Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wetlands Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board to replace Wetlands Conservation District ordinance section, send draft to town attorney and present single warrant article
Summary
After reviewing attorney Cordell's comments, the SMASI Planning Board agreed to replace the town's Section 7 (Wetlands Conservation District) as a single warrant article, refine definitions and buffer language, cite appropriate RSAs for third-party reviews, and aim to post the draft for public hearing in early December.
The SMASI Planning Board reviewed comments from town counsel and consensus edits to a proposed Wetlands Conservation District ordinance and agreed to replace Section 7 in full with a consolidated replacement to be presented as a single warrant article at town meeting.
Board members discussed attorney Cordell's suggested edits, focusing on where to place numeric buffer measurements, whether the district definition should be broader than the state wetland definition, and the appropriate statutory citations for third-party reviews. Members repeatedly referenced the need to include measurements (feet) in the ordinance definitions or to make a clear cross-reference to the section where setback dimensions (for example the 75-foot setback for septic/drainage systems) are stated.
The board instructed staff to integrate the agreed edits and send the consolidated draft to Cordell for legal review. Planning staff advised that Cordell's review typically takes multiple business days; members discussed scheduling a short video call with Cordell to clarify legal points.
Key technical clarifications discussed on the record included the following: the planning board's intention that the Wetlands Conservation District include larger, ecologically significant wetlands (rather than every small wet spot); use of a 75-foot standard related to dry wells and leach fields consistent with state septic standards; referencing the correct RSA for third-party reviews (transcript cites RSA 676:4-b for third-party review authority); and using site plan review language (65-day timeframe and affirming approval or disapproval by majority) where the ordinance assigns procedural deadlines.
On how to present the item on the town warrant, the board debated whether to submit multiple numbered amendments (one per article) or a single replacement. After discussion the board favored presenting a single replacement of Section 7 to avoid piecemeal passage that could leave the ordinance incoherent. A draft example line for the warrant discussed on the record reads: "Replace Section 7 Wetlands Conservation District with the following," with the full text available at the town clerk's office.
The board agreed to send the finalized draft to Cordell, post the draft at the clerk's office and online, and pursue outreach (for example an informational session) before the hearing. Members also discussed timing: aiming for a public hearing in early December (December 11 was discussed) to allow several weeks for public review before statutory petition deadlines in January.
Board members emphasized they were seeking to balance clearer local rules and practical enforceability, and several members asked staff to ensure cross-references to the state definitions or to Section 7's definition block to avoid confusion about which wetlands the rules apply to.
Planning staff will send the updated draft to counsel and circulate the final version; the board will set a hearing once counsel and staff confirm the text and statutory references.
