Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council appoints developer to planning board after contested 4–3 vote
Summary
After an extended interview and heated exchanges about vetting and development practices, Portsmouth’s council appointed Mr. Rigo to the planning board on a 4–3 vote. The nominee emphasized transparency and closer vendor scrutiny; accusations of paybacks were raised and denied during questioning.
The Portsmouth Town Council voted 4–3 to appoint Mr. Rigo to a vacant seat on the planning board after a lengthy interview and debate about vetting, development density and board oversight.
Mr. Rigo, who described a career in development and construction and said his family has lived in Portsmouth for six generations, told the council he would press for "more transparency in the planning" process, insist on detailed reviews and walk project sites to better understand impacts on traffic and infrastructure. "I believe the planning board has probably one of the most financial impacts on the town in their decisions," he said, arguing for deeper review of vendor relationships and a pause on approving new large developments until the town evaluates existing approvals.
Council members questioned Rigo on whether his proposed oversight would exceed the planning board’s statutory purview and whether he would undertake additional education; Rigo said he had completed many of the suggested training courses as part of his contractor continuing education and would take more if needed.
During the interview, a tense exchange arose when one council member said Rigo’s comments implied planning‑board members were accepting improper paybacks. "Taking bribes essentially is what I inferred from what you said," the member said. Rigo denied using that language: "I've never spoken those words," he replied. A councilor said she would review the tape to confirm the record.
Several council members expressed disappointment about the appointment process and the timing of applications; one councilor said an earlier applicant withdrew after believing the process favored a recruited candidate. After considering nominations and discussion, the council carried the appointment with a narrow majority, four in favor and three opposed.
The vote changes the composition of the planning board at a moment when multiple development proposals and state housing targets were discussed; council members said they expect the board to observe state law and consult the town’s planning office.
