Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission seeks field inspection after extensive review of 32‑cabin proposal at 412 Main Street
Summary
The Sandown Conservation Commission reviewed a conditional‑use application for a 32‑cabin camping development at 412 Main Street, pressed the applicant on wetlands, stormwater and water‑supply impacts, and voted to send a contracted wetland scientist for an on‑site inspection before issuing a recommendation to the planning board.
The Sandown Conservation Commission reviewed a conditional‑use permit application for a 32‑unit camping‑cabin development on a roughly 7.5‑acre lot at 412 Main Street and voted to send a contracted wetland reviewer to perform an on‑site inspection now that the snow has melted.
The developer's engineer, Bill Howell of SCC and Associates, told the commission the plan includes a 300‑foot driveway, a wetland crossing with a 36‑inch culvert (up from 24 inches), stone trenches and rain‑garden basins intended to treat driveway runoff, and a 30,000‑gallon cistern fed by an on‑site well. Howell said state permits for alteration of terrain and dredge‑and‑fill have been submitted and that the applicant addressed a state reviewer’s comment by revising walkways between cabins to be accounted for as impervious in drainage calculations.
Commissioners and nearby residents pressed for more detail. Commissioner Pam (committee member) asked whether vernal pools were present; Howell said the wetland flagging consultant reported none. Commissioner Tim Robinson raised concerns about chlorinated hot‑tub backwash and whether the proposed 500‑gallon drywell would be adequate if tubs use several hundred gallons; Howell said the applicant needs to provide additional detail. Members also asked for the planned hot‑tub sizes, the septic design balance for two leach fields, and the gallons‑per‑minute capacity of the well; Howell said the well has not yet been drilled and the state must issue the water‑supply permit before the septic permit is finalized.
Several residents said the project’s scale and water use could affect neighborhood wells and wildlife. "This is going to impact the system that we have right now," resident George Varkish told the commission, mentioning prior water‑use restrictions in the area. Abutter David Hutchison said the project had expanded from 16 to 32 units and warned about chlorine and septic impacts to the stream by his home. Another commenter said the development could host events of up to 160 people and urged the commission to consider cumulative impacts.
After public comment, the commission moved that the Rockingham County Conservation District (ICCD) or the commission’s contracted wetland reviewer perform a field verification of the site now that snow has melted; the motion passed on a voice vote. Chair Brian Butler noted the town’s Prieur account (applicant‑funded professional review account) will cover the reviewer’s cost.
The commission asked the applicant to return with written or plan changes addressing: alternatives to paved walkways (pervious options), a plan for hot‑tub backwash treatment or larger holding capacity, a landscape/vegetation plan for areas near wetlands, a slow‑fill plan for the cistern to reduce drawdown risk for nearby wells, and clearer documentation of the 32‑cabin design rationale. The commission reiterated it is advisory to the planning board and will provide a recommendation once the requested site‑specific information and the ICCD field report are received.
The planning and permitting process remains ongoing; the commission did not approve or deny the project and instead requested more on‑site verification and technical clarifications before drafting its advisory letter to the planning board.
