[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6252668,"mediaKeyId","3186903-c902b8b5c40440b17bdba0e6a7a6d8c7","parentId",3186903,"title","Alton ZBA schedules continued hearing for subdivision appeal; appellant cites frontage and buildable‑area concerns","audioSeconds",4258,"startMs",13054000,"endMs",17312000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3186903-c902b8b5c40440b17bdba0e6a7a6d8c7&start=13054&end=17312","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3186903-c902b8b5c40440b17bdba0e6a7a6d8c7/thumbnail_13054000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6252668/New-Hampshire/Alton-ZBA-schedules-continued-hearing-for-subdivision-appeal-appellant-cites-frontage-and-buildablearea-concerns","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6252668-85b5d6ea910e21b3d87f08242518c5fe/orig.mp4?Expires=1770403241&Signature=Upwr1L6zAerWLDS-b0wS97BfH3ASZDmfOIywPaaap~rPOYTfADFV2Ev53jKBMnpLUOCy9FSxhaGU3~PWx2shmV45ASoVv2JWjJVF25PtcjISCfnYVDHJp6lUl8CUJBLGr55U5ck6XT6RakwGNuDq199oycoUj7pg4qISss1zunVk3nEvtBE-BHy9thbPWn-7N7MDNLhnTweCw1F4IV~~qYd0ZGHuQ0RTizrPd09eamd6bc2jgf8kih2gj2nl56bGIZ0lQ4Y6fk3zI6OONKa0bfhXC-Oo2IPjsurFxKwnpG17yaoYBTaHcdYjA1c-~mCclqdkqBbfOwdp3PQMl7IDEg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Town Council of Alton NH","date","2025-05-03T16:52:54.717Z","article","The Alton Zoning Board on May 1 agreed to continue an administrative appeal by the Casale family seeking review of a Planning Board subdivision decision. The appellants contended the planning‑board approval created lots that do not meet the town’s ordinance for minimum width of frontage and contiguous buildable area.

Why it matters: The appeal targets the planning board’s subdivision approval and argues specific lots fail legal lot‑creation standards in the town code. If the ZBA finds the Planning Board’s decision improper on those legal grounds, the subdivision may be remanded for reconsideration or revised layouts.

Appellant’s case: Counsel for the Casale family told the ZBA the subdivision plan included multiple lots that did not meet two separate zoning requirements. First, they argued seven lots lack the required width of frontage — a technical term in this zone that the appellant says requires measurement across the lot at the street, not merely linear frontage along the road. Second, they said three additional lots fail the ordinance’s contiguous buildable‑area test (upland and slopes under the percent threshold), and one lot fails both tests. The appellant delivered a technical survey and legal citations to support the claim.

Developer and planning‑board response: Applicant representatives and the planning‑board record said site‑specific constraints (wetlands, ledge) drove the layout and that town counsel and the planning board had reviewed the plan before approval. The developer’s counsel said the lot pattern is a permissible interpretation of the ordinance and that the plan meets the town’s required criteria for lot size and setbacks.

Board action and next steps: The ZBA voted to continue the matter to its June 5 meeting and asked for an opportunity to consult counsel and review legal materials the appellant supplied. Board members noted the appeal raises technical questions of ordinance interpretation and administrative‑gloss doctrine (whether past administrative practice can be relied on to interpret an ambiguous local regulation).

