{"id":527,"date":"2016-03-25T11:27:33","date_gmt":"2016-03-25T16:27:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/townunderground.com\/?p=527"},"modified":"2016-03-25T11:27:33","modified_gmt":"2016-03-25T16:27:33","slug":"londonderry-times-coverage-of-the-adams-road-tree-battle","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/townunderground.com\/?p=527","title":{"rendered":"Londonderry Times Coverage of the Adams Road Tree Battle"},"content":{"rendered":"

Coverage of the meetings leading up to the Adams Road tree battle<\/p>\n

Adams Road Subdivision Gets Planning Board OK<\/strong>
\nPosted on Kaitlyn G Woods<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The Planning Board granted final approval to a subdivision plan for an Adams Road property Richard Flier and his wife plan to develop into a home for their family.<\/p>\n

As part of his application, Flier asked that the Board allow him to address an issue with sight distance at the proposed driveway to the larger, 11.9-acre property by relocating boulders along the rock wall situated in front of the parcel.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe are comfortable the sight distance can be achieved by relocating a few stones along the wall. The alternative would be setting the whole wall further back, removing mature trees. We really want to maintain the scenic nature of the Adams Road corridor and the area,\u201d Kevin Leonard of Northpoint Engineering told the Board.<\/p>\n

But it would be the preference of town staff to see the wall moved back and the land improved to increase sight distance, according to Assistant Public Works Director John Trottier.<\/p>\n

Flier said because the roots of several trees along the road have grown into the rock wall, if it\u2019s moved back, the trees will have to be removed, changing the character of the historic byway.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe met with the Heritage Commission, and after discussing several options, they agreed the existing farm access road is the best location for a driveway,\u201d Leonard said. \u201cIt\u2019s an established location, and it\u2019s used regularly by (Mack\u2019s) farm year-round. It sees a lot of traffic and the stopping sight distance works. The sight line works \u2013 to the left, it\u2019s unimpeded as it exists today, and to the east, the existing stone wall encroaches on all sight distances in a few locations. We believe wall stones can be relocated along the wall to allow for the sight distance and not have any real detrimental effect to the wall itself.\u201d<\/p>\n

Flier said several engineers worked on their plan and they consulted with planning staff in several meetings.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen we measured the sight line, we have the sight distance over the wall; but then the 18 inches below that line to provide when we have snow is where the sight line crosses over the wall,\u201d Leonard said. \u201cThe stones encroach up into that sight distance. Mr. Flier appreciates the scenic nature of area, and we feel this is a reasonable compromise to achieve. We are asking for some relief to move a couple stones but don\u2019t feel it\u2019s an unreasonable request.\u201d<\/p>\n

Member Al Sypek expressed concern with the increased potential for an accident without appropriate sight distance and asked that a condition for final approval of the site plan be that if required sight distance is not achieved by moving the stones, the wall be moved back from the road.<\/p>\n

\u201cSight distance on a narrow road means a lot to me, and that\u2019s the primary problem,\u201d Sypek said.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf we can\u2019t achieve sight distance with the proposal we have shown, when we\u2019re building the driveway, we would get the equipment out there and move the stones to achieve the sight distance and have someone from the Town check to see they are satisfied with that,\u201d Leonard said.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis access has been used by cars and trucks for a long time and it hasn\u2019t created any safety issues,\u201d Flier noted.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt looks like you would be doing quite a bit of change to the terrain of the trees if moving the wall back. It would damage the roots of those trees and that\u2019s part of the character of the road,\u201d member Chris Davies said. \u201cIn my opinion this is something that makes more common sense than the letter of the law \u2013 especially when dealing with a road like this that has been deemed by the State as scenic.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think it\u2019s admirable you want to preserve the character of the area,\u201d Davies added. \u201cMost people just want to get the maximum out of their land. It looks like there is a lot of traffic on that road and there has not been an accident (at the access) reported so far. I would like to see the road stay as is and you get the sight distance as required.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cWe feel very privileged to have been able to buy this property from the Cross family and our intention is to maintain the importance and beauty of that area and do as little as possible with that land,\u201d Flier said.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe plan is nicely done and I appreciate your trying to preserve the character of the area,\u201d member Leitha Reilly said.<\/p>\n

