Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Campground Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ZBA rejects proposed 128‑site Sky View Acres campground on White Oaks Road
Summary
After hours of testimony from dozens of neighbors concerned about traffic, noise, runoff and neighborhood character, the Zoning Board denied a special-exception request for a seasonal RV campground at 238 White Oaks Road; applicant argued statewide campground law and economic benefits, but abutters persuaded the board the location is incompatible.
The board took a lengthy remand public hearing on an application by proponents for a special exception to allow a seasonal RV campground (marketed as Sky View Acres) at 238 White Oaks Road.
Applicant counsel described the 10+-acre site, noted state campground regulations (RSA 216) that address density by dimension and said the proposal was for a seasonal operation with professional management, on-site buffers, and limited lighting. Counsel read numerous letters of support from regional campground operators and business owners who framed seasonal campgrounds as affordable lodging that sustains tourism and local spending.
More than two dozen neighbors and abutters spoke in opposition. Testimony focused on White Oaks Road’s limited pedestrian and vehicular capacity, concerns about increased traffic and large RV maneuvering, the potential for additional police and fire calls, smoke from campfires affecting residents with respiratory illness, lighting and noise from proposed amenities (pool, pavilion, courts), and stormwater/runoff impacts to abutting properties and Paugus Bay. Several speakers urged the board to preserve the rural and historic character of the RR2 corridor rather than allow a high-density commercial campground in the middle of long-standing single-family properties.
During discussion board members said the application raised concerns on multiple special-exception criteria, including undue traffic congestion, compatibility with adjacent neighborhood character, and appropriateness of location and visibility. Board members noted prior denied development proposals for the parcel and contrasted this proposal with smaller campgrounds recently approved in commercially zoned or less residential settings.
A motion to deny the special-exception application was made, seconded and the board voted to deny the request. The chair announced the decision as denied; the public reacted positively to the outcome. Planning staff said the project would require additional state and planning approvals if pursued further and that site-specific issues such as drainage would be considered at those stages.
