Planning Board
Wednesday, August 13, 2025
Meeting Minutes
Attendees: Ryan Stone, Courtney Cox, Andrew Maneval, Sarah Kendall and Lisa Anderson. Absent: Jon Miner, Don Scott
Members of the public: John Cucchi, Anne Cucchi, Kathryn Miner, Phil Miner, Paul Clark
The meeting opened at 7:00 pm.
Voting members – Co-Chair Ryan Stone noted the voting members for the evening’s business would include Ryan Stone, Courtney Cox, Lisa Anderson, Sarah Kendall, and Andrew Maneval.
Agenda, Meeting Notes of 7/9 – Members approved the agenda. There were no questions or comments about the meeting notes of July 9. These were not “minutes” due to lack of a quorum.
Certification of Driveway Permit, Request by John and Anne Cucchi – In light of a pending property transfer, the Cucchis requested that the PB certify the approved driveway permit issued by the NHDOT for their parcel on Dublin Road and the abutting parcel owned by William Gordon. The driveway will serve both Map 30-32-11-1, currently owned by the Cucchis, and 30-32-11, owned by Mr. Gordon. The permit was reissued by the DOT for a new location as denoted on the plat submitted to the Zoning Board and to the Planning Board. The property owners request acknowledgement by the PB for the change in the road cut for filing with the Registry of Deeds. The certification clarifies, and the corrected plat depicts, that the new location does not cut across the many lots created as part of the original subdivision.
The PB reviewed the DOT approval and conditions of approval and noted the driveway permit does not violate any existing ordinances or regulations and the new location was reviewed by the ZBA, which raised no issues or concerns. The PB further acknowledged that the property owners are responsible for the conditions set forth by the DOT, and has no concerns.
Andrew Maneval then moved that, in light of the approval by the DOT of the driveway location change and conditions attached thereto, the PB sign the letter of certification furnished by the applicant regarding the town’s approval for them to record it, further confirming a variance and a special exception were previously granted. Courtney Cox seconded. All voted in favor.
Philip & Kathryn Miner, 211 Breed Road – The Miners and the PB returned to the matter of a 1981 Planning Board decision and whether the opportunity legally exists for further subdivision of the parcel under current planning and zoning regulations. Members and the property owners, having sought advice from counsel, addressed RSA 676:4-a as well as a 2007 NH Supreme Court opinion (“the Wilmot Case”, No. 2005-832). The text of both documents is attached.
The PB did not feel the RSA supported the possibility of revocation of the 1981 decision; however, all agreed that the PB’s current subdivision regulations include the possibility of re-subdivision, and allowed for a new application to be submitted under these regulations. Members also felt that the adoption of the Master Plan, which occurred subsequent to the original PB decision, as well as the need for more housing, further supported an available avenue for the landowners.
The Miners thanked the board and noted they will proceed with their plans and hope to return with a completed subdivision application at the September or October meeting.
Affordable Housing Team (AHT) – Paul Clark discussed the AHT’s request for PB for a Mini Grant application to the NH Finance Authority, which would be submitted by the town, for the purpose of furthering the initiative to develop more affordable housing. SWRPC has outlined a proposal for working with the town, the PB and the Ordinance Review Committee. SWRPC will fund $3500 of the total amount needed for professional services. The AHT will need an additional $3500, hopefully from other sources, including the town and fundraising. The balance of $5K would come from the mini grant. The AHT has met with the SB, who advised the AHT to meet with PB, as much of the consultant work will involve working with the Ordinance Review Committee and adopting zoning changes.
The PB then discussed other, tangential work by the AHT related to zoning ordinance language and PB application requirements that would be appropriate and useful for increasing housing opportunities in town, as well as the many scenarios the AHT is exploring such as allowing duplexes in the Res/Ag district, allowing multi-family housing in certain districts, or providing an opportunity for “pocket parks.”
The board discussed how having a professional planner jumpstart the ordinance drafting process would be very helpful. The timing is tight to prepare draft amendments for vote at Town Meeting.
Mr. Maneval then moved that the PB indicate its support for the town’s proceeding with an application for a grant through SWRPC for work on ordinance language development. Courtney Cox seconded. Mr. Stone raised concerns about the potential proliferation of cluster housing. Others noted the PB would have to sign off on any provisions before they can be put forth at Town Meeting. The vote on the motion was 4-1 in favor for the reasons stated.
