A prominent topic was a proposed project involving the demolition and reconstruction of a single-family residence within a coastal flood zone. The applicant plans to elevate the existing structure and build a new two-story home on pilings, featuring a drive-under garage slab. This project will incorporate a new Title 5 septic system, strategically placed on the southern side of the property to optimize filtration. Erosion and sediment controls will be implemented before construction to protect adjacent resources. The design adheres to local performance standards, ensuring the lowest structural member is positioned three feet above the base flood elevation, in compliance with Massachusetts building codes and FEMA regulations.

The commission scrutinized the increase in impervious surfaces associated with the project, with the current area being 3,130 square feet and the proposed area slightly higher at 3,253 square feet. Mitigation planting plans were submitted to address the increase, featuring a designated area highlighted in green. A discussion revolved around the type of coastal bank on the property. Initially, the applicant did not recognize an A-zone, which affects the mitigation ratio. However, after consultation, it was confirmed that an A-zone exists, necessitating a 3:1 mitigation ratio, adjusting the original proposal.

The commission also tackled the regulatory discrepancy concerning FEMA flood zone classifications. The proposed structure is within the coastal A zone, but local regulations classify most of the project under the AE flood zone.

Another focal point was the request for a permanent fire pit within the velocity zone (V-zone). Concerns were raised about the potential impact on water flow, with a preference expressed for a portable fire pit to mitigate environmental disruption. The commission’s inclination towards portable solutions aligns with FEMA’s guidance against permanent structures in such zones.

The meeting also addressed enforcement orders, particularly regarding unpermitted clearing and patio installation at a residence. The homeowner’s absence led to a continuation of the hearing. In another case, a homeowner faced repercussions for unauthorized dune removal. Ongoing discussions with the homeowner aim to resolve the issue through a notice of intent filing, with the commission monitoring progress over the next month.

Additionally, the commission reviewed orders of conditions for various projects. This included a detailed debate about a permanent fence’s duration, intended to support vegetation establishment. A motion was passed to issue the order of conditions without amendments, allowing the fence to remain as long as necessary for vegetation growth, subject to periodic staff review.