Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.
The Nashua Zoning Board of Adjustment met on October 28, 2026, according to the supplied timestamp; the spoken transcript opens with “October 27th meeting.” The board considered one variance application, postponed another case, approved prior minutes, and discussed proposed bylaw amendments on postponements. No written agenda or minutes were provided.
20 Canal Street density/lot-area variance: The applicant requested a dimensional variance from Land Use Code Section 190-16, Table 16-3, for minimum land area: 10,308 square feet existing versus 52,272 square feet required for six dwellings in the LB zone, Ward 3.
Mahindraker explained that the board had previously approved adding three units to the existing three-unit property, bringing it to six units. This request was only for the density/lot-area relief needed for that same six-unit proposal, with no changes to the sealed plan.
The applicant argued that the density formula overstates the actual impact, and that the purposes of the density ordinance—preventing overcrowding, protecting safety, and maintaining neighborhood character—could still be addressed through city review of parking, access, building, fire, and life-safety requirements.
Planning staff noted that the application had returned because, after review, a density variance had been determined necessary before the planning board could treat the application as complete.
Board members expressed support. Vice Chair Josh Neely said he was in favor “for the third time,” citing the irregular-shaped building, reuse of an unused garage, unchanged building footprint, reduced fire-safety concerns, ample parking, and consistency of the smaller units (approximately 500–700 square feet) with the neighborhood. Member Stephen Lionel also supported the request. Another member agreed, noting the property is an unusual, long, double-frontage lot consistent with the neighborhood.
Members acknowledged some prior disagreement over whether the density variance was required, but accepted that it was needed.
Proposed bylaw amendments on postponements: Planning staff presented draft bylaw amendments, beginning on page three, subsection O, to address postponement and continuance requests made before hearings start, including requests that may be intended to avoid a short board.
The draft would remove the newspaper-notice requirement for postponements/withdrawals received before the six-day deadline, which staff described as a logistical impossibility.
Members discussed whether the six-day automatic postponement window was appropriate. Concerns included members of the public arriving for a hearing that may be postponed and applicants incurring unnecessary time and expense. There was discussion about giving the chair sole discretion for late requests, but concern was raised about an appointed member deciding unilaterally.
The board leaned toward keeping the six-day deadline, defining it as six calendar days, and requiring any subsequent or repeat postponement request to come before the full board rather than being automatic.
Good evening everybody and welcome to the October 27th meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. My name is Jaman Cara, ZBA Chair, and to my right is ZBA Vice Chair Josh Neely. Across the stage, we have member JP Boucher, Member Stephen Lionel, and Member Joseph Pagree. And to my left is a planning manager Sam Durfee. So this evening we have actually one application. I should note for the record that the first application this evening of Miguel Bisano 48 Buckmeadow Road has been postponed at the request of the applicant to December 8th. So we will not be hearing that case this evening. So we have one application before us this evening, and that is for a variance. So 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 granting the variance would be in the public interest, that the spirit of the ordinance would be observed, that granting the variance would do substantial justice, that there'd be no diminution of surrounding property values, and that owing to a special condition of the property, uh denying the variance would result in an unnecessary hardship to the applicant seeking it. So with that, just in terms of the rules of procedure, which you're probably aware of. Um so you um I'll read that case into the record, and uh you have up to 15 minutes to state your case to the board. Uh, you don't have to use the 15 minutes, but it's available to you. Um I see nobody here to speak. Uh well, potentially, I shouldn't, I should not assume. So um I'll then ask if there's anybody in the audience who wishes to speak in favor of the application. Uh, and if you do, you'll uh if you wish to speak, you'll have up to five minutes to address the board, come up to the podium, speak into the microphone, uh, starting off by giving us your name and address. I'll then ask if there's anybody with a questions, concerns, or opposition to the application. And once again, um anybody wishing to speak can come up to the microphone, state your name and address, and you have up to five minutes to address the board. Uh, and then we will allow the applicant to have up to five minutes to provide a rebuttal if necessary. And then finally, we would allow one person who spoke with questions, concerns, or opposition uh to address the board for up to again five up to five minutes to have the last word. Uh so those are the rules of procedure. And any other changes to the application we should be aware of, Mr. Durfee. Uh no. All right, so with that, I will uh call the roll. Mr. Neely. Mr. Boucher. Present. Mr. Lionel. Present. Mr. Petrie. Present. IJ McCara are present. Or am present. Um so uh I'll I'll read the case into the record. The application of Anand uh Mahindraker, uh Blue Coral Canal LLC at 20 Canal Street requesting a variance from land use code section 190-16, table 16-3 for minimum land area, 10,308 square feet existing, 52,272 square feet required for six dwellings in the LB zone, and that's in board three. And if I may just go a bit out of order, uh if I may ask Mr. Gerifka the reason this is before us again. I I note that this was previously before us a few months ago. Correct. Yes, um, the applicant had sought um variances that differ from what is on the agenda of this evening. Um in review of the application, actually subsequent to the submission of a um application to the planning board.