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

Planning Board — May 27, 2026

The meeting was characterized by strong public interest and a high volume of community comments regarding a major excavation proposal.

Date Wednesday, May 27, 2026 Public comments 11 Decisions 4 Lively

Questions about this meeting? ⁠Just ask.

Ask MeetingWatch answers from this meeting’s report, transcript, and records — with linked sources.

Summary AI-generated to surface controversy & community impact without bias — always verify against the actual meeting before relying on it.

At the May 27 Planning Board meeting, the town faced intense scrutiny over the proposed Onyx Corporation excavation project. This 8-phase plan involves 67 acres on Brookline Road and could span up to 15 years, significantly impacting local residents, businesses, and our environment.

During the public hearing, residents raised specific, high-stakes concerns: the impact of heavy truck traffic on our local roads and bridges, the effectiveness of dust mitigation for nearby businesses, and the environmental risks of using calcium chloride near wetlands. Most notably, members of the community pointed out that the proposal may not even have an 'accepted use' under Mason’s existing excavation regulations—a legal point the board has not yet formally addressed.

The board ultimately voted 4-1 to continue the hearing to June 24, 2026, to allow the applicant to submit a traffic study and more detailed engineering documentation. This split vote indicates that even the board is not in total agreement on how to proceed with this massive project.

This is a major issue for anyone living near Brookline Road or concerned about our town's infrastructure and environmental protections. Mark your calendars for June 24.

May 27, 2026 11 public comments 4 decisions Lively
Notable statements Drag to browse

“The Onyx proposal has no accepted use based on Mason’s regulations and ordinances, citing specific prohibitions in the Excavation Regulations.”

— Jay Kramarczyk · Questioning the legality of the excavation permit under current town code.

“Suggested a resident (Dylan Conner) seek legal counsel regarding concerns over home property depreciation.”

— Dane Rota · Responding to an abutter's concern about the economic impact of the sand pit.
This meeting — choose a section

Public ⁠impact

Issues from this meeting with documented community impact.
What was discussed

Large-scale 67-acre excavation spanning up to 15 years.

What happened

The hearing was continued to June 24, 2026, to allow the applicant to provide a traffic study and more detailed engineering documentation.

Topics ⁠discussed

Each topic expands to quotes and full context.
Speakers: Dane Rota, Chris Jones, Bob L.
What was discussed

The board reviewed findings from recent site walks regarding sight distances, fueling, and wetland/pond locations.

What happened

The board reviewed the summaries provided by members and the Conservation Commission.

Speakers: Jeffrey Brem, John Durkin, Amanda Mirfield, Mike Tierney, Tanya Roberts, Alan Rosenberg, Tyrell Borowitz, Jay Kramarczyk, Melanie Levesque, Michael Chang, Sarah Harkonen, Dylan Conner
What was discussed

A public hearing regarding a proposed 8-phase excavation site plan on 67.01 acres on Brookline Road.

What happened

The hearing was continued to the next meeting at the request of the applicant to allow for a traffic study and written documentation.

Speakers: Katie Boots, Cassie Cashin, Chris Jones
What was discussed

Proposed amendments to require cisterns or other fire protection methods when a driveway is more than 1,000 feet from a water source.

What happened

The amendment was approved unanimously.

Speakers: Robert Baskerville
What was discussed

An informal discussion regarding a potential 4-lot residential subdivision.

What happened

The board expressed that the proposal seemed unfavorable due to the odd shape of the lots and the lack of a cul-de-sac.

Controversy & ⁠dissent

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

Potentially controversial issues

01

Onyx Corporation Excavation (MAS PB 2026-01)

A proposed 8-phase, 15-year excavation project on 67 acres drew significant public interest due to concerns regarding dust mitigation, environmental impacts of calcium chloride, heavy truck traffic on local roads/bridges, and potential property value depreciation.
Board position: The board requested additional documentation, including a traffic study and independent stormwater reviews, before proceeding.
Internal dissent
The board was split on the motion to continue the public hearing, with Katie Boots voting against the continuation.
high concern

