Search results matching tag 'Planning Board'

Legal counsel sought for asphalt plant proposal

Goffstown Editor — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:35:00 GMT

The Weare town planner said the Planning Board is seeking the opinion of the town’s legal counsel before it proceeds with a River Road asphalt plant proposal.

At the beginning of a public hearing Sept. 30 at Weare Middle School, Planning Board members declared in a unanimous vote that Mt. William Inc.’s proposed asphalt mixing facility would not be considered a regional impact, but the board has since backed away from that decision.

“After listening to some of the testimony that was given (that) night, they decided that maybe it could be” considered a regional impact, said Naomi Bolton, town planner and town administrator. “They voted to send notification to abutting towns.”

However, Bolton said notification has not been given because she would like to wait for the opinion of the town’s attorney, Bill Drescher. Bolton said she was still awaiting his opinion as The Goffstown News went to press.

She said the board made its turn-around decision after listening to several hours of testimony from neighbors of the proposed asphalt facility during the public hearing. Approximately 150 people attended.

Mt. William Inc. owner Chris Bolton told residents he’s proposing a 4-ton to 6-ton asphalt batch plant that would mix materials that already come from the current sand and gravel pit at the site in question. He said about 5,000 tons of asphalt would be generated every year for smaller-sized commercial and residential purposes.

“It’s not some great big plant,” he said.

The vast majority of residents spoke against his proposal, citing concerns about the environment, traffic, property values and quality of life.

Jeb Callen, a Concord-based attorney representing 39 neighbors of the facility, questioned whether it was legal for the Planning Board to accept the plan for review because he said it violates a zoning ordinance. “I believe under your own site plan regulations it’s illegal for the board to proceed with this,” attorney Jed Callen said.

Callen cited section 4 of the town’s zoning ordinance, which he said calls for any proposal to meet to zoning requirements before it can be reviewed and put before a public hearing, which is what occurred Sept. 30. He said the asphalt plant would fall under industrial zoning, but the proposed area is zoned for commercial use. The sand and gravel facility was grandfathered past zoning reguations because it was made before the regulations took effect.

Naomi Bolton said the town has taken Callen’s argument under consideration and is awaiting the opinion of legal counsel, along with the regional impact issue.

Naomi Bolton is the brother-in-law of the applicant, Chris Bolton. Her husband works for him at Mt. William Inc., she said.

Planning Board member Frank Bolton is Chris Bolton’s brother and has removed himself from handling the asphalt plant issue.

Plant proposal upsets Weare residents

Goffstown Editor — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:15:00 GMT

By DAN O'BRIEN

At least 100 people who arrived to attend a Weare Planning Board public hearing Sept. 24 about a proposed asphalt production plant were turned away from Town Hall because there wasn’t enough room to accommodate everyone.

Naomi Bolton, town administrator and town planner, said she conferred with Fire Department officials, who determined the meeting space was too small.

The hearing was rescheduled for Wednesday, Sept. 30, at Weare Middle School, after The Goffstown News went to press. The proposal in question was brought forward by Chris Bolton, owner of Mt. William systemInc., who wants to build a 5-ton to 6-ton hot-mix asphalt facility at 1225 River Road. The 1,550-acre property currently serves as a sand and gravel production plant.

Chris Bolton is the brother of Frank Bolton, who is a member of the Planning Board. Chris Bolton is also the brother-in-law of Naomi Bolton. Her husband also works for Chris Bolton at the sand and gravel facility.

Naomi Bolton said Sept. 24 that Frank Bolton would not vote on any issues concerning his brother’s proposal, not just because they’re related, but because Frank Bolton’s property abuts the Mt. William Inc. facility.

Naomi Bolton said she oversees the town’s planning office but cannot vote on the board.

“I shuffle papers and take minutes and that’s about it,” she said. “There’s no conflict.”

Chris Bolton did not return a call for comment; Frank Bolton could not be reached.

