Pembroke Planning Board adopts written request rule for continuances after debate over re-noticing abutters

The Pembroke Planning Board voted on procedural amendments Tuesday to require applicants who want a continuance or an extension of the 65‑day review period to submit the request in writing at least one week before the planning board meeting at which the board would act.

The requirement was adopted after a lengthy discussion about whether the town should re-notify abutters automatically if an application stretches well beyond the state review windows. The board’s planner summarized town counsel’s advice, saying the attorney "would not recommend" leaving renoticing to the board’s discretion and urged a fixed, equally applied re-notice rule to avoid vagueness and equal‑protection challenges.

Why it matters: State law sets a 65‑day review clock for many applications (with a 30‑day addition for development of regional impact, or DRI), creating a narrow window for local boards. Board members said abutters who watch for decisions can lose track of proposals if hearings are repeatedly continued without a clear renotice trigger.

Board members debated two approaches. Some favored counting continuances (for example, renotice after three requested continuances). Others preferred a time‑based threshold measured from acceptance of the application as complete — proposals mentioned during the meeting included 90, 100 and 120 days. "I would actually put it in 100 days," a board member said, arguing that number covers the typical 65‑day review period, plus possible DRI extensions, with a small buffer.

Practical concerns animated the discussion. Staff warned that requiring automatic re-notices could bring crowds to meetings where the applicant then asks for another continuance, and several members raised the logistical and financial burden of multiple certified‑mail notices. One member suggested that if an applicant caused the delay, the applicant should pay for additional notices; staff noted the town’s limited enforcement options if an applicant refuses to provide additional escrow funds.

S7 read the amendment that the board adopted and explicitly cited the statutory authority during the reading: "If an owner/applicant . . . wishes to extend the 65‑day review time limit as covered by RSA 674:41(c), the applicant must furnish the request in writing to the planning department at least one week prior to the planning board meeting at which the board would act on the request." The motion to adopt that provision passed by voice vote; the board then approved the package of rule changes (including the written‑request procedure) by voice vote.

The board agreed to ask town counsel (Laura) to look for existing model language other towns use for automatic re‑notice and to return suggested wording. Members said they were comfortable adopting the written‑request requirement now and tabling the more complex question of an automatic re‑notice threshold until they review counsel’s examples and see how the policy performs in practice.

Other business: The board elected Robert Burke as vice chair by voice vote early in the meeting. Staff circulated a letter from an abutter about a townhouse proposal off Tina Drive and Buck Street; because no application yet stands before the board, staff said it will hold the correspondence until a formal filing is made. The planner announced two items for the next meeting on the 26th: a wetland special‑use permit for a Smith Ave residence and an extension request on the village school’s conditional approval pending an AOT permit from the state.

The board adjourned with no public comment.