What to watch: The June 5 continuation may include supplemental legal analysis for the board and, if the board finds fault in the Planning Board’s interpretation, could result in a remand. Appellants and the town are likely to rely on survey math, statutory/ordinance language and precedent cases to support their positions.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","ZBA Mtg 5-1-25","oneSentenceSummary","The Zoning Board agreed to continue an administrative appeal by the Casale family challenging a planning-board subdivision approval. The appellant asserts multiple proposed lots fail the ordinance’s frontage and contiguous buildable‑area requirements; the ZBA set a June 5 continuance to allow board counsel review.","taxTitle","Alton Town, Belknap County, New Hampshire","taxId",74073,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6252674,"Zoning board approves 38-site manufactured-home community after revised plan; public sharply divided",5395,4619000,10014000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3186903-c902b8b5c40440b17bdba0e6a7a6d8c7&start=4619&end=10014","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3186903-c902b8b5c40440b17bdba0e6a7a6d8c7/thumbnail_4619000.jpg","/articles/6252674/New-Hampshire/Zoning-board-approves-38-site-manufactured-home-community-after-revised-plan-public-sharply-divided","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6252674-2a33aba395feaa00c144844b3186bf6d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770403241&Signature=Y0UXQ8JW-2w0GaNkDpl3GF6UFgGNpmxhF9-h0FQ41wZLlKfk2kK8RnwU-~mMVBKywM7zIVE7JJ~hoj4wMHjnaHCQA5y0BsflpNSWkq0XgwpoUDVIGwG~4tkLEDs0bN~Xqdm-bN2QFShO9FKety2TpAw9Tw6hcs7w-ClGUm842OhEl7dFRNFBVZcMQWTSV4WwNdLB75MeNpinPl2R-cenl4SY2GNVSDiXG6Sd9mmCTO8QG0OirULQlWbT5jRK-RTBURns7Mf9SR2OmfCAKL5riaIJku1AUe2HQhV3CaJV1XWBlQ3cJG9cpvH6UjAQvCKPnZ4gpIRmbg394y-PIPYX4A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Alton Zoning Board of Adjustment on May 1 approved a revised application for a manufactured‑home development on Route 140, allowing a plan that totals 38 sites — 37 manufactured-home lots plus one single‑family residence for the owner. The project, led by Treasure Coast SPLE LLC (applicant) with TF Moran as engineer, had previously been approved in August for 40 sites; the applicant returned with a revised layout after updated wetlands mapping and ledge observations reduced developable area.

Why it matters: The vote preserves the developer’s path toward site plan review and state permitting, and clears a local zoning hurdle for the proposed community. Opponents warned of groundwater and traffic impacts; proponents and the applicant said the revised plan reduces disturbance and meets zone criteria.

Project description and change: The revised plan reduces density to 38 sites because additional wetlands and ledge were identified in more detailed field surveys. The new layout replaces an earlier loop road with a main spur road and three short stub roads. The applicant told the board the project proposes HUD‑compliant manufactured homes and community amenities, including walking trails, a community room and open areas.

Water, septic and sanitary provisions: The applicant said the development would rely on a shared water system — likely one primary well and a backup — and on clustered septic systems sized to serve groups of homes. \"We would need to draw 16,000 gallons a day for the project,\" a project engineer told the board; the applicant said they would design multiple, clustered systems and bring detailed designs to the planning board and state regulators.

Public comment: The hearing included extended public comment. Dozens of neighbors cited noise, truck/vehicle traffic, tree clearing and potential impacts on wells and aquifers. Several speakers asked that the board require conditions limiting access to Route 140 only (no access to Dudley or Tibbets roads), doing work within reasonable hours and preserving the required 75‑foot perimeter buffer. Supporters argued the town needs additional housing options and that the revised plan disturbed less land than conventional subdivision alternatives.

Board review and conditions: The board examined the required special‑exception criteria and the variance request to allow slightly higher density under the manufactured‑home provisions. Board members discussed frontage, buffer strips, water and septic design and the need for planning‑board site plan review, DES approvals and a DOT driveway permit. The board said many of those infrastructure details would be reviewed at planning‑board level and by state agencies; the ZBA’s approval was conditional on those subsequent reviews.

Formal actions recorded: The board accepted the revised application as an amendment to the prior approval, then found the special‑exception criteria satisfied for the amended layout and approved the requested variance for density. Board members emphasized that final construction would require planning board site plan approval and state DOT and DES permits.

