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

Planning Board — May 21, 2026

The meeting featured pointed questioning regarding noise mitigation, business scope, and legal deed restrictions, creating a focused atmosphere of scrutiny.

Date Thursday, May 21, 2026 Public comments 1 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 21 Planning Board meeting, the discussion surrounding the Select Shepherds LLC site plan application highlighted significant unanswered questions regarding land use and legal restrictions in Springfield.

During the hearing, Board Member John Trachy raised a critical point: whether a deed restriction limiting the property to single-family homes would prevent this dog-related business from operating. Rather than addressing the potential conflict, the applicant's attorney declined to answer, claiming the restriction was not relevant to the hearing. This leaves residents wondering if the Board will respect existing property protections or allow a commercial shift in a residential area.

In addition to the legal questions, community members raised concerns regarding noise levels, the validity of sound studies, and the potential for increased traffic. While the Board voted unanimously to accept the application as "complete" for now, they have deferred the final decision until the next hearing on June 18 at 7:05 p.m. to allow for further review and baseline sound testing.

As this project moves forward, it is vital that the Board addresses the legality of the site use and provides concrete evidence that noise mitigation will be effective for nearby neighbors.

May 21, 2026 1 public comments 4 decisions Lively
Notable statements Drag to browse

“Declined to answer why the facility should be allowed given a deed condition for single-family homes only, stating it was not relevant to the hearing.”

— Atty. Sheridan Brown · Responding to a question from John Trachy regarding deed restrictions. 00:00

“Offered to classify any dog over 16-weeks old as part of the 15 adult dog limit and keep puppies indoors to prevent outdoor noise.”

— Audrius Kazenas · Clarifying dog counts and noise mitigation for the Select Shepherds application. 00:00
This meeting — choose a section

Public ⁠impact

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

Potential for significant noise disruption and change in land use from residential to commercial dog facility.

Topics ⁠discussed

Each topic expands to quotes and full context.
Speakers: Shannah Stone, Jen Roberts, Mike Howard
What was discussed

A continued hearing regarding a Short Term Rental (STR) application. The Board reviewed parking, guest limits, and noise/fire permit conditions.

Speakers: Audrius Kazenas, Atty. Sheridan Brown, John Trachy, Steve Piispanen, Mike Howard
What was discussed

A review of a site plan for a dog-related business. Discussion included sound studies, the definition of adult dogs for occupancy limits, and potential training activities on-site.

Speakers: Sandy Burke, Tanner Jacques
What was discussed

Sandy Burke followed up regarding a light trespass issue involving Mr. Rowley. The Board noted the lights are dark-sky compliant but will review the final site plan to resolve discrepancies.

Speakers: Board Members
What was discussed

A brief discussion regarding a history of Star Lake and their intention to build a new commercial building.

Controversy & ⁠dissent

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

Potentially controversial issues

01

Select Shepherds LLC Site Plan Application

The application involves a dog-related business that introduces potential noise disruptions and operational scope concerns. There is also a legal dispute regarding whether the facility violates a deed restriction for single-family homes only.
Board position: The Board accepted the application as complete but deferred the final decision to allow for further review and sound testing.
medium concern

Split votes

Approval of April 16, 2026, meeting minutes
Passed (1 abstention)

Community vs. board tension

Public ⁠comment

What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
1
Total speakers
1
Addressed
0
Partial
0
Not addressed
Steve Piispanen
Addressed
He questioned whether the current permit allows Select Shepherds to operate immediately and inquired if training activities would be moved from Grantham to the new location. He also raised concerns regarding noise levels, the validity of the sound study, and current vehicle counts on the property. Key concern
The potential for noise disruption, the scope of business operations (specifically training), and the adequacy of the sound impact studies.
Board response
The Board addressed his questions by clarifying the timeframe of the special exception, noting that training is not in the application, explaining that the noise study includes a commitment to mitigate sounds if levels are exceeded, and stating that current vehicle counts were not relevant to the current hearing.
The Board provided specific answers or procedural clarifications for each of his inquiries, even when they ruled certain questions as irrelevant to the specific scope of the hearing.

Decisions ⁠logged

Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
00:00
Approve Shannah Stone STR site plan with conditions.
Conditions: max 10 guests, up to 4 vehicles, quiet hours 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., max 2 extra tents, and an annual burn permit.
Unanimous
00:00
Accept Select Shepherds LLC site plan application as complete.
The Board found all applicable items present on the application.
Unanimous
00:00
Continue Select Shepherds hearing.
The hearing is moved to June 18th at 7:05 p.m. to allow for further review and questions.
Unanimous
00:00
Approve April 16, 2026, meeting minutes.
Steve Dzubak abstained; all other members voted to accept.
Passed (1 abstention)

