Town of Carroll, New Hampshire

• Town Services
• Town Meeting Minutes
• Planning Board/ZBA
• Applications & Forms
• Town Clerk/Tax Collector
• Map
• Home

Minutes of Town Board Meetings

• Planning Board
• Board of Adjustment
• Select Board
• Budget Committee
• Building Committee
• Energy Commission

Minutes of 01/15/2008

January 25th, 2008

Town of Carroll Planning Board
Minutes
January 15, 2008


“These minutes of the Town of Carroll Planning Board have been recorded by its Secretary. Though believed to be accurate and correct they are subject to additions,
deletions and corrections by the Planning Board at its next meeting when the Board votes its final approval of the minutes. They are being made available at this time to conform to the requirements of New Hampshire RSAS 91-A:2.”

Members of the Board present: Chairman John Birknes, Evan Karpf, Connie Oliver, Charlie Cohn, Ernie Temple, Donna Foster, Rena Vecchio

Member of the Public present: Edith Tucker, Joan Karpf, Ellen Savage, Kathy Pate, Pauline Viens, Arthur Viens, Carol Perkins, Edward Perkins, Dana Bisbee, Robert Furtado, Patrick Ricciardi, Irene Donnell, Sue McQueeney, Owen McQueeney, Erik Bergum, Leslie Bergum, William Stoloski, Jim Covey, Lisa Covey, Bill Rines, Erik McMurray, Stacey Doll, Mike Brunetti, Bill Dowling, Charles Adams, Matt Dieterich, Margaretha Birknes, Alex McConnell, Jeff Duncan

Minutes taken by Susan Kraabel, transcribed by Maryclare Quigley, Secretary

Pledge of Allegiance

Meeting called to order at 7:00 PM

Chairman Birknes declared there was a quorum and opened the meeting with the review of the minutes from the meeting on January 3. Charlie Cohn made a Motion to: accept the minutes as written. Evan Karpf seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.

Chairman Birknes then advised the Public Hearing on two proposed Ordinances to be voted on during Town Meeting day in March had begun.

The first of these was the Overlay District in the Bretton Woods area. The Chairman advised this would be new section 505 and the text and map are posted on the town website. Copies of these were also available at the meeting. Chairman Birknes went on to describe the location of this which is roughly from the sewage treatment plant to the Catholic Church, about 182 acres. It is the wish of the owners of the Resort to have a district for more intense building, which would allow a pedestrian village for shops, restaurants and residents. For the town, this would mean a tax base elevation and for the Resort, it would mean more dense building here to make up for other areas there which would be less intense. This also becomes a destination attraction which benefits both the resort and the town. They are awaiting an economic report from UNH which will show the benefits to the area in general, not just Bretton Woods.

Chairman Birknes read a letter addressed to the ZBA and the Planning Board from Richard Dinadio, President of Mount Washington Place Association. This expresses concerns the homeowners in this association have about the height limit of 33 feet being relaxed, particularly regarding the impact it may have on views.

Dr. Karpf read a letter addressed to the Planning Board from Nancy Hardaway and Larry Peterson of South Yarmouth, MA, owners of 89 Rivers Edge, Riverfront. They wrote that they understand the need, however, they are concerned about the wide leeway being given; namely: if the developer were to sell part or all of the area; there being no height restriction, which they believe should be a maximum of four stories from ground; signage, including size and lighting; parking; and road design and access. As they believe access to their home will change, they feel they should receive notice so they may have input. They cautioned about issuing a “blank check” to anyone. Chairman Birknes read email communication between Dr. Karpf and Town Counsel regarding this Ordinance (copy attached). The language in Section 505.3 specifically addresses these concerns, including wording by both attorneys (Town Counsel and resort Attorney Bisbee) specifying each particular building they wish to exceed the 33’ limit and regarding the scenic qualities of the R-2 District. As the developers cannot proceed without further review from the Planning Board, it does allow the Board to look closely at all of these issues, which gives them a say. Dr. Karpf asked if they had given thought yet to the design of the buildings.

At this point, Mike Brunetti asked permission to give a brief presentation about the Overlay District. Based on community vision and input, the village components are that it be walker-friendly with slow traffic and easily accessible, have gathering places and restaurants, that there will be a variety of activities and events for all four seasons, that parking needs and planning goals be balanced and that there be an overall transportation plan or system. Following this were village sensitivities among which are building heights, snow removal, light pollution, parking, public safety, noise, traffic/roads, inclusive to local community members, etc. Mr. Brunetti explained some of the reasons that zoning doesn’t work with the pedestrian village are no on-street parking and the width of the streets. He told the steps that led to this meeting, which started with meeting with the Planning Board in August about the need for an ordinance modification followed by working with the State Office of Energy and Planning and hiring a third party group, Jeffrey Taylor & Associates, to draft the ordinance. They had several work sessions and meetings with the Planning Board and modified the ordinance to incorporate local resident feedback.

