Board of Selectmen - Regular Meeting

for this evening that's it uh is that from the brain advice no no no yes sorry i've been gone for a bit too much numbers thank you mary smith i'm up i'm carly fenton i'm the planning board chair and yes and vice chair marty sylvia bender sarah hamilton's lightboard And we also have administrative.

Okay. And just to clarify, Sarah, is Board of Selectmen also a member of our planning board? We have three hearings on the agenda this evening, so we have a full slate. Just a question as I look at the agenda. Can you tell me if you're here for the library hearing this evening? I know that we also have legal counsel here on behalf of the Board of Selection in the town of Kensington. In the interest of everyone's time, I'd like to suggest that we move the library to first order of business at the end. Does anyone on the board have any concerns with that suggestion?

Okay.

Before we open this hearing, does anyone on the board have any potential conflicts with, in regards to the allocation for 126 Amesbury Road with the communication and social life?

I do, I do.

I just want to disclose before we get started that I am under the impression that the library has retained McLean Middleton as legal counsel. My husband does work for McLean Middleton as well. It is the largest law firm in New Hampshire. There are several lawyers there. He's been there for approximately a year. To my knowledge, he is not at all involved in the case. He hasn't worked with the individuals discussing the library at all. I don't feel conflicted and I feel like that would be impartial, but I did want to share with the board in case anyone has questions or concerns.

Okay. Hearing none, we will assume that I'm okay to chair the meeting.

If anyone has conflict, concerns as we go through the rest of folks on the board, please let me know.

Who's up next?

Me, I guess. I am Trevor, I'm the principal, and also my husband is Trevor of the social proxies. I feel like I can be impartial based on the regulations as opposed to any personal opinions, but I'm just sort of out there if anybody wants, thinks I should refuse myself, I will.

Let's go ahead and state all of the concerns and then we'll go back to the fund money and surrogates.

Justin McClain, just don't see any reason to bring conflict. Governor White was on the social board for the library and then as a fan of UFL and actually support the library class. Again, as Mary said and everyone said, I don't see any conflict with interest in reviewing applications and evaluating the

and here in the studio during the relations.

As the Select Board representative, my conflict, I think, is that there's still a question as to whether or not the application is within municipal use. The Select Board, because of the way the town voted on the town warrant, believes that our ability to act on it has been told no. So I feel like I need to recuse myself from discussion.

I think that makes sense. Would anyone like, so as chair, I can request that you, that anyone recuse themselves, right? It is your own choice. Would anyone like me to ask for an advisory vote in regard to your position. Again, this is not a bad thing, but it would be a vote of the board to help you determine your next steps. If any individual feels that they need that to inform their decision.

Can I ask a clarifying question?

Yes. Please, I'm going to ask Lilo to go to the microphone. No, it's just something I have to say. We have new microphones. Everyone can hear us. So for anyone speaking this evening, you will go to the microphone and state your name and address for the record.

Hi, good evening. My name is Mark Lilo from . I'd like to ask if you could clarify, you indicated you are a treasurer of the library. Is that correct?

Friends of the library. Not of the library, no.

I see.

I'm glad I knew you had a voting number. Right.

That's why I didn't say anything yet. But I'm a direct provider according to the way we do things in the town. And so I really think that throughout the week, I would prefer as an abutter to be able to make comments if I need to, and I don't want to confuse anyone that I'm speaking as an abutter or not as a talented abutter.

Great.

So I think this side of the room, let's make choices on what they're doing.

Do we need an advisory vote here?

I mean, you still feel comfortable that everybody's happy with their own head, but I'm personally chair of Ben.

Yeah, I don't see the need to vote on that. Is that a question to us?

That's a question to you there. Yeah. And the board as a whole. My only concern is that everyone is clear that the Friends of the Library is not, it's a separate organization. So, Mary, can you explain that?

Basically, it's we just try and raise funds as part of it, but have the years, not for this change that's being put on. And we'd like to support summer reading program, for instance. But we have nothing to do with this piece.

