HB 1661: What Local Land Use Boards Need to Know Webinar! (08.10.22)

Speakers are labeled SPEAKER_N. This transcript is machine-generated.

Recording

thank you
good afternoon everyone my name is Tim
Fortier I'm the communications
coordinator with New Hampshire Municipal
Association and you have joined us for
our 2022 webinar series and this one in
particular is House Bill
1661. what local land use officials need
to know today we are joined by our two
presenters Nate Graves government
Affairs council with the New Hampshire
Municipal Association good afternoon
Nate
good afternoon Tim and good afternoon to
the many hundreds of people on this uh
Zoom webinar this afternoon
we do have a lot and no if you could
Advance the slide so that our attendees
could see
um our presenters there you are there's
Nate and uh Noah hodgetts who's uh the
principal planner with the office of
Planning and Development within the
office of business and economic Affairs
I hope I got that right Noah but welcome
here this afternoon well thank you very
much Tim all right thank you all for
joining us today we are um uh do have uh
over five uh close to 500 people
registered for this webinar today we
have close to 300 in attendance already
we would ask that our attendees be
judicious with the questions that we
need to ask our presenters
um we do believe that this webinar will
go beyond the hour so we are prepared to
go and answer as many questions as we
can
um in that time frame so with that I'd
like to turn the program over to Noah
hodgets uh uh to begin this presentation
well great well thank you so much again
everybody for joining us today today's
webinar will first cover a review of the
housing Provisions contained in section
70 through 79 of House Bill 1661
referred to by some as the community
toolbox bill as well as House Bill 1021
which exempts religious land uses from
zoning I will cover section 70-76 of
House Bill 1661 and then turn it over to
an H to discuss section 77 to 70 through
79 of House Bill 1661 as well as House
Bill 1021 and as Tam as Tim mentioned at
the outset feel free to put your
questions
um in the chat box throughout the
presentation and we'll do our best to uh
kind of get to questions for the
relevant section of the presentation as
we go through the webinar
so before I review the specific housing
related Provisions in House Bill 1661 I
want to spend a few minutes reviewing
the road to passage of these housing
Provisions in the summer of 2019
Governor sununu convened a housing task
force consisting of members from State
agencies and entities including Bea New
Hampshire Housing and my predecessor
agency the office of strategic
initiatives LSI as well as Municipal
municipalities developers and a
bipartisan group of state legislators
who were all tasked with coming up with
a plan to address the state's growing
how to housing shortage
in Fall 2019 this task force published a
set of recommended legislative changes
to address the housing shortage
including additional training and tools
for communities
these recommendations were incorporated
into house bill
1629 in House Bill 1632 in 2020 House
Bill 586 in 2021 and Senate Bill 400 in
2022.
after much negotiating some provisions
of Senate Bill 400 were attached to
House Bill 1661 during this past
legislative session House Bill 1661
was then signed into law on June 24
2022 and notably absent from House Bill
1661 compared to earlier versions of the
bill where the option for communities to
adopt mandatory inclusionary zoning
under RSA 674 colon 21 as well as the
creation of the housing Champion
Community certification program
section 70 replaces existing language on
permissible training for new planning
board and zoning board members offered
by my office the office of Planning and
Development OPD
which is outlined in RFA 673 colon 3
hyphen a with new language which
clarifies that any playing board or
Zoning Board of adjustment member
including alternate members may receive
training from OPD or other organizations
such as nhma which which also offers
similar training section 70 also added a
requirement that OPD
needed to prepare corresponding tests
for planning boards and zoning boards of
adopt and zoning boards of adjustment
along with our existing self-study
materials
which are available on the OPD website
this change will go into effect on
August 23rd later this month
in accordance with Section 70 of House
Bill 1661 OPD has developed a
30-question planning board test as an
optional learning check based on the
information contained in the current
planning board handbook published by OPD
unfortunately due to administrative
staff constraints we no longer are able
to offer printed versions of these
handbooks for purchased by
municipalities however we've included a
link to download an electronic copy of
the planning board handbook from our
website
and I'm also going to put a copy a link
to the handbook in the chat right now
um for all to see
hopefully that went out to everybody we
point the publish and updated version of
the handbook which included which
includes changes through the end of the
2022 legislative session by the end of
this calendar year
now when taking the planning board tests
individuals will have the option to
receive an email certificate showing
that they passed a test by receiving a
score of 65 or higher to receive us and
to receive a certificate individuals
will be required to submit their name
and email address
please note OPD will not be tracking
names and scores for tests however for
anyone that would like to take the test
anonymously without having to submit
their name and email address we've
created an anonymous test without a
certificate
links to the planning board tests with
and without the certificate are shown on
this slide thanks to both versions of
the planning board tests okay um well
I've also put a link to both uh versions
of the test uh in the chat as well now
see if this is give me one second to
copy these in
so that first link is to the one without
the certificate and the second link that
I'm going to put in the chat now is the
link planning board test with this
certificate
and hopefully I put in
yeah both uh different links
OPD has also developed a similar 30
question zoning Board Test based on the
content in our current zoning boarding
handbook the link to download an
electronic copy and Zoning boarding in
book can be found on this slide
as well as again I will put the link to
the zoning board handbook
in the chat
and I'm also going to put in the length
to the corresponding zoning board tests
with and without
um the certificate just give me one
second to do that
that's the first one
and first one is without the certificate
and the second link is with with the
certificate
great and those yeah I actually have a
uh question somebody submitted to
indicate that on the attendee side the
chat is disabled but we will make sure
that uh you all have these links and I
will double check and make sure that the
pdf version of the
PowerPoint that was sent out earlier
today by Tim has live links in those and
if if not we'll make sure to update
those so that all of you can go directly
to uh these links that Noah is talking
about
great I'm very sorry about that and I
also note that
um we did OPD did send out guidance
um last Friday I believe it was with
these links to these tests and we will
also be posting these
um on uh the applicable website pages on
our planning board and handbook zoning
board handbook website Pages as well as
our Planning and Zoning training page as
well uh so we make sure that the links
get distributed far and wide
section 71 requires that any fee
um or to fitier town imposes on an
applicant shall be published in location
accessible to the public during normal
business hours or the fee shall be
waived
a city or town May comply with the
publication requirement by publicly
posting a list of fees at the city or
town hall
or by publishing a list of fees on their
city or county internet website separate
document labeled as noticed of land use
board fees fees under RSA 673 colon 16
common Roman numeral 3 should be created
that provides a complete listing of fees
charged for landing support applicants
before the planning board Zoning Board
of adjustment historic district
commission building inspector and
building code board of appeals and this
change will go into effect on August
23rd 2022.
