09/04/2025 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

7 Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission 16 Great Neck Road North Mashpee, MA 02649 w$XJI:YYF.µ'1 submission, but raised the issue of a waiver under legacy Regulation 25, section 7c. Ms. Thornbrugh noted that parcels entirely within the floodplain require such a waiver for setbacks, and referenced the town's Chapter 172 waiver requirements. • Attorney Brodsky responded that while his reading of the regulations differed,he had nonetheless conformed to the Commission's practice by providing a waiver request. He reiterated that his interpretation was consistent with the regulations but acknowledged that the Commission's established practice and town counsel's interpretation required the filing. • Ms. Thornbrugh pressed further, explaining that the Commission consistently requires this waiver, backed by a November 1, 2023, legal opinion, which clarifies that coastal floodplain is a protected resource area under both the bylaw and state law. Therefore, the waiver is necessary to justify relief from the 50-foot setback(in effect under legacy rules). She emphasized that the Commission has uniformly required this waiver from all applicants since the opinion was issued. Mr. Brodsky acknowledged the point, agreed to review town counsel's opinion, and stated his clients would comply with the Commission's requirement. • Ms. Thornbrugh asked about the proposed driveway, confirining it would be gravel. She also asked about the retaining wall, clarifying that it would reach approximately elevation 11.5 feet in the backyard. Concerns from abutters about potential channelization of water onto neighboring lots were raised. Mr. Bunker responded that water rise in the AE flood zone is uniform across all adjacent properties, and would not be channeled uniquely onto abutters' lots. • Other commissioners raised additional points. One asked about the area beneath the new house, and whether it would be left as gravel or slab. Mr. Bunker indicated the possibility of a slab but noted prior requests to include cutouts, approximately three-by-three-foot openings filled with stone, to allow percolation of water into the ground. The Commission agreed this would be a helpful measure. • Questions were also asked about construction sequencing. Mr. Bunker explained that work would proceed from the rear of the property forward, beginning with the retaining wall and septic system. H- 20 rated components and steel plates could be used to stabilize the area for storage and access during construction. • Commissioners expressed support for the project overall, with multiple members noting that while a waiver is required, the house design on pilings represents a significant improvement for both floodplain function and resilience. It was clarified that the waiver request inust demonstrate a compelling need. In this case, the inability to meet setback requirements was self-evident due to lot constraints, and the compelling need could be framed as compliance with flood zone safety standards and it was stressed that simply including this justification in writing would resolve the issue. • Chair Cook raised the procedural question of whether to close the hearing and issue an Order of Conditions with a special condition requiring the waiver submission, or to continue deliberations until the next meeting. Mr. Brodsky asked that the Commission consider closing the hearing and conditioning the waiver, noting that his clients would be unable to move forward with any permits until the waiver was on file regardless. • Ms. Thombrugh preferred to close the hearing but delay issuance until the next meeting so the waiver would be part of the administrative record before the Order was signed. Other commissioners agreed that closing the hearing while waiting for the waiver ensured compliance without requiring the applicants to appear again. Chair Cook confirmed that this would allow deliberation and issuance at the September 18 meeting, within the 21-day statutory window. • Mr. Brodsky expressed mild concern that closing without issuance might prevent clarification of questions,but Chair Cook assured him that once the hearing is closed, no new substantive questions Page 9