All towns · brentwood

Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting 08/24/2026 Brentwood, NH

Video

What we'll do, as we usually do, is do a
quick um roll call introduction. My name
is My name is Frank Albert. I'm the
chairman.
>> Wayne Moral, member
>> intros.
>> Oh, Steve Hamilton,
>> Bruce Stevens,
>> Doug Collie,
>> Melinda.
>> Fantastic. Um, I'd like to make a motion
to um appoint Melinda Nodell from an
alternate to a voting member this
evening.
>> We would need someone to recuse
themselves first before you did that.
>> So, uh, Mr. Chair, uh, because my firm
represents this client, I'm going to
recuse myself for tonight's hearing.
>> Understood. I jumped again. I'll second
your motion.
>> All right. So, all in favor of um making
Melinda a voting
>> All in favor of making Melinda a voting
member for this evening?
>> I I
>> Any opposed?
Motion passes.
You can vote.
Um so tonight's application is uh for
property at 444 Route 125 Brentwood, New
Hampshire. Um, Jones and Beach engineers
respect respectfully submit a variance
application for the above mentioned
parcel on behalf of the applicant and
owner Peter Gerusi
and they are requesting a variance from
article 4 section 400.
77.008 008
H3B
um which states the construction of a
infiltration bio retention pond with 1
foot of separation to the seasonal high
water table where three feet is required
in the zoning regulations of the town of
Brownwood
and
you're representing Jones
Correct.
>> You can just tell us your name and
>> uh Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um Nick
Lauren Jones and Beach Engineers
representing the applicant, Peter
Gerissi. Um the intent of this project
is to redevelop the existing site um by
constructing a building addition as well
as uh expanding the existing gravel
storage area. Um as you stated, we're
here seeking a variance uh to construct
a storm water pond um with 1 foot of
separation to the water table. or 3 ft
is required. Um the proposed pond will
feature a 18 inch um filter layer uh
where that runoff will pass through um
prior to infiltrating into the subgrade.
Um according to current state
regulations, a system like this um is
only required to have one foot of
separation to the water table. Um and
strict adherence to this rule um would
cause us to have to raise the site an
additional two feet um with no provided
benefit uh to storm water treatment
capabilities.
Uh and with that, I'll open it up to any
questions you may have.
>> How big of how large of area? How many
square feet approximately would have to
be filled in order to make it uh the
drainage section would conform to the
rig? pretty much the whole site in the
rear. Um, as well as some right behind
uh the existing building. Um, on sheet
C3, Mark, if you can scroll to that
uh down two pages,
um, the pond is located in the top left
part of the page. Um, we have runoff
pretty much from that orange proposed
building that you can see towards the
center of the page, um, all the way to
the left directed towards that pond for
treatment. Um, so if we need to raise
that pond an additional 2 feet, we'd
have to raise the rest of the site at
least another additional two feet as
well.
Did you receive um
Glenn Greenwood, our Brentwood Town
Planner, submitted a letter? Does he do
you have a copy of that letter? You get
that letter?
>> I don't think I have a copy of it with
me right now.
>> Just so you have it as well. And that's
going to go into the the minutes.
>> It's already part of the public record.
>> It's already part of the public. So we
don't have to read it.
>> No, you don't have to read it.
>> Okay. All right. So
>> go ahead, Mark. Could you just show us
what or what page? I'm looking at the
article 400 of storm water management,
but I I don't see where the language is
in our book to correspond to the note
that wrote.
>> Sure. Just give me one second.
>> I may have some pages in my book that
need to be updated.
I forgot how long some of these sections
are.
>> You got it updated
8 H3B.
>> Yeah, I can read Steve's book here.
Thank you.
>> You got it.
>> I'm going have to update my book. down
to H.
>> There's H.
>> One, two, three. B. The floor of the
recharge device shall be at least 3 ft
above the seasonal high water table and
bedrock.
>> Where is he? He is.
>> So, Nick, I have just one question for
you. Go for it.
>> Um, as a professional engineer, as a PE,
do you believe that the state changed
this? because typically the town of
Brenwood follows state regulations. So,
I'm going [clears throat] to go on a
limb and say that the state had a
three-foot requirement at one point. Um,
as far as long as I've been practicing
engineering,
>> which has been a little over two almost
three years now, um, with a bio
retention pond like the one we have
proposed, um, it's always been one foot
of separation to the water table as long
as you're not in a aquafer production
district. Um, which in this case we're
not in the town or the state.
>> Um, I can't speak to how long before
that that that was changed.
Absolutely. You can use the micro right
there if you
>> Yep. That's perfectly fine.
