Nashua Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting – August 13, 2025
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Nashua Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting – August 13, 2025
The Nashua Zoning Board of Adjustment met virtually on August 13, 2025, to consider five variance applications and one special exception request. The board granted all six applications after public hearings and deliberations. The meeting also included the postponement of one case, public comment letters, and approval of prior meeting minutes.
Consent Calendar
- No consent calendar was presented.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Case 1 (Morgan Family Investments): Jim Livelmore of 8 Kirk Street spoke in favor of the revised plan, stating that two single-family homes are a much better fit for the neighborhood.
- Case 2 (Friedman & Albert): A letter of opposition from William and Darlene Eldred (56 Dexter Street) was read, expressing concerns about privacy, light, and scale. No one spoke in person against the application.
- Case 3 (LaLiberty & Destromp): No public comments were made.
- Case 4 (Hart Creek Cattle Company): An email from Mike Draper was read opposing the sign, citing sidewalk blockage and dangerous conditions. No one spoke in person against the application.
- Case 5 (Borges): No public comments were made.
- Case 6 (PSP Contracting): Two emails of support were read: one from Russell Clement (non-Meadowbrook Drive) and one from Katrina and Richard Waterhouse, both citing safety and neighborhood improvement. No one spoke in opposition.
Discussion Items
- Postponement: The first agenda item (City of Nashua DPW sign special exception) was postponed to September 9, 2025.
- Case 1 – Morgan Family Investments (3 Kirk Street, Unit 57): The applicant sought variances for minimum lot area (7,500 sq ft required, 5,891 sq ft proposed) and minimum lot depth (90 ft required, 78.86 ft proposed) to subdivide a 11,782 sq ft lot into two lots for single-family homes. Board members noted the property is unusually large for the neighborhood and the existing two-family dwelling is dilapidated. The plan aligns with surrounding lot sizes and was supported by an appraisal letter (McKeon Appraisals). All three members voted to grant the variances.
- Case 2 – Friedman & Albert (66 Nagel Street): Requested a variance to encroach 3 ft into the required 7-ft left side setback for a 24x32 ft attached garage with an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) above. The breezeway connecting to the main house was cited as the reason for the encroachment. Board members found the request reasonable given the lot size and neighborhood character, and noted that the ADU would support family care. They voted unanimously to grant the variance.
- Case 3 – LaLiberty & Destromp (82 Cox Street): Requested a variance to encroach 15 ft into the 20-ft front yard setback to replace a 9x10 ft shed with a 10x12 ft shed in the same location. The existing shed had been in place for at least 30 years. The board found that no alternative location on the property was feasible, and the new shed would improve aesthetics. The variance was granted unanimously.
- Case 4 – Hart Creek Cattle Company (76 Lake Street): Requested a variance to exceed the maximum projecting sign size (10 sq ft allowed, 24 sq ft proposed) for a 4x6 ft sign. The applicant argued that a ground sign was not practical and the sign would help identify the business. Board members noted that the letter of opposition did not relate to the sign's impact, and the variance was granted unanimously.
- Case 5 – Borges (15 Karen Avenue): Requested a variance to encroach 15 ft into the 25-ft front yard setback on the Celeste Street side to construct a 23x30 ft attached ADU addition. The property is a corner lot, and the addition was needed to accommodate an elderly mother. The board found that no other location for the addition was practical and that it fits the neighborhood. The variance was granted unanimously.
- Case 6 – PSP Contracting (8 Meadowbrook Drive): Requested a special exception to work within the 75-ft prime wetland buffer of Salmon Brook to rebuild a single-family home on an existing foundation destroyed by fire. The project included native plantings and erosion control, and the Conservation Commission had issued a favorable recommendation with five stipulations. The board found that the proposal would not harm the environment and would improve safety. The special exception was granted unanimously.
Key Outcomes
- Variances granted (unanimous 3-0):
- Morgan Family Investments (lot area and depth)
- Friedman & Albert (side setback)
- LaLiberty & Destromp (front setback)
- Hart Creek Cattle Company (sign size)
- Borges (front setback)
- Special exception granted (unanimous 3-0): PSP Contracting (wetland buffer encroachment)
- Approved minutes: Minutes from the July 22, 2025 meeting were approved with minor corrections.
- Next meeting: Scheduled for August 26, 2025.
Meeting Transcript
Good evening, everybody, and welcome to the August 12th meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Just an announcement, if anybody is here for case number one, that was the application of the City of Nashua Division of Public Works, that was requesting a special exception for a sign. That has been postponed till the September 9th meeting. So if you are here for that case, we will not be hearing it this evening. So otherwise, welcome everyone. With me this evening is JP Boucher member, an alternate Joseph Potri. Also to my left, uh Carter Falk, Deputy Planning Manager. As you can see, we only have two regular members here this evening and one alternate. So Mr. Potri will be uh alternates are always welcome to participate uh in discussions on every case, but Mr. Patrick will be voting on all the cases this evening. I should ask, just because three people is a minimum uh that can pass a uh on any article and is also or any petition and is also the minimum we need for a quorum. Uh, do either of you need to recuse yourself from any of these cases? No. I do not either. So we all three of us will be participating on all the cases. Uh so just gonna run through uh the order of business. So this evening we have uh applications uh before us for variances and for a special exception. Uh so a special exception is a use that's allowed under the zoning ordinance so long as certain requirements are met. A variance is a request to deviate from the strict requirements of the zoning ordinance. And in order for the zoning board to find uh in favor of an application to grant a variance, um, we have to find that granting the variance is not contrary to the public interest, that granting uh in granting the variance, uh the spirit of the ordinance uh would be observed, that substantial justice would be done, that there be no diminution of surrounding property values, and that owing to some special condition in the property, uh you denying the application for the variance would result in an unnecessary hardship to the owner or to the applicant. Uh so we do have to find uh in favor of all five of the criteria. So the ordinary order of business is going to be uh I'll read the case into the record, and the applicants will be invited to come forward and uh present their case to the board. Each applicant has up to 15 minutes uh to present his or her case. Um you don't have to take 15 minutes if you don't want to, um, but you do have uh uh that time allotted. The board can also ask questions during that time. Afterward, um we will ask if there are is there any if there's anyone in the audience who wishes to speak in favor of the application. If there is anybody who wishes to speak in favor, you come up to the podium, uh give your name and address, and you have up to five minutes to address the board. Um following that, we'll ask if there's anybody in the audience who has any questions, concerns, or opposition. And similarly, uh each of you um may come up to the podium. You have five minutes uh to state your concerns to the board. Um following that, the applicant will have the chance to rebut any of those comments. So again, up to five minutes. That's discretionary. If the applicant does not want a rebut, they don't have to, but it is up to them. And then after that, um we will ask uh that for those who may have had questions, concerns, or opposition, one person representing that whole group, if there is a whole group, uh, can come forward and you know give your final thoughts. Basically, how you could have the last word. Again, that will be up to five minutes. Um, that's totally discretionary. Uh and in some cases there won't be anybody speaking either in for or against. That's not uncommon. Um so with that, um any other changes to the agenda, Mr. Falk? Uh no, there are not. Right. And is there anything else that I missed? Uh if not, then I am going to read the first case into the record. Uh, this is the application of Morgan Family Investments, LLC, for three um three Kirk Street, Unit 57, requesting the following variances from land use code section 190-16, table 16-3. One, for minimum lot area, 7500 square square feet required, 5,891 square feet proposed for lot 61-31, and proposed um, and 50. I'm sorry, I lost my I oh I lost my place.
openpublica.com