Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Driveway Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves driveway‑width variance at 11 Burnside despite neighbor easement concerns
Summary
Nashua's zoning board approved a variance to widen the driveway at 11 Burnside St to 34 feet (split 20 ft/14 ft), finding no recorded sewer easement at the location and citing neighborhood context and safety benefits; opponents had argued the work might cover a cross‑country sewer line.
The Nashua Zoning Board of Adjustment voted 5–0 Oct. 28 to allow owners Monica and Richard Tino to widen the Burnside Street driveway at 11 Burnside St to a total width of 34 feet (divided into a 20‑ft and a 14‑ft driveway).
The Tinos told the board widening would reduce the need to shuffle cars in the street, protect yard conditions and be consistent with nearby properties where wider driveways exist. They said the lot was formed from two previously separate lots and that the proposed paving would remain within a stone wall and would be more than 85 feet from the nearest intersection.
Neighbors and two written correspondents — Donald Sherwood and Roberta Wojtkowski — raised concerns that the proposed work could infringe on a "cross‑country" sewer connection and a 20‑foot prescriptive easement tied to the pipe. The letters asked the board to delay action pending an engineering impact analysis.
The applicant responded that she had city documents (including a 2009 city map and her deed) showing no recorded sewer easement at the property and that the proposed driveway would not be directly over the sewer line. Board members examined GIS and deed materials cited by the applicant and concluded the record did not show a prescriptive easement at that location.
"The sewer line, again, if for some reason we found out that the driveway was going to be over the sewer line, I would still be in favor because the risk is really at the homeowner," said JP Boucher, noting property owners would bear repair responsibility if digging were necessary. Other members echoed that there was insufficient evidence of an easement and emphasized neighborhood context and safety considerations.
Board Member Steve Lionel moved to approve the variance, citing the corner‑lot configuration, prior lot consolidation and existing neighborhood driveway widths; Rob Shaw seconded. The board voted 5–0 to grant the relief. Neely noted a 30‑day appeal period and advised coordination with the city's planning/engineering staff for implementation.
The board's decision permits the Tinos to proceed with required permits, but the applicant and neighbors may still pursue appeals or engineering review during the statutory window.
