Henniker ZBA tables special-exception request after applicant cites manufacturer limits

The Henniker Zoning Board of Adjustment on Tuesday voted to table a special-exception request from applicant Mr. Chen that would allow replacement of a grandfathered mobile home with a wider manufactured unit.

The board opened ZBA Case (packet listed as “ZBA case 20 26 0 6”) to consider a request under Article 26 for relief to increase the width of a destroyed mobile home that the packet lists as 10 feet wide. Mr. Chen told the board he contacted several manufacturers and was told “the narrowest one they can build is 13.4,” arguing off-the-shelf 10-foot models are no longer available.

The board’s Chair noted that the formal evidence before the board is the packet and the town tax card, which lists the original unit as 10 feet wide. That discrepancy — applicant measurements and recollections that neighboring units measure roughly 11.5 feet versus the tax card’s 10-foot listing — prompted board members to require verification before making a decision.

Board members and the applicant discussed practical implications. Mr. Chen said a 10-foot unit would be “very, very uncomfortable” for future tenants and could make it difficult to meet current building-code bedroom-size requirements; he asked the board for relief to install a 13.4-foot unit. The board cautioned that while comfort is a consideration, the board must rule on the facts in the record and on the ordinance standard for nonconforming structures.

The board gave Mr. Chen two clear options: obtain a like-for-like replacement that matches the existing footprint (in which case no ZBA relief would be required), or continue to pursue a special exception and supply verifiable evidence that a same-size replacement is unavailable (for example, written confirmation from a dealer or manufacturer and any precise measurements). The Chair told Mr. Chen the board can only act on the materials in its packet unless further verifiable evidence is provided.

After discussion, the board approved a motion to table the application to the next meeting so Mr. Chen can (1) confirm the exact width of the destroyed unit and (2) determine whether a same-size replacement is available. The motion was seconded and approved by the board; the Chair said Mr. Chen would not need to appear at the next meeting if he can verify an identical replacement can be obtained.

The action leaves the application in abeyance pending the applicant’s follow-up: the board will revisit the special-exception request if Mr. Chen returns with measurements or dealer documentation showing replacement options that do not match the prior footprint.