HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-10-16 Conservation Commission Minutese� .
Public Workshop Minutes October 16, 2012
Approved November 28, 2012
MINUTES 7th WN L K
Reading Conservation Commission Public Workshop Meetings `.•SS.
Reading Senior Center, 7:00 PM
Tuesday, October 16, 2012 1011 DEC —3 p 2 4
Present: William Hecht, Chairman, Jaime Maughan; Barbara Stewart,
Brian Sullivan, Annika Scanlon
Charles Tirone, Administrator
Brian Tucker, former Conservation Commission member
Will Finch, former Conservation Commission member
Patricia Lloyd, former Conservation Commission member
Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager
Kim Saunders, Recording Secretary
Michael Palmer, Sam's Bistro
Erin Calvo- Bacci, Reading/North Reading Chamber
Erik Hagstrom, resident
Joe Cloonan, resident
Robert Connor, resident
Frank Veglia, resident
Robert Connors, resident
Art Hayden, resident
Steve Sadwick, resident
Carolyn Whiting, resident
Bob Quinn, resident
Mary Ann, resident
Ali & Jeff Marshall, resident
Dorothy Marshall, resident
Bobbie Botticelli, Realtor
David Mancusso, resident
Absent:
Opening of Public Workshop:
Mr. Hecht opened up the Public Workshop. He introduced the Commission members,
administrator and former Commission members. He told the public attendees that the workshop
will be a 2 part program. The first hour would be Commission members taking a small group
around to the three stations that are setup (please see attached presentation displays: "Proposed
Regulation Changes ", "Reading Wetland Regulation Changes by Category', and "Rationale of
Reading Wetland Regulation Changes by Section "). Each station is a display of what a
Commission member wanted to show how or why the Regulation was changed: Mr. Maughan's
explains rationale, Ms. Stewart's tracks the changes, and Mr. Hecht's shows 5 categories of the
changes. The second hour would be for questions or comments about the Regulation changes. It
was suggested that any comments or feedback be `written down on the form that was passed out;
these will become public record (please see attached for public comments), Mr. Hecht also stated
M
Public Workshop Minutes October 16, 2012
Approved November 28, 2012
the "official" document is the document that was passed out at the beginning of the meeting
showing proposed changes; with underline for additions and strikethreugh for deletions
Mr. Maughan talked about how the Regulation changes have been in process for about 18 months.
The Board of Selectmen felt the Regulations were confusing and suggested the Commission look
at them and try to simplify; but still be able to protect the wetlands. The Commission will discuss
the feedback from the workshop and be voting on the Regulation changes at the next Conservation
meeting, October 24, 2012.
The group met for the second half of the meeting; the following commentslfeedback was brought
up:
A letter that was submitted to the Commission on January.9, 2012 was questioned if
it could be answered. Mr. Hecht stated that he will be addressing the letter (see attached
letter).
What was the process of the Commission to unweave State Regulations and Town
Regulations? Mr, Maughan stated that in late spring an adhoc committee was setup with
people who have expertise in the Conservation area. They met every week with
contractors, lawyers and applicants to testify with concerns about current regulations.
There was a survey sent out with 1000 responses. The committee wrote a report to the
BOS with 20 +1- areas, The problems were talked about and 14 to 15 changes were
suggested. It was asked that the State regulations be compared with the Towns
regulations; and wherever possible the State regulations were to be adopted.
How did the Commission recommend the 500 square feet for isolated wetland? The
adhoc committee couldn't come up with a number and the Commission talked and decided
on this size. But if someone would like to recommend a size the Commission would
accept any feedback.
Why would the Town protect the isolated wetlands and the State does not? Mr.
Hecht explained how the town has filled areas that were wetlands and has now created
isolated wetlands. If the wetlands were not protected, flooding would take place. Isolated
pockets of water have to go somewhere. So the Town uses people's private property
for a general benefit? Mr. Hecht gave examples in town where protecting an isolated
wetland benefited the residents not to have flooding on their property. Mr. Finch
commented that other towns have flood problems because they do not protect their
isolated wetlands. The Commission stated again if anyone has a suggestion on the size
that an isolated wetland should feel free to let the Commission know.
Why 2 out of 3 factors determine a wetland; why can't 1 factor be enough? Mr. Hecht
explained he would be concerned if a resident had a wet back yard, under that rule their
yard would be considered a wetland; 2 out of 3 makes the most sense.
