Accountability Posts

X / ⁠Twitter

Individual posts for different angles. Pick the one that fits your audience.

Aquifer contamination risk from approved subdivision development

Amherst Planning Board approved a 41-home subdivision ON TOP OF THE TOWN'S LAST REMAINING AQUIFER on 9/17. One board member voted no, warning: 'Having lost one of our two aquifers already, I think we have to be much more cautious.' The majority disagreed. #Amherst #NH

268/280 chars

Board failure to respond substantively to developer non-compliance allegations

At the 9/17 Amherst Planning Board meeting, a resident presented specific allegations against the developer: pond contamination with neurotoxin, unpermitted demolition, oversized homes. The board thanked her — then approved the project with no enhanced oversight. #Amherst

272/280 chars

Cumulative development impact on school capacity and town services

Amherst normally issues ~25 building permits/year for new homes. A board member noted on 9/17 that active subdivisions could nearly DOUBLE that — with lower-grade schools already described as 'packed.' The board capped this project at 5 lots/year. Is that enough? #Amherst #NH

276/280 chars

Unresolved public question about road responsibility left unanswered on the record

At 9/17 Amherst Planning Board, a resident asked whether the town was ceding road responsibility on County Road to a developer. The chair thanked her and moved on. The question was never answered on the record. Residents deserve better. #Amherst #transparency

259/280 chars

X ⁠thread

Post these in sequence for maximum impact.

1

🧵 THREAD: On 9/17/25, Amherst's Planning Board approved a 41-home subdivision atop the town's only remaining functioning aquifer — by a 3-1 vote. Here's what happened and why it matters to every resident who drinks town water. #Amherst #NH

239/280

2

Background: Amherst has already lost ONE of its two aquifers. The Vorosa Properties subdivision — 41 homes on County Road/Spring Road — sits on top of the remaining one. The board was told the aquifer serves roughly 3,000 homes.

228/280

3

The lone dissenting vote, a speaker, put it plainly: 'We're basically letting these people pave the road and then put 41 houses on the aquifer.' He argued the contamination risk was unacceptable and that the road can't sustain this scale of development regardless of phasing.

275/280

4

The majority approved the project relying on existing state regulations and a lot-by-lot stormwater approach — no new aquifer-specific protections were added. The board's position: current safeguards are sufficient. a speaker's position: they are not.

251/280

5

A resident, Beth Sullivan, raised specific prior allegations against the developer at the meeting: pond contamination with a neurotoxin, demolition without permits, homes built larger than environmental studies allowed. None of these were rebutted on the record.

262/280

6

The board's response to Sullivan's testimony? The chair thanked her and the meeting moved on. No enhanced inspection requirements, no daily oversight, no additional conditions tied to the developer's alleged history. The project was approved as presented.

255/280

7

On school capacity: a board member noted Amherst typically issues ~25 new-home building permits per year. Multiple active subdivisions could nearly double that. He said lower-grade classrooms are 'packed.' The board capped this project at 5 lots/year — down from the developer's ask of 12.

289/280

8

One more unanswered question: Abutter Lisa Jones asked whether the town was giving up responsibility for County Road to the developer, and why this qualifies as a subdivision when it involves existing town roads. The chair thanked her. The question was never answered.

268/280

9

Bottom line: A divided board approved a major development with real risks to Amherst's drinking water supply, despite unaddressed allegations about the developer's compliance history and at least one public question left hanging. Residents should be watching this closely. 🧵 end

278/280

Facebook

Longer-form draft.

At its September 17, 2025 meeting, the Amherst Planning Board voted 3-1 to approve the Vorosa Properties subdivision — 41 new homes to be built along County Road and Spring Road, on top of the town's last functioning aquifer. Every resident who relies on town water has a stake in this decision.

Amherst has already lost one of its two aquifers. The dissenting board member made that point directly, stating: 'Having lost one of our two aquifers already, I think we have to be much more cautious with this development.' He also argued that the existing dirt road cannot safely sustain 41 homes worth of construction and traffic, regardless of the phased road improvements the developer has proposed. The board majority disagreed, approving the project with a conservation easement, phased road bonding, and a cap of 5 building permits per year — down significantly from the developer's requested 12 per year.

During public comment, resident Beth Sullivan raised specific allegations about the developer's past conduct: pond contamination with a neurotoxin, demolition performed without permits, and homes built larger than what environmental studies had approved. These allegations were not rebutted on the record. The board chair thanked Sullivan for her comments — and the project was approved without any enhanced inspection or oversight conditions tied to the developer's alleged compliance history. Separately, another abutter asked a straightforward question about whether the town was ceding road responsibility on County Road to the developer. That question was never answered on the record.

Also raised at the meeting: Amherst typically issues around 25 building permits per year for new homes. A board member warned that multiple active subdivisions running simultaneously could nearly double that figure — and noted that lower-grade classrooms are already 'packed.' The 5-lot annual cap was a direct response to those concerns, but the one dissenting vote suggests at least one board member believes even that limit doesn't address the underlying problems. Residents who want to follow this project should watch for the official meeting minutes when posted, and pay attention to whether the written commitment document required from the developer's attorney is made publicly available before final plan approval.