An appeal was initially filed regarding what was believed to be an administrative decision on permitted use for the property at 412 Main Street (Map 14, Lot 19-73). This appeal was based on a statement by the Town Engineer, Steve Keach, asserting that the Town Attorney, Diane Gorrow’s August 25, 2025 “Opinion Letter” constituted a formal administrative decision. That representation was later reviewed by an independent law firm retained by the Town, which determined that the August 25, 2025 letter did not constitute a legal administrative decision. As a result, the appeal was withdrawn, leaving no formal or appealable administrative decision on record from the Town regarding permitted use despite the issue having been actively relied upon in prior proceedings. This sequence raises serious concerns about how the Town is characterizing and handling zoning determinations, and whether proper legal processes are being followed at all.

The Zoning Board of Adjustment also reviewed a separate rehearing application submitted by Charles Pollano, seeking reconsideration of the Board’s December 18, 2025 decision denying a variance related to the definition of a dwelling unit under Article 2, Part A, Section 14A of the Zoning Ordinance.

In reviewing the rehearing request, the Board refused to address all three issues properly raised by the abutter and instead narrowed its review to a single procedural issue, whether the abutter was denied the opportunity to rebut statements made by the variance applicant during the December 18, 2025 public hearing. The three issues presented in the application were:

• Ultra vires administrative action / error of law: The ZBA exceeded its statutory authority under RSA 674:33 by effectively determining whether the zoning ordinance applied to the proposed use, rather than limiting its role to evaluating the variance request. Instead of conducting a proper variance analysis, the Board focused on whether the proposed structures met the definition of a “dwelling unit” and based its decision on that determination, substituting a definitional interpretation for the legally required variance review.

• Procedural violations of ZBA bylaws: The Board failed to follow its own Rules of Procedure by denying the abutter the required opportunity for rebuttal and failing to follow the mandated order of presentation.

• Failure to apply the five mandatory variance criteria: The ZBA did not properly analyze or make findings on the five statutory criteria required under RSA 674:33 by not deliberating on, taking evidence for, or making specific written findings on the five statutory criteria. The record reflects no meaningful discussion, no evidentiary support, and no findings of fact to justify the decision. The Board solely relied on the applicant’s assertions and its own conclusory statements.

Notably, the existence of these three issues was explicitly raised during the meeting by an alternate member of the Board but was ignored by the Chairman. After the vote, a resident again referenced the additional issues, at which point the Chairman stated that the Board did not need to consider all three and would only address the procedural issue. When pressed, the Chairman asked, “what other issues,” indicating he had not reviewed or was unaware of the full contents of the application before limiting the scope of the Board’s review.

The Sandown Zoning Ordinance clearly requires that abutters be provided an opportunity to rebut; however, that opportunity was not provided in this case. Despite openly acknowledging that the bylaws require a rebuttal opportunity, the Board voted 4–1 that the public had been given “ample time to speak” and then dismissed the need to follow the bylaw altogether stating, in effect, that compliance was unnecessary because they believed enough time had already been allowed and because this is how hearings have “always been done.” This is not a close call or a matter of interpretation. It is a direct refusal to apply the Town’s own zoning ordinance. By disregarding clear procedural requirements and substituting informal practice in their place, the Board denied the abutter a guaranteed right and undermined the integrity of the appeal process. This conduct reflects arbitrary decision making, a failure to follow mandatory procedures, and raises serious questions about whether the Board is acting within its legal authority.

March 26, 2026

Zoning Board Meeting -

Review of an Appeal from an Administrative Decision

Review of an Application for Rehearing

February 26, 2026

Zoning Board Meeting - Review of an Application for Rehearing

The Zoning Board of Adjustment reviewed a rehearing application submitted by Charles Pollano for the property at 412 Main Street (Map 14, Lot 19-73), seeking reconsideration of the Board’s December 18, 2025 decision denying a variance related to the definition of a dwelling unit under Article 2, Part A, Section 14A of the Zoning Ordinance. The rehearing request was continued because only four ZBA members were present. This decision was continued to the March ZBA meeting.

