All towns · east-kingston

Document

Document

DRAFT – NOT YET APPROVED 
Town of East Kingston Planning Board Meeting Minutes – September 17, 2026          Page 1 of 18 
TOWN OF EAST KINGSTON PLANNING BOARD 
1 
MEETING MINUTES 
2 
September 17, 2026 
3 
Pound School 
41 Depot Road 
East Kingston, New Hampshire 
John Petrucelli, Chair 
Tim Allen, Vice Chair 
6:00PM 
AGENDA  
4 
Pappalardo Family Realty Trust – Subdivision – Public Hearing – Case# 2026-02 
5 
James Materkowski – 33 Haverhill Road – Site Plan Review – Public Hearing – Case# 2026-07  
6 
Board Members Present: Tim Allen – Vice Chair, Catherine Belcher – Alternate, Joseph Cacciatore – Ex-officio, John 
7 
Petrucelli – Chairman and Jonathan Slaven.   Absent: Christopher Mierswa and Ellen McIntyre – Alternate. 
8 
Advisors Present: Town Engineer Dennis Quintal and RPC Planner Nicole Berry. 
9 
Others Present: Gordon Powers, Sal Ragonese, Barry Giers PE, Adam Barss, Jason Sentineri, James Materkowski, Ben 
10 
Clark PE, Vicki Brown, and other members of the public who were not identified. 
11 
Chairman Petrucelli opened the meeting at 7:00pm followed by roll call.  Noting the absence of Mr. Mierswa and 
12 
Alternate McIntyre, he designated Alternate Belcher as a voting member for the evening. 
13 
PUBLIC HEARINGS 
14 
PAPPALARDO FAMILY REALTY TRUST– PUBLIC HEARING – 14 TILTON LANE – CASE # 2026-02 
15 
Chairman Petrucelli opened the public hearing at 7:00pm for Pappalardo Family Realty Trust who proposes to create a 
16 
17-lot conservation subdivision on property located at 14 Tilton Lane (MBL# 14-3-12) consisting of 42.67 acres. This is 
17 
a continuation from the August meeting.    
18 
APPLICANT’S PRESENTATION  
19 
Professional Engineer Barry Gier stated that since the last meeting they have provided two plans where they have 
20 
revised the stormwater basins to eliminate the encroachment into the buffer areas, have added a postal kiosk after 
21 
consulting with the post office to be located at the entrance of the cul-de-sac, added construction fencing around the 
22 
vernal pool and will add signage around the pool as well per Town Engineer Quintal’s recommendation, added 
23 
underdrains around the cul-de-sac as requested, detailed grading around the fire cistern area, provided buoyancy 
24 
calculations, added intermediate bounds to the subdivision plans, added the waiver to the coversheet, added the 
25 
notation that the HOA will maintain the stormwater drainage system, and provided bond estimate information for the 
26 
reconstruction of Tilton Lane as well as the new Tilton Lane. 
27 
He further stated that they received the Town Engineer’s most recent review letter earlier in the day noting that the 
28 
majority of those items will be provided with the final plans. This project does require an Alteration of Terraine Permit 
29 
(ALT) from the state. He went on to request the board provide conditional approval for the application and allow the 
30 
state (DES) to address any drainage issues as he and Town Engineer Quintal differ on some of this.  The state would 
31 
serve as arbitrator on those issues. 
32 
With respect to the estimate for the reconstruction of Tilton Lane, he stated they needed to draft a third version of the 
33 
estimate (which he handed out to the board) with the final estimate of approximately $194k to which the applicant is 
34 
willing to complete the reclamation of the asphalt and repaving at the cost of $88k.  
35 
PROFESSIONAL REVIEW 
36 

DRAFT – NOT YET APPROVED 
Town of East Kingston Planning Board Meeting Minutes – September 17, 2026          Page 2 of 18 
Town Engineer Quintal stated he received copies of the updated submittal on September 10th by email and noted that 
37 
he deleted the comments that have been address already from the review; however, there are several that are still 
38 
outstanding. Town Engineer Quintal’s final comments are in bold. 
39 
1. Title & Sheet A1 – Pending NHDES permit approval numbers must be added to these sheets. The Response states 
40 
that they will be added prior to final approval. This item is on the list of conditions for approval. 
41 
2. Perhaps the surveyor will be able to provide a closure printout to prove the open space calculations. Response states 
42 
that they will be provided prior to final approval. This item is on the list of conditions for approval. 
43 
3. Conservation Subdivision Article XI.M – This regulation requires the development to have a 100-foot landscape 
44 
buffer around its entire perimeter. This plan shows design encroachment of the stormwater treatment areas within 
45 
this natural buffer zone. The Response states that the stormwater features have been removed. However, on sheet 
46 
D3 there is a 5-8 foot strip of impact into vegetated buffer. The Plans should clearly show no encroachment into the 
47 
natural buffer zone.  
48 
4. Sheets A3 & A4 – Surveyor and Wetland Scientist stamps must be added. Surveyor lot closure statement must be 
49 
added. The Response states that they will be added prior to final approval.  This item is on the list of conditions for 
50 
approval. 
51 
6. Sheet C1 – Soil Scientist stamp must be on this sheet. The Response states that it will be added prior to final approval. 
52 
This item is on the list of conditions for approval. 
53 
9. The Applicant must consult with the US Postal Service since a mail Kiosk location and design will be required and 
54 
shown on the plans. A Mail Kiosk location is now shown on the plans. I recommend better details be provided (grades, 
55 
edge of pavement, sample of Kiosk).  
56 
10.  Sheets C2 & P1 – The vernal pool is a sensitive area for endangered wildlife species. The road is designed to be 
57 
very close to the edge of the pool and could impact on its future function. A larger buffer is recommended. The 
58 
proposed building shown on Lot 11 should be farther from the vernal pool. The plans now show a Construction Fence 
59 
15 feet around the VP during construction. I would recommend that after construction “Vernal Pool Buffer” placards 
60 
be placed along the edge of the buffer to assure natural conditions remain in the Buffer. 
61 
21. Stormwater Basin area in Easement #1 is now a Detention Basin. The bottom area, according to the Calculations, 
62 
is 14,300 sf. This base area must be noted on the plan Sheet D2. The closest soil test pit is #34 with a seasonal water 
63 
table found to be 20 inches below the surface. Most of this basin is well below the seasonal water table with maximum 
64 
cut of about 6.5 feet.  
65 
The Construction Note refers to the Landscape Plans and seed with NE Wetland Mix shown on Sheet E1. Note 6 refers 
66 
to Gabion Baskets which do not appear to be part of this design. On this Sheet the width of the treatment swale 
67 
dimension is 7.5 feet, but the Detail Plan shows 8-foot width as proposed in the Calculations, TS 1. 
68 
Stormwater Basin in Easement #2 base area must be noted on the plan. It has a portion shown as an Infiltration Basin. 
69 
See Sheet D3. Soil Test Pit 10 has seasonal water table at 26”. Test Pit 35 has seasonal water table at 16”. The Infiltration 
70 
Basin is between these Test Pits. The base elevation is proposed at 186 with original grades from 187 to 189. Based on 
71 
this information the SWT is at 185.2 up to over 187. Seasonal Water table noted at the top of the page is incorrectly 
72 
shown at 184. The Infiltration Practice Criteria page in the drainage analysis has the seasonal water table listed 
73 
incorrectly at elevation 185. This basin will not infiltrate as designed. The whole infiltration area must be at least 1 
74 
foot above SWT according to State Stormwater Design Manual. 
75 
On this Sheet the width of the treatment swale dimension is 6.5 feet as proposed in the Calculations, TS 2., but the 
76 
Detail Plan shows 6-foot width. 
77 

