Your area Not set — showing everywhere
How it works Support this town
Meeting report · Planning Board
Creating this report cost real money. Help fund coverage →

Planning Board — May 6, 2026

The meeting was marked by high emotional tension, with residents expressing deep distrust of the developer and frustration with the board's perceived legal helplessness.

Date Wednesday, May 6, 2026 Duration 3.6h Speakers 31 Public comments 9 Decisions 11 Spirited
▶ Video

Questions about this meeting? ⁠Just ask.

Ask MeetingWatch answers from this meeting’s report, transcript, and records — with linked sources.

Summary AI-generated to surface controversy & community impact without bias — always verify against the actual meeting before relying on it.
  • Motion to continue Golden Valley Way Holdings LLC (Case PZ20030-040626 and PZ20031-040626) to the May 20th meeting. (Carried)
  • Approval of tree removal proposal for Eaton Road, Brook Road, and Lineborough Road. (Approved)
  • Approval of waivers for Article -208.3.B.23 regarding various required studies. (Unanimous)
  • Approval of the subdivision application subject to specific conditions. (Approved)
  • Acceptance of Robert Hovener application as complete. (Approved)
May 6, 2026 3.6h long 31 speakers 9 public comments 11 decisions Spirited
❝ Notable statements ↔ Drag to browse

“To require a fiscal impact for two homes... is an extreme hardship on any two lot subdivision.”

— Unidentified speaker · Arguing for the necessity of waivers for required studies. ▶ 1:09:00

“We can't approve substantive changes to the unit mix and the density calculations without rejiggering the density calculations.”

— Unidentified speaker · Discussing the implications of the applicant potentially waiving rental requirements to address community concerns. ▶ 13:46

“I was a little surprised and disappointed to walk through today and see that it looks like a not very well cleaned up junkyard.”

— Unidentified speaker · Expressing concern regarding the lack of property maintenance at the Carlson Manor site during the legal delay. ▶ 24:40

“The court told us that we were remanded with a very limited number of items that we should review and that the CUP was valid and that the, therefore the density is valid.”

— Unidentified speaker · Explaining why the board's ability to reject the project based on previous grounds was limited by the court order. ▶ 49:46

“I don't care what the courts say. I expect the elected members of this planning board to stick up for the citizens of this town and do what's right.”

— Unidentified speaker · Public comment expressing frustration with the legal constraints placed on the board regarding the development. ▶ 59:51

“I'm still a little disappointed that that's the result [regarding the bike path], but I understand it.”

— Unidentified speaker · Expressing disappointment that the easement request for the public bike path was denied. ▶ 1:38:59

“Not once did anyone ever contact me, ask me, come sit with me, have a meeting with me, tell me what was being planned.”

— Amy LaBelle · Abutter expressing frustration over a lack of communication regarding the potential bike path easement. ▶ 1:49:00

“Preserving that [the lake] is your job and my job as a homeowner, but for yours.”

— Unidentified speaker · Emphasizing the responsibility of the board to enforce regulations to protect the town's natural resources. ▶ 2:20:14

“I'm all for what you want to do... because it really is nice over there.”

— Unidentified speaker · An abutter expressing support for the project despite concerns regarding historical passageways/rights-of-way. ▶ 2:22:12

“If we drill two wells and go nine and nine, then we avoid all that [becoming a public water supplier].”

— Unidentified speaker · Explaining the strategy to maintain fewer than 10 houses to avoid state oversight as a public water supplier. ▶ 3:29:54

“I would be in support of using the existing data for wetlands and LiDAR data for slopes. I don't see any reason to go out and survey, locate those wetlands when they most likely have changed only minimal.”

— Unidentified speaker · Discussing the necessity of new environmental surveys for the site. ▶ 3:26:41

“You can't rely on anything that we say. So you need to make your case what you think is reasonable, and we'll take it under consideration.”

— Unidentified speaker · Advising the applicant on how to proceed with their formal presentation to the board. ▶ 3:31:24
This meeting — choose a section

Public ⁠impact

Issues from this meeting with documented community impact.
What was discussed

Significant increase in density and potential changes to traffic and rural character.

