Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwelling Unit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board denies rehearing for Hayes Way ADU variance, cites owner-occupancy concerns
Summary
The Merrimack Zoning Board on Jan. 29 denied a rehearing request for case ZBA2024-26 involving an accessory dwelling unit at 6 Hayes Way; members said the proposal appeared likely to be used as rentals and could set an undesirable precedent contrary to the ADU ordinance’s intent for owner-occupied family use.
The Merrimack Zoning Board on Jan. 29 denied a rehearing request for case ZBA2024-26, a variance seeking permission for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at 6 Hayes Way where the owner would occupy neither the ADU nor the primary dwelling.
Board members said the petition raised questions about whether the proposed use would meet the spirit of the ADU provisions, which the board described as intended primarily for family or caregiver occupancy. Members expressed concern that allowing the property to operate as two separate rental units could set a precedent the town does not intend.
Dino and Josephine Freoni sought a variance under section 2.02.1.a.3g of the zoning ordinance to permit an ADU when the owner occupies neither dwelling. Board members reviewed the prior hearing and the rehearing submission. One member recalled a prior board member (referred to as Chuck) invoking the phrase “contrary to public interest” during the earlier decision; others said that the variance had appeared more like creating rental units than providing housing for a family member in need of care. The board noted ADU requirements such as shared utilities and owner-occupancy provisions included in the ordinance.
After discussion, Scott (Zoning Board member) moved to deny the rehearing; Rich (Zoning Board member) seconded. The motion passed 3-0. The board concluded that the rehearing would not produce material new zoning-specific information that would change the prior denial. The rehearing denial leaves the prior decision intact; any questions about utility sharing, occupancy and enforcement remain subject to the town’s ADU rules and potential planning or code enforcement review.
