Residents press board on proposed Kings Highway cell tower; board orders third‑party engineer review

The New Durham Environmental Planning Board on Sept. 1 continued its review of PB2026‑007, a site plan/inspection permit for a proposed wireless telecommunications facility at 320 Kings Highway submitted by GMR/Green Mountain Holdings. After several hours of questioning about coverage modeling, setbacks and stormwater, the board voted to hire a town‑contracted, licensed New Hampshire engineer—at the applicant’s expense—to measure the site’s absolute impervious coverage and assess drainage adequacy.

Board members and dozens of residents who spoke during public comment raised concerns that recent changes on the parcel could push impervious cover above the town’s 20% threshold and that additional runoff from a new parking/compound could harm nearby Shaw’s Pond. Chair Bob Craycraft said the board needs a verified baseline: “What basically, you know what the absolute impervious coverage of the site is because that’s that’s our our town ordinance threshold.” The applicant’s engineer told the board the planned development would result in a total impervious coverage of 17.6% as submitted; residents disputed that figure and asked for an independent measurement.

The hearing also focused on RF coverage modeling. An outside consultant explained the data sources used to make the coverage maps, including LIDAR ("light detection and ranging") and terrain/vegetation inputs used to estimate path loss and canopy effects. Residents questioned the market evidence submitted by the applicant; an appraiser retained by the applicant defended his methodology, saying sales‑to‑list ratios and closed sales in comparable markets showed "no measurable impact" in his sample, while residents argued local conditions may differ.

After discussion, Vice Chair Anne Ross Redmond moved that the town hire a licensed New Hampshire engineer to (1) compute the site’s absolute impervious surface as‑built and (2) evaluate whether existing stormwater measures and the proposed work will convey the additional runoff. The motion specified the applicant would pay the cost; it was seconded and passed by voice vote. The board then continued PB2026‑007 to Sept. 15 at 7 p.m. so the engineering review can be scheduled and its timing coordinated with any agreed extension for the board’s decision.