Planning board tables 150,000‑sq‑ft South River Road site plan after questions on landscaping, traffic and waivers

The Bedford Planning Board voted on Oct. 6 to table consideration of a site‑plan application for a 150,000‑square‑foot speculative commercial and industrial building at 308 South River Road to the board’s Nov. 3 meeting after an extended presentation and detailed questioning about landscaping, architecture, traffic and multiple requested waivers.

The proposal, submitted by the applicant identified in the public record as RLG Properties and described by staff as a speculative warehouse/light‑manufacturing facility, includes a single‑story building, extensive loading facilities and a large parking field. The motion to table the application was made from the floor, seconded and carried; the board set the continued hearing and required additional materials and clarifications from the applicant prior to the next meeting.

Why it matters: board members and staff said they need clearer evidence that the development will meet the performance‑zone standards for screening and visual quality and will not produce unmitigated traffic or stormwater impacts. Planning staff and the peer review consultants have had limited time to review materials the applicant submitted less than a week before the meeting, and the board repeatedly asked the applicant to bring complete responses, wintertime renderings and documentation of proposed plant species before the next hearing.

The applicant’s team, represented by Dante Angelucci of Lincoln Property Company, presented updated plans and a tree survey and said the project team had added existing mature trees, a 10‑foot fence and new plantings to buffer the loading docks. "We did a tree survey showing the existing trees at a 3‑inch caliper or greater and those are now shown on the plans," the applicant’s representative said while summarizing changes to the landscape plan. The team also proposed leaving some future parking and site improvements as pervious, or "mothballed," until a tenant and its specific operational needs are known.

Traffic was a central issue. Applicant traffic engineer Jake Carmody described an interim left‑turn lane option for the employee driveway and noted that New Hampshire DOT has identified a conceptual corridor plan with a raised median and roundabouts as the preferred long‑term solution. "That DOT project might not come on for five years," he said, and the applicant proposed building access under current conditions and coordinating later with DOT when the state’s project proceeds.

Board members repeatedly asked for renderings that show the building and the loading docks from the most likely public viewpoints and requested views that reflect winter visibility (fewer leaves) and the trees at their planted heights rather than day‑one sizes. Lewis Van Luke of GMA Architects described color changes and added textured form‑liner at entry points to soften the facades, but acknowledged the north (loading dock) elevation is operationally constrained. "Where trucks operate you can't have trees in the loading area," a member of the applicant team said; the architect offered alternative visual relief on that wall and committed to additional renderings.

Waivers and regulatory issues: the applicant requested several waivers that staff and the board said need clearer justification and conditions. The packet included requests related to photometric lighting levels (small overages at the property line that the applicant said the model does not account for because of trees), selective wetlands mapping limited to disturbed areas, a pipe‑cover depth variance for drainage in some locations supported by manufacturer data, interior facade articulation on loading elevations, and a waiver of the requirement to break down the building floor area by use because the building is proposed speculatively. One stormwater waiver tied to peak‑flow discharge will require Town Council approval, and staff warned that failing to secure that council waiver could prevent approval of the site plan at the local level.

Public comment and next steps: Planning Director Becky Hebert read a written comment from a nearby resident raising concerns about the number of loading bays and the likelihood the site could function as a distribution center; staff and the applicant reiterated that a tenant using the building in a way that differed from the approved use would trigger a change‑of‑use review. The board asked the applicant to return with clearer renderings (including views down the driveway to the loading docks and north‑side perspectives), an explicit species list for the proposed plantings, daylight/winter visibility images, responses to the peer reviewer’s technical comments, and documentation of how the requested waivers meet the ordinance criteria.

The board set a continuation for Nov. 3, 2025 and instructed staff and the applicant to work by email and one or more technical calls to resolve outstanding questions before the next meeting.