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

Planning Board — March 4, 2026

The meeting featured vigorous public testimony and a heavy debate regarding the balance between agricultural support and public safety standards.

Date Wednesday, March 4, 2026 Duration 3.0h Speakers 1 Public comments 5 Decisions 9 Mildly contentious

Public ⁠impact

Issues from this meeting with documented community impact.
01

Adoption of the Town Master Plan

High; establishes the long-term guiding vision for land use, natural resource protection, and transportation for the entire town. Affected: All residents of Londonderry
zoning change
02

Max's Orchard Restaurant Proposal

Moderate; potential changes to local traffic volume, drainage, and emergency vehicle access in an agricultural area. Affected: Immediate neighbors and local commuters
safety change

Decisions ⁠logged

Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Approval of February 4th, 2026, minutes
Unanimous approval by all voting members present.
Approved
09:04
Approval of February 11th, 2026, minutes
Approved, with one abstention by Sean Faber.
Approved
10:11
Extension of 42 Wentworth site plan
Extension granted to September 4th, 2026.
Granted
10:52
Continuance of Precopio site plans
Continuance scheduled for April 1st, 2026.
Approved
13:27
Adoption of the Town Master Plan
The board voted to adopt the master plan.
Adopted
44:14
Waiver of nine checklist items for 230 Mammoth Road
Items waived for acceptance purposes only to allow the application to proceed.
Approved
52:03
Continuance of Max's Orchard application
The application was continued to the April 8th meeting to allow the applicant to work with town staff on problematic waiver requests.
Passed unanimously
2:53:01
Scheduling of PUD Public Meeting
The PUD public meeting is scheduled for March 23rd at 6:00 p.m., pending a quorum.
Approved
2:56:34
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned.
Passed
3:02:07

Topics ⁠discussed

Click a topic to expand quotes and full context.
05:08 Administrative Business

The board reviewed and approved the meeting minutes from February 4th and February 11th, 2026.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker, Mr. Rug
10:26 Site Plan Extension Request

Discussion regarding a request for a six-month extension for the 42 Wentworth site plan.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker, Kelly
12:10 Precopio Site Plan Continuance

The board discussed continuing the Precopio site plans on Gilchrist Road to a later date per the applicant's request.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker, Kelly
14:10 Master Plan Public Hearing

A public hearing regarding the adoption of the Town Master Plan, including a summary of the collaborative development process, community outreach, and public comments received.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker, Suzanne Neighbor, Cam Pman, Ray, Mike Ellis, John Wilson
49:01 Site Plan Review: 230 Mammoth Road (Max Apples/MHO Acquisitions LLC)

A public hearing for a proposed 4,000 sq ft restaurant renovation at an existing agricultural site under agritourism statutes, including multiple waiver requests.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker, Kelly, John, Laura Gandandy, Dari, Kyle, Tony D.
1:05:12 Alternative Surfacing for Parking Lot

Discussion regarding a request to use alternative surfacing instead of paving the parking lot for a farm stand. The applicant presented a geotechnical report suggesting the current surface can support fire truck weight and low-volume traffic.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
1:15:59 Traffic Impact Analysis Waiver

The applicant requested a waiver for a full traffic impact analysis, citing NHDOT approval of an amended driveway permit. Board members and a third-party consultant expressed concerns that the current analysis lacks sufficient data on existing site conditions and overall traffic volume.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
1:35:12 Sidewalk Requirements Waiver

A request to waive sidewalk requirements due to the agricultural nature of the site. Discussion focused on the distinction between a sidewalk for the roadway and a walkway for the parking lot/building frontage, specifically regarding width and accessibility.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
1:35:58 Driveway Proximity Waiver

Discussion of a waiver regarding the distance between two existing driveways. The applicant argued the distance is 221 feet center-to-center, while board members noted the edge-to-edge distance is approximately 171 feet.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
1:38:09 Tree Protection and Landscaping Waivers

Brief discussion of waiver requests to omit specific details regarding trees greater than 15 inches in diameter and tree protection details, justified by the site's existing agricultural use.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
2:00:49 Public Comment: Max's Orchard Farm-to-Table Restaurant Proposal

Multiple community members provided testimony regarding a proposed restaurant at Max's Orchard. Supporters highlighted the farm's contribution to the local food pantry and the economic benefits of farm-to-table dining, while some raised concerns about traffic, parking, and drainage.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker, Mike Devel, Unidentified Resident, Robin Gardner, Kathleen Salvushi, Matt Lart, Diana Elman, Elizabeth P, Betty Pool
2:30:49 Discussion of Waiver Requests

The board discussed 11 waiver requests for the Max's Orchard project. The board identified three specific waivers (parking surface standards, grading requirements, and stormwater management) that require further discussion and potential augmentation of materials.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker, Laura, John, Kelly
2:58:14 Heritage Commission Update

The Planning Department reported on a meeting with the Heritage Commission regarding their rules of procedure and the adoption of a new application checklist.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker

Controversy & ⁠dissent

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

Potentially controversial issues

01

Max's Orchard Farm-to-Table Restaurant Site Plan

The proposal involves converting an agricultural site into a 99-seat restaurant. This creates a conflict between supporting local agricultural economic viability (agritourism) and concerns regarding public safety, traffic, drainage, and parking infrastructure.
Board position: Cautious/Delayed; the board was unwilling to grant all waivers and opted to continue the application to allow for better data and more cohesive planning.
high concern
02

