Waterville Valley, NH – The Planning Board met on May 14, 2026, to address a wide-ranging agenda including compliance with New Hampshire’s Right-to-Know law (RSA 91-A), proposed changes to remote meeting participation, updates on the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), and ongoing revisions to the town’s landscaping, architectural, and parking ordinances. The meeting underscored the board’s commitment to clear, enforceable regulations and increased transparency in town governance.
RSA 91-A Compliance for Working Groups
The meeting opened with a detailed discussion on the requirements of RSA 91-A, New Hampshire’s Right-to-Know law, as it applies to Planning Board working groups and subcommittees (link). Town Counsel clarified that any group conducting substantive business related to the Planning Board’s functions — regardless of its size — must comply with public meeting requirements. This includes providing at least 24 hours’ public notice posted in two locations (such as the town website and post office), publishing an agenda, taking minutes, and making those minutes accessible to the public within five business days (link).
The discussion highlighted a past misconception that groups smaller than a quorum were exempt from the law, emphasizing that RSA 91-A focuses on the substance of discussions, not the number of participants. As a practical example, it was noted that the Municipal Solid Waste Committee had previously failed to notice its meetings; recommendations were subsequently approved by the Select Board with little public discussion, leading to complaints from residents who had not known the meetings were taking place (link). The Board agreed that all working groups must adhere to these transparency requirements. The Chair offered to circulate a decision flowchart from the New Hampshire Municipal Association (NHMA) to all members to assist with compliance (link). The Board also agreed to incorporate a summary of RSA 91-A requirements — including meeting notice, agenda, and minutes obligations — into the Planning Board’s rules and procedures.
Remote Meeting Participation Policy Amended
A significant portion of the meeting was devoted to amending the Planning Board’s rules and procedures governing remote attendance for both members and the public (link). The Chair proposed stricter in-person attendance requirements, citing NHMA guidance and the Select Board’s existing policy of not permitting remote participation by absent members. The initial proposal would have limited member Zoom participation to “extenuating or emergency situations,” with alternates seated to replace members absent for discretionary reasons such as vacation or personal travel (link). The Chair argued that remote participation is cumbersome, disruptive to meeting flow, and disconnected from the in-person dynamic.
The discussion drew a range of views. Some members expressed concern that an overly strict policy could discourage community volunteerism, and suggested that a member participating remotely without voting rights — while an alternate holds the vote — might be a workable middle ground. Others argued for a clear bright-line rule to eliminate ambiguity entirely.
After extended debate, the Board voted on an amended motion. The final amended motion states that if a member is absent for any reason, they will be replaced by an alternate who assumes full voting authority (link). The motion passed, eliminating remote participation for voting members entirely. The Board also voted to end public Zoom participation, directing the public to observe meetings via the town’s YouTube channel (link). An exception was noted: the board may still invite specific individuals to participate via Zoom when their in-person attendance is not feasible and their participation has been requested by the board. Town Counsel was asked to draft updated language for the rules and procedures for review at the next meeting.
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Update
The Board received an update on the Capital Improvement Program, which serves as an advisory committee to the Planning Board under RSA 674:5 (link). The Interim Town Manager expressed support for the CIP’s work, noting that earlier Planning Board involvement in the CIP process helps the administration prepare the town’s budget. CIP committee members present reported that the group has been working to accelerate its schedule, with the goal of holding a public hearing and delivering recommendations to the Select Board earlier in the budgeting cycle — aiming for summer or early fall (link).
The CIP is also undertaking a broader overhaul of its process, including evaluating its role in recommending funding allocation mechanisms — such as general taxation, Capital Reserve Funds (CRFs), revolving funds, and enterprise funds — which has not been a standard part of its work in the past (link). The committee has been reviewing CIP approaches from other New Hampshire municipalities to inform its own process. The Interim Town Manager confirmed active participation in CIP discussions, acknowledging the town manager’s responsibility for the overall budget. Expanding CIP membership was discussed as a potential future step, with consensus to focus on current priorities before adding new members.
Landscaping and Screening Regulations Update
A working group presented a draft overhaul of the Landscaping and Screening sections of the town’s site plan review regulations (link). The draft, prepared with technical assistance from North Country Council, proposes replacing the existing Sections 7G and 9D with performance-based standards that provide clear, objective criteria rather than subjective language. Key elements of the draft include:
- Headlight Buffering: New requirements for headlight buffering on the edges of parking lots (link).
- Definitions: Clarified definitions for terms including “buffer,” “disturbed area,” “healthy condition,” “impervious surface,” and “invasive species,” with references to authoritative external sources (link).
- Water Body Buffers: Specific vegetative buffer requirements for perennial streams, brooks, rivers, and ponds — including Corcoran Pond — with a 30-foot minimum buffer width and provisions for stricter state or federal standards to take precedence (link).
- Noise Mitigation: A framework for using landscaping as a noise mitigation tool, requiring that noise exceeding typical residential levels beyond a property line be identified and documented, including hours and duration (link).
- Parking Lot Landscaping: A requirement of one minimum six-foot shade tree for every eight parking spaces in lots of ten or more spaces, with provisions for snow storage areas to prevent damage to required plantings (link).
