Meeting report · Planning Board
Creating this report cost real money.
Help fund coverage →
Planning Board — November 18, 2025
A packed public comment session featuring twelve speakers — including two former board members — raised credibility, financial viability, construction safety, PRD compliance, and public participation rights concerns against an applicant whose characterization of the public as acting in 'bad faith' and 'frivolously' provoked open anger, and whose project the board chair admitted left him 'genuinely confused,' all combining to produce one of the most adversarial planning sessions this board has seen on this long-running application.
Public impact
Issues from this meeting with documented community impact.
01
39-Unit Residential Development on Christian Hill Road (Jacobson / Revival Trust)
39-unit innovative housing development with disputed PRD compliance; potential town responsibility for agrihood management and multi-use path costs; 250+ dump truck loads of excavation projected; scenic road character at stake Affected: Neighbors along Christian Hill Road, residents near the scenic corridor, and the broader town facing traffic, drainage, construction, and infrastructure cost implications
zoning change
Decisions logged
Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Hearing continued without final decision
Chair indicated probable continuation based on outstanding issues, particularly Keach engineering comments requiring resolution
Continued
Board member Tom Quinn recused himself from participation
Quinn clarified he was not participating in board deliberations but could speak as member of public
Recusal noted
Continue Jacobson application hearing to December 11th
Motion to continue application to December 11th at 7:00pm in high school auditorium with understanding that statutory deadlines will be extended by applicant
Approved unanimously
Easy Realty dental office - No regional impact
Application for 1 story dental office at 108 Panima Road determined to have no regional impact
Approved unanimously
Mitch Development Founders Way - No regional impact
Final subdivision approval amendment for gravel shoulder waiver determined to have no regional impact
Approved unanimously
Norwood/Parmelo subdivision - No regional impact
Two-lot subdivision at 89 Chestnut Hill Road determined to have no regional impact
Approved unanimously
Approve November 5th meeting minutes
Motion to approve minutes from November 5th meeting
Approved unanimously
Topics discussed
Click a topic to expand quotes and full context.
▶ 00:09 Revival Trust Christian Road Final Subdivision - Case History Overview
Chair provided comprehensive background on this Innovative Housing Ordinance application originally submitted in 2019, which was denied, appealed to NH Superior Court, then NH Supreme Court, and remanded back to Planning Board for reconsideration.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 11:03 Material Differences Between Approved CUP and Current Subdivision Plan
Applicant argued the current plan is not materially different from the approved conditional use permit for 39 units, while several board members strongly disagreed, citing significant changes including unit locations, reduced farm parcel, frontage lots on Christian Hill Road, and scenic setback compliance issues.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker, Sam Foyse, Board Member D
▶ 13:44 Scenic Setback Exemption Analysis
Applicant presented exhibit showing 84% of lot area would be precluded from use when applying all setbacks, justifying exemption from 100-foot scenic setback requirements under Section 3.11C.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 17:06 Sidewalk and Multi-Use Path Design
Applicant detailed 8-foot wide sidewalk/path design from fire cisterns into town, including wetland impact areas with granite curbing and 50-foot access easement for future connections.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 30:53 Keach Engineering Review Comments
Discussion of extensive technical review comments from town consulting engineer Steve Keach, with applicant characterizing most as housekeeping items but acknowledging need for NHDES permits and town counsel review.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 32:21 Agricultural Easement Access Concerns
Board member questioned how animals would access proposed historic paddocks in open space, with applicant explaining access would be through end lots via future paths.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 42:13 Public Comments on Developer Credibility and Project Impacts
Multiple residents raised concerns about developer's past bankruptcy on Village Hill project, traffic safety, drainage issues, agricultural viability claims, characterization of public concerns as 'frivolous', financial backing, agrihood management responsibility, pathway costs, and PRD ordinance compliance.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker, Barbara Williams, Kelly Mullen, Jack Child
▶ 1:21:02 Planning Board Discussion on Application Requirements
Board members discussed the need for a comprehensive presentation from the applicant showing compliance with CUP approval conditions and PRD ordinance requirements, expressing confusion about the current project scope.
Speakers: Chair, Board Member D, Board Member H, Board Member I, Board Member G
▶ 1:27:46 Applicant Response and Clarifications
Applicant's representative Sam Foyse addressed concerns raised and clarified that the term 'frivolous' was not meant to be insulting, while requesting opportunity to respond to specific issues raised by board and public.