Topics ⁠discussed

Each topic expands to quotes and full context.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

The board addressed a request from Golden Valley Way Holdings LLC for a continuance regarding their application at 30 Northern Boulevard.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

A public hearing regarding the removal of dead and obstructing trees on Eaton Road, Brook Road, and Lineborough Road, largely due to the emerald ash borer.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Discussion regarding a 52-unit elderly housing development at -6 Hollis Road. Issues included traffic studies, unit mix (rental vs. age-restricted), density bonuses, trail access, and property maintenance.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

A request for a two-lot subdivision and lot line relocation on NH Route 101 and Camp Road, including a request for waivers from various required studies.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

The board discussed two options for shared driveway access: Option A (utilizing an existing Woods Road) and Option B (a new driveway requiring more earthwork). The applicant prefers Option A due to better accessibility and less disturbance.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

The board and applicant discussed a request for a public bike/pedestrian path easement through the private property. The applicant refused the easement, citing safety, security, and liability concerns.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Review of an application to rebuild a home further from Babusik Lake, including a shared septic system that runs under Greenwood Road into Merrimack.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Discussion regarding a new home construction within a wetland/watershed conservation district, covering planting requirements, septic responsibilities, and infrastructure liability.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Review of a proposed three-lot subdivision involving a private common driveway, stormwater management, and requests for waivers regarding studies and overhead utilities.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

A preliminary discussion of a planned residential development (PRD) focused on yield plans, conservation land preservation, and potential trail connections.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

The developer is negotiating with the Amherst Conservation Commission (ACC) regarding dedicating land for conservation, including possible town purchase of a portion of the landfill.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Discussion on utilizing existing LiDAR and wetland data for slopes and buffers, noting that previous buffer requirements increased from 50 to 100 feet.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Discussion regarding the use of two on-site artesian wells to support the development and the potential need for an additional well to avoid being classified as a public water supplier.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Clarification that the project will use a mini sewer system to pump effluent to a leach field.

Controversy & ⁠dissent

Where the board, the community, or the agenda diverged.

Potentially controversial issues

01

Carlson Manor Subdivision and Site Plan

The project faces intense opposition regarding density, loss of rural character, and property neglect (trash/squatters). Additionally, the board is legally constrained by a court remand, limiting their ability to reject the project based on previous grounds.
Board position: The board continued the case to allow for more departmental review and traffic studies, signaling a cautious approach but remaining under legal pressure to accommodate the developer.
high concern
02

Arboleda Realty, LLC Subdivision - Bike/Pedestrian Path Easement

A request for a public easement through private property was denied by the applicant due to liability and security concerns, leaving community members frustrated about lost connectivity.
Board position: The board discussed the request, but the decision ultimately rested on the applicant's refusal to grant the easement.
medium concern

Community vs. board tension

Public ⁠comment

What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
9
Total speakers
4
Addressed
3
Partial
2
Not addressed
Pam
▶ 03:27
Addressed
Pam inquired whether the town had been in contact with homeowners regarding the tree removal. She also asked about the management of dead trees and whether chipping them would spread diseases like the ash borer. Key concern
Homeowner notification and disease mitigation (ash borer).
Board response
The Director clarified that they hadn't contacted all homeowners but had spoken to one. The board discussed the ash borer and the disposal process.
The Director and the board answered her specific questions regarding homeowner contact and disease management.
Speaker SPEAKER_05
▶ 05:51
Addressed
The speaker asked how the town would handle removing trees that are embedded in rock walls. They also later raised concerns about the validity of the 2020 traffic study and whether the updated report would account for the new public trails. Key concern
Tree removal logistics (rock walls) and traffic study accuracy/scope.
Board response
The Director explained they would cut as close to the wall as possible. The applicant and board discussed the traffic study updates and the inclusion of trail traffic.
The Director provided a technical answer to the tree question, and the applicant addressed the traffic study concerns.
Will Lute
▶ 1:21:00
Addressed
Will expressed that the current building layout does not maintain any rural character and feels more like an urban project. He also inquired about the future use of the historic 18th-century building on site. Key concern
Loss of rural character and the preservation plan for historic buildings.
Board response
The applicant clarified that the historic house and building would be used as a clubhouse and craft shop for residents.
The specific question regarding the historic buildings was answered by the applicant.
Jeannie Liu
▶ 1:27:47
Addressed
Jeannie questioned if the court actually mandated approval and expressed concern over the combative nature of the applicant's attorney. She suggested that the developer's attitude reflects how the project will be managed. Key concern
Legal mandate of approval and developer/attorney conduct.
Board response
The Chairman clarified that while they are limited by the court's remand, they must still make a good faith effort to accommodate the project.
The Chairman explained the legal standing and the board's obligation to the court.
Dave Sutherland
▶ 1:11:31
Partial
Dave expressed frustration with the ongoing presence of trash and squatters on the property. He also criticized the applicant's claims regarding traffic patterns and expressed skepticism about the board's ability to protect the neighborhood. Key concern
Property neglect (trash/squatters) and skepticism of traffic claims.
Board response
The applicant and attorney engaged in a debate with the board regarding the condition of the property and the logic of traffic generation.
While the board and applicant discussed the issues, the speaker's core sentiment was one of distrust and a feeling that the decision was already made.
Jim McIntosh
▶ 1:12:12
Partial
Jim argued that the development is irresponsible as it ignores the original rural residential design of two-acre minimums. He also expressed concern regarding potential well water contamination from the new development's septic systems. Key concern
Density (rural character) and water/well contamination.
Board response
The applicant addressed water concerns by stating the development will use Pentachuk water, not wells.
The water concern was addressed, but the density/rural character concern was part of the broader ongoing legal/planning debate.
Linda Sutherland
▶ 1:15:19
Partial
Linda questioned the density math on buildable acres and expressed concern over traffic safety at a blind spot. She also detailed the severe neglect on the property, including needles and feces. Key concern
Density calculations, traffic safety, and extreme property neglect.
Board response
The applicant and attorney argued about the nature of the property and the density regulations.
The board/applicant discussed the density and property state, but the speaker's concerns were largely met with debate rather than resolution.
Steven Simon
▶ 1:21:05
Addressed
Steven questioned why the result of the hearing would be different if the applicant hasn't changed anything about the plan since it was previously rejected. He urged the board to consider the consequences for the town's rural nature. Key concern
Consistency in decision-making and preservation of rural character.
Board response
The Chairman explained that the court's remand legally limited the scope of what the board could review/reject.
The Chairman provided a direct legal explanation for why the board's options were limited.
Kelly Mullen
▶ 1:36:52
Not addressed
Kelly spoke in support of her neighbors, criticizing the attorney's combative response regarding property cleanup. She also expressed strong opposition to the density and the poorly written IIHO ordinance. Key concern
Attorney conduct, property neglect, and opposition to the IIHO ordinance/density.
Board response
The board did not provide a direct response to her specific comments during her turn.
The speaker finished her remarks and the board moved on to the next item or the conclusion of the meeting.

