On the agenda: Warner 09/14/2026 — data center (Sep 14)

TOWN OF WARNER
PO Box 265

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Warner, New Hampshire 03278-0265
Telephone: (603) 456-2298 ex. 7
Warnernh.gov email: [email protected]

DRAFT Planning Board Meeting Minutes
September 14, 2026 7:00 PM
Lower Meeting Room Warner Town Hall 5 E Main St
I.

OPEN MEETING: Chair Karen Coyne called the meeting to order at 7:04 PM.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

II.

ROLL CALL

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45

Planning Board Member
Karen Coyne, Chair
James Gaffney
Pier D’Aprile
Barak Greene, Vice Chair
Bob Holmes
Mike Smith – Select Board
John Leavitt
Micah Thompson– Alternate
Vacant – Alternate

Present
✔

✔ arrived 7:05
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔

Absent

✔

III.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Ed Mical stated that there is a Flood Plain public open house for Merrimack County on Tuesday September
29, 2026 4:00 to 7:00 PM in Concord at the Concord City Council Chambers 37 Green Street. FEMA and
State representatives will be there to answer questions.
IV.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a)
Public Hearing Continued – Site Plan Review
Applicant: Comet LLC
Owners: Comet LLC – Michael Quinn
Agent: Benjamin Osgood, Ranger Engineering Group
Address: Route 103 West, near Route 89 exit 9
Map/Lot: Map 35, Lot 4-1
District: C1 Intervale
Description: Site plan review for commercial building to be occupied by a Dollar General.
Karen Coyne opened the public hearing for Comet LLC, Michael Quinn Map 35 Lot 4-1

Ben Osgood stated that he does not have any revisions to discuss. He stated that they have been waiting for a
response from the AOT and Aries Engineering. Ben Osgood noted that AOT agreed that this project is a
minor change. He stated that he believes Aries engineering commented that they were fine with the
submission. Ben Osgood stated that he does have the lighting design that meets the requirements. Karen
Coyne noted that the lighting design came in after the deadline.
Barak Green made a motion seconded by James Gaffney to accept the lighting plan as presented.
Motion passed unanimously.
Karen Coyne opened the floor to public comment.
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52

Laura Colburn spoke about the concerns of the community regarding the Dollar General and the future of
Warner. She spoke of steps that the Planning Board can take to be proactive to protect the Town. She stated
that she has 54 signatures on a letter of concerns. Laura Colburn read a letter.

“A letter of concern regarding the preservation of our town’s character and the proposed Dollar General. To the
Planning Board of Warner NH. We, the undersigned residents, property owners, business owners, and community
members of Warner, do not support the proposed Dollar General store and/or similar chain stores at map 35, lot 4-1, 9
Route 103 West, and wish to make this known to the Planning Board. We also respectfully ask the Planning Board to
consider the effect of the proposed Dollar General store and similar chain stores in commercial parts of Warner, and
take concrete steps to ensure that all commercial development is in keeping with the town’s overall aesthetic and
economic character. Warner is a charming and historic community whose character is one of its greatest assets. Our
town is defined by its historic buildings, distinctive local businesses, scenic surroundings, and strong sense of
community. New development should complement and strengthen that character—not diminish it. We are concerned
that a large national discount chain at this location would be inconsistent with the character and appearance of our
town. A generic commercial building and its associated signage, parking, lighting, and traffic would create a visual
impact that could detract from the historic and welcoming atmosphere that residents and visitors value. We also
believe that our limited commercial space should be used thoughtfully. Locally owned businesses contribute to the
identity of our community and keep more economic activity within the town. We want to encourage development that
brings something distinctive to Warner and supports the small businesses, entrepreneurs, and community institutions
that make our town special. We are not opposed to responsible growth or new businesses. We are asking our town
officials to consider whether this particular development is appropriate for this particular location and whether it
advances the long-term interests and character of our community. We respectfully request that the Planning Board:
Carefully consider the effect of the proposed Dollar General development. Give serious consideration to the historic
character and visual appearance of the surrounding community. Encourage development that complements our town
rather than introducing generic commercial architecture and signage. Prioritize opportunities for locally owned
businesses and distinctive community-oriented development. Ensure that future commercial development reflects the
values and long-term vision of Warner We believe our town deserves thoughtful development that preserves what
makes it unique. Once the character of a historic community is lost, it can be extremely difficult to restore. We
therefore respectfully ask our appointed officials to protect the character of Warner now, and for future generations.

