Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan Regulations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board reviews first wave of site‑plan regulation revisions that shift minor approvals to staff
Summary
Staff presented proposed changes to Merrimack's site‑plan regulations to reduce paper plan requirements, narrow what triggers full board review, cut the administrative expansion threshold from 3,000 to 1,499 sq ft, and align local rules with state law on elderly housing parking. The board asked for clearer change‑of‑use language and will hold a public hearing on adoption.
Robert (staff member) presented the Planning Department's first wave of revisions to Merrimack's site‑plan regulations at the Oct. 7 meeting, proposing a mix of administrative clarifications and substantive rule changes intended to speed review and reduce unnecessary return trips to the board.
"We had the number of plans being required as 8, but we don't necessarily need 8 plans anymore," Robert said, proposing that the number of paper plan sets be set "as determined by department staff" rather than by a fixed figure. He also said administrative approval language would be clarified to apply only to minor site‑plan amendments and small expansions of footprint or impervious area.
Among the specific changes presented, Robert said the expansion threshold that could be handled administratively would be reduced from 3,000 square feet to no more than 1,499 square feet. "Expansion of the total footprint of structures and or impervious surface area on the property by no more than 1,499 square feet," Robert said when describing the revised limit.
The draft would also clarify when a "change of use" may be approved administratively, require a written narrative and appropriate plan copies for administrative approvals, and set a 30‑day appeal period for administrative decisions. Robert said the department will continue to distribute administrative applications to other municipal departments for review and require applicants to address comments prior to approval.
Board members asked questions about the scope of administrative authority. Neil (committee member) said the current change‑of‑use language was "pretty vague" and urged more specificity so that dissimilar uses (for example, retail vs. heavy automotive service) would still come before the board. Pete (committee member) cautioned about giving a new community development director too much unilateral authority and requested clearer limits in the rule language.
Robert also recommended clarifying sidewalk language to state explicitly that sidewalks are at the board's discretion rather than required on every site, and the group discussed off‑site sidewalk improvements and the town's ability to direct where off‑site contributions are spent.
Other changes reflect statutory or regulatory requirements. Robert said adjustments were required by state action on parking for elderly housing: "Previously, elderly housing facilities had 1.5 spaces parking required. You cannot require any more than 1 at this point," he said, explaining the change responds to Senate Bill 284. The revisions also update ADA‑related parking counts and add language addressing bicycle parking and electric vehicle accommodations as discretionary options for applicants.
Robert drew attention to a contradiction in current language regarding winter maintenance in aquifer protection zones. Because some Green Snow Pro certified contractors are permitted to apply salt, he proposed deleting an explicit requirement that winter maintenance be performed only by a Green Snow Pro or equivalent in areas where the rules prohibit salt or chemical de‑icers. "Green Snow Pro certified contractors are allowed to use salt," Robert said, noting the inconsistency.
Legal counsel advised removing a requirement to turn off "nonessential" lighting after hours because of enforcement and selective‑application concerns; the board accepted that change. The draft also would allow certain asphalt work to be bonded in winter months and would extend the common conditional‑approval period from six to 12 months to better align with state permitting timelines.
Robert said this session was a work session and that staff will bring the package back as a public hearing for formal adoption after drafting clarifying language raised by the board. "This is what's gonna end up happening: we're gonna go through this as a work session tonight, and then I'm gonna have to bring it back as a public hearing for adoption," he told members.
Next steps: staff will redraft the change‑of‑use text to include clearer examples and bring the revised regulations to a public hearing for consideration and possible adoption.
