Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press safety, water and traffic concerns as Plaistow board opens hearing on 12‑lot subdivision
Summary
Residents urged the Plaistow Planning Board to delay approval of a proposed 12‑lot subdivision off Hoyt Farm Road, citing sight‑distance and peak‑hour traffic at the single entrance and potential impacts on private wells and septic systems; the board accepted jurisdiction and continued the public hearing to April 15 for consultant input.
The Plaistow Planning Board on March 18 opened a public hearing on PP2605, a lot consolidation and 12‑lot subdivision application for roughly 84.42 acres off Hoyt Farm Road that would create three single‑family lots, one duplex and eight triplex units.
Residents near Hoyt Farm Road told the board they were chiefly concerned about traffic and safety at the single proposed entrance. “My biggest concern is ... you cannot see the traffic coming,” Michelle Mangos said, adding that the entry near Forest Street requires sudden braking and that adding “29 more families” would mean many additional daily vehicle trips. Tiffany Hinksman, who lives at the corner, said the development would create “one way in and one way out” and estimated “68 cars” using that single exit in everyday use.
The applicant’s representatives said the development is a planned residential development (PRD) and that the number of units is calculated using the town’s rules—resulting in a plan for 29 allowable units which the applicant is proposing to arrange as a 12‑lot configuration. The applicant also submitted a traffic letter from Vineyza & Associates; project representatives characterized peak hour turning movements as modest and said the full consultant comments (including from the town’s peer reviewer) were still pending. “We have them all addressed,” an applicant representative said of engineering concerns raised in an earlier review, but noted the town consultant had not yet provided updated written comments.
Neighbors also pressed groundwater and septic concerns. “My well has gone from being 500 feet to 350 and I get 3 gallons a minute,” Mangos said, asking whether adding new wells and septic systems would lower neighbors’ water. An engineer responding to the hearing said wells are not necessarily hydrologically connected in the way commenters implied and added that the planned development would not create 29 individual private wells; rather, several multi‑unit lots would be serviced by one well each (the project team stated this results in about 11 wells for the proposed layout).
Several board members focused discussion on engineering items and waivers, especially a requested waiver of the road‑radius standard. The applicant described a proposed 37‑foot radius at a new intersection that would be shorter than the 250‑foot radius in the regulations and said they were seeking a waiver while providing turning‑movement analyses and a truck‑turn exhibit for the board’s review. Board members signaled they wanted the town’s consulting engineer, the highway department and the fire chief to weigh in before final action.
After wide public comment and extended questioning of the applicant and consultants, the board accepted jurisdiction to open the hearing but agreed to continue the matter for additional consultant feedback. Chair said the matter would be continued to the board’s April 15 meeting; the continuation was announced as the next procedural step.
The board asked that the applicant upload the traffic letter and any updated engineering memos to the project file so abutters and the board’s consultant could review them before the next session.
