[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6190864,"mediaKeyId","5038475-abacb774e4dfbb3174cbe449afb5d685","parentId",5038475,"title","Planning Board weighs Fairgrounds Road overlay as 2024 zoning changes alter lot‑size landscape","audioSeconds",1530,"startMs",6229000,"endMs",7759000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5038475-abacb774e4dfbb3174cbe449afb5d685&start=6229&end=7759","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5038475-abacb774e4dfbb3174cbe449afb5d685/thumbnail_6229000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6190864/Plymouth/Grafton-County/New-Hampshire/Planning-Board-weighs-Fairgrounds-Road-overlay-as-2024-zoning-changes-alter-lotsize-landscape","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6190864-27fce1764a78561ae655a1acb7f50642/orig.mp4?Expires=1771258432&Signature=DkkiIfHrP9ksOv3nmhBSLoOegutKPKUAE3nPP3mfks08bDqfo3zBBH1TcfF3HAOrDqs9uWAx0jSGyEeuEoF~GGi3ix4AuTuBpBrvpKfOeTeyVbY-AAQ-OTXvQcJ8wV5X7R8GnxMS1sTWq-lKe4Bx3-wvJzGDn~4~fb3eBbPUdWVvKQuZ5eWD95RY43hxLjoJXaOezS~N0GwJmgfC6kMPzwXbna7Ta0SOM5jD~E69-oVva90bejGb0j7X9zObchyFWsr9JSZP8eC1VKGTlwyMhGNnzz~ZqRe1xYGaUWfm1l5KQzJsxLy6d1EoI~La2KLYsfRa~yK0WixMODo8Z3cfvw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Plymouth, NH","date","2025-06-20T18:01:52Z","article","The Plymouth Planning Board revisited a proposed Fairgrounds Road Residential Overlay District (FRROD) at its June 19, 2025 meeting and discussed whether the overlay remains necessary now that 2024 zoning amendments clarified minimum lot sizes and how additional dwelling units are calculated.

Planning staff Joseph summarized the practical difference between the underlying agricultural zoning and the single‑family residential model the overlay would mirror. Under the single‑family residential model discussed, the minimum lot size would be 10,000 square feet with 5,000 square feet required for each additional unit on a lot; under the agricultural district the minimum lot size is 40,000 square feet with 2,500 square feet per additional unit. “The density allowed in the agricultural zone is different today than when this was initially conceptualized,” Joseph said, noting recent ordinance changes had already increased flexibility in many districts.

Why this matters: supporters of the FRROD said the overlay gives local property owners a conventional ownership model — a single family home on an individually owned lot — at smaller lot sizes than the agricultural district allows. Opponents and some board members noted the 2024 zoning changes already enable higher density through other mechanisms (for example, multi‑unit development on single lots) and questioned whether an overlay would add complexity without material benefit. Board members also flagged infrastructure limits: public water and sewer do not extend indefinitely into the neighborhood, and the “end of the line” for sewer and water constrains practical extent of new development.

Manufactured and modular housing: the board also discussed state‑level policy changes that could require towns to treat manufactured housing similarly to single‑family dwellings. Joseph explained the town’s current land‑use code differentiates manufactured housing (a distinct use category) and modular or pre‑site built housing (treated as single‑family when built to code). He noted that if state legislation passes, local language will need adjustment to either change the use table or redefine single‑family dwelling to include manufactured housing.

