Candia Selectboard votes to oppose Tanglewood Estates subdivision in neighboring Chester

The Candia Selectboard voted Nov. 12 to oppose a proposed subdivision called Tanglewood Estates in the neighboring town of Chester, saying the project would place traffic and public-service burdens on Candia without returning local tax revenue.

Karen Reese of 351 Chester Road asked the board to support opposition at the planning-board hearing, telling the board that Crowley Road — the only vehicle access from Candia to the Chester site — is a "scenic road with limited sight distance, limited right of way" and "essentially cannot be modified into a material road that would be needed to support even a modest increase in traffic flow." Reese also cited a 2017 Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission comment raising concern about groundwater recharge in the project area and said the subdivision application fails to satisfy sections of the Candia zoning and subdivision regulations that require planned growth and adequate water, transportation and fire protection.

Board members debated whether to wait for their planning-board representative to be present before giving formal instructions, but after discussion a motion was moved and seconded that the board oppose the project known as Tanglewood Estates in the town of Chester on the basis that Candia would bear transportation and service costs while Chester would derive the tax revenue. The motion carried; several members voiced agreement when asked to indicate their support.

Jason Pellegi, of 297 Crowley Road, told the board he had "yet to hear anyone actually give a positive aspect to this development," saying residents he knows see only negative impacts and emphasized that Candia "gets no tax revenue, and our town ends up hurting more for it."

Planning-board action and next steps: The subdivision application is scheduled for the Chester planning-board meeting on Nov. 20; the board noted that meeting will be held in person at the Moore School. Several Selectboard members said they intend to have the town representative to the planning board vote in accordance with the board irection to oppose and to attend the hearing. The board did not record a detailed roll-call tally in the transcript beyond individual members voicing their support when called.

Authorities and legal references mentioned publicly at the meeting were cited by commenters in the transcript as "RSA 6 7 4 Colon 53 4" (as stated by the speaker); the article uses that phrasing as it appears in the meeting record.

The planning-board hearing will be the next formal public step; the Selectboard indicated it will monitor the process and asked residents to provide input at the Nov. 20 hearing.