Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 18 Fletcher Road topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing on 18 Fletcher Road continued after debate over riverfront thresholds, septic footprint and infiltration plans
Summary
Engineers presented revised plans for an addition at 18 Fletcher Road, including an underground infiltration system and revised impervious‑area calculations. Commissioners debated whether the work meets Riverfront Act redevelopment thresholds and requested additional diagrams separating septic disturbance from other disturbance; the hearing was continued to July 8.
Engineers representing 18 Fletcher Road returned to the Conservation Commission on June 24 with plan revisions addressing stormwater, landscaping and septic replacement.
Wesley Flagg of McCarthy Engineering described updates: an underground infiltration system sized to capture roof runoff (designed to town stormwater criteria for a 1‑inch event), added plantings in the riverfront area, and revised erosion controls and foundation drainage routing. He said a reserve leach area will be partially under the paved driveway and that the proposed primary leach system is outside the riparian zone.
A principal line of debate concerned threshold calculations under the Rivers Protection Act. Staff and commissioners reviewed whether the disturbance exceeded redevelopment thresholds (the 5,000 sq ft limit) and whether septic-related disturbance should be excluded from the 5,000 sq ft calculation under statutory exemptions for existing onsite sewage disposal systems. Engineers said removing septic-related disturbance would place the non‑septic disturbance under the 5,000 sq ft threshold; commissioners requested a hatched diagram that separates septic‑related disturbance from other disturbance so the basis for any finding can be documented.
Commissioners also pressed on impervious-area changes: one commissioner noted the plan increases impervious surface within the riverfront from roughly 2,600 sq ft to more than 5,200 sq ft but that the plan sends much of the roof runoff into the proposed infiltration system, which the applicant argued is an overall water‑quality improvement. Staff proposed adding a rain garden as a front‑drive pretreatment feature to further reduce off‑site runoff.
The commission agreed to continue the public hearing to July 8 and requested additional diagrams, as‑built details for the infiltration device and clarifications on how septic-related disturbance was calculated.
