Conservation Commission: Draft Wetlands Protection Regulations - 2026-07-29

AI-generated summary. Written by gemini-3.5-flash from the transcript below, which is the record. It may be incomplete or wrong; it does not report votes. Every item links to the moment it began.

The Conservation Commission held a work session to review and discuss a new 42-page draft of local wetlands protection regulations. No formal votes were taken, and the commission plans to continue its section-by-section review at a future meeting.

0:42 Genesis and Framework of Draft Regulations — The commission reviewed the background of the draft regulations, which adapt Arlington's local bylaws to establish stricter performance standards than the state's Wetlands Protection Act.
6:06 Review of Section 1 and Appeals Processes — The commission discussed appeal pathways to Land or Superior Court under local bylaws and debated removing the agricultural exemption section.
10:21 Discussion of Recent MassDEP Regulatory Revisions — Members discussed how the state's newly approved '1.5' regulatory revisions regarding ecological restoration streamlining might affect local permitting.
18:37 Review of Section 5 on Prohibited Materials — The commission reviewed proposed restrictions on hazardous construction materials, focusing specifically on a proposed ban on coal tar-based drive sealants.
23:17 Review of Sections 6 and 7 on Bank and Wetland Replication — The commission debated a proposal to require a stricter two-to-one wetland replication ratio instead of the state's standard one-to-one requirement.
29:56 Review of Section 7 on Certificates of Compliance — Members debated the practicality of withholding Certificates of Compliance for three years to monitor wetland replication success, citing potential financial impacts on applicants.
42:24 Review of Section 9 on Isolated Wetlands and Flooding — The commission reviewed proposed local protections for isolated vegetated wetlands and increased requirements for compensatory flood storage.
46:28 Review of Section 10 on Tree Preservation and Replacement — The commission explored tree replacement formulas and discussed whether financial penalties or tree fund contributions would better incentivize developers to preserve mature trees.
50:40 Review of Section 11 on Buffer Zones and the No-Build Area — Commissioners debated a proposed 25-foot no-activity zone, emphasizing the need to exempt shared-use paths, pervious paving, and water-dependent public access structures.
59:10 Wellington Bridge Shared-Use Path Update — Dennis MacDougall provided an update on a pre-construction site visit for the Route 28 shared-use path project, noting that dead and diseased trees will soon be removed and replaced.
1:01:30 Upcoming Meeting Coordination — The commission designated Eric to chair the upcoming regular meeting and planned to resume the draft bylaw discussion on a future off-week.

[Denis MacDougall]: No, it's just a meeting. I think I think we, because it's just going to be a meeting to discuss. Draft regulations for what protection and, you know, basically just to sort of discuss that and, you know, and basically just open it up to, you know, what people want to affect people have any questions or comments and we can sort of go over them, you know. Great, thanks. I do have to be done by about 7.30 or so, but unfortunately, so I can't go too much past that.

[Chair Heidi Davis]: Before, so I'd like, perhaps Caroline can speak to the genesis of this ordinance, but before we do so, I have to apologize for being the anonymous that has like five different comments in section one. I couldn't figure out how to erase them. I don't know why it kept repeating. And yeah, so sorry, just raise them.

[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: No worries. Yeah, happy to. I think I might have said this spiel about a year ago now, but Medford has an ordinance, which is approved by the city council. We are supposed to have regulations underneath. And the benefit of having regulations, our ordinance is pretty good and robust. It has no enforcement, I mean, excuse me, performance standards in it. So no criteria that applicants have to meet. And so that's where the regulations come in. And that's typical that the ordinance just says, here are the basics, the regulations like under the Wetlands Protection Act go into the specifics, what criteria you have to meet.

And by definition, this Commonwealth of Massachusetts has given all municipalities home rule authority, meaning they allow municipalities to govern themselves. It's the old, you know, people local know what's best. But the caveat is our regulations have to be stricter than the Wetlands Protection Act. So the Wetlands Protection Act is a minimum. Ours have to be stricter. And if they're not, the default is that the Wetlands Protection Act. And that can be, you know, maybe we only make it stricter for banks. Maybe we don't make it stricter for BBW because we agree with the Wetlands Protection Act regulations. So that's totally up to all of us. And these regulations, for those of you who don't know, I think everyone does, I'm a land use and environmental lawyer. My colleague Nathaniel just retired from the Arlington Conservation Commission after 27 years and he drafted Arlington's regulations. I just stole them and his regulations were 80 pages. I think mine, I cut it down to 40. So I have cut a lot. Um, and there's plenty more to cut, but, you know, I have no pride of authorship. If you don't like something and, um, suggest it, if you want to change something by all means. Um, but really, um, you know, as an example, I think I have in here, um, under the wetlands protection act, the buffer zone isn't a resource area. Under our ordinance, it is. And in these regulations, you know, under the WPA, you can seek to build right up to the edge of a bank. You can seek to build right up to the edge of a BDW. One way this proposed regulation is stricter is I'm proposing we have a 25-foot no-build zone where you just can't propose anything.

