Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shoreland Permit Interpretation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board reviews shoreland ordinance interpretation after repeated ZBA referrals
Summary
The Wolfeboro Planning Board on Jan. 21 reviewed conflicting interpretations of the town’s shoreland rules — particularly how the 20% town impervious threshold, the 100‑foot unaltered area point score, and stormwater requirements interact — and asked staff to supply example applications and written staff rationales for further consideration.
The Wolfeboro Planning Board spent significant time Jan. 21 addressing confusion about how the town’s Shorefront Residential District and shoreland permit application are being interpreted by staff and applicants. The discussion focused on three overlapping elements in the ordinance: percentage of impervious coverage, the point‑scored unaltered area within the 100‑foot band from the water, and stormwater/engineered management requirements.
Planning staff and long‑time consultants described the town’s threshold at 20 percent impervious coverage (the town’s standard) versus the state threshold of 30 percent used by state shoreland rules. Several consultants and residents said the original intent of the town ordinance was to require more mitigation or revegetation only when a lot exceeded the 20 percent threshold; they said the current, literal interpretation that applicants must always bring unaltered areas and point scores up to a stated percentage is causing more cases to be referred to the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Randy Tatro and other residents who work regularly with shoreland permits told the board that many developed lots cannot practically meet the point‑score requirements under the stricter interpretation, and that the application form and prior staff guidance had followed the incentive model (encourage maintenance or decrease of impervious coverage) rather than mandatory remediation in all cases. Staff acknowledged the application and ordinance language are complex and provided the board with meeting notes and a draft “cheat sheet” outlining requirements for new lots, redevelopment, and pre‑existing nonconforming structures.
The planning board directed staff to distribute example applications that had gone to the ZBA, Shanna’s written email explanations to applicants (so the board can see staff rationale), and the packet of meeting notes and outlines that document what the board intended during the ordinance drafting. Board members asked staff to place the matter on a future agenda with examples so the board can clarify policy intent and, if necessary, recommend refinements to the ordinance or application form to reduce unintended ZBA referrals.
No changes to the ordinance were adopted at the meeting; the board and consultant attendance indicated several recent permit applications have been referred to the ZBA under the interpretation question. The board scheduled further review and requested staff materials and representative applications to prepare for the next meeting.