Decisions ⁠logged

Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Motion to continue Golden Valley Way Holdings LLC (Case PZ20030-040626 and PZ20031-040626) to the May 20th meeting.
The motion was moved, seconded, and approved by the board.
Carried
Approval of tree removal proposal for Eaton Road, Brook Road, and Lineborough Road.
The board approved the DPW proposal to remove identified dead trees and obstructions.
Approved
Approval of waivers for Article -208.3.B.23 regarding various required studies.
The board determined that strict conformity would pose an unnecessary hardship due to the small scale of the two-lot subdivision.
Unanimous
Approval of the subdivision application subject to specific conditions.
Approval included conditions precedent (staff report items and DOT communication) and conditions subsequent (stormwater management and lot line adjustment to ensure it remains a minor subdivision). An amendment was added to exclude the February 11th, 2026, letter from the Bike/Ped Advisory Committee from the record.
Approved
Acceptance of Robert Hovener application as complete.
The application for a conditional use permit to rebuild a home and install a shared septic system was accepted as complete for board review.
Approved
Approval of case PZ20020-031226 for Robert Brugner (33 Greenwood Road) for a conditional use permit to build a new home.
Approval includes conditions precedent and subsequent from the staff report, plus the delivery of heritage commission photos/history. Findings of fact were also adopted.
Approved
Acceptance of case PZ20029040626 (Grunbeck Enterprises, LLC) as a complete application.
The board approved the application subject to review, including approved waivers for studies and overhead utilities. Approval was contingent on DPW review regarding roadway inspection and the stipulation that the driveway meets town standards.
Approved
Approval of waivers for the Grunbeck Enterprises subdivision.
Waived requirement for various studies (excluding stormwater) and allowed for a portion of the electric service to be overhead.
Approved
Motion to continue the Carlson Manor case to the June 3rd meeting.
The motion included the requirement for the applicant to waive necessary deadlines and provided for additional departmental review.
Approved
Motion to close the design review.
The board moved to close the design review as part of the RSA process.
Approved
Motion to adjourn.
The meeting was adjourned following the design review decision.
Approved

Action ⁠items

Who owes what, by when.
Provide an updated traffic report reflecting current data and considerations for trail/garden access.
Assigned: Fieldstone Land Consultants / Applicant · Due: Within the next month (by June 3rd meeting)
Conduct additional departmental review of the Carlson Manor site plan.
Assigned: Planning Board Staff · Due: By June 3rd meeting
Provide communication/response from the Department of Transportation (DOT) regarding jurisdiction/authorization for driveway Option A.
Assigned: Applicant
Submit stormwater management plans and complete lot line adjustments as conditions for building permits.
Assigned: Applicant · Due: Prior to building permit issuance
Submit heritage commission research, history, and photos to the appropriate person.
Assigned: a speaker
Coordinate with DPW and the town inspector (Keith Nash) regarding roadway/driveway inspection requirements.
Assigned: Meridian/Applicant
Update the traffic impact study and fiscal impact study.
Assigned: 24BR Partners, LLC
Make a formal case for the proposal, including reasonable requests for the board to consider.
Assigned: Developer/Applicant
Issue a letter within 10 days notifying the applicant that the design review is complete.
Assigned: Town Staff · Due: 10 days
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.

Report composed by gemma-4-26b, claude-opus-4-6 · analyzed 2026-05-19.