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

Zoning Board of Adjustment — June 8, 2026

ZBA discusses off-agenda case details and pushes back on misleading cell tower data

The meeting featured strong public interest and critical feedback from residents regarding the transparency and necessity of a major infrastructure proposal.

Date Monday, June 8, 2026 Public comments 4 Decisions 1 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.

Two significant issues emerged during the June 8 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting that residents should have on their radar.

First, the Board held a discussion regarding the Matthew Koff setback variance case that was not included on the public agenda. While the discussion focused on requesting specific documentation—such as building condition reports and compliance cost estimates—the lack of prior notice meant residents could not prepare for or observe the specifics of this pending case being finalized.

Second, the Atlantic Tower cell tower application (Case 26-01) at 22 Old Stage Coach Road remains highly controversial. During the meeting, community members and Board members expressed serious concerns that the 130-foot structure is being proposed in Plainfield primarily to solve a coverage gap in Lebanon. There were also pointed criticisms regarding the applicant's visual impact study, with claims that the consultant chose photo locations specifically to minimize the tower's perceived height and impact.

The Board has responded to these concerns by reopening the public hearing and requiring the applicant to provide much more rigorous data, including a study on alternative sites and a formal tree canopy assessment. The case is continued to Monday, July 13, at 7:00 p.m. We encourage all residents to attend and demand evidence-based decisions.

Jun 8, 2026 4 public comments 1 decisions Lively
Notable statements Drag to browse

“The visual analysis consultant chose photo locations that minimized the apparent visual impact of the tower.”

— Peter Martin · Reviewing the visual analysis submitted by the applicant.

“Plainfield residents are being asked to bend regulations for a tower that primarily addresses a coverage gap in Lebanon.”

— Rob Healy · Public hearing regarding the cell tower application.
This meeting — choose a section

Public ⁠impact

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

Installation of a 130-foot telecommunications structure

What happened

The Board continued the case and ordered the applicant to provide additional data on site feasibility, environmental impact, and a tree canopy assessment.

Topics ⁠discussed

Each topic expands to quotes and full context.
What was discussed

The Board reviewed and approved the minutes from the May 11th meeting with amendments.

What happened

The minutes were approved as amended.

Speakers: Richard Colburn, Attorney Swiniarski, Peter Martin, Don Cann, Brian Hampton, Rob Healy, John Austin
What was discussed

A continuation of the hearing regarding a proposed cell tower at 22 Old Stage Coach Road, focusing on visual impact and site feasibility.

What happened

The Board reopened the public hearing to hear from abutters and concluded that the applicant must provide more data regarding site feasibility and environmental impact.

Speakers: Stephen Halleran
What was discussed

The Board discussed required documentation for a pending setback variance case involving Matthew Koff.

What happened

The Board finalized a list of requested items to be communicated to the applicant.

Controversy & ⁠dissent

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

Potentially controversial issues

01

Atlantic Tower Cell Tower Application (Case 26-01)

The application involves a proposed 130-foot structure that residents argue primarily benefits the neighboring town of Lebanon rather than Plainfield. Concerns include visual impact, potential misrepresentation of data by the applicant, and whether alternative sites have been sufficiently explored.
Board position: The Board expressed skepticism regarding the applicant's visual analysis and site feasibility claims, requiring more data before proceeding.
high concern

Community vs. board tension

Public ⁠comment

What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
4
Speakers
4
Comments
2
Addressed
1
Partial
1
Not addressed
Don Cann
Addressed
Don Cann inquired about the potential for the tower height to increase beyond what is currently proposed. He also asked if any lighting would be required at the top of the structure. Key concern
Tower height variations and lighting requirements.
Board response
Attorney Swiniarski noted that while some minor height variation is possible, the proposal is for a 130-foot tower and no lighting is required.
The attorney provided direct answers to both the height and lighting questions.
Brian Hampton
Partial
Brian Hampton expressed a belief that the applicant was not sufficiently prepared for the proceedings. He also suggested that some facts presented by the applicant had been misrepresented. Key concern
The preparedness and accuracy of the applicant's information.
Board response
Attorney Swiniarski objected to the characterization, stating the application is accurate and the applicant has been cooperative in providing requested info.
The attorney provided a rebuttal to the claim, but the board did not take specific action regarding the allegation of misrepresentation.
Rob Healy
Not addressed
Rob Healy expressed concern that Plainfield residents are being asked to relax their zoning regulations for a tower that primarily benefits Lebanon's coverage area. Key concern
The impact of the tower on Plainfield vs. the benefit to Lebanon.
The transcript does not record a direct response from the board to this specific comment.
John Austin
Addressed
John Austin requested additional information regarding the height of the tree canopy adjacent to the tower site once construction is finalized. Key concern
Request for information on the future tree canopy height.
Board response
The Board agreed that this information is a requirement and must be provided by the applicant.
The board explicitly agreed to require this information in the application.

Decisions ⁠logged

Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Approval of May 11th minutes
The minutes were approved as amended.
Approved

Share ⁠this report

Drafts ready to post — click a block to copy, or use Share to post it.

