Your area Not set — showing everywhere
How it works Support this town
Meeting report · Zoning Board of Adjustments
Creating this report cost real money. Help fund coverage →

Zoning Board of Adjustments — September 4, 2025

Routine procedural tone punctuated by a 3-2 split on one variance and repeated applicant-board disagreement over the statutory hardship test; no broader public mobilization or off-agenda controversies.

Date Thursday, September 4, 2025 Duration 3.2h Speakers 10 Public comments 4 Decisions 10 Lively
▶ Video 📄 Minutes

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.

At its September 4 meeting the Sunapee Zoning Board of Adjustment denied three of four variance or special-exception requests. The board applied the statutory hardship test consistently, ruling that site constraints shared with neighboring properties do not qualify as unique.

VA25-4 (raised platform and hot tub within the 50-ft waterbody setback at 16 Springfield Road) and VA25-5 (side setback reduction for deck expansion at 81 Lake Ave) were both denied unanimously. VA25-6 (shed front setback reduction at 48 Hamel Road) failed on a 3-2 vote, with the majority again citing lack of unique hardship. One vertical expansion special exception was approved with a height condition.

The decisions show the board's current approach to variance criteria and the narrow margin on at least one case.

Sep 4, 2025 3.2h long 10 speakers 4 public comments 10 decisions Lively
❝ Notable statements ↔ Drag to browse

“Financial reasons are not a hardship; hardship must tie to unique property characteristics different from neighbors.”

— Jeff Claus · Explaining variance criteria during VA25-4 deliberation ▶ 13:19

“A deck is classified as a structure and not allowed in the setback; replacing a patio in-kind is legally allowable.”

— Jeff Claus · Clarifying ordinance distinctions for applicants ▶ 09:09

“If it were to be approved, I could not approve a reduction of that 50 foot regardless... it would have to make sure it was not within the 50 unless they want to come back to you all for another variance.”

— Unidentified speaker · Clarifying permitting limits on lake setback ▶ 1:33:15

“I don't believe that the applicant meets a hardship. There is no special conditions or characteristics of the property that unfairly burden it from other property.”

— Unidentified speaker · Explaining vote to deny deck variance ▶ 1:45:45

“I don't think the applicant or application is in the spirit of the ordinance which is intended to maintain setbacks according to our regulations and also agree that the hardship has not been demonstrated.”

— Unidentified speaker · Vote explanation on denial ▶ 1:46:35

“Lot size and septic conditions affect the predominant number of lots on Mountain View Lake; does not meet unique hardship bar.”

— Unidentified speaker · Explaining vote against approval motion ▶ 2:23:19

“Hardship not satisfied; lot size and septic burdens are shared by others and the parcel may be overbuilt.”

— Unidentified speaker · Supporting denial motion ▶ 1:45:45

“Each variance case is evaluated individually; no precedent is set by prior administrative approvals.”

— Unidentified speaker · Responding to applicant's precedent question ▶ 2:27:34

“State mandates land the burden on towns even if not a financial expense to the state, and education of voters is critical before ballots.”

— Unidentified speaker · Discussion of state vs. local control and notification challenges ▶ 3:09:37

“State-mandated items should automatically trigger ordinance changes rather than requiring separate local votes.”

— Unidentified speaker · Ballot and ordinance process ▶ 3:10:22
This meeting — choose a section

Topics ⁠discussed

Each topic expands to quotes and full context.
Speakers: Jeff Claus, Allison Frager
What was discussed

Chair Jeff Claus opens the meeting, explains zoning board procedures including applicant presentations, public hearing, and deliberative session, followed by roll call of board members.

Speakers: Jeff Claus, Allison Frager, Ken Brennan, Matt Lavelle
What was discussed

Continued variance request by Brennan family to construct a raised platform/hot tub within the 50-ft waterbody setback; applicants discuss reconfiguration of deck vs. patio options, hardship criteria, and site constraints like steep drop-off and crumbling patio.

Speakers: Jeff Claus, Allison Frager, Frank Ward
What was discussed

Special exception request by Frank Ward for vertical expansion of pre-existing non-conforming house/garage on Perkins Pond; applicant details height measurements and criteria compliance.

