[0:03] Welcome to the Town of Dairy Planning Board meeting

[0:06] for July 8th, 2026.

[0:09] We start our meetings with Pledge of Allegiance.

[0:12] If you're able, please rise and join me.

[0:17] I pledge allegiance to flag

[0:19] of the United States of America to the Republic

[0:23] for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible,

[0:27] with liberty and justice for all.

[0:36] Since we have folks in the audience, I will remind you

[0:39] of the emergency exits, which is at the rear of the room.

[0:42] The way you came in, if there's an alarm activation,

[0:45] the exit to my right, to your left at the front

[0:48] of the room will also be usable.

[0:50] However, the elevators will not be.

[0:51] If you need assistance with the mobility issues, please wait

[0:55] for the first responders to come to your assistance.

[1:02] We continue to voluntarily allow

[1:05] remote participation in our meetings.

[1:07] If any member of the board is remote,

[1:09] then all votes shall be by roll call.

[1:12] To attend the meeting remotely using a computer

[1:15] or a smartphone, visit www dot zoom us.

[1:21] Enter meeting ID seven five four six six three nine one two.

[1:26] You may also call in by phone for audio only

[1:30] by calling

[1:30] 6 4 6 5 5 8 8 6 5 6.

[1:35] Same meeting ID

[1:36] 7 5 4 6 6 3 9 1 2.

[1:41] If you have technical problems getting into the meeting,

[1:43] please call

[1:44] (603) 845-5585.

[1:50] If you're on the phone, you wanna speak,

[1:53] hit star nine to raise your hand.

[1:54] And once you are recognized

[1:56] and instructed to do so, hit star six to unmute yourself.

[2:01] I will now introduce the members

[2:03] and staff who are present this evening

[2:06] to my far right is our newly appointed alternate.

[2:10] Mr. Young, welcome. Thank you. Congratulations. Thank you.

[2:14] Hope you'll have fun with us. So alternate, Mr.

[2:19] Ey. Good evening, Mr. Chair. Planning and director of Ms.

[2:22] Du. Good evening planning in intern Ms. Burl.

[2:25] Good evening and our planning clerk, Ms. Wilson.

[2:28] Good evening town.

[2:29] Administra Town Council Liaison, Mr. Chase.

[2:33] Good evening, member Mr. Menini. Mr. Wood member Mr.

[2:38] Menini, vice Chairman. Mr. O'Connor, welcome.

[2:42] Way over to the far left is our dairy CAM coordinator. Mr.

[2:46] Provin, our Deputy Director of Public Works. Mr. LaRue.

[2:51] Good evening Member. Mr. Fishman.

[2:53] Good evening town Administrators representative Mr. Ello.

[2:57] Good evening member Mr. Pier. Good evening Secretary. Mr.

[3:00] Maby. Hello, I'm Dave Nelson. I'm the chair.

[3:07] First item of of business is a couple of matters of escrow.

[3:10] We have item number 26 dash 22 4 66,

[3:15] or excuse, excuse me, 62 Lane Road McMaster Development.

[3:20] Okay. This is for a two lot subdivision.

[3:23] The developer is McMaster Development.

[3:26] This is a cash escrow.

[3:27] Parcel ID is 0 6 0 5 9 62 Lane Road.

[3:31] The request is to establish cash escrow in the amount

[3:34] of $13,193 38 cents for the above noted project,

[3:40] this escrow will be non-interest bearing.

[3:43] Okay, Mr. Chair, I shall move.

[3:45] Second, Been moved by O'Connor, seconded by MAL

[3:48] to accept the escrow is presented.

[3:51] Mr. Chase? Yes. Mr. Wood? Yes. Mr. Menini? Yes.

[3:55] Mr. O'Connor? Yes. Mr. Fishman? Yes. Mr. Chair Cello. Yes.

[3:58] Mr. Pier? Yes. Mr. Maby? Yes. And the chair votes? Yes.

[4:03] Next item is number

[4:06] 22 dash 23 for 18.

[4:09] Crystal Avenue Oracle Development.

[4:12] Okay. This is for the redevelopment

[4:14] of the former Rite Aid on Crystal Avenue.

[4:17] The developer is Oracle Construction and Development.

[4:20] It is also a cash escrow.

[4:21] Parcel id and location is parcel

[4:24] 3 0 0 9 6 18 Crystal Avenue.

[4:27] The request is to establish cash escrow in the amount

[4:30] of $10,559 88 cents for the above noted project.

[4:35] This escrow will be non-interest bearing.

[4:38] And Mr. Cha, nobody rise. I'll move to accept.

[4:42] Second. Moved

[4:43] By O'Connor, seconded by Mby

[4:45] to accept the escrow as presented.

[4:48] Mr. Chase? Yes. Mr. Wood? Yes. Mr. Manini? Yes.

[4:52] Mr. O'Connor? Yes. Mr. Fishman? Yes. Mr. Chair. Cello. Yes.

[4:56] Heier? Yes. Mr. Maby? Yes. And chair votes? Yes.

[5:00] Now we move on to approval of minutes.

[5:03] We have before us the minutes of June 17th, 2026.

[5:06] Has everyone had a chance to review those?

[5:08] Are there any errors or omissions?

[5:12] Again, Mr. Chair? Nobody.

[5:13] Moving forward, I move to accept the minutes as written.

[5:17] Second, Moved by O'Connor, seconded by Malam

[5:20] to accept the minutes of June 17th, 2026 as written.

[5:24] Mr. Chase? Yes. Mr. Wood? Yes. Mr. Veni? Yes. Mr. Menini?

[5:28] Yes. Mr. O'Connor? Yes. Mr. Fishman abstain.

[5:30] I was not present. Mr. Ello? Yes. Mr. Pier?

[5:34] Yes. Mr. Libby.

[5:36] I will also abstain as I was not here.

[5:38] And the chair votes Yes. Correspondence.

[5:44] Thank you Mr. Chair. Yep.

[5:45] We have two pieces of correspondence today.

[5:47] The first is the, in your packet is the quarterly

[5:50] change of use update.

[5:52] These are businesses in dairy, which have,

[5:55] as the name suggests, changing their use.

[5:56] And we're happy to say we're,

[5:58] we're welcoming five new businesses into the town.

[6:02] And we also have the latest

[6:03] and greatest issue of New Hampshire Town and City here.

[6:07] We had received our online package,

[6:09] just a notification that it was coming.

[6:11] This article features some information on cybersecurity

[6:15] updates and property tax abatements.

[6:17] So if that's your thing, this is the issue you want.

[6:20] And so the, the real hard copy

[6:22] can be found in the planning office. It

[6:24] May.

[6:26] I'm glad we get one. Thank

[6:27] you, Caroline. For a while there we weren't right?

[6:29] No, we weren't. Oh, Okay. Glad that's fixed.

[6:34] Do we have any other business?

[6:37] Looks like we do not planning director and chairman updates.

[6:42] Okay, so we're on summer schedule.

[6:44] So our next meeting is August 5th.

[6:46] And then following that, we'll go back

[6:48] to our two meetings a month.

[6:51] I did want to remind everyone

[6:53] that the housing needs survey is up

[6:58] and it's still available until July 12th.

[7:02] They extended the date a little bit.

[7:04] We've got it posted on the town website.

[7:08] It's on all of our social medias.

[7:09] So please feel free to go find that, hit the QR code

[7:13] and fill out the survey.

[7:15] It takes about maybe eight to 10 minutes

[7:17] and we really do wanna hear from all demo,

[7:21] all age demographics, what you're looking

[7:23] for for types of housing.

[7:26] Additionally, if the board would like, if,

[7:31] if you could let me know your pleasure, either September

[7:33] or October, we could ask Sylvia Vanek to come in

[7:38] and do that plan training, like how to read a plan.

[7:41] She's happy to do that for us.

[7:43] We just need to give her some dates.

[7:45] So, yeah, I, I I really recommend that I,

[7:48] I I took it up at their headquarters in Concord

[7:51] and I nicknamed it coloring with plans.

[7:55] It's a lot of fun. It is.

[7:56] And it's very eye-opening in terms of how to

[8:00] organize all the different features on a,

[8:03] a technical plan set.

[8:04] So I would recommend that. Okay.

[8:06] If we have some dates available,

[8:08] So whatever it, we would do it

[8:10] during a planning board meeting, so when,

[8:13] whatever would suit your, your needs or pleasure.

[8:16] Okay. If we have a light agenda Yeah,

[8:18] we can do that. Okay.

[8:19] Alright. Anything else?

[8:22] Not for me, no. So I don't have anything

[8:25] 'cause we currently have a, a full roster

[8:28] of members and alternates.

[8:30] Yay. Thank you for signing up.

[8:34] And we'll move on to our public hearings.

[8:38] First is Brian and Laura Real estate, LLC

[8:42] Parcel ID 3 5 0 1 4 dash

[8:46] 0 0 5 20 Folsom Road.

[8:50] Okay. The applicants have operated the existing car wash

[8:53] known as royalty for almost 30 years.

[8:55] The use has been in existence since the, I think,

[8:58] the seventies in predate zoning.

[9:00] The widening of Folsom Road associated with the exit four.

[9:03] A project reduced the property's existing front setback

[9:06] by approximately 30 feet.

[9:08] In 2024. The applicant acquired a prior about 530 square

[9:13] feet from the adjacent former Salvation Army lot

[9:16] through coordination with New Hampshire DOT.

[9:18] And that area is reflected on this plan.

[9:21] The state of New Hampshire installed a gravel service road

[9:24] to the southwest side of the property in this area will be

[9:26] used as the major point of egress for the site

[9:29] that this necessitates the relocation

[9:31] of the existing vacuums.

[9:33] Neither highway safety

[9:35] nor Conservation Commission review

[9:36] were required for this project.

[9:39] The applicants obtained a variance from the fire marshal

[9:41] to move the propane filling tank to its existing location.

[9:45] The three tunnel bays will remain in one

[9:47] of the two existing detail bays will be removed.

[9:50] The detail bay will be managed

[9:52] and operated by royalty staff.

[9:54] Vending machines will move adjacent

[9:56] to the discontinued detail bay in the eight vacuums will

[9:59] move against the wall of the existing building.

[10:02] The sign for the business has already been moved

[10:04] and the dumpster and shed are proposed to be moved

[10:06] to new locations that are outside the traffic flow areas.

[10:10] Access to the site is from Folsom Road

[10:12] through an 83 foot wide existing curb cut.

[10:15] Most trips generated by the site are expected to be passed

[10:19] by trips and are therefore not anticipated to significantly

[10:22] increase traffic volumes in the corridor.

[10:24] Vehicles will enter the site from Folsom

[10:27] and circulate to the rear of the site into the Wash Bays.

[10:31] Customers utilizing the propane tank

[10:32] or the vacuums will turn left to those service areas

[10:36] and customers at those locations will exit

[10:38] via the service road.

[10:41] Customers who just utilize the wash bays will exit

[10:43] to Folsom via the right only exit.

[10:45] The median does not permit a left turn out

[10:48] of the site from this location.

[10:50] It appears there's adequate parking on site

[10:52] for staff and customers.

[10:54] Dairy regulations do not include a parking calculation

[10:57] for a car wash use.

[10:58] So the board will meet. Need to make a finding

[11:00] of fact with regard to parking.

[11:03] Stormwater needs were addressed in a drainage report is

[11:06] included in the application.

[11:09] The existing driveway opening interrupts the public

[11:12] sidewalk, which is proposed as part

[11:14] of the highway construction.

[11:15] The driveway is intended to accommodate one lane in

[11:18] and one lane out for the car wash operations.

[11:21] The town is requesting the installation

[11:23] of a raised median island within the existing curb

[11:26] to establish separate entrance

[11:27] and exit lanes would be 27 feet on the side closest

[11:31] to the PD and 24 feet to the side closest

[11:34] to the propane tank.

[11:36] The intent is to accommodate pedestrian movements

[11:38] and comply with a DA requirements

[11:40] in 83 foot uninterrupted driveway opening

[11:44] increases pedestrian risk when pedestrians are required

[11:47] to cross a large undefined and unprotected vehicular area.

[11:52] The proposed median narrows

[11:54] and defines the pedestrian crossing location while reducing

[11:57] conflict zones between pedestrians and vehicles.

