[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-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",[32,76,88],{"_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",6463094,"mediaKeyId","5786132-1f5ad3730bf01a8d892dadf508e481aa","parentId",5786132,"title","Planning board authorizes billing applicant or using escrow to cover engineering review for Tanya Lane","audioSeconds",3331,"startMs",994000,"endMs",4325000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5786132-1f5ad3730bf01a8d892dadf508e481aa&start=994&end=4325","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5786132-1f5ad3730bf01a8d892dadf508e481aa/thumbnail_994000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6463094/New-Hampshire/Planning-board-authorizes-billing-applicant-or-using-escrow-to-cover-engineering-review-for-Tanya-Lane","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6463094-218f0e8fd3e4bbb556d3efdb02c48992/orig.mp4?Expires=1775272124&Signature=jLbprZZX1IHP7ye2Ukul9RXjM7B1fcchECuRIp5qGH2ELnYwFxHXZWP9xjhE-mTgJeopGZQeYDrrQRQpQ4dAuPLUyUmr5Yub3~YweTHJvs8Nsj8-SbX0C2sAirvzzD8mdqroC9VIfckQiX57ENKQQmqkmYSur9qRdaYsT0vJJw9yr3JwMBZsH9ycH5O4-10ZlYzHppM7rqfc-2TwnD9BfWuDQrD9LqWcMwOKKQ8zfrcG8HFPZhoBohcuSrcg4y1Uh2CWMTwLd1PGkyPkfeYDxUa28tslwrvCgzz3KxDPxWFo1ZII3ynq0e-VybxFUdCypgsHOQUQcrMZzcSy7lgFTQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Town of Brentwood, NH","date","2025-09-18T23:04:51Z","article","The Brentwood Planning Board voted to require the applicant for the Tanya Lane subdivision to pay a professional-consultation invoice (approximately $2,700) for engineering work or for the board to draw that amount from the project’s escrow account, citing subdivision regulation 6.17.

Board members referenced the relevant regulation that allows the board to charge a fee payable by the applicant to cover the cost of professional consultation selected by the board to determine completion of required work. Glenn Greenwood and Mark Kennedy discussed that TEC (an engineering consultant) performed a field review and produced a bill for comment work related to Tanya Lane; the invoice and the review were raised as evidence that the planning board had a reasonable need to engage external expertise to determine whether required improvements met town standards.

Some board members asked whether the work had been inspected in the field before the engineer signed off; staff and the planner said the inspection sequence and the permit conditions (including requirements for headwalls on culverts) warranted the consultant review. The board debated whether to send a direct invoice to the applicant or to draw from escrow; members approved a motion allowing either use of escrow funds or sending a bill to the applicant to recover the cost.

The motion cited subdivision regulation 6.17 (performance security and professional consultation costs) as the legal basis for recouping the expense. The board also noted that whether additional legal or contractual follow-up is needed could prompt future nonpublic discussion about vendor relationships, but the immediate vote was limited to recovering the engineering-review cost.

Vote: The board adopted the motion by roll call; members voting in favor included Doug, Brett, Bruce, Paul, Steph and Kristen.

Context: The vote follows earlier discussion in the meeting about engineering invoice management and the planning board’s limited engineering budget. The board directed staff to check escrow balances and, if necessary, invoice the applicant or take the amount from the project escrow consistent with the regulation.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Board Meeting 09/18/2025 Brentwood, NH","oneSentenceSummary","Citing subdivision regulation 6.17, the board approved asking the applicant to pay a professional-consultation invoice (about $2,700) related to engineering review of Tanya Lane or to cover it from escrow.","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},6463099,"Brentwood Planning Board proposes $119,252 2026 budget, adds grants line and modest wage adjustments",4055,225000,4280000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5786132-1f5ad3730bf01a8d892dadf508e481aa&start=225&end=4280","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5786132-1f5ad3730bf01a8d892dadf508e481aa/thumbnail_225000.jpg","/articles/6463099/New-Hampshire/Brentwood-Planning-Board-proposes-119252-2026-budget-adds-grants-line-and-modest-wage-adjustments","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6463099-2245df8735d6850ea313e2cdf231358f/orig.mp4?Expires=1775272124&Signature=WEMiep7ORHB9SEkHpt3F9dJP-3h06j9joGzQHkurZrWHXs3NmusjHBnAPaISPmhob9ilq4UW7WolgQCCdImnKpcVdJWj57wVhpxhCL3hcTts1oD7Mh5VO4ZN7q6S5rjG6z01CnP3uHjiOUgnbfJBnAGrM2zxIBa~lCnXKvWScFOGMsJsrnThXniZdoD07BcxMLAmfMBkIpX5FEVFcjb~lHyvLWtM8WOd60Mm4T9xf18E-tcveCS8MadlfiSQq4J~nweUS13--K2BRSRUokC4YwFZW8RNnBZdUpPuzSfGPXl4UsWJJKAI9eu11Ex7CSKzVymbjJh8XG3ECCgHfkrwQA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Brentwood Planning Board reviewed its draft 2026 budget and voted to adopt a revised proposed total of $119,252, including a new grants line to track pass-through grant activity, modest wage increases for staff, and a reallocation that reduced the engineering line to keep the board’s overall request at or below a 4% increase.

