Peter Campbell worries that a new proposed development in Pembroke could permanently alter the rural charm in town.
“A project of this scale will inevitably impact traffic, neighborhood character, local infrastructures in ways that are inconsistent with what that district was designed to support,” he said at a zoning board meeting on Monday evening.
Campbell lives is a historic red brick home on Pembroke Street, which is a major traffic artery through town running between Concord to the North and Allenstown to the south. In zoning terms, it’s considered a medium-density residential district that would see an influx of new residents with the construction of 100 two-bedroom homes for people 55 and over. Called Riverside at Pembroke, the proposed development with two clubhouses would sit at the intersection of Pembroke Road and Broadway Street, behind Campbell’s house.
Upwards of 80 people flocked to the zoning meeting to share similar concerns. By the end of the meeting, the board voted to deny the project’s request for a variance that would allow more than one principal structure on the property.
This is not the first roadblock the project encountered. Over the past 25 years, property owner and real estate developer Robert Meissner has tried twice to get a proposal approved for his 125 acres of land.
Meissner runs the development company DHB Homes, based out of Londonderry. He is proposing the project under the name Pembroke Meadows. While present at the meeting, Meissner did not speak.
His first proposal, back in 2003, included 192 units, the majority of which were single-family homes, along with some elderly-specific units and a number of town houses. An incomplete application led to the project’s denial, and although Meissner appealed in court, the Planning Board’s decision was upheld.
He tried again in 2016 with a proposal for 115 single-family homes. No zoning changes were necessary, and the Planning Board approved the proposal after considering numerous concerns, including traffic and infrastructure. However, Meissner withdrew the application after deferring multiple times over the course of two years. His newest plan contains fewer homes and more greenspace.
“We’ve heard what people have said now for 25 years, and we’ve really tried to put a plan forward that allows us to develop the site, which I think everybody understands,” Engineer Matt Peterson of Keach-Nordstrom Associates said on Meissner’s behalf. “In the state of New Hampshire, we have the rights to develop our site for something. But again, what was presented previously, we’ve taken a look at and worked back with that.”
Resident opposition has remained steady over the years, even with the project’s various iterations.
On Monday evening, several people voiced qualms about increased traffic, especially given the proximity to Pembroke Academy. Others worried about water capacity and a strain on town resources. Multiple residents wanted to know how the development would impact the views from their yards. Numerous people said they feared how the project would alter their property values and tax bills.
Peterson said that one large change in this proposal is the roadways, which will be private rather than town-owned. This will eliminate any property tax burden on residents to pay for additional services. Instead, people living at the development will pay into a Homeowners Association for trash pickup and road maintenance.
“Every factor from sewer, water usage, town maintenance of roadways to traffic have been reduced substantially with this new development,” Peterson said. “So next we looked at the need for 55-plus development in Pembroke and in New Hampshire in general. And we found New Hampshire is the second-oldest state in the country, and with the substantial housing stock shortages, it seemed to make sense to move this project to the next steps and come up with a design that works for the property and for the surrounding area.”
The current proposal clusters the homes rather than pursuing a conventional subdivision layout. The project application states this would provide “a more suitable alternative” and offer “additional environmental benefits, such as reducing the total area of land disturbance and minimizing impacts to the wetlands.”
Of the 125 total acres, Peterson estimated around 100 would remain untouched with the clustering plan, helping reduce the environmental impacts.
Still, these changes weren’t enough to appease the residents in attendance.
“We’re going to have houses right at the end of our property line, which is going to be crowding, and it’s going to decrease my property value, whether they think it will or not,” said Michael Devoe, who lives on Pembroke Street. “I have woods in my backyard, and I’m going to have a housing development. I don’t see how that cannot decrease property value, and it’s not just my house, wherever they’re encroaching.”
Meissner’s lawyer, Eli Leino of Bernstein Shur Law, spoke at the meeting about the reasonable ask his client is making of the town.
“We came previously and showed that this could conceivably be built as a straight subdivision, 115 units, with an awful lot of roadway, an awful lot of impervious surface filling the whole space,” Leino said. “The reasonable nature of this is that we can tighten our footprint. We can help that aquifer protection and the wildlife by maintaining those corridors, as our engineer discussed.”
While members of the Zoning Board acknowledged the work Meissner and his team did to address the town’s concerns from the previous proposal, they ultimately moved to deny the variance because they did not feel there was proof of hardship, one of the five criteria for granting a variance.
The development team asked for a continuance on the other two variances it requested, meaning the project will come up for discussion at future zoning meetings. The remaining variances pertain to reduced frontage and smaller distances between the homes.
Several residents said that if the development does get built, they won’t even be able to afford living there, which isn’t in keeping with the current neighborhood, or the town as a whole.
Still, Campbell, among others, acknowledged that Meissner has the right to build what he would like on his property.
“I think any of us who are property owners in town buy a piece of property, and I’d like to construct something on it. I’d like to be able to have the freedom to do so,” he said. “But I do have to answer to a certain statute of regulations, and I don’t get special treatment. And sometimes, when we have a large development, someone with a lot of money, they get special treatment.”
