Planning Board
Wednesday, January 14, 2026
Meeting Minutes (pre-approved)
The Harrisville Planning Board held a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, January 14, 2026 at the Town Offices, 705 Chesham Road.
Board members present: Ryan Stone co-chair, Courtney Cox co-chair, Jon Miner Secretary, Andrew Maneval Select Board Representative, Lisa Anderson, Sarah Kendall alternate, Don Scott alternate
Members of the public: Jim Putnam, Nico Riley, Ted Braun, Celeste Whiting, Gordon Kendall, Marti Kendall, Jennie Newcombe, Ed Goodrich, John Newcombe, Kelly Dowd, Kathryn Miner, Phil Miner, Wendy Pelletier, Julia Pakradooni, David Kennard, Bob Morin, Audrey Wiita, Bob Wiita, Scott Stone, Eric Masterson, Joshua Rosenstock, Sue Johnston, Tom Johnston, Ned Hulbert, Kathy Scott, Chick Colony, Adam Drew
Recording Secretary: Mary Ann Noyer
Mr. Stone called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. He named the board’s voting members for the evening as follows: Ryan Stone, Courtney Cox, Jon Miner, Andrew Maneval and Lisa Anderson. Mr. Miner noted he would recuse himself for the matter of 211 Breed Road, LLC. Sarah Kendall was then named the voting member for that agenda item.
Agenda – Mr. Maneval moved to approve the agenda as presented. Jon Miner seconded. All voted in favor.
Minutes of the previous meeting, 12-10-2025 – Jon Miner moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Courtney Cox seconded. Members voted in favor with Mr. Maneval abstaining due to absence.
211 Breed Road, LLC, Minor 3-lot Subdivision (Map 40 – Lot 102-2) – PB Member Jon Miner removed himself from the table and joined the public. Mr. Stone noted that the Planning Board had postponed this matter from the December 2025 meeting due to insufficient public noticing to an easement holder on an abutting property. With application reviewers Lisa Anderson’s and Sarah Kendall’s affirmation that the subdivision application submission was considered complete, Mr. Stone entertained a motion. Mr. Maneval moved to approve the application as complete. Lisa Anderson seconded. All voted in favor.
At 7:03 pm, Mr. Stone opened the public hearing and invited Wendy Pelletier from Cardinal Surveying & Land Planning to present the subdivision proposal on behalf of 211 Breed Road, LLC. Ms. Pelletier, referring to the submitted plat, noted the location of the 7.2-acre lot at the corner of Breed Road and Yellow Wings Road. The portion of the lot with the existing dwelling would remain a 2-acre lot, an additional 2.13-acre lot would be located north of the existing dwelling lot, and a third 3.04-acre lot would be located on Yellow Wings Road, a Class VI road. She acknowledged that any development on the Yellow Wings Road lot would be subject to the town’s Class VI road development standards. While test pits have been done on all 3 lots, Ms. Pelletier noted that state subdivision approval is pending.
PB member Lisa Anderson stated that the typo on the frontage was corrected on the submitted plat and Ms. Pelletier confirmed that a note was added confirming that the distances between driveways would be at least 100 feet apart, and that plenty of line-of-sight distance exists on both roads for driveway placement. A proposed driveway location for the Yellow Wings lot was not indicated as this is typically left to developers or owners of the lot. Ms. Pelletier confirmed that the road frontage for the existing house lot would total 243’ on Breed Road after adjustment, the Breed Road frontage for the lot north of this would total 251’, and the Yellow Wings Road lot frontage would total 367’ for the existing dwelling lot and over 324’ for the new lot. The town’s minimum frontage in the Residential/Agricultural district is 250’; minimum acreage is 2 acres.
Lisa Anderson raised the question of Class VI road maintenance, and cost of Class VI road maintenance to current or future owners. Other PB members commented that such responsibilities are up to property owners along Class VI roads and that the issuance of building permits on Class VI roads requires the signing of a waiver and involves input from the Fire Chief, Road Agent, Select Board, Planning Board and Code Enforcement Officer.
The board reviewed language in the town’s policy for the Issuance of Building Permits on Class VI Roads and language in the Agreement and Release Regarding a Building Permit on a Class VI or private road. The signed agreement, which must be recorded at the Registry of Deeds, releases the town from responsibility for maintenance and repair of the subject road, and from the cost of such maintenance and repair, and releases the town from any loss or damage.
