All towns · hollis

Document

The Hollis Planning Board addressed several development cases. File PB2025-011, a 35-lot subdivision called Abbott Hill Estates, was denied by a vote of 5-1 due to safety concerns regarding the intersection with Proctor Hill Road. Prior to this, the Board granted a waiver for a common driveway serving three lots in a 5-1 vote. File PB2022-015, a 40-unit housing for older persons project known as Toddy Brook Estates, was continued to the October 20, 2026 meeting to await State permitting results. File PB2026-011, regarding a second driveway at 15 Nutting Lane, was approved unanimously, contingent on the building remaining a barn/garage and the applicant obtaining a driveway permit from DPW. File PB2026-003, a contractor yard straddling Amherst and Hollis, was continued to October 20, 2026. The Board requested Staff review the alteration of terrain permit and provide it to the Conservation Commission. Additionally, the Board discussed zoning amendments, reaching consensus on changes to the Code Enforcement Officer, swimming pool setbacks, and wetland buffers. Source: https://www.hollisnh.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_09152026-342

Document

September 15, 2026 - DRAFT
1
Town of Hollis
7 Monument Square
Hollis, NH 03049
Tel. 465-2209 Fax. 465-3701
www.hollisnh.org
HOLLIS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
1
September 15, 2026 – 7:00 PM Meeting - Town Hall Meeting Room
2
DRAFT
3

4
MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD: Bill Moseley, Chair; Doug Cleveland, Vice Chair; David
5
Petry, Ex-Officio for the Selectmen; Julie Mook; Benjamin Ming; Virginia Mills; Mike Leavitt; Alternate
6
Members: Richard Hardy; Victor Orlando.
7

8
STAFF: Kevin Anderson, Town Planner & Environmental Coordinator.
9

10
ABSENT: J. Mook, R. Hardy.
11

13
1. CALL TO ORDER – 7:00 PM. B. Moseley called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of
14
Allegiance.
15

16
V. Mills stated that she will be recusing on File PB2022-015 and File PB2025-011.
17

18
B. Moseley stated that V. Orlando will be a voting member at this meeting, in place of absent Regular
19
Members.
20

22
2. APPROVAL OF PLANNING BOARD MINUTES:
23

24
August 18, 2026: Motion to approve – motioned by V. Mills, seconded by D. Cleveland. Motion
25
passed, with B. Ming and V. Orlando abstaining.
26

28
3.
DISCUSSION AND STAFF BRIEFING:
29

30
a. Agenda Additions and Deletions: none.
31
b. Committee Reports: none.
32
c. Staff Reports: none.
33
d. Regional Impact: none.
34

36
4. SIGNATURE OF PLANS: None.
37

39
5.
CASES:
40

41
a. File PB2022-015 – Final Review: Proposed development of three lots totaling 36.084 acres located
42
on Silver Lake Road into a 40-unit (separate residential structures) Housing for Older Persons
43
condominium. Owner: Raisanen Homes Elite LLC, Applicant: Fieldstone Land Consultants PLLC.
44

September 15, 2026 - DRAFT
2
Map 41 Lots 25, 28 & 44, Zoned Residential/Agricultural (R&A). Continued Discussion, Public
45
Comment Closed.
46

47
B. Moseley stated that when the Board gets close to a final decision on this case there will be another
48
public comment session.
49

50
K. Anderson stated that no new information has been received in regard to this case; it is still
51
undergoing some State permitting. The Applicant is here to provide an update. K. Anderson
52
requested that he be copied on the Applicant’s communications.
53

54
Applicant: Chad Brannon, Civil Engineer and Principal Owner with Fieldstone Land Consultants, for
55
Raisanen Homes Elite, LLC with their project, Toddy Brook Estates. Stated that his license as an
56
engineer is in good status with the State. He stated that he does not have a lot of information updates
57
for the Board. Edgewater, their community water design consultant, has executed the second well
58
test on site, and has submitted information to the State. C. Brannon requested that the application be
59
continued to the Board’s next regular meeting in October. The consultant for the community water
60
system plans on attending that meeting; they fully anticipate having information back from the State
61
in regard to the second well test.
62

63
In regard to the Applicant copying K. Anderson on reports and communication, C. Brannon stated
64
that he has requested that the community water design consultant include the Town on future
65
submissions. He thinks that she may have made a submission to the State on which K. Anderson was
66
not copied, but C. Brannon will make sure that K. Anderson gets a copy of that.
67

68
Motion to continue File PB2022-015 to the Board’s meeting on October 20, 2026 – motioned by
69
D. Cleveland, seconded by M. Leavitt; motion passed unanimously.
70

72
b. File PB2025-011 – Final Review: New residential subdivision for 35 new residential homes on a
73
new road connecting Deacon Lane and Proctor Hill Road (Route 130). Owners: Raisanen Homes
74
Elite, LLC., Applicant: Fieldstone Land Consultants, PLLC., Map 17 Lots 5, 8, & 9; Zoned: Rural
75
Lands (RL). Continued Discussion, Public Comment Closed.
76

77
K. Anderson stated that public comment was held at the last meeting, and the Board went through the
78
residents’ concerns in detail. Two letters were submitted by a resident; in summary, the concerns
79
were related to traffic, wildlife, well replacement bonds, health concerns, and relocation of three lots.
80

81
K. Anderson further stated that the Fire Department submitted some comments; those comments
82
were addressed in revised plans that were submitted. The comments were more clerical than anything
83
else. In addition, a landscaping plan was prepared and marked up by R. Hardy. That was submitted
84
back to the Applicant, and the Board has copies of it as well.
85

86
As a reminder, K. Anderson stated that there is still an outstanding waiver on this project.
87

88
Applicant: Chad Brannon, Civil Engineer and Principal Owner with Fieldstone Land Consultants, for
89
Raisanen Homes Elite with their project, Abbott Hill Estates. Stated that also here at this meeting is
90
the project attorney, Roy Tilsley, from the firm of Bernstein Shur. Together, they will do their best to
91
answer any questions that the Board may have.
92

93
C. Brannon stated that there were three outstanding items to address from the last meeting. One of
94
them was some clean-up comments from the Fire Chief. Basically, the Fire Chief had asked them to
95
widen the entrance to the roadway. They did that, and incorporated it within the plans; they just
96
didn’t update the turning template exhibit with that increased width. The Fire Chief asked that they
97

