NORWICH — The town’s Board of Listers is attempting to solve a boundary dispute with the town of Sharon that has raised concerns for at least 20 years, but not everyone agrees that it’s a problem worth fixing.

Nearly the entire length of the border between Norwich and Sharon overlaps, according to the state’s online parcel viewer. More than 20 parcels contain land that is considered to be in both Sharon and Norwich.

“If you use the Norwich line (the parcels) are in Norwich, if you use the Sharon line they’re in Sharon,” said Cheryl Lindberg, who’s been a Norwich lister for about 11 years.

Better defining the two towns’ fuzzy border is important because a person’s residence determines many factors such as how much they pay in property taxes and to which town. It can also impact where they vote, which schools their children attend and which zoning office they go to for a building permit.

“The existence of towns and their boundaries is an important aspect of land ownership, property rights, and government,” Norwich lister Ernie Ciccotelli said. “It impacts peoples lives so it should be right.”

In the most recent effort to address the inconsistencies between the two towns’ tax maps, Lindberg met with Sharon listers Galen Mudgett and Ken Wright on Oct. 21.

But residents have been raising the issue of Norwich’s border discrepancies for decades.

According to the Norwich listers’ research, discussion dates back to at least 2004, when the late Dennis Kaufman, then the chairman of the Board of Listers, wrote a letter to the Norwich Selectboard proposing they work with the Sharon, Thetford and Strafford selectboards to “agree on the intersection of their respective town lines,” after two parcels came into question, one located along the Sharon town line and another on the Thetford town line.

Norwich’s current listers found no records that indicated the three boards met to resolve the boundaries.

In 2007, Anthony Adams, an owner of a parcel on Chapel Hill Road, wrote to the Norwich listers after the town increased the number of acres considered to be inside of Norwich from 2.4 to 10.4. He asked for the acreage to be reduced back to 2.4 so he wouldn’t be taxed by both Norwich and Sharon on the roughly eight overlapping acres.

His request was denied.

Two months ago, Adams went before the Norwich Board of Civil Authority, or BCA, on behalf of his relative James Adams, who owns a portion of the parcel, asking again for the acreage to be adjusted to correct the issue of double taxation.

The Adams did not respond to requests for comment.

This time, the Norwich BCA granted his request, meaning the Adams no longer have to pay Norwich property taxes on the eight acres added in 2007.

Ciccotelli, a Norwich lister, disagreed with the BCA. “The BCA changed the town boundary in that decision, and they don’t have the authority to do that,” Ciccotelli said in a phone interview.

According to statute, in order for a town boundary to be changed in Vermont, the towns’ Selectboards must agree on a line and then the Legislature can finalize it.

There’s no record of Norwich’s boundaries officially changing since the town was originally chartered in 1761, when the border was established as an exact straight line.

Ciccotelli believes the discrepancies with the Sharon border arose in the 1950s when, in order to build Chapel Hill Road, crews had to work around a natural feature, curving the road and making the boundary confusing.

The desire to address the boundary discrepancy is not shared by everyone.

When David Hubbard bought his property on Chapel Hill Road more than 50 years ago, it was determined that most of his property sat in Sharon, but his house was considered to be in Norwich, making him a Norwich resident.

When it comes to correcting the town line, Hubbard said he would like to “let sleeping dogs lie.”

Wright, a Sharon lister, also said he is “not interested in making a new boundary,” and the Sharon listers have not approached the town’s selectboard with the matter.

“I believe (Lindberg) came to us just to understand what Sharon’s position was and we fall back on what surveyors tell us as for where these boundaries run,” Wright said.

The Norwich Selectboard has not expressed interest in resolving the boundary dispute, Lindberg and Ciccotelli said.

“I’m not quite sure why nobody wants to make this right,” Ciccotelli said.

Selectboard Vice Chairwoman Mary Layton couldn’t be reached for comment on Tuesday.

Lindberg and Ciccotelli aren’t sure what their next step is.

“It’s been my goal since I found out that there is a discrepancy to get this resolved,” Lindberg said, “and it’s frustrating not to be able to do that.”

Emma Roth-Wells can be reached at erothwells@vnews.com or 603-727-3242.

CORRECTION: Mary Layton is the vice chairwoman of the Norwich Sel ectboard. A previous version of this story incorrectly described Layton’s role on the board.