section 72
um of House Bill 1661 gives
municipalities that offer increased
density reduced lot size expedited
approval or other dimensional or
procedural incentives to housing for
older persons until July 1st of 2023 to
make any adjustments to those incentives
before they automatically apply to
developments
of Workforce housing as defined in RSA
674 colon 58 comma Roman numeral four
these incentives are most likely to be
found in age-restricted or elderly
housing based zoning districts and
age-restricted or elderly housing
overlay zoning District or cluster
development ordinances
any incentives provided to housing for
older persons as defined in RSA 354
hyphen a colon 15 comma Roman numeral
eight which are not offered to other
types of housing or land uses would
qualify as this type of incentive
municipalities that provide these
incentives to housing for older persons
in Arizona ordinance or other Landers
regulations should review these
incentives this fall to determine
whether amendment should be proposed at
town meeting 2023
if a municipality that provides these
incentives decides not to make any
changes or
um put up zoning amendments uh town
meeting in 2023
then these incentives will automatically
provided to projects which meet which
meet the definition of Workforce housing
under RSA 674 colon 58 Roman numeral 4
beginning July 1st 2023.
in nature we gotten any questions
um on either of these two sections yet
from folks before I move on
yes I have one clarification question on
71 as to whether the publication of fees
includes building permits and other
select board fees
so
uh 71 oh and I'm gonna sorry that was my
summary that I pulled up momentarily
um so 71 directly says
um refers back to existing fee statute
um so it does I believe include the
building permit fees I do not believe it
it applies to select board fees that
would be separate
yeah I I agree with you Noah I think it
would be any of the fees within the land
use statutes um so if you have some sort
of separate select board fee that would
not be included but something you would
you know you'd go to your building
inspector for your plumbing permit
whatever
um that would be part of it great
okay
moving on on to section 73 which has to
do with written findings in fact section
73 expands the existing language in RSA
16 676 colon 3 Roman numeral one
requiring locally all local ladies
boards which include planning boards
zoning boards of adjustment historic
district commissions building inspectors
and building code Boards of appeal as
well as agricultural commissions and
housing commissions to provide specific
written findings in fact that support
and approval or disapproval
in the do but we note that the the
degree to which a local Landers board
should make these details finding the
fact and support and in support of an
approval may vary based on the level of
controversy associated with the
application if there's a level of
controversy the board should consult
with their Town Council to prepare to
prepare complete and legally sounding
findings of fact
in general the board should be clear
with identifying how the application
meets their regulation and checklist
requirements for the finance the effect
portion of the approval
we also note that finding the fact
should not replace conditions of
approval for denials a local Andrews
board should consider what are the
things about the application that are
preventing it from saying yes these
things or factors should be anchored in
the standards of the regulations and
describe how the application does not
meet the standards of the regulations
but may also include the exercise of
independent judgment experience and
knowledge of the area by the board
The Binding of fact should be complete
so that one a reviewing Court knows all
the reasons for denial and two the
applicant has instructions if they want
to try
um
again for approval a second time
the board should always enlist their
Town Council to Aid in the issuance of
the findings of that
and the kind of big change here that
failure when a board if a bail board
fails to make specific written findings
of fact supporting a disapproval
that shall be grounds for automatic
reversal and remanded by a superior
court upon appeal unless other grounds
exist for disapproval and this change
will go into effect for August 23rd so
on August 23rd later this month uh no
Noah can I just add one thing in um on
this please on the written findings
thing
um so on our practice pointer we we
really want to emphasize the point that
as a local land use board you would be
sitting essentially in a quasi-judicial
capacity so you're acting in the
capacity of a judge you're deciding
you're resolving an issue really between
between two parties you know whoever the
applicant is and and the embutters
deciding whether that's appropriate
based on the rules that apply which is
your zoning ordinance so
if you're going to deny an application
um you know whether that's if you're on
the zoning board they fail to meet the
variance criteria or whether there's you
know on the on the planning board side
of thing there's something specific
within your within your zoning ordinance
that wouldn't they wouldn't meet the
criteria for
um you have to explain what you're doing
just like a judge would because of
course the next step in the Pro in the
process if someone wants to pursue it is
to appeal it and the next the next step
in process the Appellate Court whether
that's whether it ends up being a zba if
you're the planning board or whether
that ends up being the Superior Court
needs to understand what the exact
reason is for the denial
um and and then apply the applicable law
applicable ordinance to that that reason
and make sure it applies
um so that's really what we are trying
to flush out here with practice pointer
I just want to really emphasize that
because it's something that seems
um
to those of us who who are attorneys
this is this is what we do a lot we love
to have all these these writing written
explanations
um but I recognize that most people on
this call are not attorneys and they
wouldn't necessarily be familiar with
this type of process great and I know
this has been a there have been we've
received some past questions on the
written findings so are there any
questions you're seeing nature about the
written findings before we uh keep going
to the next section of the bill
um
we're getting a lot of questions Noah
faster than I can read them
unfortunately so I think I think we
should we should move on at this moment
okay okay we can come back great
section 74 provides a zoning Board of
adjustment has 90 days to begin
consideration and approve or disapprove
of an application unless the applicant
agrees to an extension
if the zba determines that it lacks
sufficient information to make it the
final decision on an application and the
applicant does not consent to an
extension the board may deny the
applicant the application without
prejudice allowing the applicant to
reapply for the same relief in this
change will go into effect on August
23rd 2022 and this is the first time uh
previously there was a clock on planning
board decisions which we'll discuss in a
minute on the next slide there was not a
clock on how quickly uh zbas had to
issue decisions and so this uh this
section of the bill introduces for the
first time a time uh time period of how
long zbas have to issue
um decisions
thank you next section section 75
continues to allow a planning board
under RSA 676 colon 4 comma Roman
numeral one
um
parentheses C to have 30 days to
determine when an application is
complete but clarifies that the
statutory time frame for acting on a
completed application is 65 days uh the
previous aeration statute did include
the 65 days but as we'll discuss in a
minute there was an option uh more of an
option which has been removed from the
statute to extend beyond the 65 dates
so note that 2021's house bill 332
which was also signed into a law and is
in effect extended the planning board's
deadline to act by 30 days when the
board when the planning board determined
development was one of regional
development a dri or a development of
regional impact
House Bill 1661 introduced a grammatical
error into the statute
however there was no intent on the part
of the drafters to remove the additional
30 days for dris and the statute should
continue to be read to include the
additional 30 days in the cases of DRS
as such the planing board has a total of
95 days 65 plus 30 in the when it's
considering developments of regional
impact to act upon the application and
this change unlike the other section of
the bill will not go into effect until
January 1st 2023.
