March 19, 2015 Minutes

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

DATE: Thursday, March 19, 2015

AGENDA ITEM 1: Call to Order

Chair Clayton Wood called the meeting to order at 7:00 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; and
Gerard LeDuc (GL), selectmen’s ex officio planning board member.

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

Members of the public appearing before the planning board: Carole Dodge (zoning board of adjustment chair), Dan Greene, Jesse Pacheco (building inspector), and Patricia Wood.

“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 he had only two matters scheduled for tonight’s meeting: (1) deciding the Woods’ request that the board reconsider billing the Woods for third-party review of the shared driveway in their Shaw Road subdivision and (2) considering whether to replace the rules of procedure that the board adopted on January 1, 2015, (to be effective on April 1, 2015) with the rules of procedure that the board had been working on for the previous two years.

CW said that he wanted to move the review of the March 5, 2015, minutes to the April 2, 2015, meeting so that the board will review the March 5 minutes after the board decides who will be the board’s recording secretary for the board’s 2015 session.

No board member objected to moving the review of the March 5, 2015, minutes to the April 2, 2015, meeting.

AGENDA ITEM 4: Public Input

No public input.

AGENDA ITEM 5: Approval of the Minutes of the March 5, 2015 Meeting.

The board deferred approving the minutes of the March 5, 2015, meeting to the April 2, 2015, meeting.

AGENDA ITEM 6: Letter from the Woods regarding the Subdivision approved on November 6, 2014

CW said that he had talked to the Woods about the charge for third-party review of the shared driveway in the Woods’ Shaw Road subdivision and that he had invited the Woods to planning board meetings but that he had made no progress. The Woods have written a second letter, dated March 8, 2015, asking the board to reconsider the charge.

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.”

CW explained that the $599 that the board is currently charging the Woods is for more than just the third-party review of the shared driveway. The Woods had had a cost overrun in the processing of their application. The charge for the third-party review is $449.44. There is an additional $75 charge, approximately, to record the approved plat at the Merrimack County Registry of Deeds. CW explained that cost overruns are not uncommon and that they happen because the board does not stop processing an application when the applicant overruns the money in escrow. The Wood application had needed four reviews by Matt Monahan (of the Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission) where most applications need only two. The two additional reviews were necessary because of an error that the Woods had made in satisfying the zoning requirement for frontage.

CW said that the board had decided on August 7, 2014, that the Woods must either have a road-construction plan or request a waiver of the requirement for a road-construction plan for the shared driveway. The board waited several months for the Woods’ response. The Woods made some changes to their groundwater crossing application as a plan, but this plan has many shortcomings as an actual road-construction plan. Four months after the meeting on August 7, 2014, the shared-driveway plan did not have the stamp of a professional engineer, so CW sought third-party review. (See RSA 676:4-b, I.) CW said that the Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission (CNHRPC) had told the Woods agent, Paul Zuzgo, several times that the town would probably have third-party review. CW cited an e-mail that Matt Monahan (of CNHRPC) sent to Paul Zuzgo in July 2014. CW said that the third-party review was limited to matters that the board considered on August 7, 2014, or on August 16, 2014, when the board did a site walk of the Wood land. CW said that the state law (RSA 676:4-b, I) allows the board to charge for reasonable costs.

CW said that he had had to balance delaying the application against allowing a cost overrun. CW said that bookkeeping cost overruns is complicated. CW said that boards in some other towns do not allow any cost overruns. The Pittsfield Planning Board has been more lenient.

CW said that he had tried to explain the preceding matters to the Woods but that the Woods want the board to reconsider the charge for third-party review of the shared driveway.

Patricia Wood entered the meeting at 7:11 PM.

CW summarized for Patricia Wood the matters that he had just presented to the board.

Patricia Wood said that she and her husband had paid Eckman Engineering $1000 or more for their services. Patricia Wood asked whether Eckman Engineering had not stamped their work.

CW said that the information that the board needed was not in the Woods’ filing. The Woods’ road report is only for the groundwater crossing; it has nothing to do with the road surface.

