I have started to write short summaries of the Planning Board meetings, with links to the videos that I have been collecting for the last 10 years…

You can see the summaries on the Lyme List

Although I am still hopeful that the Lyme Planning Board will review the results of the Lyme Housing Survey, six months have gone by and the Board doesn't seem inclined to learn what the residents had to say.

When I asked about the status of the Housing Survey at the last meeting, the Planning Board affirmed their decision not to review it. I then read this statement:

To the members of the Lyme Planning Board,

I am profoundly disappointed by the behavior of this Board.

At the December 11, 2025 meeting, I felt demeaned and insulted by the Board’s statements that publicly expressing my own thoughts about the Housing Survey was improper or “tainted” the survey results in some way. Any implications that I had handled the data improperly were defamatory.

I have spoken to several other residents of Lyme who were present or watched the video. They uniformly expressed that they were appalled by the Board’s behavior.

Let me talk about the time course: In Fall 2025, the Board designed a survey to gauge the Town’s opinions about housing options. [Another member] and I volunteered to create paper and electronic versions of the questions.

The Board carefully checked both formats to be sure they were exactly as desired, and released the survey in November 2025. In early November, I posted my thoughts to my blog (link below).

On December 2, 2025, we sent a summary of the responses to the Planning Board Chair and Administrator prior to the December 4 meeting that was called specifically to review the results of the survey.

Instead, that meeting was abruptly cancelled – there was no Board consultation or vote. In fact, the Board immediately reached out to Town Counsel – again without any vote.

The next week was the December 11 meeting where the insulting and demeaning behavior occurred. As a topper, the Board voted not to review the results of the Housing Survey, ignoring the careful opinions expressed by 342 residents of Lyme.

The plain and unmistakable appearance is that the Board “did not like” those opinions, and decided to scapegoat me.

If this is the way this Board wishes to treat its volunteer members, then Mr. Chair, I no longer wish to be associated with this board, and hereby resign.

Rich Brown

• My blog post with my answers for the Housing Survey:  https://richb-lyme.com/how-im-answering/
• Video of the December 11, 2025 Planning Board meeting:  https://youtu.be/Ba2vjdqM1DU?t=4968
• Housing Survey Results – published on the Lyme Gazette:  https://lymegazette.com/LymeHousingSurvey2025/

Update: Included the timing of my blog post.

Feel free to share this post on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, or email. Any opinions expressed here are solely my own, and not those of any public body, such as the Budget Committee or Trustees of the Trust Funds where I volunteer. I would be interested to hear your thoughts – you can reach me at richb.lyme@gmail.com.

Did you ever notice that some land on both sides of the Connecticut River seems to have terraces that are the same height? Do you wonder why you can look straight out from the car dealerships on Sykes Avenue in White River Junction and see planes land at the airport in Lebanon? Is this just a coincidence? I recently got an inkling of what was going on: Blame it on Lake Hitchcock.

16,000 years ago, much of New England was under a one-mile thick glacier. As it melted (from about 16,000 to 12,000 years ago), the melt water backed up in what is now the Connecticut River valley to form Lake Hitchcock. Here’s a slick interactive map. See if you can find the land that would become Lyme.

I found this and more on the Curioustorian site. It has an excellent description of Lake Hitchcock and terrific videos showing lots of details.

And to bring it home to Lyme, we uncovered our own bit of geology here at Loch Lyme Lodge. When digging a couple years ago between Lakeside and Lakefield cabins for the septic system, we got into a beautiful layer of pure clay. That clay is the result of silt and sand deposited by streams flowing into Lake Hitchcock all those years ago. 

Here are two photos: Photo #1 shows brown earth overlying the clay; Photo 2 zooms in to show the horizontal layers – “varves”. These are the annual layers of fine silt deposited in the winter, separated by sand from the summer.

Photo #1 – Six feet of brown earth atop a deep layer of clay

Photo #2 – A closeup of the clay, showing varves (layers about 3" thick)

An abridged version of this article appeared in the Loch Lyme Lodge Post Ponderings newsletter.

There is still time to answer the original Lyme Housing Survey. You can read my previous post to see how I answered the questions.

But I wish the survey had included other questions. Here's my list. The first two questions come from the Lyme Community Development Committee’s survey from March 2019. We could compare 2025 responses to the ones received in 2019. (You can see those responses at https://richb-hanover.github.io/LCDC/) Other questions were adapted from a survey used by Sandwich, NH to make changes to their ordinance.

1. What do you like about Lyme as it is today?
2. What would you like to change about Lyme going forward?
3. Dimensional Controls: Lyme’s ordinance defines many “dimensional controls” such as minimum lot size, maximum lot coverage, maximum footprint, road frontage, and others. In practice, these combine to make it impossible to build modestly-priced homes.

   If it helped improve housing options, would you agree with relaxing the requirements for the following?