so in the case that a planning board
determines again we're still on Section
75 that it lacks sufficient information
to make a final decision on an
application and the applicant does not
consent to an extension the board may
deny the application without prejudice
allowing the applicant to reapply
at the planning board does not act on
the application within the 65-day period
and the governing body being the select
board or city council is required to
approve the application
and failure of the governing body to
approve the application would then allow
the applicant to appeal to Superior
Court
which must then act within 30 days and
may order the Miss Valley to pay the
applicant's reasonable cost including
attorney fees if it finds that the
governing bodies failure Act was
unjustified
so nature I'm going to pause again and
see how we want to deal with questions
so uh Noah there were a number of
questions on Section 72 uh I apologize
um but I've just seen some of those
there's a little bit of confusion about
how that
um how that
incentives for older persons translated
into incentives for Workforce housing
beginning July 1 of next year
um could you just kind of reiterate that
for people um there were several people
who were a bit confused
yep sure so
um essentially on Section 72
um for the purpose of a developer
um applying under the workforce housing
statute as I decided as Workforce hasn't
been defined under 674 58 uh colon 58
Roman numeral four
um if a community has age-restricted
housing provisions on the books either
in their zoning ordinance or other land
use regulations
um those
uh incentives whether they be
dimensional incentives timing incentives
uh density incentives will automatically
be deemed applicable
um for all developments that are
applying as Workforce housing under the
workforce housing statute beginning July
1 2023 and while it isn't stated in the
language of that section of section 72.
I think it really is a best practice for
any community that does not plan to
um make changes to their age restricted
housing because they don't want the
provisions to carry to Workforce housing
obviously every Community has that
option
um but for any Community it doesn't plan
to make changes
um it wouldn't hurt
um to make sure that those you clarify
in your ordinance that those
requirements for age-restricted housing
what whatever those incentives may be
also
um they're also kind of stated out in
your section if you have a section on
Workforce housing as well
hopefully that answers the question
thank you uh the other question that
seems to be popping up a lot is there's
some confusion on Section 74 on the zba
timeline in 75 the planning board
timeline as to when the 90-day clock
starts uh and when the 65-day clock
starts
um
so if you could just explain that
briefly please yeah
um
let me just again pull up my written
version of the bill here
um so on the uh zba uh section 74.
um
that begins upon 90-day clock begins
upon receipt of the application
so
um there is no extra 30 days
for completeness the 90 days is from
when the zba actually receives the
application
on the planning board timeline
there is the still 30 days
um for the delivery of the application
um and then
um
30 days for it to be deemed complete and
for the board gets it it's complete
um and then once it is deemed complete
at that time that the board has the
times the planning board has the
completed application in its possession
um
at that time the 65-day clock would
start
thank you Noah I think we can move on to
the next session section if you'd like
great
okay so now we're up to uh section 76 uh
so section 76 eliminates the ability of
the planning board under RSA 676 colon
for
comma Roman numeral one in parentheses
section subsection F to request an
extension from the governing board to
take final action on application so as I
said previously prior law did allow a
planning board to petition the governing
body being a select board or the city
council to extend the time to act on an
application by up to 90 days so now
instead now the law reads or will read
as of August 23rd
um
that your planning board
um
has no more than 65 days or 95 days in
the case at a dri to act upon an
application
and the applicant however the applicant
can waive the statutory specified timing
period
um and if if the applicant waves that 65
days specific time period the board in
an applicant can then agree a mutually
agree upon a certain time extension but
again the applicant has to agree to that
extension and this this will take effect
on August 23rd
um just briefly there are a number of
questions about whether there will be
templates provided for planning boards
and zoning boards for some of the things
that we're discussing today
um I think it might be a little
I don't know that uh that that your
organization is planning on providing
um new templates or or anything in the
the new Publications coming out in
December or not but I thought I would I
would ask
yeah so we'll have to think about um I
think that yeah in our updated planning
board and Zoning Board uh handbooks um
which will obviously include all these
changes
um you know we'll we may add some
additional language or templates of kind
of model language that boards most of
this could add to their rules of
procedure a lot of this kind of talk
would go into the planning board and
zoning board rules of procedure which
again wouldn't have to go to town
meeting necessarily you know would just
be adopted by the by the planning board
or something more
oh and uh it looks like I'm taking over
um so I will um pull up my uh
my my version of the presentation here
and uh no there are a number of open
questions I think there's 40 something
at the moment um if you just want to
Breeze through those really quick
um there might be some topics that we
didn't hit or that we did hit
um
sure
and you are still in
um you're not in full slideshow mode
there we go great all right
so
um section 77 fee shifting and bond so
the superior court is now allowed to
require a bond from the appealing party
whenever an appeal is filed
um this SEC this section also allows a
court to award attorneys fees and costs
the prevailing party in certain
circumstances
um so this does get
a little nuanced here but
um the way it works is for local land
use boards
if the board in making its decision
acted with either gross negligence bad
faith or with malice then attorneys fees
um and costs could be awarded to the
appealing party
um and it would be awarded to the local
land use board from the appealing party
if the party acted in bad faith or with
malice and appear in appealing to the
court so
for example you know if the appealing
party knows that there's really no basis
for their appeal and that's very clear
it's in bad faith the court would say
look this is a waste of our time and
we're going to award attorney's fees to
the local land use board
on the opposite side of things if the
local land use Sport and making this
decision you know just said hey we don't
like the developer and that literally
wrote oh we don't like the developer in
in the minutes or uh you know we just
don't like uh the idea of whatever it is
that's supposed coming into town
um and you didn't go through the
ordinary process uh ordinary evaluation
process
as you would be required to do
um
then that would be you know bad faith
malice something like something along
those lines and it's possible that
attorney's fees should be awarded to
people win party
this change goes into effect on August
23rd um
of this year
um
section 78 uh properties for acquiring
properties for Workforce housing this
expands the definition of public use
under the Tiff statute it
and it allows any party including a
municipality to acquire
real real estate
for the purpose of constructing housing
units which meet the statutory
definition of Workforce housing
um they can't use eminent domain if it's
the government that's specifically
barred by the statute
um so you would go out have an ordinary
sale it would not be eminent domain
um and then there could be a decision
about whether that's going to be used
for Workforce housing or
um
presumably that decision will be made
before that purchase is made and that
construction could either occur uh
through private development or some sort
of
um
um private commercial Enterprise
um
so it wouldn't be restricted to
necessarily who went out and and bought
that whatever entity went out and bought
that property again this goes into
effect August 23rd
um one thing to note that this provision
does require a uh specifically require a
vote of the legislative body so town
meeting vote for most of you or cities
it would be you know a City Council vote
um to to authorize this
expenditure but that would occur in the
case of any sort of expansion of if
districts anyway
section 79 also deals with Tiff
districts
um it allows municipalities to designate
uh specific Tiff districts for the
purpose of acquiring instructing
reconstructing improving altering
extending operating maintaining or
promoting residential development so
basically any sort of residential
development
um could be the subject of a TIF
district so decide your municipality
could decide hey we want this certain
area of town uh to be residential we
want to give certain incentives there in
order to promote housing
um and I want to note that this isn't
just for Workforce housing
um any housing project would qualify
under this particular section it's not
limited to Workforce housing again this
would also require a legislative body
town meeting or City Council vote um to
uh going to to be brought into effect
um and this change uh also earliest you
could uh cause it to go into effect is
August 23rd of this year
with that we have very briefly wrapped
up uh 1661.