The Planning Board addressed another letter sent by Laura Colburn highlighting seven points of concern
1. Substantial work within 24 months required for a modification 2. Parking and circulation location 3.
Pedestrian and bicycle accommodation 4. Scale and character 5. Incomplete traffic study by Aries
Engineering 6. Existing Development does not indicate exemption 7. Required action within 65 days of
application.
1. Substantial work within 24 months required for a modification
Karen Coyne explained that the Planning Board accepted the application as a new application, not a
modification. She stressed that a great deal of electrical, sewage, drainage and water work has been done.
2. Parking and circulation location. Karen Coyne stated that has previously been addressed. James Gaffney
stated that there are two different points. He stated that one deals with article 10 that applies to zoning
district B1 and this is not in district B1. He explained that the second point applies to article XI and that
pertains to changing setbacks. James Gaffney stated that the Board has not made any changes to the setback.
3. Pedestrian and bicycle accommodation. James Gaffney stated that the Planning Board cannot force anyone
to give up parking. He explained that it would be up to the parties involved not the Planning Board. Barak
Greene noted that there is an existing sidewalk.
4. Scale and character; Bob Holmes stated that this is not a strip development it is a single retail structure and
the strip development language does not apply to this application.

2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

5. Incomplete traffic study by Aries Engineering. Bob Holmes explained that the Planning Board received a
traffic study in 2021, and a traffic count and analysis with this application. He noted that this development
will generate less traffic than the previously approved application.
6. Existing Development does not indicate exemption. Barak Greene stated that it is a moot point because it
references article XI section C.
7. Required action and written decision within 65 days of application. James Gaffney stated that is a
requirement by law. Barak Greene noted that the 65 day period can be extended in agreeance between the
applicant and the Planning Board.
Karen Coyne explained that the last request is a denial of the application. She stated that the application has
previously been approved and this is the site plan that is being discussed.
James Gaffney explained that the law does not permit the Planning Board to consider or discriminate one
applicant over another. He stated that this application is for retail space in a specific zone where retail is
permitted use. He stressed that if the Town starts to discriminate against one retailer over another the Town
will find itself in court. Bob Holmes agreed.
Laura Colburn stated that she understands points made by James Gaffney. She clarified that her letter is a
letter of concern that requests that the Planning Board take action to draft a better ordinance for the future to
avoid CBD shops, tattoo shops and data centers coming to town. She stressed that residents want a nice
town and ordinances are the only way to protect the town. James Gaffney questioned what a proposed
ordinance would look like that would prevent a Dollar General type store from coming to Warner. Laura
Colburn stated that she believes a community committee would be helpful, to talk about what the residents
want to see and to find the legal verbiage that would make that happen. Karen Coyne pointed out that
Warner’s EDAC (Economic Development Advisory Committee) has had a hard time recruiting members.
She stated that the lot has been vacant for more than five years.
Laura Colburn stated that there are many in the community who would like to sit down with Mr. Quinn and
his agent to discuss options for the property. She reiterated that they are not against development but Dollar
General is not the right fit. She stated that Dollar General does not have a good reputation as a company. She
explained that Dollar General has a $15 million dollar settlement against them for deceptive pricing.
Janet Garcia of Kearsarge Mountain Road stated that she and her husband would like to sign the petition that
Laura Colburn referenced. She stated that this is NH, the live free or die state, but things are being shoved
down their throats like the apartment building and the Dollar General. She expressed her frustration that a
legal challenge would be expensive. She stated that the owner’s position that the property has been vacant
for 5 years is just the cost of doing business. Janet Garcia stated that there is no need for a Dollar General
because Warner has a Market Basket and an Ace Hardware. She stated that just because it is legal does not
mean it should be done.
Nancy Martin spoke about a letter from the gas station next door and the non-compete clause or restriction in
his deed. She asked what the legalities of the situation are. Karen Coyne acknowledged the letter and noted
that the deed restriction relates to petroleum products. James Gaffney stated that the restriction is automotive
related. Bob Holmes explained that would be an issue between the two property owners. Barak Greene
concurred that the matter is not the Planning Board’s purview. Karen Coyne agreed. James Gaffney
reiterated that the Planning Board is not making a decision on Dollar General, and it is the Planning Board’s
responsibility to make a decision over a retail space that is according to the zoning ordinance.

