[{"_1":2,"_122":-5,"_123":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6272693,"mediaKeyId","3027238-e4974022acb8c35041a79036428699c2","parentId",3027238,"title","Planning Board reviews Shorefront Residential District ordinance updates, narrows redevelopment exemptions","audioSeconds",2566,"startMs",50000,"endMs",2616000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3027238-e4974022acb8c35041a79036428699c2&start=50&end=2616","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3027238-e4974022acb8c35041a79036428699c2/thumbnail_50000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6272693/New-Hampshire/Planning-Board-reviews-Shorefront-Residential-District-ordinance-updates-narrows-redevelopment-exemptions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6272693-8ef5c9aff0d171623e6ad1d7e584bf18/orig.mp4?Expires=1770771135&Signature=CbvtXHA23vCZA~RRK5XGQ6d-VeKFJ7IrBc465YJcvCjs7ZcBnZW4YT~e6Dpfj43q7wwh47sT2rWQ4fS42Za7O52CIgRbT34oBAdHYnjv8w9pNsYgfOWPfUA8uE13QFrCpW0m2ZL6vCvwOgRxW-~myfuuoLh7hXX2v6T42~XtiiMUrKBSREDfgG058hh5tWf0ZDbzbSYxsSdlDyx5BUVXbVrmOWd1Qpp4ZLwTYN6DgJkb-wmsnvvdhNaDrxQGG5bkFEpB~iFtpkXTy1IhY1frKFmLSAm7xn5g6s-NxBkSRL9KNJUEqim0cxsZuOG3quTBMZg3YOw0q03ony3n8UbmuA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-04-17T00:03:46.873Z","article","The Wolfeboro Planning Board spent the bulk of its April 15 work session reviewing redline edits to the Shorefront Residential District ordinance, focusing on when waterfront and woodland buffer requirements apply and how to define \"lot redevelopment.\" Shanna Saunders, the town's interim planner, walked the board through language tying reestablishment of the waterfront buffer to a 20% impervious‑surface threshold and proposed definitions and procedural requirements for redevelopment of lots within the shoreland zone.

The discussion centered on three interlocking issues: the 20% impervious cutoff that triggers reestablishing the 50‑foot waterfront buffer; whether buffer reestablishment language should specify the ordinance's tree‑and‑shrub point system; and how to define “lot redevelopment” so applicants and staff understand when exemptions apply.

Saunders said the draft ties the requirement to reestablish the waterfront buffer to projects that “result in more than 20% impervious surface coverage,” and that the ordinance text should explicitly require reestablishment to meet the point‑system criteria described elsewhere in the draft (25‑by‑50‑foot grids and a point scoring method for trees and qualifying shrubs). Board members pressed for clearer wording; one suggested replacing “reestablished” with “meet the point system described below” to avoid implying broad clearing followed by minimal replanting.

Board members also sought clarity about what plantings count in the tree score. Saunders confirmed that the reestablishment provisions in the 50‑foot buffer currently reference trees in the scoring table but that the ordinance also permits removal of shrubs over 3 feet high when a segment’s tree score exceeds the threshold, an issue several members called out as inconsistent and worth clarifying.

Members debated whether the natural woodlands buffer standards (the zone between 50 and 150 feet from the reference line) should apply only to new construction or to redevelopment where impervious coverage increases. Saunders’ draft made exemptions explicit: redevelopment lots with a preexisting nonconforming primary structure would be exempt from the Section B woodlands‑buffer standards if impervious coverage is not increased. Several members noted the current ordinance already references redevelopment of lots with preexisting nonconforming primary structures and suggested specific phrasing to mirror that standard.

The board discussed multiple options for what “redevelopment” might mean — from strict rules requiring preservation of existing footprints and foundations to looser approaches allowing movement of a footprint or substantial vertical expansion. The group indicated support for an approach that allows raising and rebuilding primary residential structures within the existing footprint, allows vertical expansion up to the ordinance’s height limits, and treats accessory structures consistently with the existing two‑accessory‑structure allowance, while preserving stricter limits for structures located in setbacks.

Randy (identified by Saunders as a remote commenter) clarified an important technical point: impervious‑area percentage calculations are drawn from 0 to 250 feet from the reference line for each lot (not from 0 to 150). Board members acknowledged that reference when discussing which standards are triggered by impervious thresholds.

