Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Nashua Zoning Board approves a string of variances, including multi‑unit housing proposal
Loading...
Summary
At its April 14 meeting the Nashua Zoning Board of Adjustment approved multiple variances and a special exception—ranging from a small mudroom inside a wetland buffer to a 10‑unit multifamily consolidation—after applicant presentations, limited public comment and unanimous board motions; several approvals carry conditions or a 30‑day appeal window.
The Nashua Zoning Board of Adjustment on April 14 approved a series of special exceptions and variances affecting residential additions, home occupations, small businesses and a multifamily lot consolidation.
Chair Jaiman Cara opened the meeting by describing the difference between a special exception and a variance and outlining the hearing process. The board then took up nine applications on the agenda, approving seven.
Most contested or closely watched was a variance for Family Realty Investments LLC to consolidate two lots at Amherst and Putnam streets and allow 10 multifamily units on 29,045 square feet where the code requires about 62,228 square feet. Attorney Morgan Hollis told the board the project would demolish a dilapidated corner house, reconstruct consistent duplex buildings and add one net unit to previously approved plans. “We are adding housing stock and clearing an eyesore,” Hollis said. A nearby resident, Gina Jensen, urged the applicant to minimize construction impacts and to preserve on‑site parking; Jensen said she worried about proximity of new decks and asbestos removal during demolition.
The board approved the variance after discussion about parking and site plan review, noting the applicant committed to 20 parking spaces and to address details at planning board site review. The approval was made by motion and seconded; the board recorded the decision as granted and reminded applicants of the 30‑day appeal period.
Smaller projects drew less controversy. Edward and Hannah Percevali received a special exception to convert an existing 8x12 deck into an enclosed mudroom within the 75‑foot Salmon Brook prime wetland buffer; the chair read letters from three immediate neighbors expressing support, and JP Boucher moved to approve with the Conservation Commission’s two recommended stipulations attached. “We plan to meet all requirements that [the Conservation Commission] set forth,” applicant Edward Percevali told the board.
Douglas Dichard was granted a variance to convert a former garage structure at 6 White Avenue into a two‑family residence, a renewal of an earlier approval that lapsed during the pandemic. Board members said the change fits the neighborhood’s multifamily character.
The board also approved a special exception for an in‑home STEM tutoring program at 10 Williams Circle. Applicant Surphee Sharma said sessions would be limited to three to four students for one hour, three days per week, with staggered drop‑off and no signage. Concerned neighbors asked the board to require any expansion to return to the ZBA; the board’s motion to approve included a condition that the operation remain limited to the applicant’s stated schedule and that any increase in students or sessions would require a new application.
An indoor dog‑daycare use at 22 Pond Street received a use variance. The people speaking for the application said the operation would be interior only, limit drop‑off congestion, require vaccinations and use temperament assessments; board members noted the street’s mixed commercial uses and approved the request.
Other approvals included a 20x20 attached garage encroaching 5 feet into a ten‑foot side setback at Kingston Drive and a 12‑by‑21 deck and modest first‑floor expansion at 149 Shore Drive to allow a homeowner to age in place; both drew letters of abutter support and were approved with the board citing the lots’ particular topography and neighboring character.
Several board members emphasized that approvals are subject to normal administrative follow‑ups and site plan review where applicable. Chair Cara reminded applicants that approvals carry a 30‑day appeal period and that planning‑board review may impose additional conditions.
Meeting minutes for March 24 were approved and the board adjourned after a brief administrative session.
What’s next: Applicants must comply with any Conservation Commission stipulations and planning board requirements where noted; the board’s decisions are final unless appealed within 30 days.
