Recently in Planning Board Category
Lions Club hearing Part 1 from Moulton Boro on Vimeo.
Lions Club Hearing P2 from Moulton Boro on Vimeo.
Lions Club Hearing P3 from Moulton Boro on Vimeo.
Finally! There was a disagreement on the Board of Selectmen! This is something we rarely see in this town where the common vote is 5-0! Betsey Patten voiced her concern that the Master Plan Implementation Committee should fall under the guidance of the Planning Board and not the Board of Selectmen as recommended by the Town Planner. She suggested that they meet with the Planning Board and the Town Planner to discuss the matter further Joel Mudgett agreed with Betsey.
The discussion was interrupted by “If I may,’ from Carter Terenzini. He began a lengthy and misleading dialogue of why the jurisdiction of the MPIC should fall under the BoS as town departments such as fire, police, are not under the direction of the planning board. Betsey argued that she did not feel comfortable going forward without meeting with the Planning Board.
What is not clear is why did the Selectmen go forward with a vote? Why not table the issue to make sure that something as important as the implementation of the Master Plan is clear to all of the Selectmen? If there is disagreement, which in this case is a good thing, arrange for additional time and discussion. We have been waiting for quite some time to begin the process of implementing the Master Plan, but let’s do it right. Let’s do it without making more mistakes than we have in the past. We need for the town to go forward, not get stuck in the proverbial mud.
It wasn’t until the actual meeting minutes were published that the final vote was actually known, as they tend to speak rather softly up there at that table. We would once again, encourage the BoS to speak louder so that the audience in attendance could hear all that is said. Now that the Selectmen meetings are aired on Time Warner Cable, we will be able to control the volume by our remote controls.
The town voted on the establishment of a Heritage Commission at Town Meeting this year and we have been waiting for months for the Board of Selectmen to finalize volunteers to that commission. Once volunteer letters to the Board have been submitted and reviewed, we would think that the commission would be properly appointed and the newly formed Heritage Commission could meet and begin the tasks ahead of them. Not so: and still we wait. The Board of Selectmen still have not yet finished determining who is on the committee. Why is that?
There are several things that concern us about the appointments made thus far. For instance, at the Board of Selectmen meeting on May 14, 2009, Chairwoman Karel Crawford said that they would work on it at their scheduled work session on May 28th. Yet somehow at the Selectmen’s meeting on May 21, the very next week, announcements were made as to who would be appointed to the Heritage Commission. When did they discuss that they would make appointments at their May 21 Board of Selectmen’s meeting rather than at their scheduled work session? Is it possible that all five of the selectmen were on the same wave length at the same time? If they had a discussion, it was not before the public. If so, where are the minutes? Or is this privileged information not available to the public?
We wonder if there was some kind of discussion behind the scenes that no one bothered to recognize as a need to bring to the public under the Right to know law.
Another issue is the selection of one volunteer who serves on several other committees. No questions were raised at the appointment of Jean Beadle who serves as the Chair of the Advisory Budget Committee, as well as a member of the Town Planner Screening Committee. Yet when Selectmen Betsey Patten suggested that Jane Fairchild should be assigned as an alternate, she implied that Jane would be far too busy to be on the Heritage Commission as she is already a member of the planning board. Not Jean Beadle however who is the Chair of the ABC. She should be quite busy finding a replacement for a member that resigned, not to mention all the time to bring a new member of the ABC up to speed.
Don’t forget folks, the school will be in the midst of contract negotiations with the teachers union, the school budget, and the town budget and that should be more that enough to keep the ABC Chair quite busy. Why is an alternate assignment good for one but not the other?
Is there some favoritism amongst the appointments?
The third issue at hand is the select board member that is required by statute to serve on the Heritage Commission. Another statute states that there cannot be 2 members of the Planning Board on the same committee or board. Selectmen Ed Charest is on the planning board as is volunteer Jane Fairchild. How will this be resolved?
How long must we wait? There is a worksession June 25, 2009 @ 4pm........
Regulatory bodies play an important role in protecting the public good. At the same time, they need to be reminded that they do not possess the authority to usurp the legitimate rights of the people who come before them.
Editorial, The Citizen of Laconia
May 5th, 2009
Planning boards are critical to the future of any community.
The land use boards bring due diligence to a whole host of building and development proposals. Its members are people with different skills and backgrounds who work together with the hope that projects meet zoning, building code and various other regulations, and that projects are basically consistent with a community's Master Plan. The boards also oversee the hearing process, which gives the public an opportunity to offer their comments — pro or con — on any given proposal.
In order to make an informed and appropriate decision, planning boards need to know how to apply a host of rules and laws. But they are also vested with some discretion so they can apply those rules and regulations in a sensible and just way.
The challenge for any planning board is knowing how to use that discretion judiciously.
It takes something more than opinion or "gut feeling" for a planning board to decide on an application.
Planning boards should take some time to ponder a superior court decision last month that dealt with just this issue.
In this particular case, a judge in
Judge Kenneth Brown wrote that, while the board has some discretionary powers during the review process, those powers have limits — that the board's decision must be based on more than the mere opinion of its members. He wrote that the board "abused its discretion and should have approved the petitioner's application."
The judge noted it is not enough to reject an application on the basis of "vague concerns" because the proposal "doesn't seem like an appealing situation," that it "posed a quality of life situation," or because "in the past few years, developers have taken advantage of the zoning regulations to the maximum."
The "vague concerns" to which the judge alluded are, at best, policy issues. Historically, the job of a nonelected regulatory body is to implement policies, not enact them.
While Judge Brown's decision does not, strictly speaking, carry any weight beyond this one case, it is a ruling which planning officials everywhere should pay attention to. After all, what Judge Brown was doing was applying basic legal principles to the case at hand.
Planning boards anywhere can easily, if unwittingly, venture into the area of "vague concerns" — whether a particular project is "the right fit" for an area or if the aesthetics of a project are appealing.
A local example occurred some months back when the Laconia Planning Board considered an apartment house project on
While Judge Brown's ruling is not a sweeping one, by its nature it should make boards aware of their authority and responsibility in such matters; that, while opinion might play some part, more definitive ingredients must be present as well.
Regulatory bodies play an important role in protecting the public good. At the same time, they need to be reminded that they do not possess the authority to usurp the legitimate rights of the people who come before them
