On Petition of Daniel Considine and twenty-five (25) or more registered voters, shall the Town of Hampton vote:

To remove and release a portion of deed restriction #4, first appearing in the deed from the Town of Hampton to Cora M. Carbonneau dated September 17, 1984 and recorded in the Rockingham County Registry of Deeds at Book 2512, Page 458, as to the premises located at #30 Dover Avenue (Tax Map 296, Lot 161-0 and owned by Daniel Considine, Kelly Considine, Daniel Considine, Jr. and Ayla R. Considine, in order to allow for the expansion of the existing dwelling, on its existing foundation The portion of the deed restriction #4 to be removed reads as follows: “The Grantee will not directly build upon the premises within seven (7) feet of any boundary line.”; and further, to authorize and direct the Town Clerk to execute and deliver t o the owners of said lot for recording, a notice of this Vote at the Rockingham County Registry of Deeds, at no cost to the Town? (MAJORITY VOTE REQUIRED.)

What it means: This is one of the parcels of land that the town leased to Hampton residents in the 80’s, all of which had certain restrictions associated with them. One of the restrictions was that the owners would not build within 7 feet of the boundary line, which is what the owners wish to have removed. If approved, this Article will amend the deed restriction only. Any other permitting requirements or variance requests would still need to be addressed via the appropriate Boards in Town.

No one spoke in favor or against this Article at Deliberative Session.

Fiscal Impact: No tax impact.

On the petition of John and Judith Doherty, and at least 25 Hampton registered voters, shall the Town of Hampton vote to re move the first sentence of deed restriction number 4, relating to allowing only one single-family dwelling to be placed on the lot. This request is for the limited purpose of allowing these owners of two seasonal dwellings at 3 Toppan Street (Hampton tax map number 134, lot number 86) to replace one existing and failing seasonal dwelling with a properly built year-round dwelling, such that the owners can then relocate and retire to the Town of Hampton. The new dwelling will meet all local building and zoning codes. There are currently two dwellings on said lot. Further to authorize and direct the Selectmen to execute, deliver and record notice of this vote at the Rockingham County Registry of Deeds at no extra cost to the Town? (Majority vote required).

What it means: This is one of the parcels of land that the town leased to Hampton residents in the 80’s, all of which had certain restrictions associated with them. However, even at the time of the leased land sale, not all of the restrictions had been evenly enforced. The owners of the referenced property have had 2 seasonal structures on one small lot (.13 acre lot). This Article seeks to relax the deed restriction that disallows more than one dwelling on a lot so the owners can renovate one of the structures for year-round living.

Those in favor say: A neighbor said this is a nice family that would be welcomed year-round. There are currently 2 dwellings on the property and have been for some time.

Those against say: People who are opposed to this idea say that the lot is too small for 2 dwelling units if one of them is to be year-round. Lot sizes in town take into consideration issues such as snow storage, runoff, drainage, etc.

Fiscal Impact: No tax impact.

Shall the Town of Hampton vote to discontinue a portion of Old Park Avenue remaining after its reconstruction, caused by the relocation of Route 1 in 1960, in accordance with the provisions of RSA 231:43, provided that the discontinuance shall be of no force and effect until every property owner abutting the area of discontinuance signs a waiver, to be prepared by the Town Attorney, of any appeal under RSA 231:48 from such discontinuance and of all damages that could be sought under RSA 231:48 as a result of such discontinuance, or until six months has elapsed after the vote to discontinue without any such appeal having been made, whichever comes first?

 What it means: Prior to the re-routing of Route 1 in 1960, Park Avenue was situated between the two houses numbered 19 and 25. With the extension and reshaping of Park Avenue, the small section of the road that once was between the two houses was returned to grass, but is still on the books as a road. This article seeks to officially discontinue the road.

Those in favor say: By discontinuing the road, the small strip of land will allow one homeowner to have the legally required frontage, and the other to be able to build a garage. The town benefits because the land will become part of the tax base.

Those against say: No one spoke against the concept at Deliberative Session.

Fiscal Impact: No tax impact.

Shall the Town of Hampton vote to discontinue E Street as a Public Way in accordance with the provisions of RSA 231:43, provided that the discontinuance shall be of no force and effect until every property owner abutting E Street signs a waiver, to be prepared by the Town Attorney, of any appeal under RSA 231:48 from such discontinuance and of all damages that could be sought under RSA 231:48 as a result of such discontinuance, or until six months has elapsed after the vote to discontinue without any such appeal having been made, whichever comes first? (Majority vote required).

