Planning board accepts 24 Shore Drive application as complete, sends plans to Conservation Commission

GREENLAND, N.H. — The Greenland Planning Board on May 1 accepted as complete an application for a conditional-use permit at 24 Shore Drive and voted to continue the hearing to the board’s June 19 meeting after the Conservation Commission reviews the proposal.

The application from the property owner, Gordon Sims, seeks permission to build a 25-by-40-foot detached garage partly within the town’s wetland buffers. H. Libby, an engineer with Jones & Beach Engineers, told the board the proposed buffer disturbance is “less than a thousand square feet” and that the structural footprint “is [about] 7.63” (as reported on the plan). Libby said the garage location was chosen because the leach field and multiple wetland buffers constrain other buildable areas on the just-under-5-acre lot.

The board’s decision to accept the filing as complete followed questions about whether the application should be routed to the Conservation Commission first. Planner Mark (last name not given on the transcript) and board members agreed the Conservation Commission should review the buffer impacts; the commission is expected to take up the plan on June 3 so its written recommendations can be available before the Planning Board’s next public hearing.

Why it matters: The project sits inside both town wetland buffers and the state-regulated shoreland zone, and neighbors said the site’s proximity to tidal and freshwater wetlands and to the shore raises concerns about flooding, runoff and long-term shoreline impacts. State shoreland permitting and local wetland protections were cited repeatedly during public comment.

What the plan includes and the debate H. Libby told the board the lot contains tidal wetlands at the rear, brackish areas adjacent to the tidal wetlands and several small isolated freshwater wetland pockets that are largely fed by stormwater coming through an existing culvert under Shore Drive. Libby said the isolated pockets function primarily as drainage features and that the proposed garage would not fill or alter wetlands; instead the request seeks relief for placement of a structure within a 50-foot buffer to isolated wetlands.

Monica (last name not provided), a representative involved in the application, said the latest plan was revised to reduce the garage size and the driveway footprint from an earlier version. She said the revised layout keeps the project under local thresholds that would require a formal stormwater-management plan: “we have such a limited amount of impervious being increased on the property, we’re not required to do a stormwater management plan,” she said.

Neighbors and abutters told the board they opposed the size, appearance and location of the building. Jean (28 Shore Drive) urged the board to require a state shoreline permit (RSA 483-B) and said a shoreline application was not yet filed with the state Department of Environmental Services. Peter Kenner (25 Shore Drive) and other residents said the structure looks “commercial” and is larger than the neighborhood’s three-car garages; they also submitted a joint letter signed by multiple households opposing the project.

Board and applicant clarifications Libby and the applicant said the garage would be a wood-frame building with metal siding and a metal roof intended to be barnlike in appearance; they also said the framing, not the siding, provides structural support. The applicant team said the builder recommended a foundation option (a cross-wall slab) but that the final foundation design was still being discussed. Libby noted that because roof runoff is treated as relatively clean under New Hampshire DES guidance, the principal impervious surface in the buffer would be the building roof rather than paved driveway area (the driveway is planned outside the buffer).

The planners and several board members emphasized the town does not control state shoreline permitting. Libby said the project will require a DES shoreline permit but asserted the design stays out of the state’s 100-foot tidal shoreline buffer and therefore would not require a separate wetland fill permit under DES; neighbors disputed whether state filings had been submitted.

Board action and next steps The board voted to accept the application as complete (voice vote; no opposition recorded) and later voted to continue the conditional-use hearing to the June 19 Planning Board meeting after referral to the Conservation Commission. The Planning Board amended the continuation motion to require a written Conservation Commission recommendation and to ask that, if the Conservation Commission performs a site visit, the Planning Board representatives be included.

The applicant and town staff said the Conservation Commission is scheduled to meet on June 3; the applicant said that is the earliest practical date for that review. The Planning Board also advised the applicant to expect to file the state shoreline permit with DES and to be prepared to show erosion-control and best-management practices on building-permit materials if the board advances the application after conservation review.

The board did not make a final decision on the conditional-use permit on May 1; the matter is scheduled for further public hearing on June 19 with the Conservation Commission’s written input.