Alton zoning board reverses decision against Cherry Valley developer, offering path to continue plan

ALTON — In an unusual development, the town’s Zoning Board of Adjustment called a special meeting for Thursday morning and unanimously voted to reverse a previous decision, also made unanimously, during a regular meeting on June 6.

The decision had to do with an application, with a remarkably high level of public interest, to build a wedding and retreat center, including 18 cottages, atop a hill on Cherry Valley Road.

The developer, Lakes Hospitality Group, in partnership with builder Lakes Region Design Group, has worked through several iterations of plans, including removing elements such as a helipad and amphitheater over noise concerns.

Despite those amendments, the project continued to attract hostility from townspeople, to the extent that a small plane flew a banner reading “Stop the Cherry Valley Development” over Lake Winnipesaukee during Memorial Day weekend.

When the ZBA was due to consider the application on June 6 — the developer needs a special exception to operate a commercial facility in the town’s rural zone — more than 100 residents attended, requiring the board to relocate from the Town Hall to Prospect Mountain High School.

None of those in attendance, neither the applicant nor the members of the public, were heard, though, because the board declared at that meeting the application was incomplete, owing to discrepancies between planning documents and missing information, such as the height of the tallest building. Further, because the matter had already been continued multiple times, the board said it wouldn’t offer the applicant another continuance, and they’d have to re-apply as a new project, starting the process over again.

On Thursday, ZBA member Tom Lee, who had made the motion for the June 6 decision, said he was in the wrong.

“I had made a motion with regards to the incompleteness of the application. Upon further review, looking at that case and talking with the attorney for the town, we never gave a fair [opportunity] for rebuttal from the applicant,” Lee said. “Now, come to find out, I erred in that comment and that motion ... Clearly that was not the right and appropriate action taken by myself.”

Paul LaRochelle, who seconded Lee’s motion at the June 6 meeting, also regretted his action.

“I did not give a fair and just opportunity for the applicant to speak,” LaRochelle said, explaining some of the discrepancies in the planning documents could have pertained more to Planning Board than ZBA concerns. “I feel that the decision to not hear the applicant was not in the best interest of the town.”

And board member Frank Rich said he also wished that the many residents who attended the June 6 meeting had been given a chance to speak. “I think we denied both the applicant and the public the opportunity to speak,” Rich said. “A lot of people came out, and I, as a board member, am grateful that we had participation.”

Only Mark Manning, ZBA chair, defended the board’s vote on June 6. “I believe the board did what was appropriate at the time,” Manning said. “You cannot start a case unless the application is complete. We determined at that meeting that the [application] was incomplete.” However, Manning voted along with his colleagues to reverse the June 6 vote.

The ZBA also voted to recommend to the selectboard that the town cover costs for noticing abutters and the general public, should Lakes Hospitality Group choose to proceed with an application. Those costs are typically borne by the applicant.

“Now I make a motion to adjourn,” Rich said after the votes. “I have a lot of weeding to do.”

Thursday’s actions were of more symbolic than practical importance. In the wake of the June 6 vote, Lakes Hospitality Group rescinded all remaining applications with the town, and would have had to re-apply to the town regardless of Thursday’s actions.

Scott Tranchemontagne, a spokesperson for the Lakes Hospitality Group project, offered the following statement on Thursday after the meeting: “We appreciate the board’s action today and are pleased they would like to hear our presentation on the Glass Barn project. We are actively considering potential options for this property.”