Zoning Board of Adjustment — June 16, 2026

The Chair addressed the backlog of cases caused by the lack of a full board and introduced new members: Tracy McGinnis (regular member), Chris Goodrich (alternate), and Andy Pataki and Joe Fuji (elected members).

The board was confirmed as full and ready to proceed with the agenda.

The applicant's attorney argued that the variance was unnecessary because the original subdivision plan allowed for smaller lots in exchange for open space, and that the unmerger simply reverts the land to its original intent. Abutters (the Rampellas) argued that they purchased their home based on town assurances that the land behind them was non-buildable, and that unmerging the lots would destroy their privacy and significantly diminish their property value. The discussion also covered whether the hardship was 'self-created' due to the prior lot merger and the impact of the unmerger on the town's tax base. Abutters argued that the lot merger was intended to ensure privacy and that the land was non-buildable, citing concerns about property values and neighborhood character. The applicant's representative argued that the subdivision was a vested open space subdivision, that the land is buildable (including by-right ADUs), and that the variance would not set a precedent.

The hearing was held with extensive testimony from both the applicant and the abutters. The Board conducted a five-part legal test and voted to deny the variance, finding that it failed to meet criteria regarding public interest, spirit of the ordinance, substantial justice, and unnecessary hardship.

The board will enter deliberations to determine if the variance meets the five statutory criteria.

The applicant proposed reclaiming a disturbed 160-acre site by removing stockpiled loam and installing best management practices (BMPs) like detention ponds and swales to protect the Witches Brook and Pennichuck Brook watersheds. The goal is to stabilize the area and improve water quality in alignment with state and federal standards. The applicant argued that removing stockpiled loam and grading within the buffer is necessary to implement BMPs, stabilize erosive sandy soils, and manage stormwater to meet Clean Water Act standards. The Amherst Conservation Commission (ACC) and several residents opposed the request, arguing that the hardship is self-created by previous land management, that the project lacks technical studies to prove no harm to the aquifer, and that the variance is an attempt to bypass the standard Planning Board conditional use process. Abutters expressed concerns regarding construction noise, dust, loss of views, and potential impacts on the local aquifer and brook. The applicant countered that the project is necessary to remediate existing erosion, manage stormwater in accordance with the Clean Water Act, and use existing loam stockpiles to reclaim and stabilize the buffer area. A separate variance was sought for grading within 50 feet of property lines and roadways.

The hearing commenced with a board member recusing themselves. The segment ended during the public comment period. The Board decided to continue the hearing to allow for an independent technical review.

The matter is continued to the July 21st meeting, pending the hiring of an environmental expert.

The applicant argues that the irregular, triangular shape of the lot makes a standard subdivision impossible, necessitating a variance from the 10-acre parent parcel requirement and frontage requirements. She contends the proposal is consistent with the rural character of the neighborhood and will utilize existing driveways to minimize traffic impact. The applicant argued that the triangular shape of the 7.65-acre parcel makes meeting the 10-acre requirement and 50-foot frontage rule impossible. They proposed using a shared driveway easement (50-70 feet wide) to provide functional access despite a literal frontage of only 19.22 feet. Arguments were made that the subdivision would maintain rural character and that the 750-foot separation rule was not violated because the total number of driveways would remain consistent with zoning standards.

The applicant began presenting the criteria for the various requested variances. The Board voted unanimously to approve the variances with conditions.

The project must undergo Planning Board review, specifically regarding fire department standards for the driveway and potential maintenance agreements.

The applicant explained that the steep slope and diagonal property line leave only one level area for the shed pad, which results in a corner encroaching 10-15 feet into the setback. The Board noted the shed is small, non-stationary (on cinder blocks), and unlikely to be visible to neighbors.

The Board voted unanimously to approve the variance.

The applicant argued that the area is historically used for buildings and that the pavilion would be placed on an existing patio/foundation area to protect agricultural land. The Board questioned if the structure could be moved further back to meet the 100-foot requirement, and the applicant suggested the size has been reduced to 16x24 to facilitate potential relocation. The applicant argued that the pavilion is for family recreation and would be partially obscured by existing vegetation (a former BMX course berm). Board members expressed confusion over conflicting dimensions in the application, specifically regarding the pavilion's size, its exact distance from the road, and the potential impact of an exterior fireplace on the setback.

The topic was discussed, but no final vote was recorded as the discussion was ongoing. The Board determined they did not have sufficient, consistent information to grant a variance.

The case was continued to the next meeting to allow for more precise dimensions, drawings, and a clear understanding of the structure's footprint.