Meeting report · Planning Board
Creating this report cost real money.
Help fund coverage →
Planning Board — May 26, 2026
While community members raised valid concerns regarding environment and housing, the meeting remained professional, technical, and focused on regulatory compliance.
Public impact
Issues from this meeting with documented community impact.
01
King Hill Road Subdivision
Conversion of 40 acres into an 8-lot cluster subdivision Affected: Local residents and future homeowners
zoning change
Decisions logged
Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Topics discussed
Click a topic to expand quotes and full context.
▶ 00:37 Stormwater and Erosion Control - 221 Lamson Lane
Discussion regarding a proposal for a temporary access path, vegetative shoreline borders, a sloping walkway to replace concrete steps, and various plantings to manage runoff and improve the property.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker, Nancy Soviet, Adam, Craig, Erin Maloney, Emily
▶ 19:01 Preliminary Subdivision Plan - King Hill Road
A presentation of a preliminary plan for a cluster subdivision consisting of eight lots on approximately 40 acres, including discussion on road design, septic systems, and setbacks.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker, Harry, Snow, Deb Langner, Clayton Platt, John Sison, Adam, Emily, Paul, Kathy Weber, Elizabeth Kelly, Paulie Croll
Controversy & dissent
Where the board, the community, or the agenda diverged.
Potentially controversial issues
01
King Hill Road Preliminary Subdivision Plan
The proposal involves significant land development (8 lots on 40 acres) which raised community concerns regarding environmental preservation (trees, ponds, stone walls) and land use density.
Board position: The board acted as a regulatory facilitator, providing technical clarifications on maps and legal constraints while noting limits on their authority over adjacent properties.
medium concern
02
Housing Density vs. Zoning Constraints
A member of the public suggested increasing density to 10 homes to address housing affordability, creating a conflict between community needs and rigid existing zoning laws.
Board position: The board signaled that current zoning does not allow for the requested flexibility, maintaining the 8-lot limit.
medium concern
Community vs. board tension
Action items
Who owes what, by when.
Refresh wetland flagging on the King Hill Road site.
Assigned: Harry/Developer · Due: Early July
Finalize subdivision plans and submit for final approval.
Assigned: Harry/Developer · Due: Summer 2026
Meet to discuss driveway locations and hammerhead design for snow removal and emergency access.
Assigned: Fire Department / Planning Board / Developer · Due: Before final subdivision submission
Notable statements
I'd like to put in a vegetative border... to help prevent some of that runoff. — Nancy Soviet · Explaining the motivation for the landscaping and erosion control project. ▶ 00:59
Is it possible to even get instead of 8 homes, 10 homes on with smaller square footage and lower the price point to help with the housing needs that we have. — Kathy Weber · Addressing the need for increased housing density in New London. ▶ 34:35
Eight is the maximum... current the current zoning there's no flexibility there. — Unidentified speaker · Responding to the inquiry about increasing lot density in the cluster subdivision. ▶ 35:38
Member positions
2 issues · 0 explicit · 1 inferred
Emily Campbell
Present
Member
Stormwater and Erosion Control - 221 Lamson Lane
YES
✓
In favor of the stormwater and erosion control plan.
Paul Gorman
Present
Member
Adjournment of the meeting
YES
✓
Supported the adjournment of the meeting.
Paul Vance
Present
Member
Preliminary Subdivision Plan - King Hill Road
YES
~
Supported the plan by providing technical clarification.
Erin Maloney
Present
Alternate
Stormwater and Erosion Control - 221 Lamson Lane
YES
✓
Proposed and supported the stormwater and erosion control plan.
Positions marked ~ are inferred from context and may not reflect the member's explicitly stated position.
Public comment
What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
2
Total speakers
2
Addressed
0
Partial
0
Not addressed
Elizabeth Kelly
Addressed
She asked for clarification regarding the lack of contour lines in a specific buffer area on the provided maps. Additionally, she expressed a desire to see the beautiful trees near the pond preserved if they are on the property.
Key concern
Map clarification and the preservation of existing trees/pond area.
Board responseThe board explained that the lines represent two-foot changes in elevation and noted that the proposed building site is a significant distance from the pond/trees. They also clarified that they cannot dictate what happens on the Todd Farm property.
The board provided a technical explanation for the map lines and addressed her concern about the trees by explaining the distance between the construction and the pond.
Paulie Croll
Addressed
He inquired about the fate of the beautiful stone walls visible on the property and asked for clarification regarding the 'common land' designation on the map. He also echoed the sentiment regarding tree preservation.
Key concern
Preservation of stone walls, the definition of 'common land,' and tree preservation.
Board responseThe board stated that state law requires boundary walls to be left alone and explained that 'common land' represents a divided interest among the eight lots used for density purposes.
The board directly answered his questions regarding the legal status of the stone walls and the definition of the common land on the plan.
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 New London.
Follow New London
One email when a new report is published from the Planning Board — or one weekly digest.
Report composed by
grok-4.3, grok-4.20-0309-reasoning, gemma-4-26b · analyzed 2026-06-01.