September 15, 2026 - DRAFT
3
do that, which they did. That exhibit had previously been reviewed by the Town’s traffic consultant
98
and signed-off on.
99

100
C. Brannon stated that the second item was a landscaping design. They presented a landscaping
101
design at the last meeting, but R. Hardy had a lot of really good comments and suggestions. He has
102
since provided a mark-up of the design; C. Brannon has reviewed that mark-up with their client, and
103
they are happy to adopt and incorporate that. The Board may make that a condition of approval, if
104
they see fit to do that at this meeting. The Applicant believes that they are at the point for approval.
105
C. Brannon stated that R. Hardy’s plan addressed a number of species and plant location, and some of
106
the screening concerns.
107

108
C. Brannon stated that the last item he had on his list was the lone waiver request that they have on
109
the application. That request is to have a common driveway service three lots. The waiver request
110
was in part an effort to distribute the lots evenly across the property and to provide additional
111
buffering to Beaver Brook. During design review and a number of other meetings, the Board
112
essentially asked to see what it would look like, to be shown that it complies with regulations, and
113
that the Fire Chief is happy with the design. C. Brannon stated that he thinks they have proven that,
114
over time, with many, many meetings and presentations.
115

116
B. Moseley asked Staff whether the Board would make the landscaping plan a contingency or
117
stipulation for approval, and incorporate it formally. K. Anderson replied that that has been done in
118
the past, on some recent applications. In this case, with no dispute from the Applicant, he thinks it’s
119
pretty straightforward. It can be added as a condition.
120

121
D. Petry stated that the symbols that R. Hardy marked need to be defined; the table needs to be
122
updated and finalized.
123

124
Regarding the memo from the Fire Department, D. Petry asked whether the last set of plans is from
125
July 8, 2026 or whether there is a newer set. K. Anderson answered that those were the plans that the
126
Fire Chief reviewed, and the comments were addressed and redistributed for him to review. D. Petry
127
asked what the date of the last set of plans is; the answer was July 8th.
128

129
C. Brannon stated that the waiver letter was submitted and dated May 19th, 2025. The letter states
130
that they are seeking a waiver from section 9.7 of the subdivision regulations, which addresses road
131
and driveway design standards. In terms of common driveways, the regulations state that common
132
driveways are allowed to access up to two lots. The section further states that a waiver from the
133
Planning Board is required to access three or more lots with a common driveway. The proposed
134
common driveway for which they are seeking a waiver is the one that services lots 21, 22, and 23.
135
It’s approximately 1,350 linear feet in length. The driveway has been designed to meet all design
136
requirements, and will provide for safe access to the proposed lots. Since the design meets the design
137
objectives as reviewed during the design review process, they are respectfully requesting that the
138
Board consider a waiver from this section to permit a common driveway for the three lots.
139

140
C. Brannon further stated that not granting the waiver would create an unnecessary hardship for their
141
client, as the design that they initially presented didn’t require any waivers. They had a lot that was
142
positioned off the end of the spur road, closer to Beaver Brook. Beaver Brook asked the Applicant
143
for additional buffering. As a result, the Applicant took that lot and placed it on the common
144
driveway. They have presented plans which show that they don’t need the waiver, but that this
145
waiver would provide a public benefit in the form of increased buffering to what Beaver Brook would
146
consider some adjacent sensitive lands. The Applicant was directed to proceed with the waiver to
147
better balance the development over the property, and to provide increased separation to abutting
148
properties. Therefore, they respectfully request that the Board consider this waiver.
149

150

September 15, 2026 - DRAFT
4
Per a question from B. Moseley, K. Anderson confirmed that this is not an unusual circumstance. He
151
stated that it’s actually pretty typical. The Applicant has met the requirements of our subdivision
152
ordinance.
153

154
Per a question from M. Leavitt, C. Brannon confirmed that the Fire Department has reviewed the
155
common driveway plan. C. Brannon stated that the location of the cisterns are in part due to the
156
common driveway design, and the distance to the homes.
157

158
Motion to grant the Applicant the waiver, as described – motioned by D. Cleveland, seconded by
159
V. Orlando; motion passed, with M. Leavitt, B. Ming, V. Orlando, B. Moseley, D. Cleveland in favor,
160
and D. Petry opposed.
161

162
Roy Tilsley, Attorney at Bernstein Shur. Stated that he thinks what the Board has in front of them, C.
163
Brannon has worked hard for years to get to this point. They have cleared all the Staff comments,
164
they have been through all the reviews, they meet the subdivision regulations. He thinks that what
165
they have given the Board is a plan that meets all the requirements which they are required to meet.
166

167
Motion to approve File PB2025-011 – motioned by D. Cleveland, seconded by M. Leavitt; motion
168
failed, with M. Leavitt in favor, and B. Ming, V. Orlando, B. Moseley, D. Cleveland, D. Petry
169
opposed.
170

171
B. Moseley asked Staff what the procedure is to follow, at this point. K. Anderson stated that the
172
Board made a motion to approve the application, which was denied. Therefore, a motion needs to be
173
made to deny the project. He recommended that the Board talk about what their issues are, with this
174
application.
175

176
B. Moseley stated that he has said many times that he has a concern with the public safety aspect of
177
where the intersection is, coming on to Proctor Hill Road. We have had our Police, Fire, and DPW
178
express concerns with that intersection. The road itself, especially in inclement weather, can be very
179
slick, and is in a shadowy area. While the sight distance might meet the regulation, when you
180
consider an incline, consider inclement weather, consider the history of that area, he feels that it is a
181
very dangerous situation.
182

183
B. Ming stated that that is his primary concern, as well: the safety aspect of the intersection on
184
Proctor Hill.
185

186
V. Orlando stated that, in terms of the exit and entrance to the intersection, every time they try to
187
make the exit safer the entrance becomes less safe because the turn is getting sharper and less visible
188
– especially if you factor in people coming down that hill. He doesn’t see how the current design is
189
safe.
190

191
D. Cleveland concurred, and stated that he thinks the Board disagrees with the DOT’s opinion on the
192
safety aspects.
193

194
D. Petry stated that he shares the same concerns; it is not a safe exit at all.
195

196
M. Leavitt stated that he agrees that there are concerns, but he thinks that they have been addressed as
197
well as they can be. He doesn’t know where we can go from here.
198

