April 2, 2015 Minutes

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

DATE: Thursday, April 2, 2015

AGENDA ITEM 1: Call to Order

Chair Clayton Wood called the meeting to order at 7:03 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;
Daren Nielsen (DN), planning board member;
Gerard LeDuc (GL), selectmen’s ex officio planning board member; and
Roland Carter (RC), alternate planning board member.

Planning board members absent:
Eric Nilsson (EN), alternate for the selectmen’s ex officio planning board member.

Members of the public appearing before the planning board: Dan Greene and Paul Nickerson.

“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 referred to a letter that Patricia Wood had written (dated March 23, 2015), and CW said that he had written an answer to Patricia Wood’s letter. CW wanted to add his answering letter to the agenda.

AGENDA ITEM 4: Rules of Procedure

CW asked for a vote on the rules of procedure that JP had moved the board on March 19, 2015, to adopt on April 2, 2015.

Discussion:

GL said that the board should elect its officers before the board votes on the new rules of procedure.

CW said that the board is voting on the new rules of procedure because the new rules of procedure will affect how the board conducts the election of officers. CW explained that this effect was why the board had had the meeting on March 19, 2015.

Vote to repeal the rules adopted January 1, 2015, and to be effective April 1, 2015, and adopt the draft rules dated March 17, 2015, with the changes that Mike Williams proposed by memo of March 19, 2015: carried 3 – 2 – 0. Voting “yes”: JP, CW, and DN. Voting “no”: PH and GL. Abstaining: none.

AGENDA ITEM 5: Election of Officers

JP nominated CW for chair.

PH seconded the nomination.

There were no other nominations for chair.

Discussion: None.

Vote to elect CW as chair: carried 4 – 1 – 0. Voting “yes”: JP, PH, CW, and DN. Voting “no”: GL. Abstaining: none.

CW nominated PH for vice-chair.

GL seconded the nomination.

There were no other nominations for vice-chair.

Discussion:

JP said that supporting PH for vice-chair would put JP in an awkward position because PH had very harshly criticized the legitimacy of the minutes that JP had written as recording secretary. JP said that he was interested in moving forward and putting that period in the past, so JP said that he would support PH even though JP wanted to be clear that he did not agree with PH’s criticism. JP said that his support for PH was a goodwill gesture to move the board past the time from November 6, 2014, through March 5, 2015.

Vote to elect PH as vice-chair: carried 4 – 0 – 1. Voting “yes”: JP, CW, DN, and GL. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: PH.

CW nominated JP for secretary.

DN seconded the nomination.

There were no other nominations for secretary.

Discussion:

DN said that there had been much controversy regarding JP’s being the secretary, that DN had read JP’s minutes, and that DN did not understand where the controversy was coming from. DN said that he liked JP’s minutes. JP’s minutes are detailed and have legal citations. DN said that the citations are important to protect the board and the town from lawsuits. DN asked JP to continue the citations. DN said that he had listened to audio recordings and compared the audio recordings to the minutes. DN said that the minutes are very accurate and that he could read the minutes and understand what had happened in the meeting.

Vote to elect JP as secretary: carried 3 – 1 – 1. Voting “yes”: JP, CW, and DN. Voting “no”: GL. Abstaining: PH.

CW nominated JP for recording secretary.

DN seconded the nomination.

There were no other nominations for recording secretary.

Discussion:

DN said that his previous discussion covered this election.

CW said that JP’s minutes had been very helpful to CW, in particular with the Wood subdivision (on Shaw Road). The board has discussed having citations in the past and has said that having the citations is a good idea. The board has been having citations in its minutes for four years. People who complain to the board usually cite statute or case law, so the board should prepare with statute and case law citations too.

DN said that he had been reading case law and that the supreme court cites its own previous cases to support a current case. DN said that the board had had a very controversial meeting in November, that he had listened to the audio recording, and that he had found the minutes of that meeting to be very accurate. DN repeated that he did not know where the controversy over JP’s minutes was coming from.

