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 25, 2026

The meeting was largely routine, characterized by standard procedural votes and constructive engagement with the applicant, despite a spirited debate over a single variance application.

Date Thursday, June 25, 2026 Duration 1.1h Speakers 13 Public comments 2 Decisions 4 Routine

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 25 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting, a significant discussion took place regarding the future of zoning ordinances in Hollis. While the meeting included standard business, the board spent considerable time discussing the high legal bar for proving 'hardship'—a distinction that determines whether a property owner can be granted a variance.

The board noted that current zoning gaps, specifically regarding how driveways are placed, often lead to setback encroachment issues. To address this, the board is planning a joint session with the Planning Board this fall (likely September or October) to review formal proposals and ensure local ordinances align with recent state-level legislative changes.

These are not just procedural updates; these discussions could lead to new rules governing how residents utilize their land and how much flexibility is allowed for property improvements. We will continue to monitor the development of these formal proposals as they are drafted for the fall session.

Jun 25, 2026 1.1h long 13 speakers 2 public comments 4 decisions Routine
Notable statements Drag to browse

“The variance is not de minimis; you are asking for less than a third of the required setback.”

— Unidentified speaker · Arguing against the granting of the variance based on the scale of the encroachment. ▶ 36:52

“If there was regulation that prevented the driveway from being installed in the side setback, it would be more central to the lot.”

— Unidentified speaker · Suggesting that current zoning gaps regarding driveway placement contribute to setback issues. ▶ 55:18

“We would ask that if there are any proposals that they'd be drafted out to bring to the board so we have something on paper to discuss.”

— Unidentified speaker · Regarding the proposed joint session with the Planning Board. ▶ 57:32

“It's not an emergency, but we'd like to have the ordinance basically follow state law now.”

— Unidentified speaker · Discussing the need to update ordinances in light of state-level changes. ▶ 1:00:12
This meeting — choose a section

Public ⁠impact

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

Potential changes to how setbacks and hardships are defined and regulated.

What happened

The board expressed interest in a future work session to clarify these standards and potentially hold a joint session with the Planning Board.

Topics ⁠discussed

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

A request for a side yard setback variance to construct a detached 24x32 garage.

What happened

The application was denied because the board found the applicant failed to demonstrate a legal hardship.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

A discussion on the legal definition of hardship and the potential for future ordinance changes.

What happened

The board expressed interest in a future work session to clarify these standards.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

The board reviewed and moved to accept the minutes from the May 28 meeting.

What happened

The minutes were accepted, with one member noting an abstention.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Planning for a collaborative session to discuss zoning ordinance proposals.

What happened

The board agreed in principle to a joint session in the Fall, provided there are formal proposals to review. The meeting will likely be scheduled for the September/October timeframe.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

A proposal was introduced to move the board's meeting start time from 7:00 PM to 6:00 PM.

What happened

The topic was tabled for further discussion at the next meeting.

Controversy & ⁠dissent

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

Potentially controversial issues

01

Variance Application: 25 Coburn Lane Garage

The application involved a significant request for a 15-foot relief from side yard setbacks, which the board debated against the legal requirement to prove a 'hardship' rather than mere personal convenience.
Board position: Denied the application because the applicant failed to demonstrate a legal hardship.
Internal dissent
While the final outcome was a denial, board members engaged in a spirited debate regarding whether the site's topographical constraints and existing septic systems constituted a legal hardship or if the request was driven by personal preference.
medium concern

Public ⁠comment

What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
2
Speakers
3
Comments
3
Addressed
0
Partial
0
Not addressed
Chris Crump
Addressed
Representing the homeowners, Mr. Crump requested a side yard variance to construct a detached 24x32 garage. He argued that the existing septic system and topography make other locations on the property unfeasible. Key concern
Request for a 15-foot relief on the side setback to allow for a standard-sized garage.
Board response
The board engaged in an extensive question-and-answer session regarding the hardship, site scale, and septic implications, but ultimately denied the variance.
The board thoroughly interrogated the applicant's request and provided a formal decision, even though the decision was a denial.
John Mullen
Addressed
As the homeowner, Mr. Mullen explained that the current garage is too small and lacks proper storage for their family needs. He stated that the new garage would provide a much-needed mudroom and accommodate growing children. Key concern
The need for more functional storage and better living space due to the inadequacy of the existing garage.
Board response
Board members listened to his explanation of the personal hardship, though they remained divided on whether it met the legal standard for a variance.
The board acknowledged his testimony during their deliberations regarding the personal necessity of the project.
Chris Crump
Addressed
Inquiring about the legal process for challenging or appealing the Board's decision. Key concern
What is the process for appealing or reporting a decision if they are unhappy with the outcome?
Board response
A board member offered to provide a business card so the applicant could reach out directly.
The board provided a direct answer and a method for follow-up.