199
Motion to deny the project – motioned by D. Cleveland, seconded by V. Orlando; motion passed
200
unanimously.
201

202
Findings of Fact.
203

204

September 15, 2026 - DRAFT
5
K. Anderson stated that he has some Findings of Fact prepared; he would read through them, and if
205
the Board is in agreement with the Findings, they can be added to the decision that was just made.
206
There are six findings.
207

208
Finding 1: The Board finds that Proctor Hill Road is under the jurisdiction of NH DOT, and access to
209
the State road is permitted through a State driveway permit.
210

211
The purpose of this finding is to acknowledge that the right to connect to Rt. 130 is decision of only
212
NH DOT.
213

214
Finding 2: The Board finds that NH DOT issued driveway permit number DOTDRI002580 on 7-8-
215
2025 with a restricted access onto Rt. 130 which is limited to right-turn into and out of the
216
subdivision.
217

218
The purpose of this finding is that NH DOT issued a driveway permit with which it acknowledged
219
that safety issues exist with regard to sight distance, and restricted the intersection design.
220

221
Finding 3: The Board finds that NH DOT permit number DOTDRI002580 contains specific language
222
allowing the permit to be modified.
223

224
The purpose of this finding is to highlight that the permit can be modified if new information is
225
presented.
226

227
Finding 4: The Board finds that on May 19, 2026 the Hollis Planning Board requested that the
228
Applicant ask NH DOT for a speed radar indicator, an overhead flashing light, and additional
229
signage.
230

231
The purpose of this finding is to highlight that the Planning Board requested additional traffic safety
232
measures to be implemented to increase awareness of the new road intersection, which was expressly
233
noted as unsafe by Fire, Police, and Public Works Departments.
234

235
Finding 5: The Board finds that on 8-18-2026 the Applicant informed the Planning Board that NH
236
DOT stated that the additional traffic safety measures were not necessary.
237

238
The purpose of this finding is to note that the Board requested additional safety measures to be
239
reviewed and incorporated into the permit.
240

241
Finding 6: The Board finds that the proposed intersection to Proctor Hill Road poses a safety risk
242
based on expert written testimony by our Town’s Fire Chief, Police Chief, and Director of Public
243
Works. Testimony cited includes letters from the Hollis Fire Department dated 11-13-2025, the
244
Hollis Police Department dated 10-22-2025, again the Hollis Fire Department dated 6-11-2026, the
245
Hollis Police Department dated 6-11-2026, and the Hollis Public Works Department dated 6-10-2026.
246

247
In closing, it is within the Board’s authority to deny the Abbott Hill Subdivision due to road geometry
248
and limited sight distance under the criteria of scattered and premature. NH DOT restricted the
249
intersection due to limited sight distance, and did not accept requests from the Board for additional
250
safety precautions: and testimony provided by expert Town safety officials noted the intersection as
251
unsafe.
252

253
Motion to accept the Findings of Fact as stated – motioned by D. Petry, seconded by B. Ming;
254
motion passed unanimously.
255

256

257

September 15, 2026 - DRAFT
6
c. File PB2026-003 – Final Review: Project is located in only Amherst. Site plan for a contractor yard,
258
30 Northern Boulevard, Amherst. Owner / Applicant: Golden Valley Way Holdings, LLC., Map 48
259
Lots 1, Zoned: Residential & Agricultural (R&A). Application acceptance and Public Comment.
260

261
K. Anderson stated that this application was before the Board in a design review phase; this project
262
exists in both the Town of Amherst and in Hollis. The proposed application is a 10,000 square foot
263
shop building for a paving contractor. All improvements are proposed in Amherst, with nothing
264
proposed in Hollis. The purpose of this application is to fulfill the requirements of RSA 674-53, IV,
265
regarding land affected by two municipality boundaries. The RSA states that no plot or plan showing
266
land or street in more than one municipality in the State shall be deemed approved for the purposes of
267
this title unless it has been approved by the Planning Boards of all included municipalities.
268

269
K. Anderson stated that an action is necessary by this Board, even though there is no improvement
270
shown in Hollis. He has looked through the application; it is proven that all of the improvements are
271
in Amherst and there is nothing being depicted in Hollis.
272

273
B. Moseley asked whether it is fair to say, per the RSA and also our Town Counsel, that this is mostly
274
an administrative action for us to realize that there is nothing supposedly that is going to happen in
275
Hollis – however, it does give us an opportunity to put stipulations on our approval, such as the right
276
to inspect the area in Hollis as well as, should we see anything, or become aware of anything coming
277
into Hollis, we can force the Applicant to do a full application.
278

279
K. Anderson stated that that is exactly correct.
280

281
Motion to accept the application – motioned by D. Cleveland, seconded by B. Ming; motion passed
282
unanimously.
283

284
Applicant: Jason Hill with T.F. Moran. Stated that he is a licensed PE in New Hampshire, in good
285
standing. Stated that everything K. Anderson has reviewed they are in agreement with. They met
286
with the Planning Board earlier this year on an earlier phase of the project, when they had work
287
planned in both Amherst and Hollis. They have withdrawn that application, and are working through
288
things in Amherst, working toward that site plan approval.
289

290
J. Hill stated that this is industrial land in Amherst, at the end of a dead-end road in the Bon Terrain
291
industrial area. There is a back parcel with no frontage on any road in Hollis, about a one or two acre
292
undeveloped piece, that is owned in common by Golden Valley Way Holdings. For that reason, the
293
RSA has been invoked. They are not planning on disturbing or improving any of the land in Hollis.
294
As such, they are in agreement with the proposed stipulations as stated in the Staff Report. They are
295
proposing a considerable landscape hedge along the Town line, consisting of pine trees and some
296
understory shrubbery and grasses. That will function aesthetically and also as a physical barrier to
297
prevent encroachment, even though encroachment is not anticipated.
298

299
In regard to the permitting, J. Hill stated that, related to the parcel in Amherst, they have in hand a
300
shoreland permit for Witches Brook. They received the alteration of terrain permit last week, for the
301
stormwater. The only other State permit that they need is for the septic, and that is pending.
302

303
In terms of the alteration of terrain permit, K. Anderson asked whether there were any sorts of
304
improvements or restoration noted in that permit for the Town of Hollis. J. Hill answered no; there
305
are standard conditions.
306

