The Planning Board convened for a public hearing on proposed amendments to the town’s landscape regulations, followed by a regular Planning Board meeting to consider a request to amend the zoning ordinance for the Snow’s Mountain Special Zoning Area.
Landscape Regulations Amendment
The public hearing focused on Version 5 of the landscape amendment to the Planning Board’s site plan review regulations, which aims to make existing general and vague regulations more specific and measurable (link). The Landscape Committee has been working on these amendments since spring, researching regulations in other Northern New England resort towns to formulate standards most applicable to Waterville Valley. The revised regulations include clauses allowing developers to appeal for relief, exemption, or waiver if regulations are deemed restrictive or onerous, with the Board retaining the power to grant such relief (link).
Before opening the floor to public comment, the Chair read an email expressing concern that previous meetings had felt confrontational rather than collaborative. Specific concerns included the necessity of screening cars, revisiting the prohibition of snow storage on landscaped areas given the requirement for salt- and snow-tolerant plants, and the requirement to replace a removed 16-inch-diameter tree with two smaller trees, which could limit usable land for development (link).
Tim Smith, General Manager of Waterville Valley Resort, spoke as a citizen and property owner, acknowledging improvements in Version 5 while expressing significant concerns about the process and the economic practicality of the regulations. He noted that these regulations would affect the last meaningful development opportunities in the commercial core and that once adopted they would influence what can be built, how much can be built, and ultimately whether future development is economically practical. Smith emphasized the need for the Board to understand the practical realities faced by property owners, developers, and municipal employees — particularly the cumulative effect of layering snow storage, tree preservation, parking, open space, buffers, stormwater, screening, and circulation requirements on the same parcel (link). He also raised questions about the interpretation of RSA 91-A regarding Board members speaking with citizens outside of public meetings, and noted that clarification from town counsel — which had been discussed at a prior meeting — had not yet been presented publicly. He further argued that the regulations should be reconciled with the town’s Master Plan, which calls for concentrated commercial and residential development in the village core (link).
James Sununu, a property owner and business owner in the valley, sought clarification on the tree replacement ratio, specifically regarding the expected mature size of replacement trees. He noted that requiring space for trees that could grow to significant size is incompatible with commercial development, given the town’s limited commercial land and the Master Plan’s call for dense development (link). Sununu also reiterated concerns about the impracticality and cost of preventing snow from accumulating on landscaped areas during normal plowing operations, and questioned whether waivers under the regulations would require applicants to meet the legal definition of “hardship” — a threshold he characterized as very high and difficult to achieve (link).
Board Deliberation and Amendments
Following the close of public comment, the Board deliberated and made several changes to the regulations:
Mechanical and Electrical Equipment Screening: The Board identified an ambiguity in the language requiring vegetative screening to be planted at 80% of the “intended mature height.” After discussion, the Board agreed that the standard should instead reference 80% of the height and width of the equipment to be screened — removing any reference to plant maturity from that provision (link). A motion to that effect was approved unanimously.
Snow Storage: The Board voted to remove the absolute prohibition on placing snow in required landscaped areas. A motion was approved to replace the relevant language with a single provision stating that snow storage areas shall be identified on site plans and located so as not to impact required landscaping (link). The goal was to require planning and minimize impacts rather than impose an unenforceable prohibition.
Waiver Hardship Standard: The Board discussed at length the concern that the waiver process — which references “unnecessary hardship” — could set an impractically high bar for obtaining relief. After reviewing RSA 674-44-3-E, the Board noted that the statute includes an “or” clause allowing waivers where specific circumstances indicate that relief would properly carry out the spirit and intent of the regulations, without requiring a finding of hardship. The Board reached consensus to leave the existing waiver language unchanged, relying on that alternative pathway (link).
Tree Replacement Ratio: The Board discussed whether to add clarifying language stating that replacement trees are not expected to reach the same dimensions as the trees removed. After a vote, the Board declined to add the clarifying language by a 4–3 margin, with the majority concluding that leaving the language silent on ultimate tree size provides more latitude to both applicants and the Board, and that the regulations clearly require only a minimum two-and-a-half-inch caliper at planting (link).
The Board voted to accept the landscaping site plan review regulations as amended during the meeting (link).
