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

Zoning Board of Adjustments — January 13, 2026

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

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

Topics ⁠discussed

Click a topic to expand quotes and full context.
▶ 04:38 Case VA 2508 - 41 Garnet Street Retaining Wall Variance

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, Allison, David Andrews
▶ 09:39 Utility Pole Installation Requirements

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, Jeff Claus
▶ 44:05 Safety Concerns and Site Line Issues

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: Phil Schwarzkopf, John Quackenbau, David Andrews, Allison
▶ 47:02 Highway Department and Town Officials Input

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: Allison
▶ 48:58 Property Line and Setback Constraints

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

Speakers: Phil Schwarzkopf, Jeff Claus, LA, Allison
▶ 55:50 Variance Criteria Review - Public Interest

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: Phil Schwarzkopf, Jeff Claus
▶ 1:20:31 Hardship Criteria Analysis

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
▶ 2:00:19 Need for Additional Information

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: Unidentified speaker
▶ 2:08:08 Easement Requirements and Conditions

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

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 2:18:45 Meeting Continuance Scheduling

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

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 2:25:33 October Meeting Minutes Approval

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

Speakers: Unidentified speaker

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

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

Notable ⁠statements

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 ▶ 44:15
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 ▶ 52:27
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 ▶ 44:45
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 ▶ 1:43:27
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 ▶ 2:02:35
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 ▶ 1:58:23
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 ▶ 2:08:08
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 ▶ 2:06:16
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 ▶ 2:17:10

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.”

Public ⁠comment

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

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.