Mr. Brunetti then spoke of the purpose and intent and stressed that they didn’t change the zoning regarding the height limit of 33’, it just allows the Planning Board to relax the zoning if their design calls for a taller building. He explained this is consistent with the Concept Plan with mixed use – commercial, retail, residential, pedestrian-friendly, and transportation alternatives. He proceeded to show that they are using principles of smart growth, with mixed-use activity, development patterns, green space, integrated transportation, and community collaboration among them. The core of the Overlay District will be at the base of the ski area with more residences elsewhere. There will be a traffic study when their plans for the Village are more complete, at which time they will consider alternative transportation systems. It is their intent to have flexibility in parking standards which will allow for shared parking; i.e. daytime for offices, shops, and evening for restaurants, this could then allow a reduction in parking requirements. It was also again mentioned how important on-street parking is to the village concept and to that end, there were several pictures showing different configurations of on-street parking.

As stated earlier, the ordinance will allow the Planning Board the flexibility to approve buildings over the 33’ height limit. However, this will only be if the developer can demonstrate it will: Protect the safety and welfare of the public; Address the scenic qualities of the area, including view sheds; Be consistent with the intent of the Village Overlay District; and that it will not adversely impact Town services. Several slides showing the Mt. Pleasant House (4 stories) in Bretton Woods, Gray’s Inn (4 stories) in Jackson, and Maplewood Hall (5 stories) in Bethlehem, along with other buildings as well as a number of houses which they believe set precedents for height and roof pitch.

The last of the presentation was about signage. Mr. Brunetti explained the need for flexibility in these standards so they can implement historical and traditional New England signs in this District as current zoning does not allow for these.

Attorney Bisbee addressed the various sections of the Ordinance; The first being the purpose which explains the use of the particular area. The provisions are to complement the Concept Plan, not to alter or affect the existing Plan. The second section describes what it is, its boundaries and uses. The third section deals with the areas where the Planning Board has the flexible right to approve. He said the Planning Board has a tremendous amount of authority in this as the developer must still submit application for site plan review or subdivision. Mr. Bisbee went on to say that this proposal permits the town to allow a vision to happen that would be difficult to do through variances with the ZBA which requires a hardship be shown.

Chairman Birknes advised that Town Counsel has agreed that he is generally satisfied with the language with regard to Planning Board authority. He also advised that it may be changed as long as it not substantial. When asked, Fire Chief, Jeff Duncan, said we may not have fire services to handle a catastrophe. Chairman Birknes pointed out the last sentence of the Ordinance which provides for public safety. When Bob Furtado questioned cost, Mr. Birknes pointed out that it provides for reasonable costs may be imposed by the Planning Board. Joan Karpf said that the ISO rating by insurance companies is a 10 and mentioned the fire station location and if manpower had been considered. She said she has concerns because of the closeness to the National Forest.
It was asked why there couldn’t be a cap on the height since the developer is talking two or three stories and maybe four. Mr. Brunetti said all buildings will be sprinklered and that while 33’ may be perfect, whatever number is chosen would only be a guess and it could be wrong. The typical New England style building at two stories could be close to 33’. They believe a large percentage will be less than 33’ but would not want a height cap. People’s perception of height can be different and there would be some who would think everything would be built to the maximum. One example given was if a church were to be built, the steeple could be 50’, and this could be a benefit to the scenery rather than having an adverse impact. Charlie Cohn asked if they had plans for a hotel, which Mr. Brunetti said not as a pure hotel. They are working on mixed uses but at this time they really don’t know what they will be doing, and will be in the planning stage for the next year.

Mr. Birknes advised that the Concept Plan from the 90’s is updated each year with the Planning Board and the developer. Though the village concept had never been discussed before, the Board is trying to make this work as this dense area will allow more open space elsewhere. Leslie Bergum said the Story/Sales Center is a ZBA case in process, a 2-story building that is actually 44’ in height. Mr. Brunetti acknowledged this as a prime example of a 2-story with a pitched roof. It was stated that a pitched roof can still block views and Mr. Brunetti advised that they will take this into consideration when modeling their ideas.

Erik Bergum had a few comments he wanted to make and noted that the developers should not be surprised as he had met with them and told them the same thing. He said in general he is in favor of an appropriate village district, but was surprised at the size of this one. He said he felt a bit handcuffed on changes that can be made in regards to the attorney’s opinion about not making significant language changes. He also said that he trusts the Planning Board and the developer however, they could change in any number of years to people who aren’t so trustworthy, so he would like a cap on height with exemptions for turrets, steeples, etc. Otherwise, he fears they could end up with a 10 story hotel. He’s concerned with the wide latitude given to the Planning Board. He also expressed his concern about people from Bretton Woods serving on the Board and being unable to vote because of being abutters for projects either now or in the future. This brought discussion about how abutters are defined, by property owned or if they belong to an association that would be considered an abutter. Chairman Birknes said even though one must recuse him or herself during these issues, an abutter has power at the meeting. He continued to express concern of this as it does preclude one having a vote. Mr. Bergum believes the safety clause is good, but feels it shouldn’t stop at equipment only. He also said he doesn’t see current signing as a problem.

