[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6013070,"mediaKeyId","5793883-e18b8c77765e9475152271a439af7ac9","parentId",5793883,"title","Zoning board approves subdivision and private‑drive access on unpaved Linton Street for East Glenwood property","audioSeconds",1832,"startMs",6377000,"endMs",8209000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5793883-e18b8c77765e9475152271a439af7ac9&start=6377&end=8209","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5793883-e18b8c77765e9475152271a439af7ac9/thumbnail_6377000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6013070/New-Hampshire/Zoning-board-approves-subdivision-and-privatedrive-access-on-unpaved-Linton-Street-for-East-Glenwood-property","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6013070-fe746a66597b1f897c6d46dba5915b18/orig.mp4?Expires=1770714530&Signature=cY1~n08tt7qMFYany7C0K0xpP4jVcaHLtQngnO4diTif~Hv1AMJUhHJrRjvTi58a6cVjSP7Ii~Kf5eG26Xzvfl~aoyHDvKHfnvMDiDcebJRH5n6YvHMRqb4VGlB5hbcfUcxtDoBGZ1FE4XF7H8Ht0OdP-V6WsvI2xxU1RHL-fAujBBK-x11~gwRpkTn8mT9SAHIWNr5eSePMy85HAftfZtYVFowt7paFz0VQrcpXIrJgKhZNz~HCUSfmE8vzIqowkg7qZaU~4GoBlVOkMbzzUfzfZIfMIYyho02BokAIMX-Nic6by4Vw2V2CWLDadJ~uOKZTUn7FewuU63Mhsxakvg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Nashua NH","date","2025-07-23T11:05:45Z","article","NASHUA, N.H. — The Nashua Zoning Board of Adjustment on July 22 approved a set of variances allowing Silver Lining Development (Douglas Cepala) to subdivide 16 East Glenwood Street into three lots and to use a private driveway across the unpaved portion of Linton Street (a so‑called “paper street”) to reach two of the new lots.

The board granted multiple dimensional variances — on lot area, lot depth and rear‑yard setbacks — that arise from the neighborhood’s historic layout and the fact that the original street grid was not fully built out. The board also approved variances tied to the paper‑street frontage so the developer can use a private driveway and later seek Board of Aldermen and Public Works permissions to formalize the arrangement.

Attorney Andy Perlman presented the application for Silver Lining Development and said the request reflects the neighborhood’s original 1924 parceling: many of the existing lots between Linton and East Glenwood were laid out with roughly 75‑foot depths, but the current RA zoning requires 90‑foot lot depths and 7,500 square feet of lot area. “Given this unusual circumstance with Linton Street ends, we have an existing lot and a proposed lot. We believe we have a reasonable request,” Perlman told the board.

Engineer Ethan Beals of Haynor Swanson said the parcel can be developed but that detailed engineering is required to manage slope and runoff. “We have to prove out empirically, that stormwater runoff leaving our site after the development is less than or equal to that in the predevelopment condition,” Beals said, describing the stormwater‑management work that will be included in a planning‑board submission.

Neighbors raised repeated concerns at the hearing about a low‑lying wetland and a drainage channel behind several properties. David McGhue, who said he owns 8 East Glenwood Street, told the board the wetland already fills in large storms and asked, “If we start getting fill as we build down from Linton Street, is it going to impact that wetland area?” That line of questioning prompted the applicant’s team to emphasize that a certified wetland scientist has mapped boundaries and that the planned engineering must demonstrate the project will not increase runoff to adjacent parcels.

Other witnesses cited snow‑storage, emergency access and privacy worries. Several residents asked how snow plow operations and winter windrows would be handled where a private driveway meets the end of the paved street; project counsel and engineering testified any arrangement would be included in the permit and easement agreements and that the homeowners would be responsible for maintenance of the driveway beyond the paved end.

The board discussed precedent: municipal staff and the applicant pointed to previous cases in which the city allowed use of a paper street for private driveway access subject to Planning Board, Public Works and Board of Aldermen approvals. The ZBA’s approval lets the developer pursue that same multi‑step process: the applicant will need detailed engineered subdivision plans, stormwater controls and a permit agreement for the private driveway before work can begin.

Board members said the requested dimensional relief is chiefly the result of historic lot depth and the developer’s attempt to keep rear lot lines and front setbacks consistent with adjacent properties. The board noted the applicant had presented a letter from a local real‑estate agent saying the proposed homes would be comparable to nearby properties and unlikely to depress values.

What happens next: if the zoning relief stands (the decision is subject to the standard appeal window), the applicant will submit engineered subdivision plans to the Planning Board and must secure any Public Works/Board of Aldermen approvals needed to place a private driveway in the Linton Street right‑of‑way. Planning‑board review must show how runoff and stormwater will be handled so as not to increase drainage impacts on adjacent properties or wetlands.

