Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Housing topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

ZBA approves 860.55‑sq‑ft ADU variance for 13 Fulton Street, rejecting neighbor parking and use concerns

Zoning Board of Adjustment · December 10, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board approved Jacob Diamond’s request to allow an 860.55 sq ft accessory dwelling unit on the first floor of 13 Fulton St., finding the 110‑sq‑ft overage modest and the property listed as a single‑family dwelling in city records despite neighbors’ parking and occupancy concerns.

On Dec. 9 the Nashua Zoning Board granted a variance allowing an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) of 860.55 square feet at 13 Fulton Street, where the local ADU size limit is 750 square feet.

Applicant Jacob Diamond described internal layout constraints in the historic, irregularly configured house and said the requested increase (about 110 square feet) is necessary to create usable living space without altering the exterior. Neighbors submitted written testimony and spoke at the hearing expressing concerns about parking, past rental activity in upper floors and whether the house has been used like a multi‑unit property. Rick Marquel and other neighbors said curb‑cut parking is limited and expressed worry the change would increase local congestion and convert the building to multiple unrelated units over time.

Board members reviewed assessing records, which list the property as a single‑family home, and asked the applicant to confirm owner‑occupancy. The applicant confirmed he lives at the property and that the full living area of the proposed ADU is 860.55 square feet. Board members acknowledged neighborhood concerns but said compliance with the ADU affidavit and the state’s revised ADU rules guided the decision. Member Neely noted the applicant appears to meet the current statutory/administrative criteria and that the board frequently leaves enforcement of suspected nonconforming uses to code enforcement, not through denial of a properly documented variance. The board approved the variance; members noted a 30‑day appeal window.