Planning Board Minutes

Minutes of Public Hearing 1/10/2024

January 23rd, 2024

Town of Carroll Planning Board
Public Hearing Meeting Minutes
January 10, 2024
5:00PM
“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 RSA 91-A:2.”
Planning Board Members Present: Chairperson Alex Foti, Vice Chair Austin Alvarez, Tom Godfrey, Ryan Peffer, Don Jones, Rena Vecchio, Select Board Rep-Jules Marquis, Alternate-Paula Murphy
Public Present-(those who signed in): John Greer, Fire Chief Jeff Duncan, Carol Alvarez, Dale Mottram, Kathi Soule, Fred Soule, Chad Franz, Maura Annette Chappelle, David Scalley, Karen Moran, Brittany Buchtman, Tom Buchtman, Katelyn Cross, Kenny Beaupre, Walter Hines, Brian Mycko
Minutes Taken By: Corinne Ripa
Item 1: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Foti at 5:02 PM
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance
Item 3: Attendance taken; Quorum met
Public Hearing
Alex Foti announces that we are gathered here tonight to discuss the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance that will go to vote in March. He will read through each proposal and we will put it up for public comment and discussion.
1. Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 1 as proposed by the planning board for the Town of Carroll zoning ordinance as follows: to add a number 10 to Section 802.1.A-2 that includes “maintenance and repairs that do not change the footprint of the building” as an exception to the building permit requirement.
Walter Hines asks for Alex to explain what it is saying for a thorough understanding. Alex explains, that essentially, if you are doing work on your home in terms of replacing or maintaining, and it does NOT change the footprint of the house, you would NOT need a building permit. For example, if you are replacing boards on a rotted deck, you would not need a building permit. The Planning Board is trying to incentivize residents to fix up properties that are in need without the burden of spending extra money on a building permit. Builders still need to follow state codes and homeowners still need to be responsible.
David Scalley, the town’s building inspector has several questions and scenario’s in which Alex and Jules state, no building permit required. David explains that the town has an ISO rating of 5 and that the reason Carroll, NH is rated at a 5 is because there is a permitting process in place. He explains that homeowners’ insurance is based upon ISO ratings. The lower the ISO rating, the lower your insurance will be on your home. Whitefield, NH is rated at a 10, because they do not have a building inspector in that town. The higher your ISO, the higher your yearly insurance fee. David feels that it is beneficial to the residents for lower insurance rates. If you aren’t paying building permit fees, you will be paying more in insurance, so the benefit of the current ordinance does positively reflect on homeowners insurance and the residents.
Rena Vecchio states that the board has worked very hard to get the ordinance where it is today and she has trouble with such a change as this. While working in the town offices prior and under a different building inspector, she saw MANY instances where builders would be caught doing the wrong thing or not following code, which in many cases was very dangerous for the homeowner. She states that people tend to think that because we have a Zoning Ordinance that is enforced, we are a tough town to work with. She says this is not true….we are a tough town because we protect our town and the people.
Jules Marquis feels that if you want to repair your home, you should not have to pull a permit to do it. You are improving your property and doing good for the town. Karen Moran makes a point that this falls under 802.1.A-2 which refers to home construction only, not commercial.
David Scalley feels that it would be wise to add the definition of a footprint in the Zoning Ordinance. He also states that if this passes, the current Building Permit Application will need to be revised by the Select Board and the Planning Board. More discussion ensues and scenarios brought up.
Austin asks if the board is going to vote on whether they support the proposals. It is decided the Planning Board will vote to support (or not) after each item is discussed. Austin makes a motion to approve number one, Don Jones seconds the motion. Alex asks, all in favor of supporting Article #1-Jules Marquis, Ryan Peffer, Alex Foti, Austin Alvarez, Tom Godfrey and Don Jones all reply aye. Alex asks any opposed to supporting Article #1-Rena Vecchio is opposed and does not support.
2. Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 2 as proposed by the planning board for the Town of Carroll zoning ordinance as follows: to add the sentence “A garage is to be used for storage of vehicles and shall in no way be used for residential purposes.” to Section 501.