The board approved the variances unanimously; neighbors were advised to watch for the planning‑board packet, which will include engineered stormwater and grading plans and is public record.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","GOV Zoning Board 7 22 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The ZBA granted variances allowing Silver Lining Development to subdivide 16 East Glenwood Street into three lots and to use a private driveway on the unpaved portion of Linton Street to serve two lots; neighbors cited flooding, wetlands, snow storage and privacy concerns.","taxTitle","Nashua Boards & Commissions, Nashua, Hillsborough County, New Hampshire","taxId",68336,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6013075,"Zoning board approves variance for six-home plan on Penichuk Street with 20-foot building setback",1500,355000,1855000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5793883-e18b8c77765e9475152271a439af7ac9&start=355&end=1855","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5793883-e18b8c77765e9475152271a439af7ac9/thumbnail_355000.jpg","/articles/6013075/New-Hampshire/Zoning-board-approves-variance-for-six-home-plan-on-Penichuk-Street-with-20-foot-building-setback","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6013075-e740854fcd17ef88ccb21fa79db5c4f0/orig.mp4?Expires=1770714530&Signature=kiH7V~SidobgzSaZ8iSd7imAjtLWOPMK94W-zgsdtPYRj8zts~fWC3sl5BAIKfHOR5mI-JKoDAMb8Yl4-grJrflOWm7fGxpCkUtKeGcIVpA7P-oklS7P84EyMQ7fAu8iGT5RrC4dYGZlkRrWmkOQQxysKIJPDoe3TPFX7iCO6k6JqyV9oJfnKh41~dzAynugK897APPhW7~dvTtoLP2OaPLYSUOOjuGoXisL0XVJOfRngqvQA50TQlb1IYgYSA-ndrKCINu3D5PvH5IBjjpphyZ3LRj6Bu5s22ngHUg3qg~K8BbqT~bBuDkDq0WVKFn80lRMFxsb~b~2SbuT1sNtJA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","NASHUA, N.H. — The Nashua Zoning Board of Adjustment on July 22 approved a variance that lets Gateway Homes LLC subdivide and develop 16 Penichuk Street with up to six single‑family detached homes, adding a condition that every building must have at least a 20‑foot gap to the adjacent property lines. The board voted to approve the variance after hearing the applicant and more than a dozen neighbors who expressed concerns about traffic, privacy, and stormwater runoff.

The board’s decision matters because the 1.83‑acre lot sits inside an established residential area and is larger than nearby parcels; the applicant said the design would replicate the scale and pattern of nearby Nathan Court and generate little new traffic. The project must still clear planning‑board engineering review for drainage, access and landscaping before building permits can be issued.

Attorney Andy Perlman, representing Gateway Homes, said the lot is an unusual, oversized parcel in the RA (residential) zone and that the requested variance is modest compared with what the zoning ordinance would allow. “We believe the application before you is not contrary to the public interest,” Perlman told the board. He said the team had originally considered a seven‑unit conservation subdivision but reduced the plan to six detached homes to preserve more open space and reduce impacts.

Perlman and developer Scott Bonifant described the site and design: a private roadway, six single‑story homes with modest footprints, and a layout intended to match neighborhood character. He told the board the project would use city sewer and typical utilities and that Meridian Engineering had prepared grading and drainage plans. The team provided a traffic threshold worksheet showing the development would generate roughly seven morning peak trips and seven evening peak trips — well below the threshold that triggers a full traffic study.

Neighbors urged the board to weigh potential local impacts. “My biggest concerns about this development would be the increase in traffic on technically a dead‑end street,” said Samantha Zacks, who identified herself as an abutter at 8 Penichuk Street. She and others told the board they value the wooded character of the block, cited wildlife and a nearby playground, and raised questions about stormwater, tree removal and how construction traffic would be managed.

Board members pressed the applicant on layout, setbacks and emergency access. Member Robert Shaw described particular concern about how the proposed houses would sit close to property lines and asked whether the design treated those building faces as de facto rear yards. Perlman said the developer would limit unit expansions via the condominium declaration and that “we are open to putting up a solid fence” and additional screening around the perimeter. The applicant told the board the pavement for the private drive would be 24 feet wide and that the cul‑de‑sac turning area had been sized to accommodate a fire truck.

The board balanced those concerns against the property’s condition and the city’s zoning framework. Several members said an infill plan that creates several modest detached homes is consistent with the block and that the applicant had reduced the unit count from seven to six to ease impacts. Member Steve Lynell suggested allowing a slightly larger perimeter building setback to address neighbors’ privacy concerns; after discussion the board wrote a condition into the approval requiring every building’s nearest point to any lot line be at least 20 feet.

The variance approval does not end the review. The project must return to the Planning Board for detailed engineering and stormwater review, and the developer must secure any permits from Public Works and the fire marshal before construction. Planning staff and the applicant told the board stormwater controls and buffers will be part of the planning‑board submission. Interested neighbors were told materials on the case are public record at the planning office.

The board’s action on July 22 allows the developer to move forward toward more detailed engineering and subdivision steps but does not authorize construction. The board noted that standard appeal periods apply to zoning decisions and that neighbors may pursue appeals within the statutory window if they choose.

What to watch next: the Planning Board packet and engineering plans (stormwater basins, erosion control, and a final turnaround detail) and any condominium‑declaration language describing use restrictions, landscaping and maintenance responsibilities.","The Nashua Zoning Board of Adjustment on July 22 approved a variance allowing Gateway Homes LLC to build six single-family detached homes at 16 Penichuk Street, imposing a 20-foot minimum building setback from property lines; the project will still require planning-board engineering review for drainage, fire access and landscaping.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Zoning board approves subdivision and private‑drive access on unpaved Linton Street for East Glenwood property

Zoning board approves variance for six-home plan on Penichuk Street with 20-foot building setback