Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Amendment Warrant topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board votes to place zoning Amendment 10 on town warrant after prior motion to deny failed
Summary
After finding a prior motion to deny Amendment 10 had failed to carry at an earlier meeting, the Planning Board voted to put the item on the town warrant; the board discussed differing legal advice and procedural timing for warrant articles.
The West Swanzey Planning Board voted to place Zoning Amendment 10 onto the town warrant after a prior motion to deny the amendment failed to carry at an earlier meeting.
Planning Board member Victoria moved to place Amendment 10 on the warrant; Mark seconded. The board held a roll‑call vote; the partial roll call recorded in the transcript shows Michael voting no, Richard voting yes and Victoria voting yes. The transcript does not contain a complete final roll‑call tally; board members proceeded with further agenda business after the vote.
Board members said the vote was necessary because, when a motion to deny fails, the item does not automatically move forward to the warrant. Members had differing legal advice before the vote: staff reported a recommendation from the New Hampshire municipal association advising the board to vote to move the item forward because it was otherwise in limbo, while the town attorney, identified in the meeting as Cordell, advised that the board's prior statements suggested the amendment was intended to go on the warrant but recommended voting to be safe.
During discussion members raised related procedural concerns about the timing of other warrant articles and public review. One participant cited the five‑Tuesdays rule for the submission of warrant petitions (as discussed during the meeting) and asked whether Conservation Commission review and public notice had been adequate for related items. Several board members urged careful review of submission timelines and consultation with the Conservation Commission and legal counsel before finalizing warrant language.
The board did not reopen substantive public hearing discussion on the amendment at this meeting; members said the public hearing and substantive discussion had already occurred during the hearing and that this vote addressed only whether the amendment should be placed on the warrant for town vote.
