Developers, planners warn proposed 75-foot wetlands buffer could halt projects; Select Board weighs asking Planning Board to delay

Chad Brand, a representative of Fieldstone Land Consultants, told the Select Board on Dec. 30 that a proposed wetlands ordinance headed to the Planning Board would impose a 75-foot “no-disturb” buffer across most wetlands and “has no balance,” a change he said could prevent planned commercial and industrial development in town.

Brand said the draft ordinance, as written, applies the buffer to all wetlands with a single, broad standard and offers no conditional-use or special-exception process to allow engineered access or mitigations. “I think it’s missing some key components that are that are really gonna have a negative impact on development in this community,” he said.

The concern, Brand and several board members said, is practical: in areas such as Safford Drive and other commercial corridors, the proposed buffer could eliminate buildable envelopes or require property owners to seek variances. Brand showed maps of several project sites, saying the change could effectively “wipe out” some previously planned or approved developments by cutting off access or parking areas.

Why it matters: the Planning Board has the ordinance on its agenda for a public meeting tomorrow, and adoption would change how wetlands are regulated townwide. Board members and Brand urged town officials and the Planning Board to consider a conditional-use approach—where developers submit detailed designs, stormwater management and mitigation measures for review—instead of a blanket, non-disturb buffer.

What was said and what followed

Brand described standard alternatives used in other communities, including smaller buffers combined with a conditional-use permit that sets design standards and mitigation requirements. He noted state permitting already evaluates wetland impacts and mitigation when projects fill more than small areas of wetland, saying: “if you fill over 3,000 square feet of wetlands, you have to do mitigation” through on-site work, compensatory mitigation or in-lieu fees.

Board members pressed how the ordinance would affect existing properties and long-term investments. One Select Board member warned the proposal “wipes out Safford Drive,” referring to a commercial/industrial area where past infrastructure investments were made with the expectation of future development.

No formal vote was taken. Multiple board members said they would support drafting a letter to the Planning Board asking for more time, broader stakeholder input and for the Planning Board to consider a conditional-use/ special-exception route rather than an across-the-board 75-foot nondisturbance buffer. At least one member asked staff to coordinate with the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission so the ordinance can be reworked to allow engineered access and appropriate mitigation pathways.

What the draft ordinance would do (as discussed)

- Establish a 75-foot no-disturb buffer applied broadly to mapped wetlands except where the draft defers to state shoreland rules for larger water bodies (Swansea Lake, Wilson Pond). - Restrict mowing and other routine uses inside that buffer and would not differentiate between high-function and lower-function wetlands unless additional procedures are added.

State and local interplay

Speakers noted the state’s wetland and shoreland programs operate separately: the state regulates the wetland itself and maintains shoreland protections for certain water bodies (a 250-foot shoreland zone and a 50-foot structure setback were cited in the discussion). The Select Board was told local rules that are more stringent than state rules can raise legal and practical questions, and that many municipalities instead pair modest buffers with a conditional-use or permitting process that requires stormwater treatment and other mitigation when encroachment into buffers is proposed.

Community impact and next steps

Brand and several board members said adoption without changes would stall development applications and create uncertainty for property owners and investors. The Planning Board’s public meeting is scheduled for tomorrow; Select Board members asked staff to coordinate comments and to consider drafting an advisory letter asking the Planning Board to delay placing the ordinance on the warrant and to incorporate conditional-use language and clearer provisions for existing development.

Board and staff remarks indicated appetite for further study and more stakeholder meetings involving landowners, the Conservation Commission, planning staff and consultants before moving forward. No formal Select Board motion or vote on the ordinance was recorded during the meeting; the board’s direction was advisory and procedural: ask the Planning Board for additional review time and consider drafting suggested language for conditional relief and enforcement clarity.

Ending

The Select Board’s representatives said they would follow up with planning staff and that several members planned to attend or send representatives to the Planning Board meeting. Brand said his office would try to send a technical representative to the Planning Board hearing and offered to meet with the Conservation Commission and planning staff to help refine alternatives that balance conservation goals with realistic development and access needs.