Saunders said she would produce a revised draft reflecting the board’s wording preferences and then update the application form to mirror the ordinance language so applicants receive consistent guidance. She recommended keeping the ordinance changes as a work product for now and returning with a final draft for a future meeting.

Board members and staff identified additional drafting items: specify that the point score standard obligates replanting to meet the minimum points (not merely to “reestablish” vaguely), clarify whether shrubs and groundcovers should be included in the reestablishment scoring table, and state explicitly that if impervious coverage does not increase the lot is not required to prepare a professionally engineered stormwater management plan or to upgrade the natural woodlands buffer.

Saunders closed by saying she would provide a revised ordinance that incorporates the board’s direction and then update the application form to match the final wording, leaving formal adoption for a future meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","15 April 2025 Wolfeboro Planning Board Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The Wolfeboro Planning Board reviewed redline revisions to the Shorefront Residential District ordinance on April 15, clarifying that reestablishment of the 50‑foot waterfront buffer and application of the natural woodlands buffer depend on a 20% impervious‑surface threshold and that redevelopment exemptions should be tied to whether impervious coverage increases.","taxTitle","Wolfeboro Planning Board , Wolfeboro, Carroll County, New Hampshire","taxId",68308,"location","New Hampshire","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6272673,"Votes at a glance: Wolfeboro Planning Board, April 15, 2025",2949,21000,2970000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3027238-e4974022acb8c35041a79036428699c2&start=21&end=2970","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3027238-e4974022acb8c35041a79036428699c2/thumbnail_21000.jpg","/articles/6272673/New-Hampshire/Votes-at-a-glance-Wolfeboro-Planning-Board-April-15-2025","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6272673-0d9c4bc8f489fe932def9e1a450ed433/orig.mp4?Expires=1770771135&Signature=aC4VHmXFygApFCDnVhlKTBh9S13aH7s1w2kJkefeC6SIXBI~6PWliLFemoGeEGssGAX1nFZ6DgySCWPftvnSgd4rA0G7B8Y1--ULXFtbXX7AL6Qe6YtYdMSUmnCoqZJ8R3KCh8-rlstv3hFVcZwbs8nROWf8mD1yd5seENT-kciqrVtFwTfUvI~9hBdIRDCHsJDQ1EEFNA5sHn4Fri2eIFD2pv3gB0I9c~8BRxuoLz7l9-vtrcAqhjj6Qg0Sag~24pJqlUrr62TOTALPw23zPGDn5mafPHFhjgdFpZuykyTSRVIQQi-Q5ikRD0e2Psp-lvdN4qmwo9VaJBk1luXthw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The following formal actions and outcomes were recorded during the Wolfeboro Planning Board meeting on April 15, 2025.

• Atwell on Elm — continuance to May 6, 2025: Motion to continue the public hearing for Atwell on Elm to May 6 was made by the chair and seconded; voice vote carried unanimously (Aye). No further details on the application were discussed at this meeting.

• Capital Improvements Program rules of procedure — accepted as amended: Motion by staff to accept the draft CIP rules of procedure as amended; staff will add an amended adoption date. Motion passed by voice vote.

• CIP committee chair — appointment: Motion to designate Steve Webster as chair of the Capital Improvements Program committee; Steve Webster accepted the nomination and the board voted in favor by voice vote.

• Minutes — February 11 and April 1, 2025: The board approved the February 11 minutes as amended and approved the April 1 minutes as amended; corrections included wording fixes, hyphenation and clarifications noted on the record.

