Nashua Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting - October 15, 2025
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Nashua Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting - October 15, 2025
The Nashua Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) met on October 15, 2025, to hear five applications. The primary item was a request by the Nashua Fire Department for a special exception to construct a gated driveway through a wetland buffer to access a proposed fire training facility. After extensive public testimony, the board voted to deny the application. The board also approved four other variance requests for a front porch, a tattoo studio, a shed replacement, and a deck, as well as a sign variance.
Public Comments & Testimony (Fire Department Case)
- Alderman Ernest Jetty (Ward 5) spoke in opposition, arguing the application fails to meet special exception criteria regarding traffic congestion and neighborhood character. He noted that at the Conservation Commission, Chief Buxton described the road use as "a significant amount" (five days a week for six weeks, then two to three days per week). He stated the road would increase traffic on quiet residential streets and alter the neighborhood's character.
- Paula Johnson (15 Westbourne Drive) opposed, citing potential disruption to wetlands, endangered species (Eastern Box turtle, hognose snake), and neighborhood character. She noted diesel fumes and safety concerns.
- Janice Arkin (33 Teak Drive) expressed support for fire training but opposed the location, citing safety for pedestrians, children, and wildlife, especially during spring reproduction.
- Mike LaRock (22 Teak Drive) emphasized the inconsistency with the residential neighborhood, narrow streets, and the deed restriction labeling the lot as "non-buildable" for drainage retention. He argued the proposed road would create safety hazards and questioned future use by DPW.
- Joseph Cole (4 Dolphin Circle) raised concerns about the Wildlife Action Plan and potential endangered species not fully assessed.
- Rodi Arontis (3 Julori Lane) questioned the cost-effectiveness of the proposed route versus extending a water line, and noted the lack of financial assessments.
- John Collins (20 Teak Drive) criticized poor notification of the project and raised concerns about traffic, ledge rock, and safety.
- Justin Gerson Fields (79 Gilson Road) opposed, citing quiet neighborhood and difficulty for residents to attend hearings due to certified mail requirements.
- John Ozelius (35 Teak Drive) noted the application focused on wetlands but lacked analysis of neighborhood impact.
- Mike LeVay (15 Hazel Avenue) questioned whether wetland standards had been addressed.
- Late Atkins (12 Valencia Drive, Westgate Village HOA board) expressed concern about traffic safety, lack of sidewalks, and children walking to bus stops.
- Kristen Potester (10 Laredo, Westgate Village HOA VP) emphasized lack of notification, property value impacts, and that the habitat study was inconclusive.
- Dan Rogers (4 Hazel Avenue) suggested alternative locations like Northwest Boulevard.
- Rich Poor (26 Goslin Road) noted the narrow street would not accommodate fire trucks if cars were parked.
- Heather Shaves (18 Twilight Drive) spoke on behalf of children who ride bikes and walk in the neighborhood.
- George Sturgeon (15 Cimarron Drive) argued the application should be denied based on neighborhood impact and that the DPW application should also be considered.
- Multiple written communications in opposition were received and acknowledged.
Discussion Items (Fire Department Case)
- The applicant, Chief Steve Buxton, presented the need for a new training facility, citing growth and the need for modern training props. He stated the proposed driveway would be gated and used only for fire apparatus, not landfill traffic. He emphasized the cost savings of using Teak Drive rather than extending water from West Hollis Street.
- Environmental consultant Brendan Quigley explained the wetland delineation, avoidance measures, and that the road was shifted 80 feet to avoid a vernal pool. Wetland impact is 2,545 sq ft; buffer impact is 9,533 sq ft (half of which is a stormwater basin).
- Board members questioned usage frequency, traffic concerns, and alternative locations. Chief Buxton stated heaviest usage is in spring (recruit school, month-long, Mon-Fri), then 2-3 times per week on average, with about six visits per year from other departments.
- City Engineer Dan Hudson addressed road structure concerns, stating residential streets can accommodate fire trucks and that the proposed traffic is minimal.
- The board deliberated on the five special exception criteria. They found criteria 1, 3, and the wetland standards were met, but criteria 2 (undue traffic congestion/impair pedestrian safety) and 5 (impair integrity/character of neighborhood) were not. All members expressed concerns about the impact on the quiet residential neighborhood.
Key Outcomes (Fire Department Case)
- Motion to deny the special exception was made by Mr. Shaw, seconded by Mr. Lynnel. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). The board found that the application did not meet criteria 2 and 5 of the special exception standards. The 30-day appeal window was noted.
Additional Cases
- Variance for front porch at 45 Charlotte Avenue (Edison Arana and Lord's Soria): Approved unanimously. The board found the 3-foot encroachment into the 25-foot setback reasonable, given the lot's two frontages and minimal impact.
