Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Multifamily Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kingston ZBA continues hearing on Route 125 mixed‑use plan, asks for police, fire, traffic and hydrogeologic reports
Summary
Developers seeking a variance to allow multifamily housing in Kingston’s C‑2 commercial district presented a mixed‑use plan for roughly 42.18 acres. The Zoning Board continued the application to May 8 and requested police and fire comments, comparative traffic analysis and a hydrogeologic study before deciding.
The Kingston Zoning Board of Adjustment continued a hearing on an application from RG & H Construction to allow multifamily residential use in the town’s C‑2 commercial district, saying it needs more information on public‑safety and environmental impacts before a decision.
Barry Geier of Jones & Beach Engineers, presenting for the applicant, said the project covers Map 40, Lots 15, 16 and 18 — roughly 42.18 acres with frontage on Route 125 and wetlands along the Little River — and proposes retail pad sites on the Route 125 frontage with multifamily housing behind the commercial area. Geier said the applicant intends to return for a separate density variance and subsequent Planning Board and state permit reviews.
The board and commenters pressed several issues the ZBA said must be addressed before it can apply the five variance criteria: a hydrogeologic study for the aquifer/protection zone, a traffic analysis comparing the proposed residential plan with a full‑commercial scenario, and input from Kingston police and fire about likely mutual‑aid and service impacts. The Rockingham Planning Commission had recommended that police and fire provide comment; Mark Kennedy, land use administrator for Brentwood, told the ZBA Brentwood had no formal comment but recommended the board focus on the zoning criteria and avoid “getting lost in the weeds.”
Opposition came from an attorney representing a nearby landowner, who filed written rebuttal arguing the multifamily use would alter the area’s character, increase demands on water and septic capacity, and produce lower tax revenue than commercial development. A resident who said she supports the proposal raised workforce‑housing needs; another resident asked whether police and fire had been consulted — the board confirmed they had not and asked staff to request those reviews.
The board voted to continue the hearing to May 8 at 7 p.m. and to accept an applicant tolling the board’s review period so the file can be extended. The ZBA asked that updated materials be filed to the town office by the week before the meeting (applicant and staff discussed May 1 as a deadline for preliminary information). The applicant agreed to provide preliminary traffic counts, any existing DOT correspondence about access and the comparative traffic estimate requested by the board.
The board made no decision on the use variance itself at this meeting. The applicant and opponents may submit additional technical reports and written comments before the continued hearing.
