2019.07.25 Staff Report
Conservation Commission Staff Report 1 July 25, 2019
To: Conservation Commission From: Sarah LaValley
RE: Staff Report, July 25 Commission Meeting
5:30 PM – Continuation Request for Determination of Applicability to determine if installation of a perimeter drain and drywell within riverfront area (Mill River) is subject
to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Jeff Marney/660 Riverside Drive LLC. 660 Riverside Drive, Map ID 23C-037
Work proposed includes installation of a perimeter drain and connection to a dry well to address ponding
and drainage issues on the site. Work will take place in existing paved/gravel areas approximately 130 feet from the bank of the Mill River.
Application Overview:
All work will take place within existing disturbed areas, and retaining water onsite temporarily in a
drywell should not alter drainage characteristics of the area. Staff notes that the base plan includes
monitoring wells and items related to a past spill response and mitigation. The applicant must verify that
no limitations on excavation at the site exist; mobilization of subsurface chemicals or petroleum within
the riverfront would have negative impacts. The Commission should discuss with the applicant at the
hearing. The work should otherwise not create any new alterations. If hazardous materials questions are
addressed, issue a negative determination by checking box 2, to indicate that the work is within an area subject to protection, but will not alter. Include standard conditions.
Consistency with the Wetlands Protection Act and Northampton Wetlands Ordinance, Staff Recommendation:
5:35 PM – Request for Determination of Applicability to determine if resource area boundaries are accurately delineated and whether the area is subject to the Wetlands
Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. John Ewing. Old Wilson Road Map
IDs 44-116, 136 & 137.
The RDA seeks to confirm wetland boundaries only, no work is proposed. Staff will verify flags in the field
prior to the meeting. If no concerns are found, issue a positive determination by checking box 1, to note
that the area is subject to protection under the Act, 2a, to indicate that the delineation is accurate, and 5, to indicate that the area is subject to the Ordinance.
Application Overview, Staff Recommendation:
5:40 PM – Request for Determination of Applicability to determine if deck construction within riverfront area (Mill River) is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Jennifer Langheld. 159 Main Street, Leeds. Map ID
10D-21.
The application proposes construction of a 4’x4’ deck approximately 150 feet from the Mill River. The
proposed location is nearly the farthest location from the resource area that exists on the parcel, and is
currently a mown lawn.
Application Overview:
The Commission should confirm construction details with the applicant.
Conservation Commission Staff Report 2
July 25, 2019
10.02(2)(b)(1)establishes minor activities that are not subject to regulation under the Act.
These include “conversion of lawn to uses accessory to residential structures such as decks…
Consistency with the Wetlands Protection Act and Northampton Wetlands Ordinance, Staff
Recommendation:
provided the activity, including material staging and stockpiling is located more than 50 feet from the
mean annual high-water line within the Riverfront Area.” The work
Check box 6 modified to indicate that the work is subject to the Ordinance, and box 5 to indicate that the
area is subject to protection under the Act, but that it qualifies for the exemption noted above. The
Commission should be notified at least 48 hours prior to work, and again when work is complete. Erosion
control is not necessary due to the limited disturbance and distance from resource area.
5:50 PM: Notice of Intent for driveway construction within bordering vegetated wetland and buffer zone. Jerome and Susan Camposeo, Coles Meadow Rd, Map ID 08-70
The application proposes construction of a driveway to access a future single-family home. Work includes
alteration of 4,406 square feet of BVW, 5,028 square feet of 0-50 foot buffer and 2,496 square feet of 50-
100 foot buffer. The application proposes replication of 4,406 square feet of wetlands. Conceptual
locations of a house and septic system are shown on plans, but that work is not proposed as part of this
application. Previous and somewhat similar NOI applications were denied under the Northampton
Wetlands Ordinance in January 2014, and again in June 2017. These followed findings by the
Commission that work was not qualified as a Limited Project according to the interpretation guidelines in
DWW Policy 88-2, and work could therefore not be allowed in the Protected Zone pursuant to the Ordinance. Following the most recent denial, the applicant appealed the Commission’s decision in
Superior Court. The applicant and the Commission entered into a Settlement Agreement (‘Agreement,
’attached) which allowed a resubmittal of the Notice of Intent, under certain terms.
Application Overview:
Consistency with the Agreement
The driveway to the site of the proposed single-family residence and septic system shall originate near
the intersection of the northerly boundary of the PROPERTY with Coles Meadow Road, and run roughly
parallel to said boundary.
