[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6364965,"mediaKeyId","2160459-15d9ca259adaa606a74eb864aaac3a52","parentId",2160459,"title","Brentwood board votes to continue receiving town planner's comment letters; members debate role and public access","audioSeconds",1086,"startMs",2315000,"endMs",3401000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2160459-15d9ca259adaa606a74eb864aaac3a52&start=2315&end=3401","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2160459-15d9ca259adaa606a74eb864aaac3a52/thumbnail_2315000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6364965/New-Hampshire/Brentwood-board-votes-to-continue-receiving-town-planners-comment-letters-members-debate-role-and-public-access","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6364965-b462776ba6901522225514b41734127b/orig.mp4?Expires=1776514743&Signature=kbGA7TRYZ2FSIacfO9h7IW5cVolqBncGoazMZvDdb~MBAyigd4dBbr6tUE8nGChW8qcdzgMWg9Uw-78reOtaMa5~9-UmjYYnek7RQGgUiu~Mh2yyRVM-K04VNN6TxWAxHQJMn0quiDvXT9ZK4ShVe4C44NlrAf3C2rPehrX2RynXH1tpa37pPVeFNRfA-WiHfnsDjcPaxx7qQ63wUEzahzYEW-jUdveYucHZZ~IV700XVOblpw5sjrNmVzAK-srnhOPTQt-saSbMAHceKD~rBUaLoUesFaecvzejMMROTqazJpzSNiStWft9UELAkboZ7HPmmmjOTv9Razkj-kyhBQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Town Council of Brentwood NH","date","2025-01-28T13:01:23Z","article","The Brentwood Board of Adjustment voted to continue receiving comment letters from town planner Glenn Greenwood for applications, with a recorded 2–1 majority.

Frank Albert, vice chair, moved that the board continue to include Greenwood’s comment letters in the packet for every application; Wayne Morrow seconded. During discussion members and counsel debated whether the planner’s comments are advisory and how those comments should be treated under state public‑records law.

Town counsel Christopher Perry told the board that planner comment letters provided to the board would be public records and, under RSA 91‑A, applicants could request copies. \"If under nothing else, certainly under RSA 91‑A, they would be entitled to a copy of it,\" Perry said.

Board members described Greenwood as a long‑time town planner who provides a review of applications and an interpretive reading of applicable bylaws. Several speakers said his memo clarifies what an applicant is asking the board to authorize; others voiced concern that applicants might treat the planner’s comment as authoritative rather than advisory.

Members also discussed practical considerations, including Greenwood’s contract hours and whether the planner should prepare comment letters for every case or only when the board requests them. Counsel noted that formally soliciting the planner’s opinion could require public process if the board intends to use the letters to make decisions in particular cases.

The motion to continue receiving Greenwood’s comment letters passed 2–1. The board instructed staff to continue including planner comments in applicant packets; counsel reminded the group that town‑hired planner comments are public records and can be requested by applicants under RSA 91‑A.

Ending: The board voted to maintain the current practice of including planner comment letters alongside application materials; members asked staff and counsel to clarify any contractual or workload issues with the planner before the next contract cycle.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting 01/27/2025 Brentwood, NH","oneSentenceSummary","The Board of Adjustment voted 2–1 to continue including town planner Glenn Greenwood's comment letters in application packets after members discussed the planner's role, contract hours and whether such notes are public records under RSA 91‑A.","taxTitle","Brentwood Town, Rockingham County, New Hampshire","taxId",74075,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6364969,"Brentwood Board of Adjustment grants rehearing in sign‑size dispute; applicant must refile",310,76000,386000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2160459-15d9ca259adaa606a74eb864aaac3a52&start=76&end=386","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2160459-15d9ca259adaa606a74eb864aaac3a52/thumbnail_76000.jpg","/articles/6364969/New-Hampshire/Brentwood-Board-of-Adjustment-grants-rehearing-in-signsize-dispute-applicant-must-refile","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6364969-21f96b51a91d434a7673ae7d44efba73/orig.mp4?Expires=1776514743&Signature=nP6ISgOpL2THAbVepGk4UEK7t0k7JDq9i~FO9zSbtROb6UO2bBMKqeJiwfqS48~5iGA9UK3WuWVeBOJV5jbK-c6rb01bchpTiTLvaH26-E4D9ya~tQcJ6Y06Da91Qvd9KM19lw4ay8Q6131V2zBiAWbxWhqNLdYdb0Y~es~uiPlkcqNxcRxjV3F2bi9Ob1ntuEg4PoAEGb-0ADP52mpblDX~Y6ytO9ABjJpp4z-bYQbeqEVfpq6FfB0nSPJB6DD~7ie877kkyKh-9Boo57DvBt-4eul4kBSfh6gwGz767IX8viGkiouURh94av3EdYahbO7nPpSB0nH4rWtIVz6aTA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Doug Kelly, chair of the Brentwood Board of Adjustment, moved and the board approved a rehearing on an appeal of the board’s Dec. 17 decision about allowable sign square footage for a commercial property. \"The applicant will be allowed to reapply and have the whole thing reheard and resubmit his information,\" Kelly said after the board voted to grant the rehearing.

The rehearing stems from disagreement over how much existing sign area to count when deciding whether the applicant needed a variance. Board members said the original hearing record lacked definitive measurements: new information presented after the first hearing indicated the existing sign is 108 square feet, a figure board members said was not in the application or the packet they reviewed.

The rehearing was approved after Commissioners said the applicant — or the applicant's agent — had not supplied complete dimensions at the first hearing. Frank Albert, vice chair, seconded the motion. Board members described the rehearing as a \"clean slate\": the applicant must refile the application in full, serve abutters' notices again and pay related costs.

Town counsel Christopher Perry explained to the board that the standard for rehearing is fact-dependent. \"In general, it would be just evidence that was not available to the board that would have enabled the board to have made a decision in a certain way,\" Perry said, describing rehearing criteria that can include evidence unknown to either the applicant or the board at the time of the initial hearing.

Public comment and board discussion focused on where the burden of proof lies and whether the missing dimension should have been the applicant's responsibility. Bruce Stevens, a resident, asked whether the size had been supplied at the first hearing and asked the board to state for the record what constitutes \"substantial new information.\" Mark Kennedy, the town's land use administrator, said applicants are normally responsible for supplying measurement evidence and that the applicant will be financially responsible for new abutters' notices for the rehearing. Kennedy also noted that the original sign had a building permit and that, to his knowledge, there was no variance on the original sign.

Votes at a glance: the board voted to grant the rehearing (motion by Doug Kelly; second by Frank Albert; voice vote, motion passed). At the same meeting the board also approved corrected minutes from Dec. 16 (voice vote), approved continuing to receive planner Glenn Greenwood’s comment letters for applications (recorded 2–1), and voted to go into a nonpublic session for legal advice.

Next steps: the applicant must submit a new, complete application and documentation of existing sign dimensions, and pay for re-notification of abutters. The board indicated staff will treat the rehearing as a new ZBA hearing and notified the applicant to clarify what specific relief is being requested before the rehearing.","The Board of Adjustment voted to allow a rehearing of a Dec. 17 decision about allowable sign square footage after board members said the original hearing record lacked accurate measurements; the applicant must submit a new application and pay abutters' notice costs.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Brentwood board votes to continue receiving town planner's comment letters; members debate role and public access

Brentwood Board of Adjustment grants rehearing in sign‑size dispute; applicant must refile