A proposal to replace a deteriorating single-family home on Oak Avenue with a duplex failed to gain enough support from the Hudson Zoning Board of Adjustment, with board members ultimately concluding that the applicant had not demonstrated the hardship necessary to justify a zoning variance.
The board considered the request during its September meeting, hearing arguments from property owner Mike Lacasse and Bedford attorney Pat Panciocco, who sought permission to demolish an aging and vacant home and construct a two-family dwelling in its place.
“This particular lot is located towards the end of a dead-end road. It includes a house with about 800 square feet that is uninhabitable and currently vacant,” Panciocco told the board. “It was built in 1890 according to the tax records, but it has outlived its economic life. Nobody wants to live there and it needs to be replaced.”
The challenge facing the applicant was the property’s location within a TR zoning district, where duplexes are not permitted without a variance.
“The only use allowed in the TR is a residential single-family home,” said Panciocco. “Ironically, the definition of multifamily in the ordinance is three-plus units. A duplex kind of falls into that crack, if you will, where it’s not a single-family home, but it’s not a multifamily. It is considered a two-family.”
Panciocco argued that communities across New Hampshire continue to struggle with housing shortages and that zoning regulations often limit the creation of additional housing opportunities.
“Zoning has been found in most towns and by many studies to be overly restrictive and to discourage the creation of more housing, especially for younger families,” he said.
While some board members acknowledged the housing argument, much of the discussion centered on whether the property met the legal standard for hardship required to grant a variance.
“What is the special condition of the property with the hardship aspect?” asked board member Tristan Dion. “What is unique about this property, like the lot itself? The land? What’s different than the ones around it?”
Panciocco argued that the hardship stemmed from zoning restrictions that prohibit duplexes on the lot and maintained that constructing a single-family home would not be economically practical.
Dion remained unconvinced.
“Choosing to build a two-family appears to be almost entirely self-inflicted,” Dion said, noting that financial considerations alone do not necessarily constitute a hardship under zoning law.
“I almost draw the conclusion that if I own the property next to yours and say, ‘The only way I can make money off of this is to build a dump, and that’s what’s going to go there, and if you don’t let me have it, it’s because the ordinance is too restrictive.’ That’s the conclusion you’re essentially making.”
Not all members agreed with that assessment.
Board member Todd Boyer pointed out that state law already permits accessory dwelling units, or ADUs, in many circumstances, allowing more than one household to occupy a property that is otherwise zoned for single-family use.
“The applicant would be allowed to do an ADU regardless, right?” Boyer said. “Basically, the State of New Hampshire has already said that any lot within the state is a duplex lot, we just call it an ADU.”
Boyer also noted that the property contains a sewer easement that could make alternative development options more difficult than on neighboring lots.
Zoning Administrator Ben Witham-Gradert acknowledged similarities between an ADU and a duplex but noted that important distinctions remain under the ordinance, including requirements that an accessory dwelling unit be subordinate in size to the principal residence.
Other board members worried that approving the request could set a precedent that undermines the intent of the zoning district.
“The hardship should be tied to the property,” said board member Dean Sakati. “I would almost rather see them pull this application and go to the Planning Board.”
Sakati also expressed concern that approving the variance could amount to a form of spot zoning by allowing a use not otherwise permitted within the surrounding neighborhood.
The board also considered public feedback submitted by nearby residents.
In a letter to the ZBA, neighbor James Ward questioned whether the applicant had adequately demonstrated that the proposed duplex would be compatible with the surrounding area.
“The application cites the property’s long-standing residential use and another duplex approximately 365 feet away,” Ward wrote. “Those facts do not by themselves establish that the proposed duplex is compatible with its surroundings.”
Ward urged board members to carefully evaluate whether the hardship claim justified the requested relief.
Another resident similarly questioned whether increased financial return should be sufficient justification for granting a variance.
Following extensive discussion, the board voted 3-2 to deny the application, concluding that the proposal did not meet the standards necessary to approve the requested variance.
The Hudson Zoning Board of Adjustment is set to meet next on Oct. 29 at 7 p.m. in the Buxton Community Development Meeting Room.