The most pressing topic of the meeting was the in-depth discussion regarding the potential implementation of a payment in lieu of policy for tree removals. The commission examined whether applicants, who are unable to plant replacement trees on densely developed sites, could instead contribute funds for tree planting elsewhere in Littleton. The consensus leaned towards requiring applicants to exhaust all on-site options before resorting to financial contributions for tree replacements elsewhere. It was emphasized that the Conservation Commission should retain the authority to determine if all efforts have been exhausted.

The commission considered the ecological implications of tree removals and the effectiveness of replacement strategies. There was a strong sentiment that the conservation value lost through tree removals should be compensated adequately, with a preference for funds to be used specifically for conservation purposes rather than being absorbed into the general fund. Members discussed the procedural aspects of fund allocation, debating between the general fund and a revolving fund dedicated to conservation, with the latter being favored for better control and accessibility.

One point of discussion was the method of calculating financial contributions. The commission leaned towards basing payments on the diameter of breast height (DBH) of trees removed rather than a per-tree basis. This approach was preferred as it could yield more substantial financial contributions and better reflect the ecological value of the trees. The responsibility for determining DBH could fall to certified arborists, who would provide reports justifying tree removals.

The next steps included collaborating with experts to determine appropriate costs per inch for tree replacement, factoring in the expenses associated with purchasing, planting, and maintaining new trees over several years. The goal was to establish a fair economic metric that reflects the true costs of replacement while also acting as a deterrent against unnecessary tree removals.

Following this, the commission shifted its focus to the delineation of wetland resource areas concerning an ANRAD application for a property on New Town Road. The discussion involved a detailed presentation of a plan illustrating the boundaries of the wetland resource areas, including the blue line representing Zone A, the green area indicating the edge of the Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW), and the yellow line marking the 100-foot buffer zone. The presenter noted historical changes to the land, with evidence of altered soils and historic fill in the area.

Public comments revealed concerns from residents about changes in the 100-foot buffer zone impacting their properties. One resident, John Lewis, argued that a man-made catchment basin below his property had been incorrectly classified as wetlands, attributing the wetness to runoff from surrounding areas rather than natural conditions. Another resident, Charles How, questioned the accuracy of the presented maps, particularly regarding the brook’s location and its association with the wetland designations.

The commission acknowledged the complexities of determining wetland areas while balancing the concerns of property owners. A site walk was scheduled for October 16th at 1 PM to facilitate a better understanding of the delineation lines and address public concerns.

In addition to these discussions, the commission addressed other topics, including a proposal to allow the Littleton High School cross country team to use Hartwell property for practice runs while Proudly remained closed. This motion was unanimously approved.

The commission also discussed enforcement orders related to tree removal and unpermitted construction within buffer zones, emphasizing compliance with regulations. There was a notable conversation about the reinstatement of project liaisons for both small and large projects, contingent on time availability.

Another vital topic was the town land inventory, with discussions on consolidating small lots owned by the conservation commission into fewer, more manageable parcels. There was a particular focus on the Frost Wham Parcels and the Morrison Orchard, with considerations for conservation due to wet conditions making development unlikely.

Lastly, the commission discussed the management of invasive species, particularly Japanese knotweed, and the need for careful herbicide application to minimize environmental impact. A motion to issue a negative determination for the knotweed removal project, along with a bylaw waiver, was unanimously approved.