My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02/06/2025 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Executive Session
>
02/06/2025 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Executive Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/12/2025 5:01:18 PM
Creation date
6/12/2025 4:47:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Executive Session
Meeting Date
02/06/2025
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Town of Mashpee <br /> 16 Great Neck Rd North <br /> ��fi� wwQw' Mashpee, MA 02649 <br /> ALYdmuw r^�y <br /> Mashpee Conservation Commission Minutes <br /> Executive Session <br /> Thursday, February 6, 2025 <br /> Waquoit Meeting Room, Mashpee Town Hall <br /> Board Members Present: Absentee Members: Additional Attendees: <br /> Paul D. Colombo,Chair Alexandra Zollo,Member Andrew R.McManus,Conservation Agent <br /> Steve Cook,Vice Chair Rich Sahl,Member (Zoom) <br /> Sandra Godfrey, Secretary Dan Kent,Assistant Conservation Agent <br /> Marjorie Clapprood,Member <br /> (Zoom) <br /> Sarah Thornbrugh,Member <br /> (Zoom) <br /> Neal Larsson,Assoc.Member <br /> Seana Pitt,Assoc.Member <br /> CALL MEETING TO ORDER <br /> 5:30 Mr. Colombo, calls the meeting to order. <br /> Pledge of Allegiance/Moment of Silence. <br /> 425 Monomoscoy Road <br /> Project Discussion and Legal Strategy <br /> • Discussed amendments to plans including cutouts in sub slab <br /> o The applicant revised the plans to include cutouts in the sub slab to mitigate <br /> flooding conditions <br /> o The proposed cutouts are intended to allow water to drain more effectively from <br /> the structure <br /> o The Commission discussed the size and placement of the cutouts, suggesting a <br /> minimum of four 3' x 3'openings for optimal drainage <br /> • Applicant prefers agreement for judgment over remand hearing <br /> o The applicant believes that an agreement for judgment minimizes the risk of <br /> further opposition from abutters <br /> o They prefer this approach to avoid potential complications with pending <br /> amendments to building codes <br /> o The applicant's counsel views the agreement for judgment as a more efficient <br /> resolution compared to a remand hearing <br /> • Concerns about potential abutter opposition and building code changes <br /> o Concerns about potential abutter opposition include: <br /> ■ The possibility of abutters voicing objections during the remand hearing, <br /> which could complicate the approval process <br /> 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.