[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-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",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_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",6317055,"mediaKeyId","2375077-c575f3386be2bf3c510964f3ee17b064","parentId",2375077,"title","Resident asks planning board to address recusal rules after Tenney Mountain overlay vote","audioSeconds",164,"startMs",261000,"endMs",425000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2375077-c575f3386be2bf3c510964f3ee17b064&start=261&end=425","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2375077-c575f3386be2bf3c510964f3ee17b064/thumbnail_261000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6317055/Plymouth/Grafton-County/New-Hampshire/Resident-asks-planning-board-to-address-recusal-rules-after-Tenney-Mountain-overlay-vote","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6317055-23d9acf26783fe89e59ad261c46d38c3/orig.mp4?Expires=1770445323&Signature=kdkfV3whec0L~mZq9cVvVgZXwvrwKH3AzSOqxBt5M5aaxrH9beArB5nn6dbQZSJXu24A0B1EBvBstraF2Ug5jxKA57LbdiN2xmvXe7d3M2Lf3vbEt1OqPsmDxFwKS8ZuA1CNW8w2MvfWYvYCP3zQnBGEaFKAZIF9k2wHsl4fnep4E5PGK-P1pX3uhgi4HIywVr5Nf9OJuE5oE5DwSVGnuLZASW8cp~maddlkQKCpwNhsPuL48Z9D21JLU~5VetzyVI2x1QmPF-sVSOrM~ibWklyBPcg14rFTLSHLniPIxpZ05~VIj1HwoyzmWVwuw0AQdqGE1zsxXTbKTaNWHk1Cxw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Plymouth, NH","date","2025-02-22T11:47:10.397Z","article","The Planning Board discussed a written communication from resident Stuart Hannah of 77 Eagles Nest Road raising concerns about recusal and possible conflicts of interest after a previous vote on the Tenney Mountain Overlay District. Hannah said he observed a board member, Michael Bouchard, vote against moving forward with the overlay despite previous involvement with the ski mountain and asked how potential conflicts of interest will be avoided.

Hannah's letter said he had witnessed the member for years advocating for investment in the mountain, sometimes representing the mountain at meetings, and that he was unsure why the member later voted no. \"I would appreciate a response from the board chair explaining how potential conflict of interests can be avoided moving forward,\" Hannah wrote.

Board members reviewed RSA guidance and distributed information from the New Hampshire Municipal Association titled \"I recuse myself\" that discusses recusal and conflict of interest. Planner Joseph told the board he would prepare a response and indicated that the discussion could be captured in the minutes and the video if the board wished to respond that way. \"The board could designate some kind of written response or could respond verbally in its discussion,\" Joseph said. The board agreed it would prepare a response to the resident and that staff would provide legal references for future recusal decisions.

Board members discussed the difference between financial/pecuniary conflicts and less‑clear personal conflicts and agreed the individual member decides whether to recuse, with the board able to take a non‑binding advisory vote if requested. The board handed out RSA language and a NH Municipal Association article for members' reference and planned to send the resident either a written reply or refer him to the meeting minutes and video where the matter was discussed.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Plymouth Planning Board - 2/20/25","oneSentenceSummary","A Plymouth resident wrote asking the planning board to explain conflict‑of‑interest and recusal procedures after a member voted against the Tenney Mountain Overlay District; the board reviewed RSA guidance and agreed to provide a written or recorded response.","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},6317059,"Board continues 3 Lakes Hamilton Way site plan review after questions on setbacks, storage bins and plans",642,4893000,5535000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2375077-c575f3386be2bf3c510964f3ee17b064&start=4893&end=5535","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2375077-c575f3386be2bf3c510964f3ee17b064/thumbnail_4893000.jpg","/articles/6317059/Plymouth/Grafton-County/New-Hampshire/Board-continues-3-Lakes-Hamilton-Way-site-plan-review-after-questions-on-setbacks-storage-bins-and-plans","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6317059-ff40c33ec54706641908a95fd32379ca/orig.mp4?Expires=1770445324&Signature=M46HN9ZCGl9ye16rSC22pZPkPtdGeoeV5KPzdpT0USGMyvaMoWaYXoOxKOBLUJD85K0jkYSXKIdFfCNzOSmsJs8S9fZDMiyx6J5EM3zPWkXFa13PWwN7jro7D~HVmxEJbuO8R-aqnB7SUm~FthiSHoeoud5IdcDLjX0REssVsq6ezTdAMlbCQbDdMkaZKRCN~QaK2JNrmqRjOHqQm2akXiTlRHEudmtkmUa6clDvpoZXk-~-YR2JMZe2qnmZA1SkW6sgWoc1WW39mHXhtDsQwkxX0zyyTaI-IaJFC5guQ-zFu~F-ElS7PZT3HVQoDkwZXXpABO~I3toNJ7PBB5vY-w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Plymouth Planning Board continued a site plan review from 3 Lakes Properties LLC for expansion of retail landscape material sales and greenhouse space on Hamilton Way to its March 20 meeting so staff and the applicant can reconcile plan sets and resolve outstanding questions about setbacks, storage bays and easements.

