Appellant Jeff Hill objects to notice; Nottingham ZBA continues appeal to date to be determined

The Nottingham Zoning Board of Adjustment voted June 30 to continue an administrative appeal after the appellant, Jeff Hill, objected that the published notice was defective and did not identify the appellant or the decision being appealed.

"My name is Jeff Hill, 5 Lincoln Drive. I'm the appellant," Hill said on the record, later arguing that the posted notice identified only "ZBA PB case 26-007 SPR appeal for Precision Cut Lumber LLC," which he said described a site-plan-review matter rather than his RSA 676:5 administrative appeal of the Planning Board's May 13 interpretation. "Because the notice is defective, I respectfully object to proceeding and request that the board re-notice the matter," Hill said.

The board, chaired by Gary Anderson, read procedural rules at the start of the meeting and confirmed that only four members were seated that night — a point members and the applicant said could affect whether parties prefer to proceed or seek a continuance to a full five-member panel. Land use coordinator Tracy Stickney and other staff explained how the local case number was assigned and why the notice tied the appeal to the Planning Board file.

Board members said they had received confidential attorney advice and voted to meet in nonpublic session under RSA 91-A:3 II(l) to review legal issues. After returning to public session, members discussed whether a vote could properly be taken that evening given the notice language and the incomplete board, and they debated the statutory timing for hearings: a member noted that a public hearing generally must occur within 45 days of the filing that starts the statutory clock and said the application shows a June 5 filing date; members agreed to consult legal counsel about that timeline.

Ultimately the board approved a motion to continue "ZBA PB case number 26-007 SPR appeal Precision Cut Lumber LLC, 123 Old Turnpike Road" to a date to be determined. The motion was seconded and carried on a voice/roll-call vote. The chair said the continuance would be posted as a continuation of the current notice, and staff will consult legal counsel about whether the matter requires re-noticing and how statutory deadlines apply.

No substantive decision on the merits of the appeal was reached; the board will schedule the continuation and provide notice. The meeting adjourned after the continuance vote.

Next steps: the board directed staff to consult legal counsel about notice requirements and statutory timing, and to set a new hearing date or re-notice as appropriate. The date for the continued hearing was not specified at the meeting and is "to be determined."