Speakers: Jeff Claus, Allison Frager, Thomas Rose, Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Variance request to reduce side setback from 10 ft to 6 ft for deck expansion; contractor Thomas Rose explains need for code-compliant stairs and retaining wall adjustments. Applicant seeks variance to reduce 10 ft side setback to 6 ft for 2 ft deck widening at 81 Lake Ave to allow code-compliant straight stairs (36 in clear width) while preserving access to door/window/utilities; pre-existing nonconforming stairs and retaining wall discussed along with 50 ft lake setback measurement issues. Board reviews five statutory criteria; primary struggle is demonstrating unnecessary hardship under criterion 5, as prior angled stairs existed without the 2 ft addition and alternative configurations appear feasible within the existing 4 ft deck width.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Board denies the side-setback variance after finding no special conditions creating hardship distinct from other properties and noting stairs can be built to code without expansion.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Board opens shed placement variance request at 48 Hamel Road to reduce 50 ft road setback, noting septic system constraints.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Discussion of front setback variance request for a 14x26 shed in rural residential zone on small lot with septic and impervious coverage concerns; board debated uniqueness/hardship criteria and comparison scope (neighborhood vs. Mountain View Lake). Review of 20% maximum impervious coverage (aquifer) and 25% rural residential limit; discussion of driveway inclusion and conditioning approval on compliance evidence.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Board discussed upcoming NHMA land use training, council input on hardship criteria, and compilation of zoning amendments for October planning board review.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Review and approval of February 19, April 3, June 5, and July 2, 2025 meeting minutes.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Discussion of state decisions on septic systems near Lake Sunapee and proposed heavy-handed lot-size rules (half-acre lots with 50 ft frontage near sewer) that could harm local zoning and municipalities.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Conversation on how state-mandated changes (e.g., prior year's home daycare and abutter definition rules) appear on town ballots yet supersede local votes, creating confusion and the need for automatic ordinance updates.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

a speaker announces a follow-up master plan public hearing on September 18 at 6:30 p.m. at the Livery, with plans to offer apple cider and cider donuts to boost attendance.

Controversy & ⁠dissent

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

Potentially controversial issues

01

VA25-6 shed setback variance denial at 48 Hamel Road

Applicant cited septic, lot size, and buildable-area constraints as creating unique hardship; board majority ruled these conditions common to other lots and therefore insufficient under statutory criteria
Board position: Denied variance (3-2), holding that hardship/uniqueness not demonstrated
Internal dissent
Speakers F and J supported approval; Speakers B, E, and C opposed
medium concern
02

Multiple waterbody and side-setback variance requests (VA25-4, VA25-5)

Applicants argued site constraints (steep slopes, crumbling structures, code-compliant stairs) justified relief; board repeatedly emphasized that financial or practical difficulties do not constitute legal hardship
Board position: Both variances denied unanimously on hardship grounds
low concern

Split votes

Motion to approve VA25-6 front-setback variance (14x26 shed)
2-3 (failed)
Motion to deny VA25-6 variance request
3-2 (passed)