On the question of whether any condition requiring the applicant to bear any additional responsibility for the upgrade of the Class VI Road, Mr. Maneval noted that the PB would have to determine if it believes the proposed subdivision would have a measurable impact on the existing road, one that would justify imposing an additional financial burden on the applicant. He wasn’t sure there is one based on the limited proposed development on Yellow Wings Road.
Mr. Maneval further noted that, based on public input to be received, the board could conclude, in light of the PB’s consideration of the subdivision regulations, whether the conditions warrant or don’t warrant imposing a financial requirement on the applicant for changes to the road. He emphasized that any condition, according to his interpretation of the ordinances, would have to be endemic to the proposed subdivision and not just any use of the Class VI road.
Mr. Stone invited questions and comments from the public.
Attorney Kelly Dowd from Hockensmith & Dowd, PC, representing abutters Josh Rosenstock and Sarah Phillips, argued three points with respect to the application: 1) Safety of future residents or property owners relative to the current width and condition of Yellow Wings Road. Mr. Dowd argued that technical standards for roads, according to the state and to the town’s subdivision regulations for roads include a 16-foot road width with 2’-ditches on both sides. Yellow Wings Road is currently 11’ wide according to the submitted subdivision plat and, according to Mr. Dowd, needs to be improved; 2) The application, he claimed, should be for a major, not minor, subdivision, given that municipal improvements are required to bring the road up to technical standards. Mr. Dowd emphasized that, though the town has a process in place for issuing permits on Class VI roads and a form to release the town of liability, development on Class VI roads presents safety issues; and, third, the Planning Board’s 1981 subdivision approval decision approving the creation of the lot proposed to be subdivided on the condition that it not be further subdivided. Mr. Dowd stated that the recorded condition is a covenant that runs with the land.
Mr. Dowd acknowledged that the PB, in previous meetings, had discussed and addressed the third point about the 1981 condition, recorded in the Registry of Deeds, and concluded that the lot could be considered for resubdivision. He stated he sees the proposal as inconsistent with the Master Plan, noting it does not meet the ways in which the Master Plan envisions meeting increased housing in town – namely through increased density in the village, not the location of the proposed subdivision; through conservation subdivisions, which the present application does not propose; and through ADUs, in Mr. Dowd’s opinion, though not proposed here, an unwelcome idea given access from the Class VI road. He believes increased housing stock, another goal of the Master Plan, can be obtained without subdivisions. He asked, even if the PB should decide it could approve another subdivision of the subject lot, should it? He believes the proposal should go before the Select Board first for development approval.
Mr. Dowd cited Section IV paragraph 2 of the general provisions section of the town’s Subdivision Regulations. “Land of such character that it cannot, in the judgment of the Board, cannot be safely used for building development purposes because of exceptional danger to health or peril from fire, flood, poor drainage, excessive slope…” He reiterated it’s a life safety issue. On behalf of his clients, Mr. Dowd suggested on behalf of his clients that a 2-lot subdivision be proposed, with both lots on Breed Road, thereby avoiding issues of developing on a Class VI road.
Ted Braun pointed out that Harrisville is an old town, one with several developed Class VI roads that aren’t 16’ wide with ditches on both sides, and any serious safety issues have not arisen.
Eric Masterson, representing the Harris Center, holder of a conservation easement on the abutting property to the north, opposed the application on two procedural grounds: First, on the board-approved prohibition on subdivision of the property, as recorded in the March 3, 1981 plan recorded at Cabinet 3 Number 124 Roll 533 in the Cheshire Co Registry of Deeds, also prohibiting additional residences on the property. Mr. Masterson further stated that the existence of two lots on the Town Tax Map, Map 40 – Lot 102-2 and Map 40-102-17, is contrary to RSA 674:38 regarding the status of plats approved. He cited the statute which states, “Every plat approved by the Planning Board shall, by virtue of the board’s approval, be deemed an amendment of or an addition to or a detail of the official map. Every approved plat shall be a part of the official map.” The Harris Center believes that, based on the statute, the official plan is the controlling document, with this plan stating in the 1981 notes that the lot is to be a single lot. He urged the PB to honor the 1981 decision.
Second, Mr. Masterson argued, the application should be for a major subdivision, under the town’s subdivision ordinances, as the application would create 4 lots, 102-2A, 102-2B, 102-2 and lot 102-17. He requested that the proper procedures be followed and offered, as a first step, the board’s consideration of revocation of the 1981 decision under RSA 676:4-a (corrected from RSA 674:4-a), which lays out when and how a recorded plan can be revoked. Without such a step and without the refiling of application as a major subdivision, Mr. Masterson concluded, the current proposal remained in violation of the board’s own regulations.
