All towns · freedom

07-28-26

Document

FREEDOM ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 
P.O. Box 227 
Freedom, NH 03836 
Tuesday July 28, 2026 
 
Present: Chairman Scott Lees, Vice Chair Craig Niiler, Karl Ogren, Daniel Footit (A), Anne 
Cunningham (A), Peter Keenan  
Bryan Fontaine Building Inspector/Zoning Officer, Les Bab, Selectman, Nicole Ricciardi 
Recording Secretary 
 
Absent: Dennis Anderson, Scott Pettengill (A), Tim Cupka(A) 
 
Public: Phillip Marbury, Libby Priebe, Stacy Buldoc,Chris Meier, Roberta McCarthy, Susan 
Marks, Mark Salvati, Jay Tropea, Sue Houple, David Cahill, Sarah Grolean, Sharlene Cahill, 
Angela Quint, Taylor Ouelette, Anna Gross, Philip Ross, Hanna Strengel, Jason Dennis, Paul 
Elie, Marjorie Amico, Jeff Nicoll, Brian Taylor, Chris Meyer 
 
Chairman Lees called the meeting to order at 7:03pm 
 
Chairman Lees opened the meeting, introduced board members and staff, and noted that the 
hearing had been properly noticed in the Conway Daily Sun and posted at the Town Hall and 
Post Office. Alternates Anne Cunningham and Daniel Footit were seated to establish a quorum.  
 
PUBLIC MEETING: 
 
Karl Ogren  made the motion to approve, seconded by Craig Niiler by to Approve the meeting 
minutes of June 23, 2026 minutes.  Unanimous approval. Motion carried. 
 
Numerous members of the public attended, including representatives of Camp Cody, Ossipee 
Lake Alliance (OLA), abutters, and interested residents.  
 
The following applications were heard: 
Application 21-1-1-26A 
Ossipee Lake Alliance 
Applicant requests: Appeal 
from an administrative 
decision.  Relating to the 
interpretation and 
enforcement of the provision 
of sections 901 and 902 
Zoning Ordinance in 
question. 
Applicant is requesting the 
following: 
Variance Article 9 Section 
901 – Non-Conforming Uses 
and Structures 
Variance Article 9 Section 
902 – Change or Expansion 
of Non-Conforming Use 
Application 21-1-1-26B 
David G. Cahill and 
Sharlene Cahill 
Applicant requests: Appeal 
from an administrative 
decision.  Relating to the 
interpretation and 
enforcement of the provision 
of section 901 Zoning 
Ordinance in question. 
Applicant is requesting the 
following: 
Variance Article 9 Section 
901 – Non-Conforming Uses 
and Structures 
Property is located at 9 
Cody Road 
Map 21 Lot 1 and 1-1 
 
Application 58-19-26 
Marjorie Amico 
Applicant request: Build a 
roof over a current cement 
pad used to park a boat.  
Project to include 8 support 
posts to cover a space 27’ 
long by 17’ wide with a roof 
peak of height of 15’. 
Applicant is requesting the 
following: 
Variance Article 3 Section 
304.5 – Front yard & side 
yard setback 
Property is located at 71 
Beach Club Dr. 
Map 58 Lot 19 

Property is located at 9 
Cody Road 
Map 21 Lot 1 and 1-1 
 
 
 
 
PUBLIC HEARING: 
Application 21-1-1-26A  
Property is located at: 9 Cody Road 
Map 21 Lots 1 and 1-1 
Applicant requests: Appeal of an administrative decision of Articles 9, Sections 901 and 902 
regarding non-conforming uses and structures.  
 
Preliminary Issue: Standing 
Before substantive testimony began, Attorney Chris Meier, representing Camp Cody, raised a 
procedural objection regarding Ossipee Lake Alliance's (OLA) standing to appeal. Attorney 
Meyer argued that under recent amendments to RSA 672:3, only applicants, abutters, and certain 
municipal entities have standing, and that OLA, as an organization, does not qualify.  
Attorney Jason Dennis, representing OLA, responded that OLA's membership includes abutters, 
specifically David and Sharlene Cahill, and that the organization derives standing through those 
members. He further argued that organizations have historically been recognized as aggrieved 
parties in related proceedings and that OLA should be permitted to preserve its claims.  
Board discussion: 
• 
Whether an organization qualifies as a "person" or "abutter" under the statute. 
• 
Whether membership by an abutter can confer standing upon an organization. 
• 
The implications of recent statutory changes. 
• 
Whether there is supporting case law for OLA's position.  
Board members questioned the basis for OLA's standing, while also noting significant overlap 
between the OLA and Cahill appeals. The Board ultimately agreed to hear the Cahill application 
first because the Cahills' standing as abutters was undisputed.  
 