307
K. Anderson stated that Staff’s first recommendation is that, with proper notification to the land
308
owner, Town of Hollis officials shall be allowed to inspect the Hollis portion of the subject property
309
to ensure that no improvements have been made. The second recommendation is that if any
310

September 15, 2026 - DRAFT
7
improvements should be contemplated, or found to have been done to the Hollis portion of the subject
311
property, the owner shall be required to come back before the Hollis Planning Board for review.
312

313
K. Anderson stated that he would like to add a third recommendation, that the NH DES alteration of
314
terrain permit become a condition to ensure that there are no improvements necessary in Hollis as part
315
of that permit.
316

317
K. Anderson stated that in the early stages there was a wetland dredge and fill permit as part of this
318
project; he asked whether that is no longer necessary. J. Hill replied that he doesn’t recall there being
319
one, but it is no longer necessary.
320

321
K. Anderson added that this is still an active application in the Town of Amherst, and if there are
322
concerns from residents in Hollis – and there are abutters in Hollis – they can be part of the
323
communication and the abutter process in the Town of Amherst.
324

325
V. Mills asked whether the Town of Amherst has an inspection program for drainage, protection of
326
wetlands, during construction. J. Hill answered that he does not know off the top of his head, but he
327
knows that they have a compliance review, a Planning Board review for compliance. Amherst is one
328
of the only towns that does. They hold a compliance hearing after construction to make sure that the
329
project is in compliance. They may also have construction inspections; the project has not gotten to
330
that point. Because of the size of the project, over one acre, it is required to have an EPA notice of
331
intent. As a part of that notification process, there is a required, independent construction monitor for
332
the duration of the project such that when it rains, either weekly, or if it rains over a quarter or a half
333
an inch, under the federal rules you are required to have the third-party inspector, or the contractor in
334
some cases, inspect all of their perimeter controls and maintain those as a condition of that permit: so
335
there will be general oversight. That is under the EPA, for any project in New Hampshire that is over
336
one acre. There has to be a log that is kept, and retained for town records.
337

338
V. Orlando asked whether we can require that test pits be installed on the Hollis side, to make sure
339
that no contamination from the site is affecting the wetlands or the brook. K. Anderson replied that
340
test pits are monitoring wells; when he worked as a consultant, the Town of Amherst required
341
monitoring wells. He asked whether that is a requirement that they have instituted on this project.
342

343
J. Hill answered no, because this project does not trigger a conditional use permit from the aquifer
344
protection district based on the land use.
345

346
V. Orlando asked whether we have the ability to add that requirement. K. Anderson responded that
347
that would be a stretch, as there are no improvements on the Hollis side. He would stand by Amherst
348
in their review of this site plan project.
349

350
Public Hearing.
351

352
Joe Garruba, 28 Winchester Drive, Hollis. Stated that we have all heard about Witches Spring Brook,
353
the fishing opportunities there, and how special that stream is. It has been designated specifically so
354
by the Town of Hollis. At this point, Hollis has not yet reviewed the AOT permit. It seems like,
355
potentially, monitoring wells would be an appropriate condition on that side because specifically of
356
the temperature of the water that goes into Witches Spring Brook. It’s a cold water spring that feeds
357
it, so any runoff – . It’s worse than a regular situation because it’s not just pollution, it’s temperature.
358
What he would like to say is that for this application, we all know that there is a complicated proposal
359
that is going on on the Amherst side. He believes that it is premature to approve a project until that
360
process plays out in Amherst. Throughout the process there will be many studies, there will be
361
reports, there will be documents, all sorts of permits and plans that have not yet been completed,
362
submitted, or approved, and would be available if we withhold approval until at least the final
363
application is submitted in Amherst – because we would then have the benefit of having all of that
364

September 15, 2026 - DRAFT
8
material to review before issuing an approval that we might regret later on. He requests that the
365
Board hold off on approval until the final application is submitted to Amherst, and he would like to
366
see monitoring wells installed, and specifically not just only for pollution but for temperature as well.
367

368
Joe Connelly, 14 Sawmill Road, Hollis. Stated that he is here tonight to give a very brief input from
369
the Hollis Conservation Commission. He is speaking as Chair of the Hollis Conservation
370
Commission. In early August, the Conservation Commission sent a letter to the Amherst Planning
371
Board. The letter was authored by Mark Post, the HCC Secretary and also the Chair of the Hollis
372
Agricultural Commission. That letter was shared with Hollis Town Staff, as well. There were two
373
things that HCC asked of the Amherst Planning Board. The first one was that they asked the Amherst
374
Planning Board to adhere to and protect all wetland and wetland buffers, and inspect those buffers
375
and wetlands at least annually. The second thing they asked had to do with the alteration of terrain
376
permit. They asked that the Amherst Planning Board notify the HCC when that AOT permit was
377
submitted. The HCC has not seen it, and did not know that it was submitted, or approved last week.
378
J. Connelly wanted to let the Hollis Planning Board know that the HCC has been in contact with the
379
Amherst Planning Board, and has received no response from them.
380

381
Applicant Rebuttal: Jason Hill with T.F. Moran. Stated that they are unaware of a letter; he did not
382
receive any letter from the HCC. As for the management of the application sharing, he thinks that
383
that is something he can request from Amherst. At this point, he can provide K. Anderson with a
384
copy of the AOT permit. The application for it was probably filed in April or May. As part of that
385
application, and the shoreland application, they are required to do a couple of things regarding fish
386
and wildlife habitat, and natural communities and other things. This project has been vetted and
387
screened both federally and through the State. The NH DES ecological review section has reviewed
388
and approved the project, which demonstrates that the project as proposed will not have a detrimental
389
effect on any natural habitats of wildlife, plants, or natural communities. That is part of the permit.
390
The Applicant has agreed to several conditions as part of that process.
391

392
J. Hill further stated that, as for the federal permitting that he mentioned earlier, with the EPA, it
393
requires that they coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the same general screening.
394
As a part of that, they have done that, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife review and screening did not
395
identify any potential impacts to this trout habitat of Witches Brook.
396

397
In terms of the design of their proposed detention pond, J. Hill stated that it is actually a benefit to
398
that community because they are filtering the water. They are not having an old-school pond that is
399
open to the sun such that the water would warm up. The water from the site in Amherst will get
400
immediately filtered, and then sits underground for awhile.
401