RC objected to citing law that the board member himself did not cite. RC said that such citations were “like putting words in somebody’s mouth.” RC said that the minutes should have citations if and only if the board member himself cited the law.

CW said that the citations are in parentheses to show that the citations are added. CW said that adding the citations to the minutes after the meeting was better than searching through the law book during the meeting whenever someone refers to a law. CW said that a person trying to cite a law contemporaneously can make mistakes. Mistaken citations cause confusion. Citations added after the fact avoid such mistakes (because the recording secretary checks them).

JP said that it is often clear that a person is referring to a law and that the person is referring to the law accurately but that the person does not know the citation. JP gave as an example CW’s reference to RSA 676:4-b, I, on March 19, 2015. JP said that he, JP, would not have known the citation for that statute either without looking it up. JP emphasized that the purpose of the minutes is to describe what happened in the meeting (RSA 91-A:2, II); the minutes are not a transcript.

RC said that a person might be discussing something that relates to many laws. Citing only one law could be misleading.

DN said that citations might not be appropriate in situations where a person was discussing a general legal proposition but that citations are appropriate where a person is stating a law and knows the law but does not know the citation.

JP said that he does not include citations where it is not clear that the person is talking about a specific statute.

CW suggested reviewing the New Hampshire Municipal Association’s Meeting Minutes 101. CW said that any person who wants a citation removed from that person’s statements can have the citation removed.

RC said that minutes from other boards can be so short that they do not do a good job of saying what happened in the meeting. RC said that JP’s minutes do a good job of saying what happened in the meeting.

PH said that removing something from the minutes is a problem because the matter remains in the draft minutes and because the draft minutes are posted on the bulletin board of the town hall. PH gave, as an example of something that should not have been in the minutes, JP’s description of town administrator Mike Williams’s leaving “in anger” on November 6, 2014. PH said that JP had “assumed” that Mike Williams had left the “in anger.”

JP said that he had been at the meeting of November 6, 2014, that he had listened to the recording of November 6, 2014, numerous times, and that he stood on his description. JP said that Mike Williams “didn’t get a call from his wife saying that she was in labor.”

CW encouraged PH and JP to move past that event of November 6, 2014. CW suggested that the board review New Hampshire Municipal Association’s Meeting Minutes 101.

PH said that, if board members had problems with one another, those problems should not be reported outside the room in the minutes. PH suggested omitting some of the heated discussion.

DN said that determining the emotional state of someone could be difficult and subjective. DN said that, during Candidates’ Night, he had found that many voters are concerned about the board’s being transparent. Board members should be professional because anything said may go in the minutes.

CW agreed with DN on the matters of transparency and professional conduct. CW said that the board can put its audio recordings on the Internet. CW said that the board owns its own minutes but that the board must pay attention to what the public wants.

JP said that he tries to present everyone in the best possible light possible but that he must also let the public know what is happening in the meeting. JP read from Meeting Minutes 101: “When considering the ‘brief summary of the subject matter discussed,’ the board may want to recall that the purpose of meeting minutes is to promote openness in government and to inform citizens about what their government is doing.” JP said that meetings like the meeting on November 6, 2014, present huge problems for the recording secretary and that he had had a big problem in finding the fairest way to describe an important event while avoiding inflammatory words.

Vote to elect JP as recording secretary: carried 3 – 1 – 1. Voting “yes”: JP, CW, and DN. Voting “no”: GL. Abstaining: PH.

AGENDA ITEM 6: Appointment to Boards

Housing standards agency:

CW said that the chair of the housing standards agency, Bill Elkins, had requested that PH be reappointed as the planning board’s representative to the housing standards agency.

CW nominated PH as the planning board’s representative to the housing standards agency.

JP seconded the motion.

Discussion:

CW said that the planning board’s representation on the various boards or committees was important.

Vote to elect PH as the planning board’s representative to the housing standards agency: carried 4 – 0 – 1. Voting “yes”: JP, CW, DN, and GL. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: PH.

