Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Mapping topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission presses for clearer mapping, alternatives and limits to 'unnecessary' bedrock removal
Summary
Commissioners sought clearer submittal rules requiring a plan showing where bedrock removal is proposed and debated whether to require test borings or other methods; they also discussed whether DRB can limit basements to avoid excessive removal.
Commissioners urged firmer language so applicants must show exactly where on a parcel bedrock removal is proposed and to describe measures taken to avoid removal during design. Donna (speaker 5) said the draft should not allow vague site plans that miss outcroppings and trees: "I just wanna know that this explicitly says, don't lay out your development until you know where you have Bedrock." She pointed to a past application where the plan failed to match reality and would have allowed substantial blasting.
The group also considered whether the DRB should be able to deny basements or require different house plans to avoid excavation. Commissioners agreed the language should require developers to document alternatives and thoughtful design rather than impose an absolute ban; they reached informal consensus to remove the word "unnecessary" from the standard and instead use wording that asks applicants to "limit" bedrock removal and explain the design alternatives considered.