402
Public Hearing Closed.
403

404
B. Moseley asked Staff whether it is correct that, with the stipulations that the Board would put on
405
this application for approval, if there were any encroachment into Hollis, we could bring the
406
Applicant before us with a full application. K. Anderson replied yes; there are enforcement actions
407
that we can bring upon the landowner that would require them to come to the Town of Hollis.
408

409
B. Moseley stated that, therefore, it’s not as if the Board is washing their hands of this – they are
410
putting the Applicant on notice that if we approve this we would be monitoring what is going on, and
411
inspecting it. If we see anything, we would bring them before the Board. K. Anderson stated that
412
that is correct.
413

414
K. Anderson further stated that the information from the Chair of the Conservation Commission,
415
above, in terms of communication not being connected with regard to the alteration of terrain permit,
416
does not sit very well with him. B. Moseley asked what the safeguard would be, for that; K.
417
Anderson stated that this case could be continued until the permit and the communication is reviewed
418

September 15, 2026 - DRAFT
9
by him. Alternatively, they could add it as a condition in the hopes that the alteration of terrain
419
permitting provided recommendations and conditions that would align with those of the Town of
420
Hollis’s ordinance and wishes, and with the Conservation Commission. He thinks that this
421
application should be continued until that alteration of terrain permit is vetted by him and by the
422
Conservation Commission, as requested.
423

424
V. Mills concurred with K. Anderson.
425

426
V. Orlando asked whether the Board should wait until Amherst approves the project before we
427
approve it. K. Anderson stated that a comment could be made that Amherst can’t approve it until
428
Hollis signs off on it. B. Moseley added that by having stringent stipulations and inspections, we will
429
be able to go out there and not be trespassing.
430

431
D. Petry pointed out that the Hollis Planning Board could make their approval contingent upon
432
Amherst’s approval, as a condition.
433

434
D. Petry stated that J. Hill described the buffer that they are going to install on the Hollis line; it looks
435
like it’s right on the Hollis line. J. Hill talked about plantings that they are going to do – but it is also
436
listed as snow storage. D. Petry asked how the plantings are going to survive if that is the same area
437
as snow storage.
438

439
D. Petry’s second question was what the parking lot is going to be treated with, in wintertime. Will it
440
be treated with salt or with sand? He stated that if J. Hill needs to go back and do some research
441
before providing these answers to the Board, that is fine. His concern is that the elevations of the
442
property get lower in the south-east corner, which is the closest location to the brook: so he wants to
443
know whether they are going to use salt on this property in the wintertime, and whether this
444
contractor is going to do winter plowing as a commercial activity.
445

446
J. Hill responded that they are not going to do commercial plowing, and, as part of the conditional use
447
permit for Amherst they are prohibited from using snow and de-icing chemicals. That is a
448
requirement of the conditional use permit.
449

450
In terms of the snow storage, J. Hill stated that they can move that. D. Petry stated that he doesn’t
451
know whether Amherst is going to require bonding for those plantings, but if the Applicant is going
452
to be plowing up against them there will be damage to the plants. J. Hill concurred, and stated that
453
that makes sense. He stated that they can look at modifying the snow storage along that edge,
454
certainly.
455

456
V. Mills asked J. Hill to clarify where in the process this application is, with Amherst. J. Hill replied
457
that, unlike Hollis, Amherst does not have a mandatory design review step, so this is a final non-
458
residential site plan application, with one conditional use permit for wetland buffer and backs. They
459
are looking to get a final, conditional approval at the next meeting or in the near term this year. The
460
Applicant has addressed all of Amherst’s third-party, Keach-Nordstrom review comments. From a
461
technical standpoint, it is all done; they have all of their State permits. It’s really just hammering out
462
the details of the conditional use permit.
463

464
B. Moseley summarized that the Board is looking for a definite statement about the treatment of the
465
parking lot; for snow storage location movement; for Staff to thoroughly review the AOT permit and
466
provide it to the Hollis Conservation Commission; and to firm up our stipulations, such as right of
467
inspection, and that if anything should encroach into Hollis they would have to do a full application
468
with the Hollis Planning Board.
469

470
Motion to continue File PB2026-003 to the Board’s meeting on October 20, 2026 – motioned by
471
D. Petry, seconded by D. Cleveland; motion passed unanimously.
472

September 15, 2026 - DRAFT
10

473

474
d. File PB2026-011 – Plan Amendment Second Driveway: 15 Nutting Lane, Owner: Cory R. Hussey
475
Rev. Trust, Applicant: Wolf Rock Construction, Map 20 lot 29-2, Zoned: Residential & Agricultural
476
(R&A). Continued Discussion, Public Comment.
477

478
K. Anderson stated that this case was continued so that additional information could be provided to
479
the Board. At the last meeting, the application was accepted and the Board requested the septic plan
480
which depicts the driveway accessing the proposed barn and coming from the existing driveway curb
481
cut. That information was supplied by the Applicant.
482

483
Applicant: Paul Hebert, with Wolf Rock Construction. Per a question from B. Moseley, P. Hebert
484
stated that he is not a licensed professional engineer in the State of New Hampshire. B. Moseley
485
asked what P. Hebert’s professional qualification is, to which P. Hebert replied that he has a
486
bachelor’s degree.
487

488
P. Hebert stated that he wanted to make a couple of comments regarding the proposed second curb
489
cut for C. Hussey’s property, and about Nutting Lane. Nutting Lane is not a through-street. It
490
accesses five house lots, and the additional curb cut would not produce much more traffic volume.
491
Nutting Lane will be minimally impacted; traffic patterns will not be impacted at all by the second
492
curb cut. P. Hebert stated that he wanted to comment about the lot which is C. Hussey’s property.
493
The lot configuration is very long and narrow. It is encumbered by a hammerhead which was put in
494
during the initial subdivision of the land. C. Hussey’s driveway currently pulls away from the
495
hammerhead to the south. Trying to make a driveway around that hammerhead to access the new
496
building may do a couple of things. First, there is a drainage issue, coming off of the Brookdale Farm
497
fields in the spring thaw. C. Hussey’s driveway is exhibiting signs of erosion because of this
498
drainage issue, and reconfiguring that whole area of the lot just doesn’t seem conducive to
499
appropriately utilizing the section of his lot; it’s almost bisected by that hammerhead. They believe
500
that the second curb cut provides the best use of his land. It’s not going to encumber the neighbors at
501
all because exiting headlights coming out of that proposed curb cut will not hit a house; it will hit the
502
neighboring lawn and woods. Nutting Lane is beautiful little street, and it is nicely landscaped. C.
503
Hussey’s plan is to landscape all around the new barn and the second curb cut so that it looks
504
appropriate to the aesthetics of the neighborhood.
505