In support of the Planning Board’s consideration of the current application, PB co-chair Courtney Cox read from the opinion of then town attorney Gary Kinyon, who cited two supreme court cases which he believes “give the current Planning Board the authority to modify the terms and conditions of the prior subdivision approval, including to release a condition of approval related to further subdivision, provided of course that the proposed subdivision complies with current zoning and subdivision regulations.” Mr. Kinyon further advised that a revocation of the earlier opinion was not required to consider a new subdivision, or “resubdivision” of the parcel, and that current subdivision regulations do not prohibit resubdivisions. Ms. Cox offered to read from the supreme court cases referenced by Mr. Kinyon and acknowledged the significance of the issue.
Mr. Maneval offered to review the relevant RSA, 676:4-a (corrected from 674:4-a), as to why the PB does not consider the revocation process set forth in that statute to be relevant to this situation.
Jon Miner referred to paragraph 9 of the General Provisions section of the Subdivision Regulations, explaining that parcels of land separated by a class V or better road built before 1957 are considered separate lots of record, which is the reason for the separate tax map lot numbers for Map 40-Lot 102-2 and Map 40-Lot 102-17 and the reason it should be considered its own lot.
The board proceeded with comments from the public. Resident Scott Stone shared his experience as a property owner, approved for a Class VI road major subdivision several years ago. He claimed that, though safety is always an issue, it’s incumbent upon Class VI road property owners to maintain and upgrade their roads and to incur the cost to do so.
Kathy Scott spoke to both developed and undeveloped Class VI roads. The process in place involves review by Fire, Highway, the Select Board, and Code Enforcement, and the Town puts safety first.
Jon Miner spoke to his maintenance of Yellow Wings Road over the past 25 years, and to its safety, stating it is safer than some narrower Class V town roads. He added that the development of the Class VI road lot may never happen; the board doesn’t know that.
Lisa Anderson raised the concern of unknown future boards and whether it’s ethical for the PB to create a lot, the future owner of which could face changes in policy or unexpected costs or inability to obtain insurance. The applicants noted their lack of an issue with obtaining insurance in their 26 years on their property, and the ability of emergency responders and other large vehicles to reach their home.
Courtney Cox was asked to read from the town’s Class VI Road policy (see attached), which she did, including the entirety of the “Purpose” section, the “Basic Statutory Intent,” the definition of Class VI road, and the process step involving the Building Inspector and Select Board. PB members and the public focused on the comprehensive process for obtaining building permits along privately-maintained public roads and along private roads.
Returning to Mr. Maneval’s review of 676:4-a, he recalled Mr. Kinyon’s distinction between a “revocation” and a “modification” and Mr. Kinyon’s belief that the proposed subdivision application was the latter and did not involve the revocation process. Mr. Kinyon relied on two supreme court cases to make that distinction. Mr. Maneval agreed that the PB needs to follow proper procedure and that the board has undertaken efforts in that regard by obtaining legal input. He suggested that the board could either go through the revocation process under 676:4-a, consider the question for the next meeting, or accept the opinion given to the town by counsel. Mr. Maneval believed the next step hinged on whether or not the board was satisfied with town counsel’s interpretation.
Courtney Cox described the advice of counsel, noting she was convinced his interpretation made sense. Mr. Maneval raised the second procedural issue raised by Mr. Masterson, whether or not the application constitutes a major 4 lot subdivision given the parcel on the east side of Breed Road, an issue addressed by Mr. Miner, and the issue raised by Mr. Dowd that the application constitutes a major 4-lot subdivision by virtue of needed municipal upgrades to the Class VI Road. Mr. Maneval suggested the board gather all the issues raised through the public hearing portion for PB consideration. He added another alternative, to consult with the town’s new counsel on the procedural questions relative to 676:4-a and the minor versus major subdivision question should the PB choose to do so.
In additional comments, members of the public spoke in favor of the application for the reasons of the opportunity for additional housing in town, even if just one or two more houses, the appropriateness of the neighborhood for additional houses. On the question of whether or not this would be affordable housing, the board and Ned Hulbert of the Affordable Housing Team noted the town doesn’t have a clear definition of affordability yet, and the board cannot know the cost of any proposed development in this instance, but the Affordable Housing Team continues its work. He supports the application as long as the procedural concerns raised are addressed. Mr. Braun also supported additional homes, and his understanding is those to be built will be starter homes.
