Keene planning board denies rehearing request for Route 9 earth-excavation permit

The Keene Planning Board voted unanimously to deny a petition for rehearing of PB-2024-20, a major amendment to an issued earth excavation permit affecting properties at 21 and 57 Route 9 in Keene.

A planning department staff member told the board the standard of review under state statute RSA 155-E:9 requires the moving party to show either new evidence not reasonably available at the first hearing, a misapplication of law, misstated facts, or factual determinations with no written support. The staff member also told the board that "this is not a public hearing," and that it should decide whether the rehearing request met that narrow standard.

Board members reviewed the four-question framework the staff memo supplied — new evidence, legal standard misapplied, evidence misstated or misunderstood, and factual determinations unsupported by testimony or written evidence. Several members said the original record contained extensive engineering studies and testimony on dust, vibration, traffic, visual impacts and property-value effects and that the rehearing request did not present new information that would change the board's prior conclusions. Member Kenneth Cost said the engineering analyses had been thoroughly debated at the prior hearing and "nothing in those engineering studies have changed." Member Armando Rangel and others noted continuing public concern about visual impacts, noise and property values but acknowledged those topics had been considered previously and that the rehearing papers did not identify new, material evidence.

After discussion, a board member moved to deny the motion for rehearing. The motion stated that, upon review, the board "determined there were no points of law or fact misapprehended," that the board had not committed technical errors, and that "no new evidence was presented that was not available to the moving party at the time the board issued its decision." The motion was seconded and the board conducted a roll-call vote. Recorded yes votes included Roberta Mastrogiovanni; Councilor Mike Remy; Kenneth Cost; Sarah Buzani; and Armando Rangel. The motion passed unanimously; the board announced it would not grant a rehearing.

The board briefly noted remaining agenda items for the evening, including a potential modification to site-plan review thresholds and training on on-site development standards for snow storage and landscaping.

The denial of rehearing does not itself change the underlying permit decision; the board's action preserved its earlier determination on PB-2024-20. The board did not open a public hearing or receive additional public testimony at the rehearing-decision meeting.