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 — January 13, 2026

Sunapee ZBA skipped six publicly noticed cases without explanation while the one case it did discuss may not meet the legal standard for a variance.

The single case discussed generated genuine analytical disagreement among board members over hardship standards and the validity of a variance tied to a third-party utility company's preferences, and six publicly-noticed cases were silently skipped without explanation, but there was no public opposition and no heated confrontation.

Date Tuesday, January 13, 2026 Duration 2.5h Speakers 7 Decisions 5 Lively
📄 Agenda ▶ Video

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.

SUNAPEE ZONING BOARD — DECEMBER 2, 2025: SIX CASES SKIPPED, ONE CONTINUED AGAIN

At Tuesday's Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting, six publicly noticed cases never came up for discussion — and the board gave no explanation on the record. The public agenda had listed four variance and special exception cases for Bradley Weiss and Cathleen Shea at 38 Jobs Creek Road, and two variances for Erin and Darrel Barbato at 20 Burma Road. Those applicants went through the application process. Their neighbors had the right to attend and comment. None of that happened. If you were affected by any of those cases, you were given no information about when — or whether — they'll be rescheduled.

The meeting's only substantive business was Case VA 2508, a retaining wall variance request for a property at 41 Garnet Street. The applicant wants to build a wall over 42 inches high inside the required 10-foot side setback, largely because Eversource needs to install a new utility pole and the company's preferred location requires removing part of the existing wall. The problem the board identified: under New Hampshire law, a variance requires proof of genuine hardship — not just a more convenient arrangement for a utility company. Board member David Andrews stated directly that the request appears to be about "preferences" rather than hardship, and that a variance shouldn't be granted when its approval is contingent on a neighbor granting an easement for a pole placement. The town's highway director separately raised safety concerns about the proposed pole location near a blind curve at Garnet Street and Joe's Creek Road.

The board made the right call in not rushing a decision. They required the applicant to obtain written documentation from Eversource laying out all possible pole placement options, and from the town's water and sewer department on whether underground utility installation is feasible. The case is continued to January 13, 2026. What the board did not do is explain publicly why six other cases were passed over without comment.

If you live near 38 Jobs Creek Road, 20 Burma Road, or 41 Garnet Street — or if you simply care about how Sunapee's zoning process treats residents who show up prepared — watch the January 13 agenda and consider attending.

Jan 13, 2026 2.5h long 7 speakers 5 decisions Lively
❝ Notable statements ↔ Drag to browse

“I don't think that we can approve a variance that is connected to a butter granting an easement for a preferred location of a utility pole... it really comes down to preferences.”

— David Andrews · Expressing concern that the variance request is based on preferences rather than hardship, and involves easement requirements on neighboring property ▶ 43:43

“There is nobody else with a slope right along a property line, close to a built structure, on a turn of a road that is... Unique to this specific situation.”

— Phil Schwarzkopf · Arguing that the property has unique characteristics that justify the variance under the uniqueness criterion ▶ 52:50

“So I would say this to you, David, when you do sight line calculations and all that for things, tree trunks never really come into play. They always want you to trim up.”

— Jeff Claus · Discussing safety considerations regarding utility pole placement and sight lines ▶ 44:48

“If everything is hinging on the pole, then I think we need more information from Eversource from someone stating this is the only way Eversource will not allow burial.”

— Unidentified speaker · Board chair expressing need for concrete documentation about utility options before making variance decision ▶ 1:43:16

“I think that we need to know. We need to hear from the experts surrounding that utility ball.”

— Unidentified speaker · Board member emphasizing need for expert documentation rather than applicant representations ▶ 2:02:34

“Take the poll completely out of it. Is there hardship? Does the slope constitute. Does the built environment constitute as hardship?”

— Unidentified speaker · Board member focusing discussion on core variance criteria separate from utility pole issues ▶ 1:58:24

“We have to make that a condition of the variance that placement of the pole would have to occur”

— Unidentified speaker · Explaining why neighbor easement must be a condition of variance approval ▶ 2:08:29

“Utility poles aren't typically treated as structure. So they don't get standard permits and meet other setbacks because they're utilities”

— Unidentified speaker · Clarifying regulatory treatment of utility poles versus other structures ▶ 2:06:17

“The burden of proof is on the applicant. Meaning the more information you provide, the better”

— Unidentified speaker · Advising applicant about standards for variance applications ▶ 2:16:53
This meeting — choose a section

Topics ⁠discussed

Each topic expands to quotes and full context.
Speakers: Phil Schwarzkopf, Jeff Claus, Allison, David Andrews
What was discussed

Phil Schwarzkopf requested a variance to allow construction of a retaining wall exceeding 42 inches in height within the 10-foot side setback. The request involves replacing a two-tier retaining wall with a single-tier wall to accommodate a new utility pole installation by Eversource.

