Planning Board deadlocks on waiver for proposed 5‑lot Mirror Lake Road subdivision; hearing continued

The Planning Board continued a public hearing on a proposed five‑lot subdivision of a 6.78‑acre parcel on Mirror Lake Road owned by Puffin Wells, LLC, and voted 3‑3 on a motion to grant a waiver for a third shared driveway, causing the motion to fail and leaving the application unresolved.

The developer’s engineer, Joe Fesenola of Hancock Associates, told the board the application now includes a four‑sheet plan set and stormwater calculations sized to meet New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services requirements up to the 50‑year storm. Fesenola said the plans show stone‑trench drainage along driveways to attenuate runoff and that Harbor Brook lies about 250 feet from the proposed work, so shoreland protections listed by DES do not apply to the parcels as drawn. He also said state approval from DES is pending and that his office has been exchanging plan revisions with Noah Buckner of DES.

Why it matters: board members said the waiver vote involves both public‑safety judgments and the planning board’s long‑term standard for waivers. Several members warned that approving a waiver without a high bar could set precedent for future subdivisions and reduce enforceable standards for access, emergency response and road maintenance.

Board discussion and engineering details

Fesenola summarized engineering changes made since the previous hearing: stormwater calculations added to the plan, revised driveway layout and responses to fire‑department and road‑agent comments. He described the drainage approach to the board: "the 50 year storm is a storm that occurs statistically once every 50 years. So it's a fairly large rainfall event," and said the stone trenches are sized to compensate for added impervious surface so post‑development runoff would not exceed predevelopment conditions.

The plan was revised so one previously proposed entrance was removed; the applicant now shows two entrances from Mirror Lake Road and was seeking a waiver to permit a third driveway arrangement for internal access. The board heard that the fire department and the public‑works (road agent) representative prefer eliminating the middle driveway for safety, but the change would require a waiver because it alters the originally proposed access geometry.

Concerns raised by board members included: - Whether the application meets the planning board's waiver standard (identified in the board's subdivision regulations and paraphrased during the hearing as requiring either an "unnecessary hardship" under strict conformity or "specific circumstances" of the site to justify a waiver). - Public‑safety tradeoffs between a single longer shared driveway and multiple shorter shared driveways, including vehicle access and turnaround length for emergency responders. - The need for a formal road‑maintenance mechanism (an HOA or road agreement) and clarity about recorded responsibilities and bond status; Fesenola said a bond had been required previously and that past bonds had lapsed without being corrected.

Motion, vote and next steps

A board member moved to grant the waiver conditionally if the fire department and public‑works department provided positive written recommendations that the three‑driveway configuration would be acceptable; the motion was seconded. The chair recorded a roll‑call vote: Lee voted no; Catherine, Igor and Scott voted yes; Margaret and Bonnie voted no. The resulting 3‑3 split caused the motion to fail.

After the vote the board agreed not to deny the application outright. Instead members asked the applicant to return with the missing materials before the next meeting, including: - Written, signed statements from the fire department and the public‑works (road agent) office indicating whether the three‑driveway configuration would be acceptable despite their stated preference to eliminate the middle driveway; the board requested those in writing so future personnel changes would not alter the record. - A written statement from the police chief addressing vehicular traffic safety, as required by section 5.101 of the town's subdivision regulations. - Remaining items needed for state approval from DES and a finalized road‑maintenance agreement or HOA language clarifying owner obligations and any bond or surety arrangements.

Other details noted at the hearing

- Applicant and plans: The applicant is listed as Puffin Wells, LLC. The engineering firm is Hancock Associates; Joe Fesenola spoke as the project engineer. The plan set was described as four sheets: statement plan, graphic plan, natural plotting plan (to be recorded) and an engineered plan. - Drainage and state review: The stormwater design is sized to the 50‑year event to meet New Hampshire DES standards; DES staff (Noah Buckner was named) has requested additional plan notes and the applicant has responded. Fesenola said state approval was pending as of the hearing. - Shoreland and alteration‑of‑terrain: Fesenola identified DES shoreland protections (noting protections apply to certain stream order listings) and said Harbor Brook is roughly 250 feet from the proposed work. He also noted state alteration‑of‑terrain permitting is required if more than 100,000 square feet of terrain is altered. - Road maintenance and legal instruments: Board members pressed for a recorded road‑maintenance agreement or HOA and noted the draft agreement lacked a severability clause and had a termination provision some members found problematic. The group discussed the town's prior practice of requiring bonds for road construction and observed that a previous bond had lapsed on a different project. - Building footprints and utilities: The plan sketches showed house footprints with total living area figures (3,000 sq ft noted on some plan sheets, intended to represent two levels and not the footprint). The engineer said typical footprints would be about 1,500 sq ft plus garages; houses were described as at least 3 bedrooms, 2 baths and 2‑car garages. Underground electrical was discussed as the applicant's plan but was not yet shown on the plan set.

Public comment and applicant response

Unidentified residents raised questions about drainage and potential impacts to adjoining properties. Fesenola told the board the site is a plateau that slopes away on all sides and that soil testing had been used to size stone‑trench infiltration so post‑development runoff should not increase compared with existing conditions. One resident praised the lot's appearance and the applicant's intent to preserve perimeter trees; others pressed for assurances about runoff and future tree removal by subsequent owners.

What the board decided

The board did not grant the requested waiver and continued the public hearing. The application remains pending state approvals, written recommendations from municipal departments (fire, public works and police), and a finalized road‑maintenance mechanism. The board asked the applicant to return with those materials for the next scheduled meeting.

The board did not take any final vote to approve or deny the subdivision itself at this hearing.