[12:00] The proposed configuration is consistent

[12:02] with accepted access management principles

[12:04] and presents a safer and more efficient access arrangement

[12:06] than the existing UNCHANNELED curb cut.

[12:09] The state of New Hampshire currently owns the right of way

[12:12] where the pedestrian refer

[12:14] offsite improvements are proposed.

[12:16] The land will not revert back to the town of Derry

[12:19] until the completion of the current phase of construction.

[12:22] The offsite improvements are recommended by the directive

[12:25] of public works in the engineering coordinator.

[12:27] Staff has requested authorization from DOT

[12:31] to construct the pro proposed pedestrian refuge island

[12:34] within the state right of way prior to completion

[12:37] of the exit four A project.

[12:39] At this time, I don't believe we had a response from DOT on

[12:42] that We do.

[12:44] Okay. And I'll let Jordan speak to that.

[12:48] In interim solution would be to stripe a gore area

[12:51] of diagonal striping, creating a visual barrier

[12:54] between the entrance and the exit lanes.

[12:57] There's an example of that.

[12:58] That's the handout that was just

[13:00] provided to you right before the meeting.

[13:02] There's also a smaller copy on page four of your packet.

[13:07] This would need to be striped

[13:08] with thermoplastic paint for durability.

[13:10] And we do understand that this would be an ongoing

[13:12] maintenance in item for the landowner.

[13:15] Staff also noted potential vehicle

[13:17] and pedestrian conflicts near the relocated vacuum stations

[13:20] and propane and filling area

[13:22] where maneuvering spaces limited.

[13:24] These areas should be carefully evaluated

[13:27] to minimize conflicts

[13:28] between circulating vehicles and pedestrians.

[13:30] Several waivers are being requested as part

[13:33] of the checklist items.

[13:35] This is an existing site containing existing nonconformities

[13:38] and the waivers are being presented

[13:40] to bring the site into conformity as much as possible.

[13:43] We do recognize that, you know, it is what it is

[13:47] and you know they're doing the best they can with

[13:50] what they have to work with here.

[13:53] So the waivers would be

[13:54] to allow parking spaces closer than 10 feet

[13:57] to the property line to allow the parking spaces

[14:00] to be less than nine by 20.

[14:02] Allow a one-way drive aisle to be less than 18 feet wide.

[14:06] To not require a landscape plan to allow the screen dumpster

[14:10] to be closer than 25 feet to the property line.

[14:12] And to allow the one-way drive aisles to the Wash Bays

[14:15] to be less than 11 feet wide.

[14:17] The recommendation would be to review the plan as presented,

[14:20] determine regional impact

[14:23] and to discuss the proposed offsite improvements

[14:25] and determine if the pedestrian refuge island is the best

[14:29] solution for the site or to go with the alternative.

[14:33] So Jordan Young is here to Ms.

[14:35] Roberto. Yep. That's a fairly detail

[14:39] and extensive set of comments.

[14:41] These are the sort of things I would expect

[14:45] to have been resolved during TRC discussions.

[14:47] Were they, were they discussed and and not resolved?

[14:50] Or are they occurring after that

[14:54] Completion?

[14:55] The, the offsite improvement issue came up

[14:56] during TRC discussions.

[14:59] The issue that we're running into, and, and Mark

[15:01] and Jordan can speak to this maybe a little bit better than

[15:03] I can, but the issue we're running into is that may be

[15:07] the safest thing to do, but we don't own that.

[15:13] The, the property owner doesn't own that section.

[15:16] The state owns it right now.

[15:19] Hmm. So until it reverts back to the te like we,

[15:23] we can recommend, but we, we can recommend.

[15:29] So this is another one of those issues

[15:31] where the state moves as its own speed with respect

[15:34] to the four A Yes project.

[15:36] And some of those things are still up in the air. Is that,

[15:38] That is, that is correct.

[15:40] Okay. So we're, we're trying to present what we think is,

[15:42] is option A.

[15:44] This is like probably the best thing

[15:46] and you know, in a, in a perfect world,

[15:47] this would be the best solution for everything.

[15:50] Option B is, we're working with what we got

[15:52] and we're trying to make it as safe as possible.

[15:54] So that might be the best solution.

[15:56] But once again, I'll, I'll let Mark speak to that.

[15:59] Alright. So we'll probably have to have a little

[16:01] extra discussion on, on that.

[16:02] 'cause it's pick one from A or B or C. Yes. Alright.

[16:09] So at this point can I have a motion on jurisdiction?

[16:12] Mr. Chair? I move to accept jurisdiction

[16:14] of the amended site plan before the board for Brian

[16:18] and Laura real estate L-L-C-P-I-D

[16:22] 3 5 0 4 0 5 20

[16:27] Folsom Road. Second

[16:29] Moved by O'Connor, seconded by Malam

[16:31] to accept jurisdiction. Mr. Chase?

[16:34] Yes. Mr. Wood? Yes. Mr. Menini? Yes. Mr. O'Connor? Yes.

[16:37] Mr. Fisherman? Yes. Mr. O? Yes. Mr. Pier? Yes. Mr. Malvin?

[16:42] Yes. And chair votes? Yes.

[16:44] And on the determination of a regional impact,

[16:47] we usually defer to Mr. Chase on this one.

[16:52] Wanna make a motion? Randy?

[16:55] Regional Impact. Regional Impact. Regional Impact. I

[16:56] Know Regional Impact. Usually you're

[16:57] The Mr.

[16:58] Regional impact guy on the board. Middle name.

[17:01] So pursuant to RSA 36 5 6,

[17:05] the board finds the proposal

[17:07] as presented at this time meets the definition

[17:09] of a development of regional impact.

[17:11] Second. Okay.

[17:12] It's moved by Chase, seconded by Malam to

[17:15] determine regional impact.

[17:17] Mr. Chase?

[17:19] No, this is a existing use

[17:23] that is just being reconfigured due to the expansion

[17:27] of exit four A And does not meet the

[17:29] definition of a regional impact.

[17:31] Mr. Wood? No. For the same reasons. Mr. Menini?

[17:34] No for the same reasons. Mr. O'Connor?

[17:37] Yes, I agree with Mr. Chase.

[17:39] Mr. Fisherman? No. For the same reasons. Mr. Ello? No.

[17:42] Same reason. Mr. Pier? No. For the same reason. Mr. Maldi?

[17:46] No. For the same reasons as Mr. Chase and the chair votes?

[17:48] No for the same reasons.

[17:50] Can I have a motion to open the public hearing? Mr. Chair?

[17:53] I move to open the public hearing a second.

[17:55] Moved by O'Connor, second by AMI to open the public hearing.

[17:58] All those in favor say aye. A aye public hearing is opened.

[18:02] Generally you may present

[18:04] what little detail has not already been read to us.

[18:08] Good evening. I'm Jordan Young

[18:09] with Atlantic Civil Engineering.

[18:11] I'm sitting here with Brian Messina and Laura is behind us.

[18:15] They are the owners of Royalty Car Wash. And thank you Liz.

[18:19] I can cross off most of my intro Saved me.

[18:25] So I guess if we can pull up sheet three C dash 20 zero,

[18:30] I think that would be the best place to look.

[18:35] So as you can see the the right of way is

[18:41] encroached on their property.

[18:42] The state purchased it from the owners.

[18:45] The building is now about 40 feet from the,

[18:48] from the new right of way line.

[18:51] We'll we'll dive into the Curbed island stuff

[18:53] 'cause that'll be most of our conversation.

[18:56] They are proposing to move the vacuum stations,

[18:59] which were on the west side of the property

[19:01] and now they're up against the buildings.

[19:03] You can see a note that says six proposed vac stations.

[19:08] Six as well as adding a parking space on each

[19:11] side of the propane tank.

[19:13] That's the dark gray area on the west

[19:16] southwest corner of the property.

[19:19] Those two spaces right there.

[19:21] And then one more addition would be moving the dumpster pad

[19:25] to the northwest corner of the building

[19:28] with two spaces next to that as well.

[19:31] They are increasing the amount of parking spaces

[19:36] they, they didn't have, they wanted more parking spaces

[19:40] to be able to, you know, for employees

[19:43] and people drying off.

[19:44] 'cause they're losing a, a big portion of their front

[19:47] of their property, which weren't really

[19:48] defined parking spaces.

[19:50] But now they're more defined as for that we

[19:56] have the service road on the left side of the property,

[19:59] which is, was installed by the state.

[20:02] And that will be an exit only for vehicles that travel

[20:07] out of the wash base.

[20:08] The, the long tunnel.

[20:10] They have to turn right from their perspective

[20:14] and exit out that entrance.

[20:16] Or sorry, that exit there is four bays on the right side.

[20:21] They're self-serve bays.

[20:23] They will be allowed to exit to Folsom Road.

[20:28] And you can see right there it's a right turn only lane.

[20:30] They cannot turn left. As Liz said, the entrance is

[20:35] just on the other side of that divided by the curb island.

[20:41] So if we can get into that curb island that is owned,

[20:44] that right of way is owned by the state right now until

[20:49] construction is completed of that Folsom Road widening

[20:55] the town, correct me if I'm wrong,

[20:57] the town does not have jurisdiction

[20:59] to enforce any structures inside of the right of way

[21:02] that were not previously approved.

[21:06] So our solution was to provide paint

[21:11] which would block off that same area

[21:14] and direct traffic towards the exit.

[21:18] It doesn't stop vehicles from entering

[21:20] and going to the propane,

[21:22] but that would be the only time they

[21:24] would cross in front of the building.

[21:25] Everything else goes behind the building around enter any

[21:30] of the bays that they wish to enter

[21:31] and then exit out to the service road.

[21:36] Other than that, I can take any questions

[21:40] to clarify anything.

[21:43] Alright, do we have any questions?

[21:45] Starting off from members of the board, seeing none,

[21:50] is there anyone in the audience

[21:53] or online who has questions or comments

[22:00] Seeing none Horizons.

[22:02] Okay, so back to the board. Anyone have any questions?

[22:08] No. All set. Alright. I I, yep. Mr. Chase,

[22:12] I have one.

[22:13] So can you just clarify, so if somebody's coming in

[22:16] just for propane?

[22:18] Yes. Where are they going to enter?

[22:19] They're gonna enter from Folsom Road and

[22:22] They Yes.

[22:23] Folsom Road. Which entrance?

[22:24] The, the right side. The, that's the only entrance.

[22:26] Okay. So there's enough

[22:28] that 17 seven feet foot space is

[22:30] where they would cut? Correct. Okay.

[22:32] So I I want to state that this is, you know, 95%

[22:37] of their traffic is a car wash.

[22:39] They Yes, they are a car wash

[22:41] that also serves propane refill.

[22:43] Yeah. There's maybe eight

[22:46] or nine cars a day that get propane.

[22:49] That's on average. Obviously weekends is a lot more heavy.

[22:52] Weekdays are very minuscule compared to that.

[22:56] So we average about, I think we said nine

[22:58] or 10, actually nine

[22:59] or 10 vehicles that would cross in front.

[23:02] And the only conflict is those four bays on the right side

[23:06] that are exiting to Folsom Road, which we believe

[23:09] that it's rarely gonna happen when someone's exiting at the

[23:13] same time as one of those nine

[23:16] or 10 vehicles that enters for the day.

[23:19] And if they, if they can't, they can always turn around.

[23:23] You know, it's not, it's not gonna be an issue from the,

[23:25] from the owner's view.

[23:28] That's, that's the best safest plan that we have

[23:32] and we believe will work. Okay.

[23:34] And there's nothing if this shows vehicles queued

[23:38] to get into a bay or the tunnel, whatever.

[23:40] Yep. If there's nothing queued, there's nothing to,

[23:42] they can go around the backside if it's opened up, it's

[23:46] Not, they, they do have the option to go around the back,

[23:49] but you can see right below just to the south of the exit

[23:53] to the service road, there's a do not enter sign.

[23:56] Cars cannot go to the propane station

[23:58] because it would cause more congestion there.

[24:01] If they were allowed full 360 access, there would be,

[24:05] there would be a bunch of congestion and traffic jam.

[24:08] So we put a do not enter sign.

[24:09] There's a painted arrow on the ground

[24:12] one way you exit from the top one way and you exit.

[24:17] So if,

[24:21] so your two parking spaces on either side

[24:23] of the propane tank Yes.

