Your area Not set — showing everywhere
How it works Support this town
Meeting report · Planning Board
Creating this report cost real money. Help fund coverage →

Planning Board — December 5, 2024

Eversource Compliance Hearing

The meeting was largely procedural and collegial, but genuine tension emerged around the senior housing unit classification, the 39-unit compliance question, and unresolved public concerns about farmland ownership and pedestrian safety that the board did not fully address.

Date Thursday, December 5, 2024 Duration 1.6h Speakers 12 Public comments 4 Decisions 5 Lively

Questions about this meeting? ⁠Just ask.

Ask MeetingWatch answers from this meeting’s report, transcript, and records — with linked sources.

Summary AI-generated to surface controversy & community impact without bias — always verify against the actual meeting before relying on it.
  • Approved Eversource compliance hearing with landscaping bond requirement (Approved unanimously)
  • Deemed Jacobson subdivision application complete (Approved unanimously)
  • Continue development applications to February 19, 2025 (Approved unanimously)
  • Approve November 20, 2024 meeting minutes (Approved unanimously)
  • Adjourn meeting (Approved unanimously)
Dec 5, 2024 1.6h long 12 speakers 4 public comments 5 decisions Lively
❝ Notable statements ↔ Drag to browse

“We proved up to 39 dwelling units. What's your current number of dwelling units that's shown?”

— Board Member · Verifying compliance with previously approved unit count under CUP 48:45

“I think what you're talking about is multi family structure. We can approve that in a PRD. But then the question is how many dwelling units is that?”

— Board Member · Concern about 'elder friend's house' with four bedroom suites potentially being classified as multifamily rather than single family 51:53

“Look at the mix of beneficial mix of benefits that resulted in us granting 39 units... we got to go back now and make sure we're getting 39”

— Board Member · Requirement to verify the development still provides the housing benefits that justified the original unit count approval 51:53

“39 units is going to develop a certain number of kids ideally walking down to Clark and Wilkins and not being driven down. And so anything we can do that would improve that likelihood that people are using it as a walking area... it would be great to have it be as walking accessible as possible.”

— Unidentified speaker · Advocating for pedestrian improvements on Christian Hill Road for the development 1:02:23

“We have a signed contract with Ian McSweeney, Farmland Consultants... typically in favor of 99 year leases to get stewardship and get control to younger farmers that don't necessarily have the capital.”

— Unidentified speaker · Explaining the farming management structure and consultant arrangement 1:04:42

“Am I correct in understanding that under that logic, if you had a dormitory where you have 23 different rooms with each person... that that would be one unit? Under that logic, would you agree that that's essentially the same.”

— Unidentified speaker · Questioning the developer's classification of four-bedroom senior housing as one unit 1:15:10

“I don't think anybody on this board needs to be reminded that form of ownership is not a consideration of land use... I definitely think a four bedroom house that by definition is not going to put any kids in the school system is in the long term interests of the town”

— Speaker F (Sally Wilkins) · Public comment supporting the senior housing concept despite concerns about housing configuration 1:22:34
This meeting — choose a section

Public ⁠impact

Issues from this meeting with documented community impact.
What was discussed

39-dwelling-unit development with stormwater systems, cul-de-sac waivers, farmland preservation lease, and pedestrian safety implications on a road serving two elementary schools

Topics ⁠discussed

Each topic expands to quotes and full context.
Speakers: Jonathan Divine (T.F. Moran), Board members
What was discussed

Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Eversource) presented compliance hearing for completed electrical substation expansion project. All construction completed per approved site plan except landscaping, which will be bonded and installed in spring.

Speakers: Sam Boys (Meridian Land Services), Carter Scott (Applicant)
What was discussed

Robert Jacobson Revocable Trust presented final subdivision approval for 33 single-family lots plus farm building lot and open space lots at 17 Christian Hill Road under the former Integrated Innovative Housing Ordinance.

Speakers: Sam Boys
What was discussed

Extensive stormwater treatment system proposed with multiple basins, bioretention facilities, and containment berms to treat runoff from development and existing farm field before discharge to wetlands.