Plans propose a driveway situated as described. Also shown on the plan will be a building envelope, within which the aforementioned residence will be
constructed. The OWNERS will not be obligated to provide detailed building plans to the COMMISSION for said residence, which shall be situated further than 100 feet from a jurisdictional wetland on an
approved wetlands delineation. Nothing herein shall be deemed a waiver of jurisdiction should any
improvements encroach into an area within the COMMISSION’s jurisdiction.
Plans show a rough location of a house and septic system.
Any and all portion(s) of the aforesaid driveway that cross wetlands (the “WETLANDS CROSSING(S)”)
shall be supported at its edge by a gabion, concrete block or solid concrete wall so as to minimize the
width of any wetland impacts.
Plans show a ‘vehicle turnout area’ immediately adjacent to the proposed wetlands replication area that is
not supported by a gabion wall. Plans do not include a detail for the turnout or the driveway, and it is not
clear what the surface of the turnout is proposed to be, or how impacts will be contained within buffer
zones areas and at the replication area.
The base of the WETLANDS CROSSING(S), i.e. to the outer edge of the aforementioned wall, shall be no
wider than sixteen (16) feet. (e) The driveway itself shall be up to, but no more than, twelve (12) feet in width.
Conservation Commission Staff Report 3
July 25, 2019
The turnout is more than double the agreed-upon width, and does not include a wall. The driveway flares
at the street, increasing width to 20. Additional alteration from culvert installation at this location
increases the crossing disturbance to 25 linear feet.
Not fewer than three (3) open-bottom culverts, spaced not more than 100 feet apart, a minimum of 12
inches high or more if required to sufficiently accommodate drainage, shall be installed along the
aforesaid driveway where it crosses the wetlands.
Plans show one culvert and two flow equalization devices (FED). Open areas within the culverts appear
less than 12” in height. It is 200 feet from the first culvert at Coles Meadow Road to the first FED.
Wetlands replication by the OWNERS will be proposed at a 1:1 ratio. The COMMISSION acknowledges this replication proposal in the context of the settlement; but it reserves the right to evaluate and
determine the appropriateness of the same during the public hearing hereinafter referenced and to
ensure that proper mitigation is provided.
The application proposes replication at a 1:1 ratio. § 337-10 D of the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance
(section attached) contain performance standards for wetlands replication. Many of these standards to
not appear to have been met. The Commission should note that a 1:1 replacement is permitted only “if the
applicant demonstrates to the Commission that the
replacement wetland is a restoration and will provide wetland values equal or greater than the
wetland values being lost” If the applicant is attempting to replace a wetland through replication, the area
of replication must be up to twice as large as the area of the original wetland that will be destroyed
Conveyance of Pedestrian Access. In lieu of constructing a driveway along the southerly boundary of the
PROPERTY as originally proposed, the OWNERS shall site the driveway as described in Paragraph 2, above, and shall convey to the City of Northampton, in fee simple, a strip of land (the “STRIP OF
LAND”), no more than nine (9) feet in width, running alongside the southerly boundary of the
PROPERTY as aforesaid, in its entirety, and thereby providing access to the City-owned land situated easterly of the PROPERTY.
This is shown on plans as described.
Gift of Funds. The OWNERS shall likewise make a charitable gift to the City of Northampton, in an amount not-to-exceed $15,000.00, for use by the City in developing a boardwalk through wetland
portion(s) of the STRIP OF LAND, including and limited to acquisition of boardwalk material(s) and the
purchase or rental of any equipment required to install the same. Said boardwalk will span only the wetlands, and no other portion(s) of the STRIP OF
LAND.
This will be completed when and if the Order is issued.
The Agreement states that “It is expected that, if the plan is in substantial conformance with the
requirements above, the COMMISSION will approve the same subject to reasonable condition(s).”
