Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brentwood conservation commission raises no objection to Higley family plan for display area and pond restoration
Summary
The commission voted to register no objection to a proposal by the Higley family to remove a house, abandon an old septic, expand gravel display parking in a 65-foot wetland buffer and perform selective clearing intended to restore a man-made pond; commissioners emphasized use restrictions and that the plan proceeds next to the planning board.
The Brentwood Conservation Commission voted to register no objection to a plan by the Higley family that would remove an on-site house, abandon an existing septic system and expand a gravel display and parking area within the 65-foot wetland buffer adjacent to a man-made pond.
The project’s applicant representative described the permanent impact inside the 65-foot buffer as “just over 6,800 square feet” and said selective clearing associated with restoring the pond would total about 8,581 square feet. The representative said there would be no fueling on site and that vehicles displayed would be new inventory, not stored operational vehicles.
Dawn Smith Higley, who identified herself as someone who grew up on the property, told commissioners the pond “was swimmable, and it did have fish in it,” and said the family hopes to restore its condition rather than leave it a debris-filled nuisance.
Commissioners pressed the applicant on technical details including pond depth, how water flows from the pond (the presenters said most water accumulates and evaporates and the feature does not currently have a formal outlet), and whether the proposed use would allow future changes. The applicant said the planned frontage use would be strictly for display and that any new owner proposing a different use would need to return to the planning board for approval.
After questions and discussion, a commission member moved that the conservation commission “does not have any objection to the plan as proposed given that it has the limited usage of a display area.” The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote.
The commission noted this is a preparatory review and that the permit and any variances still must go to the town planning board and zoning board of adjustment. Commission members asked staff to consider whether a brief letter summarizing the commission’s position would be useful when the application proceeds to other boards.
Next steps: the applicant will present to the planning board; the conservation commission’s recommendation will accompany the file and the commission may supply a short confirmation letter if requested.
