‘Why are they singling us out?’: Wetland protections in Bow frustrate family’s house construction

Eli Lehrmann and his wife packed up their life in Alaska and moved to New Hampshire this year to be closer to his ailing father, who lives in a nursing home in Montreal. 

They planned to build a family home this summer on a piece of land they own in Bow, complete with an accessory dwelling unit where Lehrmann’s father could eventually move in. 

But their plans have hit a series of roadblocks. 

Lehrmann said the town’s restrictions on where he can build the house have left him in limbo, unsure whether the project will ever move forward. Buffer zones that protect wetlands on the property have confined Lehrmann to a square footage he says just isn’t enough, and town officials have resisted his request for a variance.

“We feel it’s a lot of government overreach here with the town government,” said Lehrmann. “Why are they singling us out?” 

Instead of settling into a new home in Bow, the Lehrmanns are living in Manchester, and every couple of months, Lehrmann makes the long drive to Montreal to visit his father.

His dilemma has stirred strong emotions across town, spilling onto social media, where some residents are calling for the resignations of public officials, alleging the town’s land-use restrictions amount to “stealing private property rights.”

The social media page has targeted Selectboard chair Kip McDaniel and Sandy Crystall, Chair of the Conservation Commission, both of whom serve on the town’s Planning Board. The resignation campaign has also targeted Tom O’Donovan, Vice President of local land trust Bow Open Spaces.

Lehrmann said he does not know who created the page — what he does hope for is a resolution to tangled bureaucratic battle over his land.

Land at issue

In 2006, when a large tract of land was subdivided, the planning board imposed a condition on what would become the Lehrmanns’ nearly 25-acre parcel at the corner of South Bow and Woodhill roads. 

Wetlands and wetland crossings run through the property. In order to account for the required buffer zones, the restriction limited construction to the front portion of the property.

That left Lehrmann, who purchased the property in 2025, with a 2,900-square-foot area in the southeast corner to build on. According to him, that’s just not realistic.

“No, we physically can’t put a home, a septic system, a driveway, everything, a well within a 2,900 square foot area,” he said.

O’Donovan, a member of the town’s Conservation Commission, said the restriction was added during the subdivision process to protect sensitive wetland areas, noting that building too close to them can cause them to fail.

As for the feasibility of building a home on the land that’s left, he disagrees with Lehrmann.

“It’s very possible they could build a house right now if they met the condition that’s already in place,” said O’Donovan. “Now, what they’ve done, the Lehrmanns have said they don’t want to build a house on the front side of the lot.”

Legal back and forth

Looking for more flexibility, Lehrmann asked the planning board for a variance, proposing a wetlands crossing to access a larger area at the back of the property. 

The planning board denied the request, and the Lehrmanns appealed to the state Housing Appeals Board, which sent his request back for reconsideration. A planning board hearing is scheduled for Jan. 22.

In its ruling, the Housing Appeals Board said the planning board acted “illegally” in denying the application, noting the 2006 restriction might have inadvertently blocked any practical use of the property.

The planning board denied Lehrmann’s request and stated that they “did not provide enough evidence of changed conditions from 2006 to warrant removing the condition that the previous planning board placed on the property.”

Meanwhile, the state Department of Environmental Services approved the Lehrmanns’ request for a driveway that crosses three wetlands, giving them access to the back of the property. But to proceed with construction at the back of the property, the family must also obtain a conditional permit from the town.

At the planning board meeting where the board voted to deny the conditional use permit, Sandy Crystall, chair of the Conservation Commission, said that not every parcel is suitable for all types of development.

“I wouldn’t expect to put a four or five-bedroom or whatever house on the front of this,” she said. “I agree it wouldn’t fit on the front, but not that you can’t put a house on the front of this, it just wouldn’t be that large a house.”

For the Lehrmann, a one- or two-bedroom home isn’t an option. 

With four children, they are looking to build a four-bedroom house with a septic system and an ADU —plans that the current restrictions make it nearly impossible to realize, according to Lehrmann.

Through all this, the Lehrmanns feel pitted against town officials.

“Why are they essentially taking our property without due process? We don’t want to go through this for another 18 months with the Supreme Court just to overturn this again, saying you can’t do this,” Lehrmann said. “The legal fees are ridiculous.”

The post ‘Why are they singling us out?’: Wetland protections in Bow frustrate family’s house construction appeared first on Concord Monitor.