3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

Janet Garcia questioned if the tax payers will have any say over this matter. Karen Coyne explained that the
Planning Board must follow the zoning ordinance and if an applicant comes forward with an application that
fits the legal requirements the Planning Board cannot deny it.
Carol Ann Sims from Geneva Street stated that the master plan calls for the safety of Warner residents. She
stated that Dollar General is criminal organization that just settled their sixth class action lawsuit in the state
of Missouri for deceptive pricing and wage theft. She asserted that Dollar General does not pay their
employees overtime. Carol Ann Sims stated that Warner residents should be protected from this repeat
offender.
Laura Colburn asked if should email Karen Coyne for suggestions on how to address changing the
ordinance. Karen Coyne agreed.
Sara McNeil of Old Main Road asked if the EDAC is still active. Karen Coyne explained that Micah
Thompson just recently joined the EDAC and they have been looking for a chairman. She spoke about the
past unsuccessful efforts to find a business for this location. Sara McNeil spoke about the vacant stores
along Main Street. She stated that she is against the Dollar General but if they check all the boxes it cannot
be stopped. Nancy Martin stated that there is a bicycle shop moving to Main Street and another location has
been purchased recently.
James Gaffney spoke as private citizen, if a citizen does not like a proposed development they always have
the opportunity to make the property owner a financial offer to buy the property. He stated that it has
happened before in Warner.
Ian Rogers on line of 52 East Main Street applauded Laura Colburn for her efforts. He stated that he signed
the letter and he acknowledged the issues surrounding the Dollar General and the effects on Warner. Ian
Rogers encouraged the Planning Board to know its role in the conversation about what Warner’s future might
be and to play a more active role in conjunction with organizations like the EDAC. Ian Rogers stated that
there are no easy answers to this but he would like to see the Planning Board be more proactive.
Karen Coyne closed the public comment and opened the floor to Planning Board deliberations.
John Leavitt spoke about the character of the town in this area. He stated that currently there is a
McDonald’s, two gas stations, a Market Basket and a liquor store. He explained that if the Dollar General
was going into the center of town he could understand the argument against it. John Leavitt stated that
Warner has a reputation with builders that the town is difficult to work with. He reiterated that the Planning
Board’s focus is a retail space.
Bob Holmes explained the Superior Court recently reversed the Zoning Board’s decision regarding the
proposed CATCH housing development. He explained that the 16 page court order addressed the issue of
“character of the town”. He stated that the court found that the housing development was in keeping with the
character of the town in that area. Barak Greene stated that if this was denied and it went to court the
Superior Court order is an indication of how the court would lean.
Bob Holmes made a motion to approve the application. Karen Coyne stated that there are few conditions to
discuss. Bob Holmes withdrew his motion.
Pier D’Aprile suggested postponing a vote until after the CATCH Housing public hearing because there are a
few cross over issues. Barak Greene questioned what the crossover issues are. Pier D’Aprile stated that
crossover issues relate to the interval district and the Board should address them. John Leavitt stated that the
4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