DRAFT – NOT YET APPROVED 
Town of East Kingston Planning Board Meeting Minutes – September 17, 2026          Page 3 of 18 
On these two Basins, the grade at the beginning of the swales is controlled by Level Spreaders. The grade at the 
78 
outlet pipe from the road is a foot below the Level Spreaders. These are well below seasonal water table, so will 
79 
always be ponding water and be a mosquito breading area. Perhaps there is a way to prevent this constant ponding.  
80 
23. The Stormwater Management Operation and Maintenance Manual does not list a Detention Basin for Inspection 
81 
and Maintenance. This basin, being far below water table, will be saturated most of the year with wetland 
82 
characteristics. Specific O & M of the Detention Basin must be incorporated in the Manual.  
83 
24. Sheets D4 & D5 – I recommend sheets D4 & D5 be reviewed by the Fire Department or an engineer who 
84 
specializes in Fire Codes and requirements. I have no objection to the buoyance Calculations provided.   
85 
28. Section VII.Q - The Applicant has provided Construction Bond and Reduction Worksheet for the development of 
86 
Tilton Village Estates.  
87 
- I believe Item 4, tree, brush & stump removal should be higher than $750.  
88 
- The quantities on Items 16 & 17 should be switched. 
89 
32. A proposed Subcatchment Watershed Sheet W2A has been provided. I find the plan shows calculations for 
90 
Subcatchment area 207 (Lots 1,2,3&4) shows surface water flowing southwesterly uphill to the roadside swale, then 
91 
to treatment swales and Infiltration Basin #1. However, the proposed contours on Sheets C3 and P1 for area 207 
92 
slope northeast, downslope. Some of the runoff from 207 will flow untreated directly to the Basin #1 and the rest 
93 
directly offsite, therefore creating increase the runoff offsite. Proposed grading should match the proposed 
94 
Subcatchment areas in the Drainage Analysis.  
95 
33. Similarly, Sheets C3 and P1 & P2 show most of the surface runoff from Subcatchment 204 (Lots 5,6,7&8) flows 
96 
northeast downslope. Calculations show this area to flow uphill into the roadside swale. The actual runoff will increase 
97 
easterly onto the abutting property.  Proposed grading should match the proposed Subcatchment areas in the 
98 
Drainage Analysis.   
99 
37. I have concern for the existing conditions of Tilton Lane.  This roadway was constructed many years ago and has 
100 
been limited to little traffic flow.  With all the proposed construction vehicles for developing this site this roadway will 
101 
not survive without some impact.  I believe the Board should consider propose requiring a Bond to cover any ultimate 
102 
damages. The bond amount should cover total reconstruction as well as 25% inflation cost.   
103 
A Plan & Profile of existing Tilton Lane has been submitted also showing proposed conditions. My only concern is that 
104 
the proposed centerline elevation at station 8+00 be raised up so the proposed edge of pavement will better match 
105 
the existing driveway grade of Lot 3-18 at the property line.  I estimate at least one foot would be needed.  
106 
A Construction Cost Estimate & Bond Reduction Worksheet has been provided.  
107 
- I believe Item 4, tree, brush & stump removal should be higher than $125. It appears that trees at Station 0+85 left 
108 
and Station 2+30 left will need to be removed for swale excavation. 
109 
- The quantities on Items 10 & 11 should be switched. 
110 
38. All required stamps (surveyor, engineer, soil/wetland scientist) should be on final plans.  Response states that all 
111 
stamps will be included in the final plan set. This item is on the list of conditions for approval. 
112 
39. The Stormwater Management Operation and Maintenance Manual should be recorded with the Final Plans. 
113 
Response states that the manual will be recorded with the final plans. This item is on the list of conditions for approval. 
114 
YIELD PLAN ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 
115 
8. I recommend the Yield Plan be stamped by a licensed Land Surveyor. Response states plan will be stamped. This 
116 
item is on the list of conditions for approval. 
117 

DRAFT – NOT YET APPROVED 
Town of East Kingston Planning Board Meeting Minutes – September 17, 2026          Page 4 of 18 
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 
118 
14.  Currently, the Applicant is not planning to phase the project. A phasing plan is not required. 
119 
15. A note should be added that “No building permits be issued until the roadway construction is completed to base 
120 
layer of asphalt.” The Response states that the Applicant would like to discuss it with the Board.  
121 
The concern here is that the roadway might not be passable by emergency apparatus should there be a construction 
122 
accident or incident at any of the constructed sites. 
123 
Chairman Petrucelli asked Town Engineer Quintal to list his major concerns with respect to the outstanding matters to 
124 
which he replied that the detention basin infiltration is within the water table and the design as proposed is not state 
125 
approvable – this needs to be redesigned for there to be groundwater recharge. Most of the other items are drafting 
126 
issues or to be completed prior to final approval. 
127 
Vice Chair Allen as Town Engineer Quintal to clarify how the detention basins are to be designed to which he replied 
128 
that the runoff from the impervious surfaces should be forced back down into the ground for groundwater recharge 
129 
and that this particular basin, where it is within the water table, will not allow the water to percolate back into the 
130 
ground – it will just runoff offsite. The regulations require it to be a foot above the water table; this design does not 
131 
meet that requirement. 
132 
Mr. Gier stated that he disagrees with the Town Engineer, which is why he is suggesting they allow the state to arbitrate 
133 
the matter through the ALT process as the DES will review the drainage plan at a level beyond what Town Engineer 
134 
Quintal is doing. This could then be a condition of approval. 
135 
Vice Chair Allen asked if there were other designs to address the concern that could fit into that footprint to which Mr. 
136 
Gier responded there were several, however, he believes that they meet the requirement with the current design. ALT 
137 
will determine if it is met, if they need additional testing or they could waive it, though they rarely waive such things.  
138 
He went on to say that the stormwater needs to be treated prior to being infiltrated which is being treated in the 
139 
treatment swales which is why they have the drainage easement #1 area (a detention basin). He stated he believes 
140 
they provide sufficient infiltration and they will figure out the elevation that they have to be for that. 
141 
There were no additional comments from RPC Planner Berry. 
142 
BOARD COMMENTS/QUESTIONS 
143 
Vice Chair Allen asked Town Engineer Quintal to clarify his comments about not all of the drainage system being 
144 
removed from the buffer to which he replied that the plan (Sheet C3) should show no silt fence or sediment control in 
145 
the buffer area. 
146 
Mr. Gier agreed to move the silt fence and sediment control back out of the buffer. 
147 
Vice Chair Allen noted that with some of the drainage changes made to the plan the lot shapes have changed resulting 
148 
in well radius and 4k areas falling outside of the setbacks (see lots #16, #1, #6, #9, and #14). All of these as well as any 
149 
others need to be moved back out of the setbacks. Each lot should be sufficient to meet all of the setbacks.  
150 
He went on to say that with respect to all of the drainage easements being moved outside of the buffer as required, 
151 
the construction of those drainage easements must not disturb the buffer areas – the easements are right up against 
152 
the buffer per the applicant’s plan, thus he would like to see a notation on the plan stating that there shall be no 
153 
disturbance in the buffer zone.  He gave an example of how even the smallest disturbance would count against the 
154 
open space calculation requirement and thus jeopardize meeting the open space requirement. All construction needs 
155 
to be done from the other side so there is no disturbing the buffer zone.    
156 