Mario Folcaretto of Brown Engineering, representing the applicant Colby Lenentine, said the applicant submitted a stormwater report and additional materials; the board had asked for more detail after an earlier review. Board members, however, flagged multiple outstanding items: (1) apparent encroachments of parking and storage bays into the front/parking setback; (2) a line of concrete block material storage bays (three‑sided cells) that may function as retaining walls and are shown inside the setback line on the current site plan; and (3) a pergola and a proposed woodshed that also appear to intrude into setback or easement areas.

Colby Lenentine told the board much of the storage configuration is portable and has operated in place for several years. \"They're portable — they can all be moved off the property the next day,\" Lenentine said about the bins and freestanding structures; he also noted operational constraints for deliveries if the bins were moved. Board members asked the applicant to consider shifting structures slightly to avoid requiring variances and to confirm whether the features qualify as accessory structures (which would require special exceptions in setbacks) or are simply retaining walls and outdoor display (which the site plan review evaluates).

The board also reviewed the stormwater modeling files. Joseph (planning staff) said a full stormwater backup (HydroCAD outputs) had been provided but that some of the scanned submittal material created multiple plan versions in the packet; he asked the applicant to reconcile the site plan set with the stormwater model so the board can confirm impervious totals used in the drainage analysis.

Because the status of the storage bays and pergola affects whether the board must require Zoning Board of Adjustment action (special exception or variance), members elected to continue the public hearing. The board asked the applicant to work with staff to produce a single reconciled plan set, clarify the nature of the storage bays and accessory structures, and provide any legal information about the private road/right‑of‑way that bisects the property — including whether extinguishing or consolidating the private road would change setback calculations.

The meeting record shows the board accepted the application as complete for hearing purposes before continuing the hearing to March 20; the board also asked the applicant to coordinate with planning staff regarding the clarifications requested.","The Planning Board continued the 3 Lakes Landscaping site plan application for Hamilton Way to March 20 after questions about multiple plan versions, stormwater backup data and apparent encroachments — notably a row of material storage bays/retaining walls shown in the setback and a pergola and other structures.",{"_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},6317064,"Board approves boundary line adjustment after well found on neighbor’s property",152,4436000,4588000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2375077-c575f3386be2bf3c510964f3ee17b064&start=4436&end=4588","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2375077-c575f3386be2bf3c510964f3ee17b064/thumbnail_4436000.jpg","/articles/6317064/Plymouth/Grafton-County/New-Hampshire/Board-approves-boundary-line-adjustment-after-well-found-on-neighbors-property","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6317064-d8c3a1ee3608cb0decc59015648729b6/orig.mp4?Expires=1770445324&Signature=T1gwRImOTqOd88IFDYsO2JFiERYNBZJbX4kfc0WD3DPgecLdh~eWCWrd7irgsb4prT9lSCYTFdls2EvpX~rFndfgRPCrJAZamSijvdDFDVcQP7KVewU4ElVRFnMj~1w4-jr3~BPFGrxTMghxTgnCfMV2TlSPA5iz6ceuh9zqp552MrdPo8OKqDFnAH3wfB1jpNps1PNFHPJRuUPRcQGCU2baF6eisg8j85MuHcW8ylCufQDyl1pROoyIIPBJmR76uAM9mqfwaqudg5fmWnX7xR2Ocybg3SaoyPPndQtWa-2ImF~NC-6TxIKdxtk3yczwAqg563KlbU4e3Q4jep5NOg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning Board approved a boundary line adjustment between parcels 209‑060 and 209‑056 after a survey revealed a well sat on the neighboring property. Mario Folcaretto of Brown Engineering said the parties reached agreement to shift the boundary so the well remains on the intended parcel.

