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

Zoning Board of Adjustment — May 5, 2026

The meeting featured a spirited public hearing with twelve speakers expressing significant opposition to a proposed development, centered on concerns of village character and zoning precedents.

Date Tuesday, May 5, 2026 Duration 2.1h Speakers 45 Public comments 12 Decisions 6 Spirited

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 May 5 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting, a decision was made that could fundamentally change the residential character of our village. The Board approved a variance for a developer (Echo Properties) to allow a detached duplex on a 0.5-acre lot by redefining what qualifies as 'multi-family' use.

During the hearing, several neighbors spoke out in strong opposition. They argued that allowing detached multi-family units on such small lots sets a dangerous precedent for densification and undermines the historic, single-family feel of the South Mast Road area. One resident noted that the project seemed driven by profit rather than the spirit of the existing zoning ordinance.

In response to these concerns, the Board maintained that their role was limited to interpreting the technical definition of the use, rather than acting as a 'design body' to control how buildings are constructed. By approving the variance, the Board has cleared the way for this project to move to the Planning Board for further review of its operations, grading, and drainage.

This is a pivotal moment for Goffstown residents who value our village's historic character. We need to monitor how the Planning Board handles this application next.

May 5, 2026 2.1h long 45 speakers 12 public comments 6 decisions Spirited
Notable statements Drag to browse

“The hardship is a necessary hardship... the ordinance tries to strike a balance between Your individual property rights and the public interest.”

— Unidentified speaker · Explaining the legal standard for granting a variance during the Norman hearing. 11:51

“The question isn't, 'Are three units permitted?'... The question that we are posed with is, 'Can we call this a multi-family?' It's a definition question.”

— Unidentified speaker · Clarifying the scope of the ZBA's authority regarding the Dupree application. 53:23

“I think that this townhouse, right there, doesn't comply to the spirit of the ordinance... It's for profit and profit only.”

— Ursula Dubrulle · Public testimony opposing the multi-family development on South Mast Road. 1:05:21

“To say that at least three abutting properties share the same or similar multi-family purpose is, inaccurate.”

— Unidentified speaker · Challenging the applicant's claim that the proposal is in conformity with the majority of abutting properties. 1:08:13

“If you deny it and force them to [attach or tear down], that would be ridiculous.”

— Unidentified speaker · Discussing the potential consequences of denying the variance for a permitted use. 1:31:51

“It is a very complicated case. I've never seen anything like it.”

— Unidentified speaker · Reflecting on the unique nature of a variance requested specifically for a glossary definition. 2:02:40
This meeting — choose a section

Public ⁠impact

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

Potential for increased residential density and changes to the historic character of the village.

What happened

The board approved the variance regarding the definition of multi-family use, allowing the project to move forward to the Planning Board.

Topics ⁠discussed

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

The board elected its leadership for the upcoming year and approved the previous meeting's minutes.

What happened

Denise Langley was re-elected as Chair and Jason Cody was re-elected as Vice Chair. The minutes were approved with one abstention.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

A request for a variance to build a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on a lot smaller than the required two acres.

What happened

The variance was approved as it was determined the request met all five criteria for a variance.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

A request to demolish and rebuild a garage within the same footprint, located approximately three feet from surface water.

What happened

The variance was approved.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

A request for a variance from the zoning definition of 'multi-family' to allow for a detached duplex on a lot with an existing single-family home.

What happened

The meeting segment ended during the discussion of this case; no final vote is recorded in this transcript segment. The Board voted to approve the variance regarding the definition of multi-family use.

Controversy & ⁠dissent

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

Potentially controversial issues

01

Jordan Dupree (Echo Properties) Multi-family Definition Variance

The request to allow a detached duplex via a definition variance was opposed by neighbors who argued it threatened the historic character of the village and would set a precedent for high-density development on single-family lots.
Board position: The board approved the variance, determining the request was a matter of technical definition rather than a change in permitted use.
high concern
02

Clifford Norman ADU Variance

The application sought to build an accessory dwelling unit on a lot smaller than the two-acre requirement, prompting a debate over the balance between individual property rights and zoning ordinances.
Board position: The board approved the variance, finding it met the five legal criteria for hardship.
medium concern