Staff Recommendation:
The terms of the settlement have not yet been fully met, and revisions are necessary. The Commission
should request all revisions, clarifications, additional information and details necessary to meet the
Agreement and be able to evaluate the work proposed, and continue the hearing. If the Commission deems the work as proposed to be advantageous, the Agreement could be revised with a majority vote.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
WHEREAS Jerome and Susan Camposeo (the “OWNERS”) are the owners-of-
record of that certain property off Coles Meadow Road in Northampton, Massachusetts,
unnumbered, identified in the City Assessor’s records as Parcel 08-070 (the “PROPERTY”),
whereupon the Owners wish to construct single-family residence, septic system and
accompanying driveway providing access thereto and therefrom; and
WHEREAS the Northampton Conservation Commission (the “COMMISSION”) is
a duly-appointed public body in the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, responsible for
the administration of the Wetlands Protection Act (the “ACT”), see G.L. c. 131, § 40, of the
regulations promulgated thereunder, see 310 CMR 10.00, et seq., and of the City’s own
Wetlands Protection Ordinance (the “ORDINANCE”) and accompanying regulations; and
WHEREAS a Notice of Intent was submitted by the OWNERS to the
COMMISSION, dated on or about September 16, 2016, for the aforementioned
construction of a driveway on the PROPERTY, as a Limited Project, so-called, where all
other work on the PROPERTY will occur beyond the geographical jurisdiction of the
COMMISSION, e.g. the single-family residence and septic system referenced above; and
WHEREAS, following a review of the foregoing submittal and a series of public
hearings thereon, the COMMISSION granted the OWNERS an Order of Conditions under
the ACT but denied them an Order of Conditions under the ORDINANCE; and
WHEREAS litigation ensued, namely Camposeo v. Northampton Conservation
Commission, Hampshire County Superior Court Docket No. 1780CV00117 (the
“LAWSUIT”), wherein the OWNERS challenge the aforesaid denial as, inter alia, arbitrary
and capricious, erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence; and
WHEREAS the COMMISSION disputes the same, believing its denial to be neither
arbitrary and capricious nor erroneous, and supported by substantial evidence; and
WHEREAS during the pendency of the LAWSUIT, specifically following an Order
from the Superior Court allowing the OWNERS to present additional evidence to the
COMMISSION in support of certain allegations advanced in the litigation, the OWNERS
and the COMMISSION (together, the “PARTIES”) discussed and negotiated a potential
resolution of the LAWSUIT and the underlying Notice of Intent to their mutual satisfaction,
thereby avoiding prolonged litigation; and
WHEREAS neither the OWNERS nor the COMMISSION concede(s) the merits of
the other’s claims or defenses, but instead believe it to be in their mutual interest to fully and
finally resolve their differences, i.e. the LAWSUIT, on the terms and conditions hereinafter
recited; and
WHEREAS said terms and conditions are the product of negotiation and
compromise by the PARTIES;
2
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration and the mutual
promises and recitations set forth herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the PARTIES hereby agree as follows:
1. Remand. Immediately upon the execution hereof by both PARTIES, a
Motion shall jointly be submitted by them in the LAWSUIT seeking from the Superior
Court a remand to the COMMISSION for further proceedings in accordance with
Paragraphs 2 through 6, below. The Superior Court shall not relinquish jurisdiction; and for
failure of any of the contingencies stated in Paragraph 5, below, the LAWSUIT shall
immediately be resumed. Fulfillment of all the PARTIES’ obligations to follow and
satisfaction of said contingencies, however, shall resolve the lawsuit and the same shall be
dismissed per Paragraph 6, below.
2. Resubmittal. Following execution hereof as aforesaid, the OWNERS shall
resubmit their Notice of Intent to the COMMISSION, accompanied by a plan for the
PROPERTY revised as follows:
(a) The driveway to the site of the proposed single-family residence and
septic system shall originate near the intersection of the northerly
boundary of the PROPERTY with Coles Meadow Road, and run
roughly parallel to said boundary.
(b) Also shown on the plan will be a building envelope, within which the
aforementioned residence will be constructed. The OWNERS will
not be obligated to provide detailed building plans to the
COMMISSION for said residence, which shall be situated further
than 100 feet from a jurisdictional wetland on an approved wetlands
delineation. Nothing herein shall be deemed a waiver of jurisdiction
should any improvements encroach into an area within the
COMMISSION’s jurisdiction.
(c) Any and all portion(s) of the aforesaid driveway that cross wetlands
(the “WETLANDS CROSSING(S)”) shall be supported at its edge
by a gabion, concrete block or solid concrete wall so as to minimize
the width of any wetland impacts.
(d) The base of the WETLANDS CROSSING(S), i.e. to the outer edge
of the aforementioned wall, shall be no wider than sixteen (16) feet.
(e) The driveway itself shall be up to, but no more than, twelve (12) feet
in width.
(f) Not fewer than three (3) open-bottom culverts, spaced not more
than 100 feet apart, a minimum of 12 inches high or more if required
to sufficiently accommodate drainage, shall be installed along the
aforesaid driveway where it crosses the wetlands.
(g) Wetlands replication by the OWNERS will be proposed at a 1:1 ratio.
