Meeting report · Zoning Board
Creating this report cost real money.
Help fund coverage →
Zoning Board — April 6, 2026
While the board was unified, the meeting featured organized opposition from multiple community members and heated legal arguments regarding the definition of hardship.
Public impact
Issues from this meeting with documented community impact.
01
Zoning enforcement regarding manufactured homes in R1 districts
Sets a legal precedent for how 'hardship' is interpreted for non-traditional housing in residential zones. Affected: Property owners in R1 districts and potential developers of manufactured housing.
zoning change
Decisions logged
Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Denial of variance application ZO 2026-00001 (Randy Lewis).
The motion to deny the variance for the placement of a manufactured home at 95 Old Church Road (parcel 77) passed unanimously. The board found the applicant failed to demonstrate a hardship unique to the land.
Denied
Topics discussed
Click a topic to expand quotes and full context.
▶ 00:25 Approval of March 2nd Minutes
The board reviewed and approved the minutes from the previous meeting held on March 2nd.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 00:41 Variance Application: Randy Lewis (95 Old Church Road)
A continued hearing regarding a request for a variance to allow a manufactured home on a lot in the R1 district. The applicant updated the unit size from 1,344 to 1,280 square feet.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
Controversy & dissent
Where the board, the community, or the agenda diverged.
Potentially controversial issues
01
Variance Application: Randy Lewis (95 Old Church Road)
The request to place a manufactured home in an R1 district pitted the applicant's desire for affordable/alternative housing against neighbors' concerns regarding property values, neighborhood character, and strict adherence to zoning ordinances.
Board position: Denied the variance, ruling that the applicant failed to meet the legal threshold for land-based hardship.
high concern
Community vs. board tension
Ready to share? AI-written accountability posts about this meeting's controversies.
View posts →
Notable statements
Any hardship must be tied to the land... By New Hampshire law, the hardship has to be with the land and not for the owner's preference or his predicament or his health or personal financial situation. — SPEAKER_01 (Norma Limoges) · Testifying as an abutter against the variance application. ▶ 10:43
The hardship is that the ordinance itself limits his ability to build on the property. — SPEAKER_05 (Applicant's Representative) · Arguing that the R1 district restrictions create an undue burden on the owner. ▶ 23:23
What would be a special condition that he can't stick build a home on this instead of the manufacturer? — SPEAKER_03 (Board Member) · Questioning the validity of the hardship claim during the applicant's testimony. ▶ 20:49
I don't see where the hardship factor that we go by is met. — SPEAKER_02 (Board Chair) · Summarizing the board's findings before the vote. ▶ 34:13
Member positions
0 issues · 0 explicit · 0 inferred
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
Positions marked ~ are inferred from context and may not reflect the member's explicitly stated position.
Public comment
What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
5
Total speakers
4
Addressed
1
Partial
0
Not addressed
null
Addressed
The speaker notes that the applicant has provided the plans and sketches previously requested by the zoning board. They confirm that the necessary documentation for the hearing is available.
Key concern
Confirmation that requested documentation has been submitted.
Board responseThe board acknowledged the information, and the chair proceeded with the meeting.
The board accepted the documentation and moved forward with the agenda.
null
Addressed
The speaker clarifies a correction in the application regarding the square footage of the proposed structure. They state the size is actually 1,280 square feet rather than the 1,344 square feet originally listed.
Key concern
Correction of the building's square footage in the application.
Board responseThe board acknowledged the correction and the chair moved to open the public hearing.
The board noted the change and proceeded to address the hearing structure.
Norma Limoges
Addressed
The speaker argues that the proposed structure is a manufactured home (HUD code) rather than a modular or stick-built home, making it prohibited in the R1 district. She expresses concerns regarding property values, potential rental use, and the lack of demonstrated land-based hardship.
Key concern
Opposition to the variance based on the structure type, impact on property values, and failure to meet the legal hardship requirement.
Board responseThe board engaged in a lengthy deliberation regarding the criteria for a variance, specifically discussing property values and the definition of hardship.
The board formally reviewed the criteria mentioned (hardship, property values, and ordinance spirit) and ultimately denied the application based on these points.
Kelly Shulb
Addressed
The speaker expresses opposition to the variance, stating it does not meet legal standards. She highlights confusion regarding whether the unit is for owner-occupancy or rental and argues that a variance should not be used for financial convenience.
Key concern
The variance fails to meet the legal necessity standard and lacks a unique land hardship.
Board responseThe board discussed the legal requirements for a variance and ultimately denied the request.
The board's deliberation and final denial were based on the exact legal failures (lack of hardship/standard meeting) cited by the speaker.
null
Partial
The speaker argues that the manufactured home would not be out of character for the neighborhood and that the lot's location near an AR district justifies the variance. They claim the ordinance limits the owner's ability to build and that the location creates an undue burden.
Key concern
Request for the variance based on neighborhood character and the claim of undue restriction on the owner.
Board responseThe board questioned the definition of 'hardship' and ultimately determined that the applicant failed to prove a hardship unique to the land.
The board heard the argument and specifically debated the 'hardship' claim, but they ultimately rejected the argument and denied the variance.
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
gemma-4-26b, claude-opus-4-7 · analyzed 2026-05-27.