The Planning Board had a public hearing, for a formal review of a site plan for a proposed 96-unit multi-family residential development and associated site improvements for the property located at 35 Gilcreast Road during its May 1 meeting.
Joseph Maynard, who was representing the applicant Gilcreast Realty Holdings LLC, explained that currently the lot is developed with an old Apple Orchard that hasn’t been maintained in years.
“It has not been maintained in about 20 years,” Maynard told the Heritage Commission previously.
He said the property is about 21.2 acres in size, and told the Heritage Commission previously, that the proposal is to build 96 units of townhouse style units, with about three to eight units per building.
“We’re looking to develop this land as 96 units,” Maynard said.
He said they are proposing to have municipal water and Pennichuck water.
“It’s the same plan that’s been going through this Board for a while,” Maynard said.
He explained that they got a positive recommendation from the Heritage Commission after going back to them after comments were made by the Commission, and the changes were made.
One of the main items discussed was in regards to the traffic analysis for the proposal.
Town Engineer, John Trottier, explained that the Board had previously asked for traffic to be looked at for the development along with the 67 other units being proposed for a different proposed development down the road.
Former Town Manager, Kevin Smith, who is consulting for the project, on the behalf of the applicant, said there was a traffic scoping meeting with town staff and the developers, and it was decided to look at all the intersections and to go back and forth with the town’s traffic consultant with different comments.
He said there are two issues at hand, one being that the traffic impact from the development shows to be minimal for the intersections, however, over time there may need to be improvements made to it. Smith added that they were asked by the traffic consultant for the town to explain some of the proposed improvements, and how it would impact it.
Smith, however, said he thinks it’s “beyond the jurisdiction,” for the particular development, and it’s something that the town should be looking into. He noted that they would be willing to make it a condition of approval that the developer has to make a financial contribution for the improvements there or for the full study of any intersections that is led by the town.
Trottier said there are “too many unknowns right now,” and it’s “still a work in progress” when talking about the traffic report being finalized.
He also disagreed with Smith in regards to the responsibility of the developer.
“I disagree, it’s right in our regulations,” Trottier said.
After discussion, the Planning Board ultimately decided to once again continue the proposal to the June 12 meeting.