Hillsborough planning board weighs whether approved storage building can be used to repair owner’s vehicles

Chair Susanne White presided over the Hillsborough Planning Board meeting on Sept. 4, where applicant Joseph Kelley asked the board to modify a condition in his Notice of Decision for a recently approved storage building.

Kelley said the decision required a ‘‘fully engineered site plan’’ for any change of use and did not explicitly authorize him to repair his own vehicles in the building. ‘‘I am just asking to repair my own vehicles,’’ Kelley said, adding he intended to store, wash and repair cars on the site.

White read guidance from Attorney Stephen Buckley on RSA 673:14 and RSA 500‑A:12 and asked whether any member needed to recuse; no member did. Board members debated whether the application had been presented and noticed as storage only, or whether prior discussion at the hearing implicitly permitted limited vehicle servicing. Planning Director Robyn Payson said she reviewed the recording and found ‘‘talking around the issue of fixing cars’’ but no definitive motion granting repair activity.

Board members voiced two principal concerns: whether allowing repairs would constitute a change of use that required new public notice to abutters and whether the original application materials clearly described repair activity. Andrew Morris and Nancy Egner said the public had attended expecting a storage building and that expanding the approved use without explicit notice could deny abutters due process. Kim Opperman and others noted practical examples (windshield wipers, tire changes) that fall in a grey area between storage and repair.

Steve Livingston initially moved to reconsider the Aug. 7 decision and add explicit permission for Kelley to work on his own cars; Robyn Payson explained the procedural sequence required to amend a prior decision. Livingston later rescinded that motion and instead moved to waive all application fees, abutter notification and advertising; Nancy Egner seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

Kelley told the board he would not withdraw his application and said he would pursue his rights if enforcement followed. ‘‘If they don’t want to take enforcement action don’t take enforcement action. I’ll fight with the insurance company,’’ he said. The chair and staff left the existing site plan intact; Payson said any change would be treated as a clarification of accessory use rather than an automatic nullification of the approved plan.

The board did not make a formal, final ruling in the meeting on whether Kelley may perform vehicle repairs beyond routine maintenance; it instead cleared fees and notification requirements to allow the applicant or the board to pursue an administrative path forward.

The meeting continued with a separate public hearing later the same evening.