June 6, 2013 Minutes

These minutes were posted by the Planning.

Pittsfield Planning Board
Town Hall, 85 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting

DATE: Thursday, June 6, 2013

AGENDA ITEM 1: Call to Order

Chair Clayton Wood called the meeting to order at 7:40 P.M.

Tonight’s regular meeting of the planning board started much later than 7:00 P.M. as scheduled and noticed because the board had a nonpublic “consultation with legal counsel” (RSA 91-A:2, I, (b)) that started at 6:00 P.M. and that ran longer than Chair Wood expected. All board members present at tonight’s meeting except Jim Pritchard attended the nonpublic “consultation with legal counsel.” Jim Pritchard was present in the town hall at 6:00 P.M. but abstained from the nonpublic “consultation with legal counsel.”

AGENDA ITEM 2: Roll Call

Planning board members present:
Clayton Wood (CW), planning board member and chair;
Pat Heffernan (PH), planning board member and vice-chair;
Jim Pritchard (JP), planning board member and secretary;
Bill Miskoe (BM), planning board member;
Eric Nilsson (EN), selectmen’s ex officio planning board member; and
Peter Dow (PD), alternate planning board member.

Planning board members absent:
Larry Konopka (LK), selectmen’s ex officio alternate planning board member.

Members of the public appearing before the planning board:
Carol Lambert, 83 Governor’s Road, Pittsfield, NH.

“Members of the public appearing before the planning board” includes only members of the public who spoke to the board. It does not include members of the public who were present but who did not speak to the board.

AGENDA ITEM 3: Agenda Review

CW had no changes to make to the agenda.

AGENDA ITEM 4: Approval of Minutes of the May 2, 2013 Meeting

EN moved to approve the minutes of May 2, 2013, as written in draft.

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion:

EN said that the draft minutes were very good. No other board member saw any problems in the draft minutes.

Vote to approve the minutes of May 2, 2013, as written in draft: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, EN, PH, BM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

AGENDA ITEM 5: Review/Discussion on the Next Step for the Final Plat Approval for the Stagecoach Condominium Cluster Subdivision (Map R44, Lot 1)

CW said that, in light of the board’s discussion with legal counsel, the board might want to defer discussion of the board’s three recent letters to AHG. The letters are of April 22, 2013, and May 6, 2013, and address the board’s requirements in relation to
(1) moving the stone wall bounding Thompson Road at the edge of Kathy Bleckmann’s field,
(2) “as amended from time to time” in the conservation restriction,
(3) the locations and dimensions of the unit footprints, and
(4) bonding.

BM agreed.

JP, who had abstained from the nonpublic “consultation with legal counsel,” asked whether the board would explain to the public why the board was postponing the discussion of the three letters.

CW said, “from our discussion with the attorney, there is conversation with AHG, so we want to see where that goes before we act on the discussion I thought we were going to be having.”

JP asked for clarification that the town attorney and AHG have already talked.

CW said that the board had asked the town attorney to have a discussion with AHG in the future.

AGENDA ITEM 6: Review and Comment to BOS Regarding the Building on a Class VI Road per RSA 674:41, I(c)(1) for the Stagecoach Condominium Cluster Subdivision (Map R44, Lot 1)

JP recused himself because his mother is an abutter to the Stagecoach Station project.

PD sat in JP’s place.

CW had prepared a list of matters that he thought that the board of selectmen should consider in making its decision under RSA 674:41, I, (c), (1). CW distributed his list to the planning board and reviewed it in detail. CW said that he had derived his list from the class VI highway-development policies of Pembroke (for the planning board’s recommendation) and New Durham (for the board of selectmen’s hearing). CW’s list is as follows verbatim:

The Planning Board has 4 issues that must be resolved before proceeding with a Compliance Hearing:
1. The permanent conservation restrictions do not comply with the Subdivision Regulations.
2. AHG will not comply with completion bonding as required by the Subdivision Regulations.
3. AHG plans to use abutter property as part of the Thompson road improvements.
4. Actual locations and dimensions of building footprints are not indicated on the plat.
All 4 issues have been clearly explained and submitted to AHG via certified letter (copies attached). AHG has responded to items 1 and 4 but not items 2 and 3.