Neighbors around the facility have mobilized and more than 150 people were expected to attend the public hearing before it was rescheduled. Many say they’re upset over potential impacts to the environment, safety, quality of life and home property values.

Eric Rinehimer of Roosevelt Drive said one reason he’s upset is because he lives in a development that was constructed by a company owned by Chris Bolton less than a decade ago.

“The developer who built the neighborhood is the same man who owns the gravel quarry operation and is proposing to put an asphalt plant there,” Rinehimer said. “If that was there in the first place, none of us would have bought homes in that area.”

Neighbors drafted a letter to the Planning Board with the help of an attorney, outlining reasons why they’re concerned. They ask 15 specific questions, primarily about environmental concerns. The location is in close proximity to the Piscataquog River.

“Our preliminary research shows fumes from asphalt plants are known to have carcinogens,” neighbor Joanne Harrison said. “In the communities where these are, property values plummet.”

The letter complains that too few abutters were notified because the impact of the project far outreaches the immediate neighbors.

Rinehimer said he wants safety concerns addressed.

“The bigger concern I have is what if things go catastrophically wrong,” he said.

Rinehimer, who lives with his wife and two children, said the family has enjoyed their view from their house atop an 800-foot peak, which would directly overlook the asphalt plant. He’s also concerned about quality of life and property values.

“We’re concerned about property values,” Rinehimer said. “Most other asphalt plants are operating in industrial areas or near highways, not in the middle of a residential and rural area,” he said. “You’re talking about 28-ton asphalt trucks going up and down a road not made to handle that kind of truck traffic. Then you have kids waiting for the school bus.”

Green space is priority in Bedford

Bedford Editor — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:07:00 GMT

By JILLIAN JORGENSEN

The Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission presented a draft report of the Bedford Open Space Plan Tuesday, Sept. 22, outlining ways to assist the town in future development while preserving open space and a “green infrastructure.”

The report was put together after the Bedford Open Space Task Force identified and developed a prioritized list of agricultural, open and undeveloped land to be protected through methods ranging from purchasing the land to voluntary measures by landowners.

Landowners remain free to do as they please with the land that is included in the report. The plan identified a “green infrastructure,” a connection of open space corridors that would provide the town with natural services, such as maintaining the quality of ground and surface water, providing habitats for plant and animal species in Bedford, providing connected open spaces for Bedford residents to enjoy and allowing for the movement of wildlife through town.

The green infrastructure is there not only for plants and animals, but also “for people to use and have elbow room and not always see your neighbors,” Karin Elmer, a town planner, said after the presentation.

The green infrastructure includes about 37 percent of the town’s land, including vacant property and already developed or protected land. In order to protect the land, the report lays out high-cost, low-cost and free strategies. High-cost options would include purchasing the land as town-owned conservation land or purchasing a conservation easement by the town on part of or all of a parcel.

Funding for measures that have a cost would come from the town’s conservation funding. Seventy percent of the town’s land use change tax goes to conservation funding. In 2002, the town bought the Joppa Hill Farm for $3.6 million to protect 312 acres of land.

Low-cost or free options to preserve open space include protection by regulation, establishing a land management agreement with the owner, and owner education.

Elmer said the intent of the plan is “not to create layers of zoning ordinances.” She said there are ways to protect land “without the town playing a regulatory role at all.” An example is providing property owners with fact sheets on “how to maintain your lawn next to a sensitive wetland,” she said.

She said people can also start planting native plants.

“By bringing in a lot of exotic plants, you can actually drive away some of the natural species that live there,” she said.

Mervyn Taub, chairman of the Bedford Conservation Commission, said the best way to protect land is to buy it. He said he had spoken to many of the property owners within the green infrastructure outlined.

“They are all people who are waiting for the next property boom,” he said, so they can sell the land to developers. He said some towns allot all of their change of land use tax revenues to conservation. He said the town’s purchase of the Joppa Hill Farm was “courageous.”

“If the town is serious about protecting open space you have got to be willing to bond the money to buy it,” he said.

