Planning Board

City of Rochester Planning Board Monday, June 1, 2026 City Hall Council Chambers 31 Wakefield Street, Rochester, NH 03867 (These minutes were approved on, 2026) Members Present Mark Collopy, Chair Peter Bruckner Rick Healey Zebadiah McGill Allison Burridge Don Hamann James Hayden Alternate Members Present Matthew Richardson Kevin Willey Members Absent Robert May, Vice Chair Staff: Seth Creighton, Director of Planning & Development Tracy Gora, Senior Planner of Planning & Development (These are the legal minutes of the meeting and are in the format of an overview of the meeting. A recording of the meeting, as well as the meeting’s minutes, can be found on the City Website. Paper minutes may be copied at the Planning & Development Office for a fee.) I. Call to Order Chair, Mark Collopy, called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. II. Roll Call Planning Department Senior Planner, Tracy Gora, conducted a roll call. III. Seating of Alternates Collopy appointed Kevin Willey as a voting member in Robert May’s absence. IV. Communications from the Chair None. V. Opening Discussion Comments (Up to 30 Minutes) 2026 06 01 PB minutes FINAL Page 1 of 10  A. Public Comment None. B. Discussion of General Planning Issues None. VI. New Applications A. 221 and 235 Chesley Hill Road, Grondahl Family, LLC (Jones & Beach Engineers, Inc.) Lot Line Adjustment between two residential properties. Case# 137-4_4-1-R1-26, LA-26-2. ACCEPTANCE/PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL DECISION* A motion was made by Hamann and seconded by Willey to accept this application as complete for review purposes. Motion carried unanimously. A motion was made by Hamann and seconded by Healy that this application is not a Development of Regional Impact. Motion carried unanimously. Paige Libby of Jones and Beach Engineers presented this project. Libby described that the lot line adjustment gives the smaller parcel of land just under 1 acre of land, and the larger parcel 147 acres. Lots meet zoning requirements and DES subdivision approval. Summer Brown of 138 Chesley Hill Road asked for the purpose of a lot line adjustment and the future intent of the 147-acre parcel. Lou Archambault of 224 Chesley Hill Road brought forth concerns about a wetland and a tomb set in the hillside on the property. Mark Laurion of 197 Chesley Hill Road asked for the intent of this lot line adjustment. Laurion brought concerns about the ledge and wetlands, and what is being proposed in this area for the larger parcel. Gora explained that this property is on city water and private septic. These properties are in current use, and conditions of approval say current use maps will need to be updated. Gora addressed that the plans do not reflect a tomb in this area. She reiterates that staff support this lot line adjustment. Willey asked whether the presence of a potential cemetery would affect the ability to subdivide the property. Gora explained that cemeteries are governed by state statutes and that the proposed lot line adjustment would not impact the site, as no changes are planned in that area. Libby noted that the applicant had not been aware of the cemetery. Gora added that if the cemetery is located within the project area, it would need to be shown on the plans, but the adjustment itself would not impact it. Healey stated that he has visited the cemetery site and confirmed it is not within the area affected by the lot line adjustment. 2026 06 01 PB minutes FINAL Page 2 of 10  Creighton added that staff are aware of the cemetery from past proposals and confirmed that neither the lot line adjustment nor the subdivision would impact it. He referenced NH RSA 289:3, which prohibits excavation within 25 feet of cemetery grounds, a requirement that does not affect this project. Collopy then asked the applicant to explain the purpose of the lot line adjustment. Libby stated that they intend to sell the house on the smaller parcel and for future development to align a potential road with Donald Street. A motion was made by Hamann and seconded by Healy to approve the Lot Line Adjustment application. The approval is consistent with the suggested conditions of approval provided by Staff, with any amendments made by the Board and noted in the minutes. Motion carried unanimously. B. 235 Chesley Hill Road, Grondahl Family, LLC (Jones & Beach Engineers, Inc.) Three lot residential subdivision. Case# 137-4-R1-26, SUBD-26-10. ACCEPTANCE/PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL DECISION* A motion was made by Hamann and seconded by Healey to accept this application as complete for review purposes. Motion carried unanimously. A motion was made by Hamann and seconded by Bruckner that this application is not a Development of Regional Impact. Motion carried unanimously. Libby explained