Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board discussion clarifies owner-occupancy rule for ADUs after March amendments
Summary
Board members noted recent March amendments removed the town requirement that an owner reside in one of the dwelling units for ADUs. The board said that change means the municipality cannot impose that restriction unless enacting its own enforceable ordinance.
During public testimony on the ADU case, several members and staff clarified that a prior Goffstown requirement that an owner occupy one unit associated with an ADU is no longer present in the town’s zoning ordinance following March amendments. Staff explained the state law allows municipalities to require owner-occupancy if they adopt an enforceable local ordinance but that Goffstown’s current zoning text no longer includes that owner-occupancy provision.
A board member summarized the effect: "It changed with the March amendments," noting the 2025 ordinance had required owner-occupancy but the town’s March changes removed that requirement and therefore the ZBA cannot impose it as a variance condition. The board said that this clarification weighs in favor of granting ADU relief in cases where lot-size or frontage would otherwise bar an accessory unit. The planning board was flagged for potential ordinance cleanup to make the standard explicit if the town wishes to retain owner-occupancy requirements in the future.
This topic is procedural and interpretive—no direct municipal spending or new policy was adopted at the meeting; rather the board identified the need for planning-board action to clarify local standards.