But Elmer said even once land is being developed, open space can still be maintained through cooperation. She said if a developer wanted to build homes on land, the town could ask if he or she might consider avoiding the use of a grid layout.

“Can we have him do cul de sacs with lots of open spaces?” she said.

The town would not ask them to change development plans in any way that would make the land bring in less money, she said.

“That’s not our goal,” she said. “A lot of times it’s a win-win situation.”

Taub said he thought the open space plan was an “excellent start.”

“The point is, people must think of these issues,” he said. “If you don’t talk about it, they don’t think about it.”

Couple proposing facility at their home loses appeal

Salem Editor — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 19:50:00 GMT

BY DERRICK PERKINS

A New Hampshire Supreme Court ruling upholding the Planning Board’s decision denying a proposal for a kennel last summer has local officials relieved, though the couple behind the project are crying foul.

The decision was handed down more than a year and a half after Thomas and Donna Richard first approached the town with plans to convert a residential duplex on the rural-zoned Galway Lane into kennel. According to Planning Director Ross Moldoff, the Richards had gone through a series of hurdles to gain town approval for the project before ultimately being denied in August of last year because the planning board felt the 28-dog kennel did not meet site-plan regulations.

The proposal also drew criticism from abutters, who voiced concerns over increased traffic, the possible contamination of well water and issues of drainage, runaway dogs and noise, according to Moldoff.

Though the Richards filed an appeal with Rockingham Superior Court, the court sided in favor of the town last January. According to court documents provided by town officials, the Superior Court ruled that the couple had failed to address “the big picture” despite their alterations to the original proposal and described the presence of a kennel in the residential neighborhood as a “recipe for disaster.”

Now, nearly a year after the proposal was last denied by the Planning Board, the state Supreme Court has rejected the Richards’ appeal of the lower court’s ruling on the grounds that the Planning Board adequately articulated the basis of denial and did not act on bad faith while considering the project plan.

“The board was just in its position,” Planning Board Chairman Jim Keller said yesterday.

“The principal issue was the impact of that type of operation and business in the neighborhood. They were putting the kennel in a residential home and it was within a home that was within a residential neighborhood. We had concerns about that with respect to the neighborhood ... We just felt that it just wasn’t the right project in the right place.”

While Keller said he was relieved the issue had been settled, Thomas Richard said the decision had left his family and his lawyer upset.

“The Planning Board, the Superior Court and the Supreme Court ignored everything we submitted as facts. Obviously, it was political,” Richard said. “You put your life savings into something and you meet the requirements and you get turned down by the politics. We were trying to do something, and we figured this was our future.”

Richard pointed to the board’s approval of a second proposed kennel project on Brady Avenue, a rural-zoned residential neighborhood, by the Salem Animal Rescue League at roughly the same time.

“They didn’t meet all the requirements, but they got approved. Every department signed off on us and we got denied. How can they not meet all the requirements and still be approved?” he asked. “We were treated so different from them.”

According to Keller, the circumstances surrounding both projects – the first proposed kennels in Salem in over two decades – differed greatly. The SARL kennel was designed specifically by an architect with experience working on similar projects to house animals and the group had a defined protocol for their operation, Keller said.

The zoning ordinance has since changed to prevent kennels from operating in rural residential neighborhoods as a direct result of both projects, according to Keller.

Though pleased by the outcome, Moldoff said he felt bad for the Richards, who are currently renting the property.

“It’s been a long battle ... (The Richards) had spent a lot of money and a lot of time on it. I had worked with them to help them understand the issues and the town’s regulations. It’s not a pleasant experience to go to court. You feel bad for the other side,” he said. “Ultimately, I’m glad we prevailed.”

Salem impact fees to go townwide

Salem Editor — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:32:00 GMT

BY DERRICK PERKINS

The Planning Board approved a new town-wide traffic impact fee system by a 6-1 vote on Aug. 11, but not before tweaking the proposal to offset concerns raised by local developers.