John Newcombe spoke to the history of the parcel and the importance of the 1981 decision, which he believes should be honored. He worries a bad precedent will be set. Mr. Newcombe also emphasized the unique character of the area.
Wendy Pelletier requested a return to the Class VI Road policy and the release of town liability form, emphasizing the town has a process in place for Class VI road development, something not all towns have.
Eric Masterson reiterated the importance of due process, and the Harris Center’s reliance, in its conservation work, on controlling documents such as the recorded plat from the 1981 subdivision.
Jim Putnam, owner of property on Westside Road, submitted and read a letter to the PB. He believes the application constitutes a 4-lot subdivision based on the 1981 subdivision and thus should follow the 4-lot subdivision; it also would go against the 1981 decision. He added that, in his opinion, the 1981 decision was the first very important land conservation effort in town, which was followed by additional initiatives and much of the Harris Center’s land conservation easements and other land protection agreements. He urged the PB to deny the application, seek additional ways to strengthen the single-lot provision of the 1981 decision and add conservation protections to further protect the natural gateway to Silver Lake.
To a more general question about larger subdivisions and protections for neighbors and the town, the PB and Mr. Maneval noted the protections in place in the existing ordinances and regulations, and explained the process whereby initiatives for new ordinances and protections are possible, including through Town Meeting.
Ryan Stone closed the public hearing at 8:35 pm, after which the board began deliberations. Mr. Maneval spoke to the Feins v. Town of Wilmot Supreme Court case, which distinguished between a subdivision and resubdivision and which ruled that a town could not deny an application on the grounds of a prior one. In that case, a resubdivision did not need to conform to the original subdivision conditions or the revocation of it. From what Mr. Maneval read, he believes Mr. Kinyon’s interpretation was relevant to this.
Mr. Maneval at the same time acknowledged the points made by opponents, posing to the board its question as to what it wants to do as compared to what it is required to do, and how much the past should dictate the future beyond what is appropriate. The PB faces the issues of development and housing and current regulations versus the 1981 board’s decision, which the board could choose to uphold but is not obligated to. Speaking separately to the major vs. minor subdivision issue, Ryan Stone stated he understands the parcel has a separate tax ID and is an existing nonconforming lot on the eastside road, independent of the subdivision. PB members agreed.
On the issue of road standards and maintenance of Yellow Wings Road, though it may not meet the current standards, the PB feels, upon consideration of a building permit, the Select Board and municipal services agents would review the status of the road and follow the process set forth in the policy, Issuance of Building Permits on Class VI Roads. Mr. Maneval again raised that, under the Subdivision Regulations, the PB needs to consider whether or not there is a measurable impact on Yellow Wings Road as a result of the proposed subdivision. He does not feel there is one, but wanted all members to consider the question.
Lisa Anderson asked clarification on why the board would overturn a covenant, but Courtney Cox disagreed about the term ‘overturning’, stating the application before them is a ‘resubdivision.’ She acknowledged the interests of conservation but noted that much of the town’s land is already in conservation, limiting opportunities for development and additional housing.
PB members reviewed the exact language under Subdivision Regulations, Attachment 2, Section X, Required Improvements, Upgrading of Existing Roads, paragraph 4, “In the event that there is a measurable impact on the existing roads as a result of the subdivision, the Planning Board may require the subdivider to bear a reasonable portion of the costs of the upgrade to the existing road.”
The board also revisited attorney Dowd’s citation that “Land of such character that it cannot, in the judgment of the Board, cannot be safely used for building development purposes because of exceptional danger to health or peril from fire, flood, poor drainage, excessive slope or other hazardous conditions shall not be platted for residential, commercial, or industrial subdivision, nor for such other uses as may increase danger to life or property, or aggravate the flood hazard.” Mr. Maneval pointed to this language as the point where the PB authority enters. Another legitimate question is what the 1981 PB thought. While the Town has Class VI roads all over town, such existence doesn’t define the hazards outlined in this regulation.
Mr. Stone stated he does not feel there is an impact as the development would essentially be a single driveway entrance off the Class VI Road. Other members agreed; however, Ms. Anderson dissented, opposing a subdivision and development on a Class VI road without knowing future ramifications.
Ms. Cox pointed to the board’s purpose of addressing each application as it is presented, and to ensure it conforms to the current regulations and aligns with the Master Plan. Don Scott weighed in to support moving forward with the application, believing the issues of the minor vs. major subdivision were addressed by the board, as were the issues of safe development on a Class VI road through the town’s established policies and procedures. He believes if the board is confident in Mr. Kinyon’s interpretation of the 1981 issue, then the PB should proceed.
