A proposal for a development on Carley Road of 13 new house lots and one open-space lot has drawn considerable public comment and raised concerns about contamination issues
During a Peterborough Planning Board public hearing last month, Chad Branon, a civil engineer with Fieldstone Land Consultants, LLC, and representative for Ophir Sternberg, who owns Carley Holdings, LLC, said the 39.1-acre parcel was on the north side of Carley Road. He pointed out the existing conditions on a graphic that displayed field-generated perimeter boundaries, wetlands inventory, steep slope and preliminary drainage and stormwater management plans.
Branon noted the project was embracing the Open Space Residential Development (OSRD) ordinance, which promotes flexibility in the design of residential land use while promoting the most-efficient use of the land and its natural features – meaning clustered density with greatest preservation.
The density calculation and requirements for an OSRD include a mandatory 75-foot buffer for the perimeter measured inward, individual or community water and sewer systems, common open space and additional density bonus for innovative open space protections.
“[W]e are early in this process, but we do believe we meet all the regulations and requirements of the ordinance and welcome your feedback as we move forward,” Branon said.
In response to questions about the EPA Groundwater Monitoring Zone for a neighboring property and potential environmental issue, Branon said, “That was researched prior to the applicant’s purchase of the parcel and there is no influence of contamination on his lot.”
Branon noted the monitoring, called a brown water management zone, was on the abutter’s site with no impacts to his client’s lot.
Planning Board Chair Stephanie Hurley said groundwater does not just stay in one place and asked if any tests had been done on Sternberg’s lot. Branon replied no, adding the groundwater management zones are a function of groundwater flow to determine what areas to monitor, and his client doesn’t need to do this because it has already been done.
Other questions from Planning Board members included clarification on the required 75-foot buffer, wetland buffers, the potential for smaller lot sizes to create greater common areas, trail networks, individual septic and well systems and how to design for buildings, street and parking areas to minimize the alteration of the natural resources or historic sites.
Branon said the lots “will be simple lots with public roads and no HOA. Each dwelling will have control over its own infrastructure, and it is a much more-marketable situation.”
Branon also noted this was a preliminary presentation and that future plans would include much greater detail with regards to dwelling, well and septic locations.
Former Planning Board member Ivy Vann noted the length of the proposed roads, about 1,050 feet together, saying the cost of new road is $4.65 a running foot and that salt, sand and mowing will cost the town about $4,900 a year.
“I would be a little reluctant to take these on as town roads because I don’t think the tax revenue from those houses is going to pay for the maintenance of roads,” she said.
Vann asked Branon why the development could not have been on a loop for the greater safety of the inhabitants and the maintenance of the road. Branon replied the plan was put together with the intent of having no wetland or wetland buffer impacts.
Conservation Commission member Francie Von Mertens said that while the code doesn’t say as such, “With an open space residential development you start with blank slate and then identify your natural resources (forestry, trails potential, wetlands and shoreland buffers and wildlife habitat) so you get a general sense of where to put the houses so they have the least impact. I hope that you would ask the Conservation Commission for a review the plan and a written comment.”
Branon said he would be happy to oblige Von Mertens’ request.
Jim Lynch asked if any thought had been given to the amount of traffic that 13 new homes on Carley Road would create, noting what the impact of large trucks going “too fast up and down the road as it is” would be.
“Carley Road was just not met for this. The area was not meant for this.” Lynch said later in the meeting. “This is not needed. It should not be just a land grab because there is land available and ready to build million-dollar homes that will impact that road (in many ways) forever.”
Jim Borsari, who has lived on Carley Road for 35 years, said Carley Road cannot not absorb the kind of growth being proposed, adding that the road is too narrow for two cars in the winter. He concluded by suggesting the developer use the underlying zoning district dimensional requirements that would yield five or maybe six new homes.
Michael McGill addressed a map shown by Branon, pointing out the contaminated area and a test well he said would be tested once a year in perpetuity to ensure none of the contamination drains toward his property.
McGill noted his concerns included the level of development on the road, the doubling of the traffic on the road and the loss of dense woods with all the open space in the back.
“All we are going to see are homes, lots of homes” he said.
Hurley reminded the audience that the project is being submitted under the OSRD ordinance, “the goal of which is to concentrate the development in a smaller area, leaving more open space and minimizing the disturbance of the land in its natural state.”
McGill replied that the open space in this project was virtually unbuildable to begin with.
“I understand the ordinance, but to me that is really not open space, it is not land they will not build on, it is land they cannot build on,” he said. “I am not against development but I think we need to develop responsibly, especial considering the effects to Carley Road.”
Emaline Bergeron said she has small children, “and the road at this point is not safe for them to be on,” adding that Carley Road was a back road and a scenic road where many people to run, bike, walk and jog, “but that is getting less and less because it is so dangerous.”
Wendy Salisbury said she and her husband moved to Peterborough recently said the nature of suddenly having two cul de sacs is “totally changing the climate, the atmosphere and the look of the road.”
Regarding traffic, Bill Taylor, the Select Board’s representative to the Planning Board, asked residents if they have called the police about the conditions. “I stopped a cop” replied one man, with another resident saying she had spoken to the police about the safety concerns of the road. Taylor responded by saying, “Well, I am going to speak to the police, also.”
After closing the public hearing portion of the meeting, the Planning Board decided they would like to have more information about the contamination issues and associated monitoring as well as a review and comments by the Conservation Commission. Hurley also requested the road agent do an evaluation of Carley Road to look at the existing conditions of the road and potential dangers cited by the audience.
Planning Board member Blair Weiss suggested a site visit, and it was agreed that additional information would be needed.
Melone encouraged anyone who wished to submit letters to the Office of Planning & Building to become a permanent part of the record.