Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Wetlands topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
110 Spencer Brook Road hearing continued after extended abutter concerns; site visit set for Feb. 5
Summary
The Natural Resources Commission continued the hearing on a notice of intent for 110 Spencer Brook Road after abutters raised concerns about tree removal, grading and wetland buffer impacts; commissioners scheduled a site visit for Feb. 5 to inspect stakes and conditions on the ground.
The Natural Resources Commission continued the hearing on a notice of intent for 110 Spencer Brook Road to gather more information on two proposed building locations and to allow an on‑site inspection after neighbors raised concerns about tree removal, grading and wetland buffer impacts.
Seth Donahoe (Dilsenroy), the applicant’s consultant, and Miranda Lee (applicant) described their preference for the original location, which they said would avoid cutting several large evergreen trees lining the driveway. Miranda said she and nearby abutters walked the site together and concluded the alternative location would require removal of large trees and more grading. "I believe that the alternative location isn't going to be viable... it actually required more damages to the existing land, including cutting down a lot of those major trees," Miranda said.
Abutters, including Fred (neighbor) and David Beamer (383 Polk Road), told the commission they had inspected the site and urged the commission to require more detailed comparative plans showing exactly which trees and what grading would be required for each option. Beamer urged the commission to consider the pasture's conservation value and the long‑term, irreversible impacts of approving development inside the 50–100 foot wetland buffers.
Commissioners said the plan materials submitted so far show grading but lack the tree‑by‑tree and grading detail needed to make an informed decision. Sarah Groomwood (Chair, Natural Resources Commission) and others recommended an on‑site visit to view the stakes and conditions in the field; commissioners and staff agreed to meet on Wednesday, Feb. 5 at 2:30 p.m. to inspect the staked locations and discuss less‑impactful alternatives.
Commissioners asked the applicant's consultant to prepare a comparison table that clearly lists impacts of the proposed site and the alternative (trees to be removed, grading extent, gravel/tracking risks, distance to wetlands). The commission continued the hearing to the Feb. 19 meeting, giving the applicant time to produce revised plans and to attend the site visit.
No vote was taken at the hearing; the record will be updated after the site visit and after the commission receives the requested comparative information.
