We the undersigned residents and registered voters of the Town of Hampton, New Hampshire petition the Board of Selectmen to place on the Warrant for the March 2017 Annual Town Meeting the following article:

Shall the Town of Hampton vote in accordance with the provisions of RSA 32:14 to abolish the Budget Committee, (a/k/a) the Municipal Budget Committee, and to rescind the Town’s prior acceptance of RSA 32 to that extent? (Majority vote required). 

What it means: The town would no longer have a Municipal Budget Committee. All financial details would come from the Finance Director and the Board of Selectmen.

Those in favor say: A tremendous amount of time is invested by Town Employees and by members of our Boards and Committees going through the process of establishing the budgets and having them reviewed and double-checked within the hierarchy of Town Hall, and then separately going through the same process via the Budget Committee. All of the numbers and comparisons are publicly available, and anyone can ask questions as part of the budgeting process. According to the proponents of this Article, the Municipal Budget Committee is redundant.

Those against say: The Town needs the review and counter-balance provided by the Municipal Budget Committee. As the process of weaning down the number committee members continues, the Committee should become more efficient.

Fiscal Impact: No tax impact.

We, the undersigned residents of Hampton, Petition the Town of Hampton to place on the warrant the request to see if the Town will vote to release and remove deed restriction #3 (BK.2534 PG 1449 to 1452) as to the premises located at #11 O Street (Tax Map 293/174/1) owned by Edwin M Rooney in order to allow the installation of a higher ornamental fence, no more than six-feet high. Deed restriction #3 reads as follows, “No fences may be erected upon said premises other than ornamental fences of no more that a three foot height.” Further to authorize and direct the Town Clerk to execute and deliver to the lot owners for recording a notice of this vote at the Rockingham Registry of Deeds, at no cost to the Town. (Majority vote required).

What it means: This is another example of a home built on land that was previously leased by the town and later sold with certain restrictions. If Article 33 passes, this type of Warrant Article will not be required in the future, because requests for releasing the deed restrictions will be handled by the various boards in town, and approved by the Board of Selectmen. In this case, the homeowners are asking for the option to install a fence that will be no more than 6 feet high (current restriction is 3 feet).

Those in favor say: There was not much discussion on either side of this topic.

Fiscal Impact: No tax impact.

On petition of Michael Pierce, Mary-Louise Woolsey and at least 25 other registered voters:

Shall we adopt the provisions of RSA 40:14-b to delegate the determination of the default budget to the municipal budget committee which has been adopted under RSA 32:14? (3/5ths vote required).

What it means: Rather than the current system of the default budget being calculated by employees in Town Hall and put forward by the Board of Selectmen, the default budget would be calculated and put forward by the Municipal Budget Committee. The default budget is defined by New Hampshire statutes as the operating budget from the prior year, adjusted up or down as appropriate for contractual obligations and removing one-time expenses. Whichever body calculates the default budget, it must meet that definition.

Those in favor say: A member of the Budget Committee said that in reviewing the budget he thought that some of the numbers were in error (ITKH note: examples were not provided, so this statement has not been verified.) Another speaker who is a former budget committee member stated that the term “contractual obligations” might be subject to interpretation.

Those against say: There does not seem to be a clear reason to change what we have been doing successfully for 20 years now. The Board of Selectmen, backed up by the Finance Director, calculate the numbers that are defined by the RSAs.

Fiscal Impact: No tax impact.

On the petition of Experience Hampton, and at least 25 Hampton registered voters, shall the Town of Hampton vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $300,000 for preliminary design services for the reconstruction of Lafayette Road from the area near the intersection of High Street south toward Winnacunnet Road? The design services would include street, sidewalk, utility, and lighting improvements for the downtown Hampton Village in an effort to revitalize the downtown. The preliminary design would be used to support a future project that has the potential to be funded by the Road Improvement Capital Reserve Fund created under Article 16 of the 1998 Annual Town Meeting in accordance with the provisions of RSA 35 for the purpose of maintenance and/or reconstruction of streets. Said appropriation to be offset by a donation by Experience Hampton, estimated to be no less than $30,000.

This article is contingent upon the donation of no less than $30,000 from Experience Hampton, and the donations’ acceptance by the Board of Selectmen.

This shall be a non-lapsing appropriation per RSA 32:7, VI and shall not lapse until the project is completed or by March 31, 2018, whichever occurs sooner? (Majority vote required)

 

What it means: This funding would allow design work to be done that would be the basis for costing, permitting and bidding work to follow. According to one of the official speakers for Experience Hampton at the Deliberative Session, they would not look to the Town to fund the work itself. They are looking to the voters to approve this design work ($30,000 to be contributed by Experience Hampton and $300,000 to be contributed via one-time taxation), but then the actual transformation of the downtown area would be accomplished via grants or other funding.

