Zoning proposals would allow certain structures in Richmond’s wetlands district

If passed, the amendments will allow residents to build certain structures without applying for building permits or a special exception

For the third time in four years, Richmond’s planning board is proposing changes to zoning ordinances concerning the regulation of structures. 

If passed, the amendments will allow residents to build certain structures without applying for building permits or a special exception, according to draft ballot questions.

The proposed changes would also allow residents to build some types of structures near wetlands, and follow several years of defeated attempts to weaken zoning rules for the wetland conservation district. 

Richmond Planning Board Chairperson Doug Smith told The Sentinel Thursday that the goal of the proposals affecting wetlands was to find a balance between protecting these areas and allowing people more flexibility to build on their property.

“We’re just looking to give folks back some semblance to be able to put up a swing set, or a sandbox, or put a garden in,” Smith said. “We’re trying to create a balance … it’s just a first step in the overall process because we are concerned about protecting the wetlands.”

But in a letter, the Richmond Conservation Commission urged the board against some changes, warning that above-ground pools or fabric garages could damage these areas.

The proposed amendments have yet to be finalized pending a public hearing this week.

The wetland conservation district is defined as all land within 75 feet of the high water mark of water bodies, as well as areas delineated in a 1989 soil survey of Cheshire County as poorly drained.

Wetlands absorb flood waters, treat stormwater, recharge groundwater supplies and provide a habitat for fish and wildlife, according to the NH Department of Environmental Services. The University of New Hampshire’s website states that because setbacks aren’t always required in towns, “wetlands are routinely filled and damaged by driveway and road crossings.”

“Loss of upland habitat, pollution, salt runoff from roads … all have a detrimental effect on our marsh and shrub wetland communities,” it adds.

If Richmond voters approve them in March, the amendments will replace references to “structure” in all zoning ordinances with the word “building.” Currently, a “structure” is defined as any “man-made object or construction having an ascertainable stationary location on, above, or below the surface of the land or water.”

“Buildings” are more precisely defined as any “structure having a roof supported by columns or walls and intended for the shelter, housing or enclosure of any individual, animal, process, equipment, goods, or materials of any kind or nature.” One of the proposed amendments would add containers larger than 100 square feet and in-ground pools to the definition.

According to the wetland conservation district zoning ordinances, “no use is permitted that would result in the erection of any structure or alter the surface configuration through excavation of fill,” except for certain exempt activities including forestry, agriculture and wildlife refuge.

This would be adjusted under the new proposals, stating instead that “no use is permitted that would result in the erection of any building or alter the surface configuration through excavation or fill, except for normal landscaping.”

In a Jan. 4 letter posted to the town’s website, the Richmond Conservation Commission urged the board to add above-ground pools, solar arrays and fabric or pole garages to the definition of “building.”

“Power tools, equipment, recreational vehicles … and the storage of such, which is a common use of fabric type storage units … pose a potential serious threat to the wetland community in the event of a spill,” the group wrote. “… Solar arrays and swimming pools require certain amounts of excavation and soil disturbance.”

The group also “strongly urged” the board to consider a 25-foot buffer around wetlands banning all structures.

Smith, the planning board chair, said that the proposed changes were prompted by some clarification requests from Richmond Zoning Compliance Officer Richard Drew and the selectboard.

Another amendment would remove the requirement of building permits for the erection, alteration or relocation of structures; remove requirements for structures to comply with state building and fire codes; remove occupancy permit requirements for occupied structures; and define “setback” as the distance from a property line to a building or “other feature,” rather than the distance to a structure.

Another proposed amendment would define the wetland conservation district as the area on the current zoning map, as well as any other areas delineated by a wetland or soil scientist certified by a “State Board of Natural Science.” Currently, the conservation commission, planning board, and any surveyor, soil scientist or engineer are allowed to delineate these areas.

Voters rejected a similar proposal last year along with five other wetland-related amendments, including one that would have expanded the list of activities exempt from the wetland conservation district requirements, according to previous Sentinel reporting.

And in 2021 and 2022, voters opposed amendments that would have changed the measurement of the town’s wetland conservation district from 75 feet “from the high water mark of any pond, stream, brook or wetland” to 25 feet.

According to the NH DES website, septic systems have a 75-foot setback requirement, but there are no other requirements under state law.

A public hearing attended by about 25 residents was held Jan. 9, draft meeting minutes state. Another public hearing is set for Thursday at 7 p.m. at the Richmond Veterans Hall on Route 32, according to a notice of public hearing.

This article is being shared by partners in The Granite State News Collaborative. For more information, visit collaborativenh.org.