As of this date these items have not been resolved. The Board of Selectmen must consider Item 3 before making its decision.

Regarding RSA 674:41, the Town of Pittsfield does not have a Class VI policy regarding building on Class VI roads. The Planning Board is concerned that a review and comment be made without a policy. A policy is the only way to ensure that a consistent decision making process is followed when a review and comment request is made by the Board of Selectmen. The Planning Board has reviewed many examples of building on Class VI road policies adopted by NH towns and have focused our decision on two documents: “Procedure for Planning Board Review of Proposed Construction on Class VI Roads, Pembroke, NH” and “Guidelines of the Board of Selectmen Regarding Construction on Class VI Roads, Town of New Durham, NH” (copies attached). The recommendations in Planning Board’s letter of March 4, 2013 (RE: Board of Selectmen Action on Stagecoach Condominium Cluster Subdivision) are consistent with the above policies and should be considered before a decision is made.

Planning Board Comments:

After a review of the Departmental Approval Forms accompanying the Subdivision Application, it is not clear that the actual improvements to Thompson Road was ever reviewed by the Road Agent. This is most likely due to a fact that the details for the road improvements were not complete when the Department Approvals were signed. The relocation of the stone wall was only mentioned on the plat in 2006, never discussed based in the meeting minutes and only clearly documented on page 7A of the plat in 2008.

Several abutters to Thompson Road have testified about concerns that were never addressed or reviewed by any town board or department during the conditional approval of the AHG plan. The relocation of the stone wall on Map R-44 Lot 3 and drainage impact to Map R-29 Lot 4 were discussed [as two of the concerns that were never addressed or reviewed].

The standards to which the Class VI road must be brought must be clearly defined. The minutes mentions to Class V standards which is a concern to the board since it could be taken as an indication on intent to upgrade the road.

Please note the Statement of Purpose for the Board of Selectmen in the [New Durham class VI highway-development policy]. It is a clear warning of the risk that the town assumes when making this decision and the necessity of having a thorough policy in place.
Statement of Purpose. The Board is mindful that development along a Class VI road may well lead to the receipt of a petition to lay out the road as a Class V, town maintained road, or a petitioned warrant article requesting the Town Meeting to reclassify the Class VI road as Class V. It is therefore the purpose of these guidelines to minimize development along Class VI town roads which might tend to drain existing town services and force increased costs on the Town to provide additional services. Further, it is also the purpose of these guidelines to ensure that any structures built on Class VI town roads are reasonably accessible to emergency vehicles twelve months each year.

The Planning Board recommends that the Board of Selectmen follows the guidelines of the Town of [New] Durham before making a decision regarding the AHG project.
1. Hold a Public Hearing with notice to the applicant and to each owner of property abutting the portion of Thompson Road, the Chairmen of the Planning Board, Zoning Board of Adjustment and Conservation Commission as well as to the Road Agent, Chief of Police, Fire Chief and Code Enforcement Officer so that all concerns can be addressed.
2. All changes to Thompson Road should be discussed with final approval by the Road Agent. The standards for the Class VI road should be clearly defined. (Please note that the[y] never use the term Class V standard.) An assessment of the current road including the ROW width, the travel-way width, condition of the road and any proposed improvement must be discussed.
3. Please note that the [New Durham] policy requires the applicant to provide a deed or easement to secure a full 50-foot right-of-way for the Class VI road, that the specific location for all proposed structures are provided and any potential impacts (i.e. drainage) to the abutters are addressed.
4. Any liabilities to the Town (i.e. DOT Driveway Permit) should be defined and transferred to the applicant.
5. The liabilities and responsibilities of the applicant regarding the Excavation Permit, Waiver of Liability and the Road Maintenance Agreement (all in writing) must be discussed.
6. Performance bond amount to be determined by the board.
7. Any time limitations to when work must start, be complete and approved.

The preceding is the end of CW’s list.

In discussing his list, CW noted that the NH Department of Transportation (“NH DOT”) had decided that the Thompson Road project would not put more water into the NH state culvert flowing highway-runoff water onto Sargent land, but that the Sargents themselves had never had any knowledge of the NH DOT’s decision or any opportunity to give input to the decision.

EN asked CW to attach the class VI highway-development policies of Pembroke and New Durham to the planning board’s official recommendation on RSA 674:41, I, (c), (1).

