Bedford Planning Board approves two‑lot subdivision at Hamilton Way with driveway, blasting conditions

BEDFORD — The Bedford Planning Board on March 10 approved a lot‑line adjustment and subdivision that will split Lot 27‑17‑1 into two residential lots at 7 Hamilton Way and 57 Nashua Road, contingent on a set of conditions including no blasting and fire‑department approval of an alternate driveway alignment.

The board granted waivers requested by the applicants to allow use of an existing/shared driveway and approved the subdivision after hearing engineering, town‑engineer and neighbor testimony over traffic sight distance, winter snowbanks and potential ledge removal. The approval incorporated conditions listed in the staff report dated March 10 and three specific conditions discussed at the meeting: the driveway must be located as shown on the alternate driveway plan (last revised 03/05/2025), any ledge removal is to be performed by hammering (no blasting), and the alternate driveway design must be approved by the Bedford Fire Department.

The matter mattered because of safety and property‑impact questions: engineers and board members focused on whether an alternate curb cut would provide adequate sight distance along Hamilton Way in winter conditions when plowed snowbanks reduce driver visibility. Neighbors also raised concerns about a large boulder in the public right‑of‑way and the risk of blasting if ledge removal were needed.

Philip Hastings, attorney for the applicants, said the plan is a two‑lot subdivision on an oversized parcel configured to avoid wetlands and other sensitive areas. Thomas (Tom) Burns, senior project manager at TF Moran, presented test‑pit data and a sight‑distance analysis. Burns said test pits near the proposed disturbance showed depth to ledge of about 6½ to 7½ feet and that the proposed grading and house elevations meant only “about a foot to maybe 2 feet at the most” of ledge would need removal at limited locations. Burns estimated the volume of material likely to be removed would fit “8 or 9 trucks” and said that, based on that volume and depth, the work could be hammered out and would not require blasting.

On the sight‑distance question, Burns and the applicants presented a comparison of the existing driveway and the proposed alternate curb cut. They reported the existing driveway provides about 177 feet of sight distance based on the roadside profile and the assumption of cleared pavement; the town’s standard is 200 feet. The alternate curb‑cut alignment can achieve the 200‑foot sight distance when there is no significant snowbank, but visibility drops when plowed snow exceeds about 14 inches: Burns said the alternate location meets the 200‑foot threshold in winter conditions of 14 inches of snow or less, but loses sight distance when snowbanks are higher.

Neighbor testimony included a homeowner who identified a large boulder “put there for self‑defense” on a curve and asked that it not be moved; the speaker also asked that no blasting be permitted because of concern for a nearby well and windows. Ellen Mueller, a neighborhood resident, asked whether the alternate driveway would meet fire‑code access dimensions; staff and the applicant said the plan was modeled on the existing driveway and that the Bedford Fire Department reviewed the original driveway and requested widening to 16 feet. Becky Hebert, the town’s planning director, said DPW would not issue a driveway permit unless minimum NFPA 1 fire‑code standards and the fire department’s requirements are met.

Town engineer (listed in the meeting as Bridal DeFosos) said the materials presented that evening did not demonstrate an “exhaustive” search for alternate driveway locations and suggested relocating or adjusting a utility pole (and noted the pole is about 5 feet from the property line) could allow the curb cut to be placed closer to the crest of the hill and improve sight lines. The town engineer also raised concerns about a sharp “kink” in the proposed alignment that might complicate fire‑truck turning movements; the applicants said the kink could be smoothed at the cost of additional pavement and grading.

Board discussion noted tradeoffs between the existing driveway (better sight distance under plowed conditions) and the alternate alignment (closer to the crest and, in the board’s view, an overall reduction in safety risk compared with a previously proposed layout). A motion to grant the three waiver requests (to sections of the Bedford Land Development Control Regulations identified in the staff report) tied the waivers to the alternate driveway location shown on the “Alternate Driveway Plan,” last revised 03/05/2025, and included the non‑blasting and fire‑department conditions.

After the waivers passed, the board voted to approve the lot‑line adjustment and subdivision as shown on the TF Moran plans (last revised 12/23/2024), subject to the staff report conditions (numbers 1–12 in the March 10 staff report), the alternate driveway location (03/05/2025), the no‑blasting condition (ledge removal by hammering only), Bedford Fire Department approval of the alternate driveway, and precedent conditions to be fulfilled within one year prior to plan signature. The board recorded the decision in the meeting minutes and incorporated the meeting record into the decision.

The approval requires further implementation steps: the alternate driveway must be engineered and approved by the fire department and DPW, the old driveway pavement will be removed and restored, and applicants will provide required inspections and documentation to satisfy precedent conditions before plan signature. The town engineer indicated potential additional work (utility‑pole relocation, revised profiles) could still be pursued if necessary to meet sight‑distance or fire‑department requirements.

No blasting was allowed as a condition of approval; the board and the applicants agreed to hammering/fracturing in place for the limited ledge removal indicated by the test pits. The application record reflects a multi‑year review of the subdivision and continued exchanges between the applicants, consultants, DPW and the town engineer.

The board closed the item and moved on to minutes and routine business; the next regular meeting is scheduled for April 7.