[24:25] Are those gonna be pulled through?

[24:27] There's nothing to stop it from the service

[24:30] road? No. You won't

[24:32] Be able to pull through.

[24:33] It's not paved. No it's

[24:33] Not.

[24:35] No. Okay. So if somebody is in that one

[24:37] of those parking spaces Yes.

[24:38] Getting propane. Yeah.

[24:40] They don't have to come back out into your lanes.

[24:43] They can go out onto

[24:45] No Service road

[24:47] or is there something blocking them from doing that?

[24:49] They would have to back out

[24:50] and there, there might be curb stops or something,

[24:53] but obviously we would prefer not

[24:54] to do that for plowing reasons. There's,

[24:56] Which brings me to my next point.

[24:58] If somebody accidentally,

[25:00] or by not knowing went into the service road to get propane,

[25:04] they wouldn't be able to pull into one

[25:06] of those parking spaces there.

[25:07] They'd have to come back out on the Folsom road or just

[25:10] Yes.

[25:11] Correct. Pop in the service road

[25:12] and walk over is until they get to those do not enter signs.

[25:18] They have no idea that they can't get over

[25:21] there for the propane tanks.

[25:22] They cannot enter the site through the service road if

[25:26] That, that's my point.

[25:27] Okay. So if somebody by not knowing when into the service

[25:32] road because it's the closest to the propane tanks.

[25:34] Yep. And then all

[25:35] of a sudden they get up Oh no, do not enter.

[25:38] Yeah. Is they have to go back out onto Folsom or

[25:42] They would have to turn around. Yeah.

[25:43] Yeah. So in other words, they have no warning

[25:44] that they cannot get to the propane tanks from Folsom

[25:47] Road via the service road.

[25:48] In other words, there's no, do not enter signage at the,

[25:51] the interface to,

[25:53] At the intersection of Folsom?

[25:54] No, we did, we're not proposing that

[25:56] because there's, I I believe there's future plans,

[26:00] but as of right now for what this site has,

[26:05] our do not enter signs have to be right before our property.

[26:08] We don't know what they're doing with the service

[26:09] road when it gets turned over.

[26:11] But it's not, has nothing to do with our property. But

[26:14] Alright.

[26:15] So the service road is, is belongs to who? The state?

[26:18] I believe it's the state. Yes.

[26:19] State, yeah. Okay.

[26:22] But it could be different in the future?

[26:25] Well it could be different in the future.

[26:26] It could be different in the future once on. Right.

[26:29] Because you've got, I'm looking at Stinson Hill in the back.

[26:33] That's an, it's,

[26:34] It's, it's, it's under the jurisdiction of the state

[26:37] as he stated, like the work and the right of way.

[26:40] And then all of the state right of way will revert

[26:43] to the town right away when their project's complete.

[26:46] Right. But we don't know when that complete date is,

[26:48] which is kind of the difficult aspect of trying

[26:53] to do the hard feature with the sidewalk

[26:56] because the state is in contract

[26:58] with Weaver Brothers to do the work.

[27:01] It's under jurisdic jurisdiction of the state.

[27:05] And even when all of this work is complete in this phase,

[27:11] I don't believe that the state will release the jurisdiction

[27:15] until the final Phase C is complete, which could be five

[27:20] to seven years away.

[27:21] Yeah. Didn't they hear it like at 2038?

[27:24] Last I knew it was 2036. Okay. Oh,

[27:27] I don't think I'll be around.

[27:29] I don't know if it'll be that far along,

[27:31] but it is delayed a bit for, for the,

[27:35] the bike path tunnel.

[27:38] Alright. So we should not make any short term plans there.

[27:44] Alright.

[27:46] I was just gonna piggyback on Mr. Chase.

[27:49] So will people continue to use that service road

[27:53] and then find out when they're halfway through

[27:55] that they can't get in?

[27:56] So they're gonna be turning around.

[27:58] You're gonna get a lot of that they can park.

[28:03] Unfortunately we don't have any control over

[28:05] the, the service road. It's not our property.

[28:08] They would most likely pull in the entrance anyways,

[28:11] which is a normal entrance to our facility right now.

[28:15] I think they're all used to coming in that way now.

[28:18] So like where you are now, you'd come in

[28:20] and then, then you'd take a left, right?

[28:22] Yeah. You're cutting across

[28:23] That little small Yeah.

[28:24] Which is what they've been doing for 30 years.

[28:27] But because you got limited space there, it's, that's,

[28:30] you got a lot of do a pretty good business over there.

[28:33] I see it. The the, the cars coming through all the time.

[28:36] So when they're exiting

[28:38] they're coming straight out. Correct.

[28:40] But yeah, but the,

[28:41] what you're seeing when you're seeing a lot

[28:43] of flow is the tunnel wash, which is the left side.

[28:45] Yeah. Which they're gonna have to u-turn to the right.

[28:48] The one like Jordan said

[28:49] before the four other bays,

[28:51] those are self-serving in bay automatics.

[28:53] The flow outta them is one car maximum

[28:56] per four or five minutes.

[28:57] Yeah. So the likelihood

[28:59] of four cars every five minutes is probably minimal.

[29:03] Okay.

[29:07] So let me suggest that

[29:09] before we end the public hearing that

[29:13] members review the, the waivers

[29:15] and if there are questions regarding the waivers.

[29:16] And may we do those now? Mr. Amzie? Yes. I

[29:19] Have a question.

[29:20] I'm sorry, but I'll make mine short.

[29:23] So if I'm following the rules

[29:25] And I'm, and I'm going through correctly

[29:27] and I'm coming out the service road,

[29:28] which is a little bit further down on Folsom Road,

[29:31] am I also only allowed to turn right?

[29:34] Yes. Or can I turn left there too?

[29:38] Right. Coming out. Coming out.

[29:40] So I'm coming out your service, Rob? Yeah, that's right.

[29:42] Only 'cause that's false.

[29:43] So that's gonna be right only as well that's media. Okay.

[29:46] Yep. Okay. Unless they put a traffic light there. Okay.

[29:49] Make sure that's, that's what they're working on.

[29:52] I'm sorry. We Proximity.

[29:54] Yeah sir, I'm sorry. So here's a a microphone skill

[29:57] that I learned early in my days of doing sounding lights.

[30:01] If you do not hear yourself coming back

[30:04] through the PA system,

[30:05] the audience is not gonna get a good read.

[30:07] So don't try to work from here.

[30:10] 'cause then the guy on the on the mixer will just raise

[30:13] the level and we'll get feedback.

[30:14] So don't be afraid of the microphone please.

[30:19] Is that good Mr. Venture? Thank you Mr. Chair.

[30:23] Alright, any other questions from the board?

[30:28] Yeah. Does that raise any other

[30:30] questions from anyone in the audience?

[30:33] No. Then maybe we have a motion to close public hearing. Mr.

[30:36] Chair. I so move.

[30:38] Second, Move by Connor.

[30:40] Second by Alam to close the public hearing.

[30:42] All those in favor say aye. Aye.

[30:44] Public hearing is closed on the matter of the waivers.

[30:48] Do we want to deal with these individually? Sure.

[30:55] Okay. I would like to make

[30:58] motions on the waivers. Go ahead

[31:02] Mr.

[31:03] Chair. I'd like to move

[31:04] to grant waiver from LDCR section one 70 dash 63 A

[31:08] to allow parking spaces closer than

[31:11] 10 feet to the property line.

[31:12] After review of the waiver request, the board finds

[31:15] that specific circumstances relative to the plan

[31:17] or conditions of the land

[31:19] and such plan indicate

[31:20] that the waiver will properly carry out the spirit

[31:22] and intent of the regulations.

[31:23] Second. Okay, so a move, a motion and,

[31:28] and second by Malibu And

[31:32] seconded by appellate Here.

[31:35] I I will just comment that for all of these, the one of the

[31:41] justifying criteria is

[31:44] what the state is doing with this land.

[31:47] So that kind of is an overriding issue. Yes.

[31:51] Any other comments on that? If not, we'll poll the board.

[31:55] Mr. Chase? Yes. Mr. Wood? Yes. Mr. Menini? Yes.

[32:00] Mr. O'Connor? Yes. Mr. Fisher? Yes. Mr. Ello? Yes. Mr. Pier?

[32:04] Yes. Mr. Mal? Yes. Chair votes? Yes.

[32:08] Mr. Chair, I move

[32:09] to grant waiver from LDCR section one 70 dash 60 3D

[32:14] one to allow parking spaces to be less than nine by 12

[32:18] inside feet in size.

[32:19] After review of the waiver request,

[32:21] the board finds its specific circumstances relative

[32:23] to the plan or conditions of the land in such plan indicate

[32:26] that the waiver will properly carry out the spirit

[32:28] and intent of the regulations.

[32:30] Second,

[32:31] Moved by, be seconded by pate here that just says

[32:36] that they can be less than the required nine by 20.

[32:38] Do we think we know how much, how big they will be?

[32:41] I think they're 18.

[32:43] 18? Yeah. So these refer to existing car parking spaces

[32:47] and they are nine by 18. Oh,

[32:49] Okay.

[32:50] So maybe we

[32:55] actually want to friendly amendment to put that in there

[32:58] as a, as an as-built.

[32:59] So instead of nine by 20 as required,

[33:01] there'll be nine by 18.

[33:04] Oh. Yep. Any object to that? Let's

[33:06] Amend that. Yep.

[33:07] Sorry about that. Okay, any other discussion? Mr. Chase?

[33:11] Yes. Mr. Wood? Yes. Mr. Menini? Yes. Mr. O'Connor? Yes.

[33:16] Mr. Fisherman? Yes. Mr. Ello? Yes. Mr. Peir? Yes. Mr.

[33:20] Melanie? Yes. Chair votes? Yes.

[33:22] Mr. Chair, I moved a grant waiver from LDCR section one 70

[33:26] dash 62 B four to allow the drive aisles leading

[33:30] to the wash bays to be less than 11 feet wide.

[33:32] After review of the waiver request,

[33:34] the board finds this trick.

[33:35] Conformity to the regulations would pose an unnecessary

[33:38] hardship to the applicant and the waiver would not be

[33:41] contrary to the spirit and intent of the regulations

[33:44] Moved by Maby, seconded by pier.

[33:47] Again, I would ask, do we know how narrow they will be?

[33:51] In fact, 10 and a half feet.

[33:52] Alright, so maybe we could do the same friendly amendment

[33:55] saying where 11 is required.

[33:57] They will be 10 and a half. Any further discussion?

[34:03] Mr. Chase? Yes. Mr. Wood? Yes. Mr. Menini? Yes.

[34:07] Mr. O'Connor? Yes. Mr. Fishman? Yes. Mr. Ello? Yes. Mr.

[34:12] Pier? Yes. Mr. Melby? Yes. Votes? Yes.

[34:15] Mr. Chair, I moved a grant waiver from LDCR section one 70

[34:18] dash 60 3D three to allow one way drive aisle

[34:22] to be less than 18 feet wide.

[34:24] After review of the waiver requests,

[34:26] the board finds the stricken formative

[34:27] of the regulations would pose an unnecessary hardship

[34:30] to the applicant and the waiver would not be contrary

[34:32] to the spirit and intent of the regulations. Second

[34:35] Move, move by Malibu.

[34:36] Seconded by Pelletier again, I would ask

[34:40] do we know the actual and 10 and

[34:41] Half?

[34:42] 10 and a half

[34:43] Instead of 18?

[34:44] It's 10 and a half. Yes. Okay.

[34:46] So where 18 is required,

[34:49] I'll allow them to li 10 and a half.

[34:51] Any other comments? Mr. Chase? Yes. Mr. Wood? Yes.

[34:56] Mr. Menini? Yes. Mr. O'Connor? Yes. Mr. Fishman? Yes. Mr.

[35:01] Ello? Yes. Mr. Pier? Yes. Mr. Malam? Yes. Chair? Yes.

[35:05] Mr. Chair, I move

[35:06] to Grand Waiver from LDCR section one 70 dash 64

[35:10] to not require a landscape plan.

[35:12] After review of the waiver request,

[35:14] the board finds the S strict conformity

[35:15] of the regulations would pose an unnecessary hardship

[35:18] to the applicant and the waiver would not be contrary

[35:20] to the spirit and intent of the regulations.

