Meeting report · Zoning Board of Adjustment
Creating this report cost real money.
Help fund coverage →
Zoning Board of Adjustment — March 17, 2026
The meeting featured significant organized public testimony covering multiple safety and environmental concerns, paired with critical questioning from the board toward the applicant.
Public impact
Issues from this meeting with documented community impact.
01
Zoning Variance for Multi-Family Housing in R2 District
Potential shift from single-family character to higher-density multi-family housing, impacting traffic, drainage, and property aesthetics. Affected: Nearby residents on River Street and Brown Court
zoning change
Decisions logged
Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Topics discussed
Click a topic to expand quotes and full context.
▶ 05:49 Introduction and Board Roll Call
Chair Robert Prior introduced the board members and noted that Adam Carter would participate in discussions but would be a non-voting member for this meeting.
Speakers: Robert Prior
▶ 09:36 Phillips Exeter Academy Variance Request
The board reviewed a request from Phillips Exeter Academy to merge two tax maps (72.99 and 8301) to create a ~49-acre lot and construct four townhouse-style residential units in an R2 district, seeking relief from setback requirements. Discussion also covered concerns over zoning (R2), campus access, vehicular/pedestrian traffic, and the architectural scale of the units.
Speakers: Robert Prior, Eli Leino, Corey Belden, Heather Taylor, Kevin Baum, Laura Davies, Unidentified speaker, Adam
▶ 12:50 Site Engineering and Environmental Conditions
Discussion regarding wetland delineation, flood zone elevations (noting a revision following the removal of the Great Dam), and the management of stormwater on the property.
Speakers: Corey Belden, Kevin Baum, Eli Leino
▶ 20:40 Architectural Scale and Neighborhood Character
The applicant presented plans for two-story buildings designed to resemble individual houses to mitigate density concerns and fit the residential character of the neighborhood.
Speakers: Heather Taylor, Robert Prior, Eli Leino
▶ 30:00 Variance Criteria Analysis: Public Interest and Hardship
The applicant argued the project serves the public interest by addressing the housing crunch and provides a buffer for the campus, while the board questioned the existence of a specific land hardship for a 50-acre lot. Board members discussed the legal definition of 'hardship' in the context of a variance, noting that institutional housing needs may not satisfy the requirement for property-specific hardship.
Speakers: Eli Leino, Robert Prior, Kevin Baum, Laura Davies, Unidentified speaker, Board Member
▶ 73:00 Public Comment on Development Impact
Local residents expressed concerns regarding drainage/flooding, increased traffic, lack of sidewalks, snow removal, and neighborhood density.
Speakers: Joe Fischer, Carolyn Lock, David, Lars Hollesman, John Proulx, Kui Waveru
Controversy & dissent
Where the board, the community, or the agenda diverged.
Potentially controversial issues
01
Phillips Exeter Academy Residential Variance Request
The proposal seeks to build high-density townhouse-style units in an R2 residential district. It pits institutional housing needs against neighborhood character, drainage concerns, and traffic safety.
Board position: Skeptical; the board questioned whether the institutional need for faculty housing met the legal definition of a 'property-specific hardship' required for a variance.
Internal dissent
While no formal split vote occurred due to the withdrawal, board members expressed significant hesitation regarding density and the legal validity of the hardship claim.
high concern
Community vs. board tension
Ready to share? AI-written accountability posts about this meeting's controversies.
View posts →
Action items
Who owes what, by when.
The project must undergo a formal site plan review and address specific planning board items such as pedestrian access (key fob/fencing) and snow storage/management.
Assigned: Phillips Exeter Academy / Applicant
Review property upkeep for the single-family home mentioned by board members
Assigned: The Academy
Notable statements
Each faculty member is required to do what they call 10 years of dorm duty... what that creates is an issue where when those folks retire from the school, they're not freeing up a space in the dorm. — Eli Leino · Explaining the institutional need for on-campus faculty housing. ▶ 55:20
The hardship here is that this is a piece of this campus that is incompatible for development for nearly anything else that the institution needs here. — Eli Leino · Defining the hardship required for the variance request. ▶ 70:07
I'm really struggling with... how we get to eight [units] when you look around the neighborhood and it just seems like... not you know at this scale. — Kevin Baum · Questioning the density of the proposed multi-family units in an R2 zone. ▶ 72:32
My concern about this development is with four driveways, roof lines, there's going to be a lot of lot water shed onto the street and a lot of that is going to go into my driveway. — Joe Fischer · Resident testimony regarding potential drainage issues and flooding. ▶ 75:45
Hardship is created by special conditions of the property. It is not the conditions of saying we don't have enough housing. — Board Member · Clarifying the legal standard for granting a zoning variance. ▶ 86:00
Member positions
3 issues · 0 explicit · 6 inferred
Robert Prior
Present
Chair
Phillips Exeter Academy Residential Variance Request
✓
Skeptical regarding the legal definition of land hardship for the project.