Speakers: Sam Foyse
▶ 1:25:56 Board Requirements for Future Presentation
Chair outlined three potential approaches for the applicant at the next meeting, emphasizing need for coherent explanation of how the project satisfies approval standards rather than piecemeal presentations.
Speakers: Chair, Board Member D
▶ 1:47:55 Other Applications - Regional Impact Determinations
Board voted on regional impact determinations for three other applications: Easy Realty dental office, Mitch Development subdivision amendment, and Norwood/Parmelo subdivision.
Speakers: Chair, Board Member D
Controversy & dissent
Where the board, the community, or the agenda diverged.
Potentially controversial issues
01
Revival Trust / Jacobson Christian Hill Road Subdivision — Plan Compliance and Material Differences
A six-year-old application that survived NH Superior and Supreme Court appeal has returned with a plan the board and nearly a dozen residents argue is materially different from the approved Conditional Use Permit. Key flashpoints include relocated residential units, a shrunken farm parcel, new frontage lots on a scenic road, and scenic setback violations. The applicant insists the plan is substantially the same; board members explicitly and publicly disagreed. Former board members, agricultural economists, and neighbors all showed up to dispute the project's legitimacy, credibility, and compliance.
Board position: Board signaled strong skepticism, explicitly rejecting the applicant's claim of substantial equivalence to the approved CUP. The chair admitted confusion about the project's current scope and demanded a coherent compliance presentation by December 11th. The hearing was continued without approval.
high concern
02
Developer Credibility — Village Hill Bankruptcy and Financial Backing
Multiple residents cited the developer's prior bankruptcy on the Village Hill project in Northampton, MA, where 130 creditors reportedly lost deposits. Speakers questioned the developer's financial backing and ability to complete the project over six years of changing proposals. These concerns go directly to community risk if the project is approved and then abandoned.
Board position: The board did not directly address the developer's financial history or credibility concerns raised by the public. No response or follow-up was requested from the applicant on this point.
high concern
03
Agricultural Viability and Agrihood Management Responsibility
A resident provided a quantitative analysis showing the proposed 6 farmable acres could generate only $2,670–$4,500 annually, making claims of a financially self-sustaining 'agrihood' mathematically implausible. Separately, another speaker alleged the applicant expected the Town of Amherst — not the developer — to manage the agricultural component, shifting operational costs onto taxpayers. The board never challenged the applicant on either point.
Board position: The board did not respond to the agricultural economics analysis or the cost-shifting allegation. The chair's statement of confusion about 'all these moving parts' suggests the agricultural component remains unresolved in the board's own understanding.
high concern
04
Scenic Setback Compliance on Christian Hill Road
The applicant presented an exhibit claiming 84% of the lot area is precluded from use when all setbacks are applied, using this to justify a scenic setback exemption from the 100-foot requirement under Section 3.11C. Residents noted the issue was first raised by the Heritage Commission, not residents, lending it institutional weight. The exemption claim is disputed and has not been independently validated.
Board position: Board members raised the scenic setback as one of several significant differences between the approved CUP and the current plan, but did not rule on the exemption claim. The matter remains open pending the applicant's December 11th presentation.
high concern
05
Applicant's Characterization of Public Input as 'Frivolous' and 'Bad Faith'
Letters from the applicant's team characterized public concerns as 'frivolous' and raised in 'bad faith.' A board member separately used the word 'abuse' to describe public comment. Multiple residents pushed back forcefully, calling this gaslighting and an attempt to suppress legitimate civic participation. The applicant's representative later clarified the word 'frivolous' was not meant as an insult.
Board position: The board member who used 'abuse' apologized. The applicant's representative walked back 'frivolous.' However, the board did not formally censure the applicant's letters or establish a record protecting public participation rights.
medium concern
06
PRD Ordinance Compliance — Whether Project Qualifies as a True Planned Residential Development
Two former planning board members spoke publicly arguing the project does not meet PRD requirements. One characterized PRDs as requiring genuine environmental and visual impact mitigation in exchange for density bonuses, arguing this project is simply a conventional subdivision with added units. Tom Quinn, a recused current board member, called PRD compliance 'gaping holes' and declared approval would be 'an absolute miscarriage of justice.'