I mean, I don't know what else. Does anybody have any questions about what I do?

Well, we do. Friends have been around a long time. I think a lot of you people probably are familiar. We just had a book sale.

All right. Since we had one question from the public that was clarified, I'm going to go ahead and just ask for an advisory vote for marriage so that we have the opinions of the board on the record. Does anybody feel as though Mary as treasurer of Friends of the Library should recuse herself from this conversation? Anyone in favor of recusal? I'm going to vote on the side of utmost caution here for the record. We are going to finish this vote first. Okay.

That's okay. I appreciate it.

Same person, same person.

Yes. The question I have is whether the framing should actually be whether, regardless of your relationship to the library, because I think probably everybody in this room is supportive of the library as a concept, and I'm supportive of the library as well. And that is whether you can be objective in your decision making. I'm looking at you, but it's for everybody who's raised it to their hands, saying they have a potential conflict. And so I'm asking whether the question really can be, if you can look at this divorce from that conflict as a person who's representing on the planning board, whether you can look at that objectively from the perspective of the planning board.

Thanks, I appreciate that. I think most of the boards have indicated that they do not feel that they're conflicted, that they . Since I was the only one that voted against the affirmative, I will, let's resume the vote.

Does anyone,

I guess since I was the only one that voted, that I felt on the side of utmost caution that we might just put a recusal. Everyone else, I would assume, is in favor of Mary remaining objective in her decision as planning board member. Is that true?

Yes.

Okay. At this time, I'm going to ask that if you are recusing yourself, that you please step away from the table for this hearing and join the general public. The hearing reports today have the applicant Kensington Social Library Social Trustees at 126 Amesbury Road, Kensington, New Hampshire, Map 8, Block 23. The Kensington Social Library Social Trustees are seeking planning board review and public hearing regarding a proposed expansion of the existing library facility located at 126 Amesbury Road. The proposal consists of the construction of an approximately 2,600 square foot addition to the existing library building, increasing the total building area to approximately 9,000 square feet. The proposed addition is intended to provide additional library, community, and programming space together with associated site improvements. The applicant asserts that the proposal qualifies as a government use subject to RSA 674.54. In accordance with RSA 674.54, governmental uses are subject to a public hearing by the planning board, which will determine whether the proposal qualifies for treatment under RSA 674.54, and if so, may issue non-binding written comments relative to conformity or non-conformity of the proposal with normally applicable land use regulations. So, board members, you all received a copy of the plans proposed for the library, as well as the full text of RSA 674-54. which is governmental land uses. Under governmental land use, so under the RSA 674 application, if a project is governmental use, the planning board would have public hearing and we would hear the application we would provide comments about whether or not the application conforms to our existing land use regulation but those comments are non-binding because it is a governmental use so this is a public hearing scenario for everyone to understand the project and for us to provide That being said, before we hear from anybody else this evening, I'd like us to consider whether or not we have jurisdiction over this application. So the notice that we received, and this hearing as notice, states that the Kensington Social Library has submitted a site plan for an addition of renovations to the library, the site plan was submitted pursuant to RFA 674.54, which exempts certain governmental land uses from local land use regulations, including Town and Kensington site plan review regulations. After consulting with legal counsel, it's my opinion that we don't have jurisdiction over the site plan submitted by Kensington Social Library . RSA 674.54 item 2 provides that the state university system, community college system of the manager, county, town, city, school district, or village district shall give written notification to the governing body and planning board, if such exists, of a municipality of any proposed governmental use of property within its jurisdiction, which constitutes a substantial change in use or substantial new use. In order to invoke the planning board's jurisdiction under RFA 674.54, therefore governmental use notification must be submitted to the planning board by a governmental entity, such as the town of Kensington. Kensington Social Library is a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the state of New Hampshire, but it is not a governmental entity. As such, acting alone I'm of the opinion that Kensington Social Library cannot invoke the planning board's jurisdiction under RSA 67454. To the extent that the social library wishes to proceed with its proposed addition and renovations, as currently noticed, a full site plan review application, I think, must be submitted if we don't comply with 67454. that was held in accordance with section 4.4 of the kensington cycling review regulations to comply with our regulations it might also be necessary for the library to consider various applications to the kensington zoning during adjusting alternatively if the board of select members support this project and they wish to proceed with this project as governmental use under rfa 674 54 the board of selectmen submit to us a formal governmental use notification then we can hear this application to the board that given the way that this hearing was noticed and the requirements of the rsa but i don't think we have jurisdiction at this point in time the board have questions