Regarding minor projects • how can Reading be less restrictive than the States?
The Commission talked about if the Town did not have minor projects the residents would
be responsible for filing a full NOI application. There is a list that the administrator is
maintaining on what projects would fall under minor projects. The setback was talked
about. Mr. Maughan stated that other towns do case by case basis; this way the applicant
knows up front what is expected.
P)
Public Workshop Minutes October 16, 2012
Approved November 28, 2012
Filing fees — section D, how did this get proposed? The Commission felt some of the
fees were unreasonable. Ms. Scanlon stated she compared fees in surrounding towns.
One change the Commission did was put a cap on resident fees — for 1 or 2 owner
occupied houses. They changed a couple of the fees but still wanted to be able to cover
their costs
The administrator salary was questioned - why should the applicants have to be
responsible for the administrators salary? Mr, Hechenbleikner let the public know, the
wetland fees collected does not cover the administrators salary. A resident talked about in
the past their daughter had to pay to prove she was not working in the wetlands. The
Commission stated the standard has relaxed; the work now would be considered ordinary
maintenance.
Why there were such high fees collected last year — approximately 50k was
reported? The Commission stated the fees were when large development was happening
in Reading — for example; Home Depot, Jordan's Furniture, and Walkers Brook etc.
Reading Woods is being developed now, but that is only minor wetlands; which is not
being built on. Reading Woods is required to keep the wetlands for it is drainage to 128.
The NOI fee was discussed. The fee is the same as what the old calculation would be, but
just easier to understand and calculate.
NOI section I, page 6 was questioned - $1.11 was changed to $100 (regarding the
Vernal Pool buffer zone)? The Commission stated that line should be taken out of the
Regulations you can't alter the buffer zone of a Vernal Pool.
The meeting concluded, Mr. Hecht reminded everyone to pass in their comments and everyone is
invited to the Conservation meeting on October 24, 2012 for the vote of Regulation changes.
Please see attached comments from the Public.
Respectfully Submitted,
Im Vde rs
Recording Secretary
Proposed Regulation Changes
Section 2 — General Provisions C. Jurisdiction 1.
Areas Subject to Protection Under the Bylaw (Resource Areas)
CURRENT WORDING
Any bank; any fresh water wetland including marsh, meadow bog or swamp; any
creek, river, stream pond (including vernal pool), or lake whether permanent or inter-
mittent; any land underwater bodies; any land within 100 feet of any of and of the
preceding resource areas; and land subject to flooding; and any riverfront area.
PROPOSED WORDING
Consistent with 310 CMR 10.55 c 1 & 2, any fresh water wetland including marsh,
meadow, bog or swamp which has at least two of the following attributes: 1) at least
periodically, the land supports hydrophytic vegetation: 2) the substrate in the upper foot
is predominately undrained hydric Soil; 3) the substrate is saturated with water or
covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year; any
creek, river, stream, pond (including vernal pool), or lake whether permanent or
intermittent; any land under water bodies; any land with- in 100 feet of any of the
preceding resource areas; and land subject to flooding; and any riverfront area.
Section Z C. Jurisdiction 4
Activities Outside The Buffer Zone
CURRENT WORDING
Any activity proposed or undertaken outside the areas specified above and outside
the Buffer Zone is not subject to regulation under this bylaw and does not require the
filing of a Notice of Intent or abbreviated Notice of Intent unless that activity is likely to
alter an area subject to protection under this bylaw. In the event that the Commission
determines that such activity is likely to alter an area subject to protection under the
Bylaw, it shall impose conditions on the activity or any portion thereof as it deems
necessary to contribute to the protection of the interests identified in the Bylaw.
PROPOSED WORDING
Any activity proposed or undertaken outside the areas specified above and outside the
Buffer Zone is not subject to regulation under this bylaw and does not require the filing
of a Notice of Intent or abbreviated Notice of Intent unless that activity is more likely
than unlikely to alter an area subject to protection under this bylaw. In the event that the
Commission determines that such activity is more likely than unlikely to alter an area
subject to protection under the Bylaw, it shall impose conditions on the activity or any
portion thereof as it deems necessary to contribute to the protection of the interests
identified in the Bylaw.
Section 2 E. Variance from Regulations c.
The variance is necessary to accommodate an overriding community, regional,
state or national public interest.
