PROPOSED WETLANDS BYLAW NEEDS A LOT OF WORK

The Wetlands Bylaw review committee presented preliminary proposals for new wetlands bylaws at the July 29 Selectmen's meeting, seeking 'critiques and input' from town officials and residents. Review committee member Bob Pine said these ideas and comments would be incorporated into existing drafts of the bylaws before scheduling a public hearing to be held mid-August. Many hours of work and input from dozens of citizens and town officials went into creating the preliminary draft, said member Pine.

While praising the hard work of the committee and acknowledging the innate difficulty of writing environmental bylaws, Selectman Anna Eliot nevertheless criticized the confusing, legalistic, inchoate language used in the draft document, saying, "This language needs to be understandable...I'm not stupid but really...this language is almost incomprehensible."

Selectman Eliot pointed out that one section of the draft document stated that an order of conditions could be granted only, "if there will be no degradation of wetland." She said such an absolute standard would be impossible to meet, making it impossible for a homeowner or business owner to comply with the bylaw, leaving all discretionary control in the hands of the Conservation Commission.

She further said, "If we [Selectmen] are having trouble interpreting this, then what about the average homeowner?" Selectman Eliot also wondered aloud how many different permits might be required for certain projects saying that, in fairness to applicants, all permit requirements should be listed in one place.

Selectman Eliot summed up her thoughts saying, "If we push them [the voters] too far, we won't get anything approved." Bob Pine replied that the proposed bylaw is actually less restrictive than the current bylaw. Selectman Josh Degen responded saying, "Bob, that may be the intent, but that's not the way it seems to me." Degen reiterated his point saying that if the Board is "this confused by it," then the public will find it incomprehensible.

Using USGS maps as the legal standard for defining location and classification of wetlands in town was also discussed. Steve Webber, member of the Wetland Bylaw Review Committee, pointed out that USGS maps were often incorrect, saying that simply walking a site could prove such errors. If legally bound to adhere to such maps, property owners and Conservation Commissioners could be forced to make allowances for 'marks on a map' that do not reflect reality on the ground. Webber added, "I don't think that every blue line on the map is critical."

The preliminary proposed bylaw language focuses much more on species protection than protection of water quality, despite the acknowledgement that wildlife of all types flourishes in Groton. There was no clearly explained rationale for the changes to the Wetlands Protection bylaw or empirical evidence of environmental degradation presented to justify the need for a changed bylaw. The review committee presented no arguments or evidence to explain the motivation behind the changes to the bylaws, while the committee acknowledged that Groton's wetlands bylaws are more stringent than the Commonwealth's wetland protection act.

In addition, the bylaws propose omitting grandfathered exemptions from stricter interpretation of the wetlands bylaw enacted in April 2001 for structures existing at the date of enactment of the bylaw. Asked why these grandfathered exemptions would be eliminated, it was stated that it was being done on the recommendation of town counsel.

Members of the Wetlands Review Committee plan to present the updated proposed bylaw at fall town meeting for consideration by voters, said Pine. Town Manager Mark Haddad pointed out that the fall town meeting warrant closes at the end of August, thus requiring that final language be submitted by then. Bob Pine said that the committee's goal is to have a public hearing on proposed bylaw changes by mid August, making final language ready for presentation at fall town meeting.

Selectman Josh Degen quipped that in its current form, the bylaw would need not five hours, but five days to be fully discussed at a town meeting.