Patricia Wood asked whether the Woods’ road report was from Eckman Engineering.

CW said no; it was from Paul Zuzgo.

Patricia Wood said that Eckman Engineering had assembled a very thick pamphlet and that the pamphlet would have been available to the planning board if the board had needed to look at it. Patricia Wood said that she had been dumbfounded when she received the town’s bill for third-party review because Eckman Engineering had done all that work extensively and because the board should have contacted Eckman Engineering. Patricia Wood said that the work had cost thousands of dollars, that the Woods had had to hire a wetlands scientist, and that the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services had approved everything.

CW said that the Woods’ agent, Paul Zuzgo, had not authorized the board to speak to Eckman Engineering and that the report from Eckman Engineering was from 2007. CW explained that $450 of the $599 charge was for third-party review. The remainder of the $599 charge was partly because the original application had not met the zoning requirement for frontage.

Patricia Wood said that she thought that the original application had met the zoning requirement for frontage.

CW said that the original application had not met the zoning requirement for frontage.

Patricia Wood asked whether the board’s protocol was to let the property owner know when the board is having third-party review.

CW said, “It can be.”

Patricia Wood said that Paul Zuzgo said that he had known nothing about the board’s intent to have third-party review.

CW said that Matt Monahan (of CNHRPC) had written to Paul Zuzgo in July saying that Matt Monahan recommended that the board have the town engineer review the shared driveway. The shared driveway was already a concern as early as June because the shared driveway is “a shared road.”

Patricia Wood said that the shared driveway is not a road; it is a driveway. Patricia Wood said that the board was treating the shared driveway as if it were a main road. Patricia Wood asked whether other driveways have such review.

CW said that “private” driveways do not have to have such review but that the board determined that the Woods’ shared driveway “is a subdivision road because of the fact that it is shared.” CW said that he had confirmed this result by reviewing case law (Davis v. Barrington, 127 N.H. 202, 497 A.2d 1232 (1985)) and by conferring with CNHRPC and the New Hampshire Municipal Association. CW also looked at a similar project in Epsom. CW said that the board was not asking for a full road-construction plan; the board simply wanted to address certain concerns.

Patricia Wood asked whether the full board had voted to have the town engineer review the driveway or whether CW had taken the matter on himself.

CW said that he had taken on himself to change the plat in order to keep the plat before the board. CW said that tracking escrow amounts is difficult but that he will try to keep better track of the amounts. CW said that cost overruns are typical as long as they are reasonable. CW said that he had tried to get the application in front of the board for the September and October meetings and that he just barely made the November meeting. CW said that the Woods now have an approved subdivision.

Patricia Wood said that she also had a bill for $500. Patricia Wood said that the $500 bill is a hardship. The application process was as if the Woods had had to do it twice.

CW said that the subdivision was complicated and that Patricia Wood was essentially saying so. The board has the right to third-party review. (RSA 676:4-b, I.) The board had four reports from Matt Monahan saying that he advised the board to have the town engineer review the shared driveway. The third-party review was a surprise to no one, including Paul Zuzgo.

Patricia Wood said that she had talked to Matt Monahan and that he had not mentioned third-party review. Patricia Wood said that she would talk to Matt Monahan again before she would pay the bill.

CW said that the Woods would have to pay the bill and that the board had the right to stop the process if a cost overrun happens. Other towns do not allow an application to proceed if a cost overrun happens. The Pittsfield Planning Board has not stopped applications because of cost overruns.

Patricia Wood asked whether the board would hold endorsing her plat until she paid the bill.

CW said yes, that it was the law. CW said that he would bring the matter to the board for a vote. Other applicants pay for their cost overruns.

Patricia Wood said that she would talk to Matt Monahan.

DN asked Patricia Wood whether she was questioning the bill because she did not realize that she would get the bill.

Patricia Wood said that she did not even know that the engineer was out there, because the Woods had had their own engineer.

DN asked whether the board had hired the town engineer to evaluate the safety of the shared driveway.