William Stoloski introduced himself as an abutter with property at 26 Rivers Edge Road. He described the location of his home as being the first residence on the road and near the maintenance facility. He said there are tapes around the area near his lot labeled wetlands and wondered who hung them. He has a direct site line to the garage. He advised he has also been to two association meetings, his own and BWPOA. When he went to the website, he saw place holders, which he understands means buildings of the future, and there was one on the lot next to his. He believes 2 or 3 stories are okay, but feels over 4 stories his view would be greatly impacted as well as shading his house and lot. He said Loon Mt. has Condotels and this type of development troubles him because of noise, transient travelers, lighting and signage. He has concerns about the quality of life the Overlay District may bring for the residents of Bretton Woods. Mike Brunetti explained that the wetlands flags had been put there by their people and they mean it is not to be part of development, while a place holder only means it may happen. Mr. Brunetti said they would certainly listen to his concerns and they believe this District would allow them this kind of consideration.

Joan Karpf questioned if the amount of land left in open space is in the Concept Plan and was advised that it does apply to that, and that within the District there may not be any open space left. Mr. Birknes explained that the entire development now allows one unit per acre, and this will be less in the Village District. Mr. Brunetti advised that a lot of the 182 acres are wetlands which they will work around. Mr. McQueeney asked if they were to buy more land (he gave the Catholic Church as an example) would the District be expanded. Mr. Birknes said that it would not be. The map will be recorded and they would have to amend the ordinance.

Donna Foster asked for clarification of language regarding the word “shall” in the sentence “The Planning Board shall approve the proposed…..” She said in her opinion that means the Board must approve without an option not to. Chairman Birknes said Dr. Karpf had this concern and had sought advice from Town Counsel who approved the language, as basically once it meets the criteria, then it must be approved. Mr. Birknes said there are two areas where the Board is being asked to add language to make it stronger: after “….and flexibility which is being proposed. For building height, an applicant must specify each particular building that is proposed to exceed 33’ in height.” and after “and welfare of residents and the public,” including the scenic qualities of the RES 2 District,”. Charlie Cohn Moved to: amend the ordinance by adding the new sentence and phrase as noted. Rena Vecchio seconded and it passed unanimously. Mr. Birknes said if the ordinance passes, anyone who is concerned should come to the Board meetings whenever the developer presents anything. Attorney Bisbee asked about the language to the voters and Chairman Birknes read Article 3, which pertains to the Village Overlay District.

Dr. Karpf read an email he received from Town Counsel, Bernie Waugh, regarding a conversation he had with Attorney Bisbee about adding a height cap and scenic aesthetics. Attorney Bisbee said he didn’t actually say that as he wouldn’t have had the authority to do so. After more discussion about a height cap, Chairman Birknes asked for a motion. Dr. Karpf made a Motion to: reconsider the vote on the amendment to the ordinance to add a height limit of 4 stories maximum and with any additional height to be proportional and aesthetically pleasing. Mrs. Vecchio seconded. Mr. Cohn expressed concern that if this is passed, where they might have done only 3 stories before, this will allow them to expand. Mr. Birknes feels “aesthetically pleasing” is nebulous and obtuse and may cause more problems because of interpretation. He believes that the language already covers this. Mrs. Vecchio explained that she seconded the motion because she believed he had a right to amend, but she will not vote in favor of it as she believes it is covered and the Board has more power the way it is. Chairman Birknes called for a vote and it failed 1 to 5. Jim Covey stated that the architectural review procedure addresses aesthetics and is pretty powerful as well.

Next was the public hearing for the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. Chairman Birknes stated this had been on the warrant a few years ago and had been defeated. He announced that the FAA had gone back on its word that there would be no light necessary on the cell tower the Board approved with conditions a few months ago and opined that having a lighting ordinance in place might have helped.

Mr. Birknes said they had considered making private residences exempt this year, but Attorney Waugh thought that was not a good idea as existing lighting is grandfathered anyway. Chairman Birknes read the ordinance and asked for discussion.

Jim Covey stated that he was opposed the last time it came up, but he has been won over and believes the time is now. Mrs. Foster stated that she wouldn’t want to over-ordinance this town. There is an aging population and residents have to go 20 miles or so for services as it is. Not that she sees box stores, etc., but this is a seasonal resort town and she is concerned people will be discouraged from coming to do business here because of too much hassle. It was noted that Celebration is a big company who recognizes lighting issues. Further discussion took place and it was pointed out that under this ordinance, signs can be lit to emphasize the sign--just keep it from pointing out into traffic or onto someone else’s property. Mrs. Vecchio pointed out that in the ‘60’s we didn’t think what Bretton Woods would be and without zoning, who knows what we’d have. She believes this is a vision and planning ordinance that should be in place.
Dr. Karpf made a Motion: to place the lighting ordinance on the warrant as it is written. Mrs. Vecchio seconded and it was approved. Mr. Birknes read Article 2 as it will be placed on the ballot. Mrs. Karpf asked for clarification that the ordinance is directional and not wattage, and was advised that was correct.

There being no further business, Evan Karpf made a Motion to: adjourn. Charlie Cohn seconded and it passed unanimously. Chairman Birknes declared the meeting ended at 8:50 p.m.

Town of Carroll, New Hampshire ®2024