506
P. Hebert stated there are a couple of other issues; there were trees that were inadvertently removed
507
from the Brookdale Farm lot line. There is an agreement in place between C. Hussey and Mr. Hardy
508
to replace those trees. P. Hebert does not have a copy of that agreement, but this has been resolved
509
with the parties in regard to the Brookdale lot line which is directly behind the barn.
510

511
P. Hebert added that this is a barn/garage. There is no intent to use the building for any other
512
purpose. It has four garage doors. It is going to be a recreational garage, and a really pretty building.
513
P. Hebert believes that a waiver provided by the Planning Board would be conducive to C. Hussey
514
being able to utilize that section of his lot.
515

516
B. Moseley asked at what stage of construction they are. P. Hebert stated that the barn frame is
517
erected, and the slab is going to be poured tomorrow. B. Moseley commented that it strikes him that
518
the Applicant has already gotten so far with construction before considering coming to the Planning
519
Board for the curb cut. He asked what the logic was, in their progression of construction.
520

521
P. Hebert answered that after obtaining the building permit, they were informed that the second curb
522
cut waiver was required. P. Hebert stated that he does have representation from Meridian here at this
523
meeting; they did the drawings for the design. B. Moseley asked whether Meridian didn’t know that
524
a waiver for the second curb cut would be needed. P. Hebert replied that he isn’t sure what they knew
525
or didn’t know.
526

September 15, 2026 - DRAFT
11

527
In terms of the septic, D. Petry asked how many bedrooms it is approved for. Is it a standard-sized
528
septic? P. Hebert replied that he believes it is the smallest allowed by the State. D. Petry asked how
529
many bedrooms that would serve. P. Hebert stated that there are no bedrooms in this building. K.
530
Anderson added that it is not sized for bedrooms; it is sized for gallons per day.
531

532
D. Petry asked whether there is a proposed second story for the barn, and whether the second story is
533
going to be used. P. Hebert answered not at this time, no. D. Petry stated, however, that it is a space
534
that could be used. P. Hebert replied that you’d have to build a stairway, and put in a floor. D. Petry
535
asked whether that is planned, and P. Hebert answered no. The plumbing in the building is for a
536
utility bathroom. There is no additional plumbing for sinks or showers. There is no shower in the
537
building, there is no bathtub in the building.
538

539
K. Anderson put the septic design on the screen for the Board to view; the plan shows the new
540
driveway connecting to the original driveway, as proposed at the time. B. Moseley asked why, on
541
this plan, the driveway encroaches into the right-of-way.
542

543
William Edwards, with Meridian Land Services. Stated that he works for Meridian as a septic
544
designer. Per a question from B. Moseley, W. Edwards stated that he is not a professional engineer in
545
the State of New Hampshire. B. Moseley asked whether W. Edwards has a credential as a septic
546
designer in the State of New Hampshire, to which W. Edwards replied that he is apprenticing with
547
Meridian; he holds a bachelor’s degree in environmental science, and has been working with
548
Meridian for almost three years. B. Moseley asked whether W. Edwards has the licensing for the
549
State of New Hampshire as a septic designer. W. Edwards answered that he not licensed as yet; he is
550
apprenticing.
551

552
B. Moseley referred to the septic design, and asked why the driveway crosses into the right-of-way.
553
W. Edwards replied that they were attempting to comply as near as possible with regulations. When
554
he submitted this design to Hollis for local approval, it made it through because their intent was to
555
come before the Planning Board to request a second curb cut.
556

557
B. Moseley stated that, then, they did know the regulations, and that there was a requirement for a
558
second curb cut before they did any planning. W. Edwards stated that yes, he was absolutely aware
559
of that. B. Moseley asked why they didn’t come before the Planning Board before beginning
560
construction.
561

562
P. Hebert stated that the original design was done by Brooks Post and Beam; they are the ones who
563
did the plot plan. Meridian came in to do the septic design, which was approved by the State of New
564
Hampshire. The original plan had the driveway with the second curb cut; the Applicant was told that
565
they couldn’t do that, and that they had to reconfigure the driveway.
566

567
B. Moseley stated that they went ahead and stated building, anyway. P. Hebert replied that they had a
568
building permit; the Town of Hollis issued them a building permit – so yes, they started building the
569
building. Their intent is to utilize this lot to the best of its potential. They feel that allowing that
570
second curb cut is the best use of this property, with minimal impact to the neighbors. That barn is
571
going to be a gorgeous building, it’s going to be landscaped 100%. They’ve agreed with Mr. Hardy
572
to re-plant some trees that were inadvertently cut down. You can see where that hammerhead is,
573
that’s where the erosion problem is, with all of the water coming off of that field and during periods
574
of rain. That is why they feel that the best use of the property, and the most aesthetic use of the
575
property, is to allow the second curb cut.
576

577
P. Hebert stated that the sequence of events went like this: Brooks Post and Beam did the design of
578
the barn. They are the ones who originally put in the second curb cut. They probably weren’t aware
579
of the Hollis regulation. When the Applicant submitted the plans to Hollis, they were advised to
580

September 15, 2026 - DRAFT
12
reconfigure the driveway, such as the Board is viewing on the screen. They were advised to come in
581
front of the Board, with the original plan that had the second curb cut, to request the waiver.
582

583
B. Moseley stated that, then, the Applicant knew the requirements for the waiver before they started
584
digging holes. P. Hebert answered yes. B. Moseley stated that they went ahead and started the work
585
anyway. P. Hebert stated that they had a building permit.
586

587
D. Cleveland stated that it looks as if there are two or three different possibilities here. One is what
588
they are requesting, for the second curb cut. Another is the design which is shown on the screen,
589
which cuts across the corner of the hammerhead – and another possibility, it seems to him, would be
590
another design which, instead of cutting across the end of the hammerhead, would be to locate it a
591
little bit below where it comes in, directly into the driveway, and avoid the hammerhead all together.
592