CW said yes. CW said that a road-construction plan must have a professional engineer’s stamp. The board does not have a road-construction plan; the board has a wetlands-crossing plan, which the Woods tried to modify as a road-construction plan.

PH asked for confirmation that the total bill to the Woods was $599.44.

CW said yes.

PH said that the board should have told the Woods that the board was going to have an engineer look at the driveway. PH said that the board should use some of its own budget to share the Woods’ expense.

JP asked for clarification that Matt Monahan had told the Woods’ agent, Paul Zuzgo, that the board would need an engineering study.

CW said that Matt Monahan had said that he would recommend that the board have an engineering study.

JP asked PH whether PH were saying that the board’s telling the Woods’ agent, Paul Zuzgo, was insufficient and that the board should have contacted the Woods directly.

PH said, “Absolutely. I think it’s just a courtesy to give them a heads up. That’s just my opinion.”

Patricia Wood said that, if she had known about the town engineer, then she could have told the board about her booklet from Eckman Engineering and that she could have gotten the booklet from Paul Zuzgo and then presented the booklet to the board.

PH said that the application was “convoluted” and that “some things got lost in the shuffle and the communications.” PH said that both the board and the Woods shared responsibility for the cost overrun and that both should share in paying for the cost overrun.

JP said that he did not remember any other case where the board had bypassed the applicant’s agent to go directly to the applicant. The board did not call Alice Goldstein, the applicant for Stagecoach Station. JP said that he disagreed that telling the Woods’ agent, Paul Zuzgo, was insufficient.

PH said that, with the board talking to Paul Zuzgo, Paul Zuzgo talking to Matt Monahan, and so forth, no one tells the Woods what is happening. It is a question of a 10-cent telephone call. The board should not use past practice to judge this case.

JP asked how far must the board go if the board has told the applicant’s agent.

CW said that he would take the question further and point out that it is not the board’s place to tell the applicant what their road-construction plan must be; it is the applicant’s responsibility to satisfy the subdivision regulations. If someone submits something without the stamp of professional engineer. Paul Zuzgo never resisted the requirement for a road-construction plan. The Woods could have submitted a road-construction plan or asked for a waiver. CW said that he had called the Woods more often than he had called other applicants.

Patricia Wood said that, with all of that communication, CW had not mentioned the town engineer’s looking at the property.

CW said that the town engineer came to the property only to expedite the review and to minimize the cost. CW said that he depended on the Woods’ agent to represent the Woods. Paul Zuzgo did not resist the road-construction plan, and the town engineer confirmed all the concerns that the board had had. CW had restricted the town engineer to the board’s concerns.

Patricia Wood said that CW had asked for permission for the site walk (on August 16, 2014) but not for the engineering.

CW said that he had two written notes from Patricia Wood for the site walk and for the engineering.

Patricia Wood repeated that she had given permission only for the site walk. Patricia Wood said that she had recently asked Paul Zuzgo whether he had known about the town engineer and that Paul Zuzgo had said that he did not know. Patricia Wood said that Paul Zuzgo had said that the board would look at the information from Eckman Engineering.

CW said that Paul Zuzgo had been at the board meeting on November 6, 2014, when the board decided the application, and that Paul Zuzgo had not objected to anything in the town engineer’s report.

CW asked whether board members had other questions.

DN asked for confirmation that the board would have needed engineering review whether or not the applicant knew about the review. DN asked whether knowing about the engineering would have changed anything that that Patricia Wood would have done.

Patricia Wood said that she would have submitted her engineering from Eckman Engineering if she had known about the town’s engineer.

CW said that Patricia Wood should have submitted the information from Eckman Enginering as soon as she knew that the board needed a road-construction plan. CW said that he did not know that a road-construction plan from Eckman Engineering existed. CW said that the Woods had submitted nothing but the groundwater-crossing plan. The board had told the Woods’ agent that they must submit a road-construction plan or ask for a waiver. CW said that the board had given the Woods several other waivers.

JP asked for clarification that the Woods had had Eckman Engineering do engineering that was not in the subdivision application.

