Planning Board — April 8, 2026
The meeting featured significant public pushback on traffic and safety, alongside internal discussions about inter-board political tensions.
Public impact
Woodmont Commons Large-Scale Residential Development
Decisions logged
Topics discussed
▶ 04:06 Administrative Matters
The board established a quorum and appointed Jason to vote on behalf of Jeff. The approval of minutes was deferred to the next month.
▶ 04:39 HOP Grant Responses
Discussion regarding feedback on HOP grant responses to be sent to the RPC.
▶ 06:00 Subdivision of 15 Pillsbury Road
A public hearing for a subdivision to create a new 12.19-acre lot (Map 10, Lot -64) with no proposed improvements or infrastructure.
▶ 1:05:57 Wetland Buffer and Impact Discussion
Discussion regarding whether wetland buffers apply to the parcel and the extent of wetland impact (approximately 8,822-9,000 sq ft) primarily due to road crossings.
▶ 11:02 Site Plan Review: 36 Pillsbury Road (Thornton Hill)
Review of a 250-unit residential development including a private roadway, central amenities, and a request for a roadway design waiver (8% gradient).
▶ 13:07 Site Plan Review: 44 Pillsbury Road
Review of a 60-unit cottage-style development, discussing access via 36 Pillsbury Road, fire access, and proximity to the town cemetery.
▶ 1:58:05 Traffic Mitigation and Intersection Safety
Debate over traffic mitigation strategies for the Pillsbury/Gilchrist intersection, including the proposal of a right-turn lane and a left-turn lane at the site entrance.
▶ 2:08:50 Traffic Assessment Review
Scott Thornton presented a traffic study for a proposed 40-unit development, addressing intersection volumes, left-turn lane warrants, and future road projects by NHDOT including the potential closure of Smith Lane.
▶ 2:17:39 Fire Department Access and Roadway Standards
The board discussed whether the development's entrance should be classified as a driveway (24 ft wide) or a roadway (28 ft wide) to ensure adequate emergency vehicle access and comply with town standards.
▶ 2:18:44 Walkability and Infrastructure
Public and board discussion regarding the addition of paved sidewalks and trails to maintain the 'walkable' character of the Woodmont master plan.
▶ 2:30:32 Stormwater Runoff and Elevation Concerns
Concerns raised regarding increased impervious surfaces and potential stormwater runoff impacts due to the property's high elevation.
▶ 2:37:13 Agritourism Site Plan Review (Max Apple's)
A public hearing regarding a renovated restaurant and agritourism operation, focusing on revised entrance locations, geotechnical data for gravel parking, and stormwater management waivers.
▶ 3:10:00 Site Plan Maintenance and Drainage
Discussion regarding the recent topping of the gravel parking lot and the effectiveness of site grading and water flow arrows.
▶ 3:28:10 Environmental Salt Mitigation
Discussion of the 'Green Snow Pro' certification and the use of environmentally responsible winter maintenance practices.
▶ 3:29:16 Agritourism Restaurant Logistics
Review of the proposed restaurant's seating capacity (99), parking requirements (89 total, approx. -5 in gravel), and the distinction between fine dining and agritourism flow.
▶ 3:31:30 Parking Lot Safety and Surfacing
Debate over whether to pave the entrance to improve safety/traction or maintain gravel for agricultural character, resulting in a compromise for a paved apron.
▶ 3:38:16 Zoning and Land Use Protection
Discussion on the protection of AR-1 land and the legal limitations of agritourism waivers if the business model changes.
▶ 4:25:04 Site Plan Requirements for Pavement and Driveway
The board discussed the specific technical requirements for paving a 20-foot area near an ice cream stand, including whether to pave over existing ground and the thickness of the binder coat.
▶ 4:28:55 Gravel Parking Lot Maintenance
Clarification was provided regarding the required bi-annual maintenance and regrading schedule for the gravel parking area.
▶ 4:32:09 Inter-Board Relations and PUD Process
A board member addressed tensions between the Planning Board and the Town Council regarding the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process and public perception of the board's involvement.
Controversy & dissent
Potentially controversial issues
Woodmont Commons Residential Density & Traffic
Inter-Board Relations (Planning Board vs. Town Council)
Agritourism Site Plan & Zoning Protection
Community vs. board tension
Action items
Notable statements
The 310 homes proposed by Procopio is the cap for residential density at Woodmont Commons; the subdivided parcel cannot be built on afterwards. — Will Nuccio · Clarifying the impact of the 15 Pillsbury subdivision on future density. ▶ 32:03
We should have an engineering plan of an improved intersection that is going to support the 310 new homes and the existing increment of traffic. — Board Member (unnamed) · Expressing concern that the traffic improvement agreement relies on a monetary payment rather than a specific engineered design. ▶ 24:39
I like increased density with more usable green space. — Board Member (unnamed) · Discussing the benefits of higher density models that consolidate non-usable land into larger communal fields. ▶ 38:50
The almost 100 acres is very minimal... we have regulations for a reason now. — Board Member (Unnamed) · Commenting on the scale of wetland impact relative to the total acreage. ▶ 1:50:11
Instead of just doing your improvements... let's work together so the town and the applicant are very much working together to fix this intersection in totality. — Board Member (Unnamed) · Advocating for a collaborative approach to fix existing traffic issues rather than just mitigating new ones. ▶ 2:05:31
If you build a sidewalk, people will walk... Every time somebody chooses to walk there and get the exercise, they then aren't taking their car. — Sandra Liggett · Public comment regarding the importance of pedestrian infrastructure in reducing car dependency. ▶ 2:20:22
To me 28 ft is non-negotiable. — Speaker A (Board Member) · Arguing that the proposed 24-ft wide driveway should be upgraded to a 28-ft wide road standard due to the number of units and potential for emergency vehicle obstruction. ▶ 2:56:00
The rules are the rules. It's not that this isn't a good idea, but the rules are the rules. — Speaker A (Board Member) · Reminding the applicant that while the agritourism statute allows for certain waivers, it does not exempt them from all local regulations or the requirement to prove no adverse effect. ▶ 3:05:04
We are seeking approval tonight of all of our waivers as well as a conditional approval. — Laura (Applicant) · Stating the applicant's position regarding the agritourism site plan and their intent to work with staff on remaining conditions. ▶ 3:08:10
If it's not going to continue as an agricultural agritourism... then this approval doesn't apply. — Board Member · Clarifying the legal protection of AR-1 land if the site is sold to a commercial entity. ▶ 3:38:16
If you're a business and you have perfectly sellable product that isn't selling and you end up giving it away, what's the horizon for that business? — Robert Bonham (Public) · Encouraging the board to support the farm's diversification to ensure viability. ▶ 3:40:52
This board has not been against it. This board has been doing everything they can to find something that works. — Unidentified speaker · Responding to social media claims that the Planning Board was obstructing the development. ▶ 4:32:25
It does this town no good for one board to point a finger saying... the planning board did not do that. — Unidentified speaker · Addressing the need for partnership between the Planning Board and Town Council regarding the PUD process. ▶ 4:37:35
Public comment
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.
Follow Londonderry
One email when a new report is published from the Planning Board — or one weekly digest.
grok-4.3, gemma-4-26b, grok-4.20-0309-reasoning · analyzed 2026-06-02.