Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select Board hears public comment on cross‑access easement, parking rules and truck braking in residential areas
Summary
At a meeting with multiple public hearings, residents raised safety and access concerns about a proposed cross‑access easement for Mid‑State Community Development, criticized new ParkMobile-style parking signage on Russell Street, and weighed in on a proposed ban on unnecessary engine compression braking in residential zones.
The Plymouth Select Board heard several public hearings and extensive public comment on land access, parking policy and a proposed disorderly action ordinance amendment.
Cross‑access easement: The board opened the first of two hearings required by RSA 41:14‑a on a proposed 25‑foot cross‑access easement for Mid‑State Community Development (Map 110, Lot 46) to create a connection between Gould Terrace, Russell Street and Main Street. Joseph, a town staff member, explained the easement stems from prior Planning Board conditions (2006 and 2022) and said the town attorney has reviewed deed language. Resident Patrice Scott thanked the applicant for cooperating but urged clarity on maintenance: "It's a lot of steps to shovel and take care of… I think they should take care of the steps," she said, noting a past promise by the bank that installed a stairway. Staff said liability generally lies with the property owner and that maintenance expectations had been discussed in prior site‑plan reviews. The board closed the hearing and scheduled the second hearing as required; no vote was taken at this meeting.
Parking ordinance amendments: Staff and the chief summarized edits to align a fines table (correcting an inconsistent $65→$100 reference), to add authority for the town manager to designate parking, and to add a parking enforcement officer definition. Public comment focused on Russell Street, where new ParkMobile-style signage and app-based payment were installed recently. Residents and business owners said the signs felt intrusive and raised concerns about visibility, enforcement, and impacts on visitors and landlords; several asked the board to consider short-term (one‑hour) parking for specific spots and to revisit signage frequency. The board directed staff to craft edits to remove outdated meter language and to consider short-term relief for certain spaces and a follow-up review of ParkMobile usage data.
Disorderly action (engine braking): The board also took comment on an ordinance amendment to prohibit unnecessary engine compression braking in residential zones while preserving exceptions for safety and emergency operations. Commenters suggested refining the proposal by time of day or by exempting industrial and highway commercial zones; members asked staff to redraft the language to specify zones and exceptions before returning for a vote.
Why it matters: Each hearing touches routine but tangible quality-of-life or land-use issues—pedestrian access and winter maintenance of stairways, how downtown parking is managed and paid for, and noise impacts from heavy vehicles—and the board’s edits and subsequent votes will shape enforcement and maintenance responsibilities.
Next steps: Joseph and other staff will return the cross‑access easement for a second hearing within the statutory window. Staff will revise the parking ordinance language to update meter references and consider time‑limited spots and will bring an updated disorderly‑action ordinance informed by zone exclusions to a future meeting for final board action.
