MINUTES OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC MEETING
MARCH 3, 2004
Map 2 Lots 67 & 77. Case # 167A. Motion for rehearing of ZBA decision that was made on January 7, 2004. Request made by James M. Mullaney.
Members Present: Steve MacCleery-Chairman, Richard DeBold, Ben Brown, Ben Daroska, Jeff Jordan, Mark McIntosh, Lou Barker.
Applicant-James Mullaney.
Jeff Jordan was sworn in as a member of the ZBA by Selectman Richard DeBold prior to the beginning of the meeting.
Voting Members-Steve MacCleery, Richard DeBold, Ben Brown, Ben Daroska, Lou Barker.
Purpose of this public meeting is to read James Mullaney’s motion for rehearing.
Richard-I have thoroughly read the motion for rehearing and I do not believe, in my opinion, that there has been any new, compelling evidence presented that was not presented previously or discussed. I don’t believe that any technical errors were pointed out and identified in this motion for rehearing. In my opinion, the motion should be denied.
Ben Brown-What is the definition of a technical error? Is that like a procedural error where the board did something wrong in the process or is it simply we made a bad decision?
Richard-I feel it means we didn’t follow procedure legally.
Ben-I would agree with that because in hearing Jeff being sworn in as a ZBA member, we are to do our best effort based on our knowledge and the law, as we know it. There is a possibility that the board could make a bad decision but because we are the same people, we’re likely to make those same decisions again and again. Technical error, to me, would mean we didn’t have enough board members, things were not discussed properly, minutes were not kept properly etc.
Lou-I didn’t find anything in the motion that alleged we made a technical error. The motion speaks about interpreting NH Constitution. I don’t think that constitutes an error.
Ben-Mr. Mullaney disagrees with the BOA decision and the fact that we upheld the building inspectors findings. I don’t see anywhere a hard definition of a technical error. According to the BOA Handbook the only two reasons for granting a motion for rehearing are presenting new evidence and the proof of a technical error. Not finding either I agree with Richard that the motion should be denied.
Lou-I feel we are hearing the same arguments we heard at the last public hearing.
Ben Daroska-I feel the same way. No new evidence has been submitted.
Steve-I cannot see any new evidence. There is just disagreement with our decision.
Jeff-I agree with everyone else. No new evidence has been submitted.
Mark-I am in agreement with the rest of the board.
MOTION
Lou Barker made the motion to deny James Mullany’s motion for rehearing based on the fact that all present board members have read the document and find no new or compelling evidence, and find no allegations of technical errors that were made by this board. Seconded by Ben Brown.
VOTE
5-0. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Holly MacCleery, Secretary
Posted on 3/7/04
Library
Town Hall (inside & outside)
| 
