05/06/1997 Annual Town Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

activities undertaken in close proximity to wetlands, rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, creeks, estuaries, the ocean and/or other resource areas have a high likelihood of adverse impact upon them, either immediately, as a consequence of construction, or over time, as a consequence of daily operation or existence of activities. These adverse impacts from construction and use can include, without limitation, erosion, siltation, loss of groundwater recharge, poor water quality, and loss of wildlife habitat. The Commission therefore may require that the applicant maintain a continuous naturally vegetated buffer strip (NVBS) within the aforesaid 100 foot (or 200 feet for rivers) area with the aim of minimizing adverse impacts to resource areas and the wetlan.d values of Chapter 172. (This requirement will not preclude access pathways through said NVBS, as, determined by regulations for this Chapter.) Said NVBS shall be a minimum of 50 feet in width unless the applicant convinces the Commission (as per the provisions of Section 12 of this Chapter) that: (1) the NVBS (or part of it) may be disturbed and/or diminished without harm to the values protected by this Chapter, or (2) that reducing the scope of work/alteration is not possible. Notwithstanding the above, in the case of areas within 200 feet of rivers, no permit issued hereunder shall permit any activities unless the applicant, in addition to meeting the otherwise applicable requirements of this Chapter, has proved by a preponderance of credible evidence that: (1) there is no practicable alternative to the proposed project with less adverse effects, and, as well, should there be no such practicable alternative, that (2) such activities, including proposed mitigation measures, will have no significant adverse impact on the areas or values protected by this bylaw. The Commission shall regard as practicable an alternative which is reasonably available and capable of being done after taking into consideration the proposed property use, overall project purposes, logistics, existing technology, costs of the alternatives, and overall project costs." Submitted by the Conservation Commission Explanation: In 1996, the legislature, amended the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act by adopting the Rivers Protection Act and incorporating its provisions into the Wetlands Protection Act. Under Massachusetts law, local bylaws can be no less strict than State law. This bylaw change brings Chapter 172 into consonance with the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act by extending jurisdiction to 200 feet from rivers and adding other language recommended by legal advisors to the Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions. Otherwise, it is nearly identical to the version voted on at a previous Town meeting except for being more specific in. a listing of wetland resource areas and for coffecting typographical errors in the previous version. Motion made by Harry Desrosters. Motion: I move the Town vote to amend Section 7 of Chapter 172 of the Mashpee Code as printedin the warrant except for the phrase "or take any other action relating thereto". Motion p�asses at 8:52 p.m. 29