Notes: The minutes list includes several typographical corrections raised by board members (example: remove stray 'amp' text after ampersands in the draft minutes). The planning board recorded no ordinance adoptions at this meeting; several items (shorefront ordinance redline, short‑term rental application materials, planning board rules) were discussed and left for staff action or future approval.","Summary of formal actions taken during the April 15 Planning Board meeting, including a continuance, committee rule adoption, appointment and minutes approvals.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6272678,"Planning Board reviews rules of procedure updates and flags public‑notice budget cut",868,3642000,4510000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3027238-e4974022acb8c35041a79036428699c2&start=3642&end=4510","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3027238-e4974022acb8c35041a79036428699c2/thumbnail_3642000.jpg","/articles/6272678/New-Hampshire/Planning-Board-reviews-rules-of-procedure-updates-and-flags-publicnotice-budget-cut","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6272678-03ac66b3f614f486813197b001927039/orig.mp4?Expires=1770771135&Signature=LoL1O3kXplg-aCJivUg8zzS1RppCVDqEzSHqb7gDCyXCikUYRPKD3ieYj4IF0X0dJTU1uQb0P0xuW9Szxbwi48o75Ywn8KMJPATB4P5FCgDimwtXK2Xad31hziJ3ZWnyka~5cVeZSDdfGKPimnC3asLbPdmssQYicG76ZFKAJekkNi~3X8aXm8-jDgzxU3gdZLcitlUeDO~H54cp-8TiYd62PUcovSxf6juQNa~P8U~Pu68O6Pl4bAQLPMLzsXf01ZgL8twaCDKUQCJyoTN53Mtxu9K978TA3pOWdg9BZnx0YsIgx-n38UqQQX1T~-adTh9hwOujhY4tMOgqX0gJ-A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning Board reviewed a redraft of its rules of procedure on April 15 that includes routine proofreading and several substantive clarifications: changing \"Board of Selectmen\" to \"Select Board,\" making officers’ pronouns gender neutral, clarifying that public meeting notices be provided at least 24 hours prior to a meeting, and adding a records provision requiring that draft minutes be revised to reflect approved corrections and shown as approved in the record.

Leanne reported the draft also consolidates order‑of‑business language and aligns application submission language with RSA requirements (the draft replaces a specific numeric day requirement with a reference to RSA 674 submission rules to avoid future mismatches should state law change). The board agreed to remove archaic phrasing and to simplify order‑of‑business headings (consolidating \"communications, unfinished business, new business\" under \"other business\").

During the meeting Julie Jacobs and others raised a separate fiscal concern: the line item for planning board public notices and advertising has been zeroed out in the town budget. Board members noted that while applicant‑required public notices are paid by applicants, planning‑funded notices (for example, warrant‑article notices) require a town budget line. Leanne said she has emailed the town administrator to clarify and will follow up.

Board members agreed the rule changes will be read at the meeting and adopted at a later meeting (per the document's procedural requirements); Leanne will add a new adoption date and circulate the revised draft.","Board reviewed edits to its rules of procedure (gender‑neutral language, meeting notice timing, records/minutes handling) and learned the planning board's advertising/public‑notice budget line had been zeroed out by the Select Board; staff will follow up with town administration.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6272683,"Planning Board finalizes short‑term rental permit application and checklist; to seek Select Board approval of fees",1492,3893000,5385000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3027238-e4974022acb8c35041a79036428699c2&start=3893&end=5385","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3027238-e4974022acb8c35041a79036428699c2/thumbnail_3893000.jpg","/articles/6272683/New-Hampshire/Planning-Board-finalizes-shortterm-rental-permit-application-and-checklist-to-seek-Select-Board-approval-of-fees","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6272683-ee7d0f5d5ba374ac9a76e9698ea63be3/orig.mp4?Expires=1770771135&Signature=DPfp9OECCBB9jL-aBh0Dbh~llX5vKcfNOfU~YTis1fWD3scys1m1Pa0DdtJZL8EG8grUgAHCKkNPaWUazvqz9PW~8R6nVOr4HsWppmBel1g~P2Jb5nSSbiDacA5BUghTM0EFE8wwCOxp2fQZtBCow6QReijF10ePqCu70re0-cBtdxwaL87IgtCXKMJtV3Ot5k3RgV-srF0OwdrjwnQFodbektdEdK1vugld2rG9Dri6s4F1BsKeMNJBLQbou1NRAlfbbz~BIYJQmxdkRKUBCLAh9LyF2O6dJbWRApP3P8o3e-~dnUh0IkRNnb9HNcyALbOes9ufq7LoeNrJ7Nm~ew__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Planning staff presented a new short‑term rental (STR) conditional‑use permit application, an associated submittal checklist and applicant instructions intended to mirror the town’s recently adopted STR ordinance.

Leanne explained the application asks for standard contact information, property address and tax map/lot, property manager or emergency contact, New Hampshire Rooms and Meals Tax ID and the STR platform listing ID where applicable. The application includes an occupancy calculation, the number of on‑site parking spaces, and a requirement that on‑street parking is prohibited. The checklist asks applicants to provide DES subsurface sewage disposal approvals where applicable; staff will add a note clarifying that municipal sewer customers need not provide a DES disposal number.