Those in favor say: This will be a public-private partnership whereby Experience Hampton will work with the town to beautify the downtown area. It is similar to the work done down at the beach by the State a few years ago, in that the initial improvements were followed by private money that has uplifted the area. According to the Experience Hampton speaker, this is the only aspect of the project that they are asking for the town to fund via new taxation; it was stated at Deliberative session that the initial funding will plans to be developed that in turn will make it possible to raise all further funding via grants or existing funds.

 Those against say: There was concern expressed about parking in the downtown area (whether any spots would be lost) and about the businesses who are driving this project. Those associated with the project responded that they are committed to not losing any parking spots.

Fiscal Impact: The average Hampton home valued at $404,000 would bear an increased tax of $36.76, which would be a one-time tax impact.

Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 1 as proposed by the Planning Board for the Hampton Zoning Ordinance as follows?

Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 1 as proposed by the Planning Board for the Hampton Zoning Ordinance as follows?

Amend Article I – General. Section 1.6 Definitions to add a definition for “Accessory Dwelling Unit”.

Amend Article III – Use Regulations. Section 3.1 to provide that a single-family dwelling may only include one accessory dwelling unit, subject to the requirements of other applicable Articles of the Zoning Ordinance.

Add New Article III-A – Accessory Dwelling Units to Single-Family Dwellings which includes new sections addressing the following: Location and Quantity, Permits Required, Provisions for Living Facilities, Occupancy Requirements, Site Location and Size, Provisions for Water Supply and Sewage Disposal, Dimensional Requirements, Sprinkler Systems, Condominium Conversion, Impact Fees, and Removal of an Accessory Dwelling Unit.

Amend Article VI – Parking. Section 6.3 – Parking Requirements to specify that the parking requirements for dwelling units under 6.3.1 shall also apply to accessory dwelling units.

Amend Article VII – Exterior Design. Sections 7.1 and 7.5 to add reference to accessory dwelling units attached to single-family dwellings, and to add New Section 7.8 to provide exterior design requirements specific to accessory dwelling units that are added to a single-family dwelling.

What it means: This Article was prepared in response to Senate Bill 146, which was signed into law in March, 2016. Any community that has not adopted zoning for ADU’s by June 1, 2017 must allow an attached ADU in any single-family zoning district with only a Building Permit. There would be no local standards for ADUs. The proposed Article provides the necessary local safeguards and consistency with other town requirements via a definition of ADUs, related modified allowances for parking and exterior design, and specific local requirements for the permitting and construction of ADUs.

Those in favor say: This Article provides for local safeguards and planning stipulations consistent with those for other structures in Hampton. ADUs will be allowed with or without these standards, so creating the standards will enable Hampton to ensure that ADUs fit the flavor of Hampton neighborhoods.

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

Fiscal Impact: No tax impact.

Article 3: Zoning – Definitions of “Lot Area” and “Percentage of Impervious Coverage”

Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 2 as proposed by the Planning Board for the Hampton Zoning Ordinance as follows?

Amend Article I – General, Section 1.6 to add definitions of “Lot Area” and “Percentage of Impervious Coverage”.

Amend Article IV – Dimensional Requirements, Sections 4.8, 4.8a, and 4.8b to replace references to “sealed surface” with “Percentage of Impervious Coverage” for consistency purposes.

What It Means: This Article provides guidance for the calculation of impervious coverage. The proposed definition of “Lot Area” clarifies that wetlands and poorly or very poorly drained soils are excluded. The proposed definition of “Percentage of Impervious Coverage” includes a formula to perform the calculation: Percentage of Impervious Coverage = (Total Area of Impervious Surfaces ÷ “Lot Area”) X 100. General consistency changes are also included under Article IV – Dimensional Requirements in the Ordinance.

ITKH note: The allowed percentage of impervious coverage is an existing component part of Hampton’s ordinances. This Article provides more clarity for the definitions.

Those in favor say: This is a ‘house keeping’ Warrant Article that provides information about, and will ensure consistency in the calculation of impervious coverage.

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

 Fiscal Impact: No tax impact.

Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 3 as proposed by the Planning Board for the Hampton Zoning Ordinance as follows?

Amend Article I – General, Section 1.6 to replace the current definitions of “Parking Area” and “Parking Lot” with one consolidated definition titled “Parking Lot”, to include legally designated areas of a public street within the definition of “Parking Space”, and to make minor changes to the definition of “Stacked Parking” for consistency purposes.

Amend Article III – Use Regulations, Section 3.26a to remove “and/or Parking Areas” for consistency purposes.

Amend Article VI – Parking, Section 6.4 (Parking Lots and/or Parking Areas) to remove “and/or Parking Area(s)” for consistency purposes, and to clarify the parking lot requirement under 6.4.6.

