Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rehearing Denial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Enfield zoning board denies rehearing request in ADU case Z26-3-1
Summary
The Enfield Zoning Board of Adjustment voted unanimously to deny a motion for rehearing in case Z26-3-1, finding the written motion did not present new legal grounds under RSA 677:2; the applicant has 30 days to appeal to superior court or the housing appeals board.
The Enfield Zoning Board of Adjustment on Tuesday voted 5–0 to deny a motion for rehearing in case Z26-3-1, rejecting an applicant's written request to revisit the board's prior decision.
The rehearing motion argued, in part, that the application and the board's record did not accurately reflect the applicant's stated need for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) — specifically, whether the applicant's older parents were "in need of assistance" or would stay overnight only when attending medical appointments. The board reviewed the written motion (the applicant did not attend) and considered the statutory standard in RSA 677:2 for granting a rehearing.
"I did not see anything that suggested to me that I would have changed my vote at the last meeting," the chair said after reading the packet and related statute, explaining the board did not find the motion established a "good reason" under RSA 677:2 to reopen the case. The board recorded that all seated members present had read the written submission before deliberations.
Board members discussed procedure during the deliberation. They noted that a rehearing — if granted — would require renotification of abutters, while denying the rehearing leaves the prior decision in place and starts a new 30-day appeal clock for the applicant. The board asked staff to monitor whether the applicant files an appeal and to report back if the case is taken to court.
The board also discussed which records would be provided to a reviewing court. Members confirmed that the recorded meeting and the minutes from the March meeting form part of the record that a court would review if the applicant seeks judicial review.
The motion to deny the rehearing was made, seconded and approved by unanimous voice vote, recorded as 5–0. After the vote the chair reminded members to use discretion when discussing the case publicly while the 30-day appeal window is open.
Next steps: the applicant has 30 calendar days from the date of this decision to file an appeal in superior court or to seek review before the housing appeals board; the board requested staff keep the membership informed if an appeal is filed.