So that's kind of where I started from. Same thing with definitions. If we don't define it, the Wetlands Protection Act definition applies. And a lot of those are fine. A few of them are stricter under here. And I know one thing that Arlington was trying to do was trying to address climate change. So that was kind of one of the big catalysts for them. But I thought it was a good starting point. Happy to, I don't know if we want to go page by page. I don't know if people have specific questions.

I don't see, and maybe other people do, I don't see a reason why we couldn't all edit this working draft and then review it together at a later date. I don't know, think that would violate you know, I don't think that's us discussing it. It's just making comments and edits. But that's one way we could go. But I can certainly, you know, walk through the 40 pages. We could start with section one. Does anyone, I don't know how deeply anyone's actually reviewed this yet.

[Denis MacDougall]: Just to sort of jump on that, I think if people make changes or edits, that's fine. But don't send someone else an email saying, why'd you make that change? What's the reason? Wait until we have another public meeting, then we can discuss any and all changes, edits, notes, whatever. I think that would be perfectly fine, because there's no collaboration.

[CAS00002529_SPEAKER_07]: Yeah. Wait, sorry. I don't get that, because this is not a public meeting right now. But we can discuss it now, right?

[Denis MacDougall]: This is a public meeting, it's not a hearing. Oh, it's just a public? Yeah. Oh. And I had to post it and everything. Yeah, if we're meeting doing this together, I had to post. And that's why I never community meetings here, just because it's.

[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: Anytime there's a quorum, it has to be a public meeting. Oh, I didn't scroll.

[Chair Heidi Davis]: So, Caroline, a question just to start things off. What is this appealable to. Land court or yeah, so if.

[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: When we issue a decision. It's basically they're asking for two permits, one under the WPA, one under the local bylaw. Appeal under the WPA goes to DEP. Appeal under this goes to Superior Court or Land Court. And so they have to, an applicant, you know, if an applicant was denied or approved and, you know, butters wanted to appeal, there's two separate appeals. The court only looks at our bylaw and DEP only looks at the wetlands protection regs.

And it can be that a project meets the standards under the WPA, but not our stricter bylaw. So that can happen as well.

[Chair Heidi Davis]: Well, I think I did not get through it all, unfortunately. But I do have a few comments on a few of the sections, and I'm sure others do, too. So let's just start with section one, in which I tried to comment and wrote five anonymous comments. But I wondered if, in the interest of shortening the document, I wonder if we need the agriculture section, just given our location. I'm not sure we'll ever have agriculture exemptions here.

[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: I mean, we can agree, we can. If we agree with all the exceptions in the act, we don't have to say anything, or we could just say that. We could just say all the exceptions apply, if that's our wish. Cause I do think even if we don't say it, I think the agriculture exemption preempts this anyway. Probably. Yeah. Um, so yeah, I really don't have an issue with any of the exceptions under the, um, state regs, but.

[Heather]: I have a question just in terms of transparency, et cetera, as we're discussing how to proceed. Since it is public, since this is all available, should we in some fashion go page by page even if it's just a quick review of the page, just so anybody, I'm sure we have a big audience out there, but so that it is basically all on record and all clear. I don't know. I pass that back to those who may have more experience with the legal components of this material.

[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: We can do that. I think since we're discussing it, I would call this a public document, public record. If someone asked for it, we would produce it. But happy if we want, I mean, I can share my screen now and just.

[SPEAKER_07]: To that point, has this document been posted on the city's website?

[CAS00002529_SPEAKER_07]: I'm having trouble hearing you, Eric. Yeah, it sounds very muffled and far away.

[CAS00002529_SPEAKER_07]: Um, while Eric's doing that, I had a question. Um, so the draft mast EP regs for streamlining permitting came out on July 13th. I believe and so I wanted to take a closer look to come to see how that might. Change these, I just haven't done that yet. So I'm curious if anybody else has.

[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: No, I haven't. And is that just for ecological restorations, or is it a bunch of things?

[CAS00002529_SPEAKER_07]: Honestly, Heidi, you'd probably be the best to speak to it. But from my reading through the changes, they have red line changes, which is very helpful. Now, there are additional minor activities, which includes removal of invasive plants. So that's very interesting. Our hearing next week is, again, my rivalry for removal of invasive plants. No, that will be exempt eventually, as long as it meets the criteria. I can send a link. And then there is also ecological project streamlining. So it's, yeah.