Town underutilized property committee – In its work to bring forth recommendations for new uses for underutilized town property, including the old highway garage behind the police department and the old fire station on Harrisville Pond, the Buildings Committee is considering proposing a mini recreation center for kids at the old fire station. Mr. Maneval noted this initiative as an additional example of how the town is thinking of supporting younger families.
New business
– Lisa Anderson shared two articles from the Keene Sentinel: one on a county Handyman Program helping local seniors make housing improvements to help them stay in their homes; the other reports on the mixed results of the state’s legislative session to address the housing crisis. There were some gains to lower zoning barricades but some losses on state funding for certain housing programs.
-Dog ordinance – PB members briefly discussed the public hearing on the dog ordinance and the Select Board’s adoption of the ordinance requiring leashing in town cemeteries.
Meeting adjourned at 9:07 pm.
Attachments below:
2024 New Hampshire Revised Statutes
Title LXIV – Planning and Zoning
Chapter 676 – Administrative and Enforcement Procedures
Section 676:4-a – Revocation of Recorded Approval.
Universal Citation: NH Rev Stat § 676:4-a (2024)
676:4-a Revocation of Recorded Approval. –
I. A subdivision plat, street plat, site plan or other approval which has been filed with the appropriate recording official under RSA 674:37 may not be revoked, in whole or in part, by the planning board, except pursuant to this section, and only under the following circumstances:
(a) At the request of, or by agreement with, the applicant or the applicant’s successor in interest.
(b) When the applicant or successor in interest to the applicant has performed work, erected a structure or structures, or established a use of land, which fails to conform to the statements, plans or specifications upon which the approval was based, or has materially violated any requirement or condition of such approval.
(c) When the applicant or successor in interest to the applicant has failed to perform any condition of the approval within a reasonable time specified in the approval, or, if no such time is specified, within the time periods specified in RSA 674:39.
(d) When the time periods specified in RSA 674:39 have elapsed without any vesting of rights as set forth therein, and the plat, plan or other approval no longer conforms to applicable ordinances or regulations.
(e) When the applicant or successor in interest to the applicant has failed to provide for the continuation of adequate security as provided by RSA 674:36, III(b) and 674:44, III(d) until such time as the work secured thereby has been completed.
II. Prior to recording any revocation under this section, the planning board shall give notice, as provided by RSA 676:4, I(d), to the public, the applicant or the applicant’s successor in interest, and all abutters and holders of conservation, preservation, or agricultural preservation restrictions. The notice shall include the board’s reasons for the revocation. A hearing with notice as provided in RSA 676:4, I(d) shall be held at the request of any party receiving such notice, submitted within 30 days of receiving such notice, or if the planning board determines to hold a hearing.
III. A declaration of revocation, dated and endorsed in writing by the planning board, and containing reference to the recording information for the plat, plan, or other approval being revoked, shall be filed for recording with the register of deeds, no sooner than 30 days after written notification of the revocation is served on the applicant or the applicant’s successor in interest, in person or by verified mail, as defined in RSA 21:53, or 30 days after any public hearing, whichever is later. If only part of an approval is revoked, that portion of land subject to revocation shall be clearly identified in the declaration. The declaration shall be recorded under the same name or names as was the original approval, as well as the names of subsequent owners, if any, of the land or part thereof subject to revocation, as identified by the municipality.
IV. A revocation under this section may be appealed pursuant to RSA 677:15. Nothing in this section shall affect the municipality’s ability, either before or after such a revocation, to pursue other remedies or penalties as set forth in RSA 676:15-17.
Source. 1991, 237:1. 1997, 142:5, eff. Aug. 8, 1997. 2017, 59:4, eff. Aug. 1, 2017. 2019, 242:3, eff. Oct. 10, 2019.
***
154 N.H. 715
Jonathan FEINS and another
v. TOWN OF WILMOT and another.
No. 2005–832.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire.
Opinion Issued: Jan. 18, 2007.
The petitioners, Jonathan and Amy Feins, appeal an order of the Superior Court (McGuire, J.) affirming decisions of the Wilmot Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) and the Wilmot Planning Board (board) denying their site plan and subdivision applications to divide four lots for the construction of condominiums. We reverse and remand.