Under the original plan, roadway construction cost assumptions included in the new fee system had been based on the full-depth construction of a mile-long, 34-foot wide, fully directional roadway with an estimated price tag of $2.1 million. Martin Kennedy, the town’s traffic impact fee consultant, told the board that by eliminating a 5-foot-wide shoulder on either side of the roadway accounted for in the original calculations, the cost could be reduced to $1.5 million per mile, resulting in a roughly 29 percent decrease in the proposed impact fees.

The board also opted to decrease all of the proposed impact fees by a further 10 percent and delayed the start of the new fee system until March 1, 2010, to allow developers currently working on projects within the community a six-month window to have their plans approved under the old impact fee system.

Any development project that has already received approval from the Planning Board will be grandfathered in under the old system as well, though later adjustments made to plans given the green light before the town-wide fee system goes into effect will be decided on a case-by-case basis.

The adoption of a new traffic impact fee system has been in the works for the past several years, according to Planning Director Ross Moldoff. Under the old fee structure – which was last adjusted for inflation in 1994 – impact fees were collected solely from projects along the Route 28 and Pelham Road corridors.

Though officials argued that a comprehensive, townwide traffic impact fee system that could be easily adjusted for inflation would make it easier for developers to work with the community in the future, members of the business community objected to the proposal as potentially having a dampening effect on the local economy.

Christopher Goodnow, of Goodnow Real Estate Services, told the board that even though the impact fees had been reduced, they still represented a dramatic increase in costs.

“A (29) percent reduction on a huge increase still means a huge increase, just a little bit less,” Goodnow said.

Board member Gene Bryant said that after three public hearings on the issue, the only differences that remained were philosophical.

“I believe we have shown that it is important that this system be townwide. I believe we’ve shown that the new fee system, which is very important, is based on sound science,” he said. “I believe that we’ve done our homework, and we’ve gotten to a point where the fee schedule that I see makes sense.”

Ronald Belanger was the lone dissenting voice on the board, arguing that the changes would dull Salem’s competitive edge over neighboring communities and increase the impact of the recession on the local economy.

Businesses say impact fee change unfair

Salem Editor — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:41:00 GMT

BY DERRICK PERKINS

Questioning the fairness of the new system and its impact on future development, local business owners have again raised objections to a proposed roadway fee system that is before the Planning Board.

Under the proposed system drawn up by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc., impact fees would be assessed on any new development in the town, from retail space to single family homes, and raise the fees already in place on Route 28 and the Pelham Road corridor.

Implemented in its current form, the proposed system would increase fees on retail development along the southern portion of Route 28 from $1 per square foot and $3 per square foot on the northern portion to a flate rate of $4 per square foot.

Near Stiles Road, office space would rise from $1 per square foot to $2.65 per square foot. A fee of $2,200 would be assessed on any new single family home construction across town.

Chris Goodnow, of Goodnow Real Estate Services, challenged the evenhandedness of the new system, telling the Planning Board at their July 14 public hearing that the developers working on projects in the Stiles Road area had paid the old impact fees – left unadjusted for inflation since 1994 – without complaint.

“I have a client who has been involved in development on Stiles Road for 25 years and paid the imapct fees. I think they are a prime candidate to say that they’ve been treated unfairly for 25 years,” Goodnow said. “I would go even further than that. The fact that they have paid fees for 25 years, it is inequitable that the rest of the town hasn’t. Keeping the fee structure for the existing corridors and make everybody else adopt the fees, that would be fair to them.”

Representing the Greater Salem Chamber of Commerce, Executive Director Donna Morris told the board that the new system would likely put a damper on the local economy in the midst of a recession, make it harder for existing properties to be redeveloped and put Salem at a disadvantage when it came to attracting new business.

“Although the Chamber recognizes the need for reasonable impact structure, the consensus reached is that the proposed fee would have adverse impact on the development of the community. The current core economic conditions do not merit the proposed fees,” Morris said.

