Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Milford Planning Board approves neutral voters-guide language for Ballot Vote 5 after debate over scope and phrasing
Summary
The board agreed to a shortened, neutral description of proposed zoning Amendment 5 for the town voters guide, directing staff to include an acreage figure and map and to remove language judged to risk electioneering. Members also discussed but did not pursue a revote after legal advice citing RSA 675:3.
The Milford Planning Board on Feb. 4 approved revised plain‑English language for the town voters guide entry for Ballot Vote 5, a zoning amendment that the board agreed “impacts approximately 12,100 acres of the town’s total 16,300 acres,” and directed staff to include the map used at meetings.
Board members debated whether to include majority/minority statements and numeric estimates of potential housing. The board voted to remove a sentence that said the amendment “will allow landowners to subdivide their properties of 2 acres or more into lots of less than 1 acre,” to strike advocacy wording (including the word “strongly” describing another committee’s support), and to keep the description terse and factual.
The action followed a legal question about whether the planning board could take a revote on the amendment after its Jan. 21 public hearing. The board reported counsel’s guidance, relayed by Director of Community Development Camille Pattison and Town Planner Terry Dolan, that a motion to reconsider must be made by a member who voted with the prevailing side and that RSA 675:3 requires the final form of a zoning question be established immediately after the public hearing. That advice led members to conclude a formal revote was not procedurally available. Planning Board member Pete Basileer objected to a description of his actions in a staff memo and said, “my intent was not to replace the vote of an alternate member … I just wanted my vote on the record.”
Members spent most of the meeting determining how to present facts discussed in previous public hearings without language that could be construed as electioneering. The board agreed it could include factual statements that had been read into the record at prior hearings (for example, potential infrastructure impacts and references to public testimony), but that anything presented in the voters guide must be limited to material that was discussed in the public hearings and minutes. Board vice chair Janet Langdell and other members advocated for concise, “vanilla” wording that states the effects of the amendment without argument for or against.
After wordsmithing at the meeting, the board approved a motion to adopt the revised wording for Ballot Vote 5 and to send the copy to the voters‑guide editor for publication, with the map placed beside the text. The motion to finalize the Ballot Vote 5 text was made by Janet Langdell and seconded by Susan Robinson; the motion passed on a roll call vote.
The board also discussed whether to append a majority/minority report. Some members said past voter guides typically used a short preamble and the planning board’s recorded recommendation; others argued a separate minority report was warranted when the board was split. The board left open the option of separate reports in future cases but decided for this guide to adopt a single, neutral description supplemented by the factual note that the planning board “supported the zoning amendment by a 5‑2 vote,” language the board agreed should appear beneath the proposal text.
The finalized voter‑guide language must be transmitted to Town staff for layout and delivery to the voters‑guide editor before the printing deadline; members emphasized any last‑minute tweaks must be provided by the next morning.
