Emotions ran high at the Sept. 6 Planning Board meeting when the elderly housing community project was discussed, a continuance of old business that the board wished to address before any other new subjects were presented. The discussion for the elderly housing project lasted for three hours, during which multiple members of the community spoke up about their concerns for the location and safety of this project.
The project will be located on two parcels of land It will be a total of 160 acres in size and will eventually hold over 200 housing units. Currently, the developers are only looking for approval for phase one, which includes be the construction of 21 housing units, a clubhouse where residents can gather and multiple facilities such as a basketball court, bocci court and putting green.
Joseph Maynard, from Benchmark Engineering in Londonderry, explained some of the layout of the plan. He focused on road construction and how the roads in phase one will function in an emergency. He then launched into asking the Board for 14 waivers and a conditional use permit for the project.
The waivers ranged from not designing individual septic systems for each lot, to reducing the overall speed to 25 mph, to not having to include sidewalks in the site plan, in addition to some technical waivers about the scale of the site plan in regard to presenting it to the board.
Assistant Public Works Director John Trottier informed the board of the staff’s recommendations, which included granting all the waivers except those regarding the drainage pipes. The developers had asked for less than the minimal depth of coverage required for drainage pipes because of the elevation of the systems they were creating, and had also asked for a waiver granting permission to have less than the minimal drainage flow required for drainage pipes.
The board then dove into discussion. Board Member Peter Commerford voiced his concern about the entrance to the project, where there is a 10 foot drop to a water retention pond.
“I’m in fear that someone could slide down that hill,” he said.
Maynard explained that the slopes leading to the pond are no different than any others in town and that his company plans on putting in deterrents so that an accident of that nature won’t happen. One such deterrent would be to plant additional trees at the entrance, as well as put large granite posts in place.
Commerford didn’t think that would be enough and raised the question of the speed on Route 102.
“The speed through there is pretty steep,” he said. “To plop an intersection right there concerns me.”
In the traffic study conducted for Route 102, it is mentioned that a left-hand lane going out of the site and a right-hand turning lane in is an option to try to help with any traffic problems that might arise – though the traffic study determined that there would be a maximum of four to six cars going in and out at peak traffic hours, a total of 65 cars coming and going through the day for the larger model of 200 units.
Commerford said he didn’t think the lane change will be enough: When he is stopped, trying to turn on Route 102 “people come flying by me and I’m just waiting for someone to clip my rear quarter and kick me out into traffic.”
The New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT) did a speed study that determined the average speed on Route 102 was 54-56 mph, only 1 mph above or below the posted speed limit. However, there were many recorded speeds that surpassed the posted speed limit by a significant amount.
According to Traffic Engineer Kim Hazarvartian from TEPP, LLC, the main thing the NHDOT looks at when posting speed limits is sight distance. The NHDOT prefers a sight distance of 400 feet, and the sight distance at a particular intersection where the entrance to the community will be is over 400 feet, making it unlikely the speed limit will change to a lower speed.
The NHDOT is “chewing” on whether or not to put turning lanes in. Although members of the Board were calling for a light to be put in, Hazarvartian explained that there needs to be a certain number of cars traveling at that intersection because the projected rate of cars for the 200-unit project is very low, the situation doesn’t warrant a signal.
Even if the town wants a light or lane changes, the town has no jurisdiction. It all comes down to the NHDOT. The town can put in suggestions, but ultimately it is the NHDOT that decides how the intersection is handled.
Right now the NHDOT has two applications, said Maynard, one for the phase one project of 21 units, and one for the 200 units. Because the traffic study yielded such low numbers, phase one of the project indicates that there isn’t really anything that needs to be done to the intersection.
During the Public Comment section, resident Carl Wimmer of Apollo Road said that since they already have to deal with the traffic off Route 102 the extra four to six cars going will not change anything, However, added that he believes the developers should consider beginning with an exit off of Adams Road.
“It’s kind of cute that the first buildings are going to be on 102,” Wimmer said.
Wimmer went on to say that having an exit off Adams Road in addition to the exit off Route 102 would give residents of the community a choice to turn into heavy traffic or take a detour.
Resident Julia Parkhurst echoed Wimmer, then said “I believe the DOT assessment was flawed.”
The traffic and speed study was taken at the end of July. At that time of year, school is not in session so the increased traffic from school buses, faculty, and students driving into school was not taken into account. Parkhurst also said that the end of July is generally a time when families go on vacation, and is a time when traffic is at its lowest.
“This plan is too ambitious for the land it’s being planned on,” she continued. “It’s really important that this is done in a sizeable way.”
Before the presentation was open for public comment, Board Member Chris Davies had brought up the impact the project will have on the conservation overlay area. The position where the clubhouse is being built causes the rain garden, a construct to help absorb and store water, to go into the buffer for the conservation land.
The Conservation Committee had debated the place of the clubhouse at their last meeting, and urged the engineers to reconsider its position. If the clubhouse were to be moved, the rain garden and detention pond could be moved slightly so as not to disturb the wetland.
Jack Szemplinski, also from Benchmark Engineering, explained that in order for the detention pond and rain garden to work properly they need to be built at the lowest point of the property.
“Even if we move the clubhouse and all the improvements to the other side, we’re still going to have the same amount of run-off and the detention ponds will still be there because it’s the lowest site,” he said.
In order to help preserve the wetland, the engineers have proposed to create the parking lots and recreation grounds with permeable pavement, allowing water to seep into the ground instead of flooding the wetland.
Commerford asked if it was possible to do a tiered detention pond, which would allow the ponds to be moved out of the buffer zone, but it was explained that this method is not as effective as their current method.
The environmental concerns continued during the public comment. Multiple residents voiced their worry about water purity and whether or not this development will cause their wells to dry or become contaminated.
“It’s a shame that here we are again talking about raping natural resources for the town of Londonderry,” Londonderry School District’s Business Administrator Peter Curro began.
Curro raised the question about how the town got in the position of purchasing land for a development before a project is even approved. Technically, phase one of this project is still under deliberation and it is not until the developers and engineers meet the conditions for the conditional approval that ground can be broken, but already the town is in discussion of purchasing a third parcel of land to sell to the development.
Board Member Jim Butler countered Curro, saying that this conversation was not relevant to the discussion at hand and that line of discussion should be brought up to the town council.
“One of the reasons the town looked at what they did was because you didn’t want us to go off Adams Road,” Butler told Curro. Curro, a resident of Adams Road, has been against the project having an entry way on Adams Road.
According to Davies, the developer was asked to look into purchasing other lands as alternatives for the roads and “making the neighborhood safe again.”
Curro conceded, but continued on to discuss water concerns. Many residents believe the ponds located on the wetlands interspersed throughout the land parcels supply water to their wells.
“These wetlands are being encompassed and trapped by the development,” he said.
Board Chair Art Rugg said that the town doesn’t have the authority to regulate water.
After Curro, many residents approached the board with their concerns. By the end of the three hours, the Board denied the conditional use permit, granted a handful of the waivers, and ultimately decided that they needed more information on some of the waivers and pushed back a final decision until the Oct. 11 meeting.
Butler closed the discussion by saying that the Board wants to work with the developers to figure out the buffer situation as well as the traffic concern on 102. In his opinion, he said, they should see if moving the clubhouse could work.