Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Density topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nashua Zoning Board denies four-townhouse subdivision at 15 New Street after neighbor objections
Summary
The Nashua Zoning Board on Jan. 28 denied a requested variance to create a new lot with four townhouse units at 15 New Street, citing concerns about excessive density on a short, narrow street and unresolved infrastructure and safety questions raised by neighbors.
The Nashua Zoning Board voted 3–2 Jan. 28 to deny a variance that would have allowed four townhouse units on a newly created lot at 15 New Street.
Attorney Andy Perlman, representing owner Robert A. McIntosh (also recorded in the hearing as Bob McIntosh), asked the board to permit a subdivision and a new lot of 17,408 square feet where the zoning requirement is 24,891 square feet. Perlman said the overall parcel is large, that the four proposed units are compact and sited to minimize neighborhood impacts, and that the plan would add housing stock. He told the board the project was “just shy” of the threshold for five units on the entire parcel.
Neighbors pressed the board on safety and infrastructure. Melissa Valcourt, who said she lives on New Street, told the board she was “coming up here strongly opposed to the situation that's at hand,” arguing the narrow dead‑end street already strains emergency‑vehicle access and saying additional units would increase traffic, pressure on water and sewer, and parking demand. Carl Roberts and other residents questioned whether condominium governance, maintenance and additional driveways would change the character of the street.
Board deliberations focused on whether an extra unit (four versus three) was justified. Supporters said the lot is unusually large, bordered by dense apartment complexes, and that a well‑designed, smaller set of units would be an appropriate transition. Detractors said the extra unit exceeded density limits for the street and raised legitimate concerns about congestion and municipal infrastructure that are not resolved at zoning.
A motion to approve the variance failed; a subsequent motion to deny succeeded, with the board concluding that granting the variance would be contrary to the public interest because of excessive density on a narrow street and that no special conditions sufficiently justified the extra unit. The board noted that planning‑board and engineering reviews would be required if an alternative subdivision plan moves forward.
The denial was the meeting’s most contested item; the decision can be appealed within the 30‑day rehearing window mentioned in the record.
