Nashua Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting - March 10, 2026

This meeting of the Nashua Zoning Board of Adjustment, chaired by Vice Chair Josh Neely, convened on March 10, 2026, with five members present. The board heard three variance applications, all of which were approved unanimously. The meeting also included approval of previous meeting minutes and adjournment at 7:46 PM.

Case 1: 39 Simon Street – Use Variance for Massage and Esthetician Office

Applicant: Kayla Jerry, LCO Holdings LLC, for the Elizabeth Ryder Trust (owner). Request: A use variance from Land Use Code §190-15, Table 15-1, No. 102, to allow a massage therapist and esthetician office in a multi-tenant office park (PI zone, Ward 4). Summary: The applicant, who has operated her business in Nashua for five years, stated she could not remain at her previous location and that all suitable spaces she found were in industrial zones. The business operates by appointment only, with five to six employees working different schedules, and minimal traffic and parking impact. A letter of support from Kelly Carone, trustee of the owner entity, was read into the record, expressing no anticipated negative impact on neighboring units. No opposition was voiced. The board discussed that such mixed-use developments are increasingly common and that the proposal fits the neighborhood. Outcome: Motion to approve with findings on all five variance criteria passed 5-0. A 30-day appeal period applies.

Case 2: 57 Palm Street – Density Variance for Elderly Housing Conversion

Applicant: Palm Square LLC (owner) represented by Attorney Morgan Hollis. Request: A variance from Land Use Code §190-16, Table 16-3, to exceed maximum density for elderly housing. The property, a former casket factory converted in 2006 to 140 elderly units (with a restaurant space), currently has 92 units permitted by density. The applicant seeks to convert the unsuccessful restaurant space (which has failed under multiple operators over ~20 years) into 11 additional residential units, for a total of 151. The property is in RC and GB zones, Ward 4. Summary: Attorney Hollis argued that the restaurant space has proven unviable, that no exterior changes are needed, that parking (ample) and utilities are adequate, and that the added density (less than 10% increase) will not alter neighborhood character. He noted the property’s unique size and history as justification for hardship. No public comments for or against were made. Board members recalled that the restaurant never succeeded and supported the conversion. Outcome: Motion to approve variance passed 5-0. Findings included that the change does not affect the exterior, serves a public benefit (additional housing), and that the property’s unique conditions warrant relief. 30-day appeal period.

Case 3: 15 and 19 Atherton Avenue – Multiple Variances for 16 Multi-Family Units

Applicant: Lafaver & Company Development Partners, represented by Attorney Andy Prollman, with project engineer Ethan Beals. Request: Five variances: (1) use variance to allow 16 multi-family units in the RA district (permitted use only in RC); (2) land area variance (51,619 sq ft existing, 116,160 required); (3) open space variance (48% proposed vs. 50% required); (4) floor area ratio variance (61% proposed vs. 50% allowed); (5) building stories variance (three stories proposed vs. 2.5 permitted). The project would consolidate two lots, subdivide an 8-foot strip to an abutter (Mr. Sutton at 21 Atherton), remove two single-family homes, and construct three townhouse-style buildings (16 units total) in the RA and RC zones, Ward 3. Summary: Attorney Prollman noted that 7 units would be permitted by right, but that 14 would be allowed if the entire property were RC; the proposal is for 16. He argued the site is oversized and unique, with a mix of uses nearby (two 6-unit multifamily properties to the south, PSNH/railroad to the rear, park across the street). He presented a letter from Mr. Sutton (north abutter) supporting the project after six conditions were agreed to (including ground-level patios instead of decks) and committed to installing a vinyl fence on the southern boundary per a request from the south abutter. A traffic memo from a similar nearby project (18 units) was provided, indicating very low trip generation. One email from Sonia Trapp (6 Sapphire Lane) opposing due to traffic concerns was read into the record. Board discussion focused on setbacks, density, and the agreements with abutters. Staff comment noted all dimensional variances are minimal and the plan is well-designed. Outcome: Motion to approve all variances passed 5-0, including stipulations to honor agreements with abutters (fence on south, patios on north). 30-day appeal period.

Minutes and Adjournment

• Minutes from February 10, 2026, were approved with corrections (attribution fix and clarifying language).
• Minutes from February 24, 2026, were approved as drafted.
• Meeting adjourned at 7:46 PM.

Key Outcomes

• All three variance applications were approved unanimously (5-0).
• For Case 3, the board imposed stipulations requiring a vinyl fence on the southern boundary and ground-level patios for units abutting the northern neighbor.
• A 30-day appeal window applies to all decisions; applicants will be notified by city staff if an appeal is filed.