Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shoreline Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission takes 4 Picasset Street addition under advisement after concerns about proximity to Little Pond marsh
Summary
Engineers and staff presented a renovation plan for 4 Picasset Street adjacent to Little Pond. Staff and commissioners expressed concern that a proposed addition and deck sit about 15 feet from marsh and could prompt future shoreline armoring; the hearing was closed and taken under advisement.
Tim Santos, an engineer with Merrill Engineers, presented plans Jan. 8 for renovations at 4 Picasset Street, a property adjoining Little Pond. The owners want to remove a shed and covered porch, build two modest additions and route roof runoff to dry wells; the applicant said the project would decrease impervious footprint slightly.
The commission's staff and several commissioners urged caution because the property lies fully within land subject to coastal storm flowage, velocity (V) and A zones, and the 25'foot setback and the 100'foot salt marsh buffer cover most of the lot. Jen (Conservation staff) said: "I am struggling with the fact that they want to build the addition 15 feet away from that salt marsh. We all know sea level is rising. ... I just do not want to be in this situation 5, 10 years from now asking for armoring that marsh because someone built an addition 15 feet away from the shoreline."
Engineers said the addition footprint would use frost walls and would not increase finished elevation; the applicant reported the added enclosed area would be about 192 square feet (under the 200'square'foot threshold noted for some triggers). Commissioners suggested alternatives such as elevating the structure on pilings and urged the applicant to increase revegetation near the bank if they did not raise the house.
Outcome: The commission voted to close the hearing and take the application under advisement so staff and commissioners could review the shoreline condition and final architectural details. Commissioners asked the applicant to provide clearer shoreline-change information if it is available, and to consider mitigation plantings and possible elevation on pilings.
Ending: The hearing was closed and will be deliberated by the commission; staff will include a non'armoring condition if the commission drafts an order of conditions and may request additional shoreline-change analysis if available.