 
 
 
 
Application 21-1-1-26B  
Property is located: 9 Cody Road 
Map 21 Lots 1 and 1-1 
Applicant requests: Appeal of an administrative decision of Articles 9, Sections 901 regarding 
non-conforming uses and structures.  
 

Accepted in the record as exhibits: 
• Exhibit A Exhibit A 21.1.1-1.26 Cahill ZBA Appeal Application 
• Exhibit B Exhibit B Camp Cody Supporting Documents 
 
Presentation by Attorney Philip Marbury on Behalf of David and Sharlene Cahill 
Attorney Philip Marbury clarified that the application was not a variance request but an appeal of 
an administrative decision under RSA 676:5. He stated that the appeal challenged a June 3, 2026 
determination by the Zoning Officer that Camp Cody's commercial uses were considered 
grandfathered. He requested that all materials submitted with the appeal be incorporated into the 
record.  
Attorney Philip Marbury argued that: 
• 
Camp Cody bears the burden of proving that any claimed non-conforming uses existed 
when the local zoning ordinance became effective on October 6, 1987. 
• 
No evidence had been presented establishing that current off-season commercial 
activities existed in 1987. 
• 
Historic camp activities are not necessarily equivalent to current commercial operations. 
• 
Expansion of a non-conforming use may become unlawful when the nature, purpose, or 
impact of the activity substantially changes. He cited New Hampshire case law regarding 
natural growth versus impermissible expansion of non-conforming uses.  
Attorney Philip Marbury asserted that Camp Cody has experienced substantial increases in: 
• 
Year-round operations. 
• 
Weddings and event hosting. 
• 
Traffic and deliveries. 
• 
Commercial intensity. 
• 
Buildings, lodging, dining facilities, and infrastructure.  
Testimony of Sharlene Cahill: 
Ms. Cahill testified that when she and her husband purchased their property in 2015, Camp Cody 
operated primarily as a summer camp and was relatively quiet during the off-season. Ms. Cahill 
stated that since approximately 2018 she has observed: 
• Increased year-round use. 
• Frequent weddings and large events. 
• Increased deliveries beginning early in the morning. 
• Bus traffic late at night. 
• Additional employee vehicles. 
• More lighting from buildings and parking areas. 
• Noise, littering, smoking, and trespassing associated with events.  
She testified that these impacts significantly affect neighboring properties and differ substantially 
from the camp operations she observed when purchasing her home.  
Board Discussion 

Board members questioned: 
 
• How much expansion of a non-conforming use is permitted under the ordinance. 
• Whether growth constitutes normal business evolution or a fundamentally different use. 
• Whether specific activities such as weddings are merely incidental to camp operations or 
constitute a separate commercial enterprise. 
• Whether evidence exists establishing the extent of pre-1987 activities.  
It was noted by Anne Cunningham that, during her time on the Planning Board, Camp Cody, 
presented themselves well, however she does not recall Camp Cody  referencing of a wedding 
venue in terms of expansion. 
Karl Ogren and Craig Niiles spoke to the issue of quantifying expansion. 
 
