Zoning Board of Adjustment — June 16, 2026

Board members identified clarifications needed on lines referencing attorney statements and public submissions; discussed whether to verify audio for exact wording on 'specious' and late documents received at the prior hearings.

Minutes of April 21 approved 5-0 as amended; minutes of May 19 approved 4-0 as amended.

Members expressed concern that the board lacked adequate time to review the applicant's appraisal and abutter letter before the April 21 hearing, potentially violating procedural rules on providing documents in advance; attorney commentary and rules sections 19-21 were examined to assess if technical error occurred.

Motion to grant rehearing approved; case will be reheard in full at the next available meeting without prejudice.

Full rehearing scheduled for next available ZBA meeting.

Applicant cited RSA 674:33 I-a and planning board delays due to litigation and permitting; board examined whether the variance had technically expired and the effect of the six-month post-resolution window.

Extension approved to October 10, 2027.

Applicant argued the proposal reduces nonconformity by replacing seven units with five new units, improves driveway safety and aesthetics, and meets variance criteria; board questioned lot coverage increase, historic status, removal of rental units, and whether nonconformity is truly reduced. Board questioned lot coverage delta (existing vs. proposed), substantial justice argument (economic viability vs. removing rentals in tight market), parking/driveway specs, and whether project exceeds 25% max building coverage on ~37k sq ft lot. Applicant claimed compliance but admitted no calculations performed. Multiple neighbors objected to doubled footprint/density, loss of affordable rentals, traffic, environmental impacts, and deviation from R2 single-family character.

Public hearing opened; board expressed discomfort approving without lot coverage/open space data; applicant requested continuance to supply formal calculations.

Application continued to next month's meeting for lot coverage analysis and any required additional variances.

Applicant described site access via Holland Way, wetland minimization, lead cleanup commitment, water/sewer coordination, fiscal/traffic impacts, and argued compliance with growth management ordinance, minimal traffic impact vs. permitted uses, tax revenue (~$1.3M), and open space preservation. Board and public raised concerns over single dead-end access (700+ ft), water/sewer capacity amid ongoing restrictions, school/traffic impacts, loss of future commercial land, neighborhood character, and emergency access. Applicant argued most issues (traffic, sewer, water, schools) are planning board matters, residential use is compatible, and no special hardship needed. Board evaluated the five variance criteria, focusing on public interest/spirit of ordinance (criteria 1-2) and unnecessary hardship (criterion 5); significant concerns raised about altering neighborhood character, single ingress/egress safety, traffic impact (1574 weekday trips), and lack of special property conditions preventing CT development. Chair expressed doubt that criteria 1, 2, and 5 were met; noted remediation benefit but lack of soil studies; board agreed property could be developed commercially (e.g., hotel or offices) and no hardship exists simply because it has remained vacant.

Public hearing opened after non-public session; hearing closed after testimony; consensus formed that application fails criteria 1, 2, and 5; motion to deny passed.

Applicant rebuttal and board deliberation/vote on variance criteria at future continued hearing (none needed after denial).

Prior offered to remain chair; Davies declined chair but accepted vice chair; Olson-Murphy agreed to continue as clerk.

Slate approved unanimously.