Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
IWWC accepts 249 Old Kelsey Point Road tear-down and rebuild despite resident flooding concerns
Summary
The Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission unanimously accepted an application to tear down and rebuild a home at 249 Old Kelsey Point Road; residents and two written letters raised concerns about potential street flooding and runoff, while the applicant's engineer said there are no inland wetlands and no expected increase in runoff.
The Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission unanimously accepted an application on July 7 to tear down and rebuild the single-family residence at 249 Old Kelsey Point Road (Tax Map #193, Lot #066).
Michael Harkin, engineer with Harkin Engineering LLC, appeared on behalf of applicant Eugenia Sullivan and told the commission that the property contains no inland wetlands and that the proposed project — a tear-down and rebuild with a small addition within the existing impervious driveway — will keep the existing septic tank and system in place and will not add bedrooms or alter drainage patterns. "There are no inland wetlands on this property," the minutes record Harkin stating. The application also includes an underground detention system, according to the materials presented.
Members of the Old Kelsey Point Beach Association attended to voice concerns about a potential increase in street flooding and runoff related to the project. Two written letters from Elizabeth Normen and Paul Eddy raising street flooding concerns were presented and read into the record. The commission nevertheless voted to accept the application after a motion by Commissioner Karl Gelotte, seconded by Commissioner Howard Benisvy; the vote was recorded as unanimous.
Why it matters: residents raised localized public-safety and property-impact concerns about stormwater and street flooding; the commission accepted the application, which begins the formal inland wetlands review process and may prompt follow-up inquiries or conditions as staff and commissioners examine technical plans.
What the commission did: accepting the application places the matter on the commission's agenda for technical review under the inland wetlands regulations. The minutes do not record any conditions attached to the acceptance vote nor specify a date for a subsequent public hearing or site inspection.
What remains unresolved: the residents' specific flooding concerns were entered into the record via public attendance and two letters; the minutes do not indicate a technical rebuttal or independent measurement that resolved those concerns, and they do not show a subsequent directive (for example, a required hydrologic study) resulting from the acceptance vote.
Next steps noted in the record: none specified. The minutes state only that the application was accepted; any further schedule for hearings, site inspections or required submittals was not included in the recorded excerpt.
Ending: The commission moved on to routine business after voting to accept the application.
