Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board reviews conceptual plan for 12‑building self‑storage project on Lilac Lane; zoning variances likely required
Summary
Curtis Land Development LLC presented a conceptual plan to the Somersworth Planning Board for a 12‑building self‑storage facility on Lilac Lane; the board identified required variances, buffer‑yard and lighting concerns and asked for more detailed parking and drainage information before any formal application.
Curtis Land Development LLC presented a conceptual plan for a 12‑building self‑storage facility on a vacant parcel at the end of Lilac Lane in the Commercial‑Industrial district. The Somersworth Planning Board discussed the proposal, identified required variances and raised conditions the board would expect on any later site plan review.
Project representatives said the proposal would include primarily large units intended for boat and RV storage, with drive‑up access and keycard gate control. The developer said the site would have no on‑site manager and would not include water or sewer service to the buildings, only electricity for lighting. Jeff Alleva, civil consultant for the applicant, said the property has about 60 feet of frontage on Lilac Lane and would need a variance from a 200‑foot frontage requirement; the proposed use (mini‑warehouse/self storage) is allowed only in the industrial zone and therefore also requires a variance because the parcel is in the Commercial‑Industrial district.
The board discussed the required buffer yard where the site abuts residential properties. Alleva and the applicant noted a large utility easement and power‑line corridor between the proposed storage buildings and the nearest residences; board members said that topography, additional landscaping and limiting lights on the residential side could reduce impacts. Planning Board member David Witham recommended motion‑sensing lighting on faces that might be visible to nearby homes and said the use fits the site’s limited access and low‑intensity traffic profile. “Self storage really doesn’t generate a whole heck of a lot of traffic… it’s not that big an impact,” Witham said.
Parking requirements and traffic were discussed. The ordinance’s parking standard for self‑storage would require 42 spaces under a standard calculation; the applicant asked the board to consider reduced parking because typical customer visits are infrequent and short. Board members urged the applicant to include a modest number of visitor spaces in any future detailed plan and to supply a clearer traffic memorandum if the project moved forward.
Board members and staff also noted prior zoning board approvals for reduced frontage and use on the same lot that had lapsed; the applicant said they would seek those variances again from the Zoning Board of Adjustment. No formal action was taken at the conceptual review; the board offered preliminary feedback and flagged likely permitting steps: variances from frontage and allowable use, waivers for buffer and landscaping, a traffic and parking plan, and careful lighting controls to minimize impact on nearby residences.
