Meeting report · Zoning Board
Creating this report cost real money.
Help fund coverage →
Zoning Board — March 2, 2026
The meeting featured high community engagement with six public speakers expressing strong opposition to specific projects, particularly regarding property values and zoning integrity.
Public impact
Issues from this meeting with documented community impact.
01
Zoning Density Increase at 492 Washington Street
Significant increase in residential density from 30,000 to 10,000 square feet per unit. Affected: Local residents and future residents of the 79-unit development.
zoning change
02
Manufactured Housing Siting at 95 Old Church Road
Potential change in neighborhood character and property valuation for R1 district residents. Affected: Immediate neighbors and the local affordable housing market.
zoning change
Decisions logged
Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Election of Officers: Michael Mu as Chair and Mike Hart as Vice Chair.
Motion made by a speaker and seconded.
Approved
01:18
Denial of Rehearing for Broad Street Supportive Housing Trust.
The board determined no technical error occurred and no new information was presented.
Denied
04:43
Continuance of Variance Request for 95 Old Church Road.
The board requested more visual information regarding the home's appearance (roof pitch, aesthetics) and specific siting on the lot before making a decision.
Continued
31:00
Approval of Variance ZB2026-00002 (492 Washington Street) for increased density.
Allowed a maximum density of one unit per 10,000 square feet. Valid for two years subject to standard conditions and Planning Board approval.
Approved
61:18
Approval of Special Exception ZB2026-00003 (492 Washington Street).
Permitted the planned residential development subject to obtaining all necessary permits and Planning Board site plan approval.
Approved
67:50
Topics discussed
Click a topic to expand quotes and full context.
00:42 Administrative Matters
The board accepted the minutes from the previous meeting and elected new officers, appointing Michael Mu as Chair and Mike Hart as Vice Chair.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
02:15 Request for Rehearing: Broad Street Supportive Housing Trust
The board reviewed a request for a rehearing. Staff confirmed the motion was timely and the appellant had standing, but recommended against a rehearing as no technical errors or new information were identified.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
04:45 Variance Request: 95 Old Church Road (Randy Lewis Trustee)
A request to allow the placement of a manufactured home on a lot in the R1 district where they are generally not permitted. The applicant argued for affordable housing and neighborhood consistency, while neighbors argued the variance was based on personal financial hardship rather than land hardship.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
33:00 Variance Request: 492 Washington Street (Gilberto Alexio Fielhol)
A request to increase residential density from 30,000 square feet per unit to 10,000 square feet per unit for a planned residential development. The project proposes 79 total units.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
62:50 Special Exception Request: 492 Washington Street (Gilberto Alexio Fielhol)
A request for a special exception to permit a planned residential development of 79 units at the same location as the density variance request.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
Controversy & dissent
Where the board, the community, or the agenda diverged.
Potentially controversial issues
01
Variance Request: 95 Old Church Road (Manufactured Home)
There is a direct conflict between the applicant's goal of providing affordable housing and neighbors' concerns regarding neighborhood aesthetics, property values, and the legal definition of 'hardship' (land vs. financial).
Board position: Undecided/Deferred; the board requested more visual and technical information before ruling.
high concern
02
Variance Request: 492 Washington Street (Density Increase)
The request seeks to significantly increase residential density (from 30,000 to 10,000 sq ft per unit), which a board member noted as a notable discrepancy between multi-family and single-family requirements.
Board position: Approved the density variance and the special exception for 79 units.
medium concern
Community vs. board tension
Ready to share? AI-written accountability posts about this meeting's controversies.
View posts →
Action items
Who owes what, by when.
Provide additional information for the next meeting, including manufacturer specs, aesthetics (roof pitch/style), and a site map showing the proposed location on the lot.
