Conservation commission raises conditions but takes no exception to variance for Route 125 commercial site

Jones & Beach Engineers and the landowner presented a site plan for 324 New Hampshire Route 125 in Brentwood that would develop a 75.4‑acre parcel with three commercial buildings totaling about 18,000 square feet, nine leasable contractor‑style units and a driveway of roughly 30,000 square feet. The developer is seeking a variance to permit about 3,880 square feet of grading within the town’s 50‑foot wetland no‑cut/no‑disturb buffer.

The project team said remediation of prior fill and other work changed the wetland delineation; wetland scientist John St. John and New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (DES) reviewed and approved earlier remediation work. "We roughly spent between $150,000 to $175,000 cleaning that property," said Dave Scheibel of Revolution Real Estate, the property owner, describing the prior remediation and ongoing monitoring.

Dan Page of Jones & Beach described the proposed stormwater approach, saying the plan uses two infiltration basins and an on‑site well and septic system. He told the commission the site’s impervious cover would be about 25.9 percent, under the 30 percent maximum allowed. Wayne Morrill, also with Jones & Beach, said the design has been revised after town reviewer comments and that the applicant plans to replace an open swale with a closed drainage system to reduce erosion and sedimentation into the adjacent buffer: "That'll help us with velocity and the erosion concerns that were cited at other meetings."

Conservation commissioners focused on wetland buffer impacts and on-the-ground conditions. Commissioners and members of the public described the disturbed and sparsely vegetated condition of the buffer where the grading is proposed, and asked whether the new plan would improve treatment and stabilization. Morrill said the project will add engineered treatment and vegetated, stabilized slopes where minimal buffer vegetation exists today.

The commission also discussed several plan changes requested by town reviewers that the applicant said they will make, including (1) removing incorrectly shown snow storage from stormwater basins, (2) showing a continuous erosion control limit of disturbance around the downgradient side of the site, and (3) switching the open swale to closed piping and catch basins to control velocity and reduce sediment delivery to the buffer.

After discussion and questions, the Conservation Commission voted to "take no exception" to the applicant’s request for variance relief from the 50‑foot no‑cut/no‑disturb wetland buffer, pending the revisions discussed at the meeting. The motion as recorded said the recommendation was conditioned on the changes outlined by the proposer and discussed in the meeting. The commission’s recorded vote was in favor with one abstention.

The project remains under review by the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Adjustment; the applicant said the site plan application has been accepted and that additional submissions will reflect the revisions. The team also announced a site walk for the conservation commission and others on the coming Saturday and that they expect a Planning Board hearing in late June.

What happens next: the applicant will revise plans to address town reviewer comments, show the closed drainage and continuous erosion control, remove snow storage from drainage features, and return to the Planning Board and Zoning Board. The Conservation Commission’s recommendation (no exception, pending changes) will be transmitted to the bodies that make formal permit and variance decisions.