Neighbors press commission over flood‑line and setback interpretation for proposed Shaw Point Lane house; hearing continued

A contentious review of a proposed single‑family coastal house at 22 Shaw Point Lane stretched across the Planning and Zoning Commission’s May 27 meeting, with abutters and their consultants raising technical challenges to the applicant’s flood‑zone mapping, yard/setback interpretation and proposed proximity to the water.

Neighbors object, lawyer responds: Attorney Joel Green, representing abutters Hannah and Christopher Peek, submitted engineering critiques and asked the commission to incorporate the record from a prior, withdrawn application. Neighbors argued a different yard designation would produce a larger required setback and said the proposal’s scale, removal of mature shoreline trees and the siting of accessory structures would set an undesirable precedent. The attorney and neighbors requested additional time to present testimony in full once all technical memos were available.

Flood mapping dispute: Neighbor engineer Steve Trinkus challenged the applicant’s graphical depiction of the AE flood zone and argued the FEMA‑provided controlling elevation should determine the flood‑limit for the parcel. Trinkus stated, "When an elevation is called out, that contour line is a limit of the flood plane," and warned that applying the elevation places more of the proposed house inside the 100‑year flood boundary.

Applicant response: Engineer Len Deandria (Deandria Surveying/Engineering) said the design places the primary dwelling outside FEMA AE and in the X zone and that the detached garage is being designed to flood‑zone specifications (elevated slab and limited footprint). Deandria described additional analyses (wave/run‑up/backwater) and robust sediment/erosion controls; he noted RACE coastal engineers will perform wave analysis as needed and that test pits showed well‑drained soils supportive of the proposed stormwater approach.

Community concerns and wildlife: Abutters described the site as ecologically valuable and submitted photographs and video purporting to show coastal birds and other wildlife on the property. One neighbor said large, multi‑story house elements and closer shoreline siting would damage the neighborhood character and increase the risk of inundation to adjacent basements during high tides. Neighbors pressed the commission to treat the earlier withdrawn record as relevant and to require clearer yard designations rather than rely solely on the CEO interpretation.

Commission action: Several commissioners and staff said they had not yet received DEEP comments that were expected, and the commission agreed to continue the application to allow time for receipt and review of incoming technical memos (applicant responses, DEEP comments, and Trinkus analyses), and to permit follow‑up from both sides. The commission emphasized it, not staff, is the final interpreter of zoning rules and noted the dispute centers on an interpretation of how front/rear/side yard lines are defined for waterfront lots.

What’s next: The commission will reconvene on the application after staff has distributed the DEEP review and the applicant and objectors have had a chance to file responsive materials. The continuation preserves the neighbors’ request to reintroduce prior record items if they choose to do so.