One of a notable topics discussed was the approval of a waiver for construction work at a property on Ipsswitch River Road. Represented by Jay Pelitz of Hancock Associates, applicant Derek Botari sought after-the-fact approval for an addition built within the 100-foot wetland buffer zone. The addition replaced an old deck but encroached into the 30-foot no-build and 50-foot buffer zones. The commission scrutinized the situation, emphasizing the importance of compliance with wetland regulations. Pelitz proposed a crushed stone drip edge to manage stormwater runoff, a solution that aligned with the commission’s regulations. The commission approved a waiver for the work, acknowledging the minimal disturbance caused by the addition.

Another noteworthy waiver was granted for a project at Three Leblanc Drive, where John Michael and Amanda Pizzy requested permission to install a fence as part of a pool project. Their plan, which avoided impacting trees, placed the fence within the 50-foot buffer zone but not the 35-foot no-disturb zone. This project underscored the commission’s flexibility in allowing development that aligns with environmental considerations. The commission approved the waiver, with conditions to ensure the proper documentation and adherence to regulations, particularly concerning pool drainage requirements.

The meeting also addressed a request for a determination of applicability for site improvements at 24-42 Cherry Hill Drive, presented by representatives from Abby Ommed. The project aimed to improve employee amenities without expanding the building footprint. The commission discussed the necessity of waivers for minimal work within buffer zones. Despite the project’s location within these zones, the commission deemed a full notice of intent unnecessary due to the limited impact and the project’s focus on enhancing existing disturbed areas. The project proposal included patio improvements and enhancing pedestrian access.

The commission also grappled with procedural concerns, particularly regarding its authority over projects if a negative determination of applicability was issued. Members discussed the possibility of enforcing compliance through conditions such as requiring periodic progress reports. Concerns about deviations from approved plans were addressed with the option of issuing enforcement orders if necessary. The discussion revealed the commission’s cautious approach to ensuring environmental protection while facilitating development.

This included adherence to conditions that prohibit the use of harmful chemicals near wetlands, as highlighted in discussions about the Beaverbrooks Woods subdivision.