The Concord Planning Board on Aug. 20 approved a six‑lot subdivision on an Elm Street parcel after an extended discussion about whether the new street should end in a permanent cul‑de‑sac or be built as a temporary turnaround to preserve future development options.

City planning staff had recommended continuing the application so the applicant could demonstrate how the remaining roughly 10 acres on the parcel could be served in the future, and to consider a conservation easement for Hardy Brook and its wetlands. That recommendation reflected staff concern that a permanent cul‑de‑sac would “greatly inhibit” the ability to extend a street into the remaining parcel, while a hammerhead or temporary turnaround could be extended later to serve additional development.

Jeff Lewis, an engineer with Northpointe Engineering representing the applicant, disputed that view. “We don't think that's good planning at all,” Lewis said of the hammerhead alternative, arguing the cul‑de‑sac consolidated multiple Elm Street curb cuts into a single access and reduced curb cuts from five to three. Lewis said the subdivision otherwise meets zoning and that utility extensions to the cul‑de‑sac would enable any future house on the back lot to connect to municipal water and sewer.

Board members debated policy tradeoffs. Some members, including Councilor Brent Todd, noted the board’s authority under subdivision regulations to require that applicants show how future subdivision or street connections could occur, while others said the planning decision should be limited to the parcel before them and not predetermine a neighbor’s future use. Members also discussed a recommendation from city staff to explore conservation of the Hardy Brook area once the owner of the larger remainder lot seeks to develop it.

After public testimony (none opposed) and technical review by staff and the applicant, the board voted to grant the requested waivers and to approve the major subdivision, subject to precedent and subsequent conditions. Planning staff added several precedent conditions during final action requiring follow‑up engineering revisions: street profiles showing proposed and existing grades, relocation of the catch basin lateral at CB‑5 so future maintenance will not conflict with an adjacent utility pole, adjustment of drain manhole 3 to provide space for future maintenance without affecting abutting property lines, and a regrading of the cul‑de‑sac so it does not adversely impact the transformer pad.

The board also denied a waiver request tied to street lighting standards, meaning a streetlight will be required at the intersection per the stricter regulatory provision. The application otherwise received conditional and waiver approvals needed to record the six‑lot subdivision.

The applicant, who said he preferred a September continuation if more work were needed, told the board he would coordinate with staff on the detailed plan changes required by the precedent conditions.

The approval includes multiple precedent tasks — engineering profile updates and utility/drainage adjustments — the board said must be completed to the satisfaction of city engineering staff before final plan endorsement.