Zoning board approves variance for six-home plan on Penichuk Street with 20-foot building setback

NASHUA, N.H. — The Nashua Zoning Board of Adjustment on July 22 approved a variance that lets Gateway Homes LLC subdivide and develop 16 Penichuk Street with up to six single‑family detached homes, adding a condition that every building must have at least a 20‑foot gap to the adjacent property lines. The board voted to approve the variance after hearing the applicant and more than a dozen neighbors who expressed concerns about traffic, privacy, and stormwater runoff.

The board’s decision matters because the 1.83‑acre lot sits inside an established residential area and is larger than nearby parcels; the applicant said the design would replicate the scale and pattern of nearby Nathan Court and generate little new traffic. The project must still clear planning‑board engineering review for drainage, access and landscaping before building permits can be issued.

Attorney Andy Perlman, representing Gateway Homes, said the lot is an unusual, oversized parcel in the RA (residential) zone and that the requested variance is modest compared with what the zoning ordinance would allow. “We believe the application before you is not contrary to the public interest,” Perlman told the board. He said the team had originally considered a seven‑unit conservation subdivision but reduced the plan to six detached homes to preserve more open space and reduce impacts.

Perlman and developer Scott Bonifant described the site and design: a private roadway, six single‑story homes with modest footprints, and a layout intended to match neighborhood character. He told the board the project would use city sewer and typical utilities and that Meridian Engineering had prepared grading and drainage plans. The team provided a traffic threshold worksheet showing the development would generate roughly seven morning peak trips and seven evening peak trips — well below the threshold that triggers a full traffic study.

Neighbors urged the board to weigh potential local impacts. “My biggest concerns about this development would be the increase in traffic on technically a dead‑end street,” said Samantha Zacks, who identified herself as an abutter at 8 Penichuk Street. She and others told the board they value the wooded character of the block, cited wildlife and a nearby playground, and raised questions about stormwater, tree removal and how construction traffic would be managed.

Board members pressed the applicant on layout, setbacks and emergency access. Member Robert Shaw described particular concern about how the proposed houses would sit close to property lines and asked whether the design treated those building faces as de facto rear yards. Perlman said the developer would limit unit expansions via the condominium declaration and that “we are open to putting up a solid fence” and additional screening around the perimeter. The applicant told the board the pavement for the private drive would be 24 feet wide and that the cul‑de‑sac turning area had been sized to accommodate a fire truck.

The board balanced those concerns against the property’s condition and the city’s zoning framework. Several members said an infill plan that creates several modest detached homes is consistent with the block and that the applicant had reduced the unit count from seven to six to ease impacts. Member Steve Lynell suggested allowing a slightly larger perimeter building setback to address neighbors’ privacy concerns; after discussion the board wrote a condition into the approval requiring every building’s nearest point to any lot line be at least 20 feet.

The variance approval does not end the review. The project must return to the Planning Board for detailed engineering and stormwater review, and the developer must secure any permits from Public Works and the fire marshal before construction. Planning staff and the applicant told the board stormwater controls and buffers will be part of the planning‑board submission. Interested neighbors were told materials on the case are public record at the planning office.

The board’s action on July 22 allows the developer to move forward toward more detailed engineering and subdivision steps but does not authorize construction. The board noted that standard appeal periods apply to zoning decisions and that neighbors may pursue appeals within the statutory window if they choose.

What to watch next: the Planning Board packet and engineering plans (stormwater basins, erosion control, and a final turnaround detail) and any condominium‑declaration language describing use restrictions, landscaping and maintenance responsibilities.