Your area Not set — showing everywhere
How it works Support this town
Meeting report · Zoning Board of Adjustment
Creating this report cost real money. Help fund coverage →

Zoning Board of Adjustment — April 7, 2026

While the administrative items were routine, the core deliberation on density and zoning intent revealed clear internal disagreement and friction over land use policy.

Date Tuesday, April 7, 2026 Duration 2.0h Speakers 35 Public comments 4 Decisions 11 Lively

Questions about this meeting? ⁠Just ask.

Ask MeetingWatch answers from this meeting’s report, transcript, and records — with linked sources.

Summary AI-generated to surface controversy & community impact without bias — always verify against the actual meeting before relying on it.

At the April 7 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting, the Town of Goffstown saw a significant shift in how agricultural land may be developed. The board narrowly approved a series of variances for 40 Henry Bridge Road that allow for multi-family use and a density increase in a zone intended for agriculture.

The decision was marked by internal division. The board split 3-2 on the most impactful requests: allowing multi-family use, increasing the allowable density, and permitting on-site septic systems instead of connecting to public sewer. One board member expressed explicit hesitation regarding the scale of the project, noting that the requested density was "three times" the standard requirement.

This decision highlights a growing tension in our community: how much weight should be given to "unbuildable land" (like wetlands and slopes) when calculating density? While some see this as a valid hardship, the approval of such a significant departure from agricultural zoning raises questions about the long-term character of our town's rural areas.

As residents, it is important to watch how these "site-specific exceptions" are used, as they can effectively change the density and use of our neighborhoods without a formal change to the town ordinance.

Apr 7, 2026 2.0h long 35 speakers 4 public comments 11 decisions Lively
❝ Notable statements ↔ Drag to browse

“The ZBA lacks authority to rewrite the zoning ordinance or change it; it is a mechanism to provide relief via site-specific exceptions.”

— Unidentified speaker · Argument regarding the scope of the board's power versus the legislative body. 13:22

“The board is in a 'Schrodinger's cat' situation regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), where they must be considered part of multi-family use but may not count toward density per state statutes.”

— Unidentified speaker · Discussion on the legal ambiguity of new state ADU legislation. 29:36

“I'm hung up on three times the density, that's a lot.”

— Unidentified speaker · A board member expressing concern about the scale of the variance relative to the agricultural zoning requirements. 58:01

“I think for me the amount of unbuildable land they have here, I think, I feel like it is, it is a hardship that is worth considering.”

— Unidentified speaker · Discussing density on a lot with significant unbuildable acreage. 1:04:47

“The hardest part about the variance process is understanding that the hardship piece of it... it tries to strike a balance between your property rights and the general welfare of the community.”

— Unidentified speaker · Explaining the legal criteria for a variance to the salon applicants. 1:46:17
This meeting — choose a section

Public ⁠impact

Issues from this meeting with documented community impact.
What was discussed

Approval of multi-family use and triple density in a protected agricultural zone.

Topics ⁠discussed

Each topic expands to quotes and full context.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

The Chair reviewed the ZBA structure, appointment of alternates, rules for public hearings, and the process for requesting rehearings or appealing decisions to Superior Court.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

The board reviewed and discussed the approval of previous meeting minutes, including a request for non-substantive spelling corrections.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

A continuation of a case regarding three requested variances for multi-family use, density, and septic systems on a lot in an agricultural zone. The applicant argued that the site's unique constraints (wetlands, slopes, and municipal water access) justify the exceptions. The board discussed whether unbuildable land should be factored into density calculations.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Applicants sought variances to rebuild a single-family home on a non-conforming lot, involving setbacks, building coverage, and septic requirements. Discussion focused on whether the plan must incorporate a historical trolley car as previously required by the Planning Board.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Applicants requested a variance to operate a hair salon out of a detached garage. The board deliberated on the definition of 'home occupation' and whether the detached nature of the structure constituted a necessary hardship.

Controversy & ⁠dissent

Where the board, the community, or the agenda diverged.

