Sandown board declines rehearing request for 412 Main Street variance

The Sandown Zoning Board of Adjustment voted on March 26 to deny a rehearing request from applicant Charles Pilano related to a variance decision for camping cabins at 412 Main Street.

Chair Joel Ojudici said he reviewed the December meeting video, confirmed that notices and abutter notifications were posted, and recounted that public comment had opened later in the hearing and closed after the chair asked twice for further speakers. Charles Pilano, the applicant, had asked the board to rehear the December 18, 2025 decision, arguing procedural issues in how public comment and rebuttals were handled.

At the meeting, alternate member Dan Hewitt questioned the rehearing application’s three listed grounds and argued that one ground cited an administrative decision while the procedural rules in the zoning bylaw appeared to provide for a back-and-forth rebuttal sequence between applicant and abutters that he felt was not completed. Mike Bergeron and other board members said the prior meeting had grown heated and included multiple speakers and interruptions, but they disagreed on whether those circumstances rose to the level of a procedural error warranting a rehearing.

Dave Artolino moved to open a rehearing for the 412 Main Street variance; Mike Bergeron seconded. The chair called the roll: Jeff Blake voted in favor of opening the rehearing; Mike Bergeron, Chair Joel Ojudici, Dave Artolino and Jason Chu voted against it. The motion therefore failed and the board denied the rehearing request. Chair Ojudici told the applicant that the appeal was concluded and suggested pursuing legal counsel if he wished to continue the matter.

Votes at a glance - Rehearing on Charles Pilano’s variance (412 Main Street): Motion to open rehearing failed, yes 1 (Jeff Blake), no 4 (Mike Bergeron, Joel Ojudici, Dave Artolino, Jason Chu). - Minutes, Jan. 29, 2026: Approved. - Minutes, Feb. 26, 2026: Approved.

Why it matters The rehearing request centered on whether the board correctly followed its public-comment and hearing procedures during a contested variance request for a property owned by Sanctuary Estates LLC. Board members emphasized the distinction between heated public comment and a procedural error that would mandate reopening the case.

Details and context The rehearing petition cited the Sandown zoning ordinance (Article 2, Part A, Section 14), which the board had relied on in its December decision defining a dwelling unit. The subject property is identified in meeting materials as 412 Main Street (Map 14, Lot 19‑73), owner Sanctuary Estates LLC. Chair Ojudici summarized that public comment began approximately 1:26 into the prior meeting’s recording and that the board allowed at least 10 public speakers that night.

What’s next With the rehearing denied, the board concluded its review of the appeal. The chair said the applicant could pursue legal counsel if he wished to challenge the board’s decision further. The meeting then moved on to approve minutes, defer election of officers until the next meeting and adjourn.

Quotes “Not to repeat myself. I’m just trying to get my words clarified here… The abutters were notified,” Chair Joel Ojudici said as he summarized the prior hearing record.

Dan Hewitt said he was unsure whether the application’s multiple listed grounds required separate consideration and asked whether the abutters were denied a second rebuttal opportunity under the written procedure.

“I think everyone was given ample amount of time to say what they wanted to say,” Mike Bergeron said when explaining his vote against rehearing.

Provenance This article is based on discussion introduced at SEG 013 and traced through the board’s decision announced at SEG 382–SEG 403.