CW said that it was important that the board of selectmen follow the guidelines in order to avoid premature or unintended acceptance of road-maintenance responsibility. CW said that the town had accepted other roads prematurely because the town had had no guidelines for acceptance.

CW said that the board of selectmen should not postpone road-security or road-liability issues to the actual issuance of building permits because the issuance of one building permit creates an expectation of more to come. Pittsfield has had a high turnover in building inspector/code enforcement officers. The accidental issuance of a building permit would be probable.

CW referred to the planning board’s letter of March 4, 2013, to the board of selectmen stating matters of concern for the board of selectmen. CW said that he will attach a copy of that letter to the planning board’s recommendation under RSA 674:41, I, (c), (1).

CW said that the planning board faced two issues: first, to develop an ad hoc class VI highway-development policy for AHG and, second, to develop a process for future class VI highway-development applications.

PD asked whether the planning board’s recommendation were first to develop a class VI highway-development policy based on the New Durham policy, and then to consider granting AHG’s request under RSA 674:41, I, (c), (1).

CW said that he does recommend developing a policy first. The planning board needs something on which to base its recommendation, and the board of selectmen likewise needs a policy on which to base its decision.

EN said that the board of selectmen likes the New Durham policy and that EN likes CW’s detailed and comprehensive list. EN said that he will recommend to the board of selectmen that the board of selectmen do nothing until the planning board is satisfied. EN clarified that he meant doing nothing on the building-permits decision under RSA 674:41, I, (c), (1).

CW explained that the board of selectmen should have decided a request under RSA 674:41, I, (c), (1), before the planning board considered the merits of AHG’s subdivision application. CW emphasized that the board of selectmen’s decision under RSA 674:41, I, (c), (1), only authorizes issuance of building permits; it does not actually issue building permits. The case law (Turco v. Barnstead, 136 N.H. 256, 615 A.2d 1237 (1992)) is that permission under RSA 674:41, I, (c), (1), is a prerequisite to both building permits and subdivision permits.

EN asked for clarification that the board of selectmen do not have to sign the driveway permit until after the planning board approves it.

CW said yes.

CW referred to the Pembroke class VI highway-development policy listing the site-specific issues for the planning board to consider in making its recommendation to the board of selectmen.

BM objected to the New Durham policy’s requirement for a 50-foot right-of-way to develop on a class VI highway. Many class VI highways are only two rods (33 feet) wide. BM understood that AHG must show a 50-foot right-of-way, but BM thought that a two-rod-wide right-of-way is wide enough in most cases.

EN said that he was adding two items to the end of CW’s list: (8) the board of selectmen’s permission under RSA 674:41, I, (c), (1), should come before the planning board’s review and (9) the NH DOT driveway permit was issued after the planning board’s conditional approval.

PD agreed with BM in that the policy will usually not be for subdivisions now that the town has adopted a class V highway frontage requirement for subdivision. In the case of a permit for a single building under RSA 674:41, I, (c), (1), a class VI highway two rods wide is wide enough.

CW said that even a person proposing a single building on a class VI highway might have to make some improvement to the highway.

CW said that the planning board also needs to make a specific recommendation on whether the board of selectmen should approve AHG’s particular request under RSA 674:41, I, (c), (1).

EN said that the board of selectmen would have to review AHG’s proposed Thompson Road improvement project.

BM objected to the New Durham policy’s statement of purpose saying, “Further, it is also the purpose of these guidelines to ensure that any structures built on Class VI town roads are reasonably accessible to emergency vehicles twelve months each year.” BM cited his own residence at the end of an 1800-foot driveway from a 300-foot unmaintained length of Thompson Road. BM said that emergency vehicles can probably travel the 300 feet but not the 1800 feet and thus do not have access to his residence twelve months each year. BM said that he had released the town of liability if he had a fire or needed an ambulance. BM said that the New Durham policy suggested that the town could regulate the use of long driveways.

CW said that the sentence could come out but that the town does need a basis on which to approve or disapprove building development on a class VI highway. The town needs a strong statement of purpose. The class VI highway-development policy needs to be clear that, if the board of selectmen makes a bad decision under RSA 674:41, I, (c), (1), then the board of selectmen may be burdening taxpayers with another road to maintain.

