Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procedural Rules topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board adopts written-request rule for continuances, tables automatic re-notice language
Summary
The Pembroke Planning Board voted to require applicants to submit requests for continuances or extensions in writing at least one week before a meeting, after debating whether to require automatic re-noticing of abutters when reviews exceed statutory time windows; staff will seek example language for re-notice policies.
The Pembroke Planning Board voted to adopt a procedural change requiring that any owner or applicant who wishes to request a continuance of a public hearing or an extension of the 65‑day review period must "furnish the request in writing to the planning department at least 1 week prior to the planning board meeting at which the board would act on the request," the board heard and approved.
The change, read aloud for the record by a board member citing RSA 674:41(c), was approved after a lengthy discussion about whether re‑noticing abutters should be triggered by a fixed count of continuances (three) or by elapsed time (several members proposed 90–120 days, with 100 days raised as a round number). Staff advised the board that legal counsel recommended against leaving renoticing to board discretion because vague language could invite legal challenges; counsel suggested the board pick a renotice period and apply it uniformly.
Board members debated logistics and consequences. Several members said many extensions arise from legitimate needs—third‑party studies, engineering or wetlands work—that can require more than two meetings. One member said proposing a short automatic renotice window could force applicants to withdraw or reapply even when they are actively resolving technical issues. Others argued a renotice requirement could help keep abutters informed when an application stretches beyond state review windows.
The board narrowed the immediate change to the written‑request requirement and voted to adopt that paragraph and other clean‑up edits presented in the packet. A motion to accept the one‑week written‑request paragraph was made by Committee member (Speaker 7) and seconded by Committee member (Speaker 5); the board voted in favor. The board also agreed to ask staff (Laura) to look for sample language from other municipalities about when and how to re‑notice abutters; the separate paragraph about automatic re‑noticing was tabled pending that review.
Members also discussed practical considerations: whether the re‑notice fees should be charged to applicants or borne by the town; staff noted legal limits on enforcing payment and the administrative burden of repeated certified‑mail notices. The transcript referenced sample figures discussed by the board (a cited $300 fee mentioned in conversation and a stated certified‑mail cost of about $15 per letter). The board emphasized that the written‑request rule is intended to improve predictability for staff, applicants and the public and to reduce last‑minute surprises at meetings.
The planning staff will report back to the board with recommended language or examples for the re‑notice paragraph. The board also agreed to include the change and other edits submitted by a member (Carolyn) in the rules package. The item will return to the board if staff locates model language or if members decide to resume debate.