DRAFT – NOT YET APPROVED 
Town of East Kingston Planning Board Meeting Minutes – September 17, 2026          Page 5 of 18 
Town Engineer Quintal stated that he has seen in similar situations that the applicant would be required to stake the 
157 
buffer zone so that contractors do not encroach on and disturb those areas. 
158 
Vice Chair Allen stated that they can revegetate the buffer if needed, but they can’t count the buffer as open space if 
159 
it is disturbed. It was agreed that a note be added to the plan that the buffer area be delineated prior to construction 
160 
as a means to keep the buffer from being disturbed. 
161 
With respect to the Tilton Lane estimates, Vice Chair Allen asked for clarifications to each of the estimates provided. 
162 
Mr. Gier stated that the $511k number represents the cost of constructing the new portion of Tilton Lane (bond) and 
163 
the $194k represents the reconstruction of the existing roadway. 
164 
Town Engineer Quintal stated he agrees with the estimates and further noted a 25% continency has been added to 
165 
cover increases that may occur since this would likely be a multi-year buildout (inflation).  
166 
Mr. Gier restated that the applicant would be willing to cover the cost for line items #10 asphalt binder, #11 asphalt 
167 
wearing course, and #12 reclaim asphalt. 
168 
Alternate Belcher stated she had some concerns with the project in general outside of the drainage issues. At the last 
169 
board meeting there were four items the board requested the applicant address for this meeting: phasing, which they 
170 
stated they are not going to do now; getting everything out of the buffer zone which they still need to complete; and 
171 
redesign the road around the Barss property because it is incredibly close to the existing residence.  She stated when 
172 
she went out on the site visit back in April it was clear to her that it was unreasonable to run a road that close to the 
173 
existing house regardless of the history behind the construction of the original parcel, and regardless of that being a 
174 
right-of-way for the original homeowner to access the back property decades ago. The fourth item which was 
175 
completed was to provide the cross section of Tilton Lane along with cost estimates. 
176 
She opined that the road needs to be redesigned to go around the existing home better. If she were to vote on the 
177 
application with the proposed road design as it stands today, she would vote against it as this design clearly affects the 
178 
safety of the existing home which has been there for decades – this would qualify as a safety and health issue for her.  
179 
Second, the proposed location of the mail kiosk is directly across the street from this home where traffic will be 
180 
stopping throughout the day.  She expressed concern for the children who reside at the existing house in that not only 
181 
will their house be dangerously close to the road, but now complete strangers will be stopping directly across the street 
182 
from them. Nobody with kids wants that kind of activity going on across the street from their home. For the same 
183 
safety and health reasons as stated about the road design, the kiosk needs to be relocated much further away from 
184 
that house whether it be at the end of Tilton Lane or somewhere further inside the development itself.   
185 
She continued to say that neither design is acceptable with respect to the board’s due diligence to ensure every 
186 
subdivision meets the qualifications for the safety, health and welfare of the residents of East Kingston. She appreciates 
187 
the work that has been done by the applicant in working to meet all of the board’s requests and requirements along 
188 
the way, but these are big items of concern for her. Without insinuating the applicant is being inconsiderate to the 
189 
existing residents on Tilton Lane, there are better ways to be a good neighbor, especially to the parcel that is most 
190 
negatively affected by this proposal.  
191 
Chairman Petrucelli asked if the applicant could relocate the mail kiosk to which Mr. Gier replied they will talk to the 
192 
postmaster for other options. The reason they picked that area was because it was already a paved area within the 
193 
right-of-way.  With respect to the road design, he stated it meets the current road design criteria and the applicant 
194 
believes there should be some consideration to him should the board ask him to redesign the road which would then 
195 
trigger the redesigning of lots and stormwater drainage systems – considerations like reducing the road bond or a 
196 
portion of the road reconstruction costs. 
197 

DRAFT – NOT YET APPROVED 
Town of East Kingston Planning Board Meeting Minutes – September 17, 2026          Page 6 of 18 
Alternate Belcher countered that it sounds like what Mr. Gier is saying is that the applicant would only consider 
198 
modifying the road design around that house, even though he has been asked to do this at every single meeting, if the 
199 
board reduces his financial responsibility. Mr. Gier replied that everything has a cost. 
200 
Alternate Belcher responded that everything does have a cost including the safety, health, welfare and benefits of the 
201 
people who already live there. She stated that under the law the planning board has the authority to determine what 
202 
qualifies as the safety, health and welfare of the residents of East Kingston as developments are being proposed, and 
203 
that she wants this to be clearly understood. 
204 
Vice Chair Allen stated that he has been saying all along that the road needs to be redesigned away from the Barss 
205 
property including at the last two meetings.  The road also goes through the Barss’ protected well radius. The well is 
206 
pre-existing, but the applicant has the ability to push that road outside of that protected well radius, the applicant has 
207 
the ability to create a safer road design around that property, and there is concern that the current design will cause a 
208 
diminution of value to that property.  
209 
He went on to say his position aligns with Alternate Belcher’s with respect to road design. He is also a voting member 
210 
and that he does not believe the current design gives consideration nor does right by the Barss’ property for reasons 
211 
of safety and water quality of their well. He understands that changes to the road design will make things tighter in the 
212 
lot #1 and lot #2 areas; however, this has been self-inflicted because the lots have no wiggle room anywhere. 
213 
Vice Chair Allen then inquired where the utilities would be coming into the development as he notes this has been 
214 
raised as a concern by one of the abutters. 
215 
Mr. Gier stated that Eversource is proposing the power come overhead down Tilton Lane and then underground at the 
216 
start of the new pavement. He believes there is a cost for underground but does not know the amount. He stated the 
217 
applicant is willing to look into having the utilities installed underground all the way down Tilton Lane but noted the 
218 
utility companies do not like underground utilities as they are harder to maintain. 
219 
At Chairman Petrucelli’s inquiry, Mr. Gier stated that the Barss’ utilities come in through their back yard. 
220 
PUBLIC COMMENT 
221 
Chairman Petrucelli opened the hearing to public comment and acknowledged the board has received a couple of 
222 
abutter letters and offer the option for those abutters to read their letters in full or to summarize them. 
223 
Adam Barss of 14 Tilton Lane stated that he does construction for a living and that as far as the phasing is concerned 
224 
having the roads paved may be a requirement of the NPDES permitting process to address dust and snow during 
225 
construction. He’d like to correct the record in that the utilities currently run up Tilton Lane on the Jacques’ side to the 
226 
stone wall and then underground to his house from that point. They could potentially create a right-of-way/easement 
227 
through his property to continue with the underground system at a cost that he has already spoken to the applicant 
228 
about.  Also, the utility company is Unitil, not Eversource so the applicant needs to be sure he is contacting the correct 
229 
company. 
230 
He stated the board has already addressed the road design and his well protection radius. He spoke to the post office 
231 
himself about the location of the kiosk and was told the location is up to the planning board for which they would then 
232 
sign off on. The post office also stated that mail kiosks, or cluster box units as defined by the post office, are not placed 
233 
close to residences or dwellings for parking, walking and access reasons. He stated he finds it interesting that vehicles 
234 
entering into the cul-de-sac areas automatically bear left away from his property versus using the staked roadway, thus 
235 
they must also sense the roadway is too close to his home. 
236 
New items that he’d like to raise after seeking advice from one of his environmental engineers include a list of questions 
237 
he’d like to pose to the board. 
238 

