Your Source For Unbiased Town Information
What it means: This adds language to the Dimensional Requirements, clarifying that building lot configuration and the existing minimum frontage requirements are separate regulatory standards. It was described at Deliberative Session as a “housekeeping” amendment.
No one spoke for or against this Article, except to explain it.
There is no direct tax impact.
What it means: This amendment to the ordinance specifically allows the selling of eggs from domesticated chickens, and adds clarifying language related to henhouse construction and design, and to the use and disposal of manure.
No one spoke for or against this Article, except to explain it.
There is no direct tax impact.
Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 7 as proposed by the Planning Board for the Hampton Zoning Ordinance as follows?
Amend the Zoning Ordinance to add new Article XIX-B, the “Liberty Lane Overlay District”, which includes the following sections: 19-B.1 stating the purpose of facilitating development of real property primarily accessed from Liberty Lane. 19-B.2 citing the boundary as consisting of any and all real property bounded between the New Hampshire Turnpike (Interstate 95) to the West, New Hampshire Route 101 to the East and North, and Towle Farm Road to the South.
19-B.3 stating that the dimensional requirements for the Liberty Lane Overlay District shall be the same as those provided for the underlying Industrial Zoning District but with respect to any residential use, the maximum number of units per structure shall not exceed 120. 19-B.4 citing the permitted uses to include Residential Dwelling Units: Single Family, Two-Family, and/or Multi-Family; Condominium; Outdoor recreation areas for picnicking and pet exercise; Retail Sales and Services; Restaurants; Business and Professional Offices; Personal Services Establishments; Hotels; Health Care Facilities; Health/Athletic Clubs; Private Schools; Light Manufacturing, including Research and Development; Electric Vehicle Charging Stations; and Accessory Uses. 19-B.5 requiring Site Plan Review. 19-B.6 requiring all uses to comply with the parking standards provided in Article VI of the Zoning Ordinance, requiring a minimum of one electric vehicle charging station for every 100 residential units, and requiring a minimum of one electric vehicle charging station for every 50,000 square feet of non-residential floor area. 19-B.7 requiring any development or redevelopment to be consistent with the purposes set forth in Section 19-B.1 and to be subject to the Architectural and Site Design Guidelines and other related requirements in the Town of Hampton Site Plan Review Regulations. 19-B.8 stating that signs shall be governed by the provisions of Article V of the Zoning Ordinance, shall adhere to the requirements for the Industrial District in Tables 1 and II of said Article V, and shall be subject to the Architectural and Site Design Guidelines and other related requirements in the Town of Hampton Site Plan Review Regulations.
Also, Amend Article III – Use Regulations to add a note cross referencing Section 19-B.4 for the Permitted Uses and Facilities in the Liberty Lane Overlay District.
What it means:This creates and provides details for a new Liberty Lane Overlay District that includes new uses other than industrial, to include residential, retail, services and other currently prohibited uses.
Those in favor say:No one spoke specifically in favor of the article, other than to clarify questions or concerns from the attendees about the intent of the Article (see below).
Those opposed say:There was concern expressed over the burden that might be placed on municipal services including sewer, police, fire, traffic, etc. To that point, it was explained that this is only expanding the allowed uses in the district. It is not the approval of any particular project, which would need to go before all the appropriate boards for a site review process. Further, recent projects on the west side of town have had to join a sewer agreement, whereby the transportation of sewage to the Transfer station is the responsibility of the sewer consortium, and there are restrictions on the amount of sewage that can be deposited.
One speaker said that the reason it was zoned industrial in the first place is that it provided a natural buffer for the residential areas from the noise of I95 traffic. By allowing residential development there, you remove that buffer and increase evening and weekend traffic.
What it means: This creates and provides details for a new Liberty Lane Overlay District that includes new uses other than industrial, to include residential, retail, services and other currently prohibited uses.
Those in favor say: No one spoke specifically in favor of the Article, other than to clarify questions or concerns from the attendees about the intent of the Article (see below).
Those opposed say: There were concerns about the burden that might be placed on municipal services including sewer, police, fire, traffic, etc. To that point, it was explained that this is only expanding the allowed uses in the district. It is not the approval of any particular project, which would need to go before all the appropriate boards for a site review process. Further, recent projects on the west side of town have had to join a sewer alliance, whereby the transportation of sewage to the Transfer station is the responsibility of the sewer consortium, and there are restrictions on the amount of sewage that can be deposited.
