Merrimack Planning Board delays 63 Turbine Way site plan over stormwater study

The Merrimack Planning Board unanimously continued consideration of a site plan for 63 Turbine Way after expressing concerns about stormwater and river protection.

At the Feb. 20 meeting, applicant representatives led by Keith Cohen of Ball Engineering described a proposed 8,500‑square‑foot building (about 6,000 square feet of warehouse and 2,500 square feet of office) on a roughly 5.85‑acre parcel that contains existing concrete pads and utilities. Cohen said the proposal would rely on existing water and sewer connections, would not add new hydrants, and would not increase impervious area in a way that triggers state stormwater review. "The building is actually 8,500 square feet," Cohen told the board during his presentation.

Board members acknowledged several waiver requests the applicant made, including two landscaping waivers, a parking‑count waiver (the applicant proposed nine spaces), an omission of trees larger than 15 inches from the survey, and a requested waiver for a formal stormwater study. Several members focused on the stormwater waiver, saying the site’s historic concrete pads may never have been engineered and could be contributing sheet runoff to the Merrimack River.

"I just haven't had enough information to persuade me to grant a waiver on the stormwater study at this point," the chair said during deliberations, highlighting board concern that relying on the existing, potentially unengineered condition would not assure compliance or environmental improvement. Other members echoed that the current application lacks detail needed to determine whether the development would worsen or improve existing runoff to the river.

The board explained that granting the stormwater waiver would affect whether the application is "complete." Members asked the applicant to submit a drainage plan that the town could send for peer review. The applicant agreed to prepare and submit the required materials and to pay the review escrow so the outside reviewer could begin its 10‑day review window.

The board continued the item to the April 2 meeting with no further notice to abutters to allow time for the applicant to produce the drainage documents and for the peer‑review process to proceed. The continuance preserves the board’s ability to consider the other waivers once the drainage information is provided.

What’s next: The applicant was directed to submit the drainage plan and materials necessary for a peer review (including escrow) in time to meet the town’s submission deadlines so the item can be heard on April 2. The board’s action leaves the landscaping and parking waiver requests for future consideration alongside the drainage outcomes.