Response by Camp Cody 
Timeline Issue 
Attorney Chris Meier argued that the Cahills' appeal should be dismissed because it was not filed 
within the statutory 30-day appeal period. 
Attorney Chris Meyer, Camp Cody, asserted that: 
• 
The Town communicated its grandfathering determination no later than February 3, 
2026. 
• 
Additional communication occurred on May 12, 2026. 
• 
The Cahills and OLA were aware of these determinations prior to the June filing. 
• 
A party cannot repeatedly trigger new appeal periods by requesting repeated 
confirmations of the same administrative decision.  
Attorney Philip Marbury, Cahills, argued in response that: 
• 
The June 3, 2026 communication was the first notice his clients received of an official 
determination. 
• 
Administrative decisions cannot trigger appeal rights before notice is communicated to 
affected parties. 
• 
The Town's process lacked formal public notice and a documented decision date.  
Board members engaged in extensive discussion regarding: 
• 
When the appeal clock begins. 
• 
Whether the clock starts when a decision is made or when it is communicated. 
• 
Whether a Select Board action occurred. 
• 
Whether an administrative decision exists in an identifiable form. 
Camp Cody Testimony: 
Camp Cody Executive Director Philip Ross testified that: 
• 
Camp Cody and its predecessor organizations have operated on the site for roughly 100 
years. 
• 
Off-season events, weddings, conferences, scout activities and community programs 
occurred well before 1987. 

• 
Former owner Alan Stolz officiated weddings on the property. 
• 
Facilities were constructed in the early 1980s to support conferences and events. 
• 
Such activities have continued consistently since that time. 
Mr. Ross argued that: 
• 
The uses at issue are longstanding and grandfathered. 
• 
Similar issues have been reviewed by multiple zoning officials over the years. 
• 
Numerous state investigations prompted by complaints found no violations. 
• 
Camp Cody provides important economic and educational benefits and year-round 
employment 
Anna Gross testified: 
• Events and parking uses predate her employment beginning in 2001. 
• Current utilization of facilities is consistent with historic patterns. 
• Event activity today is actually lower than some earlier years. 
Angela Quint, a year-round employee, spoke regarding: 
• 
Camp Cody's role as a significant year-round employer. 
• 
Educational and retreat programming. 
• 
Economic contributions to the community. 
• 
The personal impact any restriction could have on employees and families.  
Abutter Comment: 
• 
Mark Salvati, abutter, who recalled activity dating back decades and encouraged 
cooperation between neighbors. 
Public Comment: 
• 
Les Babb, Town of Freedom Selectman and former Zoning Officer, stated he investigated 
similar complaints around 2000-2001 and concluded weddings predated 1987. 
• 
Sarah Burrell, who described long-running educational activities at the camp. 
• 
Susan Hoople, who raised questions regarding septic system approvals. 
• 
Darwin Moulton, who spoke in support of the camp as a longstanding community 
institution. 
• 
Attorney Jason Dennis and Susan Marks on behalf of OLA, who emphasized 
environmental review, permitting, and adherence to zoning procedures.  
 
 
Board Deliberation and Continuance 
After discussion, ZBA members agreed additional legal guidance was needed. 
Questions identified for Town Counsel included: 
1. When does the 30-day appeal period begin? 
2. What constitutes the relevant administrative decision? 

3. Was there a formal Select Board determination? 
4. What evidence is sufficient to establish historic use? 
5. What degree of expansion is permissible under non-conforming use law? 
6. Whether OLA possesses standing.  
Karl Ogren moved to continue the Cahill appeal to August 25, 2026 at 7pm at The Town Hall, 16 
Elm Street, Freedom NH. Anne Cunningham seconded. 
Vote: Unanimous. Motion carried. The matter was continued to August 25, 2026.  
 
 
Return to OLA Application 
Following continuance of the Cahill case, the Board briefly returned to OLA's application. 
Additional discussion focused on: 
• 
OLA's membership structure. 
• 
Whether membership alone creates standing. 
• 
The organization's active membership and mailing lists. 
• 
The applicability of prior case law.  
The Board determined that the standing issue should also be reviewed by Town Counsel before 
proceeding further. 
Karl Ogren moved to continue the OLA application to August 25, 2026 at 7pm at The Town Hall 
16 Elm Street, Freedom NH. Craig Niiler seconded. 
Vote: Unanimous. Motion carried.  
Application 58-19-26  Marjorie Amico 
Property is located at: 71 Beach Club Drive, 
Map 58 Lot 19 
 
Applicant Request:  
Variance Article 3, Section 304.5 Front Yard and side Yard setback.  
Applicant Presentation: 
Marjorie Amico presented: 
• She would like to Construct a roof over an existing boat parking pad requiring setback 
relief.  
• The existing concrete pad was constructed in approximately 2002. 
• She wishes to construct an open-sided roof structure to protect her boat from weather. 
• The structure would be approximately 27 feet by 17 feet and 15 feet high. 
• It would remain screened by existing vegetation. 
• The proposed roof would not alter the character of the neighborhood. 
• The boat currently sits approximately 27 feet from the roadway.  
Marjorie Amico provided photographs and illustrations of the proposed structure and noted 
support from neighboring property owners in the form of printed emails.  
 

