The Planning Board met on July 22 to hear a long presentation from Engineer James Haden on the mixed-use Meadows Development proposed for Central Street. Recently, changes were made following comments from the Planning Board and Conservation Commission.
“Building B was extended a little bit to the east and Building D was made smaller running north to south. This was done in an effort to make the buildings similar and to also give them an equal unit distribution. We also reduced parking spaces,” explained Haden. “By doing that, we reduced the amount of impervious surface on site by about 30,000 square feet.”
Speaking as a resident, Dillon Dumont added that the project has gone through multiple reviews since the initial concept.
“This is not a project that has come and been pushed through,” he said. “If anything, it’s been a tremendous effort on our end, as well as staff, this Board, the Conservation Commission, and the third-party reviewers, to get it where it is.”
Members of the public did have a few concerns, especially regarding the property’s proximity to a now-capped asbestos disposal site.
“In the field of environmental law, converting polluted land into income-producing land is called creating a brown field. The developer and contractor should be commended for taking on the serious cost and time to remediate the site,” said resident Deb Putnam. “But an obvious concern would be the long-term exposure of residents in the apartments to asbestos contamination, and the lawsuits the town may face, as the site has already been identified as a hot spot by the State of New Hampshire.”
She warned the developers to keep the nearby wetlands in mind during construction and to strictly follow New Hampshire environmental guidelines. Dumont and Haden assured Putnam and the Board that the asbestos issue had been accounted for and that their stormwater management plan was comprehensive.
“I understand that there are going to be vehicles here, I understand that there’s potential for oil to be spilled, but this isn’t a commercial or maintenance lot,” said Haden. “I think the probability of an oil change happening is far less than at a typical commercial lot.”
Elvis Dhima, Director of Development Services, stressed that all relevant information about the site was public.
“You can come to Town Hall and say, ‘I’d like to know any information you have related to this property,’ and they’ll find site plan approval, any documentation related to an alteration of terrain permit, and any approval related to this property will be available to the public,” said Dhima.
The asbestos cap on the site dates back to the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Despite these assurances, Board members still had a few questions about the mixed-use nature of The Meadows.
“For Building A, you’ve got it listed as retail, right?” asked Chair Tim Malley, who noted that most of the complex seemed to be focused on residential development. “I was trying to figure it out in the plan.”
Dumont said the building was designed for retail and restaurant space, along with several food trucks, assuring the Planning Board that traffic and parking calculations took those uses into account. A mixed-use variance was previously granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
“It’s a complicated project and there’s been many iterations of it,” said Board member James Crowley, who wanted to verify all concerns. “Do we have anything from the Hudson Fire Department concerning a state fire marshal ruling? I think there was a major question about two access points.”
The applicant indicated there were a few jurisdictional issues around fire regulations, while the Board Chair noted that such a dispute was separate from the Planning Board’s decision-making process.
“It does not change the site plan. If we are not granted relief from that, or it’s determined that our number of units is not allowed, our simple solution is going to be to reduce those units internally,” said Dumont. “The plan outside, the building size, the roadways, none of that will change.”
Malley also asked the applicant to focus more on traffic in the final plan by taking a proposed drive-thru restaurant into account.
Despite initial hopes for final approval, the Planning Board was unable to take all of the recent changes and staff recommendations into account before the end of the meeting.
The Board voted to continue the application to a later date, after approving waivers related to parking and a landscaping buffer.