The most substantial discussions of the meeting centered around the proposed residential addition on Spring Street, where the commission reviewed a notice of intent under file number 14-1434. Represented by Paul Fino of PJF and Associates, the applicant proposed constructing an addition, which included moving a deck to comply with wetlands regulations by relocating it from the 50-foot buffer zone to behind a garage.

During the discussion, concerns were raised regarding debris accumulation within the wetlands buffer area, notably including a washing machine and election signs. The commission insisted on the removal of all debris as part of site preparations. Construction plans also included stipulations for the use of silt socks and fences to delineate construction areas and protect the wetlands from encroachment. The applicant committed to not expanding an existing garden near the wetlands, with a condition set to maintain its current estimated size of 20 by 20 feet.

The commission voted to close the public hearing for a property on Spring Street and approved an order of conditions that included prohibitions on stockpiling materials within the 35-foot and 50-foot buffer zones, daily removal of trash and construction materials, and the prohibition of fertilizers in the garden to prevent contamination of the wetlands. The order of conditions was set to be valid for three years, with the possibility of extension if necessary.

The meeting then shifted focus to 33 Cabbat Road, where discussions involved a request for a certificate of compliance and a new notice of intent, under file numbers 14-1260 and 14-1435, respectively. The proposal involved an extended family living area not classified as an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), but as an extended family living area (EFLA). The applicant, Diane, presented plans for approximately 750 square feet of additional living space, which included a one-car garage and a new paved driveway section. The commission highlighted the removal of an older, unused paved area as a positive step toward reducing impervious surfaces.

Site conditions were described as flat with minimal erosion risk during construction, although erosion control measures along the rear fence line were planned. It was noted that a stormwater management permit would be required due to increased impervious surface area from the new driveway. The addition was projected to increase impervious surfaces by about 580 to 600 square feet, necessitating compliance with stormwater management standards.

Commission members considered zoning implications, discussing whether a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) might be necessary, depending on changes to the addition’s footprint. The design was intended to comply with town zoning bylaws for EFLAs and fell within allowable limits, but there was caution over potential future changes requiring further approvals. It was established that any changes increasing the footprint would necessitate returning to the commission, while interior modifications would not.

Despite the absence of a finalized stormwater management plan, the commission decided to proceed with the project, considering it low-impact with no significant risks. They emphasized that the project would not advance unless it met the engineering department’s stormwater requirements. The public hearing was closed following unanimous consent, and an order of conditions was issued, contingent on obtaining stormwater management approval and confirming that the project plans would not alter the existing footprint.