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 — March 12, 2026

The meeting featured split votes on major applications and vocal community concerns regarding utility company impacts and zoning procedures.

Date Thursday, March 12, 2026 Duration 2.1h Speakers 44 Public comments 4 Decisions 9 Lively

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.

At the March 12 Planning Board meeting, significant divisions emerged regarding how Goffstown handles new business developments and land use regulations.

A major point of contention was the approval of the Grasshoppers landscape yard on Mast Road. The board passed the project with a 3-2-1 vote, revealing a clear split among members. The debate centered on whether this project constitutes a 'change of use' that should require a comprehensive site plan review. Critics argued that a more formal review process is necessary to properly measure impacts, rather than relying on administrative approval.

Additionally, the meeting highlighted ongoing community frustration regarding utility companies. Residents expressed long-standing concerns about Eversource and others leaving 'unsightly scars' in our town woods after installing infrastructure. While the board did include a condition to reseed gravel roads for the specific Eversource project discussed, the tension between utility needs and environmental restoration remains an unresolved issue for many neighbors.

As the board navigates the fallout of recent voter rejections of zoning changes, the lack of clarity on how state law and local ordinances will interact continues to create uncertainty for the community.

Mar 12, 2026 2.1h long 44 speakers 4 public comments 9 decisions Lively
❝ Notable statements ↔ Drag to browse

“I just noticed that, yeah, she forgot the A. She's Baba.”

— Speaker D (Barbara Griffin) · Commenting on a misspelling of her name in the previous meeting's minutes. 01:41

“We are talking about an entirely new business, and maybe we should be requiring a site plan that you can actually measure something and tell where things are.”

— Unidentified speaker · Arguing that the project is a change of use and should require more formal site plan review rather than administrative approval. 49:55

“The roads that [Eversource] build through the woods... are often unsightly. I've asked in the past for those roads to be restored to the original look.”

— Unidentified speaker · Expressing long-standing concern regarding the visual impact of utility access roads in town woods. 1:19:30

“I would urge the board to include this agreed condition in the grant of the conditional use permit [regarding construction fencing].”

— William Roberts (Landowner) · Requesting a repeat of a previous successful condition to prevent contractors from encroaching on his property. 1:22:22

“I don't want it as a condition [for the landowner and Eversource to resolve issues]... I think the obligation is for them to work it out and not dump it in our laps.”

— Unidentified speaker · Arguing that ongoing property boundary disputes between a citizen and a utility should be civil matters rather than permanent planning board conditions. 1:36:27
This meeting — choose a section

Public ⁠impact

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

Discussion regarding the fallout of a recent voter rejection of zoning changes which creates uncertainty in managing state law vs. local ordinance.

Topics ⁠discussed

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

The board reviewed and approved the minutes from the February meeting.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Discussion regarding a request for a landscape yard to establish a satellite office and hardscape display area at the former Hawks Trailers site. The board debated setbacks, traffic flow, and whether the project constitutes a 'change of use'.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Discussion regarding whether a specific item constitutes a 'structure' to determine if a 15-foot setback is required.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Request for relief from the outer 50 feet of a 100-foot wetland buffer and a waiver for a wetland functions and values report for a property on Mountain Road.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Completeness review and conditional use permit request for Eversource to replace 14 wooden poles with steel H-frame structures near Roberts Road and Addison Road.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Discussion on the recent voter rejection of proposed zoning changes regarding parking requirements and how to manage state law vs. local ordinance.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Discussion on strengthening the town's definition of 'administrative decisions' to prevent applicants from proceeding before board review.

