Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wetlands topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conservation Commission weighs developer's proposal for 0 Lawton Avenue over wetland impacts
Summary
At a Conservation Commission meeting, staff described contested wetland delineation and asked whether a developer should be required to pursue an expensive peer review for a proposed dwelling at 0 Lawton Avenue; commissioners agreed to record a straw-poll guidance and did not take a formal vote on the project.
The Conservation Commission discussed a Notice of Intent for 0 Lawton Avenue and whether the applicant should proceed with an independent peer review after staff described contested wetland mapping that could make the project subject to direct wetland impact limits.
The discussion centered on technical delineation questions and the cost-benefit of peer review. A staff member said the applicant "was wanting the Commission to weigh in on whether or not they should move forward with their peer review because that takes time, effort, money to go through this peer review process" and asked for the commission's informal guidance rather than a formal vote.
Staff described the site and consultant findings: the proposed dwelling is a ‘‘small dwelling, 24 by 32 feet,’’ recent fill had been placed on the lot, and the initial delineation mapped a bordering vegetated wetland (BVW) behind the proposed house. According to staff, the applicant's consultant with EBT consulting contends "there's a ridge" through the mapped BVW and that the area south of that ridge "is completely isolated and would not qualify as bordering vegetated wetland, but is in fact a[n] isolated vegetated wetland." The consultant’s proposed option would involve removing or modifying portions of that ridge to connect the BVW to the isolated area, which could change the project's regulatory status and mitigation needs.
Staff cautioned that because the Wetlands Protection Act uses permissive language in some cases, "the Commission may permit this type of activity, rather than shall," giving the commission discretion to decline permitting even if other performance standards are met. Staff framed the decision point for commissioners as whether the applicant should spend resources on a peer review that could be unnecessary if the commission is inclined to deny the project on discretionary grounds.
Commissioners discussed process-level options such as whether subdivision plans should require fencing to avoid future fragmentation of resource areas and agreed to record that idea in the minutes. Staff also noted the applicant was not present at the meeting and that a consultant memo prepared after a Dec. 15 site visit (from EBT consulting) had been circulated to members for review.
No formal vote was taken on the Notice of Intent during the portion of the meeting captured in the transcript; staff requested a straw poll and said they would answer questions and coordinate outreach with the developer and affected homeowners as needed. The commission directed staff to include the discussion point about subdivision-level fencing in the amended minutes and to confirm attendance records for prior meeting minutes before final ratification.
