Peter Madsen, Project Engineer of Keech-Nordstrum Associates, was before the Planning Board on May 29 to continue with an ongoing open space development plan at 75 Barretts Hill Road.
“This is a 13-lot, open space subdivision with 13 condexes proposed, 26 units total,” he explained. “The units will be net-zero emissions by using a passive-house approach. Last time we met was at the site walk in April.”
He was looking for final approval of the subdivision plan. The site walk led to several additions to the original proposal, including a traffic mirror on a nearby utility pole and four-foot-high fencing around a pond on the Barretts Hill property.
“As far as state permits go, we have obtained our Alteration of Terrian Permit from NH DES [Department of Environmental Services], as well as the NH DES state subdivision approval,” said Madsen. “A traffic report for Barretts Hill Road was provided for by TEPP, LLC.”
Madsen confirmed he was in contact with Hudson’s Engineering Department to meet townwide permitting requirements. The traffic report found “no significant area impact due to the project.”
Vice Chair, Jordan Ulery, asked why the subdivision request included a waiver.
“I believe the regulation reads that you can only develop six lots at a time, and we’re requesting 13,” replied Madsen, who hoped to construct all condexes quickly using the waiver. “Basically, we want to try and limit the development and the impact to the surrounding residential abutters. It’s a fairly small-scale project, we would prefer to build it in a year.”
Larger lots normally have a two-year minimum for construction. Interim Town Planner, Jay Minkarah, was unsure why the lot development minimum was in place, saying it was a “legislative choice.”
“Considering the terrain, do you consider that to be feasible in the timeframe you suggested?” asked Ulery. “The cuts and fills, it’s up and down, it’s kind of steep in some areas, you’re going to have to cut it back.”
The engineer confirmed his estimate of getting development done within a year, outlining an erosion control plan to manage construction.
Board member, Victor Oates, asked the applicant to preserve or rebuild an old stone wall on the site, if possible, for aesthetic reasons, saying stone walls were “part of New Hampshire’s history” and that it would be a shame to see the wall removed.
“I found that the cost to rebuild stone walls and the appetite for homeowners to do that was prohibitive,” said land owner and applicant, John Gargasz, although he promised to do what could within reason. “If I can use them and somebody wants them, 100%. But building a stone wall with a landscaper is an expensive undertaking, but I agree, it’s great to save those stone and if I can I absolutely will.”
Board member, James Crowley, wanted to know who would be responsible for maintaining sidewalks on the land.
“Would the applicant agree to have the homeowner’s association maintain the sidewalks within the open space development?” Crowley asked.
Madsen confirmed the proposed sidewalks were within an easement. It was unclear who was responsible for maintaining the sidewalks.
The Planning Board unanimously voted to approve the application, with multiple stipulations covering easements, restrictions on Sunday construction, reuse of stone wall materials, and limits on blasting during construction.