Board position: The board acknowledged it needs a comprehensive compliance presentation from the applicant. Board Member D explicitly told the applicant it has not met its burden of demonstrating compliance with the CUP conditions or PRD ordinance. The board stopped short of signaling denial but left no ambiguity about inadequacy of the current submission.
high concern
Community vs. board tension
Ready to share? AI-written accountability posts about this meeting's controversies.
View posts →
Action items
Who owes what, by when.
Prepare updated landscape plan addressing street trees and buffer restoration details
Assigned: Applicant (Meridian Land Services) · Due: Next meeting
Address majority of Keach engineering review comments and reduce outstanding items
Assigned: Applicant (Meridian Land Services) · Due: Next meeting
Obtain NHDES subdivision approval and alteration of terrain permit
Assigned: Applicant (Meridian Land Services) · Due: As condition precedent to approval
Review Declaration of Covenants and easements documents
Assigned: Town Counsel · Due: As condition precedent to approval
Prepare comprehensive presentation showing compliance with CUP approval conditions and PRD ordinance requirements
Assigned: Applicant (Jacobson project) · Due: December 11th meeting
Post side-by-side display of CUP plans vs. current plans on town website and present at next meeting
Assigned: Community Development Office · Due: December 11th meeting
Notable statements
I don't agree that the appropriate approach is to say, well, there was this issue three years ago... I think the effective way of satisfying that burden is to make a simple, well reasoned presentation demonstrating that the burden is satisfied. I haven't seen that. — Planning Board Chair · Rejecting applicant's argument that past discussions implied board acceptance of current plan ▶ 40:21
I do find them significantly different, primarily in the location of residential units and the reduction of the so called farm parcel... All the units were clustered down at the easterly end... now we have four or five house lots there. — Board Member Gordon · Disagreeing with applicant's claim that plans are substantially the same ▶ 22:22
This project in no way or in very few ways complies with the PRD ordinance under which it's been submitted. There are gaping holes. It would be an absolute miscarriage to approve this plan as presented. — Public Speaker Tom Quinn · Former board member speaking as public participant, criticizing compliance with planned residential development requirements ▶ 1:02:08
The applicant is trying to shift his responsibility onto the town in two respects. The first is with the agrihood... the response was the town will do so. Amherst as a town is not equipped to manage an agrihood. — Public Speaker Barbara Williams · Criticizing applicant's expectation that town would manage proposed agricultural component ▶ 1:08:18
I agree that the burden is on you as the applicant to show that you are meeting the criteria laid out in the CUP approval and all of the conditions, precedent and the conditions subsequent in the cup approval. And I don't think you've done that. — Board Member D · Board member clarifying applicant's burden of proof for approval ▶ 1:21:02
I genuinely am confused by what this project is at this point. It just is kind of all these moving parts and so it would really help to have it clearly explained. — Chair · Chair expressing need for coherent project presentation from applicant ▶ 1:25:56
I want to be crystal clear that silence on the behalf of the board does not mean any item has been checked off. — Chair · Chair clarifying that lack of board response does not indicate approval of applicant points ▶ 1:34:05
Public comment
What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
12
Total speakers
0
Addressed
2
Partial
10
Not addressed
Frank Montesanto
Not addressed
Montesanto criticized letters from the applicant's team calling public concerns 'frivolous' and 'bad faith.' He argued that the scenic setback issue was first raised by the Heritage Commission, not residents, and defended the public's right to review complex documents and raise legitimate concerns about ordinance compliance.
Key concern
Defense of public participation rights and criticism of applicant's characterization of public input as frivolous
Board responseThe board did not directly respond to these concerns about public participation characterization
The board acknowledged the public input generally but did not specifically address the concerns about the applicant's letters or the characterization of public participation
Susan Combs
Not addressed
Combs provided detailed agricultural economics analysis showing that the proposed 6 farmable acres could only generate $2,670-$4,500 annually in revenue. She argued that claims about the development being financially sustainable through farming are mathematically impossible and misleading to the community.
Key concern
Financial sustainability claims about agricultural component are false and misleading
The board did not respond to the specific agricultural economics analysis or address the sustainability claims
Kim Casey
Partial
Casey objected to board member Brian's use of the word 'abuse' to describe public comments, calling it inappropriate gaslighting. She emphasized that citizens are stakeholders with duties to protect their community and criticized the scale and location of the proposed development.
