Wolfeboro MunicipaWolfeborol Ordinance Review Municipal Ordinance Review November 2012 Town of Wolfeboro, New Hampshire
November 2012
Prepared for Town of Wolfeboro
Prepared by FB Environmental Associates
97A Exchange St, Suite 305 i FB EnvironmentalPortland, Associates ME 04101 Wolfeboro Municipal Ordinance Review November 2012
Wolfeboro Municipal Ordinance Review Wolfeboro, New Hampshire
A Component of the Lake Wentworth/Crescent Lake Watershed-Based Management Plan
Final Report November 2012
FB Environmental Associates 97A Exchange St, Suite 305 Portland, ME 04101 (207) 221-6699 www.fbenvironmental.com
Principal Authors: Patrick Marass, Project Manager, FBE Jennifer Jespersen, Sr. Project Manager, FBE
The following people generously provided their time or resources to assist with the outcomes of this ordinance review: Robert Houseman, Director of Planning & Development, Town of Wolfeboro; Terry Tavares, Administrative Assistant in Planning & Development; Andrew Chapman, New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services; and Forrest Bell, Principal, FB Environmental.
i FB Environmental Associates Wolfeboro Municipal Ordinance Review November 2012
Table of Contents
Introduction ...... 1
Methods ...... 1
Summary of New Hampshire Water Quality Protection Standards ...... 3
Results ...... 4
Shoreland Protection ...... 4 Wetlands ...... 5 Steep Slopes ...... 6 Riparian Buffers ...... 7 Stormwater Runoff ...... 9 Erosion and Sediment Control ...... 11 Subdivisions ...... 12 Low Impact Development ...... 13 Septic Systems ...... 15
Summary of Land Use and Zoning Change Recommendations ...... 17
Ordinance Review Summary ...... 18
References ...... 19
ii FB Environmental Associates Wolfeboro Municipal Ordinance Review November 2012
List of Tables
Table 1 - Shoreland Protection ...... 5
Table 2 - Wetlands ...... 6
Table 3 - Steep Slopes ...... 7
Table 4 - Riparian Buffers ...... 8
Table 5 - Stormwater Runoff ...... 10
Table 6 - Erosion and Sediment Control ...... 11
Table 7 - Subdivisions ...... 13
Table 8 - Low Impact Development ...... 14
Table 9 - Septic Systems ...... 15
Table 10 - Summary of Recommendations ...... 17
iii FB Environmental Associates Wolfeboro Municipal Ordinance Review November 2012
Introduction Land use and zoning ordinances are one of the most powerful tools municipalities can use to protect their natural resources. FB Environmental Associates (FBE) is currently developing a Watershed Management Plan (WMP) for the Lake Wentworth /Crescent Lake watershed. Approximately 86% of the Lake Wentworth/Crescent Lake watershed is located within the Town of Wolfeboro, New Hampshire. A component of the WMP (Task 9 – Recommended Land Use/Zoning Changes) includes an ordinance review for the Town of Wolfeboro. To determine how the Town of Wolfeboro can improve the means by which they can protect surface water resources, FBE has conducted a review of the town’s existing land use and zoning regulations.
This ordinance report provides a review of the benchmark standards1 within many of the existing land use and zoning ordinances in the Town of Wolfeboro. Specific recommendations are provided within this report to inform the town about how they can improve land use and zoning ordinances so that they may better protect surface waters, including Lake Wentworth and Crescent Lake. This report complements the Buildout Analysis Report completed as part of the WMP, which provides estimates of long-term development in the town based on existing zoning, and the potential effects of new development on water resources (FBE, 2012). It is important to note that in March of 2012, Wolfeboro approved changes to their Shorefront Residential District and Wetlands Conservation District that improved protections for surface water quality. The town also approved a new Steep Slope Ordinance in March, 2012. Since Wolfeboro’s vast surface water resources are the primary economic engine of the town, long-term protection of these resources will be important for the municipality, businesses, landowners, and visitors, for generations to come.
Methods The initial approach for the ordinance review was to use the Center for Watershed Protection’s Ordinance Review Worksheet as a guide for improving Wolfeboro’s zoning and land use regulations. However, the methodology for the review changed as a result of communications between the Town of Wolfeboro, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) and FBE. The resulting review methodology, agreed upon by FBE, Wolfeboro, and NHDES, analyzed the benchmark standards within Wolfeboro’s existing land use regulations compared to several other New Hampshire towns known for having ordinances that are protective of water quality. The following categories were included in this review:
Shoreland Protection Wetlands Steep Slopes Riparian Buffers
1 The term “benchmark standard” is used in this report to describe the numerical and specific situational standards found in the ordinances pertaining to the above categories. For example: Wolfeboro’s mandatory building set back of 50’ from Lakes and Ponds is the benchmark standard compared to the setbacks mandated in other Town’s ordinances. 1 FB Environmental Associates Wolfeboro Municipal Ordinance Review November 2012
Stormwater Runoff Erosion and Sediment Control Subdivisions Low Impact Development (LID) Septic Systems
As described above, Wolfeboro’s ordinances, as they applied to these nine categories, were compared to regulations from other New Hampshire municipalities which are known to have ordinances designed to protect surface water quality. The municipalities used in this study include the towns of New Durham, Windham, Milton, and Newbury, New Hampshire. For each of the above categories, specific questions were asked to determine the degree to which surface waters were being protected by benchmark standards within the respective town’s land use and zoning ordinances. Each town’s ordinances were reviewed for language specific to these nine categories.
A qualitative ranking system was used based on best professional judgment to determine which municipality had the strongest benchmark protections for surface water within each category. The scoring for each category helped to determine how Wolfeboro’s ordinances compared to the other municipalities, thereby providing information about the strengths and weaknesses of Wolfeboro’s ordinances. The ranking process distinguished areas where Wolfeboro has strong benchmark standards that are more protective of surface water and where improvements could be made within each category.
Additionally, Wolfeboro’s ordinances, specific to the above categories, were compared to the New Hampshire Shoreland Water Quality Protection Standards as outlined in RSA 483-B, the Shoreland Water Quality Protection Act (SWQPA) to determine if any of the ordinances went above and beyond the mandated protections within the SWQPA. Not all of the nine categories could be compared to the SWQPA.
At the request of the town planner and members of the Wolfeboro Planning Board, Wolfeboro’s Draft Center Street Rezoning Ordinance was reviewed as part of a separate report which was completed in September, 2012 (FBE, 2012b). The proposed Center Street Rezoning Ordinance is not analyzed or discussed in detail, herein.
