OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Nashua Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting - April 15, 2026

Board of Aldermen Meetings — Wednesday, April 15, 2026
BodyNashua, New Hampshire
SessionBoard of Aldermen Meetings
DateWednesday, April 15, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:27:31

Transcript — Verbatim
0:18

Good evening, everybody.

0:19

Um welcome to the April 14th meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.

0:23

Uh my name is Jamon Kara, ZBA Chair.

0:26

To my right is ZBA Vice Chair Josh Neely.

0:30

Uh and then next, or I should say to his right, uh JP Boucher.

0:33

Uh across the stage, we have member Robert Shaw, membered Steve Lionel, and alternate Joseph Potri.

0:40

Uh so we do have a full complement of five members here this evening.

0:44

So unless one of the members who recuses himself, um, which I think may be the case, in that case, Mr.

0:50

Potri will be voting.

0:51

Otherwise, though, um, alternates do participate in all of our discussions.

0:56

Um, so and I should also just add to my left is Deputy Planning Manager Carter Falk.

1:03

Uh so this evening we have applications before us for special exceptions and for variances.

1:10

So uh a special exception is a use that is allowed under the zoning ordinance so long as certain criteria is met.

1:17

A variance is a request to deviate from the terms of the ordinance.

1:22

And in order to grant a variance, the zoning board has to find that five criteria are met.

1:27

We have to find that the spirit of the zoning ordinance would be maintained or observed, um, that by granting the variance we would do substantial justice, that the granting the variance would be in the public interest, that there would be no diminution of surrounding property values, and that owing to a special condition of the property, um, denying the variance would result in an unnecessary hardship to the applicant seeking it.

1:55

So, in terms of the order of business, um, and and we do have a number of items on the agenda today.

2:01

Actually, I'd be remiss in not noting that if anybody is here for 19 VISTA way, um, that is being postponed until the June 9th meeting.

2:11

Um, so if you are here for that case, we will not be hearing it this evening.

2:14

I should have said that sooner.

2:16

Um so going back to the order of business, uh, each applicant.

2:21

Uh well, I'll read the case into the record, and then each applicant will be invited to come up to the podium, and uh you have 15 minutes uh to present your case.

2:30

Uh you don't have to use all 15 minutes, but it is available for you.

2:34

Uh following that, I'll ask if there's anybody in the audience who has any question, I'm sorry, who wishes to speak in favor of the application.

2:44

And each person would then be invited to come up to the podium, and you would have up to five minutes to address the board.

2:51

Following that, I'll ask if there's anybody in the audience who has any questions, concerns, or opposition to the application.

2:58

And similarly, uh each person will come forward up to the podium, state his or her name and address, and would have up to five minutes to address the board.

3:06

Finally, uh after I shouldn't say finally, after that, uh the applicant will have the opportunity to come up and provide any rebuttal uh or additional comments or answer questions that might have been asked uh by uh the public.

3:20

Uh and again, you would have up to five minutes to do that.

3:23

Following that, um, I would open it up to the floor to anybody who spoke, one person who spoke with questions, concerns, or opposition, would have the opportunity to come forward and have the last word.

3:35

Uh and again, that would be for up to five minutes.

3:39

Um I don't know if that that doesn't always happen, but if it does, uh, we would provide uh those individuals an opportunity to decide who that individual is.

3:49

Um with that, I ask uh Mr.

3:53

Falk, are there any other changes to the agenda?

3:55

Uh no, there are not.

3:57

Uh so I'm going to read the roll.

3:59

Mr.

3:59

Neely.

4:00

Present.

4:01

Mr.

4:01

Boucher.

4:02

Present.

4:02

Mr.

4:02

Shaw.

4:03

Present.

4:03

Mr.

4:04

Lionel.

4:04

Present.

4:05

Mr.

4:05

Petrie.

4:06

Present.

4:07

So we're all here, so I'm going to start with the first case.

4:10

Uh so the first case is the application of Edward and Hannah Persivali at 36 Roy Street, requesting a special exception from land use code section 190-112 to work in the 75-foot prime wetland buffer of Salmon Brook to remove an existing deck and construct an attached 8x12 mudroom addition.

4:31

It's in the RA zone in Mord 6.

4:33

And you must be the applicants.

4:35

Yes, sir.

4:35

Uh good evening.

4:36

I'm uh Edward.

4:37

This is my wife Hannah.