Community vs. board tension

Public ⁠comment

What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
4
Total speakers
4
Addressed
0
Partial
0
Not addressed
Joe Brennan / Ken Brennan (with contractor Matt Lavelle)
▶ 03:04
Addressed
Applicants for case VA25-4 presented a request for variance to replace a crumbling patio and add a low-profile deck/hot tub platform within the 50-foot water body setback at 16 Springfield Road. They described the steep drop-off, limited buildable area, crumbling existing patio as hazards, and financial hardship of alternatives like concrete work or tree removal, arguing the proposal maintains the existing setback. Key concern
Variance needed for deck/platform in setback due to property constraints and desire for safe, usable backyard space.
Board response
Board asked clarifying questions about hardship criteria, alternatives (patio vs. deck), and site conditions; deliberated and voted to deny the variance, stating hardship not established and concerns over spirit of the ordinance.
Board fully considered the application through questions and deliberation, then rendered a decision on the variance request.
Frank Ward
▶ 36:36
Addressed
Applicant for case SCD25-3 (with wife Kathleen Ryan) requested special exception for vertical expansion of a pre-existing non-conforming house/garage at 43.5 Piney Point Road to add height for more space and storage. Provided detailed measurements showing current height ~22 ft 2 in and proposed addition of no more than 10 ft (under 40 ft max), confirmed compliance with criteria. Key concern
Approval of vertical expansion under special exception rules for height increase on non-conforming structure.
Board response
Board reviewed measurements, asked about compliance/as-built verification, deliberated, and unanimously approved the special exception with a height restriction condition of 32 ft 2 in.
Board fully reviewed the application, imposed a condition, and voted to approve.
Thomas Rose (contractor representing owner)
▶ 1:05:24
Addressed
Represented owner for case VA25-5 requesting variance to reduce 10-foot side setback to 6 feet for deck expansion at 81 Lake Ave. Explained need to rebuild deteriorated stairs/retaining wall to code, straighten access, avoid utilities/windows, and maintain aesthetics while staying within pre-existing non-conforming footprint where possible. Key concern
Variance for deck width expansion in side setback to achieve code-compliant, safe stairs and improved access.
Board response
Board questioned site details, 50-foot water setback implications, alternatives, and hardship; deliberated and voted to deny, finding no demonstrated hardship.
Board engaged with questions and rendered a decision after deliberation.
John Moraldo
▶ 1:47:46
Addressed
Applicant for case VA25-6 requested variance to reduce 50-foot front (road) setback to 25 feet for a 14x26 shed at 48 Hamel Road. Cited constraints from existing septic system, underground utilities, small lot, and shoreline overlay limiting buildable area; noted the proposed location is hidden by berm/trees and meets other criteria. Key concern
Variance for shed placement in road setback due to septic and site constraints preventing other locations.
Board response
Board discussed lot coverage/impervious surface calculations, uniqueness of conditions vs. other lots, and hardship; deliberated and voted to deny, finding hardship not established.
Board reviewed the full application and criteria before voting to deny.

Decisions ⁠logged

Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Deny Case VA25-4 variance request for 300 sq ft raised platform/hot tub at 16 Springfield Road
Motion by John Quackenbaus; board cites failure to establish hardship or meet spirit of the ordinance regarding 50-ft setback; 4-0 vote.
Approved (motion to deny passes unanimously)
Approve Case SCD25-3 special exception for vertical expansion at 43.5 Piney Point Road
Motion by Chris Murphy with condition limiting height to 32 ft 2 in; board confirms criteria met.
Approved unanimously
Deny variance VA25.5 (Article 3, Section 3.10) to reduce 10 ft side setback to 6 ft for deck expansion at 81 Lake Ave
Motion by a speaker, second by a speaker; reasons cited: failure to demonstrate hardship (criterion 5) as code-compliant stairs possible without 2 ft addition; 50 ft lake setback condition noted but moot due to denial
Unanimous denial (4-0)
Motion to approve VA25-6 variance (14x26 shed, 50ft to 25ft front setback) with lot coverage compliance condition failed.
Speakers F and J supported; Speakers B, E, and C opposed on grounds that hardship/uniqueness criteria not met.
Failed (2-3)
Motion to deny VA25-6 variance request passed.
Speakers B, E, and C supported denial; Speakers F and J opposed. Reasons cited: lot size and septic conditions not unique to the parcel.
Passed (3-2)
Approved February 19, 2025 meeting minutes.
Motion by a speaker, seconded by a speaker.
Approved
Approved April 3, 2025 meeting minutes.
Motion by a speaker.
Approved
Approved June 5, 2025 meeting minutes.
Motion by a speaker.
Approved
Approved July 2, 2025 meeting minutes.
Motion by a speaker.
Approved
Motion to adjourn the meeting
Motion by a speaker, seconded by a speaker; all in favor with 'Aye' votes recorded.
Approved

Share ⁠this report

Drafts ready to post — click any block to copy.

