Developers and select board members urge changes to proposed 75-foot wetlands buffer ordinance

Chad Grant, a civil engineer who said he represents multiple local clients through Fieldstone Blankens Homes, told the Select Board that the draft wetlands ordinance now before the Planning Board would impose a “75‑foot no disturbance buffer, period” on all mapped wetlands and is likely to halt planned development in town.

Grant said the proposed, uniform buffer does not distinguish between high‑value water bodies and small, altered, or low‑functioning forested wetlands. He told the board that the ordinance makes no provision for access to buildable upland areas and does not clarify how existing developed lots or maintained lawns would be treated. “It’s a 75‑foot no disturbance buffer would be a pretty significant, really almost land‑taking on a number of properties in town,” Grant said.

The matter matters to town finances and existing investments, several board members said. Select Board members and Grant pointed specifically to parcels in and around Safford Drive and other commercial‑industrial areas where utilities and roads already exist and where recent site approvals could be negated by the draft rule. Grant described multiple projects — contractor storage and commercial lots on Safford Drive, a separate commercial building applicant and a site for a gas station near Route 10 — that, he said, would be materially constrained or rendered infeasible by the current text.

Grant recommended the town consider a conditional‑use or special‑exception process rather than a blanket ordinance. Under that approach, projects that need to enter a buffer would come to the Planning Board with more detailed designs (grading, stormwater, mitigation) so boards could weigh specific tradeoffs and require higher‑level stormwater treatment. He noted that other municipalities cited in the ordinance comparison use conditional permits or special exceptions in commercial and industrial districts, and he said New Hampshire practice generally allows more nuanced buffers tied to a wetland’s functions and values.

Board members asked about state involvement. Grant said the state does not impose a uniform local buffer: the state regulates wetlands themselves and requires mitigation for fills over certain thresholds (he cited the 3,000‑square‑foot permitting threshold) and a shoreland zone for larger water bodies (noting a 50‑foot primary‑structure setback and longer shoreland zones). He told the board the draft local ordinance is in some places stricter than state shoreland rules and could create legal and practical conflicts.

Members of the Select Board and several speakers emphasized the ordinance’s practical effects on existing, town‑invested infrastructure. Several members said they support the conservation goals in the draft but want safeguards so the regulation does not “wipe out” previously approved projects or parcels prepared for development after public investments in roads and utilities.

The board did not take a formal vote on the ordinance. Several members urged the Planning Board to slow the timetable and incorporate a conditional‑use or special‑exception pathway. Board members said they would consider drafting a letter to the Planning Board asking for more time and for changes that allow administrative or planning‑level review rather than an across‑the‑board moratorium on uses within the buffer. Select Board members said they would work with Grant and with town staff to prepare suggested language before the Planning Board meeting.

Grant offered to meet with the Planning Board, conservation commission and town planner and deliver examples of alternative language; he said he would try to have an engineer or wetland scientist attend the Planning Board meeting if possible. Town planner Adam (identified in the record as town planner) confirmed the town currently does not have a conditional‑use permit process and said that change would be a planning process to be considered by the Planning Board in 2025.

The discussion closed with Select Board members urging a cautious approach: several said the ordinance as drafted is worthy in intent but needs more time, technical review, and clear paths for relief before it is placed on a warrant.