Claremont Planning Board Meeting

Date: October 26, 2026

The Claremont Planning Board met on Monday, October 26, 2026, to conduct a public hearing on a minor subdivision application for 174 Broad Street, discuss adding a definition for data centers to the zoning ordinance, and deliberate on road impact fees. The hearing for the subdivision was continued to a later date due to outstanding legal and documentation issues.

Consent Calendar

• The Board unanimously approved the minutes from the September 14, 2026 meeting as presented.

Discussion Items

Public Hearing: 174 Broad Street Minor Subdivision (PL 2026 00012)

Applicant Terry Predzmeski presented a proposal to subdivide a roughly 0.45-acre lot at the corner of Broad Street and Bailey Avenue into two parcels. Parcel A (17,370 square feet) would retain the existing multi-unit building. Parcel B (6,215 square feet) is intended for a potential single dwelling unit.

Key Issues and Positions:

• Applicant (Terry Predzmeski): Expressed the intent to subdivide the lot and potentially sell Parcel B. He stated his understanding, based on consultations with a former city planner (Austin), that the previously granted variance for a fifth unit on the larger lot would apply across the subdivided lots (four units in the main building, one on the new lot). He was not prepared to discuss the implications of a 79E tax agreement during the meeting without first consulting legal counsel, stating he was unaware of a compliance deadline.
• Board Concerns (Kalaski, Matto, Bergeron): The Board raised significant concerns that the subdivision would invalidate the original variance, arguing that variances are tied to the specific conditions of the original lot. The Board also noted that the previous site plan approval would be negated by the new lot lines and that the current application lacked a required parking plan.
• Deborah Matto: Proposed a path forward by approving the subdivision with explicit conditions that the prior site plan, variance, and 79E agreement are all negated, and by designating the main building as a three-unit property to avoid requiring a new site plan immediately. The applicant did not accept these conditions without first seeking legal advice on the 79E issue.
• 79E Tax Agreement Conflict: During the hearing, the Board noted the applicant’s 79E agreement required the completion of five units by March 31, 2026, but only three units were built. The applicant stated he had no prior notice of this compliance issue and needed to seek legal representation.

Outcome: The Board voted unanimously to continue the public hearing to the November 9, 2026 meeting to allow the applicant to gather information on the 79E covenant and for the Board to collect necessary documents (prior site plan, variance details, 79E covenant).

Data Center Definition

A Board member initiated a discussion on codifying a definition for “data center” in the zoning ordinance. The member argued that since the city’s zoning code prohibits uses not explicitly permitted, a precise definition provides legal protection against future ambiguous applications. The Board agreed to review reference materials and bring a recommended simple definition to the next meeting for further discussion and eventual recommendation to the City Council.

RSA Road Impact Fees

A Board member questioned whether the city has formally adopted the statutory language for charging road impact fees on large developments under the RSA. City Planner Matthew Bleacher stated he would research the city’s current authority regarding these fees and consult with the Department of Public Works to provide an accurate answer.

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned following a unanimous vote.