In vote, Planning Board stays clear of Everett-Brunette flap

LACONIA — For two months the Planning Board had been holding off on a decision regarding the Paugus-Elm project on Elm Street. They board hoped the developer and an abutter could come to terms over damage one phase of the construction had allegedly caused to the abutter's property. But on Tuesday the board decided to stay out of dispute.

The board unanimously voted to approve an amended site plan for the project being developed at 49-63 Elm St. by Scott Everett. At its meetings in May and June the board tabled the matter, hoping it would give Everett and abutter Peter Brunette time to come to an arrangement.

The move to confine the decision only to the request to add the location of a metal retaining wall to the site plan came at the urging of the city’s attorney, Walter Mitchell, who called the disagreement between Everett and Brunette “a fascinating soap opera.”

“There is nothing more the board can do to bring about a resolution between the parties,” Mitchell told the board.

Everett and Brunette aired their competing arguments on whether the construction of a sheet metal retaining wall driven into the ground just feet from the boundary line separating the Paugus-Elm property from Brunette’s had any detrimental effect.

Brunette contends that using the vibrating pile driver to push the 35-feet metal panels into the ground created cracks in parts of his foundation and caused heaving in the pavement of his driveway.

But on Tuesday Everett, backed by construction and engineering experts, disagreed with Brunette’s assertions.

“We have every confidence we haven’t done any damage to his foundation,” said Tim Burke, the site superintendent for the project. He said the determination was based on photographs and on-site inspections of the foundation of the buildings on Brunette’s property before the retaining wall was installed and afterward.

“We are trying to be attentive to Mr. Brunette’s property,” Everett told the board. “I hope you can see the efforts that we have made,” he added, pointing out that 12 construction and engineering experts had looked into Brunette’s claims, and concluded that work on the site was not to blame. “I don’t know what else we can do.”

Brunette told the board that while he could not provide any hard evidence that the work had caused damage to his property, he believed that it stood to reason that it had.

“There were no cracks in my driveway in 2020 [a year before the retaining way was installed]. There are cracks now,” Brunette said.

He also told the board that though seismological analysis of readings taken during the wall's installation appear to show that vibrations on Brunette’s property did not reach a dangerous level, he said that was not irrefutable proof that the vibrations had no effect.

Brunette said that he turned down offers from Everett and his representatives to sell his property at 19 Park St. because of his sentimental attachment to the home, which he had inherited from his parents, and that he intends to pass on to his son.

He noted that Planning Director Dean Trefethen’s incorrect conclusion that the retaining wall was not a structure, and therefore not subject to setback restrictions, was the root of the problem.

“It was staff error that led to this predicament,” he told the board.

He asked the board to issue a decision that included “reasonable mitigation” of the problems he said were caused during construction.