Board Members Present: Arnold Koehler, John Kaufman, Charles Wentworth, Stephen Mulhall (6:25)
Alternate Members Present: Stephen Sackter, David Michaud (6:20)
Absent Members: Charles Dorman
Others Present: William Donovan - Land Use Inspector, Diane Lauber - Clerk
Chairman A. Koehler called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was taped. S. Sackter was seated for S Mulhall.
Inland Wetlands Regulation Revisions.
Section 2: Definitions - "Regulated activity" (Page 4-5)
A. Koehler recommended deeming any activity within 100 feet of a wetland or watercourse a regulated activity. Tl Commissioners were in agreement with the recommended change. J. Kaufman noted that there could be instanc when an activity takes place more than 100 feet from a wetland or watercourse that would still need to be regulate Bill Donovan suggested that language could be added such as "The Commission may rule that any other activi located within an upland review area or any other non-wetland or non-watercourse area which is likely to impact wetland or watercourse area will be considered a regulated activity."
J. Kaufman stated that the State Council on Soil & Water is strongly encouraging planning agencies to allow f buffers in more sensitive areas such as watercourses. W. Donovan asked J. Kaufman to draft proposed wording f inclusion in the regulations for the Commission to consider.
Section 1: Title, Authority and Purpose. Section 1.1 (Page 1)
J. Kaufman recommended sectioning the text into paragraphs to allow for more clarity.
Section 3: Inventory of Regulated Areas. Section 3.1 (Page 7) A. Koehler recommended adding the phrase "as delineated by a certified soil scientist" following "In all cases, tl precise location of wetlands and watercourses shall be determined by the actual character of the land, tl distribution of wetland soil types and location of watercourses." The Commissioners agreed.
Section 2: Definitions:
J. Kaufman asked if a definition could be added for a "conservation easement" to enable the Commission in certa instances to make a conservation easement a condition of approval. W. Donovan cautioned that he wouldn't wa there to be confusion with a regulated area and asked J. Kaufman to draft a definition for discussion. Discussion w; held on Section 10.6 regarding "denying or conditioning an application for a regulated activity in an area outsit, wetlands or watercourses on the basis of an impact or effect on aquatic, plant, or animal life unless such activi will likely impact or affect the physical characteristics of such wetlands or watercourses." J. Kaufman will draft definition for discussion.
D. Michaud arrived and was seated for C. Dorman.
J. Kaufman noted that the list of Commissioners needed to be updated.
Section 11: Decision Process and Permit. Section 11.9 (Page 21) A. Koehler recommended adding "Item f. Prior to constructing the authorized activities, the permittee shall advi. the IWC that necessary erosion and sedimentation controls are in place and ready for inspection by the IWC. "
S. Mulhall arrived and S. Sackter was unseated for the remainder of the Special Meeting.
J. Kaufman asked about regulating a fence or windbreaker along the boundary of a watercourse. Discussion w held on determining whether the fence or windbreaker would cause a significant impact on the watercourse. Donovan stated that the Commissioners would need to follow the guidelines in their regulations. A. Koehler state that the declaratory and summary or plenary rulings could be used in those instances as well.
Arnold Koehler cited an article in the January 2007 issue of "Town & City" regarding applicants being required t pay Town consultant fees for their projects. W. Donovan recommended adding language in the Regulations unds the fee schedule to read "The Board may charge additional fees at any time during the review process to retai outside consultants to review applications and petitions for regulated activities and to monitor construction t ensure compliance with approved plan. Set fees shall be determined by the Commission and/or an inland wetland agent with a written estimate prepared by the consultants on the basis of the anticipated costs of the review. Th additional fees shall pertain to projects whose size, complexity and/or potential impact require specialize assistance and expertise. The Board may require that the applicant deposit an amount equal to 150% of th estimated consultant fees. The applicant shall be reimbursed for any unused funds. " Discussion was held on wh< applications would be required to pay the additional fees. A. Koehler suggested any subdivision. W. Donova suggested any application that would require a soils scientist hired by the Town should also be included.
Section 7: Application Requirements: Section 7.6(f) (Page 14)
C. Wentworth recommended adding language to this section requiring "disclosure by the developer of the origin c fill, (location and town), maintaining a log of the trucking company with the amount of material trucked in and, c the developers expense, the IWC could take any sample of the material and send it out for analysis." Discussion wa held as to where this requirement would fit within the regulations. W. Donovan suggested that this could fall unde the language he proposed adding earlier in the meeting regarding activities within an upland review area or othe non-wetland or non-watercourse area which is likely to impact a wetland or watercourse. C. Wentworth will dra: proposed language for inclusion in the regulations.
Section 11: Decision Process and Permit: Section 11.9 (Page 12) J. Kaufman stated he would like to include in the Regulations a requirement for a siltation blanket for winterizing c steep slopes that are not stabilized. Discussion was held on where this could be included. A. Koehler suggeste Section 7.5(e) could include "winter protection \vith a siltation blanket as approved by the Commission on slopes c 1 to 3 or greater that are not stabilized." W. Donovan noted that winter protection would not be part of th application requirements, but rather a condition of an approved permit. A. Koehler then suggested including th language as Section 11.9(g). W. Donovan asked J. Kaufman to draft the proposed language.
S. Sackter raised a question regarding a timeline for infraction of permits. W. Donovan stated that the Commissio has to follow state-mandated guidelines referring the Commissioners to Section 14.4 of the Regulations. J. Kaufma stated the need for an automatic minimum sedimentation control bond in the amount of $5,000.
Public Participation: None
Motion by A. Koehler, seconded by J. Kaufman to adjourn the special meeting at 7:00 p.m. Unanimous.
Arnold Koehler, Chairman