 What it means: “E” Street is a town-owned street that primarily exists on paper, and the Town would be surrendering title to “E” Street to the owners of the Hampton Casino. As background, this section of Hampton Beach is laid out and organized according to the letters of the alphabet “A” Street, “B” Street, etc. In the late 1890’s, the Hampton Beach Casino was constructed in an area that fell between “D” Street and “F” Street. Thus, “E” Street never actually existed as a street but has been maintained as a theoretical street on the books. This Article seeks to discontinue it.

 Those in favor say: “E” Street never really existed as an actual street, and we should eliminate it.

 Those against say: There is no assurance that the Casino will always be there to bridge the two streets, or even that the two sides of the Casino will always be owned by the same party. Those who spoke against it wondered what benefit derives from the discontinuance, since there might be future need for the differentiation of the individual street names.

One commenter said he wanted the Town to obtain in writing assurances from the Casino owner that the “E Street” entrance to the property will be available for traffic improvements in perpetuity. One more year won’t change a thing after 118 years, and Hampton is not likely to cut a hole in the middle of the Casino if this is not passed this year.

Fiscal Impact: No tax impact.

Shall the Town of Hampton vote to accept “as is” the lettered streets A through Q and the streets in White’s Island, so-called, known as Atlantic Avenue, Bradford Avenue, Concord Avenue, Dover Avenue, Epping   Avenue, Haverhill Avenue and River Avenue, as Class V Town Highways, said highways having been surveyed by Parker Survey Assoc. Inc., and filed in the Rockingham County Registry of Deed as Plan D-12567 (Sheets 1-5) and as Plan D-12566 (Sheets 1-2) respectfully, and constructed by the Hampton Beach Improvement Company on Town property under a lease approved by Town Meeting, said lease dated and signed on April 24, 1897, acceptance action having not been taken by a prior Town Meeting. These acceptances shall be at no cost to the Town? (Majority vote required)

 What it means: This is a housekeeping matter to correct an oversight that has persisted since 1897.

No one spoke for or against this Article at Deliberative Session.

Fiscal Impact: No tax impact.

Shall the Town of Hampton vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen to convey to the Hampton School District, upon such terms and conditions as the Selectmen may determine are appropriate and in the best interests of the Town, all of the Town’s right, title and interest in two separate vacant parcels of land, the first commonly known as the Arnold property (Tax Map 161-51), which has been under lease to the Hampton School District for the purpose of an off­ street bus loading/unloading area in accordance with Article 43 of the 1988 Annual Town Meeting, and the second commonly known as the Martel property, (a part of Tax Map 176 Lot 14, (subdivision may be required)), over which the Hampton School District has an easement for a travel lane also in accordance with said Article 43 from the 1988 Annual Town Meeting, both located on Academy Avenue; these conveyances are contingent upon the successful passage of the currently proposed bond issue for renovations to the Hampton Academy and the carrying out of that project, and are further to be made subject to a reverter of title to the Town of Hampton of said parcels should they no longer be needed by the Hampton School District for school purposes? (Majority vote required)

 What it means: There are two small parcels of land which are owned by the Town and which have been used by Hampton Academy since 1988 to provide a space for off-street bus loading and unloading. This Article authorizes the Board of Selectmen to deed the two parcels to the school. There is another Article on the SAU 90 ballot that authorizes SAU 90 to accept the transfer. If the voters approve this transaction, it would be contingent upon the Hampton Academy renovations being approved, and contingent upon the property being needed by the school going forward. If the school does not need it for school purposes in the future, the small parcels of land would revert to the town.

Those in favor say: The only speaker at Deliberative Session reinforced the fact that the SAU 90 bond request (on the school ballot) must pass in order for this Article to be acted upon.

Those against say: No one spoke against the concept at Deliberative Session.

 Fiscal Impact: No tax impact.

Shall the Town of Hampton vote to a mend Article II, Section 1 of Chapter 469 of the HamptonCode (the Disposal of Surplus Town Equipment and Materials Ordinance adopted under Article30 of the 2012 Annual Town Meeting) as follows:

Amend Chapter 469, Article II, Section 1. Exclusions, by adding the following language at the end of the list of Exclusions in this Section between the word “herein” and the period.

Surplus and no longer usable equipment or equipment containing scrap metals that can be sold to a metals or junk dealer by the Town for sums in excess of its auctionable value as determined by the Town Manager or his designee and approved by the Board of Selectmen? (Majority vote required)

 What it means: This allows the Selectmen to dispose of obsolete equipment as scrap, if that is more economical than auctioning the equipment.

