Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Zoning Amendments topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Goffstown Planning Board places seven zoning amendments on the ballot, flags state mandates and local concerns

Goffstown Planning Board · December 12, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After a public hearing, the Goffstown Planning Board voted to place seven zoning amendments on the town warrant — changes include ADU definitions and size, allowing multifamily in commercial zones to implement House Bill 631, parking-table changes tied to SB 284, buildable-area clarifications and an extensive open-space rewrite. Several members objected to state‑mandated elements while still moving them to the ballot.

The Goffstown Planning Board voted to place seven zoning amendments on the town ballot after a public hearing that included detailed discussion about state-mandated changes and local implementation questions.

The package included: (1) revisions to the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) definitions to implement House Bill 577; (2) further ADU provisions and nonconforming-structure cross-references; (3) a mandate to allow multifamily use on commercially zoned land to comply with House Bill 631 (with a ground-floor commercial requirement retained except where conditional use permits are granted); (4) off-street parking changes to require one residential space per unit and remove guest parking in line with Senate Bill 284; (5) a local proposal to increase maximum ADU size from 800 to 950 square feet (this item is not state-mandated); (6) clarifications to the buildable-area definition (wetland buffer increase from 50 to 100 feet, reducing slope threshold from 25% to 20%, and subtracting utility easements); and (7) a major rework of open-space development rules including relocating the section and raising minimum open space to 50% of buildable area in certain districts.

Several board members expressed frustration with the state-driven nature of many items. "We're doing this because the state is making us do this, not because any of us in the discussion said we thought it was a good change," said Barbara Griffin, who opposed elements of the package but voted to move articles to the warrant so the public can decide. Other members and staff noted implementation questions, including whether village-commercial and commercial-industrial-flex districts clearly fall under the state's definition of 'commercial' and how staff will administer overlapping local and state rules.

The board heard a public commenter who discussed accessibility implications for ADU design — wider doors and bathroom clearances — and heard staff data that ADU conversions and new ADU construction remain modest in most towns. Bruce Bartrick, who contributed detailed editorial recommendations on the multifamily article, said the amendment as drafted would work but recommended follow-up clarifications in future zoning cycles.

Votes at a glance (as recorded in the meeting transcript): - Article 1 (ADU definitions, HB 577): placed on ballot as recommended; recorded vote 5 yes, 2 no. - Article 2 (ADU provisions/nonconforming structures): placed on ballot; transcript records 5 yes, 1 no, 2 abstentions. - Article 3 (allow multifamily in commercial zones, HB 631): placed on ballot; vote recorded in transcript but roll-call counts were not consistently read in the audio record (see meeting minutes for exact roll call). - Article 4 (parking, SB 284): placed on ballot; board characterized this as a straightforward statutory alignment (vote recorded in transcript). - Article 5 (increase ADU size to 950 sq ft): placed on ballot; passed in the recorded voice votes (transcript contains aye/no calls and a count reported by chair; see minutes for exact roll-call breakdown). - Article 6 (buildable area definition changes): placed on ballot with a majority vote (transcript recorded votes). - Article 7 (open-space development rewrite): placed on the warrant with unanimous board support as recorded.

Board members debated process as well as substance. Several recommended staff prepare cross-reference materials for residents showing where state law applies and where local rules remain in force. The chair emphasized that placing an article on the ballot is not the same as the board endorsing it; members may also move to place items on the ballot as "not recommended" in some circumstances, but for the state-mandated items the board mostly chose to place the articles for voter consideration.

What happens next: The amendments will appear on the town warrant as individual articles. Board members and staff said they expect additional state and municipal guidance to emerge over the next year as other towns finalize implementation.