that the 147-acre lot in the R1 zone is proposed to be subdivided to create two frontage lots, each just under one acre to allow for septic systems. The driveways will require culverts. Laurion asked whether the subdivision would be approved that evening and whether the applicants could withdraw the lot line adjustment if the subdivision were denied. He expressed concern about homes being placed too close together given the overall size of the parcel. Brown asked whether there would be three separate driveways or shared access. She raised concerns about increased traffic on Chesley Hill Road and the need to evaluate infrastructure and traffic patterns. Gora noted that no traffic study is required for a minor subdivision. When Brown asked when a traffic study would be triggered, Collopy clarified that abutters should direct detailed concerns to the Planning Department. David Perry of 41 Oak Street asked how the project relates to Oak Street and whether future phases may affect his property. Tom Willis of 35 Shakespeare Road expressed concerns about groundwater that already causes hazardous conditions on Chesley Hill Road. He worried that soil disturbance from new development could worsen water displacement and asked that culverts and driveway locations be carefully reviewed. He also requested that groundwater impacts be considered as part of the approval. Sam England of 246 Chesley Hill Road asked the Board to consider environmental and wildlife impacts. 2026 06 01 PB minutes FINAL Page 3 of 10  Bonnie Billings of 161 Chesley Hill Road raised concerns about traffic, speeding, and continued development in the area. Laurion asked whether the site had been reviewed and whether the hill was suitable for additional buildings and driveways. He encouraged the Board to visit the site and questioned whether emergency vehicles could access it year-round. Lou Archambault of 224 Chesley Hill Road noted that oil trucks often struggle to reach the existing home in winter and that there are recurring wash-outs and icing caused by runoff. He also voiced concerns about speeding and the general wetness of the area. Courtney Bacon at 75 Oak Street asked whether the proposal was part of a larger 75-lot subdivision. Collopy clarified that only the three-lot subdivision was under review. Gora explained that abutter notifications were extensive because of the parcel’s size, but development would occur only along Chesley Hill Road. Ken Billings of 161 Chesley Hill Road stated that the tomb on the property is a nine-vault winter storage tomb, not a cemetery. He expressed concerns about blind driveways and suggested building a rear access road instead of three individual driveways. He also noted potential septic challenges due to ledge. Perry commented that it seemed unlikely a developer would purchase such a large parcel to create only three lots, suggesting additional development may occur later. Adam Reigle of 250 Chesley Hill Road shared concerns about drainage, winter access for trucks, speeding, pedestrian and wildlife safety. He felt the road could not support additional traffic in its current condition. Creighton clarified that the Board can only evaluate the current proposal, not anticipated future development. He acknowledged existing deficiencies on Chesley Hill Road and encouraged residents to take these concerns to the Public Works Committee, Public Safety Committee, or their City Councilor. Current approval conditions already cover driveway locations and stormwater. McGill confirmed that the Board cannot consider hypothetical future projects when deciding on this application. Willey asked whether driveway placements could be changed. Libby responded that current placements meet subdivision requirements, but exact locations would be finalized during driveway permitting. Hayden emphasized the need to ensure adequate sight distance for driveways and requested that the removed shed be taken off the plans. Healey noted that while the Board cannot prevent a property owner from subdividing or adjusting lot lines, it can influence specific building plans when they come forward. Creighton added that zoning rules address construction on steep sites and that separate building regulations will apply after subdivision approval. He suggested including DPW, fire, and police review of driveway placement in the conditions of approval. 