Planning board continues contractor‑storage park review to July 16 after detailed public questioning

The Planning Board reopened the site‑plan public hearing for the proposed Edin Road contractor storage development (Stone Bluff Property Holdings) and continued the application to the July 16 business meeting to allow the applicant to address multiple technical and neighborhood concerns.

Robert Baskerville of Bedford Design, a professional engineer representing the applicant, walked the board through updated plans and key changes: a phasing line (phase 1 front building; phase 2 later), architectural elevations and renderings, a lighting note indicating exterior lights will be off from 10 PM to 5 AM except for motion‑activated security lights, sign dimensions and a landscaping plan, and a detailed stormwater approach centered on pretreatment and a gravel wetland engineered to treat and attenuate flows. Baskerville said the design follows New Hampshire AOT/AOT guidance for gravel wetlands and that the plans include a wetland impact study identifying wood turtles in the area.

Residents and abutters spoke at length. Jack Billson and other commenters questioned the proximity of tanks (in the earlier LP Gas item) and in this application neighbors raised concerns about the contractor park’s closeness to the river, potential erosion, headlights shining into bedrooms, early and late hours of vendor activity, truck turning radii, and vibration/compaction impacts during construction. One abutter asked whether contractor trailers or large trucks could safely turn into the 22‑foot DOT‑approved driveway; the applicant said the intent is not to provide loading docks or overnight trailer storage and that the site lacks space for long‑term trailer parking. The applicant also confirmed the buildings are on town sewer and that no floor drains will be allowed without special containment and state permits.

Board members pressed for clearer facade articulation to comply with site‑plan article 18 (required facade breaks and roofline variation for large buildings), requested guardrail and dumpster‑screening details, and suggested adding a condition requiring motion‑detector security lighting and limits on illuminated tenant signage. Several members recommended the applicant work directly with abutters on off‑site landscaping to mitigate headlight impacts; the applicant said the owner was willing to discuss landscaping and would follow up.

Action taken: the board accepted a verbal request from the applicant to continue to July 16 to allow the ZBA hearing (July 7) and finalization of engineering responses. The motion to continue carried by voice vote. The board asked staff and the applicant to supply guardrail details, a lighting clarification, and evidence of any AOT/shoreland/AOT approvals or filings prior to the July meeting.

Next steps: applicant to deliver revised plans addressing town‑engineer comments, lighting and facade articulation details; staff to circulate materials in advance of the July 16 meeting.