Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Coastal Mitigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conservation commissioners raise mitigation, development concerns for 31 Water St.; hearing continued
Summary
Engineers and counsel presented revised plans to raise the house and repair a seawall at 31 Water St.; commissioners said proposed mitigation exceeded limits and raised questions about whether under-house infiltration would qualify, and continued the matter to July 8 for additional materials and calculations.
Engineers and the property’s attorney presented revised plans for 31 Water St., proposing to raise the existing house on piles, repair the seawall and expand coastal bank restoration. The Conservation Commission continued the hearing to July 8 while asking for additional detail on mitigation and development calculations.
Scott Patrowicz, P.E., and Attorney Courtney Simmons said the plan removes a previously proposed patio and increases coastal bank restoration to 700 square feet seaward of mean high water, at a proposed restoration elevation of 7.4. Chair Jennifer Hughes questioned whether the proposed restoration and infiltration features under an elevated house would be accepted as mitigation and asked the team to provide additional documentation of how the proposal satisfies the performance standards.
Hughes pointed to the Commission’s calculations: the lot area is 3,450 square feet, mean high water is at elevation 4.0, and the applicant’s new-development area—including a 564-square-foot driveway and a 163-square-foot building addition—was calculated at 727 square feet, which exceeds the 10 percent threshold relative to the existing degraded area (the existing dwelling measured 1,019 square feet). Hughes suggested relocating an on-site shed to increase mitigation area and asked the applicant to reconcile area and mitigation calculations in revised plans.
Attorney Simmons and the project engineer provided a memorandum to the Conservation Office documenting how the plan attempts to meet performance standards; commissioners said the submission lacks a planting plan and requested that stormwater/infiltration features proposed under the elevated structure be justified as mitigation with dimensioned calculations and a clear mitigation-use-area analysis.
The Commission voted to continue the matter to its July 8 meeting to allow submission of the requested materials and additional plan revisions. No final approvals, waivers or permits were granted at the June 17 session.