um so no are there any questions on
those three sections that I covered
um so not on I'm not seeing additional
questions on year three I do gonna go
ahead a few more of the earlier
questions if that's okay before we
um transition to house bill
um 10 21 and I'm getting a note that
we're not in full slide View
all right let me
so I am seeing presenter view I'm not
sure whatever else is seeing
of course
um let me see if I can
switch that
helpful
um
so let me see if I can get this to
display correctly and I apologize to
everyone
um for this slight delay
are we let me do this
hopefully you are now seeing the correct
view
so we are still seeing in your
PowerPoint not in full slide View
there you go that looks correct
[Music]
all right let me
sorry
um
if you're having trouble Mitch I'm happy
to go back to my version
um and we can just you can just tell me
when to advance if you're right
yes sorry about that um is it working
now
now we are still seeing your in
PowerPoint mic version like layout view
not full slide book that there you go
that's correct all right well uh as I
said we uh unfortunately had some issues
today
um so uh anything else you want me to
cover about uh 1661 or anything you want
to follow up on Noah
yes so we did just get a question we
were getting more findings and back
questions which I'll come back to in a
minute I want to go back to an earlier
question about the tests on uh section
70
uh if the planning board or Zoning Board
member does not use a test or fail the
tests could this be used in the future
against attached to the lawsuit occur by
claiming the board members are not
qualified to make decisions on land use
matters uh no
um the testing requirement was left in
there
um as a Vestige from a earlier version
of the bill when at one point testing
was going to be mandatory
um it's just a carry over the for the uh
to the final bill totally optional there
were no uh legal ramifications for a
member failing the test or not taking
the test at all
so that is
um
well we took care of
um
there's a question here about the uh
incentives elderly housing incentives or
any of the incentives for elderly
housing do those include tax exemptions
uh no uh these are just these would just
be
um
incentives under the land use statutes
so uh dimensional requirements density
requirements timing phasing incentives
um that are within uh
the zoning ordinance or other Landings
regulation the uh elderly housing tax
exemptions my understanding is a
different part of Statute which this uh
section uh 72 does not touch
this would this is really just geared
towards making them easier to build fast
both in terms of sort of relaxed
requirements as well as kind of a faster
process
yeah
and then there's some question about
fees for peer review and I know we've
gotten questions about that you don't
know the fee up front
um so these are and I know this did come
up uh in Prior versions of the bills the
section 70
um
one on fees
um or really Visa can be predetermined
so if there's a fee that is you know
because the board obviously has the
opportunity to request peer review at
any stage and you're not always going to
know what feed that is going in
um that's you know you can't be required
there's just there's no plausible way
for a community to set out what that fee
structure is for some fees ahead of time
for those fees those would not need to
be part of this publication of fees
however any kind of application fees
um other standard fees would need to be
on this one uh this one kind of
centralized uh posting notice of land
use board fees
um and you want to know if you want to
comment there yeah and it may be a good
idea
um as part of this centralized listing
to note that you might have those other
fees that the amounts can't be
determined at this time because it is on
the basis of individualized applications
uh before the board great
um so I'm going to keep going through a
few more questions and then we can maybe
switch over to 1021
um
we are not going to get to all the
questions today I think we will be here
for the rest of the day if we do but I
do know that um we have OPD and nhma
have discussed kind of possibly creating
an FAQ
um later down the line to answer some
more of these questions so any questions
that we don't answer today
um and I know we've gotten others um we
will kind of put into an FAQ that I
think will try to get out I can't make a
I don't want to put a commitment on how
quickly we'll get that out but um we
will we'll work on getting that together
as well
foreign
a few more written to finding the fact
question are written findings for
Section 73 something other than the
minutes
um
they probably need to be more detailed
than what your typical minutes are yes
and this is really going to be on a
board hearing a case
um and kind of writing down now could
the written findings be captured in the
minutes yes if they're detailed enough
um but
um you know detailed minutes can really
vary from whoever's uh from one board to
another
um so I don't want to just say carte
blanche the minutes are going to be
always sufficient to satisfy your
written findings of fact
um they need to be detailed enough as
we've laid out earlier
um if it's an approval and it's a
controversial approval uh to be
defensible
um and in the case of a disapproval to
really be able to explain
um why what parts of the regulation on
the board was having trouble getting to
yes to and explaining its rationale for
that
another question here on finding the
fact how deep does a town planner get
into finding the fact as it was stated
it does not replace conditions of
approval and we got this question
earlier I think on plan Link at some
point so a town planner or staff planner
or land use administrator
um typically or May in some cases
provide a board with a summary of a case
to consider when it's kind of going into
hearing an application you know we've
done our review here's what things you
might want to consider as a board
typically finding is a fact though are
judged on what the board hears during
the public hearing and in addition to
the written materials that received from
the application so the findings of fact
are really something that need as we've
said that needs to be written by the
board itself in conjunction with the
board's uh Council or if the board
doesn't have its own separate down case
separate Council Town Council
um it is not typically something that
you can count on your town planner or
land use administrator to write
uh nature I don't know if you have
anything to add there no yes it's it's
really the board's responsibility to
work with their attorney
um if if that's necessary to uh to find
what that the fines to make the findings
of fact and I guess the way I think
about it is I think about it in the same
way as I would think about kind of a
regular Court opinion whether that's
from District Court uh Superior Court or
the Supreme Court there are plenty of
examples out there
typically begin with some sort of you
know hear the facts the applicant came
in to apply for whatever
um what's the relevant law well here's
the provision in our ordinance that
applies
um and based on our application of it
and the facts is presented
we're denying the application because
they don't meet whatever the criteria is
yeah
a few more findings of facts as I said I
know there's a ton of questions here and
we could do this all day long
um what is the timeline for issuing the
findings impact so the final fact goes
with the approval or disapproval so
those would be required to be issued
after that it's a 90-day clock or the
65-day 90-day clock for zba decision
65-day clock for planning board
decisions
um
have to think about what the timeline
would be for written findings for other
uh land use local land use boards um
historic district commissions building
called board of appeals
um and such um but mainly I know I think
it's important to relate this back to
obviously the timelines
um so you know at the 90-day period or
the 65-day period
um the applicant has the right to go to
the next step in the process to say hey
look I came before the board the board
didn't do their job
um and now I'm I'm coming to you whoever
you know whether that's
um you know it's probably the superior
court and say look um and now it's time
for you to issue the decision it says I
can do what I want to do
um obviously you know if you've had the
hearing if you've made a decision