Speakers: Phil Schwarzkopf, Jeff Claus, LA, Allison
What was discussed

Discussion of the 10-foot setback requirements, property line locations, and how the retaining wall configuration affects compliance with zoning ordinances.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Board discussion about whether more documentation is needed from Eversource and the town regarding utility pole placement options, underground utility feasibility, and sewer line conflicts.

Speakers: Phil Schwarzkopf, Jeff Claus
What was discussed

Eversource cannot connect electrical service in the same manner as the previous house, requiring installation of a new utility pole. The preferred location requires removing the lower tier of the retaining wall. Discussion included underground options and cost considerations.

Speakers: Phil Schwarzkopf, John Quackenbau, David Andrews, Allison
What was discussed

Discussion of safety hazards created by utility pole placement near the driveway entrance, including obstructed views when backing out onto Garnet Street and impact on neighbor's lake view. Safety issues related to backing out of garage due to sight line obstructions.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Discussion of requiring neighbor easement as a condition of variance approval, since the variance is tied to pole placement which requires neighbor permission.

Speakers: Allison
What was discussed

Highway director expressed concerns about pole placement affecting snow plow operations and creating safety hazards for vehicles pulling out around the curve from Joe's Creek toward Main Street.

Speakers: Phil Schwarzkopf, Jeff Claus
What was discussed

Applicant presented first variance criterion arguing that granting the variance serves public interest by improving safety and reducing visual impact of utility pole placement.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Board analysis of whether the application meets unnecessary hardship criteria, focusing on whether the pole is essential to the hardship claim and examining if the slope and built environment constitute hardship independent of the utility pole.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Case VA2508 continued to January 13th, 2026 due to one board member being unavailable all of January and need for quorum.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Board approved minutes from October 2, 2025 meeting as written.

Controversy & ⁠dissent

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

Potentially controversial issues

01

Retaining Wall Variance Tied to Utility Pole Placement (Case VA 2508 - 41 Garnet Street)

The variance request is unusually complex because it is functionally contingent on a third-party utility company's (Eversource) preferred pole placement, which itself requires a neighbor's easement. Board member David Andrews explicitly questioned whether the hardship is real or merely a matter of preference, and the board could not reach a decision without additional expert documentation. Safety concerns were raised by the highway director, neighbors, and board members regarding sight lines and snow plow operations. The case has been continued multiple times, with six other agenda cases apparently not heard at all.
Board position: Board declined to decide, continuing the case to January 13, 2026 and demanding written documentation from Eversource and the town's water/sewer department before proceeding.
Internal dissent
David Andrews was notably skeptical, stating the variance is tied to a neighbor's easement and amounts to a preference rather than a hardship. a speaker urged the board to evaluate hardship independent of the utility pole. a speaker (chair) emphasized the burden of proof is on the applicant and that more concrete documentation is needed. The board was not split on the continuance but held divergent views on whether the hardship criteria could be met at all.
medium concern
02

Multiple Agenda Cases Not Heard (Bradley Weiss/Cathleen Shea and Barbato Variances)

Six variance and special exception cases for two separate applicants — 38 Jobs Creek Road (4 cases) and 20 Burma Road (2 cases) — were listed on the public agenda but received no discussion whatsoever in the meeting. Applicants and any affected neighbors who attended or prepared for these cases were left without any board action or explanation in the record.
Board position: No action taken and no explanation provided in the meeting record for why these cases were skipped.
medium concern

Community vs. board tension

Public ⁠comment

What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
No public comments were identified in this meeting.

Decisions ⁠logged

Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Jamie appointed as voting member due to Chris Murphy's absence
Chair Jeff Claus appointed Jamie as voting member to replace absent member Chris Murphy
Appointed by chair
Board entered deliberative session to discuss the variance request
Board moved into closed deliberative session after public hearing portion
Unanimous agreement to deliberate
Board consensus that more information is needed before making final decision
Board agreed they need documentation from Eversource about pole placement options and from town about underground utility feasibility
Majority agreement for more information
Case VA2508 continued to January 13th, 2026
Continuation approved with requirement for additional information from Eversource and town departments
Approved by consensus
Approval of October 2, 2025 meeting minutes
Motion made and seconded to approve minutes as written
Approved unanimously

Share ⁠this report

Drafts ready to post — click a block to copy, or use Share to post it.

