Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting: Variance Denied for Manufactured Home at 95 Old Church Road - April 6, 2026
Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting: Variance Denied for Manufactured Home at 95 Old Church Road - April 6, 2026
The Claremont Zoning Board of Adjustment met on April 6, 2026, to continue a public hearing on an application by the Randy Lewis Trust for a variance to place a manufactured home at 95 Old Church Road (Parcel 93-16). The board heard public comments, deliberated on the variance criteria, and ultimately voted to deny the application, citing insufficient demonstration of unnecessary hardship and special conditions unique to the property.
Consent Calendar
- The board unanimously approved the minutes from the March 2, 2026 meeting (motion, second, all in favor).
Public Comments & Testimony
- Norma Lemoji (abutter at 81 Church Road) opposed the variance. She argued that the proposed structure is a HUD-code manufactured home (double-wide trailer), not a modular or stick-built home, and is not permitted in the R1 district. She stated that introducing a manufactured home would reduce property values, could become a rental, and that the hardship must be tied to the land, not the owner's preference or finances. She noted nearby properties have a combined assessed value of over $2.2 million and the lot is buildable.
- Kelly Schulbard (neighbor) also opposed the variance. He argued the application does not meet the legal standard for a variance, as the hardship is not unique to the land, not self-created, and not shared by others in the district. He expressed confusion over whether the unit would be occupied by the applicant or used as a rental, and stated that granting the variance would undermine zoning integrity.
- Austin Scott (applicant's representative) argued in favor of the variance. He noted the lot abuts a district that allows manufactured homes, the placement would not be out of character for the neighborhood (which consists mostly of single-story ranch homes), and the lot was previously blighted and has been cleaned up. He cited New Hampshire RSA 674:32, which provides a presumption for reasonable siting of manufactured homes. He corrected the square footage from 1,344 to 1,280 per the submitted plans.
Discussion Items
- Variance Application (Case ZO 2026-000001): The board reviewed the applicant's request for a variance from Section 22-206 of the zoning ordinance to allow a manufactured home on a 49,658 square foot lot in the R1 district. Board members questioned the hardship requirement, noting that there are no special conditions preventing a stick-built home on the lot. A board member stated that the spirit of the ordinance is to protect property values, and that manufactured homes typically depreciate. The board deliberated the five variance criteria (public interest, spirit of ordinance, property values, substantial justice, and unnecessary hardship) and concluded that the hardship standard was not met.
Key Outcomes
- Motion to Deny: A motion was made to deny the variance (Case ZO 2026-000001) on the grounds that the applicant failed to demonstrate special conditions on the property that would create unnecessary hardship, and that the variance was not justified. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously (all in favor).
- The meeting adjourned with no other business.
Meeting Transcript
Okay, we'll call a meeting to order. Um can I have a roll call, please? Bridget Collins. Here. I heard speech. Yeah. Aaron Lafontaine. Here. John Deep. Here. So I'm gonna point Aaron to sit in from Mike tonight and John for Wayne, being neither one of them could uh continue with this. Under minutes from March 2nd meeting, do I have a motion to accept? Make a motion to accept this presented. Second have a motion, a second, all in favor. Being none, old business continuation, Randy Lewis Trust 93 Old Church Road application requesting a variance to allow for a placement of a manufactured home on a lot in the district that is not permitted at 95 Old Church Road. This is a continued meeting or continued application rather for March 2nd. Um start before we open public, Alex. Do you have anything new you want to add? Um nothing you had. Wrong one. Sorry. Do you mean me or yeah, no, you sorry, Austin. I did do that. I call them Alex all the time. I don't just wanted to remind everyone of the status. This is a 49,658 square foot lot. The applicant is looking to add a 1,344 square foot single family ranch style manufactured home, um, which is only allowed by uh with variants in the Sony district design board at our last public hearing requested plans to be provided, which have been by the applicant. Uh the applicant has also provided uh sketch of the process. Thank you. Mr. Scott. So the only thing the change is of the original application mentioned uh or or listed the size of it as 1,344 square feet after getting the plans and providing them to the board recognizes that the square footage according to the plan is actually 1,280 square feet. So that would be the only correction uh to the application, and so um though those plans have been provided. If there's additional questions, we'll be happy to answer them. Um do we typically get to go through the public hearing part of this all over again, being it's all documented or I think that that's up to the board's discretion. Being that I only have to go on what was recorded, um you folks are all here last month. Do you have anything? Any questions, the concerns that over and above what the abutters were already addressed? If you do, we'll open the public hearing. If not, we'll keep it closed and continue forward. I don't know. I'm like I said, I don't know the particulars. I see what Michael was asking, uh, which was more to the applicant. Uh we have the abutters concerns were well addressed. I have no okay. Well, we'll have any just no, he has none. For uh an abundance of caution because the the board has slightly different membership from the last hearing, it might be good to open up the conversation again just to um let allow the applicant and any of others to speak just to make sure that well we'll open the public hearing again. As the applicants representative, do you have anything other than the fact of the change of the unit size you'd like to add? I think I addressed everything at the previous meeting, although I would just seek leave for rebuttal after they've spoken in case I um need to rebut anything that's presented. Does any of the abutters wish to add anything that they didn't add last month?
openpublica.com