Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting - June 23, 2026
Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting - June 23, 2026
Vice Chair Josh Neely opened the meeting at 7:32 PM with four members present (Neely, Boucher, Lionel, Petrie). Due to the absence of a fifth member, three affirmative votes were required for approval. The meeting covered six variance requests, all approved unanimously.
Consent Calendar
- No consent calendar items.
Public Comments & Testimony
- 3 March Street: A letter from Michael Sheehan (4 March Street) expressed support for the variance.
- 55 Conant Road: Multiple letters of support from neighbors: Patricia Shaughnessy (57 Conant), Leah Gibbons (3 Cherokee Ave), John Mack (53 Conant), Cynthia Thompson (5 Cherokee), Victor Seussy Jr. (54 Conant), and John Larson (7 Cherokee Ave).
- 53 Langholm Drive: Text messages from neighbors expressing support: Dale, Donnie White, Joe Clemente, Melanie McVay, Adam and Tacky.
- 6 Arlington Street: No public comments.
- Public opposition: Patrick Hogan (10 Shetland Road) opposed the variance for 53 Langholm Drive, citing potential devaluation of properties.
Discussion Items
- 3 March Street (Case 1): Peter Breen requested a variance to encroach an additional foot into the 25-foot front setback for a porch roof overhang (4 feet instead of permitted 3 feet) to improve safety, comfort, and aesthetics. The board found the request reasonable and consistent with neighborhood character.
- 8 Parker Drive (Case 2): Carla Shamoon and Pedro Filiguerra requested a variance to encroach 6 feet into the 40-foot front setback for a 6x8 front entryway addition, citing safety for their son waiting for the school bus and household organization. The board noted the house's angled placement on the lot.
- 55 Conant Road (Case 3): Andrew Rissler and Lori Ann Dion requested a variance to encroach 6 feet into the 30-foot rear setback to replace a 10x12 deck with a 14x20 deck. The new deck would be open and elevated, similar to the existing one. Neighbors expressed support.
- 6-8 Mulberry Street (Case 4): Jorge Gomez requested a variance to encroach 6 feet into the 20-foot rear setback for an 11x20 addition to create a room for his daughter. The addition would square off the house. The board noted the lot's small size and irregular shape.
- 53 Langholm Drive (Case 5): Don and Brian Morotech requested a variance to exceed maximum accessory use area (55% proposed vs. 40% permitted) to construct two sheds (10x20 and 10x16) for storage, replacing an existing shed. The garage is detached, affecting the calculation. The board discussed the property's odd shape and the quality of the proposed sheds.
- 6 Arlington Street (Case 6): EJR Homes Inc. requested a variance from minimum lot area (4,825 sq ft existing vs. 6,970 sq ft required) to convert a single-family home to a two-family home. The lot is in a dense, mixed-use neighborhood. The board noted the addition of parking and alignment with housing needs.
Key Outcomes
- 3 March Street: Approved 4-0 (motion by Petrie, seconded by Lionel).
- 8 Parker Drive: Approved 4-0 (motion by Boucher, seconded by Lionel).
- 55 Conant Road: Approved 4-0 (motion by Lionel, seconded by Boucher).
- 6-8 Mulberry Street: Approved 4-0 (motion by Petrie, seconded by Lionel).
- 53 Langholm Drive: Approved 4-0 (motion by Boucher, seconded by Petrie).
- 6 Arlington Street: Approved 4-0 (motion by Lionel, seconded by Boucher).
All variances were approved with the standard 30-day appeal window. The board also reviewed the upcoming agenda (including the postponed 19 Vista Way case for July 28, 2026) and approved the minutes from the previous meeting.
Meeting Transcript
All right, folks, good evening and welcome to the June 23rd meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Uh just a few quick notes before we get going here. Uh minutes and the audio visual recordings will be available on Nashua New Hampshire.gov. Uh tonight, up at the table here, I'm uh Josh Neely. I am the vice chair. The chair could not join us tonight. Uh to my left is Carter Falk, who represents the city. Um, some of you I'm sure have already worked with Carter as you went through your application process. Uh to my right is uh member JP Boucher. Uh across the ways uh member Stephen Lionel and uh member Joseph Petrie. Congratulations, Mr. Petrie, who's now a full member. Um as everybody can see, we have four members up here. Normal size of the board is five. Um so that is gonna put us in a little bit of a different um uh light here tonight. So because we have four people, if there is a tie vote of two to two, that is a failure of vote. Normally you have to have uh you know you get three, three to two or whatever. So tonight you need to have three affirmative votes for us to vote in favor of an application. We'll take official uh roll call here in just a minute, but a few more pieces of information before we get going. So tonight we are hearing just variances. Uh to approve a variance, or for the board to approve a variance, as most of you know from your applications, there are five criteria. Uh the criteria of a variance is that it will not be contrary to public interest. The spirit of the ordinance is observed, substantial justice is done, the value of surrounding property is not diminished, and literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. In order for our variance to pass, all five of those criteria must be met. As we get into the applications, and I'll read the order of the applications here in just a moment. Uh the applicant is invited for up to 15 minutes at the microphone. As this is recorded, we ask that you do speak into the microphone, and please speak to us. Um if there's any noise in the uh audience, uh, please try to ignore it. Uh don't answer any direct questions. Everything should be addressed to the board up here, please. Uh when you come up, please state your name and address, and then tell us what you'd like to do in your own words. Um please understand that we have thoroughly read all of your applications, so you do not need to read them to us or go point by point. You certainly have that option if you'd like to, and you do not need to use the full 15 minutes. Just tell us what you want to do in your own words, and then we'll have some questions for you. Um after the applicant is completed with their presentation, we will ask if there's anybody in favor. They have up to five minutes of stand up at the microphone. Once again, state your name and address and tell us why you're in favor of the application. After that, I will ask if anybody is opposed or has any questions. Those folks individually also have five minutes to uh to speak to the board. If we do have folks that are opposed, uh once that their presentations are complete, the applicant then has the ability to come back up for five minutes and respond to questions that were brought up by the folks who were opposed. Uh in the event that we get to that point, if there are multiple people that were opposed, then one and only one person of the opposed groups can come back up and make more statements for five minutes. We let you kind of figure out in the audience who that person is going to be as your spokesperson. Once we hear from everybody who wants to speak tonight, we will close the public hearing and we will go to the public meeting. At that point, we'll discuss back and forth what our thought processes are on what we heard from the applicant and what we saw in the application package. Uh as I noted earlier, you must have at least three votes in favor for a motion to be passed. And in addition to uh the attendance roll call, did I miss anything else up here? All right. And Mr. Falk, do we have any changes to the agenda tonight? Yes, Mr.
openpublica.com