Master plan committee:

CW said that the planning board acknowledges the current membership of the master plan committee every year. CW listed the current members: Ralph Odell, chair; Ted Mitchell, secretary; Paul Metcalf; Helen Schoppmeyer; JP; and CW. CW suggested that another board member might replace him as a planning board representative on the master plan committee. The master plan committee is a good way to learn about town planning.

RC said that he would serve on the master plan committee.

CW moved the board to approve the master plan committee membership of Ralph Odell, chair; Ted Mitchell, secretary; Paul Metcalf; Helen Schoppmeyer; JP; and RC.

PH seconded the motion.

PH asked whether he could attend meetings of the master plan committee as a member of the public without creating a meeting of the planning board.

JP said yes.

CW suggested that Ralph Odell could come to the planning board to tell the board about what the master plan committee is doing.

Pittsfield’s two representatives to the Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission:

CW said that Ted Mitchell and JP are the town’s two representatives to the Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission. Ted Mitchell’s current term runs from 2014 to 2018, and JP’s current term runs from 2014 to 2016. In 2016, when JP’s term ends, the planning board will recommend a candidate for the board of selectmen to appoint.

AGENDA ITEM 7: Public Input

Dan Greene said that, at the last meeting, he had asked why the Wood subdivision on Shaw Road was not a minor subdivision. Dan Greene said, “I was told that it was a major subdivision because three lots or less is a major subdivision by state law, by Jim Pritchard. That is a lie. That is not what your subdivision regulations say. That needs to be corrected in the minutes.”

JP asked Dan Greene where Dan Greene was quoting the minutes.

Dan Greene said, “Look it up on the tape.” Dan Greene said that the board had mistreated the Woods on Shaw Road. Dan Greene asked whether the board had a copy of the rules of procedure that the board had just adopted and whether he could get a copy.

CW said yes and that the board must file the new rules with the town clerk. (RSA 676:1.)

Dan Greene said that a quorum of the 5-member board would have been four members last year because the board’s rules in effect then had been written for the board when it had seven members.

Dan Greene said that the board needed to get its facts straight.

AGENDA ITEM 8: Approval of the Minutes of the March 5, 2015 and March 19, 2015 Meetings

CW moved to approve the minutes of March 5, 2015, as written in draft.

JP seconded the motion.

JP asked for the following change:

Agenda item 10, page 10: change “adjourned at 8:48” to “adjourned at 7:48”

Vote to approve the minutes of March 5, 2015, with the change that JP requested: carried 3 – 0 – 2. Voting “yes”: JP, CW, and DN. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: PH and GL.

CW moved to approve the minutes of March 19, 2015, as written in draft.

JP seconded the motion.

JP asked for the following changes:

Agenda item 6, page 2: add a paragraph as follows between paragraphs 1 and 2 of agenda item 6:

Patricia Wood had written two letters to the board, one dated February 20, 2015, and one dated March 8, 2015. In brief summary, the two letters ask for an explanation of the board’s third-party review of the shared driveway in the Wood subdivision, and a reconsideration of the charge for the third-party review. The letters cite engineering that the Woods had had Eckman Engineering do, and the letters say that Patricia Wood “[doesn’t] believe this happens to other shared driveways in this town.”

Agenda item 6, page 3: change “(RSA 676:4-b)” to “(RSA 676:4-b, I)”
Throughout the minutes document: change “Eckmann Engineering” to “Eckman Engineering”

CW asked for the following change:

Agenda item 8, page 13: change “Selectman’s Report – Larry Konopka” to “Selectman’s Report – Gerard LeDuc”

Vote to approve the minutes of March 19, 2015, with the changes that JP and CW requested: carried 5 – 0 – 0. Voting “yes”: JP, PH, CW, DN, and GL. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.

During the members’ concerns period, JP asked for the following additional change to the minutes of March 19, 2015:

Agenda item 10, page 13: change “Patricia Would” to “Patricia Wood”

CW referred to the older and currently unapproved minutes, which the newly elected recording secretary was supposed to review. CW suggested that the recording secretary (JP) review the unapproved minutes and make recommendations.