The ultimate goal of this ordinance review is to provide the Town of Wolfeboro with examples of how their ordinances can be more protective of water quality by adjusting benchmark standards as they pertain to the nine categories. This review was not designed to thoroughly dissect each of the town’s ordinances since only the benchmark standards within each town’s land use and zoning ordinances were reviewed.
Certain limitations exist when conducting an ordinance review with limited resources. Limitations specific to this review include: 1) Only the nine categories mentioned above were analyzed, and only when they could potentially impact surface water; 2) Exemptions are inherent components of ordinances. Given the scope of this task, the specific exemptions found within the ordinances were not analyzed in detail nor compared among towns. 2 FB Environmental Associates Wolfeboro Municipal Ordinance Review November 2012
Summary of New Hampshire Water Quality Protection Standards According to RSA 483-B, or the Shoreland Water Quality Protection Act (SWQPA), the protected shoreland pertains to all of the land within 250 feet from the shoreline (reference line) of the surface water, which includes rivers, lakes, and ponds (NHDES, 2012a). Development within and alterations to the protected shoreland are regulated by the SWQPA, but municipalities can institute more stringent regulations (NHDES, 2012a). The Shoreland Program at the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) is responsible for reviewing shoreland permit applications and responding to written complaints documenting possible violations of the SWQPA. As within most State agencies today, the Shoreland Program has limited staff resources available to enforce regulations such as the SWQPA. Therefore, the Shoreland Program depends on local officials and residents, such as code enforcement officers and engaged citizens, to report potential violations. Such reports aid the Shoreland Program in enforcing the regulations within the SWQPA (NHDES, 2012b).
The following regulations from the SWQPA were compared to the regulations found within the reviewed ordinances, where applicable. The New Hampshire State Statutes within Chapter 483-B are available in full online at: www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/nhtoc/nhtoc-l-483-b.htm.
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA LIMITATION If a homeowner or developer wishes to exceed 30% impervious surface coverage of the area of the lot within the protected shoreland, a stormwater management system designed and certified by a professional engineer that will not concentrate stormwater runoff or contribute to erosion must be implemented and if any grid segment within the waterfront buffer does not meet the required 50 point tree, sapling, shrub and groundcover score, each deficient grid segment must be planted with additional vegetation to at least achieve the minimum required score. If a homeowner or developer wishes to exceed 20% impervious area, a stormwater management plan must be implemented to infiltrate increased stormwater from development (NHDES, 2012a).
SEPTIC SYSTEM SETBACKS Setback requirements for all new septic systems are determined by soil characteristics (NHDES, 2012a) 75 feet for rivers and areas where there is no restrictive layer within 18 inches and where the soil down gradient is not porous sand and gravel (perc > 2 min.). 100 feet for soils with a restrictive layer within 18 inches of the natural soil surface. 125 feet where the soil down gradient of the leachfield is porous sand and gravel (per rate equal to or faster than 2 min/in.).
NATURAL WOODLAND BUFFER LIMITATIONS At least 25 percent of the area between 50 feet and 150 feet from the reference line must be maintained in an unaltered state (NHDES, 2012a).
WATERFRONT BUFFER AND PRIMARY BUILDING SETBACK All primary structures must be set back at least 50 feet from the reference line. Towns may maintain or enact greater setbacks. Within 50 feet from the reference line, a waterfront buffer must be maintained. 3 FB Environmental Associates Wolfeboro Municipal Ordinance Review November 2012
Within the waterfront buffer, tree coverage is managed with a 50 X 50 foot grid and point system. Trees and saplings may be removed provided the sum score of the remaining trees, saplings, shrubs and groundcover within the affected grid segment is at least 50 points. No natural ground cover shall be removed except for a footpath to the water that does not exceed 6 feet in width and does not concentrate stormwater or contribute to erosion. Natural ground cover must remain intact. No cutting or removal of vegetation below 3 feet in height (excluding previously existing lawns and landscaped areas). Stumps, roots, and rocks must remain intact in and on the ground unless specifically approved by the NHDES (NHDES, 2012a).
In many cases, the ordinances reviewed reference the NH Stormwater Manual (NH Stormwater, 2011). This document was developed by NHDES and other partners as a planning and design tool for all of those throughout the state that are involved in stormwater programs. The manual is considered a “living” document, is updated periodically as more information on stormwater becomes available, and comes in three volumes: Volume 1: Stormwater and Antidegredation, Volume 2: Post-Construction Best Management Practices Selection and Design, and Volume 3: Erosion and Sediment Controls During Construction. All three volumes are available for the public to view online at NHDES’s website: http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/stormwater/manual.htm.
Another statewide regulation that is compared to the municipal ordinances pertains to wetland protections. The State of New Hampshire, under RSA 482-A regulates a 100 foot buffer area on designated prime wetlands. The protections of all other wetlands within the state are under the jurisdiction of the municipality. Under the administrative rules Env-Wt 700, individual municipalities may elect to designate wetlands as “prime-wetlands.” After a thorough analysis, and a submission from the municipality, DES may choose to designate the wetland as a prime wetland (NHDES, 2012c). Results This section presents the findings of the ordinance review for each of the nine categories. For each category, Wolfeboro’s land use and zoning ordinances are compared to the other municipalities listed in the tables below, the results are discussed, the towns are ranked according to most protective (1) to least protective (3-4) , and recommendations are made to inform Wolfeboro about the potential for ordinance improvements. Where applicable, the reviewed ordinances are compared to the SWQPA.
SHORELAND PROTECTION The land adjacent to a lake, pond, river, or stream, when left in its natural state can play an important role in filtering runoff, shading streams and rivers, protecting banks and shorelines, and reducing erosion. Some of the benchmark standards that should be built into ordinances for protecting water quality within the shoreland zone include: mandatory setbacks for primary structures, mandatory buffers between development and the waterbody, and impervious cover restrictions.
