Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Industrial Building topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Town planning board approves façade and roofing waivers and grants conditional approval for 100,000‑sq‑ft building on DW Highway
Summary
The Planning Board granted waivers for façade design, roofing design and building materials and granted conditional final approval for an amended site plan for a roughly 100,000‑square‑foot building at 734 Daniel Webster Highway; the votes were unanimous, and the applicant said designs favor precast concrete paneling with reveals and future glazing.
The Merrimack Planning Board voted unanimously on Jan. 20 to grant several waivers and to grant conditional final approval for an amended site plan for a roughly 100,000‑square‑foot precast concrete building at 734 Daniel Webster Highway.
Matt Peterson presented the amendment on behalf of Black Diamond Holdings, and Brandon Conforti, director of architecture at GMA (Arco Construction’s in‑house architecture group), described a design using precast concrete panels with reveals, accents for future glazing and a single‑sloped roof pitched toward the dock wall. Conforti said the design breaks up the long façade with color and reveals and allows future windows at tenant areas.
Staff noted that the roof‑story language in the regulations could be read two ways; the board agreed the structure’s height makes the flat or low‑slope roof acceptable for a building of this scale. The board granted three waivers — for uninterrupted façade requirement, for the roofing design regulation and for permitted façade materials — finding strict conformity would pose an unnecessary hardship and that the waivers would not be contrary to the spirit and intent of the regulations. Each motion passed 7–0.
The board then granted conditional final approval to the application (7–0) subject to standard conditions in the staff packet and any outstanding engineering comments. Peterson said the project is being advanced to meet tenant demand and that any future tenant‑driven changes (for example, mezzanines or additional glazing) would require separate review.
The board opened the application to public comment and heard from an adjacent resident who sought clarification about orientation and traffic; Peterson said the proposed orientation directs rooftop slope away from that neighbor and that connectivity to the adjacent parcel owned by the applicant could be considered later.
Staff reminded the board that because this is a site plan amendment, a public hearing was required and that final signatures and as‑built submissions will follow the standard procedural steps.
