Meeting report · Planning Board
Creating this report cost real money.
Help fund coverage →
Planning Board — August 21, 2024
The meeting was dominated by a formal adversarial quasi-judicial hearing with multiple attorneys, competing engineering claims, property rights disputes, public safety concerns, and pointed board criticism of both the applicant's incomplete submissions and the DPW's unexplained reversal, making this well above a routine planning board session.
Public impact
Issues from this meeting with documented community impact.
01
Emergency Vehicle Access Risk on Steep Private Driveway
Localized but potentially life-safety consequence; Fire Chief's testimony required before any approval; driveway geometry exceeds town standards on three separate dimensions simultaneously Affected: Residents along Old Manchester Road and future occupants of Map 8 Lots 83.14/83.15, as well as emergency responders who would navigate a 12% grade driveway with non-standard geometry
safety change
Decisions logged
Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Continued driveway permit appeal hearing to November 6, 2024
Motion to continue discussion for driveway permit approval for Map 8 Lots 14-15, 3236 Old Manchester Road to November 6 at 7pm at Town Hall
Approved unanimously
Determined no regional impact for Broadway Realty Trust lot line adjustment
Case number PZ19367 08162412 Broadway Realty Trust lot line adjustment found to have no regional impact
Approved unanimously
Approved August 7th meeting minutes
August 7th minutes approved with one board member abstaining
Approved with one abstention
Topics discussed
Click a topic to expand quotes and full context.
▶ 00:03 Appeal of DPW Driveway Permit Approval
Neighbors appeal DPW's approval of driveway permit for Map 8 Lots 83.14, 83.15 at 32-36 Old Manchester Road, requiring three waivers for grade (12% vs 8% max), apron flare (45ft vs 24ft max), and side slope (2:1 vs 4:1-6:1 range). Case continued from June 19, 2024.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 01:28 Legal Arguments Against Waivers
Attorney Arianna McCrory argued that strict conformity would not pose unnecessary hardship, waivers are contrary to spirit of regulations, and the combination of three waivers creates public safety concerns for emergency vehicle access.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 27:07 Property Encroachment Claims
Appellants claim proposed driveway encroaches on existing driveway rights granted to Stephen Lewis in 1979, and raises concerns about water runoff affecting abutting properties and Old Manchester Road culvert.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 52:25 Legal Standing and Access Rights
Applicant's attorney Brett Allard noted 2021 Superior Court decision established client's right to use northerly private way but not southerly way, making this the sole viable access option for the property.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 1:01:46 Engineering Analysis and Design Rationale
Engineer Trevor Yandel explained that larger apron flare is needed for emergency vehicle turning movements, guardrails placed based on AASHTO standards, and 12% grade represents compromise after previous 18% and 15% proposals were denied.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker, Trevor Yanda, Planning Board members
▶ 1:12:42 Stormwater Management Analysis Requirements
Board members expressed concern that no stormwater analysis has been completed, which is required for driveway permits, and questioned whether drainage patterns would be significantly altered.
Speakers: Planning Board members, Trevor Yanda
▶ 1:23:52 Legal Standards for Waiver Approval
Attorney Connor Mahony outlined the legal standard requiring demonstration of undue hardship and no likelihood of injury to public health, safety, or welfare, comparing to zoning variance standards but noting differences.
Speakers: Connor Mahony, Planning Board Chair
▶ 1:38:04 Missing Testimony from Town Officials
The board noted absence of DPW Director Eric Slazik (on vacation) and Fire Chief Connolly, whose input was crucial for evaluating the 12% grade waiver and emergency vehicle safety concerns.
Speakers: Planning Board Chair, Board members
Controversy & dissent
Where the board, the community, or the agenda diverged.
Potentially controversial issues
01
Driveway Permit with Three Safety Waivers at 32-36 Old Manchester Road
The DPW granted a driveway permit requiring three simultaneous waivers — grade (12% vs. 8% max), apron flare (45ft vs. 24ft max), and side slope (2:1 vs. 4:1-6:1 range) — over the objections of neighboring residents and attorneys who argue the combination creates public safety hazards for emergency vehicle access. A $600 bond on a $300,000 project was also flagged as grossly inadequate. Neighbors, including a property owner with 1979-established driveway rights, appeared with legal counsel, and the DPW's decision-making process itself (having denied the permit twice before granting it) was questioned by the board.
Board position: Board declined to approve or deny; continued the hearing to November 6, 2024, conditioning further consideration on a completed stormwater analysis and in-person testimony from DPW Director Eric Slazik and Fire Chief Connolly. Board members signaled significant skepticism about granting all three waivers without complete documentation.
high concern
02
Missing Stormwater Analysis for Driveway Permit
Board member Bill explicitly stated the stormwater analysis is a regulatory requirement for driveway permits, and the applicant has not completed one. A neighboring resident identified two natural water courses that would be blocked by 30 feet of fill. Proceeding without this analysis would represent a regulatory gap that could expose abutting properties and Old Manchester Road infrastructure to drainage damage.
Board position: Board firmly required the stormwater analysis to be completed before the November 6 hearing, effectively blocking permit approval in the interim.
medium concern
03
Absence of Key Town Officials at Hearing (DPW Director, Fire Chief)
DPW Director Eric Slazik — whose department approved the permit after two prior denials — was on vacation and did not appear. Fire Chief Connolly, whose assessment of emergency vehicle access on a 12% grade driveway is directly relevant to public safety, was also absent. The board chair noted it was difficult to evaluate the DPW's reversal without testimony explaining the change in position. This raised procedural fairness concerns for both sides.
