March 7, 2013 Minutes

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

DATE: Thursday, March 7, 2013

AGENDA ITEM 1: Call to Order

Chair Clayton Wood called the meeting to order at 7:04 P.M.

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; and
Gerard LeDuc (GL), selectmen’s ex officio planning board member.

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

Other town officials present:
Chris Hill, conservation commission member and chair, and
Bryan Mika, conservation commission member and vice-chair.

Members of the public appearing before the planning board:
Paul Richardson, 595 Tilton Hill Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263.

“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 said that Paul Rogers wants the board to meet on March 21, 2013, to act on his request for an exemption from site plan review. CW will schedule this meeting but will have no other business on the agenda. CW said that the board’s first act after the town meeting election is usually to elect the board’s officers, which the board does at the board’s regular meeting in April, so the board usually does not have a second meeting in March.

BM said that Dee Fritz had asked BM whether the board had approved the February 4, 2013, minutes.

CW said that the board had approved the February 4, 2013, minutes and that he had sent the minutes to Dee Fritz.

AGENDA ITEM 4: Approval of Minutes of February 21, 2013 Meeting

BM moved to approve the minutes of February 21, 2013, as written in draft.

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion:

No board member saw any problems in the draft minutes.

Vote to approve the minutes of February 21, 2013, as written in draft: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, GL, BM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

AGENDA ITEM 5: Public Hearing for Bailey Park Subdivision

CW said that, at the last meeting (February 21, 2013), the board had decided that it would use tonight’s meeting to schedule a hearing on the conservation-restriction problem in Bailey Park.

CW referred to the letters that JP had drafted last November to the Bailey Park owners and to the building inspector. CW had wanted letters that explain the problem, that are not confrontational, and that emphasize that the board is trying to solve the conservation-restriction problem. CW said that JP’s letters describe the situation well and that the letter to the owners reaches out to grandfathered owners and invites them to be part of the solution.

CW asked the board for feedback on the two letters and on scheduling the hearing.

BM said that Chris Hill and Bryan Mika, both of the Pittsfield Conservation Commission, are present in the audience. BM suggested explaining the situation to them.

BM explained the problem with Bailey Park and the conservation restriction. No conservation-restriction agreement exists in Bailey Park according to subdivision regulations section 5, K, 4 (section 5, I, 4, in 2006). The planning board wants the owners of vacant lots to be under a conservation-restriction agreement to maintain the conservation area.

CW said that the conservation area is lot 10. The board wants a conservation restriction on lot 10 to prevent future building. A conservation area is a requirement of the special exception to the zoning requirements of area and frontage. Some lots already have buildings. The board is just trying to impose a conservation restriction on the conservation area and to define an equitable distribution of taxes. The subdivision is in violation of its conditions of approval because the subdivision has no conservation restriction according to subdivision regulations section 5, K, 4.

BM said that the original developer (Trigger Development) went bankrupt. Three lots had been sold, and the rest were foreclosed. The board is trying to work with the new developer (K & M Developers) and the lot-owners who bought from Trigger.

Bryan Mika asked whether the problem were new to the new developer.

CW said no. The planning board erred procedurally. The town should not have issued building permits for the improved lots, but the board is not assessing blame. The board just wants the conservation restriction and an equitable distribution of taxes. Theoretically, the board could revoke the subdivision approval, but the board thinks that revocation would serve no one.

Chris Hill asked how the owners feel about a conservation restriction and open space. Conservation area adds value to the development.

CW said that the board is trying to schedule a hearing to address this very issue. The conservation area is “payment” in exchange for dimensional requirements of area and frontage that are less than the dimensional requirements of area and frontage for conventional subdivision. The conservation area does not permit the development to have an overall density greater than the density possible by conventional subdivision of the same parcel.

CW said that the board should use a regular meeting for this matter. The board’s regular meeting in April is April 4. The board’s regular meeting in May is May 2.

BM asked whether there are any current requests for building permits.

CW said that the only recent request had been to build a duplex. The duplex request had required a variance, which the zoning board of adjustment denied. No other request is pending.

BM said that he preferred May 2 for the owners’ and abutters’ hearing.

CW said that attendance may be low.

JP said that he expected K & M Developers will attend.

