Nashua Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting Summary - November 25, 2025

The Nashua Zoning Board of Adjustment convened with a full complement of members to hear applications for special exceptions and variances. The Board postponed the City of Nashua's public works wetland case and conducted public hearings for three main applications: a residential shed, a fire training facility water line, and a residential development. The meeting was marked by significant public opposition regarding wetland buffers, visual impacts, and neighborhood character for the fire station and development projects, which led to a continuation and a denial, respectively. Conversely, two residential shed/variance applications received unanimous approval.

Consent Calendar

• No items were discussed under the Consent Calendar; routine cases were not on the agenda.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Vasu Dev & Latha Shrinvasa Desari (Shed Variance): Applicants expressed necessity due to property shape and wooded rear area, stating the variance allows reasonable use without aesthetic compromise.
• Rakesh & Brianne Prasad (Rear Neighbor, First Applicant): Expressed opposition to the shed variance, citing concerns over visual impact, potential maintenance issues, and property value diminution due to the reduced 3-foot setback. They suggested the shed be placed on the right side of the property instead.
• Tom Kelly (Fire Training Facility): Expressed full support for the proposed water line and fire training facility, emphasizing the importance of realistic training, cost efficiency, and ISO ratings for city safety. He stated the facility is essential for maintaining crew readiness.
• Rodi Arrontes (Fire Training Facility): Expressed strong opposition to the water line and training facility, arguing the proposal does not meet special exception criteria and represents a long-term plan to pave a road under the guise of a temporary line. They advocated for horizontal directional drilling (HDD) and noted 150+ petition signatures.
• Paula Johnson (Fire Training Facility): As Alderman Elect for Ward 5, expressed strong opposition, stating the project is non-conforming, will destroy mature trees taking decades to regrow, and that HDD is a viable but ignored alternative. They argued the city should seek industrial locations. They expressed that residents must fight for their neighborhood.
• Jay Lustig (Fire Training Facility): Expressed opposition, citing existing landfill traffic, noise, and the visual impact of clearing trees, which would remove a natural sound barrier.
• Andreas Weiss (Fire Training Facility): Expressed concern regarding hazmat training chemicals and environmental impact, questioning the size of the facility and if it meets safety standards.
• Miran Howell (Fire Training Facility): Expressed opposition, arguing the city disregards wetland protections by treating tree removal as temporary and that the plan fails to prevent degradation of buffer resources.
• Peter Kalgiropolis (Fire Training Facility): Expressed opposition to tree cutting, stating it would allow direct views of the landfill and impact property values.
• Hannah Nedzbala (Fire Training Facility): Expressed complete opposition, wishing to protect the air environment and neighborhood character, suggesting other locations on city land.
• Donna Bushy (Fire Training Facility): Expressed opposition, questioning cost-effectiveness of alternatives and the impact of removing trees that act as a healthy buffer for air quality and noise reduction.
• Janice Chulin (Fire Training Facility): Expressed opposition to the location, citing increased noise pollution and visual views of the landfill that will negatively impact property values for those who did not choose to live there.
• John Collins (Fire Training Facility): Expressed opposition, describing the water line as "Phase One" of a road development, citing the 200-signature petition, and requesting a plan that involves community input rather than a "sloth" through the woods.
• George Sturgeon (Fire Training Facility): Expressed opposition, noting that removing trees is permanent. They demanded the Board deny the application or mandate HDD drilling to avoid dredging and tree removal.
• Dan Rogers (Fire Training Facility): Expressed opposition, urging the city to use existing industrial areas for a long-term facility rather than a temporary solution at the landfill.
• Mike LaRock (Fire Training Facility): Expressed that he cannot support the application, particularly arguing it fails criteria regarding the character of the neighborhood and that the use is out of character for a quiet residential area.
• Helicopter (Fire Training Facility - Typo in transcript for name): Expressed opposition to tree cutting and the resulting visual impact of the landfill.

Discussion Items

• Vasu Dev & Latha Shrinvasa Desari (Variance): Board members discussed the unique triangular shape of the lot and the wooded berm at the rear. While Mr. Shaw initially struggled with the hardship, the Board noted the shed would be screened by trees and that a lesser footprint was less feasible than cutting trees. Mr. Neely and Mr. Boucher supported the request, emphasizing that Reed's sheds do not typically diminish property values.
• City of Nashua (Fire Training Facility): Attorney Andy Prollman clarified the application is for a water line only, not a road, and that the previous denial (Dover v. Fisher) was overcome. He argued impacts are temporary and that HDD is not cost-effective. Commissioner Kelly testified to the necessity of the facility. Mr. Shaw raised concerns about engineering alternatives, suggesting an angled entrance between wetlands to reduce visual impact. Board members discussed the conflict between the temporary nature of the construction and the permanent loss of mature trees. Mr. Shaw questioned if the plan represented the least impactful method, suggesting the possibility of crossing only one wetland (Wetland A) rather than two, or using an angled approach. Mr. Neely expressed skepticism about continuing the case, noting the neighbors' opposition was unchanged, but the motion to continue was supported by the majority to allow time for engineering verification and HDD feasibility studies.
• Heidi St. Hilaire (Shed & Sauna): The Board discussed the unique constraints of the property located on the Nashua River where the entire lot is within setback/buffer zones. Mr. Boucher noted there is no ideal location without encroaching on buffers. Mr. Shaw noted the Conservation Commission's recommendation for an alternative site was moot because the applicant's proposal was for the west side. The Board unanimously found the requests reasonable given the property's unique conditions and existing use of the pad.
• Silver Lining Development (Driveway & Lots): Attorney Prollman and Engineer Ethan Beals presented a revised plan using porous pavement to mitigate runoff, addressing previous concerns from the Conservation Commission. Mr. Neely asked about the number of trees to be cut and neighborhood outreach. Mr. Beals explained the houses will not be in the buffer, only yards, and that the design improves stormwater management compared to the existing erosion. The Board noted the Conservation Commission's unfavorable recommendation but was persuaded by the stormwater improvements and the fact that no impervious surfaces will be placed in the buffer.

Key Outcomes

• Case 1: Vasu Dev & Latha Shrinvasa Desari: Motion to approve the variance for a 12x12 shed with a 3-foot side yard setback was approved unanimously (5-0). The Board found no undue hardship, substantial justice, and no diminution of property values.
• Case 2: City of Nashua (Fire Training Facility): The hearing was continued to January 13, 2025. The motion passed 4-1 (Mr. Neely opposed). The Board will await engineering analysis on alternative water line paths and the feasibility of horizontal directional drilling (HDD) before rendering a final decision on the special exception.
• Case 3: Heidi St. Hilaire: Motion to approve the special exception and two variances for a 10x20 shed and a 6x10 sauna was approved unanimously (5-0). Conditions included providing a landscape plan to the Conservation Commission to include native shrubs and ground cover. No appeal window was explicitly mentioned as passed, but standard 30-day appeal rules apply.
• Case 4: Silver Lining Development LLC: Motion to approve the special exception for a shared driveway impacting 6,500 sq ft of wetland buffer was approved unanimously (5-0). The Board adopted the six stipulations suggested by the Conservation Commission as part of the approval.

Note: The City of Nashua Public Works wetland application was postponed to the December 9, 2025 meetings.