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 19, 2026

While there was a high level of public engagement and spirited questioning regarding a specific development case, the board remained focused and all votes were unanimous.

Date Friday, June 19, 2026 Duration 1.5h Speakers 23 Public comments 9 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 19 Newport Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) meeting, the board approved a significant variance for the Heirs of Scott B. Hill (Case 2018), paving the way for a 10-unit cluster development.

The decision drew significant engagement from the community. Residents voiced serious concerns regarding the scale of the project, specifically pointing to increased traffic density on Park Street, potential impacts on property taxes, and overall neighborhood character.

In response to these concerns, board members clarified that technical issues such as traffic design and road safety are the responsibility of the Planning Board, rather than the ZBA. While the board approved the variance—with the condition that all units connect to town water and sewer—the fundamental questions regarding how this density affects our streets were effectively deferred to a different body.

The applicant must now proceed to the Planning Board for subdivision review. If you are concerned about traffic and density in your neighborhood, your next point of advocacy should be the Planning Board sessions.

Jun 19, 2026 1.5h long 23 speakers 9 public comments 4 decisions Routine
Notable statements Drag to browse

“All what we're hearing tonight is just whether we are going to permit this permit to go forward with the zoning that exists. A lot of what you're talking about is gonna be addressed at the planning board.”

— Unidentified speaker · Clarifying the scope of the ZBA's authority versus the Planning Board's authority regarding technical site details like traffic and road design. ▶ 26:34

“Generally, if they decide to go with a septic system, that basically means they would have to get approval from the state department of environmental services.”

— Unidentified speaker · Explaining the regulatory requirements for septic systems if the applicant does not use town sewer. ▶ 19:10
This meeting — choose a section

Public ⁠impact

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

Up to 10 housing units in a cluster development

What happened

The variance was approved with the condition that all units must connect to town water and sewer.

Topics ⁠discussed

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

Announcement regarding a joint meeting of all land use boards and the Board of Selectmen.

What happened

The board noted the upcoming annual meeting.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

The board reviewed and voted to approve the minutes from the May 20th meeting.

What happened

The minutes were approved unanimously.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

A request for a variance to permit cluster development on a property split between R and R1 zoning districts.

What happened

The board approved the variance with specific conditions regarding utility connections.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

A request for a 25-foot front yard setback instead of the required 50 feet for a new garage.

What happened

The variance was approved.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

A request to reduce the required frontage from 300 feet to 140.27 feet for a subdivided lot.

What happened

The variance was approved.

Controversy & ⁠dissent

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

Potentially controversial issues

01

Case 2018: Heirs of Scott B. Hill (Cluster Development Variance)

The proposal for a 10-unit cluster development drew significant public interest due to concerns regarding housing density, increased traffic on Park Street, potential septic odors, and impacts on property taxes.
Board position: The board approved the variance, provided the development connects to town water and sewer systems.
high concern