CW explained that K & M Developers had approached the board about a conservation restriction that would have required the current residents to join a homeowners association.

BM moved the board to schedule the Bailey Park hearing on May 2, 2013.

GL seconded the motion.

Discussion:

GL said that the board must have the hearing to resolve the conservation-restriction problem.

Vote to schedule the Bailey Park hearing on May 2, 2013: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, GL, BM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

CW said that he would put JP’s draft letters on town letterhead and insert the May 2, 2013, date.

Paul Richardson said that the Public Service Company of New Hampshire (the electric company) has an easement on five lots in Bailey Park. These lots may not be very buildable anyway.

CW said that the board is focusing on the conservation-restriction matter only. The board is not trying to fix everything.

Paul Richardson asked who maintains the cistern.

PH said that he thought that the owners maintain the cistern and that the fire department monitors the maintenance.

BM asked what authority the fire department has to enforce maintenance.

PH said that this matter should have been set by agreement during the review for subdivision approval. PH did not know whether such an agreement actually exists.

CW said that this question of owners’ responsibility for fire protection may be a matter to discuss at the conservation-restriction hearing.

AGENDA ITEM 6: Review of Documentation for Compliance Hearing Regarding the Conditional Approval for the Stagecoach Condominium Cluster Subdivision (Map R44, Lot 1)
1. Letter to Board of Selectmen
2. Conservation Restriction
3. Relocation of Stone Wall

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

CW said that he had talked to attorney Paul Sanderson of the NH Local Government Center (“LGC”) about CW’s letter to the board of selectmen. (The letter discussed at the February 21, 2013, meeting and dated February 19, 2013.) Paul Sanderson recommended sending the letter as it is. CW said that he had changed “registered” to “recorded.”

CW said that he had spoken to LK about the letter and about AHG Properties’ proposed movement of the stone wall bounding Thompson Road at the edge of Kathy Bleckmann’s field. The stone wall is one reason for the letter.

GL said that the board of selectmen had discussed the letter lightly and had sent the letter to town attorney Laura Spector-Morgan for her answer on the stone wall. Laura Spector-Morgan is taking both sides.

CW said that the planning board is not trying to tell the board of selectmen what to do but instead what the issues are. The town highway agent George Bachelder must be involved. Part of this Thompson Road project is under the planning board’s control. AHG claims that Kathy Bleckmann has no say in where the stone wall should be. CW said that the consensus of the planning board disagrees with AHG. CW said that AHG’s explanation is not consistent with A Hard Road to Travel (2004 edition, pages 49 and 50). The stone walls are the monuments defining the highway boundaries. Highway boundary disputes sometimes go to court, and, when they do, they may be a long time in resolving.

BM said that the planning board’s approval to move the stone wall was an error of the planning board because the approval was unlawful. The planning board can correct this error now because the planning board had had no authority to approve the movement. The planning board cannot approve something that violates state or federal law.

CW asked whether the board consensus agreed with BM.

BM asked whether the board wanted a motion.

GL referred to town attorney Laura Spector-Morgan’s letter. Laura Spector-Morgan said that AHG may need Kathy Bleckmann’s permission to move the stone wall. GL agreed with BM that the 2007 planning board had had no authority to approve the stone wall movement. GL said that Laura Spector-Morgan is saying that AHG needs Kathy Bleckmann’s permission, but GL agrees that AHG should remove the stone wall movement altogether.

CW recalled AHG attorney Andrew Sullivan’s testimony that Kathy Bleckmann has no rights in respect to the stone wall. If the planning board does not enforce her rights, then who will?

BM said that Kathy Bleckmann is not the only party involved with the stone wall. If the stone wall bounds the highway against Kathy Bleckmann’s land, then the town owns half of the stone wall. This problem is complicated. Kathy Bleckmann, the town, and even Larry Stockman may be involved in moving the Bleckmann stone wall.

CW said that an important drainage ditch is proposed where the stone wall is now.

BM repeated that the 2007 planning board had no authority to approve moving the stone wall. That approval must not stand because the planning board had no authority to approve a violation of state law.

CW wanted to work with the LGC. If the planning board’s approval was unlawful, then CW wants to know why.