DN asked whether the board were satisfied with his voting on the March 5 minutes when DN was present but not as a board member.

CW said that there was no problem in DN’s voting because DN was present.

JP referred to RSA 673:14, II: The decision of whether a board member is disqualified belongs to the board member himself.

GL said that RC instead of DN should have voted on the minutes of March 5, 2015, because RC had sat on the board for that meeting.

JP said that such a practice cannot be adopted as a rule because the disqualification statute (RSA 673:14, II) lets each board member decide whether he is disqualified.

DN asked whether listening to the audio recording of the older meetings would suffice to verify the accuracy of the currently unapproved minutes.

JP said that the NH Supreme Court hears some cases in front of a panel of three judges even though the full court has five judges. Some of the three-judge cases go to the full court, and the two judges who were not part of the three-judge panel listen to an audio recording. The supreme court considers listening to an audio recording to be good enough.

CW asked what did the board want to do about the old and unapproved minutes.

JP said that people who have objections to the old and unapproved minutes should tell JP what their objections are. JP invited PH to state his objections. JP said that he always tries to accommodate people.

CW asked JP which minutes are currently unapproved.

JP said that the currently unapproved minutes are of the meetings of February 5, 2015; January 31, 2015; and November 20, 2014. JP said that no audio recording of the meeting of January 31, 2015, exists. The meeting of January 31, 2015, was an all-boards meeting. JP said that DN was not present at that meeting but that RC was present.

DN said that he would recuse himself from the approval of the minutes of the meeting of January 31, 2015 because he was not at the meeting and because no tape of the meeting exists for him to listen to.

AGENDA ITEM 9: Plans for the 2015-2016 Session

CW asked board members to say what topics they would like the board to do for the coming year.

JP said that he wanted to work on the subdivision regulations and on clarifying the terms of the zoning ordinance. JP said that the timelines of the subdivision regulations do not agree with state law (RSA 676:4, I and II).

CW said that the board had worked on the subdivision regulations during the last session, on September 18, 2014, and October 2, 2014, and that the major task now was to determine what should be on the checklist for a plat. CW cited the current requirement for tying to the state plane coordinate system and the USGS survey elevation benchmark. (Subdivision regulations section 6, C, 2, and section 11, I, 3.) CW said that applicants typically ask for waivers from these requirements for reasons of expense but that the board does not really understand these requirements. CW said that other towns, such as Epsom, have and enforce these requirements. The board should understand these requirements and whether they are reasonable or not. Pittsfield does not ask for anything that other towns do not ask.

JP said that tying to the state plane coordinate system and the USGS survey elevation benchmark are in the model checklist of the office of energy and planning’s The Planning Board in New Hampshire – A Handbook for Local Officials. (See the Handbook appendix D, checklist item B, 18: “Existing and proposed topographic contours based upon the USGS topographical data, with spot elevations where necessary.” Tying to the state plane coordinate system is not in the model checklist. Also see RSA 1-A, New Hampshire Coordinate System, for what the state plane coordinate system is and how to use it.)

CW said that the board should get some expert opinion on the reasonableness of these survey requirements.

DN asked whether a surveyor could satisfy these requirements with a global positioning system (GPS) device.

CW said that the tie to the reference systems might have to be a tie to monumented locations. (RSA 1-A:4.)

JP said that Pittsfield does have monumented locations but that an official (Chris Northrop) at the office of energy and planning had told JP that the average distance in Pittsfield from any given location to a monumented location is about two miles. JP said that he had no idea how difficult tying to these locations is.

PH said that a surveyor must start at a monumented location and work to the site of the survey. The process is time consuming.

CW repeated that Epsom enforces the requirement to tie to the reference systems.

GL said that the board could use (1) the Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission to give a better definition of what the board is looking for and (2) the office of energy and planning conference on May 2, 2015.

PH said that he would investigate the locations of the monumented locations.

JP said that he would follow up on his discussions with the office of energy and planning.

CW referred to work on the zoning ordinance and suggested that JP and DN work together on the definitions.

