The Conservation Commission on Tuesday dedicated its meeting to reviewing proposed updates to the town’s wetlands protection regulations.

This year, commission members pointed out language they would like to see revised to conservation administrator Judy Day, particularly in regard to stormwater impacts and restoration areas. She compiled their suggestions into a comprehensive draft for review.

Some suggested revisions were proposed to align the regulations with the town bylaw and state regulations.

No permanent changes were made, and the hearing was continued until the next meeting on Nov. 3. Because of the lengthy process, Day suggested that another dedicated meeting be held in December to prevent interference with scheduled hearings.

Vernal pool dominates meeting

Chair Melissa Recos noted at the outset that one of the biggest discussion items would be the definition of a vernal pool and wording around its buffer zone and habitat.

Day pointed out that the town’s wetlands protection bylaw “appears to include both the extent of the vernal pool as well as the 125-foot buffer being the entire resource area.”

She suggested changing “buffer” to “habitat area,” noting that the terms seemed to be used interchangeably throughout the current regulations. There were references to both terms throughout the 74-page draft document that needed clarification.

“The idea is to regulate that whole area as a resource area instead of as a buffer zone,” Day explained. “[It] does give you a little bit more authority over that area.”

Member Ed Harrow said he believed that the 125-foot area is “insufficient.” He described a situation where he observed a female turtle “that had gone on an egg-laying mission” killed on Morse Lane. Harrow said the turtle was “at least 400 feet from her home.”

Wetlands consultant Joe Orzel pointed out that the town’s wetlands bylaw states 125 feet, which he did not believe could be changed.

Recos did some research on vernal pools in New England. In Maine, a 250-foot radius is used, she said.

Added Recos: “I think we definitely are limited in what we can do with the regs under this update unless we go to Town Meeting.”

The only additional buffer specified in the bylaw is if a septic system were installed. This was intended to prevent groundwater contamination from flowing into the vernal pool, Orzel said.

Co-vice chair Ted Barker-Hook asked if the habitat was meant “to protect the critters that use the vernal pool” or water that may seep into it. While he described himself as “a protectionist,” he said it was harder to justify extending a buffer “around drier ground because of the turtles.”

Orzel noted that some species concentrate around the vernal pool annually.

“If you destroy the population, you remove the function of the vernal pool,” he said.

After discussion, members agreed to revisit the issue.

“I think the crux of the regs update is getting that language ironed out,” said Day.

Invasives prompts debate

The presence of invasive species in soils reused in wetland replication areas provoked discussion.

Members initially discussed whether Japanese knotweed and oriental bittersweet should be specified, as they have been problematic in the region. Some noted that the regulations should remain broad to encompass new or hybrid species.

Day proposed that a restored wetland not receive a certificate of compliance unless invasive species are present in less than 10% of the area. While Recos questioned whether it was feasible to have no invasives present, Harrow said allowing any during the two-year restoration period was “patently absurd.”

An invasive species management plan condition was proposed by Day as a compromise.

Waterfront landscaping rules suggested

Day proposed adding a section to the document about lakefront landscaping that would stress prevention of runoff. It suggested using plantings, dry wells and native plant buffer strips.

Recos noted that this would be applicable to other water bodies. The wording was changed to “waterfront.”

Abutter re-notification proposed

In response to situations the commission has encountered over the past several months, Day proposed that applicants who have rescheduled hearings multiple times re-notify abutters of their plans.

She noted that abutters may assume a hearing is closed if it drops off of the radar. Also, a developer may propose a new plan after months of continuations that may surprise people.

Member Peggy Shaw said re-notification should be a requirement.

Day added that under this circumstance, projects should be re-advertised. Members agreed with Day’s ideas.

PIB medallion placement examined

Members considered the wording about the placement of medallions on permanent immovable barriers (PIBs). Placement issues have been discussed in recent meetings, Day noted.

In the current regulations, PIBs include large rocks, stone walls, posts or fencing. Other methods can be approved by the commission at its discretion. These are intended to prevent “lawn creep” by future landowners.

Barker-Hook suggested that medallions be placed on trees as well as posts. He also wanted to ensure that the document’s wording was clear about the commission’s jurisdiction over the PIB used, rather than as an applicant’s choice from those methods.

Recos noted that the commission intends to work with homeowners before PIBs are installed. It would factor in owner preferences as well as the topography.

Barker-Hook added that walls along lakefronts do not have medallions. His goal was to insure that materials were not dumped over the walls because of semantics.

Wetland replication requirement reviewed

Under the current regulations, a developer must replicate destroyed wetlands at a 1.5:1 ratio.

Day noted that the commission may want to exercise its discretion if an upland forested habitat is proposed to be used in the replication process.

Said Recos: “I always get heartburn when we’re cutting down forests to make up for wetland impacts.”

Application fee increases proposed

Day told the commission that Lucas Environmental, the peer review consulting firm, is raising its fees. Consequently, she suggested relatively small increases to town filing fees. Recos agreed, noting that fees had not gone up in several years.