Walter Hines raises his hand and states that he is against this because of the housing crisis. He feels that a living space above a garage, whether it is for a family member or to supplement income, should not be taken away from the land/home owner. Alex states that he agrees with Walter, and this does not take it off the table. You would need to convert it from a garage to an ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit). If there is living space above any garage, it no longer is considered a garage, it becomes an ADU.
IF there is no other residence on the property, and the land owner builds a garage with living space above it, it is considered a residence. IF the owner later decides to build a home on the property (that has a garage with living space above it already existing) the owner must do a change of use through the Planning Board from residence to ADU and the residence becomes the new home. All rules under Section 705 of the Zoning Ordinance must be followed when converting/building an ADU.
Alex states that a goal for The Planning Board for the future is to address the shortage of affordable housing for the population here in town and that will be a focus on the Planning Board in the coming year as well.
Austin makes a motion to approve Article #2, Don 2nds the motion. All in favor of supporting Article #2, please say aye….all vote aye unanimously.
3. Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 3 as proposed by the planning board for the Town of Carroll zoning ordinance as follows: to remove the sentence “Those uses not listed are not allowed.” from Section 403.1.
In section 403.1 where this sentence is stated, there is then a table of uses telling you whether certain uses are allowed, not allowed or special exemption (according to your designated zone). With this statement in the ordinance, if a use is not mentioned in this table, it is simple not allowed. This is incredibly restricting and is challenging for both the Planning Board and Zoning Board if someone proposes something that is NOT on the uses list. Removing this sentence gives both boards more flexibility to be objective in reviewing different ideas that are brought forth to them. There are no comments or questions from the public or the Planning Board. Austin makes a motion to approve Article #3, Jules 2nds. Alex asks, all in favor of supporting Article #3-Jules Marquis, Ryan Peffer, Alex Foti, Austin Alvarez, Tom Godfrey and Don Jones all reply aye. Alex asks any opposed to supporting Article #3-Rena Vecchio is opposed and does not support.

4. The Town of Carroll finds that wetlands with buffers help reduce floods by acting like a sponge, slowing runoff from upland areas and releasing water slowly reducing peak flood flows downstream. In response to the recent flooding and infrastructure damage in the State, the residents of the Town will vote on the following warrant article.

To see if the Town of Carrol will vote to replace and include the following in section 606.3a of the Wetlands Overlay District
All proposed development, removal of vegetation, and alteration of the land surface within all protected wetlands as defined as:
• at least 2 acres in size
• shall not consist of a water body only
• shall have at least 4 wetland functions as listed above in section 606.2, one of which shall be wildlife habitat
• identified on the most recent National Wetlands Inventory produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
are subject to this ordinance. The following vegetative buffers shall be required and maintained:
30 foot buffer on wetlands 2 to 5 acres
60 foot buffer on wetlands greater than 5 acres or less than 10 acres
100 foot buffer on wetlands 10 acres or greater.
David Scalley asks if this applies to all the lots and subdivisions that have been approved previously. Alex feels that the way it is worded that it would apply to any clearing if you were going to build going forward. It is stated that there are many lots that have been purchased over the years that have wetlands on them. People who purchased (for example) 10 years ago, will now have to abide by these rules? This could actually make some lots unbuildable now.

Alex feels that it is extremely restrictive. Jules also states that he is not in favor of this proposal. They both agree that the buffer is far too large on anything over 5 acres. Perhaps something less restrictive, like selective cutting would be more appropriate. They also feel that it leaves the Planning Board no flexibility whatso ever in granting a variance or trying to work with an applicant. Tom Godfrey did some calculations based on these buffers and the amount of land that would be unusable. He did calculations based on circle, square and rectangle shaped lots. It increased the amount of unbuildable land by large amounts. This amount got higher with oddly shaped lots. Again, he feels it is far too restrictive.
Alex states that the Planning Board reviewed this and added extra protection for wetlands a few years ago into the Zoning Ordinance. He personally does not see a reason to go beyond that. A few people in the crowd agree with that.
Rena states that the reason it was brought forth was due to an area over by Kings Pond that was clear cut right down to the bog. David Scalley says the owner had every right to do that legally according to State laws. It was researched already and the homeowner broke no laws.
More discussion ensues about the need to protect the wetlands versus the desire to keep things less restrictive on the residents. Alex asks if there are any more comments. All is quiet. Austin makes a motion to approve support on Article 4, Jules 2nds the motion. Alex asks if any are in favor of supporting Article 4 say aye, no one responds. All who are opposed to supporting Article #4, all members vote to oppose unanimously. The Planning Board does not recommend Article #4 as presented by the Conservation Committee.
5. To be added to the Definitions Section 202
"short-term rental" means any individually or collectively owned single-family house or dwelling unit or any unit or group of units in a condominium, cooperative, or timeshare, or owner-occupied residential home, that is offered for a fee and for less than 30 consecutive days.