Key concern
Board member's inappropriate characterization of public input as 'abuse' and opposition to development scale/location
Board responseBoard member Brian later apologized for his language choice
The specific language concern was addressed with an apology, but the substantive development concerns were not directly addressed
Michael Hall
Not addressed
Hall raised safety concerns about pedestrians on Christian Hill Road and criticized the condition of existing property on the site. He requested information about covenants and expressed concerns about drainage issues based on his experience with nearby development that caused water problems.
Key concern
Safety, property maintenance standards, and drainage impacts from development
The board did not specifically address the safety, covenant, or drainage concerns raised
Melissa Maddox
Not addressed
Maddox urged denial of the application based on the developer's bankruptcy history with the Village Hill project in Northampton, where 130 creditors lost deposits. She raised concerns about traffic impacts on school zones and questioned the vague nature of project components.
Key concern
Developer's financial history and credibility, traffic safety near schools, and project clarity
The board did not address the developer's history, traffic concerns, or project clarity issues
Tom Quinn
Not addressed
Quinn, a recused board member speaking as public, criticized the applicant's argument for approval based on board silence. He detailed how the project fails PRD requirements, has gotten worse over time with more frontage units, and noted the massive excavation requirements (250+ dump truck loads).
Key concern
Project fails to meet PRD ordinance requirements and will require massive excavation with significant traffic impacts
The board did not specifically address the PRD compliance issues or excavation impact concerns
Sally Hooper
Not addressed
Hooper expressed concerns about structural damage to her 150-200 year old house from construction truck traffic, noting she experienced shaking from just one house construction this summer. She requested a guarantee from the developer for any damage repairs.
Key concern
Structural damage to historic homes from heavy construction traffic
The board did not address the construction impact concerns or damage guarantee request
Hannah Retton
Not addressed
Retton, a first-time meeting attendee, spoke about protecting the town's historic character and scenic beauty. She emphasized that the town has Revolutionary War soldiers buried nearby and houses older than the country, arguing that every generation must choose preservation.
Key concern
Protection of historic character and scenic beauty of the town
The board did not address the historic preservation or scenic character concerns
Mike Killian
Not addressed
Killian, a former planning board member, explained that PRDs should provide environmental and visual impact mitigation in exchange for density bonuses. He argued this project is a traditional development with added houses, not a true PRD, and urged the board to vote it down.
Key concern
Project fails to meet PRD requirements and should be denied
The board did not specifically address the PRD compliance analysis from the former board member
Barbara Williams
Not addressed
Williams criticized the applicant for trying to shift responsibility to the town for agrihood management and pathway costs. She questioned the developer's credibility and financing sources over six years, and strongly disagreed with any suggestion that the Supreme Court or governor mandates approval.
Key concern
Applicant shifting costs to town, developer credibility questions, and improper pressure for approval
The board did not address the cost-shifting concerns, credibility questions, or approval pressure issues
Kelly Mullen
Not addressed
Mullen argued this is not a PRD and should be denied for failing to comply with ordinances. She requested side-by-side displays of the CUP plans versus current plans to show differences, and noted the project was originally denied under adverse impact provisions.
Key concern
Project fails PRD requirements and needs plan comparison documentation for public review
The board did not commit to providing the requested plan comparisons or address the PRD compliance concerns
Jack Child
Partial
Child expressed frustration with constantly changing project proposals over six years, from tiny homes to current design. He criticized board member language calling public input 'abuse' and noted foundation damage from nearby construction trucks, expressing concern about the larger excavation project.
Key concern
Project instability over time and inappropriate characterization of public participation
Board responseBoard member apologized for language, but substantive concerns were not addressed
The language concern was addressed with an apology, but the project evolution and construction impact concerns were not addressed
Support coverage
Creating this report cost real money.
MeetingWatch attended, transcribed, and analyzed this meeting on its own dime. If this work is valuable to you, chip in to keep covering Amherst.
Follow Amherst
One email when a new report is published from the Planning Board — or one weekly digest.
Report composed by
claude-sonnet-4-6, claude-sonnet-4-20250514, claude-opus-4-6 · analyzed 2026-06-01.