DRAFT – NOT YET APPROVED 
Town of East Kingston Planning Board Meeting Minutes – September 17, 2026          Page 7 of 18 
• 
Yield plan calculations for lots at their minimum upland threshold (lot #1 – 130 sf over requirement, lot #2 – 
239 
104 sf over requirement, lot #6 only 82 sf over requirement). What tolerance is assumed in the wetland 
240 
delineation and soil mapping? Were any independent verification calculations performed? 
241 
• 
Drainage Easements and Future Saturation (Town Engineer Quintal raised some of these concerns earlier). 
242 
• 
Constructability of Lots #10 and #11 – Given the restrictive calculations of each lot, have all setbacks for house, 
243 
well, and septic been demonstrated? Reserved septic locations clearly identified? Building envelope practically 
244 
useable? 
245 
• 
Vernal Pool Considerations – address earlier. 
246 
• 
Open Space Calculations – noted similar concerns identified by Vice Chair Allen. 
247 
• 
Roadway and Waiver Considerations – road calculations may need further review. 
248 
He stated the lots are very tight lots and if the wetlands are off a little as five feet in any one of those named lots, then 
249 
those lots do not meet size requirements. He recommends the board have the lot calculations independently verified.  
250 
Vice Chair Allen noted that the Barss’ well radius extends across the property line to which Mr. Barss responded that 
251 
when he went to purchase the property in 2020 it was 16 acres then reduced to two acres upon purchase. Vice Chair 
252 
Allen asked if a well easement was included at the time of the sale to which Mr. Barss stated he did not know.  Vice 
253 
Chair Allen stated that the board should investigate whether a well easement was included when the parcel was 
254 
subdivided.  Mr. Gier stated that he doesn’t need an easement for his well radius protection.  Vice Chair Allen stated 
255 
he was making the point that the easement would have been there for Mr. Barss’s well protection. 
256 
Gordon Powers of 26 North Road stated that his primary concern tonight is the utilities location as the plan proposes 
257 
to run the poles up the north side of Tilton Lane along his property that might also include cutting trees which are on 
258 
his property.  As a major concern to him, he would like the utilities installed underground as they are being provided 
259 
underground within the development. He then suggested as another option for the utilities to come in through Route 
260 
107 instead of Route 108. They could use the emergency access road which is a much shorter distance (over 1k feet 
261 
shorter). He said the road drainage and utility poles would add to the encroachment onto his property. 
262 
Vice Chair Allen asked Mr. Gier if they had considered leaving the existing utilities in place along Tilton Lane and bringing 
263 
power in from Route 107 versus Route 108. 
264 
Mr. Gier replied that he stands corrected that the utility provider is Unitil and not Eversource and that he would be 
265 
willing to ask; however, it is a public utility and getting a hold of someone is not easy and it can be difficult in getting a 
266 
response from them. 
267 
Town Engineer Quintal stated that the distance for utilities access is 800 ft from Tilton Lane and 500 ft from Route 107 
268 
and that the plan should be updated to reflect utilities coming in from Route 107 as part of the applicant’s presentation 
269 
to Unitil. Utilities access is the board’s prerogative. Just like most agencies, Unitil doesn’t want to see the plans until 
270 
they have been approved by the board as plans change throughout the approval process. Board members concurred 
271 
noting that there is going to be a clear access by way of the emergency access road and that Route 107 is a viable 
272 
option they (the utility company) would consider. 
273 
Vicki Brown of Stumpfield Road and member of the Conservation Commission extended thanks to the board for their 
274 
thoughtful consideration of the regulations and requirements as they pertain to the natural buffers and making sure 
275 
that it is maintained.    
276 
She went on to opine that the existing road, which is basically a driveway, is going to be reconstructed; however the 
277 
costs should be borne by the applicant and not the East Kingston taxpayer. She appreciates the $88k offer, but the cost 
278 
should be the responsibility of the subdivision. 
279 
She then inquired about the open space calculations as the ordinance requires 50% of open space of the total acreages. 
280 

DRAFT – NOT YET APPROVED 
Town of East Kingston Planning Board Meeting Minutes – September 17, 2026          Page 8 of 18 
Mr. Gier responded that the total acreage is 42.48 acres and they have maintained 21.237 as open space which includes 
281 
both wetlands and the required uplands - half of the open space has to be uplands to which they are providing 13.88 
282 
acres. 
283 
Vice Chair Allen confirmed that the percentages are correct and the applicants are conserving more upland than is 
284 
required. 
285 
With no other public comment, Chairman Petrucelli closed the hearing to public comment. 
286 
BOARD COMMENTS/REVIEW 
287 
Alternate Belcher directed attention to the Review Status Report depicting all of the items raised during the review 
288 
process that was recently updated by Town Engineer Quintal prior to the receipt of this latest plan rendition and that 
289 
instead of going over all of the items again, maybe ask Town Engineer Quintal to run through the items he sees as 
290 
priority. She also asked board members to go through the list of items raised this evening to be sure she captured them 
291 
for the record. 
292 
Vice Chairman Allen stated he would like to share his list of notes and concerns provided the applicant is amenable to 
293 
continuing the hearing to next month or whether he wants a decision tonight. The board is in receipt of commitment 
294 
from the applicant to pay $88k for the repairs needed to Tilton Lane. Action items include: 
295 
• 
Mailbox kiosk to be relocated. 
296 
• 
Utilities to come in from Route 107. 
297 
• 
Redesigning the roadway around the Barss property. 
298 
• 
Address the drainage conflict between the two highly-respected engineers – he does not feel comfortable 
299 
approving a plan where Concord may decide they don’t like and then have the applicant come back to address 
300 
it. 
301 
He recommended Mr. Gier, should he be fully confident in his drainage design plan, to reach out to the state to get 
302 
their feedback. He does not want to approve a plan where the Town’s Engineer says the design is not adequate. 
303 
Mr. Gier responded that the ALT is going to be a condition of approval that the board would grant anyway.  Vice Chair 
304 
Allen stated that what sets this apart is that it is a significant item where for weeks the board has pushed the applicant 
305 
to get the drainage areas to meet the regulations.  Mr. Gier stated that all the regulations they are following are brought 
306 
down from the ALT so if they do not meet the state requirements, they definitely would not be meeting the town’s 
307 
requirements – he would like to let the ALT serve as the arbitrator of whether the proposed drainage plan meets the 
308 
requirement or not. He stated it would take two to three months to get the ALT review which is why he is requesting 
309 
it be a condition of approval. 
310 
• 
All items contained within the Town Engineer’s letter. 
311 
Alternate Belcher asked what would happen if the state did not approve of the drainage plan to which Mr. Gier 
312 
responded that any drainage changes that affected the building lots would trigger the applicant to come back to the 
313 
board for further review as with any other state permit. Alternate Belcher noted that final plans are compared to the 
314 
last submitted plans and reviewed for compliance prior to recording at the Registry of Deeds thus any changes to the 
315 
lots would be disclosed at the time of the review.  Given the final plan review process, she stated it was not 
316 
unreasonable for the board to include the ALT permit as a condition of approval. 
317 
Vice Chair Allen stated that if all the other items are addressed, he could be persuaded to agree to that as a condition 
318 
of approval. 
319 

DRAFT – NOT YET APPROVED 
Town of East Kingston Planning Board Meeting Minutes – September 17, 2026          Page 9 of 18 
At this point, Mr. Gier stated the applicant will allow for a continuation of this hearing to next month. He asked if the 
320 
board had a preference to the placement of the mail kiosk and noted they are typically located at the beginning of 
321 
development for the convenience of the residents.  
322 
Discussion ensued on possible locations (by drainage areas #1 and #2, the 200 ft buffer at the beginning of the 
323 
development, and possibly redesigning to use individual mailboxes). 
324 
For the record the following items were noted for further review or conditions as part of the board’s review of the 
325 
application: 
326 
• 
All of the items listed in the Town Engineer’s review letter (drafting updates and conditions of approval) 
327 
• 
Notation that there be no disturbing of the buffer areas 
328 
• 
Move utilities access from Route 108 to Route 107 
329 
• 
Redesign road away from the Barss’ property 
330 
• 
Move the mailbox kiosk or propose individual mailboxes 
331 
• 
Add note that the buffer area is to be delineated prior to construction 
332 
• 
Move the sediment control and silt fencing from the buffer area (sheet C3) 
333 
• 
Add ALT approval as a condition of approval 
334 
• 
Determine if there is a well easement for the Barss’ well protection area 
335 
MOTION: Vice Chair Allen motioned to continue the public hearing for Pappalardo Family Realty Trust, a 17-lot 
336 
subdivision at 14 Tilton Lane, PB Case #2026-02 to October 15, 2026 at 7pm as accepted and concurred by the 
337 
applicant; seconded by Mr. Slaven. The motion passed 5-0-0. 
338 
Chairman Petrucelli closed the public hearing on PB Case #2026-02 at 8:11pm. 
339 
JAMES MATERKOWSKI (THE GREEN COCOON LLC) – SITE PLAN PROPOSAL – 33 HAVERHILL ROAD (PB Case# 2026-07) 
340 
Chairman Petrucelli opened the public hearing at 8:12pm for James Materkowski who proposes the operation of a 
341 
spray foam insulation business at 33 Haverhill Road, MBL# 9-8-2. The scope of the business includes utilizing the 
342 
commercial building for the storage of insulation products, utilizing the mobile home as an office, and the parking of 
343 
commercial vehicles. The applicant has also submitted nine waiver requests associated with the site plan review 
344 
process. 
345 
He further announced that Alternate Belcher is an abutter to the property thus she will not be voting on the matter; 
346 
however, she would remain at the board table as the land board secretary. 
347 
Jason Settineri introduced James Materkowski (owner of The Green Cocoon), and Benjamin Clark (Professional 
348 
Engineer from TFMoran) to the board.  Mr. Clark would pick up where Professional Engineer Alan Roscoe left off at the 
349 
last meeting in August when they came before the board for conceptual consultation. 
350 
Mr. Clark opened the presentation for the change of use at 33 Haverhill Road noting the only change to the property 
351 
is the change of use, as they are not proposing any changes to the lot, the buildings, or the pavement.  They will 
352 
demonstrate that the buildings and layout of the property can accommodate the newly proposed use as is.  They 
353 
understand that if changes are needed at a later date, then they will come back for a full site plan review with surveyed 
354 
engineered plans. They did not conduct a full survey for this application but was advised by the board on the submission 
355 
materials that would be needed for this type of change.  They are using an aerial photo with boundary, parking, 
356 
dumpster, building use overlay.  
357 
He noted by reading the meeting minutes that at the last meeting the board expressed an interest in adding employee 
358 
parking and business box truck parking to the plan.  There are seven box truck parking spaces measuring 24 ft long x 8 
359 
ft wide. Those trucks would be parked overnight at the premises as they are out to the job site during the day. 
360 