JP agreed.

CW said that involving more board members in research would give the board’s work more credibility.

CW suggested that the board establish a relationship with KV Partners as the town engineer. The contact person at KV Partners is Michael Vignale.

PH asked for GL’s impression on establishing a relationship with a town engineer.

GL said that he would have to gather more information.

RC mentioned a web site called “plan link” as an Internet forum for people involved in municipal land use planning.

AGENDA ITEM ADDED: A Letter Answering Patricia Wood’s Letter of March 23, 2015

CW referred to a recent and third letter of Patricia Wood, which in whole says as follows:

March 23, 2015
To Pittsfield Planning Board,
Even though I attended the planning board meeting last Thursday night, March 19, 2015, I was not completely satisfied with the outcome. We would still like the board to reconsider our bill. Also, we think that Darin Neilson should have recused himself. In all fairness, he was new to the board, and not familiar with what has been going on. We still believe that if there were issues about the engineering of the driveway, they could have contacted Eckman Engineering with any questions, before hiring their own engineer. Also, we are not clear why our first letter to the board was not read at the previous meeting.
Thank you,
Keath & Patricia wood

CW said that, in response to Patricia Wood’s letter, he had reviewed the Wood case file thoroughly and had found that he or the board had told both Patricia Wood and her agent, Paul Zuzgo, that the board would engage town engineering. CW said that his correspondence with Patricia Wood revealed that she and her agent were not communicating well. CW said that he was careful in speaking to Patricia Wood and that he mostly copied from the planning board minutes in writing to Patricia Wood. The case has many, at least 15, references to the town engineer. CW said that he had been very responsive to Patricia Wood’s questions. Matt Monahan (of the Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission) had had problems communicating with Paul Zuzgo in the early going of this case. CW said that Paul Zuzgo is an expert, a licensed surveyor, who knows this business. CW said that both he and JP had said during meetings that the board was not looking for a full-blown road-construction plan but just enough to address safety concerns.

CW had composed a letter to answer Patricia Wood and had distributed copies of the letter to the board ahead of tonight’s meeting. In brief summary, CW’s letter (1) says that the case contains at least 20 references to the town-engineer requirement between May 29, 2014, and November 1, 2014; (2) quotes an e-mail communication on November 1, 2014, showing that Patricia Wood knew that the town engineer would look at her property on November 4, 2014, and that she gave she permission for the town engineer to do so; (3) cites the case law that the board used to find that the shared driveway in the Woods subdivision is subject to the road-construction standards in the board’s subdivision regulations; and (4) quotes planning board minutes and the review report from Matt Monahan referring to the requirement for town engineering.

JP moved the board to approve CW’s letter to Patricia Wood.

DN seconded the motion.

Discussion:

RC thought that the Woods had been confused about whether they would have to pay for the town engineering. The case file says that the town engineering would have to be done, but the case file does not say that the Woods will have to pay for the town engineering.

CW said that the board has typically used town engineering but usually does not know how much the engineering will cost until after it has happened. The board typically decides the application and then asks for payment for expenses before the board endorses and records the plat. The escrow amount is clearly stated as an estimate. CW said that he would delay an application if he checked the escrow account every time the application incurred an expense. CW asked rhetorically whether the Woods could have realistically refused to pay for the town engineering if they had known about having to pay; their own costs have been much higher. CW said that he had tried to save the Woods money by not having Paul Zuzgo at the site when the town engineer was there. CW said that he does not typically remind an applicant that he will have to pay for a cost of the board’s review whenever a new cost arises. CW said that the subdivision regulations should be clearer in saying that the applicant will have to pay for the town engineering. The state law (RSA 676:4-b, I) authorize the board to charge for third-party review. The Woods’ agent, Paul Zuzgo, should have told the Woods that they would have to pay. Paul Zuzgo was acting on signed authority from Patricia Wood. CW said that he had done his best to help the Woods.