[35:22] Second.

[35:23] Motion by Melanie, seconded by Palantir

[35:26] to waive requiring a landscape plan.

[35:29] Any comments Mr. Chase? Yes. Mr. Wood?

[35:34] Yes. Mr. Menini? Yes. Mr. O'Connor? Yes. Mr. Fisherman? Yes.

[35:37] Mr. Chair Cell? Yes. Mr. Paler? Yes. Mr.

[35:40] Maby? Yes. Chair votes? Yes.

[35:42] Mr. Chair, I moved to grant a waiver from LDCR section one

[35:45] 70 dash 67 B one to allow the screen dumpster

[35:50] to be closer than 25 feet to the property line.

[35:52] After review of the waiver, or excuse me,

[35:55] after review of the waiver request,

[35:59] the board finds its specific circumstances relative

[36:01] to the plan or conditions of the land and such.

[36:03] Plan indicate

[36:04] that the waiver will properly carry out the spirit

[36:06] and intent of the regulations.

[36:08] Second. Moved by Melanie, seconded by Palantir

[36:11] to grant a waiver on the location of the dumpster.

[36:14] Any comments Mr. Chase? Yes. Mr. Wood? Yes. Mr. Menini? Yes.

[36:19] Mr. O'Connor? Yes. Mr. Fishman? Yes. Mr. Ella? Yes. Yes. Mr.

[36:24] Mallee? Yes. Chair votes? Yes.

[36:26] And finally, Mr. Chair, I move

[36:27] to Grand Waiver from LDCR section one 70 dash 62 B four

[36:33] to allow one way drive aisles to the wash bay

[36:35] to be less than 11 feet wide.

[36:37] After review of the waiver requests,

[36:39] the board finds its strict conformity

[36:40] of the regulations would pose an unnecessary hardship

[36:42] to the applicant and the waiver would not be contrary

[36:45] to the spirit and intent of the regulations. Second,

[36:47] Moved by Melby, seconded by app Peir to grant the waiver.

[36:51] Can I ask what will the width be? 10 and a half.

[36:54] Alright, so maybe we do a friendly amendment.

[36:57] Allow the width be 10

[36:58] and a half feet where 11 would normally be required.

[37:02] Any other comments? Mr. Chase? Yes. Mr. Wood? Yes. Mr.

[37:06] Menini? Yes. Mr. Connor? Yes. Mr. Fisherman? Yes. Mr. Ello?

[37:10] Yes. Mr. Pier? Yes. Mr. Mal? Yes. Chair votes? Yes.

[37:17] Alright. Mr.

[37:18] Chair, the board finds the proposed plan provides safe

[37:20] and efficient vehicular and pedestrian access and design

[37:23] and construction of the access ways

[37:25] or adequate to accommodate the anticipated volume

[37:27] of traffic proposed by development.

[37:29] The board finds the proposed parking plan is adequate

[37:32] for the site and meets the parking density

[37:34] requirements for the use.

[37:36] The board finds the stormwater management

[37:38] as proposed is designed

[37:39] to control the post-development runoff so

[37:41] that it does not exceed pre-development runoff.

[37:45] The board makes finding of fact as listed above. Second.

[37:48] Alright. A motion to make finding of fact

[37:51] by Maby seconded by Pier.

[37:53] Any questions? Discussion Mr. Chase? Yes. Mr. Wood? Yes. Mr.

[37:57] Menini? Yes. Mr. O'Connor? Yes. Mr. Fisherman? Yes. Mr.

[38:01] Ello? Yes. Pier? Yes. Mr. Maby? Yes. And chair votes? Yes.

[38:06] Mr. Chair, after review

[38:07] and deliberation of the amended site plan application

[38:10] for PID 3 5 0 1 4 dash zero five,

[38:15] Brian and Laura Real Estate LLC,

[38:18] the board finds the applicant is satisfied the general

[38:20] requirements of the land development control regulations

[38:23] or in cases where the regulation cannot be met,

[38:25] has satisfied the waiver requirements.

[38:27] Therefore, the motion is to approve pursuant

[38:30] to RSA 6 76 4 Roman one completed application

[38:34] with the following conditions,

[38:36] the conditions precedent subject to owner's signature

[38:40] establish appropriate escrow

[38:42] as required to complete the project.

[38:44] Note approved waivers on the plan,

[38:46] obtain written approval from the planning director designee

[38:49] that the GIS submission is received and is operable

[38:51] and complies with the LDCR section one 70 dash 61 C

[38:57] subject to receipt of applicable state

[38:59] or local permits relating to the project completion

[39:03] of the suggested offsite improvements

[39:05] to include the pedestrian crossing

[39:06] as noted on the current plan

[39:08] or addition of appropriate striping at the entrance

[39:11] to be reviewed by the dairy engineering staff.

[39:13] Conditions precedent shall be met within six months

[39:16] and then the conditions subsequent

[39:18] and subject to onsite inspection by the towns engineer.

[39:21] Second

[39:23] Is moved by Melanie, seconded

[39:25] by Peir to grant conditional approval.

[39:27] Mr. Remove, does the engineering department have any

[39:29] remaining concerns?

[39:30] No. No concerns. Thank you. No. Okay.

[39:33] Any other comments from the board discussion?

[39:37] Oh, Ms. Roberto,

[39:38] Just if we could pick one of, one

[39:42] of the options for item six. Right.

[39:44] Thank you. We, we gonna make that decision.

[39:47] That needs to be, that decision needs

[39:49] to be made this evening because

[39:50] otherwise the applicant doesn't know how to move forward

[39:53] with construction on the site.

[39:54] Well, given the testimony I've heard asking

[39:59] for the pedestrian crossing

[40:01] to be constructed on in the state right

[40:03] of way is not gonna happen in any reasonable time.

[40:09] So the striping seems to be the option. Thank you.

[40:11] Now we could ask them to come back in

[40:15] eight years when the state has link to town,

[40:18] but I don't know that that makes sense either, so. Okay.

[40:21] But if we could just like pick one or the other.

[40:24] So we'll amen that to say,

[40:29] to include addition of appropriate striping at the entrance

[40:34] to be reviewed by the Department of Dairy Engineering staff

[40:36] and remove the reference to the pedestrian crossing.

[40:41] Thank you. Right.

[40:43] Appreciate the clarification amendment. Yeah. Thanks.

[40:46] Okay. Any other comment Mr. Chase?

[40:51] Yes. Mr. Wood? Yes. Mr. Minni? Yes. Mr. O'Connor? Yes.

[40:56] Mr. Fisherman? Yes. Mr. Chair? Yes. Mr. Pier? Yes.

[41:00] Mr. Malvin? Yes.

[41:02] And The chair votes? Yes.

[41:04] Good luck in dealing with all this.

[41:06] We, we thank you for patience

[41:09] and working through all of that construction nonsense.

[41:11] We appreciate it. Thank you. Your help. Yep.

[41:13] Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.

[41:25] All right. Our next public hearing is

[41:30] Mt M Realty Trust, who's the owner

[41:33] and G development LLC.

[41:35] Who is the applicant for parcel id.

[41:37] 3 5 0 1 15 dash 0 2 10 Manchester Road

[41:45] The applicant is requesting

[41:46] to demolish the existing multi-tenant commercial building

[41:49] to redevelop the property

[41:51] with the new 4,235 square foot car garage facility

[41:55] known as wash the ZBA determined this was a permitted use in

[42:00] the zone commercial service establishment located in the

[42:03] industrial two zoning district

[42:05] and did not require a variance highway safety reviewed.

[42:08] The proposal and conservation commission Conservation

[42:11] commission review was not required.

[42:13] The proposed site plan construction includes a 110 foot

[42:18] tunnel wash with three wash lanes and 22 vacuum units.

[42:22] The use in construction

[42:24] of this site will require a new gas line from Tinkham Ave

[42:27] and will also connect the existing sewer line directly

[42:30] to the onsite sewer manhole.

[42:32] Connections to existing water service on Tum Ave are also

[42:36] required Through the review process.

[42:39] Staff comments have focused primarily on traffic,

[42:42] circulation and site access.

[42:43] The original concept planned

[42:45] for this development showed access

[42:46] through the Applebee's site 14 Manchester Road via the

[42:50] Signalize intersection.

[42:52] To date, the applicant has been unable

[42:54] to secure an easement for this access.

[42:56] Staff required the access

[42:58] through Applebee's be removed from the plan until such time

[43:01] as the easement has been secured.

[43:03] The existing curb cut on Manchester Road is proposed

[43:06] to be discontinued at the time.

[43:08] N-H-D-O-T reviewed and approved this request.

[43:12] The plan still showed the access easement

[43:13] through Manchester Road.

[43:15] N-H-D-O-T has not

[43:17] provided insight to date as to whether they feel removal

[43:20] of the access easement affects traffic flow

[43:22] onto Manchester Road.

[43:24] The new portion

[43:26] of sidewalk will be constructed along the frontage when the

[43:29] curb cut is discontinued,

[43:31] parking appears adequate for the use.

[43:33] The board will need to make a finding that it is adequate

[43:36] as the regulations does not have calculations.

[43:40] A calculation for car wash.

[43:43] The proposed site design requires vehicles exiting Tinkham

[43:46] Avenue to make an Unprotective left turn

[43:48] onto Manchester Road.

[43:50] Staff remains concerned

[43:51] that this movement may present operational

[43:54] and safety challenges during periods of heavier traffic.

[43:57] The traffic study conducted by GPI presented 11 left turns

[44:01] during weekday PM peak and 36 left turns.

[44:04] During Saturday midday.

[44:06] The town's peer review engineer was

[44:08] asked to review the plan.

[44:09] In relation to staff concerns,

[44:14] Please see the VHB review at a minimum.

[44:16] Staff recommends the applicant continue

[44:18] to seek easement approval to benefit

[44:21] 10 Manchester Road from the landowner at 14 Manchester Road.

[44:25] There are monitoring wells on site some related

[44:28] to the former head Coast seven Manchester Road.

[44:30] The the remainder were put in place

[44:33] to monitor groundwater following a spill

[44:35] at the former gas station.

[44:36] At this location, two wells were decommissioned in 2021.

[44:40] They'll be cut subgrade as needed.

[44:45] The well to remain located near Manchester Road is noted.

[44:48] The environmental coordinator expressed some concern

[44:51] regarding the soil management process during construction.

[44:54] The development team has indicated they have soil,

[44:57] they have soils management plan ready if required.

[45:00] The Hood Park Watershed management plan revealed Tum Ave

[45:03] as a problem area storm water discharge from the roadways

[45:06] closed drainage system into Shields Brook.

[45:10] The applicant was asked

[45:12] to provide infiltration along Tum Ave,

[45:14] which they have done to address this.

[45:16] The concern they added deep sum catch basins per the,

[45:20] per their stormwater management report.

[45:22] The stormwater design measures proposed

[45:24] for the project will result in increased stormwater charge,

[45:27] improve stormwater quality

[45:29] and reduce peak discharge to Tinkham Avenue.

[45:34] The applicant has indicated

[45:35] that the proposed car wash will operate without the use

[45:38] of PFAS containing cleaning products.

[45:40] The architectural design package is included at the end

[45:44] of the package.

[45:45] The industrial two district requires a medium high

[45:49] level of compliance.

[45:51] There are two waivers for this.

[45:53] The first one is a storm water design waiver

[45:57] and the second is to allow dumpsters to be located five

[45:59] and a half feet from the north property line

[46:02] where 25 feet is required.

[46:04] And then I do these now.

[46:07] Okay. N-H-D-O-T issued

[46:12] a permit on March 20

[46:13] or yeah, March 23rd, 2026

[46:16] to alter the driveway on Manchester Road

[46:18] to eliminate the curb cut on Manchester Road.

[46:20] DOT confirmed today they're aware there is no access

[46:24] through Applebee's and does not pose any issues to them.

[46:28] Local water and sewer connections permit local water

[46:32] and sewer connection permits, permits as necessary.

[46:36] The recommendations are to determine the regional impact

[46:38] and review the proposed site plan

[46:40] and architectural design rendering.

[46:45] Okay. Thank you. Very good.

[46:48] And I want to commend you on the wording of the

[46:54] dumpster waiver 'cause it indicates what it's gonna be,

[46:56] what what it's allowed.