Potentially controversial issues

01

Multi-family development in agricultural zone (40 Henry Bridge Road)

The application seeks significant departures from agricultural zoning, including multi-family use and increased density, which conflicts with the preservation of agricultural land character.
Board position: Approved the variances despite concerns over density and scale.
Internal dissent
The board was split 3-2 on multiple components of the application, including the use and the density relief.
medium concern
02

Density and unbuildable land calculations

There is a fundamental disagreement on whether unbuildable land (wetlands/slopes) should be excluded from density calculations, which impacts how much development can occur on a lot.
Board position: The board eventually leaned toward considering unbuildable land as a hardship justifying higher density.
Internal dissent
Board members expressed explicit hesitation, with one stating, 'I'm hung up on three times the density, that's a lot.'
medium concern

Split votes

Grant variance for multi-family use (Section 311A3)
3-2
Grant variance for maximum dwelling units per buildable acre (Section 4.3)
3-2
Grant variance for on-site septic instead of public sewer (Section 5.14)
3-2

Community vs. board tension

Public ⁠comment

What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
4
Total speakers
4
Addressed
0
Partial
0
Not addressed
Sarah Tolleson
1:13:31
Addressed
The speaker provides context for the rebuilding project, noting that the current structure is uninhabitable. She explains that the current proposal is a smaller footprint and has more conforming setbacks than a previously approved plan. Key concern
Clarifying that the current rebuild request is actually more conforming to zoning regulations than the previous application.
Board response
The board members engaged in a discussion regarding the history of the property, the 'trolley house' aspect, and the potential conflict between zoning and planning board requirements.
The board discussed the nuances of the application, specifically how to handle the historical trolley element and the relationship with the planning board, eventually moving to a vote.
Craig Grobeck
1:13:17
Addressed
The speaker is currently under contract to purchase the property and is seeking variances for setbacks, building coverage, and lot frontage. He notes that the proposed structure is smaller than the one previously approved by the board. Key concern
Requesting variances to rebuild a single-family home on a non-conforming lot with specific setback and coverage needs.
Board response
The board asked clarifying questions about the footprints and setbacks and discussed the legal implications of the planning board's previous involvement.
The board held a full deliberation and proceeded to vote on the requested variances.
Adam Schwartz
1:37:37
Addressed
The speaker is proposing to open an at-home hair salon in a detached garage on his property. He notes that the area already contains various businesses and that the garage has existing parking available. Key concern
Seeking a variance to operate a home-based business in a detached structure, which technically violates the definition of 'home occupation'.
Board response
The board questioned the speaker regarding parking, water/septic requirements, and the specific nature of the business. They also discussed the 'hardship' criteria.
The board discussed the merits of the request, addressed the hardship requirement, and ultimately voted to approve the variance with conditions.
Michaela Cotran
1:37:37
Addressed
The speaker clarifies that the salon will be a small studio without employees. She expresses a desire to move her existing business to her home to avoid paying rent. Key concern
Providing justification for the salon and explaining the practical need for the business to be at her residence.
Board response
The board members engaged in a dialogue about the feasibility and the 'hardship' of the situation, specifically the cost of attaching the garage to the main house.
The board's deliberation directly addressed her points regarding the necessity and the nature of the business.

Decisions ⁠logged

Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
04:00
Approval of meeting minutes
Minutes approved subject to non-substantive corrections (spelling).
Approved
1:06:34
No regional impact finding for the multi-family variance.
Motion by a speaker, seconded by John.
Passed
1:06:34
Determination of regional impact
The board moved and seconded that there is no regional impact regarding the Henry Bridge Road application.
No regional impact
1:07:39
Grant variance for relief from Section 311A3 (Table of Principal Use and Dimensional Zoning Ordinance) for multi-family use.
Motion by Chris, seconded by Kristen.
Passed 3-2
1:08:32
Grant variance for relief from Section 4.3 (Table of Dimensional Regulations) regarding maximum dwelling units per buildable acre.
Motion by Chris, seconded by Christian.
Passed (unspecified count, 'two' opposed)
1:09:14
Grant variance for relief from Section 5.14 regarding on-site septic instead of public sewer.
Motion by Chris, seconded by a speaker.
Passed 3-2
1:07:16
Variance Application for 40 Henry Bridge Road
The transcript ends as the board begins the individual voting process for the three requested variances.
In progress
1:27:39
No regional impact finding for the 129 Mountain Base Road variance.
Motion by a speaker, seconded by a speaker.
Passed
1:33:55
Grant variance for rebuilding a single-family home at 129 Mountain Base Road (covering setbacks, coverage, and frontage/size).
Motion by Speaker S30, seconded by Speaker S26. The board opted for a new variance rather than amending the old one to avoid conflict with Planning Board requirements regarding the trolley car.
Passed
1:52:07
No regional impact finding for the detached salon variance.
Motion by Speaker S29, seconded by Speaker S26.
Passed
1:52:29
Grant variance for Section 5.11 for a detached in-home salon business in an existing garage.
Motion by Speaker S31, seconded by Speaker S28. Approval was conditioned on addressing parking and traffic issues and following building codes.
Passed