crossover issues should be addressed now with this application versus using another application. Barak
Greene stated that they are two separate applications.
Pier D’Aprile explained that there should be a moratorium on building in the interval district until the
development issues are flushed out. Karen Coyne noted that some of the issues are related to the emergency
services and walkability in the area. Pier D’Aprile explained the direct connection between the two is safety
as it relates to population. He stated that if Warner reaches 3000 people the town does not have a plan and is
unprepared to deal with that. He stated that the Planning Board has delayed updating the master plan. Pier
D’Aprile noted that the town has not heard back from Eversource who is an abutter to the other application
and there could be an impact on public safety. He stated that there are concerns regarding emergency service
and response as it relates to a new retail space and a large housing development. Pier D’Aprile stated that
the future cost for ambulance service is still unknown. Pier D’Aprile reiterated there needs to be a
moratorium for a year and the Planning Board needs to update the master plan, consider a charrette if needed
and emergency service to the area and research the flood plain. Pier D’Aprile stated that the traffic study did
not include a 34 housing unit development in this area. He spoke about sidewalks. Pier D’Aprile stated that
the message conveyed tonight is that residents do feel like they are being heard. He acknowledged the
Planning Board must follow the law.
Karen Coyne stated that these are two separate applications should be considered as such. Barak Greene
explained that the Planning Board cannot establish a moratorium but they can recommend that one be
established. Karen Coyne agreed that it would need to go to Town Meeting. Barak Greene stated that the
Planning Board has a very narrow window in which to approve or deny. He does not believe there is time.
Pier D’Aprile stated a special town meeting could be considered.
John Leavitt stated that all points mentioned by Pier all valid and have been discussed. He believes the
driving issue is that the residents do not like the Dollar General or the apartment development not necessarily
a retail development. Pier D’Aprile stressed that this is about the growth of the Town particularly in the
interval district and the need to update the master plan. John Leavitt agreed but feels that it is late for the two
applications. Pier D’Aprile stated that the housing development is a 99 year commitment because it is HUD.
He pointed out that on the other side of Route 9 there is another big retail development site that is for sale.
He stressed that as a Planning Board they are not prepared to address these issues. Barak Greene stated that
this is not the first apartment development considered. He stated that the Board has been discussing these
issues each time.
James Gaffney stated that the Planning Board needs to focus on the application before them. Barak Greene
explained that the plan going forward with or without a master plan will always be to maintain the town,
keep it safe, keep the roads together and make sure homes are safe. James Gaffney would like to see
consideration be given to the impact of taxes and tax rates as part of the master plan. Barak Greene explained
that the Board cannot take into consideration the tax value of application.
Karen Coyne introduced a condition for approval that she is contemplating (New England schema). She
would like the applicant to use a modified architectural prototype design that reflects traditional rural New
England commercial architecture. Corporate prototypes featuring large areas of bright colors, standardized
national branding facades, franchise architectural elements or other design features inconsistent with the
rural character shall not be permitted. Exterior building finishes shall utilize muted monochromatic earth
tones including shades of brown gray tan and natural wood. Mr. Quinn explained that they requested that the
yellow in the Dollar General logo be muted. He explained that Dollar General would like to see in the zoning
ordinance where it requires them to change their national sign which is the recognition of their company.
Karen Coyne pointed to the language in the ordinance that refers to the value and charm. Mr. Quinn
reiterated that for Dollar General to comply with that it must be included in the ordinance.

