Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision And Conservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stone Arch subdivision put on hold as conservation, buffer waivers and density bonus are reviewed; sitewalk scheduled
Summary
The board opened an initial public hearing for Stone Arch Development’s project at 5 Brentwood Drive—proposing eight condominium units and associated roadway and stormwater work—but tabled the application to Aug. 27, 2026 for further review after discussion of a density bonus tied to conservation land and a requested perimeter buffer waiver affecting a nearby property; a sitewalk and Conservation Commission coordination were planned.
The Exeter Planning Board opened a public review June 25 of Stone Arch Development LLC’s proposal to redevelop 5 Brentwood Drive with up to eight residential condominium units, a new cul‑de‑sac, underground utilities and stormwater infrastructure, but ultimately tabled the application to August 27 to allow additional reviews by the Conservation Commission and town departments.
Applicant Christian Smith (Be Associates) described a yield plan that produced seven by‑right lots and explained the applicant’s intent to dedicate conservation land that would enable a 10% density bonus (an eighth unit). Smith said the plan avoids physical wetland impacts but seeks a waiver from a 50‑foot perimeter buffer in one area that drew concern from an abutter at 13 Brentwood Road. "If we put over 50% of the parcel into the conservation unit… you are afforded a 10% bonus," Smith said when explaining how the eighth unit is justified.
Board members and staff noted outstanding technical comments from DPW, the town consulting engineer and the Conservation Commission; the applicant acknowledged additional departmental comments were pending. The board scheduled a public sitewalk (participants to be invited, including the Conservation Commission) to inspect wetlands, tree lines and proposed alignment; participants discussed parking and logistics for the sitewalk and proposed a July date for the on‑site visit.
Because the application includes waivers and conservation dedications that could materially change the plan, the board did not act on the merits and voted to table the matter to the August meeting to allow more complete reviews and coordination with the Conservation Commission.
Why it matters: The project would add several housing units and reconfigure land use at a site with wetlands and buffer concerns; the board prioritized on‑the‑ground review and conservation commission input before deciding on waivers and density bonus requests.
Next steps: The applicant will address department comments, coordinate with the Conservation Commission, conduct the sitewalk, and return to the Planning Board at the August 27 meeting for further consideration.