JP said that the current subdivision regulations do not say that applicants will have to pay for third-party review, but that the state law (RSA 676:4-b, I) does say that applicants will have to pay for third-party review. JP said that CW and building inspector Jesse Pacheco had both discussed the function of the applicant’s agent. The third-party review is part of the board’s review, and the agent should tell the applicant that the board will have to have third-party review. JP said that he had been an applicant before land use boards and that the town had never tutored him on what the law was; to the contrary, the boards had exploited JP’s ignorance. JP was not suggesting to exploit ignorance, but the agent does have the obligation to advise his client on what expenses the client may incur. The Woods chose to have a shared driveway. If they had chosen two single-user driveways, then the town engineering would not have been necessary. The Woods made their choices, and the board should not tell an applicant to do something else.

CW discussed his efforts to keep the Wood application active in the board’s review. CW was skeptical that the Woods would not have known that they would have to pay for third-party review because obviously someone would have to pay. But CW agreed that the subdivision regulations should be clear on an applicant’s responsibility to pay for third-party review.

JP discussed the procedure that the board had adopted on February 18, 2010. The timeline of that procedure does not fit in the requirements of RSA 676:4, I and II.

CW said that board members clearly do not have the expertise necessary to protect public safety; the board needs third-party expertise.

DN asked how the town draws on the escrow account, whether the town would have used that account as a matter of course to pay the town engineer if the account had had enough money in it, and whether Patricia Wood was surprised because the escrow account had no money left.

CW said that the case had exhausted the Wood escrow account because Matt Monahan had done more than the normal two reviews. The bill for a third-party service comes in a month after the service happens, so the application moves faster than the billing. Rustic Crust knew that they would have to pay for third-party services, and their agent, Matthew Peterson, asked ahead how much Rustic Crust owed.

DN said that, before the board’s meeting of March 19, 2015, he had read all the minutes of the Wood case. The essence of the controversy is that the bill surprised Patricia Wood. But her surprise does not nullify the board’s need for third-party review or her obligation to pay for the third-party review. DN said that board members are not qualified to judge a road-construction plan.

CW said that the board should make applicants aware of their obligations at the beginning of the process. The board’s procedural revision on February 18, 2010, is a big problem. The review cannot accommodate a preliminary review.

DN asked whether the board had a summary sheet explaining the review process.

JP explained that Matt Monahan had designed a review process that overlaps preliminary review and formal review in the same time period. The law specifically addresses such review overlapping and prohibits it. (RSA 676:4, II, (c).)

DN said that a list of the board’s expectations, including a requirement to pay for third-party review, might help avoid confusion. DN acknowledged that the regulations themselves define the expectations.

CW said that Stephen Buckley, of the New Hampshire Municipal Association, had said that the board should have a process for shared driveways.

JP said that putting together a summary of regulations on a single page would not work. The board needs to rewrite the process so that the process is very systematic and clear. JP said that his goal was to have documents that lay people can understand and that say what they mean and that mean what they say.

Vote to approve CW’s letter to Patricia Wood: carried 3 – 0 – 2. Voting “yes”: JP, CW, and DN. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: PH and GL.

PH and CW continued discussion of what the applicant’s agent might have done and what the board might have done.

DN repeated his point that the Woods’ knowing about the third-party review would have made no difference because the board had to have the third-party review. The applicant’s expert is not enough.

JP said that the Woods’ agent should have discussed development options and the cost of the various options.

PH said that the Woods had not received enough information.

JP said that the inadequacy of the information was not the town’s fault because the state law (RSA 676:4-b, I) puts applicants on notice.

CW said that the groundwater crossing design from Eckman Engineering is not a road-construction plan.

AGENDA ITEM 10: Selectman’s Report

GL discussed the town’s plans to upgrade the wastewater treatment plant to reduce phosphate discharge in response to the federal environmental protection agency’s (EPA’s) requirements. The board of selectmen is seeking proposals for contracts.

AGENDA ITEM 11: Members’ Concerns

Members’ concern 1: JP’s concern with an error in the minutes of March 19, 2015.

JP noticed a mistake in the minutes of March 19, 2015, in agenda item 10, on page 13: Patricia Wood’s name is misspelled “Patricia Would.” JP said that he wanted to correct this error.