Direction and next steps: no vote was taken. Several members urged additional targeted review — to preserve agriculturally valuable land in the ag zone, to avoid unintended impacts on active farms, and to confirm where town water and sewer are economically feasible to extend. Multiple board members recommended “letting it marinate” and returning with a more focused mapping and infrastructure analysis rather than adopting an overlay immediately.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Plymouth Planning Board - 6/19/25","oneSentenceSummary","Board members debated whether a Fairgrounds Road Residential Overlay District is still needed after 2024 zoning changes reduced minimum lot sizes; the overlay would enable smaller single‑family lots and traditional homeownership but board members raised infrastructure and manufactured‑housing questions.","taxTitle","Plymouth, Grafton County, New Hampshire","taxId",61623,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6190868,"Planning Board wrestles with density, water‑sewer and fees in Tinney Mountain Overlay rewrite",4480,1566000,6046000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5038475-abacb774e4dfbb3174cbe449afb5d685&start=1566&end=6046","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5038475-abacb774e4dfbb3174cbe449afb5d685/thumbnail_1566000.jpg","/articles/6190868/Plymouth/Grafton-County/New-Hampshire/Planning-Board-wrestles-with-density-watersewer-and-fees-in-Tinney-Mountain-Overlay-rewrite","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6190868-a7396a363b60baec31233ec2019d96bb/orig.mp4?Expires=1771258432&Signature=TXXHnwFUBBNX4qMz~PZx3bQY7k15SSa-pOdHua-nP1c6KFJodVPHcvQTRQxwFXOcrngdSY2Ei7Eq7Y-GVP3tckiufe4-mFGZzqieRbG7Xu7lB9qeTLmKI80PrIwSMTNII2J7gN4VVxbBFQ3CSvz~F7mtxGKjOw-RGZZ89QWblAKFCrBu680vaQsJELnKQZaXfiEDEcOqITtVOXno--8erru-WaOjk4qierrM2ejHJeKOdxeuUfK-bU0w6ZHx~g9ReZH3Jx1Rkxnq6Vv0Pad17X-KpaQJWdYFIHK7oyhIXIl4ObMOHXQ1Pa0RnBU6K~j0Dmsw1fDtRnSFuiCsWyxYSw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Plymouth Planning Board on June 19, 2025 took up competing drafts of the Tinney Mountain Overlay District intended for the 2026 town meeting, focusing on how to calculate dwelling units, where high density should be allowed, and which tracts must be served by municipal water and sewer.

Planning staff Joseph led the procedural review and emphasized definitional clarity. “One dwelling unit is one room or rooms connected together constituting a separate independent housekeeping establishment…containing independent cooking, sanitary, and sleeping facilities,” Joseph read from the zoning definition while answering a board question about whether the term covers single‑family homes, accessory dwelling units and apartments.

Key points of debate

- Density and village core: Board members discussed the overlay’s two complementary density mechanics. One approach preserves a village core that may reach up to 20 dwelling units per acre on up to 25% of a PUD (a village core requires a minimum PUD size of 250 acres), while an alternate approach spreads density across the entire PUD at 5 units per acre. Members and staff ran the math: a 250‑acre PUD with 25% (62.5 acres) at 20 units per acre approximates the same total number of units as 5 units per acre across the full PUD footprint.

- Multifamily and building‑unit caps: Several members raised that the planning board’s zoning definition of “multifamily dwelling” currently caps multifamily buildings at six units; they asked whether the PUD process should explicitly allow larger multifamily buildings in the village core. Joseph and board members agreed that the ordinance should explicitly clarify that village‑core allowances supersede the six‑unit multifamily cap if that is the board’s intent.

- Water and sewer requirements: The board examined language that would require all tracts in a PUD to be served by certified water and sewer “unless they are associated with recreation or a ski area.” Members asked whether “associated with” is specific enough and whether the clause might be interpreted to permit snowmaking infrastructure or other intensive uses without public water. Joseph said the intent was to avoid mandating water and sewer for tracts that remain recreational in character, but the board asked staff to tighten wording and to flag potential state subdivision, on‑site wastewater, and snowmaking implications for future review.

- Fees and review costs: The draft language had proposed a per‑acre application fee (examples discussed included $500 per acre with a $15,000 cap); the revised draft moves fee setting to the select board. Board members discussed separating the application fee from design‑review or peer‑review costs and noted that actual PUD submittals can be many volumes and may justify an independent design‑review fee to pay for outside consultants.

- Clustering and open space: The draft allows residential uses outside the village core provided the planning board gives “due consideration” to clustering and open‑space preservation. Members asked whether the ordinance should reference existing OSRD (Open Space Residential Design) standards or provide clearer clustering metrics.

Why it matters: the Tinney Mountain Overlay covers a large area and could permit a wide range of uses — from ski‑area facilities to mixed‑use village cores — that will shape the town’s future housing, traffic and infrastructure needs. The board and staff repeatedly returned to the same practical questions: how to preserve open space, how to make sure the overall unit counts remain constrained, and how to ensure developers plan for water, sewer and fiscal impacts.