PROPOSED ADDED WORDING
In the case of owner occupied single or two family residences, mitigation which
improves the resource area quality may be considered to accommodate the public
interest.
Section 2 General Provisions I & J (new)
Limited Projects
PROPOSED WORDING
I. If a project is considered limited as specified in 310 CMR 10.53 (3), an Order of
Conditions can be issued under the Reading Wetland Regulations not with - standing the
provisions of the Reading Wetland Protection Regulations if all conditions specified in
310 CMR 10.53 (3) are satisfied.
A. Normal Maintenance; Maintenance of existing developed or landscaped yards or
structures within the buffer zone that does not result in any net loss of native
vegetation or perman -ently alter the soil surface, (other than for planting of
vegetation), is exempt from filing under the Reading Wetland Regulations.
Examples include, but are not limited to: trimming of branches and shrubs,
pruning, (but not removing), trees, and removal of invasive species. If ornamental
shrubs located within 25 feet of a wetland are removed, they must be replaced by
a similar shrub.
SECTION 3 PREFORMENCE STANDARDS FOR RESOURCE AEREA
CURRENT WORDING
Section 3 — Performance Standards
PROPOSED WORDING
C. Fresh Water Wetlands (new)
Wetlands protected in Reading. Because of the history, geography, geology and
hydrology of Reading, some wetlands may not qualify for state protection under
310CMR 10.55 due to being isolated or disconnected from water bodies. These will be
protected under local Bylaw provided they are:
1. 500 or more square feet in area
2. Meet all of the other criteria of 310CMR10.55 with the exception of connection to
water bodies.
Section C Freshwater Wetlands C. 2.
g. Excavation and Soil Preparation (new)
PROPOSED WORDING
Preparation timing of the replacement area shall be specified as needed in the Order of
Conditions.
Section 3 E. Land Subject to Flooding
CURRENT WORDING
Proposed work that may alter land subject to flooding shall not adversely affect the
interests protected under the Bylaw, including the flood control capacity of said area.
Work must be on a single family lot and may not alter more than 10% of the land subject
to flooding on said lot.
PROPOSED WORDING
Eliminate second sentence
Proposed work that may alter land subject to flooding shall not adversely affect the
interests protected under the Bylaw, including the flood control capacity of said area.
Section 3 I. Side Slope Grades Near Wetlands
CURRENT WORDING
1. Side slopes within 100 feet of a wetland shall have a finished grade according to
the following:
a. No steeper than a 3:1 (horizontal: vertical) must slope for grassed and mulched
slopes.
b. No steeper than 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) slope for all stone rip- rapped slopes.
Stone used for rip -rap shall be hard, durable, angular in shape, resist and to
weathering, and shall be free from overburden, such as loose shale and organic
material. No stone shall be less than 4 to 8 inches in diameter.
c. Where slopes must be steeper than 2: 1 (horizontal: vertical), vertical retaining wall
shall be used to ease the slope. The land surface above and below each wall shall
be graded and stabilized in accordance with section 3.H.1 and 3.H.2 above.
PROPOSED WORDING
1. Side slopes within 100 feet of a wetland shall have a finished grade according to
the following:
a. No steeper than a 3:1 (horizontal: vertical) must slope for grassed and mulched slopes
b. (new) Any slope steeper than 3:1 (horizontal: vertical) must be an engineered design
with a stamped plan.
Section 3 Performance Standards for Resource Areas
PROPOSED WORDING
J. Vernal Pools (new wording in place of whole section)
The Town of Reading accepts and adopts the current, (effective Jan. 1, 2012)
requirements, definitions, performance standards and regulatory restrictions for vernal
pools as specified by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species
Program of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife under 310CMR 10.00.
All vernal pools currently listed as certified by Natural Heritage and those that meet the
criteria as so de fined are protected by the Reading local regulations.
PROPOSED WORDING
K. Wildlife Habitat (new wording in place of whole section)
The Town of Reading accepts and adopts the current, (effective Jan. 1,
2012)requirements, definitions, performance standards and regulatory restrictions for
wildlife habitat as specified in the Massachusetts Wetland Regulations 310 CMR for
jurisdictional wetlands under these Town of Reading Wetland Protection Regulations.
SECTION 4 DETERMINATION OF APPLICABILITY
CURRENT WORDING
G Minor Projects
1. Some projects are simple, routine, and involve very little activity or alteration
within the Buffer Zone, and no significant potential adverse impact on a resource area.