Agritourism Waiver Requests

The applicant requested multiple waivers (parking surfaces, traffic analysis, sidewalks, etc.) based on the site's agricultural status. This raised legal and safety questions about whether 'blanket waivers' for agricultural use compromise public safety standards.
Board position: Skeptical; the board expressed concern that the current application lacked sufficient data to justify bypassing standard safety and infrastructure requirements.
medium concern

Community vs. board tension

Action ⁠items

Who owes what, by when.
Lead next steps to sustain collaboration and implementation of the Master Plan, including potentially assigning an individual to oversee semi-annual reviews.
Assigned: Planning Board
Work with planning staff to develop a more logical site flow that addresses safety, fire department, and accessibility concerns, potentially withdrawing current waivers to resubmit a cohesive plan.
Assigned: Applicant
Coordinate a scoping meeting with NHDOT regarding the driveway application and traffic requirements.
Assigned: Town/Applicant
Meet with town staff to address concerns regarding parking surface, grading, and stormwater management waivers to prepare for the next hearing.
Assigned: Applicant (Kyle) · Due: April 8th
Formally notice the PUD public meeting scheduled for March 23rd.
Assigned: Planning Staff · Due: Immediate

Notable ⁠statements

The master plan should be a living document... the planning board will be leading next steps to sustain collaboration around implementation. — Cam Pman · Summarizing the importance of Chapter 10 of the master plan. 21:45
Is [the warrant article] compatible with what you're asking for in the master plan? — John Wilson · Asking if a proposed warrant article for senior transportation aligns with the master plan's transportation strategies. 41:54
When there is a change of use then... the entire site is opened up for review. — Tony D. · Debating whether the addition of a restaurant constitutes a change of use for the agricultural site. 1:38:32
I am super in favor of that [the restaurant] but the site is not conducive and I do not have the information in front of me to justify if this is good for the public safety or not. — Board Member (unnamed) · Expressing caution regarding the transition from a farm stand to a 99-seat restaurant. 1:53:00
Farmers have to be able to do what is necessary to make ends meet... I urge you to continue to find ways to make this work so that this farm can continue as part of the center of town. — Andy Bank Jr. · Public testimony supporting the farm's need for regulatory flexibility via agro-tourism statutes. 2:01:00
Max [the farm owner] epitomizes the feeling for these people... he gives [the food pantry] fresh vegetables every week. — Dean Rich · Public testimony highlighting the farm's contribution to the local food pantry. 2:04:00
Max [Apples]... epitomizes... he has the feeling for these people. You know, these people can't afford fresh produce, but he provides it. — Speaker A (Representative for United Methodist Church) · Highlighting the farm's community support through food donations. 2:03:03
I don't think it's a good idea to ever have a blanket waiver... It doesn't start anywhere. It doesn't end anywhere. That's a mess waiting to happen. — Speaker A (Board Member) · Expressing opposition to a broad, general agriculture relief waiver request. 2:37:01
The waiver will not have a demonstrated adverse effect on public health or safety. Now, the problem is... it doesn't define [who makes the demonstration]. — Laura · Discussing the statutory language regarding the board's authority to grant waivers. 2:57:19

Public ⁠comment

What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
5
Total speakers
4
Addressed
1
Partial
0
Not addressed
Suzanne Neighbor
15:43
Addressed
Presented a high-level summary of the Master Plan development process. She highlighted the collaborative effort involving a steering committee and extensive community outreach via surveys and workshops. Key concern
To provide context and a summary of the Master Plan development process prior to the public hearing for adoption.
Board response
The board thanked the planners for their work on the plan.
The board acknowledged the presentation and thanked the staff for their efforts in getting the plan completed.
Cam Pman
15:49
Addressed
Detailed the public comment period, noting various topics received such as historic resources and renewable energy. He explained that minor corrections were made to the plan and a new appendix was created to document all public comments. Key concern
To report on the public comment process and how feedback was integrated into the Master Plan.
Board response
The board engaged in discussion regarding the comments and the plan's implementation.
The board discussed the comments and proceeded to vote on the adoption of the plan.
Ray President
30:32
Partial
Expressed concern regarding the protection of natural resources and water within the Master Plan. He emphasized the importance of the plan as a guiding vision for the town's future. Key concern
Ensuring natural resources and water protection are adequately addressed in the Master Plan.
Board response
The board moved to the next speaker, but the presenter's sentiment was acknowledged in the general discussion of the plan.
While the board didn't have a specific rebuttal to Ray, the plan was adopted which includes the natural resource chapters he advocated for.
Mike Ellis
33:58
Addressed
Stated that he lives directly behind the proposed restaurant project. He expressed that he does not have any objections to the development. Key concern
To clarify that as a direct neighbor, he has no opposition to the site plan.
Board response
The board acknowledged his comment and clarified the nature of the meeting.
The board heard the comment and clarified that the current discussion was about the Master Plan, not his specific site concern.
John Wilson
35:19
Addressed
Discussed a warrant article regarding the funding of senior transportation (CART) services. He asked if the proposed Master Plan's goal of promoting car services was compatible with this funding mechanism. Key concern
To confirm alignment between the Master Plan's transportation goals and the town's senior transportation funding strategy.
Board response
The planner confirmed that the warrant article and the Master Plan are aligned and share the same strategic vision.
The planner provided a direct answer confirming the compatibility of the two items.
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 Londonderry.

Report composed by grok-4.3, gemma-4-26b, grok-4.20-0309-reasoning · analyzed 2026-06-02.