Controversy & ⁠dissent

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

Potentially controversial issues

01

Proposed Grasshoppers Landscape Yard on Mast Road

The project involved disputes over whether the development constituted a 'change of use' requiring a more rigorous site plan review versus administrative approval, and technical debates over setback definitions for bins/structures.
Board position: Approved the use with specific setbacks and vegetation protections, but via a divided vote.
Internal dissent
The vote was split 3-2-1, indicating significant disagreement among members regarding the approval and the regulatory interpretation.
medium concern
02

Eversource Pole Replacement Project

Residents expressed long-standing dissatisfaction with the visual impact of utility access roads and the potential for contractor encroachment on private property.
Board position: Approved the conditional use permit but incorporated specific mitigation conditions requested by the public.
medium concern

Split votes

Approval of Grasshoppers landscape yard site use and related structure setback/access motion.
3-2-1

Community vs. board tension

Public ⁠comment

What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
4
Total speakers
3
Addressed
1
Partial
0
Not addressed
Unidentified speaker
1:03:18
Addressed
The speaker expressed frustration regarding the timing of the application. They suggested that if the applicant had presented earlier in the process, the discussion would have been much longer. Key concern
Frustration with the timing/order of the application presentation.
Board response
The Chairman thanked the speaker for their patience.
The board acknowledged the speaker's sentiment, though they did not change the meeting proceedings.
Sherry Trefry
1:08:06
Addressed
Representing BHB, the speaker provided a detailed technical overview of the Eversource pole replacement project. They covered construction methods, wetland impacts, timber matting use, and wildlife mitigation strategies involving a biologist. Key concern
Providing a technical briefing on the scope and mitigation measures of the utility project.
Board response
The board members asked several clarifying questions regarding wildlife habitat, access points, and road construction.
The board engaged in a lengthy Q&A session to clarify the technical details provided by the speaker.
Unidentified speaker
1:18:53
Partial
The speaker expressed ongoing dissatisfaction with the visual impact of Eversource's access roads. They requested that the company do more to restore the land to its original appearance, such as using loam and hyperseeding. Key concern
The unsightly visual appearance of construction roads left behind by Eversource.
Board response
The speaker's comments were noted, and the board moved into discussing the waiver/permit conditions.
While the board didn't immediately mandate the specific 'loam' request, they did later include a condition regarding reseeding gravel roads based on a subsequent speaker's request.
William Roberts
1:24:01
Addressed
As the landowner, the speaker requested that the board include specific conditions in the permit. He requested reseeding of gravel roads to prevent erosion and the installation of temporary four-foot fencing to prevent contractors from encroaching beyond the right-of-way. Key concern
Preventing erosion through reseeding and preventing construction encroachment via fencing.
Board response
The board discussed the request, weighed the feasibility against state wildlife recommendations, and ultimately moved to include the requested conditions in the approval.
The board agreed to include the requested conditions (reseeding and the landowner's specific fencing request) in the final permit approval.

Decisions ⁠logged

Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
01:35
Approval of February meeting minutes.
Motion to approve the minutes from February.
Passed unanimously
54:34
Approval of Grasshoppers landscape yard site use.
Approval granted with conditions: 20-foot setback for display areas from the front, a 15-foot setback from the rear property line for bins, and no cutting of existing vegetation/buffer. The board determined the bins are not 'structures' under the definition of the regulations, allowing for the 15-foot setback rather than the full 25-foot commercial rear setback.
Passed (3-2-1)
52:50
Approval of motion regarding structure setback/access.
Motion to approve the previous item discussed.
Passed (3 in favor, 2 against, 1 abstention)
59:47
Map 4, Lot 82: Acceptance of application as complete and approval of waiver.
Accepted the application as complete, including the waiver of section six NEII (noted as NEII, likely referring to a specific code section).
Passed
1:04:04
Map 4, Lot 82: Granting relief from the outer 50 feet of the wetland buffer.
Approved the request for relief for the existing structure/garage.
Passed
1:07:06
EverSource: Acceptance of application as complete.
Permit accepted as complete with no waivers.
Passed
1:50:17
EverSource: Approval of Conditional Use Permit.
Approved the permit subject to seven specific conditions, including wetland permits, erosion control, and seeding gravel roads.
Passed
1:51:12
EverSource: Granting relief from the outer 50 feet.
Approved relief for the wetland district impacts.
Passed
1:55:03
Appointment of EDC Representative.
Appointed Tim as the Planning Board representative to the Economic Development Committee (EDC).
Passed

Share ⁠this report

Drafts ready to post — click any block to copy.

