The Concord Zoning Board of Adjustment voted unanimously to grant a rehearing for the setback variance in case O319 (ZBA0319225), and later unanimously denied a separate rehearing request for case O321.

The board’s discussion centered on procedure rather than the merits of the underlying project. Members said rehearing was appropriate for the setback variance because the original hearing recorded a 2–1 failed motion to grant without a subsequent motion to deny or written findings of fact to support denial. "There was no correlating vote then to deny the variance...you can't just deny something by having a failed motion to approve it," said Miss Specter Morgan, a board member, arguing that lack of findings justified rehearing for the setback item. She moved that the rehearing be granted for the setback variances; another member seconded the motion.

Other members questioned the practical effects of rehearing and whether the board’s use of 3‑member panels creates inconsistent outcomes. Several members pointed to the board’s rules and state statute requiring a concurring vote of three members for board action. "The concurring vote of 3 members of the board shall be necessary to take any action on any matter," a member paraphrased from statute during debate, noting that a diminished panel effectively requires unanimity to act.

Some members said they did not find new evidence or legal error in the rehearing requests. "No. I I didn't see in reviewing this that there were any errors made," said Miss Perkins. Others said the record did reflect the positions taken at the prior hearing even if formal written findings were not entered. One member said they supported rehearing only on the narrow ground that no formal motion to deny — and no findings of fact to support such a denial — were recorded, not on the broader principle of automatically rehearing every split vote.

After discussion, the board voted on the rehearing motion for case 3.1. "All those in favor, please say aye," the chair called; board members answered in the affirmative and the vote was recorded as unanimous. Staff and members briefly clarified agenda numbering (the rehearing was referred to in agenda materials with different docket numbers but staff explained rehearing items receive new case numbers).

The board then considered the second rehearing request, case O321. A member moved to deny the rehearing "on the basis that no new information has been provided, and there has been no evidence that the board has made any error in fact or law." The motion was seconded. The board voted unanimously to deny rehearing of case O321. Staff advised applicants that they could either reapply with revised plans (creating a new case) or withdraw the application.

The board also discussed possible procedural clarifications for when fewer than five members sit: options raised included explicitly prohibiting three‑member panels, requiring tabling when votes are split, or revising rules so that a 2–1 failed motion would trigger an automatic continuation to a full panel. Members said the changes would better protect applicants and public interest by improving finality and predictability.

The meeting closed after routine business and no further motions.

Votes at a glance

• Rehearing granted — Case 3.1 / O319 (setback variance; ZBA0319225): motion to grant rehearing moved, seconded; vote: unanimous in favor; outcome: rehearing granted.

• Rehearing denied — Case O321: motion to deny rehearing moved, seconded; vote: unanimous in favor of denial; outcome: rehearing denied.

Key quotations

"There was no correlating vote then to deny the variance...you can't just deny something by having a failed motion to approve it. Plus, there was no opportunity to present findings of fact, which would support its denial," — Miss Specter Morgan, board member.

"No. I I didn't see in reviewing this that there were any errors made," — Miss Perkins, board member.

"The concurring vote of 3 members of the board shall be necessary to take any action on any matter," — board member paraphrasing the controlling statute on voting thresholds.

Procedural note: The board limited public testimony for rehearing requests and evaluated whether the appellant presented procedural error, legal error, or new evidence not available at the original hearing.