DRAFT – NOT YET APPROVED 
Town of East Kingston Planning Board Meeting Minutes – September 17, 2026          Page 10 of 18 
He spoke about the list of waivers that they submitted noting each waiver was related to the requirements not 
361 
necessary for just a change of use – they do not apply to this particular proposal since no construction is being 
362 
proposed. 
363 
RPC Planner Berry noted that they do not have to go through each of the waivers since the rationale for each is the 
364 
same unless the board wishes otherwise. The board can review and act on them individually or as one motion.  
365 
She stated that in her review of the application, it is her position that the application is complete enough for the board 
366 
to take jurisdiction on the proposal. 
367 
INVOKING JURISDICTION 
368 
Chairman Petrucelli asked for a motion to accept jurisdiction on the application. 
369 
MOTION: Mr. Slaven motioned the board take jurisdiction on the site plan for James Materkowski, PB Case# 2026-
370 
07 for property located at 33 Haverhill Road; Vice Chair Allen seconded. The motion passed 4-0-0. 
371 
PROFESSIONAL REVIEW 
372 
RPC Planner Berry suggested the board review the waiver request for the escrow requirement and possibly require a 
373 
reduced amount of $500 to cover any costs associated with the professional reviews conducted thus far. 
374 
With respect to her inquiries about the application as part of her review, her questions were answered about the 
375 
signage for the business. The applicant intents to use the existing sign structure and replace the face with a new 
376 
company title. Additionally, she asked for more parking information which they have provided.  
377 
She also recommends the board identify which waiver pertains to survey and wetlands delineation as she was not 
378 
finding one specific to those requirements. 
379 
Mr. Clark stated that he can’t remember off the top of his head which exact requirements they were but they did relate 
380 
to location of public services, property lines, and similar requirements which would be picked up by a survey of the 
381 
land. He referenced Sections V for public services, property lines, and contours. He stated they would be happy to 
382 
submit another waiver if needed. 
383 
RPC Berry stated that she was looking at Section V.B.11 for soil and wetlands requirements and should the board feel 
384 
this waiver is also required, they can ask the applicant to provide it verbally and then require it in writing as a condition 
385 
of approval.  
386 
Vice Chair Allen asked Town Engineer Quintal if there were any wetlands on this parcel to which he responded he did 
387 
not believe there were.  Abutter Belcher agreed stating the parcel is dry. 
388 
Mr. Clark stated the justification would be the same as the other waivers so he would be happy to read through those 
389 
as well. He then formally requested a waiver from Section V.B.11 with respect to the soils and wetland requirements 
390 
citing the same rational for the other waivers – this is for a change of use only. 
391 
Town Engineer Quintal stated that he reviewed the application as well but did not write a report as he did not have a 
392 
lot to discuss. He was a little confused about the parking spaces but that has now been cleared up.  He noted the 
393 
dumpster is being shown very close to the well and would recommend it be moved to avoid any possibility of 
394 
contamination from the dumpster should there be any leaching of chemicals. He recommends the state septic approval 
395 
number should be added to the plan and show where the tanks and leaching system is located as they are all tied 
396 
together (office and main building). They should also note the flow rate. 
397 
The only other question he had was whether there would be any changes to the lighting to which Mr. Clark stated 
398 
there were no plans to change the lighting at this time. Mr. Clark also stated they would move the dumpster away from 
399 
the well.  The location was chosen as it was central to the building and shielded by the building. 
400 

DRAFT – NOT YET APPROVED 
Town of East Kingston Planning Board Meeting Minutes – September 17, 2026          Page 11 of 18 
BOARD REVIEW/COMMENTS 
401 
Ex-officio Cacciatore recommended they install a concrete dumpster pad in the event there be any leakage from the 
402 
dumpster. The board agreed they could add a concrete pad without triggering a full surveyed site plan review. 
403 
Discussion ensued on the flow rate for the property noting that converting the three-bedroom home into an office 
404 
would not strain the system, in fact, it would be less of an impact.  Town Engineer Quintal stated he’s pretty sure he 
405 
designed the system but didn’t have time to look it up before the meeting. He has the flow rate information if they 
406 
need it. The state has a standard flow-per-rate numbers for business offices, and this use and number of employees 
407 
would not appear to be an issue to the current design. The applicants should look up those requirements from the 
408 
state and add them to the plan to ensure they meet the flow rate of the current system.   
409 
If they do not meet the requirements they would need to apply for a new septic plan; however, Town Engineer Quintal 
410 
stated he is pretty sure this is not the case. 
411 
Vice Chair Allen noted that he is not an expert on the chemicals listed on the MSDS sheet; however, the plan should 
412 
delineate the number of gallons of these products and their locations in the building. 
413 
Mr. Settineri replied that these are already listed on the floor plan (see plan A101). The floor plan shows the areas 
414 
depicting what will be stored where and how many rooms will be used. He stated they did this at the request of the 
415 
board from the last meeting.  
416 
The floor plan should be updated to reflect the number of drums of products to be stored in the building. 
417 
Mr. Materkowski spoke about the types of products used, both open and closed cell and agreed to provide the fire 
418 
department with a full list of chemicals/products to be kept on site as well as their locations.  
419 
Mr. Settineri stated they will also provide flame spread certificates that will be filed with all of the MSDS sheets and 
420 
further noted that the products they use are not flammable contents. They will provide all that information to the fire 
421 
department. Vice Chair Allen stated providing the fire department with this information be a condition of approval as 
422 
well so that they know what will be in the building. 
423 
Discussion then ensued on spill protocol in the event anything leaches into the ground, on ensuring all the drains in 
424 
the building are sealed including any cracks in the floor.  
425 
Mr. Materkowski stated it would be impossible to have a major spill as in the event a drum gets punctured by a forklift, 
426 
the drum gets flipped upside down immediately limiting the incident to a very small spill. He stated they haven’t had a 
427 
spill in the 20 years they’ve been in operation. 
428 
Spill kit locations should also be added to the floor plan. 
429 
Discussion circled back to the $500 escrow suggestion noting that since the application has already been submitted, 
430 
that the application is considered a minor site plan without any more professional reviews anticipated, the board can 
431 
just add the payment of all professional review fees as a condition of approval. Board members agreed to add this as 
432 
a condition of approval. 
433 
PUBLIC COMMENT 
434 
Chairman Petrucelli opened the hearing to public comment. 
435 
Adam Barss spoke to the proper disposal of any contaminants as a likely requirement of the fire department so they 
436 
might want to secure a contract with a company like Clean Harbors to get ahead of that requirement. 
437 
There being no other public comment, Chairman Petrucelli closed the hearing to public comment. 
438 
BOARD REVIEW 
439 