um really the written findings are just
encapsulating what you've discussed and
decided as a board at after that hearing
when you're determining whether it's
appropriate for this application to move
forward or not
right
great thank you
um and then I know there is a question
about examples for findings of fact
um you know we may like I said put
templates for the language on the timing
of approvals um that's pretty
straightforward language should be added
to a boards rules of procedure
um we have shied away from
um putting out specific examples of
finding a fact because every application
and every case is different
um and we really don't want boards to
get in the habit of saying okay if I've
done ABC on written findings which might
have pertained to one case that's going
to work for all applications
um and so I I totally understand the
board uh boards wanting a rubric to
follow to prevent findings of fact but
it's really a
unfortunately because of the key
specific nature of it
um you know we have decided not to do
that
okay
given towns resource limitations could a
planning board request an applicant to
propose findings in fact as a starting
point in the case of an approval
um
I'm not sure this is a best practice but
um I think that a
um
yes I don't see a a legal reason why
that that couldn't happen
um
but I think it could potentially
put the board
in a difficult position I I would just
question a tread very carefully
unloading an applicant pre-judge the
facts basically provide the written
prejudge facts of a case to the board
for which approval is going to be
written so I would just add on here
remember that as a land use board you're
a quasi-judicial board you're sitting in
the role of a judge basically and none
of you on this call would want to go in
front of a judge that has already made
up their mind so if you're asking you
know one party to the case to write up
the proposed uh result uh kind of the
start off point for the case
you already have this situation where it
may not be the case that it is biasing
the board but it's certainly going to
look like that's problematic
um
you know you're even in kind of the
legal world
attorneys go before judges they ask for
some sort of specific relief they say
you know judge I'd like you know X Y and
Z I want an order that that says this
um generally the attorneys don't draft
uh orders in cases there are some
exceptions but it's generally not the
case
um and so you're really in this position
where because you're that first that
first
Court up there that First Judicial body
you're really the one who's going to
decide what the actual facts are here
um and that's going to be really
critical for any sort of appeals and you
want to make sure that you're doing this
in a way that complies with your
impressions as an unbiased board rather
than the impressions of someone who's
obviously biased so in the interest of
time go through thank you Nate that's
helpful two more things on finding the
fact questions and then we're going to
move on so folks are saying how does
this differ from what's already out
there so yes everyone is correct to know
um that the section 73 on written
findings
um the existing language in RSA 676
colon 3 Roman numeral run already does
require
um providing written findings back so
that is not changing
um
the part that's new is this
ramifications of a failure of a board to
make those written definations fact
specifically when they're supporting
when they're supporting a disapproval
and so the um the weight or necessity of
finding the fact now has kind of taken a
new weight that it did not previously
have for boards
um and so that's why I think there's
more emphasis here but no everybody is
all these questions that I'm seeing are
correct a board has already had a
statutory or something really did to
write written findings in the past that
is not new
um the other kind of question I'm seeing
a bunch here on written bindings is are
written findings
um also applied to conservation
commissions no they do not um at least
under this provision of the bill local
land use boards
um do not definition of local land use
boards does not include conservation
commissions so conservation commissions
will not be subject to this new language
in RSA 676 colon 4.
and on on your screen you'll see the
listing of boards that it does apply to
thank you
so I'm going to keep moving
um
I'm gonna see if there's anything
towards the end of 16
most cities are really about fee uh fees
and finding a factor which we've gone
over a lot
um
so Noah how about I uh I talk about 10
21 for a bit and then we Circle back at
the end for the round of questions
sounds good so uh houseboat 1021 is the
uh primarily religious use of land
zoning exemption
um you may have heard about it's been
discussed I think on a plan link uh
fairly extensively
um it's a
somewhat short statute and I'm just
going to read it very briefly to you
um
no zoning ordinance or site plan review
regulations shall prohibit regulate or
restrict the use of land or structures
primarily used for religious purposes
then there's a second Clause that
provides an exemption which says
provided however that such land or
structures may be subject to objective
and definite regulations concerning the
height of structures yard sizes lot area
setbacks open space and building
coverage requirements
and then there's a third Clause that
provides an exception to the exception
which has as long as said requirements
meaning everything I just listed uh are
applicable regardless of the religious
or non-religious nature of the use of
the property and do not substantially
burden uh religious exercise
so how did this come about
um well it's really modeled after
Massachusetts Dover Amendment and the
link here is going to go to the
Massachusetts
Municipal associations page they have a
whole page about the Dover Amendment and
how that that functions in their state
obviously our statutes knew the language
is different and there haven't been any
cases on it yet because it only went
into effect on July 1st so
we don't know how closely our courts are
going to uh parallel any of
Massachusetts but I did want to bring
this to uh your attention because I did
think it was a useful to just look at
kind of the history there and understand
it and how that has been applied because
it also highlights some of the
um concerns that that may arise issues
that may have to be resolved by the
courts
um so what does the statute do uh well
it overrides uh most Municipal
limitations for Lander structures used
primarily for religious purposes
um it's silent on state and federal
regulations so all of those to apply
obviously you know we as a state can't
overrule federal law
um so those would apply
and then any kind of state regulations
uh pertaining to land would continue to
apply as well this just pertains
specifically to Municipal limitations
um
and the new law would likely permit site
plan review that's limited to
controlling the heights of structures
the yard sizes the lot areas the
setbacks and building coverage
requirements all of those things that
were listed specifically in the law
again provided that exception regarding
the substantial burden of religious
exercise does not apply
um you should also be aware if you're on
a planning board or you're interested in
planning boards that other site plan
review requirements uh such as lighting
signs noise on-site off-site drainage
erosion sediment control land of streets
and sidewalks
Etc would not be applicable to
qualifying religious properties so those
other things that might be in your site
plan review that are required
those those properties would now be
exempt from those
um but again I just want to emphasize
that
any sort of local enforcement of state
and federal laws such as compliance with
the State Building though the state fire
code uh your your uh regulations for
driveways the septic and Sewer
regulations Shoreline protection
requirements Wetlands all those
environmental regulations
um continue to apply to the property so
someone comes in with an application
it otherwise qualifies for this
exemption
um but it's it's being built on a
wetland obviously the Wetland State
Wetland requirements would uh still
control uh and the application an
applicant would have to comply with
those
so
um there are some questions as to what
some of the terms used in the statute
mean uh I read the whole statute to you
and so you know there is no definition
section