The draft adds a site‑visit authorization so code enforcement and the fire department can perform the inspections required by the ordinance and issues a certificate of compliance after inspection. Leanne said the building official and fire chief worked with a small subcommittee on inspection items and that the planning office will develop a certificate of compliance and a fire/building inspection checklist for final sign‑off.

On fees, the application materials list an application fee ($300), a public notice fee (approximately $150) and recording fees to the Carroll County Registry of Deeds (to be determined). Leanne said the Select Board must formally adopt the fee schedule; she will meet with the town administrator and seek a Select Board hearing date. Staff is also assembling a web page for STR guidance and will publish application materials once the fee schedule is set.

Board members suggested small edits (add room for multiple owner signatures, reference exact town code chapters for noise and trash) and asked staff to replicate key explanatory language on both the application and the checklist so applicants will not miss requirements. Leanne agreed to update the draft, finalize the inspection and certificate forms with the fire department and building official, and pursue Select Board approval of the fee schedule; she said the planning office aims to make the application live within weeks.","Staff circulated a short‑term rental (STR) conditional‑use permit application, checklist and instructions that mirror the new STR ordinance. The board reviewed required documentation, inspection/certificate of compliance process, and fee components; staff will seek Select Board approval of the $300 application fee and related fees.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":80,"_47":116,"_49":117,"_51":118,"_53":119,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":120,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":121,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6272688,"Planning Board amends CIP committee rules and designates Steve Webster as chair",357,2613000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3027238-e4974022acb8c35041a79036428699c2&start=2613&end=2970","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3027238-e4974022acb8c35041a79036428699c2/thumbnail_2613000.jpg","/articles/6272688/New-Hampshire/Planning-Board-amends-CIP-committee-rules-and-designates-Steve-Webster-as-chair","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6272688-7afed5848ae0662fa17920873ff6a101/orig.mp4?Expires=1770771135&Signature=BGW41a4jrVrb~jK6xJRspWYJ518hhOtYnOLih-sJX9I1s3~3~xb9Ht0Czil5nyGRfImrsQhliBEPHS9Z2DiI4oCSsbj6-PgAuumHvKI9m70nl0VQaT37ADCxOmWiIrXisElSR4HBrjUuN0geDr5J3n3i6G3T7sFNjhAnyKI2YhnMcxvopWaPVrWTijk6BKO1jnR07e7pkvSyFeemGTVStW62d1~JBUpWlqAiDtcZhJDlgZx-H0f6JtH~L8TSVchDrrlOLqcgmMnIoywD5o9X8SGD8h4-RxDYRRenMoRZZgARtdeeoX1pjfNzIpMtf1xxAwQMC7ZIipmRSKRwt3v9kQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Wolfeboro Planning Board reviewed and voted to accept proposed edits to the Capital Improvements Program committee rules of procedure on April 15, adopting language changes to reflect current board nomenclature and membership arrangements and designating a chair for the committee.

Leanne (staff) presented the revisions, which included adding the word “program” to the CIP title, replacing “Board of Selectmen” with “Select Board,” spelling out the planning department name, and changing the membership language to identify two planning board members rather than specifying that the planning board chair serve on the CIP. The draft also clarified that the chair of the CIP shall be a planning board member designated by the planning board.

Board members discussed how the CIP chair would be chosen and agreed the planning board should designate which of its two members will serve as chair before the CIP’s first meeting. Following discussion, Roger Murray moved to designate Steve Webster as chair of the CIP committee; the motion passed by voice vote after Steve Webster accepted the nomination.

Leanne said she would add the amended adoption date and circulate the final document. The board voted to accept the proposed rules changes at the meeting.","The board approved proposed edits to the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) committee rules of procedure, including changing \"Board of Selectmen\" to \"Select Board\" and allowing two planning board members on the committee. The board designated Planning Board member Steve Webster as the CIP chair for the coming year.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning Board reviews Shorefront Residential District ordinance updates, narrows redevelopment exemptions

Votes at a glance: Wolfeboro Planning Board, April 15, 2025

Planning Board reviews rules of procedure updates and flags public‑notice budget cut

Planning Board finalizes short‑term rental permit application and checklist; to seek Select Board approval of fees

Planning Board amends CIP committee rules and designates Steve Webster as chair