Those in favor say: This provides another avenue to dispose of old equipment and is a sensible way to do it.

Those against say: No one spoke against this Article at Deliberative Session.

Fiscal Impact: No tax impact.

Shall the Town of Hampton vote to change the percentage distribution of Franchise Fees received from the Cable TV provider as voted under Article 16 of the 2013 Annual Town Meeting so that 100% (instead of 25%) of the funds received from the Franchise Fees are placed in the Hampton Cable TV Local Revolving Fund and are allowed to accumulate from year to year, and shall not be considered to be part of the Town’s unassigned fund balance in accordance with the provisions of RSA 31:95-h as previously voted? (Majority vote required)

 What it means: Since around the year 2000, there is a Cable Franchise Fee added to each cable customer’s bill to the tune of around 2.6%. This money is turned over to the Town. Around 25% of this money has historically been used to fund Channel 22 and the balance went to the General Fund to offset taxes. With the recent creation of Chanel 13 to support SAU 90, the Board of Selectmen felt that the percentage should be increased to around 40% to support technology acquisition and upkeep for both Channel 22 and Channel 13. At Deliberative Session, this percentage was changed from 40% to 100%.

Those in favor say: The rationale by those who changed the percentage was that the amount of the fee that was not dedicated to a specific purpose (historically the 75% that went to the General Fund) could be considered a tax, not something New Hampshire residents want to see. Those seeking to amend the Article from 40% to 100% felt that all of the money should be for a specific purpose, or else should not be collected at all.

Those against say: The franchise fee is equal to about $328,000 per year which is much more than needed to acquire and maintain technology for the two stations. Once that money is allocated to the Cable Fund, it cannot be touched for any other reason. If we want to reduce the amount of money collected via the Cable Franchise Fee (to avoid the “tax” issue), we need to wait for the current contract between Comcast and the Town of Hampton to expire, and negotiate different terms going forward. No one can change the fee prior to the contract expiration. In the meantime, to put that much money into the Cable Fund when it is not needed there does not make much sense.

Fiscal Impact: No tax impact.

Shall the Town of Hampton vote to change the title of the “Cemetery Burial Trust Fund” that was first created by Article 26 at the 1986 Town Meeting for the maintenance of Town owned cemeteries, to the “Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund,” and to confirm that currently, each Town Meeting has the authority to make expenditures from both the principal and the interest in said Fund (the interest from which is otherwise to be withdrawn annually and used for the maintenance of cemeteries) and to make changes in the terms of said Fund as needed? (2/3 vote required.)

 What it means: This fund was established in 1986 with $18,000. The fund’s current balance is over $500,000. The combination of deposits to the fund for burials, interest earned and capital appreciation is greater than the voter-approved withdrawals from the fund over the past 30 years. This Article seeks to confirm the ability of the voters at future Town Meetings to approve or disapprove specific proposals to withdraw from both principal and interest. The Article would also change the name of the fund to be more in keeping with its larger purpose (“maintenance” to encompass upkeep as well as burials). The required voting outcome was increased to a 2/3^rds majority at Deliberative Session because the Department of Revenue Administration thought it could be interpreted as a change of purpose.

Those in favor say: As long as the Town meets the maintenance & upkeep needs of the cemeteries, the voters should have the ability to approve withdrawals from the fund for specific purposes. Otherwise, the fund will continue to grow, while we accumulate bond debt for other projects.

Those against say: No one spoke against this Article at Deliberative Session.

Fiscal Impact: No tax impact.

Shall the Town of Hampton vote to distribute to the general fund all funds that were left in the Heritage Fund, currently amounting to approximately $5,329.58 plus any additional interest earned thereon, from past monies appropriated and gifts of money, which are no longer needed due to the abolition of the Heritage Commission as a result of the passage of Article 35 at the 2015 Annual Town Meeting? (Majority vote required)

What it means: Last year, voters approved the dissolution of the Heritage Committee. That group had a fund with a balance of $5329.58. This Article seeks to close that account, and transfer the balance into the general fund, thus reducing the amount needed to be raised by taxes for all other purposes approved via this Warrant.

Those in favor say: This is a common sense thing to do since the committee no longer exists. Where needed, DPW can continue to maintain the historical buildings.

Those against say: No one spoke against this Article at Deliberative Session.

Fiscal Impact: No tax impact.