X / Twitter — by angle

Off-agenda discussion
During the June 8 ZBA meeting, the Board discussed specific documentation required for the Matthew Koff setback variance case. This was not on the public agenda, meaning residents weren't notified that details of this... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/plainfield/zoning-board/2026-06-08/ #MeetingWatch #PlainfieldNH
312/280 chars
Community concern/Resource diversion
Is Plainfield being used to subsidize Lebanon's cell service? At the June 8 ZBA meeting, Board members and residents raised alarms that the proposed Atlantic Tower at 22 Old Stage Coach Rd may benefit Lebanon more than our... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/plainfield/zoning-board/2026-06-08/ #MeetingWatch #PlainfieldNH
317/280 chars
Accountability regarding applicant data
The Atlantic Tower application (Case 26-01) hit a roadblock on June 8. After criticism that the applicant's visual impact analysis used misleading photo locations, the ZBA demanded more data on site feasibility and tree... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/plainfield/zoning-board/2026-06-08/ #MeetingWatch #PlainfieldNH
314/280 chars

X thread

1
At the June 8 ZBA meeting, two major issues surfaced that residents need to watch: a lack of agenda transparency and a controversial 130-foot cell tower proposal that may benefit a neighboring town more than our own. 🧵 #MeetingWatch #PlainfieldNH
246/280
2
First: The Board discussed specific requirements for the Matthew Koff setback variance case. This discussion regarding building reports and cost estimates was not listed on the public agenda, preventing residents from knowing the details would be addressed.
257/280
3
Second: The Atlantic Tower proposal (22 Old Stage Coach Rd) is under fire. Residents and Board members questioned if the applicant's visual analysis was manipulated to minimize the tower's impact. The ZBA has now demanded real proof of feasibility.
248/280
4
The Board isn't letting this slide—they've reopened the hearing and ordered the applicant to report back on alternative sites and tree canopy assessments. Next hearing: Monday, July 13, at 7:00 p.m. Be there. https://meetingwatch.org/nh/plainfield/zoning-board/2026-06-08/
232/280

Facebook — long form

Two significant issues emerged during the June 8 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting that residents should have on their radar.

First, the Board held a discussion regarding the Matthew Koff setback variance case that was not included on the public agenda. While the discussion focused on requesting specific documentation—such as building condition reports and compliance cost estimates—the lack of prior notice meant residents could not prepare for or observe the specifics of this pending case being finalized.

Second, the Atlantic Tower cell tower application (Case 26-01) at 22 Old Stage Coach Road remains highly controversial. During the meeting, community members and Board members expressed serious concerns that the 130-foot structure is being proposed in Plainfield primarily to solve a coverage gap in Lebanon. There were also pointed criticisms regarding the applicant's visual impact study, with claims that the consultant chose photo locations specifically to minimize the tower's perceived height and impact.

The Board has responded to these concerns by reopening the public hearing and requiring the applicant to provide much more rigorous data, including a study on alternative sites and a formal tree canopy assessment. The case is continued to Monday, July 13, at 7:00 p.m. We encourage all residents to attend and demand evidence-based decisions. https://meetingwatch.org/nh/plainfield/zoning-board/2026-06-08/ #MeetingWatch #PlainfieldNH

Action ⁠items

Who owes what, by when.
Report back on alternative sites and provide a tree canopy assessment per Section 3.16(F)(6)
Assigned: Applicant · Due: 2026-07-13
Convey information request (building condition report, builder input, and compliance cost estimates) to Matthew Koff
Assigned: Stephen Halleran (Zoning Administrator) · Due: Before 2026-06-22

Member ⁠positions

2 issues · 0 explicit · 4 inferred · 5 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.
Present
Approval of May 11th Minutes YES ~
Case 26-01: Atlantic Tower Cell Tower Application UNCLEAR
Skeptical; required more data on site feasibility and environmental impact.
Present
Approval of May 11th Minutes YES ~
Case 26-01: Atlantic Tower Cell Tower Application UNCLEAR
Part of the unified decision to require further evidence and delay the decision.
Present
Approval of May 11th Minutes YES ~
Case 26-01: Atlantic Tower Cell Tower Application UNCLEAR
Part of the unified decision to require further evidence and delay the decision.
Present
Approval of May 11th Minutes YES ~
Case 26-01: Atlantic Tower Cell Tower Application UNCLEAR
Criticized visual analysis accuracy and queried height reductions.
Present
Approval of May 11th Minutes YES ~
Case 26-01: Atlantic Tower Cell Tower Application UNCLEAR
Part of the unified decision to require further evidence and delay the decision.

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.”

Accountability ⁠flags

Documented procedural gaps. Each item links to its source.

Topics discussed — not on agenda

Transcript vs. official minutes

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 Plainfield.

Report composed by xai.grok-4.3, gemma-4-26b, grok-4.20-0309-reasoning, grok-4.20-0309-non-reasoning · analyzed 2026-07-25.