08/21/2025 SEWER COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

Town of Mashpee Sewer Commission t 16 Great Neck Road North Mashpee, MA 02649 o This system was not in the Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan, and science suggested the area didn't need sewering. o May 2025 Town Meeting article for design funding did not disclose the site location, though the SRF application (August 2024) already listed Zero Gunters Lane. o October 2025 Town Meeting article asks for$25M but also fails to list an address, leaving voters unaware that conservation/open space is being used. Ms. Russell challenged the Sewer Commission's assertion that the process has been transparent. She argued that no agendas from 2023-2025 mention Gunters Lane or the treatment plant site, meaning the public had no way of knowing the location was under consideration. Half of the 2024 agendas and most of 2025's were missing online,forcing her to go to Town Hall in person. She noted that this project was not in the CWMP, and the science underlying that plan indicated that North Mashpee should not need sewering. Despite this,the FY26 capital plan suddenly elevated the cluster system as a top priority. She added that the May 2025 Town Meeting approved design funding without disclosing the location, even though the SRF application submitted the year before had already identified Zero Gunters Lane.The October 2025 warrant now seeks$25M without giving an address, leaving voters unaware they are sacrificing open space. Ms. Russell concluded that this lack of transparency undermines public trust and may jeopardize future support for wastewater initiatives. 2. Colleen Schofield (Resident of Gunters Lane, Direct Abutter) • Main Concern: Lack of communication and violation of open space commitments. • Issues raised: o Despite repeated requests, abutters have not received proper notification letters; one attempt was mishandled. o Recently, workers were digging in her yard without notice or explanation. o The property was originally deeded as open space, intended for conservation use. o Several conservation signs exist on the land, and it was recognized as conservation land until recently. o Although the town has a legal opinion that it can repurpose the land, she argues it is ethically wrong. o The town's failure to follow through on promises (like transferring the parcel to the Conservation Commission, renewing deed restrictions) should not justify redeveloping it now. 3. Lynn Barbie (73 Surf Drive) • Main Concern: Protecting deeded open space while still achieving clean water goals. • Emphasizes: o Supports clean water but insists the issue is location, not whether treatment should occur. o Worried about violating deed restrictions on open space, which sets a precedent that could endanger other cluster development open spaces in Mashpee. o Raised concerns about public access: fencing or other restrictions may eliminate the community's ability to walk through the land as they have for years. Ms. Barbie emphasized that she supports clean water goals but said the real question is where facilities should be located. She worried that building on deeded open space undermines cluster development protections town wide. If one parcel of open space can be repurposed, others may follow. She also asked whether the Commission knew the site's conservation history before advancing the project. For decades, residents have used the land for recreation and walking. If