Zoning board continues hearing on proposed drive‑through at Route 12 intersection

The Town of Swansea zoning board on a special‑meeting night continued a public hearing on EBA25‑002, an application from Black Bell LLC for a special exception to section 5, article b(2)(g) to allow a drive‑through restaurant at Tax Map 220, Lot 5 at the intersection of Marcy Hill Road and Route 12.

The applicant’s engineer, Mark Roderio, said the proposal would be a generic restaurant-type use (the applicant has not yet secured a tenant) with both interior seating and a drive‑through. “We are kind of looking at it more of a generic type restaurant type use now,” Roderio said. He told the board the design had been revised since the planning‑board review to add an exit driveway onto Route 12 and to widen both drive lanes to 12 feet; the plan shows two drive‑through windows and stacking room for eight 20‑foot vehicles, which Roderio said conforms to the town’s drive‑through spacing requirement.

The board and public focused on traffic and safety. Joe DeRosa, the town’s public works director, and other board members said they were concerned about potential backups onto Marcy Hill Road and asked whether the Route 12 exit could be limited to right‑turns only. Roderio said New Hampshire DOT District 4 had given “conceptual approval” for the proposed Route 12 exit and that a formal DOT driveway permit would be required. He also said the team is working to retain a traffic consultant and expects to provide a traffic‑study proposal “in a day or two” and the study completed by roughly the end of the month; if the tenant later changes the trip generation materially, the applicant would return for further review.

Resident Paul Quigert asked whether the new exit would cross wetland or shoreland; the applicant said the exit would not cross wetlands but noted that any wetlands crossing would require other approvals. Public Works Director DeRosa reiterated concern about morning backups at nearby Dunkin’ Donuts and said he wanted to review the traffic study before the board took final action.

After discussion the applicant asked to continue the hearing to the board’s March 17 meeting to allow the traffic study to be completed. The board voted to continue the public hearing to March 17 and recorded that the applicant agreed to extend the board’s 90‑day review period if needed. The motion carried on a voice vote with all members saying “aye.”

The board stressed that planning‑board site‑plan review and any required DOT permitting remain separate processes; the zoning continuance does not remove those subsequent reviews.

What’s next: The applicant will complete and submit a traffic study and return for a continued public hearing; the board’s March 17 meeting was selected as the date for the continuation and the applicant agreed on the record to any necessary extension of the statutory review period.