>> Uh way moral um 370 South Road. So
you're correct, Mark. That regulation
was a state criteria long time ago
because now the state has changed all
their regulations around the state that
every site that gets developed requires
infiltration on a development. And so
when they did that, they looked at that
regulation because there's so many sites
out there that can't meet this
three-foot. I mean, even your
regulations for septic systems only
requires two feet. So this three-foot
separation was that media that gave some
time for that infiltration to take out
any of the cars, any of the things that
didn't want to go in. So when the state
went through and and made this change,
they wanted to make sure that
redevelopment sites and sites that had
these kind of restrictions could work.
So what they did is they required this
media of 18 inches of this type of soil
to actually take the the three foot that
used to be there now is 18 inches of of
a processed material to get the same
treatment as what it was. So that
happened probably about I want to say 8
n years ago that that change happened.
So it's been around for a little while
but it probably you guys don't see it
all the time because we don't see a lot
of redevelopment sites in the town of
>> Yep. And and I would say that change
went hand in hand with better
engineering and design practices.
>> Yeah. If you look at the the state BMP
practices for land development, all
these things got modified so that yeah,
we get better treatment. It's all about
water quality. And Nick's right. You
look at this site, the plum board would
walk this site. You go in back of this
guy's site. The all the garage doors tie
into the back of the site. So if you
raise that two that site two feet, you
basically stop his ability to get drive
through that that building. So it would
really affect the ability of what his
site actually functions today.
It would really affect as a function of
what he's doing. Um and I think what
what he's trying to do is he does weld
them. the the things that you're seeing
on this site is an ability for him to
store more material. So he can buy steel
at when prices are low, he can buy the
steel, store it on his lot and then be
able to pass that savings along to
customers and he's drawing people all
the way up in the north conway all the
way down in central Mass has come to
this town of Brentwood for his welding.
So he's really making a name for himself
in the town of Brentwood, which I think
for all of us, we want people to be
brought here for businesses to
Brentwood.
>> No, absolutely. Thank Thank you very
much.
>> Is there a typical detail of what that
media is? Maybe it's in that packet that
uh
>> of the pond.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. So there's one in um the
application itself and then we always
[clears throat] uh include one in our
standard detail sheets. Um actually
Mark, do you have I don't see you. I'm
way quicker than Okay. Way quicker.
>> Um,
>> it's in your packet as well.
>> Yeah. You want it? I'll give a couple.
>> Thank you.
wheels.
>> Wheels.
[clears throat and cough]
This has probably been part of our
Brentwood ordinance for at least 30
years. And not too long ago, uh I'm not
sure if it was you. Perhaps it was
represented another client here in town
where we had kind of an outdated
requirement where we require quote
natural unquote soils in the
construction of a septic system and that
that variance was granted just because
most of the there are very few natural
soils left in Brentwood that haven't
been graded or you know regraded at some
point in the future. So Mark is keeping
a record of of uh some of these granted
variances where it's the planning board
this fall prior to our townwide vote in
March will need to update certain um
certain requirements and this appears to
be one of them and um
>> it's on my list.
>> It's on your list. So it ma makes sense
after 30 40 years things change science
changes all construction models change
and uh there seems to be good reason I
mean it would be ridiculous to try to to
fill that entire site by a couple feet
material
and we're not going to suffer on the
quality of the filtered water going into
that pond.
>> Correct.
So, I would just ask and maybe maybe
we'll do it anyway to make make this uh
your information your part of the record
of this case if we could do that.
The applicant submission
>> Nick, would you mind going through the
five criteria for us, please?
>> Yeah, absolutely. Thank you.
All righty. So,
uh, granting the variance would not be
contrary to the public interest. Um, the
site has been designed, uh, that storm
water be adequately treated prior to
infiltrating into the groundwater and
the pond meets all state design
requirements.
Uh two, if the variance were granted,
the spirit of the ordinance would be
observed because the intent of the
ordinance is to protect water quality.
Uh storm water will be treated through a
filter course prior to infiltration in
order to attain the same treatment
levels as a pond with 3 ft of separation
to the seasonal high water table. Uh
three, granting the variance would do
substantial justice because in this
case, the town's requirement is more
strict than current state design
requirements. uh a majority of the site
has an existing use that has been in
operation for a number of years. The
proposed improvements will be directed
to this new pond. Uh four, if the
variance were granted, the values of the
surrounding properties would not be
diminished. Uh surrounding properties
will not be diminished as water quality
will still be protected through the
proposed design and the location of said
pond is at the rear of the site that has
no adjacent uses. Uh five, unnecessary
hardship uh owing to special conditions
of the property that distinguish it from
other properties in the area. Denial of
the variance will result in unnecessary
hardship because uh one no fair and
substantial relationship exists between
the general public purposes of the
ordinance provision and the specific
application of that provision to the
property because
um a greater separation to the water
table than what is required by the state
with a system such as the one proposed
serves no benefit to the general public
purposes of the ordinance provision. Uh
and the proposed use is is a reasonable
one because a filter course is included
in the design of the storm water pond
which will adequately treat storm water
prior to infiltration.
