Shall the Town of Hampton vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $150,000 for the following purposes: install new flooring for the Tuck Building; install an irrigation system at Tuck Field; transition the inline rink to pickleball courts; and purchase other equipment and supplies for use of the Parks and Recreation Department; and to authorize the withdrawal of said sum of $150,000 from the Hampton Recreation Infrastructure Special Revenue Fund established for these purposes under Article 44 of the 2007 Annual Town Meeting. This shall be a non-lapsing appropriation per RSA 32:7, VI and shall not lapse until the upgrades are completed by March 31, 2027, whichever occurs sooner? (Majority vote required)

What it means: Every year, the needs of the Parks and Recreation Department are identified, and the voters need to approve withdrawal of the requested dollars from an established fund.

Those in favor say: The projects will contribute to a better recreational environment for the residents of our town, and the costs have been covered by revenue generated from Town Parking lots.  The Recreation Department does not have much of a maintenance budget, as it is anticipated that the funds will be withdrawn from this fund annually.  The ability to maintain the recreational environment of the Town depends on the passage of this Warrant Article.

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

Fiscal impact: There is no tax impact because the money will be taken from a separate fund put aside for this purpose.  This Article is allowing the withdrawal of the money from the fund.

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 modify and expand the definition of “Impervious Surface” to clarify that a deck is only considered pervious if it is not covered by a roof and is elevated a minimum of 6 feet off the ground, is constructed with planks not greater than 8 inches in width with a minimum ¼ inch space between each plank, and the area underneath remains entirely pervious (with no use as a storage area). Also, to further expand than 8 inches in width with a minimum ¼ inch space between each plank, and the area underneath remains entirely pervious (with no use as a storage area). Also, to further expand said definition to account for decks elevated a minimum of 3 feet off the ground, while providing further restrictions for decks above 160 square feet in size depending on whether they are within or outside of the Aquifer Protection District. Amend Article II – Districts. Sections 2.3.3 Wetlands Conservation District Permitted Uses to clarify that the replacement or repair of an existing deck is subject to the Building Inspector determining that it is elevated a minimum of 6 feet off the ground, is constructed with planks not greater than 8 inches in width with a minimum ¼ inch space between each plank, and the area underneath remains entirely pervious (with no use as a storage area).  

What it means: The Planning Department is suggesting clear definitions to help homeowners understand the requirements when a “pervious surface” is called for on a project.j. Specifically, it addresses requirements for a deck to be considered “pervious”.

No one spoke for or against this article at the Deliberative Session, other than to explain it.

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 Definitions to add a definition for “Condominium” stating that it means real property as defined in RSA 356-B:3 of the Condominium Act, and further stating that, for purposes of Planning Board approval, separate condominiums governed under the umbrella of a Master Condominium Association or similar arrangement, or which share infrastructure (such as driveways, utilities, and the like) shall be considered one condominium regardless of whether they are located on separate lots. Additionally, to amend the definition of “Dwelling Unit, Multi-Family” to clarify that this includes any condominium consisting of 3 or more dwelling units irrespective of the number of buildings or lots involved. Amend Article VIII – Multi-Family Dwellings. Section 8.1.4 to clarify that said Article applies to any condominium consisting of 3 or more dwelling units irrespective of the number of buildings or lots involved, with exemptions for condominium conversions of pre-existing non-conforming uses or structures.  

What it means: The Planning Department is providing clarification on what constitutes a “Condominium” and further clarification as it relates to “Multi-Family Dwelling”.

No one spoke for or against this article at the Deliberative Session, other than to explain it.

 

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 II – Districts, Section 2.3 – Wetlands Conservation District. Modify Section 2.3.4 to rename it “Restricted Uses, Prohibited Uses, and Other Standards” and to reorganize the language so that it will be easier to follow while remaining substantively consistent with current practice. Modify Section 2.3.5 – Wetlands Permits to make the existing language easier to follow, and to clarify that when a variance is granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment to allow a prohibited use, the approval of a Wetlands Permit by the Planning Board may also be required. Add Section 2.3.7.I to clarify that any variance requests must be submitted to the Zoning Board of Adjustment in accordance with Section 1.4 of the Hampton Zoning Ordinance.  