Speakers: Sam Boys, Board members
What was discussed

Applicant requested waiver for larger cul-de-sac radius (120ft vs standard 75ft) and proposed one-way traffic pattern. Fire department testing completed to verify emergency vehicle accessibility.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Board member encouraged sidewalk or path improvements for the 39-unit development to make walking to Clark and Wilkins schools safer and more accessible. Developer acknowledged stone walls and tree preservation challenges but expressed support for pedestrian improvements.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Discussion about a proposed four-bedroom house with ensuite bathrooms designed as one housing unit for seniors, with board members questioning whether this constitutes one unit or multiple units and comparing it to dormitory-style housing.

Speakers: Carter Scott, Board members
What was discussed

Discussion of farming operations management, including hiring consultant Ian McSweeney, 99-year lease structure, 1% transfer fee for farming support, and restrictions on fertilizer/pesticide use near aquifer.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Board member questioned the density around the cul-de-sac serving five or six properties including shared driveways, with developer explaining that end-of-street location reduces traffic speed concerns.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Discussion of 8kW solar array within farmland and consideration of agrivoltaics approach where animals can graze underneath raised solar panels, with developer confirming they are considering this dual-use configuration.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Planning board established timeline for engineering review by Steve, with continuation scheduled for February 19th due to holidays and deliberative session conflicts, allowing time for comprehensive review and developer response.

Controversy & ⁠dissent

Where the board, the community, or the agenda diverged.

Potentially controversial issues

01

Four-Bedroom Senior Housing Unit Classification

Board members questioned whether a proposed four-bedroom house with ensuite bathrooms is genuinely one dwelling unit or effectively multifamily housing, which has direct implications for the approved 39-unit count and the town's housing regulations. One board member explicitly compared it to a dormitory. This affects housing density, school impact fees, and whether the developer is delivering what was promised under the Integrated Innovative Housing Ordinance.
Board position: Board expressed skepticism and demanded clarification; one member invoked the dormitory analogy to challenge the developer's classification. No resolution reached — continued to February.
Internal dissent
a speaker challenged the developer's logic directly with the dormitory analogy. a speaker raised concerns about ensuring the 39-unit count reflects the promised mix of benefits. Sally Wilkins (public) pushed back, arguing form of ownership is not a land use consideration and that senior housing benefits the town. The board was not unified on how to treat this unit type.
high concern
02

Compliance with 39-Unit Approved Count and Housing Mix

The board approved 39 units under the Conditional Use Permit based on a specific mix of housing benefits. Board members expressed concern that changes to the housing configuration — particularly the senior housing unit classification — may mean the developer is no longer delivering the promised benefits that justified the higher unit count. This raises a fairness and regulatory integrity issue.
Board position: Board signaled it will require the developer to demonstrate compliance with the original benefit mix before final approval. Continued to February for further review.
high concern
03

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety on Christian Hill Road

A 39-unit development on Christian Hill Road will generate significant pedestrian and cyclist traffic toward two elementary schools, yet no sidewalk or dedicated path exists. A resident who walks and bikes the road daily testified about safety concerns. The developer cited stone walls and tree preservation as obstacles, offering only vague support for improvements.
Board position: Board member a speaker actively advocated for pedestrian improvements and the DPW Director was assigned to review off-site road improvements, but no commitment was secured from the developer.
medium concern
04

Farmland Ownership and Open Space Structure

Public commenter Tom argued that the farmland should be owned equally by all lot owners as part of the open space, rather than under a 99-year lease structure controlled by the developer. This raises questions about long-term stewardship accountability, equitable community ownership, and whether the farming arrangement truly serves public benefit or primarily the developer.
Board position: Board did not respond to or address Tom's concern. The developer's 99-year lease structure with Ian McSweeney as consultant was discussed favorably by the applicant but not scrutinized by the board.
medium concern
05

Cul-de-sac Density and Traffic Safety

Five or six properties plus shared driveways will be served by a single oversized cul-de-sac (120ft radius vs. 75ft standard), raising questions about traffic safety and emergency access. The board sought waiver approval and fire department sign-off, but concerns about density at the end of the street were raised.
Board position: Board requested fire chief review and deferred resolution to February. Developer argued end-of-street location mitigates speed concerns.
low concern

