The March 11 meeting of the Planning Board drew a packed room and hours of emotional testimony as residents confronted the Board and representatives from Prose Energy over a proposed organic waste processing and biogas facility on Litchfield Road. The project, planned for the Gateway Business District, has stirred intense concern among nearby homeowners who fear the facility will bring odor, noise, and environmental impacts to their neighborhood.
Administrative Services Director Kirsten Hildonen opened the discussion by noting that the town could impose “performance standards” to regulate the facility’s operations. But those assurances did little to calm residents who said they had researched similar facilities across the country and found repeated examples of odor problems, equipment failures, and community complaints.
Representing Prose Energy, Sean O’Neill attempted to reassure the public by pointing to the company’s existing operations. “We’re in South Burlington, VT, that’s much more urban than we’re going to have here, and we’ve never had any smell complaints,” he said. O’Neill even offered to arrange tours of the Vermont site for skeptical residents.
But many in attendance were unmoved. Resident Mike Siracuse said he was willing to believe the company’s intentions but not its guarantees. “While I’m willing to accept, and I’m sure everybody else is, that the plant may, when operating at 100%, have no problems with any odor… obviously, we are human beings and we are not perfect, nor are engineers,” he said. Siracuse listed examples of maintenance failures, software glitches, and weather events that have caused odor issues at other anaerobic digesters, including one in Rhode Island that drew heavy scrutiny from regulators.
Resident Sean Cregg added that the Rhode Island case was not an isolated incident, citing similar problems in Wisconsin and Tennessee. O’Neill pushed back, saying those facilities were operated by other companies and should not be used to judge Prose Energy. “You can’t judge our business by other people’s businesses,” he said.
The tension rose when resident John Sossei suggested requiring the developer to “put up a bond” that would compensate nearby homeowners if odor problems emerged. Planning Board Chair Jake Butler rejected the idea outright, saying such a requirement was beyond the Board’s authority and would fall under code enforcement, not site plan review. Sossei urged the Board to consider the lived experience of residents. “If you believe them, that we’re not going to suffer, fine,” he said. “But I want you to use your minds, your hearts, and your common sense… If you think this is necessary for our tax base, come live in our homes.”
As the meeting continued, it became clear that the central conflict was not just about odor, but about the limits of the Planning Board’s legal authority. Butler repeatedly reminded the audience that the Board is a quasi-judicial body bound to evaluate applications based on zoning and site plan regulations, not public opinion. “We work on sites and subdivisions, not feelings,” he said. “We have to sit here and look at: has the application adhered to what the site plan rules and regulations are?”
That explanation did not sit well with several residents, who argued that public input should carry more weight. “Somewhere in the process there should be a benefit for the town,” said resident Patricia Robbins, who questioned why abutters are notified if their concerns cannot influence the outcome.
Butler responded that abutter notification is required by law, and that the Board does consider public testimony when it relates to regulatory criteria. Still, he emphasized that personal preference cannot be the basis for a decision. “If I were to talk about feelings and how something benefits the Town of Londonderry, I can think of plenty of things that come to this Board like very high income housing,” he said. “I can’t make a decision based on the fact that I don’t like it.”
Alternate Board member Jason Knights echoed that sentiment, warning that subjective criteria, such as whether a project “benefits the town”, would not hold up in court. Board member Tony DeFrancesco added that the Board’s role is to determine whether a proposal complies with the law, not to decide whether it is popular. “We’re put in to protect the citizens of Londonderry,” he said, “and it’s not a valid position to have an opinion beyond whether a proposal complies with what the law requires.”
Siracuse, still frustrated, questioned the purpose of public testimony if the Board could not act on residents’ concerns. “Why do we get notified as an abutter? What is the point?” he asked. “It says ‘right to testify,’ but it doesn’t say about a regulation or something else. Obviously, our personal opinions are going to be what we’re testifying about.”
Despite the heated exchanges, the Board continued its review and ultimately added several conditions related to signage and construction methods. After deliberation, the Planning Board voted to approve the application, a decision that left many residents disappointed and vowing to continue monitoring the project as it moves forward.