Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Use Auto Sales topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Merrimack zoning board denies special exception for used/new auto sales on Daniel Webster Highway
Summary
The ZBA denied a special exception requested by Kern 2 LLC to permit new and used auto sales (with repairs) at 386 Daniel Webster Highway, citing concerns about parking capacity, vehicle unloading on Route 3, and prior tenant problems; nearby business owners and residents testified against the proposal.
Get email alerts on the Commercial Use Auto Sales topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Merrimack Zoning Board of Adjustment voted to deny a special exception that would have allowed used and new auto sales at 386 Daniel Webster Highway.
Owner Dave Kerner (d/b/a Kern 2 LLC) asked for a special exception under section 2.02.3 to permit vehicle sales when the site had most recently operated as a lube/car-wash facility. Kerner told the board the site plan shows 24 parking spaces and multiple in‑bay areas that could be used for employees’ parking; he said some prospective tenants want to sell cars and others might operate both sales and repairs. “Allowing us to sell cars along with the repair work will provide a convenient location for everyone all in one place,” Kerner said.
Nearby business owners and residents strongly objected. Alex Bridal, who operates a business across the street, warned that car haulers and semis currently unload vehicles on Route 3 and said additional dealerships would increase that hazard. A representative of Mister G’s Pizza, which adjoins the site, read a letter saying overflow parking and tow-truck activity from previous tenants caused wear and tear and that additional car sales would worsen those problems.
Board members focused on parking, circulation and public-safety risks associated with vehicle deliveries and customer flow. One member described the lot as “an awfully small parking lot to be handling car sales,” and multiple members said they were unconvinced the applicant had demonstrated adequate and appropriate facilities for a car-sales operation.
After closing the public hearing, a motion to deny the special exception carried. The board’s denial cites the site’s limited size, parking constraints and lack of confidence that the proposed use would not adversely affect the neighborhood. The decision was recorded as a denial; the board noted statutory deadlines for any appeal.

