Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

ZBA allows existing front handicap ramp to remain despite neighborhood opposition over potential future use

August 14, 2025 | Manchester Planning & Zoning Board, Manchester, Hillsborough County, New Hampshire


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

ZBA allows existing front handicap ramp to remain despite neighborhood opposition over potential future use
The Manchester Zoning Board granted a variance allowing an existing concrete handicap ramp and stairs that encroach into the front yard at 22 Hazel Street to remain in place, while several neighbors urged the board to block the property’s intended future use as a large short‑term boarding house.

The case before the board concerned only a front-yard setback for a ramp and stairs that, by the applicant’s account, were installed decades ago. The case notice listed Sue Chang (record) as the agent; a speaker during the hearing identified herself as Sho Chang and said the ramp had been in place since at least the 1980s and had served earlier commercial uses. "The ramp has been there forever," a board member noted; staff’s aerial review showed the ramp present on imagery back to at least 2016.

Mark Barton, who lives at 17 Hazel Street directly across the street, strongly opposed the larger project and urged the board to deny relief in order to stop what he described as a planned conversion of the building to a 14‑room short‑term boarding house. Barton told the board the street is one block long and "a quiet, beautiful street" where children play and said a rooming‑house use would be "massively out of place in this neighborhood." He asked the board to deny the relief as a means to prevent the proposed use from advancing to the Planning Board.

Board members clarified their scope: the ZBA was deciding only whether to allow the pre‑existing ramp to remain in the front yard setback. Craig St. Pierre and other members noted that planning‑board review is the appropriate place for questions about proposed future uses and conditional‑use approvals. The board found the ramp is pre‑existing, appears to have existed for many years without enforcement action, and that removing it would cause hardship; the board therefore granted relief from the front‑yard setback (6.03a).

The board explicitly declined to rule on any conditional‑use or rooming‑house application; that question, if pursued, must go to the Planning Board. The decision preserves the ramp for the present use; the applicant will need to pursue any change of use or permit required for future conversions.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep New Hampshire articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI