Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Merrimack ZBA approves second ADU in home of woman caring for adult son
Summary
The Merrimack Zoning Board granted Pamela M. Gillette a variance to build a second attached ADU in her basement at 2 Cortland Drive to house a paid caregiver for her adult special‑needs son, subject to administrative approval by the Community Development Department.
The Merrimack Zoning Board on July 23 granted a variance to Pamela M. Gillette to construct a second attached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) in the basement of her home at 2 Cortland Drive.
Gillette told the board she built the first ADU in 2011 for her special‑needs son and is seeking a second ADU so a paid direct support person can live on site and help the family as the owners age. “Basically, I’m asking to put in a second ADU within my basement, in my residential home, for medical reasons and care of myself and my special needs son,” she said.
Gillette said the proposed ADU would occupy an existing 770‑square‑foot basement, require minimal exterior changes (a bulkhead conversion and an egress window) and would not change the house’s external character. She told the board the property has a new 2,000‑gallon septic system and that the family has sufficient parking on a large driveway.
Board questions focused on occupancy and operational details, including whether caregivers were available and whether the septic is sized for multiple units. Community Development staff and the board noted the town’s ADU process requires a restrictive covenant to preserve single‑family ownership and that administrative approval will be required from the Community Development Department before work proceeds.
Board member Ben said he supported the request given the family circumstances: “Given that the occupants are all family members and a caregiver, given the age of the owners… I think this is very reasonable.” The board voted to grant the variance, with the approval conditioned on applicants obtaining administrative approval from Community Development. The recorded outcome announced in the meeting was 4‑0‑0 in favor. Petitioner was informed a 30‑day appeal period applies.
The decision adopts the petitioner’s written responses to the statutory criteria and records those responses as the board’s findings of fact.
Next steps: the petitioner will work with the Community Development Department to complete the administrative ADU application and permits before construction.
