A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to addressing the inadequacies of an ecological restoration plan considered deficient by the commission. The plan lacked detailed documentation and proper endorsement from a wetland scientist, raising concerns about its compliance with regulatory standards. The commission noted the absence of specific restoration milestones and a clear timeline for completion, which hindered their ability to move forward. Members emphasized the importance of having a professionally endorsed restoration plan to ensure regulatory adherence and effective ecological outcomes.

It was suggested that direct communication between the commission’s agent and the wetland scientist, referred to as Steve, could resolve outstanding issues. The commission expressed urgency in obtaining a comprehensive restoration plan that documents the evaluation of disturbed land, with a clear planting schedule and species specification. Without this, the commission feared they could not approve the plan or close out the existing enforcement order.

Another topic was the commission’s limited enforcement capabilities under the current Wetlands Protection Act framework. The absence of a local bylaw ratifying the Act left Lakeville among the minority of towns unable to enforce wetland regulations independently. The commission discussed the potential benefits of adopting a local bylaw to bolster their authority and better protect environmental resources. The idea of presenting a new bylaw at the next town meeting was proposed, with the aim of establishing a robust framework for local enforcement.

Further discussions touched upon the need for training on wetland bylaws and local regulations. A suggestion was made to invite professionals from the Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions (MACC) to provide insights, emphasizing the importance of collective understanding among governing bodies. This training could potentially address the limitations in enforcement orders issued by the commission, which are often seen as lacking “teeth.”

The commission also explored the possibility of filing two Notices of Intent (NOIs) concurrently—one for the ecological restoration and another for a septic system project. However, there was a consensus on the necessity of adhering to established processes, and the commission couldn’t provide unofficial guidance outside of formal procedures.

Towards the end of the meeting, the commission discussed scheduling and procedural matters. They confirmed a change in meeting dates due to Thanksgiving, with the next meeting set for November 13. The expectation was for the wetland scientist to finalize the restoration plan in advance of this meeting.