2026 06 01 PB minutes FINAL Page 4 of 10  Burridge asked whether construction of a single-family home on the new lots would be returned to the Board. Creighton confirmed that single-family homes only require building permits. Hamann asked what additional conditions of approval should be included. Hayden recommended requiring vertical separation, vegetation clearing, and grade-related stipulations. McGill moved to add these conditions, Bruckner seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. A motion was made by Hamann and seconded by Healy to approve the Subdivision application. The approval is consistent with the suggested conditions of approval provided by Staff, with any amendments made by the Board and noted in the minutes. Motion carried unanimously. C. 0 Franklin Street, Tuck Realty Corporation on behalf of Franklin Heights Condo Association (Jones & Beach Engineers, Inc.) Conceptional Review for a 32-lot residential Conservation Subdivision. Case# 118-55-A-26, SUBD- 26-9. Collopy stated there is no public hearing for this project as it is a conceptional review. Libby explained that the 33-acre site was approved in 1985 as Phase 2 of a multifamily development, but the project was never built. Foundations, utilities, and some drainage remain, and wetland conditions have since changed due to past disturbance. The project would include a public road with new water and sewer infrastructure and will require several waivers and conditional use permits. Creighton stated that the proposal generally meets the zoning requirements for a conservation subdivision. The Board should consider whether the open spaces are accessible and whether residential amenities can be incorporated. Further addressed that traffic impacts will need to be considered if/when a formal subdivision application is presented. Willey noted that the open space is limited and not easily accessible, and he felt the plan appears overdeveloped. Bruckner agreed, stating the design seems to maximize buildout on the parcel. McGill expressed interest in adding sidewalks. Collopy confirmed with Libby that the proposal includes a public street with a new public water line serving both Franklin Heights and the new development. He also raised concerns about wetlands and runoff. Hayden suggested adding a trail to the larger open space to improve accessibility. Collopy referenced Anderson Lane, which was added since the 1980s plans, and asked about buffer considerations for nearby abutters. Libby explained that the wooded buffer is intentional and should remain as open space. 2026 06 01 PB minutes FINAL Page 5 of 10  Burridge asked whether the units would be rental or ownership and expressed interest in additional open space or a walking trail within the development. Libby confirmed unit would be for private ownership A motion was made by Bruckner and seconded by Hamann to close the conceptional review. Motion carried unanimously. D. 45 and 51 Old Dover Road, Catholic Charities NH on behalf of the City of Rochester (Bedford Design Consultants) Condominium Conversion/Creation Application. Case# 136-76_77-R2-26, COND-26-2. ACCEPTANCE/PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL DECISION* A motion was made by Hamann and seconded by Bruckner to accept this application as complete for review purposes. Motion carried unanimously. McGill asked if they have seen this before. Creighton confirms that they have seen the site plans, however this presentation is about the condominium ownership of the property. A motion was made by Hamann and seconded by Bruckner that this application is not a Development of Regional Impact. Motion carried unanimously. George Chadwick of Bedford Design presented the proposal, explaining that the project involves creating two land units. Land Unit A would be divided into two sub-condominiums; Section A4 with 76 units and Section A9 with 24 units. These subsections are intended to address ownership structure and financing needs. Archambault expressed his disapproval of the project. Christopher Rice of 159 Ten Rod Road voiced frustration about how quickly information becomes available to the public and stated his opposition to the condo conversion. He also questioned the affordability of the proposed condos. Susan Rice of 159 Ten Rod Road, Ward 5 City Councilor, noted that financial issues are not within the Board’s authority and asked whether future condo conversions should be considered at this stage. Creighton clarified that the site contains two land units, the ball field and the residential units. The condo conversion pertains only to ownership structure, leaving the Board with limited jurisdiction. He added that the Planning Department exceeds legal requirements for public notification and that all materials are available online as soon as possible or at the office. McGill asked what the advantage of this approach would be. Chadwick explained that it allows multiple owners to participate in financing the project. Burridge asked about low-income housing tax credits. Chadwick confirmed that this is the intention. Burridge noted that such funding can vary year to year and said condominium structuring could provide more stable financing. Burridge expressed hope that the project remains focused on affordable housing. 