Trish Temperino, an owner involved in the exchange, told the board she and her family were surprised to learn the well was not on the recorded property and thanked staff for help resolving the issue. \"It was a bit of a shock to us to find out that our well wasn't on our property,\" Temperino said during the meeting.

The board found that both lots will remain conforming under the Highway Commercial zoning district, that road frontage will not be affected, and that the adjustment remedies the survey error without creating encroachments. The board approved the adjustment and directed the applicant to record a mylar and pay recording fees before finalization.

Brown Engineering and the applicants were instructed to provide the recorded documents to planning staff once completed.","The board approved a boundary line adjustment at 9 Valley View Lane and 481 Main Street to place a well back on the intended parcel after a survey discovered it sat on the abutter’s land; the adjustment does not create nonconforming lots and must be recorded.",{"_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},6317069,"Planning board approves boundary line adjustment and conditional use permit for duplexes on Texas Hill Road",1601,2748000,4349000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2375077-c575f3386be2bf3c510964f3ee17b064&start=2748&end=4349","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2375077-c575f3386be2bf3c510964f3ee17b064/thumbnail_2748000.jpg","/articles/6317069/Plymouth/Grafton-County/New-Hampshire/Planning-board-approves-boundary-line-adjustment-and-conditional-use-permit-for-duplexes-on-Texas-Hill-Road","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6317069-26a0517a96fd19f635b0df647d513834/orig.mp4?Expires=1770445324&Signature=Pynecdj8LT8jaMpqsyIejJteq5Gfbyq0p5yBCJ3iVJUcHvGZkeBCghXjluocP6T7ONSmO0yKU6~V-PeLWqtFZ~jA7tDmqw4qoYEzU~XbHh9U2yCWBrkwDzivPmVLKjTI6B5VCC9AwIq9rdrhgIbsjHU~IMS00yecchui3aJmdbzc1OnZhURvd7p4u~NCGm4Bpjpa8lDDecjLYAH-oONZP3HGNmzLVoNM7cHXwgxsIz-RCaH8sC8TZsQkoqFvDk0p7wi9-YQJAKjdqRe4kZo1h5Lq01K4VjZhD7GY2plbc-X19m9rHHUrkN10DXSgLynabkCutR01i-X2bYU2~1JfzQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Plymouth Planning Board approved a boundary line adjustment and granted a conditional use permit to the Jacqueline Downing Trust (applicant Ben Downing) to allow construction of four duplex buildings (two duplexes on each of two adjoining lots) on Texas Hill Road.

Ben Downing presented the proposal as four duplex units across two parcels (two duplexes per lot), intended to provide rental housing for young professionals and small families. \"Each lot will house two duplex units, and they will be serviced by a single driveway per lot,\" Downing told the board. The board accepted the boundary line adjustment application as complete, opened and closed a public hearing with no public opposition, and approved the adjustment; the change increases Parcel 221‑070 by approximately 0.7 acres and decreases Parcel 221‑068 by the same amount.

On the conditional use permit for residential colocation, the applicant provided site plans showing the proposed units (about 2,300 square feet each, two‑bedroom, one bath, with full basements for tenant use), driveway designs that include hammerheads and 20‑foot driveway widths requested by the Fire Department, and landscaping buffers and internal walkways. The Fire Chief provided a memo noting the department's access requirements; the applicant said he met those specifications. \"He did have two recommendation requirements: hammerheads at the end of the driveway so he could turn his apparatus around, and he wanted the driveways to be 20 feet wide. Both of those are reflected in this site plan,\" Downing said.

The board conditioned the conditional approval on: obtaining septic and DES wetlands approvals, any necessary Plymouth Village Water & Sewer approvals (if applicable), issuance of required driveway permits, final boundary line recording (mylar) and associated recording fees, and securing a building permit prior to development. The board also noted the applicant must secure any special exceptions required by the Zoning Board of Adjustment if zoning changes affect permitted uses. The applicant told the board he preferred to avoid a third‑party engineering review for this small residential development to keep costs down; the board did not require such a review.