Section 706. Registration Requirements and Regulation of Short-Term Rentals
706.1 Registration
All property owners operating a short-term rental must register their rental property with the Town of Carroll Select Board Administrator and pay a registration fee. Upon registration and payment of the fee, the property owner will receive a permit to operate. Registration cost per unit will be set by the Board of Selectmen and may be modified on an annual basis. Permits will be valid for 3 years from the initial date of issuance.
706.2 Failure to Register
Failure to register a short-term rental is a violation of this ordinance and will result in a written warning. If the short-term rental is not registered within 7 days of receipt of the written warning, the property owner will incur a fine of $250.00 per day for up to 10 days.
If after 10 days the short-term rental property still has not been registered and all fines have not paid, a cease and desist notice will be issued and the owner will not be permitted to operate the rental until it is registered and all fines are paid. The owner may appeal the issuance of the cease and desist notice to the Board of Selectmen.
If the owner continues to operate the short-term rental after the cease and desist notice is issued, the owner will continue to incur a fine of $250.00 per day until the rental is registered and all fines are paid.
All fines incurred under this section must be paid within 30 days.
706.3 Complaints and Remedies
If three or more complaints are received and found to be valid by a local, state, or federal law enforcement agency in a 365-day period, the property owner shall pay a $250.00 fine and their short-term rental permit shall be revoked for 365 days from the date of the 3rd offence. Property owners may appeal the revocation of their permit to the Board of Selectmen within 30 days of receiving notice of the revocation.
A resident asks if the PB has any idea what the registration fee will be and what that will go towards? Jules answers that the Select Board will set the fee. David Scalley asks if the fees will go into the General Fund and be used towards the administrative expense of finding all the STR’s and handling all the registrations? Jules states that is correct, at least for the beginning. There may be a separate fund in the future that it would go towards but that is yet to be determined.
A resident asks if the registration would be transferrable to a new owner. It is thought that any new owner would have to re-register for contact purposes. Alex gives a little background on the reasoning of the proposed registrations. The number one issue that the town seems to be facing is that there is no contact information for many of these STR’s, a majority of them have listed owners under LLC’s. So this essentially gives the town a data base of rental properties, so if there is a problem, they have a way to contact the owner. There have been many complaints to the police with loud noises, fireworks and other disturbances from the neighbors of rentals. Brian Mycko, a former Select Board member, states STR problems have been ongoing for some time. He gives an example of one property in town that had received numerous complaints of playing extremely loud music in one weekend and they had no proper contact for the owner. He sites another property that has had complaints to the local PD all the way up through Fish and Game for snow mobiles, dirt bikes and ATV’s being ridden up and down the street.
One resident asks, well what if a neighbor makes an unsubstantiated complaint, that does not seem fair for the owner. Alex agrees and states that all complaints need to be verified by a local, state or federal law enforcement agency. He, as a short-term rental owner, often receives complaints that are not justified. He recently received a complaint about a barking dog. He went to investigate and the renter said her dog had not been barking. He approached the neighbor who had reported the complaint, who then admitted, “well the dog wasn’t barking yet, but I saw a dog and I’m sure it will bark at some point and disturb me.” This is an example of where there needs to be just cause and why law enforcement would need to determine if indeed there was a valid disturbance. Jules mentions that perhaps if there are several noise complaints by a particular person on a rental, maybe the town would have the owner install a noise monitor, so the town could see if the claims were actually valid or not.
Kathy Soule, a homeowner in town, who happens to have a STR on her property, stands up and introduces herself. She has written her thoughts down on the matter and proceeds to read her letter out loud from an owner’s perspective.
A quick synopsis-
She has a little cabin on the property adjacent to where she lives. In 9.5yrs and over 650 bookings, she has had only one incident that has required attention. She is bothered by the fact that the town wants STR owners to register and pay a fee, yet the town does not charge a fee to motels and other lodging entities that consist of cabins. She has researched minutes of all the Town boards over the past 2 years discussing STR’s and discusses her findings.
