Commission debates NRO and vernal‑pool buffers after Bolger Hill subdivision questions

The Conservation Commission on June 17 reviewed how state wetland rules interact with Jericho’s Natural Resource Overlay (NRO) after questions related to the Bolger Hill subdivision. Commissioners and attendees debated jurisdictional distinctions for vernal pools, the town’s fixed 100‑foot buffer in the NRO, and whether wetland delineation alone suffices as an impact study.

Tom Barribault asked whether he was acting as an individual interested party or as a representative of the Conservation Commission in an environmental‑court appeal concerning Bolger Hill. Chris Brown said he attended as an interested citizen and clarified the Development Review Board (DRB) has authority to require impact studies while the Conservation Commission provides recommendations on whether an impact study should be done.

Karina Dailey explained that Vermont Fish and Wildlife distinguishes jurisdictional vernal pools from non‑jurisdictional ones and that man‑made pools are often not jurisdictional at the state level, while Jericho’s NRO references mapped vernal pools. Commissioners said a May 26 state wetland hearing indicated the town’s 100‑foot buffer could override the state’s 50‑foot buffer when the wetland functions as a vernal pool, and members noted Vermont Fish and Wildlife can influence jurisdictional findings through Act 250.

The commission read and referenced Fish and Wildlife guidance about vernal‑pool protection: “In general, it is recommended that there be no activity within the Vernal Pool depression or the adjacent 100 feet. From 100 feet to a distance of 650 feet there should be no permanent roads or development. Any timber harvesting should maintain at least 60 percent canopy cover to maintain shade, and should be conducted only when the ground is frozen and covered with snow. Some downed wood should be left in place to provide moist habitat.”

Karina clarified that wetland delineation and an impact study are distinct processes and both may be necessary; Sabina recommended adopting Williston’s approach of a pre‑approved list of environmental consultants that applicants would pay for, to avoid perceived conflicts when applicants choose their own consultants. Commissioners agreed to strengthen NRO language about the DRB’s role and to make consultant selection procedures clearer; Susan Bresee and Sabina Ernst will draft edits to the NRO text for future review.

The commission did not make a final policy amendment at the meeting but recorded direction to pursue edits and to require an impact study to determine site‑specific buffers rather than rely on a fixed number.