One speaker said the reason this area was zoned as industrial originally is that it provided a natural buffer for the residential areas from the noise of I-95 traffic. By allowing residential development, you remove that buffer and generally increase evening and weekend traffic in an area that is already congested at peak travel times.
No one spoke for or against this Article, except to explain it.
There is no direct tax impact.
What it means: In 2016, an investigation into the integrity of the Town-owned portion of the sea wall (“Bicentennial Sea Wall”) concluded that that portion of the wall was in structural failure and in need of emergency stabilization. In 2017, the emergency stabilization was carried out by the placement of rocks on the ocean side of the wall to help protect the wall from storms. In 2018, voters approved the expenditure for the design of the repair/replacement of the wall. Storms have continued to erode the wall and as sea water has made its way over the jersey barriers; the parking lot has also seen erosion. The Town has placed concrete barriers to protect the remaining portions of the wall and the resident parking. This Article requests the funds to contract for the reconstruction of the wall.
Because this is a bond Article, by state law it must receive a 3/5ths majority vote (60%).
Those in favor say: The Town-owned portion of the wall was constructed in the 1950’s and is 2 feet shorter than the State-owned portion of the wall. Because the wall is shorter, it allows more storm and tide surge to flood streets leading to the beach.The supporting structure of the wall is failing. The temporary emergency stabilization done in 2017 was not intended to be a permanent fix. With each storm, there is further erosion and ignoring this issue could lead to the eventual loss of the park and the associated parking lot.
Those against say: With current interest rates, the cost of a 25 year note or bond would exceed $5,000,000. During the same period, repairs would be needed to maintain the wall. More discussion is needed to determine if this project should be done now, considering the other flooding projects that also need attention.
Fiscal Impact: The 2023 estimated tax rate impact is $0.072 per $1,00 valuation. The bond is expected to be for a period up to 25-years.
What it means: The voters are presented with two possible budgets. The Proposed Operating Budget is what the Town departments feel they need to manage the Town efficiently and effectively. The Default Budget is the minimum budget allowed. The RSAs (New Hampshire state legislature) dictate certain costs that must be covered in the Town’s Budget* and that is what makes up the Default – the voters do not have a choice.
Both budgets for 2023 reflect the effects of the Warrant Articles approved by the last year, such as union agreements and infrastructure projects. Roughly 60% of the difference between the Proposed Operating Budget and the Default Budget is a result of increases in energy costs – gasoline for vehicles, electricity, heating, etc. Another major contributor is wage & benefit increases for non-union employees.
Compared to the 2022 adopted budget, the Default Budget represents a 9.7% increase and the Proposed Operating Budget represents a 13.8% increase. The Proposed Operating Budget includes items not allowed by the RSA to be included in the default budget.
*The default budget is regulated by RSA 40:13, and starts with the prior year’s approved budget, and is increased by obligations mandated by law, debt service, and contracts lawfully entered into, and is reduced by one-time expenditures, salaries and benefits of positions that have been eliminated since last year’s budget. The default budget will be the operating budget for the Town in the event the Proposed Operating Budget does not pass.
Those in favor say: The Town is unique as a prime tourist destination with pristine beaches that we all enjoy, but it also requires certain responsibilities other towns may not have. The Budget Committee receives input from all other Town Departments in meeting these anticipated responsibilities. The proposed operating budget reflects the police department’s shift from a combination of part-time police officers and State Police – to full-time staff and outside agencies.
Those opposed say: Those opposed stated that taxpayers are already negatively impacted by inflation as well as concerns over the possibility of a recession. There are concerns that the senior population of the Town would be driven out due to the high taxes. It was also noted that in past years, the Town ended up with a budgetary surplus, which would indicate that the default budget provides adequate funding for the Town’s needs, including unexpected overages.
Fiscal impact: The proposed operating budget impact is $1.096 per $1,000 valuation. The default budget impact is $0.752 per $1,000 valuation. For a home valued at $400,000 this means that the proposed budget will cost $438 more than last year in annual property taxes and the Default Budget will cost $300 more than last year, or a difference of $138. The number to use if you are calculating for your own property would be the difference between the two or .344 per thousand dollars of property valuation.
What it means: Engine 2, which the Town purchased as a 17-year-old vehicle in in 2017 to replace a 2002 engine that was lost to frame corrosion, would be replaced. When E2 was purchased, the plan was to run it for four years; it is now coming up on 6 years. If Article 11 is passed, the new engine would be delivered in mid-2024, roughly the same timing as the engine that was funded last year.
