Nashua Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting Summary - September 10, 2025
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Nashua Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting Summary - September 10, 2025
The Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) met on September 10, 2025 (the session began the evening of September 9). Chair Jay Mankara presided, joined by Vice Chair Josh Neely, Members Steve Lionel and JP Boucher, and alternate Joseph Potri (who voted). Planning Manager Sam Durfee was also present. The board heard a special exception for a city DPW sign and two variance requests: one for automotive dealership wall signs and one for a residential addition.
DPW Sign Special Exception (City of Nashua, Applicant)
Preliminary Determination: The board first granted a Fisher v. Dover motion, finding a material change of circumstances from a denied 2023 sign application. The board agreed the removal of the electronic messaging component (EMC), which was central to the prior denial, constituted a material difference.
Applicant's Case: The Division of Public Works requested a special exception for a 33.8 sq ft, 9 ft tall ground sign (ordinance allows 10 sq ft, 6 ft tall) at 848 West Hollis Street. Attorney Andy Prolman and Director Lisa Foto cited the building's deep setback, the mixed-use character of West Hollis Street, winter snow operations, and public use of the building (permits, meetings) as reasons for the size. The sign features masonry block matching the building and downward lighting.
Public Testimony:
- In Favor: Aldermen Richard Dowd (Ward 2), Patricia Klee (Ward 3), and Michael O'Brien (At-Large) emphasized public safety, civic pride, and the building being set back to accommodate neighbors. Commissioner June Lemon, Superintendent Jeff LaFleur, and Director Foto testified the sign was not an eyesore, aided tractor-trailer navigation, and reduced dangerous turning maneuvers on the busy state highway. A letter of support from BPW Vice Chair Paul Shea was read.
- Opposed: Several residents and letters opposed the sign. Speakers Paula Johnson and Justin Gerstenfield argued the sign was too massive, out of character with the residential neighborhood, and unnecessary given GPS. Letters from Nancy Kring Burns, Janine Levesque, Elaine Neusbaum, Denise Chong, Charles Fisher, Gloria McCarthy, Dave Leblanc, Peter Johnson, and Connie Page cited the size, character, and light pollution. A letter from Ward 5 Alderman Jetty urged denial, stating a conforming 10 sq ft sign would be adequate.
Board Deliberations and Vote: Members Mankara, Boucher, and Potri supported the application, finding the sign consistent with other signs along the mixed-use corridor and emphasizing safety. Vice Chair Neely was initially undecided but found the safety presentation compelling. Member Lionel opposed the sign's massiveness. The board voted 4-1 to grant the special exception (Lionel dissenting). The approval stipulated the sign lighting must be turned off after 10 PM from May 1st to September 30th.
Wall Sign Variance (McTomson Realty Inc. / Harvey Signs)
Applicant's Case: Michael Harvey requested a variance to install a fourth wall sign (three permitted) for the Hyundai and Genesis dealership at 140 Daniel Webster Highway. The total proposed square footage (124.8 sq ft) is under the 150 sq ft limit. The fourth sign (a Genesis logo) is required for brand separation. The applicant argued the building's 60-degree orientation to the road, deep setback, and tree line created visibility hardships.
Public Testimony: No members of the public spoke for or against the application.
Board Deliberations and Vote: The board unanimously agreed that the building's unusual orientation and the branding needs of the automotive district constituted a valid hardship. The variance was approved unanimously.
Residential Addition Variance (John Chatfield)
Applicant's Case: John Chatfield requested a variance to encroach three feet into the required 30-foot rear yard setback for a 28 ft 8 in by 16 ft two-story addition (kitchen/dining and master bedroom) at 20 Jill Drive. He stated the addition was centered and could be reduced in depth, but the full size was preferred for a comfortable layout.
Public Testimony:
- Opposed: Abutters Sandra Mulgrew and Miles Shannon objected. Ms. Mulgrew cited the significant topographic height difference (Chatfield's lot is 3-4 feet higher) and that a new second story would directly overlook her yard, destroying her privacy. Mr. Shannon argued the hardship requirement for a variance was not met, noting the application was incomplete (page 3 missing). He also reported an existing shed on the applicant's property encroached on his lot.