[Chair Heidi Davis]: So there's been, there's a couple of sets of regulatory revisions. They're not necessarily streamlining. They're revisions. They've been referred to as 1.0 and 1.5. 1.0 includes a lot of stormwater a lot of changes to the stormwater standards. And that has not gone through yet. What passed on July 13th is 1.5, which includes the additional ecological restoration limited project categories. So anyhow, that's my understanding. I missed the public info session today because I was at the site visit.

[CAS00002529_SPEAKER_07]: I also, hold on, how do I send a link in here? Because I could just send a link to that. The 1.5 right now, and I think the biggest impacts will be. Activities that need to be heard. I'm sorry, I can't find the chat.

[Craig Drennan]: I would. I would say everything in chat on these meetings, I believe goes up in a poof of smoke after this. So, would you mind emailing that out? Of course. Thank you so much.

[Chair Heidi Davis]: I think dam removal is also 1 of the new ecological restorations. Okay. In case, you know, if there's any plans to remove the Amelia Earhart dam, there's a restoration category for it.

[Jeremy Martin]: Hey, Caroline, I apologize. I know I came in the middle of you kind of describing, giving an overview of these. I understand you got this from Arlington. Just of the 42 pages, is it easy to distinguish or differentiate what is changing the wetlands act and what is differing deviating from it. Is it fair to say this is all deviating from it? And I say that as someone who is admittedly not as familiar with the act as some of you are.

[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: I did my best to cut out anything that was redundant. I think this could be cut down further. Um, if you didn't hear Arlington has 80 pages, we have 42. I did cut down significantly. I don't, it's not my intention to repeat, but I don't, I have not gone kind of line through line comparing it. I think where we could cut down is some of these, when we get down to, you know, vegetated wetlands, The WPA has similar paragraphs that we may all be fine with. What is the definition of a vegetated wetland? We may be fine with the ACT's definition of it. And I don't know, and I have not compared these line for line yet, but some of them may be slightly more precise definitions or expanded definitions so that more things meet the definition.

[Chair Heidi Davis]: I think 1 of the big changes that. These, the bylaw regs allow is to be able to collect fees under the bylaw.

[Jeremy Martin]: Yes. Yeah. Yes. I was scrolling through it. I was looking at the definitions and the findings and wondering, you know, how, how much we want to deviate there or rely on the act versus things that give us, um, more, more control. Control is not the right word, but, um, clarity and it may be,

[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: you know, maybe we assign one person to each of the resource areas to kind of do that in-depth review, just comparing it and, you know, coming back to everyone to suggest, Hey, I think, you know, how the regs define it is fine. And our regulations can just keep these increased performance standards.

[Heather]: And quick question to Dennis. Is this anything that can be done by some of the folks in your office? I don't know what kind of tasks you have them on.

[Denis MacDougall]: I would think so. I think Kyla could make me tonight, but she's going to be reviewing this from notes, things like that. But I think that is absolutely something she could and probably would be happy to. I'm going to be speaking for her. So Kyla, I apologize for this. given that we were sort of just talking yesterday and today about other things for her to do.

[Heather]: I think that would be... Yeah, my point being that it might be to her advantage too in terms of her long-term work, and it would certainly cut down a task that needs to be done and maybe move it along a little more quickly. Just a thought.

[Jeremy Martin]: I'll add another angle there. I've been really amazed with what happens when in my Word document I click on the Copilot button and ask it to compare or summarize something. And I wonder if we can use a tool like that to ask Copilot or Claude or whoever your assistant is to do some of that comparison work for us. And it might just go through and quickly highlight all of the all the things that vary between the two documents for us in 30 seconds. I think it's worth a shot to see what the product of that could be.

[Chair Heidi Davis]: Bear in mind that the Wellands Protection Act is about 300 pages.

[Jeremy Martin]: It's hard to compare the two documents. Yeah, I hear you, Heidi. I'll just say, like, last night, I copied, like, raw text from a 50-slide presentation that I just, like, Control-A pasted into a document. And I asked for a two-page summary. And it was a work of art and magic, what it was able to do with that. So I'm sure there are some limitations there. But I've been impressed with its intelligence, as much as it scares me. Interesting.

[Chair Heidi Davis]: I do have a couple of specific questions and comments. I didn't get that far, but I'm curious about Section 5, prohibited materials. This is something, of course, that's not in the Wetlands Protection Act. So I'm interested. Of course, I immediately think of, well, do we have jurisdiction to prohibit materials? And I suppose if it's in the bylaw, then we do. It seems unusual to me. But of course, yeah, we don't want coal tar based sealant. Is that still being used in construction?

[Craig Drennan]: I have not heard of it, at the very least. Yeah, I've actually haven't seen that one either.

[Heather]: What is the material that they're putting down after they cut, let's say, two inches out of a roadway? And then I noticed this the other day, and I meant to go out and inquire, but they got away from me. Then something was carefully poured from one container into another. It was spread over the area, and then the final surfacing was put on. I'm just curious if any of you know what that was. I assume it was some kind of a sealant or something to make for a better combining of the new material with the old material.