- Use variance for tattoo studio at 74 Northeastern Boulevard, Unit 16 (Tyler Jones): Approved unanimously. The board determined the private, appointment-based studio was consistent with the professional office character of the complex. No opposition testimony was heard; a letter of concern was addressed by the applicant.
- Variance for shed replacement at 12 Nutmeg Drive (James and Christy Visada): Approved unanimously. The board noted the replacement of an existing shed with a slightly larger one in the same location, with no increased encroachment and support from neighbors.
- Variance for projecting signs at 14B Railroad Square (Bellons Incorporated/Marshall Signs): Approved unanimously. The board cited the building's unique curved shape and busy intersection, with support from the Historic Commission.
- Variance for deck at 35 Pilgrim Circle (Wanda Family Trust/Colleen Blanda): Approved unanimously. The board found the 16-foot encroachment into the 20-foot side setback reasonable due to the lot's configuration and HOA support.
Other Business
- The second scheduled case (City of Nashua Division of Public Works) was postponed to October 28, 2025.
- Minutes from September 9, 2025 were deferred for correction; minutes from September 23, 2025 were approved.
Meeting Transcript
Once again, if everybody wouldn't mind please taking their seats and uh keeping the noise volume down so that we can start the meeting. I would appreciate it. All right. Good evening, everybody, and welcome to the October 14th meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Once again, if I could ask everybody to please quiet down so that we can begin the meeting. Thank you. My name is Jay Menkara, and I am ZBA chair. To my right is Josh Neely, Vice Chair, and to his right, JP Boucher, member. Going across the stage, Robert Shaw member, Steve Lionel, member, and alternate Joseph Potri. We do have a full compliment of five ZBA members this evening, so all five will be uh voting and participating, unless a member has to recuse himself for some reason. Uh Mr. Potri is an alternate uh will participate though in all of our discussions and will vote in the event of a recusal. Um just going through the the order of business a little bit. So we have two different types of cases before us this evening. Um we have uh requests for variances. Uh a request for a variance is a request to deviate from the requirements of the zoning ordinance. And in order to grant a variance, the zoning board has to find that five criteria are met. We have to find that the variance, granting the variance would be with the public interest, that it would be within the spirit and the intent of the ordinance, that grant by granting the variance, substantial justice would be done, that there'd be no diminution of surrounding property values, and that owing to some special condition in the property, uh, failure to grant the variance would result in an unnecessary hardship to the owner seeking it. We also have a request for special exception uh this evening. A special exception is a use that is allowed in the zoning ordinance so long as certain criteria is met. Uh so each of these obviously are handled by the board somewhat differently. So, in terms of the order of business, um uh for each case, I'll read the case into the record, and the applicant will be invited to come up to the podium and will have 15 minutes to present his or her case. Following that, we'll ask if there's anybody in the audience who wishes to speak in favor of the application. And any individual who wishes to speak in favor uh can come up to the podium, uh state his or her uh name and address, and we'll have five minutes uh to address the board in any way you wish. Um following that, we will ask if there is anybody in the audience who has questions, concerns, or opposition. Very similarly, you'll be um able to come up to the microphone, give your name and address, and you will have up to five minutes. Following that, um we will allow the applicant to come forward, and the applicant will have five minutes to uh provide any rebuttal uh that the applicant wishes to provide. Um again, that's not required, but uh they may. And then following that, we will open up the floor to one person who spoke in opposition to the application to come forward and have uh final words. Um happens when there's a fair number of people is it will give you a moment to talk amongst yourselves and figure out who might be the best person to come forward uh to speak uh for the opposition. Uh so that's kind of the order of business. Obviously, we have a lot of people here this evening. Um so we will ask that if you when you are coming forward to speak, uh, to try not to repeat what other people have said. So if somebody has said something you agree with, you can just say so. You could state your overall position. Uh but obviously we want to have a chance to hear from everyone. Um we did get several communications for the board this evening, so we do have a number of emails. Um the board members have all received everybody's communications, and we have them with us, and they will be part of the record. So if you did submit um uh a letter to us and you had a lot of points to make, um, you know, feel free to reference your letter again. You can summarize, you don't need to state everything that you said. Trust that that we do have it, that we have read these materials. Um with that, hopefully that's clear to everybody, but we'll give you reminders um uh as as we go along. So with that, oh, and I should also add that to my left is Deputy Planning Manager Carter Falk. Um with that, I am going to call the role unless there's something anybody believes I forgot to mention. Mr. Shaw. Um, the one change in the agenda. Oh my goodness, you're right. There is a change on the agenda. Thank you, Mr.
openpublica.com