For Shoreland Protection, Wolfeboro’s current zoning ordinances (Wolfeboro, 2012) were compared to New Durham (New Durham, 2011), Windham (Windham, 2011), and Milton (Milton, 2010). Table 1 (below) provides information specific to shorefront protection within their ordinances. 4 FB Environmental Associates Wolfeboro Municipal Ordinance Review November 2012
Table 1. Comparison of shorefront protection regulations for Wolfeboro and three other NH towns
Wolfeboro New Durham Windham Milton Wetland and Watershed 75' building setback from all Protection District (WWPD) 50' building setback from all lakes lakes and ponds and perennial has mandatory setback of 100' No primary structure shall be and ponds, 75' setback on all streams and rivers. No more for any pond >10 acres, located within 50' of the Shorefront perennial streams and rivers. 50’ than a total of 20% of the lot wetland >1 acre, or perennial reference (high water) line of Protection buffer within shoreland zone. area, including buildings, shall stream.3 No land alteration ponds, perennial rivers, Maximum 30% impervious area of be covered by impervious without permission, is streams, brooks.4 any lot. surfaces around lakes and permitted within the 100’ ponds. WWPD. Rank 3 1 2 4
Findings While Wolfeboro has strong benchmark standards built into its ordinances pertaining to shorefront protection, the mandatory setback from lakes and ponds for structures in New Durham and Windham is greater. Both New Durham and Windham go beyond the minimum standards put forth in the SWPQA and require a larger setback. Windham’s Wetland and Watershed Protection District (WWPD) gives a clear indication that development within the shoreland zone is limited and requires more oversight. New Durham goes above and beyond the SWPQA by requiring a maximum of 20% impervious cover per lot around lakes and ponds. The building setback, buffer requirements, and impervious coverage percentages in the shoreland zone around lakes and ponds for Wolfeboro are the same as the minimum standards presented in the SWPQA (Wolfeboro, 2012).
Recommendations It is recommended that Wolfeboro increase the mandatory building setback from lakes and ponds. While there is a 75 foot setback for perennial streams and rivers built into its Wetlands Conservation Overlay District, the setback in the Shorefront Residential District is only 50 feet for lakes and ponds. The majority of the changes approved in March, 2012 to the Shorefront Residential District in Wolfeboro are no more restrictive than the minimum standards presented in the SWPQA (Wolfeboro, 2012). More restrictive impervious cover percentages (such as a 20% maximum per lot) are recommended for Wolfeboro’s Shorefront Residential District.
Wetlands Wetlands are important features in the natural landscape whose values are often overlooked. These resources provide numerous benefits for the local community because they help filter and improve water quality, provide flood storage, provide fish and other wildlife habitat, and also provide recreational opportunities (EPA, 2001). Municipal ordinances can protect wetlands in a variety of ways by limiting the extent and type of development in and around wetlands. The benchmark standards in this review include mandatory building setbacks and buffer requirements for the natural area adjacent to wetlands.
5 FB Environmental Associates Wolfeboro Municipal Ordinance Review November 2012
For wetland protection, Wolfeboro’s current zoning (Wolfeboro, 2012) were compared to New Durham (New Durham, 2011) and Windham (Windham, 2011). Table 2 (below) provides an overview of some of the benchmark standards within each town’s ordinances pertaining to wetlands.
Findings All three towns have strong protections built into their ordinances for wetlands. Since the State of New Hampshire minimum standards only apply to prime wetlands, all of these towns have gone above the states’ minimum standards for wetland protections (NHDES, 2012c). However, Wolfeboro clearly has the strongest standards for the protection of wetlands. Of the three communities reviewed, Wolfeboro is the only town which has designated Prime Wetlands. This means that the town went above and beyond what was required to specifically designate wetlands within the town as prime, thereby increasing the mandatory protections for those areas. The language in Wolfeboro’s Wetland Conservation Overlay District is clear, and provides protection for all identified wetlands within the town. While the setback built into Windham’s WWPD is greater than that of Wolfeboro’s, Windham’s ordinance only applies the 100 foot setback to wetlands that are greater than one acre in size. While the restrictions imposed in both New Durham and Wolfeboro are very similar, Wolfeboro’s mandated “no touch” buffer to wetlands, and the designation of Prime Wetlands within the town make Wolfeboro’s ordinances stronger.
Table 2. Comparison of wetland regulations for Wolfeboro and two other NH towns
Wolfeboro New Durham Windham
75' building setback to wetlands with very 75' building setback to all wetlands, and a Wetland and Watershed Protection poorly drained soils, 30’ setback to other mandatory 25' buffer to all wetlands. 100' District (WWPD) has mandatory Wetlands wetlands with poorly drained soils. 100' no setback and 75' buffer to all wetlands of setback of 100' for any wetland greater touch buffer to prime wetlands. 25' no touch local significance. than 1 acre in size. buffer to all other wetlands.
Rank 1 2 3
Recommendations Wolfeboro has strong benchmark standards protecting wetlands. The Town of Wolfeboro did approve the proposed changes to the Wetland Conservation Overlay District in March, 2012. The updated language helps to convey the protections imposed clearly and concisely. The mandated no touch buffer built into Wolfeboro’s ordinance provides strong protections for wetlands and wildlife habitat and was built into the ordinance by Wolfeboro after careful consideration of technical data (Houseman, 2012). For additional protection of wetlands, Wolfeboro should consider extending its mandatory setback for all wetlands with very poorly drained soils to 100 feet, and wetlands with poorly drained soils to 50 feet.
Steep Slopes When any type of construction or ground disturbance takes place on land with a slope, the potential for erosion increases, leading to sediment and nutrient delivery to local lakes and streams. Preserving the natural topography, vegetative cover, and drainage patterns on land with steep slopes is important for
6 FB Environmental Associates Wolfeboro Municipal Ordinance Review November 2012 water quality (NH Stormwater, 2011). Municipalities can protect surface waters by limiting construction and ground disturbance on areas with steep slopes which are generally defined as areas with 15% slopes or greater (NH Stormwater, 2011). The benchmark standards in this section include whether or not the town has a steep slope ordinance, and the types of limitations imposed by the ordinance.
For steep slope protection, Wolfeboro’s current ordinances (Wolfeboro, 2012) were compared to New Durham (New Durham, 2011) and Windham (Windham, 2011). Table 3 (below) provides an overview of the benchmark standards identified in each town’s ordinances pertaining to steep slope protection.
Table 3. Comparison of steep slope regulations for Wolfeboro and two other NH towns
Wolfeboro New Durham Windham
Applies to all areas with a slope greater than 15% and where site disturbance is greater The Steep Slope Conservation District The WWPD shall be increased by 100 than 20,000 sq. ft. No structure shall be built comprises all lands with a slope of 15% Wetlands feet when that 100 feet has an upward on an extremely steep slope (>25%). or greater. Permitted uses vary with the slope of 12% or more. Vegetation must be preserved to the greatest percent slope. extent possible.