[CAS00002529_SPEAKER_07]: Sorry, I've been paying attention this entire meeting and I was just reading the 25 foot Heather while you're talking so I missed that.

[Jeremy Martin]: I think it's called a tech code. It's like if you're grinding and then resurfacing. There's a attacking course.

[Heather]: And that is not something that we're worried about, Jeremy. That is not something that we're worried about, like a coal tar piece.

[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: That answers it. One thought I have, Arlington is very adverse to synthetic turf. Would this coal tar based sealant be used in that? Does anyone know? I don't know. Okay.

[Craig Drennan]: I've, I've done, I've done a handful of remediation designs where we did replace faster turf and they use a base course that's actually made of recycled tire. Um, but I don't believe they use cold on those. Okay.

[Chair Heidi Davis]: Cold is nasty. Very nasty. Well, I can check our waste like, clean up breaks, but. It is considered a, oh, it's a contaminant. Oh, the other the other was used in in manufacturing anymore.

[Heather]: The other thing to do, Dennis, would be to check with Citi with regard to any of our outside contracts for DPW work, as well as the DPW, just to see if, because that's the most likely places we would probably find coal tar being utilized. Just a quick email to those two groups might at least, eliminate it from us, literally someone in the town using it, and also the outside contractors that we use as long as it's not in any of their contracts. Are there any other materials along that line that we might find being used in our own DPW?

[Chair Heidi Davis]: It is used as a driveway sealer. Yeah. But it is increasingly restricted or banned due to high levels of PAHs. Just to, again.

[Chair Heidi Davis]: We don't know. We don't want it. That's fine. If it's prohibited, just kind of curious about it.

[Heather]: But it seems like something that's pretty quick to check because it's, I'm sure we're using standardized contracts for our subcontractors.

[Chair Heidi Davis]: So I went through section six quickly on the bank. Nothing jumped out at me. It's not similar to the Wetlands Protection Act. It provides a hundred foot buffer, which the Wetlands Protection Act does as well. Section 7 fairly quickly. Section 7, subsection 3. Seems a little. Yeah. I'm not certain finding. I guess what I'm trying to say. I'm not sure it could be considered a finding.

[Chair Heidi Davis]: Yeah, I just don't know if it belongs in this section, but we can come back to it.

[Jeremy Martin]: I'm trying to think of a scenario where that comes into play in something we're reviewing.

[Chair Heidi Davis]: And then 5, again, I'm not sure we can state that vegetation reduces downstream flood crests. That seems to be a kind of a reach. Okay. I mean, vegetation certainly can slow. Slow down flood waters. I have no problem with that, but it's just that sentence I'm a little wary of. Okay. I was interested in, again, this is a very quick, under replication, where would that be under? E. Subsection one, the last sentence, restoration of integrated wetland may be extended by the commission as satisfying the foregoing replication requirement. And yes, I agree with that and wonder if we should specify that restoration should be at a one-to-one basis with alteration.

[Chair Heidi Davis]: Yes. Yeah, I like that. Though if it's greater, that means you're replicating, you're creating wetlands. Yeah. So it gets a little tricky there. So just, again, something to come back to. Yeah. This section is where one of the big changes is in that it requires two-to-one mitigation. Say that again. The Wetlands Protection Act requires one-to-one mitigation for any alteration and this bylaw is requiring 2 to 1 ratio, which is substantial. I know a lot of bylaws do so, but I'm just calling it out for discussion.

And that's in item C there that Caroline just highlighted. I don't even recall us having a project that had any kind of replication. Honestly, have we ever. We might someday.

[Denis MacDougall]: The last one was the Malden River Bridge, because they removed some of the wetlands there, and then they replicated up the river a bit at the other property. Yes. Yes, I remember that. That's been it. Well, 13 years of me being staff, and then another 10 plus years before that, I can't remember another wetland replication that we had.

[Chair Heidi Davis]: To argue for it, oftentimes mitigation fails. And so requiring two to one kind of ensures that you will actually have something successful. I'm sure, Caroline, you must have run into appeals of bylaws based on this, perhaps?

[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: On the replication, not yet. Certainly appeals of bylaws for many other things, including the agricultural exemption. But not on the replication. I know I have seen off-site replication challenged. But not the ratio of replication.

[Chair Heidi Davis]: I'm not arguing for or against them. As I said, I wanted to point out to everyone that this is a change.

[Heather]: I always lead more to, I'd rather ask for more in the beginning and negotiate down than try and go the other direction. But that's just a strategy.

[Chair Heidi Davis]: Unfortunately, that's as far as I got. This is section 7 out of 21, so I have more work to do.

[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: And this section F is the, hopefully, what is like a guarantee to, that we get the replication we asked for. Great. Let's read that. That's good.