Next steps: Joseph said he will prepare a marked‑up summary of the board’s comments and bring comparative PUD applications from other communities (examples cited included Woodmont Commons and Tuscan Village) as illustrations of typical submittal content. Board members requested clearer language on multifamily unit caps, the water/sewer exception for ski/recreation parcels, and a defined approach to application and design‑review fees before a final draft goes to the public and the select board.","Board members and planning staff debated definitions of dwelling units, village‑core density and whether ski/recreation parcels must be served by municipal water and sewer as they refine the Tinney Mountain Overlay District for 2026 town meeting.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6190873,"Developer seeks access easement and conservation swap to serve housing site behind the Restore",1363,191000,1554000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5038475-abacb774e4dfbb3174cbe449afb5d685&start=191&end=1554","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5038475-abacb774e4dfbb3174cbe449afb5d685/thumbnail_191000.jpg","/articles/6190873/Plymouth/Grafton-County/New-Hampshire/Developer-seeks-access-easement-and-conservation-swap-to-serve-housing-site-behind-the-Restore","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6190873-d9e8d905b47dc3d12e27b0e20bc3ffaf/orig.mp4?Expires=1771258432&Signature=JrTlkLT8XnP0SfxpEitzYVx8tCHhkrquWMgUtr-yrPEsmKylL8T45b6JP1tIFP0Tgh~rxheZK5F-itBB3Oj5M~vJyf9M8E~AvHkmF8PaxLr~VhJD4a2w3jsN5SnudMTBgShK6J7MIZQC3g8cd8mQVIszRTDiRSpA~tv3aaTcpbSSSAfiIN-mKF0uNLob6xG-3MfRrBXnoMJRN9ArVs2sEMEf~x6GjrhyhCKZo9bWgpEYxkDf3v5fH9nypvvOau5pPeqUtTEGB9nhqoae4FwD4yXkleVHuOaDR2SzZfvKYdn~s3OZO9v4ulYayO0E~Q1bUzUDbQALaa~ywr24VTZKCQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Frank MacLean told the Plymouth Planning Board on June 19, 2025, he is seeking a right‑of‑way across neighboring property and a conservation‑easement swap so he can build an access road to a parcel behind the Restore and meet emergency‑access rules related to Tenney Mountain.

MacLean presented the plan as a conceptual consultation rather than a formal application, saying he and his team have been discussing the project for about two years and have met with the town’s fire and police departments. “Any kind of development outside of, like, a thousand feet from Tenney Mountain requires an additional access point,” MacLean said, describing the proposed road as about 1,200 feet long and built to town specifications: a 24‑foot travel lane, 2‑foot shoulders and 6‑inch curbing, with sidewalks possible on the southern side.

The road would cross land owned by the nearby commercial property often referred to as Spears; MacLean said “Spear is on board with this” and that his team has discussed alignment and impacts with the site engineer, Horizons. He told the board the actual area of conservation easement that would be impacted is small — “less than 1 acre” on the conceptual plan — and that his group intends to transfer an equivalent amount and quality of conservation land elsewhere, holding open about 15 acres as candidates for the swap depending on partners and funding.

Why it matters: the town’s emergency‑access rules tied to Tenney Mountain limit development that lacks a second access, and carving a new right‑of‑way across conservation land requires review by the select board and consultation with the state’s attorney, as MacLean and staff noted. The access and any roadwork could change traffic patterns near Boulder Point and the Spears parking area; board members repeatedly asked about traffic mitigation and long‑term maintenance costs for a new road.

What the board heard and directed: Planning staff and board members treated MacLean’s presentation as informational. Joseph (planning staff) confirmed the select board will need to review any easement and the conservation committee has recommended the swap in principle; MacLean said he has a letter of support from the conservation committee. The board expressed general support for further study but asked for more detailed maps and engineering documents before formal review. Joseph said he would pass a recap to the select board and the developer agreed to provide materials in advance of a future meeting.

Funding and partners: MacLean said the project is being designed with multiple funding and partnership models in mind, including nonprofit partners (he identified part of the parcel as owned by Habitat for Humanity, lot 21229) and potential grant sources such as community development funds; he said he discussed the project with Scott Wheaton and other town staff. He also noted the fire department has asked that access be provided in order for him to proceed with greater investment in the site.

No formal action was taken at the June 19 meeting; the presentation was recorded as a conceptual consultation and the board asked MacLean to provide maps and supporting documentation for follow‑up review by the select board and planning staff.","Frank MacLean told the Planning Board he is pursuing a right-of-way across adjacent land and a conservation-easement swap to build a town‑spec emergency access road for a proposed housing project; the project is at an early, conceptual stage and requires select board and legal approvals.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning Board weighs Fairgrounds Road overlay as 2024 zoning changes alter lot‑size landscape

Planning Board wrestles with density, water‑sewer and fees in Tinney Mountain Overlay rewrite

Developer seeks access easement and conservation swap to serve housing site behind the Restore