Board Deliberations and Vote: The board found no unnecessary hardship specific to the property. Members noted the applicant's testimony that the project could proceed without the full three feet of encroachment. The variance request was denied unanimously.
Final Business
The board reviewed the agenda for its next meeting on September 23 and deferred approval of the previous meeting's minutes to that date. The meeting was then adjourned.
Meeting Transcript
We're ready, good. We are ready. All right. Good evening, everyone. And welcome to the September 9th meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. My name is Jay Mankara, ZBA Chair. To my right is Josh Neely, Vice Chair. And then across the aisle there is Steve Lionel member, JP Boucher member, and alternate Joseph Potri. We have four members with us this evening. So Mr. Potri, if he's willing, will be participating and voting on all of the cases this evening. So otherwise, we do have five members unless somebody feels the need to recuse himself this evening. So I will also note that to my left is Sam Durfee, planning manager. So the Zoning Board of Adjustment, it will be hearing two different types of cases this evening. We have an application for a special exception, and we have two requests for variances. A special exception is a use that is allowed under the zoning ordinance when certain criteria is met. And obviously the board will have to find in favor of that in order to grant the special exception. A variance is a request to deviate from the terms of the zoning ordinance, and that can be granted by the board only if we find that five criteria are met. That granting the variance will not be contrary to the public interest, that it will be within the spirit of the ordinance, that granting the variants would do substantial justice, that there'd be no diminution to surrounding property values, and that owing to some special condition of the property, uh failure to grant the variance would result in an unnecessary hardship on the property owner seeking it. So just in terms of order of business, uh I'll read each case into the record, and the applicant will be invited to come up to the podium. We will ask everyone to state uh your name and uh your address for the record. And then uh applicants will have up to 15 minutes to present their case. Um afterwards, we will ask if there is anybody in the audience who wishes to speak in favor of the application. Uh each uh individual will then come up to the mic, state your name, state your address, and you'll have up to five minutes uh to address the board. You don't have to use your five minutes, but you certainly can. Um then once we're done with people who wish to speak in favor, we'll ask is if there's anyone who wishes to speak with questions, concerns, or opposition to the application. And similarly, each individual will then have five minutes uh to address the board. And we do ask, of course, that all comments are made to the board, not to other members of the audience or across to the applicant. Um following that, uh, the applicant will then have the opportunity to come back up to the podium and provide a rebuttal to any of the comments uh that were made. And again, that will be five minutes. And then following that, um, we will give the opportunity to anybody who spoke in opposition to the application to uh come forward and kind of have the last word. It would be one individual, so if there are a few people out there, you kind of would have to huddle amongst yourselves and decide who that would be. But that's an opportunity that that you have. Again, you don't have to take it. Then following the close of um the public hearing, then we'll open up the deliberations of the board, and the board will discuss uh the application and then choose to either vote and act that night, or if for some reason the board feels that additional information is needed, it's possible that the case could be continued to a future hearing. That's kind of the order of the business. Uh unless anybody had a procedural question. Uh I'm going to read the first case into the record. Now, I I will note that uh for the first case, which is the City of Nashua, the owner, uh Division of Public Works, who is the applicant, and that's for property at 848 West Hollis Street. Um this is requesting a special exception, but the first order of business in this case is that we have to make a determination under what we call the Dover B. Fisher uh standard. And because we've had a similar application in the past uh regarding a sign on this property, the board has to first determine whether or not uh there's been a significant change in circumstance that would warrant the board hearing the case. So we're gonna have that discussion in just a moment. That's not part of the public process, so that will just be a discussion of the board. Following that, uh, if the board decides to move forward, I'll read the case into the record. If that makes sense. Does anybody have any questions? Anything I omitted before we jump in. We'll call. Roll call.
openpublica.com