Split votes

Continuation of Public Hearing MAS PB 2026-01 to June 24, 2026
4-1

Community vs. board tension

Public ⁠comment

What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
10
Speakers
11
Comments
6
Addressed
1
Partial
4
Not addressed
Tanya Roberts
Addressed
The speaker, representing Parkers Maple Barn, expressed concern regarding the potential for dust from the Onyx excavation site to affect their outdoor restaurant seating. They asked specifically how dust will be managed. Key concern
Dust mitigation for nearby outdoor dining.
Board response
John Durkin (Onyx) explained they will use groundwater sprayed from trucks. Board members Chris and Dane also discussed dust monitoring and water usage.
The applicant provided a technical explanation for dust suppression, and the board discussed monitoring options.
Alan Rosenberg
Partial
The Co-chair of the Brookline Planning Board raised concerns regarding environmental impacts, the adequacy of the Emergency Action Plan, and road/infrastructure safety. He requested independent reviews for stormwater and more detailed engineering plans for fueling and road impacts. Key concern
Environmental protection, emergency planning accuracy, and road infrastructure impact.
Board response
Dane acknowledged the concerns regarding traffic, dust, and road impact.
The Board Chair acknowledged the concerns, but the specific requests for independent third-party reviews and detailed studies were not resolved during this session.
Tyrell Borowitz
Not addressed
The speaker mentioned road surface management and offered to help facilitate communication between Brookline, Mason, and Onyx regarding pavement degradation. Key concern
Mitigating increased pavement degradation due to truck traffic.
The board did not provide a specific response to this offer of facilitation in the transcript.
Mason Resident
Addressed
A resident inquired about the status of the AoT permit and noted that residents can submit comments to the DES. They also expressed concern regarding the ecological danger of calcium chloride. Key concern
AoT permit status and the ecological impact of calcium chloride.
Board response
The applicant (Onyx) responded regarding the status of the Ecological Review and the AoT submission.
The applicant provided a status update on the permit process in response to the inquiry.
Melanie Levesque
Not addressed
The speaker shared concerns regarding the weight of trucks on bridges and general road wear. They noted that towns are facing decreased state funding for road repairs. Key concern
Road and bridge wear/cost of repairs.
The board did not provide a direct response to this specific comment in the transcript.
Jay Kramarczyk
Not addressed
The speaker argued that the Onyx proposal does not have an accepted use based on Mason's regulations and ordinances. They cited specific sections of the Mason Excavation and Site Plan Review Regulations that they believe mandate the denial of such a permit. Key concern
Compliance with Mason's zoning regulations and ordinances.
The board did not provide a direct response to this legal interpretation during this portion of the meeting.
Parkers Maple Barn
Not addressed
Representing the restaurant, the speaker expressed concerns that the traffic analysis was not conducted during the busy spring and fall seasons. They also raised concerns about alternate routes and truck traffic. Key concern
Inaccurate timing of traffic analysis and truck routing.
No direct response is recorded for this specific comment.
Michael Chang
Addressed
The speaker questioned the mechanics and implementation of the reclamation bond. Key concern
How the reclamation bond works.
Board response
Mike Tierney (Onyx) explained that the performance bond is for the reclamation plan only.
The applicant's representative provided a clarification on the nature of the bond.
Sarah Harkonen
Addressed
As an abutter, the speaker expressed concern about the lack of a buffer between the excavation site and her elevated property, specifically regarding the visual impact of the sand pit. Key concern
Visual impact and lack of buffering.
Board response
Mike Tierney (Onyx) discussed a 30-foot buffer and the intent to plant fast-growing trees like white pine, noting the Planning Board has input on plantings.
The applicant addressed the buffer and screening concerns, and the board's role was clarified.
Mason Resident
Addressed
A resident asked for information regarding the schedule for land clearing. Key concern
Land clearing schedule.
Board response
The discussion addressed that clearing would be done in phases.
A response was provided explaining the phased approach to clearing.
Dylan Conner
Addressed
The speaker expressed concern regarding the potential depreciation of his home value. Key concern
Property value depreciation.
Board response
Dane (Chair) suggested the resident seek legal counsel.
The board chair provided a recommendation for how to proceed with the concern.

Decisions ⁠logged

Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Approval of April 29, 2026, meeting minutes as amended.
Motion made by Dane Rota, seconded by Chris Jones.
Unanimous
Continuation of Public Hearing MAS PB 2026-01 to June 24, 2026.
Motion made by Chris Jones, seconded by Antje; Katie Boots voted nay.
4 Aye, 1 Nay
Approval of amendment to Subdivision Regulations 5.24 (On-Site Fire Protection Facilities Required).
Motion made by Chris Jones, seconded by Dane Rota; approved as written.
Unanimous
Recommendation of Chris Jones for the position of NRPC Commissioner.
Motion made by Katie Boots, seconded by Dane Rota.
Unanimous

Share ⁠this report

Drafts ready to post — click any block to copy.

X / Twitter — by angle

Split votes and board division
At the May 27 Planning Board meeting, the Onyx Corp excavation proposal (67 acres on Brookline Rd) was continued to June 24. The board was split 4-1 on the motion to continue, signaling internal disagreement on how to handle this... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/mason/planning-board/2026-05-27/ #MeetingWatch #MasonNH
316/280 chars
Community concerns raised
During the Onyx Corp hearing on 5/27, residents raised serious questions: Will dust mitigation harm local businesses? Will calcium chloride damage wildlife? Do heavy trucks exceed our road/bridge capacities? The board has... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/mason/planning-board/2026-05-27/ #MeetingWatch #MasonNH
308/280 chars
Prioritizing regulation/evidence over application
Is the Onyx Corp excavation even legal under current Mason rules? During the 5/27 Planning Board meeting, residents argued the proposal lacks an 'accepted use' under existing excavation regulations. The board has yet to address... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/mason/planning-board/2026-05-27/ #MeetingWatch #MasonNH
314/280 chars