PB members agreed that, while the Master Plan is a guiding document, and while it supports both conservation and adequate housing supply, the board is bound by its ordinances and regulations. With Sarah Kendall’s suggestion to be very clear about why the board would proceed in light of the arguments to honor the 1981 subdivision conditions, Mr. Maneval turned the board to the exact language in the Feins. v. Town of Wilmot case, as follows: “’Subdivision’ means the division of the lot, tract, or parcel of land into 2 or more lots, plats, sites, or other divisions of land… It includes resubdivision and, when appropriate to the context, relates to the process of subdividing or to the land or territory subdivided…The defendant [the Town] has not adopted regulations governing resubdivisions as distinguished from subdivisions. In the absence of such regulations, and in view of the statutory inclusions 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.” Mr. Maneval noted this was the language that he relied upon and Mr. Kinyon relied upon to distinguish between a subdivision and resubdivision and a revocation of a subdivision. PB members may disagree on the intent of the 1981 decision, but the application before them is current and the regulations are in effect, which, Mr. Maneval believes, gives the PB the authority to proceed and consider the application at hand.
The board asked the applicants if they would be willing to consider the offers and recommendations of Mr. Dowd and Mr. Putnam, including the request to consider a two-lot subdivision. Phil & Kathryn Miner explained their goal with the application; whether they do anything with the two new lots, they’re not sure yet. But they had the choice in purchasing the property of taking down the house and building a big one to make money and, instead, having attended the housing study meetings, decided to propose the subdivision to create additional housing.
Subsequently, with no further discussion by the board, Mr. Maneval moved to approve the application as submitted. Courtney Cox seconded. The board voted 4-1 in favor with Lisa Anderson opposed based on the request for additional information on subdivisions relative to the 1981 covenant and based on concerns about cost to future owners relative to road upgrades or maintenance of the Class VI road.
The PB will draft a notice of decision to be distributed to the applicants. The assessor will confirm the assigned lot numbers for the mylar.
Second Public Hearing on Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Given that the only change since the first public hearing was the word “permitted” as a substitute for “erected” in Article 6.1.4., the PB briefly reviewed the items already considered, and then move on to the newly proposed amendment related to Class VI roads. Members agreed with the previously suggested edit.
At 9:18 pm, the opened the public hearing.
Mr. Maneval noted his disappointment that multiple family housing for the Residential/Agricultural district, and the possibility of two ADUs, did not make it onto the final proposed list of amendments. Board members emphasized their desire to move slowly, particularly with the lack of land that would be developable.
The board considered a suggestion from Mr. Sorenson that the language in 9.1.3. should be consistently singular. The PB unanimously agreed that the language should read “Only one single family dwelling, or one duplex…”, as suggested.
The board then moved to the draft Zoning Ballot, presenting the zoning amendment questions. Jon Miner described the reason for adding the amendment to 6.2.2. to change Class “V” to Class “VI”. This is based on the update to state regulations going to effect in July 2026. Should the town not modify this provision, state law would still prevail regarding frontage requirements for backlots in the Residential/Agricultural district, allowing frontage on Class VI or better roads. Lisa Anderson felt this went beyond the compliance requirements and that the town’s policies don’t address how to guarantee and ensure payment of maintenance of the Class VI roads. Board members disagreed that this shouldn’t be the town’s jurisdiction.
The board discussed extensively whether the additional amendment was necessary. The state law would prevail and property owners would still be protected relative to backlot road frontage requirements. Subsequently, with confidence that the Ordinance Review Committee adequately researched the question, members agreed to move forward with the proposed amendment. Jon Miner then moved to accept the amendment as proposed. Courtney Cox seconded. Following discussion, Members voted 4-1 in favor, with Lisa Anderson opposed.
Following review of the complete zoning ballot, including the suggested typo correction, the suggestion to use “statute” vs. “regulation” for the explanations, and the suggestion to further clarify the explanation for Amendment #3, the board agreed with the changes. Mr. Maneval moved to accept the ballot as drafted, with the agreed upon changes. Courtney Cox seconded. All voted in favor.
Annual report for the Town Report – Members thanked Courtney Cox for her work.
Agenda for February 11 meeting – The PB agreed to accept the invitation from SWRPC for the joint meeting with the SB, PB, ORC and the housing team to review 2026 activities and the end of the grant.
The meeting adjourned at 9:52 pm.