Sherry, a member of the Conservation Commission who presented the Moosewood Ecological study, outlined proposed zoning amendments to the town’s Wetlands Conservation District that would add a 75-foot naturally vegetated upland buffer and expand the district’s development setbacks and permitted/prohibited uses.

“Moosewood Ecological noted that the functions of many of our wetlands in town are compromised due to the loss of a naturally vegetated buffer,” Sherry said, explaining the study’s finding that the current overlay allows buffer alteration and therefore doesn’t meet its stated purposes.

Why it matters: The amendments would change what builders and private property owners can do in upland areas adjacent to freshwater wetlands. They are written to affect new development and to exempt certain waterbodies already regulated under the Shoreland Protection District (lakes, ponds, designated rivers) and man-made features such as farm or fire ponds and ditches.

Key measures proposed: the ordinance would (1) require a 75-foot naturally vegetated buffer as a setback for development adjacent to freshwater wetlands; (2) reduce the town’s septic setback from 125 feet to 75 feet (bringing it in line with the state septic setback) while increasing buffer protection in other ways; (3) prohibit new septic fields, wells, underground fuel storage, parking areas, dumping, and lawns mowed/sprayed to the wetland edge within the buffer; (4) allow limited agricultural and forest-management activities consistent with best management practices and allow repairs to existing lawful structures; and (5) exempt man-made ponds, ditches, and swales from the ordinance.

Evidence and scope: Sherry referenced Moosewood Ecological’s townwide wetlands inventory (the consultant identified about 374 wetlands townwide, narrowed for detailed evaluation to 117 wetlands of 2 acres or more, covering about 2,500 acres; overall town wetlands were described as covering roughly 2,824 acres). She summarized common wetland functions—water-quality maintenance, groundwater recharge, flood control, wildlife habitat—and said loss of vegetated buffer is the primary local stress the study found.

Public comments and planning board questions: Several attendees asked which specific parcels would be affected and requested clearer GIS maps showing delineated wetlands. Adam, planning staff, said the town maintains state wetlands overlay layers in GIS but that staff would make these available for the public hearing. Residents and board members raised concerns about notification; some urged direct notices to affected parcel owners beyond the statutory legal notices. Others warned of perceived uneven treatment (for example, allowing agricultural uses but restricting homeowners’ lawn maintenance inside the buffer).

Tax and current-use implications: Sherry reported conversations with the assessor’s office that wetlands are typically taxed at a lower rate (20–60% lower on a case-by-case basis) and that New Hampshire current-use rules allow wetlands plus a buffer of up to 100 feet to be enrolled for current-use taxation when criteria are met; she advised residents to consult the assessor for parcel-specific treatment.

Process and next steps: The planning board will hold a public hearing on the proposed amendments (Sherry said she will present at the January 9 public hearing). The amendments may be revised after public comment; variances can be sought by property owners if a strict application creates no feasible alternative for a necessary development.

Ending: The conservation commission and planning board presenters urged public participation; staff committed to publishing maps and background material ahead of the public hearing.