Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Regulated Activity 12 Sage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant outlines renovation and erosion controls for 12 Sage Road; commission tables decision to June 24
Summary
An applicant identifying himself as Ralph Gallagher presented renovation plans and erosion-control measures for a property at 12 Sage Road; commissioners requested plan revisions and tabled the regulated-activity application to the June 24 meeting for further review.
Get email alerts on the Regulated Activity 12 Sage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
An attendee identifying himself as Ralph Gallagher, representing the applicant for Regulated Activity 1269 at 12 Sage Road, presented renovation plans and erosion-control measures to the Danbury City Environmental Impact Commission on June 10. The commission heard details about the scope of work and potential site concerns, asked follow-up questions and tabled the item to the June 24 meeting to allow plan revisions and staff review.
Gallagher said the proposal would retain the house footprint while renovating and adding small porches and three-season rooms, modifying decks and constructing a small foundation for an addition. He told the commission a B100 septic future area had been shown to meet health-department requirements and described erosion controls including double silt fence and hay bales to prevent siltation from leaving the site. "We have done our septic diligence ... which I've described," he said.
Commissioners asked about a pipe observed during the site visit that appears to run from the basement toward the lake. Gallagher said the team would investigate the pipe and confirm whether it is a sump or ejector discharge. The applicant also agreed to revise plans to show sump-pump discharge locations and other details identified in the staff report.
After questions and the applicant's agreement to update plans and address the noted pipe, Commissioner Jeff Harrold moved to table Regulated Activity 1269 to the regularly scheduled June 24 meeting; the motion was seconded and carried. The commission instructed staff to continue review and to circulate any additional comments to the applicant ahead of the next meeting.
