Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fire Pits Sheds topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Falmouth conservation committee to define fire pits and sheds, debate mitigation rules
Summary
The Falmouth Conservation Commission began drafting a definition for fire pits and sheds in resource and view zones, weighing square‑foot limits and whether gravel sitting areas or small sheds should count as impervious coverage subject to mitigation.
The Falmouth Conservation Commission on Oct. 17 opened a rule‑writing workshop to create a formal definition for backyard fire pits and utility sheds in resource (A) and view/buffer zones.
Commission members discussed using a fixed square‑foot allowance rather than prescribing shapes. "So the first item... is fire pits and sheds," said Speaker 1, introducing the topic and urging a baseline that would allow modest, removable fire pits while preventing full patios. Consultants and engineers urged clarity about whether regulations should cover only the pit or also an associated gravel sitting area or patio. "If there's a stone patio, then that becomes just a patio, kind of falls under your existing regs," Rob Dewar of Bracken Engineering (Speaker 6) said.
Members considered concrete examples: a 4‑foot diameter pit with a 5‑foot gravel ring (roughly 20 sq ft) or a 5‑foot diameter pit (about 19.6 sq ft) as possible working numbers. Commissioners discussed whether a portable, removable pit should be treated differently from a built‑in gas pit on a patio, and whether pavers or compacted surfaces should trigger mitigation obligations.
On sheds, staff noted the building department currently allows some small sheds without a building permit (200 sq ft was cited) but pointed out that sheds can become elaborate and be converted to habitable spaces. "We want to limit it to a utility shed — no living space, no habitable space," Speaker 3 said, while others called for a square‑foot cap and a rule that such sheds count toward the property’s mitigation or coverage totals.
Engineers and commissioners also debated mitigation ratios. The town’s current A‑zone mitigation practice was described as 3:1 for some impervious coverage, and some participants urged keeping consistent ratios rather than adding ad‑hoc rules for fire pits or sheds. One commissioner proposed a 1:1 tradeoff for small fire pits or utility sheds, while others opposed lowering the standard mitigation requirement.
Staff closed the discussion by saying they would draft a definition and options for square‑foot thresholds and bring a redlined proposal back at the next regulation meeting for further public and professional comment.
The commission set no binding rules at the workshop; staff will circulate draft language and examples before the next meeting.
