Peterborough Planning Board members said Monday night that a proposed 116-unit development off Mercer Avenue is unworkable unless the apartment complex can be accessed from Route 202 rather than from Mercer Drive and Goyette Avenue.

About 60 residents of two Peterborough neighborhoods attended the Monday night meeting to express concerns and ask questions at preliminary hearings for two large proposed housing developments in town.  Chad Brannon of Fieldstone Engineering represented the owners of both properties, who were not present.

Mercer Holdings, LLC, a company registered in Miami, has filed a preliminary application for a 116-unit apartment complex off of Goyette Drive and Mercer Avenue. The proposal originally included a single, three-story apartment building, but after the Planning Board suggested the developer alter the plan to include multiple buildings and more greenspace, the owner purchased additional land and expanded the project to two buildings and a clubhouse, potentially with an indoor pool. The application is proposed as workforce housing, with a total 10% to 20% of units being offered as workforce housing. The development would be built partially in an abandoned gravel pit site and would require extensive reclamation of the land.

Brannon explained that as of July 2023, a change in New Hampshire housing law paved the way for this type of development to become possible, requiring towns to provide the same density in workforce housing as is currently required in elderly housing. The proposed preliminary plan shows access to the apartment complex from Mercer Avenue, a dead-end street with fewer than 10 houses.

Planning Board Chair Lisa Stone asked if the development would be connected to the town by a sidewalk or walking access, and Brannon responded that the he had discussed this with the owner and ideas were being considered.

Planning Board member Gary Gorski summarized his concerns about traffic and the impact on the neighborhoods.

“Typical housing units have about four cars in, four cars out per day; so with 116 units, this is turning into over 800 cars per day on these little streets, and the neighborhood is no longer walkable. This doesn’t make sense for this neighborhood. It’s not fair to the people who live there; they are not used to have 800 cars driving past a day. There will be cars idling and backed up on Mercer. It will no longer be a walkable street with traffic and 800 cars. There will be headlights shining into people’s homes on Goyette Avenue. If there could be direct access to (Route) 202, it could be maybe workable,” Gorski said.

Other members of the Planning Board agreed that the development would be viable only if the access was from Route 202, not through Mercer Avenue.

Board Member Stephanie Hurley said that 10% workforce housing was “not enough.”

“We need more,” she said.

Stone responded by saying that since Peterborough has not adopted a workforce housing policy, the town has to rely on state regulations.

“The state passed a law that allowed something the town never intended. It applies the rules for elderly housing, which is intended for dense housing such as assisted living, to workforce housing developments,” Stone said. “We will have to go back as a town and adjust zoning regulations.”

In the public comment session, residents expressed concerns about road safety, particularly in winter; traffic; the impact on the intersection with Route 101; headlights from the parking lot at the clubhouse; stormwater drainage; impact on wildlife; erosion; and noise. Brannon said all these concerns would be addressed in the permitting process with the state, noting that this was a preliminary hearing only and that the project “has not been designed yet.”

Town Planner Danica Melone urged all residents to get involved in the town’s zoning process.

Board hears 66-unit development

Also on the agenda was a proposed 66-home development off of Burke Road and Greenfield Road, surrounding the existing Shadow Fox Farm, which includes professional-grade indoor equestrian facilities. The development, a proposed “equestrian village,” would include open space and trails, and would incorporate the existing barns and paddocks. All homeowners would become partial owners of the equestrian facilities, which would maintained through a homeowners association, with the owner maintaining the existing private home and guest house on the property.

Brannon, representing developer Star Mountain Holdings, said that portions of each housing lot could be put in easement, increasing the open space in the plan.

“This is a very scenic property with beautiful views. The goal is to create a layout that works with the topography and which would not ruin the viewshed,” Brannon said. “Due to the slope of the property, you would not see any houses from Burke Road. We are looking at preserving 60 to 70% of the land, which meets the goals of the ordinance.”

Brannon noted that the plan is very preliminary and that the number of houses could change depending on wetlands surveys and other factors. When several board members expressed concerns that the 66 3/4-acre lots would be creating a suburban-type neighborhood in the rural zone, Brannon pointed out that the lot size is a requirement of Peterborough, not the preference of the client. Several board members expressed concerns the proposal as it stands is too dense for the rural zone.

“This is allowed,” Stone clarified. “It fits the requirements.”

Stone also noted that the proposed development would provide housing and become taxable land for the Town of Peterborough, which are goals of the town’s master plan.

Board members questioned whether the existing paddocks and barns, which have not been used as a working horse farm for several years, qualify as open or agricultural space and how that would factor into the calculations. When asked how far the edge of the development would be from the Contoocook River, Brannon said it would be about 400 feet.

Other community members raised concerns about the affect of 66 new drilled wells on the water table in the neighborhood, traffic on Burke Road, safety at the intersection of Burke Road and Route 136, the impact on the wildlife corridor along the Contoocook River, the impact on homeowners on Monadnock Lane, the safety of horses in the neighborhood and the impact of waste products from the horses. Brannon said all of these concerns would be addressed in the permitting process.

“This is very preliminary. The DOT will be involved, we will address stormwater, drainage, the water table, the septic. This is just the first step,” he said.

Francie Von Mertens, co-chair of the Peterborough Conservation Commission, said the commission would be looking closely at the project and questioned the number of viable lots on the property.

“I don’t see 160 developable acres here. It seems to me you have to take out what’s already there. The barns are not open space; they are not natural land,” Von Mertens said.

Daron Janis, a neighbor who is also a real estate attorney, said he had concerns about the owner’s intentions and plan for the property, stating that he did not feel the HOA model would work.

“This owner is an absentee owner from Miami. He is not in tune with what we value here, so the proposal is not in line with the master plan of Peterborough,” Janis said.

Stone responded that “this is about the proposal, not the owner.”

“We are not here to drag the owner through the mud,” she said.

After over three hours of discussion on the night’s agenda, Stone cut off public comment at 9:15 p.m.

“I’m very sorry to cut this off, but our staff have been here since 8 a.m. This will be a very long process and there will be many more opportunities to discuss these issues,” Stone said.