A proposal from the Chilmark conservation commission to change its wetland protection regulations won’t make the annual town meeting warrant after the select board raised concerns last week.
The proposed amendment would have, among other things, increased the buffer zone around water bodies from 100 feet to 150 feet, necessiting special permits for any proposed work in a larger swath of the town. Members of the commission felt it was a necessary change to help ensure development doesn't harm the town’s waters.
“It doesn’t mean that [we] can’t get anything done within that area, but it does mean that we would be expanding the area in which the commission would review significant projects to see whether they would have an adverse effect,” conservation commission vice chair Stephen Kass said at the March 18 select board meeting.
In the bylaws, the buffer zones surround “resource areas” such as freshwater and coastal wetlands, vernal lakes and reservoirs. The bylaw hasn’t been revised since 1998.
Select board member Jeffrey Maida asked if increasing the buffer zones would change the procedures of the commission. Mr. Kass said that this change could help expedite and simplify their procedures for incoming applications.
“We are conscious of the fact that we do not want to put additional cost or rigmarole on property owners,” he said.
Building inspector Adam Petkus asked if this change would increase the amount of applications and voiced concerns about an additional burden on town employees.
“I would hate to see more work shouldered on without necessary resources to able to effectively absorb those new tasks,” he added.
The select board ultimately took the article off the warrant, suggesting that it could go to the town at a special town meeting, possibly held in June. Town administrator Timothy Carroll suggested the formation of a subcommittee with members of the conservation commission and members of the select board to consider the amendments. Mr. Maida and select board vice chair Marie Larsen agreed to take part in that committee.
Comments (2)
Comments
Comment policy »