The trial court’s order recites the following facts: The petitioners own commercially zoned property in Wilmot (town). In 1997, they received cluster subdivision approval to divide the property into twelve lots for use as an office park. As of 2004, the property had not been
commercially developed. At that time, the petitioners sought approval to build eight-unit multifamily dwellings on four of the lots previously subdivided. They also sought to further subdivide those lots for condominium conveyance.
On September 13, 2004, the board denied the petitioners’ applications for site plan review and subdivision approval, stating the following reasons:
- The application does not adhere to the density requirements pursuant to Article III Sections XI and XII of the Wilmot Zoning Ordinance.
- The application is not consistent with the original intent of the cluster subdivision approvals as the original approvals were based on the applicant’s representation that the sites within this subdivision were to be for commercial use, and the original subdivision approvals required the establishment of buffers between commercial activity and residential activity.
The petitioners appealed both to the ZBA and to the superior court. The ZBA affirmed the board’s decision with regard to density and declined to rule on the second reason for denial. That decision was also appealed to the superior court and consolidated with the direct appeal. The trial court affirmed, ruling that the board’s denial of the petitioners’ applications on the ground that the “proposed condominium development … [was] contrary to the intent of the original approval was neither unlawful nor unreasonable.” Given this ruling, the court found it unnecessary to reach the density issue. In addition, having found the board’s decision neither unlawful nor unreasonable, the court affirmed the ZBA’s affirmance of the board’s decision.
On appeal, the petitioners contend that the trial court erred in affirming: (1) the board’s denial of their applications on the ground that the proposed use was inconsistent with the original approval; and (2) the ZBA’s determination that the petitioners’ project is prohibited by the town’s density regulations. The petitioners first contend that the board erred in denying their applications on the ground that their proposed project was inconsistent with the previously-approved subdivision. They argue: Focusing on the original intent of the subdivision when it was approved in 1997 is the wrong standard for reviewing the current applications. Were that the test, an owner of a subdivision, or any other project for which a land use approval was previously received, could not change the use of the property. Rather, the proper consideration for the Planning Board is whether the new proposal meets the requirements of zoning and meets the requirements of the subdivision and site plan regulations.
The petitioners further argue that aside from the purported density limitations cited in the board’s first ground for denying the applications, the board “did not find that the Petitioners’ project failed to comply with any other provisions of the zoning ordinance or planning regulations.” The town characterizes the petitioners’ argument as a “claim that once property is subdivided, the subdivided lots can be used for any lawful purpose.” The petitioners, however, deny this characterization, emphasizing that they recognized the need to apply, and did apply, for board approval of their new project. They contend that their claim is that the board “is required to review those applications based on current zoning and planning considerations, and not simply to deny the new application because this application was inconsistent with the uses envisioned by the 1997 applicants.” Thus, we read the petitioners’ argument to be that they were entitled to have their new applications reviewed on their own merits under the applicable regulations, unconstrained by the prior subdivision approval. Based upon the record before us, we agree. We have been cited to no applicable law or regulation that would require a resubdivision of property to meet any standard or requirement different from an initial subdivision. Rather, the statutory definition of “subdivision” subsumes “resubdivision,” and thus, absent any applicable law to the contrary, the two should be subject to identical standards. Specifically, RSA 672:14, I (1996) provides:
“Subdivision” means the division of the lot, tract, or parcel of land into 2 or more lots, plats, sites, or other divisions of land for the purpose, whether immediate or future, of sale, rent, lease, condominium conveyance or building development. It includes resubdivision and, when appropriate to the context, relates to the process of subdividing or to the land or territory subdivided.
On the basis of the record before us, we concur with the reasoning of the court in Purtill v. Town Plan and Zoning Commission of Glastonbury, 146 Conn. 570, 153 A.2d 441, 443 (1959): The defendant has not adopted regulations governing resubdivisions as distinguished from subdivisions. In the absence of such regulations, and in view of the statutory inclusion of a resubdivision in a subdivision and of the additional fact that the plan submitted by the plaintiff complied with the subdivision regulations, the [planning] commission lacked the authority to disapprove the plan.
We conclude that a purported inconsistency with the intent of a prior subdivision was not a proper ground for denying the petitioners’ new subdivision and site plan applications. Accordingly, the trial court erred in upholding that decision.