Mark Kennedy, who presented the budget documents, explained the wage figures and why the apparent 6.6% figure reflected multiple pay-rate changes during the prior year rather than a single across-the-board raise. The board also discussed overtime accounting: staff said historical tracking of overtime had not been consistent, and the packet included an estimate that allowed the board to reduce the overtime line by roughly $1,000 compared with last year’s calculation.

Members debated whether to raise the engineering and surveying budget—several said engineering work can be unpredictable and that the town has faced unplanned bills from consultants. The board discussed a $2,700 bill from TEC for work on Tanya Lane that highlighted the problem: with a low engineering line, one unexpected invoice can push an account negative.

A separate line for dues to the Rockingham Planning Commission (RPC) drew comment. Supporters said RPC membership helps the town access federal transportation planning, grant eligibility (including safety-action plans tied to grant programs), GIS support and regional advocacy; others noted RPC funding was under strain and membership benefits should be justified. The board agreed to keep the RPC dues line in the budget.

Members also discussed the town planner’s line and a proposed 2.5% increase for Glenn Greenwood; several members argued for a larger, incremental increase to maintain continuity and avoid a large adjustment later. The board approved an amended budget that included a master-plan line, the new grants line (a pass-through placeholder), adjusted engineering and overtime lines and the planner wage update.

At the end of the discussion the board voted by roll call to adopt the proposed 2026 budget total of $119,252 with the grant line included.

Key budget figures discussed: proposed total $119,252; prior draft showed a 4.27% increase but board trimmed roughly $350 from engineering and adjusted overtime to aim for 4.0% or lower; overtime line estimates discussed ranged from about $1,125 to $2,000 depending on calculation method. The board instructed staff to monitor year-to-date actuals and provide a six-month update to reduce carryover uncertainty.

Quotes from the meeting: Mark Kennedy summarized the wage calculation approach and the reason the packet showed a 6.6% aggregate figure, saying the figure “is not a 6.6% wage increase per se” because multiple rates applied across the prior year. Several board members urged that the town keep a modest increase to avoid a large jump later and to plan for succession in the planner role.","The board reviewed a draft 2026 planning budget, discussed wage calculations, overtime, engineering services and dues to the Rockingham Planning Commission, and voted to adopt a $119,252 total with a new grants line and small adjustments to engineering and overtime.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6463104,"Planning board allows remote participation, continues 1 Smith Road site-plan hearing to Oct. 2",200,16000,216000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5786132-1f5ad3730bf01a8d892dadf508e481aa&start=16&end=216","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5786132-1f5ad3730bf01a8d892dadf508e481aa/thumbnail_16000.jpg","/articles/6463104/New-Hampshire/Planning-board-allows-remote-participation-continues-1-Smith-Road-site-plan-hearing-to-Oct-2","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6463104-1dc8b593c2a2e72b3a5e1be704b8abf1/orig.mp4?Expires=1775272124&Signature=eo9hdoDyA8uvJZUveEnqNntR3IOwMVzRJvC~r2uvNZ~wBi7q8yqIKR6vNnarhU-TF4u5ZocA9hhAMpT-1iBjZ0aWfe7777re-5D5met7kHCxnK51CPRteB8LAHMT3b0v-WgZpsV2gvxArY9DL1hmwRxgP-K1OX544NJACQ3DQok-K4vCO1SjtFLq7xEcUvZ7t69EyePLRglYNFsYI~8CYVYTcb5ynN4SlGR-iVk8FUWrpnS2PrsHoxp3R89bJCuoCWsquWoY9g11D2yHuXZJYbcbGS38gZwT1JH4rQp6hbUp3gFqA-jHyAqywzsolsNmPexcy-VIOownRs4VKIvUiw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Brentwood Planning Board voted to allow member Kristen Aldred to participate remotely and continued the site-plan review for 1 Smith Road (tax map 21603500O) to Oct. 2.

Board members made the procedural motion to permit remote participation near the start of the meeting and then completed a roll-call vote. After discussion, a motion to continue the site-plan hearing for 1 Smith Road to Oct. 2 was made and seconded; the board then conducted a roll-call vote to adopt the continuance.

The board discussed whether an alternate was needed for the meeting because Kristen was remote; members confirmed they had a full panel and proceeded. Mark Kennedy, who presented administrative details during the meeting, said the applicant had requested the Oct. 2 date and staff had an email indicating Ryan Lavelle (an applicant representative) would be out of town but that the applicant expected to be ready on Oct. 2. No final site-plan decisions were made at this meeting—the board only set the new hearing date.

The motions were adopted by roll call. The meeting then moved on to the budget and other agenda items.

Votes at a glance: The board voted (roll call) to allow Kristen Aldred to attend remotely (recorded as “yes” by the members who responded) and voted to continue the 1 Smith Road hearing to Oct. 2 (roll call: Doug yes; Bruce yes; Paul yes; Steph yes; Kristen did not vote on the procedural remote-motion but later recorded as aye on the continuance vote when present by remote).","The Brentwood Planning Board voted to permit a member to attend remotely and to continue the site-plan hearing for 1 Smith Road (tax map 21603500O) to Oct. 2. The board conducted a roll call on both procedural and substantive motions.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning board authorizes billing applicant or using escrow to cover engineering review for Tanya Lane

Brentwood Planning Board proposes $119,252 2026 budget, adds grants line and modest wage adjustments

Planning board allows remote participation, continues 1 Smith Road site-plan hearing to Oct. 2