Rank 1 2 3
Findings In March, 2012 Wolfeboro passed a Steep Slope Ordinance, giving the town clear protections for disturbances on steep slopes. Both Wolfeboro’s ordinance and New Durham’s Steep Slope Conservation District provide clear protections for water quality with limitations to development and site disturbance on steep slopes. However, the clarity of Wolfeboro’s ordinance and the requirement to keep natural topographic features and vegetative cover in place, and replacing it if removed, make it a stronger ordinance. New Durham allows for residential development on lands with slopes greater than 25% with a conditional use permit, while Wolfeboro prohibits all structures on slopes greater than 25%. Windham does not have a steep slope ordinance, and there is little mention of steep slopes within its land use and zoning regulations. Recommendations Wolfeboro improved protections for surface water when it approved the Steep Slope Ordinance in 2012. There are ways, however, in which Wolfeboro could make their Steep Slope Ordinance even more protective of surface waters. Wolfeboro should consider including language that requires design and installation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for all development on slopes greater than 15%. Wolfeboro should also consider reducing the site disturbance which triggers the steep slope ordinance from 20,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet.
Riparian Buffers Riparian buffers include the land area adjacent to any surface water body including lakes, ponds, rivers and streams. These areas are extremely important for maintaining healthy aquatic systems and water quality. Natural riparian buffers provide stabilization of banks and shorelines, increase stormwater 7 FB Environmental Associates Wolfeboro Municipal Ordinance Review November 2012 infiltration, filter stormwater runoff, and provide shade for streams and rivers. Municipalities can protect surface waters by mandating that riparian buffers remain intact for specific distances back from the water line. The benchmark standards analyzed in this review include whether or not riparian (natural) buffers are mandated, the width of the mandated buffer, and specific language on what comprises a natural buffer.
For riparian buffers, Wolfeboro’s current ordinances (Wolfeboro, 2012) were compared to New Durham (New Durham, 2011) and Windham (Windham, 2011). Table 4 (below) contains an overview of the benchmark standards pertaining to riparian or natural buffers.
Table 4. Comparison of riparian buffer regulations for Wolfeboro and two other NH towns
Wolfeboro New Durham Windham
Article VI: Water Quality Protection outlines No touch buffer to prime wetlands: the specific mandatory riparian buffer 100'. No touch buffer required for all requirements for each type of surface water. other wetland, perennial and Streams and Rivers: 35', Lakes and Ponds <10 Only mention of mandatory buffer is in Riparian intermittent streams: 25’ Waterfront acres: 25', wetlands: 25', wetland and surface Cobbetts Pond Watershed Protection (Natural) Buffer must be maintained within 50 waters of local significance: 75', vernal pools: ordinance. It is implied in the WWPD, Buffers feet from the reference line (Lakes / 50', wetlands contiguous to Lakes and ponds but the word "buffer" is never used. Ponds). No natural ground cover shall >10 acres: 50’ Mandatory buffer strip is be removed except for a footpath to the adjusted based on the slope of land leading up water. to waterbody.
Rank 2 1 3
Findings Both Wolfeboro and New Durham have clear language pertaining to buffers within their ordinances. Windham defines buffers and mandates them in the Cobbetts Pond Watershed Protection ordinance, but how they apply to other waterbodies is not clearly spelled out. The only town which specifically defines a riparian buffer is New Durham. The mandated lake and pond buffers within Wolfeboro are the same as the NH minimum standards per the SWQPA. New Durham has the strongest ordinances pertaining to riparian buffers because the buffers are clearly defined, and the town requires the mandatory buffer strip be increased based on the slope of the land leading up to the waterbody. Below is a summary of how New Durham adjusts the mandatory vegetated buffer strip for steep slopes (New Durham, 2011).
“Steep slope areas will also be considered in determining the width of a vegetated buffer strip. If the vegetated buffer strip designated in Column A of Table 4 contains an area that has a slope of 10% or more for more than 10 linear feet in a direction perpendicular to the edge of a water resource, the width of the vegetated buffer zone will be increased as shown in Table 5.”
Examples of the additional distance of the vegetated buffer required by New Durham are shown below.
0-9.9% - No additional Distance 10-19.9% - 15 additional feet 20-29.9% - 35 additional feet 8 FB Environmental Associates Wolfeboro Municipal Ordinance Review November 2012
30-39.9% - 55 additional feet 40% or more – Buffer to extend up-slope until slope is less than 40% for at least 10 linear feet in a direction perpendicular to the Reference Line.
Recommendations Wolfeboro should consider increasing its mandatory riparian buffer requirements for perennial streams, lakes, and ponds to consider slope. The mandatory buffer along lakes and ponds as outlined in the proposed changes to the Shorefront Residential District are no more protective than New Hampshire’s minimum standards found in the SWQPA. It is also recommended that Wolfeboro include language within its ordinance defining a riparian buffer.
Stormwater Runoff Development alters the natural movement of water over the land and generates stormwater containing an array of pollutants that are harmful to aquatic systems. Pollution from stormwater runoff is one of the largest threats to surface water quality today. Municipalities can lessen the effects that development has on water quality by enacting environmentally sensitive site planning and implementing better site design techniques and Best Management Practices (BMPs) for new development and redevelopment. Municipalities can reduce the impact of stormwater runoff from development by adopting specific requirements for stormwater management into their ordinances. The specific standards considered in this review include whether or not a stormwater ordinance exists and the degree of stormwater management built into the ordinances. Stormwater management within ordinances is complex. This review also attempts to determine how clearly stormwater management is defined for each of the communities.
Wolfeboro’s current ordinances (Wolfeboro, 2012) were compared to New Durham (New Durham, 2011), Windham (Windham, 2011), and Newbury (Newbury, 2011) specific to stormwater. Table 5 (below) provides an overview of the benchmark standards identified in each town's ordinances pertaining to stormwater runoff.