- Tree Preservation: Requirements to preserve trees measuring 12 inches or more in diameter at 4.5 feet above ground to the maximum extent practicable, as determined by the Planning Board. Plantings must be hardy to USDA Hardiness Zones 4 and 5 and tolerant of local snow load and salt exposure conditions (link).
The Board discussed grandfathering provisions, confirming that the new standards would apply to new construction and to projects that disturb more than 10,000 square feet or increase impervious surface by 25% or more. Board members agreed to submit individual written feedback to the working group by Thursday, May 21. The working group will then incorporate comments, meet once more, and forward the revised draft to legal counsel for review. A public hearing is anticipated for June or July, with a Planning Board vote on adoption expected in July or August (link).
Architectural Standards Update
A second working group provided a brief update on the development of new architectural standards (link). The group’s approach is to establish clear, performance-based regulations focused on how buildings interact with the environment — rather than prescribing specific architectural styles. Draft standards include strengthened scenic and ridgeline protections, as well as objective color regulation based on Light Reflective Value (LRV), which limits the brightness of exterior colors without dictating specific hues (link). The working group planned to review its first full draft immediately following the Planning Board meeting. Any resulting zoning ordinance amendments would need to be ready for the fall town meeting cycle.
Parking Ordinance Rewrite Proposed
The Board Chair presented a case for a complete rewrite of the town’s parking ordinance, citing its current contradictory and ambiguous provisions (link). The existing ordinance allows parking to be provided either on the same lot as the use, on adjacent lots under unified ownership, or through shared parking arrangements — without defining the limits of those arrangements. This ambiguity makes it difficult for the Planning Board to assess parking demand with the specificity needed to reach a defensible decision.
Using a calculation prepared by Town Counsel based on current Town Square businesses, the Board was shown that the spaces required under the existing ordinance table total approximately 462, while the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) methodology yields approximately 508 spaces — both figures exceeding what is available in the designated west side lot (link).
The Chair proposed eliminating the shared parking concept from the ordinance and replacing it with precise, ITE-based definitions for each category of user, enabling the Board to assess any new applicant’s parking demand as an additional increment on top of already-enumerated demand. The goal is to allow the Board to reach calculated, well-supported decisions that would withstand legal challenge (link). The Board expressed broad support for overhauling the parking ordinance, with a working group — currently consisting of a board member and the chair — tasked with leading the rewrite in collaboration with Town Counsel.
Tiny Homes Legislation Update
The Board received an informational update on New Hampshire House Bill 1681, which could affect local authority over tiny homes (link). As currently drafted, the bill establishes state standards for innovative housing structures — including tiny houses, tiny houses on wheels, and yurts — while leaving adoption to municipal discretion. However, the Senate is considering an amendment that would change the operative word from “may” to “shall,” which would require municipalities to allow tiny homes as permanent residences, provided they are secured to a permanent foundation and connected to town services. If the “shall” language is adopted, the town would need to amend its zoning ordinances accordingly. No action was taken; the Board noted it will continue to monitor the bill’s progress.
Code Enforcement Updates and Approval Conditions
The code enforcement update addressed conditions attached to previously approved projects and the challenges of enforcing them (link). The enforcement process — from initial verbal notice through written notice, attorney involvement, and potential court action — was described as painstakingly slow, often spanning several months from first contact to resolution (link).
Specific examples discussed included an ongoing dark sky ordinance violation at a hotel involving a light attached to a railing, and a pickleball court fence that did not fully meet verbal commitments made during the approval process. In the latter case, it was clarified that because the fencing commitment appeared in the findings of fact rather than as a formal condition of approval, there was no enforceable mechanism to compel compliance — a lesson the Board acknowledged as a reason to ensure conditions are written with precision and specificity (link).
The Chair reiterated that while code enforcement authority rests with the Select Board, it is the Planning Board’s responsibility to set clear, specific conditions at the time of approval so that future enforcement is straightforward. The Board emphasized the goal of getting approvals right the first time to minimize the need for after-the-fact enforcement.
A board member proposed adding language to site plan applications stating that errors of commission or omission of material fact could result in penalties up to and including revocation of an approved permit (link). The Board agreed to forward this concept to Town Counsel for review, with a reference to RSA 676:4-a as a potential existing basis for such authority.
SE Group Recommendations
The Board briefly acknowledged a report from the SE Group, a consulting firm with experience advising resort communities. The Chair noted that many of the group’s recommendations — particularly regarding architectural standards, landscaping regulations, and dark sky ordinance clarity — are already being addressed through the Board’s ongoing working group efforts. The SE Group’s report will remain on the agenda for future discussion.
Conservation Commission Report and Snow’s Brook Remediation
A Conservation Commission representative reported that the commission is meeting on the third Thursday of each month. The commission confirmed that funding is secured and plans are finalized for the Snow’s Brook sediment remediation project upstream of Corcoran Pond. Work is expected to be completed by the end of summer (link).
Adventure Zone Update
The code enforcement officer provided a brief update on the Outdoor Adventure Zone construction project. Site clearing has begun and the area has been fenced. A performance bond has been submitted and is under legal review, with one outstanding language item remaining. Foundation and grading plans have been submitted, though that phase of construction has not yet commenced. Staff indicated they are in regular contact with the developer and that the developer has been responsive to questions and concerns. The board confirmed that conditions attached to the project approval — including documentation of trees to be preserved — are being actively monitored.
The next Planning Board meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, June 11, at 8:30 AM.