593
P. Hebert stated that they are avoiding the hammerhead all together with the existing proposal, the
594
one that requests the second curb cut.
595

596
D. Cleveland stated that there could be another driveway off of the existing driveway.
597

598
P. Hebert pointed out on the screen where the existing driveway comes in, and where the erosion
599
problem exists. He stated that the hammerhead, which was put in place during the original
600
subdivision, bisects the lot. By putting a curb cut above, accessing the barn, they can alleviate any
601
additional disruption, and get access with minimal disruption to the neighborhood. It’s not a high-
602
traffic street. There are only five houses down the street. It would be aesthetically pleasing once it’s
603
finished and landscaped.
604

605
D. Cleveland stated that he is not disagreeing, but there could be another alternative with connecting
606
to the existing driveway without cutting across the corner of the hammerhead. P. Hebert replied that
607
that is where the drainage issue is, coming off of the Brookdale property. That is where the erosion of
608
the existing driveway is occurring. He knows that there are probably ways to configure a swale, or
609
something like that, but that seems a little exorbitant when all they are asking for is permission to put
610
in a second curb cut.
611

612
M. Leavitt asked why, if the second curb cut was on the original plans, a waiver was not requested at
613
that time. P. Hebert answered that they were told that they couldn’t do a second curb cut without a
614
waiver, so they reconfigured the driveway.
615

616
K. Anderson stated that there are multiple steps involved in the process for a building permit. In this
617
case, there was the submission of not only the construction of the barn but also a septic plan. A septic
618
plan is approved by him, as the local authority to do so. The original plan depicted a second driveway
619
connecting to Nutting Lane; he informed the Applicant’s representative that he couldn’t approve that
620
because it requires permission from the Planning Board. Therefore, local approval was not granted.
621
The plan was revised, depicting the driveway coming off of the existing driveway: a compliant
622
method to access the new building. A building permit was issued, with that plan in place. The
623
building permit was obtained with the design shown on the screen, with the new driveway connecting
624
to the original driveway, and that is how construction was able to start. The assumption at the time
625
was that that would be the driveway.
626

627
K. Anderson further stated that trees were cut on this property. He did recommend to the Applicant
628
that they not cut trees, but all of the trees were cut. During the inspection process it was noted that
629
trees were cut on the abutting property, and therefore Brookdale got involved. That is a private
630
matter that does not involve the Town; there is an agreement between those two parties that is
631
excellent.
632

633

September 15, 2026 - DRAFT
13
K. Anderson stated that the depiction of the driveway that connects to the original driveway, going
634
over the boundary, or the right-of-way, of Nutting Lane was brought to the attention of Public Works;
635
Public Works felt that it was fine, and met the intent of a driveway connection. Thus, local approval
636
was granted.
637

638
K. Anderson stated that he is aware of the stormwater and drainage situation. There were discussions
639
with Brookdale many years ago about the stormwater and drainage, and he believes that that situation
640
was vetted. He does not like the terminology of a drainage problem, because there is no problem that
641
is existing – it is the flow and direction of water that is going across. It is an existing condition. If a
642
proposed driveway is impacted by that, then the owner would need to mitigate that problem.
643

644
D. Cleveland asked about the DPW’s opinion; K. Anderson stated that Public Works’ primary focus
645
is to try to get the least amount of driveways coming off of a hammerhead because of snow storage.
646
When it comes to snow removal and the moving of snow, a driveway located adjacent to the proposed
647
structure is actually the best way to get to the barn in the opinion of the DPW Director.
648

649
Per a question from V. Orlando in regard to the size of the septic tank, W. Edwards stated that it is
650
1250 gallons. K. Anderson added that the septic plan is designed for 300 gallons per day; that is the
651
State’s minimum, and the smallest that can be designed.
652

653
B. Moseley stated that a 1250 gallon tank will service a four-bedroom house in this Town.
654

655
W. Edwards modified his answer, stating that because of the elevation of the fields, it has to be a
656
pumping system – so it is a 1250 gallon septic tank, with a 400 gallon pump chamber.
657

658
D. Petry stated that he is ok with curb cut; he does not like the process steps that were followed in this
659
case – but he thinks that this driveway cut involves less disturbance to the property, less disturbance
660
to the hammerhead. He stated that there should be a stipulation that the new building only be used as
661
a barn or garage. If the use changes, then the Applicant has to come back before the Board.
662

663
Public Hearing.
664

665
Joe Garruba, 28 Winchester Drive. Stated that, as far as issuing the curb cut or not, he doesn’t know
666
that he has a strong opinion either way. He does think that we should take this opportunity to review
667
our internal procedures for issuing building permits. He proposes that there be a checklist item to
668
review road access to garages. Proposed driveways must be evaluated against our driveway
669
regulations; it’s not like “what does the DPW Director feel” – .
670

671
D. Petry stated that J. Garruba’s remarks are not relevant to the application under discussion. B.
672
Moseley stated that J. Garruba can bring up his point as a proposed zoning regulation change.
673

674
J. Garruba stated that this specific plan that is presented must meet our driveway regulations. This
675
plan must slope away from the road by 3% for the first 20 feet, and then it must continue. Did anyone
676
in our Town evaluate this driveway to make sure that it’s not in the right-of-way and that it’s meeting
677
those? There’s also a requirement for the driveway to be perpendicular to the road. So, all of those
678
things are in the regulations and they weren’t evaluated for this plan.
679

680
D. Petry stated that a building permit was issued. He asked whether it is correct that a driveway
681
permit has to be done separately.
682

683
K. Anderson stated that if a driveway is depicted off of an existing curb cut, a driveway permit is not
684
necessary, a curb cut permit is not necessary. That was the case in this situation; therefore a building
685
permit was issued. What is being proposed now is a new curb cut to Nutting Lane, which depicts and
686

September 15, 2026 - DRAFT
14
meets our regulations, with a negative slope and a positive slope as shown on the plan that was
687
submitted.
688

689
D. Petry stated that, therefore, Staff did review it, and it is correct. The speaker was incorrect.
690

691
B. Moseley stated that with all of the issues we’ve had in regard to driveways, he would find it hard
692
to believe that this one was not adequately reviewed. K. Anderson stated that the review also
693
included sight distance.
694

695
Public Hearing Closed.
696

697
In terms of stipulations on the approval of the application, D. Petry stated that if the use changes from
698
a barn/garage, the Applicant has to come back before the Planning Board.
699