2026 06 01 PB minutes FINAL Page 6 of 10  Willey clarified that the proposal does not involve selling individual apartments but rather larger ownership portions of the building. Chloe Golden of Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green, PA added that the documents contain language prohibiting the sale of individual housing units. Willey asked how “unit” is defined, and Golden explained that the condo documents must be read alongside the site plans to fully understand the definitions. A motion was made by Hamann and seconded by Bruckner to approve the Condominium Conversion/Creation application. The approval is consistent with the suggested conditions of approval provided by Staff, with any amendments made by the Board and noted in the minutes. Motion carried unanimously. E. 68 Hemingway Drive, Elm Grove Properties on behalf of 68 Hemingway, LLC (Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.) Site Plan to construct 2 multi-family residential buildings with 206 units total, amenities, and necessary site improvements. Case# 258-63-R2-25, SP-25-7. ACCEPTANCE/PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL DECISION* A motion was made by Hamann and seconded by Burridge to accept this application as complete for review purposes. Motion carried unanimously. A motion was made by Hamann and seconded by Healey that this application is not a Development of Regional Impact. Motion carried unanimously. Creighton explained that staff have been working on this project for over a year and a half, but several issues still need to be resolved before conditions of approval can be drafted. The application was submitted as a single property, though the parcel has since been subdivided, raising questions about responsibility for utilities and shared resources. The applicant may withdraw the subdivision approval or provide additional clarity if it remains in place. Staff recommended continuing the application to a future meeting but welcomed public and board discussion. Creighton also encouraged minimizing impacts to the wetland buffer. David Jordan of Greenman-Pedersen presented the proposal, which would add two new buildings to the existing four apartment buildings: a 94-unit building near the existing structures and a 112-unit building in the upland, wooded area. Staff required a second access road before construction, and the plans include a connection to Gear Road. The Gear Road/Route 125 intersection was evaluated, and the project proposes widening Gear Road to add turning lanes. Jordan clarified that the subdivision is for financing purposes. The smaller building would provide workforce housing, and the larger building would be market-rate, but both would operate as one development. Proposed amenities include a playground, dog park, gathering area, sidewalks, and a walking trail. Stormwater management features include infiltration basins, bioretention areas, and porous pavement. There was no public comment. Creighton noted staff concerns about the Gear Road/Route 125 intersection. Although NH DOT reported no required improvements, staff have heard traffic and safety 2026 06 01 PB minutes FINAL Page 7 of 10  concerns from abutters. A third-party review of stormwater drainage and capacity has been completed. Creighton invited the Board to provide additional feedback. Collopy expressed concerns about safety and visibility at the Gear Road/Route 125 intersection. Hayden asked about phasing, and Jordan replied that the access road would be constructed first. Aaron Ravenelle, of Elm Grove Properties, anticipated starting construction on the larger building in the wooded area in January or February, while the workforce housing building would depend on funding. Hayden requested that maintenance requirements for the mowed path through the wetlands be included in the conditions of approval. Creighton noted the added complexity of a city road connecting to a state road, with Gear Road being maintained by Rochester. He suggested that a third-party traffic engineer review the intersection, and Collopy supported this recommendation. A motion was made by Hamann and seconded by Bruckner to continue this application to the July 6, 2026 planning board meeting. Motion carried unanimously. F. 0 Farmington Road, AutoZone, LLC on behalf of EVR Realty, LLC (Nobis Group) Site plan to construct 7,300± square foot retail building with associated infrastructure. Case# 208-16-GRD-25, SP-25-33. ACCEPTANCE/PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL DECISION* A motion was made by Hamann and seconded by Healey to accept this application as complete for review purposes. Motion carried unanimously. A motion was made by Hamann and seconded by Willey that this application is not a Development of Regional Impact. Motion carried unanimously. Gora reviewed the staff