 What It Means: The current definitions of “Parking Lot” and “Parking Area” have resulted in confusion, and are proposed to be replaced with one revised definition of “Parking Lot.” Additionally, an existing reference to “legally-designated” areas of a public street will be moved to the “Parking Space” definition, and minor consistency changes to the definition of “Stacked Parking” are proposed. All references to Parking Area(s) have been removed from the Zoning Ordinance for consistency purposes, and outdated language in Article IV – Parking has been clarified.

Those In Favor Say: This is a “house keeping” Warrant Article, designed to add clarity to the references to places to park in the ordinances.

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

Fiscal Impact: No tax impact.

Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 4 as proposed by the Planning Board for the Hampton Zoning Ordinance as follows?

Delete Article II – Districts. Section 2.4 Special Flood Hazard Area in its entirety and replace with New Section 2.4 Floodplain Management Ordinance. The new Floodplain Management Ordinance includes a purpose statement, definitions, language regarding authority and applicability, administrative provisions, floodplain administrator designation and responsibility, permitting requirements, floodplain development requirements, specifications for flood elevation determination, structure requirements, requirements for detached accessory structures, requirements for coastal high hazard areas, and procedure for variances and appeals.

Amend Article IV – Dimensional Requirements. Table II, Section 4.4 Maximum number of stories/feet and the Footnotes to add a New Footnote 33 specifying the maximum height (in feet) may be exceeded by not more than one foot where the lowest floor of a structure is required to be elevated.

Delete Article XI – Construction Provisions. Section 11.6 Floodplain Development Regulations in its entirety (these regulations are incorporated under the proposed New Section 2.4.)

Recommended by the Planning Board

What it means: This Article deletes current Zoning Ordinance Sections 2.4 and 11.6 and replaces those sections with new language under Section 2.4. This new language is largely based on the State’s model Floodplain Ordinance. Most of the current requirements will remain unchanged, although there are some differences in the wording. The substantive changes include: providing Administrative Provisions, organizing the floodplain development standards by type of development rather than repeating for each floodplain zone, outlining Building Permit application requirements, elevating new or substantially improved structures by one foot above the base flood elevation, and providing standards for detached accessory structures.

Those in favor say: For the most part, these are housekeeping and organizational updates. One change of note is that for every foot above base flood elevation a structure is built, it can add a foot of height, even if it puts the structure above the standard height limitation.

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

Fiscal Impact: No tax impact.

Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 5 as proposed by the Planning Board for the Hampton Zoning Ordinance as follows?

Amend Article II – Districts, Section 2.5.6 B (Administration) of the Aquifer Protection District Ordinance to state that all variance requests shall be considered by the Zoning Board of Adjustment in accordance with Section 1.4 of the Hampton Zoning Ordinance, to require the Zoning Board of Adjustment to notify the Aquarion Water Company of New Hampshire, or its successor of any application in the Aquifer Protection District requiring a public hearing in the same manner as it notifies abutters, and to specify that the applicant is to provide the required notification fee. 

What it means: The Zoning Board of Adjustment would be required to notify the Aquarion Water Company of New Hampshire, or its successor of any application in the Aquifer Protection District requiring a public hearing in the same manner as it notifies abutters. It also states that the applicant is to provide the required notification fee for this purpose. Further, the Article includes general clarification that all variance requests are considered in accordance with Section 1.4 of the Zoning Ordinance.

Those in favor say: This ensures that Aquarion (or its successor) is notified in advance of any zoning variance request in the Aquifer Protection Zone so they can have an opportunity to comment on potential impact to the wells that supply the Town’s water.

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

Fiscal Impact: No tax impact.

Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 6 as proposed by the Planning Board for the Hampton Zoning Ordinance as follows?

Amend Article IV – Dimensional Requirements, Table II – Footnote 2 to replace the existing language regarding vegetation on corners with revised language for corner lots. The revised language establishes a triangular area that is to remain free from obstruction, specifies that no structure other than a building constructed in accordance with the minimum setback requirements or a legal pre-existing building shall be located on the private property within the triangular area, and also specifies that vegetation within the triangular area shall be maintained at a height not to exceed three (3) feet, as measured from the edge of pavement or curbing, so as to afford adequate sight distance at the corner. The revised language further specifies that walls and fences within the triangular area are subject to the same three (3) foot maximum height requirement as vegetation.

 

 

 What it means: The revised language for this Article establishes a triangular area that is to remain free from obstruction so that drivers and pedestrians can see around corners for safety reasons.

Those in favor say: This Article adds clarity to the height and setback requirements for buildings and vegetation on corner lots to best provide good and safe sight lines.

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

Fiscal Impact: No tax impact.