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 — June 2, 2026

The meeting featured spirited debate regarding the legal interpretation of 'hardship' and serious discussions about systemic flaws in the town's zoning glossary.

Date Tuesday, June 2, 2026 Duration 1.0h Speakers 14 Public comments 1 Decisions 3 Lively
Zoning Board of Adjustment title slide Video still
Zoning Board of Adjustment title slide Frame from meeting video ▶ 1:14:06

Public ⁠impact

Issues from this meeting with documented community impact.
01

Densification and Multi-family Definitions

Potential changes to density and dwelling definitions via March warrant vote Affected: All residents and property owners in the Town of Goffstown
See more
What was discussed

The board discussed how current definitions for single-family and multifamily dwellings are causing confusion and unnecessary variance requests. They noted that state-level housing pressures are making these definitions even more critical.

What happened

The board recommended that the Planning Board clarify these definitions in the ordinance.

What's next

The Planning Board is expected to wrap up amendments by December for a March warrant vote.

zoning change

Decisions ⁠logged

Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Approval of previous meeting minutes subject to editorial corrections.
Motion by Len, second by Charlie.
Motion carried (one abstention).
Motion for no regional impact regarding the 521 Mountain Road application.
Motion by Len, second by Bruce.
Motion carried.
Approval of variance for Sandra Brown, Revocable Trust, and Lawrence Brown at 521 Mountain Road.
The variance allows for the ADU and garage addition despite the non-conforming lot size, provided all other ADU and dimensional requirements are met. Motion by Bruce, second by John.
Motion carried.

Topics ⁠discussed

Click a topic to expand quotes and full context.
▶ 02:54 Approval of Minutes

The board reviewed and voted on the minutes from previous meetings.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
See more
What was discussed

a speaker noted that their name is frequently misspelled in the minutes and requested editorial corrections.

What happened

The motion to approve the minutes with editorial corrections passed, with one abstention from Bruce Buttrick.

▶ 03:37 Variance Application: 521 Mountain Road (Accessory Dwelling Unit)

The applicants requested a variance to build an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and a one-stall garage addition on a lot that does not meet the minimum 5-acre requirement.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
See more
What was discussed

The applicants argued the lot is a 'lot of record' and non-conforming due to historical zoning. The board debated whether the 'hardship' was the applicants' actions or the restrictive nature of the ordinance itself, specifically regarding state laws (HB 577) intended to ease ADU requirements. They also discussed septic capacity and building coverage.

What happened

The variance was approved, with the understanding that the ADU must still comply with all other dimensional and ADU-specific requirements (e.g., not exceeding 950 sq ft).

▶ 37:34 Discussion: Zoning Definitions and Multifamily Housing

The board discussed the need for clearer definitions regarding single-family, duplex, and multifamily dwellings to prevent 'glossary variances.'

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
See more
What was discussed

Bruce Buttrick presented a document proposing clearer definitions for dwelling units and density to address confusion caused by state-level housing pressures. The board expressed concern that poorly defined terms lead to enforcement difficulties and unnecessary variance requests.

What happened

The board agreed that these definitions should be clarified through the Planning Board.

What's next

A joint discussion with the Planning Board is anticipated to alleviate definition conflicts; the Planning Board is expected to wrap up ordinance amendments by December for a March warrant vote.

▶ 55:06 Discussion: Voter Information and Ordinance Amendments

Board members discussed how to better inform voters when zoning ordinance changes are presented as warrant articles.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
See more
What was discussed

Members raised concerns that voters cannot easily compare old language versus new language on a ballot. Suggestions included providing side-by-side comparisons in the Voter's Guide and including links to online zoning regulations.

What happened

The board discussed the limitations of what they can control but emphasized the importance of civic engagement and clear documentation.

Controversy & ⁠dissent

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

Potentially controversial issues

01

Variance Application: 521 Mountain Road (ADU)

The application involves a lot size that does not meet the 5-acre minimum required for an Accessory Dwelling Unit, forcing a debate over whether the hardship is caused by the applicants or the restrictive nature of the town ordinance.
Board position: The board approved the variance, interpreting the non-conforming lot status as a valid hardship.
medium concern
02

Zoning Definitions and Multifamily Housing

The board identified a significant problem where ambiguous terminology leads to 'glossary variances,' meaning residents must seek legal relief not because of land conditions, but because definitions are unclear. This is complicated by state-level housing pressures.
Board position: The board signaled a need for formal ordinance amendments to clarify dwelling unit and density definitions.
medium concern

Split votes

Approval of previous meeting minutes
Passed with one abstention

Community vs. board tension

Action ⁠items

Who owes what, by when.
Draft and clarify ordinance definitions (specifically regarding multifamily and ADU configurations) and prepare for public hearings.
Assigned: Planning Board · Due: December (to be ready for March warrant)

Notable ⁠statements

The hardship is the ordinance... It's an existing non-conforming lot of record. And that hardship is this ordinance. — Unidentified speaker · Debating whether the applicants' request met the criteria for an 'unnecessary hardship' for a variance. ▶ 23:47
We should never ever see a glossary variance. — Unidentified speaker · Discussing the issue of applicants having to seek variances based on ambiguous or poorly defined glossary terms rather than physical lot conditions. ▶ 1:14:06

Public ⁠comment

What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
1
Total speakers
1
Addressed
0
Partial
0
Not addressed
Sandra Brown / Lawrence Brown (Applicants)
Addressed
The applicants are requesting a variance to build an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and a garage addition. They argue that their lot is a 'lot of record' that was established before current zoning laws and that the surrounding lots are similarly sized. Key concern
The requirement for a variance due to the lot being 1.25 acres in a zone that requires 5 acres for an ADU.
Board response
The board engaged in an extensive discussion regarding the legality of the variance, the definition of 'grandfathered' lots, and whether the hardship was caused by the applicants or the ordinance itself. They eventually voted to approve the variance.
The board thoroughly debated the legal merits of the applicant's request and ultimately granted the variance.

Accountability ⁠flags

Documented procedural gaps. Each item links to its source.

Topics discussed — not on agenda

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 2026-06-08.