Applicant asks to build tiny house five feet from wetland buffer; commission takes hearing under advisement

Tom Bunker, the project designer for the applicant, described a constrained lot near Green Pond and detailed survey work showing coastal bank, bordering vegetated wetland and riverfront area limitations. He said the proposed dwelling would be very small — roughly a 590‑square‑foot structure — and that the septic leaching area is about 121 feet from the nearest bordering vegetated wetland. Bunker said the footprint and vertical separation from groundwater make the design conservative for this site.

“It's a very tight lot…it's the best we could do,” Bunker told the commission, noting the house would be modest and the leaching field set back farther than many homes the commission approves. He added the team would install siltation controls and a fence to protect the mapped zone A during construction.

Brian Wall, the applicant's attorney, urged the commission to treat the project as a site‑specific exception. Wall pointed to the commission’s buffer preamble and said the language uses the word “may,” meaning the commission has discretionary authority to impose or waive a separate no‑structure zone. “A no structure zone is proposed, albeit less than your usual 10,” Wall said, arguing the commission could make findings that the uniqueness of the lot and proposed conditions would prevent setting a precedent.

Applicant Nicholas Peters, who described nearly 30 years in excavation and foundation work, told commissioners he and his crew could use steel cribbing and retaining techniques to avoid large overdig and keep construction activity out of the buffer. “Five feet is pretty easy if we put up a permanent fence,” Peters said, adding he has built in tight conditions before.

Commissioners pressed for specifics. Several members said the commission has long followed a 10‑foot practical limit for a no‑structure buffer and questioned whether a five‑foot construction limit would be safe for both construction and long‑term maintenance (for example, ladder access and future roof or window repairs). Staff and some commissioners said conditions — daily inspections during excavation, staff presence at key construction milestones, a permanent deed restriction limiting bedrooms, and a requirement to restore any unexpected buffer impacts — could mitigate some concerns.

After extended questioning about prior zoning board history (the project was previously withdrawn in 2013), excavation methodology and maintenance access, Commissioner Driscoll moved to close the hearing and take the matter under advisement; Commissioner Bowman seconded. The roll‑call motion passed. The commission did not make a final substantive decision on whether to adopt findings that would allow the 5‑foot no‑structure zone and indicated it would rely on added details and possible conditions before acting.

What happens next: The commission took the Notice of Intent under advisement to consider written findings and potential conditions (for construction means, monitoring and deed restrictions) before issuing a final order.