Planning Board
Wednesday, August 12, 2026
Meeting Minutes

Members present: Ryan Stone Co-Chair, Jon Miner Secretary, Lisa Anderson, Don Scott Alternate, Sarah Kendall Alternate, Kathy Scott Select Board Alternate Representative. Members absent: Courtney Cox Co-Chair and Andrew Maneval Select Board Representative
Attendees: Susan Lanzara Bean, John Bean, Debbie Abbott, Jennie Newcombe, John Newcombe, Celeste Whiting, Jennifer Walters, Audrey Wiita, Bob Wiita, Charlie Sorenson, Phil Miner, Kathryn Miner, Scott Stone
Recording Secretary: Mary Ann Noyer

The meeting opened at 7:00 pm.

Agenda and Voting Members – Kathy Scott moved to approve the agenda as drafted. Jon Miner seconded. All voted in favor.  Co-Chair Ryan Stone named the voting members on the 211 Breed Road LLC application as himself, Lisa Anderson, Kathy Scott, Don Scott and Sarah Kendall.  For all other business, the voting members would be Ryan Stone, Lisa Anderson, Kathy Scott, Don Scott and Jon Miner.

Minutes of previous meeting, July 8, 2026 – Kathy Scott moved to approve the minutes as drafted. Jon Miner seconded. All voted in favor.

211 Breed Road LLC, Breed Road (Map 40 – Lot 102-17) – Jon Miner recused himself and stepped away from the table to join the public. Ryan Stone reviewed the background to the application by Philip & Kathryn Miner requesting that the Planning Board amend the 1981 decision of the Planning Board that restricted future residences on the 1.46-acre parcel. The restriction was a condition imposed by the 1981 Planning Board in its approval of the subdivision that created the parcel known as Map 40 – Lot 102-17; the condition was stated on the plat recorded at the Registry of Deeds at that time.

The Miners re-iterated their understanding that the PB’s approval in January 2026 of their 3-lot subdivision across Breed Road included removal of the non-buildable condition on Map 40-Lot 102-17.   The PB confirmed its position that 40-102-17 was not part of the review or approval of the 3-lot subdivision. The PB subsequently sought guidance from town counsel on how to proceed with addressing the Miners’ request regarding the 1981 condition, as the PB has no application process in place for such a request. Counsel advised that the Miner’s send a written request to the PB, triggering a formal public hearing with noticing of abutters, which is the matter before the board now.

Upon request, Kathy Scott read aloud the letter (attached) submitted by the Miners.

At 7:08 pm, Mr. Stone opened the public hearing.

The 1981 Conditions – The board read aloud the note, or condition, as stated on the recorded plat, as follows: “Lot 3 and #3-1 (the subject parcel) on condition that #3 and 3-1 remain as a single lot without further subdivision and that no residential structures be erected on 3-1.”

Feins v. Town of Wilmot – The board then raised the relevance of the 2007 Supreme Court case, Feins v Town of Wilmot, provided by counsel as legal precedent for the PB to consider the 3-lot re-subdivision application brought by 211 Breed Road LLC and heard and approved by the PB in January 2026.  Upon request from an attendee, Mr. Stone read an excerpt of the case as follows:

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.

Mr. Stone summarized that counsel presented this caselaw as a basis for the board’s consideration of a re-subdivision application, one that could move forward as long as the proposal conforms with current planning and zoning regulations.  The Miners are also applying to the ZBA for a special exception to build on Map 40 – Lot 102-17.

The applicants’ request to the PB – Mr. Miner summarized their petition to the PB is to remove the 1981 condition, reiterating that they were under the impression this was done at the January hearing when the 3-lot subdivision on the other side of Breed Road was approved. They noted that 40-102-17 is a pre-existing lot of record that was conforming at the time it was created, when minimum lot size was 1 acre.

Abutter comments – Abutters expressed several concerns: 1) That removing the condition would set a precedent for removal in the future of other restrictions, in essence that rules could be changed after the fact; 2) That allowing development would be contrary to the wishes of the conservation-minded landowners at the time; and 3) that development would have an impact on wetlands and the rural/natural environment and the character of the neighborhood that is the gateway to Silver Lake.

PB Members noted changing the rules or removing might be acceptable if current regulations presented different standards.