memo, noting that the project will require a rear setback variance. Because the site is in the aquifer overlay protection district and includes a 185‑gallon motor‑oil storage request, the applicant will also need a conditional use permit. Staff recommended that the Board hear from the applicant and the public but emphasized that a decision cannot be made until both the variance and conditional use permit have been acted on. Henry Aquino of Nobis Group explained that the development team has been working with staff to address stormwater, utility, and site layout concerns. The project has received Conservation Commission approval. He acknowledged that the application would need to be continued to the next Planning Board meeting. Willey requested that the waiver details be clearly outlined and include a spill plan. Hayden asked for clarification on fire‑truck turning radius and ongoing maintenance needs. Aquino confirmed that two turnaround options were provided. A motion was made by Bruckner and seconded by Hamann to continue this application to the July 6, 2026 planning board meeting. Motion carried unanimously. 2026 06 01 PB minutes FINAL Page 8 of 10  G. 14 Cross Road, Ares Construction, LLC on behalf of Iza Seekins & Debra Torres (Civil Design Consultants) 10-Lot Residential Subdivision with new road. Case# 205-12- R1- 26, SUBD-25-29. ACCEPTANCE/PUBLIC HEARING/FINAL DECISION A motion was made by Hamann and seconded by Burridge to accept this application as complete for review purposes. Motion carried unanimously. A motion was made by Hamann and seconded by Healey that this application is not a Development of Regional Impact. Motion carried unanimously. Tom Schomberg of Civil Design Consultants explained that the project has been reviewed twice by the Technical Review Group and has also undergone third-party drainage review. The 7.8-acre lot contains an existing home and is proposed as a conventional subdivision accessed by a new public road. The project will use City water and private septic systems, and a stormwater and erosion control plan has been prepared. Multiple state approvals are required and are in the process of being submitted. The applicant requests a waiver for the long and narrow lot configuration. David Gilmon of 24 Cross Road requested design consistency with homes citing that a majority on Cross Road are ranch style and asked for only what is necessary of the wooded area to be cut. Gilmon asked about the project’s anticipated timeline and expressed concerns about increased traffic and speeding on Cross Road. Creighton stated that staff have spent significant time reviewing traffic on Cross Road and Milton Road. While the area does need improvement, this subdivision does not directly worsen the intersection. He clarified that the Board does not have authority to dictate home style or architecture. Creighton and Schomberg explained the areas to be cleared and the areas to remain wooded, as shown by the scalloped line on the plans. Creighton also cited NH law, which gives developers three years to reach “active and substantial” development, though this is not clearly defined. Creighton anticipates this project would take months, not years, to complete. Bruckner asked for clarification on the size of the homes. Schomberg responded that the building footprints shown on the plans represent the largest possible size for each lot and do not necessarily reflect the final home designs. A motion was made by Hamann and seconded by Burridge to approve the waiver request from Section 5.2.4 of the Subdivision Regulations to allow for lots which have average depths three times greater than the average width. Motion carried unanimously. A motion was made by Hamann and seconded by Healey to approve the Subdivision application. The approval is consistent with the suggested conditions of approval provided by Staff, with any amendments made by the Board and noted in the minutes. Motion carried unanimously. VII. Other Business A. Planning Update 2026 06 01 PB minutes FINAL Page 9 of 10  Creighton stated that two applications required unusually extensive staff involvement, which is not the intent of the technical review process. He suggested bringing applications to the Board earlier and issuing a not ready for acceptance vote when appropriate. McGill noted this would allow projects to reach the public sooner. Creighton added that all application materials are available in the Planning Department. Collopy confirmed that abutters are notified according to law and may review documents once notified. B. Other None. IX. Adjournment A motion was made by Hamann and seconded by Healey to adjourn the meeting at 10:06 pm. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Chelsea Berge Administrative Assistant II Planning & Development 2026 06 01 PB minutes FINAL Page 10 of 10