um one of the questions is what is
primarily religious mean uh it's
something that has come up a number of
times from a number of municipalities
because there's no definition within
this statute
um
because of that it's likely that the
terms are going to be used in their
common usage in their dictionary
definition because that's how
the New Hampshire Supreme Court the U.S
Supreme Court and every other court
understands normal language to to
function it means what it what it
ordinarily means unless the legislature
has to find it differently so
primarily is going to going to mean
mostly it's mostly used for a religious
purpose
I can't tell you uh what the scope of
mostly is going to be whether that's you
know most of the land most of the time
um or something else obviously if you
think of a traditional religious purpose
let's say a church
um you know the church exists on
whatever its lot is it may or may not be
most of that lot
um
primarily it's used for religious
services and
it's probably not used you know
all the time you know 24 7 it's used
really you see people there some days
you see them Wednesdays you see them
other other religious days
um
and that's when you see them and that's
probably where we're going with the term
primarily
um I we do want to point out that there
is a statute that exists in the um
property tax exemption section RSA 7223
Roman 3 that exempts religious real
estate from property tax
um it actually has a definition in there
for what qualifies uh I do want to be
very very clear here that although there
is this definition of Statute it's a
totally different section it's the tax
property taxation statute it's not
necessarily going to pair up one to one
with this exemption so it may be helpful
to look at this definition and say you
know whatever is being proposed checks
one of these boxes
um therefore it
probably qualifies under this zoning
exemption
um but just because it doesn't qualify
for the property tax exemption does not
mean that it would not qualify for the
zoning exemption
so to restate it another way because I
am a lawyer so we like to say the same
thing five times in different ways
something may qualify for the property
for the zoning exemption but not qualify
for the property tax exemption so it's
important for you to keep that in mind
but it is something that we thought
would be useful to point out because
again it's
the the phrase primarily religious
purpose is not defined
um and certainly we can talk about all
sorts of examples
um something obviously is a religious
purpose if they're building you know the
traditional synagogue mosque Church
whatever
um if it's something that
is going to have sort of uh frequent
prayer groups or prayer groups at some
frequency but it's also primarily or
also used as a store or someone's house
there's going to be some question as to
when something becomes primarily
religious in nature
um there's some other complications uh
with this uh statute as well
um the term substantial burden is not
defined by the statute either I do want
to let you know that this term has been
looked at by the federal courts
previously I assume the same definition
would apply in this case
um so just to just to one example
um is a case called Roman Catholic
bishop of Springfield versus City of
Springfield that's from the first
circuit in 2013.
um and they looked at the phrase
substantial burden said you know really
the definition is a burden is something
that hinders or oppresses or something
impressive or worrisome and something
substantial is important or
significantly great
uh and then the first circuit which is
our circuit it went on to explain that
there are some factors helpful in
determining whether a particular
regulation proposes a substantial burden
and there are three factors here one
whether the regulation at issue appears
to Target a religion because of
hostility to that religion itself
two
whether the regulation was imposed on
the religious institution arbitrarily
capriciously or unlawfully and three
whether local Regulators have subjected
the religious organization to a process
that may appear neutral on its face but
practice is designed to reach a
predetermined outcome contrary to the
group's requests
now totally separate and apart from that
analysis which should place under the
U.S Constitution there's of course New
Hampshire's Constitution and our Supreme
Court has also looked at uh the phrase
substantial burden
uh so looking at uh state vmac which
came out in 2020 our Supreme Court said
that it really boils down to when a
governmental land use regulation
substantially interferes with the
religious practice
um
in the context of a land use regulation
um that must be necessary to achieve a
compelling government interest that's a
little bit of a different test
um it does get white uh
complicated in the legal realm
um so if it's going to be a question for
your board this is why we're
recommending a review by Town Council to
see whether there is going to be
some claim of substantial burden that's
going to be problematic or not
um
and we as part of this presentation have
given you a couple handouts
um one Noah mentioned earlier it was a
comparison
um between uh provisions of the statute
uh previously and and the new statutes
um and the second one is a joint memo
that that we wrote um with the EA about
uh all of all the stuff that we've
covered today
um and as part of that there is a sample
affidavit at the very end
um that we would suggest that your
municipality start to use
um for anyone who's coming in to say
they're they're building something uh
that would that would fall under this
new zoning exemption uh so essentially
what they would do is just
a firm via this process they think that
whatever their application is would
qualify for this exemption it would then
be up to the board to look at that to
determine whether it did qualify or not
and that's going to be individualized
analysis but that might help uh clarify
things because you don't want to be you
know at your public hearing with the
applicant uh you know explaining what
their project is and then all of a
sudden saying hey this this
um would apply for this exemption uh and
that's not something your board is
prepared for obviously we want board
members to be prepared or as prepared as
they can be and certainly uh you know
this will help you in your lead up to
that hearing
figure out what type of questions you
want to ask
um have the opportunity to consult uh
your counsel your attorney if you think
that's necessary as well as look at
whatever regulation
um May pertain to the application and
determine how it relates to this new
exemption
yeah
so I'm sure there are questions
um
on all of that
yes there's a a bunch of questions uh so
let me see if we can run through some of
them
um
back to here so there was a couple of
questions uh Nate about whether Federal
ms4 uh storm water regulations uh could
still be apply and be enforceable in the
review process for for uh these
primarily primarily religious uses
again any sort of federal or state
regulations would continue to apply this
this exemption just applies to your
local regulations
okay and great thank you
um
what if another question what if
religious structure is only permitted in
a particular Zone by a conditional use
permit would this now be prohibited
under this new statute
um so if a religious structure is only
permitted a particular Zone again
um
you know we're going back to the
question of substantial burden
um
realistically what we're probably
looking at with this statute is that if
someone wants to propose something
um that's primarily religious use uh
it's probably going to be uh allowable
in any Zone in your municipality
and that was really something that was
discussed during the public hearing it
was something that was uh
that the proponents of the bill were
were interested in making sure that was
the interpretation
um and I see that uh there are a number
of questions about
about uh things like what about a
facility running a firing range or
um I assume their questions about
housing soup kitchens Etc
um that's something that we've
uh discussed quite a bit
um
it's one of the problems with with not
having a definition of
religious purpose is
oh really it's really hard to nail down
I mean it's because what someone
considers a religious practice might not
necessarily be uh what other people
consider religious practices and has to