comments, thoughts on the information that we've been provided today. This information is from the RSA.

As I mentioned, I have spoken with legal to speak and active speaking with legal that my understanding of the RSA.

So just to be clear, are you saying that you

No, I'm saying I think we have two options here. I don't think that the planning boards can determine whether or not it's governmental use. Okay, so that is the question. Yes, I think that either this is not governmental use and the library is applying on their own, in which case we need to comply with all of the site review regulations. I recognize that that might be a hardship given the site restraints, and if it is a governmental use and the Board of Selectmen chooses to endorse that, then I need notice from the Board of Selectmen to hear this as governmental use. So it's my personal opinion that for me to hear this as a property underneath RSA 67454, the Council should not read the Kensington Social Library's IT NEEDS TO READ THE TOWN ON BEHALF OF THE KENSINGTON SOCIAL LIBRARY. I NEED ADDORSEMENT FROM THE TOWN THAT THIS IS A MUNICIPAL ENTITY.

SO IT DOES SOUND VERY GOOD. ESSENTIALLY A PRIVATE ENTITY IS ASKING TO BE HEARD AS A GOVERNMENT ENTITY BECAUSE THAT'S 474. right right and so if the private entity is asking i don't a private end this is we can't it's about my i think it's about my jurisdiction we're going into the applicant is asking for something that a private package cannot yeah which is appearing before 674 that needs to be from an applicant that is a municipality or state or some government entity

Right, so I think I can hear the application from the library had it been noticed as a private entity without 674.54 cited in the notification, right? I think I could hear this as a regular site plan review. Like I said, I recognize that this likely presents hardships given the constraints of the library site. the town endorses this as a governmental use building, in which case we would have the hearing scenario that I discussed at the start, that this is a governmental use, and then our hearing is simply advisable.

I do have a quick question in the town.

It states that if the land is owned or occupied, are proposed to be owned or occupied by um the fact that it's being occupied um is at least for the challenge it's the occupier and it's been occupied as a library is that done well so i'm looking at so that that first section right section one defines what a government right

Then I'm going down to section two, and this is where I get hung up for how we're noticed this evening, right? Section two, the first line states, the state university system, community college system, county, town, city, school district, or village district shall give written notification to the governing body and planning board. So I did not, as chair, receive written notification from the town that I would be hearing this on behalf of the town as governmental use.

I totally agree. Thank you.

So basically, we're asking the Board of Selectmen to decide.

Right. I think I'm contending that the Board of Selectmen needs to determine that they are going to support the application in which case it can be heard under RSA 554. If they are endorsing this application as governmental use, we can proceed with an advisory hearing. If the Board of Selectmen does not feel with the advice of council that it is a governmental land use, then my only avenue forward as planning board chair, I believe, is to hear this as a regular site plan review subject to the constraints of our land use regulations.

Right.

And because of the way that it's noticed and because public hearings require a public notice, I cannot, despite the fact that we have a host of members from the community here, I cannot make the determination that we are going to hear it differently on the spot.

Because the public notice and process prohibits me from doing stuff.

So, without the course of action, but.

Is the, so I think our course of action is as we would handle any other complication to determine whether we can take jurisdiction this evening. Based on the notice provided to us.

Can you read this?

