The Hudson Planning Board met on September 9 to review and vote on a proposed 12,000square foot multi-tenant retail building on Bockes Road, a project that has drawn sustained scrutiny from abutters and repeated questions from Board members over the past year. The meeting centered on updated traffic data, environmental concerns, and whether the applicant had adequately addressed issues raised in earlier hearings.
Engineer David Jordan of Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. opened the presentation by summarizing the traffic study requested at the Board’s previous meeting. “At the last meeting where we appeared before this board, there was a request that we conduct a traffic study to analyze the impact of this development at the area intersections, particularly the Lawrence Road–Central Street–Route 111 intersection,” Jordan said. He noted that the study had been completed and peer-reviewed by Fuss & O’Neill, with all parties acknowledging the long recognized need for a traffic signal at the intersection.
Despite that consensus, Jordan said the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (DOT) approved the driveway permit without requiring a signal or other major mitigation. DOT instead required a right turn lane onto Route 111 and a split right turn/through left lane exiting Lawrence Road. “The DOT, while they acknowledge a need for the signal, this project that is being proposed, they feel it does not warrant putting that burden on the applicant,” Jordan said. He added that a “substantially similar” project was approved on the site in 2010, and that the applicant believes all traffic related issues have been addressed.
Several residents and Board members disagreed.
Abutter Steve Cotroneo, who has been one of the most vocal opponents of the project, said the applicant had not meaningfully engaged with residents or addressed concerns raised over the past year. “I watched other developers come before this board, work with the residents, answer difficult questions, and make meaningful changes based on community concerns. Unfortunately, that has not been my experience with the proposal at 1 Bockes Road,” Cotroneo said. He said residents had spent “hundreds of hours” reviewing plans, attending meetings, and speaking with state representatives, only to find more questions than answers.
Cotroneo argued that the applicant’s reliance on a 2010 approval was inappropriate given how much conditions have changed in the past 15 years, particularly regarding traffic volumes and environmental regulations. He also questioned the accuracy of the applicant’s materials. “The applicant’s own stormwater report states that asbestos is approximately 32 inches below existing grade,” he said, adding that residents had already identified errors in buffer measurements and other details. He warned that large trucks could struggle to navigate the site safely.
Vice-Chair Jordan Ulery echoed concerns about inconsistencies in the data. “There’s been some public statements that don’t match up with the data you’re presenting here,” Ulery said. He reminded attendees that Route 111 is a state road, limiting Hudson’s jurisdiction, and cautioned the applicant about the state-mandated process for handling buried asbestos. Ulery also said he wanted a more accurate determination of property lines to ensure the Board had reliable information.
Jordan defended the application, saying all peer-review comments had been addressed and that the applicant had made changes in response to Board feedback. “At the Planning Board suggestion, we took a fresh look at the parking layout and did move the development further away from residential properties,” he said. He noted that the building footprint is smaller than the version proposed 16 years ago, reflecting updated local regulations.
Board member Todd Boyer asked why the project had taken so long to reach a vote. Jordan said the traffic study was “the largest single delay,” requiring extensive analysis and review.
Despite lingering questions about open space, wetland buffers, and long term traffic impacts, Board members acknowledged that state jurisdiction over key issues limited their ability to block the project. After confirming that the application met town regulations and adding stipulations such as requiring a health and safety plan, the Planning Board voted to approve the site plan and conditional use permit.
Cotroneo said residents intend to challenge or appeal the decision. “The burden should not be on the residents to prove the application is wrong,” he said. “The application should have to prove that it’s right.”