700
V. Mills pointed out K. Anderson’s stipulation, as well, which is that the Applicant obtain a driveway
701
permit from DPW for the second driveway.
702

703
Motion to approve File PB2026-011 with the two stipulations as above – motioned by D.
704
Cleveland, seconded by M. Leavitt; motion passed unanimously.
705

706

707
6.
OTHER BUSINESS:
708

709
a. Planning Board Discussion of Draft Zoning Amendments
710

711
K. Anderson stated that he has been working on several zoning amendments, and there are others in
712
the works. He has some comments from members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) in
713
preparation for the October 6th joint meeting.
714

715
B. Moseley noted that the ZBA intends to meet this month even though they have no cases, to work
716
on potential zoning amendments.
717

718
K. Anderson stated that he has prepared three for discussion tonight; the first has to do with the Code
719
Enforcement Officer. The ordinance currently reads, under Chapter IV: Enforcement and
720
Administration, “The Building Inspector established under RSA 673:1.V shall also serve as the Code
721
Enforcement Officer. The Code Enforcement Officer, or the Board of Selectmen’s designee, shall
722
have the duty, and is hereby authorized, to enforce the provisions of the ordinance [the zoning
723
ordinance].” K. Anderson stated that on a daily basis, and as his main work for the Town, he enforces
724
the zoning ordinance. Under the outdated provisions of the ordinance, he does not have the authority
725
to do so. He is requesting to amend that, and that would be in line with all surrounding communities.
726
He is requesting to add, after “RSA 673:1.V”, “and the zoning administrator as appointed by the
727
Select Board”.
728

729
D. Petry stated that he thinks that change is fine. The Board was in consensus with D. Petry.
730

731
K. Anderson stated that he has vetted out several RSAs, and this proposed change will not conflict
732
with any of them.
733

734
K. Anderson stated that the second potential change has to do with a frustrating item that comes
735
through the Building Department all the time: above-ground swimming pools and in-ground
736
swimming pools have two different setbacks. This has been a big issue. He has spoken with the
737
Building Inspector about it; they don’t care whether swimming pools have the primary building
738
setback or the accessory structure setback, so long as it is the same for above-ground and in-ground
739
swimming pools. The choices for the setback are 35 feet or 15 feet.
740

September 15, 2026 - DRAFT
15

741
D. Petry stated that his only concern with this is that if we are going to go with a 15 foot setback for
742
above-ground pools, there needs to be screening.
743

744
The Board’s consensus was that swimming pools should have a 35 foot setback.
745

746
K. Anderson stated that the third proposed zoning change has to do with the wetland conservation
747
overlay zone. In terms of man-made ditches and swales, agricultural swales, sediment ponds and
748
detention basins, because they are man-made we do not apply buffers to them. That is ok when the
749
land is being actively farmed. To align our ordinance with DES, DES has an abandonment clause.
750
Anything that has been abandoned for five years reverts back to jurisdictional wetland. Additionally,
751
above DES is the EPA’s clean water act, which says that unless it’s being actively maintained it
752
reverts to a jurisdictional wetland. What K. Anderson is asking for is a change in language to exempt
753
these continuously maintained man-made ditches and swales, agricultural swales, sediment ponds and
754
detention basins from the buffer. There are protections for agricultural entities in the local statutes,
755
and through the federal government, protecting them from local enforcement of wetland buffers in
756
these situations. K. Anderson’s proposed change would protect that, but also allow us to enforce a
757
buffer in the case of abandonment. He stated that we come across abandoned wetlands and streams in
758
all of our applications, and the buffers do not apply; this would change that.
759

760
B. Moseley stated that this is a much needed change. D. Petry concurred. The Board was in
761
consensus.
762

763
b. Subdivision Regulations
764

765
K. Anderson stated that progress on the subdivision regulations has come down to stormwater. He
766
needs to make a meeting, and enforce either one or the other – closed drainage or open drainage.
767
There is a polar opposite dialogue in the community about which way we want to go. He can write an
768
ordinance that provides for both of them, and in fact the ordinance is written in that way currently.
769
He would ask for direction on that; he does not have the authority to make a decision one way or the
770
other or the authority to tell the DPW Director to make that decision.
771

772
K. Anderson stated that he believes this is something that affects the Town in a major way, in terms
773
of subdivisions, maintenance, etc., and so it is a decision that should come from the Select Board.
774

775
D. Petry stated that with the way the subdivision regulations are currently written, we can deal with it
776
on a case by case basis, for each subdivision. K. Anderson stated that that is correct. He added that
777
we need to refer back to DES’s standards, because sometimes you have to do closed drainage in order
778
to convey the water to where it can be treated. Our primary ordinance is for open drainage; it is easy
779
to maintain. Closed drainage, while it lasts for several years, is very expensive to replace.
780

781
D. Petry pointed out that the current drainage swales are not very conducive to rural character. He
782
stated that if the Select Board is making a decision on this, what would be helpful is a memo from K.
783
Anderson and a memo from DPW, each listing pros and cons, and concerns.
784

785
B. Moseley asked whether the subdivision regulation changes have addressed the guardrail issue. K.
786
Anderson stated that we have antiquated guardrails; they are aesthetically pleasing, with a wood
787
veneer. They are very expensive, and difficult to procure. B. Moseley pointed out that once they rot,
788
they look atrocious. To answer B. Moseley’s question, K. Anderson stated that guardrails are
789
addressed in his update to the subdivision regulations.
790

791
K. Anderson stated that the updates also address requirements for submissions. He is a proponent of
792
getting site plans done for any sort of development and not simply using septic plans, because the
793

September 15, 2026 - DRAFT
16
septic plan is designed for septic and not for the site. That is the change for which we will get the
794
most pushback from contractors because it costs money and takes time.
795

796

797
7.
ADJOURNMENT:
798

799
Motion to adjourn at 8:46pm– motioned by D. Petry, seconded by V. Mills; motion passed
800
unanimously.
801

802

803

804

805

806

Respectfully submitted,
807

Aurelia Perry,
808

Recording Secretary
809

810

811

812

813

814

815

816

817

818
NOTE: Any person with a disability who wishes to attend this public meeting and who needs to be provided with reasonable
819
accommodation, please call the Town Hall (465-2209) at least 72 hours in advance so that arrangements can be made.
820