For such projects, it would be unreasonable to interpret this section to require a full
Determination of Applicability. To avoid unnecessary regulation
PROPOSED WORDING
1. Some projects are simple, routine, and involve very little activity or alteration
within the Buffer Zone, and no significant potential adverse impact on a resource area.
For such projects, it would be unreasonable to interpret this section to require a full
Detennination of Applicability. To avoid unnecessary regulation (new) and its allied
costs to the property owner, we establish a set of minor projects. These require the
written approval of the Conservation Administrator or other agent duly appointed by the
Commission. If a project is denied by the Administrator or other agent, the decision
may be appealed to the Commission. Once approved, unless contested, the project is
merely reported to the Commission.
Section 4 Determination of Applicability
CURRENT WORDING
G. Minor Project 2. Conditions:
a. The project must be routine and there must be no special circumstances such as
known vernal pools. b. The limit of the resource area must be clearly evident to the
Commission Administrator. c. The work must be outside of land subject to flooding and
over 25 feet (35 feet where structures are involved) from the limit of any other resource
area; except if the work area is already in a legally developed condition (such as lawn,
pavement, gravel, etc.), then the work must be over 10 feet (20 feet where structures are
involved) from any other resource area. Where more restrictive setbacks are imposed in
section 4.G.2, the more restrictive be observed.
d., e., and f. are now b., c., and d.
PROPOSED WORDING
a. The limit of the resource area must be clearly evident to the Commission
Administrator b. A complete written description of all of the work and protective
or mitigative measures, and an accurate sketch or plan must be submitted to the
Conservation Administrator c. All conditions prescribed by the Administrator
must be met. d. The Administrator shall provide a copy of the proposal and any
conditions to the Commission at its next regular meeting.
b. Minor Project Checklist:
Projects which have met Minor Project status are listed on the Minor Projects
Checklist available from the Conservation Office in Town Hall.
B. Abbreviated Notices
Section 5 Notice of Intent
CURRENT WORDING
2. Abbreviated Notice of Intent Submittal Requirements- The following items are set
out as a minimum standard for submittal. The applicant may submit, or be required to
submit, further information that will assist in the review and is deemed necessary to
determine the proposed affect on the interests protected by the Bylaw. A complete
application for an Abbreviated Notice of Intent shall include the original and eleven
copies of the Abbreviated Notice of Intent and of the following:
Filing Procedure
A complete Notice of Intent, or Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation shall
include: requirements identical to those required in 310 CMR 10.05 with the additional
requirement of setback indications as specified in these Town of Reading Wetland
Protection Regulations of any existing or proposed structures. (the rest of C is eliminated)
PROPOSED WORDING
The requirements are identical to those required in 310 CMR 10.05 with the additional
requirements of setback indications as specified in these Town of Reading Wetland
Protection Regulations of any existing or proposed structures. (the rest of 2 is eliminated)
Filing Procedure
A complete Notice of Intent, or Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation shall
meet: requirements identical to those required in 310 CMR 10.05 with the additional
requirement of setback indications as specified in these Town of Reading Wetland
Protection Regulations of any existing or proposed structures.
Section 6 Plans and Technical Data
CURRENT WORDING
2. Technical Data shall include the following:
a. A narrative explanation, all necessary calculations, and the data upon which these
calculations are based;
b. A description of any alterations to the 100 -year flood storage capacity on the site,
and a description of the construction sequence. If a change of flood storage
capacity is proposed, the effects of this change of storage on downstream channels
and culverts and adjacent properties must be determined;
c. Maximum groundwater elevations must be shown. The calendar dates of
measurement, samplings, and any percolation tests shall be included
d. Soil characteristics in representative portions of the site, including location and
depth of sample sites, and soil profile. analysis;
e. A stormwater management plan and calculations of run -off characteristics based
on the 2 -year, 10 -year, 25 -year, and 100 -year storm events must be included. Run-
off characteristics are to be calculated for pre- and post- development conditions.
Calculations for both rates and volume should be included, and methods should be
appropriate for the nature and size of the site;
f. Hydrographs that illustrate run -off characteristics before and after the proposed
activity;
g. An erosion control plan shall be submitted describing all methods to control
erosion and siltation on the site;
h. Watershed maps shall include an outline of the watershed areas related to the
proposed activity;
i. Geological data, including, but not limited to, depth of bedrock, location of rock
outcropping, presence of aquifer, and direction of flow.
