The Planning Board’s final meeting of January drew a full room as residents gathered to weigh in on a proposal for a 12,000 square-foot multi-tenant retail building on Bockes Road, a revival of a development concept first approved more than 15 years ago. The renewed plan has resurfaced as the area has grown, bringing new neighbors and new concerns.
“An almost identical site plan on this site was approved back in 2010,” said David Jordan, engineer with Greenman-Pedersen. “The layout was essentially identical to what you’re looking at this evening.” Jordan explained that the updated design slightly reduces the building footprint to comply with today’s stricter wetland setback requirements. The plan includes 60 parking spaces, with access limited to Bockes Road. “This site would not be allowed to have access from nearby Route 111,” he added, noting that state regulations prohibit it.
A key complication is the property’s history as a former asbestos disposal site, which restricts how storm-water can be managed. Because the NH Department of Environmental Services prohibits infiltration systems on contaminated soils, the applicant requested a waiver from providing a traditional storm-water infiltration plan.
“All of the water is being discharged to the front of the site,” Jordan said. “All the water is ending up at the same point eventually, which is Beaver Brook on the other side of Route 111.” He emphasized that the design channels runoff in a controlled manner consistent with state requirements.
The project also relies on an onsite well and septic system due to the absence of municipal water and sewer lines in the area. Some roadway improvements are planned, but residents remained focused on the development’s proximity to existing homes.
“This was approved nearly 20 years ago before residents lived here,” said abutter Steven Cotroneo, one of three homeowners whose property directly borders the site. “That impact is immediate and personal.” Cotroneo submitted a written statement signed by 90 residents, outlining concerns about health, safety, noise, and the long-term effects of commercial activity so close to homes.
He argued that the proposed buffer between the development and nearby residences is inadequate. “At the closest point, the separation isn’t 88 feet, it’s 14 feet away from my house,” he said. “The primary mitigation offered for this proximity appears to be bushes. Bushes do not block light. They don’t stop noise or activity, and they don’t prevent pests.” He urged the Board to “slow down” the project and consider stronger protections for abutters.
Traffic impacts and the risk of disturbing buried asbestos were also raised repeatedly during the hearing.
“This Board doesn’t have any control over state law that mandates certain testing,” said Planning Board member Jordan Ulery. “Route 111 is a state road. If the state wants to put up a traffic signal on there, the state will put up a traffic signal. We can recommend to the state that they do.” He noted that permits for digging near asbestos sites fall under state jurisdiction, not local discretion.
Jordan responded to concerns about property impacts. “We’re not widening Route 111 or Lawrence Road onto anybody’s property,” he said. “We have more than enough right of way to do all of that work without impacting the abutters. The 88 feet is clearly labeled on the site plan.” He added that the plans had undergone third-party peer review to ensure compliance with environmental and engineering standards.
Ulery asked for clarification on asbestos protocols. “For the asbestos on site, I believe you’re required by state law to stop operations and bring in an appropriate team, is that right?”
Jordan confirmed that a licensed environmental consultant would prepare a health and safety plan before construction begins. He also agreed to provide additional topographical information, utility depth details, and water-treatment plans at the next meeting, acknowledging that residents deserved a clearer picture of how the site would be managed.