Um and explain how uh if the criteria in
sub paragraph A are not established and
unnecessary hardship will be deemed to
exist if and only if owing to special
conditions of the property that
distinguish it from other properties in
the area. Uh the property cannot be
reasonably used in strict conformance
with the ordinance and the variance. um
is therefore necessary to enable a
reasonable use of it. Uh the property
the property has had an existing use on
site for a number of years. Uh the new
owner new owner is looking to expand the
gravel yard and propose a building
addition. Uh to meet the zoning
requirement, the back of the site would
need to be raised uh two feet to have a
pond meeting the separation requirement.
Anyone
have any questions for the applicant? Uh
>> I just think something to note the uh
original site plan. So the applicant is
in the process of um applying for a
amended site plan for this property in
[clears throat] this section that we're
talking about now from
from the main building, a larger
building on the site.
one here kind of in the middle.
>> Yeah, there it is on the screen.
>> Okay, now now we can see that. So from
that building westerly toward the
westerly side of the property that has
had no engineering
sanctioned by the town
in all the years because they hadn't
actually they used a portion that
probably half of it but not the whole
thing in the last 20 years. So there's
been no no uh established grades, no
way to or there's been no showing that
there is adequate filtration of the
water that runs off the site currently.
So, this seems like this would be a a
better situation for everybody for the
make the site more workable and to treat
the water that really hasn't been
treated for for many years.
Thank you, Bruce. No, no questions for
the applicant. We We good?
>> Do you have any questions for us or
>> Not as of right now.
>> Anyone in the audience have any
questions?
>> I I would just comment. I think the
applicants uh uh response to the five
criteria are, you know, quite direct and
to the point.
I agree with you, you know, that and and
the fact that the state requires
one foot and and the town of Brentwood
requires three, but the state requires
one and using Glenn
Greenwood's letter as reference
um with all the proper filtration that's
going to be put into the project, one
foot suffice.
So if the state of New Hampshire says
one foot suffices,
I think down the road maybe we should
change our three-foot
rule. I think you're correct. I'm sure
the planning board will look at that
this fall in preparation for next year's
town meeting. Okay. Some of this may be
in site plan so that the planning board
could change that. uh it was a simple
public hearing but storm water generally
is under
zoning and would have to be changed at
town meeting
but generally every year we have
something to change and this is one of
those things.
>> So if we have no further questions or
are we we feel that we're ready to vote?
>> Yes. All right. So
>> I would request that you just vote on
them individually for the sake of uh
consistency.
vote on the five criteria individually
please.
>> Okay. So on criteria number one
granting the variance would not be
contrary to public interest. The site
has been designed that storm water will
be adequately treated prior to
the pond meets all state designed
>> Do we agree on that?
>> Make a motion. Yes, sir.
>> No. Was that a motion, Mr. Albert?
>> So, a motion to a motion to approve.
I'll second that.
>> Okay. All in favor?
>> I
>> I.
Number one passes approved. Um number
two, if the variance were granted, the
spirit of the ordinance would be
Storm water will be treated through a
levels as a pond with a three-foot with
three foot of separation to the
um SHWT at a minimum high water table.
Motion to approve that.
>> I'll make the motion.
>> All in favor?
>> You second it, Mr. Helen. I'll
>> second.
>> All in favor of approving?
>> Okay. Number two is approved.
Passes. Number three, granting the
variance would do substantial justice
because in this case, the town's
requirements is more strict than current
state design requirement. The majority
of the site has an existing use that has
been in operation for a number of years.
The proposed improvements will be
directed to this new pond. I make a
motion to approve that.
>> I'll move that.
>> Okay.
>> That was a little clunky and I just want
to get some clarity. Frank Albert made
the motion. And who is the second?
>> Doug.
>> Doug. Okay.
>> All in favor? I
>> I any opposed.
>> All right. Number three passes.
Approved. Uh number four. If the
diminished. Surrounding properties would
not be diminished as water quality would
still be protected through the proposed
design and the location of said pond is
at the rear of the site that has no
adjacent uses. So I make a motion to
approve number four.
Second.
>> All in favor of approving number four.
>> I. Any opposed?
Number four is approved. Passes.
Uh number five, unnecessary hardship.