February 17, 2026

Planning Board Meeting - Continuing Site Plan Review

Sanctuary Estates presented to the Planning Board revised plans and supporting studies addressing traffic, noise, fire safety, environmental impacts, and operations, while board members and residents raised concerns about parking, emergency access, density, noise control, and overall code compliance. During public comment, the board was asked to clarify the permitted use of the project under the town zoning ordinances, but members could not provide a definitive answer. The Town Engineer recommended consulting the Town Attorney to resolve the use issue before moving forward. Site Plan review is continued to the April 21, 2026 Planning Board meeting.

January 29, 2026

The Zoning Board of Adjustment reviewed a rehearing application submitted by Charles Pollano for the property at 412 Main Street (Map 14, Lot 19-73), seeking reconsideration of the Board’s December 18, 2025 decision denying a variance related to the definition of a dwelling unit under Article 2, Part A, Section 14A of the Zoning Ordinance. The rehearing request was continued because only four ZBA members were present. This decision was continued to the February ZBA meeting.

Zoning Board Meeting - Review of an Application for Rehearing

January 20, 2026

Planning Board Meeting - Site Plan & CUP Review

The Planning Board reviewed and accepted into jurisdiction the site plan application for Sanctuary Estates at 412 Main Street, which proposes 32 recreational camping cabins. Planning Board members and the public raised concerns about water usage, fire and emergency access, parking, traffic, and the project’s scale relative to the town’s rural character. The public hearing was closed and continued to a future meeting to allow the applicant to provide additional information and revisions addressing those concerns.

January 6, 2026

Planning Board Meeting - Warrant Article Proposal

The Planning Board reviewed proposed Zoning Amendment 3, which would formally add hospitality uses—including transient lodging, campgrounds, inns, and bed‑and‑breakfasts—to the list of permitted uses in the Business District and remove Section 12 from Article III. The purpose was to update the ordinance because current zoning lacks any provisions addressing hospitality uses, an issue highlighted during recent applications. Many residents expressed concern that the amendment was being rushed, worried about impacts on property values, safety, and the perception that it was connected to the Sanctuary Estates project.

Planning Board Decision

The Planning Board voted to table Zoning Amendment 3, delaying it for further review rather than sending it to the March ballot.

December 18, 2025

Zoning Board Meeting - Variance Hearing

Sanctuary Estates appeared before the Zoning Board to request a variance so their proposed 308–390 sq. ft. cabins would not be classified as “dwelling units” under the town’s zoning ordinance. Their goal was to confirm the cabins qualify as short‑term lodging structures rather than permanent residential units, which would exempt them from the 500 sq. ft. minimum size requirement. Abutters raised concerns about the cabins potentially evolving into long‑term housing, negative impacts on property values and neighborhood safety, increased noise and density, and the possibility that portable cooking devices could effectively turn the units into dwellings despite the applicant’s intent.

The Zoning Board voted 3–2 to approve the variance, determining that the proposed cabins do not meet the town’s definition of a “dwelling unit.” The majority concluded that because the units lack permanent cooking facilities and other residential features, they cannot be classified as dwelling units under the ordinance, aligning with the opinions of the town attorney, town engineer, and building inspector.

Zoning Board Decision

October 8, 2025

Land at 412 Main Street Purchased

August 5, 2025

Conceptual Meeting with the Planning Board

Sanctuary Estates met with the Sandown Planning Board to present an early concept for 32 small rental cabins on 8 undeveloped acres at 412 Main Street. The units would be year‑round, foundation‑built, arranged around a central pavilion, and intended mainly for short stays by guests from local venues like Zorvino Vineyards. Board members raised questions about wetlands, setbacks, fire codes, project classification (commercial vs. recreational), management, and permitting. Mr. Brown explained the rentals would use an online check‑in model and could serve the general public. The board advised him to get legal guidance from town counsel to determine which ordinances apply before submitting a formal application.

Ask yourself:

If you were on the Zoning Board, how would you determine the permitted use?

What do the Sandown Town Zoning Ordinances Say?

Not an EXPRESSLY PERMITTED USE

Article III, Part A, Section 12 (Building Regulations Pertaining to All Buildings)

"No overnight camp or Motel so-called shall be constructed, except in a site approved by the Board of Selectmen and complying with the regulations of the Building and Zoning Code."

Article II, Part A, Section 14 (General Regulations - Definitions)

"'Dwelling Unit' shall mean rooms with cooking, living, sleeping, and sanitary facilities arranged for the use of one or more individuals living together as a single-family unit."

