[{"_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",6131148,"mediaKeyId","5734044-5ba1fba2e780ead846dd861707ff2d92","parentId",5734044,"title","DOT draft cuts dozens of projects; Plymouth planning staff urges public comment at Oct. 20 hearing","audioSeconds",625,"startMs",205625,"endMs",831000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5734044-5ba1fba2e780ead846dd861707ff2d92&start=205&end=831","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5734044-5ba1fba2e780ead846dd861707ff2d92/thumbnail_205625.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6131148/Plymouth/Grafton-County/New-Hampshire/DOT-draft-cuts-dozens-of-projects-Plymouth-planning-staff-urges-public-comment-at-Oct-20-hearing","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6131148-6c33b1a6be855ea59163a0bf13fa0b05/orig.mp4?Expires=1771289048&Signature=iPbmmZTJjWOi8J8tYuDsFM8cI3xDXq-z~EeGK4Yh06rPyUg3ii1PzIoNUvNY3oUqMMIVJyPS4kFu0Zwucv~7AMfgnmhfGn6pK3rWGwXw8dGYK7TZYvQb2rUNyPIwO4rwNSVt8AA~xTbUIOCerYHc0OMeD63unuFdVWCpqjppp2scZ~ok9~FNw6aMb3OXtfdKKzjJK2-iDi1rd36-pzM6KWnHZYs5GSwaablJicM2WVXW0~YMAYPe70p2XWtTtAGyihVEoa1zSB8CYW6m8xI753TVj0IKSKO2BBTVEj62A2UaC720RFc-L~7T~ksKIf3eUBPJk4g~XUB-AE8UJWJS1A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Plymouth, NH","date","2025-09-05T21:27:00Z","article","Planning staff told the Planning Board that the New Hampshire Department of Transportation's draft 10-year plan would, under current revenue projections, propose removing 49 municipally advanced projects from the list and also exclude newly proposed projects. The town's transportation advisory committee heard the update from DOT Commissioner Bill Watson at a regional meeting and staff encouraged local residents to attend a public hearing in Plymouth.

Why it matters: the 10-year plan determines which state-funded road, bridge and sidewalk projects receive programmed attention and funding. If projects are cut from the plan, towns can lose a primary funding pathway for improvements such as intersection upgrades and sidewalks.

Details from the update

- Project cuts and hearings: Joseph said the DOT draft proposes cutting 49 municipally advanced projects and excluding the new projects proposed this year, including sidewalk work on North Main Street. He said the next opportunity to influence the plan will be public hearings held by the governor's advisory commission on intermodal transit (GAC), with a hearing tentatively scheduled in Plymouth on Oct. 20 at 6 p.m. at the Pease Public Library; DOT had not yet released a final hearing schedule.

- Specific projects: Joseph said the DOT draft would remove some projects entirely, noting the Smith Bridal Road intersection improvement was one example called out as proposed for removal. He also said that the rehabilitation of the bridge carrying U.S. 3 and N.H. 25 over the Baker River remains in the DOT draft: preliminary engineering to begin in 2029 and construction to begin in 2032 with an approximate DOT-assigned cost of $4.7 million.

- Bicyclist signage and local requests: The Lakes Region Planning Commission discussed whether to request signage or pavement striping on Route 3A to alert motorists to bicyclists; Joseph said that because Route 3A is a state road, any change would require DOT involvement but the town could encourage DOT to consider pavement markings or signage.

- Speed-limit local option: The New Hampshire Bike Walk Alliance is advocating to allow select boards to lower local speed limits to 20 mph in certain urban residential or business district streets; Joseph explained current law allows certain local reductions to 25 mph and that the proposed change would be a local-option law requiring a speed study under RSA if the town chooses to lower limits.

Board guidance and next steps

Planning members asked staff to confirm the hearing date and to circulate a save-the-date to the board once DOT releases the formal hearing schedule. Staff said they would continue engaging with regional partners and keep the board informed about opportunities for public comment.