[Craig Drennan]: So does that mean that we can't issue a Certificate of Compliance until three years after a given project?

[SPEAKER_00]: Because I mean, there are partial certificates that can be granted.

[CAS00002499_SPEAKER_05]: That's an excellent point, Craig. I think that could be highly problematic for some applicants where, for example, closing financing is contingent on issuance of certificates of compliance. There are situations in which certain applicants would be, I think, significantly hamstrung. by not being able to obtain certificate of compliance. So we might want to think about how that could be, how that could play out, I guess. I'm not opposed to it. I like the concept of it. I'm just trying to be sympathetic to somebody who's trying to close out an order of conditions.

[Craig Drennan]: Make sure that this doesn't incentivize people to not pursue well-known replication as opposed to other. things.

[Jeremy Martin]: And so what is the current condition? Is it a shorter time frame? Or is there just no restriction or no limitation on getting them a certificate of compliance?

[Chair Heidi Davis]: I think the regulations are written as built. A request for, I'm sorry, a request for a certificate of compliance must be accompanied by an as-built and an affidavit from an engineer stating that the project has been built substantially in compliance with the approved plans. And I think that's the basic language.

[Jeremy Martin]: So you're, counting on the engineer to evaluate the wetland replication. If they're stamping it, they're saying that it is not lost.

[Chair Heidi Davis]: And generally, so if DEP issues an order for replication, they'll be very specific about how there needs to be three specific successful growing seasons or monitoring over three seasons. And I can pull up some language if you're interested.

[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: Is that a condition in perpetuity or that survives the COC?

[CAS00002499_SPEAKER_05]: Caroline, I think that's, I think you're sort of nibbling on the right concept, right? That those three growing seasons must be satisfied notwithstanding the issuance of a certificate of compliance. So it passed to, you know, potentially another owner, but. It wouldn't absolve the owner of any obligations.

[Heather]: Not unlike other cetera deeds as well that we have in the past put on.

[Craig Drennan]: My concern is that my understanding is our enforcement ability ends at the certificate of compliance. And so if we issue a certificate of compliance and then applicant were to, you know, to give up on pursuing a loan replication, what's, is there a recourse tied to that?

[Chair Heidi Davis]: Well, we wouldn't give a certificate of compliance if they didn't do the replication area.

[CAS00002499_SPEAKER_05]: Greg, are you saying if they didn't successfully complete it? I mean, they made an initial attempt and then walked away. Exactly.

[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: Would the non-survival of the required wetland be a violation, such as it was removed? Or I'm just thinking, is there another way we get to come back to it if it's not successful?

[CAS00002499_SPEAKER_05]: If it were removed, that would be an alteration for which they would need to seek a new order. But if it just was not successful, it failed and they didn't do anything about it, then I think this comes back to the question of, you know, does that condition survive the issuance of a certificate of compliance in some way, shape, or form?

[Craig Drennan]: Yeah. I mean, that just throwing something at the wall is there. Could we implement an alternate just kind of well and replication permit on the CONCOM level that basically follows this project through? I have no idea if we can do that or not. I'm just kind of making something up.

[Chair Heidi Davis]: I can tell you that our commission's standard is similar, but the ET superseding orders require 75 percent of the surface area of the BBW replication and restoration areas vegetated within two growing seasons. At least 75 percent of the plantings within riverfront areas shall survive after two growing seasons. And then MSEP reserves the right to determine success or failure. And then, yes, regarding certificates of compliance, it's, as I said, as-built, and then affidavit. And that's it.

[Heather]: What's the worst thing that would happen? Someone would appeal or someone would bring a case for a legal challenge. At this point, I find it interesting, Carolyn, I think you said you weren't aware of anything that's come your way along this line. Is that the worst thing that would happen to us in terms of city funding, responsibility, legal requirements, et cetera, would be that someone either appealed against us and we were required to respond?

[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: I will say there is quite a lot of commissions putting in perpetual conditions in their certificates of compliance. There is disagreement on the legal field whether that's legal. that's not stopping anyone from doing it. But certainly if someone appealed to court, a lot of cities and towns negotiate with them and to come up to with a compromise. You know, but we don't have a city attorney at the moment, I don't believe.

[Heather]: Well, you know, those things will change. in a flash. So once again, if that's the worst thing that happens, that we're forced into a negotiation, in some ways that allows us to have a stronger regulation, but with a reality and an understanding that at some point we might have to negotiate it. Again, I like to err on stronger and work backwards, and I'm not clear that our responsibility, although I do want, I do think we have a responsibility to the people who come in front of us to not hamstring them purposefully, but it's not really our job, in my mind. I rest my case.

[Chair Heidi Davis]: In terms of a violation, Craig you brought it up, so say we accepted a replication areas being successful and issued a certificate of compliance. And then that mitigation area got built upon or something. That is a new violation. That's a new, fresh violation that the commission could enforce against. Exactly.