[46:58] And I noticed that there are elements there

[47:00] that were not in our printed packet updates.

[47:05] Storm water calculation

[47:07] Waiver that that waiver is included in your packet.

[47:10] There's a, I think behind the back

[47:13] of the packet there should be a page

[47:16] that says wash fill additional waiver

[47:18] and it has the waiver included.

[47:20] Okay. But it wasn't in the,

[47:22] In the original staff report.

[47:23] Yeah. We received VHB re, the VHB review came in

[47:28] as the pa we were jumbling.

[47:30] So we noticed that they had recommended a waiver

[47:34] and we thought it would be best if the

[47:35] board reviewed that request.

[47:37] So I want to drill down onto

[47:40] the late breaking news about the DOT.

[47:43] Yes. Because the staff report says

[47:47] the applicant is, has been unable to get a,

[47:51] an easement correct.

[47:52] From APPLEBY'S to use their signaled entrance. Yes.

[47:57] And it says that the state DOT has not acknowledged

[48:01] or reviewed that or accepted it.

[48:02] They did this afternoon we received word from DOT today.

[48:08] Bob Bollinger, who is handling the traffic

[48:10] for GPI has been in contact

[48:12] with the state when the state first reviewed the

[48:16] application, which was about the time that we were starting

[48:20] to do TRC, this,

[48:23] the plan showed the access going through Applebee's.

[48:28] And so in re looking at the plan,

[48:31] the state didn't have any issue noting

[48:33] that people could hit the light at Applebee's

[48:36] and they could go left that way.

[48:40] When we heard that

[48:43] the landowner has not been very responsive about

[48:47] responding to inquiries about finalizing

[48:50] or even obtaining that easement

[48:52] through the Applebee's property, we thought it best to take

[48:56] that off the plan because it's not a condition

[48:59] that like we had, they have a legal right to, so

[49:02] that created that we can't, we've got

[49:05] that unprotected left turn coming out of tum.

[49:08] Okay. Which was there to begin with,

[49:10] but we now don't have the access legally to the light.

[49:14] Okay. I'm glad to have that clarified.

[49:16] 'cause I was about to vote no on, on jurisdiction giving

[49:20] that we had that Mexican standoff, so, so to speak

[49:23] with the state over access.

[49:25] But since that's been cleared up,

[49:27] I I have no objections at this

[49:28] Point.

[49:29] Okay. Thank you.

[49:32] Okay.

[49:41] Having read all that

[49:42] and been pointed to the supplemental material,

[49:47] can we have a motion on jurisdiction?

[49:51] Mr. Chair? I move to accept, sorry

[49:55] Mr.

[49:56] Chair. I move to accept jurisdiction of the site plan

[49:58] before the board for GR development.

[50:00] PID 3 5 0 1 15 dash

[50:03] 0 0 2 10 Manchester Road. Second,

[50:07] Moved by Melanie, seconded by Pier to accept jurisdiction.

[50:10] Mr. Chase? Yes. Mr. Wood? Yes. Mr. Memini? Yes.

[50:14] Mr. O'Connor?

[50:16] Mr. Chair, I still got a question.

[50:19] Alright. So Of the jurisdiction taking jurisdiction.

[50:23] So I just want clarification.

[50:24] I I'm sorry, I I should have called for discussion.

[50:27] So we'll, we'll, we'll do the vote over

[50:29] after you have your discussion. I'm sorry, my

[50:32] Question is regarding the easement.

[50:35] If we don't have an official easement from the owners

[50:40] of the Applebee's property, then how can we put our stamp

[50:45] On the plan?

[50:46] Well, my understanding is that

[50:47] that has been removed from the plan

[50:50] and that the DOT has accepted that.

[50:53] So it's no longer, even,

[50:54] even though it was in the staff report, it's now

[50:57] overtaken by events.

[50:59] Okay. So Is that correct? I'm relevant.

[51:02] That's correct. So the staff report was written

[51:04] to provide the history of, of what happened in,

[51:07] in the process, the plan is presented

[51:09] to the board this evening does not show an access

[51:12] to Applebee's that is curbed off.

[51:15] Okay. Yep. So,

[51:16] But in the future they would have to come back if,

[51:19] if there is an easement to be able to use that.

[51:21] Yes. If they're able to obtain that.

[51:23] Our discussion with the applicant was if they are able

[51:25] to obtain that easement with Applebee's,

[51:28] then they will come back with a site plan amendment

[51:30] and they'll remove the curbing there and provide

[51:33] and show the access through

[51:34] There.

[51:35] So is that still in negotiation?

[51:37] We are, for the record,

[51:38] my name is Frank do already with Ville.

[51:42] We're still trying. We just have not succeeded. And

[51:46] So it could happen in, in the future?

[51:47] It, it could happen. I really Okay.

[51:49] Can't handicap it as they sit here tonight.

[51:51] Right. So as, as Ms.

[51:53] Robert have said, if that were to come, then we would've a,

[51:55] an amended site plan to review. Yes. I

[51:58] Just wanted to make sure it was on the record.

[51:59] Okay. So given that discussion, I'm going

[52:02] to start the vote over again.

[52:04] Mr. Chase? Yes. Mr. Wood? Yes. Mr. Menini?

[52:07] Yes. Mr. O'Connor? Yes.

[52:09] Mr. Fisherman? Yes. Mr. Ello? Yes. Mr. Pier? Yes. Mr.

[52:13] Maby? Yes. And the chair votes? Yes.

[52:17] Mr. Chair? Pursuant to RSA 36 56,

[52:21] the board finds a proposal as presented at this time,

[52:23] meets the definition of a development of regional impact.

[52:26] Second,

[52:27] Moved by by now seconded by Peir

[52:32] to find regional impact.

[52:36] I have a question before we vote on this.

[52:39] I don't know whether you're gonna ask the question

[52:41] Mr. Chase, but it's about water consumption

[52:44] and whether that affects our regional water system.

[52:47] Our water comes through Manchester.

[52:50] Can you guys give us some indication of what the,

[52:53] the water consumption impact might be of this development?

[52:58] Sure. It, we have applied for,

[53:01] and I think the state is reviewing our wastewater discharge

[53:05] permit, which would be about 18,000 gallons a day.

[53:07] On the wastewater side, typically

[53:10] because we recycle about 60% of our water,

[53:14] our water demand is about 5% higher than that.

[53:17] So doing the math in my head around 21,000 gallons a day

[53:20] of water demand and 18,000 gallons a day

[53:24] Of wastewater discharge.

[53:27] Mr, is that a significant impact on dairy's water system?

[53:30] It, it isn't. Mr.

[53:32] Jeff, we're happy to have him use the water.

[53:35] Mr. Being on the Southern New Hampshire Planning

[53:37] Commission, we had a presentation a while back

[53:40] and it shows where Manchester

[53:43] is building into the Merrimack itself.

[53:45] A very huge system that's going

[53:49] to supplement even more than what they already have.

[53:52] So that's for the future. So it's coming. Okay.

[53:56] Any other questions?

[53:58] Do you have any questions Mr. Chase before we vote? Nope.

[54:01] Nope. Okay, then let's take the boat.

[54:05] No, this is one commercial use

[54:08] replacing another commercial use.

[54:10] It will most likely not be a destination.

[54:13] It will be relying on bypass traffic.

[54:15] So the traffic will not be significantly more.

[54:19] And as we had just discussed,

[54:22] the water consumption will not be out of line with what

[54:26] our system can handle.

[54:28] Okay. Mr. Wood? No. For the same reasons as Mr. Chase. Mr.

[54:33] Menini? No. For the same reasons Mr. O'Connor,

[54:35] I'll follow suit with no Mr. Fishman No

[54:38] For the same reasons.

[54:39] Mr. Chair, no regional impact. Mr. Pier? No.

[54:42] For the same reason. Mr. Maby? No. For

[54:44] The same reasons as Mr. Chase

[54:45] and Chair will vote no for the same reasons as Mr. Chase,

[54:51] can I have a vote to open the public hearing?

[54:53] So moved. Second. Moved and seconded by Maby

[54:57] and Pier to open a public hearing.

[54:59] All those in favor say aye. Aye. Public hearing is open.

[55:03] So again, we may have stole a lot of your thunder,

[55:05] but go ahead and give us your executive presentation.

[55:08] Excellent, thank you. Good evening.

[55:11] My name is Patrick McLaughlin.

[55:12] I'm a civil engineer with Greenman Peterson, GPI,

[55:15] with a local office here in Salem, New Hampshire.

[55:18] So close by with me this evening.

[55:20] Frank Doherty with Wash Phil,

[55:24] Jim Waterman, also of Wash and Bob Bollinger with GPI.

[55:31] I think from the presentation point of view,

[55:35] if we can start on the existing condition survey

[55:37] plan that that will be helpful.

[55:38] And then this will be, yeah,

[55:40] this will be a great exhibit thereafter.

[55:46] I'll, while we scroll to that, I'll clarify a couple.

[55:50] One item I believe we'll fact check myself

[55:55] as I review this plan.

[55:56] I think on the staff memo it lists the property

[55:59] or the, the building size as 42 35

[56:02] and I think it's for 43 25 square feet.

[56:06] So just to clarify that for the record

[56:10] in the memo, there's three wash lanes.

[56:13] I want to clarify that. That is three PAE lanes

[56:16] to ultimately condense to one wash lane.

[56:19] And I'll describe that when I discuss site circulation.

[56:22] And then to clarify, 22 vacuum units service, 20

[56:28] available parking spaces to vacuum a vehicle.

[56:32] So those were a couple of few

[56:33] clarifications I wanted to make.

[56:36] So on the existing conditions plan, if we can go,

[56:38] it should be the third sheet of the PDF set.

[56:46] Yeah. Can I ask you to help me with spatial issues?

[56:50] Identify this building that is being demoed?

[56:54] Yeah, so the corner of Tinkham

[56:56] and Manchester Road has a few uses in it.

[57:01] Historically, not most notably is probably enterprise.

[57:06] And so that sits, yeah, just downhill, if you will,

[57:09] down gradient along Manchester Road from,

[57:14] from the Applebee's site.

[57:15] The Applebee's sits at the signal.

[57:19] This is just south of that towards Folsom, you know,

[57:23] in the direction of the project

[57:24] that you just discussed previously.

[57:27] Tinkham comes out to Manchester Road currently at an

[57:32] existing break in the median

[57:34] and is one of the only spots along there

[57:37] where there is allowed a break in that center median.

[57:41] There's some other uses down ham as well,

[57:46] but overall it's, it's a relatively small adjacent street

[57:50] to the, to the main corridor there on Manchester Road.

[57:53] So there's an, is this mic intermittent

[57:58] or am I doing all right?

[57:59] I'm trying to talk right to it. All right, great.

[58:02] There's a, an existing multi-use building on the property.

[58:05] Now there's a,

[58:07] an existing right in right out driveway along the center

[58:10] of the frontage of Manchester Road that will be closed off.

[58:16] The, basically the entire frontage of Umab is a wide open

[58:22] cut right now, if you will, with parking

[58:25] essentially encroaching into the town right of way on tum.

[58:30] And so you'll see how all of that gets narrowed up,

[58:33] curbed off and, and well-defined as a proposed curb cut.

[58:37] There is an existing historical cross

[58:42] connection between the existing uses on this subject

[58:45] property and to the Apple Applebee's.

[58:48] Through a good amount of research there, we have identified

[58:52] that all rights associated with that are

[58:55] no longer in position.

[58:58] So those have all expired to say, I guess

[59:01] that neither party has contested

[59:03] that it continues to be used.

[59:05] Is, is our best summation as it relates

[59:07] to the historical aspect of that.

[59:12] I think that that color site plan was great,

[59:14] if we can move to that.

[59:21] Thank you. Yep.

[59:22] So, so you'll see here now

[59:24] that the proposal closes off the existing curb cut along

[59:28] Manchester Road, we provide a new pedestrian sidewalk

[59:32] connection there as well.

[59:33] The entire frontage along TUM now gets closed off

[59:38] to, to just provide a sole full access driveway,

[59:43] the furthest distance down our tum frontage.

[59:47] So moving that access point away from the

[59:50] intersection at the main road.