Decisions ⁠logged

Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Motion to find no regional impact for the current case.
The board found no regional impact regarding the variance application.
Passed (Unanimous)
Denial of variance application for 25 Coburn Lane (Case 2026-3).
The application failed because the board determined the applicant did not demonstrate a legal hardship.
Denied
Approval of May 28 meeting minutes.
Minutes were approved, with Rick MacMillan abstaining as he was not present at the previous meeting.
Passed
Adjournment of the meeting.
Motion to adjourn was made by a speaker and seconded.
Approved

Share ⁠this report

Drafts ready to post — click any block to copy.

X / Twitter — by angle

Future zoning changes and their impact on property owners
At the June 25 Zoning Board meeting, members discussed significant potential changes to hardship definitions and driveway regulations. These updates could fundamentally change how property owners in Hollis are permitted to use their land... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/hollis/zoning-board-of-adjustment/2026-06-25/ #MeetingWatch
328/280 chars
The legal interpretation of 'hardship' in variance decisions
Hollis Zoning Board denied a variance for 25 Coburn Lane on 6/25. The debate centered on whether topographical constraints count as a 'legal hardship' or if the request was merely for personal convenience. This distinction affects all... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/hollis/zoning-board-of-adjustment/2026-06-25/ #MeetingWatch
325/280 chars
Upcoming collaborative sessions that will shape town ordinances
The Hollis Zoning Board is planning a joint session with the Planning Board this fall to review ordinance proposals and state-level changes. Residents should watch for these proposals to see how local rules will be reshaped. #HollisNH... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/hollis/zoning-board-of-adjustment/2026-06-25/ #MeetingWatch
325/280 chars

X thread

1
Hollis Zoning Board meeting update (June 25): The board is moving toward significant shifts in how land use and 'hardships' are defined in our town. Here is what residents need to know about upcoming changes. 🧵 #MeetingWatch #HollisNH
234/280
2
During the 6/25 meeting, the board discussed the difficulty of meeting the high legal bar for 'hardship' in variance requests. They also noted that current gaps in driveway regulations may be driving future setback issues. 🏘️
225/280
3
The board is now planning a joint session with the Planning Board for Sept/Oct to review new ordinance proposals and align with recent state law changes. This could fundamentally change how you can build or modify property in Hollis. Stay tuned. 📢 https://meetingwatch.org/nh/hollis/zoning-board-of-adjustment/2026-06-25/
271/280

Facebook — long form

During the June 25 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting, a significant discussion took place regarding the future of zoning ordinances in Hollis. While the meeting included standard business, the board spent considerable time discussing the high legal bar for proving 'hardship'—a distinction that determines whether a property owner can be granted a variance.

The board noted that current zoning gaps, specifically regarding how driveways are placed, often lead to setback encroachment issues. To address this, the board is planning a joint session with the Planning Board this fall (likely September or October) to review formal proposals and ensure local ordinances align with recent state-level legislative changes.

These are not just procedural updates; these discussions could lead to new rules governing how residents utilize their land and how much flexibility is allowed for property improvements. We will continue to monitor the development of these formal proposals as they are drafted for the fall session. https://meetingwatch.org/nh/hollis/zoning-board-of-adjustment/2026-06-25/ #MeetingWatch #HollisNH

Action ⁠items

Who owes what, by when.
Continue research into a potential drainage easement on the subject property.
Assigned: Kevin Anderson (Town Planner)
Draft zoning ordinance proposals for the proposed joint session with the Planning Board.
Assigned: Zoning Board Members · Due: September/October 2026
Compile and disseminate any written ideas, concepts, or draft language for zoning proposals to the board.
Assigned: a speaker · Due: Prior to the proposed Fall joint meeting
Confirm if all board members (specifically mentioning Stan) have signed their appointments.
Assigned: a speaker · Due: Next meeting

Member ⁠positions

3 issues · 0 explicit · 12 inferred
Brian Major
Chair
Present
Motion to find no regional impact for the current case. YES ~
Denial of variance application for 25 Coburn Lane (Case 2026-3). NO ~
Approval of May 28 meeting minutes. YES ~
Jim Belanger
Vice Chair
Present
Motion to find no regional impact for the current case. YES ~
Denial of variance application for 25 Coburn Lane (Case 2026-3). NO ~
Approval of May 28 meeting minutes. YES ~
Present
Motion to find no regional impact for the current case. YES ~
Denial of variance application for 25 Coburn Lane (Case 2026-3). NO ~
Approval of May 28 meeting minutes. YES ~
Present
Motion to find no regional impact for the current case. YES ~
Denial of variance application for 25 Coburn Lane (Case 2026-3). NO ~
Approval of May 28 meeting minutes. ABSTAIN
Abstained because he was not present at the previous meeting.
Present
Motion to find no regional impact for the current case. YES ~
Denial of variance application for 25 Coburn Lane (Case 2026-3). NO ~
Approval of May 28 meeting minutes. YES ~

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 Hollis.

Report composed by grok-4.3, gemma-4-26b, grok-4-fast, grok-4.20-0309-reasoning · analyzed 2026-07-08.