Public Comment: 
• No abutters were present 
• Public Comment was in support  
Board Discussion: 
• 
Setbacks of existing cement pad 
• 
Prior approvals related to the pad. 
• 
Preservation of vegetative screening. 
• 
Ensuring the structure remains an open boat shelter and not an enclosed building.  
• 
No abutters opposed the request.  
Decisions: 
Variance – Article 3, Section 304.5 - Side Yard Setback Relief 
1. 4 carried–1 defeated motion carried 
2. 4 carried–1 defeated motion carried 
3. 4 carried–1 defeated motion carried 
4. 5-0 motion carried 
5. A. i. 4 carried–1 defeated motion carried 
         ii. 5-0 motion carried 
Motion: Chairman Lees motioned to approve the Variance from Article 3, Section 304.5 
Vote: 4 carried–1 defeated Approved 
Conditions of Approval: 
1. Per Plan Titled: Variance Plan Land of Marjorie L. Amico Revocable Trust Dated June 
25, 2026 
2. Building not to be enclosed 
3. Vegetation buffer to be preserved.  No trees cut along property line with tax map 58 
lot 21 
Finding of Facts: 
1. Concrete pad is existing since 2000 with Approval from zoning officer. 
2. All abutters have written support for the proposed application. 
 
Notice 
The applicant was advised: 
• 
A 30-day appeal period applies.  
• 
Work commenced during the appeal period is at the applicant's risk.  
• 
Approvals expire if substantial work does not begin within two years.  
 
Meetings Attachments:  See attached: 
• Exhibit A 21.1.1-1.26B Cahill Appeal Application 
• Exhibit B Camp Cody Supporting Documents 
 
Adjournment 
Following completion of business, the meeting adjourned at 10:13pm 
Respectfully submitted, 
Nicole Ricciardi 
Recording Secretary 





























































 
STATEMENT OF PHILIP ROSS TO THE FREEDOM ZONING BOARD OF 
ADJUSTMENT July 28, 2026. 
Chairman Lees, members of the Board: 
My name is Philip Ross. I am the Executive Director of Camp Cody. 
There has been an organization on our shoreline for one hundred years. First, 
Camp Adaewanda for girls, from the mid-1920s until 1940. Then Camp Cody, 
which came up from Pennsylvania in 1940. My family has owned and directed 
Cody since 1960. We are in our fourth generation. 
I arrived at Camp Cody in 1978. I can tell you from my own memory, not just from 
the documents and statements we’ve provided from past owners, what Camp 
Cody did in those years. Events were hosted before and after the summer 
season throughout the late 1970s and all through the 1980s. I saw it. I helped 
host it. That event activity was a well established part of Cody’s operation more 
than a decade before 1987, and it continued every single year I can personally 
account for, straight through to this decade. Our first family owner, Alan Stolz, 
was a Justice of the Peace who married couples and hosted weddings and 
events, including scout troops at Camp Cody in the 1980s and 1990s. In 1980, 
Alan and his wife, Sandra Stolz, built a building specifically to host events and 
retreats, which they’d been hosting at least since 1977. Sandra Stolz, Alan's 
former wife and his daughter Maryann, are prepared to swear to all of it, and 
have provided written statements verifying events at Cody since the 1970's. That 
is what this operation has done continuously for fifty years, and it is what camps 
around this lake and across New Hampshire do. 3/4 of American Camp 
Association, New Hampshire camps, host events. It helps legacy camps survive. 
Camp Calumet. Cody. Huckins. Robin Hood. All of us. 
So how did a hundred-year-old organization end up here? 
Our newest neighbors bought their property ten years ago. For most of those 
years, we were good neighbors to each other. Indeed, we were such good 
neighbors that in 2022, Sharlene and David Cahill celebrated their own son's 
wedding at Camp Cody. Weddings at Camp Cody were good enough for them 
then. In 2023, sadly, trees were cut on our property bordering the Cahills', and we 
are now in litigation over it. That dispute belongs in court, which is where this 