9 FB Environmental Associates Wolfeboro Municipal Ordinance Review November 2012
Table 5. Comparison of stormwater regulations for Wolfeboro and three other NH towns
Wolfeboro New Durham Windham Newbury
Triggered by all new disturbances Within the Groundwater greater than 2,000 sq. ft. on slopes Protection Overlay, any use that less than 15% (minimum area Purpose of ordinance is to will render impervious more decreases as slopes increase), the mandate a storm water than 15% or more than 2,500 Applies to land disturbances total overall impervious cover management program to reduce sq. ft. of any lot, a stormwater of 1,000 sq. ft. or greater on shall not exceed 20% of a site, or the discharge of pollutants from management plan shall be slopes 15% or greater, or 30% of a site if the amount of municipal storm water prepared which the Planning slopes less than 15% and the impervious greater than 20% is collection systems (MS4). Board determines consistent disturbed area is 20 ft or less disconnected from the offsite Within the Cobbetts Pond with the Stormwater from the top of a slope of 15% Stormwater stormwater drainage network. Watershed Protection Management and Erosion and or greater. Measure shall be Runoff Stormwater systems shall not Ordinance, that will render Sediment control handbook. taken to control post discharge directly to surface impervious more than 20% or Proposed changes to Shorefront development peak rate of waters, subsurface, or more than 2,500 square feet of Residential District - No area runoff so that it does not groundwater within 100 feet of a any lot, a SW management and within 250 of the reference line exceed pre development peak surface water. SW mgmt systems erosion control plan, consistent shall have greater than 30% rate of runoff. Use of LID shall be designed to remove a with Stormwater Management impervious. If a homeowner or approaches are prefered.8 minimum of 80% of the average and Erosion and Sediment developer wishes to exceed annual load of TSS, floatables, Control Handbook. 20%, a stormwater management greases, and oils after site is plan must be implemented. developed.
Rank 4 1 2 3
Findings New Durham, Windham, and Newbury all have specific ordinances dedicated to stormwater management. Wolfeboro does not currently have, and is not planning on adopting a stormwater management ordinance. Windham is the only community of the four that is regulated by the federal Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) program. Therefore, the community has to take specific actions to regulate stormwater within the town and these measures are included in the ordinance. Newbury’s stormwater ordinance addresses disturbances on steeps slopes and sets specific peak runoff regulations. Newbury also discusses the preferred approach of Low Impact Development (LID) when managing stormwater runoff. New Durham’s ordinance, which deals with stormwater, is the strongest of the four communities because there are specific impervious cover restrictions in place, limits on where stormwater discharges can go, and clear pollutant load reductions mandated by the ordinance. Wolfeboro’s stormwater management requirements within the proposed changes to its Shorefront Residential District are the same as the NH minimum standards laid out in the SWQPA.
Recommendations Wolfeboro should consider developing a stormwater management ordinance. If Wolfeboro’s Planning Board does not want to go through town vote to establish a standalone stormwater management ordinance, it is recommended that benchmark standards pertaining to stormwater management be built into the Shorefront Residential District, proposed Steep Slope Ordinance, and Wetlands Conservation Overlay District. The language in New Durham’s ordinance could serve as a model for Wolfeboro. The benchmark standards Wolfeboro should require include post-construction stormwater pollutant reduction goals, impervious cover restrictions per lot based on the underlying zoning, mandatory BMP installation, and clear language regulating construction-site stormwater runoff.
10 FB Environmental Associates Wolfeboro Municipal Ordinance Review November 2012
Erosion and Sediment Control New development disturbs natural ground cover, which in turn can result in the erosion of sediments and delivery of nutrients such as phosphorus, which contribute to declining water clarity and algal blooms in lakes. Erosion and sediment control often goes hand in hand with stormwater management. Making sure that proper best management practices (BMPs) are in place prior to, during, and after construction is essential for limiting the effects of erosion and sediments on surface waters. Municipalities can reduce erosion and sedimentation in streams and lakes by requiring contractors to develop erosion and sediment control plans. In 2007, the Town of Wolfeboro developed a comprehensive ordinance for erosion and sediment control. However, the Town’s legal counsel found that Wolfeboro’s Planning Board did not have the authority to establish a standalone sediment and erosion control ordinance. The Planning Board only has the authority to regulate the control of erosion and sediment in the context of projects requiring subdivision or site plan approval (Houseman, 2012). The specific criteria examined in this review pertains to whether or not the municipality has an ordinance addressing erosion and sediment control, and what kind of activities require an erosion and sediment control plan.
For erosion and sediment control, Wolfeboro’s current ordinances (Wolfeboro, 2012) were compared to New Durham (New Durham, 2011) and Windham (Windham, 2011). Table 6 (below) provides an overview of the benchmark standards identified in each town’s ordinances pertaining to erosion and sediment control.
Table 6. Comparison of erosion and sediment control regulations for Wolfeboro and two other NH towns
Wolfeboro New Durham Windham
Special use permits within the All activities, construction, and use of Wetlands Conservation Overlay Pre and Post construction site runoff buildings, structures, and land within the require when deemed necessary a controls are one the minimum control Riparian Buffer Zone shall be carried out so as sediment and erosion control plan. measures in place as part of Windham's to minimize the volume and rate of stormwater Conservation Subdivisions require Stormwater Ordinance. Within the runoff, the amount of erosion, and the export of efforts to reduce erosion and Cobbetts Pond Watershed Protection Erosion and sediment from the site. All activities shall be sedimentation. For site disturbances Ordinance, any use that will render Sediment conducted in accordance with BMPs for greater than 20,000 square feet on impervious more than 20% or more than Control stormwater management outlined in the New slopes greater than 15%, an 2,500 square feet of any lot, a SW Hampshire Stormwater Manual. Erosion and engineering plan will be required management and erosion control plan, sedimentation control plans shall be required to that shows specific methods that will consistent with Stormwater management describe the nature and purpose of the land be used to control soil erosion and and Erosion and sediment Control disturbing activity (as described in Stormwater sedimentation both during and after Handbook. management and Erosion Control ordinance). construction
Rank 3 1 2
Findings New Durham’s Stormwater Management and Erosion Control ordinance specifically addresses the type of activities that require erosion and sediment controls, and what those controls are. The ordinance states that all disturbances greater than 2,000 square feet on slopes less than 15% will require erosion and sediment control plans, which captures many construction activities. For these reasons, New Durham has the strongest ordinance for erosion and sediment control of the three municipalities. Windham also addresses erosion and sediment control through its Stormwater Ordinance and the control of pre- and 11 FB Environmental Associates Wolfeboro Municipal Ordinance Review November 2012 post-construction site runoff. Given that Wolfeboro’s Planning Board does not have the legal authority to develop a standalone sediment and erosion control ordinance (Houseman, 2012); it is not surprising that New Durham and Windham’s benchmark standards for erosion and sediment control are stronger. Wolfeboro does require sediment and erosion control plans for certain activities, such as disturbances within the Wetland Conservation Overlay District, and on sites with disturbances greater than 20,000 feet on slopes greater than 15% (Wolfeboro, 2012). However, this means that not as many activities within Wolfeboro will trigger the requirement for a sediment and erosion control plan as compared to New Durham and Windham.