The proposal also sparked divisions among the members of the board, with Ronald Belanger arguing that any increase in impact fees should be held off until after the economy improves. Board member Phyllis O’Grady said she wanted a system in place that let developers cover the cost of traffic improvements rather than the taxpayers. No decision was made on the proposal last night, though Chairman Jim Keller said he planned to hold another public hearing – the third on the proposal so far – before moving forward.

According to Planning Director Ross Moldoff, the proposed overhaul of the existing impact fee system has been in the works since last year.

Officials hope the proposed plan will put in place a comprehensive system of fees while making it easier to adjust for inflation on a yearly basis and give developers a better idea of what fees will be assessed ahead of time.

New chairman of Charter Commission has been there before

Salem Editor — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:15:00 GMT

BY DERRICK PERKINS

Robert Campbell is not new to writing town charters, an experience he believes will come in handy as the community’s Charter Commission moves forward.

Campbell, a former selectman and current member of the Planning Board, chaired the commission in the late ’90s that established the first town charter in Salem. Serving again as chairman of Salem’s newly elected nine-member charter commission, Campbell said the past experience had left him with a strong understanding of the state statutes regulating municipal government and an idea of how to produce a document that voters will accept at next year’s Town Meeting.

“I know what can be done, and one of the things that is important is to communicate what are the options. It isn’t the sort of thing where you can start out with a blank sheet of paper. The state gives us a restricted outline,” he said.

“One needs to have a little bit of discussion to find out what direction we’re going to go. We can’t be flailing around on six different possibilities for four months. We have to develop a consensus or majority of what people are going to support and then start fleshing it out.”

According to Campbell, the commission has a wide latitude on what changes to make in the town charter.

The commission could recommend minor tweaks to the current document or adopt one of six basic forms of municipal government in New Hampshire.

That could mean potentially turning from the town meeting and board of selectmen to a town council or city council.

At the moment, nothing is off the table, according to Campbell. The focus for the next month or so is on developing a majority within the commission on what direction they want to take the town charter, he said.

Campbell anticipates that much of the discussion will revolve around how much power voters should have in the future when it comes to the budget and other spending proposals.

“One of the patterns you’ll see, the people who are in government tend to want to have a council type of government that gives them the power to directly implement their programs. The people who are marginally on the outside want to say, ‘I don’t want to give them that power. I want to keep this to the voters,’” he said. “It’s that tension that is going to cause much of the discussion in the months ahead.”

The commission has roughly six months to review the current charter, study alternatives and take public input before turning out a rough draft of recommendations that will go before voters in March. Residents will have the final say on whether to accept the commission’s findings.

The key to gaining voter approval for any alterations to the town charter is to keep it simple, Campbell said.

“We have had a lot of charter commissions in Salem over the last 30 years or so. The commission about 10 years ago was the first people had approved,” he said.

Earlier proposed charters could run as long as 60 pages and were met with defeat. In the late ’90s, Campbell said his goal was to keep the document small enough to fit on a single sheet of paper. Short and simple is the way to go this time around as well, he said.

“It’s like the Constitution, it’s not every last policy and procedure,” Campbell said. “I’d like to gain enough consensus on the commission and in the community so that it will pass.”

Goboro Road plan criticized

Hooksett Editor — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:29:00 GMT

By Kathleen Bailey

The proposed Towle Farm Estates housing development off Goboro Road, near the Epsom/Chichester line, is receiving critical reviews so far from a cross-section of Epsom residents.

Developer Roger Bartlett hopes to put 42 single-family homes in a cluster development on part of the 275 acres. The land has been in his family for years. The property is at Tax Map R-13, Lot 36-1. The back 160 acres will be conservation land, with the easement held and monitored by the New England Forestry Foundation.

But residents have concerns ranging from water to traffic, and a standing-room-only crowd expressed their misgivings in several public meetings. Judy Gibson, who lives off Goboro Road, worries about runoff from the new homes to the Suncook River, which borders the development.