Share ⁠this report

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

X / Twitter — by angle

Dismissal of legal/deed restriction concerns
At the May 21 Planning Board meeting, a major question was sidestepped: Does the Select Shepherds LLC application violate a deed restriction that limits the property to single-family homes? The applicant’s attorney declined... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/springfield/planning-board/2026-05-21/ #MeetingWatch #SpringfieldNH
322/280 chars
Community concerns regarding noise and land use
Select Shepherds LLC site plan was accepted as "complete" on 5/21, but residents raised serious concerns about noise, training scope, and traffic. The Board has deferred the decision to June 18. Residents should attend to... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/springfield/planning-board/2026-05-21/ #MeetingWatch #SpringfieldNH
320/280 chars
Internal board division/abstention
During the 5/21 Planning Board meeting, member Steve Dzubak abstained from the vote to approve the April 16 minutes. While a minor procedural item, abstentions often signal underlying disagreement. #Springfield #Accountability https://meetingwatch.org/nh/springfield/planning-board/2026-05-21/ #MeetingWatch #SpringfieldNH
322/280 chars

X thread

1
Is a new commercial dog facility heading to Springfield despite potential deed restrictions? At the May 21 Planning Board meeting, a key legal question regarding the Select Shepherds LLC application went unanswered. 🧵 #MeetingWatch #SpringfieldNH
246/280
2
Board Member John Trachy questioned whether a deed restriction limiting the property to single-family homes would prohibit this business. The applicant's attorney declined to answer, stating the restriction wasn't relevant to the hearing. This remains unresolved.
263/280
3
Beyond the legalities, neighbors raised concerns about noise, vehicle counts, and the scope of training activities. While the Board accepted the application as "complete," they have deferred the final decision to June 18 to allow for more review.
246/280
4
The community deserves clarity on whether land-use restrictions will be upheld and how noise will be managed. Mark your calendars for the next hearing on June 18 at 7:05 p.m. to stay informed. #Springfield #PlanningBoard https://meetingwatch.org/nh/springfield/planning-board/2026-05-21/
244/280

Facebook — long form

At the May 21 Planning Board meeting, the discussion surrounding the Select Shepherds LLC site plan application highlighted significant unanswered questions regarding land use and legal restrictions in Springfield.

During the hearing, Board Member John Trachy raised a critical point: whether a deed restriction limiting the property to single-family homes would prevent this dog-related business from operating. Rather than addressing the potential conflict, the applicant's attorney declined to answer, claiming the restriction was not relevant to the hearing. This leaves residents wondering if the Board will respect existing property protections or allow a commercial shift in a residential area.

In addition to the legal questions, community members raised concerns regarding noise levels, the validity of sound studies, and the potential for increased traffic. While the Board voted unanimously to accept the application as "complete" for now, they have deferred the final decision until the next hearing on June 18 at 7:05 p.m. to allow for further review and baseline sound testing.

As this project moves forward, it is vital that the Board addresses the legality of the site use and provides concrete evidence that noise mitigation will be effective for nearby neighbors. https://meetingwatch.org/nh/springfield/planning-board/2026-05-21/ #MeetingWatch #SpringfieldNH

Action ⁠items

Who owes what, by when.
Review the final site plan for Mr. Rowley regarding lighting compliance.
Assigned: Planning Board
Conduct a follow-up baseline sound test after the facility is built and populated.
Assigned: Audrius Kazenas
Research a recent RSA regarding board members serving on both the ZBA and Planning Board.
Assigned: Tim Josephson

Member ⁠positions

4 issues · 0 explicit · 15 inferred
Present
Shannah Stone STR Application YES ~
Approve with specific conditions.
Select Shepherds LLC Site Plan Application YES ~
Accepted application as complete and continued hearing.
Approve April 16, 2026, meeting minutes YES
Accept the minutes.
Steve Dzubak
Vice Chair
Present
Shannah Stone STR Application YES ~
Approve with specific conditions.
Select Shepherds LLC Site Plan Application YES ~
Accepted application as complete and continued hearing.
Approve April 16, 2026, meeting minutes ABSTAIN
Abstained from approving minutes.
Jennifer Roberts
Selectboard Ex-Officio
Present
Shannah Stone STR Application YES ~
Approve with specific conditions.
Select Shepherds LLC Site Plan Application YES ~
Accepted application as complete and continued hearing.
Approve April 16, 2026, meeting minutes YES
Accept the minutes.
Darrin Patten
Member
Present
Shannah Stone STR Application YES ~
Approve with specific conditions.
Select Shepherds LLC Site Plan Application YES ~
Accepted application as complete and continued hearing.
Approve April 16, 2026, meeting minutes YES
Accept the minutes.
Mike Howard
Member
Present
Shannah Stone STR Application YES ~
Approve with specific conditions.
Select Shepherds LLC Site Plan Application YES ~
Accepted application as complete and continued hearing.
Approve April 16, 2026, meeting minutes YES
Accept the minutes.
John Trachy
Member
Present
Select Shepherds LLC Site Plan Application YES ~
Questioned deed restrictions; voted to continue hearing.
Shannah Stone STR Application YES ~
Approve with specific conditions.
Approve April 16, 2026, meeting minutes YES
Accept the minutes.
Ken Jacques
Member
Present
Shannah Stone STR Application YES ~
Approve with specific conditions.
Select Shepherds LLC Site Plan Application YES ~
Accepted application as complete and continued hearing.
Approve April 16, 2026, meeting minutes YES
Accept the minutes.

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 Springfield.

Report composed by gemma-4-26b, grok-4.20-0309-reasoning · analyzed 2026-06-20.