Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan Design Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board reviews 44‑unit 'New England Luxury Collectibles' storage project; staff seek drainage, septic and fire‑safety details
Summary
The Alton Town Planning Board reviewed a design proposal Jan. 21 for a 44‑unit storage facility at 436 Suncook Valley Road and asked the applicant for additional drainage, septic and fire‑safety details before the project proceeds.
The Alton Town Planning Board on Jan. 21 took up a design‑review presentation for a proposed storage facility branded “New England Luxury Collectibles” at 436 Suncook Valley Road (Map 9 Lot 6‑1). The applicant team described a 5.5‑acre rural‑zone site with seven buildings totaling 44 “luxury storage” units, each intended to include a toilet and sink, arranged in three build phases and accessed by key‑card entry.
Barry Guyer, the project engineer with Jones Beach Engineers, said the site’s stormwater will be handled via a closed drainage system tied to swales, an extended detention basin, and an infiltration basin on the east side of the property. He said discharge would leave the site through an easement to an adjacent property. The project team confirmed the facility would use a small community water system for the restroom fixtures and a community septic system sized for toilets and sinks (no showers). The buildings are designed to look like New England barns; they may use metal construction with siding and metal roofs.
Board members and staff raised several technical questions the applicant must address before returning for further review: peer‑review comments on drainage and stormwater detention; a septic system design (the leach field location was shown on sheet C4 but final design was not in the packet); a snow‑removal plan and clarified snow‑storage areas; a parking plan (parking spaces were not delineated on the plan set); and whether fire‑suppression or a cistern will be required (applicant noted a prior adjacent boat‑storage project required a cistern and said a shared firefighting water supply could be used).
The applicant estimated traffic impacts as low — roughly 18 trips per day overall, comparable to a single‑family home during peak hours according to ITE data — and said no employees would be on site; access would be card controlled and the front building would include a lounge/meeting area for unit owners. The board opened the matter to public comment but no members of the public spoke.
The board did not take a formal approval vote at the design‑review stage and asked the applicant to return with responses to the planner’s and peer‑review comments and with the missing engineering details.
