Delahese revise 143 Everett Street plan to reduce impervious surface; commission asks for as‑built verification

Applicants Molly and Brent Delahese and their consultants presented revised site plans for 143 Everett Street and told the Natural Resources Commission the changes reduce impervious surface and move structures slightly farther from wetland buffers.

The Delaheses' architect, Russell Leon, described four design schemes the team evaluated and said the submitted revision cuts the driveway and associated impervious area inside the 100‑to‑50‑foot buffer. "This new plan here . . . creates about 510 less square footage of impervious surface from the original application," Leon said, explaining the tradeoffs among walk length, sight lines, and covered vs. uncovered access between the garage and the home.

Town staff and the commission's wetland consultant had previously asked the applicants to shift the garage and driveway to reduce impacts. Wetlands consultant David Crossman outlined the mitigation approach for removed trees and said the mitigation area itself is unchanged even though the impervious area has been reduced. The team discussed planting compensatory native shrubs outside the formal mitigation area to offset proposed tree removals.

Chair Jim Smith and other commissioners pressed the applicants on measurement details. Smith asked whether the reported 2‑foot clearance from the 50‑foot buffer was measured to the roofline or a building corner; Leon confirmed it is measured to the roofline and noted the eave overhang is minimal. Smith emphasized the commission's experience that projects sited very close to the 50‑foot line must be extremely careful in the field, because an as‑built that ends up inside the no‑build zone can require removal. "If you're this close, your contractors have to be extraordinarily careful," Smith said.

Commissioners also asked for an as‑built foundation survey after the foundation is poured and before further construction, and for clear plan drawings that incorporate the final mitigation details and tree‑removal lists. The applicants and consultant agreed to provide the requested clarifications and the commission continued the hearing to the July 15 meeting so staff can confirm final plans and issue an order of conditions if everything is in order.

Next steps: applicants will submit finalized plans incorporating mitigation and tree‑replacement details, and the commission expects an as‑built foundation survey before framing proceeds.