The Hudson Planning Board met on June 25 and discussed a proposal for an accessory garage at 140 Old Derry Road. Civil engineer Alex Giuffrida from Hayner/Swanson, Inc. attended the meeting to present the case for the 1,344-square-foot garage on behalf of the applicant.
“The site is currently developed with a 2,200 square foot commercial building and a 4,500 square foot garage with a couple of smaller sheds,” said Giuffrida. “The new garage is necessary to provide winter heated storage for larger trucks.”
He went on to explain that the site had wetlands and that construction would include a relatively large impact on the 75-foot wetland buffer zone. It would not directly interfere with any local waterways. Drain and sewer service company All Drain runs the site. The proposal also aimed to implement a previously stalled 2017 site improvement plan.
“Site improvements include new pavement, curbing, 13 designated parking spaces including an ADA compliant space, a dumpster enclosure area and a stormwater management area,” said Giuffrida. “The system is designed to protect water quality, reduce peak flows, and provide flood control during large storm events.”
Board members noticed that some of the previous improvements had already been approved by an earlier Planning Board.
“You applied for and received a permit for change of use, and the company didn’t follow the requirements, is that correct?” asked Vice-Chair Jordan Ulery, who quickly received confirmation and asked, “Why are you here?”
Giuffrida stated that the improvements got “pushed under the rug” due to COVID-19, along with other expansion plans from the property owners. Additional Planning Board approval was needed for the new garage.
The Board indicated the company should complete its initial round of site improvements before building a new garage. Ulery called for a deferral of the application.
It was unclear how long it would take to complete the improvements.
“There’s a lot that’s not done that’s probably going to create at least an hour of questions from this Board,” said member Victor Oates. “If you finished that first plan and then came back with the new plan for the garage, I think that would change a lot of what you’re asking for and what needs to be done.”
Chair Tim Malley noted that the applicant was technically in site plan violation, complicating any request to combine the new garage with the old proposal.
“The applicant did not complete the task as agreed upon in 2017,” said Malley. “Here we are 5,6,7,8 years later and now you want to make a new plan when you haven’t completed the original.”
Board member Julia Paquin wanted to know how much of the old proposal would be disrupted by the new plan.
“The original plan has a smaller stormwater basin, it has a different pavement layout, it has no grading in the back area,” said Giuffrida, who argued that not all elements of the 2017 design were compatible with the 2025 design. “If we were to complete this work in say, two months, three months, and then just tear up that pavement to make the stormwater area larger, that wouldn’t make sense.”
The engineer added that at least some changes from 2017 were in response to the need for a larger wetland buffer due to changing regulations. Ulery suggested a site plan modification to solve the problems without “throwing away money” and tearing up pavement, while Board member James Crowley suggested bringing the issue before the Zoning Board for relief.
Unable to determine the appropriate course of action without more information, the Planning Board unanimously voted to defer the application for six months, giving the applicant time to contact Town Hall and determine the best way to move forward.