[59:52] So entering vehicles would come in if,

[59:56] if a customer is choosing to go through the tunnel wash,

[1:00:01] they would take a right

[1:00:02] and enter into one of the three queuing lanes

[1:00:06] for the automated pay lanes.

[1:00:10] So those are a first come serve,

[1:00:12] first come first serve scenario.

[1:00:14] So some folks might be on the pass program at which it's

[1:00:17] gonna scan your, your window tag and, and allow you through.

[1:00:22] Other folks might be making a one-time transaction either

[1:00:25] way, which, whichever transaction comes first, the gates

[1:00:29] of each respective lane open

[1:00:31] and that essentially meters the, the, you know,

[1:00:35] the queue from, from the pay point forward so

[1:00:38] that the three lanes condensed to a single 18 foot wide,

[1:00:43] one way towards the entrance of the car wash.

[1:00:46] Everything is circulating here in a,

[1:00:49] in a counterclockwise motion, you'd come down

[1:00:51] through a single, single bay of a tunnel and,

[1:00:56] and exit at the bottom of the page.

[1:00:58] Again, all traffic continuing to make left hand turns.

[1:01:03] If you, if a customer is choosing to make

[1:01:07] a stop at the vacuums, they could turn in

[1:01:09] to the centrally located VAC facilities

[1:01:13] or they could proceed back out to Tcom

[1:01:15] and, and be on their way.

[1:01:18] Conversely, if a customer was coming in

[1:01:20] and wanted to use the VAC facilities first,

[1:01:24] that is two-way Yep.

[1:01:26] To allow that to happen, you'll see a one-way arrow

[1:01:30] to the left of that stop bar,

[1:01:32] which is headed back towards the tunnel exit.

[1:01:35] So from a certain point that bottom access way is,

[1:01:39] is noted with do not enters to facilitate.

[1:01:43] Yep. Where, where the cursor is now is a,

[1:01:46] is an emergency bypass.

[1:01:48] So you've, you've already paid for your wash if you're,

[1:01:50] if you've made it to that point.

[1:01:52] So we provide two bypass scenarios in the event

[1:01:57] that if the, there's a service issue at, at the, the roller

[1:02:01] or the tunnel and, you know, via customers need

[1:02:05] to be taken out of the queue in order to, you know,

[1:02:08] get maybe one vehicle out or something like that.

[1:02:10] There's opportunities to, to bypass down

[1:02:13] and through the vacuums out of the queue.

[1:02:16] Similarly, there's a bypass lane around the far side

[1:02:19] of the building that also will allow employees

[1:02:23] who park in the top left corner of this plant

[1:02:27] to exit the site at the end of their shift.

[1:02:31] So that's the, the general site orientation.

[1:02:33] This has been, as the staff memo noted, reviewed with,

[1:02:37] with the highway safety, we've gone through TRC, so we've

[1:02:42] adequately, you know, addressed site circulation in terms

[1:02:45] of fire apparatus and fire access

[1:02:48] and circulation through the site.

[1:02:51] The vacuums are centrally located

[1:02:54] and condensed to, you know, what a,

[1:02:58] a sole purpose u utilitarian type area in the middle of,

[1:03:02] of the property landscape perimeter around the outsides.

[1:03:07] I'll note the location of the trash enclosure kind

[1:03:11] of again in that top left corner.

[1:03:13] As the staff memo noted, we are requesting a waiver

[1:03:16] for the location of that.

[1:03:17] There's a few reasons why that ended up there.

[1:03:21] One, you know, the redevelopment of the site, one

[1:03:23] of our aims was to really

[1:03:27] provide more green space perimeter we talked about

[1:03:29] how we closed things off along both frontages,

[1:03:31] we significantly reduced impervious coverage

[1:03:34] with this redevelopment.

[1:03:37] There's that potential for the future cross connection.

[1:03:41] So the bottom left corner of, of this plan view wanted

[1:03:44] to remain vacant from any obstructions.

[1:03:48] And so we looked at a few spots and,

[1:03:51] and ultimately with, with, you know, access

[1:03:54] and circulation for the, for the trash vehicle,

[1:03:56] that spot up, up top made the most sense.

[1:03:59] There's also, it would be a little tough to indicate,

[1:04:02] but if you look on the Applebee's side of the, of the plan,

[1:04:05] those, those diagonal lines coming down indicate a,

[1:04:08] an existing sewer easement

[1:04:09] that does traverse this property comes down below the,

[1:04:13] the new car wash building

[1:04:15] and then turns along that access road.

[1:04:17] It's underneath my hatch patterns

[1:04:19] on this version of the plan.

[1:04:20] But that was another area that was encumbered that we needed

[1:04:23] to keep, you know, certain site features out of.

[1:04:26] And so we thought working with staff at

[1:04:29] that trash enclosure location was the most reasonable

[1:04:32] for all factors considered

[1:04:36] typical storm water and new utility connections.

[1:04:40] Staff memo, again, notes.

[1:04:43] So we won't have any trenching out in Manchester Road

[1:04:45] for any new utility hookups.

[1:04:49] Sewer can actually be reconnected via existing

[1:04:52] infrastructure within the property boundaries.

[1:04:55] Water will be a new connection on tum.

[1:04:57] There'll be an overlay of, of the tum roadway associated

[1:05:02] with that trench work that's been discussed

[1:05:05] and coordinated with DPW.

[1:05:07] Gas comes off at TUM as well via new service

[1:05:11] and electric runs along the bottom

[1:05:14] boundary via some overhead.

[1:05:17] That actually does come through an easement currently

[1:05:21] and services Applebee's.

[1:05:23] So there'll be a little bit of relocating

[1:05:25] and working with the utility company to, to realign some,

[1:05:29] some electrical easements as needed.

[1:05:32] But, so that's the, the run through of all the,

[1:05:35] the utility hookups.

[1:05:38] Storm water, again, the, the approach was

[1:05:40] to significantly reduce impervious coverage.

[1:05:43] So we, we came in somewhere around, I want

[1:05:46] to say 9,500 square feet

[1:05:48] of reduction in impervious coverage for redevelopment.

[1:05:51] So that aims

[1:05:54] to provide additional groundwater recharge just

[1:05:58] by increasing green space areas.

[1:06:02] Everything in existing condition kind of flows

[1:06:06] in a uncontrolled manner out that, you know,

[1:06:10] that unrestricted curb cut

[1:06:12] and just goes into the right of way

[1:06:13] and down into the, into the roadway system.

[1:06:16] So we capture everything now with a closed drainage system,

[1:06:21] deep sum catch basins with hooded outlets

[1:06:24] and through a a hydrodynamic separator unit

[1:06:28] before it, we connect physically into

[1:06:31] the, the roadway system.

[1:06:33] And so there's been improvements to stormwater as well

[1:06:37] as it relates to stormwater.

[1:06:38] The one waiver that Yeah, that did come in

[1:06:41] that it sounds like is in the back of your packets is for

[1:06:45] one of the LDCR criteria specific to,

[1:06:48] to the stormwater water.

[1:06:55] Happy to answer questions.

[1:06:57] Oh, and I'm not, yeah, I'm not an architect,

[1:06:59] but the architectural is at the end of the packet and,

[1:07:02] and we're certainly happy to,

[1:07:03] to review that with you as well.

[1:07:05] Okay.

[1:07:12] Questions from the board, Mr. O'Connor?

[1:07:14] Yeah, my question to you is,

[1:07:16] can you go over a little bit about the soil contamination

[1:07:19] and the wells that I'm assuming you took samples of?

[1:07:24] Sure. So the, this site is across from the

[1:07:29] contamination site across Manchester Road

[1:07:32] and there it's down gradient of that contamination.

[1:07:36] And there are wells on location for two purposes.

[1:07:40] One is relating to that contaminated site across the street

[1:07:44] and those wells.

[1:07:45] This is a great, great picture here.

[1:07:48] Those wells are just pretty close to the right

[1:07:51] of way along Manchester Road.

[1:07:53] There's three wells, so they're outside the limit

[1:07:55] of our work and therefore will not disturb them.

[1:08:01] Second set of of

[1:08:03] or second contamination issue

[1:08:05] that historically has been presented was

[1:08:07] way back when this was a gas station

[1:08:10] and there's some record information

[1:08:11] of some previous underground storage tanks.

[1:08:14] We couldn't locate them in the environmental site assessment

[1:08:18] that we did, but out of respect for

[1:08:20] that historical knowledge

[1:08:21] and concerns for the town, we've agreed to monitor

[1:08:23] during construction, the soils.

[1:08:26] And typically you would do that with a, it's called a PID

[1:08:29] or it's a meter that you would

[1:08:31] understand the volatile organic content in the soil

[1:08:34] as you move it around, if you hit a certain threshold,

[1:08:36] then you've triggered a notification with the state

[1:08:40] to manage that contaminated soil if it exists at all.

[1:08:43] So what the town has said is,

[1:08:45] please do a soil management plant anticipating that

[1:08:47] that may occur and if so, what's the proper procedure?

[1:08:50] So we've agreed to do that.

[1:08:53] There may be no contamination there at all,

[1:08:56] but if there is, we're well armed to deal

[1:08:58] with it appropriately and take any measures needed

[1:09:01] to control it.

[1:09:03] And we're working with the town on that. Good, thank you.

[1:09:06] Okay,

[1:09:09] Any other questions?

[1:09:13] So just to get an idea of, of our words of

[1:09:16] of usage and traffic flow.

[1:09:19] Are you familiar with the Ville site on

[1:09:21] Loudoun Road in Concord?

[1:09:23] Yes. So can you let us know what,

[1:09:26] what has your experience been there in terms

[1:09:28] of when people use it, you know,

[1:09:30] how many trips per day, things like that.

[1:09:33] I'm gonna actually ask Jim Waterman from Wash.

[1:09:43] Okay. Actually, yeah.

[1:09:48] And we'll have Bob Bollinger,

[1:09:50] our traffic engineer speak to that.

[1:09:53] Alright, well thank you.

[1:10:00] Good afternoon Mr.

[1:10:02] Chair, members of the board for the record.

[1:10:03] Bob Bollinger, professional engineer with Greenman Peterson

[1:10:07] here this evening on behalf of the applicant.

[1:10:11] I can give you a broad answer,

[1:10:16] but I do want

[1:10:17] to let you know since you specifically asked about the

[1:10:19] Concord New Hampshire site, how we developed.

[1:10:22] We've been doing a lot of work with Wash Phil over the years

[1:10:25] and in order to come up

[1:10:26] with a more realistic trip generation estimate

[1:10:28] for their sites for this particular project,

[1:10:31] we actually surveyed three existing Wash Phil sites,

[1:10:35] one in Methuen, Massachusetts, one in Kingsboro,

[1:10:37] Massachusetts, and the third being on Loudoun Road

[1:10:39] in Concord, New Hampshire.

[1:10:41] So that kind of gives us an aggregate base.

[1:10:43] There's a procedural method to the madness, if you will.

[1:10:46] If you're gonna collect local data, you want

[1:10:48] to collect it at at least three locations.

[1:10:50] So we felt that that was sufficient for,

[1:10:52] for our purposes here.

[1:10:56] In terms of trip generation, it may be more important,

[1:11:00] perhaps more realistic

[1:11:02] to talk about the actual delta over what's

[1:11:05] there, if you will.

[1:11:07] Obviously the site, there's existing commercial entities

[1:11:10] on the property now

[1:11:12] and based on our calculations

[1:11:14] during the weekday AM peak hour, it's virtually a wash

[1:11:18] and no pun intended, with that we're talking about a,

[1:11:21] a single digit increase in peak hour traffic in the AM

[1:11:26] weekday PM peak hour.

[1:11:27] We're actually expecting a decrease

[1:11:29] over what is presently there.

[1:11:31] Our largest overall delta would be

[1:11:33] during the Saturday midday condition.

[1:11:35] We're expecting about a 95 vehicle increase over

[1:11:39] what's there presently.

[1:11:41] So based on that order of magnitude, we don't think

[1:11:46] that there would be any significant alteration

[1:11:50] to prevailing traffic operations as was indicated earlier.

[1:11:55] And I do appreciate staff for the additional information

[1:11:58] that was conveyed to the board re

[1:11:59] regarding our DOT discussions.

[1:12:02] The board DOT felt fit to issue a permit

[1:12:06] for this project back in March.

