MeetingWatch
Your area Not set — showing everywhere
Meeting report · Planning Board
Creating this report cost real money. Help fund coverage →

Planning Board — April 9, 2026

The meeting featured healthy debate over regulatory authority and a somewhat dismissive response to a resident's inquiry regarding a specific land project.

Date Thursday, April 9, 2026 Duration 1.5h Speakers 27 Public comments 1 Decisions 6 Mildly contentious

Public ⁠impact

Issues from this meeting with documented community impact.
01

Development Regulation Updates

Significant changes to landscaping, stormwater mitigation, sidewalk standards, and curbing requirements. Affected: Property owners and developers in Goffstown
zoning change

Decisions ⁠logged

Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Approval of minutes from March 12th.
Motion passed with one abstention.
Approved
01:00
Election of Board Chair.
Tim Redmond continues as Chair.
Tim Redmond elected
02:30
Election of Vice Chair.
Kimberly Peace elected as Vice Chair; one abstention noted.
Kimberly Peace elected
03:00
CIP Appointments: Community at Large.
James Raymond and Davis Allen appointed to CIP.
Approved
07:30
CIP Appointment: Planning Board Member.
Tim Searles appointed to CIP.
Approved
09:00
Adjournment of the meeting.
A motion to adjourn was made and seconded, with all members in favor.
Passed
1:30:00

Topics ⁠discussed

Click a topic to expand quotes and full context.
00:00 Administrative Housekeeping

The board welcomed new members, approved previous minutes, and processed appointments for the EDC and CIP.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
05:00 Route 114 Corridor Study

Discussion regarding an upcoming presentation by the state DOT on the Route 114 corridor study scheduled for May 21st.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
11:00 Development Regulation Comparison

The board reviewed an AI-generated comparison between the 2015 regulations and the current draft to identify major changes in structure, definitions, and requirements.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
17:40 Landscaping and Screening Requirements

Debate regarding tightening regulations on 'ten-year growth circles' to ensure effective screening and addressing the fairness of using existing trees for compliance.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
34:00 Stormwater Management

Discussion on codifying requirements for on-site stormwater mitigation for long driveways to prevent damage to town road drainage systems.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
46:00 Sidewalk and Curbing Standards

Discussion on widening sidewalk unobstructed minimums, managing mailboxes in rights-of-way, and whether to require granite vs. bituminous curbing.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
58:52 Roadway Design Standards and Curbing

The board discussed updates to the table of roadway design standards, specifically regarding granite curbing requirements and sidewalk width standards (six-foot residential vs. twelve-foot commercial).

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
1:01:55 Proposed Regulation Change: Acceptance of Bonds/Escrows

Staff proposed a regulation change to allow staff to accept bonds or escrow funds for outstanding site work to prevent applicants from having to wait for a Planning Board meeting to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. The board debated whether this removes necessary oversight from the board.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
1:12:00 Class Six Road Development

Discussion regarding the definition of 'property' in the context of Class Six road development and whether the Select Board's approval process is clearly defined by current statutes.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
1:16:54 Change of Use/Occupancy Standards

Board members discussed the lack of a clear definition and official policy regarding 'change of use' and whether such applications require Technical Review Committee (TRC) involvement.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
1:25:48 Digital Plan Submittals and Hardware

The board discussed transitioning to digital submittals and the potential need for computers at the service counter for public viewing of plans, while noting privacy concerns regarding personal email use for town business.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker

Controversy & ⁠dissent

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

Potentially controversial issues

01

Acceptance of Bonds/Escrows for Site Work

The proposal would allow staff to bypass the Planning Board for certain approvals to expedite Certificates of Occupancy. This touches on the fundamental balance between administrative efficiency and regulatory oversight.
Board position: Opposed to the change; members argued for maintaining board oversight.
Internal dissent
While a formal split vote wasn't recorded in the summary, a board member explicitly argued against the change, stating, 'this board makes all the decisions... I think it should stay the way it is.'
low concern
02

Landscaping and Screening Requirements

The debate over 'ten-year growth circles' involves a conflict between immediate visual/functional screening for residents and the fairness/cost of requirements for developers.
Board position: Moving toward stricter regulations to ensure immediate efficacy.
medium concern

Split votes

Approval of minutes from March 12th
Passed with one abstention
Election of Vice Chair
Passed with one abstention

Community vs. board tension

Action ⁠items

Who owes what, by when.
Contact DOT (William Rose) to request a draft copy of the Route 114 corridor study.
Assigned: a speaker (Joanne) · Due: Before May 21st
Draft a new paragraph for the development regulations regarding maximum allowable separation between screening trees.
Assigned: Scott & Joanne · Due: Next meeting
Research and draft language regarding on-site stormwater mitigation for driveways.
Assigned: Scott & Joanne · Due: Next meeting
Review development regulations via SharePoint to prepare for a vote at the end of the month.
Assigned: Board Members · Due: One month
Review and update the draft regulations based on the board's questions/comments for the next meeting.
Assigned: Staff (Joanne/Scott) · Due: Within 30 days
Work with the Town Attorney (Derek) to create a definitive policy, motion, and vote regarding what constitutes a 'change of use'.
Assigned: Planning Board / Staff
Highlight the deadline line in red on the pre-construction meeting document to ensure developers notice it.
Assigned: Highway Department (a speaker)

Notable ⁠statements

I think we are far too generous with the growth circles. I think we should amend our development regulations so that we don't permit ten-year growth circles. — Unidentified speaker · Proposing changes to landscaping requirements to ensure immediate screening efficacy. 18:00
We should limit the amount of driveway that is permitted to discharge water into the edge of the road's drainage system. — Unidentified speaker · Advocating for codified stormwater mitigation on private driveways. 34:00
If we're gonna permit the town... to allow asphalt side curbing for town-owned roads, we can't, in good conscience, force a developer to put granite curbing on a town road. — Unidentified speaker · Debating whether to require granite curbing for all new developments. 56:00
The board, this board makes all the decisions... I think it should stay the way it is. — Unidentified speaker · Opposing the proposal to allow staff to accept bonds/escrows without a formal board vote. 1:05:34
Don't accept anything on my own personal email. I don't want anybody digging in my email. — Unidentified speaker · Discussing the legal risks of using personal email for town business due to Right-to-Know laws. 1:27:46

Public ⁠comment

What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
1
Total speakers
0
Addressed
1
Partial
0
Not addressed
Unidentified speaker
1:29:17
Partial
The speaker suggests that a public hearing is necessary because land has been merged into a golf course area. They also inquire about a specific project or location referred to as 'Rainbow'. Key concern
The need for a public hearing regarding merged land and information regarding the 'Rainbow' project.
Board response
The board (a speaker) stated they cannot cancel agenda items and explained that they do not discuss applications unless they are conceptual, effectively declining to discuss the 'Rainbow' matter at that moment.
The board responded to the procedural inquiry and the request for discussion by explaining their rules of engagement, but they did not address the specific merits of the land merger concern or the Rainbow project details.
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-4.20-0309-reasoning · analyzed 2026-06-01.