2021-01-04-CONCOM-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

— Going to remove the lawn area to lower the elevation. During the preconstruction meeting, could dig holes to determine how far out the contractor can go. — The wall is just above 212.7+ and goes along the side of the property. From the bottom of the wall to the wetland line is 6 feet. Mr. Hamilton, agreeing that the neighborhood has a lot of flooding, believes that asking for a basement or asking for 5 feet of crawl space is too much. Mr. Kirby responded that the basement is finished and the property owner does not have much of a flooding problem, and that the crawl space would be higher than the existing basement. Mr. Hamilton responded that the back of the house is more likely to be impacted by rising water as it is much closer to the wetlands. Mr. Kirby stated that the addition is beyond the 25 foot zone and a foot above the elevation of the wetland boundary. Ms. Ladd and Ms. Dohan both opposed, agreeing that the "no build zone" is for the safety of the homeowner and health of the wetland. Mr. Kirby asked the Commission if a 4 foot crawl space, two feet above the wetland elevation, be agreeable? Mr. Langseth stated that, as long as the basement does not extend into a zone that displaces groundwater, he does not think it will have much of an impact on flooding, although the sump pump does present a degree of uncertainty. He added that if the groundwater analysis is correct, then putting the 5 foot crawl space won't participate in the groundwater system. His understanding is that the structure above the ground is preventing infiltration and that it is being addressed by the infiltration system. Ms. Samuels asked about the foundation below the crawl space. Mr. Gala responded that they don't have detail on the footing but it is still above any groundwater. Mr. Hamilton said that he is interested in Mr. Langseth's perspective on the groundwater and would lean more in favor of a shorter crawl space in the area that may or may not have high groundwater at certain times of the year. Members of the Commission raised concern about the conversation for the next project within similar buffer zone boundaries. The Commission has declined proposals for projects of much smaller scale that extend into the same buffer zone. Mr. Beuttell shared his opinion that it would feel inconsistent to allow a big developer to build within the 25 foot"do not disturb" zone and not to allow this project, considering the substantial mitigation proposed. Mr. Kirby ended the discussion saying he will need to return to the applicant and have a discussion on the crawl space and the location of the utilities. On a motion by Mr. Beuttell and seconded by Mr. Langseth, the Commission voted 7-0 by roll call vote to continue the hearing to the January 19, 2021 meeting at the applicant's request. Record of vote as follows: Duke Bitsko —Aye