BM wanted statute and case law citations explaining why the 2007 approval of the stone wall movement was unlawful. BM suggested asking LGC’s help in drafting a motion to require AHG to remove from the Stagecoach Station plat the plan to relocate the stone wall.

CW suggested getting help from LGC in writing a letter to AHG.

After a few refinements on his motion, BM moved the board to request legal assistance from LGC in writing a letter requiring AHG to remove from the plat the relocation of the stone wall bordering Thompson Road and Kathy Bleckmann’s land.

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion: No further discussion.

Vote to request legal assistance from LGC in writing a letter requiring AHG to remove from the plat the relocation of the stone wall bordering Thompson Road and Kathy Bleckmann’s land: carried 4 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: PH, GL, BM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

CW referred to the conservation restriction on the conservation area of Stagecoach Station. CW said that the board’s consensus is that the board does not like the “as amended from time to time” language. AHG’s latest revision has only complicated the matter because AHG did not make the same change to both paragraphs. The subdivision regulations (section 5, K, 4) require a “permanent” conservation restriction. “Permanent” is key.

BM wanted to remove “as amended from time to time.” BM wants a letter to AHG requiring the removal of this language.

PH said that AHG says that she needs “as amended from time to time” because she will need to move building footprints. How does this matter relate to the conservation area? AHG’s logic suggests that every sale will require a new recorded plat. Does every building need a new recording?

BM said that the condominium declaration says that the plat shows the dimensions and locations of each unit. (Condominium declaration sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.4.) The little squares indicating unit footprints on the plat are neither dimensioned nor located. The planning board should require AHG to add to the plat the dimensions and locations of the unit footprints.

CW said that he had never heard of plats being updated for every home sold. CW referred to a 46-unit development where he had once lived.

BM said that a given condominium unit owner owns everything within a certain dimensioned and located area but not outside this area. Specifying this dimension and location can be done in the deed and does not require the plat to be amended. AHG is saying that she will amend the plat each time to dimension and locate the footprints.

PH agreed that the plat does not show the dimensions or locations of the unit footprints. PH said that he was still looking at the gap between lot 1O and lot 1P. PH wants Jennifer McCourt to explain this gap. If AHG would move lot 1Q to between lot 1O and lot 1P, then this placement would block development of the conservation area.

BM said that the placement of lot 1Q behind lot 1P instead of between lot 1O and lot 1P, thus leaving the gap, may be different from the placement in 2007.

CW checked the 2007 plat. The current arrangement of lots 1O, 1P, and 1Q is the same as on the 2007 plat.

Board members examined and discussed the 2007 plat and noted a number of engineering changes, such as drainage.

CW said that some of the changes may have been at the planning board’s request.

PH repeated that AHG must dimension and locate the unit footprints.

CW said that the planning board has jurisdiction on “as amended from time to time.” AHG must remove this language.

BM asked whether the board should send AHG a letter requiring her to remove “as amended from time to time.”

CW suggested leaving this matter for the compliance hearing because the board has already asked AHG several times to remove “as amended from time to time.”

BM moved the board to send AHG a letter requiring “as amended from time to time” be removed from the conservation restriction.

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion:

GL agreed that AHG must remove “as amended from time to time.”

CW referred to AHG attorney Andrew Sullivan’s testimony on December 6, 2012, that “there is always a way to change something.” CW does not understand AHG’s dimensional argument. If the condominium declaration says that the dimensions and locations are specified on the plat, then the dimensions and locations must be specified on the plat.

[Editorial comment of recording secretary JP: the board did not vote on BM’s motion.]

BM listed the following matters as matters of concern to the planning board before final approval:
(1) remove “as amended from time to time”
(2) remove the stone wall relocation
(3) performance bond of $770,000 for interior construction ($770,000 equals the original $1,061,000 minus $169,000 for the shared water system and minus $120,000 for the shared sewerage system)
(4) escrow fund of $75,000 for independent engineering oversight and testing for inspection, materials sampling, testing, and as-built plans

PH asked why is BM suggesting to remove the shared water and sewerage systems.

BM said that LGC attorney Christine Fillmore said that the planning board cannot require bonding on these structures.

PH said that Christine Fillmore’s advice seemed odd.

BM said that the board should allow AHG to discuss the amount of the bond. BM’s estimate comes from Louis Berger Group, but Jennifer McCourt is more familiar with the specific design than Louis Berger Group is. $770,000 is a starting point, but the board is flexible.