5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

Karen Coyne made a motion seconded by Pier D’Aprile that the applicant to use a modified
architectural prototype design that reflects traditional rural New England commercial architecture.
Commercial prototypes featuring large areas of bright colors, standardized national branding facades,
franchise architectural elements or other design features inconsistent with the rural character shall not
be permitted. All exterior building finishes shall utilize muted monochromatic earth tones including
shades of brown gray tan and natural wood or other colors approved by the Planning Board that
complement the surrounding landscape. Motion Failed
Discussion on the motion: Ben Osgood explained that they followed the architectural by-laws to meet the
regulations. Mr. Quinn stated that they spent a lot of time, money and engineering to meet the Board’s
requests. Mr. Quinn asked if it is the Boards intention put a contingency on the approval that the sign must
conform to the bylaws. Karen Coyne explained that the Planning Board has the authority under article XII,
sign regulations and the site plan review to have a condition that the applicant shall use a modified
architectural porotype design to reflect traditional rural New England commercial architecture for both the
building and the sign on the building. John Leavitt asked other than the sign how does what has been
presented not conform. James Gaffney stated that there is nothing New England about a neon yellow sign.
Karen Coyne agreed. James Gaffney noted that he does not have any issue with the building architecture.
John Leavitt stated that it is an attractive building more so than the liquor store. Karen Coyne stated that past
mistakes cannot be a factor now.
Bob Holmes agrees that the building conforms, it is the sign that does not conform. Mr. Quinn stated that the
McDonald arches are bright yellow. Karen Coyne reiterated that past transgressions cannot demand the
future. Mr. Quinn explained that a significant time and money has been spent on this. Karen Coyne
appreciates what has been done. Mr. Quinn asked for a vote tonight.
Pier D’Aprile agreed to second the motion. Barak Greene stated that this is an application that has been on
the table and the Board should use the standard used in the past. Karen Coyne explained that the Board does
not have to go by the standard used in the past. She clarified that the Board must use the standards in the
zoning ordinance and that does include New England architecture and charm.
Bob Holmes made a motion seconded by John Leavitt to approve the site plan as presented for Comet
LLC, Michael Quinn, Map 35 Lot 4-1. Motion Passed, Karen Coyne and Pier D’Aprile voted in the
negative.
Karen Coyne closed the public hearing for Comet LLC, Michael Quinn Map 35 Lot 4-1.

b)

Public Hearing Continued – Site Plan Review
Applicant: Tom Frutado, CATCH Neighborhood Housing
Owner: Comet LLC – Adam Quinn
Agent: Ben Osgood, Ranger Engineering Group
Address: Route 103 West, near Route 89 exit 9
Map/Lot: Map 35 Lot 4-3
District: C1 Intervale
Description: Site plan review for 34 unit workforce housing

Karen Coyne opened the public hearing for CATCH Neighborhood Housing Comet LLC Map 35 Lot 4-3
Ben Osgood stated that the plans have been updated to reflect the concerns raised by the Planning Board. He
stated that he has spoken to the Town’s engineer from Aries. Ben Osgood noted that he has addressed the
6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

comments from Aries Engineering, the Planning Board and WRLAC. Karen Coyne announced that the
materials Ben Osgood is distributing just recently came in. Mike Smith stated that materials submitted after
the deadline is unacceptable. He stated that there is not enough time for the Board to review the material in
preparation for the meeting. James Gaffney concurred, noting that there is a deadline for reason.
Ben Osgood explained that he has been working with George Holt to get the drainage issues ironed out. He
informed the Planning Board that they added a cross walk across Route 103, added a fire lane in front of the
building, and addressed the fire truck issues. Karen Coyne asked if the new plans have been sent to the fire
department. Ben Osgood stated that he not sent them to the fire department. James Gaffney spoke about a
concern that he has heard from the fire chief. The turning radius was calculated based on the wheel base and
not on the actual dimensions of the truck. He explained that Warner is part of a 27 town mutual aid program.
The city of Concord has a truck (Tower truck) that it is larger than a ladder truck. James Gaffney stated that
the calculation for radius should account for the size of that truck. Ben Osgood will look into that.
Ben Osgood explained that the plan now reflects both the old and the new flood plain. He stated that the
new flood plain is 122.7 and the parking lot is above that. He explained that there is some work in the flood
plain such as the exiting grade in the back is 122. He informed the Board that it is not in the flood way,
noting that it is acceptable to work in the flood plain but not in the flood way. Ben Osgood stated that the
Conservation Commission’s request for fencing will be honored. Ben Osgood explained that the drainage
numbers are acceptable noting that it all has the capacity. He stated that he is working with George to analyze
the items upstream.
Karen Coyne opened the floor to public comment.
Nancy Martin Chair of Conservation Commission read a letter sent to the applicant.

