Meeting report · Planning Board
Creating this report cost real money.
Help fund coverage →
Planning Board — May 13, 2026
The meeting featured high-stakes discussions on public safety, heavy community engagement regarding traffic, and blunt admissions from board members regarding the potential 'nightmare' of the proposed development.
Public impact
Issues from this meeting with documented community impact.
01
Large-Scale Residential and Commercial PUD
Addition of ~1,028 residential units and 99,000 sq ft of commercial space, significantly impacting traffic, school capacity, and emergency services. Affected: All Londonderry residents
zoning change
Decisions logged
Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Appointment of Jason as an alternate member.
Jason accepted the appointment, bringing the voting membership to nine.
Approved
Acknowledgment of developer meeting requirements for fire and police department concerns regarding the 225 Rockingham Road site plan.
The Fire Chief confirmed the developer met three major requests: widening the road to 28ft, providing a proper turning radius for large apparatus, and maintaining adequate building setbacks.
Not explicitly recorded (consensus reached)
Grant waiver from site plan regulations 4.12.C.19 regarding indicated trees greater than 15 inches in diameter and species.
Motion by Mr. Farrell, seconded by Jason. 8 members voting 'Aye'.
Approved
Grant conditional use permit (CUP) for approximately 1,023 square feet of wetland buffer impact for stormwater infrastructure construction.
Motion by Mr. Farrell, seconded by Mr. Rug. All in favor.
Approved
Grant conditional use permit (CUP) for multifamily housing in the C2 zoning district per LZO section 6.2 and table 4.1.
Motion by Mr. Farrell, seconded by unnamed member. All in favor.
Approved
Conditional approval of site plan to construct 40 residential townhouse-style apartment units at 225 Rockingham Road (Map 15 Lot 126, Zone C2/Route 28 Overlay).
Motion by Mr. Rug, seconded by Mr. Farrell. Included a condition that the applicant work with town staff on a pavement striping solution for the fire lane. All in favor.
Approved
Topics discussed
Click a topic to expand quotes and full context.
▶ 04:09 Administrative Matters
The board noted there were no minutes to approve and discussed appointments. It was noted that Steve Bickford has resigned from the board.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 05:01 Conceptual PUD Mixed-Use Development Discussion
Governor's Hill Corporation presented a conceptual plan for a large-scale Planned Unit Development (PUD) at 109 Auburn Road, featuring approximately 1,028 residential units and 99,000 square feet of commercial/industrial space.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker, Brian Pratt, Christine La Montagne, Kelly, Tony, Jason, John
▶ 10:46 Public Safety and Emergency Response
Board members expressed significant concerns regarding fire and EMS response times to the proposed site, noting that the nearest station is in Derry and current response times may exceed national standards. Discussion also covered the impact on fire and medical response times, the distance from existing stations, and the need for immediate rescue capabilities.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker, Brian Pratt, Tony, John
▶ 38:00 Traffic Impact and Mitigation
The developer and board discussed traffic concerns, modeling, the scope of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), and potential mitigation for congestion on Auburn Road and nearby intersections. It was decided that the town's review engineer, Stantec, will conduct a town-wide traffic study paid for by the developer.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker, Brian Pratt, Tony, Jason
▶ 1:05:59 Site Topography and Land Use
Discussion on the plan to fill the existing 'sandpit' area and how the topography will be utilized to create barriers between industrial and residential zones.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 1:14:09 Fiscal Impact and Economic Comparison
A comparison between a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and a traditional subdivision was presented, highlighting higher net revenue and greater housing diversity under the PUD model.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 1:37:00 Site Plan Review for 225 Rockingham Road
A public hearing regarding a site plan for 40 residential units, focusing on driveway width, fire department access, police department concerns regarding single-point ingress/egress, and related waivers and permits.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 1:52:09 Site Driveway and Striping Discussion
The board discussed the width of a 28-foot driveway and the potential need for pavement striping to prevent illegal parking and reinforce fire lanes, noting that current regulations require a 24-foot travel lane.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 1:56:00 Site Plan and Permit Approvals for 225 Rockingham Road
The board reviewed and voted on multiple items regarding a residential development project, including waivers, wetland buffer impacts, and conditional use permits.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 2:01:00 Board Administration and Information Sharing
A board member requested a more efficient way to access digital documents (such as via OneDrive) prior to meetings to allow for better research.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 2:03:10 Staff Departure Announcement
The board acknowledged that Kelly Kering will be leaving her position to become a City Planner in Concord.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
Controversy & dissent
Where the board, the community, or the agenda diverged.