“They will fertilize their lawns,” she said of her potential new neighbors, “and every house will have a septic tank. I asked about it in the meeting, and the response was, ‘We’ll put in catchbasins with filters.’ I asked, ‘Who will take care of the catchbasins?’ and they said, ‘The town.’ That’s another tax burden on the town, and it was kind of a surprise for me.”

“The property does slope down to the river,” Bartlett said, pointing out, “It’s been a wetland for hundreds of years.”

He submitted his wetlands application to the Department of Environmental Services, who reviewed it. He said he is required to deal with drainage issues, and is doing so through culverts, swales and catchbasins. The engineering firm hired by the town, SSC, is comfortable with his drainage plans, he said.

While there may be runoff to the river, the development itself doesn’t have water, Jim Breagy, a 31-year resident of Goboro Road, said. He’s checked with two plumbers, both of whom told him wells would have to be drilled.

“You’re going to shove 40 houses in an area with no water?” Breagy asked rhetorically. Bartlett countered that he’s done test pits and perc tests, and “there is enough water.”

Traffic is also an issue with Breagy. Goboro has deteriorated over the years and is “like a bubble,” higher in the middle, he said.

There is already a problem with truckers passing through to Route 28, even though the road is supposed to be posted. “They do it to avoid the weight check,” he said.

In the summer, the road is filled with young moms with strollers, joggers and people walking their dogs. He’s concerned about the impact of cars from 40 more homes, he said.

“I understand the concern,” Bartlett said, “and it’s well-founded. The Planning Board has had the same concern for a while.”

A traffic study was done and reviewed by SSC.study found that 80 percent of the traffic generated by his development would head toward Route 28, he said, and he’s already talked with the state about his role in improvements to Route 28.

“It is a legitimate concern, and the board is looking at offsite improvements I can do.”

Traffic, he said, is an “open issue.” Police Chief Wayne Preve wanted additional signage on the road, he added.

Breagy is also concerned, he said, that there has been no engineers’ report on the planned development.

“They need to tell us: Is it feasible or not feasible?” he said. And Bartlett doesn’t “know where he’s coming from” on that. “I could not have submitted my application without the engineering work already done,” he said.

He’s contracted with Northpoint Engineering to do the engineering studies. In addition to their studies and those of SSC, Keith Cota, selectmen’s representative to the Planning Board and an engineer, has done a “careful and methodical” review, Bartlett said.

Other residents worry about school children and their effect on Epsom’s public school system. Bartlett said he has provided his “school projections.” Some people object to the strain on town services such as police and fire, but Bartlett said Preve and Fire Chief Stewart Yeaton haven’t come up with any major issues.

“The town zoning,” Bartlett said, “allows for this type of project in this type of area.” And the town may actually benefit, he added. The property is in current usage, with a portion of the taxes abated.

“If it comes out of current usage, the town gets paid – as much as $200,000 to $300,000,” he said.

Planning Board Chairman Dan McGuire sees the situation as “an objection to building in general” on the quiet rural road. He said, “We’ve received more opposition to this development than to any other since I’ve been on the board.”

Developer Adam Towne is working on a 25-house subdivision in another part of town, and hasn’t seen any controversy. But for Goboro Road there is, McGuire concluded, a “general anti-development feeling.”

And for Jim Breagy, that is part of the issue.

“You go on Goboro Road and all the houses are a good distance apart,” he said, adding, “It’s a very homey environment.”

The Planning Board will hold a public hearing on Towle Farm Estates Wednesday, July 8. For more information, call the Town Office at 736-9002.

Businesses: Wrong time to increase fees

Salem Editor — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:11:00 GMT

BY DERRICK PERKINS

Local business leaders are concerned that a plan to update Salem’s system of traffic impact fees may put a damper on future economic redevelopment in the community.

According to Planning Director Ross Moldoff, the town’s current traffic impact fees have not been adjusted for inflation since 1994 and the system in place now is limited to projects on Route 28 and the Pelham Road corridor.

