[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6401009,"mediaKeyId","2066817-fef12e69d833236a5cdab493bc30b197","parentId",2066817,"title","Planning Board moves proposed Industrial‑Commercial District boundary changes to voters","audioSeconds",178,"startMs",2454000,"endMs",2632000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2066817-fef12e69d833236a5cdab493bc30b197&start=2454&end=2632","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2066817-fef12e69d833236a5cdab493bc30b197/thumbnail_2454000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6401009/Plymouth/Grafton-County/New-Hampshire/Planning-Board-moves-proposed-IndustrialCommercial-District-boundary-changes-to-voters","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6401009-3e1325c4d717c545985634e73ab6e285/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159592&Signature=eEStbUerU9f0yne-Mc5ZyW7g7LfYifBOAMWAmxL2~FIA2GLtoJgC5tV32BvO1U~pc7FubeiBMjZ22ne1wjVOEkb4mRRgxJVl1hWRy5~YvDQMh2k1dMBBBANMsPA~1iZU51PEw73213YczST9jnohbnWMVzXyCroGn86q4oCL158Vc7SzcK2txTzIjP8y3RrtTP0i1RIu5itN6FBKRJqSt6ulqCqeYZvwo8HMr6ZsXwYL3pnwCfdRaooiw0HaZ0~desnlIz6Vn5xjgyPZhoAnCwrxnpp6F2uqsfZ13V925pZ3vlUqzIpvxvPUVSbZJVTh0HoeGRrny8XJC1rg7WFDiQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Plymouth, NH","date","2025-01-03T19:09:07Z","article","The Plymouth Planning Board voted Jan. 2 to forward a zoning amendment that redraws parts of the Industrial‑Commercial District (ICD) near Tenney Mountain Highway to the March town meeting ballot.

Why it matters: The proposal adjusts district lines so that existing or anticipated commercial parcels along Tenney Mountain Highway are zoned consistently with nearby commercial development. Proponents said the change would reduce conflicts between existing land use and zoning and make it easier to site future commercial projects in the town's established commercial corridor.

Public comment and discussion: Speakers at the brief public hearing largely supported the change. Grace Garvey, a property owner, praised the board for the revised map and urged the board to preserve wetlands and scenic resources as future development proceeds. Board members noted that the written district descriptions in the warrant would be the controlling text if the map and narrative differ.

Board action: The Planning Board voted to place the ICD boundary amendment on the warrant for town meeting. The meeting record shows at least one abstention during the vote; the official tally was not recorded in full in the public transcript excerpt.

Ending: The amendment will appear on the March ballot for voter consideration. Planning staff said additional map copies and written descriptions are available for review, and that the board intends to consider more fine‑grained mapping or rezoning in future months if needed.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Plymouth Planning Board - 1/2/25","oneSentenceSummary","The Plymouth Planning Board voted Jan. 2 to put a proposed redraw of portions of the Industrial‑Commercial District near Tenney Mountain Highway on the March town meeting ballot.","taxTitle","Plymouth, Grafton County, New Hampshire","taxId",61623,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6401017,"Plymouth planning board endorses petition to restrict commercial uses in agricultural zone",3101,505000,3606000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2066817-fef12e69d833236a5cdab493bc30b197&start=505&end=3606","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2066817-fef12e69d833236a5cdab493bc30b197/thumbnail_505000.jpg","/articles/6401017/Plymouth/Grafton-County/New-Hampshire/Plymouth-planning-board-endorses-petition-to-restrict-commercial-uses-in-agricultural-zone","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6401017-27d620de6a4c2b2c496a5edfd8c23448/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159592&Signature=ddWzu7wY-fSUdqdgNHT-QQKtXOXl2aMqA6Lv0PyehcrA4Li-WSVTFoyvNM3gaohuzHdcLPgV2uzXth2Rj7KPQqXZIkId2M-GMeYhXr16ygdb7HAwIm7NTUSSJ851IoScVE0pLIDfM3RIuQZYTCUYonV6mhYo5qxEFtB3m4hfLjS8ucJPTJdYcW1aT5ghcIbD5lC0W3dJo4n7CrWug8weRGGwN14R70IeeKraz-utKuzwDukXsvRkoD0wTP3-H7cQHJ3vzkyBLWzn8Cx-OtCs2W-yV2rzyfbrDa0EPdpn7NUnpLtAiidItjVvjJdaXsjYz4HS0iN6ogXOPiMjZ6oBJw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Plymouth Planning Board at its Jan. 2 meeting voted to endorse a citizen‑petitioned zoning amendment that would change how several commercial uses are allowed in the town's agricultural zone, moving many from permitted uses to special exceptions. The endorsement directs the amendment to appear on the town meeting ballot in March.

Why it matters: The change would make uses such as some restaurants, retail and other commercial operations subject to the zoning board's special‑exception review rather than being allowed by right, a shift supporters say will help preserve rural and environmental character and opponents say could raise costs and barriers for small, local businesses seeking to operate in agricultural areas.