Neighbors spoke in support; Jeff Downing, who owns nearby property, said the project would provide needed housing and praised the applicant's work. The board approved the CUP motion and recorded the standard conditions. Members emphasized the applicant must obtain all necessary state and local permits before construction.","The board approved a boundary line adjustment and granted a conditional use permit allowing construction of four duplex units (two duplexes per lot) on Texas Hill Road, subject to septic, wetlands, driveway and building permits and final plan recording.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6317073,"Planning board approves Yatton Road commercial site plan with conditions",2642,1094000,3736000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2375077-c575f3386be2bf3c510964f3ee17b064&start=1094&end=3736","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2375077-c575f3386be2bf3c510964f3ee17b064/thumbnail_1094000.jpg","/articles/6317073/Plymouth/Grafton-County/New-Hampshire/Planning-board-approves-Yatton-Road-commercial-site-plan-with-conditions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6317073-8d2b1c7c9a45ae9a627f33711568f5e8/orig.mp4?Expires=1770445324&Signature=YV7luv0rLhfL0fh860jp~u9CnCb5UIwWv9JGQg~UzHmsdrhfNqu~hwhCKshqAcEwwIGODE-qNpmP5r8QjDWmoUrUvoN4xWmdnveMa~mMxp2V9GnidAOc7swOfDuYFqqbjj-24up-66jrkoAu6EEw~JY-iy8Y5h2PwMGeYyxy0T-XfMPXXD0IRgdOMECTDZG3laXViGak7rXjj58ekfvujqWLQ~WAkJxz79FbR6HKWyTwOgc51do13qutj0sAHLhJpy4Vex6JKFGIYY8VrgxVtwOjey-TmRYSUVj-mCiUZWChnD9-4PfWF~14nEPuNxZxrCI1Q57AdWC5Y3SG29KrDw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Plymouth Planning Board on a unanimous vote accepted and then approved a site plan from Hess Engineering and Construction Consultants to develop two single‑story commercial buildings on Parcel 213‑014 on the easterly side of Yatton Road, the board said. The board attached standard conditions requiring New Hampshire Department of Transportation driveway approval, New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services wetlands approval, and final sign and utility plan revisions before construction.

The application proposes two commercial buildings with a combined footprint of about 7,588 square feet, a 31‑space parking layout and an underground stormwater detention system placed beneath the parking area, said Mike Hess of Hess Engineering and Construction Consultants, who presented the plans. \"We moved the drainage up to where the great soils are and are doing underground detention system underneath the parking lot,\" Hess said. The plan calls for building‑mounted, downward‑facing lighting and a single drilled well and propane service for the two buildings.

The board's approval lists multiple conditions. Among them: execution of a development agreement and escrow for construction inspection; approval from Plymouth Village Water & Sewer District and corresponding utility revisions; DOT driveway permit; DES wetlands permit and any other required permits; and compliance with Section 408 of the zoning ordinance for any proposed signage. The approval also notes RSA 676:12, which restricts issuance of building permits within 120 days before a town meeting if a pending zoning amendment could justify a permit denial.

Board members discussed how a citizen‑petitioned zoning amendment on the upcoming warrant might change permitted uses in the Agricultural zone. Joseph (town planner) told the board that if the town meeting approves a zoning change that would make the proposed retail uses subject to a special exception, the applicant must obtain any necessary special exception from the Zoning Board of Adjustment before beginning construction. \"RSA 676:12 does specify that the building inspector shall not issue any building permit within the 120 days prior to the annual or special town meeting if application for such meeting is made after the first legal notice… and the proposed changes would, if adopted, justify refusal of said permit,\" Joseph said.

The board also discussed third‑party engineering review for stormwater; the applicant provided a drainage report and requested the board consider a conditional approval rather than a full third‑party review. The board approved the application with the stated conditions; one board member recused from the final vote because he had missed the beginning of the hearing and said he would not participate in the vote.

The applicant asked that construction be allowed to proceed in a single phase rather than the two phases originally proposed; he said the design reduces pavement and eliminates several retaining walls previously required. He told the board the DOT road (Yatton Road/Tenney Mountain Highway) requires separate sign approval before anything new is placed by the roadside.

The board's approval requires the applicant to obtain all state and local permits and finalize the signage and utility plans. The applicant agreed to the conditions. The board recorded the motion and approved the plan.","The Plymouth Planning Board accepted and approved a site plan from Hess Engineering to build two single-story commercial buildings on Yatton Road, subject to state and local permits and several conditions, including DOT driveway approval, DES wetlands and Plymouth Village Water & Sewer approvals.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Resident asks planning board to address recusal rules after Tenney Mountain overlay vote

Board continues 3 Lakes Hamilton Way site plan review after questions on setbacks, storage bins and plans

Board approves boundary line adjustment after well found on neighbor’s property

Planning board approves boundary line adjustment and conditional use permit for duplexes on Texas Hill Road

Planning board approves Yatton Road commercial site plan with conditions