Community vs. board tension

Public ⁠comment

What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
4
Total speakers
1
Addressed
1
Partial
2
Not addressed
Unidentified speaker
1:18:24
Partial
A resident who walks and bikes on Christian Hill Road multiple times daily emphasized the critical need for sidewalks or bike paths, especially given the proposed increase in homes and residents in the area. They also questioned whether the proposed elder housing should be classified as a co-op rather than single-family housing. Key concern
Need for pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure on Christian Hill Road and proper classification of the elder housing unit
Board response
The board acknowledged the sidewalk concern as it had been discussed throughout the meeting, but did not provide a definitive response about the housing classification issue
The pedestrian infrastructure concern was acknowledged and discussed, but the housing classification question was not definitively answered by the board
Tom
1:19:28
Not addressed
Tom, speaking as a resident rather than board member, commented that the farmland should be part of the development's open space owned equally by all owners. He also suggested that wetland buffer waivers might not be necessary if it were a smaller development with fewer units. Key concern
Farmland ownership structure and questioning whether buffer impacts are due to excessive density
Board response
No direct response from the board to these comments
The board did not respond to or address Tom's concerns about farmland ownership or the relationship between development size and buffer impacts
Will Loot
1:20:50
Addressed
Will Loot from 3 School Street asked about the solar panel configuration within the farmland and whether the applicant was considering raising solar arrays to allow animals to graze underneath (agrivoltaics). The applicant confirmed they were considering this dual-use approach. Key concern
Configuration of solar panels to allow for agricultural use underneath
Board response
The applicant responded that they were indeed considering agrivoltaics, with the Department of Energy recently funding similar projects
The applicant directly answered the question and confirmed they were considering the dual-use solar/agriculture approach the speaker asked about
Sally Wilkins
1:22:12
Not addressed
Sally Wilkins, both an abutter and interested party, expressed concerns about the current housing configuration compared to earlier proposals and stated that form of ownership shouldn't be a land use consideration. She also asked about the town's solar regulations, noting she couldn't find specific solar provisions on the town website. Key concern
Housing type changes from earlier proposals and inability to locate town solar regulations
Board response
No direct response from the board regarding the solar regulations question or housing configuration concerns
The board did not respond to Sally's question about where to find the town's solar regulations or address her concerns about the housing configuration changes

Decisions ⁠logged

Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
06:00
Approved Eversource compliance hearing with landscaping bond requirement
Confirmed construction compliance with approved site plan, required $145,000 bond for spring landscaping installation
Approved unanimously
12:59
Deemed Jacobson subdivision application complete
Both subdivision and conditional use permit applications accepted as complete for review
Approved unanimously
1:29:55
Continue development applications to February 19, 2025
Motion to continue conditional use permit and subdivision application cases to February 19th at 7:00pm at Town Hall, with applicant waiving statutory deadlines
Approved unanimously
1:33:06
Approve November 20, 2024 meeting minutes
Approved with correction on line 66 to remove errant period
Approved unanimously
1:33:22
Adjourn meeting
Motion to adjourn carried
Approved unanimously

Action ⁠items

Who owes what, by when.
Submit $145,000 landscaping bond paperwork to Gloria Norcross and copy to Steve Keach and Mike Kaminsky
Assigned: Jonathan Divine (T.F. Moran) · Due: Not specified
Complete comprehensive engineering review of Jacobson subdivision plans and studies
Assigned: Steve Keach (Town Engineer) · Due: Mid to third week of January 2025
Review Christian Hill Road for potential off-site improvements needed due to development, including intersection of Foundry and Boston Post Road
Assigned: DPW Director · Due: Not specified
Review and approve cul-de-sac dimensions, cistern locations, road widths, and shared driveway access for emergency services
Assigned: Fire Chief · Due: Not specified
Submit pending wildlife study from GZA expected mid-December
Assigned: Sam Boys/Carter Scott · Due: Mid-December 2024
Submit refined plans and address board concerns
Assigned: Developer · Due: First of the year or soon after
Receive engineering report by close of business preceding Friday before February 19th meeting
Assigned: Gloria (Town Staff) · Due: February 14, 2025
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.

Report composed by claude-sonnet-4-20250514, claude-opus-4-6 · analyzed 2026-06-01.