PROPOSED WORDING
2. Technical Data shall include the following:
All submittals shall meet plans and technical data requirements required in 310 CMR
10.05 with the additional requirement of setback indications as specified in these Town
of Reading Wetland Protection Regulations of any existing or proposed structure.
(the rest of Section 6 is eliminated)
Section 7 Order of Conditions and Order of Resource Area Delineation
CURRENT WORDING
E. Extensions:
The Commission may issue an Extension Permit for an Order of Conditions or
Extension Permit for a period-
PROPOSED WORDING
E. Extensions:
The Commission may issue an Extension Permit for an Order of Conditions or an RDA
for a period - - - - --
Reading Wetland Regulation Changes by Category
1. SIMPLIFICATIONS
Page Sr C Jurisdiction
From any one condition to at least 2 of 3
conditions... consistent with the State Regulations. Reduces the
burden of unlikely filings.
Page 13, Section 3
Performance Standards, g Soil Preparation
Reduces undue burden and makes conditions match situation
Now specified in the Order of Conditions only.
Page 15, E Land Subiect to flooding.
deleted some specification's
Page 16, Side Slopes',
simplified the options
Page 47, Section12, Definitions
From any one of 3 to at least 2 of 3
2. CLARIFICATIONS
Page 5, 4. Activities Outside of a Buffer Zone
Clarified the areas of concern Added "more likely than unlikely"
Page 12, Section 2 General Provisions
Added Limited Projects to allow " Maintaince of existing
developed or landscaped site without permits.
Page 29, Section Notice of Intent
Reduced Notice of Intent submittal requirements
page 37, E Extensions
Added RDA eliminated wording on Extension Permits
3. SIMPLIFICATIONS PERTAINING TO ONE AND TWO FAMILY
OWNER OCCUPIED HOMES
Page 7, Fee Schedules
Reduced "added Fees" for one and two family owner occupied
homes ( attempted to keep revenue neutral)
Page S, Section 2, E Variance
Made variance for one and two family owner occupied homes
more easily achievable by stating what might be considered
mitigation in these cases and therefore "in the public interest"
Page 26& 27 Minor Projects
Expanded the possibilities of what constitutes minor projects.
4. CONDITIONS SPECIFIC TO READING
Page 12, Section 3 C. Fresh Water Wetlands
Retains protections for Reading Wetlands currently protected
but not due protection by State Regulations.
Page 29,1 Section 5 B 2
Mentions Reading existing setbacks and retains them
Page 30; Section 5 C. Filing
Mentions existing setbacks and retains them
Page 33, Sections A 2
Mentions existing setbacks and retains them
Page 43, Section 12 Definitions
Mentions Reading added exceptions
Page 45 Defines A Quorum which matches Town By Law
Page 46, Definitions, S Plants
Adds Endangered Plant Species
Page 46, Definitions ,
Adds Canals in Reading
! M j t C
REGULATIONS
Page 17 Vernal Pools 'Page 20 K, Wildlife Habitat
Uses State Regulations
Uses State Regulations
r •
Uses State Regulations
Page 42, Definitions
Technical Data
Uses State Requirements
Uses State with modest Reading additions
Page 46, Definitions
Adds Endangered Plant Species
Rationale of Reading Wetland Regulation Changes by
Section:
Presented below is a summary of the current content of the wetland
Regulation Sections that are substantive with respect to applicant
requirements and resource protection. The summary of current content
is focused on portions of the regulations that were identified as
warranting revision during the summer 2011 Ad Hoc Committee review
of the regulations. The summary is followed by a discussion of the
Conservations Commission's proposed changes to each section. There
are 12 sections of the Regulations, but only six (Sections 2,3,4,5,5, and
12) are considered substantive with others addressing administrative
matters, such as Conservation Commission responsibility, review times,
appeal process, etc.
Section - General Provision
Several areas of Section 2 were changed and are discussed below.
AREAS SUBJECT TO PROTECTION UNDER THE BYLAW (Section
Cl): Currently under this section an area is considered a wetland and
subject to jurisdiction (i.e. regulation by the Conservation Commission)
if it has all any of the following characteristics: 1) wetland vegetation; 2)
hyrdric (i.e. subject to frequent saturation) soils; or 3) the area is
covered with water at some time during the growing season.