Moldoff said the Planning Board has been considering putting a new, comprehensive traffic impact fee system into place that would incorporate the entire town and make adjustments for inflation an easier process for the past several years.

“The problem was that if you built a big industrial building on Pelham Road, you paid a big impact fee. If you did the same thing on Lowell Road, you didn’t pay anything. The reason it applied to only those corridors is because they were considered the areas where the most growth was going to occur,” he said. “(The new system) will be able to be updated more easily, make the road impact fee system more fair and apply it to all areas of town. The negative part is that it is not a great time to be raising fees.”

Were the proposal begun in its current form, the fee attached to retail development would rise from $1 per square foot on the southern portion of Route 28 and $3 on the northern portion to a flat rate of $4, according to Moldoff. Office space near Stiles Road would rise from a $1 per square foot to $2.56. An impact fee of about $2,200 would also be attached to new single-family home construction across town, he said.

According to Chris Goodnow, of Goodnow Real Estate Services, the proposed changes come at exactly the wrong time to be raising impact fees in Salem. Goodnow said the impact of the new fees could put a chill on plans to redevelop the Route 28 strip and revitalize the Salem Depot while adding a tax burden onto the profit center of the town.

“Basically, an impact fee is a tax ... it’s a dramatic increase of this tax in an economic period where it is poor public policy to increase taxes,” Goodnow said. “If you view the town of Salem as a business, the residents enjoy the benefit of a very low real estate taxation relative to many communities in New Hampshire. They enjoyed that because of the large amount of commercial and industrial development that this community has been able to entertain.”

According to Jim Keller, chairman of the Planning Board, the change comes after a long lull during which the town’s impact fees were never changed for inflation.

The new system would also make the process of assessing fees simpler for the town and developers, he said.

For the moment, nothing is set in stone. The Planning Board held off on making a final decision on whether to begin the new impact fee system after Goodnow and other local business leaders voiced their concerns at a public forum held May 28.

Town employees expect to be able to address the concerns from the business community in time for a second public forum on the sometime in the next six weeks.

Joe Friedman, of Brooks Properties, is hopeful that the board will address the concerns raised by the business community last week the second time around. Friedman said there was a question of whether the board had taken into the account the impact the change would have on businesses considering a move to the community.

“It’s a very difficult times to raise fees,” he said.“We think it’s an extra tax on a specific part of the community. It certainly puts downward pressure on the ability to get tenants.”

Izbicki gets support for Planning Commission

Bedford Editor — Wed, 27 May 2009 19:17:00 GMT

By STEPHEN BEALE

The Bedford Planning Board has recommended that the Town Council reappoint its chairman, Michael Izbicki, to the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission as a full member for a four-year term, according to town planning director Rick Sawyer. The board also recommended one of its members, Harold Newberry, to a two-year alternate position.

The recommendations were made at a May 18 meeting of the Planning Board.

Izbicki’s position on the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission, came under scrutiny early this month, after former Town Councilor Bill Greiner asked the town if there was any conflict of interest between his membership on the commission and the fact that it was listed as a client of his business, B&I Transportation Consultants, LLC, on its Web site, www.banditransportation.com.

The Town Council members concluded there was no conflict of interest. In a May 14 letter to council Vice Chairman Bob Young, Raymond Clement, chairman of the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission, said its Executive Committee had reached a similar conclusion – that the contract with Izbicki’s business did not violate its policies on contracts and conflicts of interest.

“Other contracts of a similar nature had been awarded previously,” the letter states. “It was concluded there was no conflict of interest or violation of the SNHPC By-Laws as it pertains to the awarding of the B&I Transportation Consulting LLC Contract for the State Planning and Research (SPR) project.”

Izbicki has said the listing was a typo. He said his business was tasked with finding a site for a commuter rail station for the state Department of Transportation and that the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission was just reviewing the work. In the letter to the town, Clement said Izbicki’s company has been asked to a preliminary site evaluation for the Manchester Boston Regional Airport.