MeetingWatch
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 — March 10, 2026

While the board remained unified, the presence of organized abutter testimony regarding shared water safety and legal covenants created a high-stakes atmosphere.

Date Tuesday, March 10, 2026 Public comments 1 Decisions 4 Contentious
📄 Agenda 📄 Minutes

Public ⁠impact

Issues from this meeting with documented community impact.
01

Boyajian Property Septic and Addition

Potential risk to shared water infrastructure and alteration of neighborhood character via non-conforming additions. Affected: Immediate abutters (Snyders and Sanderson) regarding shared resources and property aesthetics.
zoning change

Decisions ⁠logged

Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Approval of February 10, 2026, meeting minutes.
Motion made by J. Fenster, seconded by W. Hess.
3-Yes, 0-No, 1-Abstention
Continuation of Case # 519-02-01.
Hearing continued until the May 12, 2026, meeting to allow for NHDES plan re-submission.
4-0
Approval of variances for Case # 520-02-02.
The board granted requested variances for septic replacement and a cottage addition, finding the request met all five required criteria including public interest and hardship.
4-0
Adjournment of meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 7:15 P.M.
4-0
45:00

Topics ⁠discussed

Click a topic to expand quotes and full context.
Approval of Minutes

The board reviewed and voted on the approval of the meeting minutes from February 10, 2026.

Speakers: J. Fenster, W. Hess
Case # 519-02-01 (The Boulders, LLC)

An application for variances to allow three replacement septic systems within specific setbacks was discussed. The applicant requested a continuation due to NHDES requiring a change from an AOS system to a crushed stone system.

Speakers: Kyle Worth, J. Rude-Wyatt, J. Fenster
Case # 520-02-02 (Boyajian Property)

A public hearing regarding variances for a septic system replacement and a 176 sq. ft. addition to a non-conforming cottage. Abutters raised concerns regarding restrictive covenants, vegetative clearing, and potential damage to a shared water supply well.

Speakers: Kevin Hardt, J. Rude-Wyatt, David Snyders, Margaret Snyders, Mary Sanderson, W. Hess

Controversy & ⁠dissent

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

Potentially controversial issues

01

Boyajian Property Variances (Case # 520-02-02)

Abutters raised significant concerns regarding the violation of restrictive covenants, land alteration (vegetative clearing), and the physical risk to a shared water supply well during construction.
Board position: The board granted all requested variances, finding the applicant met all five required legal criteria.
high concern

Community vs. board tension

Action ⁠items

Who owes what, by when.
Re-submit septic plans to NHDES for a crushed stone system and potentially obtain nitrate easements from NHDOT.
Assigned: Kyle Worth (The Boulders, LLC) · Due: May 12, 2026

Notable ⁠statements

The well needs to be located or noted that it is beyond the required septic setbacks. — W. Hess · Addressing abutters' concerns regarding the proximity of the proposed septic system to a shared water supply well.

Public ⁠comment

What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
1
Total speakers
0
Addressed
1
Partial
0
Not addressed
David & Margaret Snyders and Mary Sanderson (by proxy)
Partial
The neighbors cited restrictive covenants regarding property appearance, enlargement, and vegetation clearing. They also expressed concerns about heavy equipment potentially damaging the shared water supply well and lines, noting the submitted plans lacked the well's location. Key concern
Potential violation of restrictive covenants and damage to the shared water supply/well during construction.
Board response
Member W. Hess stated that the well needs to be located or noted as being beyond the required septic setbacks.
The board acknowledged the concern regarding the well's location by noting it must be identified or verified to be outside the setback, but they did not address the specific concerns regarding restrictive covenants or vegetation clearing.

Accountability ⁠flags

Documented procedural gaps. Each item links to its source.

Agenda items not discussed

Topics discussed — not on agenda

Transcript vs. official minutes

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 Holderness.

Report composed by gemma-4-26b, grok-4.3, claude-opus-4-7 · analyzed 2026-05-28.