Next steps: The applicant will continue with planning‑board site plan review and the state permitting process. The ZBA noted that conditions imposed previously (DOT approval of the Route 140 driveway, no access to Dudley or Tibbets roads, and necessary NHDES septic approvals) would remain applicable.","The Alton Zoning Board approved a revised plan for a manufactured‑home community on Route 140 that reduces the previously approved layout from 40 to 38 sites. The decision followed extensive public testimony for and against the project, including concerns about water, traffic and tree removal.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6252680,"Alton Zoning Board denies special exception for contractor yard at 208 Main Street",3956,427000,4383000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3186903-c902b8b5c40440b17bdba0e6a7a6d8c7&start=427&end=4383","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3186903-c902b8b5c40440b17bdba0e6a7a6d8c7/thumbnail_427000.jpg","/articles/6252680/New-Hampshire/Alton-Zoning-Board-denies-special-exception-for-contractor-yard-at-208-Main-Street","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6252680-6053abc174249086e197946a4320a87c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770403241&Signature=Y~TVAB9cpyhkUeMxJh-UAiIqKNs1kdO0LhoL0m6F9IbLf1v4qeZ7-GXjCbqy3-cgSoo8NR~EfRqP45xX2~MK0RWFLSp5zxS2xYF72Bnf6M-sq4qro3tSR4gg2viafP-wlYEFWIVmxwHcNQ1U9rsgpjdX5qYSnDKMN1ThKkP7~EJJCS0dfju8DJZOsVcJK6tPxodLrd0X6-kI2F5h2v1EcgNDt4T0pWH7uONidxufSiL7mvVpHF6YrMjHD3AVg9LGcatKx6a64u7rxvB1inzUPVnY8Z2XLK~Tnk7xVmR6VL04DDiIehvOiqVAjAcaYO1Vut9hD77uFgNKTmhwBhsTxg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Alton Zoning Board of Adjustment on May 1 denied a special exception application to formalize a contractor yard and equipment parking area at 208 Main Street, an application tied to Robert Flannery and his agent.

The board ruled the site inappropriate for a contractor yard after public testimony from nearby residents about sight-line problems, equipment parking and prior on-site stockpiles, and after members said the application left key details unresolved. \"I don't think it's the best place for it,\" a board member said during the worksheet discussion, citing the narrow site and safety concerns for vehicles and pedestrians.

Why it matters: The denial stops the applicant from obtaining the zoning permission that would have allowed routine parking and storage of trucks and heavy equipment at the property. Opponents said the proposed use already had altered conditions on the street and posed risks for neighbors; supporters argued the use was less intensive than other allowed commercial options on Route 11.

What the applicant proposed: Attorneys and representatives described the requested approval as limited parking for a local contractor’s trucks and equipment, not a stockpiling or materials yard. The applicant’s agent told the board the intent was to limit parking to a combination of trucks and equipment \"not more than 10 units,\" and to require a DOT driveway permit before final approval. The applicant said materials and stockpiles seen in earlier photographs resulted from nearby septic work and would not continue.

Abutter concerns: Several neighbors and abutters testified that trucks had been parked close to sidewalks and driveways, blocking sight lines and, in at least one instance, sidewalk access after snow removal. Andrew Murray, a neighbor who said he lives adjacent to the multifamily building on the parcel, described repeated incidents and presented photographs, saying parked vehicles already limited sight lines and pedestrian safety.

Applicant response and conditions offered: The applicant said he was willing to add screening, limit the number and arrangement of parking spaces, and condition final approval on an approved DOT driveway location. Counsel said a new driveway to the far right of the property, suggested by a DOT representative, would improve sight distance. The applicant also offered a lease condition to try to make any compliance enforceable.

Board’s concerns and ruling: Board members repeatedly cited lack of a site plan showing numbered parking spaces, unresolved driveway/access solutions with DOT, and uncertainty about buffering from abutters. One member said the evidence submitted did not demonstrate the site was an appropriate location for the contractor use. After working through the zoning worksheet criteria, the board voted to deny the special exception.

Formal actions recorded: The board moved to deny the special exception Z24-47 at the May 1 hearing; the motion to deny was seconded and carried. The board also accepted the applicant’s decision to withdraw, without prejudice, a related administrative appeal for a separate docket number tied to the same property.

Looking ahead: Counsel for the applicant asked whether a materially different submittal (for example, the addition of a DOT approval and a detailed parking plan) would be considered new for the board; a board member said historically the board had allowed applicants to return with new or substantially different materials for reconsideration. The denial fixes the zoning status unless the applicant reapplies with revised materials or obtains different permits.

","The Alton Zoning Board of Adjustment on May 1 denied a special exception request that would have formally allowed contractor parking and equipment storage at 208 Main Street, citing traffic and safety concerns and missing details on parking layout and driveway permits.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Alton ZBA schedules continued hearing for subdivision appeal; appellant cites frontage and buildable‑area concerns

Zoning board approves 38-site manufactured-home community after revised plan; public sharply divided

Alton Zoning Board denies special exception for contractor yard at 208 Main Street