The Wolfeboro Zoning Board of Adjustment on July 7 deferred consideration of a variance application from Atwell on Elm LLC after members disagreed about whether to open the public hearing and continue it or to reschedule and re-notice a fresh hearing.

Board Chair Suzanne Ryan opened the agenda item for Atwell on Elm LLC (Case 11-V-25) and described that the applicant’s attorney had requested a continuance because the attorney assigned to the case had been called away for medical reasons and had not received the large packet of material submitted by the abutters. Ryan said she had been contacted by the applicant’s counsel and read an email requesting continuance to August 7. “This is Cainan. Good afternoon, Shauna,” Ryan read from the attorney’s message.

The central dispute among board members was procedural: whether to open the hearing tonight and continue it to a time, date and place certain or to re-notice a new hearing so all parties and the public would be unquestionably on notice. Vice Chair Audrey Klein argued the board should not open and continue, saying she preferred to “start fresh so everybody can get the information they need and then to schedule and re-notice in the appropriate way.” Other members said the applicant and town staff administration believed an administrative continuation would be sufficient and that notice had been sent to abutters.

Board members examined the town and state notice rules during the meeting. Staff read aloud language from the town materials and a state citation the board referenced as “6767, Roman numeral 1A” and discussed the statutory language that public notice must be given “not less than 5 days before the date fixed for the hearing.” Members asked whether that meant calendar days or business days and whether the posted notices complied with the rule given the July 4 holiday.

After extended discussion about what had occurred in prior meetings and whether the matter constituted a rehearing of a prior administrative decision, the board voted to table the Atwell item until after they addressed the next agenda item, and then later voted to reschedule the Atwell matter to the board’s next regular meeting on August 4. The board also voted to waive the 30-day timing requirement in its rules for reconsideration/rehearing so the new hearing schedule could proceed. The board agreed to meet with its attorney before the rescheduled hearing to clarify whether the board should treat the matter as a rehearing or a new hearing and to confirm the scope of notice required.

No final determination on the Atwell variance requests was made at the July 7 meeting; discussion and the procedural questions were the substantive outcome. Several members emphasized they had not reviewed the abutters’ packet and had not had a back-and-forth with the board’s attorney prior to the meeting. Chair Ryan said staff would re-notice and handle any required advertising or mailings once the board’s legal counsel advised on the proper procedural path.

Why it matters: the procedural posture — whether the board opens and continues a hearing or re-notices a new hearing — affects appellate preservation and which parties receive direct notice; abutters’ counsel had flagged a concern about notice as relevant to future appeals. The board’s decision to seek legal clarification and to re-notice aims to reduce procedural challenge risk before any substantive deliberation on the variances.

Discussion and next steps: the board directed staff to re-notice the Atwell item for August 4 pending legal counsel’s advice, and the board scheduled a meeting with its attorney in the days before the rescheduled hearing to clarify whether the matter is a rehearing or a new hearing and what mail/newspaper notice is required. A formal hearing on the Atwell variance application will occur on the rescheduled date; no variance was granted or denied on July 7.