Potentially controversial issues
01
Proposed 1,028-unit PUD at 109 Auburn Road
The massive scale of the development (1,000+ homes) raises significant concerns regarding traffic congestion, public safety (emergency response times), and infrastructure capacity.
Board position: The board is moving forward with oversight, requiring extensive studies (town-wide traffic study) and developer-funded mitigations.
Internal dissent
While no formal split vote occurred on the concept, members expressed significant verbal reservations; one member explicitly stated, 'I think this is going to be a nightmare,' citing traffic and safety concerns.
high concern
02
Emergency Service Response Times
Residents and board members are concerned that the distance from existing fire and EMS stations to the new development will delay life-saving responses and increase insurance (ISO) rates.
Board position: The board is demanding clarity and coordination, calling upon the Fire Chief to testify and requiring the developer to engage in potential intermunicipal agreements.
high concern
Community vs. board tension
Ready to share? AI-written accountability posts about this meeting's controversies.
View posts →
Action items
Who owes what, by when.
Conduct a town-wide traffic study to assess the impact of the development on local intersections, funded by the developer.
Assigned: Stantec (Town Review Engineer)
Coordinate with the town regarding the design of fire truck access/turns and potentially engage in discussions with Derry regarding mutual aid or emergency services.
Assigned: Developer / Governor's Hill Corporation
Finalize the details of the phasing plan for the PUD to ensure commercial use is integrated appropriately.
Assigned: Applicant/Staff
Coordinate with the developer regarding the addition of road striping in the fire lane to reinforce no-parking zones.
Assigned: Staff (John/Kelly)
Work with town staff on a pavement striping solution for the fire lane.
Assigned: Applicant (GenX Construction Group LLC)
Notable statements
This is a conceptual [plan]. — Brian Pratt · Responding to a board member's inquiry about the level of detail in the current presentation/drawings. ▶ 20:04
I strongly suggest that you make the construction vehicles go down the 28 bypass. — Jason · Advising the developer to mitigate resident anger by keeping heavy construction traffic off Auburn Road. ▶ 43:01
I don't know how you build this without a fire department. — Tony · Expressing concern over the distance from Londonderry fire services and the potential need for a new station or intermunicipal agreement. ▶ 56:59
To get the lowest insurance (ISO) ratings... you need to have a fire station within 5 road miles of every building in town. — Jim Young (Fire Chief) · Explaining how station proximity affects community insurance premiums. ▶ 1:27:00
I realize I have to vote based on the legality of the issue and the things in front of me. I think this is going to be a nightmare... the numbers say what the numbers say, but I think in reality... that drag strip between Rockingham Road and Smith Road is going to be a nasty thing. — Unidentified speaker · Expressing personal concern about traffic safety and potential speeding despite traffic studies. ▶ 1:55:11
I think you need to start working legs, cuz your arms are getting ridiculous. — Board Member · A humorous remark directed at a speaker during the police department's testimony. ▶ 1:44:41
You have come to the board... with a lot of meaningful change. One of which is very visible on this side-by-side comparison... I appreciate you working with the town of Londonderry. — Unidentified speaker · Closing remarks to the developer following the approval of a difficult site plan. ▶ 1:59:59
Public comment
What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
10
Total speakers
10
Addressed
1
Partial
0
Not addressed
Jason
Partial
The speaker warned the board to prepare for public backlash regarding increased traffic (3,500 cars) and the necessity of adding 1,000 new homes. He also strongly recommended that construction vehicles use the 28 bypass instead of Auburn Road to avoid intersection issues.
Key concern
Traffic congestion and public opposition to housing density/volume.
Board responseThe board/developer acknowledged the concern. They explained the site's phasing, mentioned the current gravel pit status, and discussed the upcoming traffic impact study and mitigation plans.
The board provided technical explanations and next steps (traffic study), but did not provide a definitive guarantee regarding the specific request to divert all construction traffic to the bypass.
