Merrimack Zoning Board approves variance for 28‑unit elderly housing at 117 Camp Sargent Road, despite strong abutter opposition

The Merrimack Zoning Board voted April 30 to grant a variance for a proposed elderly‑housing development at 117 Camp Sargent Road, allowing the petitioner to seek Planning Board site review to move the project forward.

The motion, made by Rod and seconded by Chuck, followed a months‑long review and a lengthy public hearing during which the applicant presented a revised concept and abutters raised safety, traffic and environmental concerns. Dan Borowski and Chad Bridal, representing the applicant, said the proposal had been reduced from 32 to 28 units "to allow for additional buffering to some of the neighboring properties," and emphasized that municipal water and sewer service is available adjacent to the site.

The applicant’s engineer told the board the development would be a low‑impact, off‑peak traffic generator. "When you look at the elderly housing density calc ... this project would only generate about 4 to 5 trips during the peak hour of the adjacent street," the engineer said, adding that turnarounds and design details would be addressed in planning and engineering review.

Residents and nearby property owners challenged that view. A letter read into the record by the chair from Steven and Stacy Peppinger argued the petitioner had not met the five‑part variance test and raised statistics and anecdotes about crashes and traffic volume near Continental Boulevard. Local residents said the site is in a wellhead/aquifer protection area and warned that higher density development would change neighborhood character and increase stormwater runoff.

Abutter Ken Bridal told the board he had reviewed traffic and police data and questioned the project’s proximity to a busy intersection, saying he saw "no evidence that this proposal will result in diminished values" was unsupported in the petition. Denise Brett, who said she is 73 and lives on Morningside Avenue, described elevation differences and visibility concerns and said the plan would alter the neighborhood’s rural character.

Applicant representatives said many of the technical concerns—detailed traffic analysis, stormwater management, and sewer hookups—are handled during Planning Board review and state permitting, and pointed to a 12‑inch sewer stub near the parcel as evidence sewer service can be provided. "This project would require state permitting ... and their review is for water quality and treatment," the engineer said, noting alteration‑of‑terrain and Clean Water Act certification would apply.

Board members deliberated the statutory criteria at length. Some members voiced concern about whether the property faces undue hardship if used strictly under the overlay rules; others said town demographics and a shortage of housing types justified relief. The board’s motion approved the variance "to permit an elderly housing development beyond the required radius" and attached a condition that the petitioner obtain Planning Board site approval and comply with any required state permits.

Next steps: the applicant will pursue Planning Board site plan review and state permitting. The Zoning Board’s approval allows the use; engineering, drainage, traffic mitigation and other design elements still require review and sign‑off before construction can proceed.