Planning Board — June 18, 2026

The board discussed replacing current NRCS soil mapping with NWI data to better identify wetlands. They proposed three tiers: 'Significant Wetlands' (with a 50-foot buffer), 'Important Wetlands' (over 5,000 sq ft, with a 25-foot buffer), and jurisdictional wetlands under 5,000 sq ft (with no buffer). Members debated the impact on property owners, the accuracy of existing maps, and the ability of owners to disprove wetland status via certified scientists.

The board agreed to continue refining the definitions and mapping, noting that the current NWI data is already visible on the town's GIS.

The planning staff will run a GIS analysis to count how many properties will be affected by the proposed overlay changes and refine the ordinance definitions.

The board discussed narrowing the proposed district to focus strictly on the harbor area rather than including Lower Main Street. Members debated whether to use a geometric shape (like a 600-foot radius circle) or a polygon based on street intersections to define the Harbor District. Arguments centered on where to draw the boundary lines, how to maintain continuity with existing districts, the potential for the district to encourage smaller-scale retail and appropriate density, impact on property values, complexity of re-ranking multiple districts, and the need to avoid 'spot zoning.' There was also discussion on whether multifamily buildings should be classified as commercial uses within these districts.

The board expressed a preference for focusing on the harbor area, reached a consensus that the current boundaries look irregular and that a redraw is necessary, but cautioned that expanding the circle could complicate the zoning for several other districts.

Staff will perform mapping to explore different boundary configurations, prepare a few different options for boundary configurations, and look for feedback regarding the district's impact.

The Board reviewed Section 350A, which currently requires a special exception for replacing boathouses. a speaker noted that under current rules (612), replacements can already be done 'by right,' making the special exception redundant and an unnecessary administrative burden. Discussion also touched on the difficulty of regulating docks and walkways that connect to boathouses, especially regarding land-to-water transitions.

The Board discussed the intent to simplify the ordinance by removing the redundant special exception process.

The Zoning Board raised concerns about the lack of a formal definition for signage (e.g., murals vs. signs, A-frame signs, or menus). The Board also discussed the difficulty of allocating sign square footage among multiple tenants in a single building owned by one landlord, and the potential for regulating temporary or off-premise signs.

The Board agreed that clear definitions are the primary priority to ensure consistent enforcement.

Members discussed various ways to engage the public, including holding meetings at different locations (like the transfer station or school), using social media/Facebook, and potentially sending personal invitations. There was a debate on whether to hold formal Planning Board meetings or more informal 'round table' dialogues. The discussion also touched on the core goal of housing: finding a balance between density/affordability and maintaining the town's character.

The Board acknowledged that standard board meetings may not attract enough residents and explored more creative outreach methods.

Members debated whether to focus on making ordinances more attractive to developers (e.g., density tweaks) or providing direct assistance to residents (e.g., tax breaks). There was significant debate regarding the town's demographics, specifically whether the housing need is driven by a lack of apartments or by a declining birth rate and high cost of living.

The board reached a consensus that while they cannot provide direct financial incentives, they can look into tweaking ordinances (like density or ADUs) and can recommend tax or infrastructure incentives to the Select Board.

The board intends to look into ordinance tweaks and consider sending a letter to the Select Board regarding tax incentives for developers and homeowners.

A member proposed three specific changes: excluding children under five from occupancy limits, aligning parking requirements with state RSA 674-16 (one space per unit), and increasing the allowable rental days for non-owner-occupied units from 120 to 150. There was debate regarding the impact of STRs on neighborhood quality of life versus the economic benefits of tourism.

The board discussed the legality of parking requirements and determined that current regulations appear to meet state RSAs because STRs are defined as a separate use from 'residential use.' The board expressed openness to discussing the occupancy and rental duration tweaks in future meetings.

The board will revisit the proposed 'tweaks' to occupancy and rental duration in future discussions.

The board revisited whether a specific ridge line ordinance is needed or if existing steep slope regulations are sufficient to cover visual impacts of tree cutting.

The board noted that the current approach is to review the steep slope ordinance to see if it adequately captures necessary protections.

Members have 'homework' to review existing steep slope regulations to determine if gaps exist.