Community vs. board tension

Public ⁠comment

What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
12
Total speakers
7
Addressed
2
Partial
3
Not addressed
Clifford Norman
08:11
Addressed
The applicant is seeking a variance to build an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) to allow his family to age in place and provide a long-term residence for his disabled daughter. He noted that the proposed location is distant from neighbors and would not interfere with their views or privacy. Key concern
Request for a variance to build a detached ADU on a lot smaller than the required two acres.
Board response
The board engaged in an extensive deliberation regarding the 'hardship' criteria, discussing the lot's unique triangular shape, topography, and the family's specific needs.
The board discussed the applicant's specific circumstances and eventually voted to approve the variance.
Clifford Norman's wife
19:56
Addressed
She emphasized the importance of generational planning and maintaining the family home. She expressed a desire for peace of mind knowing their daughter would have a place to live and be cared for by family as they age. Key concern
The personal and emotional necessity of the ADU for family care and stability.
Board response
The board members listened to her testimony and incorporated the family's circumstances into their discussion of 'substantial justice.'
Her testimony was used to support the argument that granting the variance would serve the interest of justice for the family.
Gerald LeBrant
35:20
Addressed
The applicant explained that his existing garage is in poor condition due to flooding and structural damage. He intends to demolish and rebuild the garage within the same footprint, noting that he will use silt fences to protect the nearby brook. Key concern
Request for a variance to rebuild a garage within three feet of surface water (requiring a 100-foot setback).
Board response
The board questioned him regarding the distance from the brook and his plan for wetland protection during construction.
The board addressed his technical questions regarding setbacks and environmental protection before approving the variance.
Lance Weber
44:28
Addressed
Representing the applicant, he explained that the variance is needed because the zoning definition of 'multi-family' requires units to be connected. He argued that connecting the proposed duplex to the existing house is impractical due to grading and foundation issues. Key concern
Request for a variance from the definition of multi-family to allow a detached duplex.
Board response
The board engaged in a very long debate about whether the request was a 'definition' issue or a 'use' issue and how it impacts the character of the village.
The board deliberated heavily on the technicalities of the definition and eventually voted to approve the variance.
Ursula Dubrulle
55:13
Partial
As a direct abutter, she expressed surprise at the proposal and voiced concerns about the impact on her view and privacy. She also questioned how the driveway relocation might affect her property's elevation and drainage. Key concern
Impact on property privacy, views, and potential drainage/elevation issues caused by the new driveway.
Board response
The board chair informed her that the engineer would be able to answer technical questions regarding the driveway and grading during the planning board phase.
The board acknowledged her concerns but deferred the technical engineering answers to the subsequent planning board process.
Sallie Sikes
1:02:04
Addressed
She challenged the applicant's claim that multi-family use is 'permitted' in the zone, noting it is actually a 'conditional use.' She also argued that a three-story townhouse does not fit the historic character of the village. Key concern
Accuracy of the application's claims regarding zoning permissions and the impact on town character/density.
Board response
The board clarified the distinction between 'permitted by right' and 'conditional use' and discussed whether the definition variance would set a precedent.
The board engaged with her legal and character-based arguments during their deliberation.
Eddie Grokins
1:05:56
Not addressed
He argued that approving a detached unit would set a bad precedent for other developers to build similar structures in the historic village. He expressed a desire to protect the small-town character from being 'shoehorned' with new developments. Key concern
Setting a precedent for detached multi-family units in a historic area.
Board response
The board listened to his concerns, though they ultimately prioritized the legal definitions presented.
While heard, the board did not change their stance on the precedent, as they determined they were strictly addressing a definition issue.
Donald Johnson
1:19:17
Not addressed
He expressed a preference for the historic character of the town and voiced opposition to placing a 'Manhattan-style' three-story building in a residential area. He requested that the board consider the residents who enjoy the current community atmosphere. Key concern
Preserving the historic, small-town character against modern, high-density structures.
Board response
The board acknowledged his input as part of the public hearing process.
The board did not specifically address his request to prevent the build, as they were bound by the legal definitions being debated.
Michael Haggerty
1:19:36
Partial
He raised concerns about traffic and driveway access, noting the difficulty of exiting his own driveway in the morning. He also pointed out that a foundation from a former barn is still visible on the property. Key concern
Traffic/access issues and the existence of an old foundation on the lot.
Board response
The board chair acknowledged the driveway access issue and the presence of the foundation.
The board acknowledged the comments, but the primary focus remained on the legal definition of the multi-family use.
William (Ursula's husband)
1:22:59
Addressed
He expressed strong opposition to what he called a 'monstrosity' in his backyard. He raised concerns about increased traffic and the potential for flooding/drainage issues caused by paving the driveway area. Key concern
Traffic, drainage/flooding, and the aesthetic impact of the new development.
Board response
The board chair assured him that the planning board would require engineers to design for drainage to ensure water stays on the lot.
The board addressed the drainage concern by explaining the oversight role of the planning board and engineers.
Michele
1:26:17
Addressed
She attended for informational purposes and suggested that the development should not be classified as multi-family if it doesn't meet the specific definition, implying it might just be a series of double units. Key concern
Proper classification of the units.
Board response
The board was already in the process of discussing the definition.
Her comment aligned with the central debate the board was having regarding the definition of multi-family.
Unidentified speaker
1:35:55
Addressed
She argued that the board should reject the detached option and force the developer to follow existing laws, such as building on the old foundation or attaching the structure. She suggested the board has the power to direct how people build to maintain town character. Key concern
The board's authority to mandate attached structures to preserve town character.
Board response
The board chair clarified that the board's role is to rule on the application in front of them, not to direct how people build or how they design their projects.
The board explicitly addressed her request by stating they cannot act as a directing body for design.