4:38

Um both of the 36th Roy Street, and uh we essentially are applying to build a only enclosed one-story 8 by 12 mud room uh attached to the side of our home on top of our driveway.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning Variances█████████████████████████████████████████████79%
Affordable Housing█████8%
Public Engagement███6%
Procedural██3%
Signage Regulations█2%
Historic Preservation█1%
Engineering And Infrastructure█1%
Summary of Proceedings

Nashua Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting - April 15, 2026

The Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) met on April 15, 2026, with Chair Jamon Kara presiding, Vice Chair Josh Neely, members JP Boucher, Robert Shaw, Steve Lionel, and alternate Joseph Potri. The board heard five applications for special exceptions and variances, and addressed one postponement. All cases were approved unanimously.

Postponement

  • 19 Vista Way was postponed to the June 9, 2026 meeting.

Case 1: 36 Roy Street – Special Exception for Mudroom Addition

  • Applicants: Edward and Hannah Persivali requested a special exception (Land Use Code §190-112) to work in the 75-foot prime wetland buffer of Salmon Brook to remove an existing deck and construct an attached 8x12 mudroom. The project is in the RA zone, Ward 6.
  • Public Comments: Three letters of support from neighbors Diane Fontas, Janet Veluc, and Elizabeth & Joshua Zellers were read into the record. No opposition.
  • Board Discussion: Members noted the home is already in the buffer, the area is disturbed, and the Conservation Commission had no objection. The proposal was deemed straightforward and reasonable.
  • Outcome: Motion to approve the special exception, with the Conservation Commission's two stipulations attached. Approved unanimously.

Case 2: 6 White Avenue – Variance for Two-Family Residential Building

  • Applicant: Douglas Deschard requested a variance from Land Use Code §190-16, Table 16-3 for minimum land area (5,834 sq ft existing vs. 6,970 sq ft required) to remove an existing garage and construct a two-family residential building. The property is in the RC zone, Ward 4. The same variance was approved by the ZBA on July 14, 2020, but had expired.
  • Public Comments: None.
  • Board Discussion: Members noted the existing six garages are out of character for the neighborhood, that the proposal adds needed housing, and conditions have not changed since 2020.
  • Outcome: Motion to approve the variance. Approved unanimously.

Case 3: 10 Williams Circle – Special Exception for Major Home Occupation (STEM Tutoring)

  • Applicants: Nimrit Argawa and Surabi Sharma requested a special exception (Land Use Code §190-47B) to operate an in-home STEM tutoring business with 3–4 students per session, one hour per session, three days a week, no signage, and no employees. The property is in the FUOD zone, Ward 5. Member Robert Shaw recused himself; alternate Joseph Potri voted.
  • Public Comments: A letter from Denise Amigo expressed concerns about traffic, noise, and precedent. Neighbor and abutter Rob Shaw (14 Sweet Williams Circle) spoke in favor of the application but stressed the need to prevent scope creep.
  • Board Discussion: Members agreed the use was limited and low-impact, but emphasized that any expansion would require a new application. The motion included a condition that the applicant maintain the specified load level.
  • Outcome: Motion to approve the special exception, with the condition that the applicant must return to the board for any increase in sessions, students, or days. Approved unanimously.

Case 4: 22 Pond Street – Use Variance for Dog Daycare

  • Applicants: Joseph Boise and Brianna Mastrioli requested a use variance (Land Use Code §190-15, Table 15-1) to operate a dog daycare in an existing building. The business would be completely indoor, no exterior changes, with controlled drop-off/pick-up, temperament testing, and a dumpster for waste. The property is in the D3/MU zone, Ward 7.
  • Public Comments: None.
  • Board Discussion: Members noted the mixed-use area, the applicant's experience, and that the use would be unobtrusive. The building owner retains two-thirds of the space.
  • Outcome: Motion to approve the variance. Approved unanimously.

Case 5: Kingston Drive – Variance for Garage Setback

  • Applicants: Abdel Aziz and Twabi Hadouche requested a variance (Land Use Code §190-16, Table 16-3) to encroach 5 feet into the required 10-foot right side yard setback to construct an attached 20x20 garage. The property is in the RA zone, Ward 6.
  • Public Comments: A letter of support from abutter Peter Lucier (6 Kingston Avenue) was read. No opposition.
  • Board Discussion: Members noted the abutter's support, that other homes in the neighborhood have similar garages, and that the applicant is proposing a narrower garage (20 ft) to minimize encroachment.
  • Outcome: Motion to approve the variance. Approved unanimously.

Case 6: 149 Shore Drive – Variance for Deck into Rear Yard Setback

  • Applicant: Colleen Brady Revocable Trust (represented by Paul Chisholm) requested a variance (Land Use Code §190-16, Table 16-3) to encroach approximately 12 feet into the 30-foot required rear yard setback to construct an attached 12x21 deck. The property is in the R9 zone, Ward 5, in a conservation subdivision.
  • Public Comments: Letters of support from neighbors Douglas & Marie Kutchen (151 Shore Drive) and the owner of 147 Shore Drive. No opposition.
  • Board Discussion: The deck is needed due to a 10-foot grade drop (if lower, it would be allowed by right). The rear yard abuts open space owned by the city, with a thick vegetated buffer. The board found no impact on neighbors and supported aging in place.
  • Outcome: Motion to approve the variance. Approved unanimously.