Members’ concern 2: JP’s concern with Dan Greene’s statement that JP had lied about why the Wood subdivision is a major subdivision.

JP referred to Dan Greene’s statement that JP had said something about major subdivisions and that what JP had said was a lie. JP read from the minutes that the board had just approved:

“Dan Greene asked whether the Wood application was a major subdivision.

“CW said that the Wood application was a major subdivision because it created three lots.”

JP said that he had not participated in the discussion of whether the Wood subdivision was a major subdivision.

Members’ concern 3: JP’s concern with amending the rules of procedure.

JP proposed to amend rule VI, 2, of the rules of procedure just adopted to direct the chair to create the schedule for the coming year in March, instead of in April as the current rules say, so that the schedule coincides with the session year, from April to March, instead of from May to April. The new rule VI, 2, will say as follows:

“During March, the chair shall reserve a conference room in the town hall for the coming second Thursday of July or the coming second Thursday of January, whichever is appropriate, if the regular meeting in the coming July or the regular meeting in the coming January will be on the second Thursday of the month according to rules VI, 1, (a) and (b). The chair shall create and post on the town hall bulletin board a list of the dates of the board’s regular meetings in the coming year beginning with and including the board’s regular meeting in April and ending with and including the board’s regular meeting in the following March.”

CW said that the list of dates for regular meetings makes predicting the board’s schedule during the year easier.

CW moved to amend rule VI, 2, of the rules of procedure just adopted to direct the chair to create the schedule for the coming year in March, instead of in April as the current rules say, so that the schedule coincides with the session year, from April to March, instead of from May to April.

JP seconded the motion.

Vote to amend rule VI, 2, of the rules of procedure just adopted to direct the chair to create the schedule for the coming year in March, instead of in April as the current rules say, so that the schedule coincides with the session year, from April to March, instead of from May to April: carried 5 – 0 – 0. Voting “yes”: JP, PH, CW, DN, and GL. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.

AGENDA ITEM 12: Public Input

Paul Nickerson discussed previous practices of (1) preliminary conceptual consultation (see RSA 676:4, II) and (2) survey requirements for the formal review of a plat. “It isn’t up to the planning board to do any work as far as plots or plats or anything. That’s up to the customer to hire their own men, pay bills, and bring it in here with the surveyor.”

CW said that land development requires expertise. Land development is not like the game of horseshoes, where close may be good enough.

PH said that “the ZBA [zoning board of adjustment] is still working on changing the zoning stuff, and we’re doing some definitions too.” PH invited DN to come to the ZBA and see what the ZBA was doing.

JP asked whether the ZBA had not agreed with JP’s statement on March 19, 2015, that preparing zoning amendments is unlawfully outside the ZBA’s jurisdiction. (See planning board minutes of March 19, 2015, agenda item 10, Public Input.)

PH said, “Absolutely not. And what I got to say about that is pretty much if it’s such a heinous offense, drop down to the attorney general and make a complaint.”

JP said that he had e-mailed Matt Monahan, of the Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission, and that Matt Monahan had emphasized that he had told the ZBA that preparing zoning amendments is the planning board’s jurisdiction.

PH said that the ZBA is “steaming ahead.”

AGENDA ITEM 13: Adjournment

CW moved to adjourn the meeting.

PH seconded the motion.

Vote to adjourn the planning board meeting of April 2, 2015: carried 5 – 0 – 0. Voting “yes”: JP, PH, CW, DN, and GL. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none. The planning board meeting of April 2, 2015, is adjourned at 9:02 P.M.

Minutes approved: May 7, 2015

______________________________ _____________________
Clayton Wood, Chairman Date

I transcribed these minutes (not verbatim) on April 4, 2015, from notes that I made during the planning board meeting on April 2, 2015, and from a copy that Chairman Clayton Wood made on April 3, 2015, of the town’s digital recording of the meeting.

____________________________________________
Jim Pritchard, planning board recorder and secretary