Patricia Wood said that she guessed that the information was not in the subdivision application. Patricia Wood said that Paul Zuzgo had said that he had told the board that the information was available for the board too look at.

CW said that he had been very communicative with applicants generally. CW said that the board would delay applications if the board did not allow some cost overruns.

JP said that the board’s use of information not in the subdivision application raises a question of due process and fairness to abutters. Abutters have a constitutional right to see the whole application and get a chance to comment on it. The board cannot “go fishing” for information not in the application and be fair to everyone.

CW moved to reconsider the escrow balance on the Wood subdivision that was approved November 6, 2014.

PH seconded the motion.

Vote to reconsider the escrow balance on the Wood subdivision that was approved November 6, 2014: failed 2 – 3 – 0. Voting “yes”: PH and GL. Voting “no”: JP, CW, and DN. Abstaining: none.

GL said that he had voted yes because he had some problems with some things that had been said.

CW asked GL whether GL wanted to get on record now.

GL said that he would wait until a selectmen’s report. GL said that he had three problems. Problem 1 was the chair’s “unilaterally changing the plat, hiring the engineering separately without a vote from the board.” Problem 2 was “Matt Monahan’s e-mail about the engineer, I have never saw it. I don’t think any of the board members have.” Problem 3 was “Five letters of communication was asked for by Selectman Konopka last meeting. He never received them, and I would like to have them same five letters.”

CW denied changing the plat without the consent of the board.

GL said, “There’s no record of a vote.”

CW said, “I’ll have to look at that.”

CW apologized to Patricia Wood for her hardship in paying for the third-party review and for the confusion.

Building inspector Jesse Pacheco said that applicants depend on their agents for expertise and guidance.

AGENDA ITEM 7: Rules of Procedure Discussion

CW said that town administrator Mike Williams had approached him about the possibility of the board’s repealing the rules adopted on January 1, 2015, and to be effective April 1, 2015, and then adopting the draft rules dated March 17, 2015. Mike Williams had had someone scheduled to be the board’s new secretary, and Mike Williams and CW both thought that the board should have its April meeting before actually engaging the new secretary.

CW said that he had recently been using Robert’s Rules of Order allowing only board members on the winning side to move for reconsideration and that the draft rules do not include this rule.

JP agreed and explained that he had not included the rule on moving to reconsider, because the board had limited experience with this rule and had not discussed it in the context of adopting new rules.

Jesse Pacheco asked about the timing of adopting the draft rules of March 17, 2015.

JP read from the rules to be effective April 1, 2015, section 15, paragraph 1:

“Proposals for amendments to these rules may be made by motion at a meeting of the Board. Such motion, if seconded, shall be tabled until the next regular meeting, and all members shall be notified of the pending motion.”

PH asked whether the filing provision could allow applicants to submit applications directly to the board at a meeting.

CW said no. All applications must be filed with the administrative secretary via same process.

DN asked for clarification as to what had to be moved.

JP said that what had to be moved was what the board would vote on adopting on April 2, 2015.

After brief discussion, the board agreed to adopt the changes that Mike Williams suggested:

Change section IV, paragraph 2, from

“The building inspector and the town administrator shall provide other administrative assistance as the planning board may need.”

to

“The building inspector and the town administrator may provide other administrative assistance as mutually agreed.”

Change section V, paragraph 2, from

“The planning board notifies its members that the board of selectmen monitors all communications between planning board members and the New Hampshire Municipal Association.”

to

“The planning board notifies its members that the board of selectmen may monitor all communications between planning board members and the New Hampshire Municipal Association.”

Change section VI, paragraph 9, from

“Any board member who will be unable to attend a meeting shall notify the chair, the vice-chair, the board’s administrative secretary, the town administrator, or the building inspector as soon as possible.”

to

“Any board member who will be unable to attend a meeting shall notify the chair, the vice-chair, or the board’s administrative secretary as soon as possible.”

