Your area Not set — showing everywhere
Issue · Goffstown, NH

Zoning Density and Multi-Family Variances

Repeated variance requests for ADUs, detached duplexes, and multi-family definitions on non-conforming lots are driving calls for clearer zoning definitions and potential ordinance amendments.

Overview

Repeated variance requests have tested agricultural zoning limits on density and multi-family definitions across three ZBA meetings. The board has approved multiple requests by treating lot nonconformity as hardship while acknowledging the need for ordinance clarification. Amendments are now slated for Planning Board review and a March warrant vote.

Background

The issue of zoning density and multi-family variances in agricultural zones emerged from repeated applications seeking relief from lot-size, use, and density rules on non-conforming parcels. On 2026-04-07 the Zoning Board of Adjustment considered a multi-family request at 40 Henry Bridge Road that sought exceptions for use, dwelling units per acre, and septic systems; the board approved all three variances 3-2 after determining that wetlands and slopes created hardship.

That decision illustrated how unbuildable land could be treated as justification for higher density, prompting further applications that tested the definition of multi-family development itself. On 2026-05-05 the board heard the Jordan Dupree request for a variance from the multi-family definition to allow a detached duplex; despite neighbor objections over historic character and precedent, the board approved the variance and sent the matter to the Planning Board.

By 2026-06-02 the board explicitly recognized that ambiguous definitions were generating “glossary variances” and agreed that the Planning Board should draft clearer language on dwelling types and density. The same meeting approved an ADU variance at 521 Mountain Road on a sub-five-acre lot of record, reinforcing the pattern of granting relief based on pre-existing nonconformity.

These successive approvals have raised stakes for agricultural-zone preservation versus accommodation of accessory and multi-family housing on legacy lots. The board has signaled that ordinance amendments addressing definitions will be prepared by December for a March warrant vote, after joint discussion with the Planning Board.

On 2026-07-07 the Zoning Board of Adjustment continued its focus on ambiguous definitions by reviewing multi-family use, ADU requirements, and home occupations, noting that current rules may exceed state law under House Bill 544. The board agreed to compile a list of items, specifically citing Section 5.12, for a joint workshop with the Planning Board.

How it unfolded
Approved three variances 3-2 for multi-family use, density, and septic at 40 Henry Bridge Road in an agricultural zone after finding hardship from unbuildable land.
2026-04-07Zoning Board Of Adjustment
Approved a variance from the multi-family definition to allow a detached duplex; application forwarded to Planning Board.
2026-05-05Zoning Board Of Adjustment
Discussed need for clearer dwelling-unit and density definitions to reduce glossary variances; approved ADU variance on a non-conforming lot and agreed definitions should be clarified via Planning Board amendments for March warrant vote.
2026-06-02Zoning Board Of Adjustment
Discussed clarifying definitions for multi-family use, ADUs, and home occupations to address gray areas and align with state law; agreed to compile a list of items including Section 5.12 for a joint workshop with the Planning Board in October or November.
2026-07-07Zoning Board Of Adjustment
Arguments in favor
Unique lot constraints such as wetlands, slopes, and triangular shape constitute unnecessary hardship justifying density and use variances.
zoning-board-of-adjustment 2026-04-07
For
Non-conforming lots of record predate current zoning and therefore warrant relief for ADUs and duplexes.
zoning-board-of-adjustment 2026-06-02
For
State laws such as HB 577 are intended to ease ADU requirements and should be accommodated.
zoning-board-of-adjustment 2026-06-02
For
A variance from the multi-family definition is a technical matter that does not change the permitted use.
zoning-board-of-adjustment 2026-05-05
For
Arguments against
Multi-family development conflicts with preservation of agricultural land character.
zoning-board-of-adjustment 2026-04-07
Against
Detached duplexes threaten the historic character of the village and set precedent for high-density development on single-family lots.
zoning-board-of-adjustment 2026-05-05
Against
A three-story townhouse does not fit the historic village scale and would constitute a conditional use rather than a permitted use.
zoning-board-of-adjustment 2026-05-05
Against
Approving detached units would allow developers to shoehorn new development into the historic village.
zoning-board-of-adjustment 2026-05-05
Against
Key voices
“The project would negatively impact the town's historic character.”
Resident abutterzoning-board-of-adjustment 2026-05-05
“A three-story townhouse does not fit the historic character of the village.”
Resident abutterzoning-board-of-adjustment 2026-05-05
“Approving a detached unit would set a bad precedent for other developers.”
Resident abutterzoning-board-of-adjustment 2026-05-05
“Ambiguous terminology leads to glossary variances and enforcement difficulties.”
Bruce Buttrickzoning-board-of-adjustment 2026-06-02
What's next

The board plans to prepare a list of items to discuss during a potential Planning Board workshop in October or November.

variancemulti-familyagricultural zonedensityADU