BM suggested changing “that any structures built on Class VI town roads are reasonably accessible to emergency vehicles” be changed to “that any driveways on Class VI town roads are reasonably accessible to emergency vehicles.”

EN emphasized that the New Durham policy says, “reasonably accessible.”

CW asked for a motion on the planning board’s specific recommendation to approve or disapprove AHG’s request under RSA 674:41, I, (c), (1).

BM moved the planning board to recommend that the board of selectmen follow the New Durham policy before the board of selectmen makes a decision for Stagecoach Station under RSA 674:41, I, (c), (1).

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion:

CW said that the New Durham policy is just a starting point for a decision in AHG’s particular case.

EN suggested that the planning board’s recommendation should be CW’s list of class VI highway-development issues (the list that the CW distributed and reviewed earlier) and the attached letters.

BM withdrew his motion.

CW asked whether the planning board were comfortable with CW’s list of class VI highway-development issues.

EN said yes.

CW asked whether the planning board wanted to recommend that the board of selectmen approve the issuance of building permits with what the planning board knows about item 3 on CW’s list. (Item 3: “AHG plans to use abutter property as part of the Thompson road improvements.”)

EN said that the highway agent, George Bachelder, must review the Thompson Road improvement plan.

CW agreed that the selectmen need George Bachelder’s expertise. CW wanted the planning board to emphasize item 3 (“AHG plans to use abutter property as part of the Thompson road improvements”).

EN clarified that subdivision development is not permissible on class VI highways because of the town meeting’s amendment to the zoning ordinance.

BM said that a class VI highway can become developed if the highway has many vacant lots already.

EN suggested that the planning board’s recommendation should be that the board of selectmen use the New Durham guidelines for assistance, not that the board of selectmen follow the New Durham guidelines.

EN said that the board of selectmen would address AHG’s request under RSA 674:41, I, (c), (1), not at the board of selectmen’s next meeting but at the first meeting after the next meeting.

CW moved the planning board to recommend that the board of selectmen not approve the Stagecoach Station project for building.

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion:

CW said that he based his motion on item 3 (“AHG plans to use abutter property as part of the Thompson road improvements”). CW said that the board of selectmen needs to know what will happen to the road, the stone wall, and the driveway permit. AHG has an easement (from the Stockmans) on the other side of Thompson Road, but not from Kathy Bleckmann.

PD said that the board of selectmen does know what will happen to the road and to the stone wall: AHG will move the stone wall.

BM said that the board of selectmen can say “no” to AHG’s development plans more easily than the planning board can, because the planning board’s 2007 approval of the stone wall movement does not bind the board of selectmen.

PD said that AHG will cite their surveyor’s survey.

BM said that the town may have to hire a surveyor as the town’s expert.

CW said that his proposed recommendation “is the worst recommendation that we can give them, is ‘no, don’t do this.’” The proposed recommendation will force the board of selectmen to look at AHG’s road-improvement proposal carefully. The board of selectmen seems to be waiting for the planning board to decide what the vote under RSA 674:41, I, (c), (1), should be. Recommending against approval makes the planning board’s position very clear.

PH said that AHG proceeded with her development-application plans knowing that she might not be approved under RSA 674:41, I, (c), (1).

BM said that AHG went through the whole application process at her own risk without securing the first thing necessary. The planning board cannot recommend approval under RSA 674:41, I, (c), (1), when the planning board has told the applicant that she cannot construct Thompson Road as proposed.

CW said that AHG knew that the planning board would make its recommendation under RSA 674:41, I, (c), (1), today, and that AHG had an opportunity to address the board’s four concerns stated in the board’s three letters and stated as items 1 through 4 of CW’s list presented above:
1. The permanent conservation restrictions do not comply with the Subdivision Regulations.
2. AHG will not comply with completion bonding as required by the Subdivision Regulations.
3. AHG plans to use abutter property as part of the Thompson road improvements.
4. Actual locations and dimensions of building footprints are not indicated on the plat.

PD said that the planning board’s recommendation should include the board’s reasons to recommend against approval.

BM cited all of the four items in CW’s list as reasons to recommend against approval.

