The Conservation Commission’s proposed wetlands bylaw was meant to be simple, understandable and eliminate gray areas. Many residents at Thursday night’s public hearing didn’t see it that way.

“I’ve got four pages of questions and comments trying to understand this bylaw,” said Doug Schneider.

The bylaw is based on one adopted by Freetown and is meant to help prevent Conservation Commission decisions from being overturned by the Department of Environmental Protection, thus keeping power in the town rather than at the regional and state level.

“We’re your neighbors. Those guys don’t care two hoots,” said Commission member Peter Newton. “At least you’ve got us to pester at the post office.”

Commission members estimated that applicants pursue an appeal on about five percent of decisions, and the DEP overturns approximately 75 percent of those appeals.

The adoption of the bylaw would mean appeals go to the superior court and would be defended by Town Counsel versus a series of appeals through the DEP that might eventually end up in court.

Many residents at the meeting were concerned that the bylaw was too broad, leaving the commission with the power to review and restrict more projects.

The bylaw prevents altering anything within the 100-foot buffer zone from “resource areas,” including wetlands, marshes, bogs, the ocean and areas subject to flooding. The wording brought into question if areas within 100 feet of that buffer zone would be under scrutiny as well.

“It sounds like anything touching a touching area would have to come before the board,” said Ed Bailey.

Additionally, questions were raised for a section that says the following: "Lands abutting any of the aforesaid resource areas where the activity or alteration thereon results or is likely to result in impact to any of the areas…”

Because the section does not define a measured area, David Andrews said the impact could be “dramatic.”

“It would seem to be that this is something that definitely needs clarification,” he said.

Chair Bob Rogers said the commission already has the power to review every building application, but the bylaw would give the group more power to evaluate projects that might impact resource areas, even if they are outside of the buffer zone.

“Our responsibility is to protect the resource area,” he said. “To me, it’s not a land grab. It’s putting the process in the town’s hands instead of the states.”

He added, “We have every right to say that you don’t need to file.”

Rogers said the commission can already evaluate each project that seeks a permit and would continue to be conservative in its approach.

Others suggested clarifying some of the language to prevent misunderstandings.

Some residents were also worried that appeals would be too expensive for many property owners, thus tying their hands.

“I’m not saying we shouldn’t protect the resource area, but this could turn out to be a power play,” said Bill Fredericks. “You could have a great, reasonable board … but the board can change.”

He asked if an arbitration board could be set up in town to resolve issues before superior court, but Rogers said the process would be the same as that of the Planning Board, Board of Health and Board of Appeals.

“In my mind, the resource areas in this town are just as important as the Board of Health regulations, as the zoning regulations,” said Rogers.

Despite the doubt expressed by some residents, Rogers and other members said the bylaw basically upholds the state's existing Wetlands Protection Act.

“I disagree strongly that people are going to notice procedurally any difference with this commission,” said Rogers. “It would only be to the point if there is a denial or appeal that there would be a difference.”

As for the bylaw’s wording, he said it was basic and has worked for Freetown for years.

“People aren’t running for their lives away from the town of Freetown because of this onerous language,” said Rogers.