Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Environment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Review of Lone Pine subdivision continued after technical, environmental and abutter water concerns
Summary
The board continued review of the Lone Pine Lane major-subdivision application to allow the applicant to provide additional design details (waiverless Hillside Drive connection, lead-remediation clarification, and updated archaeological documentation); an abutter raised well-capacity concerns and the applicant said vernal pools and the James Rideout Homestead would be preserved.
The Hollis Planning Board continued its review of the Lone Pine Lane major-subdivision application (PB2026005) after a lengthy design discussion about access, contaminated-lands remediation, wetlands and archaeological documentation.
Brad Caspersen, a professional engineer with Meridian Land Services representing the applicant, outlined outstanding technical items: a waiverless plan showing the Hillside Drive connection, a lead-remediation strategy for a former shooting range on the parcel (state-led), updated wetland and archaeological reports, and clarification about steep slopes on the plan. Caspersen said the design would avoid and preserve the James Rideout Homestead and barn foundation and that two on-site vernal pools lie outside the proposed project limits and will be protected.
An abutter, Peter Suchinski of Hannah Drive, told the board his well ran dry after he moved in and asked whether four new houses adjacent to existing properties could be supported by local groundwater given the lack of an aquifer study. "I have already had a well run dry since I moved in... there has been no hydrological study," Suchinski said, urging additional study of aquifer capacity and septic impacts.
Caspersen and staff responded that well and septic siting and sizing are governed by state permitting and soil-based lot-sizing rules, and that the applicant will add proposed well and septic locations, test pits and additional plan details for the board's review. Staff asked for further documentation about lead remediation and wetlands permits and said some studies may need updates.
The board voted to continue the application to the June 16 meeting so the applicant can submit the requested plan revisions, archaeological narrative updates, and permit information; staff also recommended potential site walks as plans evolve.
The continuation preserves the design-review timeline while ensuring the board and abutters will have access to additional technical information before a formal public hearing or decision.
