Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 36 Granite St Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ZBA denies long‑running proposal for second principal structure at 36 Granite Street
Summary
After a remand from the Housing Appeals Board, Nashua’s ZBA denied a request to allow a second principal structure at 36 Granite Street, concluding the request failed multiple variance criteria and risked altering the neighborhood’s character; the vote was unanimous.
The Nashua Zoning Board of Adjustment denied a remanded variance request on Nov. 12 to allow a second principal structure on a single lot at 36 Granite Street, concluding the application failed the required variance criteria and would alter the character of the block.
Applicant counsel argued the remand required the board to issue findings based on evidence in the certified record and said the lot is unique because Davis Court public right‑of‑way provides access and most nearby lots are more densely developed. "It is the only property at that point that doesn't get to enjoy use of Davis Court," counsel said, asking the board to consider the certified evidence and maps.
Neighbors and Davis Court residents strongly opposed development, citing loss of privacy, removal of dozens of trees along an undeveloped right‑of‑way, the quiet cul‑de‑sac character, potential traffic and emergency‑access concerns, and the historical character of nearby houses. Several neighbors presented photos and video of the vegetated right‑of‑way and argued that a new driveway and second structure would transform the block.
Board members examined the five statutory criteria, asked whether the applicant had exhausted other reasonable alternatives (for example, attaching a second dwelling or pursuing a subdivision) and concluded the application did not demonstrate the special conditions or hardship required. Multiple members emphasized neighborhood character, the prevalence of single principal structures on oversized lots nearby, and the absence of proof that property values would not be harmed.
A motion to deny the variance passed unanimously. The board recorded the standard appeal window and advised both parties of planning and legal avenues for further proceedings.