3
The COMMISSION acknowledges this replication proposal in the
context of the settlement; but it reserves the right to evaluate and
determine the appropriateness of the same during the public hearing
hereinafter referenced and to ensure that proper mitigation is
provided.
No new or additional filing fee shall be required of the OWNER in connection with the
above resubmittal, where said fee has heretofore been paid. A public hearing shall be
conducted by the COMMISSION on the above revised submittal and plan, the same to be
noticed in accordance with the Act and Ordinance. Upon conclusion of the public hearing,
the Commission shall vote on the issuance of an Order of Conditions to the OWNERS for
the work contemplated in the Notice of Intent and shown on the plan as updated. It is
expected that, if the plan is in substantial conformance with the requirements above, the
COMMISSION will approve the same subject to reasonable condition(s).
3. Conveyance of Pedestrian Access. In lieu of constructing a driveway along
the southerly boundary of the PROPERTY as originally proposed, the OWNERS shall site
the driveway as described in Paragraph 2, above, and shall convey to the City of
Northampton, in fee simple, a strip of land (the “STRIP OF LAND”), no more than nine
(9) feet in width, running alongside the southerly boundary of the PROPERTY as aforesaid,
in its entirety, and thereby providing access to the City-owned land situated easterly of the
PROPERTY. The OWNERS shall be responsible for the creation of a plan showing the
STRIP OF LAND to-be-conveyed to the City; for pursuing and obtaining an approval-not-
required (ANR) endorsement from the Planning Board, see G.L. c. 41, ¶ 81P, dividing the
same from the remainder of the PROPERTY (with the required notation that the STRIP
OF LAND shall not be deemed buildable); and for all costs and expenses associated
therewith. No wetland disturbance authorized by the Order of Conditions shall occur unless
and until the STRIP OF LAND is conveyed to the City and the accompanying PROCEEDS
are paid to the City per Paragraph 4, below.
4. Gift of Funds. The OWNERS shall likewise make a charitable gift to the
City of Northampton, in an amount not-to-exceed Fifteen Thousand and 00/100 Dollars
($15,000.00) (the “PROCEEDS”), for use by the City in developing a boardwalk through
wetland portion(s) of the STRIP OF LAND, including and limited to acquisition of
boardwalk material(s) and the purchase or rental of any equipment required to install the
same. Said boardwalk will span only the wetlands, and no other portion(s) of the STRIP OF
LAND. Development of the boardwalk shall occur only following conveyance of the
STRIP OF LAND per Paragraph 3, above; shall be the sole responsibility of the
COMMISSION, or the City of Northampton, not the OWNERS; and shall be performed by
City employees or others engaged by the City for said purpose, in either case at the City’s
cost and expense. The PROCEEDS shall be placed in an escrow account with
disbursements made therefrom, from time to time, based on the City’s documented
expenses, and any balance remaining upon completion of the boardwalk or five (5) years
from the date of conveyance of the STRIP OF LAND, whichever first occurs, shall be
refunded to the OWNERS. The PROCEEDS shall be the OWNERS’ sole monetary
contribution to improvement of the STRIP OF LAND; the OWNERS shall have no
responsibility for clearing of the same, improvements, future maintenance, etc. No
representation is made by the COMMISSION herein as to whether the foregoing gift shall
4
qualify as tax-deductible and the settlement negotiated hereunder is not contingent in any
way on its deductibility; provided, however, that the City shall provide the OWNERS with a
receipt therefor in the usual course, which shall include the name of the municipality, a
description of the property, the purpose for which the gift shall be used, the date of the
receipt, a statement that no goods or serves were received in return for the gift and an
advisory that the donor consult with a tax professional about the tax implications of the gift
under both state and federal law.
5. Contingencies. The OWNERS shall not be required to convey the STRIP
OF LAND, per Paragraph 3, above, or make payment of the gift of PROCEEDS, per
Paragraph 4, above, unless the following contingencies are first satisfied:
(a) The Superior Court has remanded proceedings to the
COMMISSION, effectively staying the LAWSUIT, such that the
OWNERS’ litigating position is not compromised or in jeopardy.
(b) The COMMISSION has issued an Order of Conditions in
accordance with Paragraph 2(a) to 2(f), above, with conditions that
can be reasonably satisfied by and/or are acceptable to the
OWNERS.
(c) All applicable appeal period(s) following the issuance of the aforesaid
Order of Conditions have passed without the filing of any appeal, or,
if an appeal is filed, at the conclusion of the process the OWNERS
have a permit essentially as outlined in this Agreement.