Change section VIII, paragraph 1, from

“If any planning board member disqualifies himself from sitting in a particular case, then he shall notify the chair, the vice-chair, the board’s administrative secretary, the town administrator, or the building inspector as soon as possible…”

to

“If any planning board member disqualifies himself from sitting in a particular case, then he shall notify the chair, the vice-chair, or the board’s administrative secretary as soon as possible…”

JP moved the board 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.

CW seconded the motion.

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 5 – 0 – 0. Voting “yes”: JP, PH, CW, DN, and GL. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.

AGENDA ITEM 8: Selectman’s Report – Gerard LeDuc, Selectman Ex Officio

GL said that there had been a change in the wastewater treatment plant. The federal environmental protection agency (EPA) has changed the regulations on groundwater phosphate discharge, and the town must reengineer the wastewater treatment plant to satisfy the new regulations.

GL said that the new chair of the board of selectmen is EN, the vice chair is Al Douglas, and the alternate for the selectmen’s ex officio planning board member is EN.

AGENDA ITEM 9: Members’ Concerns

CW said that he wanted to defer the members’ concerns period.

AGENDA ITEM 10: Public Input

Building inspector Jesse Pacheco said that, in light of the Woods’ complaint, perhaps the board should go slower or do less to help applicants. Jesse Pacheco said that Patricia Wood had been saying to herself that the board had not voted on using the town engineer. Jesse Pacheco said that applicants did not seem to understand when the board was trying to help.

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.

Dan Greene asked whether the board had had a motion to accept the application as complete.

CW said that the board had had a motion to accept the application as complete at the November 6, 2014, meeting.

Dan Greene asked why was the road-construction plan not on the checklist.

CW said that the road-construction plan was on the checklist. CW referred to the board’s meeting on August 7, 2014.

Dan Greene asked about the vetting process of the Wood application.

CW said that the Wood application had been missing many items and had needed four reviews from Matt Monahan.

Dan Greene asked, “Did at some point the board vote to change this to a driveway instead of a road?”

CW said, “No.”

Dan Greene asked, “So what is it, a driveway or a subdivision road?”

CW said, “A subdivision road.”

Dan Greene said that the board’s minutes said that the board had voted to make “it” a “common driveway.”

CW said that the board had voted on August 7, 2014, that the shared driveway was a subdivision road.

Dan Greene said that he wanted a copy of the notes and minutes of tonight’s meeting.

JP said that Jesse Pacheco was correct in his analysis of how much help to applicants is appropriate. JP said that he would copy the discussion from New Hampshire Practice and would distribute the discussion to the board for the next meeting.

CW said that all of his good will for the Woods had worked against CW. CW said that Paul Zuzgo is an expert and knows more about the process than CW does. CW did not understand why Paul Zuzgo would not provide the board with information that his client had. CW said that, if the board had gone “by the book,” then the board would have stopped the application twice. CW said that the board should not have to be so strict.

Jesse Pacheco said that the applicant can correct an application that the board finds complete.

JP said that he was not finding fault with efforts to help applicants, but JP was concerned that the board’s help to applicants had evolved far beyond what the state law requires. The board should know what the law is.

CW agreed and said that the board should track the spending of money better.

PH said that there had been “ambiguity there with between us and Paul and her and one thing or another.” PH suggested that the board verify the checklist strictly because “apparently some of that stuff fell through the cracks.”

CW, JP, and Jesse Pacheco disagreed and said that the board had reviewed the checklist.

PH said that something must have fallen through the cracks because Patricia Woods is unhappy. PH said that the board should pay more attention to the checklist and be less helpful.

CW referred to records informing the Woods of incomplete items on the checklist.

JP said that he had made the motion on August 7 that the board find the application incomplete with neither a road-construction plan nor a waiver. There had been an initial problem that the requests for waivers did not state reasons when the law (RSA 674:36, II, (n), and subdivision regulation section 2, K) requires that applicant give reasons. Instead of sending Paul Zuzgo away to return later, the board continued reviewing the application for other deficiencies that the board might find in the completeness review. The board told Paul Zuzgo about the road-construction-plan problem at that time. If Paul Zuzgo did not tell Patricia Wood about the need for a road-construction plan, then that omission was unfortunate, but it was not the board’s fault that Paul Zuzgo did not tell Patricia Wood. JP said that the board’s talking directly to an applicant who has a designated representative would be improper.