The Warner Conservation Commission (WCC) is concerned about the impact of the CATCH project on the existing
RAW Conservation Easement, the Town aquifer, and the Warner River. In addition to the environmental and
hydrological concerns set forth in the July 12, 2026 letter from Daniel Morrissey, WRLAC, to Karen Coyne, Warner
Planning Board, the WCC has the following additional concerns: The plan presented by Ranger Engineering indicates
there are areas adjacent to the easement that show fencing and sections of a concrete retaining wall. The WCC asks
that the proposed four foot high chain link fence be extended along the entire border to delineate and separate the
CATCH project area from the RAW conservation easement. With your approval, the WCC will provide and post
medallions on the fence to identify the boundary of the conservation easement. A sign posted on the fencing will
explain to residents and the public the importance of conservation easements for the protection of the wetland habitat
and wildlife that live in and around the river. We also ask that you leave as many of the large trees as possible that
grow along the boundary with Dunkins. Saving the large trees will provide natural cooling, screening, wildlife habitat
and an attractive entry into Warner Village. I have also attached the letter from Dan Morrissey at the Warner River
Local Advisory Committee with this request. Respectfully, Nancy Martin, Chair Warner Conservation Commission

Nancy Martin stated that the Conservation Commission would like the applicant to save as many of the large
oak trees as they can.

Janet Garcia stated that she has the right to have an opinion and the previous response that anyone can buy
them out is a stupid comment because not too many private citizens can do that. She stated that she does not
understand how this building can be built with the cost to the residents of Warner. She believes that the
owner of the building will make out like a bandit, getting free money to build this. She stated that the owner
will receive rent and pay virtually no taxes. Janet Garcia spoke about taxes that will be collected for the
students who live in Warner. She stated that it costs $30,000 to educate a student. She stated that the taxes in
Warner are too high. She spoke about the added expenses to the fire, police and water department. Janet
Garcia noted that the rotary will see increase in traffic. She stated that this will impact the town and no one
seems to care. She would support a moratorium and the only winner here is CATCH.

7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

Sara McNeil spoke about other CATCH properties in Concord. She advised the Planning Board that those
properties are nicely maintained. Sara McNeil explained that the residents are vetted closely. She disputed
the $30,000 per student for education. She stated that this is a stepping stone for most residents. She spoke
about the lack of housing throughout the state.
Janet Garcia asserted that it does cost $29,000 to educate a student. She stated that the people who will live
in this development are transient people. She asserted that it is subsidized housing and the residents are
paying for it.
Karen Coyne closed the public comment.
Karen Coyne continued the discussion to the September 28, 2026 meeting. Barak Greene asked if it has been
decided if the applicant plans to build a sidewalk on the southern side of Route 109 to connect to Dunkin
Donuts. Ben Osgood confirmed. Karen Coyne hopes they will have the Aries Engineering report by then.
Ben Osgood requested a continuance until September 28, 2026.
c)

Public Hearing – Changes to the Site Plan Review Regulations resulting from the updates
to the Flood Plain Development Ordinance approved by the Select Board on August 25, 2026.
Karen Coyne opened the public hearing.
There were no concerns or questions from the Planning Board or public.
Barak Greene made a motion seconded by Pier D’Aprile to approve the new site plan regulations
resulting from the updates to the flood plain development ordinance. Motion passed unanimously
Karen Coyne closed the public hearing.
V.

New Business
a) Application submitted for Lot Line Adjustment
Applicant: Michael & Liberte Dragon Map 10 Lot 19-1 and 20
Eric Buck from Terrain Planning informed the Planning Board that he is in for Jack Wedger who is out of
town. He explained that lot 19-1 has 3.8 acres and lot 20 is 1.09 which includes a fenced in in ground pool.
He explained that this would transfer 1.03 acres from lot 19-1 to lot 20. Eric Buck explained that after the
transfer lot 20 will become lot 19-1 with 2.1 acres and lot 19-1 will contain 2.85 acres and become lot 20.
Eric Buck informed the Board that the lot line adjustment plans have been submitted and verified by Jacques
Belanger a licensed surveyor. Karen Coyne explained that the Board cannot change map and lot numbers.
She stated that would be a decision by the Assessing Department. James Gaffney asked if both lots will have
the required minimum buildable area. Eric Buck confirmed.
The Planning Board reviewed the application to confirm it is complete. James Gaffney confirmed that all
fees have been received and abutters have been notified.
Barak Greene made a motion seconded by Pier D’Aprile to accept the application for a lot line
adjustment for Michael and Liberte Dragon on Map 10 Lot 19-1 and 20 as complete with the exception
of the changing of lot number as complete. Motion passed
Karen Coyne noted that a condition of approval will be that lot numbers are not changed. James Gaffney
stated that the buildable area needs to be confirmed. Eric Buck explained that post lot line adjustment one
lot will have 2.85 acres and the other will be 2.12 acres (total area). He stated that there are no wetlands on
lot 19-1. He explained that the house will be located on lot 19-1. James Gaffney suggested that they do not
have enough information to determine if there is enough buildable area. Karen Coyne stated that without the
buildable area this will be continued until the September 28, 2026 meeting.
8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