\u201cI congratulate you for trying to save those trees and that wall,\u201d member Ann Chiampa agreed.<\/p>\n

John Farrell of 4 Hancock Drive asked Leonard if the plan was developed working from the true center of Adams Road, recalling concerns over inconsistencies about where the center of the road was located when the Planning Board considered an application to put in a fence for an Adams Road property several years prior.<\/p>\n

Leonard told Farrell the plan is based on accurate measurements of the road and area surrounding the property.<\/p>\n

Kathy Wagner of 7 Fiddler\u2019s Ridge raised concern that Flier\u2019s access could create traffic safety issues on Adams Road if the property is subdivided and developed into eight homes.<\/p>\n

When asked if the comment were appropriate to the discussion of the two-lot subdivision proposed, Chairman Art Rugg said Wagner\u2019s comment strayed from what the Board was considering.<\/p>\n

Flier told Rugg during the meeting that Wagner threatened him publicly at Town Hall, saying she will prevent him from developing his land. He asked Rugg to look into Wagner\u2019s threat.<\/p>\n

Farrell raised a point of order, calling Flier\u2019s statement a personal attack.<\/p>\n

\u201cMr. Flier is completely wrong,\u201d said Wagner. \u201cI chose not to address his claim during the meeting because I have no idea what he\u2019s talking about. He told me he\u2019s going in to develop the Cross property and I told him I\u2019m going to be a NIMBY (not in my backyard).\u201d<\/p>\n

Rugg asked Flier to limit his comments to the plans being considered, noting after the meeting that Flier also digressed from facts germane to what the Board was considering.<\/p>\n

In his meeting with the Heritage Commission last month, Flier said his plans for developing the Adams Road property are as minimal as possible, noting he and his wife plan to retire on the land and that the home has been designed so that they may enjoy views of the apple orchards on the property.<\/p>\n

Wagner appeared at that Heritage Commission meeting briefly, advising the Commission not to give Flier special treatment.<\/p>\n

\u201cI just think he shouldn\u2019t be given any special treatment. I\u2019m\u00a0very concerned because\u00a0the Planning Board\u00a0didn\u2019t ask to see the site distance engineering on this,\u201d Wagner said. \u201cEveryone\u2019s google-eyed over this and I think he needs to be treated like everyone else.\u201d<\/p>\n

Wagner said her only concern is with a potential curb cut on Adams Road.<\/p>\n

\u201cAdams Road cannot handle a curb cut. I just don\u2019t want his driveway to turn into a roadway. If that\u2019s not the case, I don\u2019t care,\u201d she said. \u201cI have no problem with Richard\u00a0or\u00a0his land. He can\u00a0develop it as he likes, I just don\u2019t appreciate being falsely accused.\u201d<\/p>\n

In addition to granting final approval for the site plan, the Board granted two waivers for development of the property with a 6-1 vote.<\/p>\n

The waivers will allow an overhead power connection by means of the existing utility pole on the north side of Adams Road to the proposed home on the 11.9-acre parcel, as well as to exempt the existing driveway to an existing home on the smaller, 1.6-acre subdivided parcel from the requirement for certification of the proper sight distances at the location of the driveway on Adams Road.<\/p>\n

The driveway was constructed prior to the adoption of the Town\u2019s ordinance, and the small Cape it serves was built in 1959.<\/p>\n

Trottier told the Board planning staff, the Department of Public Works and engineering staff do not support the waiver due to sight distance issues.<\/p>\n

Member Rick Brideau voted against the waivers due to those sight distance issues.<\/p>\n

Adams Road Homeowner Gets OK to Try to Save Tree
\n<\/strong>Posted on Kaitlyn G Woods
\n<\/a> <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The Planning Board voted to allow an Adams Road homeowner to try to save a tree obstructing the sight distance at the end of the property\u2019s driveway.<\/p>\n