X / Twitter — by angle

Six agenda cases skipped without explanation or notice to affected parties
At Sunapee's ZBA meeting on 12/2/25, 6 publicly noticed variance cases for two families (38 Jobs Creek Rd & 20 Burma Rd) were skipped with zero explanation. Those applicants — and any neighbors — came prepared for nothing. That's not how public process works.
259/280 chars
Variance criteria concern — hardship vs. preference distinction in Case VA 2508
Sunapee ZBA is being asked to grant a retaining wall variance that hinges entirely on where Eversource wants to put a utility pole — which itself requires a neighbor's easement. Board member David Andrews: this is about "preferences," not hardship. Case continued to Jan 13, 2026.
280/280 chars
Unresolved public safety concern folded into case continuance
Sunapee's highway director raised safety concerns about a utility pole placement near a blind curve on Garnet St — snow plow ops and blocked sight lines for drivers. The ZBA acknowledged the issue and... continued the case. Residents near that curve should be watching Jan 13.
276/280 chars
Board appropriately requiring documentation before granting variance
Sunapee ZBA (12/2/25): Board told the applicant at 41 Garnet St they need written proof from Eversource that underground utilities aren't feasible before they'll decide. Good. That's the board doing its job — not taking a utility company's preference as a given.
262/280 chars

X thread

1
THREAD: Sunapee Zoning Board of Adjustment met 12/2/25. One case was discussed. Six others on the public agenda were skipped without a word of explanation. Here's what residents need to know. 🧵
193/280
2
First, the skipped cases. The public agenda listed 6 cases for two applicants: Bradley Weiss & Cathleen Shea (38 Jobs Creek Rd — 3 variances + 1 special exception) and Erin & Darrel Barbato (20 Burma Rd — 2 variances). None were called. No explanation given on the record.
272/280
3
Those applicants prepared applications. Neighbors may have shown up. Anyone who wanted to speak for or against those cases had no idea they'd be skipped. The public agenda is a promise. Skipping 6 cases silently breaks it.
222/280
4
The one case discussed: VA 2508, 41 Garnet St. Phil Schwarzkopf wants a variance to build a retaining wall over 42" high inside the 10-ft side setback — because Eversource needs to install a utility pole, and the preferred pole location requires removing the existing lower wall.
279/280
5
Board member David Andrews put the core problem plainly: the variance is tied to a neighbor's easement for a utility pole placement that is about "preferences," not hardship. NH variance law requires genuine hardship — not just a more convenient configuration for a utility company.
282/280
6
The highway director also flagged a real safety issue: the proposed pole placement is near a blind curve where Garnet St meets Joe's Creek Rd, creating hazards for snow plows and drivers with obstructed sight lines backing out of the garage.
241/280
7
The board's response was measured: don't decide yet. They required the applicant to get written documentation from Eversource on all pole placement options, and from the town on whether underground utilities are feasible given existing sewer line conflicts.
257/280
8
That's the board doing its job. But the board's chair also noted: 'The burden of proof is on the applicant.' If the hardship only exists because of where a utility company wants to put a pole, that may not meet the legal standard at all.
237/280
9
Case VA 2508 is continued to January 13, 2026. The six skipped cases have no scheduled date on the public record yet. Sunapee residents: watch the January agenda closely and show up if your property is near any of these addresses. 📍38 Jobs Creek Rd 📍20 Burma Rd 📍41 Garnet St
275/280

Facebook — long form

SUNAPEE ZONING BOARD — DECEMBER 2, 2025: SIX CASES SKIPPED, ONE CONTINUED AGAIN

At Tuesday's Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting, six publicly noticed cases never came up for discussion — and the board gave no explanation on the record. The public agenda had listed four variance and special exception cases for Bradley Weiss and Cathleen Shea at 38 Jobs Creek Road, and two variances for Erin and Darrel Barbato at 20 Burma Road. Those applicants went through the application process. Their neighbors had the right to attend and comment. None of that happened. If you were affected by any of those cases, you were given no information about when — or whether — they'll be rescheduled.

