Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Official Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plaistow planning board debates role of zoning official, agrees to clarify process for determinations
Summary
Board members on April 1 expressed concern that unsolicited zoning determinations could create conflicting guidance for applicants and agreed that formal determinations should be requested through applications or conceptual consultation; staff may continue to provide nonbinding guidance.
The Plaistow Planning Board devoted a lengthy discussion on April 1 to whether a newly sworn zoning official should issue determinations without a formal request, and members coalesced around clarifying a process that avoids conflicting pre‑application guidance.
"My view is it was ... bled into the planning board," a board member said, expressing concern that zoning determinations appearing outside the board's review could create mixed messages for applicants. Multiple members said that formal zoning determinations should come through the planning board process or be requested as part of an application.
Planning Administrator Shea Ramaker explained staff frequently respond to public inquiries and that answers provided in advance are intended to be helpful but nonbinding. "To the extent you offer a view, I think that's part of helping us have all the information we need, you know, and it's non binding," Ramaker said.
Board members urged use of the established conceptual consultation step to flush out questions before formal applications, while reserving official determinations for application review. One member noted that decisions are appealable to the Zoning Board of Adjustment, providing a formal remedy for applicants who disagree with an interpretation.
The board did not take a formal vote to change ordinances at this meeting but asked staff to follow an approach in which preliminary guidance can be provided while formal determinations should be handled through the application and conceptual consultation process. That approach was presented as the mechanism to avoid "a dual track" where applicants receive conflicting pre-application guidance.
The discussion also touched on prior administrative transitions and the need to ensure staff and board responsibilities are clear going forward.
