Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Coastal Permitting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant outlines deck, garage and revetment plan for 5 Basin Street; hearing continued
Summary
A consultant for a 5 Basin Street project told the Newburyport Conservation Commission the proposal includes limited garage renovations, a second‑floor deck elevated on piles and a reconstructed waterfront revetment; commissioners asked for aerial evidence, planting details and chapter 91 paperwork and continued the hearing to April 7.
Tom Hughes of News Environmental Consulting presented plans for 5 Basin Street, describing three linked elements: modest interior work to an existing garage to accommodate an outdoor kitchen and a small bathroom; a new second‑floor deck elevated on piles; and reconstruction of an aging bulkhead and revetment with a reconfigured deck set on helical piles and through‑flow decking to improve resilience.
Hughes said historical aerial photographs dating to 1978 show the existing deck and reviewed past permitting, including a 2004 application that proposed a larger deck that was never completed. "When you look at those aerials — '78, '92, '95 — you can see the rectangle coming off the stairs," Hughes said, adding he would provide higher‑resolution aerials and, where possible, CAD overlays to the commission.
Commissioners focused on shoreline safety and permitting questions. One member raised concerns that vertical paneling on the deck could trap kayaks and asked whether spacing could be increased; Hughes said his narrative proposes 50% openness but he would revise spacing to address safety. The commission also discussed chapter 91 filings and DEP comments; Hughes said chapter 91 staff asked that the deck appear on plans because it sits on the chapter 91 structure, but that the license paperwork could be updated during review.
On the garage bathroom, Hughes told the commission that, because a contractor estimate has not been secured, the applicant would either supply the required cost documentation before issuance or withdraw the bathroom from this filing and submit it later. "If that's a problem, we would just withdraw the bathroom," he said.
The commission asked the applicant to provide clearer aerial evidence demonstrating the deck's pre‑existing footprint, a planting list for proposed native plants near the revetment and the revised deck panel spacing. With those items outstanding, the commission voted to continue the public hearing to April 7. The applicant agreed to return with the requested materials and any additional documentation required by counsel or chapter 91.
