Inland Wetlands Agency Debates Permit Fee

By Susan MacEachron

The July 7 meeting of the Inland Wetlands Agency was devoted primarily to a discussion of the appropriate fees for wetlands’ permits. The proposal to change the access to City Meadow from the new fire house was also on the agenda, but with no representatives from the Firehouse Building Committee present, the matter was tabled.

There was a brief discussion about the request to substitute a gravel path from the new fire house parking area at 20 Shepard Rd. to City Meadow rather than extend the existing boardwalk that had been approved in the original plan. The motivation for the change is the lower cost. Agency members had questions about the impact this might pose for the wetlands, and the matter was deferred to the Aug. 4 meeting when Firehouse Building Committee members would be available to address the issues.
Wetland Enforcement Officer Stacey Sefcik has raised questions about the fees for permits to work in the wetlands and included the matter on the agenda for numerous meetings. The lack of more pressing issues at this meeting finally provided an opportunity for a fulsome discussion. There was agreement regarding the main considerations, namely, cover the town’s out of pocket costs and encourage compliance. To identify the costs for the required legal notices in a local newspaper and the fees paid to the state is straightforward. Sefcik’s time spent on any given wetlands matter is harder to estimate. The agency’s overall goal is to encourage compliance and they therefore do not want permit fees that are so high property owners are tempted to avoid applying for a permit.

Sefcik made several suggestions for members to consider, including that work in the upland review area, defined as within 100 feet of wetlands, should be lower than fees for work in wetlands. She also thought the agency might consider a reduction in permit fees if a property owner planned to create or enhance wetlands. Sefcik emphasized that any project that is deemed significant and requires a special permit should have a higher fee. She said that under the current schedule it costs more to post notices and manage a public hearing than is being recovered from the fees. Agency members agreed to continue the discussion at a future meeting.

Sefcik reported that after additional research, the driveway on Winchester Road where she had received a complaint about the impact on wetlands, was not at 197 as had been stated, but a different address. She said the owner had obtained a driveway permit from the public works department. However, the wetlands across the road were not noted in the original application.