Accountability posts
Drafts ready to share. Click to copy, then post. Planning Board · Amherst, NH · September 18, 2024.
X / Twitter
Board failure to respond to a direct process legitimacy question raised in public comment about an independent technical finding
At the 9/18 Amherst Planning Board meeting, a resident asked why a third-party reviewer's finding — that the Rosa subdivision may require state approval — was never addressed. The board redirected her. That question is still unanswered.
Developer accountability for proportional infrastructure costs and a resident's unaddressed warning about a deliberate lot-by-lot approval strategy
Amherst Planning Board (9/18): A developer proposed paying just 25% of a $130K road improvement tied to a 9-lot subdivision. A resident warned the developer threatened to return lot-by-lot to avoid larger infrastructure costs. County Road is already failing in spring.
Safety and standards outcome on the Rosa subdivision access way, with unresolved fire safety issues
Amherst Planning Board denied waivers 9/18 that would have let a quarter-mile shared driveway serve 3 homes at lower road standards. The applicant must now redesign it as a private road. Emergency vehicle access and fire pond location remain unresolved. Next hearing: Oct 2.
Early-stage zoning changes with broad property owner impact being drafted without public spotlight
Amherst Planning Board (9/18) quietly discussed 7 potential zoning regulation changes — including home occupation rules and underground utility requirements — that could affect property owners across town. No public vote yet, but drafting has been assigned. Watch this space.
X thread
🧵 Amherst Planning Board met 9/18. A routine meeting it was not. Here's what happened with the Rosa subdivision — a 9-lot development on County Road — and why residents should be paying attention before Oct 2. (1/7)
The central fight: should a quarter-mile access way serving 3 homes be classified as a driveway or a private road? Lower standards vs. higher. The board denied the applicant's waiver requests and ordered a full redesign as a private road. Hearing continues Oct 2. (2/7)
The $130K question: The developer proposed paying just 25% of intersection improvement costs. The applicant's attorney argued the board's role ends at assigning a dollar figure — it can't control how or when the work gets done. The board wasn't convinced. No resolution yet. (3/7)
A resident warned the board that the developer had threatened to return lot-by-lot to avoid triggering larger infrastructure obligations. County Road is already described as impassable in spring. The board was debating methodology with the attorney — and didn't directly respond. (4/7)
A second resident asked why the third-party reviewer (Keach) recommended the project needs state subdivision approval — and why the board wasn't acting on it. The board redirected her. That question has no answer on the record. (5/7)
Fire safety: emergency vehicle access on the long access way and the fire pond location both remain unresolved. The applicant was told to meet with Fire Chief Connelly. No timeline given. State statute compliance (RSA 674:41) for the back lot is also unresolved. (6/7)
Bottom line: Multiple safety, legal, and financial questions are unresolved heading into Oct 2. Two residents raised specific concerns that got no substantive response. If you live near County Road or care about how Amherst handles developer accountability — show up. (7/7)
Here's what happened at the Amherst Planning Board meeting on September 18, 2024 — and why the October 2 follow-up matters. The board spent the bulk of the meeting on the Rosa subdivision, a proposed 9-lot development off County Road. The central dispute was whether a quarter-mile access way serving three homes should be classified as a driveway (lower construction and safety standards) or a private road (higher standards). The board denied the applicant's requests for two driveway standard waivers and sent the applicant back to redesign the access as a private road. That decision protects residents — but it took hours of contention to get there, and the applicant's attorney directly challenged the board's legal authority to regulate how off-site road improvements are implemented. Two issues raised by residents in public comment went without a direct board response. First, a resident asked why a finding by the town's third-party reviewer (Keach) — that the project may require state subdivision approval — was not being addressed. The board redirected her to limit comments to the current application. That question remains unanswered on the record. Second, a resident named Colleen Tapley warned that the developer had threatened to return lot-by-lot to avoid triggering larger infrastructure obligations, and that County Road is already failing in spring mud season. The board was mid-debate with the applicant's attorney and did not respond directly to either concern. Also unresolved heading into October 2: the developer's proposed 25% share of a $130,000 intersection improvement (the methodology for calculating proportional share is still being worked out), emergency vehicle access on the long shared driveway, the fire pond location (the applicant must meet with Fire Chief Connelly — no timeline set), and whether the back lot complies with RSA 674:41, the state statute requiring buildings to be on streets. The board also discussed seven potential zoning regulation changes — including home occupation rules, driveway vs. road definitions, and underground utility requirements — with drafting assignments given to staff. None of these are final, but they could affect property owners and developers across Amherst. The next hearing on the Rosa subdivision is October 2, 2024. If you live near County Road, care about how development costs get shared, or want answers to the questions that went unanswered on September 18 — that is the meeting to attend.