BM said that Louis Berger Group had proposed $68,000 for engineering oversight excluding materials sampling and testing. If the board wants materials sampling and testing, then these services will increase the cost. BM estimated that these services would increase the cost from $68,000 to $75,000.

BM said that the board had used the Louis Berger Group to monitor the West Meadow and Bailey Park developments. The developers paid for Louis Berger Group’s services.

BM said that the town needs as-built plans because the town will probably have to take responsibility for the infrastructure.

BM said that the planning board has the right and obligation to require a performance bond. (RSA 674:36, III, (b).) BM emphasized that the bond must be for performance. AHG wants to do a reclamation bond instead. BM disagrees. Everything must be built. Reclamation is subjective, performance is not.

CW said that the subdivisions regulations prohibit building on a non-bonded road. (Subdivision regulations section 7, A, 2, a.)

BM said that reclamation might be appropriate if default happens early into construction.

CW referred to his two handouts on bonding. ((1) Lapse of Subdivision Performance Bond or Letter of Credit (New Hampshire Town and City, March 2011, David R. Connell) and (2) Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit for Regulatory Permits (New Hampshire Town and City, January 2011, David R. Connell).) The town may want to restore Thompson Road, not complete its improvement.

BM said that Stagecoach Station has the potential to turn into a trailer park. BM does not want Stagecoach Station to become a trailer park.

CW referred to the homeowners association where he had once lived. The performance had phasing requirements. Reclamation may be appropriate in an early default. Phasing is standard. Louis Berger Group will know how to define the phasing.

BM said that, if AHG has the technical and financial ability to construct the project properly, then she will get bonding. The law requires performance bonding. (RSA 674:36, III, (b).)

CW said that AHG will say that the 2007 planning board waived the bonding requirement. AHG promised not to request building permits until after the infrastructure is finished.

BM said that the waiver, if it had happened, would have violated state law. (RSA 674:36, III, (b).) If the previous board violated state law, then the violation must not stand.

CW said that the planning board must resolve the bonding issues before the compliance hearing. The planning board must have a public hearing to set the bond number. The board of selectmen should also use a public hearing to resolve the board of selectmen’s issues.

BM said that the planning board is seeing new material.

CW said that the planning board or board of selectmen need to have hearings on these two matters of bonding and Thompson Road roadwork permits.

BM referred to his list of four items to which the selectmen should attend:
(1) board of selectmen approval of twelve building permits
(2) permission to reconstruct and maintain a section of Thompson Road
(3) performance bond of $100,000 for Thompson Road work
(4) indemnity bond to NH DOT for $50,000 provided by the board of selectmen but paid for by AHG

CW said that the planning board’s letter to the board of selectmen addressed BM’s four items.

BM said that the planning board must see the permissions from the board of selectmen before the planning board gives final approval.

PH said that the stone wall, the escrow money, and “as amended from time to time” are issues covered.

GL said that the last board of selectmen’s meeting suggested reviewing BM’s numbers. BM’s current numbers are much different from the 2007 numbers.

CW said that the current bonding numbers for Thompson Road are approximately the same as the 2007 bonding numbers. The bonding on interior construction makes the difference in the overall number.

BM and GL said that the board of selectmen should reject AHG’s deducting $25,000 from the Thompson Road part above the driveway-permit area. AHG wants to count $25,000 of the $50,000 NH DOT bond toward the $100,000 cost of Thompson Road above the driveway-permit area because the driveway-permit area will cost only $25,000. AHG’s proposal deducts $25,000 from the $100,000 cost above the driveway-permit area and gives the town a $75,000 bond there.

AGENDA ITEM 7: Selectman’s Report – Gerard LeDuc, Selectman Ex Officio

JP returned to the board.

GL referred to a letter from the town administrator to CW complaining that the building inspector Jesse Pacheco was left out of Paul Roger’s request for exemption from site plan review at Jitters Café.

CW acknowledged the letter and said that he had answered the letter. CW suggested that the board might discuss the town administrator’s letter and CW’s answer at the next meeting.

GL said that he had asked for the opinion from town attorney Laura Spector-Morgan on moving the Bleckmann stone wall

CW said that Laura Spector-Morgan appeared to be on both sides of the stone-wall issue.