Owning to special conditions of the
property that distinguish it from other
properties in the area. Denial of the
variance would result in unnecessary
hardship because no fair and substantial
relationship exists between the general
public purposes of the ordinance
provision and the specific application
of that provision to the property
because
the greater separation of the water
table
than what is required by the state with
a system such as the one proposed serves
no benefit to the general public
purposes of the ordinance provision. I
make a motion to approve criterion
number five.
>> Second.
Number [clears throat] five is approved.
Passes.
Uh, sorry. Part two. And part two, the
proposed use is reasonable one because a
filter course is included in the design
of the storm water pond which will
adequately treat storm water prior to
infiltration.
Motion to approve part two.
>> I. So part two of number five is
approved. Passes as well.
>> But just a question, Mr. Chairman. Uh
Mark, I don't know how our our records
keeping system works, but somehow we
make sure that the last five pages of
this packet get attached to this file.
If they were submitted
by the applicant, they are already in
the file.
>> Okay. They'll stay.
>> Yes. And that is also part of the
physical file and also the electronic
file.
>> Want to keep one of these for a planning
board workshop. Uh something involved.
>> There's some extras, right? Please take
them home.
>> I got one. You have mine.
Um so uh part B of five explain how with
the criteria in subp paragraph A are not
established an unnecessary hardship will
be deemed to exist if and only if owning
to special conditions of the property
that distinguish it from the other
properties in the area. The property
cannot be reasonably used in strict conf
conformance with the ordinance and a
variance is therefore necessary to
enable a reasonable use of it. The
property has had an existing use on the
site for a number of years. The new
owner is looking to expand the gravel
yard and propose a building addition to
meet the zoning requirement. The back of
the site would need to be raised 2 feet
to have a pond meeting the separation
requirement.
Um so all I make a motion to approve pot
B of five.
>> All in favor of approving pot B. I
>> Any opposed
part B? Number [clears throat]
five is approved as well. Passed.
[clears throat]
>> I would entertain an overall motion to
approve approve the variance.
>> I'll make that motion.
>> I'll second that motion. All in favor to
approve the motion.
>> The motion is approved.
>> Application is
>> Thank you. Good explanation.
come back in
>> and a wellprepared presentation.
>> So, I make a motion to approve
the minutes of the last meeting on June
22nd, 2026.
>> I second the motion.
>> All in favor to approve the minutes of
the last meeting? I
>> All right, minutes are approved.
>> Good job.
>> Any other any other business
that we need to discuss?
I think we do. I'd like to uh make a
motion. I'd like to make a motion to
request Steve Hamilton.
We start the process to have Steve
Hamilton be appointed as vice chair of
the ZBA.
>> I'll second that motion.
>> I So, how do we start that process, Mr.
Kennedy?
>> He gets old tiarara.
>> Yeah, [laughter]
I I I [cough]
will add it. I have a spreadsheet with
everybody on it and their appointments
and I'll just put it in there and
reflect it in the in the minutes and the
minutes moving forward.
>> Okay. So, he doesn't have to get
>> No, he's already been uh sworn in it.
>> All right.
>> It it just really is him. If you aren't
able to attend then he
>> Right. So, you you agree to be
>> leading us.
>> That'd be good.
>> All right. Okay.
Generally speaking, in the summertime,
uh, appointments run out of of appointed
positions appointed by the select board.
Where are we with that in terms are
there any people that need to be re
reappointed?
>> Uh, Mr. Cowi, his he had a one-year term
which has expired, and I spoke to him
about that last week,
>> more or less.
>> More or less. And it is it is at his
leisure. Um the RSA states that even if
your appointment has run out um and you
have not been removed um you still are a
voting member.
And so what Doug probably ought to do
then would be to submit a letter to the
selectman just a brief paragraph saying
that he would like to be reappointed if
that's what you wish to do.
>> It's a select board. It's a select
board.
>> You guys want me to be part of it? I
will do it happily. If not, I can find
plenty to keep myself busy.
>> It's complet It's completely up to you,
Doug. You want to stay with us, you can
stay with us. You just have to
>> I've enjoyed working with Warren.
I remember sitting on the board of
select and wondering what the hell goes
on.
>> So, if you want to if you want to stay,
just let us know. Like, like Bruce said,
just write down on a little paragraph
piece of paper. I'd like to be
reappointed and we'll make sure that you
get reappointed.
>> I'm going to print you out um a couple
copies of the form
and I want you to take them home. Okay.
>> So, we can get you reappointed.
>> Is that okay? So, you you can have that
piece of paper if you so choose to.
>> Okay. Do we have any other any other
unfinished business or any thoughts or
any comments? Any questions or anything?
>> We have no further ZVA hearing schedule
as of now. Mark,
>> correct. I have no applications to this
point. Thank you.
>> That being said, I make a motion to
adjurnn.
>> Second motion.
>> Good night.
Northwood
North 25.