Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Appeal 26 007 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board declines to hear Case 26-007, cites incomplete application and notice errors
Summary
The Nottingham Zoning Board of Adjustment on July 16, 2026 declined to hear administrative appeal Case 26-007 after finding the filing incomplete, citing missing pages, fees and notice to abutters; the appellant argued jurisdiction had already transferred under RSA 676:5.
The Nottingham Zoning Board of Adjustment declined to hear an administrative appeal in Case 26-007 on July 16, 2026 after finding the applicant’s filing incomplete, Chair Gary Anderson said.
The decision came after a presenter for the appellant argued the board had jurisdiction and that the filing met the requirements of RSA 676:5. “My administrative appeal was complete when filed on June 5 and jurisdiction transferred to this board on that date,” the presenter said, urging the board to proceed.
Tracy Stickney, the town’s land use coordinator, told the board the submission lacked several required items. “We received the first two pages of an application and then a lengthy narrative on the case,” Stickney said. She added the filing did not include the applicant’s fee, the advertising fee or the required list of abutters, and that the town’s original notice had been prepared before staff realized the application was incomplete.
Vice Chair Bonnie Winona McKinnon moved to deny the appeal—effectively declining to hear it—on the basis that the application was not complete. The motion was seconded by Mary Cobart and the board chair called for and recorded a voice vote in favor. Chair Gary Anderson summarized the board’s action: “We’re not—we’re just not to hear it because of lack of complete application.”
The presenter had argued that, under RSA 676:5, the town could not add extra statutory prerequisites or cure a defective notice by delaying the hearing, and that any continuance would be treated as a refusal to act. The presenter said he would treat a postponement as a denial and preserve rehearing and appeal rights. Stickney and other board members countered that statutory notice requirements and fees had not been met and that the town had therefore proceeded in error when it issued the public notice.
The board did not record a roll-call vote; the chair announced the motion carried by voice. The board also discussed scheduling for its next meeting and adjourned.
Case details recorded in the meeting: Case No. 26-007 (administrative appeal of a plan board determination), cited statute RSA 676:5, and the town staff noted missing application pages, an applicant fee, an advertising fee and a missing abutter list. The presenter stated the appeal had been filed June 5; the town staff said they had since consulted an attorney to draft a corrected notice.
The board’s action was procedural—the panel declined to take up the appeal because the filing was incomplete. The presenter said he would preserve appeal rights and treat any refusal to act as a denial; the transcript does not record any subsequent rehearing date.
