Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors contest porch and ramp variance for Aldrich home; Zoning Board approves accessibility-related exemptions
Summary
The board approved front- and side-setback variances to allow a covered porch and ramp for Suzanne and Robert Aldrich so the household can access the home more easily; one longtime neighbor objected, claiming the work would deepen an existing nonconformity and raised questions about prior ramps and precedent.
The Concord Zoning Board granted front- and side-setback variances to Suzanne and Robert (Susie) Aldrich to build a covered front porch and ramp that would provide a more accessible entrance to their home.
The applicants described mobility and household needs tied to a disabled household member and said a 6-foot-deep covered porch leading to an accessible ramp will ease everyday access. “It’ll be easier access for him because sometimes I’ve got to use the wheelchair for him,” Susie Aldrich said.
A nearby resident, John Wilson, who said he has lived on Marion Street for decades, urged the board to deny the variances. He argued the house already sits inside the setback and said recent temporary ramping work showed the property had already been modified for accessibility. “They bought this with the house complete like this,” Wilson said, asserting the applicants had installed or used ramps previously and that the current proposal looked like an addition rather than a modest porch.
Staff advised the board on two possible legal paths: the standard variance analysis under RSA 674:33 (hardship) or the accessibility provision (RSA 674:33, subsection 5), which allows boards to tailor relief to enable access for persons with disabilities without the same hardship showing. Staff noted the board may condition relief if it wants the ramp tied to the documented need.
Board members split on framing but concluded an accessible front entrance and porch were a reasonable use for this unusual, older lot (the house is already inside the current setback). Several members emphasized the porch would not be fully enclosed and that landscaping and yard context would remain. The board approved both variances and adopted the applicant’s findings of fact; votes were recorded in the meeting minutes as carried by the board.
