Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rehearing Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Concord board grants rehearing on setback variance amid procedural concern over three-member panel
Summary
The zoning board voted unanimously to rehear a setback variance after a member argued a failed 2–1 motion to grant did not equate to a formal denial and no written findings of fact were entered; members debated whether three-member panels need clearer procedural rules.
The zoning board voted unanimously to grant a rehearing on a setback variance after a member argued the original proceeding lacked a formal denial and written findings.
Unidentified Speaker 3, a board member, moved to grant the rehearing on the setback variance, and Unidentified Speaker 5 seconded the motion. Presiding member then called the question; the board voted in favor and the chair announced the board "will rehear case 3.1," initially misstating the file as O326-2025 before members corrected it as O319.
The rehearing was driven by a procedural objection: Speaker 3 said the motion to approve the setback variance had "failed by a vote of 2 to 1," but "there was no correlating vote then to deny the variance" and no written findings of fact were prepared to justify denial. "You can't just deny something by having a failed motion to approve it," Speaker 3 said, arguing that without a recorded denial and findings the matter merited rehearing.
Other board members disagreed about the practical effect of a 2–1 result on a three-member panel. Unidentified Speaker 2 acknowledged the split but said he did not believe a 2–1 result should automatically require rehearing and emphasized the burden of proof is on the applicant. The panel also discussed statutory and procedural thresholds: several members cited the need for three concurring votes to take action on matters the board must pass, which effectively requires unanimity on a three-member panel.
During debate, members raised possible procedural fixes: continuing contested matters to a full five-member board, clarifying the rules of procedure to distinguish three- versus five-member panels, or providing clearer upfront notices to applicants about the limitations of a three-member hearing. Unidentified Speaker 6 noted the rules "can definitely be cleaned up" to specify treatment of three-member panels.
The vote to rehear was recorded as unanimous; the chair noted and members corrected an agenda numbering error while confirming the reheard file as O319. The board did not set a rehearing date on the record; staff and members indicated the appellant may be offered the option to return before a full board at a later meeting.
