Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Coastal Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owners seek exception for 17 Atlantic Ave rebuild; Conservation Commission asks for footprint trade-offs and continues to March 18
Summary
The commission continued a controversial teardown/rebuild and exception request for 17 Atlantic Ave after objections from abutters and concerns the project expands into the 30-foot no-activity zone; the applicant agreed to return March 18 with revised plans and possible square-footage trade-offs.
A proposed teardown and coastal-resilient rebuild at 17 Atlantic Ave drew extended scrutiny on Feb. 4 as the commission weighed whether the project’s proposed deck and porch would expand the structure’s footprint into Wareham’s 30-foot no-activity zone.
The applicants’ team — engineer Zachary Vasinski (Bracken Engineering) and architect Joe Fournier (JFF Design) — described a plan to raise the first floor to about elevation 21 and install a wraparound deck, diamond-pier (no-dig) footings, and a nitrogen-reducing septic system. The team said the new layout reduces lawn area and will improve on-site stormwater recharge. "We believe the proposed project is an improvement," Vasinski said, citing reduced nitrogen loading and no-dig foundation options to limit disturbance.
Abutters and counsel urged caution. Attorney Jeff Eugeno, representing a neighbor, said the applicant had not demonstrated the exception criteria under the town bylaw and characterized the proposal as a nearly 50% increase in footprint. A nearby homeowner expressed worries about septic venting and heavy construction traffic over an on-street leaching field. The board of health had approved the septic changes but neighbors asked that exhaust or vents be routed higher on the roof to avoid odors.
Commissioners focused on the bylaw language that restricts activity in the 30-foot zone and on whether any net environmental benefit — such as reduced runoff or nitrogen — justified an exception. Commissioner comments emphasized the commission must work in two dimensions (footprint) and asked the applicants to propose “square-footage trades” (reduce impact in one area to allow necessary work elsewhere) or otherwise bring the structure within the original footprint.
Outcome: The commission agreed to a continuance to March 18 to allow the applicants to revisit the plan, confirm square footage (eaves/overhangs vs. footprint), and respond to abutter letters including a Feb. 4 submission from counsel. Applicant representatives asked for time to coordinate with zoning hearings scheduled in mid-February and agreed to the March 18 date.