Eric Buck requested a continuance until September 28, 2026
Karen Coyne continued the public hearing for a lot line adjustment for Michael and Liberte Dragon on Map
10 Lot 19-1 and 20 until September 28, 2026.
b) Application submitted for Minor 2 lot subdivision
Applicant: Robert Leahy Map 9 Lot 13
Karen Coyne opened the public hearing for a Minor 2 lot subdivision Applicant: Robert Leahy Map 9 Lot 13
She confirmed that all fees have been received and abutters have been notified.
Eric Buck explained that the applicant is seeking to subdivide his 4.73 acre lot into two single family
residential lots. He stated that the parcel is in the R2 district. Eric Buck informed the Planning Board that lot
13 will consist of 2.37 acres and the newly created lot 13-1 will consist of 2.36 acres. Karen Coyne asked
for clarification on the state approved water and septic permit. Eric Buck stated that the permit is pending.
Karen Coyne noted the state approved water and septic permit would be a condition of approval. James
Gaffney asked about the location of a driveway. Robert Leahy explained that he has not decided if he will
build a house his intention is subdivide the lot right now and aim for 3-5 years from now to build. Mr. Leahy
clarified that he meant there is state subdivision approval pending, not septic or water.
James Gaffney made a motion and seconded by Pier D’Aprile to accept the application for Robert
Leahy for a minor two lot subdivision Map 9 Lot 13 as substantially complete. Motion passed, John
Leavitt abstained.
Karen Coyne opened the floor for public comment from abutters. No public comment from abutters was
given. Karen Coyne opened the floor for general public comment. Nancy Martin inquired about the Woods
Trail as depicted on the map. She asked if there is a right of way. James Gaffney stated there is nothing in the
deed. Robert Leahy explained that there is not an easement or right of way.
Ed Mical stated that the agenda does not indicate that this is a public hearing, he asked if it noticed as a
public hearing. Karen Coyne confirmed that it was noticed as a public hearing and it was an omission on the
agenda. She stated that the next item of business is also a public hearing.
Barak Greene questioned the line on the plan that is identified as 647B and 559C. He asked if that should be
better identified. Eric Buck stated that it refers to the soils.
James Gaffney made motion seconded by Pier D’Aprile to approve the Robert Leahy minor two lot
subdivision Map 9 Lot 13. Motion passed
c) Application submitted for Site Plan Review
Applicant Ron King, Natural Playgrounds Shop Priorities Map 3 Lot 40
Karen Coyne opened the public hearing for Ron King Natural Playgrounds Shop Priorities Map 3 Lot 40.
She confirmed proper noticing, all fees have been received and abutters were notified.
Doug Brodeur and Jasper Anderson from Meridian Land Services and Ron King and Ethan King owners of
Natural Playgrounds presented a site plan review application. Doug Brodeur explained that the property is
located on Warner Road on the town line with Hopkinton. Doug Brodeur stated that a surface pond and
wetlands are depicted on the plans. Doug Brodeur explained that they are proposing to construct a 125x250
(18,750 sq. ft.) warehouse/manufacturing facility. Doug Brodeur pointed out the location of the driveway
and parking area. He stated that is very little if any customers at the site because most sales are generated
online. He explained that there are eleven employees. Doug Brodeur explained that they will be revising the
plan to eliminate five parking spaces along the side.
9