There are small questions, but I wish you could read this again.

Yes. So it says the Kensington Social Library social trustees are seeking planning board review on public hearings regarding a proposed expansion of the existing library facility located at 126 Kingsbury Road. The proposal consists of the construction of an approximately 2,600 square foot addition to the existing library building, increasing the total building area to approximately 9,000 square feet. Sorry. That's the description of what they're doing. Right. And then it goes on, the notice goes on to say, the next paragraph, the proposed addition is intended to provide additional library, community, and programming space together with associated site improvements. The applicant asserts that the proposal qualifies as a government use subject to RFA 674.54. So the applicant is asserting that it qualifies, which I can respect, right? So the applicant in this instance is the Kensington Social Library, where I feel like our ends are tied. And that was like two of 674.54, item two, which states that I made written notification to the planning board on behalf of the town, which I don't know.

Where I was going with that same point and what our course of action is, is with that understanding, which I've voiced my opinion on, Marty's voice has been on, what is the path forward? It's not a, typically from here we would vote jurisdiction. If we're not voting jurisdiction, is that a denial? Is it a request to defer?

It's not a denial. It's a request to consider how we apply, right? So I think, like I stated, we have two options. Either there's a conversation with the Board of Selectmen. The Board of Selectmen agrees that this complies with 674.54. They provide a written notice to the planning board. We notice this differently. We notice it with the applicant as the town on behalf of the library, and then we can proceed with the 674.54 hearing. if that is not a possibility or something that the board of selection feel comfortable with then i think that our path forward is to hear this as a regular site plan review subject to the letter of regulation

Again, where I'm where I'm trying to get to head to is what is the next step? Does the application just go away?

I think the application.

Do they need to withdraw without prejudice so that they could be?

Well, we're not invoking. We're not invoking jurisdiction, so we've done this before where we don't invoke jurisdiction. That means we're not hearing this application as we're in. No, nothing started, but it's not in denial because we haven't heard the We're not, as a board, we don't have the information that we need to make a decision on this this evening.

I would feel most comfortable if we take a vote on jurisdiction this evening so that we have it on. Are there any

Questions or concerns from the applicant or the Board of Select and Legal?

I have a question. Yes, please. If you could just state your name for the record. I just want to clarify, are you requesting a determination from the Board of Select? Oh my God, we have these questions.

Yes. I think that's what I'm... So that definition hasn't been made yet.

I think there will need to be a call, I think, to the Board of Selectmen. Correct.

And I know that we have a forum with the Board of Selectmen here this evening, but it's not a conversation that we can have at this point.

Correct. Thank you. Question is from the applicant before I ask the Board to take the vote.

I think everything that you explained makes sense. I'm not an attorney, but I agree with your strongness, and I think speaking on behalf of the library, we as well are waiting for a final determination on the status of when the library is considered a governmental municipal use. Once we can actually get that definitively stated, then we will figure out what the best approach is. So tonight we were prepared to do a presentation. I think the terminology was for an advisory presentation. You know, I think we can also try to be prepared to make a formal application for site planning review as well. So we're very happy to work with you folks in the town to project forward with all of the legal definitions installed for the library. Absolutely. We're prepared to do it.

Great.

So with that, I'm going to ask the board if there's anyone that would like to make a motion to either take jurisdiction or not take jurisdiction of the application for map 8, block 23.

I'll make a motion that we do not take jurisdiction.

I see.

All in favor? Aye.

okay are we having an unanimous vote of the board this evening um thank you so much for everyone that came out tonight i understand that it's frustrating that you did not get to see the library plans and provide comments like we were expecting but we really appreciate your time and we hope to be able to see you again at the point where you can formally thank you With that, we're going to go ahead and close the public hearings for the Kensington Social Library Social Talks at 1-2016 Mary Bird. I'm going to go ahead and propose that we just take three to five minutes for recess, and we will invite everyone back to resume for the next hearing in about four minutes.

um um That's right.