Vote to recommend that the board of selectmen not approve the Stagecoach Station project for building: carried 3 – 2 – 0. (Voting “yes”: CW, BM, PH. Voting “no”: EN and PD. Abstaining: none.)

EN said that he voted “no” because the planning board recommended against approval but asked the board of selectmen to review items 1 through 4. EN had been looking for a list of items necessary for approval.

CW said that he voted “yes” only because of item 3, not because of the other items. CW does not want to burden the selectmen with planning board responsibilities, but all changes to Thompson Road are the selectmen’s responsibility.

EN said that his recommendation would have been to get advice from highway agent George Bachelder.

BM said that he had had many reasons to vote “no” other than just item 3.

CW said that he will ask the selectmen to read tonight’s minutes for the board’s reasons in recommending against approval.

AGENDA ITEM 7: Selectman’s Report – Eric Nilsson, Selectman Ex Officio

There was no selectman’s report.

AGENDA ITEM 8: Members’ Concerns

PD left the board, and JP returned to the board.

CW said that the board’s subdivision regulations have many typographical errors and that the board’s rules of procedure still refer to 7 members. (The town meeting contracted the planning board to 5 members in 2010.) CW asked whether the board would authorize him to make some of these corrections as an administrative act.

BM and JP thought that making corrections as a purely administrative act would not be proper. BM and JP cited the statutory requirements for changing the subdivision regulations and the rules of procedure. (RSA 675:6 requires a noticed public hearing to change the subdivision regulations, and RSA 676:1, requires that rules of procedure shall be adopted at a regular meeting of the board.)

PD said that he voted “no” to the planning board’s recommendation against approving building permits, because PD thought that the planning board should not recommend a flat denial without more review of item 3 (“AHG plans to use abutter property as part of the Thompson road improvements”).

PD left the meeting at 9:00 PM.

JP said that the planning board does not have to maintain secrecy of the board’s nonpublic “consultation with legal counsel.” The planning board suggested that the board of selectmen might have to hire a surveyor. This suggestion may have come from the nonpublic session.

BM said that the suggestion that the board of selectmen hire a surveyor did come from the nonpublic “consultation with legal counsel.”

JP continued and said that the abutters might be willing to help with a surveyor. Abutters cannot help with what they do not know. In the past, abutters have had to chase a constantly moving target.

JP said that the liability release (RSA 674:41, I, (c), (2) and (3)) for building on a class VI highway is very weak. (Vachon v. New Durham, 131 N.H. 623, 557 A.2d 649 (1989).) Even with the release, the town still has to try to respond to emergencies, such as fires, on class VI highways.

JP discussed a supreme court case that the legal update of last month’s conference of the Office of Energy and Planning discussed. In Bosonetto v. Town of Richmond, 163 N.H. 736, 48 A.3d 973 (2012), Mr. Bosonetto filed a motion for rehearing at the zoning board of adjustment (“ZBA”) late because he relied on written instructions that gave a wrong due date for the motion. The ZBA denied the motion as time barred, and the supreme court affirmed the ZBA’s denial. The supreme court reasoned that meeting deadlines is necessary to establish jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case. The instructor from the Office of Energy and Planning explained that the courts enforce deadlines religiously and harshly.

JP said that the Bosonetto case prompted him to raise again his concern in relation to the abandonment regulation of the subdivision regulations (section 8, A, 2 and 2). On February 21, 2013, JP had referred to the conditionally approved Rogers application of February 7, 2013, and had noted that the board forgot to impose an abandonment condition even though the board had vowed less than a year earlier never to forget. Because of the board’s forgetfulness, the board needs a regulation that the board understands. In the AHG case, on June 21, 2012, the board reasoned that conditional approval strips a completed application of its status as having been found to be complete. JP cannot find a basis for this reasoning in the subdivision regulations, and JP wants an explanation of how conditional approval strips an application of its status of having been found complete.

BM said that JP had not stated Laura Spector-Morgan’s argument correctly.

JP said that he was stating BM’s argument on June 21, 2012, not necessarily Laura Spector-Morgan’s argument.

EN objected that JP’s discussion of the abandonment regulation is out of order because it relates to the AHG case and because JP is disqualified from that case.

CW, BM, and JP said that disqualification is JP’s decision.

CW suggested deferring JP’s concerns until after the public-input period. CW said that the board had voted “no” on AHG’s abandonment. CW did not know that the board needs to discuss the reasons for voting “no.”

