Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Rebuild topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission continues review of raise‑and‑rebuild at 3 Gerard Lane amid groundwater, buffer, and mitigations questions
Summary
Applicant proposed raising and rebuilding a single‑family dwelling at 3 Gerard Lane with Title 5 septic upgrade and ~2,400 sq ft of native plantings; commissioners asked for clarified tables on resource impacts, groundwater data, and justification for buffer incursions and continued the hearing to July 17 for revised plans and calculations.
Cameron Larson of Environmental Consulting and Restoration presented a raise‑and‑rebuild plan for 3 Gerard Lane in the ‘fingers’ area, describing removal of the existing house and septic, a rebuild on essentially the same footprint with an upgraded Title 5 system (including IA technology and UV disinfection), pervious driveway surfacing and a mitigation planting program that replaces lawn with approximately 1,000 square feet of native plantings near the wetland and another 1,400 square feet of invasive removal and restoration.
Commissioners focused on technical compliance: they asked whether the existing septic will be abandoned in place or removed (the applicant said it would likely be crushed and filled), requested calculated high groundwater elevation for septic design and noted the property sits partly in FEMA velocity or A zones. Commissioner 2 flagged that several existing patio areas and possibly unpermitted structures appear on aerial imagery and recommended those be excluded from the applicant’s “existing hardscape” credit in the 50‑foot buffer calculation. Staff asked that salt‑marsh and riverfront resource areas be clearly shown on the plans and requested a table that itemizes existing vs. proposed hardscape within the 50‑foot buffer and the 50–100 foot band.
The commission also debated whether proposed new grades or fill near the bulkhead could move the house closer to regulated resource areas rather than farther away, with staff urging the applicant to maintain or increase separation from the V‑zone where feasible. The applicant said monitoring wells and test borings were completed and that design elevations should avoid direct groundwater intrusion; excavation for frost footings was described as approximately 4–5 feet.
Because of outstanding technical clarifications — groundwater profile, explicit mitigation calculations, demonstration that the proposed increase in impervious area within regulated buffers meets mitigation ratios, and clear resource mapping — the commission moved to continue the hearing to July 17 and asked the applicant to supply revised, stamped plans and an RDA/delineation as appropriate.
Next steps: applicant to provide detailed tables showing impacts inside the 50‑foot buffer, updated groundwater/perk data for septic design, and revised plans showing the salt marsh and riverfront resource areas before the July 17 meeting.