Community vs. board tension

Public ⁠comment

What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
8
Speakers
8
Comments
8
Addressed
0
Partial
1
Not addressed
Jeffrey F. Kessler
Addressed
Presented a request for a variance to permit cluster development on a property split between two zoning districts. Explained that the proposal aims to centralize development to avoid protected shorelines and steep slopes. Key concern
Requesting a variance for cluster development due to split zoning constraints.
Board response
The board discussed the criteria, the nature of the units (duplexes), and the expiration of previous variances. They ultimately approved the variance with conditions.
The board reviewed the applicant's arguments against the legal criteria and granted the variance with specific conditions regarding water and sewer connections.
Dan Brusca
Addressed
Clarified that he is with DB Design Group and signed forms on behalf of the project. Mentioned the potential buyer's intent to build one duplex initially as a second home before potentially expanding. Key concern
Clarification of project intent and applicant representation.
Board response
The board acknowledged the clarification and discussed the implications of starting with a single unit versus the whole cluster.
The board engaged with the explanation regarding the project's phased approach.
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
Inquired about the availability of town water and sewer in the project area. Also asked if the development would change city limits and expressed concerns regarding the scale of the cluster compared to surroundings. Key concern
Inquiry into utility infrastructure and impact on city limits/neighborhood scale.
Board response
Board members and staff explained the current utility situation, noted that cluster development doesn't change city limits, and clarified that larger scale details are handled by the Planning Board.
The board and town staff provided direct answers regarding utilities, city boundaries, and the division of labor between boards.
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
Expressed concerns about traffic safety on Park Street, specifically regarding speeding and children playing. Also raised concerns about potential odors from septic systems and the impact on property taxes. Key concern
Traffic safety, potential septic odors, and tax increases.
Board response
The board explained that traffic and road design are Planning Board matters. They also explained how increasing the tax base (the 'grand list') can theoretically lower tax rates, though they noted a recent reassessment also played a role.
The board addressed the jurisdictional limits of their authority (traffic) and provided an economic explanation regarding taxes.
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
Raised concerns about increased traffic and questioned whether the board had reviewed the updated housing report (HOPE report) for Newport. Key concern
Traffic volume and awareness of the revised housing stock report.
Board response
A board member stated that traffic is a Planning Board issue and noted they were not aware of the specific revised report mentioned.
The board provided a jurisdictional clarification regarding traffic concerns.
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
Asked if the board had been made aware of the revised POC/HOPE report regarding housing. Key concern
Inquiry regarding the availability/awareness of the revised housing report.
Board response
A board member replied that they were not aware of the original report.
The board gave a direct answer to the question.
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
Noted that traffic concerns are the responsibility of the Planning Board rather than the Zoning Board. Stated they had not seen the HOPE report. Key concern
Clarification of board jurisdiction and report awareness.
Board response
The board agreed with the sentiment regarding jurisdiction.
The speaker's point aligned with the board's subsequent discussion on jurisdiction.
Unidentified speaker
Not addressed
Questioned if there is a legal limit on housing density, suggesting that housing is currently in short supply. Key concern
The necessity of housing versus neighborhood opposition.
Board response
The board did not specifically address the 'shortage' argument but moved to close public comment for that item.
The board did not engage with the comment on housing shortages, treating it as a general observation.

Decisions ⁠logged

Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Approval of May 20th meeting minutes.
Christopher Whalen abstained.
Unanimous
Approval of Case 2018 (Heirs of Scott B. Hill) for cluster development variance.
Approved with the condition that all dwelling units must be connected to town water and town sewer, and the applicant must undergo subdivision review through the Planning Board.
Unanimous
Approval of Case 2020 (Daryl Warner) for a 25-foot front yard setback variance.
Approved as presented.
Unanimous
Approval of Case 2021 (Remington Ridge LLC) for reduced frontage variance.
Approved as presented.
Unanimous

Share ⁠this report

Drafts ready to post — click any block to copy.

X / Twitter — by angle

Community concerns being overruled/dismissed
At the June 19 ZBA meeting, Newport officials approved a variance for Case 2018 (Heirs of Scott B. Hill) to allow a 10-unit cluster development. This decision moves the project forward despite significant resident concerns over... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/newport/zoning-board/2026-06-19/ #MeetingWatch #NewportNH
316/280 chars
Board deferring community concerns to other bodies
Newport ZBA Update: Regarding the Scott B. Hill property variance, board members noted that traffic safety and road design concerns raised by neighbors are 'under the jurisdiction of the Planning Board.' The ZBA approved the... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/newport/zoning-board/2026-06-19/ #MeetingWatch #NewportNH
313/280 chars
Summary of decisions
The Newport ZBA voted unanimously on June 19 to approve several variances, including a 10-unit cluster development and a reduced frontage for Remington Ridge LLC. These decisions will now move to the Planning Board for further... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/newport/zoning-board/2026-06-19/ #MeetingWatch #NewportNH
315/280 chars

