Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Drive Throughs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board declines to recommend petition to allow drive‑through restaurants on smaller lots
Summary
The Wolfeboro Planning Board opened a public hearing on a petition to remove an absolute ban on drive‑through restaurants and voted to recommend that voters not adopt the amendment. Residents raised enforcement and compatibility concerns, and the board moved not to endorse the warrant article.
The Wolfeboro Planning Board opened a public hearing Jan. 21 on a petition warrant article that would change Chapter 175 of the town zoning ordinance to remove the absolute restriction on drive‑through restaurants and allow them on lots of at least 1 acre. After public comment and discussion, the board voted to recommend that voters reject the amendment.
The petition text shown to the board would remove the absolute ban on drive‑through restaurants and revise the carryout/restaurant definition to read: a commercial establishment open to the general public that by design of physical facilities or by service or packaging procedures permits or encourages the purchase of prepared, ready‑to‑eat foods intended to be consumed on or off the premises. The petition also states that drive‑throughs would be permitted only on lots with a minimum of 1 acre and be prohibited on lots smaller than 1 acre. The article would also add “restaurants from a carryout” as a permitted use in the C‑1 central business district.
Residents who spoke urged the board to consider prior town votes and enforcement capacity. Anne Blodgett told the board, “I think the town's voted against it three times in my recent history,” asking the board to weigh prior public sentiment. Suzanne Ryan said she could not support the petition as written because of weak enforcement of existing regulations: “If I had more faith in the enforcement, the regulations, and site review and site requirements, then maybe it would be something that could fly. But because we don't support our ordinances with enforcement, for sure, I can't support it.”
Board discussion noted a history of similar articles and past public opposition. A planning board member summarized that prior forums had shown predominant public sentiment against permitting drive‑throughs in town and proposed a motion that the board not recommend the articles. The motion was seconded and carried; members voted in favor and the board moved on to the next agenda item.
The board made no change to the petition text itself; its action was a recommendation to voters, not an amendment to the ordinance. The planning board record shows the board considered the petition, heard public comment, and voted to recommend that the town not adopt the proposed zoning changes.
The petition remains a citizen‑filed warrant article; the planning board’s vote is advisory and will be included in the planning board’s report to the town for the warrant.