Supporters at the hearing urged the board to back the petitioned article and let voters decide. Grace Garvey, a property owner in the agricultural zone, said, \"I support these' . . . put it in front of the voters.\" Danielle Sergeant, another resident, told the board the proposal \"preserve[s] the agricultural zone and rural character of our community\" and argued that the special‑exception process would allow the public and the zoning board to limit scale and scope.

Opponents and some board members warned the change could unintentionally disadvantage local entrepreneurs who rely on lower‑cost parcels in rural areas. Colby Leonardine, who said he operates three local businesses, described how he purchased land outside the town's primary commercial corridor to start and grow a business and said tighter rules \"could really have a steep impact on someone that would be willing to be part of our community.\" Another speaker, who identified himself as a long‑time agricultural landowner, said, \"I am opposed to all these changes of our ability to do our land what we want.\"

Planning board members debated two related items: the petitioned amendment (certified by the select board) and a near‑identical amendment drafted by the planning board itself. After the public hearing the planning board voted to endorse the petitioned amendment and to withdraw the board's own duplicate draft from the warrant.

What the amendment would change: The petition would move a number of commercial entries in the town's commercial use table for the agricultural zone from \"permitted\" to \"special exception.\" Under Plymouth's ordinance a special exception requires review by the zoning board, with criteria such as impacts on traffic, parking, neighborhood character and public welfare.

Next steps: The endorsed petition will appear on the March town meeting ballot. If voters approve, those use changes would become part of the zoning ordinance; developers and property owners would then follow the updated procedures for any applications in the agricultural zone.

Public comment and board context: Speakers for and against the amendment included residents, property owners and representatives of the Conservation Commission. Joan Turley, chair of the Conservation Commission, said the changes \"allow the town of Plymouth to be very deliberate about their way to protect the land\" and stressed environmental and flood‑risk concerns. Planning Board Chair John (chair) repeatedly noted the board could still refine future zoning language and that the change is part of an incremental process.

The meeting record shows robust public engagement on the topic and repeated requests from board members for clearer definitions and more work on scale and implementation if the amendment moves forward.

Ending: The endorsement sends the citizen petition to the voters in March, while leaving open future work by the board on more detailed definitions and zoning tools that speakers said they wanted to see added later.","The Plymouth Planning Board at its Jan. 2 meeting voted to endorse a citizen‑petitioned zoning amendment that would move a number of commercial uses in the town's agricultural zone from permitted uses to special exceptions, sending the measure to the March town meeting ballot.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6401004,"At a glance: planning board actions and items headed to the March ballot",3174,296000,3470000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2066817-fef12e69d833236a5cdab493bc30b197&start=296&end=3470","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2066817-fef12e69d833236a5cdab493bc30b197/thumbnail_296000.jpg","/articles/6401004/Plymouth/Grafton-County/New-Hampshire/At-a-glance-planning-board-actions-and-items-headed-to-the-March-ballot","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6401004-35e2ac56f6c91f9685c9f6438106826d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159592&Signature=iW1kry~UFS99SPsbucz0XBX2--4uXkojmR9-4QtvO2hqcJSjzpAGmETORdI1c3ra9GhRjYKzt3hAfgXIV3ErXAd8s4thnMgtesa5TxVNfyKt9FuPrtFHimh3YjyZDAsSeIjcQshGVn9dgdhCZa1oHpjhyl0lRCvFeRg3RzRwInPwVshWdI0Qp5mj37-SaG0wiSf9eNouwO2gPXtHVRMji3bFU917ylsrMrMqEbwUfihFG-bNnk8HOstJbUwP4~2YiTeXUuipHcuW~woJj~R7jV7aEQtdUbjvt9A6TKu3rrvQOSDtVAxzOPYMchrWs7O5oC4ruVrjGMQerQsVQm7f~g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","What the board decided on Jan. 2 (summary for voters and stakeholders):

- Zoning amendment 4 (commercial storage facilities): Planning Board voted to place this amendment on the March town meeting warrant. The item had limited public comment and the motion to advance carried.

- Zoning amendment 5 (parking updates required by HB 1400): The board approved sending a clarifying update to the voters to align local parking regulations with state law (HB 1400). The hearing produced no major objections.

- Zoning amendment 6 (permanent uses / housekeeping changes): The board voted to put this item on the ballot as written after a short hearing; staff noted that text changes were largely clarifications.

- Appointment recommendation: The board voted to recommend that the Select Board appoint Michael Bouchard to fill a planning board vacancy. The board's recommendation will be forwarded to the Select Board for final action at its next meeting.

Other procedural actions: The board approved December 19, 2024 meeting minutes (with amendments) and selected Barrett Planning as the planning consultant the board will use for the coming work program.