Recommendations Wolfeboro should consider developing benchmark standards for erosion and sediment control that would be applicable to a broader range of construction activities. Given the legal constraints on Wolfeboro’s Planning Board for developing a standalone ordinance, these standards should be built into existing ordinances regulating the subdivision of land and site plan review. These standards should pertain to mandatory pre- and post-construction BMPs aimed at reducing erosion and sedimentation. Wolfeboro should also consider developing standards for site disturbances of a predetermined size on land with slopes less than 15% in order to address smaller projects that have a cumulative impact on water quality.
Subdivisions The subdivision of land is often one of the more complex components of a town’s land use and zoning ordinances. Subdivisions which result in land fragmentation, increase the length of new roads, and decrease the amount of natural and open space can result in urban sprawl, and are not good for lake water quality. Municipalities can enact regulations within their ordinances that limit the amount of sprawl and require that new subdivisions set aside open space with what are often called “open space” or “conservation” subdivisions. Given the complex nature of subdivisions, this review focused on specific standards pertaining to open space subdivisions, including whether or not open space subdivisions are mandatory under certain circumstances, and the amount of open space required within those subdivisions. Wolfeboro’s current ordinances (Wolfeboro, 2012) were compared to New Durham (New Durham, 2011) and Windham (Windham, 2011). Table 7 (below) contains a brief overview of the benchmark standards identified in each town’s ordinances pertaining to open space subdivisions.
12 FB Environmental Associates Wolfeboro Municipal Ordinance Review November 2012
Table 7. Comparison of subdivision regulations for Wolfeboro and two other NH towns
Wolfeboro New Durham Windham Open Space Residential Overlay District Subdivisions are not permitted on land the (611). Definition: A minimum 10 acre board deems unsafe for building development. An Open Space conservation Subdivision tract of single or consolidated ownership, The minimum lot size of subdivisions is based is strongly encouraged for all major and where a number of single family on soil type (174-9 - Design Standards). minor subdivision if a public or private structures may be grouped together with Mandatory open space (conservation road is needed. The applicant is minimum lot area, frontage and yard subdivisions) required for subdivisions of a encouraged to demonstrate that the Open requirements as specified in the section of certain size. Conservation subdivision ordnance Space Conservation Subdivision Design the ordinance. Density shall be equal to Subdivisions works to discourage development sprawl and is not feasible. At least 50% of an Open the density of the zoning ordinance, but consumption of rural and/or agricultural land. Space Conservation Subdivision's remaining tract, not built upon, is A minimum of 50% of the total tract area, buildable area and a portion of the non- preserved as open space. Encourages excluding ROW or easements, shall be required buildable area of the parent lot shall be flexibility in the design and development to be permanently dedicated as open space. permanently designated open space, and of land in order to provide for Mandatory 100 foot buffer between mean high the designated open space shall not be conservation of open space. A minimum water mark of lake or pond and structures in used for additional building lots. of 65% of the total area of the Shorefront Residential subdivisions. development shall be set aside as permanent open space. Rank 2 3 1
Findings All three towns have ordinances which address open space subdivisions. However, the language within New Durham’s ordinance does not specifically mandate conservation subdivisions and only states that they are “strongly encouraged”. Wolfeboro mandates conservation subdivisions when the tract of land being divided meets specific dimensions based on the underlying zoning of the land. Windham also requires open space subdivisions. The main reason why Windham’s ordinance is considered to be stronger than Wolfeboro’s in this case, is the amount of open space mandated by the ordinance. In Wolfeboro, 50% of the initial tract of land is to be permanently designated as open space, while in Windham, 65% of the land is to be maintained as open space.
Recommendations Wolfeboro has clear and strong benchmark standards within its ordinances mandating open space subdivisions under certain circumstances. The ordinances therefore take steps to protect surface water, and the natural landscape from degradation by subdivisions. While the current standards within Wolfeboro’s ordinances are strong, the town should consider increasing the overall amount of land that designated as open space above 50%. As mentioned in the Sediment and Erosion Control section (above), Wolfeboro should consider adding stronger benchmark standards for sediment and erosion control into existing ordinances pertaining to subdivisions.
Low Impact Development Low impact development (LID) refers to a wide range of techniques specifically designed to limit the adverse effects that poorly planned development can have on water quality. Some examples of LID techniques include minimization and/or disconnection of impervious surfaces, development design that reduces the rate and volume of runoff, and reduction of the pollutant loads within runoff. Common types 13 FB Environmental Associates Wolfeboro Municipal Ordinance Review November 2012 of techniques include, but are not limited to; bioretention cells, tree box filters, infiltration trenches, rain barrels, and rain gardens. Municipalities can help protect water quality by mandating the use of LID in new and renovated developments. Since these practices are relatively new, most municipalities do not currently mandate the use of LID. The benchmark standards analyzed in this report pertain to whether or not LID was mentioned in the ordinances, and whether LID was specifically mandated or encouraged.
Wolfeboro’s current ordinances (Wolfeboro, 2012) were compared to New Durham (New Durham, 2011), Windham (Windham, 2011), and Newbury (Newbury, 2011) for low impact development. Table 8 (below) provides an overview of the benchmark standards identified in each town’s ordinances pertaining to LID.
Table 8. Comparison of low impact development regulations for Wolfeboro and three other NH towns
Wolfeboro New Durham Windham Newbury
LID is mentioned under their Under the Town Center Mixed LID is suggested for new Stormwater Management Use Zoning District, design of developments within the Low Impact No mention of LID techniques ordinance. The use of LID parking areas shall incorporate Cobbetts Pond Watershed Development being required. techniques are preferred and LID methods for management Protection Ordinance, but not shall be implemented to the of stormwater. mandated. LID is defined. maximum extent practical.