DRAFT – NOT YET APPROVED 
Town of East Kingston Planning Board Meeting Minutes – September 17, 2026          Page 12 of 18 
Vice Chair Allen inquired about the storage of empty barrels to which Mr. Materkowski stated they hire a drum 
440 
company that takes them by the truckload and recycles them for reuse. The empties are stored in the shop and when 
441 
they have enough for a truckload they call and have them removed. The empty ones are stored next to the full ones. 
442 
Vice Chair Allen stated that there should be no barrels stored outside of the building and that this be added as a 
443 
condition of approval.  
444 
BOARD CHECKLIST 
445 
Chairman Petrucelli then led the board through the site plan review checklist beginning at Section VI as the board has 
446 
already taken jurisdiction on the application. 
447 
SECTION VI 
 GENERAL STANDARDS 
MET 
NOT MET 
WAIVED 
N/A 
 
A. Design: minimal disturbance, natural landscaping, etc. 
 
 
 
x 
 
B. Buffers: 200 ft between use and residential zone 
 
 
x 
 
 
C.  Screening: storage and waste disposal 
x 
 
 
 
 
D.  Parking, Loading, Pedestrian Safety  
x 
 
 
 
 
E. Erosion and Sedimentation Control 
 
 
x 
 
 
F.  Post-Construction Stormwater Management 
 
 
 
x 
 
H. 
Access to Public Streets 
x 
 
 
 
 
I. 
Water supply and Sewage Disposal Systems 
x 
 
 
 
 
J. 
Flood Hazard Areas 
 
 
 
x 
 
K. 
Inspection of all site improvements by Town Engineer 
 
 
 
x 
 
L.  Performance Bond 
 
 
 
x 
 
M.  Final Site Plan to be recorded at Registry of Deeds – the 
notice of decision will be recorded at the RCRD. 
 
 
x 
 
Mrs. Belcher noted that in order to record a site plan at the registry of deeds, the plan must include the stamp and 
448 
signature of a licensed land surveyor.  Since the board is waiving that requirement, the plan cannot be recorded. The 
449 
board will record the notice of decision in its place referencing a site plan being on file at the Town Offices. 
450 
 
N.  Fire Suppression Provisions 
x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SECTION VII 
 
GRANTING OF WAIVERS  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Waivers Requested: 
Granted 
Not Granted 
 
1. 
Section III – Procedures: escrow  
x 
 
 
2. 
Section V (C) – building elevations 
x 
 
 
3. 
Section V (H) – stormwater management/drainage 
x 
 
 
4. 
Section V (I) – contours and finished grade elevations 
x 
 
 
5. 
Section V (L) – location of public services 
x 
 
 
6. 
Section V (O) – property lines 
x 
 
 
7.  Section VI (B) – buffers 
x 
 
 
8. 
Section VIII (G) – site landscape standards 
x 
 
 
9. 
Section VIII (H) – parking area landscaping standards 
x 
 
 10. 
Section IV (B) 11 – wetland boundaries (verbal) 
x 
 
Mr. Clark agreed to submit a written waiver request from Section IV (B) 11 – wetland boundaries.  Chairman Petrucelli 
451 
then read through the criteria for granting waivers as follows: 
452 
1. The waiver will not be detrimental to the public safety, health or welfare or injurious to other property and will 
453 
promote the public interest. 
454 
2. The waiver will not, in any manner, vary the provisions of the East Kingston Zoning Ordinance, Master Plan or Official 
455 
Maps. 
456 
3. Such waiver(s) will substantially secure the objectives, standards and requirements of these regulations. 
457 
4. The Planning Board may only grant a waiver if the board finds, by majority vote, that: 
458 

DRAFT – NOT YET APPROVED 
Town of East Kingston Planning Board Meeting Minutes – September 17, 2026          Page 13 of 18 
(a) Strict conformity would pose an unnecessary hardship to the applicant and waiver would not be contrary 
459 
to the spirit and intent of the regulations; or 
460 
(b) Specific circumstances relative to the subdivision, or conditions of the land in such subdivision, indicate 
461 
that the waiver will properly carry out the spirit and intent of the regulations. 
462 
In response to criteria #1, Mr. Clark stated the buildings exist with no modifications proposed at this time. 
463 
In response to criteria #2, Mr. Clark stated that no variances are required nor any deviations from the Master Plan for 
464 
the proposed change in use. No construction is proposed at this time. 
465 
In response to criteria #3, Mr. Clark stated the responses are slightly different for each case, but overall, the applicant 
466 
is doing what he can (i.e. for elevation of the buildings they are using photos, for stormwater management they 
467 
provided the flow arrows, for topography they provided lidar images), again, there is no construction proposed. 
468 
MOTION: Vice Chair Allen motioned to grant waivers from Section III – Procedures: escrow, Section V (C) – building 
469 
elevations, Section V (H) – stormwater management/drainage, Section V (I) – contours and finished grade elevations, 
470 
Section V (L) – location of public services, Section V (O) – property lines, Section VI (B) – buffers, Section VIII (G) – 
471 
site landscape standards, Section VIII (H) – parking area landscaping standards, and Section IV (B) 11 – wetland 
472 
boundaries (given verbally) based on the determination each request has met the waiver criteria; seconded by Mr. 
473 
Slaven. The motion passed 4-0-0. 
474 
 
475 
 
MET 
NOT MET 
WAIVED 
N/A 
SECTION VIII 
 
SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN REQUIREMENTS   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Consistent with rural/agricultural New England 
Character  
x 
 
 
 
 
 
Signage: material and lighting  
x 
 
 
 
Mr. Clark stated that they have added a note that the signage will comply with the standards set forth in the ordinance. 
476 
A sign permit will be submitted to the building inspector for approval. They intend to use the existing freestanding sign 
477 
structure. 
478 
 
 
 
MET 
NOT MET 
WAIVED 
N/A 
 
 
Landscaping  
x 
 
 
 
 
 
Parking  
x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ARTICLE IV 
COMMERCIAL 
DISTRICT 
 
x 
Permitted uses: business, wholesale, retail, consumer services. Prohibited uses: industrial, heavy 
manufacturing (manufacturing facilities, trucking companies, solid or liquid hazardous waste 
companies, excavation and heavy equipment operators), and retail over 25k sq. ft. No use shall be 
permitted which could cause any undue hazard to health, safety, or property values or which is 
offensive due to noise, vibration, unsanitary conditions, noxious odor or similar reason. - MET 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Items to be considered by the Planning Board: 
MET 
NOT 
MET 
 
1. 
Hazard or detrimental effect to adjacent property:  No fire and explosion hazards shall 
exist as to produce dangerous exposure to adjacent property. 
x 
 
 
2. 
Odor:  No objectionable odors shall be detectable beyond the property line. 
x 
 
 
3. 
Gases:  No noxious, toxic or corrosive fumes or gases be emitted. 
x 
 
 
4. 
Dust and Smoke:  No observable dust or smoke shall be exhausted into the air. 
x 
 
 
5. 
Heat and Glare:  No heat and glare shall be evident beyond the property line. 
x 
 
 
6. 
Exterior Lighting:  No exterior lighting; other than properly shielded street lighting, 
shall shine directly on adjacent properties or towards any street. 
x 
 
 
7. 
Noise:  No inherent and recurrently generated noise shall be detectable beyond the 
property line in excess of the average level of street and traffic noise generally heard 
at the time and point of observation, and no noise below such level shall be 
objectionable with respect to intermittence, beat frequency or shrillness.  No external 
loudspeakers shall be permitted. 
x 
 