X / Twitter — by angle

unanimous denial on statutory hardship grounds
Sunapee ZBA on 9/4 denied a side-setback variance at 81 Lake Ave (VA25-5) 4-0. Board found no unique hardship; code-compliant stairs possible without widening the deck into the setback. https://meetingwatch.org/nh/sunapee/zoning-board/2025-09-04/ #MeetingWatch #SunapeeNH
271/280 chars
split vote revealing division over hardship standard
ZBA split 3-2 on VA25-6 shed variance at 48 Hamel Road. Majority ruled lot size and septic constraints are common to other Mountain View Lake parcels, so they do not meet the unique hardship test. https://meetingwatch.org/nh/sunapee/zoning-board/2025-09-04/ #MeetingWatch #SunapeeNH
282/280 chars
another variance denial applying consistent criteria
At the 9/4 meeting, Sunapee ZBA also denied the raised hot tub platform variance at 16 Springfield Road (VA25-4) unanimously, citing failure to satisfy the spirit of the 50-ft waterbody setback ordinance. https://meetingwatch.org/nh/sunapee/zoning-board/2025-09-04/ #MeetingWatch #SunapeeNH
290/280 chars
clarification of legal standard applied to multiple cases
Board members noted during 9/4 deliberations that financial or practical difficulties alone do not qualify as legal hardship under NH variance law. https://meetingwatch.org/nh/sunapee/zoning-board/2025-09-04/ #MeetingWatch #SunapeeNH
233/280 chars

X thread

1
Sunapee Zoning Board denied two lake-area variance requests on 9/4 after applicants cited steep slopes, crumbling structures, and code needs. Board held that shared neighborhood conditions do not create the unique hardship required for relief. #MeetingWatch #SunapeeNH
268/280
2
VA25-5 (81 Lake Ave deck) was denied 4-0. VA25-4 (16 Springfield Rd hot tub platform) was also denied 4-0. In both cases the board found alternatives existed within existing footprints.
185/280
3
The 3-2 split came on VA25-6, a shed setback request at 48 Hamel Road. Two members argued the septic and lot constraints justified approval; the majority said those limits affect many parcels and denied the variance. https://meetingwatch.org/nh/sunapee/zoning-board/2025-09-04/
240/280

Facebook — long form

At its September 4 meeting the Sunapee Zoning Board of Adjustment denied three of four variance or special-exception requests. The board applied the statutory hardship test consistently, ruling that site constraints shared with neighboring properties do not qualify as unique. 

VA25-4 (raised platform and hot tub within the 50-ft waterbody setback at 16 Springfield Road) and VA25-5 (side setback reduction for deck expansion at 81 Lake Ave) were both denied unanimously. VA25-6 (shed front setback reduction at 48 Hamel Road) failed on a 3-2 vote, with the majority again citing lack of unique hardship. One vertical expansion special exception was approved with a height condition. 

The decisions show the board's current approach to variance criteria and the narrow margin on at least one case. https://meetingwatch.org/nh/sunapee/zoning-board/2025-09-04/ #MeetingWatch #SunapeeNH

Action ⁠items

Who owes what, by when.
Follow up with Frank Ward on state permitting requirements
Assigned: Allison Frager · Due: Post-meeting
Work with Allison on patio replacement options within allowable limits
Assigned: Applicants (Brennans) · Due: Prior to any new application
Reach out to NHMA regarding October land use training options and share details with board.
Assigned: a speaker · Due: Prior to October meeting
Submit zoning amendment suggestions and feedback to a speaker by September 12.
Assigned: Board members · Due: 2025-09-12
Compile list of zoning amendments (currently 8) and coordinate October planning board joint discussion.
Assigned: a speaker · Due: October 2025
Send save-the-date information for the September 18 master plan public hearing
Assigned: a speaker · Due: Prior to September 18

Member ⁠positions

3 issues · 0 explicit · 0 inferred
Present
VA25-6 shed setback variance denial NO ✓
Present
SCD25-3 special exception approval YES ✓
Present
VA25-4 variance denial 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 Sunapee.

Report composed by grok-4.3, claude-opus-4-7 · analyzed 2026-05-27.