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

Karen Coyne explained that the Board needs to determine if the application is complete. Barak Greene stated
that he is unable to locate the magnetic north. Doug Brodeur explained that they do not generally show
magnetic north on their plans since GPS is now available but they will add it if necessary. Karen Coyne
stated that it could be a condition of approval. James Gaffney stated that the deed is not included. The Board
agreed to accept the application and as a condition of approval the deed needs to be provided.
Barak Greene made a motion seconded by James Gaffney to accept the application for site plan review
for Ron King Natural Playgrounds Shop Priorities Map 3 Lot 40 as mostly complete. Motion passed.
Karen Coyne opened the floor for public comment from abutters, no abutters offered public comment. She
opened the floor to general public comment.
Ed Mical stated that the agenda does not indicate that this is a public hearing. James Gaffney acknowledged
the error on the agenda and assured him that the statutory requirements for noticing were met.
James Gaffney asked about the notation existing well to be removed. Doug Brodeur explained that existing
well will be removed and the plan does illustrate the location of the new well. Doug Brodeur explained the
storm water pond that will serve as an infiltration pond. He stated that they dug six test pits to confirm the
seasonal high water table as well as filtration rates.
Barak Greene made a motion to ask Aries to review the site plan for compliance. No second received.
Pier D’Aprile questioned the type of chemicals that will be on the site. Mr. King explained that they use one
product to treat for UV protection. Pier D’Aprile asked about the burning of scrap materials. Mr. King
assured the Board that they will not be burning scrap material. James Gaffney asked for clarification on the
hours of operation and the schedule time frame of delivery trucks. Mr. King stated that hours of operation
and deliveries is 9:00-5:00 Monday through Friday.
David Frye (online) asked for additional clarification on the hours of operation. He asked if there are any
plans of a second and third shift. Mr. King stated that there is no production beyond the hours of 9:00-5:00.
James Gaffney suggested a vote on the regional impact and noise levels. He asked Mr. King for an estimate
of noise level inside and outside at street level. Mr. King estimated the inside to be between 60 and 70
decibels and at street level to be 20 decibels. Barak Greene explained that he is curious about the noise level
because the Board did receive an email regarding the HVAC on this building.
James Gaffney made a motion Barak Greene that the Planning Board determined that this is not a
development of regional impact. Motion passed.
Karen Coyne recapped the conditions of approval, magnetic north, deed to be provided, septic and well
approvals. Barak Greene would like the Board to request an NOI for SWIP from sites that are disturbing
more than one acre. Mr. King stated that there are notes covering that on the control plan. Barak Greene
asked if an environmental study or if he reached out to the state regarding historical properties. Mr. King
explained that has not been done yet. Barak Greene stated that the NOI ties everything together eliminating
the need for separate studies.
James Gaffney made a motion seconded by Pier D’Aprile to continue the public hearing Ron King
Natural Playgrounds Shop Priorities Map 3 Lot 40 to the September 28, 2026 work session with the
conditions of approval being magnetic north and the deed to be provided. Motion passed.
10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

IV.
Minutes – August 3, 2026 and August 17, 2026
August 3, 2026
James Gaffney made a motion seconded by Pier D’Aprile to approve the August 3, 2026 Planning
Board meeting minutes as amended. Motion passed, Mike Smith Abstained.
August 17, 2026
Barak Greene made a motion seconded by Bob Holmes to approve the August 17, 2026 Planning
Board meeting minutes as amended. Motion passed, Mike Smith Abstained
VI.
Communications
Barak Greene made a motion to write a letter to the Select Board outlining that the Planning Board would
like them to find a solution for the website issues. Motion withdrawn
Barak Greene suggested an exploratory committee to identify specifically what the website issues are and
how to rectify the issues. Karen Coyne suggested discussing it during a meeting. Peg Bastien will mention it
during her monthly meeting with the Select Board.
X.
Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 9:55 PM
Respectfully Submitted by Tracy Doherty

11