Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance Denial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board reaffirms denial for 36 Granite Street and denies rehearing request
Summary
The Zoning Board of Adjustment reaffirmed its earlier denial of a variance to allow two principal structures at 36 Granite Street and unanimously denied the applicant’s rehearing request, citing lack of unique hardship and availability of code-compliant alternatives.
The Nashua Zoning Board of Adjustment reaffirmed its November decision to deny a variance that would have allowed a second principal structure at 36 Granite Street and subsequently denied a rehearing request from the applicant, Sam Katz.
At the meeting chair Jamin Carr summarized the case history: the initial denial, a rehearing request, a remand from the housing appeals board and a subsequent denial. Board members reviewed the record and staff memoranda rather than taking new testimony. A prepared motion to deny the original variance described the property as in the RB zone and cited Land Use Code section 190-17(b), case law and the board’s obligation to preserve neighborhood character.
The motion, read into the record by a board member, concluded the proposal would "alter the essential character of the locality" because nearby lots do not feature two principal structures. The motion noted the applicant had a code-compliant alternative — adding on to the existing principal structure — and that the property’s size and dual access did not rise to the level of a special condition sufficient to demonstrate the statutory hardship required under RSA 674-33.
After discussion that emphasized neighborhood testimony and the availability of alternatives, the board voted to deny the original variance. The board then considered the rehearing criteria (procedural error, illegality, or newly available evidence) and found none of those grounds present. A motion to deny the rehearing request was made, seconded and approved unanimously.
The board’s written findings cited preserving the neighborhood’s pattern of single-principal residences, the absence of unique physical constraints that would justify a second principal structure, and a lack of newly offered evidence that would alter the prior decision. The rehearing denial keeps the prior decision in place; the board recorded its findings in the meeting packet and staff memorandum included in the record.