Decisions ⁠logged

Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
02:46
Election of Denise Langley as Chairman.
Nominated by a speaker, seconded by a speaker.
Motion carries
03:47
Election of Jason Cody as Vice Chair.
Nominated by a speaker, seconded by a speaker.
Motion carries
04:13
Approval of previous meeting minutes.
One abstention noted.
Motion carries
32:36
Approval of variance for Clifford Norman (283 Wallace Road) to build a detached ADU.
Met all five criteria for a variance.
Motion carries
39:48
Approval of variance for Gerald LeBrant (245 Bog Road) to demolish and rebuild a garage within a 3-foot setback from surface water.
Based on the criteria of replacing a damaged, non-conforming structure.
Motion carries
32:36
Approval of the variance to define multi-family use (allowing for detached units) to permit the project to proceed to the Planning Board.
The motion was made by Speaker Charlie (referenced as Speaker S40/S43 area) to approve the variance based on the criteria that the use is permitted in the underlying zone and the definition aligns with the spirit of the ordinance.
Motion carried (All in favor)

Share ⁠this report

Drafts ready to post — click any block to copy.

X / Twitter — by angle

Decision involving significant community impact and neighbor opposition
At the May 5 ZBA meeting, Goffstown officials approved a variance for Echo Properties to allow a detached duplex on a 0.5-acre lot. This bypasses current definitions and moves the project toward the Planning Board despite... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/goffstown/zoning-board-of-adjustment/2026-05-05/ #MeetingWatch #GoffstownNH
328/280 chars
Dismissed community concerns regarding historic character
Neighbors at the 5/5 ZBA meeting warned that allowing detached multi-family units on small lots sets a 'dangerous precedent' for densification in our historic village. The Board voted to approve the variance anyway, citing... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/goffstown/zoning-board-of-adjustment/2026-05-05/ #MeetingWatch #GoffstownNH
329/280 chars
Board prioritizing technicality over community-raised concerns
Is the ZBA protecting our village character or just following technicalities? On 5/5, the Board approved a variance for a detached duplex on South Mast Rd, stating they couldn't act as a 'design body' despite resident outcry... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/goffstown/zoning-board-of-adjustment/2026-05-05/ #MeetingWatch #GoffstownNH
331/280 chars

X thread

1
The Goffstown ZBA just cleared a path for significant residential densification in our historic village. At the May 5 meeting, a controversial variance was approved that changes how 'multi-family' housing is defined in our zoning ordinance. 🧵 #MeetingWatch #GoffstownNH
269/280
2
The application from Echo Properties sought to allow a detached duplex on a 0.5-acre lot. Residents argued this violates the spirit of the ordinance and threatens the historic character of South Mast Road. They warned this sets a precedent for more high-density builds.
269/280
3
Despite testimony that the project is 'for profit only' and misrepresents local multi-family standards, the Board voted to approve the variance. They argued the issue was a 'technical definition' and that they aren't a 'design body' to dictate how units are built.
264/280
4
The project now moves to the Planning Board for review of operations and drainage. Residents: stay vigilant. This decision determines whether our village remains single-family in feel or shifts toward denser, detached multi-family developments. https://meetingwatch.org/nh/goffstown/zoning-board-of-adjustment/2026-05-05/
268/280

Facebook — long form

At the May 5 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting, a decision was made that could fundamentally change the residential character of our village. The Board approved a variance for a developer (Echo Properties) to allow a detached duplex on a 0.5-acre lot by redefining what qualifies as 'multi-family' use.

During the hearing, several neighbors spoke out in strong opposition. They argued that allowing detached multi-family units on such small lots sets a dangerous precedent for densification and undermines the historic, single-family feel of the South Mast Road area. One resident noted that the project seemed driven by profit rather than the spirit of the existing zoning ordinance.

In response to these concerns, the Board maintained that their role was limited to interpreting the technical definition of the use, rather than acting as a 'design body' to control how buildings are constructed. By approving the variance, the Board has cleared the way for this project to move to the Planning Board for further review of its operations, grading, and drainage.

This is a pivotal moment for Goffstown residents who value our village's historic character. We need to monitor how the Planning Board handles this application next. https://meetingwatch.org/nh/goffstown/zoning-board-of-adjustment/2026-05-05/ #MeetingWatch #GoffstownNH

Action ⁠items

Who owes what, by when.
Perform minutes for the meeting.
Assigned: Chris (a speaker/A)
Underline the discussion regarding this definition in the meeting minutes to ensure it is re-addressed before the Planning Board meets.
Assigned: Patty · Due: Next meeting/Prior to Planning Board meeting
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, grok-4-fast · analyzed 2026-06-07.