Planning board accepts 29 Bedford Road 55+ site plan for review, schedules June site walk and continues hearing to July

The Merrimack Planning Board accepted for review on Tuesday an application by SC Development LLC, represented by Chris Tofty, to build a 60‑unit, 55‑and‑over condominium development at 29 Bedford Road. By unanimous vote the board found the application complete, scheduled a public site walk for 8:00 a.m. on June 20 at the Bedford Road entrance, and continued consideration to the July 15 meeting so the applicant can address peer review comments.

Keach Northstrom Associates’ Matt Peterson outlined the proposal and its history, saying the 8.7‑acre site formerly operated as a gravel pit and required a zoning variance to allow an elderly/55+ development. Peterson described the proposed building type as two‑story four‑plexes with integrated garages intended for sale rather than rent. He said all buildings will be sprinklered and that grading and landscaping aim to reduce visual impact; Peterson estimated the project could be expanded to serve others once town sewer infrastructure under the Turnpike is sized appropriately.

A central technical issue is sewer access. Peterson said the team pursued connecting to a private system, then explored running sewer under the Turnpike to reach the town’s system. He proposed an on‑site pump station (identified on the town’s sewer master plan as Pump Station 6) with room for a future tank and easements that would allow the town to take over infrastructure later. Peterson said the developer will work with Public Works and town staff (Don and Dawn were named in the discussion) to finalize sizing and ownership arrangements.

Neighbors raised concerns during public comment about traffic, pedestrian safety and visual impacts. Steve Fry, vice president of the Ravencroft Association, requested a traffic review and suggested a left‑turn lane on Bedford Road to reduce queuing; Abby Wallace (31 Midford Road) and long‑time resident John Cosgrove (9 Woodridge Road) emphasized increased vehicle trips, the lack of continuous sidewalks, and potential erosion from grading. Peterson replied that recent comparable age‑restricted projects produced less traffic than residents expect and said the developer will supply a traffic study for peer review and add visitor parking and renderings in a later submission.

Board members asked for additional detail on sidewalks and pedestrian links to Route 3 and nearby retail, renderings of building elevations from road level, clarification of visitor parking, and the feasibility of a looped road for emergency access. The applicant said sidewalks will be provided through the site and he will verify off‑site sidewalk continuity at the bridge and work with DPW on any required connections.

At the meeting the board approved two procedural motions: one finding the application complete for review (vote 7–0) and a second scheduling a site walk (vote 7–0) and continuing the application to July 15. The site walk will be open to the public and begin at the proposed entrance on Bedford Road; staff will publish the site‑walk notice as a Planning Board meeting item.

The applicant and staff will return to the July 15 meeting with responses to peer‑review items, traffic analysis, parking and pedestrian plans, and requested renderings.