X thread

1
The May 27 Mason Planning Board meeting centered on a massive 15-year, 67-acre excavation project by Onyx Corp. While the hearing was continued, the debate revealed deep concerns regarding our infrastructure and environment. 🧵 #MeetingWatch #MasonNH
249/280
2
Residents presented significant evidence regarding the impact of the Brookline Road site: potential road/bridge degradation from heavy trucks, dust control issues for local businesses, and the use of calcium chloride near pristine wetlands.
240/280
3
Crucially, community members argued the proposal doesn't actually have an 'accepted use' under Mason’s current excavation regulations. The board has requested a traffic study and more engineering data, but a direct response to the legality of the use is still pending.
268/280
4
The board was divided on the next step, voting 4-1 to continue the hearing to June 24. Residents: stay engaged. The decisions made on June 24 will shape the landscape of Brookline Road for the next decade and a half. https://meetingwatch.org/nh/mason/planning-board/2026-05-27/
240/280

Facebook — long form

At the May 27 Planning Board meeting, the town faced intense scrutiny over the proposed Onyx Corporation excavation project. This 8-phase plan involves 67 acres on Brookline Road and could span up to 15 years, significantly impacting local residents, businesses, and our environment.

During the public hearing, residents raised specific, high-stakes concerns: the impact of heavy truck traffic on our local roads and bridges, the effectiveness of dust mitigation for nearby businesses, and the environmental risks of using calcium chloride near wetlands. Most notably, members of the community pointed out that the proposal may not even have an 'accepted use' under Mason’s existing excavation regulations—a legal point the board has not yet formally addressed.

The board ultimately voted 4-1 to continue the hearing to June 24, 2026, to allow the applicant to submit a traffic study and more detailed engineering documentation. This split vote indicates that even the board is not in total agreement on how to proceed with this massive project.

This is a major issue for anyone living near Brookline Road or concerned about our town's infrastructure and environmental protections. Mark your calendars for June 24. https://meetingwatch.org/nh/mason/planning-board/2026-05-27/ #MeetingWatch #MasonNH

Action ⁠items

Who owes what, by when.
Submit traffic study and written documentation to Cassie Cashin regarding the excavation application.
Assigned: Onyx Corporation / Applicant · Due: June 24, 2026
Discuss NRPC position with the Conservation Commission.
Assigned: Bob Larochelle · Due: Next meeting

Member ⁠positions

4 issues · 3 explicit · 15 inferred · 3 unclear
A split vote in this meeting was recorded without naming the dissenter (e.g. a voice vote). Members whose individual vote could not be confirmed are marked UNCLEAR below — this is not the same as a “yes.” Named votes will be filled in if official minutes record them.
Dane Rota
Chair
Present
Approval of April 29, 2026, meeting minutes as amended YES ~
Continuation of Public Hearing MAS PB 2026-01 to June 24, 2026 UNCLEAR
Supported continuing the hearing for further documentation.
Approval of amendment to Subdivision Regulations 5.24 YES ~
Recommendation of Chris Jones for the position of NRPC Commissioner YES ~
Katie Boots
Vice Chair
Present
Approval of April 29, 2026, meeting minutes as amended YES ~
Continuation of Public Hearing MAS PB 2026-01 to June 24, 2026 NO
Opposed the motion to continue the hearing.
Approval of amendment to Subdivision Regulations 5.24 YES ~
Recommendation of Chris Jones for the position of NRPC Commissioner YES ~
Chris Jones
Member
Present
Approval of April 29, 2026, meeting minutes as amended YES ~
Continuation of Public Hearing MAS PB 2026-01 to June 24, 2026 YES
Proposed the motion to continue the hearing.
Approval of amendment to Subdivision Regulations 5.24 YES ~
Recommendation of Chris Jones for the position of NRPC Commissioner YES ~
Jenny Scholl
Member & Recorder
Present
Approval of April 29, 2026, meeting minutes as amended YES ~
Continuation of Public Hearing MAS PB 2026-01 to June 24, 2026 UNCLEAR
Approval of amendment to Subdivision Regulations 5.24 YES ~
Recommendation of Chris Jones for the position of NRPC Commissioner YES ~
Sarah Harkonen
Alternate
Present
Continuation of Public Hearing MAS PB 2026-01 to June 24, 2026 UNCLEAR
Antje Skorupan
Ex-Officio
Present
Continuation of Public Hearing MAS PB 2026-01 to June 24, 2026 YES
Seconded the motion to continue the hearing.

Positions marked ~ are inferred from context and may not reflect the member's explicitly stated position. UNCLEAR means the vote was split but the record did not name how this member voted — it is not a “yes.”

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 Mason.

Report composed by grok-4.3, gemma-4-26b, grok-4.20-0309-reasoning, grok-4-fast · analyzed 2026-07-09.