The subject property is located in the Business District; however, the proposed use of campground-style cabins and transient lodging is not an enumerated permitted or conditional use under Article II of the Sandown Zoning Ordinance. Nor does the use qualify under any residential use classification incorporated through Article I, as it does not meet the definition of a “dwelling unit” under Article II, Part A, Section 14(A), and therefore constitutes a prohibited use absent a valid use variance under RSA 674:33.

Article II, Part B, Land Regulations - Zone A, Section I

Article II, Part A, Building Regulations - Zone A - Pertaining to All Buildings

"Not more than one dwelling unit shall be located on any single lot, unless otherwise permitted by this Zoning Ordinance."

"Every dwelling shall have a minimum ground floor area of 500 square feet outside measurement for each family unit. Steps or ground level terraces shall not be considered a part of the dwelling for the purposes of this Section."

This is the language that the Town Attorney and Town Engineer have asserted may apply to the proposed use; however, it is not contained in any formal, appealable administrative decision regarding permitted use. Moreover, the referenced provisions appear under Article III, Part I (Building Regulations), which governs construction standards, not permitted uses, and it is unclear how these provisions were relied upon to justify a use that is not listed as permitted in Article II, as motels or overnight camps are not allowed uses in either the Business or Residential Districts under the Zoning Ordinance.

Traffic & Road Safety

• How much new traffic will 32 cabins generate during peak wedding weekends and busy seasons?

• Will the 320 foot driveway allow safe entry and exit, especially during winter conditions?

• How will emergency vehicles access the cabins, including the cabins in the back? Has the fire department reviewed and approved it?

Water Supply & Septic Concerns

• Can the onsite well support 32 cabins at full occupancy without affecting neighboring wells? What about during peak times ahead of and after weddings?

• How large is the septic system? Is it sufficient for weekend long events with high usage?

• What protections are in place to prevent contamination of groundwater?

Environment & Wetlands Impact

• Why is a 2,300 sq. ft wetland impact necessary, and were less impactful altneratives explored?

• Will the proposed 24' culvert be sufficient to prevent flooding or alter natural water flow?

• How will construction affect wildlife or nearby conservation areas?

• What long term stormwater protections are being required?

• How will snow removal be handled? Will it be pushed into wetlands?

Noise, Lighting & Neighborhood Impact

• How will noise be managed during weddings, group events, and late night gatherings?

• Who should be called since the property is unmanaged?

• Will outdoor lighting from paths, parking areas, fire pits or cabins impact nearby homes?

• What buffering (trees, fencing, vegetation) will be required between the project and abutters?

Parking & Guest Capacity

• Are 40 parking spaces enough for 32 cabins? What about visitors/guests? What about caterers or other event professionals?

• Where is overflow parking? Will it overflow onto main street or neighboring properties?

• How will traffic be handled during peak arrival/departure times?

Project Operations & Enforcement

• Will the cabins be used year round or only seasonally?

• Will they operate from May through October like other campgrounds in NH?

• Who will enforce occupancy limits?

• Who will enforce noise restrictions?

• Who will enforce event policies?

• Since this is unmanaged/unstaffed, who is responsible for supervision?

Public Safety & Emergency Response

• Has the fire chief reviewed and approved?

• Are there adequate evacuation routes in case of wildfire or other emergencies?

• Will the remote nature of the cabins delay emergency response times?

• Who will enforce fire bans?

Impact on Rural Character & Property Values

• Will a commercial lodging/event business change the rural character of town?

• Why are 32 cabins necessary built on just over an acre of land?

• Will the project negatively affect property values?

Infrastructure Maintenance

• Will runoff from the site impact town roads or cause erosion?

• Will this impact our roads, police or fire?

• If a new police officer or more fire/ems is needed to support this project, who is responsible for their salary and training?

Process & Next Steps

• Will the Planning Board required third party engineering review of drainage, traffic or environmental impacts?

• What additional information is the planning board still waiting on or requiring from the developer?

• Will the planning board hold off on site plan review until all questions from the board, the state and the residents of Sandown are properly and thoroughly addressed?

Zoning Ordinance

• How is this a permitted use under the Sandown Zoning Ordinance?

• Does the Planning Board or the Zoning Board have the authority to make this a permitted use by exception/variance?