[1:12:08] Obviously we wanted to get DOT's opinion

[1:12:11] as well since the matter with the cross access connection

[1:12:14] with Applebee's is I guess still a matter

[1:12:16] of potential discussion.

[1:12:19] And we received finally word today that DOT was satisfied

[1:12:23] and that they felt that the original permit was still

[1:12:25] valid for this project.

[1:12:27] So, sorry, I might have given you a little bit more

[1:12:29] information than you asked for there,

[1:12:30] but again, I just wanted to provide some slightly

[1:12:32] additional context to that. So

[1:12:35] Thank you Very much.

[1:12:36] Thank you. Thank you.

[1:12:37] Any other questions from the board?

[1:12:41] Any questions from members of the public, either any present

[1:12:44] or online?

[1:12:45] Please come forward. Give your name

[1:12:46] and address for the record and make your comments

[1:12:50] or make or ask your questions.

[1:12:57] Good evening. My name is Bonnie Beam.

[1:13:00] I'm the pastor at Journey Church,

[1:13:02] which is at five Tinkham Ave.

[1:13:05] Just one building over from the proposed site.

[1:13:10] And we currently have a,

[1:13:15] an offsite sign that's on the corner of Tinkham

[1:13:19] and Manchester that we were told

[1:13:24] belonged that area belonged to that building.

[1:13:27] And so we've been paying rent for that space

[1:13:31] to have the sign out there.

[1:13:33] I don't know what is proposed for that sign.

[1:13:37] We would like to keep our signage down there just

[1:13:42] to help people find us down on av.

[1:13:46] The gymnastics studio PRA is also,

[1:13:50] they have a sign on there on our, our posts

[1:13:54] and I know they have expressed the desire for

[1:13:58] that sign to continue.

[1:14:00] We have the Salvation Army that has

[1:14:03] recently moved into our building and is operating there

[1:14:07] and they would like to have some road front signage as well.

[1:14:11] And the quilt shop down the road

[1:14:13] that just moved in last summer would like to have that.

[1:14:16] So our major concern is just

[1:14:20] that we would still be able to have signage there somehow.

[1:14:27] And I don't know if that's gonna be removed.

[1:14:31] It, it is our sign, so we'd like

[1:14:32] to have it back if it gets removed, that kind of thing.

[1:14:37] So that's, that's one of our concerns.

[1:14:40] Another, which I think you may have addressed

[1:14:43] already, was water flow.

[1:14:44] Just knowing that the amount of water that is going

[1:14:48] to be used by a car wash, if that would impact any

[1:14:51] of our businesses on that street as far

[1:14:54] as water pressure or anything like that.

[1:14:57] And then the concern over that left hand turn at the end

[1:15:01] of tum, which already is quite challenging at peak hours

[1:15:06] and to have a lot of additional flow

[1:15:10] of traffic trying to get out there

[1:15:13] would be really difficult.

[1:15:15] So I might request that the town of dairy do something about

[1:15:19] that area.

[1:15:20] If there's a traffic light maybe that could get put in

[1:15:23] or something.

[1:15:25] We're just have concern about that.

[1:15:27] So typically traffic lights

[1:15:30] on state roads are under the control estate.

[1:15:33] Oh, okay. But with respect

[1:15:37] to traffic flow, you heard the, the applicant indicate that

[1:15:42] most times of the day they're gonna be at parity, right?

[1:15:46] Very close to existing

[1:15:48] and the only major increment was midday on Saturdays.

[1:15:52] So what is the traffic flow without asking

[1:15:57] for an engineering, you know, sort of just your perception

[1:16:01] of when is the busiest time for, for your church

[1:16:04] and any the other businesses you're speaking for?

[1:16:07] Well, I, I can speak for our church

[1:16:09] that it would be Sunday mornings midday would be our time

[1:16:13] of our peak time.

[1:16:15] I know for the gymnastics studio in the late afternoon

[1:16:18] and into the evening when they have classes that end

[1:16:22] or start, there's a much heavier flow of traffic

[1:16:26] down tinkham and trying to get in and out of the end there.

[1:16:31] And that's during the week weekdays.

[1:16:35] So probably not a major overlap in timing, but

[1:16:39] Probably not, I mean I I would assume their,

[1:16:42] the car wash would be open on Sundays

[1:16:45] so they might have a peak.

[1:16:46] Yeah, well you can ask them to hours when they come back

[1:16:48] to, to comment specifically on, on that as well.

[1:16:51] Yeah, I don't know that there's much that the planning board

[1:16:55] of the town can do with regard

[1:16:57] to traffic control devices on a state road.

[1:16:59] So we're, we're kind of at the mercy

[1:17:04] of the state in that regard.

[1:17:05] And they don't like to put too many

[1:17:07] stoplights close to each other. I know that.

[1:17:09] I understand. That would be quite congested.

[1:17:11] Do you have any additional insight, Mr. LaRue?

[1:17:17] As far as traffic flow,

[1:17:18] I am concerned about queuing at Tinker Mav

[1:17:21] during peak periods.

[1:17:22] I'm still concerned about not having that easement

[1:17:25] and I think it's

[1:17:30] important to encourage the owner to continue to seek

[1:17:33] that out because right now is

[1:17:37] probably not the peak condition,

[1:17:39] but I know with foray opening in full swing in the coming

[1:17:44] years, trying to take a left hand turnout there

[1:17:49] is, is going to be extremely difficult.

[1:17:52] Most times. I think,

[1:17:54] and you know, we've talked about this in staff,

[1:17:59] you know, it's important to try to have connectivity

[1:18:02] with other businesses as far as

[1:18:08] getting, getting people in and outta sites

[1:18:12] and getting 'em into better PO positions to be able

[1:18:15] to access a a a, a signalize intersection

[1:18:18] or anything of that matter.

[1:18:20] You know, just trying to move traffic in that way,

[1:18:23] trying to spread it out.

[1:18:25] 'cause obviously the ideal pattern here would be right in

[1:18:28] right out of AV and,

[1:18:31] and similar to the other car wash where

[1:18:34] we were just talking about,

[1:18:36] it's a right in right out kind of scenario.

[1:18:39] If you have the opportunity to have traffic go

[1:18:42] to a signalize intersection, that's ideal.

[1:18:45] So I'm gonna show my ignorance here.

[1:18:48] I I haven't been down Tinkham Avenue anytime recently.

[1:18:52] Are there any, we go back road access options for people

[1:18:56] who, who don't wanna wait in, in, in the queing?

[1:18:59] 'cause I can, I imagine a left hand turn onto Manchester

[1:19:02] Road in the, in the post four a condition

[1:19:04] and an unsigned intersection could be challenging.

[1:19:08] Yep.

[1:19:09] It is a dead end road,

[1:19:11] so there is no other entrance or exit.

[1:19:15] Okay.

[1:19:20] I'll invite the applicant to the applicant to come back up

[1:19:23] and maybe address some of those concerns from,

[1:19:26] from your butter.

[1:19:33] Certainly. So Bonnie,

[1:19:36] I think I heard three general questions.

[1:19:38] One relates to signage, two relates to water,

[1:19:41] and third relates to desire for a traffic light.

[1:19:44] I think we talked through the traffic light option in terms

[1:19:47] of what I heard, it's a state jurisdiction

[1:19:50] and I'll leave that up in terms

[1:19:52] of whatever future planning may allow for that.

[1:19:55] So let me talk to the first two comments that, that,

[1:20:00] that Pastor Beam said first related to water.

[1:20:04] I, we have done the calculations,

[1:20:07] I think the staff has agreed

[1:20:08] that there will be no adverse impact.

[1:20:11] Who am our water use to the, the, the area which leaves the,

[1:20:17] the only issue of the, as we call it offsite signage,

[1:20:22] that sign right now is within the state right of,

[1:20:25] it's not on our property.

[1:20:28] However, while I'm not a huge

[1:20:33] fan of quilting or gymnastics,

[1:20:34] I do encourage you to go to church.

[1:20:36] So what we like to do is to accommodate the request for all

[1:20:39] of the tenants if zoning would allow it

[1:20:41] to put their sign on our pylon sign below our sign.

[1:20:45] So rather than have this what you currently have,

[1:20:49] we'd be happy to have all three

[1:20:50] of those tenants on our sign if zoning would allow it at our

[1:20:54] cost to be a good neighbor.

[1:20:56] And to encourage what you currently have,

[1:20:57] what your people going into the,

[1:21:00] So is there signage in the, in the re review package?

[1:21:03] I didn't notice we talked about that.

[1:21:04] That's what I'm looking for too. There's a,

[1:21:08] Sorry, there is for Wash V, there is a proposed

[1:21:13] ID sign location.

[1:21:15] It's on the corner of Ham. And

[1:21:19] Do you know what sheet that's on?

[1:21:21] Let me look on the site. On the site plan.

[1:21:24] If you look in on the right hand side. Oh, here it is.

[1:21:29] Yep. Right there. Yep.

[1:21:31] And then you can see if you look right up where the,

[1:21:34] where the pin is on the corner, just to the right of

[1:21:37] that you can see the, the gray outline of the existing sign

[1:21:41] for Journey Church in Esra.

[1:21:44] Okay. So the plan is to remove the existing pylon sign

[1:21:49] that's in the state right of away?

[1:21:50] Correct. And as to zoning, do we have any

[1:21:56] issues with off, off-premise signs?

[1:21:59] Typically with an off-premise sign, you need

[1:22:01] to have a lease agreement with the property owner

[1:22:05] and that had been secured originally.

[1:22:10] I think everyone, until the survey was done, believed that

[1:22:13] that sign was located on the,

[1:22:16] I still call it the dial a drug property on, at that,

[1:22:21] at that business location.

[1:22:24] So I believe that it, we just need

[1:22:26] to do signed permits for that.

[1:22:28] If there's anything additional, I will reach out.

[1:22:31] Yeah, we'll be happy to participate in any document

[1:22:33] that's needed to make that legal

[1:22:35] and be happy at our cost to include them on our sign.

[1:22:39] Okay. Any other questions

[1:22:42] or comments from the public, either physically present

[1:22:45] or remote chair c Your honor, eyes line.

[1:22:50] Okay, back to the board.

[1:22:54] Who said had a quick question on the hours of operation,

[1:22:57] is it a 24 7 type operation or

[1:23:00] No, it's not.

[1:23:01] Let me just take a moment and talk about the operation.

[1:23:03] So the hours are Monday, the plan.

[1:23:09] Oh, okay.

[1:23:11] It, it, it's also on the plan,

[1:23:12] but I, I'll just sort of, it's okay.

[1:23:14] It, it's Monday through Saturday,

[1:23:18] 7:30 PM AM to 7:00 PM

[1:23:22] then Sunday eight to five, our operation is fully staffed,

[1:23:27] so typically between three

[1:23:29] to five employees will be on site at all times.

[1:23:32] There's no self-service.

[1:23:34] So it's, it's different than, than others.

[1:23:35] In other words, we have this single tunnel,

[1:23:40] the vacuums are not operational when our

[1:23:42] facility is closed. Oh,

[1:23:43] Okay.

[1:23:45] If there's, you know,

[1:23:46] excessive noise from people vacuuming their cars, we have,

[1:23:50] you know, employees that politely walk over

[1:23:52] and ask them to not be as loud,

[1:23:55] but it's, it's a completely different operation than,

[1:23:57] than others in that regard. So. Very

[1:24:00] Good.

[1:24:01] Thank you. Okay.

[1:24:06] And as, as to the architecturals, it seemed appropriate

[1:24:11] to me for industrial two district,

[1:24:14] and I assume that's your, your corporate look

[1:24:19] It is and you know, it, we found it appropriate.

[1:24:24] It's, you know, it's a gateway to, to dairy

[1:24:25] and we, we realize that with that designation, you wanna try

[1:24:29] to find a balance between, you know,

[1:24:32] an appropriate appearance for commercial use.

[1:24:34] That is our corporate look.

[1:24:36] We might, could we call it the elevation?

[1:24:38] Would that be possible?

[1:24:40] Yeah, I think so. Owen, would you mind putting the

[1:24:42] architectural backup? Thank

[1:24:44] You.

[1:24:45] I'm not sure who was managing,

[1:24:45] looking the wrong way. I'm sorry. No, it's,

[1:24:47] It's the video guy who's managing it.