[Craig Drennan]: My main concern was holding, if we were to issue a certificate of compliance on an as-built, say, a month after a construction project. But that wetland replication area needs three years to prove success. I'm going back to the initial problem of I I don't know how I feel about holding back a certificate of compliance speaking to what Eric was mentioning for 3 years. And I'm a little worried that that would incentivize people prior to them coming to the negotiation table, reading the reg and saying, okay, I'm just going to pay into a mitigation fund, or I'm just not going to trust, et cetera.

Again, I'm not an expert in the legal backgrounds with some of the stuff, but that's my concern is that my initial read of that was, well, no one's going to do that now.

[Heather]: If they're not going to elect to use that particular thing, they're going to do something else. Because of course, if they come in front of us for any kind of process, we're going to be asking and discussing these things up front. Craig, I'm a little confused on exactly what you mean. I totally get holding people at bay for three years, especially if it handstrings them with serious financial issues and problems. I get that. But what is it exactly that you're afraid that they will choose not to do, just never to replicate a wetland?

[Craig Drennan]: I think I need to give this a more detailed read before I come back to you with a clear answer. I want to make sure that I think I know what I'm trying to say in my head. I don't think it's coming across and I'm going to table this for now.

[Heather]: I look forward to it because you usually do very thorough and excellent work.

[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: I will say that I have proposed which most bylaws and regulations have either waiver or variance provision. You know there are some sites that replication just can't fit on it or and that is kind of it's used by towns as a relief valve So you're not prohibiting anyone from building, and then they say you've taken my property. So there are plenty of commissions who accept requests for waivers and review that. And this could be something that someone says, hey, we're trying to sell it, would you waive this? And we would vote on that.

[Chair Heidi Davis]: And of course, any applicant is still going to have to meet the Wetlands Protection Act as well. Yeah, right. And mitigation can't be waived, generally, unless it's a limited project, et cetera.

[Heather]: We have this section highlighted, right? I think Carolyn already highlighted it. Yeah. Thank you. No, I have a question.

[Chair Heidi Davis]: Do you remember the case we had here before last? Very contentious with neighbors about the parking lot next to an isolated land subject to flooding?

[Chair Heidi Davis]: We had quite a site visit, yes. Right. And we didn't really have the Wetlands Protection Act does not uh, provide a lot of protection for isolated, vegetated, doesn't provide anything for isolated, vegetated wetlands, and it has to meet the definition of an ILSF, isolated land subject to flooding. Uh, so, uh, Caroline, Caroline, I'm jumping ahead and wondering if, if this bylaw then does protect isolated, vegetated wetlands.

[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: Land subject to flooding, is this ratio increased? Does anyone know off the top of their head? Yes.

[Jeremy Martin]: I wonder in that case, if we had required a two to one ratio, we would have seen much more disturbance of that area in that particular project, because they would have had to do a lot more excavation and digging to create volume. And I guess in the vein of the last conversation, necessarily have to require two to one if we want to waive that. But yeah, that would be a case for not adding additional flood storage requirements.

[Denis MacDougall]: I mean, it's an ish. I just have a thing that I have to be ready for at 8 o'clock, and I want to have dinner in between. But I can go a little bit longer. It isn't like 7.30 and I'm going to pull the plug, but I'm just going to start wrapping it up that night. I'll start flicking the lights. You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here if that's the thing.

[CAS00002529_SPEAKER_07]: And we decided, are we going to meet again? Because I know it's in the later section.

[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, no, I think this is this is just the basically, I think we kind of talked about it. Like, we did went over this, like, a year and change ago, but I think this is ideally what I kind of hope to do is to, you know. Sort of meet on the off weeks when we don't have meetings and things like that, and just sort of start going through it and really kind of get it. So it isn't like tonight's the one and done.

[CAS00002529_SPEAKER_07]: No, I don't think we need to skip. Cause I think this is actually really good going through consecutively. Okay. Thank you though.

[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: This is definitely, I think. new to at least our ordinance, and I don't remember what the regs say about vegetation removal, but this might already talk about invasives, but, you know, the pruning, you know, limits how much someone can prune, and this might also exempt invasives already. In-kind replacement.

[Jeremy Martin]: It strikes me as a place where trying to define some critical root zone protection or damage to root systems may be valuable in conjunction with the pruning constraints.

[CAS00002499_SPEAKER_05]: It does feel like something we often discuss with applicants, Jeremy. Yeah. and for which there's a lot of clarity, right? It's sort of us, you, primarily, thank you, educating us and the applicant.

[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: Yeah. This, Jeremy, was at least the replacement standards that I have drafted that you can certainly review and pick apart, so.