She does not dispute that there are problems in town with irresponsible, STR owners and their renters. She imagines there are also issues with guests at hotels, motels and lodging facilities at different times. She also feels that the PD should have contact info of owners so they can discuss any disturbances with them. She feels that responsible owners should not have to pay to register as a punishment of irresponsible owners. It also appears that if this ordinance passes, according to minutes she has read, details of how it will be implemented are not in place. She has issues with other regulations that have been discussed in previous meetings, that would not be required of other residential properties. She asks if this passes, will the Select Board will be able to make up regulations without it being in the Zoning Ordinance.
Alex replies, no. They have the authority to set the registration fee, but the ordinance would need to be amended.
Kathy asks what is the main goal of the Ordinance? Is it revenue? Is it cracking down on irresponsible owners, or both? If it’s to register STR’s and maintain order, perhaps a small token registration fee is sufficient, stating her rental property taxes increased by 30% alone last year. She says they pay nothing to the State to register for room and meals tax. Again, she does not disagree with proper contacts, she just thinks there needs to be more thought put into it with much clearer detail in the ordinance before the residents should vote on it. She feels the Planning Board is putting the cart before the horse to push something through. Kathy thanks the board for letting her speak.
Walter Hines raises his hand to speak. He has some STR’s up here and also is a resident. What makes him uncomfortable is the fact that it can be modified on an annual basis and that no fee has been determined.
Jules Marquis has written a brief statement about why the Planning Board feels this is an important matter and what has brought it about. He reads it aloud. He reiterates past explanations and the lack of deterrents in place for neglectful property owners. He stresses that our goal is to prevent issues and repercussions. Our concern is for safety.
Chad Franz stands up, introduces himself and speaks.
A quick synopsis-
He resides in Londonderry, NH but has a property here in town that he enjoys with his family as well as rents out. He shares his concerns with the proposed ordinance. One of significant issues for him is the potential subjectivity of the complaint process. He feels it’s essential to have subjective criteria to avoid unfair penalization of property owners. The range of complaints from minor nuisances to more criminal activity necessitates a clear defined standard for what is considered a valid complaint. In addition to paying property taxes, the town also benefits from room and meals tax collected from every guest stay at our property. This tax is an important contribution we make to the community further supporting local services and infrastructure. In managing my property, I have had zero complaints and no safety issues. He feels that recognizing dedicated and responsible STR owners through a merit system may incentivize high standards. He continues to question fees for registration and stresses that is should align with actual administrative costs. It should not be a significant fee, rather a small fee to cover implementation. While, I support regulations, they must be practical, fair and objectively framed. He thanks the Board for allowing him to speak.
A discussion is raised on inspections and how people have seen reference to them but do not see anything in the proposal. Fire Chief Jeff Duncan responds that him and Police Chief Bailey have had trouble reaching home owners as many property owners are listed under an LLC so there is no personal contact for emergencies. This has been a big issue for them so they would like to have a data base with all contact info available to them. One of the other issues they wanted to see addressed was the inspection component. Not as a punitive inspection, but more as a life safety 101 for the safety of the public. Just to make sure simple standards are met, ie-proper smoke alarms, carbon monoxide detectors, etc.
Jeff explains that our legal advisors have removed that portion of it for now until further investigation on the process can be researched. Perhaps sometime in the future, it can be voted on as an amendment if this Article is passed.
There is talk about giving out written recommendations for safety guidelines, but this WA as presented right now, is simply a registration process with contact information.
Further discussion ensues amongst the public and the board, expressing many of the same concerns and discussions that have already been addressed.
It is decided to go to a vote for support. Don Jones makes a motion to approve to support Warrant Article #5. Rena seconds the motion. Alex asks all in favor say aye….all members say aye unanimously. The Planning Board recommends Article #5.
Alex thanks everyone for attending and offering opinions and feelings on each Amendment and/or Article. He closes the meeting at 7:45pm.