Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shoreland Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conservation Commission proposes expanded shoreland buffers to protect Great Bay; ordinance to go to Planning Board
Summary
Conservation Commission Chair Dwight Trueblood and Vice Chair Neil Slepian presented a proposed Shoreland Protection Overlay District to replace two existing ordinances, recommending larger buffers (examples up to 330 feet for tidal waters) and further engagement before Planning Board review in spring.
The Durham Conservation Commission presented Dec. 15 a proposed Shoreland Protection Overlay District intended to replace the town’s two existing ordinances regulating wetlands and shorelands.
Neil Slepian, vice chair of the Conservation Commission, said the existing ordinances overlap roughly 75% and include ambiguous language that does not reflect advances in climate science since 2006. The proposal aims to provide clearer guidance, protect water quality, improve habitat for amphibians and terrestrial wildlife corridors, and anticipate sea-level rise.
Slepian and Chair Dwight Trueblood cited the 2023 Piscataqua Regional Estuaries State of the Estuaries report, saying indicators show Great Bay’s condition is worsening and that increased nitrogen from land runoff is a key contributor. The presentation compared buffer distances and noted Durham’s current buffer of 125 feet; proposed ranges referenced in the presentation included values up to 330 feet for tidal waters and 150–200 feet for surface waters, with illustrations of how areas such as Cedar Point, Durham Point and the Lamprey River could be affected.
Trueblood acknowledged property-owner concerns — including vegetation-management limits and view impacts — and said the commission has formed three working groups to address public feedback. The presenters said the commission expects to complete internal revisions by mid-January and submit a revised draft to the Planning Board in spring for formal review before any Town Council action.
Councilors asked why Durham is proposing changes before neighboring towns; presenters said Durham’s many individual waterfront homeowners mean the buffer changes affect more private properties than towns with public waterfront development. Councilor Em Friedrichs noted Exeter’s longer-standing setbacks and said Exeter’s experience did not necessarily deter development there.
The Conservation Commission’s proposal is now in a public-feedback phase; the Planning Board will review the commission’s revised draft in spring.