[Jeremy Martin]: Yeah, I'll take a closer look at them, Caroline. Thanks for plugging it. I thought I heard someone in tell me in a public meeting recently that Arlington removed their replacement requirements for existing trees. And it may have been in a separate document or a separate commission or group. And they found that implementing a stricter financial penalty or requirement for removing mature trees or existing trees was more effective in encouraging people to preserve them rather than just putting in 10 two-inch trees or whatever the calculation turns out to be because you could do that for $2,000. But if it's a $10,000 penalty, some applicants will see that as a

much more significant cost for them. And so they do everything they can to try to save a tree. So I want to explore that a little bit more as a part of this.

[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: I did ask my colleague who drafted these in Wilson-Arlington. That was not the CONCOM, but he didn't know what board that was.

[CAS00002499_SPEAKER_05]: Tangentially, I wonder if these regulations are a vehicle to create a fund to accept those fees. I know we were sort of reaching to find some venue, avenue for the MassDOT project on some tree replacement in the city. Yeah, I wonder, I mean, maybe the commission doesn't want to be the keeper of those funds, but maybe this is a way for us to start the conversation with somebody else in the city who might be more appropriate.

[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: And I was going to say, if we're considering accepting conservation land, it might be nice to have funds to improve that land as a spot.

[Jeremy Martin]: Yeah, I think DPW has a tree fund and that's where we ultimately ask them to provide funding and I think the. plan or the community development board when they do site plan review, has directed tree replacement funding to that DPW fund in the past.

[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: Just going on the section 11, adjacent up on resource area is the buffer zone. It is a resource area under these regulations. It has its own performance standards under the WPA. There are really no performance standards to meet in the buffer zone. Here we are treating it as a resource area.

[Chair Heidi Davis]: Is this defined in the definitions section? I don't see it.

[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: Is it defined? Is that what the question was? I'm sorry? Did you say is it defined? Yeah, it's not appeared to be defined in section three.

[CAS00002499_SPEAKER_05]: It is in 3B3. It's the third. 3B3 adjacent. Oh, there it is.

[Chair Heidi Davis]: I'm sorry. I guess that was the area. 100 feet. Okay. So we're well.

[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_18]: And if we want it to be 50 feet, that's an option, or 75 feet. These are all adjustable.

[CAS00002529_SPEAKER_07]: Like you're effectively only controlling the first 50 feet. I think keeping it 100 feet actually makes sense, right? Because you're saying no build, no pruning, no mow. It was basically no mowing in the 25 foot, right? The way this is written.

[Chair Heidi Davis]: That's interesting, because the Wetlands Protection Act exempts mowing.

[CAS00002529_SPEAKER_07]: Yeah, a few towns and cities I've worked in have this, and I'll say on one end, you don't want it to be too prohibitive, because one of the projects I was working on just wanted to do some invasive removal in the 20-foot, and they can't do that until they file an NOI. But no-mo actually does make sense. Often. I think the way this is written, let's see, no activities or work. Yeah, no vegetation or leaf litter. I actually think it's good as long as...

It's not too prohibitive, right? Like, if somebody really can't meet the standard, I think it's up to the commission to decide if they're meeting it as possible.

[CAS00002499_SPEAKER_05]: I'm still trying to get my head around this. In that 25-foot area, Karen, can you give me a couple of bullet points on what can and can't happen there? What I want to ultimately want to get to or remind folks is that within 25 feet of a water body, for example, is often a prime location to have public access, like Harbor Walk or paths, something like that. So we want to make sure that that is something that can still meet the standards, and we're not pushing people away from that type of activation or use.

[CAS00002529_SPEAKER_07]: Yeah. That was actually in comment, in F, that was actually one of my main questions, too. When we say no new structure, I wonder, because I was reading the definition of structure in the first section, it does include Um, appear and overlook, which often is not just in the 50 foot, but in the actual research area itself. So I definitely agree. Eric, we don't want to prohibit that, but I think prohibiting a new shed or structure that doesn't need to be in the 50 foot and bumping it up. I've seen that in a lot of commissions. It's not like the most.

[Jeremy Martin]: There's the language in here that says that if it's... if the project is deemed, it could be allowed if the project is deemed an overall improvement of the resource area or to serve a public benefit where you can exempt projects that would be like a public path or a peer or something like that that someone could demonstrate.

[CAS00002499_SPEAKER_05]: Good point. If we want to get really technical, we could refer, we could say, um, to allow water-dependent uses and point to chapter 91. So that's public open space is a water-dependent use, but also piers, docks, morgues, that sort of stuff that does need that adjacency to the waterway.

[CAS00002529_SPEAKER_07]: And I think spelling it out more would be helpful, just like myself as a consultant, seeing these kinds of standards. Spell that a little more to exactly what you described, Eric. And also, I was wondering if people, but right now the definition of infrastructure doesn't include a parking lot or a driveway, but if we can encourage people, as long as it's viable on their property to push it further away from the 50 foot, I think that would actually be a huge benefit because that's where a lot of the pollutant load would actually come from.

