Brookfield planning board puts three zoning warrant amendments on ballot; fourth to be revised after legal review

BROOKFIELD, N.H. — The Brookfield Town Planning Board voted Jan. 29 to place three proposed zoning warrant articles on the March 15, 2025, town-meeting ballot, and directed staff to work with the town attorney to rewrite a fourth amendment that would clarify how permitted and conditional uses relate to site-plan review.

The board's actions came at a public hearing at the Brookfield Town Offices to review four proposed amendments to the town zoning ordinance that would (1) clarify grandfathering for the five-acre minimum lot-size requirement adopted last year, (2) adjust road/lake-frontage requirements, (3) clarify whether permitted uses in Appendix E require site-plan review, and (4) add state definitions for undefined zoning terms.

Planning board members said the first amendment would add a sentence stating that “any lot which legally existed as of 03/12/2024 may be developed without complying with the 5 acre minimum lot size,” language intended to clarify whether lots between two and five acres that already existed before last year would be subject to the new five-acre minimum. The board agreed to change the wording to read that such lots “do not have to comply with” the five-acre minimum and to check the precise legal phrasing with counsel.

Resident Frank Frazier (Live Oak Road) told the board he opposed the change as unnecessary and warned about unintended legal readings of the proposed wording. “If you own a lot of record, you have a presumption that you can build on it,” Frazier said, adding that state law protects lots of record created before zoning was adopted.

The second amendment would change frontage requirements related to road and lake frontage (the draft discussed changing a 250-foot requirement to 400 feet in some contexts). Board members said the intent is to reduce density and keep Brookfield’s rural character in line with the town master plan. The board asked staff to update the effective date language to reflect the March 15, 2025, town meeting rather than the earlier date shown in the draft materials.

The third amendment drew the most public comment and technical questions. Town staff and some board members said that town counsel has advised that a site-plan review is required for any change of use, even when the use appears in the zoning ordinance as a “permitted use.” That raised confusion because Appendix E contains uses labeled as “permitted uses” and, on other pages, “conditional uses.”

As presented at the hearing, the third amendment would make clear that applications for site-plan approval are required for the uses listed in Appendix E. Board discussion cited a recent application at Moose Mountain as an example where the distinction led to disagreement about whether site-plan review was required. One board member said the list of permitted activities in Appendix E is “a mixed, broad brush of things” and argued site-plan review lets the board set conditions such as hours, lighting, and scale.

The board asked legal counsel to rework the amendment language to distinguish clearly between permitted uses and conditional-use processes and to confirm whether the proposed rewrite requires a second public hearing. The board also directed staff to confirm whether conditional-use approvals are in addition to or instead of site-plan review.

The fourth amendment would add statutory definitions from state law for zoning terms that the town currently lacks definitions for; where multiple state definitions exist, the draft picks the more stringent option. Board members described that change as straightforward and said legal has reviewed the proposal.

On final action, the board voted to place amendments 1, 2 and 4 on the March 15, 2025 ballot with the language changes discussed and directed staff to write the final warrant language. The board separately approved a motion to have legal and staff revise amendment 3 (the Appendix E/site-plan-review language), to consult with the town building inspector and town counsel on conditional-use versus permitted-use wording, and to report back on whether another hearing would be required. For both motions the board recorded voice votes (“Aye”/“Aye”) and the chair announced the motions carried.

The hearing's public comment included questions about how many lots would be affected by a grandfathering clause, whether large lots already subdivided into smaller parcels would be grandfathered, the cost and checklist for site-plan review (board members said typical fees run about $400 and that major reviews require a survey), and concern about making zoning changes while litigation exists on related matters. Board members said legal review would aim to avoid creating new liabilities.

The planning board closed the public portion of the hearing at about 7:35 p.m. and directed staff to finalize warrant language consistent with the board’s instructions.

Votes at a glance: The board approved adding amendments 1, 2 and 4 to the warrant (voice vote; tally not recorded) and approved sending amendment 3 back to legal for rewrite and clarification (voice vote; tally not recorded).