Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies proposal to split Lily Road lot after strong neighborhood opposition
Summary
The zoning board denied Matthew and Tessa Fehan’s request to subdivide their R‑18 lot at 121 Lily Road and several associated dimensional variances after neighbors and the board said the proposal would change the neighborhood’s character and the applicants had not shown a unique hardship.
The Nashua zoning board voted to deny a request by Matthew and Tessa Fehan to subdivide 121 Lilly Road into two residential lots and to grant five dimensional variances, concluding the proposal would conflict with R‑18 lot‑size and setback standards and was opposed by immediate neighbors.
The Fehans sought relief from minimum lot size, frontage, width and side‑yard setbacks so they could create a second buildable lot and construct a modest single‑family home. Matt Fean told the board the split was intended to let his family remain in the neighborhood: “We built a new house in the new lot…we plan to reside in indefinitely,” he said, adding they had explored other options and reduced the proposed house width to minimize impact.
Neighbors and an attorney for local residents pushed back. Kevin Morrissey of 119 Lily Road said, “We respectfully oppose the variance request at 121. This isn’t just a small setback request or minor change,” arguing the application would convert a conforming R‑18 parcel into nonconforming lots and alter the area’s open feel. Attorney William Barry told the board the application appeared driven by economics rather than any special condition of the property, urging denial because no property‑specific hardship was shown.
Board members weighed local patterns and precedent. Several said they had driven past the site and acknowledged the applicants’ desire to remain in the neighborhood but found the parcel offered no clear special circumstance to justify five variances. Board member Neely said he could not support the application given direct neighbor opposition: “I probably cannot support this application, because they’re the ones most affected.” A motion to deny the variances carried, and the chair announced the application had been denied; the board noted a 30‑day appeal window.
Because the board tied its decision to the standards for dimensional relief and neighbor testimony, the ruling left planning options open for the Fehans that would not require multiple variances, such as an internal addition. The denial closes this filing; the applicants may seek administrative remedies or an appeal within the statutory period.
