Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Goffstown ZBA debates multifamily, ADU definitions and urges planning board review
Summary
Board members discussed draft definitions for single-family, duplex and multifamily dwellings and raised concerns that ADU supplemental rules create repeated variance requests; they recommended sending draft language and discussion points to the planning board for possible ordinance changes and clearer ballot presentation.
At the June 2 meeting the Goffstown Zoning Board of Adjustment spent substantial time examining how the town's zoning ordinance defines "multifamily" and how accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are treated on existing lots of record. Member Bruce Bick presented draft definitions and urged the board to coordinate with the planning board to produce clearer ordinance language.
Bick told the board his draft aimed to clarify that a single-family dwelling can include an attached or detached ADU, while duplexes/two-family and multifamily configurations should be defined by unit count rather than incidental garage or accessory structures. He said examples and diagrams would avoid confusion when applicants and staff interpret whether a lot must be treated as a multifamily property for permitting and conditional-use purposes.
Members repeatedly noted that the town's current ADU supplemental standard (section 5.2.7) has had the effect of bringing many applicants before the ZBA even where the underlying use (single-family with ADU) would otherwise be permitted on a lot of record. The board discussed the planning board's timeline for drafting ordinance changes, the warrant schedule for ballot articles (drafting in December for a March warrant), and statutory requirements for public hearings. Suggestions included publishing side-by-side (old language/new language) or providing redline copies and placing a brief summary or link in the town voters' guide so less-engaged voters could compare changes at the polls.
The board agreed this topic should be referred to the planning board for drafting and to include public-facing materials that make proposed changes easier to evaluate on the ballot. The meeting ended after routine adjournment motions.
What happens next: the ZBA will forward the draft definitions and its commentary to the planning board for consideration in any ordinance revision process; planning board drafting would include public hearings and a warrant timeline if changes are recommended.