Those in favor say: One important factor in determining a town’s fire rating (and thus residential and business insurance rates) is the ability to deliver water in sufficient quantity to quickly extinguish a fire. Based on established criteria, Hampton needs (and theoretically has) four pumpers. Of the four, two are in excellent condition. Engine 3 is out of service, and a new one was ordered with funds approved by the voters last year.
The fourth pumper the Fire Department runs is a 2000 model year engine, acquired in 2017 with the goal of operating it through 2021. It is over its life expectancy, and has had issues. On several occasions, the department had to borrow a vehicle from Exeter because Engine 2 was out of commission. This is the engine that will be replaced if the voters approve Article 11.
Those against say: There was discussion about using the Unassigned Fund Balance, and how to properly advise the voters that the tax dollars were collected in previous years (as opposed to the term “no tax impact”.)
What it Means: Flood studies were done in 2018, funded by voter approval. As a result of those studies, recommendations were made to improve drainage. A subsequent grant in 2020 from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation allowed the Town to contract for a design to alleviate the flooding. That engineering design allowed the Town to apply for another grant sponsored by the NH Department of Environmental Services. Our grant bid was successful, and that funding will offset (by $2,000,000) the cost of constructing the proposed closed drainage system. If Article 12 passes, the remaining $800,000 cost will be paid for by a transfer from the Unassigned Fund Balance. Hence, there will be no need to raise new taxes to support this effort. Note that the improved drainage will alleviate (not eliminate) flooding.
Those in favor say: There are likely multiple factors at work with regard to the flooding in this area, but one definite issue is that the storm drains are not functioning. This causes flooding during average rain events. People are unable to get to or from their homes. That water does not subside for weeks in certain circumstances. In cold weather, that water freezes and causes mail to be undeliverable – among other safety issues and resident inconveniences. The proposed solution will not drain Meadow Pond, as some have questioned. It will collect water from storm events and pump it along Meadow Pond to the estuary where it can be naturally dispersed. This is the same path that the water now takes, ending up at the estuary on the south side of Winnacunnet Road. But rather than go through Meadow Pond, it will utilize a previously defunct pumping station to allow the water to be channeled with less damage as it progresses.
Those against say: Those who made negative comments about this Article were expressing frustration with the wording “no tax impact”. It was pointed out that the taxes were collected in prior years, so it really means “no additional tax impact in 2023”.
Fiscal impact: There is no new tax impact, because 71% of the funding will come from the state, and the remaining funds will come from the Unassigned Fund Balance, meaning previously collected tax revenue.
What it means: Establishing and funding a Capital Reserve Fund helps spread the cost of needed work over multiple years. With this fund, monies are saved for current and future maintenance and improvements to the roadways and associated sidewalks within the Town of Hampton. Approval is required by Town Meeting to use this Fund. The current value, without this appropriation and after the allocation of $500,000 towards the 2022 approved High Street Improvements project is $1,981,710. Projects that may be considered using funds from this reserve account could include, but are not limited to:
No one spoke for or against this Article at the Deliberative Session.
Fiscal impact: Cost per $1,000 valuation is $0.127. A household valued at $400,000 would see a tax increase of $50.80 for 2023. However, $300,000 was approved and was part of our 2022 tax bill. As a year-to-year comparison, this would increase the tax bill by .058 per $1,000 of valuation or $23.20 for a property valued at $400,000.
What it means: Hampton anticipates receiving a NH DOT Highway Grant that helps to maintain Class IV and Class V “highways” (basically compact sections of town roads). Funds are applied to specific projects identified by DPW and approved by the Board of Selectmen. Identifying projects is a fluid process, as many factors can affect priority and feasibility. However, the expected focus of these funds in 2023 includes Old Town Hall parking lot, St. Cyr and Falcone Circle, Roberts Drive, Warner Lane, Rosa Road and Donna Lane.
Those in favor say: This funding helps DPW improve roads that do not have extensive infrastructure issues, but do need of top-level repairs. The work helps to return roads to smooth working order. The cost is expected to be offset by a block grant from NH DOT.
Those against say: No one spoke against Article 14 at Deliberative Session.
Fiscal impact: Cost per thousand dollars of valuation is $0.077. A household valued at $400,000 will see a tax cost of $30.80 in 2023. A similar Article was passed last year, and was part of your tax bill. This year’s number is a little higher, so on a year-to-year basis the increase would be around $10 (as opposed to $30.80).