Rank 4 2 2 1
Findings Wolfeboro’s current zoning ordinances do not mention LID. New Durham and Windham only mention LID in specific zones, and the language supporting the use of LID is not particularly strong. Newbury’s Stormwater Management ordinance contains language which states that “the uses of LID techniques are preferred and shall be implemented to the maximum extent practical” (Newbury, 2011). While this language does not mandate the use of LID within developments regulated by Newbury’s Stormwater Management ordinance, it has the clearest intention of the town’s desire for LID to be used. None of the municipalities reviewed have strong language supporting the use of LID techniques to reduce the potentially adverse effects that development can have on water quality.
Recommendations Wolfeboro should consider incorporating language into its ordinances mandating the use of LID techniques for developments which have the greatest potential to impact surface waters. This could include requiring LID for new construction within the Shorefront Residential District, or development within the Wetlands Conservation Overlay District. More information on LID techniques can be found on the Center for Watershed Protection’s website: www.cwp.org and within the New Hampshire Homeowners Guide to Stormwater Management available thought NHDES: www.des.state.nh.us/organization/commissioner/pip/publications/wd/documents/wd-11-11.pdf.
14 FB Environmental Associates Wolfeboro Municipal Ordinance Review November 2012
Septic Systems Septic systems are often the primary means of waste disposal in rural communities. When septic systems are not maintained properly they will fail prematurely. Failing septic systems can leach pollutants such as nitrogen, phosphorous, and bacteria into nearby surface waters. Municipalities can take steps to reduce the effects of failing septic systems through the use of mandatory septic system setbacks and specific ordinances pertaining to septic system maintenance. Ordinances that deal with septic system maintenance may require routine pump out, and inspections for septic systems, as often as every 3 years. The 2011 Septic Survey for Lake Wentworth/Crescent Lake found that 39% of septic systems around the lakes are more than 20 years old, and another 6% of respondents didn’t know how old their systems were (FBE, 2011). By requiring regular pumping and inspections, the rate of septic system failure will decrease. The benchmark standards reviewed for this report pertain to minimum septic system setbacks from surface waters and whether or not the town requires septic system inspections and maintenance.
For septic systems, Wolfeboro’s current ordinances (Wolfeboro, 2012) were compared to New Durham (New Durham, 2011) and Windham (Windham, 2011). Table 9 (below) provides an overview of the benchmark standards identified in each towns ordinances pertaining to septic systems.
Findings None of the municipalities have a specific ordinance pertaining to mandatory septic system maintenance or inspections. All of the ordinances reviewed do, however, require mandatory setbacks for septic systems from surface waters. The setbacks in Wolfeboro, which are based on soil percolation rates and soil characteristics, are no more stringent than the minimum standards in the SWQPA. Wolfeboro does have language mandating the replacement of failed septic systems within the Wetland Conservation Overlay District to be located outside of the respective buffer zone, which provides additional protection from failing septic systems in this specific zoning district. Windham’s setbacks are based on the NHDES regulations, which are older than the regulations set forth in the SWQPA.
Table 9. Comparison of septic system regulations for Wolfeboro and two other NH towns
Wolfeboro New Durham Windham
Leach field and Septic Tank Setback from high watermark of Water Quality Protection - Septic No Septic System may be located all waterbodies. Where soils down gradient are porous with a setback from perennial streams and within any W.W.P.D. Cobbetts percolation rate faster than 2 min./inch: 125 feet. For naturally rivers: 100', Lakes and Ponds: 100', Pond Watershed Protection occurring receiving soils with restrictive layers within 18 Wetlands: 75', Vernal Pools: 75', Ordinance - Any new construction inches of the surface, the setback shall be at least 100 feet. For seasonal or intermittent streams: 75', of a septic system shall be Septic naturally occurring receiving soils with any other wetland and surface waters of local installed in accordance to NHDES Systems characteristics, the setback shall be at least 75 feet. Proposed significance: 125', wetlands regulations requiring a 75' setback changes to Wetlands Conservation Overlay - Failed septic contiguous to Lakes & ponds: 100'. from all Hydric-A soils and a 50' systems within 75' of wetland or stream and in very poorly The setback is increased based on the setback from all Hydric-B soils drained soils, and failed septic systems within 50' of wetland slope - 10-20%: additional 15', 20- from any surface water or or stream and in poorly drained soils - must be replaced 30%: additional 35', 30-40%: wetland. outside of the designated buffer for the wetland or stream. additional 55'.2
Rank 2 1 3
New Durham has a specific chart that outlines the mandatory septic system setbacks from all types of surface waters, and the setback is increased with increasing slope. New Durham’s benchmark standards 15 FB Environmental Associates Wolfeboro Municipal Ordinance Review November 2012 for setbacks from surface waters go above and beyond the minimum standards laid out in the SWQPA. Streams and rivers, lakes and ponds, as well as wetland and surface waters of local significance all have 100 foot mandatory setbacks for septic systems in New Durham. Based on the mandatory setbacks in the SWQPA, the setbacks for these waterbodies with the same soil conditions would only be 75 feet.
Recommendations The Town of Wolfeboro should consider adopting a septic system ordinance that requires regular maintenance and inspections of septic systems within 250 feet of surface waters. While an ordinance requiring maintenance for all septic systems within the town would be ideal, the most important septic systems to maintain from a surface water quality perspective are those closest to surface waters. Based on the 2011 Septic Survey for Lake Wentworth/Crescent Lake, there are 625 properties with structures within 250 feet of surface waters in the watershed, with a majority of the those properties in the Town of Wolfeboro (FBE, 2011). Wolfeboro adopted new language within its proposed changes to the Wetland Conservation Overlay District in March, 2012. These changes now require the replacement of failed septic systems within this district increasing protections for surface waters in the town. Wolfeboro should also consider increasing the mandatory setbacks for new development by going above and beyond the minimum standards found in the SWQPA for environmentally sensitive areas such as the Wetland Conservation Overlay District or the Shorefront Residential District.
16 FB Environmental Associates Wolfeboro Municipal Ordinance Review November 2012
Summary of Land Use and Zoning Change Recommendations
Table 10. Summary of land use and zoning recommendations for Wolfeboro, NH
CATEGORY SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 1) Consider increasing mandatory development setbacks from lakes and ponds to 75 feet as required in the Wetland Conservation Overlay District. The current setbacks and buffer requirements for lakes and ponds are no more protective than the NH minimum standards SHOREFRONT set forth in the SWQPA; 2) Instill more protective impervious cover restrictions within the PROTECTION Shorefront Residential District. The changes approved in March, 2012 with impervious cover restrictions are no more restrictive than the NH minimum standards within the SWQPA. 1) Consider extending the mandatory development setbacks for wetlands with very poorly WETLANDS drained soils to 100 feet, and for poorly drained soils to 50 feet. 1) Add language to the steep slope ordinance requiring pre and post-construction BMPs within the steep slope overlay district; 2) Reduce the size of disturbances which triggers STEEP SLOPES increased regulation under the steep slope ordinance from 20,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet.
