WATERVILLE VALLEY, NH – The Planning Board convened a special meeting on September 29, 2026, to gather public comment on proposed amendments to the landscape section of the town’s site plan review regulations. The Board’s stated objective is to establish clear, measurable standards for landscaping to ensure long-term aesthetic quality and to address past disappointments with post-development site appearance (link).
The Board noted that existing regulations were often vague and insufficient, leading to dissatisfaction among residents and taxpayers regarding the visual outcome of recent projects. The proposed revisions aim to provide uniformly applied, enforceable standards for all future developments (link).
Resort Management Raises Concerns
Tim Smith, General Manager of Waterville Valley Resort, presented a written document outlining concerns that the proposed regulations, while well-intentioned, could create unintended constraints on development — particularly within the limited commercial (C1) core of Waterville Valley (link).
The document noted that the draft regulations appeared to draw substantially from landscaping standards used by Durham, Hanover, and large-format retail, while communities such as Conway, Meredith, and Jackson — which share characteristics of a tourism economy and constrained commercial land — may offer more relevant comparisons.
Key areas of concern included:
- Snow Storage: The draft prohibits required landscaping areas from also being used for snow storage, which could significantly reduce usable land on constrained commercial sites. The analysis presented estimated that on a 100-space parking lot, storing just one foot of accumulated snow could consume space equivalent to approximately four to six parking spots (link).
- Tree Provision: The proposed site-wide standard for tree provision, based on what is “practicable” without considering cost or convenience, could conflict with building placement, parking, and overall development density. Requirements for inventorying large trees and replacing them upon removal were noted as exceeding what was found in the comparable communities reviewed (link).
- Open Space Language: The draft states that open space “may not be fragmented,” raising questions about whether perimeter landscaping strips and parking islands would count toward the 20% open space requirement in C1 zoning. If they do not, it could effectively create two separate land requirements — one for consolidated open space and another for required landscaping — further limiting developable area (link).
- Cumulative Impact: Tim Smith emphasized that individual requirements, while seemingly reasonable in isolation, compound when combined with other regulations — setbacks, parking, stormwater, utilities, and building requirements — potentially leaving minimal buildable area on C1 parcels (link). He urged the Board to model the practical impacts of applying all requirements simultaneously to actual C1 parcels, and to identify where flexibility or less restrictive alternatives might be appropriate.
Board Discussion on Flexibility and Enforcement
Board members acknowledged the need for clear standards to avoid past issues where requirements for “adequate landscaping” proved unenforceable. They highlighted several provisions within the proposed regulations that preserve Planning Board flexibility, including the ability to approve alternate designs that meet regulatory intent, grant waivers for unnecessary hardship under RSA 674:44, and approve alternative parking lot landscaping designs that achieve equivalent outcomes (link).
One board member, speaking from a background in landscape ecology and horticulture, offered substantive support for the stricter draft standards. She explained that separating snow storage from landscaping areas is important to prevent harm to plants from salt and physical damage, which could otherwise create additional replacement costs for developers (link). She noted that the draft document was developed with significant care and reflected close observation of plant performance in Waterville Valley. She also argued that clear, detailed guidelines with built-in Board flexibility are preferable to vague standards open to interpretation, adding that more restrictive guidelines with the option to grant exceptions are preferable to overly permissive standards (link).
Tim Smith expressed concern that an over-reliance on waivers and variances could deter developers, making the town appear unwelcoming to investment. He stressed the importance of finding a balance between defined standards and practical application to encourage development in the C1 core (link).
The Board also debated the value of upfront, defined regulations versus relying on conditions attached to individual approvals. Members noted that the failure to specify detailed conditions on past approvals had contributed to the landscaping shortfalls that prompted this revision effort — and that clear standards benefit both the Board and applicants by establishing expectations in advance.
The discussion touched on several specific provisions:
- Vegetative Screening: A board member questioned the feasibility of requiring evergreen plantings to be installed at 80% of their intended mature height, noting that some evergreens in the valley reach 40 to 60 feet, making the transplanting of appropriately sized specimens impractical and costly. The revised draft had already reduced this requirement to 50% of mature height (link).
- Parking Lot Design: The regulation limiting consecutive parking spaces to 20 without interruption by a landscaped island, pedestrian connection, stormwater feature, or other approved design element was debated. Tim Smith used the Conference Center parking lot as a concrete example, noting that the lot contains well more than 20 consecutive spaces and that applying this standard upon any qualifying expansion could create parking shortfalls. A board member responded that such measures help prevent large, unbroken expanses of pavement and mitigate urban heat island effects (link) (link).
- Noise Studies: The inclusion of a provision allowing the Board to request noise studies was questioned. Board members explained that landscaping — including berms, plantings, fencing, and building orientation — can serve as a noise buffer, and that the provision was added after a prior application raised noise concerns that the Board had no regulatory basis to address. Tim Smith’s written comments noted that no comparable community requires noise studies as part of landscaping review, and that the current draft trigger — uses “louder than typical for a residential area” — lacks a measurable threshold. Board members acknowledged the need for enforceable standards and discussed EPA and local noise guidelines generally, but did not reach a final vote on the provision (link).
The Board also clarified that the proposed regulations are site plan review regulations, not zoning ordinance amendments, and therefore do not require a town vote. The Board noted that any site plan regulation cannot supersede the town’s zoning ordinance, including its definition of open space.
Provisional Decision on Open Space Language
After discussion, the Board reached informal agreement to remove the prohibition on fragmented open space from the draft (lines 329–330), concluding that green space — whether consolidated or distributed — should count toward the 20% open space requirement under the zoning ordinance, provided it is not used for buildings, roads, or parking. The Board acknowledged the planning board retains authority to approve fragmented open space arrangements on a case-by-case basis (link).
Next Steps
The Board decided to continue deliberations on the remaining points raised by Tim Smith at the regular Planning Board meeting on October 8th. Board members were charged with individually reviewing all items in the submitted document and coming prepared to vote yes or no on each. The Board chair indicated he would work to minimize other agenda items on October 8th to allow adequate time for this discussion. Parties who raised concerns were reminded that, while the meeting is public, ex parte discussion of matters pending before the Board is not permitted (link).