This was changed so that an area must have at least 2 of these
characteristics to be a jurisdictional wetland. This change makes
Reading's regulation more consistent with the state and federal
definitions. However particularly the state definition is somewhat
ambiguous but has been interpreted by wetland scientists to require at
least two of the stated characteristics.
The change generally eliminates areas as jurisdictional that may have
historically been wetlands but were filled and used as developed or
landscaped areas prior to the passage of wetland protection legislation.
ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE THE BUFFER ZONE (Section 2 C4) : The
conservation Commission can exert jurisdiction outside the standard
100 foot buffer zone of a resource area if they feel the proposed activity
alter the wetland under current regulations. These were changed to
make it necessary for the activity to be "more likely than unlikely" for
the activity to have an impact before they exert jurisdiction.
FILLING FEES (Section 2 U): This section currently has a very complex
formula for calculating filling fees based on how much area or linear
feet of what type of resource is involved. The determination of fees was
greatly simplified for single family residences by establishing a filing fee.
The change is not expected to have any change on the average fee for a
residential wetland application.
LIMITED PROJECT (Section 2 I): This is a new section to make
Reading regulations consistent with the states by allowing for certain
activities (such as cleanup of hazardous waste in a wetland) exempt
from certain performance standards that apply to development
projects.
NORMAL MAINTENANCE (Section 2 L): This is also a new section
and since the current regulations are silent on normal maintenance in
the buffer zone, strict enforcement would require a filing to trim the
shrubs next to a hose 75 feet from the wetland. The proposed change
makes exempt from filing normal landscaping activities -in the buffer
zone.
FRESHWATER WETLANDS (Section 3 C): Currently all areas that
have two or more wetland characteristics (see Section 2 C1 above) are
considered jurisdictions even if they are not contiguous to a water body.
The proposed change establishes a minimum threshold of 45 square
meters (500 ft2) for an isolated wetland to be jurisdictional.
This section also contains a complicated requirement for soil
preparation in certain jurisdictional areas. The Commission has found
that each application is unique and a standard requirement is in
appropriate, and in many cases to restrictive. The proposed changes
remove the standard requirement, leaving the soil preparation to be
specified on a case by case basis.
C E
>., O
N 5 O
L
L E
U
a� 3: 4-J
O
cia CL c
v o
L
N -a
.
w �
(IJ
ai
C Ln
.P Q U
O
6
u _0
w C
o •-
=3 N
_ L
C O >
-0 O O
d
cn � 4'' quo
V .0
-a a� -o
0
'C o o
►••� U cn 4=
Q1
O fa
U
O �� 4-'
Ln V) w
i ■
>
■ PEA
� U �
O
.O j +,
O z
C -e� 4--j
C
.3 O
C w �
O U
U 4-' >
•Q � w o
E �E Z fQ
._
O W w w Ln
ca �
V) �j U
U O � c
V)
� C tZ, a) O E
U Q
cu L
v
Ln w '
o A cr
U 0-
Ln
('6
.o N
N E
CT
.�
m
L
N 0 _
O
.0 O
Ln
� v
ow cr
O '�
Ln
O —
C
O
E
� v
a) ca
O
U
� Q
E
O Q
ul
L Ln C
.� 4-J :E O
N L
LA
.CA
� U
Q O �
O
W+
C M
C
tow cn
cII � C L
O
U w� N fQ
U m
a� Q
CL
•Ul) GI'S 4�-+ a-J
f6 C Ln
C) O aj
C �
C O
w o
O �
ca
w �
> L- �
u
t 1" 11111 1 1 111 11111
MINOR PROJECTS (sections 4 G)
There is no provision in the state regulations for minor projects so this
is a critical section in Reading's Regulations. The current section was
changed to clarify and simplify the language. But more importantly a
provision was added that the Commission would maintain a check list of
actions that constitute a minor project and update it as projects were
submitted and reviewed by the commission.
Sections 5 - NOTICE OF INTEND' and Section. 6 -- PLANS
AND TECHNICAL DATA
These sections specify wetland applications submittal requirements in
extreme length and detail. The proposed change shortens the sections
by over 4 pages by deferring to the requirements specified in the state
c/1
fQ
V
V)
O
75
DC
t�A
O
4-J
U
U
Q.