Ending note: Staff urged residents to monitor the DOT schedule and attend the GAC hearing in Plymouth to advocate for projects the town wants to preserve in the 10-year plan.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Plymouth Planning Board - 9/4/25","oneSentenceSummary","Town planning staff warned the Planning Board that the New Hampshire DOT draft 10-year plan proposes cutting dozens of municipally advanced projects and urged the public to attend a GAC hearing tentatively set for Oct. 20 in Plymouth to weigh in.","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},6131152,"Planning board debates scope and industrial uses in Tenney Mountain overlay",5052,1165350,6218000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5734044-5ba1fba2e780ead846dd861707ff2d92&start=1165&end=6218","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5734044-5ba1fba2e780ead846dd861707ff2d92/thumbnail_1165350.jpg","/articles/6131152/Plymouth/Grafton-County/New-Hampshire/Planning-board-debates-scope-and-industrial-uses-in-Tenney-Mountain-overlay","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6131152-af7f7c6cd5f6aa78258af323bf9eb57f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771289048&Signature=RbuKBk7NvsoaVvBOA4r2Lqm~KYZm1D4A6D1Z-2b~b1HqXprnOkurY1eprRLFL0JNTuDkrFnmPKtpc1Zg-SXXGWKBW2hHB48Ce2y~IAVZuM~vxmFQec5B8Itbk09~X7FbIveLQgV6YRRr-x~D0NAA8T8m8M10qv9-E6K2jUpUAcGJpeSTleOhrqWL6nnohpmK2Z6pqNL5yqQIZfDUchRRQ0xxcdEoVl5JxPkCZrNpHtjbHeff9YvkRUoLynsuDm0LQuomC7KsYV6H2R0ohp2aAysfEKbRHcvDwqFDxA-xbfGYHS8ufuUx3y0iWv2lICehFCwa3uJ0oTrZHLbOULeIdg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Planning staff presented a revised Tenney Mountain Overlay District (TMOD) draft and the Planning Board spent substantial time discussing how the overlay would handle village-core form, PUD thresholds and allowable business uses, including manufacturing, laboratory R&D and warehousing.

The board reviewed several changes: clarifying the underlying zoning that could apply to overlay parcels, correcting older references (\"PUD plan\" in place of \"master plan\") and adding a clear requirement that a village core in a PUD must be compact and consistent with the purpose of the overlay. The TMOD draft also makes explicit that a PUD village core shall be allowed only in PUDs containing at least 250 acres.

Why it matters: the overlay creates an opportunity to accommodate higher-intensity mixed-use development in designated areas near Tenney Mountain while also obligating the planning board to evaluate impacts on topography, viewsheds and natural resources.

Key discussion points

- Village core and multifamily: Staff added language that the board can set the appropriate number of dwelling units in a multifamily building in the village core; that change responds to the limited statutory definition of multifamily in the town's general definitions (which by default limits multifamily to 6 units unless otherwise specified).

- Business uses and size limits: Several board members raised concerns about allowing very large industrial or warehouse buildings in the overlay. Molly McCann and others asked whether manufacturing or warehouse uses should include explicit size caps (for example, 30,000 to 200,000 square feet were discussed in the meeting as framing examples). Joseph noted that some high-tech employers and out-of-town examples (including a ~200,000-square-foot facility mentioned in the discussion) could require large footprints; board members asked staff to research commonly used size thresholds and to provide examples from other communities.

- Definitions and redundancy: The board identified apparent redundancy in the draft's definitions: \"fractional ownership unit\" and \"timeshare or fractional ownership\" were called out as overlapping and the staff said they would clean up the language.

- Environmental and topographic protections: Members and a public commenter, Claire McCann, raised the risk of large-scale excavation and earthmoving on sloped sites. Claire asked whether the overlay contains explicit limits on cutting or altering the topography; Joseph pointed to specific objectives in the PUD development criteria that require placement of structures on suitable sites, protection of open space and preservation of natural features, but acknowledged the draft does not include a standalone prohibition on large-scale topographic alteration beyond normal state excavation rules. Claire recommended the board consider specific language to protect existing topography; the board asked staff to review options.

Board direction and next steps

The board did not adopt any changes at the meeting. Members asked staff to research typical building-size limits and definitions for manufacturing, warehouse and R&D uses in comparable communities, and to return with suggested language clarifying village-core boundaries, removing redundant definitions and options that would protect topography from extensive excavation.

Ending note: The board noted that PUD-specific design objectives in the TMOD already require attention to viewshed mitigation, open-space preservation and facade articulation, but asked staff to propose more explicit topography protections and examples of building-size thresholds for board review.","Board reviewed revisions to the Tenney Mountain Overlay District and discussed village-core standards, PUD thresholds and whether to cap sizes or permit large manufacturing and warehousing; no vote taken and staff will research building-size precedents and potential limits.",{"_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},6131157,"Planning board reviews zoning edits to comply with new state laws on housing and parking",3760,121725,3882000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5734044-5ba1fba2e780ead846dd861707ff2d92&start=121&end=3882","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5734044-5ba1fba2e780ead846dd861707ff2d92/thumbnail_121725.jpg","/articles/6131157/Plymouth/Grafton-County/New-Hampshire/Planning-board-reviews-zoning-edits-to-comply-with-new-state-laws-on-housing-and-parking","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6131157-250f67b9396c57bb530456eae8064229/orig.mp4?Expires=1771289048&Signature=VF7dmC-N5LqFem~h1fsYboMpP4Qe33jFxgYNzYztcvL-tQDEYbLpmEKed8dO8HGkKklaUyBwvmAgla9BH8vCdyA6t-ACDe0iN9Pk4q3yjeJXhXb8wVOuHjMpTmAkjNcIj6KonaImqmxSfaw-f~YxX8agnFNZ7dftwRcT~pRZvYpkEtCbN6S4oGXlmhPaN4YP992K2uHx~mTFoQ5mPpjyLZd08ag9j~EEtsUqUnEmN2YXONwWv0oTq~mEO993wlRUdEWsAmAYehOy8St94V1jnXD~GqebrVFAyixLwqq3Rcarodp1qoxOgRzHW3WpIPbVMyq4Z6UG5zBqweJu5lhUOw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning Board on Wednesday discussed a set of draft zoning amendments intended to bring the town ordinance into compliance with multiple recent state law changes, including a new limit on municipal residential parking requirements and other 2025 land-use bills.