be some sort of you know sincere belief
uh and that's really the extent of a
definition I can give you
um and part of that may be you know
ministering to the poor is a pretty
common religious practice and that may
cause some group to propose something
like a soup kitchen or propose
um you know whatever the case may be
um you know if the Mandalorian comes to
town and proposes a firing range because
their religion is uh is is their weapons
um I I can't give you a definite answer
as to whether that's something that
would pass judicial review or not
great
and we got a clarification which I think
from uh Jen says
um that which is correct that ms4
requirements while Federal are placed
upon Miss Valley who in turn enacts
local stormwater regs that they have to
enforce
so does that change your answer nature
um I'm gonna have to do more research on
that just because I'm not as familiar
with that and uh
but um I'm just gonna have to get back
to you on that particular one
great
um and folks are looking for the
um link so I'm putting the link to the
Joint advisory I just put that in the
chat hopefully everybody got that
um we'll make sure to get the links out
again uh to the summary I'm sorry the HP
1661 uh comparison table as well as in a
guidance one I just put it
um
let's see okay
if a church purchases a lot land a lot
of land for a parking area is that
development exact now exempt from site
plan review
well I think this is really the context
where a lot of this is going to come up
in
um is parking
um and it is the case
um
really that
your site plan review that is not
survey
focus on any sort of state or federal
regulations are really restricted to
what's in the statute so
um you can you can have objective and
definite regulations concerning height
of structures yard sizes lot area
setbacks open space and building
coverage requirements but but that's it
um there's there are no other sort of
local regulations that you're going to
be able to enforce so it's it's very
important to keep that in mind and again
you can only put those in force as long
as not substantially burdening that
religious exercise so
um you know because that's going to
apply for the universally
um
I I mean I I don't think anyone has any
sort of zoning ordinance that has one of
these things that specifically targets
religious structures
um
but uh you know assuming that's
you know applying universally
um you're not going to be able to to
regulate anything other than those was
it five things that I listed right
um okay we talked about that uh there's
a couple questions about lighting as
well I think it's kind of the same
general kind of right first back to the
same thing that you just said
um
Julie says no look in a wetland buffer
local Wetland buffer be enforced
um
you know I'm just not that familiar with
Wetland rules
um and and the difference different
authorizations I know there's some local
authorization versus state requirements
so I really have to do research on that
um but since you mentioned lighting I'll
just say again lighting is something
that would not be able to be enforced
um
really when we're talking about about
things like that
um
you just wouldn't be able to Enforcer
and we do have a short list in this
guidance document of things that you
would not be able to enforce that are
are commonly
um at issue right
um
talked about parking already again that
that's not parking is not one of the
listed issues
so you could not consider
um
parking is basically exempt from this
review
um
I will just say that um as I think
people are picking up on here the
there they this creates a huge exemption
there there is no two ways about it
um the
ability for anybody to assert a
religious use now
um to just get around zoning because
there is no definition for religious
uses Nature's fed
um is
it's gonna be it's great to be creates a
very big potential loophole um and I
think we're just gonna have to kind of
wait and see
um how
um
people applicants decide to
um take advantage or use this new law
um I would not be surprised if we end up
seeing some legislation in next session
that kind of wants the effects of this
are more evident that kind of tries to
constrain that we'll have to have to
wait and see
um but um certainly in its current form
as everybody has picked up on
um
probably going to feed some thing it
takes away a lot of power from from
planning and Boards um when dealing with
religious land uses
um yeah and I I think one of the things
that we really emphasize and that that
people are certainly picking on up on
and our questions is
um there are a lot of questions about
terminology used in this particular
exemption what this all means I agree
with you Noah that I think it's very
likely we'll either see legislation to
clarify this and we'll see where that
goes
um or it's very possible we'll see court
cases
um because it's simply an open question
I think that's the fair the fair
assessment is it's an open question as
to what some of this means um and until
we get some rulings from the New
Hampshire Supreme Court unless the
legislature clarifies it we're simply
not gonna we're simply not gonna know
what the best advice is and in some
particular instances
yeah
I'm just trying to see if there's any
more big questions that we haven't hit
on here on
apologize
I think we've hit on
hit on most of the big questions here
um I did want to clarify something I
said earlier on the findings of fact a
section of House Bill 1661
um which were that I I aired a thing
that written by the fact already
required in statute somebody did
correctly point out that no only actual
writing out a decision and the reasons
for a denial or or approval or actually
in statute however
best practice has kind of already
dictate that when you're writing a prior
to this new statute taking effect on
August 23rd
um
when you're writing your reasons for a
denial or approval as statute currently
says
um best practice would suggest that
those should be based in written in some
kind of establishment of the facts or
written findings in fact so while it was
not legally on the books and this does
definitely create a new uh requirement
or it could be seen by some as a new
burden for boards to comply with
um we're not I would we would argue that
we are not
um
if you're doing it the right way to
begin with this shouldn't be
um it'll be somewhat of a increased lift
or requirement but not
um not totally
um not a total change of how business
should have been conducted previously
and I would agree with you know I I
don't see this as
significant change
um simply because
if you were if you were following best
practice before you were already hitting
all these things
um you know if somebody didn't like what
you said what your decision was of your
board and they appealed it
um whoever that appellate body was
already was able to look at what your
reasons were for the denial and and
understand it and evaluate whether that
was proper or not
okay yeah
um questions are still pointings we'll
take a few more um I know we are well
over the one o'clock Mark oh no we
probably should wrap this up rather soon
um
I know that there was a question earlier
um that we got prior to this webinar
about whether uh already approved site
plans
um
for a religious land use are going to be
enforceable with this new law uh Nate I
think you replied and writing to that
person but if you want to comment on
that on this webinar a little more that
would be helpful I did so we discussed
that here at nhma
um and our opinion was that this law
um like most other laws uh would be
prospective uh it would not be
retrospective so
um generally if the legislature wants
something to apply to already existing
things they would write that in the law
or there'd be some indication that was
the case
um
we weren't aware of of any indication we
certainly didn't see that in the law
it's very brief again
um
and in looking at the tests uh required
by the courts uh as to whether something
would apply in retrospective in order
that would comply with New Hampshire
Constitution that generally prohibits
retrospective laws
um our thought was that there may be
vested rights there that could
potentially be violated so you can think
of something like
um a conditioned subsequent or something
like that that you would have the
ability to enforce uh prior to July 1 of
this year versus on July 2 you
uh that would be the question
um there were obviously uh
you know that the municipality had that
