ZBA denies Nashua homeowner’s request to encroach into rear-yard setback after neighbors cite privacy and procedural concerns

The Zoning Board of Adjustment denied a request Sept. 9 from homeowner John Chatfield to build an attached two-story addition that would encroach three feet into the 30-foot required rear-yard setback at 20 Jill Drive in Ward 9. Neighbors and several board members said the record did not demonstrate the statutory hardship required for a variance and raised concerns about privacy and topography.

Chatfield told the board he proposed a 28-foot-8-inch by 16-foot addition to enlarge a kitchen and add a second-floor master bathroom and that the addition would be centered on the rear of the house. "Granting the request variance will not be contrary to public interest. It would add value to the neighborhood," Chatfield said in his application remarks. He also told the board he had investigated smaller alternatives and could reduce the depth if necessary.

Neighbors who live immediately behind the property testified that the lot’s higher grade and the short distance between the buildings create direct sightlines that would materially affect privacy and light. One abutter who identified herself as the owner of 94 Nottingham Drive said the back corner of Chatfield’s home already sits about 40 feet from her rock-wall property line but that the existing topography makes the addition visually intrusive: "Reducing the setback will place the new second-story addition... closer to my property, and it will significantly increase the sense of encroachment," she said. Miles Shannon, another abutter, told the board there was a procedural deficiency in the application materials as filed: "The state law is very clear that there needs to be some sort of hardship... and this is not even completed," he said, noting a missing page in the uploaded packet and saying Chatfield had not set out a clear, property-specific hardship.

Board members said they require a demonstration of unnecessary hardship tied to the land or structure before granting a variance under the state statute and the local land-use code (section 190-16, Table 16-3). Several members noted Chatfield’s own testimony that a smaller addition would be possible: "He said if he absolutely had to, he could still pull it back," one member observed, and that undercut the claim of an unavoidable hardship. On those grounds, a motion to deny the variance carried.

What this means: the denial prevents construction as proposed; the applicant may revise the plan to meet the 30-foot setback, reapply with additional supporting evidence of a property-specific hardship, or appeal the ZBA decision to the appropriate court within the statutory appeal period.

Procedural note: neighbors raised a concern about the application packet uploaded to the city’s materials (they reported a missing page in the packet emailed to abutters). The board provided a copy of the missing page during the hearing but the procedural gap was cited by abutters as part of their objection. The board’s denial focused on the lack of a demonstrated, unique hardship rather than on the procedural deficiency alone.