town's officials recommended we take it, and that's where it is. But mark the 
timeline. For nearly seven years before our trees were cut down in 2023, and 
litigation began, no complaint. Since then, complaints began being made by our 
neighbors to town officials, to town offices, and now to this Board. 
We have used that same main driveway and the same main parking lot for event 
food deliveries and event arrivals and departures for 50 years - forty years before 
our neighbors purchased their seasonal cottage in 2016. Whatever they found 
when they moved in, this was already part of it. They also never complained 
about that until May of 2024, after our trees were cut and their promises to 
restore were broken. 
Our neighbors' newest complaints are not independent solo ones. When our 
neighbors filed their complaint this June, the Zoning Officer replied that he had 
already addressed, in his words, "a prior complaint very identical to the one 
received from you." Which he had. He received an almost identical complaint in 
January, from the Ossipee Lake Alliance. The striking similarity between the 
OLA's complaints and the Cahills' complaints carried through into June, and here 
we are today, with both of them here together before this board. 
In April, the Ossipee Lake Alliance wrote to the Town that it "takes no position for 
or against" our uses. It has, however, spent the months since January working 
through the offices of the State government: three offices of the Department of 
Health and Human Services, including our licensing agency, and the Liquor 
Commission. Under New Hampshire's Right-to-Know law, we obtained sixty-six 
pages of records of Ossipee Lake Alliance inquiries to the state, about Camp 
Cody. Sixty-six pages. Every one of those inquiries has come back the same way 
from the state. "No violation." "Exempt", "exactly as the statute reads". "Licenses 
valid". The Liquor Commission closed its file with one word: "unfounded." That 
was following an inquiry by the Ossipee Lake Alliance to the Liquor Commission 
about whether Camp Cody was licensed to sell alcohol. We don’t sell alcohol. 
We’ve never sold alcohol. Before that file was closed, two armed officers in black 
tactical gear, body armor, and body cameras, showed up at our property while we 
were hosting a group of schoolchildren attending an environmental education 
program. 
We’re a one hundred-year-old organization that has hosted events continuously 
for fifty years. What is going on here? 

As much as this is about Camp Cody at this moment, this isn't just about us. This 
similar pattern ran at Wabanaki Campground before it reached us. Wabanaki was 
first. We are second. Who's going to be next? Look around this lake. Camps and 
campgrounds, legacy, multi-generational, grandfathered operations every one, 
hosting groups in the shoulder seasons, employing people across Carroll County, 
people like us in this room, hard-working, trying to make a difference to others, 
paying taxes, paying rent or a mortgage, making car payments, feeding our 
families. Our neighbors are asking you to shut down our entire event operation, 
even though we’re grandfathered and we've been hosting events continuously for 
fifty years, even though their son was married at Camp Cody. If they prevailed, 
eighteen Cody adult breadwinners would be unemployed. Then add in Calumet, 
Huckins, Robin Hood, and what about the 100 other camps hosting events 
across the state? 
Our four camps are an integral and historic part of the Town of Freedom, and 
have been for 100 years. Like the other legacy organizations of this remarkable 
town, we've been doing what we do for many decades, and as the Zoning Officer 
has stated, and as town officials have stated, we are grandfathered. It is not 
proper for a newly arrived neighbor that we're in litigation with, suddenly unhappy 
with what was here long before them, to enlist themselves and community 
organizations to remake a legacy, multi-generational, grandfathered organization 
into something that suits them better. 
On behalf of Camp Cody and the other camps and campgrounds around the 
lake, just this: if an unhappy neighbor can enlist community organizations to 
reach past their charters, to put legacy, multi-generational, and grandfathered 
businesses through months or years of investigation, and compel this Board to 
hear it, then no camp, no campground, and no business in this town is safe from 
the same treatment. It began at Wabanaki. It's happening now at Camp Cody, 
and it will continue to others, unless you, members of this Board, stop it here, 
today. 
Thank you.