Zoning Board of Adjustments — December 4, 2025
Extended technical debate on hardship and utility constraints occurred with no public speakers or off-agenda controversies, resulting in a continuance rather than a decision.
Decisions logged
Topics discussed
▶ 03:43 Meeting Opening and Introductions
Board opens meeting at 6:32; notes Chris Murphy absence; appoints Jamie as voting member; confirms quorum and packet materials including abutter letters.
▶ 04:24 Variance Request VA 2508 (41 Garnet Street)
Applicant Phil Schwarzkopf requests variance from Article 3, Section 3.40 J to replace two-tier retaining wall with single-tier wall exceeding 42 inches within 10-foot side setback to accommodate utility pole placement due to lot constraints, safety, and neighbor view impacts. Board discusses converting to single-tier wall, height measurement, elevation changes, visibility, substantial justice, property values, and hardship criteria. Debates utility pole constraints, Eversource options, burial feasibility, sewer conflicts, and whether hardship is independent or inflicted. Considers need for additional expert input before deciding.
▶ 2:25:45 Minutes Approval
Motion to approve minutes from October 2, 2025 meeting.
▶ 2:26:46 Holiday Party Announcement
Town holiday party scheduled for January 9 at Dexter's Inn, open to board members.
▶ 2:28:02 Adjournment
Motion and vote to adjourn the meeting.
Controversy & dissent
Potentially controversial issues
VA 2508 retaining wall variance at 41 Garnet Street
Action items
Notable statements
It really comes down to preferences... granting a variance that is connected to an easement on an abutting neighbor's property... not preferences. — Unidentified speaker · Questioning whether request meets hardship/uniqueness criteria for variance ▶ 44:03
It's a created hardship... you've created this situation. — Unidentified speaker · Discussing driveway expansion and pole placement during site review ▶ 28:15
The pole is a significant factor; without it, the two-tier wall would remain and no variance would be sought. — Unidentified speaker · Evaluating if hardship exists independently of the pole ▶ 1:25:00
Enforcing the ordinance strictly provides no public benefit here since elevation and neighbor visibility do not change. — Unidentified speaker · Discussing purpose of the 42-inch retaining wall ordinance ▶ 1:23:43
If burial is impossible per Eversource, the board should assume that outcome and decide on the variance request as presented. — Unidentified speaker · Responding to requests for more utility information ▶ 1:51:00
We need to hear from the experts surrounding that utility pole... Eversource needs to help outline what the options are, not preferences. — Unidentified speaker · Emphasizing requirement for official Eversource input rather than speculation ▶ 2:01:11
Utility poles aren't typically treated as structure. So they don't get standard permits and meet other setbacks. — Unidentified speaker · Clarifying why variance is specific to the wall ▶ 2:06:26
The burden of proof is on the applicant. Meaning the more information you provide the better. — Unidentified speaker · Advising applicant during continuance discussion ▶ 2:16:28
Member positions
Positions marked ~ are inferred from context and may not reflect the member's explicitly stated position.
Public comment
Accountability flags
Topics discussed — not on agenda
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.
Follow Sunapee
One email when a new report is published from the Zoning Board of Adjustments — or one weekly digest.
grok-4.3, claude-opus-4-7 · analyzed 2026-05-27.