   • Relax minimum lot size (Strongly agree to Strongly disagree/Don't know)
   • Relax road frontage (Strongly agree to Strongly disagree/Don't know)
   • Relax lot coverage (Strongly agree to Strongly disagree/Don't know)
   • Relax maximum footprint (Strongly agree to Strongly disagree/Don't know)
4. Increased Density: The Planning Board held a number of public forums about housing a year ago. All the speakers emphasized that “increased density” – building multiple homes/units on a single lot – was critical to making homes more affordable.

   If it helped improve housing options, would you agree with increasing the number of units permitted as new construction on a lot in the following districts? 

   • Lyme Common (Strongly agree to Strongly disagree/Don't know)
   • Lyme Center (Strongly agree to Strongly disagree/Don't know)
   • Lyme Commercial (Strongly agree to Strongly disagree/Don't know)
   • Rural (Strongly agree to Strongly disagree/Don't know)
   • East Lyme (Strongly agree to Strongly disagree/Don't know)
   • Holts Ledge (Strongly agree to Strongly disagree/Don't know)
   • Mountain and Forest (Strongly agree to Strongly disagree/Don't know)
5. Conservation Overlays: In Lyme, a five-acre parcel frequently only yields a one-acre “buildable parcel” because the conservation overlays (steep slopes, agricultural soils, wetlands, and flood-prone areas) take away from the usable area. Because the size of a house is related to the decreased area, no building footprint could be larger than of 871 square feet (about 29’ x 29’) on typical five-acre parcel.

   If it helped improve housing options, would you agree with relaxing the rules for these overlays in the ordinance:

   • Relax Wetland buffers (Strongly agree to Strongly disagree/Don't know)
   • Relax Agricultural Soils (Strongly agree to Strongly disagree/Don't know)
   • Relax Steep Slopes (Strongly agree to Strongly disagree/Don't know)
6. Easier to get relief: If a proposal exceeds the dimensional controls or conservation overlays, it cannot be built. If it helped improve housing options, would you agree to giving a modest amount of relief with a special exception or conditional use permit?
   • Relief should be allowed (Strongly agree to Strongly disagree/Don't know)
7. Please feel free to explain any of your answers

[I would be interested to hear your thoughts – reach me at richb.lyme@gmail.com. Feel free to share this post via email or on Facebook, LinkedIn, or X-Twitter. Any opinions expressed here are solely my own, and not those of any public body, such as the Lyme Planning Board, Budget Committee, or Trustees of the Trust Funds where I volunteer.]

The Lyme Housing Survey seems written to discourage new development. Referring to the 2006 survey—now almost twenty years old—keeps us looking backward instead of forward. Some questions make options sound negative, as if new housing choices would be bad for Lyme. And many answers won’t even help the Planning Board decide what to change in the ordinance.

I did ask the Planning Board (where I am an alternate member) to consider other questions. (See my letter below.) Some of my requests made it into the survey. Here’s how I’m answering, and why:

Question 1. How do you feel about this rate of growth?
Answer 1: I chose a five-fold increase.
Why: The question makes normal growth sound extreme. There is a housing crisis in the Upper Valley. Businesses in Lyme have closed or cut hours because workers can’t find housing nearby. More housing would help our town.

Question 2: Should multi-unit dwellings be allowed as new construction?
Answer 2: Yes—to duplexes and to buildings with 3–6 or 7–15 units.
Why: Lyme is in flagrant violation of the NH workforce housing law (RSA 674:58). The Lyme Ordinance bans all new multi-unit buildings, even though state law requires every town to allow reasonable and realistic opportunities for workforce and multi-family housing. (See: https://www.nhhfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/NH_Workforce_Housing_Law_Summary.pdf)

Question 3: Do you think that Lyme needs more attainable and/or affordable housing?
Answer 3: Yes to both.
Why: Lyme and the Upper Valley lack affordable homes for workers who provide essential services. Businesses, builders, and tradespeople all struggle because housing nearby costs too much.

Question 4: Thoughts about more attainable/affordable housing
Answer 4: The ordinance only makes it practical to build large single-family homes. It should allow smaller, denser options.

Question 5: Rank the locations where it would be appropriate to locate new housing
Answer 5: (8 is most appropriate; 1 is least appropriate)

• 8 Lyme Common
• 8 Lyme Center
• 8 Lyme Commercial
• 8 Rural
• 1 East Lyme
• 1 Holts Ledge
• 1 Mountain and Forest
• 1 Nowhere
• (no answer) Wherever single-family homes are allowed
• Other: see Question 6

Why: Lyme should concentrate housing closer to its center.

Question 6: If you chose Other, please describe those good locations for housing
Answer 6: Along state highways such as Route 10, East Thetford Road, and Dorchester Road.
Why: Building near existing roads and developed areas reduces road-maintenance costs. It also limits sprawl – development that's far from central areas. Lyme already has a provision for treating properties on those roads specially – let's use it.

