Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ZBA continues appeal of building inspector’s 'discontinued use' finding for 125 Lerner Street to seek legal counsel
Summary
The board continued an appeal by the owner of 125 Lerner Street contesting the building inspector’s determination that a preexisting multi‑unit use was discontinued/abandoned; the ZBA set a June 2 date to obtain legal advice and requested the applicant provide supporting documentation.
The Wolfeboro Zoning Board of Adjustment on May 7 voted unanimously to continue an administrative appeal concerning 125 Lerner Street so the board could obtain legal advice on whether the building inspector properly treated a historic three‑unit dwelling as discontinued under the town’s nonconforming‑use rules.
Attorney Chris Drescher, representing owner Robert Flannery, told the board the building has been a three‑unit property for decades and that the owner undertook intermittent maintenance and attempted permitting activity over recent years with the intent to renovate. Drescher argued the record does not show an intent to abandon the nonconforming use and cited New Hampshire case law that requires proof of both an intent to abandon and an overt act demonstrating that intent.
The building inspector’s December 20 letter — the subject of the appeal — applied the town’s nonconforming‑use provision (section 175‑43(c)) and concluded the use had been discontinued; the applicant contends that a lack of tenants and intermittent repairs do not constitute abandonment. The applicant said work had included exterior trim, painting and some interior leveling; the contractor, Matthew Montief of Morning Star Renovations, said teams had worked weeks or months over the past couple of years but that most work was limited repair rather than full reconstruction.
Board members raised procedural issues in the application package (incorrectly listed zoning district on the application forms and missing dates on some permit scans) and asked the applicant to submit documentation showing what work was performed, when, and whether building or trade permits were issued. Abutter Torrance Stegemeyer spoke to the property’s poor condition and asked for clarification about the appeal’s consequences.
Given legal complexity and competing case law, the board voted to continue the matter to its June 2 meeting at 6:00 p.m. and requested counsel’s guidance on the correct legal standard and how the ZBA should interpret the town ordinance. The board directed the applicant to provide documentation of maintenance, permits, bills or contractor invoices that would support an argument that the use was not abandoned.
The continuation is intended to allow the ZBA to obtain legal advice and to give the applicant time to assemble documentary evidence; the board noted it had been an administrative oversight that the case had not been scheduled earlier owing to staff turnover.