The meeting's only substantive business was Case VA 2508, a retaining wall variance request for a property at 41 Garnet Street. The applicant wants to build a wall over 42 inches high inside the required 10-foot side setback, largely because Eversource needs to install a new utility pole and the company's preferred location requires removing part of the existing wall. The problem the board identified: under New Hampshire law, a variance requires proof of genuine hardship — not just a more convenient arrangement for a utility company. Board member David Andrews stated directly that the request appears to be about "preferences" rather than hardship, and that a variance shouldn't be granted when its approval is contingent on a neighbor granting an easement for a pole placement. The town's highway director separately raised safety concerns about the proposed pole location near a blind curve at Garnet Street and Joe's Creek Road.

The board made the right call in not rushing a decision. They required the applicant to obtain written documentation from Eversource laying out all possible pole placement options, and from the town's water and sewer department on whether underground utility installation is feasible. The case is continued to January 13, 2026. What the board did not do is explain publicly why six other cases were passed over without comment.

If you live near 38 Jobs Creek Road, 20 Burma Road, or 41 Garnet Street — or if you simply care about how Sunapee's zoning process treats residents who show up prepared — watch the January 13 agenda and consider attending.

Action ⁠items

Who owes what, by when.
Obtain written documentation from Eversource outlining all possible utility pole placement options on the property
Assigned: Applicant · Due: Before January 13, 2026 meeting
Obtain confirmation from town regarding feasibility of underground utility installation considering sewer line conflicts
Assigned: Applicant · Due: Before January 13, 2026 meeting
Consider requesting as-built drawings as condition of any approval
Assigned: Allison · Due: As part of decision process
Contact Eversource to provide location options for utility pole placement
Assigned: Allison · Due: Before January 13, 2026 meeting
Facilitate conversation with water and sewer department regarding underground utility conflicts
Assigned: Allison · Due: Before January 13, 2026 meeting
Send follow-up email to applicant outlining required additional information
Assigned: Allison · Due: After meeting
Provide confirmation of maximum wall height and length
Assigned: Applicant · Due: Before January 13, 2026 meeting
Confirm availability of other board members for January 13th meeting
Assigned: Allison · Due: Before January 13, 2026

Member ⁠positions

7 issues · 0 explicit · 10 inferred
Jeff Claus
Chair
Present
Jamie appointed as voting member due to Chris Murphy's absence ✓
Appointed Jamie as voting member to replace absent Chris Murphy.
Board consensus that more information is needed before making final decision ✓
Strongly advocated for requiring written Eversource documentation before deciding; burden of proof on applicant.
Case VA2508 continued to January 13th, 2026 ✓
Supported continuance pending additional documentation.
Safety Concerns and Site Line Issues ✓
Noted sight line calculations typically discount tree trunks; acknowledged safety concerns without resolving them.
Approval of October 2, 2025 meeting minutes YES ~
Approved minutes as written.
David Andrews
Board Member
Present
Hardship Criteria Analysis ✓
Skeptical; argued variance is tied to neighbor easement and amounts to preference, not hardship.
Safety Concerns and Site Line Issues ✓
Raised safety and sight line concerns related to utility pole placement near driveway.
Board consensus that more information is needed before making final decision ~
Supported need for more information; questioned whether hardship criteria could be met at all.
Case VA2508 continued to January 13th, 2026 ~
Supported continuance given unresolved hardship and documentation concerns.
Approval of October 2, 2025 meeting minutes YES ~
Approved minutes as written.
Chris Murphy
Board Member
Absent
Jamie appointed as voting member due to Chris Murphy's absence ✓
Absent; replaced by alternate Jamie Silverstein as voting member.
John Quackenbos
Board Member
Present
Safety Concerns and Site Line Issues ✓
Participated in discussion of safety hazards and sight line obstructions from pole placement.
Board consensus that more information is needed before making final decision ~
Agreed with majority that more information is needed.
Case VA2508 continued to January 13th, 2026 ~
Supported continuance by consensus.
Approval of October 2, 2025 meeting minutes YES ~
Approved minutes as written.
Jamie Silverstein
Alternate
Present
Jamie appointed as voting member due to Chris Murphy's absence ✓
Appointed by chair to serve as voting member replacing absent Chris Murphy.
Board consensus that more information is needed before making final decision ~
Participated as voting member; no recorded dissent from majority position.
Case VA2508 continued to January 13th, 2026 ~
Supported continuance as part of board consensus.
Approval of October 2, 2025 meeting minutes YES ~
Approved minutes as written.

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.”

Accountability ⁠flags

Documented procedural gaps. Each item links to its source.

Agenda items not discussed

Topics discussed — not on agenda

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 claude-sonnet-4-20250514, claude-sonnet-4-6, claude-opus-4-6 · analyzed 2026-04-04.