As part of a rather short meeting for the Londonderry Zoning Board of Adjustments, a request for the rehearing of a case concerning a credit union business was reviewed on Feb. 21.
The case concerned CC Properties, LLC and a variance they requested back on Jan. 17. Represented by attorneys Ken Gould and Justin Belair, the company hoped to establish a credit union at 2 Litchfield Road within a C-III district, and within a Historic Overlay District.
The property was established by Gould as being the only privately owned property within the historic district in town, and as a result, their request would also have to go through the town’s Historic Commission for approval.
The project itself would convert the bottom floor of one of the property’s buildings into the aforementioned credit union, complete with a drive-through on the existing lot that would be outside of public view. Gould noted that it would be a rather small credit union, only requiring three to four employees.
In their defense, Gould noted that there were several similar variances located within the surrounding neighborhood, as well as similar variances granted to other credit unions throughout Londonderry, including St. Mary’s Bank. Ultimately, they felt that what they were doing was nothing more than a minor expansion of what is allowed in the C-III district, which is preserved for the likes of professional offices.
The applicants were fully aware of the significance of the area that they were working in, not to mention that the state of the lot was not exactly in the best of shape.
“The whole property is in disrepair right now”, Gould noted.
Thus, the applicants noted that on top of creating this credit union, they would also work to restore and preserve and old English barn on the property, as well as possibly use it for some parking, as a means of serving the local community by rejuvenating an old part of it.
However, residents did not see things the same way, as some in attendance during the prior meeting, who were also living next to the property in question, argued that having such a business here would create a litany of issues, including property devaluing, noise issues and additional traffic complications.
The board agreed and proceeded to deny the variance request.
The case did not seem to have much life left in it afterwards, as once the board proceeded to decide whether or not a rehearing would be granted, Vice Chair Jacqueline Benard was quick to note that no new evidence in favor of the developers was presented, nor was there any new information about the project or change in the conditions of the variance request.
“Upon my review, I didn’t find any errors in our decision making process”, Benard stated
Thus, the board decided to unanimously decline the developers a rehearing on the matter.