Notes on votes and process: Several of these items were routine or required by state law and were moved forward with limited discussion; final legal text and warrant placement will be confirmed by planning staff and (where required) the town attorney ahead of the warrant deadline. Specific roll‑call tallies for some votes were not fully read into the transcript excerpt; where recorded, abstentions were noted in the minutes.","On Jan. 2 the Plymouth Planning Board handled six zoning amendments and several routine items. Three shorter amendments and a board recommendation were moved forward with little debate; the board also recommended a citizen appointment to the planning board.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6401014,"Tenney Mountain overlay draws long hearing; planning board seeks attorney review and schedules follow‑up",3662,3028000,6690000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2066817-fef12e69d833236a5cdab493bc30b197&start=3028&end=6690","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2066817-fef12e69d833236a5cdab493bc30b197/thumbnail_3028000.jpg","/articles/6401014/Plymouth/Grafton-County/New-Hampshire/Tenney-Mountain-overlay-draws-long-hearing-planning-board-seeks-attorney-review-and-schedules-followup","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6401014-6296d2686a2f1e04eaf262a2a921f4b6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159592&Signature=jPHFO~XOfzURo8XIHm8lg0X9kOFR9kQYN4uvnSMb0keVgFC39etHX3cXT1Lw2uu7QNlaUUx6Z5U3o6PYLpnPtvF8P1gN1n43pQw~FU4QulI0~svaJXwSxff9lZs4ysJzE1wI-rvn4xU6hPN4A8Df8-l1mj~Qd2Ih7ZSTHkqGlINI7rMkwJwEGVp-0Q28RjLCPLPo-Jd3ko9LjxwyMnI6NwC1iBhpzbKO0vHdqXld6zwCe2litPKUO7wajTE2QY0UgF0uHROQ~N0Kf7r8isEjufmy~-3pK~Ug-ITr~kyhoCQjort6MovXPMjDfUn2La-jJMXp5na57BHKCs3wG8TzMw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Plymouth Planning Board held an extended hearing on Jan. 2 on a proposed Tenney Mountain Overlay District (TMOD) that would allow a planned‑unit development (PUD) pathway for major redevelopment and a multi‑season resort concept at Tenney Mountain and adjacent lands. Developers presented conceptual goals and answered questions; many residents and stakeholders asked for environmental safeguards and clarity about density and housing types.

Why it matters: The overlay would create an alternative set of rules for large‑scale, master‑planned developments in the Tenney Mountain area. If adopted it could enable mixed uses—including resort facilities, hotels, limited industrial/research space and a village core—through a coordinated PUD process rather than a series of piecemeal site plans.

Developers' presentation and community concerns: The Tenney Mountain team described a long‑range vision that includes added terrain and a village core designed to support year‑round activity, plus a proposed campus for higher‑paying jobs tied to science and technology. Steve Kelly, a lead developer on the project, said the intent is to create a financially sustainable, multi‑season destination that can support jobs and housing.

Many residents and conservation advocates pressed for limits and safeguards. Joan Turley, chair of the Conservation Commission, urged cautious treatment of wetlands, floodplains and viewsheds and warned that large, poorly sited development could increase flood risk. Several speakers asked for clearer language on where and how tall buildings may be, how many units per acre would be permitted and how the overlay would interact with state wetlands and drainage rules.

Board debate and next steps: Planning board members and the developer team discussed multiple technical points, including definitions of a PUD, minimum acreage thresholds (discussed in draft as 100 acres and 250 acres for different PUD types), the village core concept (draft text limited a high‑density village core to 25% of the PUD tract) and how to compute buildable acreage when wetlands and steep slopes are present.

After extended public comment and discussion, the board agreed to circulate the revised draft language for legal review and to post the updated text for a continued public hearing on Jan. 16. Planning staff and the development team asked the board for that step to keep the project moving while allowing attorney review of substantive changes.

Quote from the hearing: \"With good design, they fit the character of those places,\" said Neil (planning board member), referring to how larger buildings can be made to match local character when they are part of a master plan. Steve Kelly said the team aims to \"build a sustainable, successful community\" with a mix of resort, housing and employment uses; he also said the team recognizes the need to study wetlands, drainage and roads before final design.

What remains unresolved: The board and public raised questions about whether residential uses should be permitted outside a village core, how to limit overall density across a PUD tract, how to define and measure buildable land, and whether multiple village cores should be permitted within a very large PUD. The board asked staff and counsel to bring clarifying language back for the Jan. 16 hearing.

Ending: The board took no final vote to adopt the overlay at the Jan. 2 meeting. Instead members voted to seek attorney review of the revised draft and to continue the public hearing on Jan. 16 so the board can consider final wording before placing any amendment on the warrant.","Developers and dozens of residents discussed a proposed Tenney Mountain Overlay District and its planned‑unit development (PUD) rules. The board agreed to seek legal review and to continue a public hearing on Jan. 16 to refine language on density, buildable area and environmental protections.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning Board moves proposed Industrial‑Commercial District boundary changes to voters

Plymouth planning board endorses petition to restrict commercial uses in agricultural zone

At a glance: planning board actions and items headed to the March ballot

Tenney Mountain overlay draws long hearing; planning board seeks attorney review and schedules follow‑up