(d) The OWNERS have made application for and received a building
permit, together with any other ancillary permit(s), required for the
construction of a single-family residence, septic system and driveway
on the PROPERTY.
6. Litigation; Dismissal. Should either PARTY fail to fulfill its preceding
obligations hereunder, or should any of the aforementioned contingencies not be satisfied,
the LAWSUIT between the PARTIES may be resumed at any time. In all other instances,
upon completion of the actions contemplated by Paragraphs 2 through 4, above, and
satisfaction of the contingencies in Paragraph 5, above, the PARTIES shall file with the
Superior Court a Stipulation of Dismissal of the LAWSUIT, with prejudice, without costs
and with all rights of appeal waived.
7. Costs. Each PARTY hereto shall be responsible for its own costs, expenses
and attorney fees incurred in connection with pursuit of or defense against the LAWSUIT
and fulfillment of each PARTY’s obligations hereunder.
8. Further Cooperation. Each of the PARTIES to this AGREEMENT shall
take any and all actions reasonably necessary or reasonably requested by a PARTY hereto to
ensure compliance with and effectuation of the terms and conditions hereof.
5
9. Drafting. The PARTIES acknowledge that they have each participated in the
drafting and preparation of this AGREEMENT; as such, in any construction made of this
AGREEMENT, the same shall not be construed strictly for or against any PARTY.
10. Informed Decision. The PARTIES hereby represent and acknowledge that
this AGREEMENT is given and executed voluntarily and is not based upon any
representation(s) by the other PARTY as to the merits, legal liability or value of any claims
or defenses of the PARTIES or any matters related or unrelated hereto. The PARTIES
acknowledge that they have each been afforded an opportunity to consider and negotiate
this AGREEMENT and the terms and conditions set forth herein, that they have read and
fully understand the terms of the AGREEMENT and that they have been given an
opportunity to consult with legal counsel of their choice prior to executing this
AGREEMENT.
11. Entire Agreement. By their execution hereof, the PARTIES agree that the
foregoing constitutes the sole and entire AGREEMENT between them with respect to the
subject matter hereof, that no representation, promise or inducement not included herein
shall be binding upon any of them and that no modification of this AGREEMENT shall be
of any force or effect unless signed by both of the PARTIES hereto.
12. Counterparts. This AGREEMENT may be executed in counterparts by the
PARTIES hereto and each shall be considered an original insofar as the PARTIES hereto
are concerned, but together said counterparts shall comprise one (1) AGREEMENT. A
signed copy of this AGREEMENT transmitted by facsimile, e-mail or other means of
electronic transmission shall be deemed to have the same legal effect as delivery of an
original executed copy hereof for all purposes.
13. Severability. The PARTIES agree that, should a court of competent
jurisdiction declare any portion of this AGREEMENT to be invalid, in whole or in part, said
portion shall be excluded to the extent of such invalidity; all other terms and conditions
hereof shall remain in full force and effect; and, to the extent permitted and possible, the
invalid portion hereof shall be deemed replaced with term(s) and/or condition(s) that are
valid and enforceable and that come closest to expressing the intentions of the PARTIES
hereto as of the date hereof.
14. Governing Law. This AGREEMENT, all transactions contemplated
hereunder and all obligations, rights and remedies of the PARTIES hereto shall be governed
by and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
15. Authority. The PARTIES each represent and warrant that the persons
executing this AGREEMENT on their behalves, if applicable, have been authorized to
execute and to bind them hereto, and that all actions necessary to confer such authority
upon those individuals, if any, have been taken, including but not limited to any requisite
vote of the Northampton City Council to effect a settlement of the LAWSUIT as
contemplated hereunder.
6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PARTIES execute this Agreement as of this ___
day of _______________, 2018.
____________________________________
Jerome Camposeo
____________________________________
Susan Camposeo
Northampton Conservation Commission
By: _________________________________
_________________________
Duly-authorized
11
General Industrial, Special Industrial, Planned Village, Medical, Urban Residential‐B and Urban
Residential‐C Zoning Districts, within those portions of the Water Supply Protection Overlay
District which was zoned industrial as of January 1, 2006, the Conservation Commission hereby
waives any of the § 337‐10 performance standards that are over and above state law with the
exception of the setback requirements in the Protected Zone Table (1), and the requirements in
§ 337‐10E(2)(b).
[Amended 2‐17‐2011]
C.
