Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Rules topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Moultonborough ZBA directs broad revisions to Rules and Procedures
Summary
The Moultonborough Zoning Board of Adjustment reviewed a full rewrite of its Rules and Procedures and directed staff to revise provisions on member notifications, alternates at continued hearings, applicant rights, who may speak, remote participation, Town Counsel communications, recusal standards, and timing of Notices of Decision.
At its June 17 meeting the Moultonborough Zoning Board of Adjustment reviewed a full rewrite of its Rules and Procedures and provided detailed directions to staff on multiple provisions the board wants clarified or changed.
Chair Bob Stephens, Vice Chair David McDonough and Town Planner Chuck Wise reviewed the draft section by section. The board directed that members who cannot attend should notify Mr. Wise so he can inform the Chair, avoiding reply-all email exchanges that could implicate the state's Right-to-Know Law. The board also asked for language clarifying that when a hearing is continued and a member who missed the first session later wishes to participate, that member should be treated as "unseated" so the originally seated alternate retains voting continuity.
The board agreed applicants should be informed at the start of hearings that they may withdraw without penalty or request a postponement and asked that this applicant-rights statement appear in the Chair's opening remarks when fewer than five voting members are present. On public participation, Mr. Wise noted the Conservation Commission has a legal basis to advise land-use boards and recommended separate rules addressing official town boards and commissions versus individual abutters.
Members discussed remote participation for applicants: the draft currently prohibiting video or phone appearances drew concern that the prohibition could create hardship. The board agreed to ask Town Counsel whether applicants may be permitted to appear remotely under defined circumstances and to replace references to specific technology names with the phrase "a town-approved teleconferencing or video conferencing platform." The board also tightened draft language on an applicant who fails to appear twice without notice, directing that such an application be treated as withdrawn rather than denied and removing the phrase "without prejudice."
On legal advice and conflicts, the board directed that the Town Planner seek specific board authorization before contacting Town Counsel on the board's behalf, and asked for wording to address situations where Town Counsel advises other town bodies in a way that could create a conflict. The board reaffirmed the "appearance of bias" standard for recusals and asked for a deadline for raising recusal concerns (with a possible postponement if raised fewer than five days before a hearing).
Finally, the board discussed Notice of Decision timing and directed that a draft notice be posted within five business days of a vote, with formal board approval to follow at the next scheduled meeting; Mr. Wise said meeting minutes would need to be produced promptly to support that schedule. Mr. Wise agreed to prepare a revised draft incorporating the board's directions for review at a future meeting.