RIPARIAN 1) Clearly define the term Riparian Buffer; 2) Increase the mandatory buffer width for BUFFERS perennial streams, rivers, lakes, and ponds with consideration of slope. Develop and approve a stormwater management ordinance, or require specific standards within existing ordinances with: 1) Mandatory BMP installation and clear language on STORMWATER BMPs needed to regulate construction site runoff; 2) Post construction – long term RUNOFF pollutant reduction goals for the site; 3) Impervious cover restrictions for the developed lot. 1) Adopt benchmark standards within existing ordinances pertaining to sediment and erosion control which apply to a wider range of projects. These standards could be placed EROSION within existing ordinances pertaining to site plan review and the subdivision of land; 2) CONTROL The standards should include language requiring BMP installation for pre and post- construction runoff control, and require an erosion and sediment control plan for disturbances of a specific size on slopes less than 15%.
CONSERVATION Consider increasing the mandatory open space for conservation subdivisions above 50%. SUBDIVISIONS Develop language within the Shorefront Residential District and Wetland Conservation LOW IMPACT Overlay that requires the use of LID techniques for new construction projects in these DEVELOPMENT zones. 1) Develop and approve an ordinance requiring routine septic system pumping and SEPTIC SYSTEMS maintenance; 2) Increase mandatory setbacks for septic systems from surface water to be more protective than NH minimum standards in the SWQPA.
17 FB Environmental Associates Wolfeboro Municipal Ordinance Review November 2012
Ordinance Review Summary This ordinance review for the Town of Wolfeboro analyzed the benchmark standards within the towns’ ordinances pertaining to shorefront protection, wetlands, riparian buffers, stormwater runoff, sediment and erosion control, subdivisions, low impact development, and septic systems. This review provides Wolfeboro with information about how they can improve benchmark standards pertaining specifically to these topic areas. This was not a comprehensive ordinance review. Therefore, ordinance components such as site plan review regulations, the subdivision of land, road and right of way standards, minimum lot sizes, minimum shore frontage per lot, and others, which have the potential to impact surface water quality, should also be carefully reviewed in the future.
By comparing many of the benchmark standards within Wolfeboro’s land use and zoning ordinances to other New Hampshire communities, this review highlighted the areas where specific ordinances could be improved to be more protective of surface water quality. On the other hand, this comparison showcases the areas where the town has already made great strides to protect water quality.
This review indicates that there are several areas where ordinances can be improved to be more protective of the lakes, ponds and streams throughout the town. The primary areas where changes to the ordinances should be considered are: stormwater runoff, erosion and sediment control, and low impact development (LID). However, Wolfeboro currently has many regulations in place which are more protective of surface water than the other communities included in the review. The natural resources within the town, including Lake Wentworth and Crescent Lake and the many high quality streams in the watershed, are foremost the largest driving force fueling the local economy. Ongoing efforts to protect and improve water quality is therefore an important consideration for the long-term sustainability of Wolfeboro’s local economy, and can be accomplished by the ongoing efforts of an active planning board, an educated and engaged citizenry, and regulations that allow well-planned development to occur with the least impact to the land and water in the town.
18 FB Environmental Associates Wolfeboro Municipal Ordinance Review November 2012
References EPA (2001). Functions and Values of Wetlands. United States Environmental Protection Agency. September 2001. EPA 843-F-01-002c. Available Online at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/facts/fun_val.pdf.
FBE (2011). Septic and Stormwater Survey Report for Lake Wentworth and Crescent Lake, Wolfeboro, NH. FB Environmental Associates. November 2011. Available online at: http://lakewentworthfoundation.org/watershed/downloads/
FBE (2012). Lake Wentworth Buildout Analysis, Wolfeboro and Brookfield, NH. FB Environmental Associates. March 2012.
FBE (2012b). Center Street Rezoning Ordinance Review. Wolfeboro, NH. FB Environmental Associates. September 2012.
Houseman (2012). Personal e-mail communication between Wolfeboro Town Planner Robert Houseman and FB Environmental Senior Project Manager Jennifer Jespersen. E-mail comments received on Friday, March 16, 2012
Milton (2010). Town of Milton, New Hampshire. Zoning Ordinance. Last Updated March, 2010. Available online at: www.miltonnh-us.com/businesses.php.
New Durham (2011). Town of New Durham, New Hampshire. Zoning and Land Use Ordinance. Last Updated March, 2011. Available online at: www.newdurhamnh.us/pages/NewDurhamNH_Planning/Index.
Newbury (2011). Town of Newbury, New Hampshire. Zoning Ordinance. Last Updated March, 2011. Available online at: www.newburynh.org/Public_Documents/NewburyNH_Ordinances/toc.
NHDES (2012a). New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. RSA 483-B. Shoreland Water Quality Protection Act (SWQPA). A Summary of the Standards. Available online at: http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/wetlands/cspa/documents/summary_standards.pdf. Accessed online on February 28, 2012.
NHDES (2012b). New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. Shoreland Program Overview. Available online at: http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/wetlands/cspa/categories/overview.htm. Accessed online on March 29, 2012.
NHDES (2012c). Prime Wetlands in NH Communities. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services website: http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/wetlands/prime_wetlands.htm. Accessed online on March 9, 2012.
NH Stormwater (2011). New Hampshire Stormwater Manual. Last Updated March, 2011. Available online at: http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/stormwater/manual.htm. Accessed online on February 28, 2012.
Windham (2011). Town of Windham, New Hampshire. Zoning Ordinances and Land Use Regulations. Last Updated March, 2011. Available online at: www.windhamnewhampshire.com/updated/ordtable.htm.
19 FB Environmental Associates Wolfeboro Municipal Ordinance Review November 2012
Wolfeboro (2012). Town of Wolfeboro, New Hampshire. Zoning and Building Ordinances. Available online at: www.wolfeboronh.us/Pages/WolfeboroNH_Planning/index. Accessed online on October 18, 2012
20 FB Environmental Associates