To encourage infill development, which generally has a smaller environmental footprint than
development in outlying areas, in the Business Park Zoning District for nonresidential uses only, the
Conservation Commission hereby waives any of the § 337‐10 performance standards that are over
and above state law, except as provided in this subsection. All removal, filling, dredging, or altering
of any wetland shall be mitigated by the creation of artificial or replacement wetlands, with the
replacement wetland built at 115% of the size of the area which was disturbed.
D.
Artificial or replacement wetlands. If the applicant demonstrates to the Commission that the
replacement wetland is a restoration and will provide wetland values equal or greater than the
wetland values being lost, the Commission may allow replacement wetlands to be the same size as
the disturbed area. If the applicant is attempting to replace a wetland through replication, the area
of replication must be up to twice as large as the area of the original wetland that will be destroyed.
In those instances where replication is approved by the Commission the following conditions must
be met:
(1)
At minimum, the replicated wetland must reproduce the values and functions of the original
wetland as determined by the Conservation Commission. Site conditions permitting, the
Commission may require that additional values and functions be incorporated into the
replication design. In particular, in circumstances where replacement of specific functions
and values would require substantial amounts of time before being completely replicated
(for example, those provided by large mature trees), the Commission may require
additional compensation of area, functions, values, etc. beyond those required in other
sections of this chapter.
(2)
In most instances, the replication of wetlands will result in the destruction of adjacent
buffer zone areas. In such instances, replication or additional permanent preservation of
new buffer zone areas may be required.
(3)
The top 12 inches of soil from the original wetland must be transplanted with soil structure,
especially lamination and density profile, intact to the replication area. This is intended to
preserve plant, invertebrate, and planktonic communities of the wetland and inhibit the
blossoming of invasive species.
(4)
Any replication or restoration work that creates a resource on abutting properties shall
require an easement from the abutting property owner covering the full extension of the
resource on that property prior to commencement of the work.
(5)
Standards for the replication shall be specified and verified in terms of functions, values,
and actual performance. Technical and engineering specifications used for design and
construction shall be considered approximate. Criteria for acceptance and approval shall be
12
based solely on function and performance as specified in the order of conditions. In other
words, replications will be evaluated on what they are expected to do, not how closely
actual construction matched the plan. For example, although elevations may be used for
design and planning of a pond, the standards shall be set in terms of volume and depth of
water over the course of a year. In vernal pool replication, the pool must be capable of
sustaining full development of vernal pool species, regardless of design elevations or siting.
(6)
Replications that do not properly perform the approved functions and values as specified in
the order of conditions will not be deemed acceptable no matter how closely they adhere to
approved engineered plans.
(7)
The Commission may set other conditions on a project‐/site‐specific basis.
(8)
For limited development projects, as defined in the Wetlands Protection Act regulations,
where it is not be practical to lay out an element of the project without a wetlands
replication, the Commission may waive some or all of the requirements of this section.
E.
Work within upland areas adjacent to wetlands. A growing body of research evidence suggests that
even "no disturbance" areas reaching 100 feet from wetlands may be insufficient to protect many
important wetland resource characteristics and values. Problems with nutrient runoff, erosion,
siltation, loss of groundwater recharge, poor water quality, vegetation change and harm to wildlife
habitat are greatly exacerbated by activities within 100 feet of wetlands. These impacts may
happen either immediately, or over time, as a consequence of construction, or as a consequence of
daily operation. Thus, in general, work and activity within 100 feet of wetlands should be avoided
and discouraged and reasonable alternatives pursued.
(1)
Certain areas 50 feet to 100 feet from wetlands may be suitable for temporary, limited or
permanent disturbance as appropriate when the applicant can demonstrate to the
Commission's satisfaction that the proposed work, activity or use will not affect wetland
values singularly or cumulatively and, by means of a written and plan view assessment, that
reasonable alternatives to the proposed work or activity do not exist.
(a)
The Commission may allow the alteration of up to 20% of the area within the fifty‐
foot to one‐hundred‐foot buffer zone on a lot, or up to 2,000 square feet on a lot
within a cluster subdivision. This is a total, cumulative allowance for all projects on
a lot developed since the City first adopted a wetlands protection ordinance (August
17, 1989). The proposed work must have no significant adverse impact on the
resource area, and the applicant must provide evidence deemed sufficient by the
Commission that the area being disturbed will not harm the resource area values
protected by the law.
(2)
The Commission shall not permit alteration within resource areas or their associated
protected zones, subject to the following exceptions:
[Amended 2‐17‐2011]
(a)
Projects in areas downgradient of wetlands.
(b)