Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Driveways topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board denies waiver for individual driveway at 119 Sewell Falls Road
Summary
Concord Planning Board on Sept. 17 denied a request to amend a recorded subdivision and a related waiver that would have allowed a separate driveway at 119 Sewell Falls Road, citing staff recommendation and the subdivision rules; the owner said preserving a historic barn created unique site constraints.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Driveways topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Concord City Planning Board on Sept. 17 denied a request to amend a recorded subdivision and a waiver that would have allowed an individual driveway at 119 Sewell Falls Road, a change the applicant said is needed to preserve and provide safe access to a historic barn on the lot. The board voted to deny the waiver unanimously and then denied the subdivision amendment; the latter vote carried with one member recorded in opposition.
Board members and staff said the application did not meet the criteria in the city’s subdivision regulations and cited a staff recommendation to deny; the applicant, property owner Scott Alley, told the board the lot’s unique circumstances and the decision to retain the barn—after it was previously slated for demolition—create a hardship that justifies a separate curb cut. The board discussed temporary alternatives, the recorded shared-easement access, and recommended the applicant return with more detailed, “fully baked” plans if he still seeks a permanent second curb cut.
The applicant and his surveyor, Mike Plouffe of Fieldstone Land Consultants PLLC, told the board the lot had been approved as part of a 16-lot subdivision first in February 2022 and resubdivided in February 2024 to preserve the barn. They asked the board to rescind the previously required shared-driveway configuration and allow a loop/circular driveway on 119 Sewell Falls Road that, they said, would prevent vehicles from backing onto the collector road and would be more aesthetically compatible with the preserved barn. Alley said the proposed loop driveway would let him maneuver trailers and a motorhome and would avoid running a driveway across most of the barn’s frontage.
Staff and several board members noted the subdivision plat recorded in 2022 and the 2024 resubdivision contemplated shared driveway access and a configuration that, staff said, could provide functional access to the rear of the property. Staff reported the contractor has installed some aprons in locations consistent with the 2022 plan and that most of the recorded shared-access easement lies on the adjacent lot at 117 Sewell Falls Road. Staff also said utilities have been stubbed to the lot.
Board members asked detailed questions about sight distance, stormwater and utility impacts, the location of aprons and easements, and whether emergency vehicles could use the proposed loop. Engineering staff present said there were no sight-distance or other immediate engineering obstacles to the proposed location but emphasized that the packet lacked a fully developed plan set showing hardscape, exact driveway geometry, utilities, and long-term landscaping. Several members proposed a temporary gravel driveway to allow the applicant to finish utility work and defer a final paved configuration until he returns with a complete site plan.
After hearing public testimony and staff comment, the board first voted to deny the waiver request and then denied the major subdivision amendment that would have allowed 119 Sewell Falls Road to have its own individual driveway. The board chair noted the door remains open for the applicant to return with redesigned materials and full plans and recommended coordination with engineering and adjustment of recorded easements if the applicant proceeds.
Alley said he will comply with the items listed on the last page of the staff report and return to the board with a more detailed proposal.
Votes at a glance: the waiver request was denied unanimously; the amendment to allow a separate driveway was denied with one member recorded in opposition. The board instructed staff and the applicant to work toward a revised application addressing staff’s completeness concerns before any future vote.

