03/09/2024
In March 2023 the ZBA/ Planning Board counsel, in response to a request from the chairman of the Planning Board to meet with the ZBA, cautioned the ZBA to limit any interaction between the Planning Board and the Zoning Board to education on their respective processes only and that there should be no discussions at all on any applications, past, pending and future.
All members of the ZBA agreed with the advice of their counsel.
This advice would appear to be on point with the concerns expressed at Candidates Night relative to the current ZBA chairman seeking to occupy the available seat on the Planning Board. It is also prudent legal advice that as a member of both boards it would be impossible for the ZBA chairman to comply with. Recusal does not cleanse your memory and you simply cannot unlearn what you learn on one board and not have it affect your views on another. In fact one of our selectmen articulately stated his concern that a mere meeting between the Planning Board and the ZBA could “inevitably change how the ZBA views and makes their judgement and judgements should not be biased by any means”; he saw just the mere meeting as a potential conflict of interest.
It is also impossible to determine the impact one board member has on another. The ZBA (absolute) and the Planning Board (more often than not) are considered quasi-judicial and their members under New Hampshire law must meet the so-called juror standard which is contained within RSA 500-A:12. Under this standard even the appearance that any member is
not indifferent disqualifies them from participating in a decision. This falls under the category that if it looks bad it generally is bad. How then can any applicant, before the Planning Board
that may also go before the ZBA, presume they will receive a fair hearing in front of either board?
Justice should not be a means test and in the case of our town sometimes it is. If some people did not possess the wherewithal to challenge misapplication of law and bad process they are crushed by a system that weaponizes the legal system by using taxpayer dollars to delay and wear down those who challenge it.
Those with means who have elected to pursue appeal of untethered to the law decisions of the ZBA have prevailed oftentimes citing the specific unlawful views of the chairman, in particular, as justification for the appeal. The ZBA’s batting average on these appeals is below the Mendoza line. This is at great cost to the taxpayers (tens of thousands of dollars per appeal) and it will only increase with routine conflict of interest allegations. The ambition of the one should not be subsidized by the scarce resources of the many. Given the chairman of the ZBA just recommended himself to the Board of Selectmen for another
three year appointment he has certainly declared his intentions.
Everyone in town would be a locked-in passenger in that car which would be traveling on a three year journey Unsafe at any
Speed! I suspect for some, they will choose to walk.
Please Vote This Tuesday, March 12, 2024.