Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends slope waiver to allow single-family home on steep lot
Summary
The Brighton Planning Commission recommended approving a slope waiver to allow construction on slopes above 30% (averaging under 40%) for a single-family dwelling at a lot staff identified as owned by Jamie Lum; commissioners asked for geotechnical review, utility sign-offs and noted Lot 7 would require a separate application.
The Brighton Town Planning Commission on May 21 recommended approval of a slope waiver that would allow a new single-family home to be built on slopes above 30% (but averaging under 40%) after staff described site constraints and technical checks needed before final approval.
Jim Nockemer, NSE staff, told the commission the application seeks to move the build site above a 10-foot public utility easement and described slope mapping showing some areas at or above 40% but an overall average below 40% in the proposed development area. "Because of the averaging and how we define slopes, it still averages less than 40% for the overall development area," Nockemer said, adding that the proposed house would meet setback and wetland standards and that geotechnical and other technical items would be verified before final approval.
Staff identified the applicant as Jamie Lum and said the prior cabin on the original lot was destroyed by fire on Jan. 8, 2024. The owner/occupant who spoke at the hearing described the old cabin as built on stilts, the steep and icy driveway conditions, and the desire to build primarily on one level on the adjacent Lot 6 to avoid extensive stairs. The applicant characterized Lot 6 as "much better" for construction because it allows main living areas on a single level.
Commissioners pressed staff on practical concerns before a final action: the exact location of utilities and the public utility easement, the potential height and visual impact of retaining walls that would encroach near the easement, and the risk from a rock scree field above the lots. Tom Ward asked for confirmation that the sewer and water lines run in the center of the road and that power would be routed beside the road rather than up the rocky easement; staff confirmed those points and said utility providers would sign off on any work affecting the easement before construction moves forward.
Several commissioners also asked whether approving this waiver would establish a precedent for development on the adjacent Lot 7. Staff replied that Lot 7 would be treated as a separate, stand-alone application because the original structure has been gone for more than a year and any future development would have to meet the code current at the time.
A motion to recommend approval of the slope waiver was moved and seconded. Commissioners recorded affirmative votes from the members present, and the motion passed. Commissioners and staff emphasized that final approval would be contingent on routine technical sign-offs including geotechnical review, retaining‑wall permits or design details, and written utility confirmations.
The commission’s recommendation will go forward to the next appropriate decision-making step for formal action; staff will pursue outstanding technical confirmations before the project proceeds to final approval or building permit review.
