yes.”

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 Amherst.

Report composed by grok-4.3, gemma-4-26b, grok-4.20-0309-reasoning, grok-4-fast · analyzed 2026-06-22.