Planning board continues Sanborn Seminary site plan; asks for vernal pool clarification, requires septic approvals before final sign-off

KINGSTON, N.H. — The Kingston Planning Board on March 4 continued its second public hearing on the Sanborn Seminary site‑plan application and took several procedural steps while requesting additional technical information before final approval.

The applicant, identified in the application as Sanborn Seminary LLC, proposes converting the existing seminary building into 12 apartments and building 13 detached single‑family condominium homes on the site. The board heard detailed engineering, wetlands and drainage comments and agreed to continue the hearing to allow for additional review and clarifications, especially about two vernal pools the wetland scientist identified in the wetland complex.

What the board did - Conflict waiver for legal review: The board authorized the acting chair to sign a conflict‑of‑interest waiver so town counsel may review the condominium documents. The motion passed unanimously. - Hydrogeologic review: The board agreed to secure a hydrogeologic review by Tom Ford Environmental (Chad Tom Ford) or otherwise solicit his availability; the board asked the town planner to request the firm’s services and noted the applicant has provided funds for review. The intent is to have an independent review of the applicant’s hydrogeologic survey and groundwater monitoring work. - Wetlands/conditional‑use permit (CUP): Conservation Commission members and the town engineer reported that two proposed dwellings (Unit 1 and Unit 2) sit within wetland buffer zones and that functional wetland values require setbacks. The Conservation Commission asked for a site walk in spring to inspect a vernal pool before recommending a CUP; the board requested a memo from the wetland scientist (Jim Gove) clarifying the vernal‑pool locations and whether the 100‑foot buffer that applies to vernal pools would affect the proposed units. The board said that additional wetlands information should be provided before acting on the CUP. - Septic design and subdivision items: The town engineer and planner stressed the need to show wastewater disposal (septic) areas and test pits; the board voted that septic approvals and meet‑and‑bounds or lot delineations must be completed or shown prior to final site‑plan approval (the board approved language requiring septic system approvals prior to final sign‑off and required meets‑and‑bounds/labeled lots on plans prior to recording). - Parking waiver: The board granted a waiver authorizing the proposed change that reduces parking at the Swayze Gymnasium by six spaces; the school district sent a letter asking that the district retain the six spaces for certain events but the board accepted the applicant’s offer to coordinate overflow parking with the Bakke School and to replace an existing fence if required. - Schedule and extension: The applicant requested and the board granted an extension and continued the public hearing to the planning board’s April 1 meeting, with any revised materials to be submitted by March 20 to allow distribution in advance.

Key technical issues raised - Wetlands buffers: Dennis Quintal, the town engineer, noted that the wetlands functions scored high enough in the applicants’ reports to require a 75‑foot building setback in some places and recommended moving Unit 1 out of the wetland buffer; the applicant said Unit 1 occupies approximately the footprint of an earlier maintenance building and that their plan would remove impervious pavement and revegetate the buffer. Quintal also recommended the engineers treat newly generated stormwater on site and revise the drainage model to address volume increases into the downstream wetland system. - Drainage and downstream impacts: Residents raised concerns about a culvert under Church Street and potential off‑site impacts into Greenwood Pond. The applicant’s engineer said the stormwater model is based on not exceeding existing runoff rates and agreed to expand the analysis to include the culvert if needed. - Conservation Commission concerns: The Conservation Commission asked for closer inspection of a vernal pool and recommended invasive species mitigation; the applicant offered to remove invasive bittersweet and to revegetate buffer areas.

Applicant responses and next steps The applicant (represented by Brian Jones of Allen & Major Associates) agreed to revise plans and drainage calculations per engineering comments, replace or relocate trees near utilities, provide meets‑and‑bounds for limited common areas, work with the fire department on cistern placement, and to submit final septic designs for town and state review as a condition of final approval. The applicant also offered to replace a fence along the northeast parking area if that is required to prevent snow piles on abutting property.

Why it matters: The site sits adjacent to town recreation and school property, includes wetland complexes that host vernal pools and contributes drainage to downstream features, and proposes both multi‑family and single‑family units. The board’s requirements on wetlands documentation, hydrogeologic review and septic approvals will determine whether the plan proceeds unchanged or must be amended.

What’s next: The board continued the hearing to April 1, 2025; the board asked the wetland scientist to provide a memo clarifying vernal‑pool locations and asked the hydrogeologic reviewer to begin work as soon as funds and schedule allow. The applicant must submit revised plans and technical responses by March 20 to be included in the April 1 packet.