Assigned: Applicant (Randy Lewis Trustee) · Due: 2026-04-06
Notable statements
New Hampshire statute creates a presumption that municipalities shall afford reasonable and realistic opportunities for the siting of manufactured housing. — Speaker G (Attorney) · Arguing in favor of the variance for the manufactured home on Old Church Road. 13:00
A variance is to be granted for property hardships not for personal or financial hardships. — Speaker H (Norma Limos) · Opposing the manufactured home variance on Old Church Road. 15:21
I don't understand why a resident, like a multi-family building needs thirty thousand square feet per unit and a single-family needs ten thousand. — Speaker L (Board Member) · Discussing the density requirements for the Washington Street project. 55:00
Public comment
What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
6
Total speakers
1
Addressed
1
Partial
4
Not addressed
Alex Scott
08:15
Partial
Representing the applicant, Scott argues that the manufactured home is a modern, aesthetic choice that provides much-needed affordable housing. He contends the variance is appropriate because the lot abuts a district where such homes are allowed and complies with state mandates for affordable housing siting.
Key concern
Requesting a variance to allow a manufactured home on a lot in the R1 district where they are otherwise prohibited.
Board responseThe board questioned the applicant regarding the foundation type, roof pitch, and whether the unit would be a rental or owner-occupied. Ultimately, the board tabled the decision to request more visual information.
The board engaged with the arguments and questions but did not reach a decision, instead requesting more visual/technical data for the next meeting.
Norma Limos
16:01
Not addressed
Limos opposes the variance, stating that the land is perfectly usable for standard single-family homes under current zoning. She argues that granting the variance based on financial hardship sets a dangerous precedent and would negatively impact neighborhood character and property values.
Key concern
Opposing the variance on the grounds that there is no unique physical hardship, only financial preference, and that it will diminish property values.
Board responseThe board listened to the testimony and later discussed the necessity of housing and property values during deliberation, but did not directly reply to her during the hearing.
While the board discussed the themes of her concerns (property values and hardship) during their private deliberation, they did not provide a direct response to her during the public portion of the meeting.
Kelly Schilb
22:31
Not addressed
Schilb requests the denial of the application, arguing that a variance is an extraordinary remedy not intended for financial or personal convenience. She claims the project would provide an unfair special privilege and could decrease surrounding property valuations.
Key concern
The application does not meet the statutory criteria for a variance, specifically regarding physical hardship and community character.
Board responseThe board heard her testimony and discussed the criteria for a variance during deliberation, but did not respond to her directly.
The board did not provide a direct response to the speaker, though they addressed the legal criteria she cited during their deliberation.
Cheryl Akin
23:44
Not addressed
Akin expresses concern that the presence of a manufactured home will decrease the property value of her home, which she intends to sell soon. She notes that she has invested significantly in her property and fears a mismatch in property comparisons.
Key concern
Decrease in residential property values.
Board responseThe board heard her concerns but did not respond to her directly.
The speaker was heard, but no direct response was given by the board members.
Nancy Fowler
24:48
Not addressed
Fowler states that while she likes the applicant personally, she cannot support the variance. She believes manufactured homes do not fit the aesthetic of the existing well-cared-for homes on the road and fears it will hurt property values.
Key concern
Aesthetic mismatch and negative impact on property values.
Board responseThe board heard her testimony but did not respond to her directly.
The board acknowledged her presence/statement by thanking her, but did not engage with the content of her objection.
Unidentified speaker
31:08
Addressed
The speaker (likely a board member or staffer acting in a capacity to move the meeting forward, though labeled a speaker in transcript) requests that the board table the item to allow the applicant to provide more information regarding the aesthetics, location on the lot, and manufacturing specifications.
Key concern
Lack of visual information and specifics regarding the proposed home's appearance and placement.
Board responseThe board agreed with the suggestion to table the matter for more information.
The board immediately acted upon the suggestion by voting to continue the meeting to the next date.
Support coverage
Creating this report cost real money.
MeetingWatch attended, transcribed, and analyzed this meeting on its own dime. If this work is valuable to you, chip in to keep covering Claremont.
Follow Claremont
One email when a new report is published from the Zoning Board — or one weekly digest.
Report composed by
grok-4.3, gemma-4-26b, grok-4.20-0309-reasoning · analyzed 2026-05-30.