Board position: Board required both officials to testify at the November 6 continuation as a condition of further proceedings.
medium concern
04
Property Encroachment on Stephen Lewis's 1979 Driveway Rights
Stephen Lewis holds a permitted driveway and parking area at 36 Old Manchester Road dating to 1979. The proposed driveway design allegedly encroaches on those established rights. This introduces a property rights conflict that could require redesign or litigation independent of the waiver question.
Board position: Board acknowledged the concern but took no action to resolve the encroachment question, deferring it to the continued hearing.
medium concern
Split votes
Approval of August 7th meeting minutes
Approved with one abstention
Community vs. board tension
Ready to share? AI-written accountability posts about this meeting's controversies.
View posts →
Action items
Who owes what, by when.
Complete stormwater management analysis and permit application
Assigned: Applicant/Trevor Yanda · Due: Before November 6, 2024 hearing
Arrange for DPW Director Eric Slazik and Fire Chief Connolly to testify at continued hearing
Assigned: Applicant's counsel · Due: November 6, 2024 hearing
Notable statements
This proposal is so dangerous it doesn't need one waiver, it needs three. And the combination of the slope, the grade and the apron...creates public safety concerns — Speaker B (Attorney McCrory) · Arguing against granting multiple waivers simultaneously ▶ 18:09
The bond at least needs to be higher so as to protect the public safety aspects of this expensive project — Speaker B (Attorney McCrory) · Questioning adequacy of $600 bond for project estimated at $300,000 ▶ 26:22
I want to give the board an opportunity to ask questions of council and then we'll turn to...the other side because this is essentially at this point an adversarial proceeding — Speaker A (Chair) · Establishing formal hearing procedures for the appeal ▶ 30:26
It's not a question of if there's going to be a driveway. It's more of a question of when and how — Speaker C (Attorney Allard) · Explaining client's legal right to access via northerly private way ▶ 56:16
The hardship is that... if you don't have access to your land... And that get that line gets pretty murky, particularly when you're in planning board driveway regulation context. — Attorney Connor Mahony · Defining undue hardship standard for driveway waiver applications ▶ 1:29:33
I'm not prepared to grant a driveway permit because it is a requirement of our regulations that a driveway design be in compliance with the stormwater regulations. And the applicant has not demonstrated that it is in compliance with the stormwater regulations. — Planning Board member Bill · Explaining rationale for requiring completed stormwater analysis before permit approval ▶ 1:40:47
I'm not wild about not hearing from dpw... They denied this twice and then they granted it. And I don't really... I'd like to understand what the thinking is. — Planning Board Chair · Expressing concern about lack of DPW testimony to explain decision-making process ▶ 1:44:39
This is the, like death by a thousand cuts to the planning board. I'll get one apple. I'll get one permit, and I'll need a bunch of waivers... I want to see completed work. — Planning Board member Bill · Expressing frustration with piecemeal applications and preference for comprehensive review ▶ 1:46:02
Public comment
What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
4
Total speakers
0
Addressed
4
Partial
0
Not addressed
Arianna McCrory (Attorney)
Partial
Attorney representing neighbors appealed the DPW's approval of a driveway permit, arguing that three waivers granted (for grade, apron width, and side slope) create safety hazards and don't meet the legal standard for unnecessary hardship. She detailed concerns about emergency vehicle access, drainage impacts, property encroachment, and inadequate guardrails.
Key concern
Request to overturn DPW approval of driveway permit with three waivers due to safety and legal concerns
Board responseBoard asked detailed questions about the legal arguments, property encroachment claims, drainage issues, and settlement discussions
Board engaged thoroughly with the legal arguments and continued the hearing for more information rather than making an immediate decision
Lee Gilman
Partial
Resident at 28A Old Manchester Road identified two natural water courses that would be affected by the proposed driveway construction, noting that 30 feet of fill would block natural drainage and create erosion problems. He referenced a 1974 design showing these water flows.
Key concern
Drainage and water flow disruption from driveway construction affecting neighboring properties
Board responseBoard acknowledged his comments but focused more on technical questions with the applicant's engineer
Concerns were noted but board required full stormwater analysis to address drainage issues comprehensively
Unnamed Resident (32 Old Manchester Road)
Partial
Resident argued that the applicant's claim of unnecessary hardship was invalid because they had other options, specifically that DPW had suggested they negotiate access via the southerly private way rather than pursuing the more difficult northerly route requiring multiple waivers.
Key concern
Challenge to the unnecessary hardship claim since alternatives exist
Board responseBoard acknowledged the comment but focused on broader legal questions about hardship standards
Point was noted in context of hardship discussion but not specifically addressed
Stephen Lewis
Partial
Resident at 36 Old Manchester Road requested that if the board allows the driveway to proceed, it should be redrawn to avoid his existing driveway and parking area, which has been permitted since 1979. He wanted his existing property rights protected.
Key concern
Protection of existing driveway rights and request for design modifications
Board responseBoard noted the concern about property encroachment and asked follow-up questions about the issue
Board acknowledged the property rights issue but continued the hearing rather than resolving the encroachment question
Accountability flags
Documented procedural gaps. Each item links to its source.
Topics discussed — not on agenda
Support coverage
Creating this report cost real money.
MeetingWatch attended, transcribed, and analyzed this meeting on its own dime. If this work is valuable to you, chip in to keep covering Amherst.
Follow Amherst
One email when a new report is published from the Planning Board — or one weekly digest.
Report composed by
claude-sonnet-4-20250514, claude-sonnet-4-6, claude-opus-4-6 · analyzed 2026-06-01.