right to to begin that enforcement
proceed and continue with that so we
think there are vested rights there
um and that would be
um
that would be our thought about it
great
um
there's a couple other questions about
kind of intent on 10 21
um
and whether things are really lighting
is really a burden or not um
constitutes a significant burden on
religious use or not
um
we can only really comment on how the
language got drafted
um and approved on they they chose to
make certain carve outs for some things
and not others
um nature I don't know if you have
anything else to say there
um yeah I mean if you're interested in
the legislative history uh the
legislature has really moved to
um much more
um
access to that online you can certainly
view the testimony on their YouTube uh
channels and and see the written
submissions
um so if you're interested in that
that's certainly available
um I was there at those hearings
um and uh
really it was
kind of the carve out was was designed
for you know people who want to build
churches in their Town that's I think
who came and Justified really
um and that was really a thought
um there was an example given of of
somebody who
bought a property
um and started some sort of religious
service there and then wanted to build a
religious building um that wasn't
allowed in that particular zone or there
was some sort of zoning issue there
that's the one specific example I I
recall
um again that was several months ago and
quite a number of bills so I don't have
a specific recollection of it but
um
certainly it's it's available if
anyone's interested in that legislative
history
um
and it was something that we we opposed
the the full length of of the
legislature but unfortunately it did
pass right okay I think we're going to
do two more final questions here and
then we're going to get to the wrap-up
uh a couple of wrap-up slides
um back on House Bill 1661 can an
applicant use up 30 days of the zba
clock by submitting their application
the day after the zba's previous zba's
monthly meeting
in other words can they basically
effectively get the DBA to shorten
knowing that CBA is not going to hold
another meeting the only statutory
required to meet once a month
well
um
um you know people like to try to game
the system so unfortunately the reality
is that even though there's a statutory
requirement for a once a month meeting
um you really do have to evaluate uh
whether it's appropriate to have more
frequent means than that based on the
requirements and the law yeah
um there's a couple questions about what
point is religious use um abandoned been
abandoned
um
my understanding is the statute does not
address that issue at all correct
um and so I think you'd we'd probably
have to default to what the general law
is regarding abandonment of use
um and that's probably what we would
look at as an analogy
um it's hard to say that that's
necessarily the case though
um
simply because it hasn't been tested yet
yep great okay and final last question
uh how does House Bill 1021 work for a
project that has been heard that has
been
had design review but they haven't
formally submitted a full application
but they've been front of a planning
board for design review does this new
legislation apply have they gained their
vested rights by going through design
review effectively
I I think that the the new statute would
apply in this particular case
um you know when we're talking about the
best of Rights presumably they've gone
through the application process there's
already been an approval with certain
conditions attached to it whatever the
case may be uh you know if they're still
in the process the only thing we're
really changing
effectively is the process which is
there's an exemption
um it's not changing someone's rights
that already already exist uh so
um that's that's where we are
um
I think uh with it having just come
through design review
right and final uh correction yes there
is no no requirement again that zba
meets monthly uh this is back to the
prior question
um but that is kind of the best practice
they should but that is not to say that
most there are plenty of zoning boards
that only meet when they have
applications before them
um
you know I I said that and then I
thought nope that's the planning board
and so I'm glad someone pointed that out
um
so Noah do you want to uh talk about
investing here
great so we're gonna one more little
um kind of promo and then we will wrap
up so last week some of you might have
heard
um
the invest in h five million dollar uh
Planning and Zoning grant program launch
with the goal of providing funding to
municipalities to make regulatory
changes
um to incentivize housing production at
the local level
full information
um about this program can be found at
www.nhop grants.org the program consists
of two different Grant programs the
Housing Community Housing Navigators
which are will be up to six grants for
municipalities to hire staff for up to
two years to help Advance regulatory
change that is intended to increase
housing Supply and to undertake
Community engagement efforts and assist
developers and others with facilitating
Housing Development the other program
within this grant program is the Housing
Opportunity grants program or hop grants
which are grants for municipalities to
hire Consultants to help with three
phases of regulatory change to increase
housing Supply these include grants for
up to twenty five thousand dollars from
Municipal housing needs assessments and
planning fifty thousand dollars for
regulatory Audits and up to a hundred
thousand dollars for regulatory
development
this program is being administered by
New Hampshire housing under contract
with the Department of Business and
economic Affairs Bea and any New
Hampshire housing will be collaborating
with plain New Hampshire uh uh who will
be administering the grant program as
well as UNH Cooperative Extension which
will provide extensive Community
engagement and training to grantees an
information webinar about the program
and going through the application
requirements will be held next Tuesday
April August 16th from 12 to 1 pm I'm
going to put a link hopefully you can
see I will put this link in the correct
uh chat box um and it's also in folks
copy of the slides
um to register for that webinar next
Tuesday August 16th from 12 to 1 pm
so now that you've heard about all the
changes you should get some money to
help you and Implement some of this
um and I want to thank everyone for
joining us today we really appreciate it
we know that these are uh these are big
changes
um we certainly are doing uh
as Noah said we're going to work on uh
follow up on on the questions that all
of you submitted today
um certainly uh over at Bea they're
working on their uh new publication for
or I guess updated publication for
planning boards and of course the one
for zoning boards there are handbooks
there that will reflect a lot of what
we've discussed today as well as
um a number of answers to your questions
um and for uh those of you attending
nhma's annual conference in November
Noah and I will be presenting uh on this
topic again
um giving an overview uh and and we may
we're certainly going to use the
questions that you submitted today as a
basis to address a number of uh concerns
and and questions that
um you all have
so again thank you for joining us today
thank you very much and also feel free
to email
um put in writing questions uh to OPD
yet but to email us I've included here
planning at livefree.nh.gov where as
well I know an HMA has put their email
address there as well I need to make
input hmunicipal dot org um we're both
here to answer questions
NH and Noah thank you very much for your
presentation today Tim Fortier with nhma
just to conclude that I will be putting
this into a YouTube video recording you
will receive that link probably by
Friday uh along with the PowerPoint
presentation and take a look at the
email it will be embedded with the many
links that NOAA has successfully or
unsuccessfully channeled through the
chat channel uh today so um again
follow-up questions to to Nature Noah
but a follow-up email to you all will be
coming uh by Friday and we hope you take
those materials and share them with your
Municipal colleagues who couldn't be
join us for this live presentation today
so we that I'd like to conclude and say
thank you nature thank you Noah and
thank you our members for joining us
today