Share ⁠this report

Drafts ready to post — click any block to copy.

X / Twitter — by angle

Split votes and significant zoning departures
At the April 7 ZBA meeting, the board narrowly approved a multi-family development at 40 Henry Bridge Rd. Despite being in an agricultural zone, the board granted variances for use, septic, and a density increase that one... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/goffstown/zoning-board-of-adjustment/2026-04-07/ #MeetingWatch #GoffstownNH
328/280 chars
Internal board division and density concerns
A 3-2 split on the 40 Henry Bridge Rd application reveals deep divisions in the Goffstown ZBA. The board approved multi-family use and triple the allowed density in an agricultural zone, sparking debate over whether... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/goffstown/zoning-board-of-adjustment/2026-04-07/ #MeetingWatch #GoffstownNH
322/280 chars
Specific decision with community impact
Goffstown ZBA Update: The board approved a variance for a detached home salon, but only after conditioning it on addressing potential parking and traffic issues. This highlights the ongoing tension between property rights and... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/goffstown/zoning-board-of-adjustment/2026-04-07/ #MeetingWatch #GoffstownNH
332/280 chars

X thread

1
The Goffstown ZBA is deeply divided on the future of our agricultural zones. At the April 7 meeting, a contentious application for 40 Henry Bridge Road pushed the board to its limit. 🧵 #MeetingWatch #GoffstownNH
211/280
2
The board narrowly approved several variances for the property, including multi-family use and a density increase in an area zoned for agriculture. One board member explicitly voiced concern, stating: "I'm hung up on three times the density, that's a lot."
256/280
3
The decision was far from unanimous. The board split 3-2 on the most critical components: multi-family use, density relief, and the use of on-site septic instead of public sewer. This split shows a significant lack of consensus on how to handle densification.
259/280
4
Why this matters: Using variances to allow triple the allowed density in an agricultural zone sets a precedent for how our land-use rules are applied. When the ZBA is this split, it signals that the impact on our community character is a major question... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/goffstown/zoning-board-of-adjustment/2026-04-07/
279/280

Facebook — long form

At the April 7 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting, the Town of Goffstown saw a significant shift in how agricultural land may be developed. The board narrowly approved a series of variances for 40 Henry Bridge Road that allow for multi-family use and a density increase in a zone intended for agriculture.

The decision was marked by internal division. The board split 3-2 on the most impactful requests: allowing multi-family use, increasing the allowable density, and permitting on-site septic systems instead of connecting to public sewer. One board member expressed explicit hesitation regarding the scale of the project, noting that the requested density was "three times" the standard requirement.

This decision highlights a growing tension in our community: how much weight should be given to "unbuildable land" (like wetlands and slopes) when calculating density? While some see this as a valid hardship, the approval of such a significant departure from agricultural zoning raises questions about the long-term character of our town's rural areas.

As residents, it is important to watch how these "site-specific exceptions" are used, as they can effectively change the density and use of our neighborhoods without a formal change to the town ordinance. https://meetingwatch.org/nh/goffstown/zoning-board-of-adjustment/2026-04-07/ #MeetingWatch #GoffstownNH

Action ⁠items

Who owes what, by when.
Accept interest from individuals wishing to serve as ZBA alternates.
Assigned: Planning/Zoning Office
Formalize the decisions and criteria into the meeting minutes.
Assigned: Board Secretary/Clerk
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 Goffstown.

Report composed by grok-4.3, gemma-4-26b, grok-4.20-0309-reasoning · analyzed 2026-06-01.