Case 7: 78 Amherst Street / 3–13 Putnam Street – Variance for Lot Consolidation and Density

  • Applicant: Family Realty Investments LLC (represented by attorney) requested a variance (Land Use Code §190-16, Table 16-3) to allow 10 multifamily units on 29,045 sq ft (62,228 sq ft required) after consolidating lots 83 and 85. The proposal is to demolish an existing single-family home and build two duplexes (4 units) identical to the three existing duplexes on the site. Six units currently exist. The property is in the RB zone, Ward 2.
  • Public Comments: Gina Jensen, a resident of 3 Putnam Street, expressed concerns about the proximity of new buildings to her unit, parking space allocation, asbestos during demolition, and lack of communication from the developer. She supported the project but asked for more green space and preservation of her two parking spots. The applicant's attorney responded that the client will meet with neighbors, parking will be increased to 20 spaces (no change to existing spots), and the deck sizes can be reduced for more clearance. Further details will be reviewed at the Planning Board.
  • Board Discussion: Members noted the existing building is an eyesore, the project adds needed housing, removes a driveway from busy Amherst Street, and creates a consistent look. The density is consistent with the neighborhood.
  • Outcome: Motion to approve the variance. Approved unanimously.

Key Outcomes

  • Votes: All five applications were approved unanimously (5-0, with one recusal for Case 3).
  • Next Steps: The 30-day appeal window was noted for each approved case. The applicant for Case 7 will need to go through site plan approval at the Planning Board.
  • Minutes: The minutes of the March 24, 2026 meeting were approved unanimously.
  • Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:57 PM.

Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everybody. Um welcome to the April 14th meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Uh my name is Jamon Kara, ZBA Chair. To my right is ZBA Vice Chair Josh Neely. Uh and then next, or I should say to his right, uh JP Boucher. Uh across the stage, we have member Robert Shaw, membered Steve Lionel, and alternate Joseph Potri. Uh so we do have a full complement of five members here this evening. So unless one of the members who recuses himself, um, which I think may be the case, in that case, Mr. Potri will be voting. Otherwise, though, um, alternates do participate in all of our discussions. Um, so and I should also just add to my left is Deputy Planning Manager Carter Falk. Uh so this evening we have applications before us for special exceptions and for variances. So uh a special exception is a use that is allowed under the zoning ordinance so long as certain criteria is met. A variance is a request to deviate from the terms of the 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 spirit of the zoning ordinance would be maintained or observed, um, that by granting the variance we would do substantial justice, that the granting the variance would be in the public interest, that there would be no diminution of surrounding property values, and that owing to a special condition of the property, um, denying the variance would result in an unnecessary hardship to the applicant seeking it. So, in terms of the order of business, um, and and we do have a number of items on the agenda today. Actually, I'd be remiss in not noting that if anybody is here for 19 VISTA way, um, that is being postponed until the June 9th meeting. Um, so if you are here for that case, we will not be hearing it this evening. I should have said that sooner. Um so going back to the order of business, uh, each applicant. Uh well, I'll read the case into the record, and then each applicant will be invited to come up to the podium, and uh you have 15 minutes uh to present your case. Uh you don't have to use all 15 minutes, but it is available for you. Uh following that, I'll ask if there's anybody in the audience who has any question, I'm sorry, who wishes to speak in favor of the application. And each person would then be invited to come up to the podium, and you would have up to five minutes to address the board. Following that, I'll ask if there's anybody in the audience who has any questions, concerns, or opposition to the application. And similarly, uh each person will come forward up to the podium, state his or her name and address, and would have up to five minutes to address the board. Finally, uh after I shouldn't say finally, after that, uh the applicant will have the opportunity to come up and provide any rebuttal uh or additional comments or answer questions that might have been asked uh by uh the public. Uh and again, you would have up to five minutes to do that. Following that, um, I would open it up to the floor to anybody who spoke, one person who spoke with questions, concerns, or opposition, would have the opportunity to come forward and have the last word. Uh and again, that would be for up to five minutes. Um I don't know if that that doesn't always happen, but if it does, uh, we would provide uh those individuals an opportunity to decide who that individual is. Um with that, I ask uh Mr. Falk, are there any other changes to the agenda? Uh no, there are not. Uh so I'm going to read the roll. Mr. Neely. Present. Mr. Boucher. Present. Mr. Shaw. Present. Mr. Lionel. Present. Mr. Petrie.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com