DRAFT – NOT YET APPROVED 
Town of East Kingston Planning Board Meeting Minutes – September 17, 2026          Page 14 of 18 
 
8. 
Vibration:  No inherent and recurrently generated vibration shall be perceptible at or 
beyond the property line. 
x 
 
 
9. 
Radiation:  No dangerous radiation shall be detectable outside any structure. 
x 
 
 
10. 
Waste Disposal and Water Service: Water service and waste and refuse disposal 
methods shall comply with pertinent health regulations and shall be in accordance 
with the approved site plan. 
x 
 
 
11. 
Storage:  Fuel, raw, partially processed, finished or other material, machinery, 
supplies and equipment, including company owned or operated vehicles, shall not be 
stored between the street line and the front line of structures on the subject lot or, if 
there be no structure, within forty (40) feet of the street line, and in no case shall be 
visible from the street. 
x 
 
Mrs. Belcher asked if the applicant was proposing to store anything (equipment, business materials, etc.) outside other 
479 
than the vehicles. 
480 
Mr. Materkowski stated that the business vehicles will be stored overnight and replaced by employee vehicles during 
481 
the day. The only other thing outside would be the dumpster. He prefers a clean and organized business site. The only 
482 
other thing he might have outside are pallets that they get from some of their deliveries which they get rid of promptly. 
483 
They have someone who picks them up for them as he does not like to have anything piled up on the property. 
484 
Vice Chair Allen stated the property is located in a commercial district but is surrounded by residential properties. He 
485 
inquired of the hours of operation. 
486 
Mr. Materkowski stated his employees get to the shop around 6am to load up their trucks and return around 3pm.  
487 
The only noise they make is when they start the trucks. They operate five days a week and an occasional Saturday.  
488 
It was noted that the application lists 8am-4pm, Monday through Friday and that Mr. Materkowski could verbally 
489 
amend those hours for the record.  Mr. Materkowski agreed to modify the hours on the application to 6am to 5pm, 
490 
Monday through Saturday. 
491 
Town Engineer Quintal inquired about the location of snow storage during the winter months and recommended this 
492 
location be added to the plan. 
493 
The board then reviewed the conditions of approval: 
494 
1. Add DES Septic Approval # to plan. 
495 
2. Add septic flow rate calculations to plan. 
496 
3. Add the location of spill kits to plan (or A101 Sheet). 
497 
4. Add snow storage location to plan. 
498 
5. Relocate the dumpster away from the well and screen from public view. 
499 
6. Outside storage of equipment or products prohibited (pallet pile excluded). 
500 
7. Provide a written waiver request from Section IV.B.11 (wetland boundaries). 
501 
8. Approved hours of operation of 6am-5pm, Monday through Saturday. 
502 
9. Payment of all professional review invoices. 
503 
10. Submit recording fees for Notice of Decision made payable to the Rockingham County Registry of Deeds. 
504 
11. Obtain a business occupancy permit and meet all applicable building codes as determined by the Building Inspector 
505 
prior to the operation of the business. 
506 
12. Obtain approval from the Fire Department that the buildings meet applicable fire safety codes prior to the operation 
507 
of the business, to include providing a list of all products to be stored on the premises and undergoing an annual 
508 
inspection by the Fire Department.  
509 
13. Any changes or expansions to the scope, nature, or infrastructure of the business must be approved by the Planning 
510 
Board. 
511 
 
512 

DRAFT – NOT YET APPROVED 
Town of East Kingston Planning Board Meeting Minutes – September 17, 2026          Page 15 of 18 
Discussion ensued on providing enough description about what is being approved and what is not in order to provide 
513 
the code enforcement officer with the documentation he needs to enforce compliance should the occasion arise, that 
514 
a concrete pad under the dumpster is not warranted as this would give the applicant flexibility should he need to 
515 
relocate it, on the materials to be disposed of in the dumpster with respect to getting wet from the rain and leaching 
516 
out of the dumpster (fibrous material and cured plastic (foam) that is not considered hazardous). 
517 
MOTION: Mr. Slaven motioned to approve the site plan review application of James Materkowski, PB Case #2026-
518 
07, including the ten waivers as granted and with the thirteen conditions noted; seconded by Ex-official Cacciatore. 
519 
The motion passed 4-0-0. 
520 
For the purposes of the record, the full scope of the business shall consist of the operation of The Green Cocoon, 
521 
LLC, an Insulation Contractor that will utilize the property for business material storage, the parking of business and 
522 
employee vehicles and central office of operations inside the mobile home. The business receives and stores 
523 
insulation products, loads materials onto company vehicles, and transports them to job sites for installation. The 
524 
company employs approximately ten employees, owns seven business vehicles and one trailer.  Business vehicles 
525 
generate approximately fifteen trips per day, and the business receives approximately five deliveries per week. 
526 
Mrs. Belcher informed the applicant that she would provide him with an official notice of decision, findings of fact, and 
527 
detailed instructions of how to meet the conditions of approval. 
528 
Chairman Petrucelli then closed the public hearing at 9:04pm. 
529 
OTHER BOARD BUSINESS  
530 
Alternate Belcher was redesignated to vote on board matters. 
531 
ZONING AMENDMENTS FOR 2027 
532 
The board reviewed the list of possible zoning amendments for the March 2027 ballot that included the names of who 
533 
might draft the language or who raised the issue to place the amendment on the list: 
534 
1. Tiny Homes – the board discussed this topic back in November and decided to continue discussion for possible 
535 
2027 consideration.   
536 
2. Home Occupations – modifying the ordinance to acknowledge administrative support for businesses may not 
537 
require any dedicated space in the residence. (Chairman Petrucelli) 
538 
3. Clarify the definition of a Yield Plan. (Vice Chair Allen) 
539 
4. Clarify uplands as contiguous uplands or change to buildable area. (Vice Chair Allen) 
540 
5. Update childcare center language to include regulation by right. (RPC) 
541 
6. Update cul-de-sac language (subdivision regs) per SB564 (RPC) – hold for 2027 
542 
7. Buffer area changes per SB564 effective April 2027. (RPC) 
543 
8. Groundwater Protection Ordinance 
544 
9. Multifamily provisions in the commercial zone per new law. (RPC) 
545 
RPC Planner provided handouts relative to the summary of changes with respect to the land use law changes in 2026 
546 
to accompany the draft language she generated to incorporate into the zoning ordinance upon the board’s approval. 
547 
She then reviewed the state requirements for HB 1010 and draft language for Zoning Article IV – Commercial District. 
548 
Those requirements include how the board should assess adequate infrastructure (road, water and sewer) when 
549 
evaluating multi-family applications through the site plan review process. 
550 

