Members Present: Jane Roberts, Chairman, Ashley Fletcher, Coni Porter, Dianne Schott, Gretchen Wittenborg, and alternates Dan Baker, Carl Goldknopf and Steven Filipi. Baker was seated to vote on the first matter on the agenda, since Schott was not present at the original hearing on November 22, 2005.
Meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. Roberts reminded everyone present that this was a public meeting not a public hearing. The Board would decide on the request for a rehearing made by Mr. Dwinell. If the Board finds in his favor and grants the motion for a rehearing, a public hearing will be scheduled to conduct that rehearing. Mr. Dwinell disagreed with the decision of the Board of Adjustment on his appeal of an administrative decision made by the Board of Selectmen.
Case #05-30 (correction – this is case #06-01): Richard Dwinell requests a Rehearing on case # 05-27, which was an appeal of an Administrative Decision of the Board of Selectmen allowing a proposed use of property located at 646 NH Route 12S as a convenience store, Map 8, Lot 13, Rural District.
Roberts stated she thinks the decision made by the Board at its November 22, 2005 meeting should stand. She does not think the Board made a mistake in that decision. Fletcher agreed.
Wittenborg, referring to the Request for Rehearing, took exception to Mr. Little’s statement that “The Board of Adjustment’s failure to give the plain meaning to the words of statute RSA 676:5 III is a plain error of law.” She pointed out that RSA 676:5 III refers to decisions made “in the exercise of subdivision or site plan review” rather than those made in the context of a preliminary consultation. She added that it was too bad the Planning Board actually took a vote during a preliminary consultation. Porter and Schott agreed with her interpretation of the RSA.
Baker said he agreed ‘generally.’ He said that at some point the Planning Board did vote and he interpreted that vote as a means of determining if the Planning Board agreed with the suggestion to send Mr. Patel to the Board of Adjustment for a Special Exception based on Article VIII, 127-35 B, Changing a Nonconforming Use. He agreed that the decision was not binding in the context of a preliminary consultation and further agreed that RSA 676:5 III did not apply. He added that he would have appreciated the opportunity to hear the case as an expansion of use appeal.
Porter agreed, saying she was frustrated by the very narrow grounds of the original appeal that dealt with the Planning Board’s procedure and the authority of the Selectmen to make an interpretation of town zoning ordinances. The interpretation made by the Selectmen in their decision was not appealed and so the Board of Adjustment could only hear the procedural arguments.
There was discussion about the Selectmen’s authority to interpret zoning ordinances and the Board agreed the Selectmen did so in the absence of any other decision. The appeal for a special exception was pending before the Board of Adjustment with no decision made, and the Planning Board had not made a binding decision. The Selectmen were asked to make a determination about the need for a special exception, which they did.
Roberts asked if the Board was ready to vote on a motion. Wittenborg moved and Fletcher seconded a motion that the Board of Adjustment denies the motion to rehear the case. Baker, Fletcher, Porter, Roberts and Wittenborg concurred. The Request for Rehearing was denied.
Minutes: ~The Board reviewed minutes of the December 13, 2005 meeting. Fletcher moved, Wittenborg seconded and the Board approved the minutes as written. Baker, who was not present at the December 13, 2005 meeting, did not vote. Schott was present at that meeting and did vote on the minutes.
Fletcher moved, Wittenborg seconded and the Board adjourned at 7:30 PM.
| 
