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

Planning Board — April 23, 2026

Routine procedural items dominated, but the retroactive CUP approval and steep-road waiver discussion produced explicit board criticism and one split vote.

Date Thursday, April 23, 2026 Duration 1.4h Speakers 24 Public comments 1 Decisions 6 Mildly contentious
▶ Video

Decisions ⁠logged

Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Approve April 9 minutes as corrected
Name spelling correction accepted; no other corrections noted.
Passed (ayes; 1 abstention)
Accept Map 17 Lot 176 CUP application as complete with no regional impact
Motion by a speaker; second received.
Passed (ayes; no opposition noted)
Approve CUP for Map 17 Lot 176 with condition of DPW driveway permit
Motion found all CUP criteria met per staff report; one condition added.
Passed (ayes; 2 opposed)
Accept Map 7 Lot 46-1 subdivision application as complete with regional impact notifications met
Motion by a speaker.
Passed (ayes)
Approve inclusion of Goffstown lot in Ware open-space subdivision subject to 8 conditions
Conditions include staff items 1-6 plus no Parker Station Road construction use and boundary blazing/painting.
Passed (ayes)
Motion to adjourn the meeting
All in favor (ayes); meeting ended at 8:25.
Passed

Topics ⁠discussed

Click a topic to expand quotes and full context.
▶ 01:36 Minutes Approval

Board reviewed and corrected April 9 minutes (name spelling fix under election of chair/vice chair), then approved them with one abstention.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 03:11 CUP Application - Map 17 Lot 176 (College Road Duplex Driveways)

Application for conditional use permit to allow two driveways 21 feet apart (vs. 100 ft required) and with insufficient frontage on a commercial-zoned triangular lot for a new duplex replacing a fire-damaged house. Board accepted application, held public hearing, and discussed compliance with zoning criteria 7.4.3.1.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 30:00 Subdivision/Open Space Request - Map 7 Lot 46-1 (Ware/Goffstown)

Application to include a Goffstown parcel in an open-space cluster subdivision primarily located in Ware; board confirmed completeness, regional impact notifications, and approved inclusion subject to conditions.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 53:00 Conceptual Subdivision - Map 5 Lot 70 (Rainbow Drive)

Conceptual review of a steep 9-acre agricultural-zoned parcel accessed via extension of Rainbow Drive; applicant sought feedback on required waivers for road length (>1000 ft) and grade (0.5% vs. 8% max), plus fire safety accommodations.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 1:07:11 Road grade standards and examples

Discussion of typical road grades in Goffstown (e.g., 5-8%), with references to existing steep roads like Summit, Mountain Base, Terrell, and Worthley Hill; board members clarify that no 10% roads have been built recently.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 1:08:49 Rainbow Drive road extension proposal

Review of extending a road from the Rainbow Drive cul-de-sac to access new lots, including concerns about width, turning radius, removal of the cul-de-sac bubble, and upgrade requirements.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 1:10:35 Open space ordinance and yield plans

Explanation of the 2026 open space ordinance requiring yield plans for 20+ acre lots, with limits of five lots unless each is 10+ acres; board notes need for corrections on lot counts and buildable areas.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 1:14:14 Lot viability, wetlands, and easements

Concerns raised about non-buildable lots (e.g., lot 7), wetland delineation inconsistencies, a tower easement, and whether lots meet setback and access requirements.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 1:19:04 ADU counting for multi-family projects

Discussion of whether accessory dwelling units (ADUs) count toward unit totals when applicants seek multi-family approvals after adding a duplex; board agrees ADUs should be treated as units for impact fees and regulations.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 1:22:37 Administrative items and adjournment

Board to sign CIP appointment papers, swear in members for EDC/CEA, and continue regulation review; motion to adjourn passes.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker

Controversy & ⁠dissent

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

Potentially controversial issues

01

CUP for Map 17 Lot 176 duplex driveways

Applicant sought retroactive approval for two driveways 21 ft apart on a commercial lot (vs. 100 ft required), after construction; board members called it 'begging forgiveness rather than asking permission'
Board position: Approved with one condition (DPW permit)
Internal dissent
2 members opposed; statements expressed umbrage that issue was not addressed at building-permit stage
low concern
02

Rainbow Drive conceptual steep-road subdivision waivers

Applicant requested major waivers for road length (>1000 ft) and grade (0.5% vs. 8% max) plus fire-safety accommodations on 9-acre parcel; board expressed strong reservations about precedent and maintenance
Board position: No approval; returned to TRC for revisions
Internal dissent
Multiple members voiced opposition to large waiver combinations and any private-road proposal
medium concern

Split votes

Approve CUP for Map 17 Lot 176
ayes; 2 opposed

Community vs. board tension

Action ⁠items

Who owes what, by when.
Sign appointment papers for Tim (CIP community at large)
Assigned: Board · Due: End of meeting
Obtain driveway permit from DPW
Assigned: Applicant (Map 17 Lot 176)
Incorporate no Parker Station Road use and boundary blazing/painting conditions; coordinate mylar signing with both towns
Assigned: Applicant (Map 7 Lot 46-1)
Revise plans and return to Technical Review Committee (TRC) for detailed discussion on grades, yield plan, open space, and lot viability
Assigned: Applicant (P)
Review open space subcommittee input and finalize development regulations without delaying overall adoption
Assigned: Board/Staff

Notable ⁠statements

I just take a little bit of umbrance with the fact that this wasn't decided, taken care of when the building permits were issued... Begging forgiveness, in my opinion. — Unidentified speaker · CUP application for already-built duplex driveways ▶ 05:29
I do think this is a little bit of the applicant begging for forgiveness rather than asking for permission. — Unidentified speaker · Discussion of driveway separation and parking realities ▶ 26:05
I don't see DPW recommending such a large combination of waivers be granted... it's just there's too many deviations from the regular. — Unidentified speaker · Conceptual steep-road subdivision ▶ 1:04:39
Please don't bring up the word private road in Town of Goffstown... I would never vote for a private road in the Town of Goffstown, personally. — Unidentified speaker · Opposition to private roads due to eventual town takeover ▶ 1:10:11
A ten percent road is probably not gonna fly. Eight percent is what you need to come back. — Unidentified speaker · Guidance on maximum acceptable road grade ▶ 1:16:36
It needs to be included as a unit because an ADU isn't just for family members anymore, it's for rental property, so it's a unit. And let them challenge us in court if we have to worry about it. — Unidentified speaker · Policy stance on counting ADUs in multi-family unit totals ▶ 1:21:42

Public ⁠comment

What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
1
Total speakers
0
Addressed
1
Partial
0
Not addressed
Tim Matheson
▶ 47:16
Partial
Tim Matheson identified himself as a resident of Katy River Road in Ware and asked whether a house exists on the open-space lot in Goffstown and whether that house would be connected to or included in the open-space area being considered. Key concern
Clarification on the location and status of structures on the Goffstown open-space parcel and their relationship to the proposed subdivision.
Board response
The chair acknowledged the comments for the record, explained that the board has no jurisdiction over Ware matters and generally does not answer questions during public comment, then briefly allowed the surveyor to clarify that two small structures exist (neither in the Goffstown portion).
The board recorded the comment and provided limited factual clarification but explicitly stated it could not debate or fully answer questions about the Ware subdivision.
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, grok-4.20-0309-reasoning · analyzed 2026-06-01.