Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board gives conditional approval to 60‑unit 55+ project on Bedford Road with limits on hours and new turn lanes
Summary
The Merrimack Planning Board granted conditional final approval to a 60‑unit, 55+ for‑sale development at 29 Bedford Road, subject to staff conditions and new left/right turn lanes plus construction hours limited to 7 a.m.–5 p.m. The decision follows public concern about traffic, drainage and visibility.
The Merrimack Planning Board on July 15 conditionally approved a site plan for a 60‑unit, 55+ condominium development at 29 Bedford Road (Case PlanningBoard 2025‑14), requiring the developer to add left and right turn lanes at the site entrance and to limit construction hours to 7 a.m.–5 p.m.
Matt Peterson of Keach‑Northam Associates, representing SC Development LLC, told the board the project team had worked through town review comments, received AOT comments and revised plans after a site walk. Peterson said the team moved a retaining wall back about 5 feet to increase separation from abutters, added additional arborvitae to strengthen the rear buffer, and specified an aesthetic Ready Rock retaining wall with an 8‑foot vinyl privacy fence atop it. "We did put our best foot forward to put that there," Peterson said of the additional plantings and fencing.
Why it matters: Neighbors and several board members raised traffic, sewer and visual‑impact concerns during a public hearing. Town staff and the applicant said technical reviews (Fuss & O'Neill and AOT) have been or will be completed, and that unresolved engineering items could be handled as conditions of approval.
Public concerns and applicant response Residents near the site described existing congestion on Bedford Road and said additional turning movements at the project's Davis Road/Bedford Road access could be hazardous. Kate Steele of Rowntree Drive said the proposal "sounds like a giant boondoggle" and questioned impacts on emergency access, groundwater and whether many older residents can manage stairs to second‑floor units. Gabe Cohen, who lives on Bedford Road, urged the board to "put a halt" until a thorough traffic study is completed.
Peterson said the team had submitted the short traffic analysis required by the town; he said the AM peak would add about 12 vehicles per hour (4 entering, 8 exiting) and the PM peak about 15 vehicles, and that the project increases Bedford Road daily volume by roughly 1.75 percent. "We did that, submitted, stamped by an engineer. It's been reviewed by your engineers," he said. He also agreed to recessed lighting on back porches to reduce spill and confirmed the proposed pump station and force mains would be privately owned by the development, while noting the force main would be sized to allow the town to connect a future municipal pump station if it chooses.
Board deliberations and conditions Board members pressed the applicant on wastewater‑treatment comments in the staff memo; staff indicated open engineering comments could be incorporated as conditions of any approval. Members also discussed site density and fire‑department turnaround requirements, which the applicant said had been dimensioned to meet emergency access rules.
A motion to grant conditional final approval, subject to the staff memo dated 07/11/2025 and the additional conditions discussed at the hearing (installation of left and right turning lanes at the project entrance and limiting construction hours to 7 a.m.–5 p.m.), passed by recorded tally (6‑0‑1). The applicant agreed to waive the 65‑day review clock if the board wanted more time to finalize conditions.
What happens next The approval is conditional on the applicant addressing the town and third‑party review comments listed in the staff memo and the additional site improvements ordered by the board. Staff will draft condition language to ensure the outstanding wastewater and DPW items are resolved before final sign‑off.