Withdrawal of the housing application
YES
~
Approval of January 2026 meeting minutes
YES
~
Laura Davies
Present
Vice Chair
Phillips Exeter Academy Residential Variance Request
✓
Questioned whether the proposal met the legal requirements for a variance.
Withdrawal of the housing application
YES
~
Approval of January 2026 meeting minutes
YES
~
Kevin Baum
Present
Member
Phillips Exeter Academy Residential Variance Request
✓
Concerned about the density of multi-family units in an R2 zone.
Withdrawal of the housing application
YES
~
Approval of January 2026 meeting minutes
YES
~
Positions marked ~ are inferred from context and may not reflect the member's explicitly stated position.
Public comment
What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
7
Total speakers
2
Addressed
1
Partial
4
Not addressed
Carolyn Lock
Addressed
She expressed enjoyment of the existing property across the street and believes it is a wonderful space for dogs and walking. She stated that the area is not an eyesore and asked for clarification regarding the use of the gate at the end of River Street.
Key concern
General support for the current state of the property and curiosity about gate usage.
Board responseA board member clarified that the gate is generally used for maintenance and lawn work.
The board directly answered her specific question about the purpose of the gate.
David
Addressed
He noted he is a neighbor on River Street and inquired about the legal definition of 'hardship' required for a variance. He suggested the applicant's need for faculty housing might be a personal need rather than a property-specific hardship.
Key concern
Whether the institutional need for housing qualifies as a legal hardship for the specific lot.
Board responseThe board explained that hardship must arise from the special conditions of the property itself, not the needs of the owner/institution, and noted that housing shortages do not impact the variance decision.
The board provided a legal clarification regarding the definition of hardship in the context of a variance.
Lar Holzesm
Not addressed
He argued that the proposed development is not in the spirit of the neighborhood. He noted that recent local developments have focused on high-quality single-family homes, which differs from the current proposal.
Key concern
The proposal does not match the character and developmental direction of the neighborhood.
The board acknowledged the comment as 'interesting' but did not provide a substantive response or decision regarding the neighborhood character.
John Proulx
Partial
Speaking on behalf of Brandon Tetler, he questioned what other options the applicant explored and raised concerns regarding density and setbacks. He also mentioned potential impacts on snow removal and traffic.
Key concern
Lack of exploration of alternatives, high density, and impact on setbacks and local infrastructure.
Board responseA board member noted that the board must deal with the specific application before them, not alternative proposals not included in the application.
The board responded to the point about alternative proposals by stating they are limited to the current application, but did not address the specific density or snow removal concerns.
Kui Waveru
Not addressed
She expressed concern regarding overdevelopment in a small space, specifically citing issues with traffic and street width in Brown Court. She voiced worries about the safety of children and pets in a high-density environment.
Key concern
Overdevelopment leading to safety issues, traffic congestion, and loss of neighborhood peace.
The board did not provide a specific response to her concerns before the meeting proceeded to a motion to withdraw.
Unidentified speaker
Not addressed
She shared the history of the property and argued that the proposed four units per side are overwhelming for the area. She suggested a compromise of two units per side to be more respectful of the existing neighborhood scale.
Key concern
The scale of the development is too large for the area and suggests a smaller-scale compromise.
The board acknowledged the comments but did not address the suggestion for a compromise or the scale concerns.
Unidentified speaker
Not addressed
The speaker thanked the board for their thoughtful questions and thanked the neighbors for their participation.
Key concern
Expression of gratitude.
This was a closing statement of appreciation rather than a concern requiring a response.
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 Exeter.
Follow Exeter
One email when a new report is published from the Zoning Board of Adjustment — or one weekly digest.
Report composed by
gemma-4-26b · analyzed 2026-05-31.