Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Major Project Continuation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission continues large remodel/ADU proposal at 196 South Street for more mitigation details
Summary
A major remodel and accessory dwelling proposal for 196 South Street was continued to May 21 after commissioners pressed the applicant to expand and clarify mitigation, relocation options for a proposed barn/ADU, and septic/well separation; the applicant proposed invasive-plant removal and more than 5,000 sq ft of restoration.
The Dennis Conservation Commission continued a Notice of Intent for a substantial remodel and accessory dwelling at 196 South Street on May 7, saying the applicant must return with a clearer mitigation plan and answers on siting alternatives.
John O'Reilly, representing the Pollock family, described the property and project: a 176,000-square-foot parcel with most of the existing house inside the 50-foot buffer to a coastal bank. O'Reilly said the project includes removing a concrete patio, building a screened porch and decks, adding a small addition that “wraps around” the house, and constructing a barn/ADU on a slab. He also said the project will replace a cesspool with a Title 5 septic system.
Mike Tanis of Blue Flax walked commissioners through the ecological restoration approach. Tanis said the team would remove invasive plants and restore roughly 5,290 square feet of coastal bank/buffer habitat, with about 3,900 square feet focused on areas currently dominated by invasives; work would include mechanical removal, targeted herbicide treatment of cut stumps, seeding with native grasses and wildflowers, and planting shrubs such as viburnum and bayberry. "We're proposing restoration of native habitat in approximately 5,290 square feet," Tanis said.
Commissioners raised several concerns: the barn location (several members asked whether it could be pulled farther from the 50-foot buffer), the adequacy of proposed mitigation versus simply removing invasives, potential impacts of the new leaching field on nearby wells, and whether the restoration areas were placed adjacent to invaded zones that could re-invade plantings. The applicant agreed to consider shifting the barn and to work with the commission on a revised mitigation plan.
Because the commission wants a revised mitigation plan and follow-up on barn siting and well/leach-field interactions, the matter was continued to the May 21 meeting. No permit decision was made.
Clarifying note: the applicant's representative cited a coverage table indicating an expansion “of about 1,800” in the 50-foot buffer and “about 97” in the 50–100-foot buffer; the transcript does not clearly record whether those figures are square feet or linear feet. The commission requested clarified coverage figures and a revised mitigation map when the case returns.