Question 7: What forms of housing should be located in the Commercial District?
Answer 7: All types
Why: Mixing housing with retail and offices makes for walkable neighborhoods and supports local business.

Question 8: Where would you consider an appropriate location for multi-unit housing in Lyme?
Answer 8: Same as Question 6.
Why: As the Planning Board learned in their forums last fall, multi-dwelling units make housing more affordable. Lyme should focus its development in areas that provide good access to roads and municipal services.

Question 9: Would you support “in-fill” in the Lyme Common district by allowing up to four dwelling units on a lot?
Answer 9: Yes.
Why: In-fill development is wonderful. But it's expensive to build, and it requires that lovely properties find a way to "squeeze in" another unit. That said, a four-plex (four units in a building) would hardly be noticeable in town (there are already several), and is a good step toward the missing middle type of housing.

Question 10: … do you feel the capacity of the Lyme school and the limited potential for expansion at the current site should be considered a limiting factor for housing development?
Answer 10: No.
Why: See Q11.

Question 11: Please feel free to explain your answer:
Answer 11: I said No because:

• Demographics show that school age population is decreasing nationwide. Young families are having fewer kids. In Lyme, the large spike in student population was 10 years ago: it has been declining by about one student per year ever since. By 2040, this trend could offset the growth in new housing.
• Smaller housing units add less to school enrollment than single-family homes. Yet those smaller homes increase the tax base, and improve town finances. See the NHHFA study.

Question 12: Which of the following housing initiatives are important to you?
Answer 12: I chose these:

• Creating housing at a mix of prices
• Encouraging more housing types across town
• Supporting mixed-use buildings with shops below and homes above

Why: The Master Plan already recommends diverse housing (see page 1-10). The other two choices are motivated by the desire to relax the constraints of the Ordinance. Most of the rest of those options will happen on their own if there is a wider diversity of housing options.

Questions 13 to 19: A little information about you.
Answer: You're on your own…

Question 20: Are there any other thoughts you wish to share with us?
Answer 20: Some of these questions are backward-looking. Some seem to imply that any development would be bad for Lyme. Finally, I wish the survey had asked questions about what the residents think about relaxing some of the strict constraints if helped improve housing options.

Update: I did post some questions I wished were asked

Back in August 2025, I sent this note to the Planning Board during the discussion about questions for the Housing Survey:

To the members of the Lyme Planning Board,

I have several reservations about the draft questions in the Housing Attitude Survey circulated in June 2025. In light of our professed goal of modifying the Master Plan to provide updated guidance for Housing, I think we should re-examine some of these questions. My concerns are:

• Many of the questions feel to me as if they are backward-looking. Citing the existing Master Plan or the 2006 Community Attitude Survey tilts the table toward "what was/what has been". Those references might feel as if we are "hinting at" our values instead of providing an opportunity for our neighbors to give us their thoughts today.
• Some of the other questions are interesting, but would not provide us with any guidance about how change the language of the Ordinance. (After all, that's the only thing we have control over.) For example, if we learned that 80% of the town was in favor of increasing the rate of home building by 5X, what specific language in the ordinance would we change?
• Other questions asked neighbors to provide very specific judgements (say, the percentages of development in various existing districts) that are difficult to make
• I followed with a request to base the questions on a professionally prepared survey from Sandwich, NH which was able to update their ordinance for more housing choices in a 12-month period.

[Feel free to share this post on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, or email. Any opinions expressed here are solely my own, and not those of any public body, such as the Lyme Planning Board, Budget Committee, or Trustees of the Trust Funds where I volunteer. I would be interested to hear your thoughts – you can reach me at richb.lyme@gmail.com.]

The Lyme School Budget will be presented at a Public Hearing of the Budget Committee on Wednesday, 5 February 2025 in the Town Offices at 7pm.

Click in the document below and use the page up/down at the lower left. Or download the document from https://richb-lyme.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Lyme-School-FY26-Budget-1-14-25.pdf

The Lyme Town Budget will be presented at a Public Hearing of the Budget Committee on Wednesday, 5 February 2025 in the Town Offices at 7pm.

Click in the document below and use the page up/down at the lower left. Or download the document from https://richb-lyme.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Lyme-Municipal-Budget-1-2025-Final-5.5.pdf

At the Budget Committee meeting scheduled for Wednesday, 8 January 2025, the Lyme School Board will present their next version of the school budget for the 2025-2026 school year.