What it means: The Planning Department is clarifying and re-organizing the information while keeping requirements under the Ordinance mostly the same as they have been.

No one spoke for or against this article at the Deliberative Session, other than to explain it.

 

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

Amend Article III – Use Regulations. Add New Section 3.17a to allow the keeping of domesticated chickens (with Building Department approval) in the RAA, RA, RB, and G zoning districts only. A cross-reference to a new Article XX is also included. Add New Article XX – Keeping of Domesticated Chickens to provide a purpose statement and a detailed set of standards involving permitted locations (minimum 10,000 square foot residentially used lots in the RAA, RA, RB, and G zoning districts only), the number and type of chickens permitted (up to eight chickens and no roosters), use limitations (personal use only by the resident owner of the dwelling), and requirements for henhouses and fenced areas. Also, re-number existing Article XX (to XXI), existing Article XXI (to XXII), and existing Article XXII (to XXIII) to accommodate the proper insertion of New Article XX. 

What it means: Currently, the keeping of chickens is not allowed.  This Ordinance would set out the parameters for domestic (not commercial) raising of chickens, thus allowing it with certain restrictions.

No one spoke for or against this article at the Deliberative Session, other than to explain it.

 

Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 7 as proposed by the Board of Selectmen for the Hampton Zoning Ordinance as follows?

Amend the Zoning Ordinance to add new Article XIX-A, the “Interstate Corridor Overlay District”, which includes the following sections: 19-A.1 stating the purpose of facilitating development of real property exclusively accessed from Interstate 95. 19- A.2 citing the boundary as having frontage upon Interstate 95 south of its intersection with Towle Farm Road, lying within 1,000 feet of the centerline of said portion of Interstate 95, and having State of New Hampshire owned and exclusive points of entrance and egress (notwithstanding secondary emergency access) to and from Interstate 95. 19-A.3 stating that the dimensional requirements for the Interstate Corridor Overlay District shall be the same as those provided for the underlying General (G) Zoning District. 19-A.4 citing permitted uses to include retail sales, restaurants, emergency response roadside vehicle repair, passenger vehicle filling stations, electric vehicle charging stations, visitor/welcome centers with restroom facilities, outdoor recreation areas for picnicking and pet exercise, and higher education information kiosks. 19-A.5 requiring Site Plan Review. 19-A.6 requiring a 50-foot-wide vegetative buffer and/or sound mitigating buffer to be maintained on site between any building or improvement that is undertaken in this zone and the property line of any abutting residentially improved lot. 19-A.7 prohibiting the overnight parking and/or idling of large commercial vehicles. Also, amend Article III – Use Regulations to add Note (8) cross referencing Section 19-A.4 for the Permitted Uses and Facilities in the Interstate Corridor Overlay District. 

What it means: This Article is to establish an Interstate Corridor Overlay District.  It was brought forth by the New Hampshire Liquor Commission and sponsored by the Board of Selectmen, relative to the State-owned property (currently the rest stop areas on both sides of I 95). The state of NH has wide latitude in terms of what can be done there.  The State has intentions of re-developing and possibly selling portions of the properties.  This Article would allow the Town of Hampton a voice in the permitted uses of the properties to include retail sales, restaurants, emergency response roadside vehicle repair, passenger vehicle filling stations, electric vehicle charging stations, visitor/welcome centers with restroom facilities, outdoor recreation areas for picnicking and pet exercise, and higher education information kiosks. 

Click to enlarge.  (Courtesy: NH Liquor Commission)

Those in favor say: By approving this Article, the Town of Hampton would have a voice in development even though the State owns the property. Approval would allow Hampton to work with the State in structuring allowed redevelopment plans.   Should the State sell any portions of the property, the uses of the property would be restricted to those included in the Article.  If not approved, the State would be able to move forward without Town involvement.  Any portions sold by the State would become taxable property by the Town.

Those opposed say: Although no one spoke against this Article, there were concerns regarding the wastewater flow impact on the Town.  Future development impacts on Town resources were also discussed, and it was noted that those would be offset by the additional tax revenue generated by the development.

There is no direct tax impact.