[1:24:49] All right.

[1:24:53] I think it's right at near the end. Should

[1:24:55] Be the end.

[1:24:56] Yeah.

[1:25:01] PT at the very end. 19. There

[1:25:05] You go.

[1:25:06] There we go. This is generally our corporate look.

[1:25:08] It's been modified to respect the design criteria that,

[1:25:12] that dairy has.

[1:25:15] For instance, the articulation has been modified

[1:25:19] to break up the long wall.

[1:25:20] A a, a tunnel by its nature is a long rectangle that

[1:25:24] has plenty of opportunity to be boring.

[1:25:28] And we added a lot of breaks along that wall.

[1:25:30] We've added canopies, we've defined the e customer entrance,

[1:25:34] use various materials.

[1:25:37] So it is our modified corporate image

[1:25:39] to respect the design criteria

[1:25:41] as our architects interpret it.

[1:25:44] Okay. Alright. Any other questions?

[1:25:50] I have, I have a question. You said be fully staffed three

[1:25:54] to five employees.

[1:25:55] I'm, I'm seeing three parking spaces,

[1:26:00] one of them being a handicap spot that you had

[1:26:04] stated would be employee parking.

[1:26:06] So I, I'm just wondering if parking will be adequate.

[1:26:11] We, we have found that it is adequate, you know, again,

[1:26:14] we prefer not to put out more pavement than we need there.

[1:26:18] Some of those employees don't drive.

[1:26:20] Some are, you know, high schools, some live locally,

[1:26:23] some commute with their friends.

[1:26:25] So we have 20, 28 of these facilities

[1:26:29] that we operate in our experience, we don't need three

[1:26:32] to five parking spaces for our employees

[1:26:35] and an interest to reduce pavement.

[1:26:37] That's why we have proposed what we have.

[1:26:40] Okay. All right.

[1:26:43] If there, if there are no more questions,

[1:26:45] then maybe a motion to close the public hearing.

[1:26:48] So moved. Second.

[1:26:50] Moved by O'Connor, second by Pier

[1:26:53] to close the public hearing.

[1:26:54] Everyone in favor say aye. Aye. Aye.

[1:26:56] Public hearing is closed.

[1:26:58] So we will now move on to discussion of waivers.

[1:27:04] Mr. Chair, can we, would we like

[1:27:06] to take both these waivers together?

[1:27:09] Why'd you take 'em separately? Separately.

[1:27:11] Alright, Mr.

[1:27:12] Chair, I moved to grant a waiver from LDCR section one 70

[1:27:17] dash 67 B one to allow the dumpster to be located five

[1:27:21] and a half feet from the north property line

[1:27:23] where 25 feet is required.

[1:27:26] After review of the waiver request, the board finds

[1:27:29] that specific circumstances relative to the plan

[1:27:31] or conditions of the land in such plan indicate

[1:27:34] that the waiver will properly carry out the spirit

[1:27:36] and intent of the regulations.

[1:27:37] Second,

[1:27:38] Moved by Mallee, seconded by Pier to grant

[1:27:42] a waiver for the dumpster.

[1:27:44] Any discussion if not Mr. Chase? Yes. Mr. Wood? Yes. Mr.

[1:27:49] Menini? Yes. Mr. O'Connor? Yes. Mr. Fishman? Yes. Mr. Ello?

[1:27:53] Yes. Pelletier? Yes. Mr. Maby? Yes. Chair votes? Yes.

[1:27:57] And then the other waivers in the appendix, right?

[1:28:00] Yes. Mr.

[1:28:01] Chair, I moved to grant the waiver from LDCR section one 70

[1:28:05] dash 65 C to not require the stormwater design

[1:28:08] to achieve 50% removal of total nitrogen

[1:28:11] and total phosphorus.

[1:28:13] After review of the waiver requests,

[1:28:15] the board finds its strict conformity.

[1:28:16] The regulations would pose an unnecessary hardship

[1:28:19] to the applicant and the waiver would not be contrary

[1:28:21] to the spirit intent of the regulations. Second,

[1:28:24] Moved by Malibu, seconded by Pier to grant a waiver on

[1:28:28] wastewater filtering.

[1:28:30] Any discussion?

[1:28:33] I'd like to, are you okay with this waiver, Mr. Laue?

[1:28:37] Yeah, I mean, it's a difficult site.

[1:28:40] You don't ever want to do

[1:28:42] exfiltration into the ground when you have

[1:28:45] contamination possibilities.

[1:28:47] And I I you we know that there's a lot of ledge there too,

[1:28:51] so it's not like it's gonna work either.

[1:28:53] Okay. Okay. Mr. Chase? Yes. Mr. Wood?

[1:28:58] Yes. Mr. Menini? Yes. Mr. O'Connor? Yes. Mr. Fishman? Yes.

[1:29:02] Mr. Chair Cello? Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. Malam? Yes. Chair votes?

[1:29:06] Yes. And on the architecture,

[1:29:09] Mr.

[1:29:10] Chair, I move to find that pursuant to LDCR one 70 dash 85

[1:29:14] that the application as presented demonstrates substantial

[1:29:17] compliance with the architectural design regulations.

[1:29:20] This property is located in the industrial two zoning

[1:29:23] district and meets a medium high of level of compliance.

[1:29:26] Is outlined in section one 70 dash

[1:29:28] 84.

[1:29:29] Second, moved by Malam, seconded by ER to grant,

[1:29:34] make findings that the architecture meets our regs.

[1:29:37] And I wanna thank the applicant for making some

[1:29:41] modifications to their corporate look

[1:29:43] to better fit in dairy.

[1:29:45] We, we do appreciate that. You're welcome.

[1:29:47] We look forward to being your comments. Looks

[1:29:50] Like granite's the bottom.

[1:29:53] Yeah. Are you gonna go there? Okay.

[1:29:55] MO Mr. Chase. Well, I was,

[1:29:57] I was banned at highway safety 'cause of a comment I made.

[1:30:00] So

[1:30:03] Mr.

[1:30:04] Nessi would be so proud.

[1:30:05] Yeah. So we have a former board member

[1:30:07] who's a fetish for granite.

[1:30:09] Well send him an, send him an email. Randy? Yeah. Pardon?

[1:30:12] Send him an email. Yeah. Alright. So, Mr. Chase? Yes.

[1:30:17] Mr. Wood? Yes. Mr. Menini? Yes. Mr. O'Connor? Yes. Mr.

[1:30:20] Fishman? Yes. Mr. Ella? Yes. Mr. Pier? Yes. Mr. Maby? Yes.

[1:30:24] Chair votes? Yes. And on findings of fact,

[1:30:27] Mr.

[1:30:28] Chair, the board finds the proposed plan provides safe

[1:30:30] and efficient vehicular and pedestrian access in the design

[1:30:34] and construction of the access ways

[1:30:35] and walkways are adequate

[1:30:36] to accommodate the anticipated volume

[1:30:38] of traffic proposed by development.

[1:30:40] The board finds the proposed parking plan is adequate

[1:30:43] for the site and meets the parking density

[1:30:44] requirements for the use.

[1:30:46] The board finds the landscape plan meets the

[1:30:48] intent of the regulations.

[1:30:51] The board finds the stormwater management

[1:30:53] as proposed is designed

[1:30:54] to control the post-development runoff.

[1:30:56] So it does not exceed pre-development runoff.

[1:31:00] The board finds utility construction standards are met

[1:31:03] and the board finds exterior lighting,

[1:31:05] snow storage provisions and erosion

[1:31:06] and sediment control provisions are adequate.

[1:31:10] The board makes findings of fact as listed above

[1:31:12] Second motion by Mr.

[1:31:16] Mallee, second by Palatir to make findings of fact as read.

[1:31:20] Any discussion? Not Mr. Chase. Yes. Mr. Wood? Yes. Mr.

[1:31:24] Menini? Yes. Mr. Connor? Yes. Mr. Fisherman? Yes. Mr. Ello?

[1:31:29] Yes. Mr. Pier? Yes. Mr. Melby? Yes.

[1:31:32] Chair Votes? Yes. And on the approval,

[1:31:35] Mr.

[1:31:36] Chair, after review and deliberation

[1:31:36] of the site plan application

[1:31:38] for PID 3 51 15 dash 0 0 2

[1:31:43] GR development, the board finds the applicant is satisfied

[1:31:46] the general requirements of the land Development control

[1:31:48] regulations or in cases where the regulation cannot be met,

[1:31:52] has satisfied the waiver requirements.

[1:31:54] Therefore, the motion is to approve pursuant

[1:31:56] to the RSA 6 76 4 Roman one completed application

[1:32:01] with the following conditions, conditions precedent comply

[1:32:05] with the right pierce VHB review letters subject

[1:32:09] to owner's signature, establish appropriate escrow

[1:32:12] as required to complete the project.

[1:32:15] Note approved waivers on the plan,

[1:32:17] obtain written approval from the planning director designee

[1:32:20] that the GIS submission is received and is operable

[1:32:23] and it complies with LDCR section one 70 dash 61 C.

[1:32:29] Subject to receipt of applicable state

[1:32:31] or local permits relating to the project submission

[1:32:34] of written correspondence from N-H-D-O-T confirming they

[1:32:37] have reviewed the amended plan,

[1:32:39] which is removing the access easement to 14 Manchester

[1:32:42] and D-O-C-D-O-T is still satisfied.

[1:32:45] A new permit is not required

[1:32:47] and meets best practices for safety conditions.

[1:32:50] Precedent should be met within six months

[1:32:52] and then the conditions subsequent subject

[1:32:55] to the onsite inspection by the towns engineer.

[1:32:58] And if a plume is hit during construction,

[1:33:01] the soils management plan will be submitted

[1:33:03] and there will be onsite inspection by the town engineer

[1:33:05] and environmental coordinator.

[1:33:07] Second. Okay.

[1:33:10] Moved by Mel v, seconded by Pier

[1:33:12] to grant conditional approval.

[1:33:13] Any,

[1:33:15] Should we strike seven or

[1:33:17] Is it, well that basically just ask

[1:33:19] for written evidence of the correspondence.

[1:33:22] So that seems to be reasonable to ask for.

[1:33:25] We probably have it already. So

[1:33:27] We we do, but so you get a condition done already?

[1:33:30] Yeah, we, yeah. Yeah. Check out. Be happy.

[1:33:32] There you go. Be happy to comply with that one. Okay.

[1:33:36] Anything else? Yeah,

[1:33:40] I was wondering if we could put something under,

[1:33:43] under the conditions precedent about the sign issue

[1:33:49] about putting signage for the neighboring organizations.

[1:33:53] I don't know if that's something we can do.

[1:33:56] I don't think we can. I don't think so.

[1:33:58] That's, that's I think between, yeah,

[1:34:02] it's a civil agreement. We have no jurisdiction.

[1:34:04] Right. Okay. I'm was kind of, yeah, thinking

[1:34:07] that was likely the case, but where there was

[1:34:10] A, that's a, that's a goodwill gesture

[1:34:11] on the applicant's part, right?

[1:34:12] Yeah. Okay.

[1:34:15] I mean it is on, on the record,

[1:34:16] but it is probably not officially enforceable.

[1:34:19] So hopefully you will work out something with your neighbors

[1:34:22] and I take you at your word there.

[1:34:25] We look forward to it. Anything else?

[1:34:30] No. Alright. On, on motion then. Mr. Chase? Yes. Mr. Wood?

[1:34:34] Yes. Mr. Menini? Yes. Mr. O'Connor? Yes. Mr. Fishman? Yes.

[1:34:38] Mr. Chair Cello? Yes. Mr. Pier? Yes. Mr. Maby? Yes.

[1:34:42] Chair votes? Yes. Congratulations and welcome Gary. Yes.

[1:34:45] Thank you very much and we appreciate the board's time

[1:34:48] and effort and as well

[1:34:49] as the staff over the last few months, so thank you.

[1:34:53] Thank you. Alright, so we're now

[1:34:57] onto board member comments.

[1:35:00] Anyone have comments to share with us? No.

[1:35:04] Then be happy to fish for a motion to adjourn. So moved.

[1:35:07] Second. Moved by Malibu, seconded by Pier to adjourn.

[1:35:11] All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Stand adjourned.

Planning Board - 07/08/26

Agenda

Transcript