Nashua Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting – 2026-10-14

The Nashua Zoning Board of Adjustment met on 2026-10-14; the chair opened the session as the October 13th meeting. The board heard three variance applications and one administrative appeal. Chair Jay Minkara presided with Vice Chair Josh Neely and members JP Boucher, Stephen Lionel, and Joseph Petrie present; Deputy Planning Manager Sam Durfee also attended. No agenda or minutes were provided with the transcript. The board approved all three variances and denied the administrative appeal, upholding staff’s decision.

Public Comments & Testimony

• In the Timothy Dion driveway case, abutter Stephen DeShane of 6–8 Jefferson Street submitted a letter opposing the variance. He cited the lack of a professional survey, concerns about stormwater runoff, and an unresolved property-boundary question, and asked the board to continue the hearing or deny the application. The applicant disputed parts of the letter and said a survey was planned.
• In the Suzanne Raisin flag-lot case, Dennis and Cindy Stevens of 5 Lamb Road submitted a letter stating they had no objection to the subdivision if a 30-foot-wide “do not disturb” landscape buffer was recorded along the 216-foot common boundary. A letter from 12 Lamb Road raised written questions; counsel for the applicant responded, and the board briefly reopened the public hearing for that response.
• In the Main Street administrative appeal, Dr. Noah Gosslin, lead chiropractor of Main Street Wellness Chiropractic, defended the current parking arrangement. He noted the business has 14 off-street parking spaces plus one handicapped space, 10 employees, and treats about 50–60 patients per day, many with limited mobility. David Labassier of the Salvation Army said his organization would continue to guide clients to its parking lot but acknowledged overflow needs.

Discussion Items

• Case 1: Timothy Dion – Driveway Width Variance (RB Zone, Ward 3) – Timothy Dion requested a variance from Land Use Code §190-17E2 to allow 34 feet of driveway width where 24 feet is permitted for a paved driveway expansion in the front setback. He said the current driveway is severely constrained by a retaining wall and that the proposed 10-by-25-foot paved area on the east side would provide needed parking for his household. The board discussed the neighbor’s written opposition, the property-line dispute, and the need to control runoff. The variance was approved with three conditions: no runoff onto any neighboring property; the applicant must file a retroactive building permit for the existing retaining walls; and no work may begin until a survey confirms the driveway will be located on the applicant’s property.
• Case 2: Lindsay Lima – Driveway Width Variance (R9 Zone, Ward 5) – Lindsay Lima (formerly Lindsay Goody Coons) requested the same 24-to-34-foot driveway width variance at 13 Doncaster Drive. She said retaining walls on both sides of the driveway, work vans, household vehicles, trash/recycling bins, and a future family require more usable driveway area, while the curb cut would not be widened. Board members found the request reasonable and consistent with nearby driveways. The variance was approved unanimously with no stated conditions.
• Case 3: Suzanne Raisin – Flag Lot Variances (R40 Zone, Ward 9) – Suzanne Raisin, through attorney Brad Westgate, requested variances from Land Use Code §190-16 Table 16-3 to allow a new flagpole lot with 35 feet of frontage instead of the required 120 feet and 35 feet of lot width instead of the required 150 feet. The proposal would subdivide the 2.06-acre, roughly 180-foot-frontage property into a conforming 40,000-square-foot lot and a rear flag lot. Westgate noted that five similar flag lots exist nearby and that city water and sewer are available. The applicant agreed to the Stevens’ requested 30-by-216-foot no-disturb landscape buffer. The board granted both variances subject to that buffer being shown on the plan and recorded.
• Case 4: Wallace Holhan & Kathleen Feltis – Administrative Appeal (RA Zone, Ward 7) – The petitioners appealed Deputy Planning Manager Sam Durfee’s July 16, 2026 written determination that employees of Main Street Wellness Chiropractic parking in legal on-street spaces on Montgomery Avenue did not violate the property’s approved site plan and did not warrant zoning enforcement. Wallace Holhan argued that Article 28 makes off-street parking mandatory and that long-term employee parking on a narrow street creates safety and emergency-access hazards. After hearing from the chiropractor and the Salvation Army, the board voted to deny the appeal and uphold the administrative decision. Board members said parking enforcement is not a zoning matter and suggested seeking aldermanic help for possible parking restrictions.

Key Outcomes

• Timothy Dion’s driveway variance: approved unanimously with conditions prohibiting runoff to neighboring property, requiring a retroactive retaining-wall building permit, and requiring a survey before work begins.
• Lindsay Lima’s driveway variance: approved unanimously.
• Suzanne Raisin’s flag-lot variances: approved unanimously with a recorded 30-by-216-foot no-disturb buffer condition.
• Wallace Holhan and Kathleen Feltis’s administrative appeal: denied unanimously, upholding Durfee’s administrative decision.
• The board approved meeting minutes with a correction: the Conservation Commission’s unfavorable recommendation in the 19 Vista Way case was 7–0, not 4–1.

Transcription Note

The transcript records some address and name inconsistencies, including Timothy Dion’s street as both “19 Shadow Street” and “19 Shattock Street,” and Lindsay Lima’s street as both “13 Georchester Drive” and “13 Doncaster Drive.”