X thread

1
At the June 19 Newport ZBA meeting, a high-density development project was cleared for the next stage of approval, despite heavy pushback from local residents regarding safety and infrastructure. 🧵 #MeetingWatch #NewportNH
222/280
2
The board approved Case 2018 (Heirs of Scott B. Hill), allowing a variance for a 10-unit cluster development. Neighbors raised specific concerns about increased traffic on Park Street, housing density, and potential impacts on property taxes.
242/280
3
When residents raised questions about traffic safety and road design, the board's response was that these technical details fall under the Planning Board's jurisdiction, not theirs. The ZBA approved the variance regardless, provided the units use town water/sewer.
264/280
4
What does this mean? The project now moves to the Planning Board for subdivision review. Residents should prepare to monitor that next stage closely, as the fundamental scale of this development has already been cleared by the ZBA. https://meetingwatch.org/nh/newport/zoning-board/2026-06-19/
255/280

Facebook — long form

During the June 19 Newport Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) meeting, the board approved a significant variance for the Heirs of Scott B. Hill (Case 2018), paving the way for a 10-unit cluster development.

The decision drew significant engagement from the community. Residents voiced serious concerns regarding the scale of the project, specifically pointing to increased traffic density on Park Street, potential impacts on property taxes, and overall neighborhood character. 

In response to these concerns, board members clarified that technical issues such as traffic design and road safety are the responsibility of the Planning Board, rather than the ZBA. While the board approved the variance—with the condition that all units connect to town water and sewer—the fundamental questions regarding how this density affects our streets were effectively deferred to a different body.

The applicant must now proceed to the Planning Board for subdivision review. If you are concerned about traffic and density in your neighborhood, your next point of advocacy should be the Planning Board sessions. https://meetingwatch.org/nh/newport/zoning-board/2026-06-19/ #MeetingWatch #NewportNH

Action ⁠items

Who owes what, by when.
Send four formal notices and post regarding the joint land use meeting on September 30th.
Assigned: Administration · Due: Before September 30th
Submit for subdivision review to the Planning Board.
Assigned: Applicant (Heirs of Scott B. Hill)

Member ⁠positions

4 issues · 0 explicit · 23 inferred
Ben Nelson
Chair
Present
Approval of May 20th Minutes YES ~
Case 2018: Heirs of Scott B. Hill (Cluster Development Variance) YES ~
Case 2020: Daryl Warner (Front Yard Setback Variance) YES ~
Case 2021: Remington Ridge LLC (Frontage Variance) YES ~
Jeffrey F. Kessler
Selectmen Representative
Present
Approval of May 20th Minutes YES ~
Case 2018: Heirs of Scott B. Hill (Cluster Development Variance) YES ~
Case 2020: Daryl Warner (Front Yard Setback Variance) YES ~
Case 2021: Remington Ridge LLC (Frontage Variance) YES ~
Present
Approval of May 20th Minutes ABSTAIN
Abstained because he was not present for the original meeting.
Case 2018: Heirs of Scott B. Hill (Cluster Development Variance) YES ~
Case 2020: Daryl Warner (Front Yard Setback Variance) YES ~
Case 2021: Remington Ridge LLC (Frontage Variance) YES ~
Present
Approval of May 20th Minutes YES ~
Case 2018: Heirs of Scott B. Hill (Cluster Development Variance) YES ~
Case 2020: Daryl Warner (Front Yard Setback Variance) YES ~
Case 2021: Remington Ridge LLC (Frontage Variance) YES ~
Scott Stanton
Member
Present
Approval of May 20th Minutes YES ~
Case 2018: Heirs of Scott B. Hill (Cluster Development Variance) YES ~
Case 2020: Daryl Warner (Front Yard Setback Variance) YES ~
Case 2021: Remington Ridge LLC (Frontage Variance) YES ~
Scott Myers
Member
Present
Approval of May 20th Minutes YES ~
Case 2018: Heirs of Scott B. Hill (Cluster Development Variance) YES ~
Case 2020: Daryl Warner (Front Yard Setback Variance) YES ~
Case 2021: Remington Ridge LLC (Frontage Variance) 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 Newport.

Report composed by grok-4.3, gemma-4-26b, grok-4-fast, grok-4.20-0309-reasoning · analyzed 2026-07-13.