Ln
N
L
.cr
V)
C-
O
ca
L
N
L
L
v
CaA
co
L
O
t!i
U
N
4-+
O
4-
M
N
N
t
CLO
t=
V)
4
40
f�
V)
O_
m
75
L
Q1
a-J
V)
Ln
E
L
N
tiA
.C:
N
"O
O
U
LA
N
to
X
Qi
Q
O
t�0
Q�
L
N
QJ
C
Ln
O
.E
a
N
O
bz
L
4—
.0
tv
tv
s=
11
5
N
U
4-+
O
C:
L
O
v
O
a'
L
ate-+
4-
O
O
O
O
s=
a)
L
�1
0�
.O
L
Town of Reading CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Phone (781) 942 -6616
16 Lowell Street Fax (781) 942 -9071
Reading, MA 01867 -2683 ctirone @ci.reading.ma.us
October 16, 2012
Proposed Regulation Changes Comment form
If you would like to share your comments about the proposed regulation changes, please do so in
the space provided.
Comments:
1
1. 4
Name:
Address:
Email: Affiliation, if any:
Making Reading Better
Residents and Businesses Working Together
January 9, 2012
Mr. William Hecht
Chairman
Reading Conservation Commission
Town Hall
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867
Dear Mr. Hecht:
Making Reading Better (MRB) would like to thank you and the members of the
Conservation Commission for continuing the work begun by the Wetland Bylaw Ad Hoc
Committee, to determine whether the State Wetland Protection laws are sufficient to
preserve and protect a healthy environment in our community.
In February, as the Ad Hoc Committee commenced its work, MRB submitted a series of
questions to the Board of Selectmen that related to the review process undertaken by the
Ad -Hoc Committee. To date these questions remain unanswered by the Town. Yet they
remain relevant to the broader community's ability to fully understand the framework,
especially the role and impact of Conservation Commission's effort to eliminate
unnecessary local Wetland protection laws and regulations. At the same time, personal
schedules often make it difficult for broad community engagement in the current method
being employed by the Commission to review the local regulations. Consequently, we
respectfully resubmit these questions to the Conservation Commission for your response.
Please understand, we fully respect and appreciate the time, energy and effort that you
and all of our other neighbor /volunteer Commission members contribute to the Town.
Simultaneously, we recognize the responsibility you have as a commission with
significant statutory powers. As a result, we hope you will take our request for a
response both seriously and in the spirit of open communications as we intend.
Our questions are as follows:
1) What are the legal consequences associated with defending challenges to rulings under
the wetland bylaws and regulations over the past ten years? More specifically:
How many legal challenges have the Town won? How many have the Town lost?
For those challenges the Town has won, what were the benefits to the Town and
what was the expenses incurred'?
For those challenges lost, what was the expense to the Town and what harm to the
wetlands was incurred?
2) What benefits do the Town and applicants gain, by requiring applicants who appeal
rulings under the Town wetland bylaws and regulations to endure the strain and expense
of going to trial in the Commonwealth's Superior Court, when the Department of
Environmental Protection appeals process can occur more simply and efficiently at a
regional DEP office'?
3) Why does the Town charge an additional four times the fees required by the state for
wetland- related project permits? How, specifically, have these additional funds been
spent over the last 10 years?
4) Please describe the recourse that Reading residents have, to prevent the adoption of
whatever rules and regulations the Conservation Commission sees ft to implement --
beyond introducing a Town Meeting article to repeal such rules or regulations once
established? That is to say, while public hearings for the adoption of rules and
regulations are required, the Conservation Commission has no obligation to respond
constructively to the concerns raised by residents or businesses at those hearings, and
there is no direct check or balance on the exercise of the Commission's rulemaking
authority by elected representatives of the community?
5) The Ad -Hoc Committee argued that specifying an exact distance required for setbacks
from the wetland buffer zone (35 feet in the current case) helps clarify an area of law
where the State requirements are silent. Does the Commission contend that the State
remain silent on. this distance as an act of intentional or unintentional omission or because
it deems the question of distance unimportant to the goal of Wetland impact and
protection?
6) Given that West Nile, Eastern Equine Encephalitis (EEE) and Lyme Disease are
significant public health concerns, their presence has been confirmed in Reading and the
fact that wetlands, including isolated wetlands, vernal pools and the areas bordering them
can create ideal tick and mosquito habitat, can the Town provide evidence and assurance
that the 35 feet of additional setback from the buffer zone specified in Reading do not
increase the potential for unhealthy mosquito and tick habitat, or that the mosquito and
tick habitat is being driven closer to residences, schools and parks?