GL agreed that Laura Spector-Morgan appeared to be on both sides of the stone-wall issue.

GL said that he would emphasize to the board of selectmen that AHG cannot count $25,000 of the $50,000 NH DOT bond toward the remainder of the Thompson Road improvement project.

AGENDA ITEM 8: Members’ Concerns

BM referred to a letter of February 21, 2013, from Louis Berger Group billing AHG’s escrow account. Louis Berger Group’s invoice exceeds the amount in AHG’s escrow account, so AHG must add money to that account.

CW said that he had discussed this issue with planning board administrative secretary Dee Fritz, and CW will write a letter to AHG.

JP said that tonight’s meeting might be his last as a board member (because JP is up for reelection) and that he wanted to thank the board for entrusting him with the important work of writing the board’s minutes. JP thanked the chair CW and the vice-chair PH for supporting JP and expressing confidence in JP as recording secretary.

AGENDA ITEM 9: Public Input

Chris Hill, chair of the Pittsfield Conservation Commission, said that the conservation commission is here to help. BM is an alternate to the conservation commission. The planning board had two items related to open space at tonight’s meeting. The conservation commission can help the planning board with open space issues, for example, requirements of the NH Department of Environmental Services. The conservation commission has no regulatory authority; it is only advisory.

CW said that he would give the conservation commission a copy of Amending or Terminating Conservation Easements: Conforming to State Charitable Trust Requirements (authored by Paul Doscher, Vice-President for Land Conservation, Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, Concord, NH; Terry M. Knowles, Assistant Director, Division of Charitable Trusts, Office of the Attorney General Charitable Trusts Unit, Concord, NH; and Professor Nancy A. McLaughlin, University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law, Salt Lake City, Utah).

Chris Hill said that someone must manage conservation areas for the long term. The conservation commission is a constantly changing committee because commission members are volunteers who come and go. The planning board is correct in requiring correct language in the conservation restriction of Stagecoach Station, but the planning board needs to look to the long term.

CW said that he wants information on what the correct language of a conservation restriction should be. The attorney general must be involved in any amendments to a conservation restriction.

Chris Hill said that abutters should provide input. Open space adds value to a development. Clustering was popular, but developers are getting away from it because people often prefer not to live in clustered housing. But open space can enhance such a development.

CW said that software exists to optimize the clustering and the conservation area.

Chris Hill said that developers have developed a practice known as “urban forestry,” in which the developer plants trees or other vegetation in strategic locations to improve environmental characteristics to minimize costs such as for heating, cooling, and drainage.

JP, speaking from the audience, referred to the board’s discussion of the stone wall movement. JP said that the board appeared not to understand the legal issues completely and that the board had asked for statute and case law support. JP referred to town attorney Laura Spector-Morgan’s letter on the stone wall issue and said that he disagreed with Laura Spector-Morgan. JP said that the board already knows half of the legal basis of the stone wall issue: Hoban v. Bucklin, 88 N.H. 73, 80, 184 A. 362, 366 (1936), says that the stone wall is the monument that defines the boundary of the highway. Consequently, moving the monument moves the boundary of the highway. The second half of the legal basis is what happens when the boundary monument moves and thus widens the highway. Rodgers Development Company v. Town of Tilton, 147 N.H. 57, 62, 781 A.2d 1029, 1034 (2001), says that, “‘whenever property is taken for a highway, it is for the public use’ [citation omitted] notwithstanding that the highway may greatly benefit a private party.” Thus, even when taking land for a highway specially benefits a single person, the taking is for the public use. Therefore, if the stone wall is moved, thus taking land from Kathy Bleckmann for the special benefit of AHG, the taking will be an eminent-domain taking. Thus, the movement of the stone wall cannot happen without the town’s approval, and the purpose of the movement must be more than just to benefit Alice Goldstein; the purpose must be a public need. (RSA 231:8.) Hoban v. Bucklin and Rodgers Development Company v. Town of Tilton are the case laws that BM had requested. Laura Spector-Morgan’s letter says that moving the stone wall is a private matter of agreement between Kathy Bleckmann and AHG and that the town should not get involved, but the town is automatically involved because taking property for a highway is for the public use no matter what the circumstances of the taking.