Planning staff summarized a consolidated draft of edits that would (1) modify accessory dwelling unit (ADU) parking references to follow the town's parking section, (2) change multifamily housing in Highway Commercial from a special exception to a permitted use where state law requires it, and (3) remove ordinance language that differentiates occupants by family relationship where the state law now forbids doing so.

Board members and staff said the packet was intended as a minimalist, compliance-first approach to the multiple legislative changes summarized by the New Hampshire Municipal Association.

Joseph, a staff member who presented the draft, told the board the packet included a red-line summary and a proposed single amendment that would capture most state-law changes in one place. \"This is a starting point,\" Joseph said, adding that the draft keeps changes minimal while flagging areas that may need more policy discussion.

Why it matters: several of the state changes take effect quickly and will limit what the town can require from builders. Board members emphasized they wanted to comply with state law while reserving policy choices for later discussion at future meetings.

Most substantive points discussed

- ADU parking: The ADU section originally required an additional parking space beyond two spaces required for the single-family dwelling. Joseph said the draft replaces that fixed number with a cross-reference to the town's parking section so ADU parking will follow whatever the town's parking rules specify. The board cited S B 284 (mentioned in the staff summary) as the legislative change that reduces the maximum number of spaces a municipality may require per residential unit to 1. Board members noted the bill becomes effective immediately and said the town must ensure its ordinance references do not conflict with state law.

- Multifamily in Highway Commercial: The draft would change multifamily residential from a special exception to a permitted use in the Highway Commercial zone to conform with the state requirement for multifamily. The board discussed whether to also permit other residential types (single-family detached, two-family, townhouses) but the group generally agreed to make only the change required by statute at this stage.

- Village commercial street-level residential criteria: The draft removes special-exception language that distinguished occupants by relationship (because state law forbids such distinctions) and questioned whether remaining special-exception criteria — for example, that a facade \"shall be residential in character\" and that window signs be prohibited — actually accomplish the board's goals. Multiple members suggested replacing vague language like \"residential in character\" with a transparency/window-area requirement that would make future conversion back to commercial easier.

- Parking policy interactions: Board members and staff pointed out an interaction between the state limit of one space per unit and the town's existing clause that limits an applicant from providing more than 25% above required spaces in most zones without a special exception. Joseph said the draft flips the rule to allow residential developments to exceed the 25% cap so homeowners and smaller residential developments can provide reasonable off-street parking without repeatedly seeking zoning relief. The board discussed the transition window between the effective date of the state law and town meeting adoption of the local zoning changes.

Board direction and next steps

There was no formal vote on the substantive zoning amendments at the meeting. The board instructed staff to continue refining language and to return with examples and options on several targeted issues: (1) sample language for facade/window transparency requirements for village-commercial street-level units; (2) suggested cross-references between site plan review design standards and zoning to avoid inconsistent requirements; and (3) an analysis of the parking-cap interaction and interim implications for applications filed during the period before any local amendments are adopted at town meeting.

The board generally favored a conservative approach: make the minimum changes necessary to comply with state law now, and defer more prescriptive design or density policy choices until the board can review illustrative language and, where appropriate, public feedback.

Ending note: Staff said the packet includes a New Hampshire Municipal Association summary and a red-line draft; board members requested a follow-up packet showing specific language alternatives and examples for the next work session.","Planning staff presented a consolidated draft of zoning changes intended to comply with multiple 2025 New Hampshire law changes, prompting discussion about ADU parking, multifamily rules in commercial zones and facade standards for street-level residential units; no formal vote was taken.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

DOT draft cuts dozens of projects; Plymouth planning staff urges public comment at Oct. 20 hearing

Planning board debates scope and industrial uses in Tenney Mountain overlay

Planning board reviews zoning edits to comply with new state laws on housing and parking