X / Twitter — by angle

Split vote and disagreement over regulatory rigor
At the March 12 Planning Board meeting, a divided vote (3-2-1) approved the Grasshoppers landscape yard on Mast Road. The debate: Should this project have undergone a rigorous site plan review for a 'change of use,' or was... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/goffstown/planning-board/2026-03-12/ #MeetingWatch #GoffstownNH
317/280 chars
Unresolved community concerns regarding environmental impact
Goffstown Planning Board update: Residents are once again raising concerns about utility access roads leaving 'unsightly scars' in our woods. While the Eversource permit included reseeding conditions, the underlying issue of... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/goffstown/planning-board/2026-03-12/ #MeetingWatch #GoffstownNH
319/280 chars
Impact of voter decisions on regulatory clarity
How do we manage local zoning after voters rejected proposed changes? The Goffstown Planning Board discussed the tension between state law and local ordinance on 3/12. Uncertainty remains for both developers and residents... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/goffstown/planning-board/2026-03-12/ #MeetingWatch #GoffstownNH
316/280 chars

X thread

1
The Goffstown Planning Board is showing significant internal division on how to handle land use and development. A look at the March 12 meeting reveals a board split on key regulatory decisions. 🧵 #MeetingWatch #GoffstownNH
223/280
2
The Grasshoppers landscape yard project on Mast Road passed with a narrow 3-2-1 vote. The core disagreement: Does a new business at a former trailer site constitute a 'change of use' that requires a full, transparent site plan review?
234/280
3
By allowing administrative approval rather than a full site plan, the board bypassed the more rigorous review some members felt was necessary for a project of this scale. This raises questions about how consistently our zoning is applied.
238/280
4
Beyond specific projects, residents continue to push the board for better accountability from utility companies like Eversource to ensure woods are restored after construction, not just left as 'unsightly scars.' We'll be watching.
231/280
5
Stay informed on how Goffstown manages our land and zoning. #Goffstown #LocalGovernment #PlanningBoard https://meetingwatch.org/nh/goffstown/planning-board/2026-03-12/
126/280

Facebook — long form

At the March 12 Planning Board meeting, significant divisions emerged regarding how Goffstown handles new business developments and land use regulations.

A major point of contention was the approval of the Grasshoppers landscape yard on Mast Road. The board passed the project with a 3-2-1 vote, revealing a clear split among members. The debate centered on whether this project constitutes a 'change of use' that should require a comprehensive site plan review. Critics argued that a more formal review process is necessary to properly measure impacts, rather than relying on administrative approval.

Additionally, the meeting highlighted ongoing community frustration regarding utility companies. Residents expressed long-standing concerns about Eversource and others leaving 'unsightly scars' in our town woods after installing infrastructure. While the board did include a condition to reseed gravel roads for the specific Eversource project discussed, the tension between utility needs and environmental restoration remains an unresolved issue for many neighbors.

As the board navigates the fallout of recent voter rejections of zoning changes, the lack of clarity on how state law and local ordinances will interact continues to create uncertainty for the community. https://meetingwatch.org/nh/goffstown/planning-board/2026-03-12/ #MeetingWatch #GoffstownNH

Action ⁠items

Who owes what, by when.
Adhere to all approved conditions, specifically regarding the 20ft front setback, 15ft rear setback, and non-disturbance of vegetation. If any changes (such as lighting) are made, they must be brought back to the Planning Department for compliance review.
Assigned: Chris Evans (Applicant)
Include the specific statement of facts regarding setbacks and vegetation requirements in the official record for the Grasshoppers decision.
Assigned: Joanne (Staff)
Provide a copy of the landscaping decision to Christine Lamontagne regarding the South Mass Street condos.
Assigned: Joanne (Staff)
Research definitions of 'appropriate grounds for administrative decisions' in neighboring towns and report back to the board.
Assigned: Derek and Joanne (Staff)
Add the requested condition regarding reseeding gravel roads and the construction fencing condition (proposed by Mr. Roberts) to the Eversource permit language.
Assigned: Planning Staff
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 Goffstown.

Report composed by grok-4.3, gemma-4-26b, grok-4-fast, grok-4.20-0309-reasoning · analyzed 2026-06-01.