JP referred to BM’s comments on bonding and that bonding must be for completion. BM appeared to suggest that AHG should not start Stagecoach Station unless she is fully committed to completing it. BM had said that AHG will have no trouble getting a bond if AHG has the technical and financial ability to complete the project. BM’s analysis is crucial. JP cited AHG’s lot A (tax map R-44, lot 1-3) on Governor’s Road, where AHG had stripped the vegetation from the lot to prepare it for a house and had then abandoned the construction. JP referred to LK’s statement at the planning board meeting of February 21, 2013, saying that the board of selectmen should repeat the RSA 674:41 process. LK invited the planning board to give its recommendation under RSA 674:41, I, (c), (1). The planning board should recommend against authorizing the issuance of building permits as long as AHG resists completion bonding. AHG’s resistance to completion bonding is a strong statement that AHG lacks confidence in her development. No matter what the planning board did on bonding in 2007, the planning board can still recommend against authorizing the issuance of building permits until AHG agrees to provide full completion bonding.

JP said that he agreed with BM that the 2007 planning board erred as a matter of law in overlooking the bonding. JP said that the planning board has the authority to correct any error of law before final approval.

JP referred to bonding of Thompson Road and said the board appears not to understand the applicable statutes. The board is relying on RSA 236:10 as the controlling statute for bonding. The LGC agrees that RSA 236:10 controls bonding of Thompson Road. JP has read the statute, and JP disagrees with the planning board and LGC. JP read from RSA 236:10. RSA 236:10 talks about “excavation and restoration” only; it says nothing about substantial improvements, such as the improvements that the planning board’s approval requires of AHG on Thompson Road. “Restoration” means “a bringing back to or putting back into a former condition or position.” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged.) RSA 236:11 also clarifies the meaning of “restoration”: “Any person, entity, or corporation who excavates or disturbs the shoulders, ditches, embankments, or the surface improved for travel of any highway shall restore such highway to a condition at least equal to the condition that was present before the excavation or disturbance.” In addition, RSA 236:10 says that the selectmen “may” require bonding for “restoration” only. By contrast RSA 674:36, III, (b), says that the planning board “shall” require a bond for “completion” of “street work.” RSA 674:36, III, (b), not RSA 236:10, controls bonding in this case, and the bonding must be for completion, not restoration.

JP said that restoration instead of completion may indeed be appropriate in an early default, as the board had discussed, but that this decision has nothing to do with the bonding required prior to final approval of the plat. The board must require bonding for completion, RSA 674:63, III, (b), and this bond is under the planning board’s control, not the board of selectmen’s control. None of the bonding is under the board of selectmen’s control. AHG does need some permissions from the board of selectmen, but the requirement for these permissions does not relieve the planning board of its statutory obligations and will not relieve the town of other statutory obligations that will arise if the board of selectmen gives these permissions.

JP emphasized that a developer should not approach a project with a “maybe I’ll finish, and maybe I won’t” attitude. The developer must commit to finishing. If AHG were committed technically and financially to finishing, then, as BM said, AHG would have no trouble or expense in getting bonding. Bonds are not expensive unless the contractor defaults. Bonds are not like automobile insurance. If a contractor defaults on a bonded project, then the contractor remains liable to the surety. When a developer resists getting a bond, the developer thinks that a default is likely. The planning board should bear this fact in mind in making its recommendation to the board of selectmen on authorizing the issuance of building permits. (RSA 674:41, I, (c), (1).) The planning board should recommend against issuance of building permits as long as AHG resists bonding for completion.

AGENDA ITEM 10: Adjournment

BM moved to adjourn the meeting.

PH seconded the motion.

Vote to adjourn the planning board meeting of March 7, 2013: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, GL, BM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) The planning board meeting of March 7, 2013, is adjourned at 8:49 P.M.

Minutes approved: March 21, 2013

______________________________ _____________________
Clayton Wood, Chairman Date

I transcribed these minutes (not verbatim) on March 9, 2013, from notes that I made during the planning board meeting on March 7, 2013, and from copies of the two Town tapes that Chairman Clayton Wood made on March 8, 2013.

____________________________________________
Jim Pritchard, planning board recorder and secretary

two Town tapes.