Key questions and considerations – Charles Sorenson offered that a key question is what the record shows as to why the prohibition was enacted. Why wasn’t it allowed to be built upon and is it because of the nature of the property itself?  What was the nature of the transactions that the PB was considering in 1981. If the record doesn’t show much, what were the circumstances at the time?

To the assumption from one PB member that the 1981 board imposed the restriction for conservation reasons, the applicants strongly objected noting no documentation about this exists anywhere.

Another PB member asked why the restriction wasn’t written into the deed. The Miners agreed, emphasizing that this is expressed in, and is the basis of, the Wilmot decision, that the minutes and the plat are not as critical as the deed.

PB members disagreed as to whether the conditions set forth for the other lots, or the 1981 PB minutes addressing the other lots that were part of the original subdivision plan, were relevant to Map 40 – Lot 102-17, or if this was a separate issue.

Additional Abutter and PB Comments– John Newcombe of Seaver Farm stated that deeds and plats are linked and recommended the board ask counsel to confirm this. He shared background from his personal and 40-year historical knowledge of the prior landowners, stating they all wanted the restrictions on the lot at the time and had the same intentions, that they were conservation-minded; he asked why their wishes can’t be honored.

Separately, Mr. Newcombe wondered how the PB could, in approving the 3-lot subdivision, thereby create a 4th, non-conforming, lot. He feels a house on that lot will ruin the rural-agricultural feel of the neighborhood and impact the wetland that runs along their common boundary.  He sees no compelling reason to lift the 1981 restriction and believes the Wilmot case has no bearing on this matter. The PB reiterated that it was the Wilmot case that got the board and property owners to where it is today by allowing the re-subdivision and removal of the 1981 conditions on the lots on the west side of Breed Road, and to consider the request before it tonight in light of current regulations.

Jennifer Walters spoke to overdevelopment concerns, stating that, with the recent approved subdivision, and the potential for a house on 40-102-17, there will be an increase from 2-5 houses in the immediate area, a significant change to the character of the neighborhood and a significant environmental impact.

Debbie Abbott noted that the Master Plan addresses concerns about sprawl and that his would be an example; and would add to the already congested area so close to Silver Lake.

Abutter Audrey Wiita addressed the following concerns: 1) that the request is a back-door strategy to avoid having to apply for a major, 4-lot subdivision and a way to put 4 properties on the market; the wetlands on the parcel, her parcel, Seaver Farm, and beyond and along Seaver Road, which she and her husband and other townspeople cherish; development on a nonconforming lot on a very busy road; the need for a site visit and the advertising of such. She called for a wetland scientist to assess the possibilities.

Bob Wiita added that the Wiitas and neighbors had purchased their property with the understanding that the adjacent lot would not be developed, and emphasized the fact that, if it was deemed non-buildable when the minimum lot size was 1 acre, then it’s more reason now with a 2-acre minimum for it to be non-buildable.

Kathy Scott spoke to the existing local and state protections for wetlands, stormwater management and septic and well setbacks, noting the design concept presented on the site plan may meet all of the existing requirements but that the determination on those aspects is not within the PB’s jurisdiction.

John Newcombe inquired if Mr. Scott as a member of the PB was working for the Miners or had done any work for them. Mr. Scott responded he had not done any work on this lot.

Mr. Scott reiterated it has been difficult to ascertain why the building restriction was placed on the property in 1981, but that the minutes of the time include comment from the landowner’s attorney that the restriction could be removed at any time.  There was a difference of opinion about interpreting the intent of the landowners in 1981.

One final comment was Jennifer Walter’s suggestion that counsel be consulted for guidance on whether the deed or plat should prevail.  Mr. Sorenson followed this, asking the PB whether, at any time during the board chairs’ conversation with town counsel, counsel ever stated that the language on the plat could be ignored because it was not on the deed? Mr. Stone said no, but he doesn’t believe the deed was ever discussed, not in the conversation he had with counsel. Mr. Stone later confirmed that the plat is referenced in the deed, even though the plat conditions are not spelled out.

The PB separately confirmed that it has no involvement in the drafting of deeds; it only has oversight over plats.