I plan to ask the following questions at that meeting:

• Two years ago, the School Board Finance Committee made a presentation to this board that asserted, in part, “…the future trajectory of growth in the school budget will not be sustainable.” (page 19). What measures is the school using to achieve sustainability in the budget? 
• Would you explain the role of the Academic Director, and how it has changed from the time it was instituted when Mr. Valance became both principal and superintendent?
• Given that the school district consumes almost 75% of the property tax dollars raised from Lyme residents, what measures is the School Board taking to ensure that families of its students who are most financially-stressed can afford to remain in Lyme?

Feel free to share this post on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, or email. Any opinions expressed here are solely my own, and not those of any public body, such as the Lyme Planning Board, Budget Committee, or Trustees of the Trust Funds where I volunteer. I would be interested to hear your thoughts – you can reach me at richb.lyme@gmail.com.

We sent the following letter to the Lyme Planning Board regarding the petitioned zoning amendment regarding propane tanks to be considered at Town Meeting in March 2025.

The hearing will be on Thursday, 12 January 2025 at 7:00pm in Town Offices. If you have comments but cannot attend the meeting, you can mail them to zoning@lymenh.gov

Rich & Lin Brown
————-

To the Planning Board,

This Thursday, 12 Jan 2025, the Board will hold a public hearing regarding a petitioned warrant article about buried propane tanks. As the primary mover of this amendment, I come to this board as a private citizen to give you background on the article.

The Lyme Ordinance prohibits “underground fuel tanks” in the Shoreland Conservation District extending 200 feet from major water bodies (for example, Post Pond) and 100 feet from other surface waters.

This seems overbroad because it includes buried “oil” and “gas” tanks (which should be regulated because they can pollute ground water), and propane/natural gas tanks which cannot. There is no evidence that buried propane tanks can cause pollution of a water body: any leaks would simply dissipate into the atmosphere and would never be carried into the water. 

I took the opportunity to speak with David Roby, to see if there was a consideration of propane tanks when the ordinance was written. He was clear that they never considered propane tanks, and was supportive of this amendment.

In addition, there are no national codes or New Hampshire standards that regulate the placement of propane tanks near water bodies. This was confirmed by our licensed propane installer who specifically asked his instructor about national or state codes at a license renewal training.

Moreover, the NH RSA’s distinguish “oil tanks” from other natural gas/propane fuel tanks. In the section https://gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/X/146-A/146-A-2.htm, RSA 146-A:2 states: 

III. “Oil” means petroleum products and their by-products of any kind, and in any form including, but not limited to, petroleum, fuel, sludge, crude, oil refuse or oil mixed with wastes and all other liquid hydrocarbons regardless of specific gravity and which are used as motor fuel, lubricating oil, or any oil used for heating or processing. 

The term “oil” shall not include natural gas, liquified petroleum gas or synthetic natural gas regardless of derivation or source;

Furthermore the NH DES page (https://www.des.nh.gov/business-and-community/fuel-storage-tanks) also makes this distinction (see attached PDF)

Mr. Robbins has agreed that there is no risk of water contamination, and that it might make sense to change the ordinance. However was not within his power to grant an exception to the rule. A request to the ZBA for a variance also failed because of the strict prohibition on “underground fuel tanks”.

This petition (see attached PDF) is intended to remove that restriction on underground propane and natural gas tanks. It changes the language from “No underground fuel storage tanks are permitted” to the following:

Article ###: To change section 4.65-C-2 of the Lyme Zoning Ordinance to say “No underground oil storage tanks (as defined in NH RSA 146-A:2, III) are permitted. Propane and natural gas tanks are excluded from this provision.”

We should also note that our personal connection with this issue is that we do have an underground propane tank at our home on Orford Road, within the Shoreland Conservation District. (In fact, most of our home, built in 1804, is within the Shoreland Conservation District.) I realize I should have obtained a zoning permit prior to the work where this concern might have been discovered, but would still be making a request to amend the ordinance because a buried tank in that location remains the best location both for placement near the generator, as well as ease of refilling.

We look forward to the discussion on Thursday. Thank you.

Rich & Lin Brown
84 Orford Road

Feel free to share this post on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, or email. Any opinions expressed here are solely my own, and not those of any public body, such as the Lyme Planning Board, Budget Committee, or Trustees of the Trust Funds where I volunteer. I would be interested to hear your thoughts – you can reach me at richb.lyme@gmail.com.

At the 11 December 2024 Budget Committee meeting, the School Board presented their first draft of their budget for the July 2025-June 2026 school year.

The budget shows the School plans to spend $9,536,000 in 2025-2026, a 4.79% increase from the 2024-2025 year.

Click in the document below and use the page up/down at the lower left. Or download the document from https://richb-lyme.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Lyme-School-Budget-First-draft-11Dec2024.pdf

Feel free to share this post on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, or email. Any opinions expressed here are solely my own, and not those of any public body, such as the Lyme Planning Board, Budget Committee, or Trustees of the Trust Funds where I volunteer. I would be interested to hear your thoughts – you can reach me at richb.lyme@gmail.com.