Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mitigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Boards debate mitigation tools and special use permit criteria for wetland encroachments
Summary
Conservation presenters proposed SUP criteria requiring demonstration of no feasible alternatives and described mitigation options (compensatory buffer increases, restoration), prompting discussion about administrative feasibility and equitable application.
Conservation presenters proposed that special use permits (SUPs) require applicants to demonstrate there are no feasible alternatives and to outline mitigation when impacts are unavoidable. The draft would require technical review and allow the Planning Board to impose conditions, post buffer boundaries during construction, and record restrictions at the registry of deeds.
Members weighed mitigation’s practicality for single-house driveway crossings versus large developments. One member described a utility repair case where temporary fill and subsequent restoration (rock pads, dredging, and peat replacement) were supervised and accepted by the town as an example of mitigation for essential work. “Once we pulled out the equipment, the mitigation started, and it had to be to the satisfaction of the town,” a Committee member said.
Board members asked for clearer criteria on when mitigation is acceptable, how to measure economic advantage claims, and how the Planning Board and Conservation Commission should coordinate technical reviews. The group agreed to refine SUP criteria and mitigation language and to identify cases where mitigation should be mandatory or prohibited.