Mr. O'Rourke
Addressed
The speaker questioned the cohesiveness of the development, suggesting it lacks a central community focal point. He recommended adding more retail/commercial amenities, like a coffee shop or restaurant, to encourage residents to gather in one place.
Key concern
Lack of community cohesion and walkable retail/social spaces.
Board responseThe board/developer walked through the site plan, identifying the 'downtown core,' retail spots, walkable sidewalks, and a central green/courtyard intended for community gathering.
The board specifically demonstrated how the plan includes retail, walking spaces, and gathering areas to address the lack of cohesiveness.
Mr. Di Francesco
Addressed
The speaker inquired about the specific scope and sequence of the development's phasing. He also raised concerns regarding the economic viability of commercial spaces without established resident traffic.
Key concern
Development phasing and the 'chicken or the egg' problem of commercial viability.
Board responseThe developer explained that phasing is market-driven, provided a preliminary sequence, and discussed the use of an 'anchor' (Pod L) to drive traffic to commercial zones.
The developer provided a detailed explanation of the phasing strategy and how they intend to manage the commercial/residential balance.
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
The speaker suggested that the developer should enter into an agreement to build public safety facilities (like a police substation or fire station) if/when the community needs them. He noted that similar agreements have been made in other PUDs.
Key concern
Future public safety infrastructure needs (police/fire).
Board responseThe developer stated they would definitely be required to enter into a development agreement that covers traffic, phasing, and fiscal impacts.
The developer confirmed that a development agreement is part of the process and would address such impacts.
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
The speaker expressed significant concern regarding emergency response times, specifically for fire and ambulance services. He worried that the development's distance from current stations might delay life-saving arrivals.
Key concern
Emergency service response times and public safety.
Board responseThe Fire Chief was called to address the concern; he explained current response models, ISO ratings, and the importance of station proximity, while noting that data is being collected.
The board directly addressed this by bringing the Fire Chief to the meeting to provide professional insight and context.
Mr. Cruz
Addressed
The speaker asked if there would be measures to prevent commercial/industrial vehicles from using the new development as a shortcut to reach Route 93.
Key concern
Traffic cut-through from commercial vehicles.
Board responseThe developer noted that the internal road design (stop signs, downtown setting) would naturally discourage through-traffic and suggested vehicle type restrictions could be an option.
The developer responded with specific design and regulatory ideas to mitigate the risk of cut-through traffic.
Giovanni
Addressed
The speaker asked how the developer plans to handle road widening and intersection improvements to accommodate the projected traffic volume.
Key concern
Road infrastructure and widening requirements.
Board responseThe developer explained that a full Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is underway and that they will work with engineers on necessary off-site improvements.
The developer confirmed that widening and improvements are part of the upcoming traffic study and mitigation scope.
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
The speaker offered advice on presenting fiscal data, suggesting that the term 'annual net revenue' should be clarified to 'net annual revenue after expenses' to avoid public confusion. He also pointed out that the developer should emphasize that taxpayers will not be responsible for maintenance of the private roads.
Key concern
Clarity of fiscal presentations and protection of taxpayers from infrastructure maintenance costs.
Board responseThe developer accepted the suggestion for clearer labeling and agreed that highlighting that the PUD (not the town) covers maintenance is a positive selling point.
The developer agreed to both the labeling change and the strategy of emphasizing the private nature of road maintenance.
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
The speaker questioned the accuracy of the school impact numbers and whether the school district had been consulted regarding the capacity to handle new students.
Key concern
School enrollment and impact on school capacity.
Board responseThe developer confirmed they had met with the school district and had already adjusted the fiscal impact calculations based on recent district changes.
The developer confirmed they had consulted the district and accounted for their input in the updated plans.
Bob La Montaine
Addressed
The speaker expressed support for the project, stating that it aligns perfectly with the town's recently released Master Plan and provides much-needed diversity and amenities.
Key concern
Alignment with town planning (Supportive comment).
Board responseThe board/developer thanked him for his support and comments.
The board acknowledged and thanked the speaker for his positive feedback.
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.
Follow Londonderry
One email when a new report is published from the Planning Board — or one weekly digest.
Report composed by
grok-4.3, gemma-4-26b, grok-4.20-0309-reasoning · analyzed 2026-06-02.