7) Other towns, including those bordering the ocean, such as Salisbury, have eliminated
their local wetland bylaws and regulations. Can you describe the specific harm that has
come to those communities as a result of reversion to the Commonwealth's wetland laws
and regulations?
8) The Ad -Hoc Committee and Conservation Commission have both implied that the
wetlands prevent or mitigate flooding. It our understanding that the flood plain
determines areas subject to flooding, and the wetlands serve more to store and filter run-
off rather than to control flooding in any way. Please clarify the Commission's view of
this question, with examples of wetland provided flood mitigation during recent storms.
9) Why does the removal of a tree, including those fallen or deemed hazardous by a State
certified Arborist, require a public hearing and a decision from the Commission before
removal? Who bears the liability if the Commission delays removal of a tree, and during
that delay all or part of the tree falls and creates property damage or personal injury?
What is the cost /benefit to the Town of regulating this activity?
10) Since the Commission has contended that the preservation of wetlands on private
property is to the benefit of the entire community, would the Commission recommend the
adoption of a town Wetlands tax that could be used to compensate landowners for the
cost of preserving the wetland and their service to the Community?
We look forward to your timely reply and continuing the conversation on the important
work you are engaged in on behalf of the community.
Respectfully,
Town of Reading CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Phone (781) 942 -6616
16 Lowell Street Fax (781) 942 -9071
Reading, MA 01867 -2683 ctirone &i.reading.ma.us
October 16, 2012
Proposed Regulation Changes Comment form
If you would like to share your comments about the proposed regulation changes, please do so in
the space provided.
t'IT) A <rIr�r��� t
f
0 Al
t A }
I�.-r � ,, l ` n, rr. i 1`�t� .���� •.� 7`x'1 _
h
e7-
--
Name: Qg' 6 A; o
Address: (;`TI4V10J
Email: / Affiliation, if any:
�W4
Town of Reading CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Phone (781) 942-6616
16 Lowell Street Fax (781) 942-9071
Reading, MA 01867-2683 ctirone&i.reading.ma.us
October 16, 2012
Proposed Regulation Changes Comment form
If you would like to share your comments about the proposed regulation changes, please do so in
the space provided.
--�Name: 5"e-
Address:
Email: Gj Affiliation, if any:
Town of Reading CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Phone (781) 942-6616
16 Lowell Street Fax (781) 942-9071
Reading, MA 01867-2683 cfirone@ci.reading.rna.us
October 16, 2012
Proposed Regulation Changes Comment form
If you would like to share your comments about the proposed regulation changes, please do so in
the space provided.
Comments:
t
Name:
Address: ) -7 Ch es+�wf 2d
Email: cLjW,+9'1& 4,[. c,,,,, Affiliation, if any:
arRfiAO Town of Reading CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Phone (781) 942-6616
A7 16 Lowell Street Fax (781) 942-9071
dirone&i.reading.ma.us
Reading, MA 01867-2683
Co
October 16, 2012
ProDosed Reaulation Chancres Comment form
If you would like to share your comments about the proposed regulation changes, please do so in
the space provided.
7
Comments:
Z
01
Name: Alu-rl X LOW)
Address:
Email: Affiliation, if any:
ffi4-
Town of Reading CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Phone (781) 942 -6616
16 Lowell .Street Fax (781) 942 -9071
Reading, MA 01867 -2683 ctirone &i.reading.ma.us
October 16, 2012
Proposed Reputation Changes Comment form
If you would like to share your comments about the proposed regulation changes, please do so in
the space provided.
71'2K S? V �'). ll !.!N f�l I / f}_ I it 1..111�i'Y ..Ii / /lJ YC� J �. R • /y l / .� A I
S I
uo fdw ryt. t. - %e
Name: �2i �-��R lh he'
Address: g� ��,�� ,5 WEA6 /At(,,
Email:,4Q,r.� Affiliation, if any:
Town of Reading CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Phone (781) 942 -6616
16 Lowell Street Fax (781) 942 -9071
Reading, MA 01867 -2683 a iron &i.reading.ma.us
October 16, 2012
Proposed Regulation Changes Comment form
If you would like to share your comments about the proposed regulation changes, please do so in
the space provided.
Comments:
Name:
Address:`��'�
Email: ex C QD\004 6 r � Affiliation, if any:
� , ,
:1