Snow’s Mountain Special Zoning Area Request
The Board then opened a Planning Board meeting to consider a request from Waterville Valley Resort to amend the zoning ordinance for the Snow’s Mountain Special Zoning Area to include food service establishments and lounges as an accessory use. The immediate purpose of the request is to allow a food truck to operate in conjunction with summertime Snow’s Mountain chairlift operations (link).
Background
The Snow’s Mountain Special Zoning Area was established in 2012, when the Planning Board proposed the zone for the purpose of academic and sports education by the Waterville Valley Academy and BBTS. Voters approved the zone at Town Meeting. Food service was explicitly not permitted at that time (link).
The Board noted that designating food service as a general “accessory use” — as originally requested — would carry broad implications: it would allow any food service organization with landowner permission to operate there, by any means including permanent structures, and would not be limited to summer months or to the resort (link).
Town counsel had provided a possible definition of “food truck” for the town’s use, including requirements for licensing, compliance with food safety and wastewater laws, seasonal operation as established by the Select Board, mobility, and removal from the site at the end of the season (link). It was clarified that current town permitting provides for both a three-day temporary permit and an annual permit covering seasonal use, though the ordinance’s definition of “annual” was noted to be unclear (link).
Email from a Community Member
Before opening the floor to public comment, the Chair read an email expressing concern that allowing food service in the Snow’s Mountain area would contradict the town’s Master Plan, which designates the commercial core as the location for commercial food service. The email raised issues about the visual impact of a large food truck and portable restroom facilities, the potential for increased public use of private BBTS facilities, and the risk of discrimination claims if food truck permits were denied to operators other than the resort (link).
Board Discussion
A Board member offered that the Snow’s Mountain lift is heavily used by hikers and mountain bikers in the summer, and that providing food service would enhance the visitor experience. The Board member cited a six-week trial period approximately two years prior during which a food truck operated at the site without generating complaints or trash problems (link). Another Board member proposed a two-step approach: first adopting a specific “food truck” definition in the zoning ordinance, and then determining on a zone-by-zone basis where such use would be permitted — to avoid inadvertently opening other areas to general food service establishments (link). Concerns were also raised about the long-term implications of allowing food service as an accessory use if the property were ever conveyed to a future owner.
Public Comment
The Board invited public comment on the Snow’s Mountain zoning request:
The Executive Director of BBTS stated that BBTS is not opposed to a food truck at the base of Snow’s Mountain, viewing it as an amenity for hikers, mountain bikers, and parents watching summer camps. He explained that BBTS does not permit public use of its indoor restrooms due to maintenance costs and the need to keep public areas separate from student areas. He indicated that restroom and trash logistics would be a matter for BBTS and the resort to work out together (link).
A resident from Mountain Meadow Condominiums questioned the potential for permanent structures if the zoning were changed to a general accessory use category, and asked how the commercial chairlift currently operates within a zone that has residential characteristics (link).
James Sununu clarified that the Snow’s Mountain district is an overlay on a recreational zone — not a stand-alone zone — retaining all the permitted uses of recreational land while adding the ability to operate a school. He noted that many of the permitted uses, including the ski lift, playing fields, trails, and recreation centers, are inherently public-facing, and that a food amenity would be consistent with those uses (link).
A resident of Valley Road and parent of a BBTS student and Waterville Valley Elementary School pupil spoke in support of the food truck, noting that parents watching summer camps currently have no food options on site. The resident also suggested the town consider constructing a small public restroom facility in that area of town, given the frequency with which visitors wander into the academy building looking for facilities (link).
Tim Smith, General Manager of Waterville Valley Resort, explained the history of the request, noting that when the resort first pursued food service at Snow’s Mountain, staff were unaware the area was a special overlay district. Once that was discovered, the effort was paused. He confirmed that the resort has maintained a porta-potty at the site for three years, directing customers there. Smith argued that when the zone was created in 2012, the original plans for BBTS included dormitories with associated food service needs, and that an accessory food service designation may simply have been overlooked. He characterized the proposal as a targeted annotation in the use table, subject to landowner agreement, Select Board permitting, and ultimately a public vote as a warrant article (link).
Outcome
After extended discussion, the Board determined that the proposal was not ready to advance directly to a public hearing. A motion that had been on the floor was rescinded, and the Board voted to table the matter until the next Planning Board meeting — scheduled for November 12 at 8:30 a.m. — at which time members will work to determine the appropriate scope and wording of a potential zoning amendment before proceeding further (link).