CW said that, in light of the board’s reaction and the public’s reaction, he would not help another applicant as much as he had helped the Woods.

Jesse Pacheco said that experts who come before the Pittsfield Planning Board know what they are doing and are trying to exploit the board’s ignorance.

CW said that the board had asked for a road-construction plan. Paul Zuzgo should have known that a road-construction plan should have a professional engineer’s stamp.

Dan Greene said that the board should not have proceeded with the application if the checklist was incomplete.

JP read from Bill Miskoe’s letter (received February 25, 2015) arguing that the Woods should not have to pay for the third-party review:

“It all began when the board, with a minimum quorum of three members voted 2-1 in favour of designating a two-lot shared driveway as a subdivision road. This designation, while made by only two board members, required the board to retain an engineering consultant to review the design of the subdivision road.”

JP said that, in light of Bill Miskoe’s admission that the board had to have third-party review, any board member criticizing CW is a hypocrite.

CW said that the New Hampshire Municipal Association, Matt Monahan, and the Town of Epsom all say the same thing: that the board needed expert review of a road-construction plan.

Dan Greene said that the sentence following Bill Miskoe’s admission said, “A later vote determined that subdivision road standards did not have to be met.” Dan Greene said that this later vote was the basis of his earlier question of whether the shared driveway was a subdivision road or a driveway.

CW explained that the board had accepted the modified groundwater-crossing plan as a road-construction plan, but the board had never changed its determination that the shared driveway was a subdivision road.

JP said that the board had not designated the shared driveway as a subdivision road but that the board had voted that the shared driveway was a subdivision road by law (Davis v. Barrington, 127 N.H. 202, 497 A.2d 1232 (1985)). The determination was not discretionary.

Dan Greene said that he did not understand why someone would need a road down the middle of two lots.

CW said that that arrangement was the Woods’ choice.

PH said that the zoning board of adjustment (ZBA) had been preparing zoning amendments. The ZBA is working on moving some districts around, changing how uses are permitted downtown, adding a second light industrial district, and adding a second suburban district. PH invited planning board members to attend the next ZBA meeting (March 26, 2015).

JP said that what the ZBA is doing as reported in its minutes and by PH is unlawfully outside the ZBA’s jurisdiction. JP cited RSA 674:1, Duties of the Planning Board; RSA 674:33, Powers of Zoning Board of Adjustment; RSA 674:33-a, Equitable Waiver of Dimensional Requirement; and RSA 675, Enactment and Adoption Procedures.

Jesse Pacheco said that a joint board meeting should do these zoning-amendment matters.

ZBA chair Carole Dodge said that she had asked the planning board whether the planning board would investigate “this.” Carole Dodge said that she had gone to the master plan committee and had received their blessing and that she had gone to the Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission (CNHRPC) and had received much help. Carole Dodge said that CNHRPC had not had the same objections that JP had.

Jesse Pacheco said that the two boards should review JP’s list of revised definitions much earlier in the year than they had last year.

CW said that the planning board should see who is chair before the board decides what to do on zoning amendments.

AGENDA ITEM 11: Adjournment

CW moved to adjourn the meeting.

PH seconded the motion.

Vote to adjourn the planning board meeting of March 19, 2015: carried 5 – 0 – 0. Voting “yes”: JP, PH, CW, DN, and GL. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none. The planning board meeting of March 19, 2015, is adjourned at 8:30 P.M.

Minutes approved: April 2, 2015

______________________________ _____________________
Clayton Wood, Chairman Date

I transcribed these minutes (not verbatim) on March 21, 2015, from notes that I made during the planning board meeting on March 19, 2015, and from a copy that Chairman Clayton Wood made on March 20, 2015, of the town’s digital recording of the meeting.

____________________________________________
Jim Pritchard, planning board recorder and secretary