So I was curious if we wanted to add a definition for vehicular pavement and making sure we're not saying no paved path at all, but something that's like 12 feet or wider for But cars, obviously, we don't prohibit a bike or anything like that. But that would be one of my preferences.

[Craig Drennan]: Would there be a benefit to throwing in pervious paving as an exemption to that, or infiltrating pavement methods, or just flat out no vacua pavement? I'm fine either way.

[CAS00002499_SPEAKER_05]: I like that idea, Craig, but my question is slightly different. And I'm ignorant on this topic, so forgive me. But is there, again, we've got to think about who the regulated community here is. And like, yes, certainly, pollutant load from vehicular roadways is a significant issue. Is that so true for a single family house as opposed to subdivision, as opposed to a commercial development? Is there some sort of... threshold we should be thinking about in this context? I don't know. I'm asking that question. I'm not trying to lead anyone somewhere.

[CAS00002529_SPEAKER_07]: The reason I'm bringing it up is because I'm working on a project in the Cape where they have really difficult regulations to meet if you're within 100 foot of the wetland, basically no new pavement, but they themselves have a 50 foot in this specific town. And it is pushing the team to look at a driving location that is not where we would have originally pushed it, but it's just a little further upstream. And that's for, sorry, that doesn't answer your question if it's the same for a single family, but I think a provision that would give a reason as to why, if it's all the same to the functionality of the property, but if the driving could be shifted a little bit further out under reasonable, I think that that just provides an opportunity for more vegetation, right, in the 50 foot. So maybe the pollutant loading isn't the most, isn't the reason to do this really, because that should be managed no matter what. But just if you're able to swap.

Native plantings were where they were providing a driveway. If we have some kind of language to encourage that swapping, if it works, I think we'll give good provision. So maybe my suggestion would be too restrictive, just saying no vehicular pavement, but something along the lines of. And also it should be like no new, of course, if there's an existing driveway.

[Chair Heidi Davis]: I also want to make sure that we're not being too prohibitive for shared use paths.

[CAS00002529_SPEAKER_07]: Yes, yeah, definitely. I would. That's why I think providing a definition of something that would be. Yeah, maybe. Look, if I can think about it and pull some examples, maybe from other towns where I've seen it. Yeah. That's good. And email.

[Chair Heidi Davis]: Oh. All right. So it's been an hour. And Dennis asked that we keep this to an hour. So I think this is a great start. And it's great that we're all starting to think about it. Thank you so much, Caroline, for being persistent and getting us to consider this. I did have just 1 news item I wanted to share with you. Dennis was at a site visit yesterday, a Pre construction site visit for the. the shared use path underneath the Wellington, the Wellington bridge on the 28th.

[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, we had, we had six people, no, five people from my office and somebody from engineering, so it was great. And then a bunch of DOT and- And MassDEP. Yeah, that's, yes. And DCR. So it was good to have everyone sort of involved in, I mean, it sounds like, Now they're going to start getting rolling pretty soon. So you'll be seeing some tree removal. That's the first thing we're doing is like version controls, tree removal and things like that. So that's going to be the first step. So if you're driving across the bridge, you will see some trees being removed and that is part of the...

[Denis MacDougall]: Thanks much. And actually, a bunch of the trees are removing our ashtrays that have already been affected by. dashboard or so that would be removed anyway. So there were a couple of dead ones that were just going to be coming out as well. I don't know if in addition, I think talking to the guy from DCR, they've removed about a hundred of them in McDonald Park over the last year because of that.

[Jeremy Martin]: Dennis, do you know who's responsible for all the new tree planting in McDonnell Park? Yeah.

[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah. I said they planted a bunch and they planted a bunch. I think it was like two trees were planted for every one of them. I believe it was the ratio.

[Chair Heidi Davis]: We also have a hearing next Wednesday night. I will not be able to attend. Eric, do you think you'll be able to run the meeting?

[Chair Heidi Davis]: Thanks. And then, um, Dennis, if you want to let us know when the next time that we can pick up the bylaw discussion again. Yeah.

[Denis MacDougall]: I think we'd sort of have a better gauge after the meeting next week, because if the meeting next week could continue for two weeks, that would mean we meet on the 19th, so we might not be able to do that. But if they say they can't meet until, if they say we could continue for four weeks, that would sort of push us maybe to meet on the 19th. So I think we'll kind of know better. during the course of the meeting next week when we could next do this and then it's also other people's ability because technically i'm on vacation on the 26th but i'm really not because i'm coming back from london the day before so in theory i could meet for something like this you know just come into the office for an hour or two and just do that great well thanks again everyone thank you well thank you all so much and i will see you next week see you in seven