AGENDA ITEM 9: Public Input

Carol Lambert asked the board for a sense of the new town attorney’s position relative to the board’s positions on Stagecoach Station. Carol Lambert thought that the abutters’ extensive, 10-year involvement in this case entitled them to know what they were facing in the new town attorney.

BM said that the board can discuss the town attorney’s advice freely.

CW said that the board had not finished its discussion with the town attorney. If the board changes its path, then it will do so in an open session.

Carol Lambert asked whether the town attorney agreed with the board’s three letters.

CW said that the town attorney did not specifically comment on the letters.

Carol Lambert asked for the town attorney’s point of view and whether it agrees with the planning board’s thinking. Recently, the board has been very thorough in its research, its analysis, and its presentations to AHG.

BM said, “partially.”

EN said, “70% of it, 80. That’s what I would say.”

CW said, “I don’t know how to answer that right now.” CW said that the board had recommended against approval under RSA 674:41, I, (c), (1), and that the board’s four items of concern remained as the basis of the board’s recommendation.

Carol Lambert thanked the board of selectmen for considering a current recommendation from the planning board under RSA 674:41, I, (c), (1).

BM said that the town attorney had said what case law had said in the past relative to problems that the planning board currently faces.

JP asked whether the town attorney had actually cited cases by name.

BM was not sure. BM said that the town attorney had said, “if you do this, case law will support you; if you do this, case law probably won’t support you. We had a lot of discussion about that; where it was worthwhile to push, and where it’s not worthwhile to push. So, it was more of a pre-strategy meeting. He was trying to give us some guidance on what we could constructively do and what we could not be very constructive doing. It didn’t get a whole lot more specific than that.”

AGENDA ITEM 8: Members’ Concerns (resumed)

JP said that he was concerned about another board member’s saying that JP should not be allowed to discuss a regulation because the regulation might apply to AHG. This disagreement could become ugly quickly. The board discussed the class VI highway-development policy, BM objected to parts of it because of his own situation, and no board member objected to BM. The disqualification standard applies only to judicial process, and the board has not conducted the AHG review as a judicial process. The board has taken more than a year and has never given notice. The board says in its list to the selectmen that the planning board cannot have a compliance hearing until after the planning board is satisfied that certain issues are resolved. JP thinks that he should be able to ask what is the board’s reasoning behind its interpretation of a law on which the board voted a year ago. JP read from the June 21, 2012, minutes stating BM’s reasoning that a conditionally approved application is no longer an application that has been found to be complete. JP cannot understand BM’s reasoning and cannot find it anywhere in the subdivision regulations. JP wants an explanation.

BM said that the purpose of the abandonment deadline is to keep the completed application moving toward approval. Once the application reaches approval, the abandonment provision stops. BM agreed that an approved application is both completed and approved.

JP agreed that an approved application cannot be abandoned, but conditional approval is not approval, and the board has said in letters to AHG that conditional approval is only an interim step in the review process. Final approval comes only at the end of compliance review.

EN left the meeting at 9:20 PM.

BM asked what is the implication behind conditional approval being not approval.

JP said that the implications are that the completed-application status does not disappear and that a conditionally approved application does not have its final plat because conditional approval is only an interim step in the review process. The abandonment regulation did apply to AHG’s conditionally approved application, and the planning board simply interpreted the law wrong in mistaking conditional approval for final approval.

BM said, “All right, that may be. So what?”

JP said that, then, the error was not in the abandonment regulation; the board simply made an error of law in interpreting the regulation.

AGENDA ITEM 10: Adjournment

BM moved to adjourn the meeting.

PH seconded the motion.

Vote to adjourn the planning board meeting of June 6, 2013: carried 4 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, BM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) The planning board meeting of June 6, 2013, is adjourned at 9:22 P.M.

Minutes approved: July 10, 2013

______________________________ _____________________
Clayton Wood, Chairman Date

I transcribed these minutes (not verbatim) on June 8, 2013, from notes that I made during the planning board meeting on June 6, 2013, and from copies of the two town tapes that Chairman Clayton Wood made on June 7, 2013.

____________________________________________
Jim Pritchard, planning board recorder and secretary

two town tapes