Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbor objects to two-shed variance at 53 Langholm; Zoning Board approves 4-0
Summary
A neighbor objected that two new accessory sheds at 53 Langholm Drive would harm neighborhood property values, but the Zoning Board approved the variance 4-0 after applicants said one old shed will be removed and the new Reeds Ferry sheds will be more attractive.
At the Nashua Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting June 23, a nearby homeowner, Patrick Hogan, objected to a request from Brian and Dawn Marotech to exceed the city’s accessory-area limit and install two Reeds Ferry sheds at 53 Langholm Drive. Hogan said the two proposed structures would harm neighborhood character and housing prices; the board nevertheless approved the variance 4-0.
Hogan, who said his property at 10 Shetland Road abuts the city right-of-way between the lots, told the board: "Two structures this size is definitely going to take away from the neighborhood ... I would strongly suggest not to approve this variance." He asked whether there was a fence, tree line or separation; he said he had not heard informed neighbor outreach.
Dawn Marotech responded that the newer, Reeds Ferry-built sheds would replace older structures and would be "far more aesthetically pleasing for someone to look at," and that one older shed would be removed as part of the project. The applicants also submitted multiple text messages and emails from neighbors supporting the proposal; the board entered those messages into the record.
The application requested accessory-area relief from a 40% maximum; the record shows the property currently has 31% accessory area and the applicants proposed 55% if both new sheds are counted. Board members said the property’s detached garage and oddly shaped lot contribute to the technical need for relief. JP Boucher noted that if the garage were attached to the house the area calculations would differ; several panelists said the specific Reeds Ferry products are familiar and generally considered attractive.
The board’s motion to approve said the request would not be contrary to the public interest and that denial would result in unnecessary hardship because of the property’s layout; the motion passed 4-0. The board reminded applicants that approvals carry a 30-day appeal period and applicants must obtain building and land-use permits from the city before construction.
Because an abutter raised concerns about property values, the city record may include the neighbor’s written comments if an appeal is filed; the board did not cite any independent appraisal or valuation study at the hearing.
