The December meeting of the Hudson Zoning Board of Adjustment was dominated by a crowded variance request hearing regarding four self-storage units totaling 18,950 square feet at 72 Burns Hill Road. Nashua attorney Colin Jean was at the meeting with Michael Granger of MJ Granger Engineering to make a presentation in favor of the variance request on behalf of the applicant, George Hurd.
“The applicant requests a variance for the purpose of erecting four storage units on the rear portion of the 24.8-acre property,” explained Jean. “The units would be serviced by a private drive on the frontage with Burns Hill Road.”
He noted that when the property was purchased in July of 2021, it was partially zoned for General use, which allows for self-storage. According to Jean, the land was changed to a Residential zone barring any storage use last March, after the owner began “surveying engineering, and conceptual plans” for storage units.
“Basically, the proposed plan was well afoot before the change in the zoning,” said Jean. “The proposed variance would not be contrary to the public interest, because the portion of the property designated for use was historically in the ‘G’ zone and it at the very rear portion of the 24.8-acre portion, secluded from any vantage point and any abutters or neighbors.”
The front half of the property was zoned for residential use and was never intended to include storage.
“With security lighting in the facility, it is going to be significant?” asked Board member Tristan Dion. “Will it be what we’re used to seeing?”
Granger stated there would be security lighting, and would avoid shining into any surrounding property.
“It’s all going to be fenced in,” said Granger.
At the request of Selectmen Liaison Dillon Dumont, ZBA Chair Gary Daddario reminded everyone that the Zoning Board only had the authority to review the type of use for a property.
The meeting saw an unusually high public attendance, with extensive opposition to the variance request.
“Others in Hudson have listened to the population when it was asked to move it from ‘G’ to residential,” said Gretchen Whiting of 22 Glen Dr. “It did get voted upon in March by the population and it did win, so I think that is the first and foremost, the most important thing. I think we need to just everyone to listen again.”
As the property is near the old dump, she is also worried about possible groundwater infiltration if the project moves forward, something that would likely require digging.
“By putting this kind of structure in on Burns Hill, those on Glenn Drive would be adversely affected because of the disruption of the water table, and there would be a lot of extra water flowing downhill,” she said.
Robinsons Smith of 48 Burns Hill Rd., agreed, noting that the old landfill “was never properly capped or lined.”
“Contamination reports of public records go back to the 1990s, and neither the state nor the town have been able to remediate the ongoing contamination issue,” he said. “This contamination along with the ongoing hazardous waste issues were fully disclosed to the property owners at the time of sale.”
Smith also argued the property owner had plenty of time to move forward with the project before the zoning redesignation.
Monica Kiernan of 11 Wildwood Ter., argued that the neighborhood always had a residential character, even before the redesignation.
“Our neighborhood and a commercial site are opposed to each other,” she said. “If this is allowed to proceed, I do not feel like a ‘good neighbor’ policy will continue.”
Mike Labonte 14 Glen Dr., openly questioned the applicant’s assertion that the proposed use wouldn’t diminish surrounding property values, claiming abutting residents “would be looking down on this commercial business constantly.”
Over a dozen other residents made similar arguments against allowing any non-residential use into the area, many of whom wrote letters of opposition to the ZBA.
Among Board members, there was some concern over whether a denial of the variance would hold up in court if appealed. They tried to focus on the legal aspects of the presentation, eventually agreeing that the variance proposal failed to pass the hardship requirement, voting four-to-one to deny the request.
