Developer seeks feedback on Marshall Road age‑restricted project; separation requirement and jurisdiction questioned

Bluestone Investment Group returned to the Kingston Planning Board on April 15 for a design-review discussion of a revised age‑restricted, market‑rate housing proposal for 4 Marshall Road. The new concept replaces a previously approved 32-unit, townhouse-style development with 25 detached single‑family homes and requests a reduced building separation from the town’s 40-foot requirement to 25 feet.

Why it matters: The proposal would reuse an approved access and much of the previously permitted infrastructure but asks the town to accept smaller building separations to achieve a detached single‑family product that the developer says better matches buyer demand for the region. That reduction in separation is the central regulatory issue: the board was split on whether relief from the 40‑foot separation should be sought from the Zoning Board of Adjustment or decided administratively by the Planning Board under the town’s implementation of RSA 674:21 (innovative land-use controls).

What the applicant said: Barry Geier (Jones & Beach Engineers) and Alex Monasterio (Go Realty Group) described the change in product type and said the developer is prepared to seek a variance from the ZBA for separation if required. Monasterio said the single‑family detached product has proven more popular with local buyers and that the developer chose to reduce unit count to 25 to accommodate the detached layout.

Board and staff response: Board members noted the project had prior approvals under article 208 and that the town’s age‑restricted provision references RSA 674:21. One member recommended consulting town counsel and NHMA (New Hampshire Municipal Association) guidance on whether amendments under an innovative use ordinance are within Planning Board authority or require ZBA relief. The planning board agreed to ask counsel for a formal interpretation before any filing for zoning relief to avoid procedural error.

Public questions and technical notes: A facilities director for the nearby Kings Landing raised fire‑safety questions and asked whether fire suppression systems would be required. The applicant said a preexisting pump house and well location were previously approved and that water and septic approaches are being evaluated; the team said soils and septic feasibility previously supported the earlier configuration and will be reviewed for the new layout.

Next steps: The board did not vote on the design review. Staff will consult town counsel to clarify jurisdiction on separation reductions under the age‑restricted/incentive provisions and report back to the board. The applicant may pursue a ZBA variance if counsel advises that relief must come from the ZBA.