DRAFT – NOT YET APPROVED 
Town of East Kingston Planning Board Meeting Minutes – September 17, 2026          Page 16 of 18 
ARTICLE IV - COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (Proposed new language in bold) 
551 
B. Uses Allowed: Business, Wholesale and Retail plus Consumer Services. Examples include but are not limited 
552 
to: professional and business offices, banks, financial offices, service businesses, restaurants, medical 
553 
facilities, educational institutions or daycare facilities, bed & breakfast houses, hotels, commercial service or 
554 
repair facilities, retail stores, and self-storage facilities, and multi-family development provided adequate 
555 
infrastructure exists per RSA 674:80. 
556 
(New paragraph) E. Applications for Multi-family Development must be submitted to the Planning Board for 
557 
approval and comply with the following regulations required by RSA 674:80. 
558 
The board then discussed adding height restrictions to the multifamily houses allowed in the commercial zone citing 
559 
fire apparatus limitation, increasing the building setback for commercial to 30 feet from the road to align with 
560 
residential setbacks (Article IX.G), striking “Section G below” from Article IX.D and replace with “except in commercial.” 
561 
The board will discuss height restrictions and septic requirements for multifamily dwellings in the commercial zone at 
562 
the next meeting. 
563 
RPC Planner Berry then reviewed HB119 regarding family and childcare for up to 12 children being allowed by right.  
564 
ARTICLE III-B - RESIDENTIAL / AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT (Adopted 3/2020) 
565 
(New paragraph) J. Family and group family childcare for up to 12 children is allowed by right as an accessory use in 
566 
the primary structure or existing accessory structure on lots where residential uses are permitted, if the family 
567 
childcare complies with DHHS licensing requirements.   
568 
Additionally, remove daycare and childcare facilities from Article XVI – Home Occupations.   
569 
Discussion ensued on their being some level of review by the town as well as language in the zoning ordinance to 
570 
ensure children are entering into a safe environment, that the fire department knows there are children in the building, 
571 
that there is safe pick up and drop off for parents. RPC Planner Berry will do some more research on this topic. 
572 
She then reviewed the change to the ordinance required due to SB564 – development in buffer zones. 
573 
ARTICLE XI CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT 
574 
Adding language to Section M:  
575 
Utilities in Buffers and Conservation Areas: A conservation development shall have a 100-foot landscape buffer, 
576 
inclusive of frontage and setbacks, around its entire perimeter to provide an adequate division of transition from 
577 
abutting land uses and existing town roads. The landscape buffer may be included as conservation land if the buffer 
578 
is preserved and maintained in its undisturbed natural condition. Pursuant to RSA 674:21-b, the placement of 
579 
utilities, including but not limited to septic systems, wells, drainage systems, stormwater management structures, 
580 
electric distribution, and other utilities, within or along designated buffer areas, including but not limited to 
581 
perimeter buffers, residential buffers, setbacks, and open space areas of a subdivision or lot, provided that areas 
582 
are not wetlands as defined in RSA 482-A:2, X and that such areas are not protected shoreland as defined in RSA 
583 
483-B:4, XV.   
584 
She also inquired if they should include a buffer definition and whether the landscape buffer be kept as conservation 
585 
land requiring a conditional use permit or special exception to permit utilities as open space (utilities permitted by 
586 
right) or a combination. The board to discuss more at the next meeting as other buffers within the ordinance will need 
587 
to be updated as well. 
588 
She then noted the Groundwater Protection Ordinance is in process for inclusion on the 2027 Warrant. 
589 

DRAFT – NOT YET APPROVED 
Town of East Kingston Planning Board Meeting Minutes – September 17, 2026          Page 17 of 18 
With respect to some of the priorities raised by the board at previous meetings (the definition of buildable contiguous 
590 
upland), she drafted language for inclusion in: 
591 
ARTICLE XI. CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT 
592 
Adding language to paragraph D: 
593 
In accordance with Article VI, Part D of the East Kingston Zoning Ordinance, poorly drained soils may be used to 
594 
satisfy all but 3/4 of an acre (32,670 sq. ft.) of any building lot. Wetlands are defined in accordance with RSA 482-
595 
A:2, X.   
596 
Each building lot requires 1/4 of an acre (10,890 sq. ft.) of contiguous building area that shall be capable of 
597 
functioning as a unified building envelope suitable for accommodating a principal structure and all required utilities.   
598 
The following are excluded as buildable area: Frontage, building setbacks, wetland buffers, landscape buffers, 
599 
portions of any ponds, lakes, freshwater marshes, alluvial soils, perennial streams, very poorly drained soils, isolated 
600 
areas that are not part of the required 1/4 acre of contiguous buildable land and are too small to independently 
601 
accommodate development, or small areas connected solely by narrow land corridors incapable of functioning as a 
602 
part of the required unified building envelope. 
603 
She provided visuals scenarios of how this is calculated out but concluded that the board still needs to add a definition 
604 
of what a buildable area is. She also noted she is working on updating the definition of a yield plan and will bring that 
605 
to the next meeting. 
606 
Tiny Homes – only on the list as it was raised last year to see if the board wanted to something with this for 2027. 
607 
Home Occupations – Chairman Petrucelli noted that there are businesses who conduct their administrative operations 
608 
or businesses in whole on their phone or some other mobile device and the ordinance regulates the square footage of 
609 
businesses in dwellings. The board has been making note of this on the applications that are coming through so there 
610 
may not be a need to do anything with the ordinance at this time. 
611 
The board will send questions or comments to RPC Berry regarding the draft language presented. 
612 
APPLICATION SUBMISSION CALENDAR FOR 2027 
613 
Alternate Belcher presented the application deadline dates for 2027 noting that the law requires 21-day for an 
614 
applicant to submit an application before a scheduled meeting.  The dates presented represent the 21-day period plus 
615 
whatever other number of days to bring the deadline to a Tuesday. She also provided the work product for proposing 
616 
the deadline dates. 
617 
MOTION: Mr. Slaven motioned to approve the 2027 Submission of Application Deadlines and Public Hearing Dates 
618 
as presented; Vice Chair Allen seconded. The motion passed 5-0-0.  
619 
BUDGET DEVELOPMENT (MASTER PLAN ESTIMATE) 
620 
The board discussed the next Master Plan chapter up for revisions (Land Use Chapter) noting an estimated cost of $10k 
621 
which would need to be added to the 2027 board budget.  Town budget development begins in October thus this 
622 
discussion was to assist Chairman Petrucelli in developing a Planning Board budget to be presented to the Selectboard. 
623 
RPC Planner Berry indicated the RPC would be willing to working on funding a Master Plan chapter update split between 
624 
two fiscal years. 
625 
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN UPDATE 
626 

DRAFT – NOT YET APPROVED 
Town of East Kingston Planning Board Meeting Minutes – September 17, 2026          Page 18 of 18 
Chairman Petrucelli reported he has CIP documents from the Police Department and the Library, and the Conservation 
627 
Commission and Fire Department documents are in process. The only departments left to submit their worksheets are 
628 
the Road Agent and the school. 
629 
REGIONAL IMPACT UPDATE 
630 
Town Engineer Quintal provided an update on another development on Depot Road (Kingston Fairways Golf Course 
631 
property) noting a possible conservation subdivision development on the East Kingston portion of the parcel (12-15 
632 
lots) and a large multifamily development for the Kingston side – there is an application before the Kingston Planning 
633 
Board to subdivide the house from the golf course. He stated in with speaking with the developers of the East Kingston 
634 
side, they intend to use some of the land in Kingston to satisfy the road frontage requirement in East Kingston claiming 
635 
there has been a law change to allow this. Alternate Belcher noted she has been contacted by the engineer who intends 
636 
to file for a design review hearing for the October meeting.  RPC Berry noted they have also been in touch with the 
637 
applicant about the proposal and she will research what law the developers are referring to with respect to using 
638 
another town’s land to satisfy requirement of another town. 
639 
Also noted was the Henshaw property that may be sold to developers as conservation easement talks have not been 
640 
successful. 
641 
CIRCUIT RIDER UPDATE 
642 
RPC Planner Berry stated the state is soliciting transportation projects. Discussion ensued on the lack of transportation 
643 
funds at the state level noting a freeze on new projects until at least 2040. 
644 
She also reported that RPC Planner Rowden intends to hold a Groundwater Protection Ordinance public forum at the 
645 
October meeting and would like to start the meeting at 6pm and hold off on the scheduled public hearings that night 
646 
until 7:30. Noting a likely possibility for a low turnout, the board suggested the public forum begin at 6:30 and keeping 
647 
the scheduled public hearings to 7pm. 
648 
MEETING MINUTES 
649 
The board reviewed the August 20th meeting minutes. 
650 
MOTION: Mr. Slaven motioned to approve the August 20, 2026 meeting minutes as presented; seconded by Mr. Ex-
651 
Officio Cacciatore. The motion passed 5-0-0. 
652 
ADJOURNMENT 
653 
With no other business before the board, 
654 
MOTION: Mr. Slaven motioned to adjourn; seconded by Ex-officio Cacciatore. The motion passed 5-0-0.  
655 
The meeting ended at 9:56pm. 
656 
Respectfully submitted, 
657 
Catherine Belcher, Land Board Secretary            
658 
Minutes approved ________________. 
659