Richard Flier, who is building a home at 43 Adams Road, said the healthy, 22-inch maple \u201chas a future\u201d and is an important feature of the State-designated Scenic Way.<\/span><\/p>\n

Rather than cut down the more than 100-year-old tree, Flier asked the Board to allow him to remove the root that obstructs the sight distance by six inches.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt would render the root ineffective. But if you chop out the root, it doesn\u2019t mean the tree won\u2019t live,\u201d said Flier, who consulted with an arborist. \u201cI\u2019ll do whatever you want, it\u2019s just a beautiful tree.\u201d<\/p>\n

Flier added he would write into his deed a commitment to maintain the root and continue to cut back any new growth into the sight distance.<\/p>\n

\u201cI want to save the tree because there aren\u2019t a lot of them there,\u201d he said. \u201cWe\u2019ve saved the road the way it is because it\u2019s beautiful and it\u2019s special in our town.\u201d<\/p>\n

But Assistant Director of Public Works and Engineering John Trottier argued the site distance should be cleared to achieve the required amount.<\/p>\n

\u201cLooking to the west, they had to get a variance because there was a large oak tree that impedes the site distance,\u201d he said. \u201cHe can put something in the deed saying it will be maintained, but how do you enforce that?\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cWe have clear-cut rules and I think we have to follow that. I\u2019m pretty knowledgeable about trees and shrubbery. I think if you take 6 inches out of the tree root, it\u2019ll be a matter of time before that tree does die,\u201d member Scott Benson said. \u201cIt\u2019s a clear-cut rule, line of sight. We have to obey that.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cI come from public safety, so sight distance is pretty important to me,\u201d member Al Sypek said. \u201cI agree with Scott. You can cut this or that out, but there\u2019s no way to enforce in the future anything addressing this issue. The simplest thing is to just remove it.\u201d<\/p>\n

Member Ann Chiampa argued in favor of giving the tree a chance, noting the health of many other trees along the road is deteriorating.<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019d love to give it a shot and if doesn\u2019t work, so be it. But it\u2019s a healthy tree,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

Member Mary Soares agreed, proposing they also not cut into the root of the tree.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is 6 inches we\u2019re talking about. There are so many places in town where the sight line is obstructed. I come out of the Home Depot parking lot and I have a hard time and we don\u2019t make them take trees down,\u201d she said. \u201cAnd this is a scenic highway and we\u2019re losing enough trees as it is.\u201d<\/p>\n

Soares additionally noted the driveway has served as an access for Mack\u2019s Apples for years with no issue.<\/p>\n

\u201cI completely agree with Mary, I don\u2019t think the tree should go,\u201d member Ted Combes said. \u201cI don\u2019t think 6 inches is going to stop an accident from happening. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s reasonable to take this tree out.\u201d<\/p>\n

Several residents also urged the Board to allow the tree to remain untouched.<\/p>\n

Russ Lagueux of 2 Fiddler\u2019s Ridge said he has been driving Adams Road for more than two decades and that a location to the east, where there have been multiple accidents, is a more significant concern.<\/p>\n

Soares noted there has not been an accident at Flier\u2019s driveway in all the time Mack\u2019s employees have been going in and out of the property.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhile they may not have been cars, there was daily traffic that went in every day working and there was more than one vehicle going in and out,\u201d she said. \u201cThat is not the part of the road, as Mr. Lagueux said, where there is any issue.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Board agreed to give Flier the opportunity to cut the root in hopes the tree will remain healthy, but, if the tree dies, Flier agreed to remove it.<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Coverage of the meetings leading up to the Adams Road tree battle Adams Road Subdivision Gets Planning Board OK Posted on March 12, 2015 \u00a0by Kaitlyn G Woods The Planning Board granted final approval to a subdivision plan for an Adams Road property Richard Flier and his wife plan to…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"give_campaign_id":0,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-527","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/townunderground.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/527","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/townunderground.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/townunderground.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/townunderground.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/townunderground.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=527"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/townunderground.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/527\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/townunderground.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=527"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/townunderground.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=527"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/townunderground.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=527"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}