At 8:15 pm, Mr. Stone closed the public hearing. The PB began deliberation, focused on the issue that, if the PB removes the condition, it is saying the lot could be buildable, not that it necessarily is buildable. Citing Wilmot and counsel’s guidance, Kathy Scott was comfortable in the PB’s ability to decide the matter without further input from the attorney, and that the board is not constrained by the 1981 board’s decision; it is the current regulations and ordinances that should prevail. Don Scott added that the special exception criteria in the Harrisville ordinances address the potential for building on substandard lots and, given the ZBA’s ability to determine buildability for this lot, he believes the PB should allow the process to move forward. Lisa Anderson expressed the concern that removing the condition was a slippery slope for potentially having other conditions removed on other plats, conditions related to easements, or access to wells or lakes, or septic facilities. Kathy Scott offered that protections are in place for each condition and request, requiring an application and review process.  The board again reviewed town counsel’s input on the PB’s ability to consider the Miners’ request.

Ryan Stone summarized the questions that arose, including: 1) what warrants a decision in favor by the PB?; 2) The legal standing of plats vs. deeds; 3) the 3-lot vs. 4-lot subdivision, which the PB believes was addressed in January; 4) the existence of wetlands on the lot, which the PB agreed was not within its purview on this matter; 4) a request for a site visit, which the chair felt was reasonable though the lot and neighborhood characteristics are familiar to PB members; and 5) concern about sprawl. Mr. Stone was not sure this applies as the ordinances provide for 2-acre building lots, resulting in the need for a special exception in this case. Lisa Anderson reiterated that there was a restriction based on the lot, despite its meeting the zoning provisions at the time. The board agreed they don’t know why it was imposed. Ms. Anderson stated that, if the lot were part of a subdivision application currently, it would not meet the regulations. The board confirmed it’s not creating a lot; this one already exists. The conditions are changing for the abutters, Sarah Kendall noted.

Motion by the PB – With no further questions or discussion, Kathy Scott moved that the Planning Board amend the 1981 approval for Map 40-Lot 102-17 prohibiting development of a residential structure on lot #3-1 as it was called on the plat. Don Scott seconded. In a roll call vote, Lisa Anderson voted NO, given the initial ruling was not based on the zoning ordinances at that time and currently the lot is non-conforming. Additionally, abutters should have confidence in knowing the circumstances of the properties beside them. Kathy Scott voted YES because the circumstances meet the current Master Plan for enabling development on smaller parcels in town and the constraints in place on the lot via state and local regulations to prevent environmental harm to the neighborhood and area.  Sarah Kendall voted NO, agreeing with Ms. Anderson’s rationale.  Don Scott voted YES, given the appropriateness of the lot for a residence vs. a business or storage shed or building which would be allowed to be constructed.  Ryan Stone voted YES, believing town zoning provides a fair amount of protection for the area. Acknowledging the concerns of abutters about additional housing in the neighborhood, Mr. Stone noted the extensive discussions by the PB about increasing housing stock and student population in town. There is a housing initiative arguing for cluster housing, but Mr. Stone believes single family homes or duplexes are more appropriate for Harrisville. He hopes the board can bring a few families into town.  With a final vote of 3-2 in favor of the motion, the co-chair noted he will draft the Notice of Decision for the applicants and the ZBA.

Hastings/Kennard Boundary Line Adjustment, 1989 – The PB has been asked to sign off on a boundary line adjustment that was approved in 1989 but never recorded at the Registry of Deeds by the then Planning Board. Current town counsel reviewed the 1989 meeting minutes, plat, the notice of decision from 1989, and current attorney and property owner correspondence, and determined there was no reason for the current PB not to sign it.  A new mylar was produced in order to comply with Registry requirements. The board confirmed that the tax cards and deeds were never adjusted to reflect the approval and agreement.  Ryan Stone and Jon Miner signed the mylar. Mr. Miner will take it to the Registry.  The current property owners’ attorney will handle the drafting of the deed for a pending property transfer.

Members agreed to defer remaining agenda items to next month’s meeting.

Other business
– Mr. Stone raised the idea of adding to the board’s Rules of Procedure a process for circumstances when a full board, or an odd number of voting members, is not present.
-Jon Miner noted that Planning Boards, absent specific restrictions on deeds, have the power to add or remove conditions or modify prior conditions on a plat.

The meeting adjourned at 9:30 pm.