Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bayberry Hill Application topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conservation commission delays advisory on Bayberry Hill home pending original CRMC documents
Summary
Attorney for Bayberry Hill said plans and permits date to 2014–2020 and that construction began; commissioners asked the applicant to supply original CRMC materials and larger plan sets and deferred action until a site walk and full documentation are provided.
Attorney Matthew Landry, representing Bayberry Hill LLC, told the New Shoreham Conservation Commission on Oct. 14 that the single-family project on Swornbeck Road was originally permitted and partly built in 2014–2020 but that the Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) assent has lapsed and a new assent must be filed.
Landry said the plans are “identical to what was previously approved” and that the on-site wastewater treatment system (OWTS) permit from the Department of Environmental Management (DEM) remains active. He said construction began in reliance on an earlier building permit but stopped because of COVID and contractor issues, leaving the residence partially built. “Nothing has changed. Everything is exactly the same,” Landry said of the approved plans.
Commissioners raised mapping and scope questions. Commissioner John Hart said the parcel acreage reported on the application did not match the map in his packet and asked whether the project covers both lots shown; Landry said the site is about 10 acres in total. Hart and others said the submitted map packet caused confusion and that some commissioners had not previously seen the original CRMC application or the full prior record. Commissioner Carlos Salinas and others asked for clearer large-format plans and confirmation about what remains permitted.
Town staff and commissioners also debated whether the earlier building permit had expired. A staff member advised that a building-official form is required in the CRMC package and that the town must sign to confirm conformity with local regulations. Commissioners said they needed the original CRMC application and supporting letters (including any Historic Preservation/archaeological review) before issuing an advisory.
Because the commission did not have the full CRMC file or large-format plans at the meeting and several members requested a site walk, the commission agreed to delay formal advisory action. The applicant agreed to provide the original CRMC application, any newer submittal material, and a larger plan set; the commission said it would schedule a site visit and place the item on a future agenda.
The commission did not vote on the merits of the Bayberry Hill application at the Oct. 14 meeting and took no permit-action; it recorded only the direction to receive full CRMC documentation and to schedule a site inspection before further action.
The Bayberry Hill item is expected to return on a future agenda after the applicant and CRMC materials are supplied to the commission and staff coordinate a site walk.
