Claremont Zoning Board Meeting - September 8, 2026

The Claremont Zoning Board of Adjustment met on September 8, 2026, to consider four variance applications. The board heard public testimony, deliberated, and took actions including approvals with conditions and continuances for further review.

Discussion Items

ZO 2026 00007 – Mark Lemo's Variance for Porch Construction at 67 Pleasant Street

• Applicant Mark Lemo requested a variance for rear inside setbacks to construct a lean-to porch, walkway, and deck at 296 Elm Street (abutting 67 Pleasant Street). The board expressed concerns about uncertainty over the exact property line, noting three surveys from 1983, 1993, 2003, and 2023 that did not conclusively locate the front property pin. The applicant stated that a pin found aligns with the back pin and chain-link fence, but board members wanted a certified survey plan before voting.
• Motion to continue the case until an accurate survey is provided was made and seconded. All voted in favor. The applicant expressed frustration that a fourth survey may not resolve the issue.

ZO 2026 00009 – Rebecca Farrow's Variance for Sign Business Home Occupation at 396 Sullivan Street

• Applicant Rebecca Farrow, a sign maker with 29 years of experience, requested a variance to operate a sign business as a home occupation in an existing single-family home located in the I-1 (Industrial One) district. Home occupations are not permitted in I-1, but the house pre-dates the district. Farrow testified that business would be by appointment, with minimal traffic (2-3 clients per month), and all work would be done inside the home, including vehicle lettering (though occasional outdoor work was noted). Board members questioned noise, hazardous materials, and outside work.
• After closing the public hearing (no abutters spoke), the board moved to approve the variance with conditions: 1) all work must be done inside the home, no outside work; 2) applicant must obtain all necessary permits; 3) variance valid for two years. Motion passed unanimously.

ZO 2026 00010 – Harry Predzimirski's Variance for Cottage Development at 174 Broad Street

• Applicant Harry Predzimirski sought a variance from lot dimensional requirements to allow three cottage units on a subdivided parcel (Parcel B) in the PR district. He already holds a variance for five units on the full half-acre lot but now proposes to keep three units in the existing building and build three cottages facing a common green. The variance is needed because cottage developments in PR require a minimum half-acre lot, but Parcel B would be smaller. The board asked for a site plan or rendering; the applicant had a sketch but had not submitted it. Concerns were raised about density, lot square footage, and the impact on the main building's density.
• The board decided to continue the case to the October 5, 2026 meeting to allow members time to digest the proposal, review the sketch, and drive by the property. Motion to continue was seconded and passed.

ZO 2026 00011 – Southwest Community Services Inc. Variance for 172-Unit Development off First Street

• Applicant Southwest Community Services (SCS), represented by attorney John Arnold and CEO Beth Daniels, requested a density variance to allow 172 housing units (140 apartments + 32 duplexes) on a 75-acre parcel (Map 121 Lot 60) in the AR district, where maximum density is 1 unit per 5 acres. The proposed density equates to roughly 1 unit per 19,000 square feet. The project would include a mix of senior, affordable, and moderate-income housing, developed in phases over several years. The property has public water and sewer and abuts higher-density zones (R1 and B2).
• Public comments were extensive and largely opposed. Speakers from the Dartmouth Street neighborhood (College Square) cited traffic congestion on narrow roads (18-20 feet wide), safety concerns for pedestrians and children, inadequate infrastructure (sewer, water, stormwater), potential decrease in property values, strain on schools and city services, and the loss of quiet neighborhood character. Some argued the land has no unique hardship preventing development under current zoning. A few speakers acknowledged the housing need but opposed the location.
• The board discussed the need for more information on traffic impact, fire/police response, sewer capacity, and road improvements. Members noted the absence of detailed studies and the project's conceptual nature. A motion to continue to the November 2, 2026 meeting was made, seconded, and passed unanimously, allowing time for staff to gather input from department heads and for the board to review the proposal thoroughly.

Key Outcomes

• ZO 2026 00007: Continued to a future meeting pending a certified survey of the property line.
• ZO 2026 00009: Approved unanimously with conditions (work inside home, permits, 2-year validity).
• ZO 2026 00010: Continued to October 5, 2026 for further review of site plan and density calculations.
• ZO 2026 00011: Continued to November 2, 2026 to allow staff to collect data on infrastructure, traffic, and public safety impacts.