[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.